# Talk:Roman Dmowski

What is the basis for adding LGBT category? There is nothing about this in the article itself. It was added by a bot. I am removing this until this claim can be proven. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Dmowski is reputed to have been gay, and to have been blackmailed by the Russian secret police (Okhrana) due to his homosexual activities.Faustian 02:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed reapperaing entry again
Guest 13:00, 17 October 2006

Reputed and rumored - perhaps. This however is a controversial piece of info and requires reliable sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is another source for this information: [1].  I think it's important to call it a rumor, not fact.  But it is an important and common rumor so it needs to be in the article.Faustian (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a scholarly reference for this rumor? A webpage of a political organization, one that is on the opposite spectrum that Dmowski represented, is not the most reliable of sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have access to a university library (haven't been a student for a few years), I only have the internet to go by.  There are enough such rumors about Dmowski, however, that they deserve to be mentioned, albeit clearly labelled as rumors.  Here are the results of a google search: [2].  A message board [3]: "W świetle odnalezionych przez Andrzeja Friszke dokumentów (z Archiwum Państwowego w Petersburgu), nie ulega watpliwości, że Dmowski od 1902 roku był agentem Ochrany z zadaniem zwalczania polskiego ruchu niepodległościowego. Wersal można by więc traktować jako odkupienie win albo po prostu gwałtowną woltę polityczną związaną z bankructwem jego mocodawców. "  The consensus is that his homosexuality was the means through which the okhrana blackmailed him.  (Incidentally, Dmowski would be one among many politicians of the right who are closeted homosexuals; Americans are quite aware of this phenomenon.
I agree that without a good scholarly source we should not make a factual statement about his sexuality.  However the fact that these rumors exist, and seem to be widespread, seems to be noteworthy in and of itself.  This noteworthiness means that inclusion into the article is appropriate.  As a precedent, unproven rumors about the actor Tom Cruise are included in the article about him.Faustian (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I found this on a discussion board:

"oparte na artykule Andrzeja Friszke z 2 nr "Przeglądu Historycznego" z 2000 
r.) 
Tekst dotyczy sensacyjnego odkrycia w Petersburskim Archiwum Państwowym. W 
kwietniu 2000 r. Andrzej Friszke odnalazł tam w aktach Ochrany, carskiej 
tajnej policji teczkę zawierającą raporty i dokumenty współpracy "agenta D." 
Agentem tym był przywódca prawicy nacjonalistycznej Roman Dmowski. 
Liga Narodowa powstała w 1893 r. miała za cel walkę o niepodległość Polski, 
przez lat 10 trwała na stanowisku konieczności przygotowania narodu do akcji 
powstańczej. Wspomóc to przygotowanie miała intensywna działalność oświatowa 
i akcja nastawiona na gospodarcze usamodzielnienie Polaków prowadzona we 
wszystkich zaborach. Do czasu... 
Pewna zagadka była zawsze kwestia niechęci Dmowskiego do kobiet i życia 
rodzinnego. Ten wyznający oficjalnie konserwatywne zasady życia społecznego 
nie miął żony i dzieci. Sprawa ta wyjaśnia się dzięki "teczce D.", Dmowski 
był homoseksualista i ten zgubny popęd doprowadził do współpracy z Rosja. 
W 1902 r. wedle dokumentów z "teczki D." Ochrana zaaranżowała w jednym z 
hoteli warszawskich schadzkę Dmowskiego z pewnym młodym człowiekiem, agentem 
Ochrany zresztą. Tajna służba rosyjska użyła sposobu, po dziś dzień 
stosowanego przez wszystkie tajne policje - sfotografowała pieszczoty przez 
umieszczone w pokoju lustro weneckie. Tydzień później na przesłuchaniu 
Dmowski skonfrontowany z dobrej jakości fotografiami podpisał współpracę."Faustian (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this is your primary source, and based on above, since you seem to known Polish, please take a look at the end of the article. The rumor seems to be 1) false 2) spread only on the Internet. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sprostowanie.
dn.05.01.2007r
Z przykrością muszę poinformować, że opracowując w/w tekst padłem ofiarą zamierzonej bądź niezamierzonej dezinformacji zamieszczonej w kilku miejscach w Internecie. Ta historia uczy jednak, że nie należy tak bezkrytycznie przyjmować wszystkiego co można w nim znaleźć.
Niestety ponieważ te informacje często znajdują się w różnych miejscach, łatwo wziąć je za pewnik i tylko zasięgnięcie opinii u źródła jest w stanie sprostować wszelkie nieścisłości.
Trochę czasu trwało nim udało mi się dotrzeć do Pana Andrzeja Friszke i zadać pytanie o prawdziwość tych informacji.
Oto odpowiedź Pana Andrzeja Friszke na mojego maila:
Cytat:

   Szanowny Panie!
   Oczywiście nie znalazł Pan artykułu, bo taki nie istnieje.
   Rozpowszechnianie informacji o tych "rewelacjach" rzekomo przeze mnie
   odkrytych jest dziełem jakichś złośliwców. Nic podobnego o Dmowskim
   nigdzie nie pisałem, ani nie mówiłem. Nie prowadziłem żadnych badań w
   Rosji. Ostatnio pisałem o Dmowskim w 1989 r. w książce "O kształt
   Niepodległej". Nie ma tam rzec jasna nawet sugestii o podobnym charakterze.

   Swego czasu próbowałem doprowadzić do usunięcia tych informacji ze
   strony Wikipedii, jak widzę bez wyniku. Pozostaje więc tylko przyczynek
   do tego, jak ostrożnie należy korzystać z tego, co znajduje się w
   internecie.

   Z poważaniem

   Andrzej Friszke

I read Polish through my understanding of Russian and Ukrainian, so it is not so good.  I have however heard of Dmowski's alleged homosexuality not only through the internet but from Polish friends.  The source above was what I found on the internet.  As I said, even if false, the rumor is widespread enough that it is notable, and because it's notable it warrants inclusion.  Another example, the first two hits from a google search of Dmowski and gay: [4]Faustian (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Another reference to that article: [5]
Could you please summarize what this means (end of that article):
'Wskutek licznych nieporozumień interpretacyjnych oficjalnie zaprzeczam, iż powyższa opowiastka jest autentyczna. Oczywiście profesor Friszke niczego nie odnalazł w Petersburgu, w "Przeglądzie Historycznym" nie ma żadnego artykułu nt. współpracy Dmowskiego z Ochraną. Cała ta historyjka ma służyć "kompromitacji" myślenia spiskowego, tłumaczenia ważnych zjawisk historycznych (takich jak postawa prorosyjska Dmowskiego i endecji) w tak prosty sposób jak szantaż agenturalny. Zresztą ironiczna dedykacja coś powinna tłumaczyć.'

My impression is that this confirms the false nature of the rumor.  In that case, the rumor should still be included but its false nature should be described.Faustian (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me translate a few phrases from that I quoted above for your convinience:
Zbigniew Kwaśniewski: I regret to inform the readers that I was a victim of a desinformation, propageted intentionally or not by several websites.
Polish historian pl:Andrzej Friszke: Some time ago I tried to get that information removed from Wikipedia; unfortunately without success.
Your source above: I officially deny that the above story is true. Of course professor Fiszke did not find anything in Peterburgh, in "Przegląd Historyczny" there is no article about Dmowski cooperation with Ochrana.
I don't belive we should spread hoaxes, unless it can be clearly shown that they are widespread and thus notable. Two or three websites 'widespread', neither are a few forum posts/usenet posts or simple gossip.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  06:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree.  But clearly showing that something is a hoax is good.  Dmowski has appeared on several lists of gays and lesbians, it's probably good that the wiki page shows that this is a hoax and provides the link to prove it (i.e., through Friszke's own statement linked to my reference).Faustian (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This bad joke somebody made is not notable. Hence has no place here. We don't list every practical joke that appeared, in biographies.--Molobo (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do you consider it not notable, if as a result it got the guy and the story about him onto several lists of prominant gays and lesbians?  Don't you think it important that this is debunked here?Faustian (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you show those prominent lists? The only one I have seen so far was an old Wikipedia fork.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I heard the allegation from a pro-Pilsudski friend that Dmowski was gay and blackmailed by the okhrana.  Curious about this rumor, I googled the words "Dmowski" and gay".  As you can see: [6] the first two listings are of a list of gays that he appears on.  While looking for a more scholarly source I found that other article allegedly written by Fiszke that has now been shown to be a hoax.  I think that since the rumor is out there it's a good idea to have it debunked on this page.Faustian (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Recently, this page was subjected to a drastic editing by an anonymous user who removed what he or she called "uncited slurs" against Dmowski. Chiefly, all th material that argued that Dmowski was a vicious anti-Semitic was removed. The author of this essay is something annoyed by this for the following reasons:

Almost every book and article I've ever read on the subject states quite clearly that Dmowski was a an anti-semitic. The books that deny that Dmowski was an anti-semitic are books that in this author's opinion are not very scholarly. Only here on Wikipedia is a Dmowski is a opponent of anti-Semitism. And people wonder why Wikipedia is not considered by an reliable source of information.
Nowhere did the anonymous user post any proof that what I wrote was false. He or she simply called my work "slurs" against Dmowski. In fact, Dmowski was quite proud to call himself an anti-semitic, so how I am slurring him by calling him an anti-semitic, I don't understand.
True, the material was not cited; but then the overwheming majority of articles don't offer citations either; in fact, the overwheming majority of the articles don't offer any references at all. Moreover, there were no references to this article until I posted them. And had the anonymous user taken the time to read Paris 1919, he or she would see that what I wrote was true. True, I didn't add the book by the great Polish-Jewish historian Ezra Mendelsohn until now, but it was something I was meaning to do. But since the anyonymous user already decided I was making this up, I doubt he or she would taken the time to read The Jews of East Central Europe Between The World Wars either. If people were actually take the time to read the books I list as sources, they would see that anything I write is true. Furthermore, there is no citation for the quote allegedly from Dmowski saying Poland would be poorer without the Jews. I don't want to accuse anyone of lying, but there is no source for a quote that dramatically contrasts with everything I've every read about Dmowski. Perhaps Dmowski did say that, but I would be very interested in reading about the precise context that he made that remark, if really did make that remark. Normally, I don't like to change other people's work unless it is something that is untrue, misleading or poorly written, so I left that quote in despite my misgrivings about it. But the point, material that is favourable to Dmowski does not need citations, but material that is unfavourable does need citations. This anyonyomous user is not playing fair.
But to sum it all up, I will expand upon this article and offer a citation for every assertion I make, and when I am done, hopefully we won't be having this argument anymore about whatever Dmowski was an anti-semitic or not. And if some people are uncomfortable with the idea of Dmowski as a anti-semitic, I would suggest that they build themselves an time machine, travel back in time, meet Dmowski and tell him that if wants to improve his historical reputation, he ought to stop going on about "Jewish conspiracies" all the time and stop slandering the Jewish people.A.S. Brown 06:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

More references would be great. I am looking forward to your expantion. The quote you mention is unsourced at Polish wiki ("Polska bez Żydów, byłaby jak zupa bez pieprzu: bez smaku"), and nowhere else on the Polish net (at least, not in the form similar to that used on Polish Wiki). If no sources are provided, I think it can be moved here for verification.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Update: One Polish wikipedian on pl wiki assures me that he has heard this phares '20 years ago, so if it is a hoax, it is an old one'. He suggest checking some books - and I found an English source for a smiliar quote tnx to Google Print: Gunnar S Paulsson, Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945, Gunnar S Paulsson, Yale University Press, 2003, ISBN 0300095465. What was his source, that's another question. And please note that the quote is somewhat different: "a little salt may improve the taste of the soup, but too much will spoil it". Perhaps we can use this quote in the article, and move the old one here until a reference for it exact wording is provided.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I am moving this line “a Poland without Jews would be like a soup without pepper: tasteless" until can be verified, which thanks to Piotrus's good work may be sooner then later.A.S. Brown 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dmowski hardly wanted ALL ethnic minorities purged-he viewed them as welcomed but only if they are small and serve as source of diversity in the country. He hardly was supportive of Christanity(having atheist views himself in private), and actually believed that Poles were beneath Germans and Jews in terms of social development.
The changes and additions i brought come from "Nation in perspective of Roman Dmowski" by Bartosz Smolik:W kręgu historii i politologii. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Stanisławowi Dąbrowskiemu, Wyd. Uniw. Wroc. Wrocław 2002.--Molobo 09:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The 'latest' study of Dmowski and Polish National Democracy is:  
Brian Porter, When Nationalism Began to Hate. Imagining Modern Politics in Nineteenth-Century Poland, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 
It is much removed from earlier, apologetic analyses of the Endeks and regards them as radical antisemites and proto-fascists. Porter notes, p. 228: 'The image of the Jewish parasite shaped Endek anti-Semitism. It facilitated the construction of the Jews as irrevocably alien, without granting them the status of nationhood and without inscribing them with any specific cultural, linguistic or religious features. To occupy their place in the National Democratic universe, the Jews had to remain amorphous and ephemeral, often unseen yet always present. The impossibility of assimilation had become axiomatic.'(Sammy67 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

I added the salt quote back in with the Paulsson source. I came across the source before I saw this talk page and didn't know the book was that popular! Aaрон Кинни (t) 11:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed the issue concerning the hoax about Dmowski's homosexuality in the heading above this one.  The information is currently being blanked out by a new editor, who admits to being very ideologically motivated, and who seemingly has not read the content of the article that clearly states that Dmowski's rumored homosexuality is a hoax.Faustian (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this information really notable?  It seems more fit for a tabloid than an encyclopedia... Ostap 08:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As discussed above, I am not convinced on their notability.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It's no less tabloid-worthy than the allegations about an affair with Pilsudsky's first wife.  As I explained earlier, the information is out there (the guy is falsely on lists of prominant gays and lesbians) and apparently the hoax is spread by some Polish leftists.  Isn't it a good idea to have a refutation here?Faustian (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Per two above editors -the hoax is not notable.--Molobo (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The hoax is repeated on webster's on-line list of prominant gays and lesbians [7], and neohumanism.org's website [8] among others.  It's at least as notable as the rumors about he and Pilsudski's first wife.Faustian (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Both of those sites what you gave as have same text - "This article is from Wikipedia". Everyone can add to Wikipedia whatever they want and without any proofs we have to delete some things such as "List of famous gays, lesbians etc. in history". Still any of the sites doesn't include any proofs. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; they are old wikipedia mirrors. So far I have not seen much evidence that this hoax has been 'notable and widespread'. It's discussion on this article's talk page is probably as far as it should ever go in our project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
IMO the fact that they are old wikipedia mirrors is irrelevent; they are out there.  I do not know many Poles, but apparently the rumor is widespread enough that I heard this story from one of them.  Any time someone googles "Dmowsky", "ochrana", and "gay", those false rumors come up.  Look at the first two article: [9]. If some of them come from an old wikipedia mirror, so what?  The rumors still come up.  It seems to me that debunking this hoax (briefly, of course) would be a good thing for the wikipedia page.  I don't think that this should be censored because some nationalists hate to see the word "gay" linked in any way to Dmowski, even if it's in the service of disproving a hoax.Faustian (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That's very relevant, as per WP:V and WP:RS Wikipedia articles (and by logical extension, their forks) and not reliable sources of information. We should not propagate hoaxes, unless it can be shown they are notable (see also WP:HOAX). I don't see evidence of such notability. Can you show a single printed source with this hoax? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that such articles are not reliable sources of information.  But it's still irrelevent.  The reason this is irrelevent is because the reliability is irrelevent.  Noone here is claiming that those allegations are true.  The claim is that the allegations are out there and relatively common, at least common enough that they are easily accessible on the web.  Dmowski does show up on numerous lists of prominant gays and lesbians.  Indeed, can you find on the web as many lists of prominant gays and lesbians which do not include Dmowski?  Whether or not those lists are reliable does not change the fact that he appears on them.  Moreover, this hoax appears on multiple forums (see my earlier comments, below, for a few of many links).  That is enough to make it noteable for the article in my opinion.  As for a printed source - I don't have access to those.  Since the hoax is only a few years old I imagine it wouldn't have appeared in many books.  I don't have access to newspapers, and Dmowski isn't exactly Tom Cruise for rumors to appear in tabloids.  As for "propogating" hoaxes, perhaps you should reread the article.  The article very clearly states that the allegations are a hoax.  How is that propagating the hoax?Faustian (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should ask for more input from WP:FTN. I'd say that most editors here don't agree that we should include this in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:FTN states "This noticeboard aims to serve as a place to report incidences where undue weight is being given to fringe theories, including cases where the theory being promoted is original research or original synthesis."  In this case this would be inapropriate.  Including two sentances or so in a fairly long article is hardly "undue weight."  And, the rumors are clearly not being promoted; on the contrary they are described as a hoax.  It seems to me that at least two of the editors who don't want to include the info are somewhat ideologically driven (I don't include you as one of those).Faustian (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets not discuss "nationalist" motivations, and rather the Wikipedia:Notability of this "hoax".  I am sure you could google "gay" with just about anybody nowdays and get rumors.  This is not notable enough to be included in my opinion.  Are there reliable sources that discuss this issue or hoax?  If not, I don't think it should not be included.  Ostap 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that just about anyone is on lists of prominant gays and lesbians such as this one :[10].  Incidentally false rumors such as the one about Dmowski are described in wiki articles such as the one on Tom Cruise, in which the gay rumor about him has its own section.  The rumor about Dmowski appears on some Polish forums such as this one [11], this one [12], [13], and others and has been put up on a Polish left-wing website [14].  Since the rumor about Dmowski is out there, it in my opinion ought to be addressed rather than ignored.Faustian (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Molobo, the hoax is made by "Unia Lewicy" - "Left-wing Alliance" which is against any right-wing or "middle" movement in politics. Everyone knows in Poland that left-wing organizations hate everything what is pro-Polish, patriotic or religious so for example Polish hero - Roman Dmowski. I never heard anything about Dmowski's "homosexuality" during the Polish Professor's disputes about him. Dmowski's homosexuality and his membership in Orkhana is base on left-wing lies. One left-wing page says that Dmowski was a mason... These sites doesn't include any historical proofs/references for Dmowski's "homosexuality", "freemsonry" or other lies. We can't include in any article things like these without any strong references, same thing with "Jewish control of the World" or "Vatican's Freemasonry Roots" etc. This is an Encyclopedia not a crazy theories book. --Krzyzowiec (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest calming down, and sticking to the facts, without emotions and no need for political overtones that are offtopic, such acts will be condemned here.--Molobo (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If Krzyzowiec had bothered to read what is written, he would have seen that those claims were clearly labelled as a hoax.Faustian (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism - this ground is not explained well; he just claimed the strong resistance for non-assimilating Jews especially as for their monopoly in some fields of the market (vide slaughterhouses, before WWII outbreak more than 90% of beef was indeed kosher!). Moreover the Jewish he adressed as the enemies were coming from: Myśli nowoczesnego Polaka, 1903 "Mechaniczne takie wprowadzanie żywiołów rosyjskich do Polski nie ogranicza się do tego jednego środka. Nie przypominając już znanych od dawna praw nabywania ziemi na Litwie i Rusi, nie mówiąc o wprowadzeniu Rosjan na wszelkie rządowe lub zależne od rządu posady, dość zwrócić uwagę na owo niepomyślne osiedlanie kacapów w miejscowościach pod – fortecznych, na sprowadzanie robotników z całej Rosji do robót rządowych w Polsce, wreszcie na owo wydalanie Żydów z Moskwy z pozostawieniem im możności osiedlania się u nas, wskutek czego do Warszawy napłynęła olbrzymia masa zruszczonego żydostwa." -in a summary: those dangerous Jews were not those residing in Poland for centuries, but those sent by Tsar as part of the revenge for the uprising 1863, which were definitely not regarding themselves as Polish, but rather Russian, so then they are natural enemies of the Poles (including polonized Jews!).
Moreover in Polska polityka i odbudowanie państwa, 1925, he stated: Polska beż Żydów, byłaby jak zupa bez pieprzu – bez smaku. - what means: Poland with no Jews would have been like a soup without any pepper in it.
Źródło: 
Why is the section about his antisemitism featured? He was probably more antigerman than antisemitic and yet there is no separate section for that. More importantly, he was against any nation that in his opinion was a threat to Polish interests. So we should focus on describing why did he consider a particular group a threat, instead of putting labels on him. The "antisemitic" label in particular has broad derogatory connotations, but doesn't tell anything about the Jews in Poland in his period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.75.221 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC) 

The full quote aboute soup includes: ""a little salt may improve the taste of the soup, but too much will spoil it." from Secret city: the hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945 By Gunnar S. Paulsson. The source also states that Dmowski's solution was the removal of as many Jews as possible from Poland and restrictions on the rest.Faustian (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Singer's people spoke Yiddish--a form of German--in a land mostly controlled by Prussia & Austria. Dmowski was very hostile to all non-Polish speakers, but his hatred of the Jews went well beyond that.  The Singer material is entirely out of place unless the editor wants to use it to endorse Dmowski's vision of how ethnic cleansing was necessary for the true Polish-Catholic spirit to emerge.Rjensen (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please do not continue with this agressive tone. I already said in my edit summary: focus on the content, not on the editor. You did not wait, although I asked you to use talk. You went ahead with an edit war... which makes my further participation pointless. I do not engage in this sort of behaviour. – For a far-right nationalist like Dmowski only one language mattered, his! A big part of his antisemitic ranting-and-raving stemmed from divisions promoted by the partitioners for a century already (especially by Germany). – If you have a better source (than Nobel Prize winner) for informing the readed about the cultural divide in newly recreated Poland than go ahead and put it in. The reader needs to know the background. In today's world, minorities speak the language of their country by default, back then however, because of war, it was all turned upside down and made into an element of hate propaganda by Dmowski. Let's state the facts for a more balanced narrative. Stop pushing a POV please. Poeticbent talk 07:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Singer did not win the Nobel Prize for history and cannot be considered a reliable historian.  But that is irrelevant. Dmowski did not read Singer's Yiddish stories and it's hard to see any relevance of the added text except to support Dmowski's views of the Jews. As for language--that's a more complex subject. Contrary to Singer's beliefs, the people in Poland in those days moved between multiple languages (Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Russian, German and Yiddish) and switched religions--for example some Roman Catholics became Orthodox or secular, some Jews became Christians, etc. (see Chava in "Fiddler on the Roof" by Sholem Aleichem (1894) for a famous example).  The dry scholarly social history books in the History of Poland bibliographies are much better sources than Singer; look at Paulsson; at Porter, When Nationalism Began to Hate. Imagining Modern Politics in Nineteenth-Century Poland (2000). Also Davies, Rising '44 77-81 for city life.  The Czars could never understand why their Polish Catholics failed to assimilate and learn how to be good Russians.  Dmowski's background was not in the villages but in a long European line of hatreds and conspiracy theories, as I think this article makes clear. Rjensen (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I have to support Rjensen here as the content added/removed in [15] is not about Dmowski. Now, I think the same content could be supported with a source about Dmowski, because this is one of the issues he discussed - but a better, Dmowski-themed source would be needed. Some sources for consideration:
Joshua D. Zimmerman (26 January 2004). Poles, Jews, and the Politics of Nationality: The Bund and the Polish Socialist Party in Late Tsarist Russia, 1892–1914. Univ of Wisconsin Press. pp. 262–. ISBN 978-0-299-19463-5. Retrieved 21 September 2013.
Hmmm, I am currently not finding anything better, and we would need better if we clearly want to point out to Dmowski's problem with the (Yiddish?) language. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

For WP:POLAND: failed. Reasons: insufficient inline citations. This article is not far from bein B-class, but there is a number of unreferenced paragraphs and sentences that need to be referenced before this happens. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement taken out of the context into the lead supports anti-Polish stereotypes rather than informs. What was the opinion of WASPs of that time about Roman Catholics and Jews? In the USA "By 1968 all forms of segregation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court". Dmowski was very liberal comparing to many US politicians of that time, but Dmowski is bashed here rather than US racists.Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Henry Ford isn't branded here as an anti-Semite, he just published anti-Semitic texts. A little hobby.Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dmowski was pretty clear about Jews and other groups. People like Henry Ford and American WASPs did not have much to say about Poland in the 1930s. Not many people then or since have called Dmowsky "very liberal" regarding ethnic roles in Poland. Rjensen (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm comparing articles Henry Ford and Roman Dmowski. I haven't discussed the WASPs influence in Poland.
The USA was a racist land till 1968, so yes, Dmowski was very liberal comparing to US standards of 1918 or 1926, which was the last year of his political career. USA: "lynchings—mob-directed hangings, usually racially motivated—increased dramatically in the 1920s." There was almost no Polish middle-class in many areas in 1919 and children of Polish peasants had very limited possibilities to get education. Dmowski wasn't smart enough to invent Affirmative action. Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Dmowski perhaps should have moved to Detroit and talked to Ford.  Ford could hardly read or write, but Dmowsky was a university man and well read. Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Dmowski was a university man in natural sciences, a biologist.Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Xx236 has a point. Looking at two different articles about other major politicians Bernhard von Bülow and Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg for example, there is no info in the lead that they wanted Germany only for ethnic Germans or even about the fact that they planned ethnic cleansing of non-German population(something far major than comments by Dmowski). So indeed if we go by accepted standards on Wikipedia it seems strange or perhaps unbalanced that this aspect is in the lead.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ernst Moritz Arndt was anti-Polish [16]- not mentioned in the lead. Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I have no opinion on how relevant it would be for the other politicians, but for Dmowski, dislike for non-Polish ethnicities (racism...) was a key part of his vision, and should be mentioned in the lead, IMHO.
Not exactly racist http://gazeta-sedno.pl/395/debata-kontrowersje-wokol-dmowskiego/ . It's interesting that his modern enemies fabricated his alleged phrase [17] [18]. Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Polish wiki has a referenced claim about his dislike for women rights but it's offline so I couldn't verity it. If anyone can provide a proper quote, or a better, online source, it may be relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
"Dmowski był przeciwny feminizmowi, gdyż uważał równouprawnienie kobiet za szkodliwe dla ruchu narodowego i idei Polski narodowej" referenced to Robert Kotowski: Między polityką a działalnością społeczną - Narodowa Organizacja Kobiet w dwudziestoleciu międzywojennym. W: Agnieszka Janiak-Jasińska, Katarzyna Sierakowska, Andrzej Szwarc: Działaczki społeczne, feministki, obywatelki. Samoorganizowanie się kobiet po 1918 roku (na tle porównawczym). T. II. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2009, s. 281. ISBN 978-83-7543-101-8

PS. No need, I was able to find a good English source: Eva Plach (2006). The Clash of Moral Nations: Cultural Politics in Piłsudski's Poland, 1926-1935. Ohio University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-8214-1695-2. Retrieved 27 September 2013. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(This is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded) 
Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article.  What a thorough and well done article!  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Reviewer

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Roman Dmowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106055407/http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=1597386036855680486 to http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=1597386036855680486
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Roman Dmowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228100248/http://ww6.tvp.pl/6946,20090215881445.strona to http://ww6.tvp.pl/6946,20090215881445.strona
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a repeating pattern. The IP2600.1001.B100.x editor changes IP every other minute and pushes their POV to articles mostly related to Polish and/or Jewish-related topics. If they use edit summaries, it is often indicating that they are somehow fighting vandalism and/or POV-editing, frequently with arguments "borrowed" from the editors they revert. This is one such example, see revision history. Other recent examples can be seen here (five–six attempts since November 2018) and here (going on for a year).
The editor was in October rangeblocked for one year from the 2600:1001:B000:0:0:0:0:0/42 range for the same kind of disruptive editing, now using the 2600:1001:B100:0:0:0:0:0/42 range. --T*U (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, TU-Nor. If I may ask, how is he/she/they “pushing their POV”? By adding useful information? And how are you so certain it’s one person? I don’t see any evidence of anything you described or anything regarding this being “more than one person”. Based on your comment it seems as if you are the pot calling the kettle black since you are accusing others of the exact same things you do. For example, look at your own edits and justifications for pages like Shamir and then compare them on this one where’s users use the same justifications against your edit warring and your bias is clear as day. -2600:1001:B12A:9D80:EC0D:3DF1:7954:CD9B (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming and underlining my comments. I'll just add that they in-between also use the IP174:225.x range. --T*U (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Everyone that disagrees with you must be a sock puppet, huh? Sorry to break it to you, but Wikipedia does not operate that way. You've also been caught deliberately pushing your own point of view and deleting useful information (such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Dmowski&oldid=888706662). For example, you removed and reverted the entire sentence regarding Dmowski's vision of Poland and Pilsudski's vision of Prometheism, for what reason? And for what reason did you restore a dead source that was removed prior that leads to absolutely nowhere and has nothing to do with the article?   -69.119.170.192 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: - you might want to look at the above IP as well. As for the content - Dmowski's (and ND's) antisemitism is very well documented and he is covered at length for this. It clearly should be in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Why do I get the notion that you are TU-nor account hopping? Also, his antisemitism is explained on it's own section. What TU-Nor did was remove useful information, POV pushed, and added a dead source that was removed prior. The dead source was simply the definition of antisemitism, which has nothing to do with the article. His "antisemitism" (anti anti-Germanism) are described in the article in the paragraphs, they do not belong in the lede, especially next to a citation that was not even a source. I hope @Drmies: checks out your account as well.-69.119.170.192 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Dictionary of Antisemitism: From the Earliest Times to the Present is not a dead source - go to a library and check it out. As Dmowski is covered extensively in literature on antisemitism, being a leader of a party known for its antisemitism, then yes - it should bemin the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is, hence why it was removed. It was firstly a dead source, and secondly it had nothing to do with the article since it is about the definition of antisemitism, nothing about Dmowksi. I never claimed that it does not exist in a library, it simply had nothing to do with the article being talked about in the first place. Also, it seems to me you are just giving your opinion rather than genuine research. It does not belong in the lede, considering the fact there are no sources to support it and there is a seperate section regarding Dmowski's antisemitism (and anti-Germanism). -69.119.170.192 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The lede summarizes the body, and as this has a separate section in the body it should be summarized in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
As said before, his anti-Germanism and antisemitic are already covered and do not belong in the lede. The point of a lede a quick summary. What you are trying to do is push your own point of view and are trying to restore a source that is not even a source nor has anything to do with the article. If Wikipedia worked this way, then every single "antisemitic", "anti-German", "anti-Polish", etc. person would have it mentioned in every single one of their ledes on Wikipedia, yet they don't for obvious reasons.. -69.119.170.192 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - you are being disruptive. The source is available online, I provided a page number, and dozens of other sources with the same bit are available online. That being said: "All the numerous misfortunes of Polish history were attributed to Jewish conspiracy. Roman Dmowksi wrote for, example: [long quote from screed]   The above excerpt is not an isolated quote - The Endek leader wrote hundreds of such pages and by the end of his life antisemitism was definitely a core feature of his political credo....".Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m politely asking you to remove your false accusation and personal attack on me ("YOU ARE BEING DISRUPTIVE”). Please focus on content and provide a quote for the particular source that I could not find. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok I see it now. Can you find some additional source for that? The author is rather of the publication is rather little known. If that’s the only source there is then I think it should be attributed. (strike out your personal attack please) GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Academic writer, rather well known, published by Routledge - a reputable publisher. I suggest you search for "Jewish conspiracy"+Dmowski in google books and scholar - there are dozens of sources - I chose one available in full preview online. No it should not be attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Scholar - "Jewish+conspiracy"+Dmowski&btnG=. Some results -
"Dmowski was an ardent chauvinist and antisemite. He promoted the idea of an interna- tional Jewish conspiracy, called for the removal of Jews from positions of economic and social influence, and advocated large-scale Jewish emigra- tion …" Lappin, Shalom. "Reconstructing Polish Jewish History." East European Jewish Affairs 28.1 (1998): 109-116.
"From Dmowski's pronouncements from this period, it might be concluded that this was also the high point of his anti-Semitic obsession. Convinced of the universal Jewish conspiracy aimed at marginalizing both the Polish question and himself personally, he began to propagate …" Krzywiec, Grzegorz. "Roman Dmowski and Polish Nationalism until 1939." 185.
"Dmowski spoke about a well-organized Jewish conspiracy, which," according to a plan" and based on a" very well-developed internal organization," was designed to conquer Poland and create a" settlement for the Jewish nation"" Berend, Ivan T. "Democracy and Ethnic Diversity." Political Democracy and Ethnic Diversity in Modern European History (2005): 32.
Contesting what is obvious in a trivial BEFORE is disruptive - a simple check would have shown you this was trivial to source - even if you did not have the offline source in front of you.Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Struck bit above, should be raised in a separate venue.Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Krzywiec isn't reliable [19]. If you want to prove that Kompromitacje isn't reliable, please find the alleged quotations.Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
We aren't using Krzywiec in the article, and that blogspot post isn't really an indication of anything. Finding more sources here for "Jewish conspiracy" is trivial - there are literally dozens of sources available. Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The same nasty Dmowski described Jewish poverty.Xx236 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The mere fact you label him “nasty” shows you have a bias against him. -174.225.144.161 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Your edits reveal a much more troubling opposite bias. El_C 02:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)