Talk:Józef Piłsudski/Archive 1

message: May we include the Pilsudski's birthplace name in lithuanian,
in brackets or any other way? For even I, living here in Vilnius, don't know, where it is. Or, maybe, it's in Belorussia now? --Linas Plankis. Vilnius. 2004.01.06
:I have no idea what's the lithuanized version, but the village is located some 60 km. NE from Wilno. AFAIK nothing to see there; the mansion does not exist anymore (burnt by the bolsheviks in 1920) and the only remnant is an oak tree planted in where Pilsudskis cradle once stood.Halibutt 08:41, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the oak tree planted in the exact spot that the creche was located? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT/ Just found the lithuanian name - it's Zalavas. You can see a picture of the village here.Halibutt 08:45, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand it's a pre-war picture. Now it's a depressing, ruined kolkhoz and absolutely nothing to see apart from the oak tree Halibutt mentioned. I added the Lithuanian name as Linas asked. I also think there's no need to write a seperate article about that village, so I suggest changing Zulow from hypertext to plain text. Kpalion 15:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article about the "depressing village", the "ruined kolkhoz" has been written, inspite of there being nothing to see there apart from the oak tree (I assume Kpalion is speaking as a result of him visiting Zalavas first hand). But the article does link one to Alexander Ulyanov and to Rurik, and a plethora of other "links" that are undoubtably very pertinent to its existence. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithuanian birthplace? 

message: Pilsudzki was a dictator, granted. But a fascist? Can you give some source for that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this is why this article was delisted. Colonel Mustard 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascist? 

message: 10-31-2004:  Jozef Pilsudski was never "president" of Poland.  He was, immediately after World War I, literally "Chief of State" (Naczelnik Panstwa), akin to a dictator ad interim.  The box below his portrait is gratuitous and misleading, as it introduces no new information of importance while slipping in inaccuracies, e.g. Pilsudski's legal wife when he was Chief of State was Maria, not Aleksandra.  Likewise, calling him a "military officer" (he was one, though self-taught) is somewhat like calling Napoleon an "artilleryman."  The current guide to pronouncing Pilsudski's name in English is inaccurate and unreadable.  There are further inaccuracies and infelicities in the article as it stands, which it would be well to correct.
:# Jozef Pilsudski was never "president" of Poland - Indeed, "head of state" would be better. Also, he was chosen as a president of Poland but he did not accept it. So, technically speaking he was a president, but this is but a detail. Anyway, he is called "head of state" and "chief of state" throughout the article. 
:# The box below his portrait is gratuitous and misleading, as it introduces no new information of importance - it is similar to boxes on most of important statesmen. Since most of them have now very long and detailed articles, the boxes are something in between the header (which gives only the most basic data) and the full article (which might be a tad too long for someone who only wants to check some facts and figures. Also, the boxes are a great help for those who print the articles.
:# Pilsudski's legal wife when he was Chief of State was Maria, not Aleksandra - corrected.
:# calling him a "military officer" (he was one, though self-taught) is somewhat like calling Napoleon an "artilleryman." - so, what profession you propose? If he had any, it was definitely an officer. One can hardly call "revolutionist" or "president" a profession.
:# The current guide to pronouncing Pilsudski's name in English is inaccurate and unreadable - what is inaccurate? Also, it is not a guide on how to pronounce the name in English since it is assumed that all users of English Wikipedia already know English language and know how they pronounce the name. The IPA code explains how the name should be pronounced in the original language - that is Polish. As such it is (to my knowledge) correct. I can't say it's unreadable either since IPA is used worldwide. 
:# There are further inaccuracies and infelicities in the article as it stands, which it would be well to correct. - feel free to list them here or, even better, correct them yourself. This is wikipedia, all are equal and all can edit the articles :) Also, why don't you register? It's free and it's always better to speak with someone who has a name... Halibutt 21:40, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
11-01-2004.  Dear Mr. Halibutt,
Thanks for your response to my 10-31-2004 comments.
My objection to Pilsudski's career box is that his career doesn't lend itself to boxing.  It is too complex for so simple a procedure--less analogous to the career of an ordinary president than to that of, say, Napoleon or de Gaulle, neither of whom (thank God) has a career box (though each is supplied with a generous "contents" box).  Each--Napoleon and de Gaulle--is described as a "general and politician."  In the case of de Gaulle, at least, I would prefer "statesman"--as I would also for Pilsudski, on whose career de Gaulle seems to have modeled his own.  (Please see the English-language Wikipedia de Gaulle article, which provides a hint of circumstantial evidence for this assertion.)
My reference to pronunciation is, of course, to authentic Polish pronunciation, as presented to Anglophone readers in a way that they can readily absorb.  What percent even of Wikipedia readers are conversant with IPA?  How many will have the patience to look up an IPA table, or to interpret it?  Though it may not be as "scientifically correct," why not use unambiguous English-language-based transliterations?
Perhaps I will attempt some revisions to the Pilsudski article.  The subject deserves a good collaborative effort.
I may consider registering, though--apart from the practicalities of communication facilitation--the idea of monastic anonymity holds an appeal for me.  Do you recommend use of full or partial name? initials?  pseudonym?  Any substantial pros or cons?
Thanks,
Anonymous
:# Dear anon, as to the statesmen box - I still believe it has more pros than cons. It's not designed for those who would like to know every single detail of Piłsudski's life. It's for those who want to know only what is said in the header and a tad more, but not too much. 
:# As to his profession - I personally would like all of the following included: "revolutionary, journalist, officer, statesmam" all are true and any of them is true as well. Staesman is as good as the others, I'll change that.
:# As to IPA- there is no alternative to it so far. Either we want to give the reader a chance to find out how the name is pronounced or we try to make some approximation. English phonetics is not too good at representing other languages and there's little difference between the way a sound can be described using English phonetics and the way an average Brit or American would read the name. "English-based transliteration" is just as bad since it is both ambiguous and wrong. "Yoozehph Peewsootskee" can be read as either [juzεf piwsuʣki], [jʊzef piwsʊʦki], [ju:zəf piʍsʊʦki] or any other variation - none of which is correct. I added an .ogg pronounciation key for all those who are not able to read IPA, hope that helps. 
:# Indeed, the article needs significant expansion and revision. It's great that there are people out there who are willing to help. 
:# I appreciate your idea of monastic anonimity, it's not a thing you meet very often on the web. Of course it is much easier to talk to people who have some name (or a pseudo) since you can always check who they are on their user page or at least check their contributions to see what they do and how they do it. However, it's your choice and your contributions are equally welcome. Also, you might be interested in my recent article on Maria Piłsudska. I would like to add an article on the other Maria Piłsudska (his mother) one day as well. 
-- Halibutt 14:56, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:: The statesmen box is a really useful tool for statistical info, used througout Wikipedia for similar purposes. I recommend we either leave it or expand it. I strongly recommend registering, if for no other reason that for people keeping a tab on article vandalism each 'anon IP edit' screams 'likely vandal, likely vandal' and I have to waste a little of my time checking what was done with the artcle. And as Halibutt wrote, once you have your own username here, we can talk and know who is it we are talking with (as in 'this is the guy who knows much about Pilsudzki'), and when I see your edit in the recent changes/history section I (hopefully) can just nod thinking ('another job well done') and don't have to bother checking the details of the edit looking for vandalism.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's touching. What do they think of General Jaruzelski? Perhaps this savior will come from Lithuania just like Pilsudski and Jogaila did. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by anon user 

message: The article could stand a little NPOVing, especially the part about the battle of Warsaw
:What do you mean? Halibutt 20:06, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Pilsudski was a brutal dictator and an incredibly controversial figure in Polish history. He was a poor general, a poor politican, a poor strategist and his insane invasion of the Soviet Union came close to destroying his own country. The article simply paints him as a visionary statesman, which fails to capture the controversy or the criticism.--Francisx 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit hagiographics

message: This quotation looks in Polish language as follows: "Wysiadłem z czerwonego tramwaju na przystanku niepodległość". There was never a square named after Independence in Warsaw, neither in the times of Piłsudski, nor later. The square Logologist was probably referring to is Saski Sq. (Plac Saski), which wasn't renamed until after the war - to Victory Sq. (Plac Zwycięstwa). Currently it is known as Piłsudski Sq., by the way. 
There of course is an Independence Avenue in Warsaw (Aleje Niepodległości), but the street was not built and named until after Polish-Bolshevik War, not to mention the moment when Piłsudski "got out of the red tramway". Oh, I forgot that there's also a tiny Independence Str. (Ulica Niepodległości) which was built some time in the 1960's. 
So, all in all, the quote from Piłsudski is original, but I doubt it was wordplay on any actual place on earth, one should understand it more figuratively. Especially that at the moment of the famous Piłsudski's "getting out of tramway", all of Poland was still under foreign rule and I doubt any of the occupants liked the idea of Polish independence enough to name squares or streets after it. Halibutt 23:44, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
:This article repeats this quote several times in at least two different variants, and a third one can be found on Wikiquote. Can we agree on the best one and get rid of the rest (or at least move all alternatives to Wikiquote)? Some of the variants are rather hideous 'let's adress each other with honorific titles'... On a related note, the endnotes in this article are a mess and should be upgraded to the < ref > system.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inarguable the most eloquent is the one provided by Pilsudki's poland.gov biography, also which makes the most sense. This is why I inserted it into the quotes section and renewed its link a while back. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably not Communists but Socialists.  He had been a Socialist, not a Communist, leader.  Nihil novi (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly socialist. The last of communists split off PPS with PPS Lewica around 1905.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tram stop Independence 

message: Wouldn't it be appropriate to move paragraphs 4-6, under "Polish-Bolshevik War," to the article on the "Battle of Warsaw"?  As they stand, these paragraphs seem a bit too detailed for inclusion in this article.  Logologist 19:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Warsaw 

message: The article's bio-summary box presently reads:  "."  I was unable to insert:  "Chief of State."  Who knows how to make this repair?  logologist 20:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Damaged box

message: Some - from the time of PSW war - are certainly PD. Do we nee them? Article is in French, but I am pretty sure I can translate the captions :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prokonsul, the pictures look great. I like that the French used both names, Wilno/Vilnius, in the appropriate caption. Dr. Dan 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's good to do so on the first use of such names in the article (but never in the article title - it looks horrible then, at least for me). Let me know which pics captions I should translate and add to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: A page worth reading: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite a fascinating book. heqs 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On failure of Riga, Międzymorze and minorities

message: This gentleman has been listed on the new Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR can someone add a reference on the Category talk:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR when he predicted this?
Thanks for the addition, I am interested in hearing from you. 
Thanks, Travb 13:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR

message: This page has two seperate sections labled "references".  Doesn't that seem a little odd?  The titles should be a little more specific to help people navigate the page better.  Kevlar67 05:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2x references 

message: I believ that this view, introduced without any discussion by an anonymous author, should be discussed. It's propaganda, because the interests of Lithuanian nobility were very good defended. Would the anonymous anti-Polish fighter specify, how the Lithuanian nobility was unequal?
Xx236 07:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobility was the most priviliged class in the PLC, and most of the szlachta were Poles or polonized, thus the nobility was predominantly Polish. We can discuss if the sentence is necessary here, or perhaps expand it to show some positivie aspects of the Commonwealth, but in itself he sentence looks mostly correct to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: True, but that doesn't change the fact that they were always a minority. Even at Union of Lublin Poland had 3:1 numerical advantage in nobility, and I'd have think that with polonization it the advantage incresed. That is not to say that the polonized Lithuanian nobles abandoned their roots: they still cosidered themselves 'Lithuanian' (i.e. from GDL) even if they spoko Polish rather then L or R. But the nobility was predominantly Polish, that cannot be disputed - no matter if we define Polish and 'ethnically Polish' or 'polonized'. Finally, note that at least some authors conclude that in those times being a noble meant being Polish (a citizen of the PLC).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Commonwealth had defended the interests of its predominantly Polish nobility 

message: Criterion #4 for a good article tag, requires that it follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect: (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
This article is very clearly POV, a virtual hagiography of General Pilsudski, failing to address the great many critics of his dictatorship that there have been, including many within Poland who consider his regime to have been catastrophic for the country. I'm not trying to bias the article in the opposite direction, but these criticisms need to be brought up and addressed. I therefore move that the Good Article Tag be removed until NPOV is restored.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisx (talk • contribs) 
:Francis, please remember to sign your post. You raise some interesting points, could you give some sources that support them? I.e. which sources would you recommend we use to make this more NPOVed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has evolved very quickly into a detailed and satisfactory biography. Not to mention the 33 footnotes, which try their best to dispel pov accusations. Эйрон Кинни (t) 09:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 38 now. Эйрон Кинни (t) 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Tag 

message: I've been trying to find some reference to this Conrad quote regarding Pilsudski, but have been utterly unsuccessful. It'd be neat to find some information on when and where Conrad wrote/said this, as the wording of this article currently implies that Conrad praised Pilsudski after the demise of the latter, whereas Conrad himself died in 1924, before Pilsudski took power in 1926. I assume this statement was made following Pilsudski's resignation in 1922. Thoughts, anyone? Colonel Mustard 07:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are thrice lucky: the text had an inline citation ((Zdzisław Najder, Conrad under Familial Eyes, Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. 239.)). The book is also available on Google Print (). And finally the p.239 is available without restrictions: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Curious as to your opinion - would you say that implies he made that statement in 1920? I think that if the article could read "Conrad ... said, in (year), that..." it would make this less ambiguous. Colonel Mustard 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conrad quote 

message: The sentence, ...He, more than any other Pole..., strikes me as a little POV, but I left it alone. I agree he was very, very, significant in the "resurrection" of Poland, but would have Poland been re-established without him? Dr. Dan 18:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's up to alternative history to decide :) The very sentence can be referenced to online ref (nr 1, see last para). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I share your POV, although I'd expect (and wont object) that this will be changed. Note that near the end of the artcile there is a statement about controversiality of this figure, and that he was also portrayed in negative light. Although the article has currently no sources for that, and it would appear to be a minority view (judging for example from the positive portrayal of him on the official website of Polish gov.) I am sure that this will be expanded and some critical sources added.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "There was in Jmud a powerful family, the Billeviches, descended from Mendog, connected with many, and respected by all, in the district of Rossyeni". 
I am sure our Polish friends know where this is from (besides, note Billeviches not Bilewicz ) but that's a separate issue to take care. 
List of his names certainly doesn't belong to a lead. The first paragraph should we sufficient as a lead. As my edits to PL related articles judging for the PSW series are met by some with hostility, I, for now, bring up some obvous things at talk. --Irpen 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My source calls him a Litvin. And judging from what we know about his father's and mother's Billeviches line he indeed was. --Irpen 16:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't need to be bold to prove anything here. I thought it is obvious and I had no doubt that the the source of my quote above is easily recognizable. --Irpen 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, I actually thought about this, but well, we cannot use Sienkiewicz for historical references, now, can we? :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How would you propose to word it? This *may* get tricky, but I'd like to see your version.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If by trimmed you mean deletion of any info, I strongly object to it. If you mean moving to a subartcle, I don't mind, but I personally prefer longer to shorter and thus will leave this to others to 'summarize' if they feel some parts are too long.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus, deletion is a strong word, yet there is a lot of non-encyclopecic information in the article, that is unnecessary, and is over the top. When I copy-edit, and do so of my own volition, or am requested to do so by others, I try to leave the essence of the original contributor alone, and make sense out of it in English. It's not only difficult, but ocassionally I get chided for throwing my POV into the ring. Sometimes I do, but most often I do not. Earlier in my Wikipedia "experience," I attempted to make small copy edits to Russian contributors (I wasn't even registered with a user name), and absurd arguments became fights, and I left these edits alone. The mistakes remain grammatically flawed, and humorous, and will stay that way until someone else bothers to correct them, (not all of my Russian friends). I have better luck with requests for copy edits from Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine (note they are alphabetically listed), mostly by email, and I'm happy to comply with the requests when I have time. Again these copy edits do not always reflect my own viewpoints. Lately, I have tried to stay out of some really absurd and contentious arguments, between people that go from article to article, fighting each other. Its a waste of time, and borders on intellectual onanism. Dr. Dan 02:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leader into Article

message: supporters?
Xx236 09:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Fixed. But be bold.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  among them supporter of Dmowski 

message: The article does not discuss the attitude of Piłsudski toward the Jews.
Xx236 09:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see this raised in any sources, other then some vogue remarks that as he was tolerant to various minorities he had good rapport with Jews (again we see an interesting counterpoint to Dmowski, who was often accused of anti-semitism). We have a photo in elinks to include, if you want.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the sources. I will see if I have time to add something from them, feel free to do so before me :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish minority 

message: Both point to the same Zalvas. Either
*Zułów (today Zalavas) or
*Zułów (today Zalavas)
Xx236 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind either.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Zułów]] (today [[Zalavas]]) 

message: "...considered to be responsible for Poland's re-establishment following World War I."
"...and is considered to be largely responsible for Poland's resurrection, after almost one hundred and twenty years of its disapearence, having been partitioned 1772-1795."
I honestly don't see this edit as an improvement. First "re-establishment" is more NPOV than "resurrection", with its religious overtones. Second, the the longer version has a flowery air to it that supports the "hagiographical" tone that some critics have complained about. Thirdly, the last two phrases are perhaps unnecessary digressions, seeing that the article on Pilsudski, not the history of Poland.
I should add that Dr Dan's other edits have been excellent, IMO.--Chris 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro wording 

message: What about his concerns about the Soviet policy? 
Xx236 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about them?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe we already mention the non-agression pacts and such. If you have more refs, or want to expand/clarify someting... go right ahead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to his concerns over the Maginot Line 

message: The Polish Polski Słownik Biograficzny online portal  had quite a few interesting items that should be linked, including IIRC the downloadable only surviving audio recording of Piłsudski's voice ("O śmiechu"), not to mention an extensive bio. Unfortunatly the site is down and will likely be down until the end of the month. I will see if I can dig up any info through google cache or net archive, but for now I am just leaving this note here for myself and others to check this site periodically if it is back online and when it is, to raid for info :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately this is not the only surviving record. There is also his famous monologue on the idea of voice recording, the one with the question to whom would the voice belong after being recorded. Unfortunately, the guy did not speak publicly too often... I must say I love his style, both as a journalist and as a speaker. //Halibutt 06:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I heard about this, but I thought there was only one recording and this was the one and the same? Would you have any links to that one? Where did I read about it...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here you go :) //Halibutt 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JP in PSB 

message: I promoted the article since the criterias were met toward the modifications requested for the first GA nomination. Lincher 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA re-nomination passed

message: Shmuel Israel has made the unsourced and unbacked claim that Pilsudski was an anti-Semite, not unlike Hitler. Pilsudski was not an anti-Semite. I know this for the following reasons:
*Polish Jews under Pilsudski's government flourished (they weren't killed or persecuted for their ethnic background or religion). As a matter of fact, they loved Pilsudski. Did you not see the photo of him greeting Polish Jews in Krakow?
*Your claim was unsourced.
*From all that I know, Pilsudski, unlike Hitler, never made an anti-Semitic remark.
If you provide the article with a valid and definitive source and/or reference, then the claim can stay, but for the time being, I removed it. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, especially as we have good refs to show his pro-Jewish stance (see #Jewish minority).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: The peer review revealed that this article has too many links to solitary years.
This task is easy with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. If somebody wants to remove the solitary year links, feel free to use the tool. bobblewik 13:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action still needed in response to peer review 

message: Despite all my efforts, I can not find citations for:
* the quote: [He was acutely aware of the shakiness of the non-aggression pacts, remarking sarcastically:]  "The question remains, which of the stools will we fall off first."
* that Polish Air Force squadron during World War II, the No. 305 "Greater Poland" Squadron was named after him
* Piłsudski was interested less in the trappings than in the reality of power, to be exercised for the security and welfare of his imperilled country. He made a point of drawing no financial profit from public office.
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinserted the first quote (albeit in a different manner, slightly altered, but nonetheless to the same effect) with a citation. Aaрон Кинни (t) 10:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced statements 

message: Please don't use straight links to any kind of media files, including audio. An easily accessible link to the license information has to be available, just like with pictures or photgraphs. I've fixed the problem and you're welcome to find other solutions to the linking problem as long as you don't use the previous solution.
Peter Isotalo 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio license information 

message: What's that? A photo story?--AchtungAchtung 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: It is rather strange that this biography of a Main Polish politician of the XXth Century, on Wikipedia as on Polish official sites, doesn't mention any Family Religious background, i.e. catholic or protestant, except a certain hostility to compulsory attendance of Eastern Christian Orthodox Mass.
I read in a French Biography, he was born Protestant. Is that true ? HUM MAG
193.252.105.81 19:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look for answers in his biography. There was something about diffrent religions being problematic to his early relations/marriages. IIRC from reading various sources, he was not very religious and cared little about differences in various branches of Christianity.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I will see if I can find a reliable source on this and add this here, tnx for the tip about this article, I'll look at the sources used in it. If you plan on visiting Wiki and commenting more in the future, you may consider registering, it's easy and facilitates editing and communication.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Glad to see you regged here, too. Unfortunatly in the Urbanowicz bio I am reading I can't find anything specific about the religion - but he may mention it later, he has the habit of digressing often.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion ? 

message: If it is POV to call Joseph stalin a dictator(as some editors think) then most likely it is also POV to call Pilsduski a dictator.--Staberinde 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. While I personally don't find it offensive in either case, if Stalin was not a dicator (sic!), nobody was.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were both dictators. The definition of a dictatorship is when one man controls the entire state with absolute rule. Stalin was definitely. And Pilsudski was working behind the curtains. Therefore, they were verifiable dictators. And it's not POV, it's simply a fact. Aaрон Кинни (t) 05:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV introduction (dictator)? 

message: Could Prokonsul Piotrus and friends (Halibutt, et al) let me know what historical consistency regarding the naming of Vilnius should be? When in the interest to make the name less confusing to a modern reader, and Vilnius is employed, this is reverted to Vilna (because that's "historically accurate" during the Partitions of the PLC). Upon my following this "rule of Halibutt" and changing Wilno to Vilna, P.P. restored Wilno. And the reason would be, what? Dr. Dan 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this historical context (majority of city's inhabitants were Poles or Polish speakers), 'Wilno' should be at the very least mentioned on the first usage. I have no problem with double naming, nor with Vilnius going first - I know some of our Lithuanian collegues are very sensitive to that - but considering the article's context, I think keeping Wilno in there is justified.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which is it?

message: A rather stupid question, one would think. Pilsudski was born in Lithuania, and ironically, much to the dismay of ultra-Polish nationalists, he called himself Lithuanian on a number of important occasions (including in the presence of Sejm members). Zalavas was in the the Lithuanian part of the PLC, just as Kraków was in the Polish part of the PLC. And while we're at at it, I don't think that in regards to Poles born in Kraków during the "partitions," we should have to explain that it is more historically accurate, to say they were born in Krakau, the offical language and designation of the city in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Or should we, Beaumont? Dr. Dan 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point being? I do not change any name, I do not claim it was in "Poland" or "Russia" (whatever), so do not pull my leg. Since in the text it is clearly stated that Zalavas was in the the Lithuanian part of the PLC (your own claim), it is reasonable to add now in Lithuania. It is interesting that Pilsudski called himself Lithuanian, you're welcome to add it in the article (a source would be important in this case). --Beaumont (@) 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Piłsudski was a social democrat, had nothing against the jewish community and promoted an idea of a międzymorze federation instead of a "Great Poland" so it is really hard to find Polish ultra-nationalists who would like him. Mieciu K 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beaumont, my point being the implication that it is now Lithuiania, is to suggest that it was then, not Lithuania. My point being that Kraków and Poland were Polish, even during the partitions. I also feel that my syntax brzmis (sic) better (no leg pulling), than yours. Mieciu, what does the Jewish community have to do with the location of Rome in relation to the location of the Crimea? As in, gdzie Rzym, gdzie Krym? Btw, I was refering to today's ultra-Polish nationalists, not Dmowski and friends. Dr. Dan 14:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be more correct to say it was partitioned PLC under Russian Empire?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict] Dr. Dan, I removed "now" without your help, thanks anyway. Did you notice it before reverting and posting the above comment? BTW, in times of Pilsudski it was a part of PLC under partitions (as stated in the text) and then of Poland. --Beaumont (@) 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was, where was Pilsudski born? The answer is Lithuania. And all the King's horses, and all the King's men, and all of the weasel words, are not going to change that fact, just as they couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Piotrus, as to your suggestion, the article stated as much, before Beaumont began "experimenting" with reality. Incidentally, Beaumont please take the trouble to read Halibutt's clarification on Pilsudski's family roots as well as some quotes of the Marszałek. You'll find them above on this discussion page under #14 Pilsudski's Nationality. Perhaps, Halibutt can enlighten you further on the subject when his health returns. After he accused Ghirlandajo of making a death threat, against him, I'm concerned about his state of mind. Btw, can anyone create a link ( maybe the Prokonsul can ), showing us this death threat? Dr. Dan 23:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Dan, let me remind you this article is about Piłsudski, not Halibutt or Ghirladajo. Let me repeat the advice I gave you: more content edits, less talking.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where was Pilsudski Born?

message: I was hoping to get the opinion of the new WP editor, user: CityElefant, on the matter of Pilsudski's ethnicity. I believe he may have a unique insight on this subject as has he recently commented on Jogaila's ethnicity (see the Jogaila talk page) with the information that....("3/4 of his blood was Slavic"). CityElefant (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using a biased Belarusian source. It would be worthy to find a Polish source or an English source which doubles that. I do not believe Belarusian sources are valid or reliable in these kind of predictions. Oliszydlowski, 15:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity again 

message: It coul'd have been amusing, if this would be a some sort of formum, and since this is trying to become an encyclopedia it is not. The only official language in Lithuania is Lithuanian, and an attempt to put other language names of an administrative unit is more than just a violation of WP:NOTADICTIONARY. it's an attempt to disrupt the Wikipedia as a system of rules.--Lokyz (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we care about what's the official language in Lithuania now? This is not the Lithuanian Wikipedia. The Polish name is much more relevant in this context. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only like to remain some users here that Pilsudski was born in the XIX century Russian Empire, not in the XXI century Lithuania. If we want to be consistent, we should stick to the Russian name of this place. The best solution, however, is to keep both Polish and Lithuanian names of his birthplace. This will help us avoid future conflicts, and I hope user Lokyz is not the one who will start yet another silly edit war. Or perhaps I am wrong. Tymek (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks really does not create a good atmosphere here. And the attempt to polonise Lithuanian administrative units names is rather provocative than productive. As fot the 19th century I hope you know, that Polish language was banned in public at the time Pilsudsky was born. So maybe the kirillica spelling should be more appropriate?--Lokyz (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I guess we could remove the entire segment ("the Švenčionys district municipality") from the article. Modern administrative division is hardly relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be the best solution. Since we don't want to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Piłsudski was Lithuanian, why should that tidbit matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Useful how, Radeksz? I'm serious. Useful how and to whom? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful to readers who may be more familiar with the Polish name of the city he grew up in, for example. You're basically removing it simply on the basis of IDON'TLIKEIT which is not a valid reason.radek (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are totally missing the point. This is English WP and an encyclopedia cannot pap feed readers "who may be more familiar with the Polish name" (or any other foreign language). That is why there are appropriate links and redirects throughout the encyclopedia for that purpose. This is not my reasoning at all, and I definitely agree with you that it would not be a valid reason. So do me a favor and re-add the Lithuanian toponym in the lead of the Lublin article. You're welcome to use my earlier rationale that it was there that the Union of Lublin was signed. Besides wouldn't it be useful to readers who may be more familiar with the Lithuanian name of the city? If you do make the requested entry at the Lublin article, that would be nice. As far as it sticking, good luck. Furthermore, if you check your recent edits at the Kedainiai article, you can use your own other rationales as well. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Dan, would you support removing Suvalkai from Suwałki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure I would, certainly from the lead. Even from Puńsk. Między innymi, co sprawia, że użytkownik zdecyduje się dawać mi paszy dzisiaj?  Dr. Dan (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polonising names of Lithuanian administrative units