Talk:Polonization

message: If I'm not mistaken, the original title of the  painting is "Powtórne zajęcie Rusi. Bogactwo i oświata". In the article it is rendered as "Ruthenia subdued". Wouldn't a more accurate translation be " The Re-occupation of Ruthenia. Wealth and education"? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the title I knew, perhaps the picture is known under various titles. It's not that uncommon. Do what you please. //Halibutt 10:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jakiej nazwy jeszcze mozna bylo czekac od Jana Matejki? Ale smieszny jest, mylic Rossje i Halycje, moze tylko fantasta Matejko. Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Polish Ruś (Ruthenia) doesn't mean Rosja (Russia). See: Galicia–Volhynia Wars - it isn't science fiction :).  --Kynikos Vodyanoi (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A better translated title, one which takes the actual content of the work into account, is "The second work of Ruthenia. Wealth and education", which depicts, according to a catalog of Matejko's works, the cornerstone laying ceremony of a Roman Catholic cathedral at Lviv. Casimir's expansion into Ruthenia. Casimir III the Great, holding the Piotrków-Wiślica Statutes, throws a ring for the establishment of the first Roman Catholic church in Lviv. () —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Matejko]] Painting 

message: As there is apparently plenty of conflicting views on the scope of this article, what info should be included and how should it be presented, I took the liberty to ask for external review and comments from fellow Wikipedians. The basic conflict is around the sections on Belarus (see the section above for history of the conflict, as well as article's history), but all of this article could benefit from a peer review. //Halibutt 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments: what is relevant and how/where to put it 

message: Ghetto benches in polish universities were introduced in 1937 - two years after the dead of Józef Piłsudski. Accusing his regime for it is simple mistake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.146.82 (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghetto benches 

message: There is a picture in the article with the following comment:
"Gravestone with removed German inscriptions in Gliwice (Southern Poland). Also visible is the changing of the name Karl into the Polish Karol."
-----
The name on the grave is for 99% a name of Pole named Karol Okoń (okoń = perch). The most likely reason for putting germinized name in the first place on this grave was very common both in German and in Russian occupied partitions, forcing people to use new ruler's languages.
Giving as an example of polonisation the fact of wrining back in Polish name of Pole seems to be sarcastic(?).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.78.239 (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Okon 

message: You obviously did not even bother reading the talk page nor the reasons given, before you restored a whole slew of controversial and false-sourced edits made by a user who is currently (and deservedly) banned from the area of Eastern European topics. Even a cursory glance at the article history would have alerted you to the fact that the reason most of this was removed was simply because it's not in the sources given. The user in question added whatever text he fancied, then slapped on a inline citation of a source which didn't support the claim, to make it look legimtimate. Obviously this kind of dishonest editing - with a purpose of POV pushing (and here I mean *real* POV pushing, not what YOU accuse others of) - is obviously disruptive and does not belong in Wikipedia.
Since you're the one who insist on having this text added back in, the burden of proof is actually on YOU to show that the sources back up the claims made. But here, let me get you started, and just show you that the text is crap:
For example the sentence As most of the Polish government was initially controlled by Roman Dmowski, National Democratic leader and a strong proponent of Polonization,[47]  policies based on his views were implemented is cited to page 314 of this work . Do you see the claim that the Polish government was "controlled" (whatever that is supposed to mean) by Dmowski anywhere on that page? How about on the next page? No? Well, that's because it's not really true. The second part of the claim is that it was Dmowski's policies which were implemented. Any student of Polish history knows that this is false as well. And yes the source given  ALSO does not say this either. 
So again, what I did was remove a lot of false claims which were misleadingly sourced to sources which did not say what the user was pretending they were saying. You've restored this claims, apparently because you think removal of false (and falsely sourced) info from Poland-related articles constitutes "hardcore Polish nationalism". I'm sorry, but that's a load of bollocks. Perhaps you should re-evaluate if you really have the competence and the sufficiently neutral mindset to involve yourself in Poland-related articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miacek 

message: Biggest Polonization of all, after WWII in former German territories, needs much more discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.105 (talk • contribs) 20:52, November 26, 2014
:Sure. Would you like to suggest any sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  After WWII 

message: Kulturkampf (1871 to 1878) didn't happen during early years.Xx234 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kulturkampf 

message: NO!Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lonely Planet as a reliable source 

message: Pleae help!
Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three cite errors 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Polonization. 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/20080520235227/http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D7748%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D7748%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
*Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20141028221700/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=16410 with https://web.archive.org/web/20161229100110/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=16410 on http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=16410
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020602145938/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mdemkowicz1/dobra/poloniz.html to http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mdemkowicz1/dobra/poloniz.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Polonization. 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/20050904150707/http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Thomas/Thomas_1913.html to http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Thomas/Thomas_1913.html
*Added  tag to http://mesharpe.metapress.com/(oljda545xblum055350iutny)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,4;journal,4,11;linkingpublicationresults,1:110921,1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section "Partitions (1795–1918)" contains contradictory claims. Some sentences assert that the Polonisation occurred despite maximally harsh anti-Polish policies, while others ascribe it to an initial period of local autonomy for Polish elites and lenient policy by the Russians. Both claims seem to be ascribed to the same sources and only comparison with the sources can establish what they really do say. The second claim makes sense; the first one sounds like fanatical Polish nationalist propaganda - the tacit suggestion apparently being that people just realised, deep down, the natural and objective superiority of Polishness over more lowly nationalities and couldn't resist its splendour, much as the pagans in the Roman Empire voluntarily became Christians in spite of the prospect of being martyred :). --178.249.169.67 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @178.249.169.67 What's sad is that this may well have been a well-meaning Polish wikipedian misinformed by the education system. "Polonisation occured despite maximally harsh anti-Polish policies" is precisely the way kids are taught in school here. This of course doesn't justify squat and the inconsistency should be rectified with proper sources. Matthew Zholkev (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory claims about the partitions period 

message: For the claim that 'By 1927 Hramada (the Belarusian organisation for political resistance to Polonisation - my note) was controlled entirely by agents from Moscow.', the cited source is an article published by 'the Association of Poles in Belarus' with the vitriolic title 'The Bialostok minion of Stalin' (presumably referring to a leader of that movement). Surely it should be clear that the remaining Poles in Belarus have as obvious a motive as it gets to vilify the movement that led to their no longer having a dominant position in the country?--178.249.169.67 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source