Talk:Roman Dmowski

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, . 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Regarding My So-called "Uncited Slurs"

message: 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)
replies: text: Is this information really notable?  It seems more fit for a tabloid than an encyclopedia... Ostap 08:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed above, I am not convinced on their notability.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Per two above editors -the hoax is not notable.--Molobo (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The hoax is repeated on webster's on-line list of prominant gays and lesbians , and neohumanism.org's website  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I don't think that just about anyone is on lists of prominant gays and lesbians such as this one :.  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 , this one , , and others and has been put up on a Polish left-wing website .  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Claims of Dmowski's sexuality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Antisemitism 

message: 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)
thread_title: B-class review

message: 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)
replies: text: PS. No need, I was able to find a good English source:  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dmowski and women rights

message: (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)
thread_title: Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Roman Dmowski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:   - 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)
replies: text:  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  checks out your account as well.-69.119.170.192 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by dynamic IP2600.1001.x