Talk:Austrian Partition

Untitled
Till the 40's there was a Germanisation effort underway.

Also the situation after 1815 is different from the situation from partitions till Duchy of Warsaw. Congress of Vienna recognized the rights of Polish people(although in limited way) and the partitioners had to act in different way. The pre-Duchy period is somewhat special as they were various direct Germanisation, Russification efforts underway. I will like help complete those articles.--Molobo (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * By all means, feel free to expand the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainians???
There is nothing in the article about the Ukrainian majority in eastern Galicia, and the article weaselly implies that the whole population of Galicia was Polish. Unless this changes I'm tagging this with "NPOV".Causantin (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is simply incomplete. Feel free to expand it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Made a start with that ("including Ukrainians into this article") today in Austrian_Partition, feel free to improve. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  23:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good start. Thanks. But please, make sure that you don't misrepresent the facts from the books you quote. Historian Door Taras Kuzio in his Ukrainian Security Policy said something quite different from what you claimed, which makes me wonder about the WP:NPOV thing. Kuzio says (quote): "By the onset of World War I, Galician Ukrainians living in the Austrian-Hungarian empire had enjoyed more than 150 years of education, from elementary to higher levels, in their mother tongue." (end of quote) — The 150 years before the onset of World War I brings us back to 1764, under Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, not Austria-Hungary. And please don't copy-paste whole sentences. The book is copyrighted.(quote) Poeticbent talk 04:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The same thing, with your other quote, where you seemed to have twisted the meaning of the "free federation" into some kind of Polish-culture-related intentions of Charles the Emperor, which is simply not in the book by Serhy Yekelchyk, Ukraine: birth of a modern nation. (quote) Poeticbent talk 04:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Included a footnote for the 150 years of education, to lead the reader to the conclusion that the definition of maintained in the sentence should be read as "To keep up or carry on; continue". —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Improved "Serhy Yekelchyk's book info" (info I found on page 61 of the book). I am afraid you read something in it that I did not intend to put in...., I apologise for that. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  14:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just did some "Fixing words for copyrights" & thanks for the advice Poeticbent. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

New title
I have given this article a new grammatically correct title, because the noun Partition is denoting a place... the real subject here, and "the Austrian" serves only as an adjective 'describing' word Partition as one of three sectors of partitioned Poland. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Feb. 2013
I noticed a swath of revisions made on the fly but without any new references or reading the references already present. Words have been changed to include political beliefs, but they don't mean the same thing. For example, a "defunct state" has been introduced. Merriam-Webster says that de·funct means "no longer living, existing, or functioning" i.e. "newspaper", "organization". Synonyms: "bygone, bypast, dead, extinct, departed, done, expired, gone, nonextant, vanished"... An invaded country does not become "defunct" by the will of the invader. It becomes an occupied state, not a defunct state. I don't know, maybe in German it means something different. Poeticbent talk 17:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The political entity that existed before the final partition clearly became defunct, just as the Second Republic did in 1939. I removed the section that states that Poland was eliminated as that word suggests finality, not something that would return.Rsloch (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is about your improper use of the phrase "defunct state", not about history... English language dictionaries don't say it the way you seem to understand it. We can say: "defunct state industries", "defunct state administration", "defunct state-owned enterprises", "defunct state farm", "now-defunct state subsidy" and so on, but not a "defunct" country such as Poland, under one of its several historic names. Please Google it if you want. No original research please. Poeticbent talk 20:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase is correctly used. Any valid objections? Rsloch (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I said, provide a bibliographic citation to reliable source please, neutral and unbiased. That's all... preferably with quotes from notable individuals holding that interpretation. Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 04:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will happily listen to valid objections not IDONTLIKE hidden behind quoting Wikipedian policy Rsloch (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)