Talk:Galician Peasant Uprising of 1846

Needs clarification
There are things about this article that are difficult or impossible to follow. I can't tidy it up my self because I am not a historian and don't know what really happened.

Paragraph five, beginning "Some Habsburg officials sponsored a counter-appeal to the peasantry " is fine. But it is, I presume, this appeal that is mentioned as "Austrian declarations" in the middle of paragraph three. It would make more sense to describe the Austrian appeal to the peasantry before describing its results.

The sentence from paragraph three "The peasants accused them of subjecting everyone to repressions by the “legal” partitioning authorities, who paid peasants who presented members of Tarnów’s city council with the corpses of members of the nobility" is impossible to follow. It seems that "them" means the Polish nobility, and that Tarnów’s city council were acting on behalf of the Habsburg authorities - but I can't be sure. Also this sentence has the Austrian authorities paying the peasants for the corpses of the nobility, while the next sentence has them paying for the heads. Either is credible, but not both together. Maproom (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Serious POV issues
To read this article, you'd think that the ungrateful Galician peasantry had no motives to revolt except that they were suborned by the sinister Hapsburgs against the noble and patriotic szlachta; the shocked and horrified tone of "actually preferred to cast their lot with the Habsburg dynasty" is funny to me. I have no doubt that the Hapsburg rulers engaged in the age-old tactic of divide and rule, but there's little mention here of what the peasantry's grievences were or the immediate specific incidents that lead to the revolt, other than that they were "undernourished because of bad harvests and hated their lords". Serfdom is an exploitative relationship, close to slavery, and one imagines that had some good reasons for hating their lords, no matter how patriotic said lords were. --Jfruh (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Situation Improved?

 * "Serfdom existed in Galicia until 22 April, 1848, meaning that it was abolished - and the lot of the Polish peasantry in Galicia thus fundamentally improved - in the immediate aftermath of the uprising against the local Polish nobility."

How the situation improved? What followed was famine and 2 million peasants (out of a group of less than 5 million) emigrating, mostly to the USA. The way the Austrians ended serfdom was with a great disadvantage to peasants, unlike in the Congress Poland for example, where an uprising's leaders managed to negotiate better conditions. The peasants in Galicia had to buy out their land at such a huge price that they had nothing left for food.--85.222.86.36 (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

name and other
Well, I was going to justify the POV tag I just slapped on the article, as well, as the clean up one, but I see that's already been covered. Anyway - I just created a redirect to "Rabacja" but I was thinking that that should perhaps be the actual name of the article, since that's how this episode is mostly known. Thoughts?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing was cleaned up--still a weird POV
Serfdom is by definition exploitative, and was so in Galicia as well. To reduce the grievances of the oppressed serfs to "However, most of the peasants of Austrian Poland (Galicia) were undernourished because of bad harvests and therefore hated their lords." is simply nonsensical and insulting to the victims of the parasitic nobles. I added the word "oppressed" to the text of the article. Karpaten1 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

B-class
Conforming per MILHIST review for WPPOLAND. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Fantasi histories
Yet another fake Polish history page on Wikipedia. Just a disgrace. 2A00:23C4:B607:CF00:25C2:D5D1:D96B:ED43 (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Name
I was a bit concerned with the recent move to "Galician Peasant Uprising of 1846". But a check in the sources confirms this is a name used in occasional academic sources, and it is descriptive and neutral, so I support the recent move. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)