Talk:Sarmatism

Old discussions
To translate: trzymanie si&#281; rodzimych rozwi&#261;za&#324; o bry&#322;ach gotyckich i specyficznej dekoracji stiukowej sklepie&#324;m w architekturze — w rze&#378;bie — nagrobek le&#380;&#261;cy oraz pó&#322;postaciowy; w malarstwie — zjawisko aktualizacji (wkomponowywanie w malowid&#322;a o&#322;tarzowe wizerunków osób w strojach wspó&#322;czesnych), powstanie portretu sarmackiego, m.in. trumiennego o indywidualnych cechach polskich.

Why this page is protected from editing? Ek8 16:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Check history :( And Requests_for_arbitration/Zivinbudas. I could unblock it, if you want to add something. If we are lucky we may even get a few days without the troll noticing it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Pacifism"?
Come on :) --HanzoHattori 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17th century pacifics :) Of course, there were extreme pacifists, but szlachta can be considered pacificts compared to other contemporary groups: they saw no profit in wars and had enough control of the state to ensure it didn't attack its neighbours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Freedom only for few
Well, it is true, but "Few" is rather relative. Better to write simply 10% of population, becouse in the time of when that freedom occured it was extremely high in comparence to other kingdoms in europe (most had simply less then 1% of population of which had direct influence on the goverment), in comparence to nowdays then ofcourse its very small, but "Few" in fact can mean anything (here it meant almost 1 million of inhabbitants!). Just dropping a note, hope for quick patch up ;)

Spelling, vocab & grammar
This article needs to be rewritten. Numerous errors in grammar & style; vocabulary may need a clean-up to avoid obsolete or rare words. Cleaned up some of the major eyesores already, but someone with sufficient knowledge of Polish will better understand what the author is trying to say. 129.125.179.52 09:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)ErikCats

Material from "Sarmatians" article--move here?
There's a lot of material on this matter in the article on Sarmatians. I think that material should be moved here. 72.66.108.162 13:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
 * Agreed. Also, dear anon (Stephen?), please consider registering.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree to consider. I would point out--in a friendly way--that I'm here under my real name.  I haven't registered (yet), and I haven't taken the time to inform myself on acceptable standards for substantive contributions to Wikipedia.  To date, I've only made grammar fixes and established or corrected links.  Any substantive changes I've wanted to see, I've proposed on talk pages.  On the page for Sarmatians, regrouping the sections to make clear what refers to Sarmatism as opposed to Sarmatians is by far the most substantial edit I've made to Wikipedia.  72.66.108.162 02:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza


 * Registering allows one to reply to you directly on your talk page. PS. I am also here under my real name, and from the point of your registering all minor or major edits can be easily linked to you. It also gives you many tools and since it takes just few seconds... it is highly recommended. See Why create an account?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another "Aye!" here. The material looks meaty enough. LarrisM 01:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please delete stuff from Sarmatians as soon as you incorporate it in this article because it doesn't make much sense over there. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with all of the above.--91.148.159.4 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the above. Article about Sarmatians is rasist Aryan propaganda. Polish should never abandon their place as rightfull descendents of Ancient Sarmatians.


 * My negative opinion about the sources used in Sarmatians article, which make it a bad article in overall:


 * Sources used in article are Classical authors. They put officially Sarmatians as the people of Iranian stock even if they refer like crazy to the only Asiatic Sarmatian tribe of Alans all the time forgeting about Baltic Sarmatians or Hyperboreans living in Germanic lands of Europe, so not very Asiatic or very of Iranian stock people it would seem like to be.


 * The source used in this text is Encyclopedia Britanica which stinks overly with rasist Aryan Anthroposophy. It is not a serious XXI century modern science like modern archeology and modern genetics for example.


 * Sources not used in this article are Chinese ancient authors. Are they not Anthroposophic enough to be mentioned? Or maybe they are just simply too contradicting the Encyclopedia Britanica hypothesis that Sarmatians are of "Iranian stock" statement?


 * Sources not used in this article are archeologic finds, which show clearly that the ancient Sarmatian people of Alans living in territory of modern Eastern China were also red and blond haired, so these ancient Sarmatian people known as Alans couldn't biologically be of Iranian stock according to genetic finds about gene of red hairs and its origins. These Asian Sarmatians were abviously of Germanic or Slavic peoples stock (as to use the language) just living in today's territory of Eastern China's deserts and steps. Certainly Mongols or Scythians, who were also battling China's ancient armies, were not famous in being the Asians with blond and red hairs. Which makes also sense with all classic authors reports about Sarmatians living also in Northern and Eastern Europe, which are blantantly forgotten.


 * Sources not used in article are genetic finds, which show clearly that non-Germanic and non-Iranian native people of Northern Europe with I1a and I1b Y-DNA are responsible for carrying the red hairs gene of Homo Neanderthal (native European species of man), which was passed on Homo Cromagnon (native European species of man) and then to I1 Y-DNA Homo Sapiens (the native European modern man). Now I know only of one European people who can have red hairs. They are the modern Slavic and Germanic peoples. So obviously Asiatic Sarmatians tribe of Alans have more in common with modern Slavic peoples stock, then with Iranian stock. It has to be mentioned that I1 Y-DNA natively exists only in Europe with 25% or more population of Europe having it with exception of Spain and Italy, where it is rather very rare and where we know Sarmatians historicaly never lived in ancient times. The exception seems to be only Cuacasian Ossetians, Kurds and etc, where reach of "red haired" Sarmatian I1 Y-DNA should be natural because the move of the only Asiatic Sarmatians known as Alans from territory of modern Eastern China to Caucasus, which is testifyed plentifully by both ancient Chinese authors and classical European authors.


 * Therefore I demand, as Polish Nobleman and ethnic Sarmatian man that all material about Polish Sarmatism should be moved in its Polish part entirely over to article about Sarmatian people.


 * Pan Piotr Glownia 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [PS. And by the way Germanic R1b Y-DNA is not the cause of "nordic" red and blond hairs in Europe. I1 Y-DNA is the responsible DNA and it is not Germanic Y-DNA for sure. Further its spread in Europe is very identic with places where ancient Sarmatian peoples lived in Europe according to classical authors in Europe and movememnts of Celtic people from Central Europe to Western Europe and then to British Islands.]
 * O Boze, Piotr Glownia z swoimi teoriami na wikipedii.. Mr Piotr, The remaining skeletons of Sarmatian and Scythian origina are mainly r1a. Second, y chromosome is responsible for children sex, not outlook. Third, there is no confirmation of any genetical difference between Polish nobility and the rest of the nation. Do not twist the facts or try to present your petty theories as something as established "truth" Szopen (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed Polish info from Sarmatians article, if you need to merge some info from there you can fish it from history: -- AdrianTM 16:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am pasting the removed material below, so we can consider merging it into this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have merged the useful parts, leaving the crackpot theory below.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Relation to real Sarmatians
The Polish nobles who played the central role in the structure of political power in the Rzeczpospolita believed that they were descendants of the ancient tribe, Sarmatians.

Polish coat of arms are similar to sarmatian tamgas.

The haplotype diversity and frequecy of R1a1 DNA prove that the Polish Sarmatin tradition has factual basis and is inherited from ancestors. 56% percent of Poles have the R1a1 Y chromosome gene

Discussion
As far as I know, this is a pure crackpot theory, and the above is WP:OR - none of the above articles states that there is a relation between Sarmatians and Poles. PS. To clarify: by crackpot theory I mean the one stating that the connection is real; of course it is a well-estabilished fact that many among szlachta believed in this legend. PS2. This was also discussed above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, BUT...
...this ] is a pretty straight forward attempt at introducing both WEASEL wording into the article and to POV it. And it also makes no grammatical sense: It has been alleged that while sarmatism initially supported religious belief - what does that even mean? Somebody "alleged" that? I have no idea what the problem is supposed to be with the rest of that paragraph. Likewise this edit seems to be trying to make a point. Yes, of course it was "mistaken". That's pretty clear from the article. Nowhere does the article actually claim that Polish nobility were in fact descendant from the Sarmatians. But these are 16th, 17th century people we're talking about. They didn't have access to modern historical or archeological knowledge. What is the purpose of this edit?

I would also like to know that the user named "Reichsfürst" has NOT brought up any of these issues on talk but just reverted. Likewise the edit summaries are troublesome to the extent they're false. For example, the user claims: Talk page already has agreement for this. No it doesn't. Where? There is nothing on the talk page which would support this. Please don't make use of false edit summaries. I'm fine with keeping the "myth" part, though, "legend" is probably a better word though. Another example is Paragraph is totally unreferenced, unenyclopaedic and should therefore remain in this state until consensus can be reached to the contrary) - yes, the paragraph could use a reference. So add a tag (like I did). Don't POV it. But you can't completely change a paragraph and then claim that consensus is needed to restore it's original wording, especially if you haven't even bothered discussing the change. That's not how it works. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Add: I seem to recall a former user with a very similar username (perhaps without the diacrticis?). Is there another account which we should be aware off here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to your various points. First of all I apologise for thinking that agreement had been read - I saw the comment 'As far as I know, this is a pure crackpot theory' and failed to take into account the fact that this was in regard to a separate matter; however, the point remains that the lead paragraph should reflect the fact that this myth was not one based on fact - the lead exists to summarise the article which it previously did not. Feel free to replace myth with legend, I used it initially and thought that myth might be more appropriate being a native English speaker myself.


 * Second of all the paragraph which I have significantly removed does make sense in English. The statements originally made were of the sort that peoplee vandalise pages like communism with - 'but it doesn't work!' - that is not an encylopaedic claim and the paragraph should probably be removed though the alleged change in its values is of some worth and so I think this should be kept if a source can be found. Perhaps another experienced editor should have a look at this particular paragraph? Reichsfürst (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's go with "legend". I'm still not clear on what you're trying to do with the second paragraph. Can you articulate? I think the original was fine and all it needed was a tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll do that. I'll elaborate on the problems as I see it within the second paragraph. First of all you can't say in its 'ideal' form as that's a value judgement. Second of all the statement 'looked like a good cultural movement' is unencylopaedic. Thirdly the statement 'as any doctrine that put some social class above others' is again a value judgement. Thirdly the qualification '(but compared to countries like Sweden, Germany, Russia, France, Spain, England and others freedom and tolerance were much more common)' is unnecessary, 'more common' doesn't make sense in this context and is again a value judgement. Lastly 'honesty into political naivety, pride into arrogance, courage into stubbornness, quality and freedom of szlachta into nihilism' is literary prose and not encylopaedic and its meaning is summed up in the initial sentence does have some worth if cited. Reichsfürst (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be quite so blunt - and I've changed myth to legend but forgot to add an edit description sorry. Reichsfürst (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing that prevents the inclusion of "value judgments" as you call it, or more precisely "evaluation" or "response" in Wikipedia articles. There's also nothing that makes these "unencyclopedic". The key is that such statements, like any other claims in Wikipedia articles, need to be sources and perhaps attributed. Which is what should happen here, rather than changing the paragraph. Again, I suggest a tag for now. If sources can't be found, then it can be removed/altered.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for the para 1 to be replaced by para 2. They are both unreferenced, but para 1 sounded "better". We should focus on referencing the article, and expanding it with ref sources, not on replacing one batch of unref text with another. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 22:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Para 1: "In its early, ideal form sarmatism looked like a good cultural movement: it supported religious belief, honesty, national pride, courage, equality and freedom. However as any doctrine that put some social class above others it became perverted in time. Late sarmatism transformed belief into intolerance and fanaticism (but compared to countries like Sweden, Germany, Russia, France, Spain, England and others freedom and tolerance were much more common), honesty into political naivety, pride into arrogance, courage into stubbornness, quality and freedom of szlachta into nihilism."

Para 2: "It has been alleged that while sarmatism initially supported religious belief, national pride, equality and freedom, that over time this was perverted into a form of beliefs conducive to intolerance and fanaticism."


 * Please read what I wrote above, the wording was uncyclopaedic to the extent that referencing would make little difference. Also being a native English speaker I can vouch for the fact that the initial paragraph did not sound better. I agree that we need to find a reference for the claims but in the meantime we should avoid POV statements. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's start by removing the POV magnet that is "It has been alleged that", shall we? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 00:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I added the 'alleged' is because even with citation I don't think that it this is the kind of statement that can be empirically proven given its very nature. Perhaps alleged is the wrong word but 'one view' or 'the view of ... historian' is going to be needed. For instance on the 'Criticism' section of a page like Communism it uses phrases such as 'Anarchists have often argued...' and we cannot simply say that Sarmatism turned into fanaticism, it needs to be predicated by a statement like this, but until we know who by, the word 'alleged' does that job for us. Reichsfürst (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the suggestion that the statement be attributed and contextualized is a good one, though "it is alleged" is both ungrammatical and a bit weaselly. At this point, I think we need sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of grammatical fact the statement 'It is alleged that' is the use of the passive voice and is entirely correct - see "http://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=alleged", or just read an English newspaper. Reichsfürst (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be in English, it is however not encyclopedic. Check WP:WEASEL. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 00:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this 'Some have criticised the development of Sarmatism saying that while it initially supported religious belief, national pride, equality and freedom, that over time this was perverted into a form of beliefs conducive to intolerance and fanaticism' while we get a citation. That is in line with similar statements made on other pages of similar issues. Reichsfürst (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think for now, until we get some sources, that kind of wording would be fine. The problem of course is going to be a "Some..."Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarmatism and sabres
In the second paragraph, the second sentence ends with, "and carried a saber (szabla)." The last sentence of that same paragraph says, "An inseparable element of the costume was a saber called the karabela." Szabla and karabela have their own separate pages, so they are not 2 words for the same item (or are they?). As someone not well versed in the subtle differences between various types of Polish sabres, it sounds like the Polish Sarmatians carried around 2 sabres (perhaps akin to the katana and wakizashi carried by samurai). The pictures with the article do not show anyone who clearly has two sabres. I feel like there is a clearer way to explain this, but I am not sufficiently knowledgable about the subject to offer that clarity. DrNietzsche (talk)15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dlugosz
On reading the first genealogy chapters of Dlugosz' chronicle, I don't see the Poles are in any way related to the Sarmatians there. The article given as a reference there is also not the best source for this assertion, since it offer no source whatsoever for the (little) information it provides. Remains the question: Is the assertion right? If so: Is there a better reference (with references to primary sources) for it? If not: Who then invented Sarmatism? Also, the term asserted by the Wasko article to be introduced by Dlugosz seems to be "Sarmatians", not "Sarmatism".--Oudeís talk 15:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Royal Prussia
The statement about The German-speaking Protestant burghers of Royal Prussia was challenged by an anon. Can someone double-check the source cited? - Altenmann >talk 19:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)