Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski/archive1

Józef Piłsudski
Józef Piłsudski was one of the most important politicians of the interwar period, author of the Miracle at Vistula, national hero of Poland and one of the few 'benevolent' dictators. The article has been through PR and is ranked as a GA. 60kb long, it has lots of inline citations and I hope is comprehensive and NPOVed enough to become a FA. Your comments, as always, are much appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support on wheels now. Conditional support . This is a great article but some quibbles remain:
 * Inline references are somewhat messed up. Sometimes they're in front of the comma, sometimes after, sometimes with a space and sometimes without. IIRC the MoS says there must be no space and it must be after the period or comma, like this.[1] And seeing [22][5] is not very good either, but it's really a quibble :))
 * Do we have a bot or script for this?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have a bot. Check it in action here. ^_^ I think I got them all, but someone else should check. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Poland is referred as "her" in the first phrase. Poland is not a girl, so it's an "it". :))
 * Done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * His pseudonyms should be translated (if they have a meaning that is).
 * They are. The remaining one are first names or meaningless.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The images are somewhat messed up too. There are a lot of them but they get pretty crowded. I'm sure some other reviewers will have suggestions.
 * I have attempted to fix this. Is it better now?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOSDATE, day/months in dates should wikilinked, say November 22.
 * Aren't there some who disagree with this? I prefer to leave this alone and let experts fix this. Again, isn't there a script/bot to fix this?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead could use an improvement as per WP:LEAD. The second paragraph is kinda out of place and the other one should be expanded to summarize the article.
 * I have split the names into their own section, and expand the lead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Piłsudski drove himself hard, working all day and, on a regimen  <-- you mean a regime? I don't get it...
 * Look it up 1 a : a systematic plan (as of diet, therapy, or medication) especially when designed to improve and maintain the health of a patient b : a regular course of action and especially of strenuous training --SeizureDog 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooops, my bad... The other points remain though :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  09:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all I can think of atm, I'll add a few things later maybe. Cheers, Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great article, but minor object on a few points:
 * The images need to be interleaved between the two margins; otherwise, image stacking will force gaps before section headers in some places.
 * Are images better now?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some issues with the section headings:
 * Is there really any need for a top-level "Biography" section, given that this is a biographical article? I would move the sub-sections up one level.
 * Here I'd argue that yes. The biography have subsections, which would otherwise be 'equal' not only to legacy, but to sections like qutes or references. I personally find it much more tidy if there is a biography with subsections, even if it compromises majority of an article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Fall and rise to power": maybe this is just too much familiarity with Gibbons and Shirer on my part, but the wording is somewhat jarring; there's a certain gut reaction that the words are out of order.
 * Fixed Mieciu K 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "The benevolent dictator, the great leader": somewhat questionable to use such a naked assertion as a section heading, as context and citation is essential for such a statement.
 * Fixed Mieciu K 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "The death": should be just "Death".
 * Fixed Mieciu K 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the "Quotes" section, why is Joseph Conrad's view of any relevance? He's hardly a sophisticated political commentator or recognized historian; the inclusion seems slightly hagiographic.
 * Well, it is a quote and IIRC it was in the article before I rewrote it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's not a very relevant quote here. The majority of the quotes is at WikiQuote, and the ones left in the article should be those of particular importance; I would argue that Conrad's isn't one of them. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I generally agree that quotes should go to Wikiquote, so I moved the entire section there, and intext replaced Condrad with Mościcki (1935) and Sejm (1995).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a funny extra space after the "Marshals of Poland" template that I can't figure out.
 * Overall, though, this is quite good; I'll be happy to support once the above issues are resolved. Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support now that the significant issues have been resolved. I'm still hoping somebody will figure out what the problem with the template spacing at the bottom is, though. Kirill Lokshin 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I don't see anything strange around that template... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  Conditional Support.  As Kirill Lokshin points out, there are some image-alignment issues in this article, and the ToC needs reformatting due to the top-level biogrpahy section. The footnoting, however, is among the most extensive I have ever seen, bravo. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 17:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I work under a motto that 'in a FA-class article, every single fact should be referenced' :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I altered the ToC, don't claim it is outstanding but is IMHO better than the previous one... -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  21:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Everything is now in order, and I support fully. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Could persondata be added to this article? TheGrappler 11:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe... I have never done it before. Could you do it, perhaps?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the template. -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnx!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I reformatted it a little to put it into the style suggested at WP:PERSON. I generally find it's better if people who are a little knowledgable about the matter fill in fields like "name", "alternative names" and "description" since they're more likely to get a summary right. Anyway that was handy, thanks. TheGrappler 20:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. All the articles proposed here by Piotrus have become battle grounds for disgusting, incessant revert warring, because this editor's sole aim here is to propagate Polish POV. I have not seen a single NPOV article by him. Enough is enough. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ghirlandajo, you have already been warned once by Arbcom to avoid incivility or personal attacks (see Requests for arbitration/AndriyK). Balcer 14:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop your habitual personal attacks. Since you start revert warring even here, when this article has not been promoted, I envisage what a mess the article would become when you move your crusade to main space. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  14:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that you are honing your technique of blackening the reputation of other Wikipedians to a fine art. I simply restored my quite innocent comment in reaction to your personal attack against Piotrus, which you unceremoniously erased, and now this single edit is considered to be "revert warring" by me.  Furthermore, could you provide some evidence that I make "habitual" personal attacks?  You do realize that unfairly accusing others of making personal attacks is a form of personal attack.  Balcer 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since even my vote here provoked bouts of reverting rage, I leave this voting in disgust. My prediction is that Józef Piłsudski will spawn revert wars, just like other Piotr's opera - featured or not featured - have been. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  14:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ghirla, since Pilsudski is an entirely Polish story (minus the 1920 war), I don't see how it could be of a slightest concern. We used to have some problems with articles related to relationships of Poland with other countries, where POV might be a concern, but honestly, whether Polish editors consider him a dictator or a genius, it is all the same for me. This is Józef Piłsudski, not Warsaw Uprising or Polish September Campaign. -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your remark shows two things: first, you don't know what you are talking about, second, the article is biased and incomplete. `'mikka (t) 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I tried to fix some of the image alignment, as there are quite a few images (I believe one of the requirements for FA status). I also tried to delink some of the authors who I found to be not notable, and some miscellaneous other things. I am in the process of taking mere links and converting them into references. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnx for the copyediting! As for authirs, I prefer to leave them ilinked, in time we have more and more articles on them. Do you have a good rule to determine their notability quickly? For example, I wrote a stub on Piotr S. Wandycz, who seems quite notable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Usually, they are notable if they have written numerous books on one subject and therefore qualify as an author/academic too. If they are a professor then that adds to their notability. But other than that, I know no ways to determine notability, and especially on foreign authors I have no knowledge. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - I would still add something about the effect Pilsudski's death had on the policies of the Polish government. Right now the article implies that even though he was a dictator and died in office, his departure changed nothing.  In fact, the policies of the "Colonels" became much more radical after his death.  Also, there was an attempt to replace Piłsudski by building up the figure of Rydz-Śmigły, who was to be in effect his successor.  That should also be explained. Balcer 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is far from neutral. All good is exposed in detail, all bad is covered in 1-2 "neutral" sentences, portraying him so positive that it is unclear why Pilsudski is hated by Ukrainians and Belarussians. Most notable blunders of the aricle:
 * His sanacja was a precursor version of fascism
 * No it wasn't if you think it was please provide sources. Mieciu K 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * His pacification of ukrainian indepencence movement (called nicely and neutrally "terrorists" in the article) bordered on henocide.
 * Genocide is a strong word, would you have any references to that? Now fairly recently we rewrote the polonization article, which describes the plight of minorities in SPR. While it does not paint a pretty picture, it certainly is far from genocide (or bordering on one). Especialy as Piłsudski represented the political faction that wanted to make allies of minorities. On a final note, we have a good example of contemporary genocide of Ukrainians just across the border (holodomor). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I Soviet Union all repression are blamed upon Stalin, but in Poland "good" Pilsudski, as this article says, left most of the internal matters in the hands of his "colonels", which is clearly bullshit: a dictator didn't care about putting his political opponents into concentration camps ?!.
 * What concentation camps? There was one camp "with a bad reputation" for political prisoners in Bereza Kartuska, according to different sources 4 to 20 people died there during the 5 years of it's existance (the proportion of them of them died of non-natural causes is unknown). Calling Bereza Kartuska a concentration camp (in the post 1930s meaning of that word), is a serious abuse of that term. Mieciu K 10:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Polish people love Pilsudski now. But the opinion of Pilsudski about Polish people was way far from love. And IMO most of his actions in internal politics was influenced by his low esteem of his own nation, which he expressed on multiple occasions. In the article it is all mutual love.
 * "Low-self esteem of his own nation"? is it your own original reaserch or do you have any sources? Every politic is from time to time dissatissfied with the lack of understanding of his actions and goals by the general public. Mieciu K 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And there is more of these small "nicifications" of Pilsudski. Unfortunately I don't have sufficient knowledge to fix the problems.  `'mikka (t) 01:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also leave a copy of this on the talk page. I would love to discuss it there further. I have no particular knowledge of Pilsudski myself, but that didn't prevent me from improving the article. I used Britannica and Encarta and sourced my statements in the article. Surely you can do the same? That's the beauty of Wikipedia, being able to change and edit articles for the better if you believe they can be improved. And certainly you believe this one can. Please also source your belief sanacja was a fascist precursor, so as to discern it from personal opinion. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 03:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a plenty of other work to do. Yes, "precursor of fascism", along with most of my text above is my opinion (based on some reading). If I had any references at hand, I'd put something into the article. (In fact, I am in error: Mussolini started it earlier; like I said, I am not good in history) I just don't care in his case: overall the aricle is not bad. It is only not yet of "featured" status being too glorifying of this Polish version of Pinochet. `'mikka (t) 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggesting that Piłsudski ordered the deaths of his political adversaries (this is what the above mentioned dictators did) without any sources is not only against the rules of wikipedia it is also simply rude. And I have never heared of fascisim in the pre- 2 world war polish goverment, even the elite polish cavalery units like the "12th "podolski" Ulhan regiment- had a semi official motto - "Trochę Żydów trochę panów, to 12 pułk ułanów" - some Jews, some nobility, this is the 12th ulhan regiment. Does this sound "fascist"? Mieciu K 12:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For the volunteers: here are some references that compare Pilsudism and fascism: Wolfgang Wippermann Europaischer Faschismus im Vergleich(1922-1982), 1983, W. Wippermann. Totalitarismustheorien. Die Entwicklung der Diskussion  von  den Anfangen bis heute. Darmstadt, 1997. (the texts actually disagree with this opinion by drawing some distinctions and mentioning that there were "real" fascists in Poland: Bolesław Piasecki's "Oboz  Narodowo-Radykalny  -  Falanga") `'mikka (t) 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible that the article has some POV. I hope that people who think so will join us in editing the article. Thanks for the references, unfortunately they are rather hard to access. Still, as you note in their review, Sanacja was quite different from facism. I will look for particular references, but I do particulary remember I read somewhere a pretty good article on why calling sanacja 'facist' is a big mistake. And I again agree with you that Piasecki's ONR was much more facist, basically, the entire endecja (Dmowski) was much more facist then Piłsudski. Ironic that in Poland, the dictator saved the country from facism, while in Germany it was the opposite...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 07:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Mikka for now. More problems (some are oviously POV) in chronological order (added later: "I am converting my entries below into a <tt>typewriter font</tt> because editors complain that it is hard to tell what is said by me and what's not, following the interjections, I will also add a sig Irpen in the end of each statement. --Irpen)
 * <tt>The article ommitts that he was not a Pole but a Litvin, a member of Polonized but Lithuanian nobility. This has been stated by me at talk a while ago and caused no reaction.</tt> --Irpen
 * "he was not a Pole but a Litvin" that is a serious claim, got sources? And when was that family polonized? About 200 years earlier? Thinking the same way we can even add that "his family not a catholic but a pagan, a member of Polonized but Lithuanian nobility converted to catholicism." Mieciu K 10:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We discussed that at talk. The only reference you provided there was Henryk Sienkiewicz's Trylogia... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>His childhood experience of the Russian gymnasium education forced upon the proud Polonophile (no offence, there is nothing wrong with a member of the oppressed nation to be its -phile) is ommitted along with the impact of such experience, solidifying of his hatred towards Russia, its czar, its people, its language and its culture.</tt> --Irpen
 * Actually this is discussed in the first para of his bio, feel free to expand with note on the gymnasium if you think it needs to be stressed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>His expelling from Kharkov University was formally for disorderly conduct, participation in the students disorders (riots) rather than mere membership in Narodniks.</tt> --Irpen
 * I have not seen that detail in my refs. Feel free to add it with a ref.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>His activity in Siberian excile, imposed on the false charges, is ommitted. It consisted in private teaching and 6-momhts imprisonement for inciting the mutiny (again, I am not judgemental here)</tt> --Irpen
 * <tt>The activity of PPS, he organized, largely consisted of the targeted assasinations, as well as robberies for the Revolution sake. Ommitted. </tt> --Irpen 05:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That,s what revolutionaries at the beginning of the 20th century did. So what's so significant sbout that? Mieciu K 10:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually as we discussed before at Talk:Związek Walki Czynnej Piłsudski himself was not involved in any assasinations. As for PPS or other organizations - it is possible, although it would be nice to have a source for that. Although as Mieciu notes, being a revolutionary kind of implies such behaviour anyway...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>The description of his peculiar travel to Japan ommits that he offered not just intelligence cooperation but assistance to Japan in their war with Russia through terrorism the acts of subversive destruction and sabotage.</tt> --Irpen
 * That's what "freedom fighters" at the beginning of the 20th century did. So what's so significant about that? Mieciu K 10:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We have an entire para on that, with references for Piłsudski offering to organize an uprising. Terrorism is a rather POVed term and it would be good if you'd have a citation for it. Sabotage is likely, especially as Japanese gave PPS some ammo and such, but again ref would be nice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>The authors decided to present his 1905 activities in the context of the Russian Revolution of 1905, a legit angle if you ask me. However, then it becomes relevant that he refused to cooperate with any of many Russian revolutionary movements (Bolsheviks, Menshevik, Socialist-Revolutioners and others), considering the new Russia as much an enemy of Poland as the old one.</tt> --Irpen
 * Interesting. If you have a ref, do expand the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>Cooperation of his ZWC with the Austrian Imperial authorities is conveniently phrased as "permission" (I added some on that to the Związek Walki Czynnej article some time ago)</tt> --Irpen
 * Well, how else would you phrase it? I don't see where are you going here?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>His crushing of the Ukrainian independence is presented as simply "clash with Ukrainian forces". Followed by a highly controvercial statement "soon it became apparent that the real enemy of both nations was the Bolsheviks." as if Polish crashing of the Ukrainians was a friendly gesture.</tt> --Irpen
 * Polish-Ukrainian War did not crash the independence of Ukraine, only resolved a territorial dispute. Ukrainian independence was by Soviets - Piłsudski wanted to preserve the independent Ukrainian state (under Petliura); but Soviets wanted to create a Soviet Ukrainian Republic on those territories, and got them at Riga.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>His intrusion into Ukraine is presented as an "alliance" for the sake of Ukrainians themselves (much said on that in PSW and Kiev Offensive articles).</tt> --Irpen
 * The text clearly states what Piłsudski expected from Ukrainians in exchange. And yes, independent Ukraine was one of Piłsudski's goals, no matter how hard you try to ignore that fact.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>The P.-sponsored intrusions into Ukraine following Riga to help the local insurrections are ommitted.</tt> --Irpen
 * I have never heard of such intrusions. Could you elaborate, with refs? I am on the other hand aware of S.-sponsored intrustions into Poland, which led to the creation of Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>Interment of Ukrainian "allies" as soon as they became unnecessary is ommitted.</tt> --Irpen
 * Piłsudski's criticism of Riga is mentioned, feel free to expand on why he was critical of it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>The entire controversy of the camps for war prisoners, were Russians and Ukrainians died en masse, and the murder of the Red Cross mission is ommitted as if P. had nothing to do with that.</tt> --Irpen
 * Stop. There is only one reason why there are no Polish books about "[Polish] camps for war prisoners, were Russians and Ukrainians died en masse" because no proof was found that such camps ever existed. If you have any serious sources to support your thesis (that the death toll in Polish camps for prisinors of war was higher than in other camps of that era), please provide them. Mieciu K 10:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We have a well referenced article on Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924). POWs died on both sides from the rampaging post-IWW pandemics, although as article clearly shows Russian press tried to exaggerate the Russian POW casualties and create 'a balance' for Katyn. On the other hand, there were quite a few examples of mistreatment of Polish POWs, up to and including executions (prelude to Katyn...). I don't think Piłsudski was in charge of camps, and most certainly the unfortunate murder of the Red Cross team, described by Davies, was a spontaneous crime of some low-level soldiers, with no connection to any high-level officers (not to mention P.). Or do you have refs to the contrary?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>That Pilsudski attempted to coerse Lithuanians into the Union by offering them Vilnius for that is nowhere in the article.</tt> --Irpen
 * Haven't seen that in my refs, certainly if you have them, that's another interesting fact to add to the article. Although wouldn't 'bribe' me more correct then 'coerce'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>When the article speaks of "Stabilization and improvement" following his coup it does not explain the extent of such "improvement". No word at all how poorly was economy doing (BTW even by 1939 Poland didn't reach the industrial output of its territory of 1913 when it was supposed to be in a miserable shape as the Russia-oppressed unfriendly province).</tt> --Irpen
 * Refs? Great Depression put a major dent on all worldwides outputs around that time, and Poland also had to rebuild territory completly devastated by IWW.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>Article pays just a leap service to the political repression, which btw, didn't start in '30s, following the sejm dissolution as the article states, but immediately following the '26 coup (the conspicuous 1926 case of General Tadeusz Jordan-Rozwadowski arrested on the false corruption charges who soon dies suspiciously stands out). The Sejm dissolution itself is also ommitted as well as the rigged election.</tt> --Irpen
 * Feel free to expand on it if you have refs for it. The Polish legislative election, 1930 (on which I wrote the article) is linked in the text.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>The description of the condition of minorities following the coup being called "less then satisfactory, despite Pilsudski's efforts" is "less than satisfactory" for sure.</tt> --Irpen
 * So you consider that sentance accurate, but you don't like it? Mieciu K 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, feel free to expand on it. We have refs for what we have, including that Piłsudski's polices were viewed favourably by most minorities, whose situation improved under his regime.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>Ommitted is the corruption and incompetence, hidden by the ultra-patriotic propaganda, of the narrow circle of his friends in power following the coup, see for instance the condition of the economy of which which Pilsudski didn't hesitate to admit he knew nothing about.</tt> --Irpen
 * Refs, refs, and refs. And I wonder if this article is the best place for going into details of his 'colonels' actions?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * <tt>Enough for now. The article has a wealth of factual info and lots of refs. I agree with Mikka that there are lots of good in the article. I do not want to put a very well warranted (as per this list and Mikka's) POV tag all over it but I oppose its promotion as it is definetely not ready for the main page.</tt> --Irpen 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you give some references for that, and hopefully edit the article? I do agree that the article shows Piłsudski as a rather positive figure, but those were the sources I (and other editors) apparently had to work with.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great article; very comprehensive.--Kober 07:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per about 80% of the concerns raised above. Needs to be more balanced and thorough. Also, stylistic issues: 1) do away with completely superfluous "Biography" heading. 2) clean up external links (no need to link to a single picture, a geocities site, etc). Image thumbnail sizes seem to be all over the place - try and make them more uniform. heqs 14:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have addressed some the stylistic issues. I discussed biography heading above. I don't see what's wrong with the geocities cite?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'biography' heading is unnecessary and not standard form for biography articles on wikipedia.
 * Further comment: I do not think that this article quite satisfies the requirement for "compelling, even brilliant" prose. It's good but not great. heqs 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I reasoned above, 'biography' is useful and found in many articles. There is a difference between 'biography' and 'encyclopedic article'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 18:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Piotrius, Piłsudski was a positive figure. Maybe it’s not acceptable for some Russians here but we must stick to the reliable sources. Ldingley 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A very well explained vote! --Irpen 05:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose initially I planned to support the proposition. The cavalier way that user:Mieciu K dismissed a more balanced approach to the portrayal of the man gives me pause to do so. A portrait of a Great Man, needs to be presented "warts and all", otherwise you get a portrait of someone like Stalin with a halo over his head, receiving flowers from smiling children. When these issues giving us a more balanced article (which includes the good, the bad, and the ugly), I will change my vote to support. Although it is not of any importance to our discussion, I personally like Pilsudski, and think he was a Great Man. Like everyone he had flaws, and "issues", and these should be examined and included. Dr. Dan 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to judging the article about Józef Piłsudski, this is vote is not about me and my actions. I have made only one revert of an unsourced claim. Do these edits look like edits of a "polish nationalist who wants to hide the truth"? (they were later modified by me and sources have been added). These are the 2 most significant "bad issues" (that I have heard of) about Piłsudski's regime that are mentioned by most mainstream Polish historians. Are these issues bad enough? Of course we could adress many more issues, but do we have place to write eg. about the foreign reletions and military conflicts between Poland and Lithuania (1918-1935)in an article that is supposed to be (just) an overview od Jozef Piłsudsk's life? Many facts about the Polish second republic have to still be covered in the English Wikipedia (many of them bad for it's reputation) but do we have to mention them all in the Jozef Piłsudski article? Mieciu K 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Who called you that here? No straw men, please. heqs 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't write that someone called me a Polish nationalist, and Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur (nobody can be punished for his thoughts) Mieciu K 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? As Mieciu notes, we are not judging him but the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 18:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You want specific, here's specific.
 * Irpen: (hard to be sure it's him because the continuity of his points were constantly challenged and interrupted)"The activity of the PPS, he organized, largely consisted of the targeted assassinations, as well as robberies for the Revolution sake." (sic)
 * "Ommitted".
 * Mieciu: "That,s (sic) what revolutionaries at the beginning of the 20th century did, So what's so significant about that?"
 * Irpen: "His peculiar travel to Japan ommits that he offered not just intelligence cooperation but assistence to Japan in their war with Russia through terror and sabotage."(sic)
 * Mieciu: "That's what "freedom fighters" at the beginning of the 20th century did. What's so significant about that?"
 * These responses were arrogant and cavalier. If Irpen, or whomever believes these are factual and significant questions that need to be resolved before putting the article as a "Featured Article", on the main page, let's do it. I look forward to changing my vote. In the meantime is that specific enough? Dr. Dan 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * With the disclaimer that I am not a native English speaker, I don't think that Mieciu's replies are "arrogant and cavalier". Brief, yes, but not IMHO uncivil.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 01:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aren't you supposed to assume good faith? I just wanted to point out that to a person who knows the history of early XX century Europe it is alrerady known what the words "revolutionary" and "freedom fighter" mean. I do not object to the suggestions of Irpen, I just wonder do we have the space to realise his suggestions in an overview article ("what's so significant about that?"). I am not a native english speaker, my skills ar at level 3 "This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English." so judge the content of my edits and not their context or style. And again - aren't we supposed to judge the article instead of my actions? I am not preventing anyone from improving this article. Mieciu K 09:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was asked for specifics and therefore gave specifics.
 * Do I think the remark What's so significant about that?, is "uncivil"? No!
 * Do I think it's "arrogant and cavalier"? Yes!
 * Evidently Irpen thought these points were significant enough to be considered in this debate about the article, and should have been given the courtesy to get a more helpful response. Dr. Dan 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. Let's make the article balanced and non-POV, and make it a featured article as soon as possible. There's basically only a few points that need to be tweaked, and we're there!


 * Reluctantly oppose. When there are so many good paper references it's a shame to see so many purely web references, but web references of the form "this website" (just some lycos website) and the ref [37] to "some left wing papers" are unacceptable. If you are citing a website, make sure that you have a date of last access and the publisher at the very least. Making the website a genuinely "reliable source" would also be helpful. TheGrappler 20:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because a website is a lycos website does not discredit it in the least bit. Yes, reliability is something of a priority, but I'll leave that to Pyotr (because I didn't insert the link in the first place). Why are those "left-wing articles", as you dub them, unreliable? They are not papers, they are articles. Articles just then as articles are today. And generally they are very reliable. I don't see how you can discredit something if you can't read the language in which it is written (you can't speak Russian, I assume, naturally). I hope I haven't sounded testy, because I have the utmost respect, thank you. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 06:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: If those articles are Russian, and I think they are, then this article isn't as POV as people make it seem. The Russians hated Pilsudski because he was a nationalist and revolutionary, linking to Russian documents just gives another point of view. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 06:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added that link, it can be described more specificly as "First-hand reports of mistreatment of prisoners in Bereza Kartuska and other related texts published in the 1930s" The site is Belarusian, but the texts are in Polish one text by a right-wing "Gazeta Polska" which writes that the camp is necessary ("Obozy koncentracyjne. Tak" Concentration camps. Yes), and articles by the left wing Robotnik (1894-1939) (it was an organ of Polish Socialist Party, Piłsudski was for a time that party's member.) Of course they may be partialy made up, but they give an overview of the situation at that time. There are many other sources related to the Bereza Kartusak camp, but this is the best internet link that I could find at a short notice. Mieciu K 09:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Update, this link actualy links to an article about the legal aspects of functioning of the camp, and contains "a selection of 1930s articles". The article is written by dr Wojciech Śleszyński who is an author of a book about Bereza Kartuska (english desciption) the english translation of the title is "Isolation camp in Bereza Kartuska 1934-1939). So the only problem with this link is that it is in Polish. Mieciu K 10:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand my point. I've not got a problem with the reliability, but the references are very sloppily cited (i.e. it's a WP:CITE problem, not a WP:RS). In what kind of scholarly work would you see a reference that said "There's a bunch of left-wing articles on this lycos website"? Incidentally, are all the articles on that site about the point that they were being cited for? If not, make the reference specific to the article(s) or section of article that's relevant. The bottom line is, what was really being cited were articles, not the website, so please actually cite the articles (details like author, date, title, publication... all that standard WP:CITE stuff), make a note that they are available online on that website, then put in a date of last access as you should for any web reference. Anything less than that is sloppy. TheGrappler 10:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I think this has been now fixed. As for lycos website, putting aside the provider, it is a pretty good site. True, it's not an academic per se, but has quite a lot of useful information and seems rather reliable (for a non-academic elink ref).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Blogs and personal websites, like any self-published sources with no editorial oversight, are frowned upon/disqualifiable, except in rare cases when they are from a person who is a well respected authority in their field. Same thing should apply for articles etc. stored or copied on personal sites - again, no oversight. Then there's the issue of linking to copyrighted newspaper articles etc which happen to be on blogs and personal websites -- directly linking to copyright violations is also frowned upon. I'm sure we all stretch this one a little now and then, especially when digging up historical info. I'm not necessarily discrediting this source, just pointing it out. heqs 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles themselves seem notable enough, so I am prepared to withdraw my objections now that the referencing looks better. But I second what Heqs said. TheGrappler 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point now, Grap. Aaрон Кинни  (t) 12:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose by now. Very good article with exemplary referencing but needs some balancing per Mikka and Irpen. A few balanced sentences in and I would change my vote to support abakharev 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what needs to be balanced, and it will be done. Mikka and Irpen have raised some points, we have addressed them here (and in the article). I especially tried to source all information that may be POVed, if there is anything which seem POVed and not sourced, please tag it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 15:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have looked through the changes in the article since July 9. It still looks like Irpen's and Mikka's concerns are not addressed, the only "balancing" statement that appeared there was that JP was not a good achiever as a secondary school student. I am sorry, but my vote has not changed yet. abakharev 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then provide some sources that can be used to justify other citations. I have asked Irpen for sources (and gotten none), and gotten none. Mikka has provided two offline German language publications which I cannot obtain nor read, but if he would like to do some edits using them, he is free to do so. But untill I am given some sources supporting the POVedness claims, I cannot do much edits - but of course you and others can, assuming you have those sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 22:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Why weak? There's plenty of room for possible expansion, as suggested by Irpen and Mikka. However, I don't see any real POV in the article that should be corrected, rather their arguments refer to possible omissions of interesting, yet not really crucial facts from his life. Otherwise, the article is really nice.  // Halibutt 08:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)