Talk:Polonization: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:30, 6 June 2006

Latest revision as of 19:12, 15 April 2025

(529 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

==Old talk==

{{commonwealth english}}

Pilsudski Litwin? Kosciuszko Bialorusin? Wobec tego kazdy Polak ze wschodu nie byl Polakiem? Litwin Pilsudski odbil Wilno rodakom by podarowac Polsce... A Bialorusin Kosciuszko walczyl o odrodzenie silnej Rzplitej, by znow "polskie pany" panoszyly sie na Rusi...

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=

{{WikiProject Eastern Europe}}

{{WikiProject Ethnic groups}}

{{WikiProject Poland|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Lithuania|importance=High|comments=}}

{{WikiProject Belarus|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Rusyns|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=High|needs-infobox=no|imageneeded=no|mapneeded=no}}

{{WikiProject Sociology |class= |importance= Mid |needs-infobox= no}}

{{WikiProject Economics |class=|importance=Low |needs-infobox=no}}

{{WikiProject Globalization |importance=Low |needs-infobox=no}}

}}

{{Archive box|search=yes|

* [[Talk:Polonization/Archive 1|Archive 1]] <small>(Dec 2004–Oct 2006)</small>

* [[Talk:Polonization/Archive 2|Archive 2]] <small>(Feb 2007–Sept 2009)</small>

}}

__TOC__

{{Clear}}

== Lack of neutrality, historical/geographical accuracy. ==

Moja rodzina ze strony ojca pochodzi z Wilna, a matki z Lidy - czyli jestem "Litewskim-Bialorusinem" (szkoda, bo jako Polak zylo mi sie calkiem przyjemnie) :) Tak jak Gorale mowia o sobie ze sa Goralami, jak Slazacy ze sa Slazakami, jak Mazowszanie ze sa Mazowszanami itd, rowniez Polacy z Litwy (nie mowie o panstwie) nazywali (czasami) siebie samych Litwinami - co nie mialo nic wspolnego z narodem litewskim, a regionem w ktorym mieszkali i kochali. Kresowiacy byli szczegolnie przywiazani do swojej ziemi jak i rowniez wyrozniajacymi sie patriotami (dla wszelkich watpliwosci - polskimi), nazywanie ludzi jak Pilsudski i Kosciuszko "spolonizowanymi", graniczy z obraza--[[User:Emax|Emax]] 03:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After reading the article and in particular the section on Belarus I noted a complete lack of neutrality and historical/geographical accuracy. I invite interested editors to have a closer look at the article and especially the segment about polonization of Western Belarus. References are also worth checking because I think they are misleading.--[[User talk:Mamalala|<span style="color:Blue">'''''Mamalala'''''</span>]] 05:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

let me disagree with you, try not think of them as thought they lived nowadays. Calling them polonized is a historical truth, despite the fact it might be a bit dissapointing for our "nationality". Honestly most of great people of union times had their roots somewhere in Belarus or Lithuania and they conidered themselves to be rather lithuanian then polish. The point is, that they all had one sovereign who lived in polish land and was conidered to be polish king. Mostly it was the main reason why they felt polish (meaning inhabitants of union lands) as well as lithuanian - believe me or not but such a feeling can be often spotted nowadays, too. For example people from eastern Poland (mostly the old ones) may consider themselves to be lithuanian as well as polish - it looks the same in lithuania.

::Dear Mamalala. Here is the link to the leading authoritative Belarusian history textbook, given as a source: http://kamunikat.org/drukavac_staronku.html&refid=10413. You could buy this book (it has five volumes) here http://www.books.ru/shop/books/720476, http://www.books.ru/shop/books/719981, etc. Another book cited is the most modern textbook of Czigrynow, which could be acquired there http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4759455/. (some may wonder why it is 2010, but look in description and its really was published in 2010.

Tadas Kosciuška was Lithuanian. Read what he sayd about poles in: T. Korzon. Tadeusz Kosciuszko. You will be very surprised. Joseph Pilsudski was polonised Lithuanian ([[Samogitian]]). [[User:Zivinbudas|Zivinbudas]] 11:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::As for Google books sources, of course you could freely recheck completely everything which is contained in this subsection concerning Belarus yourself, without any calls to others. If you would find anything which is not in accordance with the text in subsection, please give me exact book, its page and citation from subsection, and we will double recheck it. But I have spend considerable time to make sure everything is completely and rightly sourced. More info would follow later, especially on armed resistance and partisan war against Poland. Please, also consult Polish wikipedia, I would like to thank unknown Poles who have written extensively on Belarusian political parties in Western Belarus and Belarusian political leaders. [[User:Vlad fedorov|Vlad fedorov]] ([[User talk:Vlad fedorov|talk]]) 17:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

: The best solution would be to refrain from referencing confusing nationalities (mixing past with present), just write undisputable fact that 'xxx was a citizen of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.' --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]} 13:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

== [[Matejko]] Painting ==

: Kościuszko była kobietą --[[User:Monkey Man|Monkey Man]] 17:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

{{relevant discussion|File talk:Subdue of Ruthenia in 1366.png#Cornerstone laying ceremony}}

If I'm not mistaken, the original title of the [[File:Subdue of Ruthenia in 1366 .png|thumb|right|''Ruthenia subdued'', a 19th century picture by [[Jan Matejko]]]] painting is "''Powtórne zajęcie Rusi. Bogactwo i oświata''". In the article it is rendered as "''Ruthenia subdued''". Wouldn't a more accurate translation be " The Re-occupation of Ruthenia. Wealth and education"? [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 16:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

:That's the title I knew, perhaps the picture is known under various titles. It's not that uncommon. Do what you please. ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 10:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

::Jakiej nazwy jeszcze mozna bylo czekac od Jana Matejki? Ale smieszny jest, mylic Rossje i Halycje, moze tylko fantasta Matejko. [[User:Vlad fedorov|Vlad fedorov]] ([[User talk:Vlad fedorov|talk]]) 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But [[III Lithuanian Statute]] of [[1588]] very '''clearly''' divides citizenship of [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]] from the citizenship of [[Kingdom of Poland]]. So we have to state that ''there wasn't common citizenship'' in [[Confederation]] of [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]]. [[User:Zivinbudas|Zivinbudas]] 15:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::: Polish ''Ruś'' (Ruthenia) doesn't mean ''Rosja'' ([[Russia]]). See: [[Galicia–Volhynia Wars]] - it isn't science fiction :). --[[User:Kynikos Vodyanoi|Kynikos Vodyanoi]] ([[User talk:Kynikos Vodyanoi|talk]]) 06:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

::::A better translated title, one which takes the actual content of the work into account, is "The second work of Ruthenia. Wealth and education", which depicts, according to a catalog of Matejko's works, the [[cornerstone]] laying ceremony of a Roman Catholic cathedral at [[Lviv]]. Casimir's expansion into [[Ruthenia]]. [[Casimir III the Great]], holding the [[Piotrków-Wiślica Statutes]], throws a ring for the establishment of the first Roman Catholic church in Lviv. ([[File talk:Subdue of Ruthenia in 1366.png#Cornerstone laying ceremony|see citation here]]) —[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 23:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

== Problems with the section on Belarus ==

:Yes, partially the GDL citizenship is defined as equal to the [[boyar]] state, which however never came fully into life as it was in conflict with the [[Union of Lublin]] (especially the most important part which forbade the acquisition of lands in the GDL by "foreigners"). Also, it did not define who these foreigners were and the distinction between Polish and Lithuanian gentry was not defined either. For instance there was no separate category for a huge group of Lithuanian gentry (that eventually became 99% of it) that was of Ruthenian or Lithuanian ancestry, but were adopted by the Polish [[szlachta]] after the Union of Lublin and shared the same rights as they had in Poland. So, all in all, it was not defined as clearly as you state. Also, the III Statute was in use in former GDL until 1840, that is long after the GDL ceased to exist. Do you suggest that Imperial Russia allowed for a different citizenship of part of its servants? If we have to state anything, it should be noted that the matter is much more complex than you describe it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 19:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

There's a number of issues with the recently-added section on Belarus.

:::As to Pilsudski, he clearly defined himself as Lithuanian, which on the other hand had nothing to do with the 20th century Lithuanian state. And he repeated that in the Polish parliament several times (just imagine the faces of the Polish nationalists when he underlined that :) ). [[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]]

# For instance, it states that the Polonisation met with armed resistance. What exactly was that armed resistance? If I recall correctly the Belarusians fought alongside the Poles against the Russians. I never heard of any armed resistance there against the government, except for the Commie partisans crossing the new border with the USSR in the early 1920s. Any details on that?

# ''closure of Belarusian Orthodox churches''. Shouldn't we mention that in many cases they were not closed down but instead restored to the church that built those churches in the first place? In countless cases Roman and Greek Catholic churches were simply converted to Orthodox churches by the tsarist authorities in 19th century and then they were simply restored to the believers of those faiths.

# ''enforced Catholicization''. Now this is something strange. Does this remark refer to 17th century [[Jesuits]]? Or 20th century? Or perhaps some other period?

# ''violations of election rights based on falsification of the population census'' - correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a huge difference between [[general elections]] and [[population census]]. [[Suffrage|Electoral rights]] do not typically include any mention of population censuses. How exactly are the two related?

# ''confiscation and redistribution of the land to the landlords of Polish nationality'' - this seems like a blatant lie or a huge understatement. We should also mention that the land was not confiscated from local landowners but rather from the tsar and Russian nobility who fled Poland in 1915. Moreover, it was distributed to people of Polish nationality regardless of their ethnicity (see the article on [[osadnik]]).

# ''imprisoning of prominent Belarusian intellectuals and leaders in a notorious concentration camp Bereza Kartuska'' - this again was not a sign of discrimination, as the largest ethnic groups among the inmates at the prison camp of Bereza were Poles (43%) and Jews (33%). Besides, people were sent there not because of their ethnicity but because of their involvement in Commie or Ukrainian terrorism. Sure, I don't mean that the prison was a paradise or that sending people there against the Polish law of the time was right, but how exactly was it a sign of discrimination? If so, then the prison was mostly polonising the Poles imprisoned there (largest group)... Sounds absurd to me.

# ''forcing migration of Belarusians from Western Belarus'' - this again would need some explanation. Were there [[ethnic cleansing|ethnic purges]] organised there? Were people evicted from their land for being Belarusians, Jews, Poles or whoever else?

On a wider note, we could use some source to say that the grim situation of, say, Belarusian peasants near Hrodna was any different from the situation of, say, Polish peasants from around Kielce. Including police brutality and corruption among local officials and Army recruitment centres. ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 10:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another problematic section is the one on "Polish political terror". There's a number of disputable statements there (who the heck is this Valitzky S.? What "documents with Polish nationality" were there in pre-war Poland, as there was no such field in the contemporary passports or birth certificates and the military IDs listed only religion and not ethnicity), but more importantly there's a huge problem with the spirit of that part. It lists various facts from the history of Polish authorities' struggle against the Communist activists and suggests they were being persecuted not because they were Commies, but because they were Belarusians or Jews. Which is simply plainly wrong, Commie agents of Polish ethnicity were being put in prisons as well.

Our nations lived in [[Confederal]] state - '''Republic of Both Nations''' long time. But in XXth century the ways separated. People (including [[gentry]]) went to different sides. The best example (just classical) is Narutavi&#269;ius/Narutowicz family - one brother was a [[Signatory]] of [[Act of Independence of Lithuania]] of [[February 16]], [[1918]], other brother was [[President]] of the [[Republic of Poland]]. Joseph [[Pilsudski]] is considered in Lithuania as a strayed son. [[User:Zivinbudas|Zivinbudas]] 21:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's seek some analogies. Are the Arab people in American prisons "Americanised" by the very fact that they are being held in American prisons? What about Irish people persecuted by the British authorities (for whatever reason, right or wrong, true or alleged)? Are they being "Anglicised" in British prisons because they are Irish, or perhaps because they were sentenced for their part in the IRA?

== Some interwar polonization directed at Ukrainians (from Polonophobia) ==

Simply put, it seems to me that this section could be moved to some other article and significantly expanded to show some perspective. [[History of Belarus]]? [[Communism in Poland]]? [[History of Polish police forces]]? ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to POV and incorporate the following section?

:Halibutt, having read your personal long essay, I have one question. Why do you think your personal opinion should be reflected there? You haven't heard anything about something? Well, educate yourself.

The aftermath of the [[Polish-Ukrainian War]] (1918-19), the [[Polish-Soviet War]] (1919-21) and the [[Treaty of Riga]] (1921), coupled with Soviet [[propaganda]], led to growing tensions between Poles and Ukrainians in eastern Poland.

However, this tensions grew in the context of hundreds of years of oppression that Ukrainian peasantry suffered earlier under the Polish rule between the 1569 [[Union of Lublin]], when Ukrainian territories formerly controlled by largely Ruthenized [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]] were absorbed into [[Crown of the Polish Kingdom|Poland]], until the [[Third Partition of Poland]] ([[1795]]). Colonization of Ukraine [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108559?query=History%20of%20Poland&ct=eb] by the [[Polish nobility]], persecution[http://www.bartleby.com/65/uk/Ukraine.html] and even an attempted ban[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108559?query=History%20of%20Poland&ct=eb] of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] in the Polish controlled territories following the unsuccessful attempt to [[Union of Brest|convert even the Ukrainian peasantry]][http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108559?query=History%20of%20Poland&ct=eb] [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-30063] into the [[catholicism]], pressures of [[Polonization]] of Ukrainian nobility and cultural elite soured the Ukrainian-Polish relationships long before the rising of [[Second Polish Republic]].

:Let's take your question on "closure" of Orthodox churches. Well, the word "closure" is very mild term. I hope you have been in Warsaw, and probably know the history of that place. For example, demolition of [[Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw]] altogether with other two Orthodox churches in Warsaw. Demolition, is clearly a word written by pro-Polish sources, public show which was made of it amounts to no less than vandalism.

Following [[Western Ukrainian Republic|Ukrainian attempt for self-determination]] in [[Galicia (Central Europe)|Galicia]] and [[Volhynia]] being [[Polish-Ukrainian War|crushed by the Polish]] forces [http://litopys.org.ua/ukrxx/r08.htm] (1918-19) and an unsuccessful [[Kiev Offensive|Polish invasion into central Ukraine]] (1920) aimed at installing a pro-Polish government of [[Symon Petlura]] in [[Kiev]] as part of a [[Miedzymorze|Polish dominated "Federation"]], the [[1921]] [[Treaty of Riga]] gave to [[Second Polish Republic|Poland]] much of the largely Ukrainian populated territories in Galicia, Volhynia, [[Podolia]] and [[Polesia]]. The nationalist policies in the inter-war Poland were directed towards the [[Polonization]] and cultural assimilation of ethnic minorities contrary to the international obligation Poland had to grant the autonomy to ethnic Ukrainian territories[http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/pages/W/E/WesternUkrainianNationalRepublic.htm]. That time actions of Poland can best be characterized by the quote of [[Roman Dmowski]] a chief ideologue of the uniform catholic single nation state: "Wherever we can multiply our forces and our civilizational efforts, absorbing other elements, no law can prohibit us from doing so, as such actions are our duty."<!--cited from Tomaszewski J. Kresy Wschodnie w polskiej mysli politycznej XIX i XX w.//Miedzy Polska etniczna a historyczna. Polska mysl polityczna XIX i XX wieku.—T.6.—Warszawa, 1988.—S.101.---> Hence, it was no surprise that significant tensions between Poles and Ukrainians could only increase in such climate.

:Second, the sources which were cited in the text clearly indicate "closure". These sources are academic, most of them are from Google books, most of them are neither Russian (Belarusian etc.), nor Polish. Therefore, I think you should cease your practice of inserting "dubious" or "citation needed", in parts where your personal opinion couldn't agree with it. Read sources, first. Wikipedia is not Polishpedia, Polonization is not an exclusive Polish topic, where only Poles decide what to cite and how cite.

[[User:Reichenbach|Reichenbach]] 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:I am silent that your colleagues, in Bereza Kartuska article cited some clearly erroneous dictionary according to which detention in Bereza was maximum for 3 months, while http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miejsce_Odosobnienia_w_Berezie_Kartuskiej#Wi.C4.99.C5.BAniowie_Berezy_Kartuskiej Polish wikipedia gives clearly larger periods of detention.

==What is needed to do==

This article isgood, but it focus only on Polish-Ukrainian-Belorussian-Lithuanian aspect of Polonization. There isno mention about many other groups, that polonizedthemselfs without any agresive policies. What with peoples that arrived to Polish cities for centuries? Only from my own town ([[Poznań]]) there are many persons that chose Polish nationality, and defend them like [[Jan Baptysta Motty]] and his familly (with French roots), [[Jan Konstanty Żupański]] (Greek roots). Then, groups of colonist that arrived in XVI-XVIII century, like [[Bambrzy]]. In western Poland polonization of catholic Germans was also reaction on... Germanization, or more correctly on [[Kulturkampf]] (and connected with it Germanization). And what about "post world war II period"? This wad not only timeof "Wisła Operation". Poland gave shelter for other nationalities, like Greeks that had to leave their own country after civil war. Today their children has their share in Polish culture (like [[Eleni]]).

:Nareszcie, jak spewaja Kaya i Bregowicz:

I don't want to start fight on it, but article needs this improvement. Thats why I do not start with edition but discusion. [[User:Radomil|Radomil]] <small>[[User talk:Radomil|talk]]</small> 08:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:"Racja brachu!

==Miedzymorze==

:Wypijmy za to!

Piotrus, pls explain how this view of Pilsudski is relevant. Ukraine in Medzymorze was supposed to be, at leas formally, an independent state within federation, the state of the Ukrainian nation. What "minorities" are you talking about. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 02:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Kto z nami nie wypije, tego we dwa kije!

:What about Ukrainians from Western Galicia? They would live in Poland one way or another. And I'd expect some Belarusians would, too. And of course Jews. Perhaps we should add something about Piłsudski's policies post-1926, i.e how his 'state assimilation' differed from endeks 'national assimilation' ([http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN030010586X&id=xSpEynLxJ1MC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=stanislaw+grabski&sig=5kSKOnXipwsTitk7w_hotRTooPQ] and other sources). --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 02:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Prawy do lewego!

::I totally agree. But this may be related to what P said or did towards the Ukrainians and Belarusians and Jews in the eastward eaxpanded Poland. His unrelated dispute regarding M is irrelevant. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Wypij kolego!

:::How so? Please elaborate. I think that Piłsudski plan, certainly an alternative to endecja polonization, deserves a mention here, especially as it was a major (if not the only) alternative to it.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Bo przecież niewypite nie ma tego złego!" [[User:Vlad fedorov|Vlad fedorov]] ([[User talk:Vlad fedorov|talk]]) 19:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pilsudski plan for federation with the rest of UA was irrelevant to what he and Dmowski agreed should be part of main Poland. If he had ideas on how to treat minorities within Poland itslef that were different from Dmowski's, this should be brought up instead. Unless we have a reason to beleive that Polonization was in the picture for the rest of Ukraine in hypothetical Medzymorze, what Pisludski thought of Medzymorze is unrelated. What's related is what he thought of minorities within Poland. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 03:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Since Poland was part of Międzymorze, and his idea of ethnic tolerance were applicable to the entire federation, the given sources are quite relevant.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 04:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::At least reformulate it so that it is clear what we are talking about. I can't see why you won't replace it with the sourced quote of P's attitude towards the minorities within Poland. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 04:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Or find a citation of Pilsudski's view towards the minorities treatment and I will try to correct this myself and you will check whether it's OK. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 04:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:I think Brzeziński quote is quite good. If you recall we have a better quote, please add it. Perhaps from [http://www.binghamton.edu/history/resources/bjoh/PolesAndJews.htm this]: "[Piłsudski] had a friendlier attitude toward all minorities." Few other quotes: [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1405121343&id=epmK6bwLECsC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Pilsudski+minorities&sig=fkXmB17kQd7kVMeCO0aeRFfxZS4] Despite Piłsudski's desire to avoid antagonizing ethnic minorities... (also note that it notes that ABANDONED Orthodox churches were destroyed). [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN030010670X&id=LkZlidUKEl8C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Pilsudski+minorities&sig=_dOJlbwbrtzbC57CASGc9ryVtRg This] seems like a fairly detailed description. [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0813118034&id=80r6Mbnxf8IC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA90&printsec=8&dq=Pilsudski+minorities&sig=kZimseetWa1v2_b5EeIO1GNvV-c This] is another one. And there are more sources we can look at, but I am too tired now to check all Google Books hits now (plus I feel this current revision not that bad, feel free to look for more details if you disagree). Regarding the king vs. state issue, it is actually quite important. In PLC the king did not equal state, as frequend [[rokosz]]es and confederations proved. Few magnates were loyal to the kings throughout all generations. Does your ref. state explicitly that Orthodox magnates were loyal to the Polish kings? On the other hand my change to state was probably as bad. I'd advocate adding some qualifiers to that statement - as a rule of thumb [[magnate]]s where loyal to themselves first, and to king and state only when it was in their own interests (of course, there were exceptions, but...)--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 05:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::Vlad, you got me wrong. I don't argue that there were no Orthodox churches closed at all. BTW, [[Talk:Alexander_Nevsky_Cathedral,_Warsaw#Response_to_Irpen|most Orthodox churches in Warsaw were destroyed by Russians in 1915]]. The problem is that you (or your sources) add dubious interpretation to facts. Besides, you've not answered any of the issues above, please don't remove the tags from the article until the matter is settled - or we find some better way. ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 05:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My ref says that Konstantin Ostrozhsky was ''very'' loyal to the Polish king, despite O's being a strong supporter of Orthodoxy and Ruthenian way of life. It then discusses his son, called in PL K-W O., who was the last of the Mogicanes, so to speak. The book is the life story of the latter.

:::Halibutt, so you actually tagwar and insist that only Polish interpretation of history (Polish historiography) is only one correct? Ok, then I would soon add more info to the article. I have indeed answered to you on many your questions.

I can't see google books for some reason now, perhaps a glitch. Will try later. I don't object to the fact that P was more tolerant and to the article reflecting that. I just want this illustrated through his quotes related to the issue at hand, that is treatment of minorities within Poland, rather than to the vaguely related issue on whether to create a mega-state or concentrate on the local affairs. Later, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Your statement "BTW, most Orthodox churches in Warsaw were destroyed by Russians in 1915" doesn't withstand any critics. You probably mean churches destroyed by German artillery fire? Or you mean '''churches somewhere in Russia''' destroyed by bolsheviks, which is simply another affair. Destruction of churches by bolsheviks had other aims - promotion of communism, destruction of churches by Poles in occupied by them parts of Western Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania pursued violent polonization of local population. Alexander Nevsky church in Warsaw ('''was the largest and the most beautiful Orthodox church in the world''') was being destroyed starting from 1924, when war with Russia was long over. And how it was proclaimed? Every man considering himself Pole should take part in demolition. What about another Orthodox church in Lublin? Is it also coincidence? Another example of bad Orthodox architecture corrupting local view in Lublin?

Piłsudzki i Dmowski were enemies, so only from a very long distance (Crimea ?) one cań write "Pilsudzki and Dmowski did".

[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] 07:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:Still they could have similar views on something. For example they were both Cathlocis, they were both patriots of Poland (each an his own way), they both saw stealing wrong and they both viewed the historically and ethnically Ukrainian Eastern Galicia as rightful part of Poland. They differed too in many ways. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 07:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, Piłsudski was not a very ardent Catholic, and for few years of his life he even became a Protestant (see [[:pl:Kościół Ewangelicko-Augsburski w RP]]). I came across no records testifying to his strong religious beliefs, but many quotes of his very critical of religion. [[User:Balcer|Balcer]] 10:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

''For example they were both Cathlocis''

Dmowski was an atheist, who believed Catholicism is inferior to Protestantism. To him Catholicism was just a bond to tie the nation together, nothing more. He would much prefer Poles to be Protestant or Lutheran however.

--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] 11:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:If you guys have any source, I think this would be a valuable addition to JP article.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

:::What do you need to settle? Balcer, please note, it is not me who starts revert war there, but you. And then you would be playing [[WP:DIVA]] by placing big red exit statement? I have made everything possible to get independent sources. What else do you want? You deny Russian sources, you deny Belarusian sources, you deny third countries sources, you even deny the view of some Polish sources and this is made in topic concerning the history of Belarus. What is dubious in sources? We need to present you corpses, or we need you to make a trip to those churches destroyed? [[User:Vlad fedorov|Vlad fedorov]] ([[User talk:Vlad fedorov|talk]]) 06:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue. Please do not use the Pilsidski's desire to create a [[Miedzymorze|Polish-dominated mega-state]], a bullwork to hold the expansionist Russia at bay, as proof of his attitude towards non-Poles within Poland intsef. We have enough evidence that he was indeed less oppressive to minorities tha Dmowski and we should use this instead. The failed idea of 191Xs has no effect on what actually took place in mid-20s and 30s. Pilsudski attempted to moderate the policies, which is a fact. The article says so all right. If we can say so better, please do by all means. In no way the unrelated dispute on whether Poland should be left to itself (Dmowski) or "lead" others away from Russia (Pilsudski), is related to what to do within PL itself as the latter deals with internal "Polish" issues and not its "federation" with others. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:I see no reason why we should remove the small (one sentence) and well referenced (two refers) to Międzymorze, especially as both of the references mention his view on ethnic policies. I think the Międzymorze peferctly illustrates Piłsudski's stance on the polonization issue. Brzezinski put's it especially well in his quote, which is one of the references used for this part.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 23:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Answers:

Piotus, again, Miedzymorze has nothing to do with Polish ethnic policies within Poland. It illustrates nothing on Pilsudski's stand on Polonization issues within Poland. Should the Polonization of Miedzymorze have been in the picture, this would have been relevant. What's relevant here is his stand on Polonization within Poland. I thought you would find the ref for that, but since you insist on ''this'' ref, fine. I included it in a reworked form. Also, I would like to see more respected refs than Brzezinski who is a "political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman" rather than a historian. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:I feel we will have to agree to disagree on Międzymorze's relevance. Perhaps other editors would comment and tell us who's view has the majority support? I will see if I can find anything about Piłsudski and polonization. Btw, [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]], a former [[United States National Security Advisor]], seems pretty respected to me, much more then, let's say, the virtually unknown, [[Mikhail Meltyukhov]], who has been virtually unnoticed by the Western scholarly community.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

# For instance, it states that the Polonisation met with armed resistance. What exactly was that armed resistance? If I recall correctly the Belarusians fought alongside the Poles against the Russians. I never heard of any armed resistance there against the government, except for the Commie partisans crossing the new border with the USSR in the early 1920s. Any details on that?

==Polonization and Catholicism==

Right now the lead of the article seems to imply that one of the main aspects of Polonization was ... conversion of non-Catholics to Catholicism. This certainly needs to be explained better (otherwise one may conclude that for example the Aztecs of Mexico got Polonized by the Spanish). Just how exactly becoming a Catholic automatically made one into a Pole? Now don't misundersntand me, I am perfectly aware that in Ukraine there was a clear relationship between being Polish and Catholic, but an English reader unfamiliar with the region might not understand this correctly, from the current version of the article anyway. [[User:Balcer|Balcer]] 22:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see it an issue since the context is clear as this has nothing to do with Americas. If you see that this really is a problem, you may try rephrasing. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, Halibutt what do you know about ultimatum directed to Pilsudski on March 30, 1922 from Belarusian partisans? The most notorious formations of Belarusian partisans are Shymaniuk (Skamarokh) formation (was acting in Belovezhskaya pushcza) - more on him you would find in "Process of 45", Arlouski formation (was acting in Polessje region), Jablonsky formation (Ashmiany region), in Pinsk region - ataman Mucha fake name for Vaupshasov. In Grodna there were four partisan formation which were coordinating their activities with Lithuanians.

==pressures of what?==

Also, pls note that "cultural pressure of Polish culture" is redundant and a tautology. It was of Poland of course and, despite the PLC, there was such thing as Poland, especially for Ruthenians, whose lands were transferred to a Polish crown. Ruthenians perceived those as Poles and the metropolia was perceived as Poland, not the "Commonwealth". This is exactly the reason why we have a [[partitions of Poland]] article rather than more correct but less reflecting of the perceptions the "Partitions of the PLC"--[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::According to Polish prime minister Grabsky in 1922 in Eastern voivodships there were 878 partisan actions, in 1923 - 503 partisan actions. With the most actions in Baranaviczy, Grodna, Lida, Stolin, Luninetz regions. Note there that Eastern voivodships included Ukrainian and Lithuanian.

:This likely should be rephrased, but it is important to note that unlike in the later era of nationalism, in the times of PLC any '-zation' occured more because of the attractivness of one's culture (which sometimes meant of course that if you didn't assimilate your career prospects were poorer, as other considered you a "barbarian") then because of any formal laws or state policies.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::In 1924 after big partisan meeting in Staloviczy, Communist party was de facto appointed as managing partisan movement, while those who ideologically were not compatible with commies, continued their fight independently.

::You are partly right. I added an extended quote from a PD text to the refs by [[Kostomarov]]. (Please no accusations of him in Russian Imperialism, anyone familiar with Russian historiography would just lauph such accusation off for a person exiled for views that differed from the imperial mainstread) He openly admits that Ruthenian upper class ended up finding the Polish ways of life attractive, which again proves his being objective. However, your replacement weaselizes the presentation. Of course it was of Poland: religion, culture, etc. These were not always imposed by brutal force but with bans on the OC, preferential taxation, etc. it by no means resembles the attractiveness of the enlightment. Read refs. More shortly. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::What you also miss here is that Polish occupation authorities had always ascribed any armed resistance to Commies. Secondly, it is not a miracle that most of population in Western Belarus were supporters of Communist party of Western Belarus, their deputies in Sejm were campaigning for their rights.

==Class==

"Ruthenian nobility" was used in the same sentence twice and I replaced it with the "higher class" in the second instance. Besides, it is more inclusice as also reflecting the cultural and clerical elite, not all of which were nobles.--[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::In March 1932 in Astashino village, peasants formed self-defense group (don't confuse with Andrzej Lepper) and there was armed rebellion, in consequence their group grew into partisan formation which managed to control Pinsk and Drogiczyn region and it was dealt with by Polish regular army. 21 partisan were killed and 29 captured.

:Good point. I'd suggest adding the clerical part instead of going back to the class, as [[social class]] is a later invention. Or perhaps now that I see what you meant we can have both: higher class (nobility and clergy).--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

# ''closure of Belarusian Orthodox churches''. Shouldn't we mention that in many cases they were not closed down but instead restored to the church that built those churches in the first place? In countless cases Roman and Greek Catholic churches were simply converted to Orthodox churches by the tsarist authorities in 19th century and then they were simply restored to the believers of those faiths.

Social classes (like proletariat) is a later invention. Upper/lower class division is however old and such terminology was used (read the ref). Upper class included the entire elite, mostly nobility, but others too. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::Should we also then mention that these countless Uniatic and Catholic churches are churches violently taken by Poles, Jesuits and Uniats from Orthodox churches after Florence Unia, Lublin unia, 3 May Constitution? Unbelievable, you try to provide a context from another historic period to "soften" Polish image? But if your context is complete one? Simply restored? My God, someone needs to study history of Belarus. Do you have sources confirming that these countless Roman and Greek Catholic churches were simply converted to Orthodox churches by the tsarist authorities in 19th century? You speak as Uniats and Catholics were 90% Belarus population in 17th century. Get a life. Belarus was always Orthodox Christian country, although there were even Islam people in it.

==Poland's expansion==

The context in which Poland gained the territories is important. In no way this can be in good faith read as Red Army stopping the Polish occupation as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polonization&diff=56727882&oldid=56726239 Piotus' edit summary] may imply. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

# ''enforced Catholicization''. Now this is something strange. Does this remark refer to 17th century [[Jesuits]]? Or 20th century? Or perhaps some other period?

:Nonetheless how you phrased it - unintentially, I assume - made me and likely others fall under the mistaken impression that it was so. Red Army has as much interest in defending Ukraine's independance and Ukrainian culture as Dmowski&Grabski Co.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::I have taken this literally from the source. It means, inter alia that Belarusian catholics were listed in Polish censuses as Poles even though they hadn't spoke Polish at all, forcible closure of Belarusian Orthodox churches, it means imposition of Catholicism in schools, universities, it means that those professing Orthodox religion were not appointed to state posts.

::Not at all. The artilce speaks about the Red Army being able to partially deter the Polish expansion. Militarily, this is what happened. It does not mean that it was liberating the Ukrainians from the Polish rule. Liberate, in this context, is not accepted outside of the soviet historiography, unlike in "Liberation from nazism" in the WW2. I did not use it and did not imply that. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

# ''violations of election rights based on falsification of the population census'' - correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a huge difference between [[general elections]] and [[population census]]. [[Suffrage|Electoral rights]] do not typically include any mention of population censuses. How exactly are the two related?

I plan on adding more sources. I can actually reference much more than currently if anyone's going to challenge that but I need some time, please be a little patient. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

::This is simple. Even if Poles are 6 % of the current region population, we make population census where Poles are 70% of population and based on that only 6 Belarusians and 60 Poles are elected to and represent this region in Polish sejm. Please, study how elections are held and parliaments are made.

==persistence with Diatrics:Polonization of English?==

# ''confiscation and redistribution of the land to the landlords of Polish nationality'' - this seems like a blatant lie or a huge understatement. We should also mention that the land was not confiscated from local landowners but rather from the tsar and Russian nobility who fled Poland in 1915. Moreover, it was distributed to people of Polish nationality regardless of their ethnicity (see the article on [[osadnik]]).

On one more issue, the introduction of diatrics into English texts to the names of Polish places and people done by the Polonophile authors (like Davies) and some others but not the majority as not used in EB, for instance. I would like a section on that and invite my colleagues to give it a try. If no one is willing, I will give it a try myself. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:Sounds interesting. Go right ahead.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::Will try. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::Oh, these Polish stories about unnamed Russian nobility. So you confirm that '''Belarusian'' lands were distributed only to Poles? Let Polish statistics speak, The Source: Wielka wlasnosc rolna, 1925, S. 1: "From 4589 pomestje in Navagrudak, Polessje voivodships, Dzisno, Dunilavitzy and Vilno powets, 3824 (83,2% of land square) pomestjes belonged to Poles, while 462 (5,2% of land square) belonged to Belarusians.

:Contrary to what Irpen wrote above, I doubt there could be a worst example than Davies. In fact the guy barely ever uses diacritics and in his recent books (Rising 44 anyone) he even coined some nick-names for historical personalities in order to make them more familiar to an English or American ear. In that book he also translated street names, code names, Christian names and so on - so as to make them sound as English as it gets. So no, Davies was not the guy. On the other hand I wonder what author did Irpen mean..? :) ''<font color="#990011">//</font>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:: "of Polish nationality regardless of their ethnicity" <-- Dear Halibutt, I hope you understand what you have written.

I looked at Davies' God's playground before saying what's above. You are also right, ''that'' author too. But I think it matters less than diatrics making it to peer-reviewed publications than to Wikipedia. I will expand the article and will be adding sources. Please give me a day or two to gradually work things in. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::You also incidentally forgot that after Polish Soviet war, most Polish soldiers have got the lands in Belarus for free for their service. For free means it was confiscated from local owners.

:I would not make too big a deal out of this. English language authors generally make a mess of naming East European localities. This is not due to efforts at Polonization, but simply incompetence or carelessness. [[User:Balcer|Balcer]] 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Big deal or not, this is a curious aspect. Also, incompetence here is hard top define. Anglicising the Polish names by ridding them of diatrics, isn't "wrong" (it isn't right either). It is just a way most natural for the Enlgish lang authors and readers who don't need to be confused with unfamiliar letters. Similarly, the cyrillic names are transliterated to English alphabet rather than to [[Lacinka]] or [[Drahomanivka]]. OTOH, a strong perseption of the bilingual Polish-English authors that diatrics must be imposed on the English readership is a curious aspect and a noteworthy one. The WP:NC discussion showed that too

# ''imprisoning of prominent Belarusian intellectuals and leaders in a notorious concentration camp Bereza Kartuska'' - this again was not a sign of discrimination, as the largest ethnic groups among the inmates at the prison camp of Bereza were Poles (43%) and Jews (33%). Besides, people were sent there not because of their ethnicity but because of their involvement in Commie or Ukrainian terrorism. Sure, I don't mean that the prison was a paradise or that sending people there against the Polish law of the time was right, but how exactly was it a sign of discrimination? If so, then the prison was mostly polonising the Poles imprisoned there (largest group)... Sounds absurd to me.

I am saddened by Balcer's revert. Ghirla's rever might have been overly critical to Molobo but on the merit, the change's lack of merit are explained above. Still reverted... Well, I guess I will have to spend a day on this article although I planned on writing for other stuff. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::Terrorism? What terrorism was committed by Jazep Adamczyk (prisoner of Biereza)? Propaganda. According to Halibutt, propaganda is terrorism? Facepalm...

:I simply do not like to see insults in edit comments. They contribute nothing to the discussion, and are really a way to intimidate other users. Quite simply, they are despicable. My revert was my attempt to show Ghirlandajo that such behavior of his is not without consequences. Edits with insulting comments can expect to be reverted, at least by me. [[User:Balcer|Balcer]] 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::Jazep Żyuliuk Łuka Wołosiuk Ryhor Sitkowiec Stefan Samojłowicz Uładzimir Nowik Trofim Maryszczuk Ryhor Korol Mikałaj Hanecki Ściapan Burak Nestor Andrejuk.

OK, I plan to add much to this article today. May I ask you to self-revert for now? Ghirla isn't here for the rest of the day (It's nighttime in RU). --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::In order to exterminate intellectuals you don't need to exterminate the whole population. Your statistics game doesn't relate to the facts. Read Polish Wikipedia article on Bereza, I would just list those Belarusian who were imprisoned in Poland: Tarashkevicz, Rak-Mikhajlouski, Valoszyn, Miatla. Taraszkevicz is the author of Belarusian language reform, according to his name those rules are called Taraszkevitsa or Trasyanka. Rak-Mihajlouski, I am speechlees. Halibutt, do you know who is Rak-Mikhajlouski?

:Actually, I think Piotrus' version is more sensible. For example, "influnce' seems to me better than "pressure". Why? Because pressure is an inherenetly negative word, hence POV. Since you plan to make major changes to the article today, perform the revert you think necessary yourself.

:Let me ask also: why must Polonization be a negative phenomenon in all aspects, as the article tends to imply right now? At least for those Ukrainians and Lithuanians who switched to Polish culture of their own free will, it need not have been entirely negative.

# ''forcing migration of Belarusians from Western Belarus'' - this again would need some explanation. Were there [[ethnic cleansing|ethnic purges]] organised there? Were people evicted from their land for being Belarusians, Jews, Poles or whoever else?

:After all, arguably the most successful and powerful nation on earth right now is the United States, of which almost the whole population has lost its ethnic roots and became Americanized. So, switching cultures cannot be all bad, if it is done freely.

::With 85% of land owned by Poles, were other 3 500 000 Belarusians would live? [[User:Vlad fedorov|Vlad fedorov]] ([[User talk:Vlad fedorov|talk]]) 07:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

:For this article to achieve NPOV, positive aspects of Polonization (like better contact with Western culture, for example), should also be discussed. [[User:Balcer|Balcer]] 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::You rise a very interesting point. Especially the earlier polonization, a type of [[cultural assimilation]], was certainly not entirely negative - after all, it was to some extent voluntarily (question is, to what extent?) and people don't voluntarily adopt something they view as negative. However as is usual with any cultural assimilation, this is a touchy issue, especially as it implies some superiority/inferiotity relations between various cultures. Hopefully we will find some academic references describing this issue.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Vlad, I don't tagwar, I simply want to improve the section you added so that it a) is readable, b) is well-sourced, c) represents more than your Belarusian POV. [[WP:ASSUME|Assume good faith]], will you?

::See a couple of sections above. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, on to the issues you mentioned. As to Orthodox churches in Warsaw: no, I mean that it were the Russians themselves to demolish most Orthodox churches in Warsaw. Not Russian artillery or German artillery. The simple truth is that most Orthodox churches in Warsaw belonged to Russian garrisons. They were demolished by the retreating Russian troops already before 1915 (though some of them survived). Take for instance the Archangel Michael Archstrategist's Church at Al. Ujazdowskie street. It belonged to a Regiment of Guards stationed nearby, but once the regiment left Warsaw local Russian administration ordered the church to be stripped of any precious items - and it's tin roof was dismantled as well. As it was not replaced with anything the wooden structure started to rot and already in 1915 the new German authorities had to surround it with a fence so that nobody got hurt (as the church in 1915 was literally falling apart). The ruin was there for a couple more years until it was finally dismantled. Or Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church at Lindleya street. It was built as part of a huge hospital complex, as the hospital was being used by Russian garrison and needed a chapel. However, in 1915 the Russians managed to strip it of anything worth a penny and until early 1920s the building stood there empty. In the end it was decided to convert it to a Catholic church but in the end was demolished due to poor condition (yup, Catholic churches were being demolished as well). And another one, St. Olga's Church, in Łazienki Barracks, destroyed by the Russians already around 1906, the rebuilt and again abandoned. I guess most of your books would only mention the last part of the story ("bad Poles destroying precious churches"), but the truth is seldom as black and white. But this is OT here.

:I was about to point out that Ghirla's version revert is justified not only because of his offensive summaries, but also because it reintroduced more POVed fragments, especially the one describing the PSW as 'the Soviet Russia dettering Polish expantion'.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</font>} 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As to numbered issues (I hope you don't mind I will return to the numbered list, it's easier to keep track of what's been said).

I am going to translate for the ref a big chunk of Kostomarov (a PD anyway). He talks also about "positive" aspects, as Piotrus and Balcer call them. Anyway, I will expoand the article today or tomorrow and the current version, inlcuding the Molobo's irrelvant addition is out of order. I am not attacking Molobo. The paragraph he added doesn't belong here. Also, I pointed out to several points above, again to no avail. I will only start posting to the article when I am ready with more info. Too bad, it's again the same sides of the conflict with the same sets of users on each side. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 23:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

# Armed resistance. I know the eastern border was unstable immediately following the [[Treaty of Riga]], plenty of sources confirm that the Soviet Russia was sending armed bands across the border to destabilise the situation (after all that's why the [[Border Protection Corps]] had to be created. However, how is this armed struggle related to [[Polish-Bolshevist War]] related to Polonisation? Also, there were plenty of peasant riots in other parts of Poland. Does that mean that the [[1923 Kraków riot]] was also aimed at Polonisation of anyone? Nope.

# As to Orthodox churches. You're missing the point my friend. Nobody here denies that there indeed were Orthodox churches given to Catholics or demolished or whatnot. Also, nobody argues that the Orthodox were or were not a majority in what is now Belarus. The problem is however how is that related to Polonisation? Did the government of Poland ordered those churches given to this or that religion? Nope.

# "enforced Catholicization" if the Belarusian Catholics were listed as Polish Catholics, then they were listed as Catholics anyway, right? So how exactly were they Catholicised? Also, the census argument seems bogus as both the 1921 and 1931 censuses were anonymous. Nobody could force you to "become Catholic" just because you declared in the census that you felt Orthodox or Uniate or Muslim. Also, what is the source for "imposition of Catholicism in schools"? It seems completely out of the blue as in all parts of Poland the all schools had to organise classes of religion with each parent choosing the right tutor for his or hers kid: be him rabbi, catholic priest or orthodox monk. Sure, there were local authorities trying to limit the number of options available, but your wording suggests it was a nation-wide campaign, while IRL these were isolated cases. Same for "not appointed to state posts". Your sources probably state that "Poles monopolised state posts" or something along those lines. But did it ever occured to you that the reason might be more simple? Take a look at statistical data and check the percentage of people reading and writing. Tadda! Ability to read and write was pretty common in western parts of Poland, less common in eastern parts (check readership amongst the [[tutejszy]] group). Add to that that the person applying for a state job would have to not only know how to read and write, but also speak Polish, which was the [[state language]] (just like you have to speak German to become a state official in Germany, speak French to become one in France and speak Russian to be a clerk in Belarus).

# Elections... thanks for the explanation, I felt there was something fishy, now I know it. Members of Polish parliament were elected in a universal vote, not chosen basing on the results of the census. Which makes your statement simply wrong.

# Redistribution of land: and did you check data from before WWI? Who owned the 83,2% of land there before WWI? Wasn't it local Polish landlords, the hated [[szlachta]]? Because that was the case in most parts of Poland, not just what is now Belarus. Also, I do understand what I wrote. According to both pre-war and modern Polish law a Polish national can be of any ethnicity, be him ethnic Pole, ethnic German, ethnic Spaniard, Czech or a mixture. And be sure to finally read the article on [[Osadnik]] to check what exactly did happen to the "most Polish soldiers have got the lands in Belarus for free for their service" (in reality it was roughly 10.000 people out of 1.5 million soldiers; hardly "all").

# Bereza. Again, you got me wrong. I'm not defending Bereza at all. I'm merely explaining to you how contemporary authorities thought. They did not send people to Bereza because they were of this or that nationality, and certainly not to Polonise them (after all this should be ahn article on Polonisation, right?

# Evictions - again, we'd need a '''source''' saying that 3.5 million Belarusians had to leave their homeland between 1920 and 1939. Seems kind of dubious to me.

And for the umpteenth time, please, let's settle the dispute here first, don't eliminate the tags from the main page just because it seems ok to you. Please. ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 14:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

::: You ask "how crackdown on Orthodox church is related to Polonization"? My friend, my advice is that you delete any reference to your interest in history on your personal page if you ask such questions. What language was used in Orthodox churches and in Catholic churches in 20-ies, 30-ies? Was it possible to use Belarusian language in Catholic church? What nationality 99% catholic priests had? Who was managing Catholic church in Belarus, Poles or Belrusians? Almost all your questions are "change of the thesis" pure sophisms, eviction doesn't equal to forcing to migrate, telling "osadnik" you intentionally omit the term officially used by Polish authorities - "colonization", etc. Please return when you would have rational questions and not usual Polish nationalist propagandist tricks. So far, you haven't personally found info on Belarusian nationalist partisan movement, and attributed all partisans to commies? Well, it's your problem.

==Colonization==

Also, "vast lands of UA" is misleading since it creates an impression of empty and unpopulated spaces being civilized by the settlement. The "comonization" here means enserfement of the peasentry that was there in the first place.

::: I also would ask you to refrain yourself from deleting sourced information in other articles which you visited and tried to change text in order to delete info supporting my contributions here in that article. I noted your activity in [[Polish census of 1931]] which refers to Polish violations in elections, [[Belarusian Peasants' and Workers' Union]] article were you totally falsified the meaning of original sources which were referenced to there. Please, at least read the sources which you reference to before changing the text to promote Polish propaganda view. The sources indicated in ‎[[Belarusian Peasants' and Workers' Union]] article are Belarusian sources, and they contradict to your contributions.

Also, the unintended consequence of a highly progressive Magdeburg law was that it became a Polonization instrument as these rights were given exclusively to towns settled by the Catholics (Germans and Jews too) who were freed from taxes the people in the Ruthenian settlements had to pay. I will work this into an article gradually. Please no hostile reverts. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::: If you want to cooperate - please find info on "Process of 56", which is directly related to Polish crackdown on Belarusian idependence movement. I am really disappointed that you, having visited [[Polish census of 1931]] article and having read it, had not removed dubious flag from violation of election rights point in Polonization article. Such behaviour is not really honest and is not promoting cooperation and reconciliation between us. If I find that I am mistaken in something which is favourable of Poland, I never hesitate to correct my mistakes. Which to say, never still happened. Please be aware that I perfectly could read Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian texts, so I could recheck virtually every source. [[User:Vlad fedorov|Vlad fedorov]] ([[User talk:Vlad fedorov|talk]]) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== Sources ==

::Vlad, I wanted to prepare a compromise version that would both read good, be acceptable to more than just you and conform with sources slightly more serious than a modern guidebook to Belarus. You prefer to insult me instead - fine. Be it your way.

The current article uses a lot of sources from what i think is

::BTW, you still have not answered any questions, neither those asked here nor at the other article's talk page. And it seems that you fail to understand the difference between [[population census]] and [[parliamentary elections]]. But if you feel that there's no difference, then sure, go ahead. Over and out. ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nikolay Kostomarov(at least Babelfish gave that name when translating the cyrilic signs :/)

Here is what it says about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Kostomarov

'''''As a historian, Kostomarov's writings reflected the romantic trends of his time. He was an advocate of the use of ethnography and folksong by historians, and claimed to be able to discern the "spirit" of the people, including "national spirit", by this metho'''d. On the basis of their folksongs and history, he claimed that the peoples of what he called Northern or Great Rus' on one hand and Southern or Little Rus' on the other (today's Russians and Ukrainians, respectively) differed in character and formed two separate "nationalities". In his famous essay "Two Russian Nationalities" ("Две русские народности"), a landmark in the history of Ukrainian national thought, he propagated what some consider to be the stereotypes of Russians inclined towards autocracy, collectivism, and state-building, and Ukrainians inclined towards liberty, poetry, and individualism.''

''In his various historical writings, '''Kostomarov was always very positive about Kievan Rus'''', about what he considered to be its veche system of popular assemblies, and the later Zaporozhian Cossack brotherhood, which he believed in part was an heir to this system. By contrast, he was always very critical of the old Muscovite autocracy and its leaders. In fact, he gained some popular notoriety in his day by doubting the story of Ivan Susanin, a legendary martyr hero viewed as a savior of Muscovy.''

'''''He was a major personality in the Ukrainian national awakening''', a friend of the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko, a defender of the Ukrainian language in literature and in the schools, '''and a proponent of a democratic form of Pan-Slavism,''' a popular movement in a certain part of the intelligentsia of his time. I'''n the 1840s he founded a secret political organization called the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Kiev''' (for which he suffered arrest, imprisonment, and exile), and through the 1860s to the 1880s, he continued to promote the ideas of federalism and populism in Ukrainian and Russian historical thought.''

This is totally idiotic, it is obvious that Halibutt wants Vlad Fedorov to be victimized by forced Polonization that his, Halibutt, declares to be "good faith". --[[Special:Contributions/72.72.161.158|72.72.161.158]] ([[User talk:72.72.161.158|talk]]) 20:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

While this source is interesting, it is from XIX century, and as seen quite an active politician, with ominous underlines, mainly Pan-Slavism, which as we know was extremely hateful towards Polish people. As such it can hardly be seen as objective and neutral source. I suggest a POV check for neutrality as a result.

--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== Request for comments: what is relevant and how/where to put it ==

As there is apparently plenty of conflicting views on the scope of this article, what info should be included and how should it be presented, I took the liberty to ask for external review and comments from fellow Wikipedians. The basic conflict is around the sections on Belarus (see the section above for history of the conflict, as well as article's history), but all of this article could benefit from a peer review. ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>''[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the primary problem in this case is putting the examples of policies of Polonization ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polonization&oldid=346009830#Polonization_in_Western_Belarus]) in list form and not in prose. That unnecessarily encourages making the items shorter. And shorter items are harder to make neutral and detailed. For example, the item "''closure of Belarusian Orthodox churches''" could be made more detailed and neutral by noting what happened to the buildings (Were they demolished? Were they abandoned? Or did they get a new owner? Maybe the fate of different buildings was not the same?), noting the reason that the Polish authorities gave (Did they claim it was done to help Polonization? For safety purposes? To undo the taking of Greek Catholic churches by Russian authorities?), and how did the Belarusians themselves see that. I hope other problems will be easier to solve after making the section more detailed. --[[User:Martynas Patasius|Martynas Patasius]] ([[User talk:Martynas Patasius|talk]]) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

== Ghetto benches ==

Ghetto benches in polish universities were introduced in 1937 - two years after the dead of Józef Piłsudski. Accusing his regime for it is simple mistake. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.25.146.82|83.25.146.82]] ([[User talk:83.25.146.82|talk]]) 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Karl Okon ==

There is a picture in the article with the following comment:

"Gravestone with removed German inscriptions in Gliwice (Southern Poland). Also visible is the changing of the name Karl into the Polish Karol."

-----

The name on the grave is for 99% a name of Pole named Karol Okoń (okoń = perch). The most likely reason for putting germinized name in the first place on this grave was very common both in German and in Russian occupied partitions, forcing people to use new ruler's languages.

Giving as an example of polonisation the fact of wrining back in Polish name of Pole seems to be sarcastic(?). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.167.78.239|89.167.78.239]] ([[User talk:89.167.78.239|talk]]) 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Miacek ==

You obviously did not even bother reading the talk page nor the reasons given, before you restored a whole slew of controversial and false-sourced edits made by a user who is currently (and deservedly) banned from the area of Eastern European topics. Even a cursory glance at the article history would have alerted you to the fact that the reason most of this was removed was simply because '''it's not in the sources given'''. The user in question added whatever text he fancied, then slapped on a inline citation of a source which didn't support the claim, to make it look legimtimate. Obviously this kind of dishonest editing - with a purpose of POV pushing (and here I mean *real* POV pushing, not what YOU accuse others of) - is obviously disruptive and does not belong in Wikipedia.

Since you're the one who insist on having this text added back in, the burden of proof is actually on YOU to show that the sources back up the claims made. But here, let me get you started, and just show you that the text is crap:

For example the sentence ''As most of the Polish government was initially controlled by Roman Dmowski, National Democratic leader and a strong proponent of Polonization,[47] policies based on his views were implemented'' is cited to page 314 of this work [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521621321&id=zqj-oHp4KsgC&pg=RA1-PA314&lpg=RA1-PA314&q=Kingdom+of+Poland&vq=Kingdom+of+Poland&dq=eastern+marches+poles&sig=yCDNar7HfvJokGQ9LbFcG4-UGd4#v=snippet&q=Kingdom%20of%20Poland&f=false]. Do you see the claim that the Polish government was "controlled" (whatever that is supposed to mean) by Dmowski anywhere on that page? How about on the next page? No? Well, that's because it's not really true. The second part of the claim is that it was Dmowski's policies which were implemented. Any student of Polish history knows that this is false as well. And yes the source given [http://www.google.ca/books?id=e_m13Hk3AFEC&pg=PA188&dq=Pilsudski%2Bdemocratic%2Bfederation&sig=ptKCn0rVh4oUid8JLTmWKQNclOM#v=onepage&q=Dmowski&f=false] ALSO does not say this either.

So again, what I did was remove a lot of false claims which were misleadingly sourced to sources which did not say what the user was pretending they were saying. You've restored this claims, apparently because you think removal of false (and falsely sourced) info from Poland-related articles constitutes "hardcore Polish nationalism". I'm sorry, but that's a load of bollocks. Perhaps you should re-evaluate if you really have the competence and the sufficiently neutral mindset to involve yourself in Poland-related articles.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 12:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The previous discussion, involving different users is above (or click [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polonization#Problems_with_the_section_on_Belarus here]). Not sure if you can make out all of it since it degenerates very quickly.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 12:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite honestly, as I'm going through this article it's becoming obvious that it needs a tag which has yet to be created on Wikipedia. Something like: ''"This article lists sources and has inline citations, but almost everyone of them is lying and misrepresenting what is in the actual sources"''. Most of this article is a straight up hatchet job made to look legitimate by inclusion of inline citations which have almost nothing to do with the text of the article itself.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 05:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This source: Herbert Arthur Strauss "Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39", Walter de Gruyter, 1993, p. 1084. [http://www.amazon.com/Hostages-Modernization-Antisemitism-Germany-Great-Britain-France/dp/3110107767]. It doesn't even have 1084 pages. Only 644. And yes, it starts with page 1. Normally it'd chalk this up to a good faith mistake but given the total dishonesty in other parts of this article in regards to sourcing I'm a bit skeptical. Additionally there are apparently only two occurrences of the word "engineers" in this work (which is what the text in the article is talking about) and neither of them have anything what. so. ever. to do with the purported text. Removing.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 05:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

== After WWII ==

Biggest Polonization of all, after WWII in former German territories, needs much more discussion.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:138.246.2.105|138.246.2.105]] ([[User talk:138.246.2.105|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/138.246.2.105|contribs]]) 20:52, November 26, 2014</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Sure. Would you like to suggest any sources? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 05:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

== Kulturkampf ==

Kulturkampf (1871 to 1878) didn't happen during ''early years''.[[User:Xx234|Xx234]] ([[User talk:Xx234|talk]]) 11:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

== Lonely Planet as a reliable source ==

NO![[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 08:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

== Three cite errors ==

Pleae help!

[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 08:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on [[Polonization]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/817116737|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520235227/http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D7748%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D7748%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html

*Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20141028221700/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=16410 with https://web.archive.org/web/20161229100110/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=16410 on http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=16410

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020602145938/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mdemkowicz1/dobra/poloniz.html to http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mdemkowicz1/dobra/poloniz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 07:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Polonization]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/820369814|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050904150707/http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Thomas/Thomas_1913.html to http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Thomas/Thomas_1913.html

*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://mesharpe.metapress.com/(oljda545xblum055350iutny)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,4;journal,4,11;linkingpublicationresults,1:110921,1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

== Contradictory claims about the partitions period ==

The section "Partitions (1795–1918)" contains contradictory claims. Some sentences assert that the Polonisation occurred despite maximally harsh anti-Polish policies, while others ascribe it to an initial period of local autonomy for Polish elites and lenient policy by the Russians. Both claims seem to be ascribed to the same sources and only comparison with the sources can establish what they really do say. The second claim makes sense; the first one sounds like fanatical Polish nationalist propaganda - the tacit suggestion apparently being that people just realised, deep down, the natural and objective superiority of Polishness over more lowly nationalities and couldn't resist its splendour, much as the pagans in the Roman Empire voluntarily became Christians in spite of the prospect of being martyred :). --[[Special:Contributions/178.249.169.67|178.249.169.67]] ([[User talk:178.249.169.67|talk]]) 23:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:[[User:178.249.169.67|@178.249.169.67]] What's sad is that this may well have been a well-meaning Polish wikipedian misinformed by the education system. "Polonisation occured despite maximally harsh anti-Polish policies" is precisely the way kids are taught in school here. This of course doesn't justify squat and the inconsistency should be rectified with proper sources. [[User:Matthew Zholkev|Matthew Zholkev]] ([[User talk:Matthew Zholkev|talk]]) 07:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

== Unreliable source ==

For the claim that 'By 1927 Hramada (the Belarusian organisation for political resistance to Polonisation - my note) was controlled entirely by agents from Moscow.', the cited source is an article published by 'the Association of Poles in Belarus' with the vitriolic title 'The Bialostok minion of Stalin' (presumably referring to a leader of that movement). Surely it should be clear that the remaining Poles in Belarus have as obvious a motive as it gets to vilify the movement that led to their no longer having a dominant position in the country?--[[Special:Contributions/178.249.169.67|178.249.169.67]] ([[User talk:178.249.169.67|talk]]) 23:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

==Boston==

Be nice in an English article to have Boston in [[Lincs]] mentioned.. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/240F:CA:2CE5:1:7149:31A7:8444:642E|240F:CA:2CE5:1:7149:31A7:8444:642E]] ([[User talk:240F:CA:2CE5:1:7149:31A7:8444:642E#top|talk]]) 22:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Immigrants being in a place doesn't constitute Polonization. The English Wikipedia aims to be country-neutral. [[User:Kreuner|Kreuner]] ([[User talk:Kreuner|talk]]) 08:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

== Confusing English in "Royal Prussia" section ==

Why are the present perfect and present tenses used? The behaviors described apparently stopped a long time ago. This is confusing to native English speakers and makes the text more difficult to read. Please only use the present perfect for actions that are ongoing until now. Using the present tense for actions from centuries ago sounds strange.

''Since Teutonic times the language of the Prussian elite and administration '''has been''' German. This did not change after the incorporation into the kingdom of Poland. It was only from the beginning of the 16th century that the role of the Polish language began to increase. Since 1527 there '''have been''' complaints from representatives of large cities that some council members '''use''' Polish, although they '''know''' German.''

sounds better and doesn't disrupt the reader's flow:

''From Teutonic times the language of the Prussian elite and administration had been German. This did not change after the incorporation into the kingdom of Poland. It was only from the beginning of the 16th century that the role of the Polish language began to increase. Starting at least as early as 1527 there were complaints from representatives of large cities that some council members were using Polish, even though they knew German.'' [[Special:Contributions/2601:645:8A00:8610:285D:76C6:29BF:6FD5|2601:645:8A00:8610:285D:76C6:29BF:6FD5]] ([[User talk:2601:645:8A00:8610:285D:76C6:29BF:6FD5|talk]]) 01:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)