Talk:Renaissance in Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Renaissance in Poland appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 20 February 2006.

[edit] POV tag

So-called "Muscovy", which according to the author of this article wallowed in barbarism,actually availed itself of the finest Italian masters in the 15th century, which resulted in the proliferation of Cinquecento monuments at the court of Ivan III (e.g., the Palace of Facets). Neither Aloisio the New nor any other major Italian master who worked in 16th-century Russia came here from Poland, either. However, I'm afraid that its pointless to argue with the author of this article, who not only previously attempted to propagate "civilisatory mission" of Poland in Eastern Europe (a paraphrase for his country's imperial ambitions and attempts at colonization of East Slavs), but even gives credence to the fables about Ptolemy making use of Polish maps in the 2nd cent. AD. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 23:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. The rulers of Vladimir and High Kings of Rus'ia turned Emperors were quite capable of forging direct links with Renaissance Italy, writing to the rulers of Venice, Milan and elsewhere, and bringing architects like Aristotile Fioravanti over. Moreover, Rus'ia itself had fine native architects, and was the inheritor of the traditions of the Kievan period, a period in which Rus'ia had some of the largest cities in Europe, while contemporary Poland, before it brought in German settlers to urbanize it, could boast little more than a series of fortified cragie lumps with some mud-huts around them. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

THE TARTAR YOKE by Professor Gerhard Rempel at Western New England College --Molobo 21:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[...pages of pasted text removed by Irpen]]

Molobo, stop pasting chunks into Wikipedia! You were blocked for that already! We all know how to click and read in English. If you need to summarize something, do it yourself and briefly. If you want things discussed, please help everyone keep talk pages readable. --Irpen 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Professor Gerhard Rempel at Western New England College --Molobo 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC) The above quote which I entered was deleted by Calgacus[1]

I have seen larger quotes used on discussion pages. It is most sad to see that users now resort to this kind of vandalism to push their POV. --Molobo 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

'Unfortunetly discussion on the subject is impossible. Users engaged in discussion with me delete every comment I make, I wish not to be subject to 3RR, but I am powerless against this act of vandalism. --Molobo 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, don't lie. Not a single comment you made was removed. You pasted the huge piece from an external web-site. I explained why this is not appropriate. And several people repeated that to you many times. Please reread what I said. I certainly preserved your link and I also read it. You can say something based on that link an no one will delete it. --Irpen 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a "huge chunk of external website"? : http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/07tartar.html

In conclusion we might ask ourselves what influence the Tartar-Mongols had on Russia.

(...)

There were also important cultural effects'. Mongol domination retarded Russia's cultural development. It delayed for at least two centuries any contact between Russia and Europe, which was at that time the only fountain of progress and enlightenment. The Russian Middle Ages were barren of achievement in any field of creative endeavor, except perhaps that of icon painting, which reached high standards in the fifteenth century.

Professor Gerhard Rempel at Western New England College --Molobo 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Molobo disagrees. He has posted his version of events on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded there. Molobo, this time the piece you added is OK, I think. I have no intention to delete it. Please do not bold it all either. --Irpen 22:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's now in two different places. Perhaps Molobo could clean it up and add quotation marks. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this article - and the disputed entry - is referenced. The disputed quote is actually taken directly from the source [2] - I expected it may be somewhat controversial, so I decided to keep the relevant paragraph unchanged. I don't understand why some people want to deny that Renaissance spread first to the countries close to Italy and then to those further, but it appears that some people would rather argue that Earth is flat before conceding that Poland might have done something to Russia besides invading it (twice, at least) and being ungrateful for occu... I mean, brotherly help after IIWW. Sheeez. If you think that Michael J. Mikos[3], Professor of University of Milkwaukee, is biased or wrong, please provide other ACADEMIC references that say so. Otherwise either expand this article with relevant references or do so at Renaissance in Russia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, while I don't agree with some of what you are saying I agree with your aproach. The POV that Poland was a civilizator of Russia does exist and can stay, when properly referenced. We will balance it with other views and will remove the tag. Some here just started removing tag to prove something. This was highly objectionable. --Irpen

The POV that Poland was a civilizator of Russia does exist Well you can hardly argue it was otherwise-here is how Muscovy was seen in Polish culture: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/903/233books.html And there is no denying that Sarmatian literature takes a view of Muscovy that the Russians would dearly love to erase. To a Sarmatian, Muscovy had little to do with European civilization. It was a "rude and barbarous kingdom" to be viewed with pity rather than awe. Sarmatian attitude contrasts sharply with the "powerful brother" image the Russians have tried to build in Slavic countries in the nineteenth century, and also in the Soviet period. --Molobo 23:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's true - sad, but true. I doubt that Muscovites had a much better opinion of Poles than, neither. At that time stereotypes were the rule, rather than the exception - consider Icon Animorum of John Barclay (1582-1621).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Just shocked that Molobo would make it clear that he was quoting someone. :> - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we should not remove the tag 'just like this', but please explain to me which parts of the article are still POVed? Of course expantion and careful attention to the language would be prudent, but I don't see what is POVed or disputable in the article (especially as it is referenced with an academic source). If there is no basis for the POV tag, than it can be removed, right?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Through this exchange of ideas Poland not only participated in major scientific and cultural developments but also propagated Western heritage and art among East Slavic nations, especially in Belorussia and Ukraine, from where they were transmitted to Muscovy, which was catching up with Europe in the aftermath of the Mongol invasion of Russia" only says that Poland "propagated" "western heritage and art"; this statement is actually true, the printing press might be an example, and the statement doesn't imply that Poland monopolized or nearly monopolized transmission of western culture. However, "catching up" with Europe is both POV and wrong, since 1) Russia is in Europe and 2) "catching up" presupposes a unilinear moral conceptualization of history (POV), and it is not exactly clear that a) Russia was more "backward" than western Europe (POV) or, if it was, to what extent this it was more backward than Poland. It's best to remove that statement, or alter it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess Bangladesh is more developed then Luxemburg then. --Molobo 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 1) Russia is in Europe It isn't about geography but wider cultural and civilisation issues. 2) "catching up" presupposes a unilinear moral conceptualization of history (POV) A rather dubious statement.

and it is not exactly clear that a) Russia was more "backward" than western Europe (POV) I think its pretty clear and quite objective statement that indeed it was. --Molobo 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? Well, much as I trust your understanding of objectivity, no-one is going to take you at your word. Why is Rus'ia more backward than Ireland, southern Italy or Andalusia? Economically, it certainly isn't. Europe was a diverse place which included Russia and these places. I personally do not subscribe to the early EU idea that "Europe" just means France and Belgium, and neither I assume do you. Rus'ia was actually doing many things in advance of its time. The development of autocracy and removal of the second tier nobility in "Muscovite Russia" under Ivan III precociously foreshadowed similar trends in France and England; Russia was sending its European-technology conquistadores over the Urals and subduing large chunks of Asia at exactly the time other great European powers were doing the same, flooding western European courts with rare and expensive furs as diplomatic gifts. Russia's precocious urbanization meant that non-Russian Europe has never as a whole been more urbanized than Russia. If Russia was backward, then it was only compared with a select group of European regions (southern England, Ile de France, Low Countries, Rhineland, etc), not Europe as a whole. In any case, the concept of "backwardness" is itself inherently POV; if you don't think so, then maybe you'd like to add "In recent times, backward Poland has been subjected to varying influences from the superior West" to the Poland article. No? Might be true in many minds, but it's POV, isn't it? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No not really, but needs to be fully expanded: "In recent times, Poland has been subjected to Soviet occupation and as result its backward compered to the countries of the West Europe. As a result Poland had to catch up with them in terms of economic development" I would have nothing against such statemant.

I note that there a no words like backward, superior in the article which you imply. Of course it is interesting to see you oppose any mention of "Backwardness", just after you claimed Poland, before it brought in German settlers to urbanize it, could boast little more than a series of fortified cragie lumps with some mud-huts around them. --Molobo 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I merely pointed out that medieval Russia was significantly more urban than Poland, which I'm sure you'd not disagree with; but this is no comment about backwardness in general, but a rejoinder to the idea of a Polish civilizing mission in Russia, which doesn't exist in the article. Of course, I'd never put such POVishness in articles. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I merely pointed out that medieval Russia was significantly more urban than Poland, which I'm sure you'd not disagree with I disagree with it, since it is well known that in the period that territory of modern Russia was part of Mongol Empire it was depopulated. --Molobo 00:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In 1200, Kiev had a population of 50,000 people, Novgorod and Chernigov both had around 30,000 people (Martin, Medieval Russia, p. 61). By comparison, in England in twelfth century, where urbanization was as advanced as anywhere in Europe north of the Mediterranean, London had around 12,000 inhabitants, and England's second city, Winchester, about 5,000. (Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, p. 332 ). Scotland, a land which shared the urban experience of Poland in the period (see Bartlett, Making of Europe), the largest "city" had around 1,000 inhabitants. The idea that Rus'ia was backward in the high middle ages compared with anywhere else in Europe (with the sole exception of Constantinople) doesn't really cut much ice. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Granted, that was my 'quick fix' adition and the word choice may be somewhat unfortunate, feel free to work on it. On the other hand, it's an addition of the past hour, so I don't think it can be cited as the basis of the 2+ day old POV tag discussion, now can it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I agged a POV tag not two days, but just several hours ago simply to stop the revert war, hoping that the warriors would accept to leave the article in the opponent's version if the tag is applied. The discussion is ongoing. Let's work the solution out and wait until all of those involved who want to say something do that. A reasonable amount of time, I think, is at least a couple of days. Warrantless tagging can be undone on the spot, but here the objections are clearly stated. Tag stopped the edit war and is a lesser evil. --Irpen 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am in no hurry to remove the tag - you are right it tends to motivate people to fix things (including many we may not have noticed yet). So, besides Calgacus comments on my recent addition, are there any things that should be fixed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As there are no other comments or edits, I tried my best to fix the article. Is this better?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's bring our discussion to the point

1. The article does not say anything about the "barbarism" of Muscovy (this is just an ill phantasy of Ghirla).
2. It does not not assert that Eastern Europe did not have its own cultural tradition. (So the comment of ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ about the cultural traditions of Kievan Rus is correct, but it has nothing to do to what is said in the article).

What the article says is that there was an influence of West-European cultural developments on Eastern Europe, which is just a fact. No serious researcher would deny it.

1. It does not say that Poland was the only way of the cultural exchange. There were also direct contacts mentioned by Ghirla. But the article does not deny their existence.

If you would like keep the tag, please explain your objections and cite the corresponding fragments of the article text. Your own phantasy is not the reason to tag the article.--AndriyK 09:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with removal sonce the edit war stopped. Note that tag stopped the refert war that was just filling the article's history. So, it served its purpose. Of there are still objections, they will be brought up. --Irpen 23:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)