Talk:Polonization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Polonization is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Polonization is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Comments	Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Talk:Polonization/Archive

Contents 1 Polonization during partitions sourced to Dovnar-Zapolsky 1.1 Polonization during partitions sourced to Dovnar-Zapolsky (section break) 1.2 As a side note 1.3 Disputed statements 2 Disputed statements, explanation 2.1 Disputed statements, explanation (section break) 3 Ponization of French 4 partition section continued 5 which led to large scale violence during World War II 6 Self-polonisation 7 camp Tost 8 Daniel Beauvois 9 About European powers 10 Minority?

[edit] Polonization during partitions sourced to Dovnar-Zapolsky

Re: this edit. While interesting, most of the new information have no references, and the only one provided is a Soviet 1926. I'd be rather careful with it, as it is well-known (Marc Ferro and others) that Soviet historiography is very POVed. Especially if one is going to argue that Polonization was strenghtened under partitions of Poland (the time when Russification was raging, according to most other sources) - we should provide a better references (per WP:V and WP:RS) then a single Soviet'26 book.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's single but quite voluminous Soviet book :), and, anyway, it was printed but not actually published in 1926, as it was banned by the Soviet authorities for being "Bible of national democratism" and for not glorifying role of Soviets enough. The 1994 and 2005 editions are just reprints of the 1926 book. Don't know if that makes it good for you. Yury Tarasievich 22:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

JFYI, this author was one of the thorough researchers of the then-not-so-old 19th cent. events on these lands. Was witch-hunted in beg.1930s and was "lucky" to "just" die of heart-attack in 1934. Yury Tarasievich 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, one must remember that in mid-1920s Stalin's censorship did not take the grip and live and candid political debates were taking place even in the popular press. These were years of Korenization program that brought about the national cultural elites that were later purged (in 1930s). It was the time when the Ukrainian history books by Hrushevsky and Polonska-Vasylenko were published. This were the times when Mykola Khvylovy threw out openly a slogan "Away from Russia!" about the direction where the Ukrainian literature and culture in general were to be developed in his view. I am removing the "dubious" tag and advise Piotrus to study a little background of any source or author he is about to dismiss as "Soviet" or otherwsie unreliable. --Irpen 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that Soviet sources are just not reliable (per WP:RS) when dealing with history in such controversial topics. Please provide neutral (preferably modern acedemic English) publications to verify that info, or at least a favourable reviews of that Soviet source.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, by your logic, all Polish books should also be dismissed. When I have time I will write the article on the author of the book Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky. This will hopefully remove any doubts. If you can't wait, try searching for the info on him in the languages available to you. --Irpen 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet historiography (article which I will create when I have some time) is universally deemed as very unreliable - not that different from Nazi historiography or other totalitarian-decreed versions of history. It's as simple as that, and there is plenty of references for that. You should really read Marc Ferro, The Use and Abuse of History: Or How the Past Is Taught to Children, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 978-0-415-28592-6 [1] (for example).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky is one of the most respected scholars of the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian history. Period! I will write a stub on him today just FYI. I will not comment on the rest and would advise you to try to write Polish historiography for a start. --Irpen 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of him. He is, indeed, notable and influencial on much or Soviet historiography. That, however, does not make him as reliable as his Western counterparts, who can be expected to be much more neutral and much less politically controlled when writing about phenomenas such as Polonization.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please cut the BS. Are you trying to just drive me mad so that I go off with the comments your behavior deserves and allow you to proceed with yoour favorite path of administrative complaints? First, there were many Soviet historians with the highest reputation. That he worked in the Soviet times does not make him not credible per se. Further, he also worked in the Russian Empire and (very notably) in the Ukrainian People's Republic. He was invited as a consultant during the border negotiations between the Ukrainian and Belarusian people's Republics (non-Soviet and even anti-Soviet ones). Nataliia Polonska-Vasylenko, who worked much of her life in the west, was his student and colleague who always spoke very highly of her teacher and wrote his biography. One of Dovnar's teachers was no one else but Volodymyr Antonovych in the History dept of Kiev University. One of the most respected figures among the colleagues, Dovnar had many problems with Soviet authorities and to his own luck, he did not live to become a victim of the purges that exterminated any free-thinking historians of the time. To call him "politically controlled" is outright offensive in the memory of this established scholar. He is as reliable as there could be. So, just cut it and go check articles referenced to the Polish historians. Seriously, this is on the border of trolling. I am removing the ridiculous tag and I suggest you first find a single respectable criticism of this historian. --Irpen 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First, please stop ad hominens - you have been warned that they are not the best ways to go about a dispute. Second, per WP:V: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. Please prove that this person is reliable if you want to include his theories in this article. Do so by providing reviews of his works by reliable, English, academic sources, or at the very list that he is cited reasonably often on that subject by realiable scholars. Based on reliable works - like Marc Ferro's I cited above - I claim that Soviet historiography is not reliable. You may hold Soviet historians in highest regard - but WP:V asks you back up your POV with something else than your beliefs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put things in my mouth. I do not hold all Soviet historians in highest regard. I said no more that some of them are reliable and D-Z iz not even Soviet. I cited a respectable scholar Polonska-Vasylenko who published a bio of him in the west and gives him much praise. If you want to attack D-Z credentials, find at least someone other than you who supports this bizarre POV and please cut the civility talk. --Irpen 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am looking forward to seeing you criticize a Soviet or Russian historian. You did not cite Polonska, you mentioned her existence, and you most certainly did not quote any work of her. This is citing: "moderate nationalists like Dovnar [...] readily sought accomodation with new [Soviet] regime" from John Leslie Howard Keep, Alter L. Litvin, Routledge, 2005, [2]. Or "Bushkovitch identifies Kostomarov and Dovnar-Zapol'skii as populist historians..." Alec Nove, Samuel H. Baron, Slavic Review, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Winter, 1981), pp. 691-696 [3]. PS. Irpen, we are still waiting for the bio of Platon Zhukovich, whose works you tried to use to push the 19th century Russian Imperial view of the Warsaw Uprising (1794) - at least until we showed you enough contradictory modern references. Will this situation repeat itself here?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing your second ref but I saw the first one. Were does it say that he is not reputable or not trustowrthy in it? --Irpen 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is more: "A number of studies published before and during World War I contributed immeasurably to our knowledge, such as those of Dovnar-Zapol'skii and Picheta..." [4] Commerce and Agriculture in Lithuania, 1400-1600 Karl von Loewe, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), pp. 23-37--Irpen

A historian that 'readily sought accommodation with Soviet regime' is not the most reliable, and I cannot understand why do you keep denying he was a Soviet historian...?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polonization during partitions sourced to Dovnar-Zapolsky (section break)

"Sought accomodation" is an ambiguous statement that does not necessarily mean that he wrote his books to please the authorities. Moreover, that his books were banned in USSR proves the contrary. His standing is very similar indeed to that of Hrushevsky and Polonska-Vasylenko who are also very respected, including in the west, and who also "sought some accomodations" with the regime. That work of all of them was subsequently banned as the Soviet full cemsorship kicked in disproves your attempts of dismissing them as "Soviet historiography". --Irpen 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I looked into the biographies of Dovnar-Zapolsky he is idetified as the creator of the National Belarusian historyography [5]] and even as the man who proved that Belarusians are a separate nation different from Russians, Ukrainians and Poles [6]. His History of Belarus was forbidden by the Soviets and only printed in the independent Belarus in 1994. He himself was persecuted by Soviets as a Belarusian nationalist. I think dismissing his works as a Soviet puppet is absurd. On the other hand he might be considered as a National Romantic and because of this some of his writings maybe taken with a garain of salt. But this is a slippery slope if we dismiss historians for being National Romantics we may end up with dismissing not only Dovnar but quite a number of Ukrainians, Poles and Russians who certainly also qualify for the strong national emotions. Alex Bakharev 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for stopping by. D-Z is certainly notable, and I agree that there may well be parts of his research that are useful; certainly he would be somebody to quote in many parts of History of Belarus. However - per my comments below - I would not call him an authority on the issue of polonization: most of his claims seem illogical and are contradicted by modern research.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A new pearl by Piotrus: "According to the 20th century Russian (later Soviet) nationalist historian D-Z". Piotrus, how to you come up with all this? Ethnically, he was a Belarusian, although born at the time when the concept of the Belarusians being a separate nation was yet in doubt. He then studied in Saint Vladimir University in Kiev, where he stayed on as the researcher. He then moved to Moscow under the pressure of the authorities unhappy with the Ukrainian national awakening climate around the circle of his teacher, Volodymyr Antonovych. In Moscow he worked in the Archeological Society and became a Privatdozent of the Moscow University. Then in 1901 he returned to Kiev University at the member of the History Faculty. During the Civil War he worked all over Ukraine whenever he could find an employment and safety. His interest included an extensive writing on Decembrists and the Ukrainian history, a collaborative work on UA history with such such grand figures as Antonovych. Hrushevsky and Polonska-Vasylenko, who has likely also been his common law wife, and even consulting the independent Ukrainian and Belarusian People's Republics in their border negotiations in 1918. The LOC alone has 21 of his books.[7]

In 1925 he returned to Belarus to the Minsk University and at that time he created his most important work, the "History of Belarus". The Soviet censorship started to tighten then and his book was banned and he was forced to leave the national University again for Moscow. He soon faced an incredible authorities organized baiting campaign and died of heart attack that saved him from an arrest. Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian historiography all consider him "theirs". "Russian nationalist", "Soviet" and early 20th century (he worked in 19th and until 1930s) is plain nonsense. Your perpetual dismissiveness towards the authors of the sources that do not support your POV is plain ridiculous. --Irpen 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. He was a citizen of the Russian Empire first and Soviet Union later, yes or no? And while some of his books might have been censored in SU, others were published there and he held a respectable position in Soviet academia, yes or no? And nationalist is both sourced by me and also noted by Alex. I am sorry that the facts are not to your liking, but they are facts - when it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, Irpen, and this is a Russian and Soviet historian.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Taras Shevchenko was also a citizen of the Empire. Is he a Russian poet?

Some of the books by Hrushevsky, Polonska-Vasylenko and other Ukrainian historians were also published in the USSR. Does it mean that these authors are to be dismissed? Are Polish historian who were published a single time in Communist controlled Poland to be dismissed outright? How about the authors who published in the interwar nationalist Poland? Also dismissed outright? Each scholar has to be judged by his/her own merit. I have yet to see a single ref from you about unreliability of D-Z' work. I added a ref to the western source to the contrary. Happy edits, --Irpen 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have presented sources to show his bias, which you remove. I have presented modern sources that contradict him that you ignore. You add WP:WEASEL statements like 'highly respected' (I don't see anything about 'high respect' in your ref. And you seem to be ignoring WP:3RR. This is not constructive, Irpen. PS. And yes, all of the above sources should be taken with a big grain of salt, and how big it varies from case to case. As I shown with my sources, modern research indicates that in the case of polonization, D-Z research should be taken with quite a large barrel of salt indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You presented the citation which in weaselized terms speak about his political views. I replaced it with something much more relevant, an assessment of his work. This is not a revert but an edit and you know that. That Wagner is often viewed a nationalist does not change the fact that he was one of the greatest composers. The evidence that D-Z was a nationalist is very week and is restricted to a single source. The amount of works that cite him is immence that testifies to his credibility in any case. --Irpen 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing one's edit is reverting. The assessment doesn't use the weasel term you used to replace my referenced claims from Oxford University for him being a Russian/Soviet citizen and a nationalist (and my ref, unlike yours, is easily verifiable online). Have some others: [8], [9], [10]... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only see the first one from those above. I wanted to add it but noticed that is a book (Alexander the First, a Reappraisal) published by Xlibris, the self-publishing services provider.

Whose nationalist is he that you want to add? Russian? Belarusian? Ukrainian? (Antonovych / Hrushevsky / Polonska circle was often called Ukrainian nationalist as well). He can't be a "Soviet nationalist". Or can he? Or all three?

I agree about the "grain of salt" and "case by case". My point is that in this case, the historian's credentials are respectable. I did not touch anything you added about other sources that present an alternative view. All I did is replaced the general political statement about him, which is also loosely relevant, by a direct assessment of his work. If you dislike "highly regarded" what do you propose instead for the historian directly praised and frequently cited? Would "respected" be OK with you? --Irpen 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to integrate your source back, btw. --Irpen 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my recent edit. I hope we can reach a compromize on this - also, we may just want to move most of the criticism (positive and negative) of him and his work to article about him once it is created - then the reader can just follow the links and judge the author himself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As a side note

...being Russian or Soviet historian does not bear a stigma by itself. I won't discuss this stigmatising worldview now, though.

To the point: if you disagree with something, bring explanations of the supposed flaws of the exact product -- and the mere fact of somebody disagreeing (not proving it false, I mean) with it doesn't invalidate it, btw.

So somebody called D-Z a nationalist -- big deal! And he cooperated with Soviet regime, held some positions (early years, anyway) -- good grief! It's only the material for the biographical article -- "perception of the person of D-Z" -- and doesn't invalidate his work by itself. Yury Tarasievich 08:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how old are you and if you've had the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms under the Communist regime since you claim that "being a Soviet historian does not bear a stigma by itself". Anyway the fact that Downar-Zapolski was not published by the Soviets can only add to his credibility, not the other way round. --Lysy^talk 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Yuri, please read Ferro's book or related positions (I linked Ferro's book above, I believe) for a crtitique of Soviet historiography. Being a Soviet historian does bear a stigma (and yes, being a Polish communist historian bears a similar one, as does being a Nazi historian and so on).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Subscribing to anti-Sovietism doesn't produce a good researcher per se, and same goes for the ideology-based critique. To cut the ...story short -- nationality does not enter into the discussion of author's merits, or else every author gets dissected so. Yury Tarasievich 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it does, and for good reason - see historiography and nationalism, read WP:NPOV and WP:RS, as well as books such as Ferro's. And yes, every author gets dissected so. It's just that people rarely quote Soviet historians or similar dubious references, so we don't have to do it every single time...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how Piotrus uses the same method that he condemns in other articles. In Soviet partisans the AK was passingly called "nationalist". This was not my invention, I simply saw it in the source that I was reading on the subject (Subtelny) and I did not make a big deal out of it. When Balcer asked, I agreed to withdraw it in the end of the day. Nevertheless, I've heard a lot about "cherry picking", "googling" for rare quote to be used to POV push and even going into irrelevant speculations about the non-main subject of the article (AK) whose main topic is Soviet partisans. Now, look at what Piotrus, who was the most voiceful critic of even referenced using of the term "Nationalist" with AK, is doing here. He finds somewhere a quote (or two perhaps) where D-Z is called "nationalist" and revert wars to keep it in the article. Double standards anyone?

What's more, Piotrus insists on calling a Belarusian person, a "Russian historian" (and a Soviet too) and what we lack, is clarity whose nationalist was he? Russian? No way as he had problems with the authorities both before and after revolution. Belarusian, I guess? Or, perhaps, Ukrainian? We've heard no answer. And of course, with D-Z's separate article available, that stuff still has to be here just to undermine his writings that Piotrus happens not to like. That would all be understandable if not the righteous condemnation of (sourced) calling AK nationalist elsewhere. And we are talking "good faith" to others all the time, aren't we? --Irpen 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts. The discussion of D-Z nationality and nationalism was moved once his article was created, as I suggested earlier we should do. There are many sources about AK, very few of them use 'nationalist'. There are few sources about D-Z, several mention his bias and nationalism. Anyway, this is OT here, especially as the attempt to push D-Z outdated research (or some editors interpretation of them) is now in the past (while the partition section still needs further expansion, D-Z views are clearly shown as minority and contradicted by more modern research).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not again, Piotrus. Nothing in the modern research contradicts D-Z. What you refer to are refs on policy reversal after the revolts. D-Z says the same thing. Sources in fact agree with D-Z that Polonization continued for the first decades after the partitions. And D-Z agrees with sources when he says that later Polonization was reversed. Please stop these endless empty speculations. --Irpen 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed statements

While above we can discuss the merits of including Soviet research from 1920s, I'd like to discuss here specific claims. Please note that some of D-Z claims may remain, if better referenced - but I argue that some are pretty outrageous (and present referenced modern refs that contradict him). Disputed statements:

1. Primary concern: please explain to me how Polonization could have intensified under Russian partition - compared to the PLC?? I'd guess it's a fault of a translation, because claiming that the Polonization actually intensified under the rule of Alexander I as the direct control over the education in the "joined provinces" had been given to the local power people when those 'local people' (i.e. Poles, I assume (who else would 'polonize') had total control of their country before the partitions, just doesn't make sense. Next, the part that is as strange as the first one: The new structure had been headed by prince Adam Czartoryski, helped by such notable personalities as Tadeusz Czacki, rev. Hugo Kołłątaj, Jan Śniadecki. Effectively, this setup had enabled the cultural Polonisation and cultivating of the strictly Polish patriotism in in the territory in scale never before possible. The whole spirit of the schooling and the University had become distinctly Polish. and Such activities had seen some, rather weak and short-lived, opposition, e.g., by the first head of the University rev. Hieronim Strojnowski, and by the Uniate metropolitan Józef Lisowski. However, soon the headship of the University had been transferred to the notable Polish national activist Jan Śniadecki, and so any opposition to the Polonization in the University had ceased. as well as Summarily, the 1800s – 1810s had seen the unprecedented prosperity of the Polish culture and language in the former Great Duchy of Lithuania lands, had prepared the era of such famous "Belarusians by birth – Poles by choice", as Adam Mickiewicz and Władysław Syrokomla. The era had seen the effective completion of the Polonization of the smallest nobility, with further reduction of the areal of use of the contemporary Belarusian language. The Vilna Academy was distinctly Polish before the partitions, how could it become 'more Polish' afterwards?? Here are some quotes from history of Vilnius University by Tomas Venclova, a modern and reliable Lithuanian scholar (source): "[After the partitions] Russian was added to the curriculum. [...] The right of overseeing the whole of Lithuania's educational system was revoked, and academic freedom and autonomy were limited. [...]" And of course: "On May 1, 1832, by special decree, Czar Nicholas I closed the University of Vilnius." Now, granted, Venclova also mentions that "The University became the center of Polish patriotism and culture" and "The University Polonized Lithuanian nobility and townspeople", but quite obviously it did so only as much as Russian authorities permitted it (in PLC it was not controlled), and for a limited number of time. Summarizing, to claim that Polonization "increased" during partitions and that time saw "the unprecedented prosperity of the Polish culture and language" is rather absurd (but quite fitting to Soviet propaganda...). Here is a reference for depolonization of those areas under Russian rule in 19th century [11] and here for the interruption of the process of Polonization [12] (note that both of them are modern Western academic refs, and thus outweight the old Soviet claims)
2. The next sentence is irrelevant to this article completly (it may belong to Vilnius University, but a good part of it is contradicted by Venclova anyway: This had marked the beginning of the brief period of the intensive development of the schooling in the Belarusian lands. The Academy of Vilna, after its reorganizing into Emperor’s Vilna University (1803), had become, by the contemporary laws, the main and rules-setting educational institution of the whole Vilna educational district, which included the lands of Belarus and Lithuania (completely), three Ukrainian Gubernias (Governorates) (Podolia, Kiev, Volhynia), Belostok district (since 1807)
3. In the words of rev. Dmochowski: "...under the Russian rule the finest perspectives [for the advancing of the Polish national cause through the education] are opening, it’s just the question of choosing right people..." - nice quote, but irrelevant (who was Dmochowski? Unless he is properly attributed we can as well quote any random person, really)
4. The Polonization trend had been complemented with the (covert) anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox trends. Relevant claim, but controversial, so please, can we have something else then a Soviet book from 1920s to back it up?
5. In the following decades, the Polonization trend had been confronted more staunchly by then "anti-Polish" Russification policy, with temporary successes on both sides, like Polonization rises in mid-1850s and in 1880s and Russification strengthenings in 1830s and in 1860s. - this is also relevant, but better references would be preferable.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed statements, explanation

...I'll make it a separate section to be better readable.

Generally, it's preposterous to treat the whole of the 19th cent. as something uniform.

1. The quoted text refers specifically to the 1800s-1810s, Alexander I rule era. Developing of the country, initiated by the Russian authorities, was given under local control of the local Polish and Polonised nobility. No contradiction, then.

Venclova refers to the p.5 of your (my) list, "Russification strengthening in the 1830s". Of course, I could expand this, there is much more to it than just closing the University (in D-Z book, too), but 1st, haven't translated it yet, and 2nd, the detailed description of it would be much more proper to be in the Russification article.

On two other refs you give. 1st: only frontpage of metapress opens for me there. 2nd: this is very generalised statement, and as such bears no contradiction with detailed view of D-Z.

I have corrected the text to make it clear it describes the early 19th century, it was confusing before. Even so, please explain to me how polonization could be stronger under Russian (even liberal) rule than it was under Polish one?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My explanation (my understanding, really) is in the paragraph starting with "1. ". Virtually exclusive control over the local distribution of bigger than before flow of the resources, which was all but unchecked until 1830s, produced more effective Polonisation. Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but I fail to grasp your explanation. Again: how could polonization intensify under foreign government? Poles already had total control of the university and 'distribution of local resources' before the partitions, which could have only reduced their control.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Or you could emulate the lack of understanding, which goes for the rest of your replies, too. Was there a 9-mln. people comprising educational district before? Was there an influx of resources? That's how the effectiveness of Polonisation can actually increase, esp. if foreign authorities do not really imagine what to do in this department

Please sign your replies. As amusing as the claim that education in Poland improved after partitions, when Poland lost control over its education system - it is just that - amusing. Komisja Edukacji Narodowej was closed in 1794 and from there for the next 123 Poles increasingly lost control of schools and such. Even if the period of 1795-1810s was relativly liberal, the Poles control over the educational institutions decreased (with introduction of obligatory lessons of Russian, and so on), not increased. Here, have a reference that has less then a century ;p : Cambridge University Press: Partition of Poland [...] posed a genuine threat to the continuation of Polish language-culture. [...] It was in Russian-occupied Poland that Polish fared worst. [...] Education was probably the most sensitive area. The use of Polish language in education was restirected by Prussia and Russia. All over partitioned Poland education was at low ebb, with small number of ill-equipped schools. Those are just a few excerpts from one source. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Actually, Venclova confirms my entry: "...It was assigned three responsibilities: educational research, teaching, and supervising the schools in Vilnius' district. This district was made up of eight administrative provinces, including not only Lithuania, but White Russia and a large part of the Ukraine. These areas had about 9 million inhabitants..."

I am not sure which of my arguments you refer to, as I don't see much connection between my argument 2 and yours. Either way, details of Vilnius University operation belong in Vilnius University, not here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Details of operation do not belong here, while fact of shaping the schooling policy on a large territory, supervised by specific interest group, does. Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Which details do you believe are relevant here?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"...fact of shaping the schooling policy on a large territory, supervised by specific interest group..." Yury Tarasievich 20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not part of the quote - that's just your overinterpretation of an unreliable source.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Quote is from D-Z, and I understand rev. Dmochowski was of some notability then.

Quoting quotes is not best style, and Dmochowski is notable enough to even allow us to easily determine his first name now. We don't quote many much more notable people and researchers in this article - and on average we don't quote anybody on Wikipedia - try Wikiquote if you want to preserve his quote for posterity...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This quote has a quintessence of what we are discussing here, though. Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me disagree. We don't quote people in encyclopedia unless they are very relevant to the article. This is why we may quote Dmowski, a known proponent of polonization, and one of the most notable Polish interwar polticians. However Dmochowski is not notable enough to be quoted in this aricle - we cannot even find out his first name! This quote may be applicable to article on Dmochowski, section on his attitude towards polonization, if such article is ever written. Until such time, there is no need to include it in the article - we could just as well include quotes by scores of pro and anti-polonizers, and turn it into one big 'quotewar'. Thank you, I'll pass on that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, quotes aren't essentially forbidden. D-Z deemed this quote important. After the eventual confirmation of Dmochowski identity, it consider it eligible for including here. Yury Tarasievich 20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

However we are discussing whether D-Z is important for that article, and cosidering whether even a mention of his obsolete research is eligble for inclusion here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

4. This is a direct translation, and what's wrong with it, anyway? What other trends would the Polonisation be complemented with, if not with anti-Chief-Enemy trends?

Amusing how many people claim to be anti-chief-enemies-or-similar of Polonization. Russians have to compete hard with Germans, and Lithuanians, and others, you know :) Don't forget Jews... and Protestantism... and so on. As I wrote, I would like to see more neutral sources about anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox attitudes then one wrote by a person who was Russian and (I assume...) Orthodox. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On these lands Polonisation had to compete chiefly with Russification and Orthodoxisation. What error do you see here? Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Venclova who makes argument about Lithuanization? After all, it was the 19th century which saw the (re)birth of Lithuanian culture and related processes. And let's not forget that we should clearly state time period and location - unless you'd like to claim that polonization intensifed in Prussia and Austro-Hungary, too :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No contradiction here. Venclova meant ethnic Lithuanian lands, DZ meant ethnical Belarusian lands. Yury Tarasievich 20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how both of them write about Wilno. Is Wilno an ethnic Lithuanian land or Belarusian? And please show me where D-Z notes this distinction.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

5. I would also love to quote more, but didn't want to spend all day on writing. :) And see explanation on p.1, too.

Nice refs, btw, thanks. Yury Tarasievich 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus and everybody, was Dovnar proved lying about anything I quoted from his book? By anybody? For if not, I'm going to restore some of quite relevant text massaged out of article, and to remove these word-hedges of style: "Dovnar, who is somewhat suspicious, says...". Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, we have quite a few sources (and I can provide many more) that during partitions, polonization slowed or was reversed. Thus we have Dovnar, who sais 'A', and scores of other scholars, who say 'not A'. They don't have to say 'Dovnar was wrong', it's enough to show that majority of sources disagree with him. In other words, insisting on keeping his views prominent is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The article should properly state that polonization was weakened during partitions, expand on this, and note that there is one historian from Russia, early 20th century, who disagreed with this, if you insist.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Piotrus restored that he was "Russian historian". How come? What does he mean? That he published works in Russian history? Well, he also published in the History of Ukraine and History of Belarus basically founding the scholarship of the latter. That he was ethnic Russian? False again. He was a Belarusian. That he was "Citizen" of Russian Empire? So he was of the Ukrainian People's Republic and the USSR. BTW, Taras Shevchenko was also a "citizen of Empire". Does it make him a "Russian author". That he worked in Russia? He also worked in Belarus and his best work was done, actually, in Ukraine in Kiev University. What does his having been called a "nationalist" in one book have to do with his credibility? Is there a single ref calling him unscholarly, a Soviet puppet or whatever? --Irpen 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed statements, explanation (section break)

Irpen, it's really amusing watchning you trying to deny his nationality. Perhaps I should claim that he was a Pole and see how you react ;p Seriously - what was his nationality? I'd like a clear answer to that (alas, seeing as you avoid answering my clear questions above, I don't have high expectations). Helpful question: what language did he use, in what language did he write his book, whose historiography recognizes him as its patron (hint for the last one: Belarusian). It is evident that he was not Polish, and whether Belarussian/Russian/Ukrainian and 'nationalist Soviet', he was not pro-Polish. It is important to note his bias in the article. And as much as it may pain you, we have a valid reference for him being an old-school nationalist - so if you don't like it, try to find modern neutral historians agreeing with him on polonizations, instead of trying to argue that his research on polonization is neutral and as valid as modern one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. Anybody and his brother's remarks about D-Z aren't all that relevant, really.

Let's have some scientific refutations of D-Z work. If no appear, the initial text stands true, with obvious cuts mentioned in p.2 of this section.

Meanwhile, I've made an initial bunch on Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy. Lots of info I didn't notice beforee. Let's observe our collegues doing their thing now. Yury Tarasievich 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, yes. Please don't make me repeat myself. Read our policies. That D-Z sais 'A' doesn't make it so if enough more modern reliable sources are showed to say 'not A' - unless you can show other modern research backing his claims.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You did't present refutations of D-Z work. Somebody labelling him en passant "moderate nationalist" isn't nearly enough. Somebody's OR of something "just not imaginably possible" is also not enough. That somebody seemingly contradicts his thesis, w/o explicit mentioning, is also not enough. Where are the books/articles which refute D-Z thesis on Polonisation flow in specific time periods of the 19th cent., please? Yury Tarasievich 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Per our policies, I don't need to present such works refuting his theories in particular if I present works refuting his claims in general. Despite claims of his prominence for Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian historiography, he is mostly unknown in the West (as shown by the few citations and references to him). It is not suprising that nobody in the West would bother refuting or arguing with a Soviet historian (this is a fate of many Russian, or Polish, or Chinese or virtually any non-English historians, no jibe at the Soviets here). To give you an example, consider a notable Polish historian, Feliks Koneczny, contemporary of D-Z. Famous in Poland, he is mostly unknown in the West. Recently, the article was expanded a little, with criticism. Alas, the criticism section - despite certain user's best efforts to expand it - contains a 1) oblique reference in English academic book 2) a more detailed criticism from a Polish language work of a modern Polish scholar and 3) a popular press article of dubious NPOV. And that's the level of sources when we are dealing with relativly notable scholars - thin about the more mundane ones. If one would demand we find a work specifically refuting theirs, Wikipedia would be filled with 'reliable' claims of minor historians who nobody bothered to debate (especially the older they are). This is why WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS clerly allow to refute arguments based on the fact that they are not supported by other sources, and disputed by most others. Finally, note that it is you who have to prove this scholar is reliable when it comes to polonization, not the other way around (per WP:V: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided the extensive material from the book of notable author, who specialised in the 19th cent. history. I even provided the facts of his "suffering from Soviets" for writing this very same book. And now I'm being asked to prove he is "reliable when it comes to polonization"? What weirdness is this? How much more reliable can author get? Actually, are you reliable and competent when it comes to polonization, eh? Yury Tarasievich 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again: read the policies of Wikipedia. I will not repeat myself over and over again. If I dispute that D-Z is reliable on Polonization, the burden to prove me wrong rests on you. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

•  ??? Here in WP, you are nobody to "dispute reliability" of anybody. Also, you are not allowed to input your new presentation or interpretation of information. As far as I understand it's called WP:OR and explicitly forbidden. However, you are right that this talk gets us nowhere. Yury Tarasievich 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The authority of D-Z in the Belarusian history is well-established and challenged by no one. If a respected historian wrote something that Piotrus does not like, my condolences. Yuri does not have to prove anything extra just because Piotrus happens to not like the source. When Piotrus brings other scholars who say that D-Z's scholarship is unreliable, that would be a different story. The bottom line is that we have a work of a well-respedted author who is referred to to most every single comprehensive work on Belarusian history. Piotrus' editorializing on D-Z's research is inappropriate, at least in WP. If Piotrus writes and article tearing up D-Z's scholarship in pieces and the article passes a peer-reviewed process and gets published in, say, Slavic Review, [13] well then. We will all accept this criticism of D-Z. But not the criticism of Piotrus, as a Wikipedia user not backed up by any support among the scholars. --Irpen 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please, this is getting tiresome. What sort of burden are you trying to impose on the peer editor. That the author he is using is an expert in Polonization? That's nonsense. No one studied in the Department of Polonization of XYZ University. The author is a Historian, a highly respected scholar in the History of Belarus particularly specializing in the 19th century, the time and place that those events occurred. His work is praised by the later scholars who refer to him a lot. You can certainly find other historians of his time who is referred to now more frequently, true. But this is because unfortunately the History of Belarus is a rather obscure subject for the western historians. Not only more obscure than History of RU but even than History of UA. The scholar is of the Hrushevsky/Polonska respectability level. There happen to be more books on Ukraine because Belarus is a rather small nation and it is kind of exotic to write on its history. But even with this, we still find plenty of later scholarship referring to D-Z. He is a historian who is certainly usable. Please stop this campaign of slander against the authors whose only fault is that they show some facts contrary to the prevailing view of Polish historiography that portray Poland and the Poles perpetual victims of the barbarity of their eastern neighbors carried through "massacres", "cultural oppression", "occupations" and whatnots. --Irpen 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your tactic of repeating the same arguments, all over again, ignoring my pleas to observe Wikipedia policies, is what is really tiresome. Let me add one more: WP:AGF and WP:NPA to the list (and please don't break WP:3RR again). Btw, do endulge me and prove that we still find plenty of later scholarship referring to D-Z.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I did not break 3RR. I did not attack your personality and your repeated resorting to civility talk when you have nothing to say on the topic will not work. I do assume good faith in general. I do know you enough to not have to assume anything in our interactions. Now, go to Google books, enter "Dovnar" and find plenty of refs to him. More, find a single comprehensive work on Belarus that does not refer to him. --Irpen 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it is evident that majority of publications that refer to him and 1) not-English (Russian) and 2) old. In the first 20 I count only 5 English. The latest - from 1976 - doesn't quote him but only mentins him. Then we have the 60s, 50s... quote a few pre-WWII Russian... he would be very reliable for Wikipedia'50, but not for 21st century one, Irpen.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you find any 21st century English work on the Belarusian history? This is the problem. We have to use what we have. I wish a Harvard Slavist wrote a modern History of Belarus book. They did not. Ukrainians are more lucky to have at least 3-5 modern works in English on the History of UA. On Belarus we have to use what was published when it was published. --Irpen 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one book from 1997 worth examining (Belarus: At a Crossroads in History By Jan Zaprudnik). It cites D-Z once. There is also the Contemporary Belarus: Between Democracy and Dictatorship By Elena A. Korosteleva, Rosalind J. Marsh, Colin W. Lawson from 2002. It mentions he extensivly contributed to history of Belarus, but doesn't cite him. There are quite a few books that discuss Belarus as part of their theme, but alas, they fail to cite the great Belarusian scholar, D-Z (ex.[14] and so on). Particulary Davies in his well-referenced Europe: A History doesn't cite him at all. I wonder, if this is because they don't consider him reliable enough? Again, I would not object to see him referenced in history of Belarus, a subject he certainly contributed much too (although I am sure parts of his work, like the 'class struggle' analysis, are rather useless now). But he is not an authority for Polonization 'strenghtening and emanating from Vilna University', certainly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article you linked yourself in its entirety? While at it, please read another one from the same source which describe in good detail the continued Polonization in early 19th century very much in agreement with D-Z. As we speak, I am working on including this material. I need a little more time. --Irpen 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See Piotrus, this is precisely a problem to answer your question because it is impossible to answer. What exactly do you mean by calling him a "Russian historian". That he was a "Russian" who worked in history? False. That he worked in "Russian history"? Well, by the same token he is also a Ukrainian historian and a Belarusian historian. He was certainly not a Pole. What he was was an ethnic Belarusian and a scholar of the Histories of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. This can be said in his article but I can't see a way to put it here in an non-obtrusive form. Now, you still did not answer whose nationalist is he. Belarusian nationalist you mean? Any refs for that? Any refs at all that dismiss him as a scholar? --Irpen 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

His claims on Polonization are cotnradicted by modern research. You have failed to provide modern refs to back up his claim that Polonization intensified under partitions. Per NPOV:UW he shouldn't even be quoted here. EOT, Irpen.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any lately published books on the history of Belarus. Are you? All that I've seen extensively use this author. --Irpen 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW. Franciszek Ksawery Dmochowski (1762—1808), Polish national activist, publicist, poet, translator of Antique literature. Participated in Polish Uprising 1794. Secretary of Hugo Kołłąntaj. Author of famous quote... From Polesie... Yury Tarasievich 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Source for this discovery? There are several notable Dmochowski's that lived in that period; Franciszek Ksawery Dmochowski was not a priest (rev. - at least according to your description above) - he was a Piarists, but quit the order before the final partition. There are two priests that may be the source of the quote: Walenty Dmochowski (1817 - 1881) and Kazimierz Roch Dmochowski (1780 - 1851), archibsop of Mohylew, also we have no guarentee the quote comes from either of them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ponization of French

An unreferenced part was removed: please restory it IF references are found.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This process of Polonization was most prevalent during the times of Napoleonic wars when relatively large numbers of French soldiers resided in Polish lands (Duchy of Warsaw)

[edit] partition section continued

While I would prefer we use more modern, English, academic sources, the recent expantion seemed to be more neutral, better referenced and more relevant than the last more problematic attempt to quote D-Z century old research (btw, I'll create the article on Leon Wasilewski shortly - his works should have a rather strong Polish POV, which actually compensates nicely for D-Z (Belo?Russian POV but really, both should be ideally avoided). There are a few issues remaining. First, again, it would be prudent to try to find modern, English, academic sources to replace century old claims (or reprints of thereof). Second, I don't understand why a good part of modern refs were removed (Piotr S. Wandycz, Roland Sussex, Dolbilov - it is such modern researchers that we should rely more then perhaps respectable but now outdated Wasilewski or D-Z. Third, Irpen, please use proper cite.php and quote publiciations per WP:CITE: what's the full bibliographical data on '(Dovnar 1926)' (no page numbers)? Is it the same book that the later 'Dovnar-Zapolsky, pp.290-298.' where we have no idea what book is it but only page numbres? Please fix this. Fourth. The paragraph can use some copyedit (shifting stuff around for it to be more logical) - I will take care of this later. Fifth - while Russian partition is covered relativly well (early liberal times, later depolonization), the Prussian section needs to be expanded (and A-H one too) for this to be comprehensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "(Dovnar 1926)" is that same book and same pages, just I didn't want to re-stamp everything from scratch each time text got re-hashed.

I don't see what "century old" got to do with anything. It is accomplished research, and it either is or is not scientifically solid. It is an established historiogr. practice to chain-copy, and I don't understand from what other source would you expect "Modern English academic" works to come.

Anyway, I remind you book was banned and confiscated before publishing, and got re-published from manuscript only in 1994 (badly translated into Belarusian), 2005 being 2nd ed. (pub. w/o translation). Quite a reason for not appearing on the ref.lists?

Re Leon Wasilewski, I don't know whether your sources will note he was (one of) the first researchers attending the phenomenon of Eastern lands' Polonisation. Yury Tarasievich 15:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re F.K.Dmochowski -- info I out here was in biographical index in DZ's book. Yury Tarasievich 15:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So, pages numbers of DZ book are back. But the section generally is in no good shape now and needs further work. E.g., issues are oft repeated and hop-scotched back and forth (events of 1832, then 1794 etc.). Also, I don't understand why so much unrelated material (ideal for the Russification article, though) is here.

Some of quotes staunchly kept here seem of not-so-good quality, too. While, understandably, hitting google is easier, but the fact is the most of the serious research just doesn't make it to the electronic and freely accessible form.

E.g., 30 pages of monography on Polish national movement in Eastern Lands in 1864-1917 (Smalyanchuk 2001) are dedicated to the review of the historiography of the Polonisation phenomenon and the related terminology. On the other hand, the quote from the "The Slavic Languages By Roland Sussex, Paul Cubberley", p.92, comes from the book on virtually [sic] unrelated subject, is essentially two paragraphs long, regards all three partitions and spans the 120+ years. Isn't it bit thin for the serious representation of subject? Yury Tarasievich 08:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This all needs ordered carefully too for a good text flow. Also, the excessive material added by Piotrus should be deleted or moved to Russification where it belongs. I understand, that one cannot speak about the drought without mentioning water. But mentioning to give something a proper context is one thing. Adding stuff that belongs elsewhere to somehow "balance" things or satisfies one's grudges is unencyclopedic. It is totally appropriate to say that Polonization was reversed and Russification followed. It is not appropriate to write about Russification in the Polonization article just to dilute it or something. I did not have enough time to get to this today. But I will be back. --Irpen 08:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully seconded. To re-iterate for the doubters: this is not directed to "hide" Russification or setbacks of Polonisations. Yury Tarasievich 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless removal of well referenced info of notable scholars looks just like that. Please don't remove referenced info. I am really disappointed to see modern research removed and hundred years old non-Englush, unreliable sources pushed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please do not do that anymore. The irrelevant info does not belong to the articles no matter how well-referenced. This trick was invented by Molobo (in Tyutchev, Pushkin, Ded Moroz, etc.) and faithfully tried by you ever since in many articles from the Russian Enlightenment, to Russo-Japanese War. This data you add does not contradict the data of D-Z.

See, you just did not like something and attacked it without bothering for consistency. D-Z and several sources I added report on the continued Polonization in the first decades after the partition. Your sources speak about Russification after the policies changed following the Polish revolts against Russia. In fact, sources agree.

This article is about Polonization. We describe the times when such policies were in effect and mention that they were reversed. As for the details of what happened afterwards, take it to the relevant articles. Do not just paste it here to make a WP:POINT, dilute the content or whatever else that you want. --Irpen 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please don't try to censor Wikipedia. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. The sources speak of depolonization - it is important to discuss this concept in this article. You make dislike mentions of Russifications or such, but it is a reality that those issues were very relevant to polonization in the 19th and 20th century and should be discussed here, as do many scholars in provided refs. Please don't remove information because it doesn't suit your POV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, calling my attempt to keep this article on topic as "censorship" does not earn you any talking points. I neither like nor dislike the facts that Russification policies, after the Polonization was brought to an end, followed. There is a Russification article for that. What I object to is having the off-topic stuff pasted to disrupt the article. You want the article say that Polonization was reveresed. So do I. We just say it here, mention that it was replaced by the Russification and the reader is free to click and find the proper info with refs and everything where it belongs.

Please do not make another RE show out of it. ZL is in ZL and RNL. RNL is in ZL. Similarly here, Russification is mentioned but not expanded upon in the Polonization article. There is a Russification article just for that. --Irpen 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, you should move the referenced text I added there, not just delete (censor) it. However I still believe it's important to mention how those policies clashed and reversed polonization in more then one or too sentences, and this matter deserves at least one or more paragraphs. WP is not paper and there is room here to be comprehensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

See Piotrus, there is an difference between editing seriously and editing to POV push? It is not my habit to take a piece from one article and paste it to another disrupting the balance and text flow. This was also a trick Molobo favored a lot, further assisted by other editors in edit warring to keep it. I cannot just paste your piece to Russification as it takes time and effort to integrate the new info into the established text. Right now, I am editing another article. You are free to add the Russification info to the WP where it belongs. This stuff does not belong to Polonization article though, which is not about Russification. Suffice is to say that the policies were reversed and what policies followed. The rest does not belong here. --Irpen 21:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair's fair, since the 1830s, there really isn't a way to write about one of these two processes without mentioning the successes of another at all. But those should be really brief and specific refs, referring to the specific period fully expound in the main article. In fact the complementing nature of the processes should be mentioned explicitly in both articles, too. This way we won't have replicas of info creeping around and won't serve to tickle group beliefs etc. Yury Tarasievich 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added some refs and removed the stuff with details on other policies. The section ends with the mention that the Polonization was reversed and replaced by Russification. That statement is correct and referenced. Link to the Russification is provided. Below is removed material which may be added to other articles where it belongs. --Irpen 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The Polonization of the east territories occured in the situation were Poles had steadily diminishing influence on the government. Lithuanian scholar [[Tomas Venclova]] notes that while Academy of Vilno was the local center of Polish culture, it had less freedom than during the times of the Commonwealth, and was closed in 1832, following the [[November Uprising]], was subject to increasing [[Russification]] and not fully reestabilished until the end of the [[First World War]].<ref name=Venc/> [[Mikhail Dolbilov]], a modern Russian scholar from [[Voronezh State University]], notes that the late 19th century may be called a time of 'depolonization' rather than 'polonization'<ref name="MIKHAIL DOLBILOV"/> [[Piotr S. Wandycz]] from [[Yale University]] notes that the process of Polonization has been mostly interrupted by the partitions.<ref name="Wandycz"/>

Partition of Poland posed a genuine threat to the continuation of Polish language-culture.<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> It was in Russian-occupied Poland that Polish fared worst, as Russian administration was strongly [[anti-Polish]].<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> After a brief and relativly liberal early period in the early 19th century, where Poland was allowed to retain some autonomy as the [[Congress Poland]] [[puppet state]],<ref name="Harold Nicolson">[[Harold Nicolson]], ''The Congress of Vienna: A Study in Allied Unity: 1812-1822 '', Grove Press, 2001, ISBN 080213744X, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN080213744X&id=qm5BNjqrGsUC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=Congress+Poland+puppet&sig=QeOuv98IrRQBMjDxV-SSShnqHlY Google Print, p.171]</ref> the situation steadily worsened. Education was most strongly affected, especially as [[Commission of National Education]] was dissolved in 1794. The use of Polish language in education was restirected and all over partitioned Poland education was at low ebb, with small number of ill-equipped schools.<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> Many universitites and places of education were closed after the [[November Uprising]] (1830-1831), as well as after the [[January Uprising]] (1863), the Polish language was banned from public places (schools, churches, etc.) in Russian Empire.<ref name=Venc/><ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> Many Polish intellectuals either died, were exiled to [[Siberia]] ([[Sybiraks]]) or forced to emmigrate ([[Great Emigration]]). Similar to the Russian partition, in Prussia, after a brief period of relative tolerance, polices of [[Kulturkampf]] of [[Otto Bismarck]] were directed towards the systematic depolonization in the realm of education.<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> It was only the [[Austro-Hungarian]] partition that remained relativly liberal towards Polish culture throughout the 123 years between the fall of Commonwealth and the raise of the [[Second Polish Republic]].<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/>

---

I disagree. This is relevant information and should stay in the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, how about also adding a couple of paragraphs from Kielce pogrom to the the post-WW2 section and this data to the new section about the modern times created just for this? Makes exactly as much sense. --Irpen 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, like, some info on Polish-German "anti-Communist", but effectively, anti-Belarusian collaboration during WWII taking place on Belarusians lands? That's be quite on-topic, by the way, and I could source it on just one Polish (!) author, Jerzy Turonek. Oh, wait, don't tell -- he's not modern, not English and not in google? And he is Russian/Belarusian nationalist, as well? Yury Tarasievich 07:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Turonek a Russian nationalist? BTW - doesn't Turonek describe Belarusian anti-Polish collaboration during WWII?Xx236 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic and -- no, he doesn't. Yury Tarasievich 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Jerzy Turonek or claims of 'anti-Belarusian' collaboration between Poles and Germans. Feel free to elaborate. Keep in mind that whether Polish, Russian or Chinese, no ressearch under totalitarian regimes influencing academia is very reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are not familiar with those, as you are obviously dismissing anything not fitting into your historical view. And you want a blanket license to kill any entry you don't like, too. Yury Tarasievich 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Turonek is quite independent, even from academy.

• Some AK units accepted German arms and Góra-Dolina has written in his memoirs, that his unit killed hundreds of Communists (how did he recognized them?).
• Wilhelm Kube allowed many forms of Belarusian activities.
• Belarusians were on many sides - in Nazi police, Communist units and even in AK. 118th Schutzmannschaft was probably partially Belarusian, see Khatyn massacre.

Xx236 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Turonek is quite independent, even from academy" -- is that sarcasm or is there some relevant critique? If later, than I'd like to get a lead to that.

"how did the recognise Communists" -- trivially, by being not Polish or obstructing Polish agenda on "Kresy". Anybody was eligible for that, Belarusian national activists included, primarily indeed. That's, e.g., per Turonek 1989, but I'd really appreciate the explanation of your remark. Yury Tarasievich 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yuri, the issue of the AK-Nazi collaboration in Belarus'-Lithuania is covered not only by Turonek. Several refs are brought up and now being actively discussed at talk:Soviet partisans. Piotrus have just tried to make it sound like a dubious speculation and almost unimportant too. You are welcome to check that talk page. But this is a side note, while no later than today, Piotrus also saturated the Red Army article with the details on how OUN rose against Poland and murdered the civilians (see talk:Red Army) I meant it as a joke here when I suggested to include the material on Kielce pogrom into this article. I don't think it belongs here. If only my opponent also understood that the Russification topic has an article on its own and the persisting with details (anything more than to mention that the Polonization was reversed and replaced) is highly WP:TE. I will try to remove this again now and will see whether I will be reverted and for what reason

Thanks and -- I really don't understand why Piotrus refuses to expand the Russification with this and make inter-article refs. Yury Tarasievich 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But as for adding anything to the article, here is the work by Volodymyr Antonovych titled: "The treatment of the Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church by the Polish state". And here is the more detailed study by the same author. This is relevant a big deal and the facts can and should be added to the article (not the opinions of the author of course, right Piotrus?) One of the most respected academics he would not lie with facts even if some value his opinions little. --Irpen 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What I see here is need for a better structuring, then. We can't just "lump" anything together, as if to impress an reader with image of "bad them and suffering us". Possibly, more outline info from the Smalyanchuk would be in order, too. Yury Tarasievich 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, Antonovych might have been respected a hundred years ago, but today please try to cite some modern research.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet authorities weren't beloved in Poland and in many other countries, Russia including:

• Katyn massacre
• Koniuchy massacre
• Soviet partisans#Controversies
• Lokot Republic.

Xx236 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] which led to large scale violence during World War II

So some Ukrainians murdered Poles because they had to learn Polish at school. My questions"

• why didn't Eastern Ukrainians murder proportionally many Russians as the result of Russification?
• had Poles right to murder Germans because of WWII Germanization? Can I put such statement into Expulsion articles?

Xx236 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the first, one, check Snyder works for refs and details (they come to mind). Simply put: they tried - but Stalin had a much more effective policy with dealing with dissenters (Holodomor, Gulags). So by the 1930s the Ukrainian nationalist movement in USSR was simply stamped out, unlike in Poland, where despite growing tensions and violence there was no 'reign of terror'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So there should be a statement like this and lack of Soviet type repressions led to large scale violence during World War II. My question was rather a critics of the quoted statement of type Bad white-Poles deserved to die from hands of Ukrainian workersXx236 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have such a blatant POV in the article. By all means, feel free to improve it - try to use sources, though. Here are the Snyder refs I mentioned: Timothy Snyder, Covert Polish missions across the Soviet Ukrainian border, 1928–1933 (pp. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, in Cofini, Silvia Salvatici (a cura di), Rubbettino, 2005). and Timothy Snyder, Sketches from a Secret War: A Polish Artist's Mission to Liberate Soviet Ukraine, Yale University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-300-10670-X, pp. 41, 42, 43, on which I base my above comments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is POV "Given the short time span in which they were applied, these policies, applied with varying intensity, fell far short of their aim, but contributed to increased ethnic tensions which led to large scale violence during World War II." Xx236 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much POV in it, but feel free to rephrase it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-polonisation

Piotrus and Lysy, what actual problem do you have with this term and with its definition and attribution, which are taken from the specialised monograph? Personally, I do not either "love" or "hate" the term, it is just a term, a definition, and I'm just bringing it here because of importance of having clear terminology. By chance, you do not consider yourself instant experts on Polish historiography just because of belonging to the said culture, do you? Yury Tarasievich 10:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First, note we are not removing this, but adding it to a footnote. There are several reasons for this. First, per WP:LEAD, lead should summarize content of the article, not discuss new concepts. Thus the discussion of 'polszczenie się' should be moved to its own section (or footnote). Second, this term is - as your ref nots - used only in Polish historiography, and a look at the publicatons seems to indicate it's rather obsolete (and like Lysy, I have never heard it before). Thirdly, it is not yet clear from your references if there is a content difference between 'polonizowac' and 'polszczyc sie', or is it just an example of usage of a reflexive verb (generally popular in Slavic languages) coupled with the 'polszczyc sie' being just an increasingly obsolete synonym. Considering that I couldn't find meaningful discussion of difference between those two terms, I am not convinced that 'polszczenie sie' is anything but an obsolete synonym worthy of little more than a footnote (or just mentioning in the lead as an altrnative increasingly archaic name for this phenomena in Polish language).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By this vein we'll be up to our ears in fantasies and methinks-es (widzimisie-s) in no time.

I'm not condescending but I have to remind you again that it's not for you (or for me of course!) to WP:OR. The specific use of the term influenced all subsequent Polish research and now your edits change meaning of the citation, adding your own interpretation of it. And what is the academic status of Google books, anyway? Yury Tarasievich 15:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. For starters, can you translate 'Смалянчук А. Ф. Паміж краёвасцю і нацыянальнай ідэяй. Польскі рух на беларускіх і літоўскіх землях. 1864—1917 г. / Пад рэд. С. Куль-Сяльверставай. — Гродна: ГрДУ,' into English and provide quotes relevant to 'polszczenie sie' from that source (both in original and English translation)? Also, please don't ignore relevant points like WP:LEAD style guidelines.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I will do it for you. The complete book ref is here: LCCN 20-401164. The title's translation, to the best of my abilities, would be: "Between ideas of the statehood and the nation: Polish movement in Belarusian and Lithuanian lands." Published 2001 in Hrodna, Belarus. --Irpen 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Who published it (academic, self-published) and who is the author (academic)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Monograph published by the printing house of Hrodna University. Author is doctor of historical sciences (I don't know the exact English counterpart, like Ph.D on top of Ph.D., and I understand, in Polish that's doktor habilitowany).

Monograph receipted well in Poland, as far as I understand.

That version of title translation is off, unfortunately, it would more like "Between land-loyalty idea and national idea...". "Krajowosc" is another indigenous concept originated in the 19th cent., and influencing blah blah. Yury Tarasievich 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The publication seems reliable, than - please update the reference with that information (year of publication, publishing house, English translation of the title, ISBN/ISSN where applicable, page numbers where applicable) and keep in mind to add those details in the future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that moving it into a foot-note, instead of the deletion is a compromise, of sorts. Let's leave it there for now. But irrelevant stuff from the end of the partition section has to go. Piotrus is free to integrate it to the Russification, while we certainly link it here, and mention the fact of the policy reversal. Integrating this to Russification may take a little effort but seems certainly doable. I will try, in the meanwhile, to add the material from Antonovych to this article. --Irpen 08:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please keep Imperial Russian "historians" out of Wikipedia. While it was fun enough to prove that everything PZ wrote in relation to Warsaw Uprising (1794) was false, your assertions it wasn't did damage the articles by presenting his claims as truth for several weeks. Feel free to write article on Russian Imperial historiography and present their delightful fantasies there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, your attempt to smear Antonovych is ridiculous. Unlike Zhukovich, whose credentials I did not know and took the at face falue in good faith, you cannot just discredit Antonovych. More accomplished people than yourself are on record praising him. But once I add the info, I will look forward for you to prove fatcs wrong by other sources. If you come up with anything, we'll discuss it. Your undexplained return of irrelevant info is now reverted. There are no excuses to your deplorable habit of attempting to disrupt articles by adding to them the irrelevant stuff. No one adds paragraphs on Polonization to Russification article. Please desist, read what people tell you at talk pages and be more reasonable. --Irpen 03:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnote is fine, I just resent adding these off-the-wall editorials like "obsolete", "modern", "pre-war" etc. These guys somehow manage to stamp concepts and trends just by looking. And basing on the "Google books" is quite like saying "my library tells me...". Cf.wikt:en:dilettante. Yury Tarasievich 10:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of your 'my one book I have tells me...' right?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, got it in one. And that's not because of me being so smart, but because a) I'm not adding anything from myself in the process, b) I'm choosing as heavily specialised and high-level book as possible. That's what the annotations are for, e.g. in bibliographies. Yury Tarasievich 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: recent reverts. I don't quite understand why it is "either complete 3724 bytes or nothing". It hasn't -- oughtn't be so. Some remarks:

• The citation from Roland Sussex, Paul Cubberley, The Slavic Languages, p.92 is surely made to work heavily with 6 refs, proving quite a multitude of things. Nevertheless, in the context of this article on general history the historical background material from this book on philology would count next to useless. Same goes for the pieces of text referring to it -- emotional and un-precise.
• The pieces on Polish puppet statehood and Commission of National Education are completely irrelevant here (and in Russification, too btw). I guess these just re-iterate the respective paragraphs from History of Poland.
• Venclova seems to be liberally interpreted to the opposite of his meaning.
• The pieces with detailed descriptions of after-1830 and after-1863 repressions belong to the Russification article, with refs to the periods remaining here.
• This: "Mikhail Dolbilov, a modern Russian scholar from Voronezh State University, notes that the late 19th century may be called..." may be called laughable. Who is this "modern" Dolbilov guy in science? Why is his "may be called" so important, anyway? There'd heaps of such un-obliging "may be"-s, for each side of the debate.

What I would do, you'd seen already, with my first edit here. Part of it still remains in these 3724 bytes. Additionally, I'd expand this article -- and Russification too -- with the help of, e.g., Smalyanchuk book, decade by decade, like. Yury Tarasievich 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen, and I would not like to see it again. Using obsolete POVed Soviet/Russian Empire historiography is only good to prove that indeed, it tried it best to portray Polish culture in bad light and Russians as saviours of those disputed territories, nothing else.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First, kindly stop that name-calling ("obsolete", "POVed"), as this is white noise. Talk facts. For you aren't yet doing that, either w/r to that specific research, or w/r to the views of the specific historian.

Anyway, what has the "portray[ing] Polish culture in bad light and Russians as saviours" to do with the matter of Polonisation? There either were successes of Polonisation or there were not. "Russian empire" authors say there were paradoxical successes. Polish nationalist authors say there were paradoxical successes. But Piotrus knows better, of course.

It's understandable that Poles like Polonisation, and, e.g., Belarusians don't. Still, there remains the issue of having a sensible article in WP. You are not helping, Piotrus.

And what about other points of my entry? Yury Tarasievich 07:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny there were such paradoxical successes. They are very interesting and we should expand on them. However, your first expanded version presented (accidentaly, but that's what you get for near verbatim translation of an old source) the partition period as 'great time for polonization'. Some 'paradoxical successes' don't make 'great time', and I showed with my expanded and well referenced reply that indeed they were 'exceptions to the rule' (particulary after the first one or two decades). Modern research usually sees this and addresses those issues relativly neutrally. Old research, particulary from interested parties with significant bias, is what is not helping here. If you'd like me to show you sources describing Russification as ultimate evil and Polonization as Slavs only hope, I am sure I can dig relevant references from otherwise respected and notable 19th century historians... ;p-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only hope this constructive trend remains with us.

So: possibly there were some errors in translation, or in interpretation, or in both. DZ wasn't presenting entire partition period as "great time". Only the times of Alexander I (or pre-November) were described so. Later, what with the Polonism expanded and consolidated positions, it was tied struggle throughout the rest of the century (and Belarusians and Lithuanians just didn't figure).

Now, overall, the times of partitions had seen the "paradoxical successes" etc. There is no contradiction here that I can see. Can you?

I'd be quite grateful, if you'd stop this picking on the "19th centuriness" of the author. This characteristic is irrelevant in the context of the subject of this discussion. And anyway this is corroborated by Smalyanchuk, who uses lots of Polish sources, too.

On your offer of the sources on the Russification: thanks, but I have plenty of my own. The DZ himself comes to mind, and Smalyanchuk. Yury Tarasievich 07:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Polish-Lithuanian state didn't Polonize (rather Catholicized) until the very end, when Polonized Kościuszko wanted to Polonize Ruthenian peasants.
• Poland didn't exist till 1918, so there was no Polonization as a state policy.
• Many Poles called Polonized people Ruscy, when they arrived in 1945, so not always "Poles like Polonization".

Xx236 09:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.gazetawyborcza.pl/1,75248,3962717.html Xx236 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re this newspaper link: I don't feel that "free from ideology" is appropriate characteristic for those guys. Not that I approve people losing work because of the politics, but notice how they wanted eating the cookie and still having it -- "fighting the regime" while drawing the pay and scientifical honours from the same regime. Also, as far as I understand, Anishchanka's dissertation was bit on a lightweight side, scientifically. He wanted a doctorship for it, BTW, which would put him in the class of people like, e.g., Ulashchyk or Hrytskyevich or Mal'dzis.

Now, as Piotrus seemingly doesn't consider me worthy to answer my questions, I'll comment on those three points by Xx236, meanwhile. Summarily, sir, these betray somewhat insufficient and oversimplified knowledge of history on your side. Sorry. Polonisation isn't the description for the state policy, exactly, and the first successes of Polonisation as a process were noted in mid.15th cent.

What Poles called anybody isn't related to what Poles generally feel about the process which "gives" them more people and land. Didn't we all see how the cat was out of the sack, in Piotrus comment? Yury Tarasievich 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The word successes is POV, sir and your estimation of my knowledge is an ad personam argument. Xx236 12:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I insult you? I apologise.

You are of considerable knowledge of subject? Then why such superficial remarks, in the face of accumulated knowledge? To what end, that?

And what has POV to do with that, anyway? Both supposed "parties" in historiography call it so. What would be not-POV, then? Yury Tarasievich 12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] camp Tost

According to German Wikipedia camp Tost was controlled by NKVD, so it should be removed from this text, it wasn't any type of Polonization.Xx236 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Camp Tost? I guess we need an article (and references) on that...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Beauvois

Shouldn't his books be quoted here?Xx236 09:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First, create an article on Daniel Beauvois. Second, feel free to expand the article with references you have.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About European powers

I am concerned about the lead paragraph "assimilationist policies implemented by other European powers that have aspired to regional dominance (e.g., Germanization, Rumanization, Russification) or to policies carried out by reconstituted countries which have wanted to increase the role of their own language in their societies (e.g., Ukrainization)." There is something wrong in there; you cannot say that Romania was a European power on pair with the Russian Empire or the German Empire ! In fact, no Romanian state was independent after the 16th century until 1877. So i would rather have Rumanization in the same category as Ukrainization. However there seems to be a huge bias in that categorizing. Poland itself was under foreign occupation for centuries, so Polonization would qualify under "reconstituted countries which have wanted to increase the role of their own language in their societies". In any case, I would like you to state your opinion about Rumanization. Icar 13:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the fact that Rumanization does not belong with the "Russification and Germanization" bunch. Dpotop 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved RO with UKR, but the variant I would propose is to drop the distinction between the two and put all examples of assimilationist policies together. This is better, because you don't have to enter into details and state, for instance, that the policies may have changed in time from one type to another, etc. Dpotop 13:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minority?

In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the minorities (especially Ruthenian and Lithuanian) found themselves under strong cultural and religious pressure of Poland.

Can we consider Ruthenians a minority? I'm afraid (although not having precise data), that Ruthenians (meaning all both Orthodoxes and Catholics of the Eastern rite) were the majority at some periods in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What'll you say at that? If we put Poles to the second place, Lithuanians won't be very similar to minority in the proper sense of this word too, comparing with Poles. Surely, that Lithuanians (Catholics and post-baptization pagans) were the least numerous nation in the Commonwealth. But minority, as it goes without a special definition, means somthing different. So even this is doubted, but the Ruthenian case extremely. -- I consider this a mistake of time shift, when a later situation after a polonization period is taken as the initial situation. BTW, the statistical number of modern "ruthenians" (i. e. Ukrainians + Belaruses) exceed number of modern Poles in about 15-20 millions, - so even in this sense we can speak about Lithuanians only.

The sentence, that's cited above, needs a change or at least a very good reasoning. Linas Lituanus 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I changed it on February 28 2007 (with an explanation), only to be immediately reverted (without an explanation). And while the Lithuanians and Ruthenians were not minorities in these territories at the time in question, why would the facts and realities of the situation, be any different in this case than in any other in the minds of these contributors? Just another example of their POV pushing. Dr. Dan 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could come from the fact that Lithuanians and Belarusians (possibly, the Ukrainians, too) were actual people who were culturally assimilated by Poles from middle class up? Yury Tarasievich 15:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)