User talk:Alx-pl/archive-08-06-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Erik Axel Karlfeldt

Please see Talk:Erik Axel Karlfeldt for my reply to your question. / up+land 11:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Wikipedians' notice board

Shortcut:
WP:WNBP

Zapraszam.--Witkacy 08:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A-P

Alx-pl, artykuł Anti-Polonism i kategoria o tej samej nazwie były już poddane głosowaniu i dyskutowane. Proszę, przeczytaj Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-Polonism i Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_5#Category:Anti-Polonism a także dyskusję na polskim notice boardzie, do którego masz link w kwadraciku od Witkacego. Myślę, że nie ma sensu wchodzić w stare dyskusje. Natomiast na pewno jest sens pracować nad tym artykułem, rozwinąć go i ulepszyć. Zapraszam. --SylwiaS 21:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Zgadzam się, dlatego właśnie prosiłam o konkrety. W tej chwili trwają tam dwie dyskusje. Pierwsza ciągnie się od długiego czasu na różnych stronach, prowadzona przez edytorów, którzy bardzo nie lubią paru polskich edytorów i którzy najchętniej usunęliby ten artykuł. Druga - jakieś dwa dni temu pojawił się anon, który dodał dużo rzeczy o Niemcach i zanim ktoś zdążył zrewertować wybuchła dyskusja. Prawda jest taka, że nic co zostanie poparte źródłami nie będzie zignorowane przez polskich edytorów. Więc obie dyskusje przeradzają się w przekrzykiwanie "co się komu wydaje", bo jak na razie brakuje konkretów. Mi nie zależy na tym, żeby obsmarowywać jakiś kraj, jeśli coś jest faktem, powinno tam być, jeśli nie, to trzeba to wyrzucić. Ale też nie przyjmuję argumentów typu: Polacy mają wyprane mózgi przez polską edukację albo kontrowersyjne media, więc widzą problem, który nie istnieje. Ten artykuł zaczął być rozbudowywany bardzo niedawno, więc to raczej początki niż końcowa forma. Można go dopracować w bardzo wielu szczegółach, zamienić słowa "many" na "some", dodać pozytywną pracę nad zmianą wizerunku w danych krajach itp. Takie tematy jak kawały o Polakach nie były jeszcze rozwijane, bo nikt nie chce wstawiać tego do głównego artykułu i szkoda na razie na nie czasu skoro jest dużo ważniejszych rzeczy do opisania. Nie ma jednak sensu tworzenie subartykułów o konkretnych krajach, bo taki osobny artykuł sugeruje, że w danym kraju problem jest znacznie większy niż gdzie indziej, dlatego nasza propozycja to artykuły skupiające się na problemach. Jak widzisz w tym artykule coś, co można zmienić, to zmień i dodaj na talku informację dlaczego. Można też poddawać konkretne rzeczy pod dyskusje, tak jak sugerujesz, ale jak na razie wszystkie dyskusje prowadzą raczej do "od początku mówiłem, że ten cały artykuł to bzdura" i trwają w nieskończoność. Więc tak, jestem otwarta na wszystko, co zadziała sprawnie. --SylwiaS 23:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Alx, dzięki za poparcie. Zostawiłam Ci też tam w dyskusji linki o polsko-niemieckiej współpracy nad poprawą wzajemnych relacji. Mam nadzieję, że zaoszczędzą Ci sporo czasu. Przejrzałam też Twój wstęp i mam jedno pytanie. Czy masz coś na poparcie tego, co jest tam napisane? Jeśli tak, to powinieneś dodać, że wg takiego autora… itd. Jeżeli nie, to nie można tego dodać, zwłaszcza kiedy artykuł jest pod obstrzałem. Na tym polega NPOV, trzeba trzymać się źródeł :) Również tam są dodane sąsiednie kraje. Na pewno nie chodzi o ksenofobię? Mi się wydaje, że np. Czechy to raczej ksenofobia niż antypolonizm. Mogę oczywiście się mylić, ale nie mogę sobie przypomnieć żadnego incydentu. Tak, czy inaczej, ja bym tych krajów na początku nie dawała. To sugeruje, że tam jest jakaś wylęgarnia antypolonizmu. Więc lepiej raczej opisać sam problem, a potem wymienić incydenty w poszczególnych krajach. Ale tak trzeba o tym myśleć, nie że np. w Niemczech jest antypolonizm, tylko że w Niemczech wystąpił przypadek antypolonizmu, więc o nim piszemy. Samo to, gdzie wystąpił powinno być drugoplanowe. Mi się podoba pomysł przeniesienia informacji o występowaniu tego słowa na koniec, no ale zobaczymy, co inni powiedzą. Proszę, skupmy się na razie na niemieckiej części, bo głosy, że wszystko jest do kitu i cały artykuł trzeba skasować nic nie wnoszą i nawet nie ma jak z nimi dyskutować, a głównie takie teraz tam padają. Jak zrobimy jedno, to zajmiemy się drugim, inaczej można zwariować. Pozdrawiam. --SylwiaS 13:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

To ze brakuje jeszcze masy informacji na temat antypolonizmu w innych panstwach, nie oznacza ze obecnie artykul jest NPOV - jest stubem do rozbudowania. Mozesz porobic krotkie sekcje jesli masz ochote :)--Witkacy 23:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

W tej chwili oznacza. Pamiętaj, że cały ten artykuł jest pisany przez Polaków, więc już chociażby z tego powodu jest bardzo silnie podejrzany o brak NPOV. Brak wymienienia jakiejś nacji, która ma powody wykazywać antypolonizm oznacza w tym momencie szczególnie mocny atak pretensji na nacje, które występują. W wyniku tego rozrasta się niemerytoryczna dyskusja na temat poglądów i skrzywień opinii. Lepiej od razu ostrzec, że coś jest nie tak z tym artykułem, bo to poprawia klimat rozmowy. Lepiej powiedzieć (przez szablon NPOV), że wiemy, iż ten artykuł jest 'nie halo', a potem na końcu dodać informację, że stub, czyli że pracyjemy nad tym. W ten sposób nasz obraz jako nacji się poprawia, bo nie występujemy jako grupa, która wciska na siłę całemu światu, że Niemcy są źródłem wszelkiego zła. Poza tym są również inne problemy związane z tym artykułem. Alx-pl 23:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Zwroc uwage przez kogo sa napisane inne artykuly "anty-xxx" (i chyba nie sadzisz ze ci nie-Polacy ktorzy udzielaja sie w talku artykulu, poza jego kasacja cos konkretnego do niego wniosa? - zwroc rowniez uwage ze w innych anty-xxx artykulach nie widac takich atakow na stronach dyskusyjnych, jak w artykule o antypolonizmie, to daje do myslenia). Napisz konkretnie co jest NPOV. Co do niemieckiego antypolonizmu, wszystko co widnieje obecnie w artykule, mozesz rowniez przeczytac w artykulach prasowych--Witkacy 23:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Jasne, że są zawsze pisane przez "xxx-ów". Mam nadzieję, że wniosą, swoje opinie, a po wspólnej pracy nad szukaniem źródeł popierających lub falsyfikujących te opinie da się znaleźć bardziej neutralne sformułowanie artykułu. Nie wątpię, że wszystko, co się znajduje w tym artykule jest udokumentowane publikacjami prasowymi, ale nie zaprzeczysz chyba, że czasami publikacje prasowe podają fałszywe informacje, a prawie zawsze są jednostronne. Ten artykuł jest skrajnie jednostronny i to jest powód, dla którego należy mu się NPOV. Myślę, że warto potraktować artykuł anti-Polonism jako dobre ćwiczenie z tego, jak dokumentować informacje i jak szukać NPOV. Myślę też, że warto w kontekście tego artykułu przeczytać ten artykuł Marii Janion. Alx-pl 10:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Wiesz mozna kazda gazete i kazdego historyka oskarzyc o to ze pisze jednostronnie. Ogolnie wszystkiemu mozna zaprzeczac, i przez swoj POV komus zarzucac NPOV :) Obecnie w artykule nie sa nawet opisane ataki na Polakow - w latach 90tych glosno bylo o tym jak mlodzi neo-nazisci, napadali na autokary z Polakami (nawet niemiecka TV to pokazywala) lub innych incydentow przemocy. Niema wzmianki o tym jak niemieckie wladze szykanowaly Polakow przejezdzajacych granice - lub o niemieckiej policji ktora traktuje kazda osobe jezdzaca w Niemczech na polskich blachach jak bandyte. Znalazlem informacje o jakims malym przypadku [1]
Co do Bialorusi, tutaj jest pare artykulow o sytuacji Polakow [2] --Witkacy 15:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Zgadzam się z Twoją opinią, że mozna kazdego historyka oskarzyc o to ze pisze jednostronnie. Ogolnie wszystkiemu mozna zaprzeczac, i przez swoj POV komus zarzucac NPOV :) Nawet w stosunku do mnie można wysunąć takie oskarżenie, chociaż występuję pod sztandarem ochrony NPOV. Można to zrobić złaszcza, że występuję pod tymi sztandarami, bo ochrona NPOV to też jest POV.
Warto przy opisywaniu antypolonizmu również słuchać drugiej strony, która w tym wypadku jest istotna i wyraźna. Istotą NPOV jest właśnie uwzględnianie takich wyraźnych drugich stron. Warto też mieć umiar w tym, co się robi. Zauważ, że nie warto pakować za dużo do tego artykułu. Gdyby okazało się, że artykuł o antypoloniźmie jest dłuższy niż o antysemityźmie, to narazilibyśmy się na oskarżenie o brak NPOV. Argument tutaj jest prosty: 300 lat historii (lub 1100 jeśli wolisz) naszego narodu (wcześniej trudno mówić o narodzie) jest niczym w stosunku do 3500 lat historii Żydów i ich różnych prześladowań, które zaczeły się już w Egipcie. Oni mają 3x więcej do opowiadania, bo są starsi. Oczywiście to nie znaczy, że nasz artykuł powinien być 3x krótszy.
Zwróć też uwagę na to, że moje uwagi dotyczące braku NPOV są oparte na tej sekcji WP:NPOV#Fairness and sympathetic tone. Alx-pl 15:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Ale co w innych artykulach anty-xxx jest opisane, jest w zasadzie bez znaczenia do artykulu o antypolonizmie. NPOV by zaistnial gdyby ktos w artykule napisal "Niemcy nienawidza Polakow i najchetniej by ich wszystkich wymordowali - co im sie nie udalo 60 lat temu" to by byl NPOV :) Obecnie sa opisane sytuacje ktore mialy miejsce, nikt sobie ich nie wyssal z palca.
Co do tego jak dlugi powinien byc artykul - czym wiecej informacji tym lepiej, nikomu jeszcze wiedza na jakikolwiek temat nie zaszkodzila :)--Witkacy 17:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Nieprawda, brak NPOV istnieje już teraz, bo artykuł choćby dlatego, że praktycznie nie obejmuje innych antypolonizmów, w szczególności ważnych antypolonizmów (np. rosyjskiego i żydowskiego). Za to rozbudowana sekcja o francuskim antypolonizmie wskazywałaby, że chodzi o coś istotnego, podczas gdy Francuzi w swojej masie raczej mają Polskę za coś obojętnego, a antypolonizm w wypowiedziach polityków bierze się z ich partykularnych interesów politycznych w danym momencie i nie ma zbyt głębokich korzeni kulturowych. Ten artykuł jest POV nie przez podawanie fałszywych faktów, ale przez fałszywy dobór i ułożenie faktów, co jak zaznaczyłem powyżej jest uznawane za brak NPOV.
Co do długości - masz rację. Im więcej odpowiednio ułożonej wiedzy, tym lepiej. Jednak, gdyby nasz arykuł był dłuższy niż antysemityzm, musiałbym się zacząć zastanawiać. Taka sytuacja oznaczałaby bowiem, że my Polacy jesteśmy narażeni na oskarżenia o śmieszność, czego raczej moja duma narodowa by nie zniosła. Stosując podaną przez Ciebie słuszną zasadę co do ilości informacji, zapewne doszedłbym do wniosku, że trzeba rozbudować antysemityzm. Uczestniczenie w rozbudowywaniu tego artykułu nie byłoby zaś dla mnie przyjemne.
Lepiej skończyć tę wojnę edycyjną na przyznaniu, że niedokończony obecnie artykuł nie jest neutralny i spokojnie pracować nad jego poprawieniem. Alx-pl 06:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
PS. Tak przy okazji. Warto byłoby się zająć artykułem Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz. Obecnie można się z niego dowiedzieć, że był kumplem Malinowskiego i nie lubił totalitaryzmu, a przecież nie o to chodzi w jego dorobku. Trochę bym nad tym popracował, bo chcę zrobić sensowny artykuł o SIW w szwedzkiej wikipedii. Dobrą podstawą jest polski artykuł, ale nie tłumaczyłbym go bezpośrednio, a położył nacisk na to, co może zainteresować ludzi zza granicy. Alx-pl 06:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I did not mean to be too harsh, I was trying to be funny, hence the absurd joke about condeming people to the galleys. I didn't really think about the effect it would have on you in particular, and I am very sorry.

Falsification is indeed a legitimate word in English, but it is very infrequently used and the alternatives I suggested would be more common. When I see "falsification", it is usually accompanied by some modifier, such as "deliberate falsification", e.g. "I accuse Professor Smith of having made a deliberate falsification of the evidence in the paper which he presented last week." I very rarely see it used by itself.

The reason I posted the message in the first place is because I keep running into "falsification", and, less frequently a verb "falsificate" in Poland and Central Europe-related articles. The former sometimes sounds awkward the way it is used, so I modify the phrase it is used in or substitute a more appropriate word. The latter does not exist at all - oh, you might find it in the Oxford English Dictionary because someone tried to use it in 1793, but it is not really used at present. The correct verb is "falsify." I do not know who has been using those words; my suspicion is that it is several users of several different Central and East European ethnicities and that the problem is not related solely to Poles. As I pointed out, Romanian does seem to have a perfectly valid noun "falsificator," for instance.

Again, my purpose was not to ridicule you at all. Your English is quite good, and I usually know what you are trying to say even when you make an occasional mistake. The same could not be said for my Polish, which consists of a few food-related words that my babcie taught me.

You are making a lot of useful contributions to the English Wikipedia, so please don't let my insensitive post discourage you. You have my sincerest apologies. --Jpbrenna 19:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Jpbrenna, actually, what you wrote was very funny, so I hope Alx doesn't mind. I'll tell you our secret. We just have in Polish the word "falsyfikator" (and probably it exists in some other Slav languages too). It seems so much English that we don't even bother checking it up in a dictionary. I recently made a similar blunder with the word "meloman" writing to my friends and was very surprised, when they wrote back that they didn't understand it. After all melody + man should make meloman, which in Polish means a fan of classical music, lol. --SylwiaS 20:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Alx, I know I owe you an answer and I even wrote it, but I skipped last night and am so tired that I don't dare posting it without rereading. Please, don't take my comments personally. If I post something on an article talk page it is for everyone. After all it would be good if all the people started contributing. Good night. --SylwiaS 20:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Axl mala prosba - nie przyciagaj swoim wkladem jeszcze wiecej wandalow do artykulu. Bo zlatuja sie Niemcy i anonimowi jak pszczoly do ula--Witkacy 20:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Axl - znudzilo mi sie poprostu - bierzesz udzial w tym co sie teraz dzieje z artykulem. Jezeli miales zamiar udowodnic ze Niemcy "lubia Polakow", to Ci sie nie udalo, bo teraz dopiero zaczeli sie zlatywac, by potwierdzic to co pisze w tym artykule (swoim zachowaniem). Tak czy siak, sekcja o Niemcach, napewno wymaga rozbudowania. Pozdrawiam.--Witkacy 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Co dialogu, to sobie porozmawiaj z User:NightBeAsT ktory nazwa Wprost szmatlawcem (chodz do dzis nie wiedzal co to Wprost) - bo mi sie to rowniez nudzi. Nie sadzisz ze ostatnie wydarzenia i dyskusja w artykule antypolonizmu, mowi wiecej o (glownie) niemieckim antypolonizmie niz caly artykul? Bo ja tak. Pozdrawiam--Witkacy 22:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Jest pozno i moze czegos nie rozumiem - ale czy tam naprawde dopisales ze Polacy sa winni antypolonizmu? Sprobuj to samo wpisac do artykulu o antysemityzmie. Ostatni kto twierdzil ze Polacy i Zydzi sa sami sobie winni - byl Hiter. (jezeli zle zrozumialem Twoj watek, to przepraszam, a jesli dobrze to brak slow).--Witkacy 23:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
By sie nie rozpisywac - mowiac o Czechach, chodzilo Ci o to jak w 1919 Czesi zajeli Zaolsie, gdy Polacy wojowali z Bolszewikami? Co do Wilna - Chodzi Ci o to jak Pilsudski przylaczyl Wilno do Polski z 1,5% zamieszkalych tam Litwinow? Dyskusja wydaje mi sie bezsensowna, w zasadzie wszystko co chcialem Ci napisac, juz napisalem na samym poczatku. Wiec moze zakonczymy. Pozdrawiam.--Witkacy 07:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German anti-polonism today

Hello Alx, I saw that you are intrested in some new facts (in my opinion the first real facts here) on this topic. First of all thank you for asking, and not disputing, blaming or going to "word war". After erasing again and again I decided to investigate the only German source on the Net and this is what I found (topic: oppression of polish language in Germany today):

The mentioned article is about a Pole with a German wife living in Germany. The man became violent against the family during the divorce, that’s why he is only aloud to see the children once in a month under the protection of an government institution in Hamburg. This institution says, that he has to talk to the children in German, otherwise they couldn’t understand what they are talking about. The Polish newspaper “Wrpost” brought that story on page one with the headline “Polnisch Verboten”. The story (as always in the newspaper “Wrpost”) was full of Anti- German stereotypes without any information about the background of the story. That’s reason why Poles don’t know about the violence of the Husband against his wife and his children. They even don’t know about the need of this treatment. You can see, that the source being used doesn’t show any evidence for Anti- Polonism. Its completely made up as the other sources.

I can't check your sources , but as far as I can see they are mainly from "Wrpost" - from my POV a nationalsit and anti- everything except polish newspaper. I'm sorry, but I think listen to Radio Maryja and reading bad newspapers doesnt help in self reflection. I think its in your own intrest as a Pole to work on this article, because otherwise you will loose credebilaty on Wiki. I personaly hate these liers, cause they bring always stuff to devide us! Greetings from Germany, Volker

[edit] anti-polonism

Hey Alex. I saw both your notes on my talk page. I've been very busy in real life, so I haven't had much time for WP in the past few days. I'll get to it eventually, I promise :-) Tomer TALK 01:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, the article stinks. It's one of the most revolting pieces of POV-pushing rubbish in all of Wikipedia. That said, I'm not entirely surprised. Some of the most prolific and steadfast POV-pushing in the past 2 years has come from Polish wikipedians, who think that being obnoxious in the face of every perceived slight, no matter how ridiculous (for example, demanding to call Gdańsk anything but "Danzig" even while it was under German hegemony...and despite the fact that that is not its Kaszubsky name), is a sign of great honor and a flag of Polsky nationalism. What it is, instead, is a horrendous detriment to the Wikipedia project. Everyone, like me, who dares to question the agenda of the few vociferous POV-pushers is labeled as an "antipolonist" and sent to the cellar in Witkacy's dungeon—there to never have hope for reprieve...even Polacks!!!
As for the article, I have already expressed not only my extreme displeasure therewith, but my ideas for how to turn it into something encyclopedic, rather than a platform for POV-pushing. I think finally Sylwia, Jpbrenna and possibly even Halibutt have figured out my extreme objections to the article, but as long as the Polish wikipedians contributing to the English WP allow Witkacy and Molobo to have the last word on what is and what is not included, the whole set of articles is doomed to abject failure. Piotrus took exception several weeks ago, to my saying that the best thing I could see myself doing was to warn people away from regarding Poland-related articles on WP as having any credibility. As of yet, despite a lot of constructive dialogue on the TALK page at Anti-Polonism, however, I still see no hope of this whole section of WP being plucked from the clutches of the POV-pushers. Your Polish is undoubtedly much better than mine, and I hope your interest in this portion of WP is stronger than mine. For my part, I've lost almost all interest. If I hadn't, I'd never have told Thorsten1 (who, as it happens, is Polish, despite Witkacy's having classified him as an "anti-Polonist"), that the best course of action I can see right now is to just steer people clear of that section of WP.
It's a pity. That said, however, if reason ever manages to take over, I would thoroughly support a well-researched article dealing with Jewish-anti-Polonism. Obviously, although I'm sure Molobo and Witkacy would protest my saying so, "Jewish anti-Polonism" has never existed outside of the Jewish communities in direct contact/conflict with Catholic Poland, but still, I'm sure sufficient material exists to justify such an article. That said, I think Witkacy's creation of Jewish AntiPolonism as a redirect to Anti-Polonism was an obscene miscarriage of intellect, and I'm glad that minor bit of his often dubious activities on WP was stopped dead in its tracks. As for where to go from here, until some Pole other than Thorsten1 tells Witkacy to listen to the voice of reason, I'm really discouraged. If I cared enough about Poland-related articles to draw up an RFC regarding him and his activities, I'm pretty sure he'd find himself out on his ear. I don't however. I'm here to make an encyclopedia...and if one section of articles ends up cast in severe doubt because a crank ended up being the default editor of most of its articles, that's not my fault. Like I said--I'm happy to let people know that section of WP is unreliable. Thorsten and I have both made suggestions I feel are excellent starting points to reforming the problem as we see it, but until the likes of Jpbrenna, Lysy and SylwijaS stop coddling the likes of Molobo and Witkacy, the road ahead is bleak indeed. I wish you all the best, on a gray day. Tomer TALK 10:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's about 92% of it. I've outlined my problems with the article itself on its talk page, as well as in my nomination and subsequent vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Polonism. Tomer TALK 20:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this edit is that it makes makes a blanket statement about the cause of anti-polonism, which is uncited and probably ultimately indefensible. While Polish overlords were hated by the kosacy, it was for entirely different reasons than the disdain in which the Russians, Prussians and Austrians held the Polish people, and the Nazis' motivations were another matter altogether. The reasons for the Soviet dislike of Poland and the Polish people differed depending on who was in power. Lenin and Trostsky regarded the Poles as antisemitic fascists. Stalin saw the Poles as weak and helpless, and a good way to advance Soviet hegemony in Europe. Khrushchev and Brezhnev disliked the Poles because they were nationalistic and religious, and even because they made no secret of their hatred of Soviet domination! Your edit, while well-intentioned, does nothing to get to the root cause of the biggest problem with this article, however, and that is this: the article is a laundry list of every gripe the Polish people have against the world, all rolled into a nifty little package. Back to the 92% of the problem I mentioned earlier, however, you may not have noticed, but Witkacy rolled the article back to a much earlier version [3], erasing your attempt to straighten things out in the process. This utter disregard for other editors, especially with respect to this particular article, is what I was referring to when I said he seems to jealously regard it as his personal property. Tomer TALK 21:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your version is much better than the rambling (and just plain inaccurate) diatribe to which it was reverted. That said, it still has some serious flaws, since it still makes generalizations that aren't entirely accurate. To say that "antypolonyzm" first appeared in 18th century Prussia, however, is rubbish. "Antypolonyzm", by that name, is a construct of the political right in Poland. Jewish anti-Polonism or whatever is an entirely different thing. German anti-Polonism is an entirely different thing. German anti-Polonism, in fact, is likely an extension of Prussian anti-Polonism, but vastly different from Nazi anti-Polonism. That said, antypolonyzm itself, as a free-standing, all encompassing, unified phenomenon, is made up. EVERYTHING in the article needs to be taken out. It's fine to put in links to articles that cover the topics discussed in the article, but to make them the core of the article instead of discussing the political use of the term and saying "these are alleged as evidence of antypolonyzm", is just -- bad. It turns the article into another "proof" of antypolonyzm, rather than a report on it, thus making Wikipedia a platform for the Polish political right, and in the process, turns Wikipedia into a tabloid. Tomer TALK 23:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

In this context, its interesting what Tomer said about two months ago: [Anti-Polonism] Except in the minds of those poor souls brainwashed by the Polish educational system, this concept does not exist, nor should a category that caters to this delusion.--Witkacy 00:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Not particularly, Witkacy, since you are very well aware that I have since retracted that assertion. Tomer TALK 02:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do poczytania

Pare artykulow. Tomera wypowiedzi sa zawsze interesujace, nigdy na temat - tylko ataki. Tomer&Co nie interesuja sie innymi artykulami anty-xxx, a jest ich dosc duzo, dlaczego? Wierze ze sam znajdzies odpowiedz :) Nie daj sie wciagnac w jego machlojki, bo bedzie Cie uzywal jako przyklad (z racji Twojego pochodzenia) ze antypolonizm wogole nie istnieje.

--Witkacy 16:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Chetnie poczytam niemieckie zrodla na temat antypolonizmu :)--Witkacy 20:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Witkacy, nobody asked you. I can't help but notice tho, that apparently 60% of your material comes from that shining beacon of yellow journalism, Wprost. Tomer TALK 18:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obawiam się

Że czegoś nie dostrzegasz.Osoby z którymi rozmawiasz są nastawione skrajnie antypolsko i jedynym ich celem jest zniszczenie, lub maksymalna redukcja artykułu.Naiwnie nastawiając się na ich edukowanie(zamiast czytelników), ułatwiasz im robotę.--Molobo 20:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Jak na razie widzę iż przekonują cię do swojego punktu widzenia.Zapewne niedlugo znajdzie się w artykule o antypoloniżmie zapis iż wywołało go nieudolność Polaków, ich braki cywilizacyjne oraz wzmianki o niewinnie mordowanych Niemcach przez polskich bandytów...--Molobo 20:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Rozumiem że w artykule o Naziżmie lub antysemitiżmie umieścisz opinie Nazistów i antysemitów aby było NPOV ?--Molobo 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC) " Oznacza to, że trzeba Niemców traktować w sposób cywilizowany, czyli dyskutować"Mówię o ludziach którzy przejawiają tendencje antypolonistyczne, jakie wymieniłem.Nie o Niemcach, wierz mi iż jestem skłonny wierzyć iż nie jest to ich wrodzona cecha :)--Molobo 21:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Tactic I see

Removal of my comments as "personal attacks"...--Molobo 18:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Only the ones that concerned my person and I felt are personal attacs. If you see it is unfair, please feel free to report me on RfC. Alx-pl D 18:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Why, then you consider citing your own words personall attack ? After all your answer to the statement that that antypolonism article will soon include a view that it is justified because Poles have inferior civilisationand, and it was provoked by Poles and innocent German civilians were murdered by Poles, was that such view must be included as one of views...--Molobo 18:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I clarified my standpoint with regard to this issue here. If you consider it not satisfactory and you still want to call me antipolish-POV pusher here at Wikipedia, please fill an RfC case against me or alert about me on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. When you win it you will have a legitimate reason to call me so. Alx-pl D 22:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rudi

Sorry then, I could only make a guess about the content of Gazeta Wyborcza because couldn't understand anything and Molobo constantly referred to the article and defended it as if it were the mirror of his statements. What I could not know was that in reality it was not the journalist of Gazeta Wyborcza who .... cherrypicked statements by Pawelka and assumed bad faith, but Molobo. I know I overstated it but to a much lesser extent when compared to Molobo. Actually I don't think Pawelka's sentence can be used in any unbiased way at all because if any statement about tensions and problems that Pawelka referred to and for which he was accused of allocating war guilt to Poland is put into the article, it cannot go unexplained that Pawelka ultimately said it was the "dictator Hitler", who got the situation in Europe to explode, which fundamentally makes any claim that Pawelka blamed Poland for the second World War an invalid one. And once all aspects about these few sentences by Pawelka are unbiasedly described, we've cherrypicked again: then we'd have analysed about 1/25 of one of his speeches. I don't know in how many speeches, official statements or inteviews Pawelka was involved but given that he is an active politician, a President of a football team and the Preußische Treuhand and member of another organization, so let's say 10 times that number could not be all but overstated: we'd have analyed 1/250 of all that he'd have stated and cherrypicked an example which is at best an unclear statement by Pawelka, and at worst written by a speechwriter that not even Pawelka agrees with. 1/250 wouldn't really be neutral unless he would have repeated this opinion over and over again. I haven't read through the other German sources that you posted yet, but I doubt they came to a conclusion in any way comparable to Molobo's. I've no idea where this is going to end but I could imagine that Molobo would disagree with a solution that doesn't reflect his opinion. Considering all those many invalid claims in the anti-polonism article, it's hard to imagine their inventor(s) had an interest in finding the truth instead of trying to talk the reader into agreeing to their views. The talk page is now so messed up that no one new will be able to enter it. So what do you suggest we should do?NightBeAsT 18:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

We must train our Wikipedia:WikiLove. Alx-pl D 20:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honesty and blame

How about training little honesty Alx ? Here is what you wrote to NB:

the article does not contain any sentence like Pawelka blamed Poland for WW2

And here is what the article says: Tymczasem wszystkie te wydarzenia wraz z "dyktatem wersalskim" w 1919 r. należą zdaniem Pawelki do historii II wojny światowej, która wcale nie zaczęła się w 1939 czy w 1933 r., lecz wcześniej --Molobo 23:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you precisely give me a sentence in the Gazeta Wyborcza article with the word winić (blame) or any of its derivatives or equivalents used to express that Pawelka put the blame for WW2 on Poland? The sentence you brought translates as follows:
Yet, all these events together with the "Versaille dictat" in 1919 belong, according to Pawelka, to the history of WW2 which did not begin in 1939 or 1933, but earlier
and so does not contain the word blame at all and any of its equivalents either. Alx-pl D 23:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so only sentences which include the word "I blame" are accusations ? That is very simplistic perception I am afraid. :) Molobo.

And what events does our Pawelka mention in his copying of Hitler's speech ?

a. Według niego Polacy nie przyznają się do powojennej grabieży, powszechnie przemilcza się też "cierpienia 2,4 mln Niemców w Polsce przed 1939 r." oraz "polskie agresje" po I wojnie światowej (wojnę z Rosją, wkroczenie na Górny Śląsk w 1921 r. oraz zajęcie Zaolzia w 1938 r.). Tymczasem wszystkie te wydarzenia Funny that you missed that :) Molobo.

Oh, so only sentences which include the word "I blame" are accusations ? - This is not what I said. I only said there is no sentence like Pawelka blamed Poland for WW2. That means there is no direct sentece on blame attribution in the article which implies the suspected statements of blame are a result of more or less obvious interpretation. In fact the very sentence you mentioned:
According to him Poles do not admit the plunder after the war, and the sufferings of 2,4 mln Germans in Poland before 1939 together with Polish agressions after the World War I (the war with Russia, the march in Upper Silesia and the annexation of Zaolsie in 1938) are commonly passed over. Yet all these events [together with the "Versaille dictat" in 1919 belong, according to Pawelka, to the history of WW2 which did not begin in 1939 or 1933, but earlier]
can be interpreted as a mildly judging relation of Pawelka's speech (the only judgement is conveyed in that the author distances himself from the statements by Pawelka using the form according to). I still agree that this article has some elements that allow your interpretation. Alx-pl D 05:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Molobo, "history of World War II" doesn't necessarily mean "cause of World War II". The history section of the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, concentrates more on Hitler than any other person, but does that mean Hitler managed to found a federal Republic? Does it suggest that all thanks to Hitler, Germans live in this democracy now? Please don't accuse persons of a lack of honesty before you've asked them why (in this case) he didn't come to the same conclusion as you. It's not what Wikipedia:Assume good faith would suggest.NightBeAsT 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And you NB please buy some books on history of Poland.Basing on your lack of information in Kulturkampf topic you needed badly if you want to edit any topics about Poland.So far you have showed zero knowledge and frankly the case of your ignorance towards Kulturkampf destroyed any credibility you may have had. Molobo.

[edit] Ciekawe jak zareagujesz

NB już zaczął wandalizować strony o Komisji Kolonizacyjnej Prus i Kulturkampfie, twierdząc że żadne z nich nie ma charakteru antypolskiego lub nawet związku z Polakami. Ciekawi mnie twoja reakcja. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kulturkampf&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Settlement_Commission&action=history--Molobo 01:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


Dziękuję za odpowiedż. W świetle wypowiedzi : You cannot root out within seconds our attitudes that were shaped up by the most respecable members of our community and by the most valuable pieces of our literature throughout the last 200 years of our history Rozumiem, że masz inny niż pokazanie prawdy cel.Jak mówiłem-nie jesteśmy inżynierami dusz.Szkoda że masz inne podejście i ułatwiasz niemieckim nacjonalistom robotę.Mam nadzieje że przez dobroduszność(czy też może naiwność) a nie świadomie--Molobo 08:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Musze przyznac racje dla Molobo - od kiedy tu jestem sprzatam po kolegach z Niemiec (strasznie niechlujnie obchodza sie z artykulami dotyczacymi Polski). Co do NB pokazal swoja prawdziwa twarz (i w sumie sie nie dziwie po doswiadczeniach na wiki - zawsze tak sie konczy)--Witkacy 22:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gdańsk

A nawet trzeba :) Zgadza sie, opis dla okresu 1466 do 1793 jest fatalny (sugeruje w zasadzie na co glosowac..), jak i cale glosowanie. Juz kiedys pisalem ze osoba ktore je organizowala, byla zarazem sedzia (wykluczala glosy) i egzekutorem. Na PWNB pare osob zasugerowalo ze najlepszym rozwiazaniem by byla calkowita rezygnacja z uzywania historycznych nazw. Czyli uzywanie obecnej nazwy miasta rowniez w kontekscie historycznym - na calej wiki. Co myslisz o takim rozwiazaniu?--Witkacy 13:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I recommend you take everything Witkacy says with a huge block of salt. The relevant discussion about Gdańsk/Danzig can be found by visiting the links in the big red-outlined box at the top of Talk:Gdańsk. Tomer TALK 11:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Happily, I had absolutely nothing to do with the votes, and can therefore say, I don't have to defend the outcome. All I was doing was directing to you the relevant (basically in-cement) policy on the matter. Tomer TALK 13:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...in truth, I don't think anyone really likes the policy, but it was a hard-fought compromise, and so it's best to stick by it regardless of one's opinion. :-] Tomer TALK 21:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The vote is a fraud, the result was against votes.--Molobo 19:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forster's father

I only mentioned his father to avoid possible confusion. Thanks. --Lysy (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tłumaczenie

To ponownie ja. W sprawie tego tłumaczenia i wogóle w sprawie tłumaczeń. Widzę, że masz w tym doświadczenie na Wiki. Ja jak na razie jeszcze nie, więc jakby co mogę się do Ciebie zwracać z pytaniami? Nemuri ° 11:05, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Jeżeli chodzi o artykuł "Jak zostać hakerem MediaWiki?" to będę się starał przetłumaczyć na tyle na ile czas mi pozwoli. Wszelkie uwagi będę oczywiście zostawiał w dyskusji.

Nemuri ° 21:44, 5 wrz 2005 (UTC)

Cześć. Przejrzałem artykuł o hackowaniu MediaWiki. Wygląda dobrze. Pamiętaj, że wszelkie "tłumaczenia" stron na projektach Wikimedia nie muszą być tłumaczeniami dokładnymi, wystarczy że oddają to co autor miał na myśli. Dobra robota, tylko tak dalej. TOR 12:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Strona faktycznie wygląda dobrze. Dzięki piękne. Mam jednak pytanie. Jak zacząć tłumaczyć stronę? Wiem, że to pewnie proste założyć stronę do tłumaczenia, ale wolę zapytać kogoś kto to już wie...

Nemuri ° 12:44, 7 wrz 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Polonism

...that's why I reverted myself after I noticed the amount of ongoing discussion on the talk page, and didn't unprotect. I hope someone involved will request unprotection soon. Three weeks is far too long for a page to be protected, but I'm not the person to mediate an ongoing dispute there right now. CDC (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Has it gone to request for comment? I think I'll send it there and start an "informal poll" on the talk page.
  • Option 1:
    • Start German-Polish relations and Russo-Polish relations. About half the article can be moved to the former and the latter may absorb some as well.
    • Place remainder of content in the already quite comprehensive Polish history pages.
    • When done delete the page or leave as a stub ("Academic word etc...see A, B, C...")
  • Option 2:
    • Simply rename the page to a comprehensible descriptor such as Historical persecution of Poles.
  • Option 3:
    • The (not-working) status quo.
As for blocking and what not I can't do that as I'm not an admin. We'll just have to watch the page when doing either change. I can't do the RfC right now but will get to it within a day. Marskell 14:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I actually think an informal poll on the page with an RfC would get more attention than a listing on Wikipedia:Polls though it might not be as binding. Note a rename poll is formal and shows up on the talk page. As for blocking editors of particular backgrounds, I think it is not something Wiki encourages and would be largely unenforceable anyway. Marskell 08:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

After a certain point Talk pages become unwieldly and frustrating to scroll through—this was certainly the case AP. If you'd like to revert it, OK, but bear in mind if "discussion not closed" is the criteria it would becomes hard to archive anything. People are still free to view the archives of course. Marskell 11:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to be picky...

...but there is a definite consensus surrounding marking of minor edits: spelling, grammar, cats and link fixes. A single sentence, even a single word, added or altered can have enormous importance. Supposing I added "fictional" before "hostility toward Poles" in Anti-Polonism. Would this be minor? No, obviously. Further, it may appear disingenuous to other editors to mark every edit as minor as you do; people with large watchlists often skip checking minor edits as they assume its just spelling or grammar, but what you seem to consider minor are definitely things people would want to stop and look at and possibly re-edit. Marskell 17:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What are you talking about ?

On my talk page ? It seems you are more interested in protecting NB nationalistic POV then the article. --Molobo 09:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Polonism cont'd

Does "look at the article now" mean hey "it's gotten better" or "oh no it's gotten worse?" I'm thinking the latter. I just removed everything Molobo added; see talk for reasoning. Marskell 22:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You removed an information that antipolonism is in Polish dictionary of Polish National Library and restored incorrect information that it isn't found in any polish dictionary--Molobo 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your comments. It's a page held hostage really. Plz do not interpret my Delete vote as giving up but rather a suggestion to redo. Marskell 17:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Keep, though a page in need of attention." Which, in a roundabout way, was the meaning of my delete vote. So? I mean honestly, what to do with this page? Sorry, (I assume you'll read this Molobo) but Molobo's editing is as absolutely POV as editing gets. I really don't think he understands how not to make additions POV. I have contributed or significantly re-structured Anti-Americanism, Francophobia and Sinophobia but I have never encountered POV problems like this. I really honestly feel, and will continue to push the fact, that this page cannot stand as it does. Marskell 23:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gratuluje dobrej pracy

Na rzecz Niemiecko-Niemieckiego Pojednania.Gratuluje również znacznego rozbudowania artykułu o antypoloniżmie i wzbogacenia go o szereg informacji obok tych jakie umieściło szereg innych użytkowniników przed przybyciem tak pożytecznych edytorów jak ty i NB.Cieszy mnie jak bardzo rozbudowałeś nasze informacje i nie pozwoliłeś niemieckim nacjonalistom zniszczyć artykułu  :)--Molobo 14:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Translation of the text above:
Title: Congratulations for good job
towards German-German Reconciliation (allusion to Polish "Foundation Polish-German Reconciliation"). I also congratulate you the extension of the article concerning anti-Polonism and the enrichment with many pieces of information along those that were introduced by many other users before useful editors like you and NB came. I'm glad that you extended our informations so much and did not let German nationalists destroy the article :)
Alx-pl D 18:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Drogi Alx.Myślisz nad tym co robisz i jestem naprawdę pod wrażeniem.I ty i ja wiemy że takie posunięcie nie miałoby sensu. Jeszcze raz gratuluję przemyślanej pracy. --Molobo 18:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Translation of the text above:
Dear Alx. You think about what you do and I am really impressed. Both you and I know that this move would not make sense. Once more, I congratulate the well thought work.
Alx-pl D 18:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What did Argunova say?

Aha co do kwestionowania tego że w Rosjanie uznali zabory za zajęcie ziem Rosji-co uczyniłeś- http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/metroon/1,0,2762689.html " Argunowa wyjaśnia, że Rosja podczas rozbiorów nie zajęła żadnych etnicznie polskich terytoriów, lecz przywróciła w swe władanie ruskie ziemie wchodzące w skład wczesnośredniowiecznej Rusi" Argunowa explains that Russia during the Partitions didn't take ethnic polish territories but reclaimed into its rule Russian territories that were part of early medieval Rus.

Masz u góry co napisała ta pani.Artykuł kiedyś z mozołem udało mi się odnależć na strana.ru, ale poświęciłem na to mnóstwo czasu, może poproś kogoś ze znajomością rosyjskiego aby spróbował go odnależć. GW oczywiście złagodzila jego wymowę, tam jest o wiele więcej o tym iż Armia Krajowa współpracowała z Nazistami, przedruk samego artykułu był też kiedys w "Forum"--Molobo 22:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Nawiasem mówiąc te zarzuty są bardzo częste w Rosyjskich mediach, tyle tylko że nieznajomość rosyjskiego i cyrilica uniemożliwia znalezenie tak od ręki zródeł.Podawałem już na dyskusji o antyploniżmie rosyjską książkę(z linkiem do fragmentów) publikowaną w tym roku która jest antypolska-oczywiście spodziewam się argumentacji iż słowa" the book, after reading of which, any Pole immediately would be shot down from the loathing and the disgrace" niekoniecznie są antypolskie... --Molobo 23:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

" I just wanted to point you out the way Molobo "works" on the article and I agree that his edits make it only worse" I just wanteed to point out to you that Alx-pl hasn't brought any source, information or contribution to the article, besides efforts to erase as much information as possible.Since you agreed that antipolonism exists perhaps you would contribute finally something to the article besides constant deletions  ? --Molobo 23:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skoro

Wyglądasz na obeznanego z zasadami Wiki. Użytkownik zdaje się anonimowy Micha-regularnie wandalizuje moje wypowiedzi na Talk Pages, dopisuje mi zdania do moich wypowiedzi tak aby wyglądały na moje itd.Na przykład piszę add this to article a on zmienia na add this lies to article. Co w takiej sytuacji trzeba uczynić ? Jest to dość męczące. --Molobo 19:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kulturkampf

Alx, can you have a look at the Kulturkampf article, please? I'm not in the least happy about its development in respect of neutrality. Nightbeast 21:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Obawiam się Europa ma więcej niż 10 państw :) Nie mam też wątpliwości że wspólna toższamość łączy burmistrza Berlina i prezydenta Warszawy Lecha Kaczyńskiego ;) http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/06/28/2003176861

A tak na serio to sondaż jest naciągany bardzo-omija kwestie religijności i stosunku do Kościoła w zasadzie.Nie pyta się o stosunek do mniejszości seksualnych-mam znależć sondaż w którym Polskie pielęgniarki uważają homoseksualistów za chorych psychicznie ? ;) Kwestie spostrzegania II WŚ też nie są uwzględnione. Jeśli cię interesuje : http://www.economist.com/images/20030104/CSF914.gif --Molobo 23:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argh! You beat me to it!

Heyyyyy Alexsi!!! I was thanking all who voted me and I left my friends for the end, since I really wanted to thank you in depth, and you beat me to congratulate me before I got here! What can I say to you, but that you're a wonderful person and a great friend to me. The way you stood by me when things weren't looking good, I will never forget. Words do little to express how deeply grateful to you I am. Whenever you need me, I'll be here. *smoochs!* You friend forever, Shauri! Yes babe? 23:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antypolonizm jest w Polskiej Encyklopedii

Zaczerpnieto z Wielkiej Ilustrowanej Encyklopedii Powszechnej (Suplement Wspolczesny) t.23/1 Wydanej przez Wydawnictwo Gutenberg Print w 1997 r. Haslo "antypolonizm"

[I removed the text because it may be a copyright violation. ~~~~]

--Molobo 15:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do you mind...

...if I leave this over here, dear Alexsi? I thought your Talk Page could use some beautifying :) Tight hugs! Shauri smile! 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Since you claim you know German

Care to translate it good and add to antipolonism article ?: http://fesportal.fes.de/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/IPG/IPG1_2004/ARTKRZEMINSKI.PDF

Spaß muss sein. Und – wie Florian Illies6 am Anfang seines Buches bemerkt – Harald Schmidts »Polenwitze« hatten für diese Generation eine befreiende Funktion. Polen war nie ein solches Tabu wie die Juden gewesen, aber als ein »Opfervolk« im Zweiten Weltkrieg und dann im Kriegszustand 1981 unterlag es den Selbstbeschränkungen einer gewissen »political correctness « oder einfach der »guten Erziehung«. Da die Hemmschwelle nie so hoch gewesen war, und die alten Raster der Verachtung gegenüber dem rückständigen Volk und »der polnischen Wirtschaft« weiterhin virulent waren, fiel auch die Umstellung von der »unterdrückten Solidarnosc« auf den »barbarischen Polenmarkt« nicht schwer. Und im Topos der polnischen Autodiebe konnte man unterschwellig sehr leicht die unausgesprochene Assoziation »Volk der Diebe« heraushören: Sie klauen Schlesien, Autos und nun auch deutsche Arbeitsplätze. In der eu sind sie lediglich hinter den Geldern der Nettozahler her, und im Irak wollen sie obendrein als »trojanischer Esel Amerikas« am Krieg gewinnen. Sie spielen sich nur auf und sind nicht einmal imstande, eine vernünftige Automarke auf den Weltmarkt zu bringen. Dies sind vielleicht krass überzeichnete Stimmungslagen, doch keineswegs Projektionen. Die Reserve gegenüber Polens Aufnahme in die eu, die gerade die Eurobarometer in Deutschland anzeigten, wie auch die niedrige Position der Polen auf dem deutschen Thermometer der Sympathie belegen, dass in der deutschen Gesellschaft nach wie vor historisch viel ältere Aversionen gegen den östlichen Nachbarn existieren als die durch die Grenzveränderungen und den »Bevölkerungsaustausch« von 1945 verursachten. Und, was noch wichtiger und bedenklicher ist: Die Selbstkorrektive sind in der deutschen Tradition schwächer als in anderen historisch belasteten Fällen, etwa dem deutsch-französischen, dem deutsch-russischen, deutsch-amerikanischen oder deutsch-israelischen Verhältnis.

I would like especially the parts about "Volk der Diebe" and about "Die Selbstkorrektive sind in der deutschen Tradition schwächer als in anderen historisch belasteten Fällen, etwa dem deutsch-französischen, dem deutsch-russischen, deutsch-amerikanischen oder deutsch-israelischen Verhältnis." Thanks in advance. --Molobo 01:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Fun must be. And, as Florian Illies pointed out at the beginning of his book, Harald Schmidt's »Polenwitze« had a discharging function. Poland has never been such a tabu as Jews, but as a victim nation in the WWII and then due to the martial law in 1981, it was subject to certain self-restrictions resulting from »political correctness« or »good manners«. Because the inhibition threshold has never been so high and the old pattern of disdain against the undeveloped nation and »Polish economy« were further virulent, the change from »repressed Solidarity« to »barbarian Polish market« went without problem. And the topos of Polish car thieves may easily give rise to a subliminal and unverbalized association »nation of thieves«: They nicked Silesia, and cars, now they are going to nick German jobs. In EU they just live from the money of net contributors and in Iraq they want, in addition, win things as a »Trojan donkey of America«. They only act up and are not even able to introduce a resonsnable car make to the world market. These moods are perhaps blatantly oversubscribed, but they are by no means projections. The reserve against Polish joining EU, which was immediately indicated by Eurobarometer in Germany, as well as the low position of Poland on the German thermometer of the sympathy signify that in the German society there are still many aversions which are older than the ones resulting from the "population exchange" in 1945. And, what is more important and alarming, people who are self-corrective with respect to this part of German tradition are weaker than those with respect to other historically laden cases like for instance German-French, German-Russian, German-American or German-Israeli relationships.
Here is the translation you requested. Alx-pl D 10:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation.I will gladly add this information to the new version of the article. --Molobo 22:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish landskap

Hi Alx, I'm answering on behalf of User:Mic who has been absent from Wikipedia for a year. On his talk page, you asked:

I would like to get to know what is really the copyright status of the coats of arms (e.g. this one) you've made. I'd like to use them in Polish wikipedia to illustrate the article on Swedish landskap, but there is a strict rule that only free (GPLD, CC, or any other not restricted even for comercial use) content may be used there on the Polish wikipedia. Alx-pl D 07:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

All arms except Norrbotten are Public Domain due to age. Of course, certain restrictions apply to their use (being registered coat of arms).

Any questions, ask at my talk page. Regards, Fred-Chess 01:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It was a good idea to suggest uploading them to commons. I've uploaded all except Norrbotten. They are in the format "Image:X coat of arms.png", e.g. Image:Skåne coat of arms.png. I've added some information too, most of it comes from Swedish wikipedia (from the articles found in sv:Kategori:Landskapsvapen, to give a reference). You can of course translate the information to Polish on the image description pages if you want to. // Fred-Chess 09:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Georg Forster

I've been copyediting this a bit and have also added some facts from the German wikipedia. Also, I have seen that you did a lot of good work on the article already. I hope we can make sure we can give credit to Forster where he deserves it. I'm having some trouble with the "anti-Polonism" statements, though, and don't really know how to fix that. It came as quite a surprise to me to see that he used so strong language against Poles, and that the term "polnische Wirtschaft" apparently indeed can be traced to him. However, portraying him as a source of and almost as reason for German / Royal Prussian antipolonism seems not right to me -- the belief of German superiority and the old stupid stereotype of the "dirty Polack" are older than that, while Bismarck's and Hitler's antipolonism and general antislavism (what did Forster think of Russians?) don't seem likely to be influenced by Forster, even if they used the same language. I saw some of (I think your) earlier edits, which made it clear that he was generally an unhappy man having bad relations with about any nation in the end, either because they disliked him or he disliked them. I hope some compromise in that direction can eventually be found. Kusma 03:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the very interesting link! I think I'll work on expanding Johann Reinhold Forster sometime soon (even the German article has nothing about Fredrick II in connection with Halle). I wonder if I should change that he's listed as Polish, of German descent, while I would say he was German, of Scottish descent :-) How about removing the NPOV tag from Georg Forster? The current article (thanks to your good work) seems much better balanced. Kusma (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's wait with the NPOV tag removal :-) BTW, for another Polish view of this issue, could you translate the following sentence from pl:Georg Forster for me?
Forster urodził się jako poddany króla polskiego i przez niektórych autorów bywa uważany za Polaka. Pochodził jednak z rodziny całkowicie zgermanizowanej, i - jak sam pisał - języka polskiego w dzieciństwie nie poznał. Jego Dziennik podróży po Polsce, jak również listy, przyczyniły się zresztą do rozpowszechnienia w Niemczech szeregu negatywnych stereotypów na temat Polski i Polaków, m. in. lekceważącego określenia "Polnische Wirtschaft".
Thank you, Kusma (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the translation! Sounds like a very reasonable description of the influence of his diary on anti-Polish stereotypes. Kusma (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a good bibliography source off-hand (will think about it and search later, no time now). Quick idea: Look at this library site. My guess is that the relevant parts of the diary might be with the letters, it seems (you should check) first edited in 1829:
Johann Georg Forster's Briefwechsel : Nebst einigen Nachrichten von seinem Leben; in zwei Theilen / Herausgegeben von Th. H., geb. H. ( that is Therese Huber, geb. Heyne), Leipzig : Brockhaus, 1829.
Please also comment on my discussion with Molobo at Talk:Georg Forster. Kusma (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I was still half asleep and quite stressed when I wrote the stuff above. Of course you want the diaries about Poland, not his letters! Sorry for that. This looks like a link to a bibliography, published in East Berlin, by Horst Fiedler. I also found editions of his diary that are rather later than the letters:
Briefe und Tagebücher Georg Forsters von seiner Reise am Niederrhein, in England und Frankreich im Frühjahr 1790 / Hrsg. von Albert Leitzmann. - Halle a.S. : Niemeyer, 1893
Georg Forsters Tagebücher / hrsg. von Paul Zincke und Albert Leitzmann. - Berlin : Behr, 1914

Schriftenreihe: Deutsche Literaturdenkmale des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts ; 149 = F. 3, 29

I will ask an expert in Germany for better information and better bibliographies, though. Kusma (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Note that "Therese Huber" above was Forster's wife, an interesting person herself (see e.g. [9]). Kusma (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am copyediting Georg Forster, and have started a detailed checking of your translation. (Some sentences have changed their meaning rather drastically). Forster's style (and that of the German article) is not precisely easy, so don't worry about getting things wrong. I will check everything but it might take me a couple of days, since this requires more thought than I had anticipated. (I will also work on the translation of that Forster letter that I promised but won't be able to do it today; an English source translated by somebody else would of course be even better by WP:V). We should maybe try to find English sources for something besides the "Polnische Wirtschaft" part, too. A biography in English would be perfect, and maybe we should try to get our hands on ISBN 0820449253. Anyway, with some more work and patience, this will become a really nice article :-) Kusma (討論) 04:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nie ma nic

Antypolskiego w nazywaniu Polaków "bydłem" ? --Molobo 20:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch literature

what I added came from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.

RustySpear 14:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Biedermeier (Austrian Literature)

Hey ! I tweaked the Biedermeier Articles in English and German a little bit. Cheers, --Gego 14:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA for Halibutt

Hello! In case you are unaware, Halibutt is going through the administrator vote process. I believe that any input you could provide would be valued. Olessi 06:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] If you are interested

As mentioned, see HERE. Thanks, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Hi, nice to meet you too! That's what happens at controversial topics :-) My edits are however supported by the sources I provide, and concur with what other users (in part you too) have said at the Discussion page. I wrote an essay on a very similar subject for University, so I am very familiar with the topic, and I can give even more sources if you need. In fact I am trying to please everybody and leaving the historical part that should not be there at all. This is a right wing modern issue, not a unified historical one. I hope we talk more soon! Alexbulg 20:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! I am learning the rules of Wikipedia and your guide is much apreciated. I will be careful to follow them. If you have any doubts regarding my edits, contact me, OK? I will be happy to help. Have a nice day! Alexbulg 18:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your help against the vandal. --Molobo 12:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Georg Forster

Can you please at least give us more information to work on in the poll.. have you tried running an RFC? Can you point to specific discussions in the talk page. Mozzerati 20:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basing

On amount of dislike generated by my edits adding information on atrocites committed by German units in Poland its unlikely I will survive such a vote.Sadly this means goodbye. Goodbye. --Molobo 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite the above: could you still go and format the RfC page correctly (remove the stuff with {} etc.) and sign it? It seems incomplete right now. Kusma (討論) 21:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
My message was for you, Alx-pl. You are right: especially in the unfinished/unwritten sections the {} stuff should stay. (I haven't followed RfCs too much until now). Kusma (討論) 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Sandwich

Are you sure it's John Montagu, 5th Earl of Sandwich and not John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich? I am just wondering because the 4th Earl was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of the conflict with Forster's father. Kusma (討論) 02:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I also removed the "Mutiny on the Bounty" link. Bligh published his own diaries and private logs in London in the 1790s, and also Fletcher Christian's defenders and family published accounts of the mutiny. I don't quite see how Forster's German translation is linked to Mutiny on the Bounty (fiction). Oh, and please check if the dates are still correct. Kusma (討論) 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Molobo RfC

I added an outside and certified the dispute. Do you certify as well or does the creator not? Thankfully, I've never been too involved in these. Marskell 03:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm home for the first time in 15 months :) and thus hadn't been able to check the Molobo thing again (tho I notice now I've gotten some agreements on my comments). I'll try and move my confirm to the right spot. Marskell 03:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Dubb Thee Sir Alx!

For being BOLD in defending the integrity of Wikipedia, I award Alx-pl this well wrought piece of metal. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
For being BOLD in defending the integrity of Wikipedia, I award Alx-pl this well wrought piece of metal. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forster (again)

I looked a bit into a book by Hubert Orlowski: ISBN 3-447-03877-2 (in German) and ISBN 83-900380-8-0 (in Polish) about "Polnische Wirtschaft", which basically confirms what we already know from Bömelburg/Salmonowicz, but is so long that I got tired of reading it. It should be good if you need more sources, though.

The article now probably needs a bit of condensing (parts of the "heritage" and "nations" sections might be moved elsewhere?) and ideally copyediting by a native speaker. I think we should try to remove the NPOV tag and, if the edit war has calmed down, request some peer review or other help from a wider audience.

Did you see my question above about Lord Sandwich?

All the best, Kusma (討論) 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polszczyzna

No to najwyraźniej nie za dobrze się go uczyłeś w podstawówce skoro uważasz że język polski i polszczyzna to dwie różne rzeczy.. ;) Proszę, nie zmieniaj poprawnych sformuowań na błędne. Halibutt 14:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Odpowiedziałem na stronie dyskusji szablonu. Halibutt 00:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georg Forster and its peer review

I added the article to the Wikipedia:Peer review page. Let's see how people will react to that. alx-pl D 17:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! I hope we can get some suggestions to improve the flow of the article, and to better integrate our additions with the original German text. BTW I added the {{peerreview}} on the talk page, which seems to be the usual thing to do when requesting peer review. Kusma (討論) 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In order to improve the quality of article I expanded information about his racist remarks towards Poles, and gave quotes.It seems they have been forgotten during the edit of the article. --Molobo 00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your statements on the Georg Forster article and pointed out several parts of the article where it contradicts itself. I also pointed out that the quote you gave spoke about his university enviroment not Poles in general or Poles in XIX century. --Molobo 19:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


May I ask you if you feel offended as an ethnic Pole by catagorising Poles as animals(pigs) and claiming they have an inferior culture ? I am just interested as I never met somebody so tolerant towards racism against his own people. --Molobo 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your answer ? What has Żeromski to do with Poles being described as animals like pigs ? --Molobo 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Żeromski was described as Polish pig by some German scholar in a manner similiar to Forster's views on Poles ? Please explain, I really don't know what you are talking about. --Molobo 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC) As to the language of hate, if you are against it then why are agains mentioning such hateful language towards Poles in article about Forster.--Molobo 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if you believe word cynik or obżartuch are words of hate I am surprised you see nothing wrong in compering Polish people to animal-like pigs. --Molobo 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So you believe that calling somebody obżartuch in Poland is language of hate, but defining Poles as animals in Germany isn't ? Seems very POVish. --Molobo 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Alx-pl, please behave in rational manner- I really don't understand your comments and would like an sensible explanation. Your ironic comments are completely misguided as I really don't know what you are hinting at. And claiming that calling somebody cynic is language of hate but calling Polish nation piglike animals isn't, indicates very strong POV from your side. As I understand you claimed to be a Pole once, so I am very surprised at your view and wanted to know what made you say this.Please try to calm your emotions(I really have no idea what caused them) and explain your attitude.Right now it seems you have some very POVish views, and I hope we can together clear this up for mutual benefit in good edited, well informed Wikipedia. --Molobo 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


I am sorry that you take that way, but I think you are overreacting, and seem to be oversensitive. However please avoid comparing me to murderers in the future. I only wanted to know why believe calling Poles animals isn't as bad as claiming somebody is a cynic. Obviously I stirred some of your personal reflections which I am unaware of. May I ask you to overthink your edits on Wiki a little more, as you seem to posses some beliefs that make you very emotional, yet you are unwilling to discuss or explain them ? Have a good night and hopefully you can answer my questions when you calm down. --Molobo 22:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Heloise.jpg

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article. Even if something is now in Commons, WP:CSD I1 specifically states to use {{nowcommons}} or {{NowCommonsThis}} instead (the latter for when the image is the same name). However, I could not find the image in Commons myself. howcheng {chat} 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Therese Huber

You see the blue link? I have started working on it :-) Unfortunately the article on de: is quite bad. The Leslie Bodi one you gave me is a lot better, thanks again. Maybe we should add some info on their marriage to the Forster article (like that Forster agreed to a divorce when they met for the last time in 1793, while he was on a secret mission to negotiate something between France and England -- we need more sources for this). Please add anything you find about their marriage to the article. Especially I know nothing about what happened to the kids she had with Forster - do you know anything about them? Best wishes, Kusma (討論) 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You should also read Ludwig Ferdinand Huber (from the 1911 Britannica), which puts a rather different spin on the affair. Kusma (討論) 22:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to read more on her connection to feminism. Feminists are certainly interested in her, but I'm not sure the "-ism" is appropriate in her case. I just accidentally found a reference to this book: ISBN 3926406305 about "Georg Forsters Tochter. Therese - Die blonde Polin" by Friedrich W Kantzenbach so it seems there are even more people to write about in this family. I'll see what I can find. Kusma (討論) 18:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the links and the book reference! We do have the English book here in our library, I'll go and get it this afternoon. I had found those images already, but I still hope to find some that are of a better quality (a better scan and some image processing would be great). When the article is in a more presentable state (and if I don't find anything until then), I'll ask at our new noticeboard if somebody can help me, or on the German wiki. Kusma (討論) 17:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems that Forster's and Thereses children that survived childhood were daughters: Therese (b. 1786) and Claire (b. 1789). Luise (b. and d. 1791) was Ludwig Huber's daughter, while son Georg (b. and d. 1792) is not so clear, probably Ludwig's, though.
When I went to the library to get the book about women writers you pointed out to me (and which disagrees slightly with some other sources I had on the nature of the menage a trois between Georg, Therese, and Ludwig; I will try to form an opinion over the next couple days) I also picked up the Forster biography by Thomas Saine, an English source, which I could use to reference a couple of things in the article in a way more accessible to English-language readers. From a first glance, it seems that Catherine the Great should be given more credit, because only her generous offers for the voyage allowed Forster to cancel his contract in Wilno and to pay off his considerable debts. I will work on that section later this week. Kusma (討論) 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Sir alx

For your open-mindedness, mediating and refinement, please accept this small gift as a token of my gratitude and admiration. Sciurinæ 00:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
For your open-mindedness, mediating and refinement, please accept this small gift as a token of my gratitude and admiration. Sciurinæ 00:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


In rememberance of the hot days in Wikipedia's Anti-Polonism editorial last August in which you tried and maintained a general coolness, and the cold days in December when you inflamed some cold-blooded contributors, I would like to finally express my great respect for you and your admirable behaviour.

Yes, it's a little belated, but better late than never, I would say. You're one of those who, like Socrates, would click out of their body and judge a case without personal bias, one of those who rarely lose their patience even with individuals hard to reason with and even if they should lose it at some point of time, would still have the common courtesy to apologise.

I oscillated between the saint barnstar and the Wiki Wiffle Bat but, to me, only one of them was a feast for the eyes and it was not Mr.Baseball bat. Hope you can live with it. =)

You're approaching your first anniversary in Wikipedia anyway, so take this cup of kindness for the days of auld lang syne. Sciurinæ 00:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps for the Georg Forster article

Hi, long time no see :-) I hope you had a nice wikibreak recently. I was pretty busy with other things (like becoming a sysop :-)), so the Therese Huber article is still bad, but maybe I'll get around to it any day now. Anyway, a while back you suggested we try to make Georg Forster a "good article" first, and I opposed, saying this was meaningless. Recently, WP:GA has changed the process a bit, and it is no longer so meaningless. So we should try that or FA candidature as soon as we get this new silly distraction about the names sorted out (by the user who always says "it's Prussia, so it can't be Poland"). Any thoughts? Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I chickened out and just nominated for good article first (see WP:GAN). Anyway, I'll be on a partial wikibreak soon, and I guess I won't try getting this article featured before mid-May. I hope this turns out well, and all the best for your pl: Portal, Kusma (討論) 01:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have converted the references to the new m:Cite.php method, which seems to be in fashion. Do you think we should put in some more references just to be on the safe side before submitting to FAC? Happy editing or happy break anyway, Kusma (討論) 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Did I cite Leslie Bodi correctly? This made me insert the reference at that point. Please correct me if I was wrong. Thanks for helping during your break! Kusma (討論) 22:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
And what is the famous speech from 1785? I can't find much evidence of this and the connection of this to Forster's unhappiness in Vilna, nor much on his conflict with Jędrzej Śniadecki. Kusma (討論) 00:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Raul654 has promoted the article to Featured :-) Thanks for your help! Kusma (討論) 04:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] really need your help

User:LUCPOL speaks polish and we're having a revert war. Could you server as a translator on the page Talk:rapcore?--Urthogie 18:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)