Wiki How:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is really confusing. Raul, you restarted Piłsudski's nomination without earlier decision being reached or properly announced. In the process you wiped out contributions from reviewers who deserve an answer. How is this possible if at all, please explain? --Poeticbent talk 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments aren't wiped out; they are one click away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the votes cast already and left hanging, including my own vote of support? Are they also "one click away" from this nom? --Poeticbent talk 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of restarting a nomination it to clear away objections and discussions that have been resolved and are no longer relavant, and to force people to remain attentive to their comments. If you have objections from the old nom that remain pertinent, feel free to repost them (but DO NOT copy-and-paste en masse from the old nom) Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Poeticbent, if you still Support, you can re-enter that here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the previous votes valid as cast, unless altered by the voters? Nihil novi (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count: 26 support, 7 opposed. Nihil novi (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything posted prior to the restart is gone (out of consideration) unless the person reposts it. Raul654 (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This unilateral decision to ignore and subvert an on going discussion and debate is extremely disturbing and insulting. A restoration of the previous votes and comments is absolutely necessary to keep the integrity of the discussion intact. I agree with Poeticbent on this one, and this "new effort" needs to be shelved right away. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ¿Qué Pasa? Has all the previous stuff gone down the memory hole? I don't get it. Is this standard operating procedure? Turgidson (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good questions. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Raul654 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to what? That they are good questions, or that, yes, "Big Brother" wants to shovel the previous discussion down the memory hole? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The standard procedure is that if the nomination does not succeed the issue is shelved and the time is given to resolve whatever prevented the article from being promoted. Similarly to how failed RfA candidates have to wait rather than run an RfA after RfA until they like the result same tradition is making a perfect sense for FA-noms. Several edit wars took place during the nomination and the edit wars were not over some specific phrasing, reference or an inclusion of sourced opinion but, for example, removals of whole sections diligently written by editors was attempted and various spurious reasons were cited for that. The effort to dismiss and disparage the editors who voiced their concerns reached a new height and the insistence that the article is great and those who oppose do so for the personal, POV or other bad-faithed reasons were repeatedly invoked at multiple pages. I don't see what is the point of the unprecedented immediate rerun of the nomination that exposed the article's being unready for an FA without first addressing those issues. The last nom drew plenty of bad blood. As if this was not enough and we need an urgent rehash of this dramatic process. --Irpen 05:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was nearly 4:1 in favor of the Featured-Article nomination. Apart from a few constructive criticisms, the bulk of the nay comments consisted of vociferous but uninformed carping and accusations which were convincingly rebutted by the nominator. Nihil novi (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not matter how much votes of support or oppose it have, what is matter - article improvement and that presented problems on FAC should be solved.M.K. (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with the decision to rerun the nomination. It is not a vote, so the numbers don't matter. All that matters is the reasons for support or objection. And the responses to objections or comments. I agree with Nihil Novi to the extent that it will be better if the objections and responses are stated simply and plainly. Follow-up discussions or editing discussions are probably better placed on the article talk page, so that the wood here can be seen for the trees. qp10qp (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The better choice was to give more time for improvement article and only then current problems there solved renominate again. Currently not mush is done in order to solve them, and we have quite far from consensus that info should be kept which not. Indeed, we can stuck in process of restart over and over again, not good IMO. M.K. (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no problems with restarting the nomination, the article has changed much during the last one, primarily due to extensive copyediting. The article is much better now than it was a month ago when the nom was submitted.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nomination should be restarted as the article has been improved since the last nomination. - Darwinek (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: A malincuore, there are too short sections, such Relations or Names. Weak Support: now it's OK, but the last section can be enlarged --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]}
  • The sections had been merged and the main article of Piłsudski (family) clearly stressd as such. I am not familiar with the meaning of the word malincuore (neither is google), so I am afraid I cannot address this issue until you elaborate on it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "google hits" are not all that some make them out to be. "Malincuore" is Italian, and literally means "heartache" and more loosely, disappointing. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a translation of mal au cœur. Are the two expressions related, and if so, how? Turgidson (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. As before. But now much more whole-heartedly. Due to tremendous response, the article is much improved, including all sorts of details—big and small, nuts and bolts and all—taken care of. I say, enough carping criticism (constructive or otherwise)—let's give it a thumbs up, and appreciate a job well done. Turgidson (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support One of the best articles on Wikipedia, in large part due to unusual interest of different sides, which positively contributed to the contents. Tymek (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with Piotrus that the article is much better now than it was last month. I believe this is largely due to very specific concerns brought up dealing with a variety of issues, not ...because of vociferous and uninformed carping and accusations... (let's not start up with that rhetoric again). I also believe the article will be much better in another month or so when some final tweaking and improvements can be concluded. Maybe it will be done in two weeks, maybe two months. This is why I also agree with Irpen, that there is no need for an urgent rehash of the nomination. No need to rush into it. I also hope when the proper time comes to re-nominate the article, that every editor voting will come up with an explanation for their vote. Previously, this seemed to be somewhat lacking. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am always happy to address or join in ongoing discussions about what could be further improved; alas, I am not aware of any outstanding unadressed issues still at large. I am sure that as with any article on wiki discussions will continue for ever, but do note that a Featured article is not a "final" or "perfect" one - just one fulfilling the FA-requirements, which I sincerely believe this article does.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Still possible to see that it was not written by a Martian. Beginning with the lead: the statement that Pilsudski was responsible for Poland's independence. Referenced now, but still worded as though his responsibility were universally acknowledged. Quoting Orlando Figes: "But suddenly with the Versailles Treaty it (Poland) found itself with a guarantee of independence and a great deal of new territory given to it by the victorious Western powers as a buffer between Germany and Russia". No credit given to Pilsudski. The US Department of State, not surprisingly, gives credit to Woodrow Wilson - no mention of Pilsudski. [1] The statement needs to be reworded as an attribution. And we have established that he is controversial - that belongs in the lead too, but it will take a while to work out the wording and the references. Flora Lewis described his regime as "ultimately disastrous" . [2]. Yo, people, he put a prime minister in jail (Wincenty Witos) - not currently mentioned. Minority opposition to his government is currently characterized as coming solely from extremists. How many square miles of territory did he acquire by military means that were not sanctioned by Versailles and are not part of Poland now? Etc, etc. This will take some time. Novickas (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may have a point that the article can be added to or reworded, but those links don't provide usable sources (a US state department website and a newspaper article). Lets break what you say down into objections and try to respond:

• considered largely responsible for: what about conflating two sentences to "a major influence on"? This doesn't contradict your Figes quote (though nor does the present wording, in my opinion, which just comes at it from another angle). Could you give the full ref for the Figes, so that one may check what he says about Pilsudski? qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Figes ref is from A People's Tragedy: Russian Revolution 1891-1924, 1996, ISBN 0-7126-7327-X, page 697. On the same page: " as soon as Poland gained its independence it began to strut around with imperial pretensions of its own. Marshal Pilsudski, the head of the Polish state and army, talked of restoring 'historic Poland' which had once stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. He promised to reclaim her eastern borderlands...As the Germans withdrew from the east, Polish troops marched into the borderlands..." Hope this suffices. More on request, but later. Novickas (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this all that Figes mentions of Piłsudski? For the record, snippet (read: useless) view is all that Google offers for that publication, so verification requires printed copy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, verification isn't a worry to me (I know the book). I just wanted to see if Figes says anything to contradict the article's point about Pilsudski's importance to the independence of Poland. Neither quote does that: the original quote merely says what was agreed at Versailles (the article covers that), and this one merely says what happened after the independence. qp10qp (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Witos's imprisonment could be mentioned; just add it in. However, the article makes it clear that Pilsudski was a dictator and anti-parliamentary. Those who think that this article paints Pilsudski as a hero might look again at its content (it records that Pilsudski was sometimes thought to be a hero, but that is a different matter). I disliked Pilsudski after reading this article and did not admire him; the article did not strike me as glorifying him. qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You say Minority opposition to his government is currently characterized as coming solely from extremists. I don't know how you can draw that conclusion: it is quite clear that he was opposed by the normal democratic bodies—for example, here: From 1926 to 1930, Piłsudski relied chiefly on propaganda to weaken the influence of opposition leaders.[18] The culmination of his dictatorial and supralegal policies came in 1930 with the imprisonment and trial of certain political opponents on the eve of the 1930 Polish legislative elections, and with the 1934 establishment of a prison for political prisoners at Bereza Kartuska (today Biaroza),[18] where some prisoners were brutally mistreated. I don't see how the anti-democratic and dictatorial behaviour of Pilsudski could be made plainer without the article becoming biased in the opposite direction. One instinctively sides with those on the receiving end.qp10qp (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the note on him being controversial to the lead a few hours ago. As I have explained to you before, many factors contributed to Polish independence, and depending on context, various ones will be emphasized. I am not suprised that publication on Versailles notes Versailles, or that one on Polish-American relations mentions Wilson. But this article is about Piłsudski, and details on what contributed to Poland's independence belong in another article(s) - not in the lead of P. article. George Washington "was a central, critical figure in the founding of the United States" - surely he was not alone, but you don't find in the lead an extensive discussion of other founding fathers or international politics. The article does not claim that "Piłsudski alone was responsible for Poland's independence", instead, like GW article, it qualifies his role with "He is considered largely responsible for Poland having regained her independence". This seems perfectly appropriate and is well-referenced.

• Newspapers are not the best of references. Lewis quote is not clear, she may as well mean ("Pilsudski... established an authoritarian regime... eventually disastrous") that Second Polish Republic ended in disaster after Nazi invasion in 1939. We have better criticism in legacy, including the well referenced claim that Piłsudski "inevitably drawn both intense loyalty and intense vilification" - which, amusingly, we can see well in our discussions here :)

• Witos imprisonment - part of the Brest trial controversy - is discussed in the article in its context and linked, the list of who was arrested and sentenced (or not) does not belong in P. article but in the relevant subarticle (eleven important politicians were tried, quite a few more were arrested and briefly imprisoned alongside Witos, including Wojciech Korfanty, another Polish PM ... so what? This is article about Piłsudski, not about the Brest trial).

• Minority opposition to his government is currently characterized as coming solely from extremists - I am pretty sure that Dmowski and endecja - mentioned many times throughout the article - are not characterized as minority extremists, and many other factions opposed to him are mentioned (socialists, communists)...

• Pilsudski's approach to Polish eastern borders is discussed extensively, with at least a para dedicated to that issue at the beginning of the 'Polish-Soviet War' chapter.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As it stands just now: "The plan (i.e. Międzymorze) met with opposition from most of the intended members—who refused to relinquish any of their hard-won independence—as well as from the Allied powers, for whom it would be too bold of a change to the existing balance of power structure." No, the most often-cited reason for Allied opposition is that they had intended Poland to stay within what they had determined to be its ethnographic boundaries, and this was their major problem with supporting Poland during the Polish-Soviet War. Refs later, or you-all can look it up yourselves. Also: "Piłsudski's regime marked a period of much-needed national stabilization and improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities, which formed almost a third of the Second Republic's population" and "Mainstream organizations of ethnic minorities similarly expressed their support for his policies of ethnic tolerance, though he was criticized, similarly to the communists, by Jewish (BUND), Ukrainian, German and Lithuanian extremists". Methinks the Ukrainians, Germans, and Lithuanians would disagree with this. As for the Jewish minority, read this from the Simon Wiesenthal foundation: "In 1926 Marshal Jozef Pilsudski seized power with the help of the army. He had no anti - Jewish tendencies and refrained from using antisemitism as an instrument for furthering political and socioeconomic policies. At first, Pilsudski promised to improve the situation of the Jews but little was accomplished in practice although the general atmosphere with regard to the Jews showed improvement." [3]. Not as strong a statement as is currently written. But doesn't this all belong on the article talk page, and doesn't it all indicate serious disagreement? Also pls remove the word "dream" from the article. Novickas (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't help to note you have not addressed my or Qp10qp's replies above. Can we assume you are satisfied with our arguments? P.

• Sorry, not satisfied and not done. If it goes ahead and becomes an FA, so be it; I won't have time in the upcoming days to address it further, but will continue to keep an eye on it - pls bear in mind that I don't like edit warring, so my lack of that does not constitute an endorsement. Novickas (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you address our replies, so we know which of them do you find unsatisfactory, and why? P.

• The Allies cared much less about ethnic boundaries than about balance of power. They did not want to see their traditional ally Russia weakened, but of course they coated this in more "politically correct" arguments. This should be mentioned in most publications (scholarly, not newspapers) that analyzes the issue in depth, instead of just mentioning this in passing. That said, we can just shorten this by leaving rationales in the Międzymorze article - but selectively added those that support one's POV and leaving others out is a 'no-no'. PS. And certainly ethnic boundaries were the last thing on Allied minds during the PSW; it was the balance of power which made them request P. help Whites against the Bolsheviks - even through the Whites were much less willing to recognize independence of any former Russisan Empire minorities. It was the balance of power and desire for strong Germany and Russia that kept England in the anti-Polish camp (read on Lloyd George), and French desire for weak Germany that countered it (and resulted in the Allies not doing anything for or against Poland). American Wilson, the idealist might have cared about non-realpolitk concepts like ethnic boundaries, but by the time of the PSW he was already trampled by the US isolationism, and USA expressed no interest in Międzymorze.
• Regarding analysis of the statements made by various factions after his death, this is referenced with a scholarly publication dedicated to analyzing those. Feel free to provide a scholarly reference to the contrary.
• As for the Jewish minority, read the current references. I believe the article is neutral with regards to that issue.
• Does this belong on the talk page? Perhaps, but why do you post it here? The FAC time, as evident, attracts comments from many editors who are otherwise not active in the article. We try our best to address them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Novickas has a point about that paragraph. It's easy to fix, so lets take it to the talk page. On the other hand, this afternoon I was comparing the part of the article from the retirement to the end with a number of books written by non-Polish historians, and I found that to be the only paragraph that didn't stand up. qp10qp (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which paragraph? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about relations with the nationalist minorities and the Jews. I have added some material, referenced from Leslie, which balances the largely positive tone of the paragraph. I hope this addresses Novickas's objection on that point. qp10qp (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Novickas makes this objection: As it stands just now: "The plan (i.e. Międzymorze) met with opposition from most of the intended members—who refused to relinquish any of their hard-won independence—as well as from the Allied powers, for whom it would be too bold of a change to the existing balance of power structure." No, the most often-cited reason for Allied opposition is that they had intended Poland to stay within what they had determined to be its ethnographic boundaries, and this was their major problem with supporting Poland during the Polish-Soviet War. Refs later, or you-all can look it up yourselves. - But I don't see the difference between what you say and what is in the article: they wanted the existing balance of power, not an expansion of Poland. I am willing to address your objections, but this seems very minor and in my opinion does not merit a change to the wording. qp10qp (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment section on "historiography" per comprehensiveness?--Kiyarrllston 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see it in every article :) This one is above average, with discussion of Polish historiography and wealth of publications. If I had a source for non-Polish historiography, I'd have added it, but I don't recall a good analysis ATM.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see it in every article too :D...

Previously Alleged non-NPOV - what are possible solutions? I previously proposed in order to achieve NPOV a section on (Józef Piłsudski's) "Political views", more recently I proposed a section on historiography, previously there was a section on criticism, "Public Image" is another name for a name for such a section.

I believe Piłsudski is a hero of Poland as it's "liberator" - - that he was a great man in the eyes of many does not diminish that he was also a "fascist" in the eyes of others.

What do you think, Piotrus? Please note that these might be good suggestions even outside of being solutions to a non-NPOV but rather to improve comprehensibility and organization.

--Kiyarrllston 15:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the picture that Piotrus has given us may be as close as we will get to "Piłsudski's political views." I don't think he ever published a synthesis of his views; he was a pragmatist; and he tended to keep his cards close to the vest—the result of decades of clandestine work, dogged by secret-police spies and enemies of every political stripe. Even politicians in modern western democracies tend to be duplicitous. Don't expect complete declarations of political views from a man in his circumstances in that period. Nihil novi (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "Józef Piłsudski"'s Featured-Article nomination. This article is one of the highlights of Wikipedia. There is nothing to compare in Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana or even in Polish encyclopedias. It is a superior, comprehensive, balanced, well-illustrated, eminently readable, full-length biography, distilled to the proportions of an on-line encyclopedia. Nihil novi (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain may have some issues, but- what's FA quality anyways? - way more attention is paid to this than to less controversial articles, this article is far above in quality. Good work, Piotrus.--Kiyarrllston 11:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Query naming- why the non-english accents?- why not Pilsudski? - what is he normally referred to in english works as?--Kiyarrllston 11:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied there. Added a note the article in the section on names about use of Joseph by some English publications a few days back.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 1986 Encyclopedia Americana lists him as "Józef Klemens Piłsudski," Polish diacritics and all. Nihil novi (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica lists him as "Józef (Klemens) Piłsudski," likewise with the Polish diacritics. Nihil novi (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Davies, God's Playground (1982), calls him "Józef Piłsudski," with diacritics.

Richard M. Watt, Bitter Glory (1979), calls him "Józef Klemens Piłsudski," with diacritics. Nihil novi (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks, sorry for not noticing Nominator's answer in the previous FAC.--Kiyarrllston 05:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose then academic facts being described as fantasy, equaled "to moon is made out of green cheese", labeling as flowery languge; instead of it inserting original research and weasel words, in any sense such article can be promoted. My previuos concerns on older nom is also not resolved fully. M.K. (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I supported it last time and support also now. It was very good article in the previous nomination, now it is even better as concerns of various editors have been reflected. I also agree with Nihil novi. I've never seen such comprehensive article about this person nowhere. - Darwinek (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Weak oppose—Article is excessively long; details should be branched off into subarticles, see WP:SIZE. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Piłsudski is a central figure in a period of Polish history that could be termed "the Age of Piłsudski." This article does a unique job of bringing together the salient information on the man and the age. Nihil novi (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you cut it down to a 50 KB summary of his life and that period of history, and move the less important details to subarticles? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you concerned about limited space, or about limited attention spans? The ADHD-readers' version is already in the article's lead. Nihil novi (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly I'm concerned about the extremely high load time of 110 KB articles on dial-up connections, especially when trying to edit them. 10-20 seconds to load the article for editing...1 minute to load each preview...10-20 seconds to save...it kind of discourages dial-up users from contributing. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate these technical aspects, and your bringing them to our attention. On the other hand, Piłsudski was a complex man living and acting in a complex time, and so has inevitably stirred controversy. I fear that far-reaching paring-down of the article might lead to misleading oversimplifications. Nihil novi (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content wouldn't be deleted, just copied to one or more subarticles and then summarized in the main article, with links to the subarticles. Surely a reasonably comprehensive summary of Józef Piłsudski could be given in less than 100 KB. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: 1) Is there any actual requirement (not recommendation) in respect to article sizes? 2) I know that there is an occasional practice of splitting someone's life into separate articles, but this is remarkably arbitrary and ghastly. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that people who worked on the article have more familiarity with what can and cannot be split into smaller articles? (In other words: Surely, one could develop some articles from this one, but should they be developed along arbitrary lines just because the text is too big?) Dahn (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a strict requirement, but it is a guideline per Wikipedia:Article size. The "Biography" section is 82 KB, more than enough for an article of its own. One option is to copy-and-paste the biography section into a new article, Biography of Józef Piłsudski, link to that article at the top of Józef Piłsudski#Biography, and then summarize Biography of Józef Piłsudski at Józef Piłsudski#Biography. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be nitpicking, but I fail to see how an article about someone's biography could be separated from the article on the person - the two terms are synonymous (I know stuff like that was done in the past, but I for one have always thought of it as a bad idea). In any case, it is better for an article to say more than for editors to bicker over what is "essential" (you will note that two or three FAC applications of this article have prolonged themselves over precisely the "essential" issues to have in the article). One could move and develop elsewhere the various parts that come in addition to biographical data (even if that would arguably not be a significant reduction). Plus, there are currently many FAs who go way over the limit, and this was deemed (and, to my eyes, was) the best solution.

When a subject is complex, the article itself will have to be complex. Especially since this length was achieved after a shaky compromise, meaning that creating other articles could only lead users to contention and the article back to the drawing board for eternity. Dahn (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could call the new branch Life of Józef Piłsudski if you wanted. The main Józef Piłsudski article covers not only his life, but his legacy and family, so there's already a separatoin between his life and his legacy. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Biography" and "life" are themselves synonymous to each other in this context, so it would not make much sense. Yes, bio and legacy are separated, but they are so in the article. For the rest, an article about a person is about that person's life and something else - the solution would be to turn that something else into an article, instead of making two about what is mainly the same thing. I could see separate ones on "Legacy" or "Family", but to have one on "Life" (or, alternatively, ones on, respectively, "Childhood", "Adolescence" etc.) looks like the worst solution possible. And let me add that the solution implied is to a non-existing problem (per my previous arguments). The concern here is not to cut down articles, but to create prose that is not sectioned abruptly according to arbitrary criteria. Dahn (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I've been thinking about it some more, and perhaps a better solution would be to create articles based on the existing section breaks. For example, we could have an article on the Authoritarian rule of Józef Piłsudski, which would be a more logical division. That would allow more room for future expansion of the specific topic of his authoritarian rule, with a shorter summary of the topic in the main article. Surely a decent summary can be created for each of the long sections, something between the coverage that the lead section gives and what the subarticle would give. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a direction to look into, and it does look feasible. The problem in this case may be more subtle however: editors seem to have different ideas about what is essential, especially in respect to that part of the article; though I have not looked into it, it would seem that the recent expansions have attempted to cover all of what is essential in all takes on the matter, which means that they may not agree on what needs to be summarized, and that what we see before us at the moment actually is the summary. I for one see no technical problem with the length - meaning that a subarticle may actually be an even larger version of the section, and that the section is as small as it could ever get.

I should specify I took no part in authoring any section of the text - I'm just a bystander who has expressed mild objections to an earlier version of the article. At the moment, I am neither opposed nor supportive, because I think that the article needs some more work before reaching FA level (format problems and not just are still quite visible). I'm not sure it is not actually up to FA requirements, but I would still be polishing it if I would have a better grasp of the subject 9and, yes, part of that polish will involve condensing some parts of the text). Dahn (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly agree that subarticles should be created, 1) I don't think that length is a problem - we have many other FAs of similar length, it there is no policy or FA requirement of shorter length; in other words, it's just a personal preference which shouldn't constitute an objection 2) based on my experience with subarticle of Polish-Soviet War - ex. Polish-Soviet War in 1919 - which where split exactly to address such FA lenght objection, I can see that such articles are rarely read or edited, and hence somewhat useless. 3) The large size of the article is also a result of higher than average density of citations and variety of references. Surely you don't recommend we cut down on those? 4) Finally, in any case, splitting of sections would entitle rewritting the entire article, which would require hours more of work, new voting, rereading it by various editors who voted and so on - which I don't think is necessary. That said, I do support creation of more subarticles, and I do think that new content should be added to them, not to the current article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline about article size: Wikipedia:Article size. A 100 KB article crushes a dial-up connection, which doesn't do much for encouraging contribution. It's possible to have shorter articles that are still well-referenced. Unfortunately, previous FACs have not paid much attention to this issue.

If detailed information is split off into subarticles, and those articles are in turn rarely read, doesn't that indicate that few people are interested in reading that information anyway? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect to the Third World inhabitants, most of readers and contributors of English Wikipedia use broadband. Perhaps we could have a 'dial up' Wikipedia with tiny articles, but I prefer to have comprehensive, multimedia articles to small stubs. In any case, if an editor wants a tiny summary, this is what lead is for.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not talking about small stubs. I'm talking about the exact same information, perhaps more comprehensive, split into different articles with a condensed version left behind. Still, I see your point: dial-up is dying out. Thus, I'm changing to "Weak oppose". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A minor suggestion partly sparked by the above comments: it would seem that the google book URLs in the text would in themselves, if placed together, amount to an entire paragraph. Now, as far as i could tell, they follow precise and complete bibliographic references, which means that they are redundant. The links themselves would not necessarily be visible to all users, and the viewable text, if I understood correctly, is not made available indefinitely - the viewable pages in one book can change with time, or google books may prevent the same users from revisiting them over and over. (In addition, they drag the text editing window to the right, which can get really annoying.) Is it possible to have them removed, or do they serve some other, not immediately apparent, purpose? Dahn (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google books are not very editor friendly, but they allow a user to view the selected page ASAP. True, they tend to rot - but on some random basis (I know some that have been stable for two years). As useful, they should stay - but certainly, as a very long urls they may take 1kb or more. If we cared more about technical aspects than writing good articles, we could remove them - but I'd hope our care is in the other direction.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but my full point is that the references accompanying them are already exact (down to page numbers), meaning that the technical aspect is covered without them having to stick around. Dahn (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to online page is helpful. Remember: Wikipedia is not paper. We can afford extensive and hyperlinked bibliographical information - just as paper publications often skip ISBN (which we link to online book search engines), or hyperlinks on authors or titles of notable books (for obvious reasons).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per Nihil novi, supported last time. Rudget. 16:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Piotrus. Space Cadet (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since the last nomination. JRWalko (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - like before. I'm reinserting my vote, for the record. In the future though I would prefer for my vote to be respected regardless of any later administrative decision to restart a runaway discussion. --Poeticbent talk 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For the same reason I supported it before. Also it seems that most all of the reasonable concerns and objections from last round have been made right. Ostap 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I supported last time. Kyriakos (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as last time, but more strongly so, given improvements. One small point: we're told condolences were expressed by "Eastern Orthodox" and "Greek Orthodox" organisations. Could this be clarified? Does the Church of Greece, one of the Eastern Orthodox churches, operate in Poland? Or was it just the Polish Orthodox Church, also an Eastern Orthodox church, that was expressing condolences? Biruitorul (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a look at the source book when I am in the library again.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As the last time--Molobo (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If I remmember correctly both my history teachers at primary and high school mentioned that politicaly the march of the First Cadre Company into the area of Cracow in 1914 was a spectacular failure, citizens barred their doors and windows instead of showing support for Piłsudski's legioners - I have heard that event may have influenced Piłsudski's authortarian belifs. In my opinion This article should mention that event and it's possible future implications. Mieciu K (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Urbankowaski discusses this and argues that it was not a big failure, more of an average welcome with fewer volunteers than Piłsudski expected, but no 'empty streets' or 'barred doors'. IIRC he noted that such accounts were propagated by enemies of Piłsudski and the Legions, although there are confusing (contradictory) accounts of those events. If you have a ref that states that this even influenced Piłsudski, feel free to add it - although considering the lenght of the article, perhaps the FCC article would a better place for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of World War I, when Polish Legions cavalry officers attempted to pay a courtesy call at Oblęgorek, that singer of the national epos, Henryk Sienkiewicz, kept them at arm's length. Many people were lukewarm toward the Legions, and recruiting officers found slim pickings. Which, if anything, only underlines the farsightedness and determination of Piłsudski and his men. Nihil novi (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support IMHO this article meets the FA criteria. Mieciu K (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as before, it is well written and sourced article. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (didn't change my mind). If that's not a FA, what is? --Beaumont (@) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - while long, the article is well-referenced, and its size should not be held against it.--Riurik^(discuss) 07:40, 12 January

2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Now that we near the end of this debate concerning the placing of the Pilsudski article as a FA candidate, I would like to again make a few comments. First, it was never my intention to prevent this article from attaining FA status, but only that a balanced and coherent encyclopedic article would be presented to our readers on English Wikipedia. Along the way, I also came to the conclusion that in the future, when and if I cast a vote in such debates, I will never personally use "per so and so" as the explanation of my position, but will explain my vote based on the subject matter, and my knowledge of it. To do otherwise would be suggesting that I didn't have my own opinion, or that I didn't have a clue about the actual subject matter at hand, or that I was just too lazy to give my own explanation. It seems odd to me that many of the earlier votes of "support" have retained their position without making any contributions or changes to the article. And not even acknowledging the many improvements and changes that have come about since the last survey. The least one could do is acknowledge is that the opposition votes catalyzed these changes to occur. I hope everyone has recently re-read through the article. I have. Granted, that has not been easy considering its length, tenditious style, and the spiderweb of "references" that one has to wade through. That was always one of my greatest objections to the article as it stands, because it gives it a ludicrous quality, and there is nothing ludicrous about this great man who did so much for Poland.

Also as I stated previously, one of my biggest problems with the article was its frequent incoherency, resulting from edits by individuals with a poor grasp of English, and its attempt to portray a controversial figure in a cult of personality POV type of format. The continual reversion of sourced edits (by very established historians, e.g., Norman Davies, Timothy Snyder, and others), with comment like "it's offensive" and the like, was another reason that I objected. This activity soon began to also violate WP:OWN as time went on. Someone would make a useful edit only to have it reverted by one or two of the same people. Why because they personally didn't like it. They decided that their job was to "forge" this article according to their POV, and history and the facts be damned. As these "offensive" arguments became stronger and the reasons for their reversion became less tenable, the solution by these parties was to sweep these issues under the carpet and obscure the information by allowing it to stay in links to the footnotes, rather than allowing it to be part of the article proper (with a few other manoevers). This fact should be strongly considered in deciding what to do with this new proposal, and that the former information be reinstated.Personally I like Pilsudski, and have stated so in the past. Naturally, I take issue with the fact that he was a dictator, and an opponent of democracy. He was a fish swimming in the pond of totalitarianism, which was in vogue in that period of European history. He wasn't alone, nor was he as big a fish as some here would have liked him to be. Just the same, he did the best that he could under the circumstances, and with what he had to work with. As user: Halibutt stated (with sourced information and links) and so did Davies, Pilsudski considered himself Lithuanian. This fact has been fought "tooth and nail", more because of the argument WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, than a true refutation of this fact. Let it stay on the record here. Same with his establishment of a concentration camp, or Pilsudski referring to "Poles as a Nation of Morons", or Dmowski and Co. considering him an "alien in their midst". Relevant, factual information, that didn't fit in with the one-side portrayal that was being censored.The article could still be vastly improved, given a little more time. Is the article now better and less biased than before? Yes! Can it still be improved and made better with a little more time? Of course it could. So then, why do we have this unusual push, push, push? The article is not about to be deleted, WP is not about to cease to exist. I'm hoping that whoever feels the need for this extraordinary push to make this an FA article, is not fearful that their own questionable edits might not pass the test of time and analysis. The biggest "red flag", is this continual rush to make this an FA, with a new survey every couple of weeks. Since the debate started, this article has been vastly improved. Let the work continue. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: As others have pointed out, there was not necessarily an incompatibility, for persons such as Piłsudski, between considering oneself a Pole and a Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth "Lithuanian." So there really is no need to harp on his having been a "Lithuanian." The assassinated first president of Poland, Gabriel Narutowicz, was a "Pole," if only ex officio; his brother Stanisław Narutowicz was a member of the State Council of Lithuania and a signer of the Lithuanian Act of Independence of February 16, 1918. Similarly, in Galicia, Stanisław Szeptycki was a Polish general, while his brother Andrey Sheptytsky was a Ukrainian Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

What Piłsudski has been quoted as saying of Poles ("morons"), any politican has thought at times of his constituency, so it is superfluous to use such a quotation, out of context, to gratuitously insult all Poles.

Dmowski's opinion of Piłsudski hardly seems germane. Probably a critical, if not scatological, comment of Piłsudski's could be cited regarding Dmowski. Again, par for the course, with politicians. Nihil novi (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on comment: So why this constant dawdle, dawdle, dawdle? Our esteemed colleague's skill in filibuster would do honor to a United States Senator.

Our colleague's style of argument reminds me of that of George Bernard Shaw, of whom a critic remarked that seldom has a writer used so many words to convey so little substance. Nihil novi (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil, who decides if someone is a Pole, and that if another person is a Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth, "Lithuanian" (but is still actually a Pole)? Is there also such a thing as a Lithuanian, and also a Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth, "Pole"? I'm assuming that your exclamation marks are trying to state that your belief is that these type of Lithuanians deserve a special designation. Is there not a similar designation for such "Poles"? Or are Poles simply Poles, and the others, like Pilsudski who were Lithuanians, at best Polish-Lithuanian-Commonwealth "Lithuanians?"

Whereas granted, Fujimoro is a Peruvian (ex officio of course), the history lesson regarding the Narutavicius brothers and the Sheptytsky brothers was unecessary, unless it was for the benefit of others. The bottom line regarding your examples is that we have two families, one Lithuanian and the other Ukrainian who were polonized, as was Pilsudski. And for the record no one is attempting to argue that Pilsudski was not the dictator of Poland, just as previously no one was arguing that Jogaila was not the King of Poland (lot's of the same faces from that debate are here at this one). But his ethnicity, or descent, if you prefer, remains important information and belongs in the article. And not as a footnote. If you insist on more examples let's take J. Dzierzon. On the basis of some quote or letter, the article on WP insists that he is a Pole. I'm not disagreeing that if that is true, then the article is correct. Yet, although we find that Pilsudski stated that he was a Lithuanian on many occasions, "poof," that argument doesn't count here. Why? To really understand Pilsudski, you have to see how his heritage played an enormous part in his psychological make up, and his role on the stage of world history. Incidentally, I'm sure you're aware that Pilsudski's mother was disinterred from Lithuania (Jedrzejewicz mentions in his biography of JP, that the Lithuanian government was very gracious and helpful in granting her son's wish to bring her remains to Vilnius). user: Halibutt stated in the archives of Pilsudski's talk page (archive 2003-2006 sec. 13). "Imagine the faces of Dmowski's nationalists when Pilsudski stated he's Lithuanian in the Polish Sejm...BTW his Polish "Lithuanianess" (sic) was one of many serious problems the nationalists had with Pilsudski and many of them hated him for that". A very pithy analysis of the facts, from Hali, and it should be incorporated into the article (Davies' referenced information regarding this was rv'd, because it was "offensive"). I don't think Davies is offensive but I think some of his works fall into WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, when they fall short of the expectations and POV of some people. Assuming of course that there is no ojection to a balanced, neutral, and unbiased article.

Now to the question of the "Poles being a nation of morons". That is not my opinion. That is Pilsudski's (although Prokonsul Piotrus corrected it to him calling them "idiots"). When Davies brought that into the Dmowski-Pilsudski quarrel it was to illustrate the intensity of the antagonism between the two. Not out of context or gratuitously, BTW. Ditto when Davies stated that Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture. It too was to emphasize the feud between them. Pilsudski's opinion of Dmowski and vice-versa are very germane and relevant in this article.

After reading your comments on my comments, I have a better understanding of your user name, Nihil novi. Regarding my U.S. Senatorial run, you could also consider a run for the Sejm. Lastly, since you have a penchant for Latin, consider....."ex nihilo nihil fit." p.s. I don't have a problem with Shaw. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous comments. Nihil novi (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you for not wanting to respond. These are thorny issues that are better handled at the article, not here. And the rest truly, is "Nothing New". Dr. Dan (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to respond to. Like a squid, you conceal the paucity of your argument with a great effusion of ink. Nihil novi (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, be nice! Don't compare me to a squid. I don't want Ieoth to have to tag you. I didn't compare you to a crayfish swimming backward and hiding under a rock, just because you couldn't answer my objections. Try to be civil and more pleasant. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a simile is a comparison, not an equation, and I'd appreciate you not invoking my name again in a threatening manner with regards to Digwuren case enforcement. Thanks. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are some article standardisation issues in References and Further reading sections (current revision 183596548):

1. op. cit. — there are many versions of formatting and writing of op. cit.: cursive and non-cursive, with space between these words and without space (op. cit./op.cit.), with periods and without (op. cit./op cit).
2. Further reading section — no periods at the end of some sentences.
3. There are also some minor differences in referencing style, for example ISBN written with and without dashes (-); sometimes there is comma (,), sometimes semicolon (;) before ISBN. Visor (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Visor (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.

In editing this article, when I've encountered non-English-standard punctuation, I've tried to correct it.

Poles are often unaware that they use different standards than most Anglophones. In numbers, for example, they use commas for decimals, and periods where Anglophones use commas (thus, "5.280,03" rather than "5,280.03").

Similarly, Poles italicize article titles and use quotes on book titles—again, the exact reverse of what Anglophones generally do.

The "op. cit." situation is thus but the tip of the iceberg.

"Op. cit." is the abbreviation of the Latin "opere citato"—"in the work [previously] cited." Since it comes from a foreign language (Latin), in English it is generally italicized. And since "op. cit." is an abbreviation, it comes with periods. And since these are two words, there should be a space between them.Nihil novi (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the "Further reading" section as far as I could. In some items, information was unclear or missing. Poles, for example, frequently list the place of publication but not the publisher, or vice versa. Nihil novi (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A side note: Bibliographies in Polish publications often abbreviate authors' first names, even when the authors don't do so on their title pages. Some years ago, a Polish historian expressed surprise on learning that "B. Tuchman," author of The Guns of August, was a woman (Barbara Tuchman). Nihil novi (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as in the last round. A lot of superficial gloss and we-want-it-to-be-featured, and no improvement regarding the NPOV issues I had a quick look at. "Relations with Weimar Germany ... Pilsudski's tenure could for the most part be described as neutral"? According to Polish historian Marian Zgorniak [4], Polish military leaders like Gustaw Orlicz-Dreszer since the 1920s had, in accordance with Pilsudkis orders, prepared offensive concepts against Weimar Germany, which was defenseless due to Versailles restrictions. What might "marsz na berlin"! refer to anyway, travelling to the Olympics in 1936? And "in January 1933, Piłsudski is rumored to have proposed to France a preventive war against Germany"? With all the sources on a "preventive war against germany" +1933, all a Featured-Article-candidate, which "should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work", can come up with is "rumored to have proposed"? Really, this prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. In the words of Polish historian Waclaw Jedrzejewicz : The Polish Plan for a "preventive War" Against Germany in 1933, or even The Polish war for a preventive war against Germany in 1933. When will the third FA candidacy be started? -- Matthead  DisOuß   09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article mentions P. plans for a war against Germany. Going into details of unrealized and highly speculative military plans is rather off topic in this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article is about a dictator - you have to expect protracted discussion. Some particular points. His attitude towards minorities is currently described as favorable, but Timothy Snyder mentions public corporal punishment of Ukrainians [5] ordered by Pilsudski. Other questionable wordings, some of which are easy to fix - "considered responsible for regaining Poland's independence" - just change to considered by many. A coin featuring his "rugged profile". Conflicts "resulted in Poland moving eastward" - passive tense. The use of the word "dream" to describe plans that much of the rest of the world saw as imperialism - the Polish government felt it necessary to defend itself against this charge in an "appeal to the world" [6]. The Locarno treaties as appeasement - not a universally accepted interpretation. He and some historians perceived them as such. Villified is not a neutral word. There were constitutional crises in 1990s Poland that involved widespread fears of a renewed Pilsudksi-like presidential role [7] - no mention. Some issues have been addressed and the article has been improved thereby, but more remain. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article mentions (just as Snyder writes) that OUN attacks led to repressions and deterioration of the relations between Ukrainian minority and Polish government.
  • As currently stated: "Piłsudski's regime began a period of national stabilization and improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities". This implies that the ongoing problems stemming from post-WWI territorial changes - Ukrainians seeking independence and upset about Galicia, Germans upset about the Danzig corridor, etc - went away for some unspecified period of time. Most authors treat the entire interwar period as turbulent. See Ilya Prizel, Aviel Roshvald, Roy Leslie, etc - some of these authors' viewpoints are discussed at the talk page.
    • Any author who goes into this at depth will notice that the situation fluctuated; Piłsudski tried to improve the situation but failed, and the deterioration accelerated after his death. In any case, this is simply not a major issue in an article about him. Second Polish Republic had many failings, and not a single one of them (nor any of its achievements) should be given undue weight there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not aware of any source that argues Piłsudski was not responsible for Poland regaining independence. Granted, his activity was only one of the resulting factors, but the article doesn't claim he was solely responsible for it - so I see no contradiction here.
  • As currently stated: "He is considered largely responsible for Poland having regained her independence in 1918". This statement is single-factorial. Yes, some people see it that way, but an encyclopedia is not in the business of attributing major historic developments to a single person. For an encyclopedic version see Britannica [8] - it's a one-page summary, not too burdensome to read. Note the sentences "The chances of Polish independence increased radically in 1917 when the United States entered the war and two revolutions shook Russia....The Inter-Allied conference (June 1918) endorsed Polish independence, thus crowning the efforts of Dmowski, who had promoted the Polish cause in the West since 1915."
    • This is well referenced, and majority of sources put Piłsudski's efforts above Dmowski's - which nonetheless, together with the Versailles and its aftermath, are mentioned in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rugged - fixed. "resulted in Poland moving eastward" - string not found. Dream - fixed.
  • The passively-worded phrase in question is "a series of escalating battles which resulted in the Poles advancing eastward."
    • So?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Locarno - extensively discussed before; the article makes it clear it was Piłsudski's POV to see them as such.
  • As currently phrased: "Piłsudski was disappointed by the French and British policy of appeasement evident in those countries' signing of the Locarno Treaties." This is not a universally-acknowledged interpretation of the treaties - you could say this about the Munich Agreement, but not here.
    • And for the n-th time, this is attributed to P., referenced and rather appopriate for an article about him.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Some minor 1990s crises in Polish politics which made somebody compare the situation to P. times (60 years after his death and without an article on either en or pl wiki) don't seem relevant here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These crises and their relation to Pilduski are mentioned in the New York Times [9] , by the National Defense University [10] ("This is of immense importance because of Poland's experience with the defense council during the Pilsudski and 1980-81 martial law eras") and in these books [11], [12]. I would submit that the creation of a post-Soviet constitution is not minor, and that there was much more discussion of these issues in PL-language sources.
    • Feel free to expand articles about modern Polish political history with this information. But this is not of much relevance to P. article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Length/access issues - I have DSL and I have problems editing this page (now 71 KB), the article itself, and its talk page. Novickas (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the problem is with DSL? I have DSL, too, and no problem editing this article. Nihil novi (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. While the article is truly impressive and well written, References and Further reading sections fails WP:FACR 2(c): _consistently formatted_ inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing. I've also noticed some issues:

• Two the same references written in different ways:
  • 2. Marian Marek Drozdowski, Przedmowa, in Marian Marek Drozdowski, Hanna Szwankowska, Pożegnanie Marszałka. [...]
  • 8. & 142. Zbigniew Wojcik, Przedmowa, in Marian Marek Drozdowski, Hanna Szwankowska, Pożegnanie Marszałka. [...]
• Int. link to Watt, not to Watt, Richard: 144. Watt, Richard (1979). [...]
• No locations in references—for example, let's take two first references: no location for Plach, 2006 (Warsaw) and Drozdowski, 1995 (Athens, Ohio).
• Wrong ISBN for Dziewanowski (1969). (Fixed)
• No standardisation for locations in Ref section, sometimes written in Polish, sometimes in English language (Warsaw/Warszawa).
• No standardisation for url retrieve date (Retrieved on/retrieved on/Last accessed on/last accessed on).
• No standardisation for author (or editor), written in different ways: last, first and first last.
• No standardisation for dashes in dates (hyphen/en dash).
• Some names are red links, some are no links. What decides about that? Visor (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All known issues mentioned by me above has been resolved. Now, I Support for FA, per Piotrus; well written and well referenced article. Visor (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing those issues. All comments are appreciated, but comments followed by fixes are doubly so :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is the whole point being made by many, including myself, that the article needs lots more "fixing". Like you I want this article to become a FA. Virtually everyone currently supporting this nomination was satisfied with it long before so many "fixes" were implemented. Simply put, the article needs plenty more fixing. This unusual and relentless attempt to make this a FA every few weeks, is becoming more of a game, than a serious desire to reach a consensus. Isn't better to create an article that it is the best that Wikipedia can offer to its readers? Until then, I vote Oppose. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain This is an interesting discussion. Piotrus and Nihil novi are supporting the FA nomination. And, M.K and Dr. Dan are opposing the FA nomination. Interesting! I studied the article and I think it is a very good biography. However, Dr. Dan and M.K have raised some issues. Is this biography neutral? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Having written quite a few FAs, I believe this one fulfills Wikipedia:Neutral point of view quite well, and as I have argued above arguments to the contrary are a violation of undue weight principle. I'd hope that the article would not have gotten as many supports as it has if I was mistaken.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Piotrus, I think the biography is fine. And, you and Nihil novi have contributed significantly to the articles related to Poland. Let me ask a question: Why are Dr. Dan and M.K against the article? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Read my comment above and archived thread and oh, you also should read others comments as well, in order to find out who are unsatisfied of certain issues... M.K. (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Masterpiece, to be clear, I am not against this article. My position regarding this article's strengths and weaknesses have been presented by me in detail on the talk pages. If you have the time (and I do mean time) you can get a very good idea of everyone's position on the archived talkpage, as well as this one. A FA on Wikipedia is purported to be the best type of article that the project can produce. This article is constantly improving, and I look forward to casting a "Support" vote when it truly reaches that point. Soon I hope. Few will remember edits on the talk page like, "He was the greatest Pole of all time and my great grandfather was proud to serve under him in the Polish Victory War of 1920 against Russia. Now this is why this article was delisted". Colonel Mustard, 29 May 2006. Or, "How I long for the day when his spirit finds another body - Oh Marshal Pilsudski We People of Poland love you". Anonymous, 31 Oct 2004

This puts a little of my objection in a nutshell, it once was a highly nationalistic POV'd boring piece of hero worship, pushing a cult of personality. Thankfully, it is less and less so. Without this relentless renomination of the article to become a FA and need to rush it before further improvements are made, it will be just fine. And for the record, the "many votes" it attracts seemed to have a more or less "ethnic component", than a contributory one. Finally this continual "fixing" of the article, whenever an objection is presented (rather than by a dialogue) is most troubling, because it is not a WP:OWN article, and needs a more balanced and neutral perspective. Hope that helps with your query. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpiece2000 asked about objections to the article, and you discuss irrelevant "edits on the talk page." Why this exercise in misdirection? Nihil novi (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should stay away from this discussion. I don't have great knowledge about Polish history. I will do research before casting my vote. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M2000, please take a good look at the talk pages (one archived) too. Might be very enlightening. Best Dr. Dan (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dr. Dan, I studied the arguments on the talk page of Piłsudski. I have decided to stay away from this discussion. My vote is Abstain! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.