Talk:Polonization

Lack of neutrality, historical/geographical accuracy.

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

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

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

Matejko Painting

Relevant discussion at

→ File talk:Subdue of Ruthenia in 1366.png#Cornerstone laying ceremony

If I'm not mistaken, the original title of the

Ruthenia subdued, a 19th century picture by Jan Matejko

painting is "Powtórne zajęcie Rusi. Bogactwo i oświata". In the article it is rendered as "Ruthenia subdued". Wouldn't a more accurate translation be " The Re-occupation of Ruthenia. Wealth and education"? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the title I knew, perhaps the picture is known under various titles. It's not that uncommon. Do what you please. //Halibutt 10:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Problems with the section on Belarus

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

1. For instance, it states that the Polonisation met with armed resistance. What exactly was that armed resistance? If I recall correctly the Belarusians fought alongside the Poles against the Russians. I never heard of any armed resistance there against the government, except for the Commie partisans crossing the new border with the USSR in the early 1920s. Any details on that?
2. closure of Belarusian Orthodox churches. Shouldn't we mention that in many cases they were not closed down but instead restored to the church that built those churches in the first place? In countless cases Roman and Greek Catholic churches were simply converted to Orthodox churches by the tsarist authorities in 19th century and then they were simply restored to the believers of those faiths.
3. enforced Catholicization. Now this is something strange. Does this remark refer to 17th century Jesuits? Or 20th century? Or perhaps some other period?
4. violations of election rights based on falsification of the population census - correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a huge difference between general elections and population census. Electoral rights do not typically include any mention of population censuses. How exactly are the two related?
5. confiscation and redistribution of the land to the landlords of Polish nationality - this seems like a blatant lie or a huge understatement. We should also mention that the land was not confiscated from local landowners but rather from the tsar and Russian nobility who fled Poland in 1915. Moreover, it was distributed to people of Polish nationality regardless of their ethnicity (see the article on osadnik).
6. imprisoning of prominent Belarusian intellectuals and leaders in a notorious concentration camp Bereza Kartuska - this again was not a sign of discrimination, as the largest ethnic groups among the inmates at the prison camp of Bereza were Poles (43%) and Jews (33%). Besides, people were sent there not because of their ethnicity but because of their involvement in Commie or Ukrainian terrorism. Sure, I don't mean that the prison was a paradise or that sending people there against the Polish law of the time was right, but how exactly was it a sign of discrimination? If so, then the prison was mostly polonising the Poles imprisoned there (largest group)... Sounds absurd to me.
7. forcing migration of Belarusians from Western Belarus - this again would need some explanation. Were there ethnic purges organised there? Were people evicted from their land for being Belarusians, Jews, Poles or whoever else?

On a wider note, we could use some source to say that the grim situation of, say, Belarusian peasants near Hrodna was any different from the situation of, say, Polish peasants from around Kielce. Including police brutality and corruption among local officials and Army recruitment centres. //Halibutt 10:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Simply put, it seems to me that this section could be moved to some other article and significantly expanded to show some perspective. History of Belarus? Communism in Poland? History of Polish police forces? //Halibutt 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nareszcie, jak spewaja Kaya i Bregowicz:

"Racja brachu!

Wypijmy za to!

Kto z nami nie wypije, tego we dwa kije!

Prawy do lewego!

Wypij kolego!

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

Vlad, you got me wrong. I don't argue that there were no Orthodox churches closed at all. BTW, most Orthodox churches in Warsaw were destroyed by Russians in 1915. The problem is that you (or your sources) add dubious interpretation to facts. Besides, you've not answered any of the issues above, please don't remove the tags from the article until the matter is settled - or we find some better way. //Halibutt 05:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Answers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Armed resistance. I know the eastern border was unstable immediately following the Treaty of Riga, plenty of sources confirm that the Soviet Russia was sending armed bands across the border to destabilise the situation (after all that's why the Border Protection Corps had to be created. However, how is this armed struggle related to Polish-Bolshevist War related to Polonisation? Also, there were plenty of peasant riots in other parts of Poland. Does that mean that the 1923 Kraków riot was also aimed at Polonisation of anyone? Nope.
2. As to Orthodox churches. You're missing the point my friend. Nobody here denies that there indeed were Orthodox churches given to Catholics or demolished or whatnot. Also, nobody argues that the Orthodox were or were not a majority in what is now Belarus. The problem is however how is that related to Polonisation? Did the government of Poland ordered those churches given to this or that religion? Nope.
3. "enforced Catholicization" if the Belarusian Catholics were listed as Polish Catholics, then they were listed as Catholics anyway, right? So how exactly were they Catholicised? Also, the census argument seems bogus as both the 1921 and 1931 censuses were anonymous. Nobody could force you to "become Catholic" just because you declared in the census that you felt Orthodox or Uniate or Muslim. Also, what is the source for "imposition of Catholicism in schools"? It seems completely out of the blue as in all parts of Poland the all schools had to organise classes of religion with each parent choosing the right tutor for his or hers kid: be him rabbi, catholic priest or orthodox monk. Sure, there were local authorities trying to limit the number of options available, but your wording suggests it was a nation-wide campaign, while IRL these were isolated cases. Same for "not appointed to state posts". Your sources probably state that "Poles monopolised state posts" or something along those lines. But did it ever occured to you that the reason might be more simple? Take a look at statistical data and check the percentage of people reading and writing. Tadda! Ability to read and write was pretty common in western parts of Poland, less common in eastern parts (check readership amongst the tutejszy group). Add to that that the person applying for a state job would have to not only know how to read and write, but also speak Polish, which was the state language (just like you have to speak German to become a state official in Germany, speak French to become one in France and speak Russian to be a clerk in Belarus).
4. Elections... thanks for the explanation, I felt there was something fishy, now I know it. Members of Polish parliament were elected in a universal vote, not chosen basing on the results of the census. Which makes your statement simply wrong.
5. Redistribution of land: and did you check data from before WWI? Who owned the 83,2% of land there before WWI? Wasn't it local Polish landlords, the hated szlachta? Because that was the case in most parts of Poland, not just what is now Belarus. Also, I do understand what I wrote. According to both pre-war and modern Polish law a Polish national can be of any ethnicity, be him ethnic Pole, ethnic German, ethnic Spaniard, Czech or a mixture. And be sure to finally read the article on Osadnik to check what exactly did happen to the "most Polish soldiers have got the lands in Belarus for free for their service" (in reality it was roughly 10.000 people out of 1.5 million soldiers; hardly "all").
6. Bereza. Again, you got me wrong. I'm not defending Bereza at all. I'm merely explaining to you how contemporary authorities thought. They did not send people to Bereza because they were of this or that nationality, and certainly not to Polonise them (after all this should be ahn article on Polonisation, right?
7. Evictions - again, we'd need a source saying that 3.5 million Belarusians had to leave their homeland between 1920 and 1939. Seems kind of dubious to me.

And for the umpteenth time, please, let's settle the dispute here first, don't eliminate the tags from the main page just because it seems ok to you. Please. //Halibutt 14:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

BTW, you still have not answered any questions, neither those asked here nor at the other article's talk page. And it seems that you fail to understand the difference between population census and parliamentary elections. But if you feel that there's no difference, then sure, go ahead. Over and out. //Halibutt 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

As there is apparently plenty of conflicting views on the scope of this article, what info should be included and how should it be presented, I took the liberty to ask for external review and comments from fellow Wikipedians. The basic conflict is around the sections on Belarus (see the section above for history of the conflict, as well as article's history), but all of this article could benefit from a peer review. //Halibutt 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the primary problem in this case is putting the examples of policies of Polonization ([1]) in list form and not in prose. That unnecessarily encourages making the items shorter. And shorter items are harder to make neutral and detailed. For example, the item "closure of Belarusian Orthodox churches" could be made more detailed and neutral by noting what happened to the buildings (Were they demolished? Were they abandoned? Or did they get a new owner? Maybe the fate of different buildings was not the same?), noting the reason that the Polish authorities gave (Did they claim it was done to help Polonization? For safety purposes? To undo the taking of Greek Catholic churches by Russian authorities?), and how did the Belarusians themselves see that. I hope other problems will be easier to solve after making the section more detailed. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghetto benches

Ghetto benches in polish universities were introduced in 1937 - two years after the dead of Józef Piłsudski. Accusing his regime for it is simple mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.146.82 (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Karl Okon

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

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

---

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

Giving as an example of polonisation the fact of wrining back in Polish name of Pole seems to be sarcastic(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.78.239 (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Miacek

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

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

For example the sentence As most of the Polish government was initially controlled by Roman Dmowski, National Democratic leader and a strong proponent of Polonization,[47] policies based on his views were implemented is cited to page 314 of this work [2]. Do you see the claim that the Polish government was "controlled" (whatever that is supposed to mean) by Dmowski anywhere on that page? How about on the next page? No? Well, that's because it's not really true. The second part of the claim is that it was Dmowski's policies which were implemented. Any student of Polish history knows that this is false as well. And yes the source given [3] ALSO does not say this either.

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

The previous discussion, involving different users is above (or click here). Not sure if you can make out all of it since it degenerates very quickly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

This source: Herbert Arthur Strauss "Hostages of Modernization: Studies on Modern Antisemitism, 1870-1933/39", Walter de Gruyter, 1993, p. 1084. [4]. It doesn't even have 1084 pages. Only 644. And yes, it starts with page 1. Normally it'd chalk this up to a good faith mistake but given the total dishonesty in other parts of this article in regards to sourcing I'm a bit skeptical. Additionally there are apparently only two occurrences of the word "engineers" in this work (which is what the text in the article is talking about) and neither of them have anything what. so. ever. to do with the purported text. Removing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

After WWII

Biggest Polonization of all, after WWII in former German territories, needs much more discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.105 (talk • contribs) 20:52, November 26, 2014

Sure. Would you like to suggest any sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Kulturkampf

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

Lonely Planet as a reliable source

NO!Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Three cite errors

Pleae help! Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Polonization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520235227/http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D7748%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D7748%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20141028221700/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=16410 with https://web.archive.org/web/20161229100110/http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=16410 on http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=16410
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020602145938/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mdemkowicz1/dobra/poloniz.html to http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mdemkowicz1/dobra/poloniz.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polonization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050904150707/http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Thomas/Thomas_1913.html to http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/Thomas/Thomas_1913.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mesharpe.metapress.com/(oljda545xblum055350iutny)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,4;journal,4,11;linkingpublicationresults,1:110921,1

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradictory claims about the partitions period

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

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

Unreliable source

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

Boston

Be nice in an English article to have Boston in Lincs mentioned.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:CA:2CE5:1:7149:31A7:8444:642E (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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