Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:31, 6 December 2007 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,754 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 21:56, 6 December 2007 edit undoIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →Józef PiłsudskiNext edit →
Line 156: Line 156:
*Regrettable but '''firm oppose'''. I tried to not vote in rash and waited as long as I could to see whether the article can be stabilized and NPOV and ] issues may be addressed. I made some edits to one section and will likely do more. But this problematic nomination cannot protract indefinetely. POV-problems are outlined sufficiently at the article's talk. The article is in no way stable and, IMO, this is due to some editors assuming the ]ership of it battling the critical to the article's subject edits with vigor. Stabilizing the articles on the controversial figures like this one, who is a hero to some nations (Poles) and a tyrannical dictator, traitor and aggressor to others (Belarusians, Lithuanians, Russians and Ukrainians) takes a lot more compromising and good will than present here. Thus '''oppose''' and give it at least a year before renominating. --] 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) *Regrettable but '''firm oppose'''. I tried to not vote in rash and waited as long as I could to see whether the article can be stabilized and NPOV and ] issues may be addressed. I made some edits to one section and will likely do more. But this problematic nomination cannot protract indefinetely. POV-problems are outlined sufficiently at the article's talk. The article is in no way stable and, IMO, this is due to some editors assuming the ]ership of it battling the critical to the article's subject edits with vigor. Stabilizing the articles on the controversial figures like this one, who is a hero to some nations (Poles) and a tyrannical dictator, traitor and aggressor to others (Belarusians, Lithuanians, Russians and Ukrainians) takes a lot more compromising and good will than present here. Thus '''oppose''' and give it at least a year before renominating. --] 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:*The POV problems are discussed here and at talk and it seems to me that in both places the majority of editors agree it is neutral (hence no revert warring or tags in the article); no argument have been left unanswered. As you point out, Piłsudski is a controversial figure and as such it is reasonable to expect some will be trying to create a bias in the article, and when fail, vote oppose. Writing articles on controversial subjects is the art of compromise, and it's regrettable that some cannot realize they cannot push their POV and have it dominate the article (be it pro-, anti- or something else); on that note I'd like to note that Piłsudski is ''not'' a hero to all Poles - they were and are quite a few who see him as a negative figure (and their view is represented in the article). Nonetheless this article has received support votes from editors from (or editing subjects related to those countries) Poland, Ukraine, Czech Repbulic, Romania, Belarus and others, which indicates to me that it does represent a neutral stance. Majority of the issues you raised in last year nomination are now discussed in the article ("Litvinness", patriotic childhood experiences, activity in Siberian excile, activity of PPS, etc.) Lastly, Irpen, I hope that ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) :*The POV problems are discussed here and at talk and it seems to me that in both places the majority of editors agree it is neutral (hence no revert warring or tags in the article); no argument have been left unanswered. As you point out, Piłsudski is a controversial figure and as such it is reasonable to expect some will be trying to create a bias in the article, and when fail, vote oppose. Writing articles on controversial subjects is the art of compromise, and it's regrettable that some cannot realize they cannot push their POV and have it dominate the article (be it pro-, anti- or something else); on that note I'd like to note that Piłsudski is ''not'' a hero to all Poles - they were and are quite a few who see him as a negative figure (and their view is represented in the article). Nonetheless this article has received support votes from editors from (or editing subjects related to those countries) Poland, Ukraine, Czech Repbulic, Romania, Belarus and others, which indicates to me that it does represent a neutral stance. Majority of the issues you raised in last year nomination are now discussed in the article ("Litvinness", patriotic childhood experiences, activity in Siberian excile, activity of PPS, etc.) Lastly, Irpen, I hope that ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:**I am not taking the bait. --] 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:56, 6 December 2007

Józef Piłsudski

An important figure in interwar Polish and European history. Over the past year I have verified all facts with a two-part biography and expanded the article. GA since June 7, 2006. MILHIST A-class since October 3, 2006. PS. See here for old (July 10, 2006) FAC nom.. Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this article has some image copyright issues. According to the image page, Image:Herb Piłsudski.PNG is a copyvio because it's over 150×150, but that's easily fixed by reducing the image. Image:Pilsudski in Bristol.jpg is more complex. It says it was taken in July 1923 and claims life+70. However, there is no indication of who took the photo, let alone when he died. There are some other images that have a similar uncertainty. There's a possibility of {{PD-Poland}}, although the image would still (probably) be considered copyright in the US, which leaves it still non-free. Pagrashtak 20:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Herb Piłsudski.PNG is not a copyvio, since the permission allows us to use larger images if they were upload before certain date (which this image passes). I am not sure what to do with the other image, though. We could perhaps remove it - we have enough images in the article to lose one or two photos without any pain.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The larger images are allowed if uploaded before 11 Nov 2005, but this image was uploaded 17 Feb 2007. Am I missing something? Pagrashtak 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Mathiasrex. Sorry, I misread the date. Can you upload the low-res variant instead? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well written and references, includes everything one should find in a featured article. I fully support this nomination. JRWalko 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Well referenced, nicely written. I believe we could fix the photo formatting to use standard thumb parameter instead of fixed width, but that's a minor issue. //Halibutt 09:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well referenced, well written, and well formatted. Jay32183 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strong oppose . Article have potential to be FA but not as current version. Problems which faces current version are listed on talk. I will briefly point out some of them. First of all there was suggestion to implement in the article's lead formulation Lithuanian descent, this was not addressed. About Pilsudski's young days - some fact also missing, like that his family called him under his Lithuanian name Juozukas rather then Józef. In my opinion this is more important then saga how he lost his teeth. Other problems: article lacks person in question own words and stated views presentation. For instance why such strong strong statment like Piłsudski was aware that the Bolsheviks were not friends of independent Poland, and that war with them was inevitable. not present with own Pilsudski's words for it, rather then historians interpretation and speculations. Examples can be found like in Winston Churchill article, there his views, criticism presented by his words. There was attempt to fix this problem, for instance presenting his view about Poland as a nation of morons (as cited in N. Davies; Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland.p.139), but it was removed under inconclusive arguments. Also article lacks critical assessment and information, for instance we have an information that Pilsudski believed in the rule of strong hand, while original statment provides that Pilsudski believed that the world was ruled by brute force, and that fundamental changes could only be obtained, or essential interests defended, by the willingness to use violence, terror, and military power. So we have and contributors' personal interpretation with it (in the rule of strong hand). In other words article should present source's information rather then its interpretation by editors. Other points - Death section should be expanded as it was important development not only to his followers but also to his enemies, etc. If I remember correctly, initially was prohibition to entomb him in Wawel. Moving to other problems, there is and weaseling problems like Edward Rydz-Śmigły was seen by some as Piłsudski's successor etc. so article have to be greatly improved. M.K. 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)P.S. Reasonable time passed and no improvement conducted, I changed my previuos opinion to strong oppose also due to others contributors raised concerns. M.K. (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Lithuanian descent is mentioned in lead family with traditions dating back to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
  • That "his family called him under his Lithuanian name Juozukas rather then Józef" is news by me, no such argument was made on talk or in article, no refs to back it up were presented and I have not read anything like this in the biographies I have read.
  • Piłsudski was aware that the Bolsheviks were not friends of independent Poland, and that war with them was inevitable. This is a referenced statement. Further, Urbanowski states clearly this is based on Piłsudski's own words - see Piłsudski Józef, Pisma zbiorowe: wydanie prac dotychczas drukiem ogłoszonych, tome VII, p.147. Unfortunatly I don't have this publication at hand to quote Piłsudski, but verifiable claim by a reliable historian seems to agree with our policies
  • As the discussion at article's talk page shown, the quote is 1) offensive 2) out of context. For interested editors, the full speech in which he uses the quote that Poland is a nation of morons is here; briefly, Piłsudski is criticizing (Polish) politicians, and to argue that he thought all Poles are morons is incorrect - and again, offensive. It is further surprising that certain editors push to have this quote included, but ignore a bunch of other quotes where Piłsudski made positive comments about Poles, or positive or negative comments about Lithuanians, Russians, French, British, Germans, the West, particular regions of Poland, politicians, communists, soldiers, particular individuals, and so on. Let us remember that encyclopedia should not go for the 'shock value' with (incorrect and controversial) quotations. We have wikiquote for the latter, and the discussed quote is there.
  • Pilsudski believed in the rule of strong hand. As explained on talk 1) we should not quote other authors when we can paraphrase their arguments 2) this sentence paraphrases the particular claim quite well. I find it also puzzling that one can argue against inclusion of an opinion of certain author in one sentence, and then complain about paraphrasing (not removal!) of another author's opinion in the next.
  • I located a book that should help to expand this section; it is indeed a bit short. I will do so shortly.
  • Edward Rydz-Śmigły was seen by some as Piłsudski's successor. This sentence is referenced to a reliable historical work. I see nothing controversial in it. If you want to rephrase it, go right ahead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Answering your points. Hardly traditions dating back GDL times in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. PLC was not formed then family traditions was emerging. Of course it depends what family defines.
  2. About Juozukas. Looking to this comment it looks like biographies which you read lacks some important info, including how Pilsudski name originated as well. BTW, can you suggest if these biographies which you read states anything about languages he spoke?
  3. Well try to acquire this publication as it do much good if the original words will be added.
  4. Regarding quote of nation of morons; Hardly argument that person's in question remarks are rude allows it to remove from text. Quite contrary it can perfectly fit to describe his views on nationality etc. And you missing the main point - article about person in question written with non crucial comments of his own. What did he think launching one of another military campaign, how he addressed to his opponents and similar. It is unbelievable that in his biographies such or similar quotes are not provided.
  5. About strong hand. Original quote: Pilsudski believed that the world was ruled by brute force, and that fundamental changes could only be obtained, or essential interests defended, by the willingness to use violence, terror, and military power. From this quote other contributors could summarize that Pilsudski supported terrorism, other may argue why not summarize that Pilsudski believed in brute force etc. And this is potential disagreement area, WP:OR should be advised as well. Inclusion proper citation in the main text itself will solve any future misinterpretations
  6. Regarding Edward Rydz per WP:WEASEL insert source in caption, or yet better state clearly who saw him as successor. M.K. 10:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. This is why I wrote the Piłsudski (family) article. From the various refs provided it is quite clear that PLC was a major influence on the family. Sure, the name can be traced to pre-PLC Lithuania, but the polonization of szlachta by 20th century was a much more relevant factor.
  2. Yes, he spoke Polish (primarily), although I believe I read somewhere he knew other languages - probably Russian (education), maybe Lithuanian and German. I will see if I can find out more. As for the origins of the name of Piłsudski, Piłsudski (family) is the place to discuss it. And you still need to present a single source that would state he was called Juozukas by his family (according to Urbanowski, his childhood nickname was 'Ziuk'); or a source that his family knew Lithuanian at all and in particular, used it among themselves.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. I don't believe it is of utmost importance. I will see what I can do, but if you disagree, feel free to do it yourself - you have demonstrated that you know Polish language, so nothing should be stopping you.
  4. Biographies are not collections of quotes.
  5. Paraphrasing is not OR, it is recommended by SUMMARY, CITE and V, among others.
  6. The source is given (inline citation). I will see if there is room to clarify which factions supported him and saw him as Piłsudski's successor.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Not going to lengthy discussion, which critical moments did not reflected in the article's improvement yet, short points. Piłsudski (family) article can be tagged as {{OR}}. His parents spoke Lithuanian and Juozukas too, your biographical essays have yet another gap. Repressing is one thing interpretation is another thing. Biographies are not collections of quotes - sure, but quotes are inevitable especially in possible FA article. M.K. (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: This article will require thorough editing for English usage, after non-native-English-speakers (and some natives) have stopped endlessly altering the contents. Nihil novi (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One-sided picture. Pilsudski made a number of public statements that were striking then and remain striking today: called Parliament prostitutes (Time magazine ) and a "sterile jabbering thing", an attitude summarized as "contemptuous of democracy". . Many more criticisms are out there; "crushing of democracy" rather than "disillusioned with democracy" as currently stated , "the bereza concentration camp (Bereza Kartuska) was a blot on Poland's image as a civilized state" Weakened the miltary, did nothing for the economy, from the University of Glasgow: "In the Army, a Pilsudski-ite past became crucial. In 1926 only 10% of army officers had served in the Legions, but by 1939 that figure had risen to 70%. They usually lacked formal military training, and had won their advancement in the Polish-Russian War. This led to the overrating of cavalry to the detriment of armour and aircraft." "Despite this vast power, the BBWR-Pilsudski-military régime did virtually nothing. The economy was still stagnating well after the Depression: unemployment in real terms reached almost 40%, and 52% of Polish industry and capital was owned by foreigners. On the land, the situation was appalling: poverty and hunger increased steadily." Re the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact: Pilsudksi stated that he would like Hitler to "stay in power as long as possible".. Fostered a cult of personality Problematic in terms of legacy: From the National Review: "pre-war Eastern European regimes were hardly paragons of tolerance and democracy. Pilsudski, today's hero (and the man who framed the 1935 Constitution under which the London government continued to exist), killed several times more people in his 1926 coup than the hated Jaruzelski did under martial law." From the New York Times: "He led his country's struggle for independence and democracy but later, until his death in 1935, presided over the disabling of parliamentary government."The prewar regime is beyond criticism," he (Bronislaw Geremek, described by the Times as a distinguished Polish historian and dissident) said. "Pilsudski's flaws are not mentioned." The nature of his rule is much discussed by historians - Hannah Arendt being possibly the most prominent of those who called him a Fascist (ref on request, from Men in Dark Times). And many more. Novickas 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • One sided how? Criticism is present. Most of what you write above is mentioned in article - that Piłsudski's government was opposed to parliamentary democracy, authoritarian, criticism of his handling of military, and so on. I have not found any works criticizing his handling of the economy - first, he didn't dabble in it much, second, there was a Great Depression era. I am sorry that your favorites are not there, but you can certainly add the quotes to wikiquote, as we discussed on talk. It is not possible to accommodate every single quote and historian's (or famous writer's) remark in an article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is quite well illustrated how article is one sided. Besides it was a bit of surprise to find out that Pilsudski wanted to see Adolf Hitler in power as long as possible. Besides we have his own words, (which this article lacks in general) " but I would like to see him stay in power as long as possible". M.K. 10:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not surprising once you consider the time and place. Piłsudski died in 1935, well before Hitler became seen as the 'bad guy'; up to '39 most of the countries - included the West and the Baltics - tried to be on the 'good side' of Hitlerite Germany. That Poland too wanted a stable relation with Germany - is hardly strange. And do note that Piłsudski in fact proposed a military intervention against Hitler in early 30s, when Hitler first started to violate the international treaties imposed on Germany after Versailles - but France refused, the west chose the policy of appeasement, and hence Piłsudski, knowing that Poland alone is too weak to deal with Germany, was forced to appease its neighbor, too. I belive we have a paragraph describing Polish-German relations of that period and Piłsudski's role in signing the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact - so it is all well covered. PS. As far as quotes go we could as well quote Piłsudski's critiques of fascism (Urbanowski, v.2, p.486)-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a dedicated criticism and controversy section, like those in other FAs (Mahatma Ghandi, Che Guevara). The world's criticism, and that of fellow Poles, could be concisely stated there in several paragraphs. Novickas 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently the criticism is spread throughout various sections. Since we don't have the 'praise' or 'achievements' section, I believe it is more neutral that way.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A very good article about one of greatest Poles of all times Tymek 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - well-referenced, balanced, comprehensive portrayal of a crucial figure in early-20th century Europe. Appears to meet all FA criteria. Three points: 1: 'bojówki' or bojówki? Let's stay with one standard. 2: do we know what kind of a socialist he was, what intellectual tradition he fit within? Was he more sympathetic to factory workers or farmers? What indeed were his views on industry and agriculture? Did he ever embrace or critique Marxism? I'm not even sure if any of this is intrinsically relevant, but perhaps a paragraph on his political thought (touching on social issues) would be in order? 3: what, if any, were his religious beliefs? Did he take a position on the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral episode? What relations did he have with the Catholic hierarchy? Biruitorul 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Re 'bojówki' vs bojówki - any idea what MoS would reccomend? Interesting comment on his socialist past; I will see if I can find more on any of this. As for religion, it is my understanding he was not deeply religious, and saw religion as a tool, but I will again see if I can dug up more reliable info on that. Thanks for the insightful comments, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Urbanowski in his second volume has a chapter Specyfika socjalizmu Piłsudskiego. Briefly, in his youth he supported marxism - as did other socialist of that era - but he always mixed it up with the pro-independence rhetoric. Later he distanced itself from it, seeing it as obsolete - although till the very end he supported some of its ideas (worker rights, etc.). As for religion, Urbanowski is again helpful, with chapter Bogowie i definicje. As he nicely puts it, all honest discussions on Piłsudski's faith should end with a question mark, not a full stop. Piłsudski had his own beliefs and was not overly religious. His conversions between various Christian denominations were pragmatic (related to his marriages). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - the article is balanced and adequatly referenced, there is no need for over-simplifications about Piłsudski's nationality. Mieciu K 14:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well-written and comprehensive article. Skillfully addresses all major criticism and presents comprehensive image of his life. He was a difficult and controversial person, so well-written article about him is like a precious treasure. One comment: maybe number of pictures should be trimmed a little bit and images reformatted. - Darwinek 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article, on a difficult, yet important subject. The article is well referenced, well written, and well formatted. It definitely rises to the level of featured article. Turgidson 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. While having a laugh reading the arguments on the merits of the Pilsudski article, I found the related article on Zalavas to be very interesting and very revealing about one part of the problem. Although a small group finds the Pilsudski article to border on "sublime perfection," they are part of the same group that undoubtably would find the Zalavas article to be worthy of a few barn stars, and the exchanging high fives amongst themselves, as well as having the satisfaction of adding another "stellar" article to Misplaced Pages. The truth of the matter is that the Zalavas article contains a lot of irrelevant claptrap bordering on an ultra-Nationalistic rant. It is not an article worthy of an Encyclopedia, nor is it presented in an encyclopedic fashion. It's at best an essay, and a poorly written one at that. In reality Zalavas is a tiny village in Lithuania with a population of around two hundred people. O.K., a famous person was born there. Now to get a better feel for where I am going with this, please click onto the Hodgenville, Kentucky article for some ideas of what that article could look like. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln is not as important, well known, or as famous as the Naczelnik Panstwa is to the English speaking world, but that is neither here nor there. What you don't have in the Hodgenville article is a link to Antietam, or Copperheads, or the Thirteenth Amendment, or even Louis J. Weichmann, let alone Mount Rushmore. On the other hand Zalavas links us to Riga, and to the Polish Defensive War, it links us to magnates, and to Lenin, we are linked to assassination, and to Russification, to Aleksandr Ulyanov, to Rurik, the Polish-Bolshevik War, the 17th century and the 18th century just to name a portion of the plethora of imbecilities presented to us as an excuse for another "article". And there are plenty more of nonsensical links to boot. Before anyone jumps to conclusions regarding my position about links, let me say this. I like links. Links are good. But here is another example of where the line has been crossed, and puts Misplaced Pages in a position to be ridiculed. Instead of an article about Zalavas, what we have here is another "vehicle" to tell us more about the Billewicz family doweries and Soviets and 1934, and December 5, etc.,etc., etc., than information we have regarding Zalavas. And in regards to the Pilsudskis article, we have the same ramblings and attempts to further some cult of personality, an overkill of fawning prose (replete with too many photos), and a constant removal of sourced materials because some find it "offensive". Until these issues are resolved, that article remains in a non-neutral kind of limbo. I am hoping that this will be corrected and the article will reach FA status. P.S. I hope I gave everyone who likes these kind of links, a good dose of them today from me. P.P.S. After reading some of the comments at this "vote", I'm surprised that there is not a link to Bethlehem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dan (talk • contribs)
Do I detect a faint note of sarcasm in the above? Naah, it's my imagination. -- Turgidson (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think your imagination might be in 5th or 6th gear, but that's O.K. with me. Sure, Bethlehem was sarcastic; but not the rest of it. Several times I have added the "neutrality" tag in order to bring some problems with the article out in the open. Evidently some people who should know better, have removed it over and over again in spite of the clear caveat on the tag not to do so until questionable issues were resolved. This amongst other things has indeed put the article into limbo. I truly do want this article to obtain FA status, but many things have yet to be ironed out. This corraling of the same old group of Polish Wikipedians (and non-Poles too) to "vote" in support of its present format is an insult to the Misplaced Pages Project. The chorus of "well written, well referenced" blather must be either scripted or written by people who have a poor grasp of English, its grammar, and syntax, or giving us more proof that the non-existant Cabal, does in fact exist. And if I'm way off and wrong about this, let me say that a support vote of the article in its present condition with a remark like "A very good article about one of greatest Poles (sic)of all times," just shouldn't cut it with those in a position to take a closer look at this mess. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Before casting stones at "people who have a poor grasp of English", please note that "non-existant" (sic) is a non-existent word in the English language. OK, I'll downshift now into 4th gear. Turgidson (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the typo. Can you add any substence (sic) or comment on the issues. If not, I'd suggest downshifting to "neutral" which is the position where I'd like the article to be. That's all I'm asking. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see anything objectionable in the article, and moreover I find it very clear, thorough and professional. K. Lásztocska 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose promotion to "Featured article status", as glossing over strong neutrality concerns with a sparkling FA star is not an option. Reminds me of Cracow/Kraków/Krakau, where GA status was attempted repeatedly even though basic coverage of the 19th century Austrian era was actively denied by edit warring. Misplaced Pages should not foster the vanity of users who can not get enough of awards, stars etc. Discussing is a waste of time, but leaving the field to those who boost each other's egos is not an option, either. Only uninvolved people should be allowed to nominate and support an article they stumble upon, not roosters crowing about eggs they've laid, demanding them to get painted as easter eggs. -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    May I remind you that discuss edits, not editors, holds here too. Opposing because you dislike certain editors and their work work is not what the FA process is about.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I wonder, is considered a personal attack also? - wikistress anyone? - Discussing editors is not the same as personal attacks, it is done when considering people for receiving a block or a ban, when considering granting adminship, etc. In FAC personal complements are pretty common - personal criticism is rare.--Keerllston 16:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
      I believe you were referring to Misplaced Pages:Avoid personal remarks which is not policy - despite it being somewhat implied in the second sentence of "no personal attacks": "comment on content not contributor"--Keerllston 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
      • But given on what we are dealing with, the comment originally made is not helpful at all. Piotrus is right, we need all of the people who can make FA's and as many of them as possible. While if Matthead still wants to oppose the article for another reason, I cannot personally stop him, but I kindly ask that he retract his statement about FA makers. Gruntbrat (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • "Roosters crowing about eggs they've laid" is implied to refer specifically but is not explicit
      "Misplaced Pages should not foster the vanity of users who can not get enough awards" is a general comment on wikipedia
      "Reminds me of Cracow" perhaps underhanded way of specifying who he means - perhaps not just commenting on another article with NPOV issues as an example.
      I support Matthead's right to those comments. I further request that he ignore any request to retract/remove/reconsider his comments, unless to elaborate and expand on his opinion.
      I agree that greater civility on his part was possible, same for Piotrus, (and for the 99.999% of the population of wikipedia)
      --Keerllston 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty good reading. Well researched, rich in references. --Beaumont (@) 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A very good read, indeed. The so called controversial issues regarding the complexities of the article subjects are well explained and propped up with an impressive collection of inline citations, which make this article one of the more comprehensive FA submissions yet in a series of articles covering the rebirth of modern Poland. The subsection Authoritarian rule seems a bit stubby with only a couple of sentences in it. Perhaps it could be worked into other sections or slightly expanded to justify its presence. --Poeticbent talk 19:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    The section has several subsections, hence the small amount of text under it should not be considered a section stub - as it goes into much detail with subsections; the small para is meant as an introduction for the following subsections.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    I see what you mean. I got confused by the absence of the usual line below the section title, highlighting it and in the process introducing its subdivisions. I guess, it's a layout thing. I got used to the lines, a personal quirk. Please don't worry about it, though some dividing lines would be nice, especially around the first two "cascading" titles which are kind of repetitious: "1.Life/1.1.Early life." Personally, I would prefer larger titles, for example "1.Early life", "2.World War I", etc. --Poeticbent talk 23:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    I am not sure I see that. Could you show me an artice where such a division is used, or a WP:MOS part explaining it? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    Take a look at Mahatma Gandhi. "Early life" is the first section with primary heading followed by "Civil rights movement in South Africa" (again, primary heading only). The first section (No.3) with primary and secondary headings is called "Struggle for Indian Independence", and it has a short intoduction similar to Józef Piłsudski Authoritarian rule. I like that kind of layout, because primary headings seem a bit easier to follow. --Poeticbent talk 03:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - seems thorough and balanced to me. Could doubtless still be improved as could every article, but objections mostly seem to be nitpicking or else politically/personally motivated.--Kotniski (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Object - I like it, extremely well referenced, good pictures, good writing.
It seems User:Piotr actions are somehow part of this discussion, NPOV problems being the main concern.
It seems the parenthesis are adequate in many of the occasions where it they are used.
"From his youth, Piłsudski desired the independence of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." weird, strange, perhaps even bizarre phrasing?
"(who after World War II, in Britain, would realize Piłsudski's youthful medical ambition by herself becoming a psychiatrist)" please get rid of these parenthesis and integrate the comment into the paragraph, if it cannot be done it does not belong in the paragraph anyway.
"(200,812 rubles – some $100,000)" same - and is that U$100,000 in constant dollars? - $100,000 dollars back then was a lot more than it is now, rubles as well.
"The most important role, however, was assigned to a relatively small (approximately 20,000-man)" no note on the size of the other ones - easier than calling it small or big would be noting the size of the other sections so that this is clear - there are other uses of "small" - "small cadre of" - 'the support was smaller than anticipated by Piludski' - elaboration on what is meant by "small" in each situation would be nice.
"According to historian Norman Davies, Piłsudski believed in government by a strong hand" is incongruent with the rest of the paragraph - it should be integrated, it should not be deleted, perhaps into a section on his political views
I would strongly suggest making a section on his views/policial political position - it is somewhat treated as part of his "Life" but it is an important topic itself especially in regards to his political legacy and historical opinions/treatments of/on him. Socialism and Nationalism and then Nationalism, strong government - I believe this would adequately address NPOV issues or at least bring them out to the light.--Keerllston 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Copyedited second fragment by removing it - irrelevant and unreferenced. Copyedited third by removing the dollars - indeed, confusing. Left the first one, which sounds ok to me - if you can rephrase it to sound better, please do. Left the fourth one - it's hard to get details on the numbers; I'd prefer to leave the ones we have. If somebody would like to write a section on his political views, go ahead - but per my earlier arguments, I believe that the current structure is logical enough.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose is what Matthead did, as "NPOV status" is needed first. -- Matthead  DisOuß   12:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Further Comment. I am amazed at the continual praise of how well this article is written. I have seem better term papers come out of a third-rate Community College. If anyone considers this an Encyclopedic article as it is presented, they need to take a real close look at its appearance and style. It needs to be worked on significantly before it appears as a FA, article. It's bias and non-neutrality are glaring to anyone having a complete picture of events surrounding this individual. The majority of all of the votes on this page stem from individuals with "an axe to grind", who are presenting a one-sided picture of a cult of personality propaganda piece. The overwhelming number of references (some from questionable sources) give it a very unencyclopedic look. And it is peppered with these excessive references because so much of the article cannot survive without some kind of "backing" (that is how questionable the statements are). I certainly hope people with authority will look at the article as it written and ask for some more time to improve it. In the meantime, this "calling out the vote", reminds me of a Old-Time Chicago Election. Btw, a Support vote with the comment ...per Matthead, (who happens to oppose its current form), ...as I am completely uninvolved... strikes me as oxymoronic, like so many passages in the current article. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some of the comments above have been rather overly abrasive. I would like to remind all involved to stay civil and remember to comment on the content, not the editors. --krimpet⟲ 23:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
Please restrain from linking to WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL is more relevant, while certain comments can be construed to be personal attacks, explicit ones have not taken place.
The last nomination was opposed mainly due to NPOV issues. relating to lack of criticism (warts) of Józef Piłsudski, and so on - the status of NPOV issues seems should have been adressed in the introduction to this candidateship.
I believe a nominator/contributor's edit history in regards to edit warring and NPOV is relevant. Why? Past performance is indicatation of possibility and probability of present and future performance. However, it is important to do so in a civil manner - and proper civility seems somewhat lacking.
--Keerllston 16:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
When I said "proper civility seems somewhat lacking" I did not mean most people who commented on Piotrus - these comments were generally civil. I meant instead civility is lacking in general in the Misplaced Pages community including this the "featured article candidates" page- in terms of edit warring, sharp remarks that can be construed as aggressive, and so on. I'm sorry for it's unintended specificity and any misunderstanding derived from such specificity.--Keerllston 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are used to places like Usenet, where accusing others of being morons and part of nationalist cabal is everyday behavior. However on Misplaced Pages this is seen as violation of WP:NPA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I note you are the first to use the terms "moron" in this topic. The second use of nationalist - the previous was referring to a different article (Zalavas) being an "ultra-Nationalistic rant".
  • Small Clarification - P.K. aka P.P., was not the first to use the term, Moron, in this discussion. "Morons", are what Pilsudski compared Poles to according to the historian Norman Davies, so Piotrus was not first to use the term in this discussion. In fact, Piotrus further clarified this bit of information by telling us that Pilsudski used the expression "idiots" instead of morons. Davies probably did not translate Pilsudski's remark properly. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note also that saying a person "is perhaps used to places like Usenet" could be construed to be an insult. Is it a personal attack? to some extent - depending on my opinion of Usenet.
--Keerllston 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Update. I have expanded the 'death' section, which was criticized for being stubby. Criticism has been expanded, thanks to User:Novickas. Also, thanks to many editors who helped with copyediting this into better English prose.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Naming Issue Is Jozef Pilsudsky commonly referred to in the English language as Józef Piłsudski? Please note: I am not saying that the article should be renamed Joseph Pilsudsky.--Keerllston 23:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Update 2. Criticism section was once again eliminated from article, without proper consensus and despite a request by multiply contributors to have it. I also have doubts about epigram and attribution it to Słowacki. Can any body provide its full translation? M.K. (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thus I change my vote from Objection to Strongly Object - per Edit Warring and NPOV. all views must be presented. It matters little whether under "modern political opinion on ___" or "Modern Historical Treatment" - etc. - without NPOV this is not FA quality.--Keerllston 13:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • "Criticism" sections are a clear violation of WP:NPOV since no one is creating "Praise" sections. Right now criticism of Mr.Piłsudski is spread throughout the entire article. Mieciu K (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Mohandas Gandhi is FA article, has Criticism section. Józef Piłsudski as a person was controversial, some editors expressed that his views are rude and should not be presented, thus in this case Criticism section is absolutely necessary. M.K. (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
          • If article Mohandas Gandhi has criticism section violating WP:NPOV it does not mean that article Józef Piłsudski must also be spoiled. Right now criticism of Mr.Piłsudski is spread throughout the entire article, there is no need to place criticism of mr.Piłsudski in a POV ghetto called a "criticism section" when it can be incorporated into the main body of the article. Mieciu K (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 22:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • May I suggest creating a praise section rather than edit war?--Keerllston 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Fine with me. But we will still need referees. Novickas (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
          • referees-? NPOV does not mean speaking in pure gray - rather it means showing the differences of opinions. References will be needed for both criticism and praise.--Keerllston 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Some background as to why referees are needed. In October I added a quote by Norman Davies: "According to Norman Davies,"Pilsudksi believed that the world was ruled by brute force, and that fundamental changes could only be obtained, or essential interests defended, by the willingness to use violence, terror, and military power."" Followed by discussion at the talk page; Piotrus argued that it was a copyvio, that Misplaced Pages is not Wikiquote, and that the language was POV. He changed it to its current formulation "According to historian Norman Davies, Piłsudski believed in government by a strong hand." . A significant edit. I have no objection to referenced praise, or to suggestions about the organization/naming of the praise/criticism sections. Novickas (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
              • As I have explained several times, per WP:WTA, the word terror should be avoided unless necessary. Since it this case it is a simple adjective and not crucial to the article content in any way, this was easily done through rephrasing (and excessive quoting is not recommended according to MoS in any case). That some users want to restore this or other problematic quotations (like comparing Polish nations to morons or some joke about Piłsudski being brainless) is unfortunate, but on the bright side most editors disagree with such disruption of the article and the article is rather stable - levels of disruption are what is to be expected on in an article about a controversial figure. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
              • And I think that, overall, Piotrus had done a good job of curtailing various perspectives in the name of WP:UNDUE and WP:POINT. The criticism and praise sections are a bad idea, which would only turn the article into a venue for pushing quotes one on top of the other for no purpose other than territorialism, and with no result other than confusing the reader by imposing siome sort of apartheid. Relevant views of all kinds should be included in the existing text, and none of them should be overexposed. Dahn (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • First, criticism section was merged into the rest of the article, not removed. Per discussion on talk - similar to what Mieciu noted above - it was agreed that unless a 'praise' section is added to balance criticism, such stand alone section is not neutral. Since nobody volunteered to add a 'praise' section, and the editor who objected because of no criticism section haven't changed his vote after adding it, I decided to incorporate the new information into existing (mostly chronological) structure. Again, let me repeat that the information was simply moved to relevant parts above, (with the exception of some miniscule details of German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact which were moved to that article - the Pact, while important, should not constitute close to a half of Piłsudski's in foreign policy section.) And yes, a few FAs have criticism section. Most don't.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        • First of all, criticism section was removed - it is a fact, another fact that contributors asked for this section and it was delivered later on. The "discussion" in which was "agreed" to move this section's information was started on 2007-11-26T01:27:47 and the "results" there made in 2007-11-27T05:51:15, in other words contributors may not had a chance to catch up to present their opinion etc. Particularly knowing that the section was delivered by different contributor good editing practice would require to apply proper Merging_and_splitting tag and discuss in depth if such action is needed, which information should be kept which not, there should it be placed etc., in contract to provided one sided action. This why it is not surprisingly why certain contributors are disappointed , . M.K. 10:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • As I said previously - Why not make a section on his political views?
        I believe Words to Avoid do not refer to quotes, only to non quoted content - for example wikipedia can not call someone evil - can quote someone saying someone is evil - in fact I believe "Bush is called the devil(Shaitan) by Islamic leaders" is allowed while "bush is the devil" is not allowed.
        I do not believe the change to "strong government" was proper - "using terror" is not "strong government" - it's more like totalitarianism--Keerllston 14:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        • "Why not make a section on his political views?" Because they are already discussed in chronological sections, as they have changed in time. As for quotes, one - Misplaced Pages is not Wikiquote (and why nobody is demanding more quotes favourable of Piłsudski, which I have removed too, btw?), excessive (or any) quoting is not seen in most FA, and second - we should avoid quotes which say things which would not pass as neutral in main body of the text, unless there are very good reasons for their inclusion. I, and many other editors, fail to see the reasons we would benefit from this quote.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Very well written and provides a comprehensive review of all actions took by Piłsudski. — Rudget contributions 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - perfectly referenced, well documented, greatly styled, looks perfect exactly as featured content should look. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per above many supportive opinions and arguments--Molobo (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Neutral, but concerned:
I looked over the page, and it seems very close to standards, and then I glanced over this discussion. My concern is that this candidature is rather hasty. For one, in a conversation I had with Piotrus, he mentioned that JP had an important legacy in literature, which seems to not to be discussed at all in the article (I would expect an FA to at least make a brief mention of the whats and wheres; presumably, this is also the case for his presence in the visual arts). I made some small edits in the article, to clarify context, remove links to disambiguation pages, and remove overlinking - it seems to me that the article was never properly copyedited before listing it here! I am also concerned about much of the article being sourced from google books snippets - nobody could convince me that all things in those books that are relevant for this article have been reviewed. I also have to ask why the "Early life" section has to be so long - I would suggest splitting it into smaller sections that match the length of other parts of the article. There is also some sort of shrineification going on: I am referring to headlining a section with a quote, which implies an editorial comment (it's like an editor decided what quote is relevant and summarizes what JP did/intended/thought). I also have to agree with one editor's comment above: the "JP as a fascist" argument should make it into an FA version, since it is a rather important and by no means unique perspective (even if I happen to consider it flawed). This may go for other comments made here - I just didn't have the time to look into all of them.
Having said that, I will stress that many of the negative comments above are merely ad hominems aimed at Piotrus, and that other are just in defiance of wikipedia norms - for example, the suggestion about mentioning his (more or less relevant) ethnicity in the lead is in contrast to usual procedures and with a specific recommendation in WP:LEAD. The proposed "praise" and "criticism" sections are also a non sequitur, since the best way to discuss them is somewhere in the existing text - instead of splitting the point, uniting comments that have little in common with each other, and encouraging partisanships. Dahn (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
One more note: the additions I suggest and some of the comments above may imply that the article is not yet stable (which, I do believe, is a requirement). The risk here is that the article will fall severely below standards while/soon after being promoted, or will be still under construction when the time comes. Dahn (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose

I wish to make one thing very clear. It is my personal desire that this article attains FA status. In spite of many flaws and unresolved issues, there is a very disturbing rush to make this a featured article. This vote has taken on a very unusual quality in that the largely Polish contributors on English Misplaced Pages have made it a point to speed up the process by clamoring (by virtue of a "majority vote") that the time is NOW. Happily, unlike in similar votes in the past, it appears that WP:SOCKPUPPETRY has not occurred. To those who make the final decision, let these thorny issues be resolved first. The world will not come to an end while they are being ironed out. As to whether the people who are objecting to its immediate nomination are engaging in an ad hominem edit war with P.K. aka P.P., that's a lot of nonsense. Yet it is important to remember that this article is not the personal fiefdom of P.K. aka P.P., or anyone else, and it is not his right or privilege to to manipulate and shape the article as he wishes and disregard other contributions that do not suit his perspective. The continual removal of referenced material, the constant reverting of viewpoints that he does not agree with, his repeated removal of the neutrality tag (without the required discussion of the talk page), should by now have raised a very bright red flag as to what is going on here. "Support" votes without any kind of explanation other than "per so and so" and the like, without elucidating on their reasoning, need to be scrutinized rather than counted at face value, given the nature of this debate. Unfortunately, until the article is completely stabilized, I must vote Oppose at this time. I have no reason to believe that any of the other opposition voices would not change their vote to "Support" when a balanced article is achieved, and achieved soon. I look forward to seeing these votes, including my own changed to "support". In the meantime there is no urgent deadline that has to be met. Unless there is an "ego" issue involved, I cannot see how Piotrus could object to a temporary moratorium until then. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Verbosity and obstructionism do not necessarily equate to knowledge or to reasoned argument. Nihil novi (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
An informed and reasonable argument that is concise and constructive! Well done.
I did not know about NPOV tag being repeatedly removed on the page - as I said I believe that proper process was not done by not speaking to the NPOV concerns, that played a major part in the failure of the last nomination, in the nominators introduction.
I am uninformed about sockpuppetry in FAC - has it indeed been extensive in the past?
The nature of support votes and whether they should contain information is interesting - should support votes in this topic only be counted if they respond to the alegations of non-NPOV?
--Keerllston 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not had time to see how the criticisms were merged into the article, but I am concerned that they will have met the same fate as the Norman Davies quote - a POV issue. In any event there should be some sort of posthumous reputation section, since reputable sources like the New York Times , the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, , and the Warsaw Voice continue to discuss P.'s influence on modern Polish political policy. I don't like the idea that it takes outright edit warring to indicate an article's POV problems. Novickas 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a legacy section, which is about posthumous recongition. It contains both praise and criticism; including parts of your merged section (criticism by Michik and Geremek, for example).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Mainly MOS issues. 1c a concern.
  • Please fix silly things like the hyphens in year ranges and the spaced em dash. See MOS. En dashes required in the page ranges in the reference list.
The article now has en dashes for year and page ranges and unspaced em dashes in the prose. qp10qp 00:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • on the extent to which it may wish to squeeze Germany," while—See MOS on punctuation in quotations.
I presume you mean links within quotations: link removed. qp10qp 00:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Piłsudski and Edward Rydz-Śmigły, 1920, during Polish-Soviet War." Not a full sentence, so this caption (and others like it) should have no final period. See MOS.
I've gone through the captions and made them consistent, removing final full stops if the caption is not a sentence. qp10qp 00:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's heavily linked, so weed out some of the less focused ones. For example, are the articles on "Left-wing" and "unemployment" useful beyond their dictionary definitions? They should almost certainly not be linked. There are a lot of these. Please reduce. Also, I see repeated links. Why?
  • "To this day, Piłsudski is held in high regard by many."—Many who? Can't you constrain this set just a little? (In Poland? In the ... community?
  • The web references worry me: take ref 3, which is a Polish government site without named author, and seemingly slanted towards promotion and tourism. How can we be sure of the reliability and POV of statements there such as:

Marshal Piłsudski's death on 12 May 1935 took the entire nation by surprise. Until the end he managed to keep his terminal illness, cancer of the liver, a secret. His funeral turned into a national tribute to the the man who had probably done most in the military sense to restore Poland's independence.

Tony (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • With regard to dashes, the article has been copyedited by several editors. I don't understand the entire dash issue, but I trust they did what was needed to be done, if not, I would very much appreciate if you could take care of the dashes. I fixed the punctuation issue you mentioned; it took less time that writing this sentence :) The ilinks are there per WP:BTW, the more important ones are linked again in new sections for the users who may skip the previous ones. The many... is indeed many people around the world, as the reference states; I believe it is a sentnece correct from the grammatical and styllistical point of view. The web reference you mention is reliable, coming from the Polish government; the sentence is however sourced not to it but to a printed source (Zbigniew Wojcik, Przedmowa...); I have nonetheless rewrote it slightly as it was indeed a bit not neutral. In any case I don't believe the reference is used to support any controversial point; if there are any dubious sentences you believe are referenced with a source of substandard quality, let me know and I will look into it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's quite obvious by now that this is an article with many unresolved issues, and is an "ARTICLE UNDER CONSTRUCTION". This is also due to grammatical and punctuation issues as well as content issues. Let the work continue.Dr. Dan 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. I cannot comment on the specific POV issues, since I am not familiar with the subject. However, after fixing some image issues I had with the article, I feel the article is ready for Featured Status. User:Zscout370 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Regrettable but firm oppose. I tried to not vote in rash and waited as long as I could to see whether the article can be stabilized and NPOV and WP:OWN issues may be addressed. I made some edits to one section and will likely do more. But this problematic nomination cannot protract indefinetely. POV-problems are outlined sufficiently at the article's talk. The article is in no way stable and, IMO, this is due to some editors assuming the WP:OWNership of it battling the critical to the article's subject edits with vigor. Stabilizing the articles on the controversial figures like this one, who is a hero to some nations (Poles) and a tyrannical dictator, traitor and aggressor to others (Belarusians, Lithuanians, Russians and Ukrainians) takes a lot more compromising and good will than present here. Thus oppose and give it at least a year before renominating. --Irpen 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The POV problems are discussed here and at talk and it seems to me that in both places the majority of editors agree it is neutral (hence no revert warring or tags in the article); no argument have been left unanswered. As you point out, Piłsudski is a controversial figure and as such it is reasonable to expect some will be trying to create a bias in the article, and when fail, vote oppose. Writing articles on controversial subjects is the art of compromise, and it's regrettable that some cannot realize they cannot push their POV and have it dominate the article (be it pro-, anti- or something else); on that note I'd like to note that Piłsudski is not a hero to all Poles - they were and are quite a few who see him as a negative figure (and their view is represented in the article). Nonetheless this article has received support votes from editors from (or editing subjects related to those countries) Poland, Ukraine, Czech Repbulic, Romania, Belarus and others, which indicates to me that it does represent a neutral stance. Majority of the issues you raised in last year nomination are now discussed in the article ("Litvinness", patriotic childhood experiences, activity in Siberian excile, activity of PPS, etc.) Lastly, Irpen, I hope that your personal disagreements with me are not influencing your vote here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)