Talk:Piast Concept

Problems

Ok, look. This edit [1].

First paragraph, starting with "According to Hosking and Schöpflin..." is a close paraphrase. It's more or less copy/pasted verbatim from the authors, without quotation marks. That's bordering on a COPYVIO.

Strangely enough, the second paragraph is a POV original research misrepresentation of the underlying source. As I've pointed out already multiple times, there's nothing in the Tony Sharp source about "Joseph Stalin at the Tehran Conference in 1943 rejected the the Jagellon (sic) Concept because it involved Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belorussians. He instead endorsed the Piast Concept, which justified a massive shift of Poland's frontiers to the west". Please don't insert POV original research and tack on a source at the end of a paragraph to make it look legitimate.

Finally, please don't misrepesent edits in edit summaries. Restoring this problematic text is not tweaks. It's obviously contentious material which at the very least should be discussed first (actually, since it involves borderline copyvios and misrepresentation of sources it really shouldn't be made in the first place). Volunteer Marek 02:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no COPYVIO by Wiki rules of citation. On second point Tony Sharp clearly refers to the issue of Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belorussians. Sharp says (p 382) "However, this action [in 1920s], in the face of the resettlements and colonization of the intervening period, meant that she [Poland] took into her state German, Ukrainian, and Belorussian minorities. The resultant territorial claims against her [Poland] were settled by Germany and the USSR in the Soviet-Germany Non-Aggression Pact in August 1939 and by the subsequent German and Russian invasions." That is Stalin got the Ukrainian, and Belorussian minorities back from Polish rule by terms of the nonaggression Pact of 1939 and USSR's invasion in 1939. Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more or less a verbatim copy/paste from the source so yes, it's borderline copyvio.

On the second issue, I've actually read the article several times (including long before this discussion arose). Yes, Ukrainians and Belorussians happen to be mentioned in the article. But there is absolutely NOTHING in the article resembling a statement such as "Joseph Stalin at the Tehran Conference in 1943 rejected ... Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belorussians", which would be a very messed up way of describing Stalin's 1939 land grab conducted as part of an alliance with Hitler. That's why neither this, nor other sources, phrase it that way. Please don't misrepresent the source. Volunteer Marek 02:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On copyright the rule is this: rule WP:PLAGFORM " Adding in-text attribution ("John Smith argues ...") always avoids accusations of plagiarism, though it does not invariably avoid copyright violations. Make sure the material being copied or closely paraphrased is not too long if the work is copyrighted. A few sentences would rarely be problematic."

On Stalin: Sharp and others clearly identify Stalin's goal was always to get those Ukrainians and Belorussians back. He took that up with the Germans in 1939 & the US and UK in 1943. That's not controversial. At Tehran Stalin said what was needed was "frontier rectifications" to bring to an end "disorders" in western Belorussia and western Ukraine. Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not in Sharp nor in other sources. Stalin's goal was not "to get those Ukrainians and Belorussians back" (back to what? Soviet Russia that they never wanted to be a part of?). It was to get the "that territory" back (back to what Russia grabbed in partitions of Poland). There's a difference. Your second sentence about "frontier rectifications" is not in the source provided, Sharp or otherwise. Volunteer Marek 02:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the copyright issue - I did not say your text was plagiarism (so WP:PLAGFORM is irrelevant). I said it was a close paraphrase bordering on copyvio because you took a large chunk of text and copied it almost verbatim from a source. See WP:PARAPHRASE. Volunteer Marek 02:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On copyvio the rule says A few sentences would rarely be problematic. Of course we can always quote the exact sentences in quote marks. On the Belorussia & Ukraine--was it geography Stalin wanted or people? Stalin focused on ethnicity. Here is a useful statement from Snyder: "Soviet irredentism towards Poland in the 1920s and 1930s had been framed in the ethnic terms of "Western Belorussia" and "Western Ukraine." .... "Stalin may have reasoned that returning Galicia and Volhynia to Soviet Ukraine would help co-opt Ukrainian nationalism. Stalin perhaps saw a way to give both Ukrainians and Poles something they wanted, while binding them to the USSR." Timothy Snyder (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999. Yale UP. p. 182. Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but now you're discussing a completely different source and a pretty different issue. What's your point? That doesn't change that your original inserted text was still problematic as outlined above. Volunteer Marek 03:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the point is that we're rephrasing the article to meet your objections. Here's the quote directly from Hosking and Schöpflin:

" “The Piast Concept rested on a simple and persuasive historical myth. A thousand years ago and more, the Polish population had supposedly lived on its ancestral land in unity and harmony, ruled by the benevolent hand of its first legendary ruler, a peasant called Piast…. however, the Poles lost their unity and lost control of their native land. All manner of aliens and intruders – Germans, Jews, Ukrainians and Russians...took large parts of Poland's towns and countryside for themselves....Poland was robbed of her inheritance. So the message was clear. All patriotic Poles had a duty to unite and drive all foreigners from their native soil: ‘Poland for the Poles!’ Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... we were talking about the text about Stalin here. Volunteer Marek 03:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um no, you've lost track of what you have been saying. Rjensen (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said: Yes but now you're discussing a completely different source and a pretty different issue. What's your point? . You said the point is... and then proceeded to say something irrelevant. Volunteer Marek 04:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue, multiple sources: what did Stalin want? Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, two different issues. Hosking and Schöpflin is not about what Stalin wanted. And if you want to put in what Stalin wanted then we need a source for that not what you think he wanted. The easiest, neutral, and least biased way to phrase it is to simply say that he wanted to keep the territory Soviet Union acquired in 1939 as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That just sticks to the facts and doesn't engage in ORish speculation as to the motives of a... "interesting personality" such as Stalin. Volunteer Marek 04:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief review by Piotrus

This is a notable article, and one that could be T:TDYKed if a nom is submitted quickly. Few comments:

should this be moved to Piast and Jagiellon Concepts?
the article is heavily underlinked
the article is mostly orphaned and should be linked from some relevant articles (endecja, Dmowski, Popławski)

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]