Talk:Prometheism

Plagiarism?

This article is excellent but it cites one source for all its information. Is anyone else worried that this article might be plagiarized? Can someone please check? Comatose51 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Old talk

Doesn't prometheism date back to romanticism in Poland and the works of Adam Mickiewicz - Polska Chrystusem narodów? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide a quotation? Prometheus belongs to ancient Greek mythology, Christ — to much later Christian tradition. (Granted, both figures in their own ways showed altruism in behalf of mankind and were tortured for their efforts.) logologist 15:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I have confused it with Polish romantic messianism - see Polish wiki entry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I once wrote a short essay on prometheism in Mickiewicz's and Słowacki's works. Though it wasn't as fully developed until Kasprowicz, it has a completely different meaning. In fact, the meaning explained in the article seems much less significant than the basic meaning (see Polish wiki, for instance). Halibutt 11:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See also pl:Prometeizm. Should we link those articles with interwiki, or are they refering to different kinds of (Polish...) prometheism?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to set up a disambiguation page: Polish ethical Prometheism, vs. Polish geopolitical Prometheism. logologist|Talk 21:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

Is it just me or does this article have a strong pro-prometheist POV? What did the Russians have to say about all this? -- Nikodemos 06:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Many Russians were opposed.

Piłsudski's aim was not to weaken the Russian Empire and, later, the Soviet Union, but to break them up. To thus state Piłsudski's aim is not necessarily to endorse it. logologist|Talk 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

GAC?

Is there a subpage to opine on GAC nomination? This is incredible that someone even dares to nominates such stuff for GA but more later when I know where to express myself on this. --Irpen 03:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty good place. Of course, I'd assume you'd have some sources to back up your comments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on this article as a GA candidate (but I've not fully reviewed it):

• The pictures are not tagged correctly. The Józef Piłsudski picture is tagged PD-Poland, but the name of the photographer is not provided. It is therefore not verifiable that it was a Polish photographer who took the photo, and the license (which is already questionable) may therefore not be appropriate. The caricature by Efimov has the PD-Soviet tag, which is being considered for deletion, and might not be free. The photo of Petlyura has an obsolete tag.
• The article is not extremely well written. It is winding and goes into unnecessary detail (for instance on Prometheus; there is no need to reiterate the myth; there is the need to explain why Józef Piłsudski thought it was appropriate, but that is not present).
• The article depends on one source for the most part (Charaszkiewicz, 2000), which raises concerns about NPOV, as Irpen already suggests.

Now, I won't fail this nomination, as that could be construed as bad faith on my part, but I seriously urge the writers to consider these points. Errabee 11:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments. The Piłsudski's picture actually classifies for deletion on Commons no source. It's one of Emax artifacts (see User_talk:Emax for what we mean by that). I found a source, but I can't find info on photographer anywhere. Also, PolishPD is kind of strange: I'd assume the picture was published before 1952 - after all it's a photo, likely older then 1936, so it is PD-70 (on the other hand, isn't is 'since photographer death', not 'subject death')? Uhhh. I hate copyright paranoia and all trobule it causes. Irpen knows much more about SovietPD tag than me, so I will not adress it (I voted keep, and that's all I can do here). Petliura photo is obviously from 1920. That's 86 six years since it was taken - probably PD, but again I am not an expert (PD-Old needs 100 years since the death of authors? What a load of... did I mention I think copyright is evil? :)). As for comprehensivness, I think it's kind of subjective; although I certainly agree it would need more expantion before FA-level. Sources: Charaszkiewicz is a pretty good source, but one-sided; nonetheless from what I read from Snyder (linked) he seems to agree with him, so although we could use Snyder to back Charaszkiewicz I don't think it's that necessary (again, before FA, which I do not expect will be soon - we would need more sources and more expantion before FA level (at least for my standards)).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would leave the copyright enforcement to the WP copyright police. But as for the rest, to say that the article is one-sided is to say nothing. The article is completely biased and should be moved to the title: Collection of Documents by Lt. Col. Edmund Charaszkiewicz or, if seeing diactrics is important to some editors, then Zbiór dokumentów ppłk. Edmunda Charaszkiewicza whould make an equally good title for the article which is about nothing but a particular author's one-sided view on the complex international issue. When the article is moved and renominated, we can continue this discussion. --Irpen 17:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid first you would have to show some references which are contrary and missing from the current article. I think that Charaszkiewicz works are a pretty good summary of the issue; if you disagree, the burden of proof and showing us references to the contrary is on you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, the article entirely based on a single source is the article about the source (book in this case) and not the phenomenon. This is a standard wikipractice. Check, eg. A Terrible Revenge, being a separate article from Evacuation of East Prussia, and even that being a separate article from the Prussian Holocaust, whith the latter being an article about the term. --Irpen 18:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is referenced mostly on Charaszkiewicz works, but is not about Charaszkiewicz works; the distinction is pretty simple.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it reads like an excerpt from his works, so yes, the distinction is pretty simple: it's about his book. Errabee 01:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a good practice to cite references. Where seems to be the problem ? It would be good to give exact pages of the citations, though. --Lysy^talk 05:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. And it's also good practice to cite multiple sources. As it is now, almost each paragraph ends with a reference to Charaszkiewicz, giving the impression it is more an excerpt from his book. Errabee 10:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not *his* book, take a closer look at the reference. Also, of course more sources are welcome. --Lysy^talk 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I wonder if the name of this article is appropriate. Consider the following results from Google Book Search:

• search for prometheism gives 12 hits, none about the word in connection to Poland.
• search for prometheanism gives 244 hits, essentially all of them using the term in a different sense than this article does.

From this it follows that Wikipedia certainly needs an article (Prometheanism) about this apparently widely used concept in the humanities (244 Google Book Search hits is a lot). On the other hand, this article should be moved to a more descriptive name, like Polish interwar policies towards the minorites of the Soviet Union, for example.Balcer 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I can see this taken care of by three separate articles.

1. The article about the term and its usage
2. The article about the book by Charaszkiewicz (this one)
3. The article about the Polish interwar policies (yet to be written).

--Irpen 19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no way a rather obscure book not available in English can pass the notability criterion to get its own article on Wikipedia, so that idea is out. Balcer 19:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also noticed that this term is relativly unpopular, however it is used by Snyder ([1], [2]). although he uses the form 'Prometheanism'. I'd support move to that term, and further, creating a disambig there and moving this article to Prometheanism (Poland) (or politics?), as we need to discuss Prometheanism (ethics) (or philosophy, or humanities?), too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Balcer 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

With the name discussion being a separate issue, this article is only about a particular book of a particular author. I believe any book is notable enough to warrant an article. So, this article needs moved to a book title (because there is nothing else here) and the question on notability of the book will become relevant only if anyone submits it for AfD, which I doubt. --Irpen 20:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (books). You might believe any book deserves its own article, but Wikipedia (proposed) policy clearly disagrees with you on this. Balcer 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, you misunderstand. This is an article about a general topic using one book for inline references, not an article about a book.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, this is the article is biased as its only source is based on the views of the fierce proponent of certain political movement. --Irpen 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, based on this view, we should take as biased all articles referencing chiefly books written by Soviet authors, since after all many of them were "fierce proponents of certain political movement" (Communism in that case). Thus our recent Aleksandr Vasilevsky featured article, which so heavily references his memoirs, would be in trouble.

I have noticed that you have not yet specified on this talk page what exactly you find objectionable in this article. General expressions of outrage are not very helpful. If you made a concise list of what you consider wrong or POV here, we can start to work on improving the article. Balcer 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, biographical articles using someone's memoirs to cover a time zone during which he was not widely known is one thing (you will also note that I used them after consulting WP:VPP and getting a consensus, by the way). Another thing would to use it in a political article.

If I would write an article on Vasilevsky's beliefs or his opinion on, say, an uprising or something, that would indeed be problematic. Note that it is just a side remark, not (directly) related to the above dispute. It's just that this example is inappropriate as it is. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just to be clear, I have no problem with the Aleksandr Vasilevsky article and its references to Vasilevsky memoirs. Now, since you have joined the discussion here, I would like to know your opinion as to what specifically needs to be fixed in this article. Balcer 21:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing Balcer. There are actually quite a few things to improve in my opinion before this article can make it to GA:

• The text is very difficult to read. A lot of bullets, too much lists, too much names thrown in without explanation. I literally had to tear myself through the text, the layout is totally horrible. For instance, if one takes "Fifth period", what is the point of making a 1.2.3.4.5 list? Convert it to prose, with nice linkage phrases is better, since it is not a catalog... And it's even worse in some other sections.
• The "periods" smell original research and sound very pompously. Changing them to neutral stuff (e.g. "Before the Russian Revolution", "Civil War" and so on so forth) is imho much better.

The periodization is Charaszkiewicz's own, and has the virtue of relative precision. logologist|Talk 05:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some text is unencyclopedic, such as "exceptional leadership in Promethean matters" for instance.
• There is too much of what sound like direct quotes from Charaszkiewicz books. They should be at least reformulated (i'm not talking about what is explicitly pointed out as quotes, but of pseudo-quoting paragraphs). Stop sentences like "Charaszkiewicz writes", this is too much like quotes.
• The article is one-sided. In politics, as a general rule of thumb, an idea has a counter-idea. Was there any opposition, both in and out of Poland? I just see one paragraph on it. From what I saw when reviewing Pilsudski's FAC, he didn't only had friends, even in Poland.
• The article fails to assert that the idea is basically not original. Britain has been trying of splitting of Caucasus for years, basically just after it was conquered in 1850s...
• You rely too heavily on one source. By relying, I mean using it not for inline quoting (which in itself is OK), but phrases like "Charaszkiewicz emphasizes" show you're basically copying the book without any processing (when I say "you", I don't mean anyone in particular :).
• The European Union stuff in the lead is just plain false. EU's goal was first and foremost economy, not war. Maybe talking about NATO would be more appropriate?

In short: I don't think it is ready for GA. The prose needs major cleanup, then another discussion might be necessary since people think there are NPOV issues. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to commend Grafikm for the analysis above. Generally, as a word of advise, trying to promote the politically controversial topics should only be done when articles are in tip top shape. --Irpen 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I also want to thank Grafikm for this list of suggestions. They seem very reasonable to me. I agree that a wider range of sources would be very useful. Are there any Russian or Soviet sources that could prove particularly relevant here? What kind of countermeasures did the Soviet intelligence services take against Prometheism? Balcer 23:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Snyder notes that brutal repression and possibly Holodomor itself was part of the countermeasures. PS. Good sugestions, Grafikm!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That Holodomor is somehow related to Pilsudski's ideas seems like a brand new conspiracy theory (not the famine itself, which was indeed real and catastrophic.) OK, while whoever is interestes sort this all out, I assume we can call this nomination failed, can't we? --Irpen 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is written from Polish POV. One country's support of downtrodden people's is another country's incitement of insurgency. Zocky | picture popups 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

GA status

Hello, I was about to go through the article and then review it for the GA status. However, seeing that you are now about to act on very good suggestions on its improvement, then would you self-remove the GA nomination? Otherwise someone will have to fail the article. Just to add to Grafikm's suggestions, please take a look at the GA criteria as well. Good luck. RelHistBuff 11:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

While the article is getting worked on, I put up the fail template to move the article off the queue. I would also suggest that some research be done concerning the title. You may want to look at English sources to confirm if Prometheism is the accepted name in English. RelHistBuff 07:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a sensible proposal. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sensible and reasonable to boot. But not surprisingly, unaddressed. Hope my edit helps move it along. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Gustave Doré

There is an interesting piece of art of Prometheus being "tortured" on Mount Caucasus in this article. Is there a source for Doré's supposed painting of this subject matter's taking place on Mt. Caucasus? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Gustave Moreau. The illustration's caption gives a link to Mount Caucasus. Nihil novi (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Monument in Tbilisi

File:Amirani - Georgian Prometheus.jpg

Hi there. Is there any room left for this image in the article? This Prometheus monument in Tbilisi, Georgia, was inaugurated by the presidents Lech Kaczyński of Poland and Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia on November 22, 2007.[3]. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 17:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a known explicit connection between this statue and Józef Piłsudski's Prometheist project or its successors? Nihil novi (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is. That's why Kaczyński was invited to unveil the monument. Saakashvili also emphasized the Georgian involvement in the Prometheist project and mentioned those Georgian officers who served in Piłsudski's military forces.--Kober^Talk 05:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess it has to be related, why would a Polish president be there? Are there any Polish or Georgian media we can cite that discuss the relationship? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the President of Poland official website:

On 23 November, 2007, President Lech Kaczyński met President Micheil Saakashvili of Georgia. Both Presidents attended a ceremony of unveiling the Prometheus Monument. During the ceremony, President of the Republic of Poland was decorated with the Order of St. George. President Lech Kaczynski addressed the assembly with the following words: [...] You referred, Mr President, to Georgian officers in the Polish army. This gesture was not a coincidental one on the part of Marshal Pilsudski. After 1920, in Poland we had many officers from various armies but it was only Georgian officers and a few Azeri ones who could serve in our army on a par. This was an expression of our sense of affinity with you. This feeling of affinity is still alive and translates into excellent relations between us and into very good relations with Mr Micheil Saakashvili.

--Kober^Talk 06:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Another one from the Tbilisi Municipality website:

[Saakashvili said:] Today our guest is the President of Poland, who has arrived to congratulate us on St. George’s day and the fourth anniversary of the Rose revolution, and it is not by chance that he attended the unveiling of the statue of Prometheus... A freedom league of the people, whose territories were occupied by the Bolsheviks, was founded by the Polish diplomats in Turkey in 20-30ies of the 20th century , by the leadership of the Marshal Plisutski, the league was called the "Prometheus league".

--Kober^Talk 06:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)