Talk:Szlachta

Cossack szlachta

I don't intend to return my edit right away, but I still believe that it should be included in the article. Just to remind what it was:

While long-lasting social and religious tensions in the Commonwealth led to a civil war[4][5], during which large number of Ruthenian szlachta joined Cossack rebellion and play a key part in forming the state of Zaporozhian Host. In treaties with the Diet and Tsar, they were able to secure their social status, and via intermarriages with other Cossack starshyna of non-noble origins and nobility that later moved to Malorossia from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Wallachia, Moldavia, Balkans etc. formed Malorossian szlachta[6].

Now the main arguments from user Exxcess were they were not szlachta of PLC because:

• Cossacks started anti-Polish rebellion which makes it impossibe for them to be szlachta
• In case they moved they would lose their citizenship

Although I had already provided numerous sources above, but most of them were unaccounted as they are Ukrainian. It is hard to come by source regarding this topic for numerous reasons in Ukrainian itself or even in Polish, while close to impossible in English. Only generalisations that cover history of Ukraine altogether that do not cover any topics in detail, as their coverage would make a book turn into several volumes.

I don't intend to get in Cossack-Szlachta fight all over again. My edit is not about rebellion, Polish or anti-Polish identity etc. As this is article about Szlachta of PLC, the only intention I have is to add information about szlachta that before, during or after rebellion received that szlachta title, but due to rebellion, situation with Orthodox church etc. moved to Hetmanate and formed Cossack szlachta. Previously I mentioned Krychevsky, Orlyk and others, but because they received their nobility before or they did not fight in rebellion and moved to Hetmanate that they were somehow relieved of the szlachta status. Now that is true for some, but not for everybody. The best argument to prove it wrong would be to show Cossack who were nobilitated during that "anti-Polish" uprising that somehow made it impossible for Cossack to be at the same time be a szlachta nobleman and a cossack. The source for that would Volumina Legum (collection of Polish laws from 1347 - 1793—1795; very good example that the resolution of such topics can't be done only using English sources. Do try to search even for its description in English). These are just some of the most famous nobilitations and re-nobilitations that took place during 1648-1672 that I encountered during writing articles for Ukrainian Wikipedia, but as we can see fighting against the crown did not make it impossible to be szlachta at the same time. I don't have time to cover all Volumes to find all nobilitations, but as you can see we are talking about at least dozens of families of mostly high-ranking officers whose descendants would receive confirmation of their nobility based on PLC szlachta status of their ancestors. And that does not include pro-Russian starshyna that did not get nobilitated fox example during Treaty of Hadiach, minor Cossacks (like most of Pinsk and Lubych szlachta), clergy like Prince Gedeon Chetvertinsky, Raphael Zaborovsky etc.; and szlachta that later moved to Hetmanate like Orlyk etc.

Kozaka Kresy

[Michal] Kresa

Volumina legum. T4, p. 177

Nobilitacje Zabuskiego, Iasnoborskiego y Gamze

Semen Zabuski, Iasko Iasnoborski, Iwan Gamza

Volumina legum. T4, p. 132

Danina Urodzonemu Ierzemu Chmielnickiemu Hetmanowi woysk nazych Zaporowskich

Ierzy Chmielnicki, Daniel Wyhowski and his wife Helena Chmielnicka, Ian Nieczaj and his wife Stefanida Chmielnicka

Volumina legum. T.4, p. 359, 360

Nobilitacja zasluzonych z woyska naszego Zaporowskiego

Michal Zielenski, Pawel Ian Chmielnicki, Izydor Karpenko, Bazyli and Andrzej Glosinski, Piotr Doroszenko, Ostaphi Gwowski, Ian Fedorowicz Iackowski, Michal Chanenko, Ian Iurgiewicz Serbin, Eustaphi Nowakowski, Tomasza Woyciechowicz, Michal Kalemkowicz, Michal Ratkowicz, Iakub Woyciechowicz, Michaylo Popodaylo, Samuel Pukierzynski, Symeon Zielenski, Alexander Dolekiwicz, Maxym Silnicki, Iwan Labusznego, Stefan Cholminski, Ieremiasz Uroszowicz and his sons, Iwan Krawczenko-Bowdynowicz, Stefan Poducki, Kosc Sewerynenko, Ostafi Hohol, Zacharyasz and Krzysztof Piotrowicz

Volumina legum. T.4, p. 359, 360

Approbacya przywileiu Urodzonego Pawla Tetery na danine wieczysta

Pawel Tetera, Samuel Zarudny, Maxym Bulyha, Hrehory Lesnicki

Volumina legum. T.4, p. 359, 360

Nobilitacye Kozakow Zaporoskich

Dymitr Dymitraszko Rayca and his son Mark; Stephan, Wasil, Fedor, Anastazy, Dymtr, Iwan Kunecki; Ichnat Szulka Duminski

Volumina legum. T.5, p. 79

Nobilitacya Nam, y Rzpltey dobrze zasluzonych z woyska Zaporoskiego

Zachęcaiąc do usług naszych i Rzpltey ludzi w dziele rycerskim doświadczonych, którzy dla Nas y PLC ochotnie przeciwko nieprzyiaciołom zdrowia swoie niosą, przychylaiąc się do kommissyi Hadyackiey, według regestru od Hetmana Zaporoskiego podanego, do kleynotu szlachectwa, Koronnego rycerzow z woyska Zaporoskiego przypuszczamy, y każdemu z nich seorsive przywileia na nobilitacye z Kancellaryi naszey wydane, powagą Seymu teraźnieyszego approbuiemy. Który regestr do Metryki ma bydź in decursu dimidij anni podany.

Ian Wyhowski, Konstanty Wyhowski, Tymosz Nasocz, Hrehory Hulanicki,Fedor Wyhowski, Wasil Zlotarenko Zlotarzewski, Prokop Weresczacz Wiernoslow, Ian Kowalewski, Harasim and his brothers Kaplonski, Iwan Bohatyrowicz, Ian and Theodor Czekalowskim Ian Rudnicki, Hawrylo Lisowiec, Kalina Sokolowski, Dymitr Sloninka, Iakim Samczenko, Matthyasz Papkiewicz, Hawrylo Porywaia, Zacharyasz Surta, Daniel Oliwemberk, Iakub and Ian Peklucki, Bazyli and Kiryl Iskrzycki, Kiryl Andryiowicz,Andrzei Romanenko, Wasil Mitczenko, Ian Mazaki, Adam Mazepa, Ostaph Feckowicz, Krzysztof Warteszowicz Sloniewski, Thimosz Ciuciura, Bazyli Woytkiewicz, Bohdan Kaleniczenko, Stefan Derzeniewski

Volumina legum. T.4, p. 302

Korwinski (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The Khmelnytsky Uprising was anti-Polish. Not because I said so, or I care, but because a renowned Ukrainian scholar said so in his published work; therefore, do not delete statements that are referenced because you as an editor do not personally like a point of view for whatever personal and political reasons you may have. That it is unfair to readers.

As to the rest of what Korwinski (talk) is concerned about, be bold - put in the article, but Starshina article might be better. The reference works say the Zaporozhian Host were executed as traitors and rebels of the Polish Commonwealth because they hated Polish authority and were attempting to create their own sovereignty. The rebels gutted and disemboweled Polish forces opposing them, hence anti-Polish.

Korwinski (talk) writing about "Cossack szlachta" means "Cossack nobility." The Cossacks thought they should have the same political privileges and immunities as were secured to Polish nobles. When the Cossacks did not get what they wanted, they warred against the Polish Commonwealth, some were executed as traitors, some gutted and disemboweled Polish forces in retaliation, and they wanted to form their own sovereignty, with its own subsequent nobility - the staryshyna (see Starshina).

Korwinski (talk) is using "szlachta" in the general sense, as a reference to nobility in general, not in the specific sense - a long history of political allegiance to the Polish Commonwealth, szlachta land held being allodial, hence szlachta not vassals of the Polish king, and the Polish king not the szlachta's overlord. Cossacks wanted this secured to them by a recognition of being szlachta equal to the Polish szlachta. When the Cossacks did not get it, they rebelled against Polish overlordship, so they could create their own sovereignty, and a new nobility, the Starshina, the Cossack aristocracy, with rights equal to the Polish szlachta. This is what Korwinski wants to insert into the article - Cossack nobility, the starshyna, is nobility like the Polish szlachta. The reasoning is Cossack starshyna is noble, Polish szlachta is noble, therefore Cossack nobility is szlachta - no historical differences, no distinctions - just a general mishmash of ideas and concepts, an eighteen-foot freeway pylon weighing 100 tons is to be shoved through a drinking straw. - Exxess (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

a) My edit does not mention KU in any way specifically. By "civil war" I'm referring to overall events that include KU and Ruin.

b) My edit is does mention reasons for Cossacks/Cossack starshyna to join rebellion as my edit is not about them. Although their reasons were similar.

c) My edit is not about Cossacks or Cossack Starshyna specifically. They and szlachta of PLC are not same thing. Although many Cossacks and Cossack starshyna itself either were szlachta or became szlachta of PLC via nobilitations during the wars.

Again. My edit is about szlachta (not Cossacks or Cossack starshyna) of PLC that for numerours reasons and events moved to former territory of PLC on Left bank of Ukraine and became basis for szlachta of Malorossia. Statement "Korwinski is using "szlachta" in the general sense, as a reference to nobility in general" is a lie as I'm not talking about their evolution in the future, but referring to szlachta of PLC specifically. And in order to prove that I've provided not only sources that state that in general, but links to the original Decrees of the Sejm that nobilitated (and re-nobilitated) them as an example. I'm not sure how clearer I can be about that. Volumina legum books are available online and I've stated exact pages where they are named by name. Korwinski (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You do not require anyone's permission to edit the article. Add what you think is appropriate. Be bold. My opinion - explain the connections and distinctions between Cossack nobility and Polish nobility. That might require a new section in the article devoted to this specific area. No one can stop you. Cossack nobility wanted the right of their land held being allodial, a right which Polish nobles had secured to them since antiquity. Land held being allodial eliminates overlordship. To maintain overlordship of the Cossacks, the Polish nobility would not give the rights of nobility to the Cossacks, so the Cossacks warred and took it and created a new aristocracy, the Starshina, and a new sovereignty. - Exxess (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You said your edit is not about Cossacks, but you titled this section "Cossack szlachta", a contradiction. - Exxess (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

My intentions are simple - I wish to follow Wikipedia's guidelines in order to improve it. As previously my edits led you to start Wikipedia:Edit warring, I want to avoid it this time. Thats why I started this thread before editting the actual article.

I used Cossack Szlachta title in order not to confuse it with previous discussion.

My opinion - explain the connections and distinctions between Cossack nobility and Polish nobility.

Just to simply here is the difference between szlachta I'm talking about and Malorossian szlachta that it will evolve into:

Cossack Szlachta from before Mazepa's rule: (or szlachta of which I'm talking about)

Very same szlachta with very same origin as other szlachta of PLC. Exceptions: rare nobles from Balkans, Moldavia, Wallachia and those who got nobilitated by Russian Tsar. There was overlapse of Cossack and Szlachta status as most of szlachta became cossacks, but not all cossacks were szlachta.

see Mykhailo Hrushevsky's History of Ukraine-Rus' as an example:

what draws our attention is the fact that szlachta here is clearly not included in the Zaporozhian army, nor is it under his rule: the Zaporozhian army and the szlachta are included in the concept of Malorossia as part of a separate, independent of each other. The notion of supremacy or protectorate of the Zaporozhian army is not emphasized: the army is behind szlachta, perhaps only because it found itself in the role of mediator between the tsar and "Little Russia", as the initiator of its transition to tsarist supremacy. From this point of view, the fundamental value of the noble privilege is great - although it had no practical value. But in March [when Pereyaslav Rada occured - Korwinwski] this was not foreseen. The best illustration for this is the hesitation of the Cossack ambassadors themselves - Bogdanovych and Teteria, where it is more useful for them to be considered: either part of Cossacks of Zaporozhian Host or as part of the szlachta, which according to Polish tradition could be in direct jurisdiction of Kyiv voivode.

Cossack Szlachta from after Mazepa's rule. (or szlachta of which I'm not talking about)

Hetmanate became a stable political entity. Mazepa's reforms led to completion of formation of Malorossian szlachta that on cultural, historical and other forms of identification basis now started to include:

a) large number of noble and non-noble immigrants from from Balkans, Moldavia, Wallachia and especially PLC:

see S.M. Solovyov, 'History of Russia from the Earliest Times'

Note:

a.1) its a quote from original source from 17th century, not a statement from Solovyov himself.

a.2) I hope I don't have to explain again that at the time Pole meant szlachta

In August 1696, the Kiev voivode, Prince Boryatinsky, sent to the Russian resident in Poland, Deacon Nikitin, an old-timer Suslov, with two reiters for the news. This Suslov brought his news to Nikitin: The initial people are now all Poles in the Malorossian army. Under Obidovsky, Mazepa's nephew, there is not a single Cossack servant. The Cossacks had a great complaint against the hetmans, colonels and sotnyk's, that in order to eradicate the old Cossacks, the former liberties had been taken away, turned them into servants, and dismantled the lands all by themselves. Before from every village nominated 150 Cossacks, and now just a few. Hetman keeps in his mercy and charity only okhotnytsky, kompaneysky and serdyutsky regiments, hoping for their loyalty and in these regiments there is not a single person of the natural Cossack, all Poles.

b) High ranking starshyna started to identify as szlachta as well, even in case it did not receive any nobilitations. Later some of their descendants will fake their nobilitation by claiming to belong to the same name szlachta of PLC.

c) ordinary Cossacks

d) clergy and non-cossack szlachta

I will consider writing separate section, but first a) I need to figure out how to make it as small as possible (this article is to large already) and b) we need to fix lead in the very beginning. Currently it includes mention of the nobilities that joined it and what became of them, while Cossack nobility having the very same origins of them it is the only one that has a bit different history after 1648-1700s.

As for the rest, while nobilitation would've been more desirable, but no. They wanted to become Registered Cossacks, whose rights included: exemption from taxes, the right of land ownership, self-government with the appointed starshyna. Starshyna existed from before Khmelnytsky times and it many of them were already szlachta. Malorossian szlachta was not formed of just Cossack Starshyna, although indeed in the end only latter one became actual aristocracy (by it I mean highest and wealthiest class of nobility overall) after Hetmanate was abolished.

see D. Miller, "Transformation of a Cossack starshyna into a dvoryanstvo" (1897):

Poland had to have a much greater influence - it passed on to the Hetmanate its aristocratic and serfdom traditions, its culture and, most importantly, its aristocratic laws. It goes without saying that such external influences are not enough to evoke a special privileged, mass-dominating class among a society that is apparently quite democratic. This class was born itself, without external influences, it was born, obviously, because in this very society there were conditions that caused it to be born...

Korwinski (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Korwinski (talk), "Edit war?" - the sources said the Khmelnytsky Uprising was anti-Polish. The Khmelnytsky Uprising article says it's anti-Polish. You kept deleting "anti-Polish" before the Khmelnytsky Uprising, even though "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" had sources using the exact words "anti-Polish." It would have been better to cite "anti-Polish" as "dubious" in your opinion and then go to Talk, instead of deleting a sourced reference. That's all the so-called "edit war" was about, the phrase "anti-Polish." It was not about anything else.

Something I put in this article was just deleted. I do not think it is good policy to deny readers information and points of view. I do not think lazy, knee-jerk, trigger-happy, smug editors should be deleting information they have not considered or do not like. Cite the information with "dubious" that is unfathomable to them in their over-idealized self-conception of being some kind of expert, and after citing with "dubious" explain in Talk why it is "dubious" to them, so the information might be tweaked or improved to fit the article. That is constructive. Destructively deleting/editing denies readers the information. - Exxess (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to your sources and "anti-Polish" statement where it is overall relevant (for example in Khmelnytsky Uprising article). But they were and are unrelated to my edit. If you were to add anti-magnate, anti-Catholic etc. (overall all true, no objection there as well) I would stand to remove them as well because they would be unrelated to my edit.

Also I provided sources (including one from Janusz Tazbir (director of Instute of history of Polish Academy of Sciences)) that clearly state that at the time Polish meant szlachta, not a representative of a modern Polish nation. Which considering the topic of my edit would not be the right characteristic for their reasons for Uprising. Unfortunately at the time you completely ignored my sources and proceeded to change my edit the way you like until it was removed completely. Korwinski (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Korwinski (talk), you cannot see it, but putting "anti-Polish" before Khmelnytsky Uprising to get "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" (sources say so, not me) makes the Cossack Hetmanate more interesting and more intriguing. It's even more interesting that Polish nobles were part of creating this new sovereignty, with their own constitution, no less, that in its force and effect was anti-Polish. Emergence of Cossack Hetmanate under Russian protection = anti-Polish; Decline of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth = anti-Polish; Decline of the Roman Catholic church in Dnieper Ukraine = anti-Polish; Territorial and political expansion of the Russian Tsardom = anti-Polish; Cossack lands in Ukraine fall under Russian hegemony = anti-Polish. Poland had to deal with it. It's understood later this came to be under joint Polish-Russian administration. Expand your mind. - Exxess (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky Uprising, "Cossack szlachta," "Starshyna" = land grab, and what was in their way was the Polish nobility. Some Polish nobles flipped loyalties to get land. Some were executed as traitors as a result. It is good to be king, but the Polish king could not lord it over his nobles because land held by szlachta was allodial, so the Polish king was not in a feudal relationship with his nobles, but the Polish nobles lorded it over the Cossacks and Ukraine. The Hetmanate is a new sovereignty with a new aristocracy. It even had its own constitution. Strictly speaking, it is not szlachta. Treaties and loyalties to Russia, the Tsar, enemies of Poland... Any alliance with Poland was for convenience, not love of Poland, except the love of Polish noble political immunities and privileges, which was not given to the Rebels, so it was taken in the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising. They did not love Poland. They loved the thought of having Polish noble political immunities and privileges, and being overlords, and when Polish forces resisted this, the rebellion gutted and disemboweled Polish forces. When things calmed down, Polish nobility established themselves again in the Ukraine. It is all in the history books. - Exxess (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And again, you're ignoring the fact that many of them received it from the Crown (see ennoblement's above. I wrote out just the surnames, but most if not all of them come with a land). For example Cossack colonel Michal Zelenski receiving szlachta title and Serebryna village:

Na instancya Urodzonego Hetmana y woyska naszego Zaporowskiego, stosusuiae sie tez do kommissyi Hadziackeiy, do kleynotu szlachectwa Polskiego przyimuiemy osoby nizey opisane , u one z potomstwem ich oboiey plci za szlachte Polska deklaruimey, to iest, Szlachetnych Michala Zielenskiego, Pulkownika naszego Braclawskiego, temuz przywiley lennosci na danine siola Serebryna approbuiemy.

And the others got it from the Hetman, who got that right from both Crown and Tsar.

The rest is true about most of szlachta of PLC, not just the one that sided with Cossacks. Anyhow it is still irrelevant and Wikipedia:No original research. Korwinski (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

When Poland disappeared from the map of Europe, Polish peasants were not interested in the resurrection of a Polish state because of living under Polish noble political immunities, privileges, and overlordship. - Exxess (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Put in the lead section of the article:

"As the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) evolved and expanded in territory, its membership grew to include the leaders of Ducal Prussia and Livonia, and members of the Cossack Hetmanate."

Not quiet sure thats the right description. PLC did not expand its territory on lands of Hetmanate, in the end rather Hetmanate expanded its rule on territory of PLC. Also most of the szlachta that fought against the Crown were already szlachta of PLC before they became leaders of Hetmanate.Korwinski (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You do not need anyone's permission to do this. You have the facts. You have the reference works and reliable sources. Readers should have this information. - Exxess (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

"As the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) evolved and expanded in territory, its membership grew to include the leaders of Ducal Prussia and Livonia. The szlachta also included members of the Cossack Hetmanate."

Very simple. That's my suggestion, but, do as you wish. You have the facts. You have the references. You have the reliable sources. You do not need my permission. You do not need anyone's permission.

As an aside, the only thing I argued about is the Khmelnytsky Uprising was anti-Polish. Not because I agree. Not because I care. Not because it's my opinion. Because the sources say so - Emergence of Cossack Hetmanate under Russian protection = anti-Polish; Decline of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth = anti-Polish; Decline of the Roman Catholic church in Dnieper Ukraine = anti-Polish; Territorial and political expansion of the Russian Tsardom = anti-Polish; Cossack lands in Ukraine fall under Russian hegemony = anti-Polish. That is what the sources say. - Exxess (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That being said, as your research shows, the szlachta included members of this Cossack Hetmanate. Cannot argue with reliable sources... - Exxess (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

If you read ALL my comments, I always said this information about the szlachta and the Hetmanate should be included in the article, but I also say the sources say the Khmelnytsky Uprising was anti-Polish. Not because I agree. Not because I care. Not because it's my opinion. Because the sources say so. - Exxess (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeating - Korwinski (talk), you cannot see it, but putting "anti-Polish" before Khmelnytsky Uprising to get "anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising" (sources say so, not me) makes the Cossack Hetmanate more interesting and more intriguing. It's even more interesting that Polish nobles were part of creating this new sovereignty, with their own constitution, no less, that in its force and effect was anti-Polish. Emergence of Cossack Hetmanate under Russian protection = anti-Polish; Decline of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth = anti-Polish; Decline of the Roman Catholic church in Dnieper Ukraine = anti-Polish; Territorial and political expansion of the Russian Tsardom = anti-Polish; Cossack lands in Ukraine fall under Russian hegemony = anti-Polish. Poland had to deal with it. It's understood later this came to be under joint Polish-Russian administration. George Washington was a Citizen of the united states of America, but Virginia was his country. It used to be England, until Washington became anti-English. Virginia has a written constitution, and there is a written Constitution for the united states of America. Szlachta that became the Hetmanate might have been Polish politically (Citizens of the Republic), but that does not mean they felt Poland was their country. That might have had something to do with them gutting and disemboweling Polish forces - Batih massacre, two days of beheadings and disemboweling of Polish captives - "anti-Polish" Khmelnytsky Uprising indeed. - Exxess (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Malorussian ("Little Russia" - Modern-Day Territories of Belarus and Ukraine) Szlachta

"Long-lasting social, political, ethnic, and religious tensions in the Polish-Lithuanian Republic led to the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising (1648 - 1654), during which a large number of ethnically-distinct Ruthenians, who politically were Citizens of the Polish-Lithuannian Republic (szlachta), joined the Cossack rebellion and played a key part in forming the state of the Zaporozhian Host, the Cossack Hetmanate, a new sovereignty with its own constitution. The exclusive Sarmatian ideology embodied in Polish aristocratic law and practised in the Kresy by Polish nobles was racist. Being noble with an aristocratic lineage meant being genetically superior with a consequent right to direct, dictate, dominate, tax, and own the genetically inferior, including owning the land the genetically inferior positioned themselves on. The disdainful approach of Polish lords (szlachta) toward Ukrainian peasants was a key cause of the social, political, ethnic, and religious tensions leading to the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising in Ukraine. The Ruthenian szlachta were Citizens of the Polish-Lithuanian Republic politically, hence szlachta, but, ethnically, their primordial country was Ruthenia, not Poland, so they said, 'To Hell With Poland. We will join the anti-Polish Cossacks.' The Cossacks were also an ethnically distinct people, denied full rights, political privileges and immunities secured to Polish lords (szlachta), hence subject to Polish overlordship. The ethnically Ruthenian szlachta proceeded to participate in the ensuing land grab, known as the anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising, battling Polish forces loyal to the Polish-Lithuanian Republic. After several battles, the ethnically-distinct Cossacks participated in two days of anti-Polish beheadings and disemboweling of Polish captives loyal to the Republic, which was known as the Batih massacre. The emergence of the Cossack Hetmanate under Russian protection was anti-Polish in its force and effects, including decline of the Polish–Lithuanian Republic, decline of the Roman Catholic church in Dnieper Ukraine, territorial and political expansion of the Russian Tsardom, and Cossack lands in Ukraine falling under Russian hegemony. All this set the stage for the later disappearance from the map of Europe of the weakened Polish-Lithuanian Republic via the partitions of Poland, which began in 1772. In subsequent treaties with the Polish Sejm and Russian Tsar, having conceded some of their sovereignty, and under joint Polish-Russian administration, members of the Cossack Hetmanate secured their political rights, privileges, and immunities as nobles, and via intermarriages with other Cossack starshyna (Cossack aristocracy) of non-noble origins and nobility that later moved to Malorossia ("Little Russia" - modern-day territories of Belarus and Ukraine) from the Polish-Lithuanian Republic, Wallachia, Moldavia, Balkans, etc., formed the Malorossian szlachta ." - Exxess (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

False Claim - "Completely Irrelevant Aside on Gaelic Society; the Term discussed, "sliocht," had no etymological relation to "szlachta"

I assert this claim is false, and the removal of the reference to "sliocht" is ill-conceived.

The removing editor wrote, "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta"

I undid the edit because of the following:

There were Polish noble clans/szlachta of Celtic origin, and Celtic clans were Germanic, which is ultimately a shared Indo-Aryan heritage; hence the reference to Gaelic society in antiquity in the article, hence Polish nobles called "szlachta" and Gaelic nobles called "sliocht". The "sliocht" and the Polish "szlachta" have identical characteristics. The editor claiming etymological expertise has called their expertise into question. "Szlachta" and "Sliocht" - that is not a coincidence. The claim is referenced, and the references identify identical characteristics of Gaelic "sliocht" and Polish "szlachta."

Opposing editor, justify your removal with something beyond the frivolous, as given in the edit history. I would suggest pointing out the differences between the Gaelic "sliocht" and Polish "szlachta." Further into the article, the "szlachta" are referenced as descendants of Polish kings of antiquity, just as the Gaelic "sliocht" are referenced as descendants of Gaelic kings of antiquity. Szlachta and sliocht both held land on the basis of that nobility. Considering that, the etymological expertise claimed as authority for the removal appears knee-jerk and frivolous. - Exxess (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia - 'For Cassius Dio, the only Germani and the only Germania were west of the Rhine within the empire: "some of the Celts (Keltoí), whom we call Germans (Germanoí)", had "occupied all the Belgic territory [Belgikḗ] along the Rhine and caused it to be called Germany [Germanía]".'

See Germanic peoples - Exxess (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan is irrelevant. It is not the same as Indo-European, and your use of the term Indo-Aryan to represent the shared heritage of the Celts and Germani makes me wonder what kind of books you've been reading.

Furthermore, the claim that "There were Polish noble clans/szlachta of Celtic origin" is completely unsubstantiated and not borne out by history, nor indeed is it otherwise mentioned with any kind of sourcing in the article. The claim that "Celtic clans were Germanic" is incorrect. The Celts and Germani were conflated by some ancient Greek and Roman writers, but in many respects they are quite different as anyone with a basic knowledge of history and linguistics can tell, and the Polish in fact are not all that Germanic at all - they were influenced by Germanic-speaking groups (as shown by the borrowed term szlachta) but they are considered Slavic. The linguistic link here has to do with linguistic similarities between Germanic and Celtic languages, but as the Poles borrowed the term from Germanic (they didn't speak a Germanic language themselves) this does not show some sort of special relationship between the Poles and Celtic-speaking societies during the Middle Ages.

I'll leave it at this reply and one revert of your revert. I have no intention of wasting more time on refuting fringe nonsense and arguing this obvious point. Life is too short. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Ludicrous and smug edit. Ludicrous and smug response. Let's destroy it. - Exxess (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. Editor above claims no etymological relation between "sliocht" and "szlachta" as justification for knee-jerk edit - ludicrous. You cannot argue it not because of lack of time, but because there is nothing to argue about. You are wrong and ill-informed. It's obvious. Anyone who read the entire article (the removal was knee-jerk) can see in the reply above, the main point was completely avoided. The Polish "szlachta" has the exact characteristics as the Gaelic "sliocht." Repeating, further into the article, the "szlachta" are referenced as descendants of Polish kings of antiquity, just as the Gaelic "sliocht" are referenced as descendants of Gaelic kings of antiquity. Szlachta and sliocht both held land on the basis of that nobility. Considering that, the etymological expertise claimed as authority for the removal appears knee-jerk and frivolous, and something that is just dabbled in and is a smattering of mixed ignorance. Also, the Polish "szlachta" were organized in clans/septs, exactly as the Gaelic "sliocht," so it needs to be said - the removal on some basis of etymological authority is ridiculous. The entry was put there to show in Gaelic kingdoms the realm was organized by the nobility/sliocht in the same manner as the Polish nobility/szlachta, which you cannot address. Then, there is some kind of reference to historical expertise in the reply above, but this is one part of history you never learned about and you just removed any possibility of anyone else learning about - the Gaelic sliocht and Polish szlachta were nearly identical in characteristics. Horrible edit. Also, the words "sliocht" and "szlachta" are uncannily similar. That's patently obvious, not the ill-conceived etymological conclusions you came to - "Completely irrelevant Aside on Gaelic Society" - ludicrous. - Exxess (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As to Aryan cited in the article later, which, if you did not knee-jerk make an edit, and actually read the entire article, you would see the cited references to Aryan - not by me, but by the authors in the references. Fringe nonsense maybe from your superlative vantage point of so-called expertise, but that is irrelevant. It's what the references say. - Exxess (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Quote - 'the claim that "There were Polish noble clans/szlachta of Celtic origin" is completely unsubstantiated and not borne out by history, nor indeed is it otherwise mentioned with any kind of sourcing in the article.' Well, life is short, this is in references books, particularly archaeological references, but no one has yet had time to enter this information in the article, but Gaelic "sliocht" and Polish "szlachta" have the same characteristics, "sliocht" and "szlachta" are spelled in a patently obvious similar way, and you just bludgeoned with your knee-jerk edit, anyone learning of the similarities. Horrible edit. - Exxess (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. Here's a challenge - explain your phrase - "no etymological relation", then you write you're going to avoid arguing an obvious point - ludicrous. Irish/Gaelic: Sliocht sleachta - posterity; Polish: szlachta - posterity. Patently obvious to an eight-year old they are related, in direct contradiction to your edit, and your justification for your edit - Oh, the horror. - Exxess (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a comment from opposing editor,

"Indo-Aryan is irrelevant. It is not the same as Indo-European, and your use of the term Indo-Aryan to represent the shared heritage of the Celts and Germani makes me wonder what kind of books you've been reading."

I have to wonder if you even bothered reading the Szlachta article. As to another of your false claims, regarding Indo-Aryan, which you characterized as fringe:

'The Szlachta were noble in the Aryan (see Alans) sense -- "noble" in contrast to the people over whom they ruled after coming into contact with them.' - Hutton, Richard Holt; Bagehot, Walter (January 1864). "The Races of the Old World". National Review. London, England: Robson and Levey. Retrieved 9 Oct 2014. Read it online.

"An exact counterpart of Szlachta society was the Meerassee (wiktionary:mirasdar) system of tenure of southern India—an aristocracy of equality—settled as conquerors among a separate race." - National Review. London, England: Robson and Levey. Retrieved 9 Oct 2014. Read it online.

"A more apt analogy might perhaps be made with the Rajputs of northern India. ... unlike any other gentry in Europe, the szlachta was not limited by nor did it depend for its status on either wealth, or land, or royal writ. It was defined by its function, that of a warrior caste." - Zamoyski, herbu Jelita, Adam (1998) [1987]. THE POLISH WAY: A THOUSAND-YEAR HISTORY OF THE POLES AND THEIR CULTURE (Fourth Printing ed.). New York City: Hippocrene Books. p. 55. ISBN 0-7818-0200-8

"It is not truly correct to consider the szlachta a class; they actually were more like a caste, the military caste, as in Hindu society." - Topór-Jakubowski, Theodore (2002). Sulima-Suligowski, Leonard Joseph (ed.). "Claiming Inherited Noble Status" (PDF). White Eagle: Journal of the Polish Nobility Association Foundation. Villa Anneslie, 529 Dunkirk Road, Anneslie, Towson, Baltimore, Baltimore county, MARYLAND, U.S.A.: Polish Nobility Association Foundation. 2002 (Spring/Summer): 5.

All these sources are on a fringe, according to your logic; Repeating: Indo-Aryan heritage / posterity.

Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. You claim no etymological connection for Gaelic "sliocht" and Polish "szlachta" and made a deletion/edit on that basis, but the words are spelled nearly the same, and both words mean precisely the same thing - posterity, and you've concluded no etymological relation. It boggles the mind. - Exxess (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Listen to pronunciation of Gaelic "sliocht" (press blue and white arrow)

Listen to pronunciation of Polish "szlachta": [ˈʂlaxta] - Exxess (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Rather than reverting your ill-conceived edit, will wait for comment. Another mind-boggling rebuttal from you, made publicly, should be interesting, to write the least. Gaelic, Irish: "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'"; Polish SZLACHTA - posterity. Opposing editor writes, "the term discussed [sliocht] had no etymological relation to szlachta" - mind-boggling and mind-contorting. - Exxess (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No matter where one looks, opposing editor's deletion/edit is ill-conceived and ill-informed in the extreme. Opposing editor writes, "Furthermore, the claim that 'There were Polish noble clans/szlachta of Celtic origin' is completely unsubstantiated and not borne out by history, ..."

"Celtic Poland ... They brought knowledge of the potter's wheel, advanced ferrous metallurgy and coinage - the Celts arrived in the southern areas of the current Polish territory 2.5 thousand years ago and significantly influenced the history of the region - Dr. Przemysław Dulęba from University of Wroclaw said in an interview with Polish Press Agency (PAP). ... Few people realize that the cradle of the Celts, despite appearances, was not Ireland and Great Britain, but continental Europe. They spread across Europe in the first half of the 1st millennium BC from the area extending north of the Alps (from Burgundy to the Czech Basin). ..."

https://poland.pl/history/history-poland/celtic-poland/ - Celtic Poland

Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. Opposing editor concludes (quoting): "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta"; You might want to rethink that, opposing editor, in light of the evidence and research. - Exxess (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Opposing editor - "... the Poles borrowed the term from Germanic (they didn't speak a Germanic language themselves) this does not show some sort of special relationship between the Poles and Celtic-speaking societies during the Middle Ages. ..." You presume the Poles borrowed from the Germans? On what evidence? Middle Ages? Quoting the article - "its members [szlachta] often referred to it as odwieczna (perennial)."

"... the Celts arrived in the southern areas of the current Polish territory 2.5 thousand years ago and significantly influenced the history of the region - Dr. Przemysław Dulęba from University of Wroclaw said in an interview with Polish Press Agency (PAP). ... Few people realize that the cradle of the Celts, despite appearances, was not Ireland and Great Britain, but continental Europe. ..."

https://poland.pl/history/history-poland/celtic-poland/ - Celtic Poland

Again, the "szlachta" are referenced as descendants of Polish kings of antiquity, just as the Gaelic "sliocht" are referenced as descendants of Gaelic kings of antiquity. The origins were continental Europe. Szlachta and sliocht both held land on the basis of that nobility. Also, the Polish "szlachta" were organized in clans/septs, exactly as the Gaelic "sliocht," so it needs to be said - the removal on some basis of etymological authority is ridiculous. The entry was put there to show in Gaelic kingdoms the realm was organized by the nobility/sliocht in the same manner as the Polish nobility/szlachta. The Celts originated in continental Europe. That is where Poland is, so are you so sure the Polish szlachta borrowed the word "szlachta" from the Germans? Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. - Exxess (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"There is no doubt that many of the tribes of Germania, who by the Augstan [sic] era had adopted Teutonic language and Northern German-Scandinavian archaeological culture, had Celtic origins." - https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.660269 - Celts and Germans of the first century BC - second century AD : an old question, a modern synthesis - Exxess (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Opposing editor - "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta"; ludicrous - Exxess (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Using opposing editor's own statement - "Poles borrowed the term [szlachta] from Germanic" - and then, Polish "szlachta," which means "posterity," matches the Gaelic/Irish "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'", it is common sense the Germanic and Celtic are related because the Celts originated from continental Europe. It's supported by reliable sources.

"The Greeks considered the barbarians of Central and Northern Europe to be Celts in the west, and Scythians in the east. Poseidonius was the first known authority to mention the Germanoi which he described as Celtic tribes of the Middle and Lower Rhineland, although he did not regard the Cimbri, Teutones and Ambrones as Germanoi."

"Caesar manipulated Poseidonius' term Germanoi to create a new deceptive concept of an ethnic divide between the tractable Galli west of the Rhine and the warlike, feral Germani east of the Rhine. Caesar's first encounter with these tribes was through Ariovistus, King of the Germani and his tribal confederacy. Caesar later equated the Germani with the Teutonic Suebi, which became his archetypal Germani. Caesar did this for his own political ends."

"When taken as a whole, the Historical, Linguistic and Archaeological evidence demonstrates that the picture which emerges is of Celtic tribes east of the Rhine which had been subsumed and assimilated by the increasingly dominant peoples of Teutonic culture. There is no doubt that many of the tribes of Germania, who by the Augustan era had adopted Teutonic language and Northern German-Scandindvidn [sic] archaeological culture, had Celtic origins. Between the time of Caesar in the mid-first century BC, and the end of the first century AD, a great movement of Teutonic tribes entered the already densely populated regions of Celtic central Gefmania [sic] and northern and eastern Gaul. They altered the ethnic, linguistic and cultural nature of the area and produced a hybrid population."

https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/29925 - Celts and Germans of the first century BC-second century AD: an old question, a modern synthesis

The linguistic evidence shows opposing editor's position is ridiculous - "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta":

Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity.

Not only were there Polish noble clans of Celtic origin, which the linguistic evidence shows, there were Polish noble clans of Germanic origin, and the sources show the Germans and the Celts are a hybrid, hence why one gets:

Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity,

and the existence of statements like, "The Polish term 'szlachta' was borrowed from the German."

That's also why the Gaelic sliocht/nobility and Polish szlachta/nobility have the same political characteristics, which opposing editor never addressed when challenged.

No matter where one turns, whether to common sense, linguistic evidence, or reliable sources, opposing editor's deletion/edit, and this is being far too kind, is ill-conceived, ill-informed, false, and knee-jerk in the extreme. Opposing editor's reply in this talk references nothing outside opposing editor's opinion, and one would have to guess, an over-idealized self-conception of expertise (that's supposed to be taken at face value?); but, when reliable sources are referenced, nothing supports opposing editor's position - "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta". It crumbles.

Phrases from opposing editor such as "completely irrelevant", "completely unsubstantiated," "anyone with a basic knowledge of history," "wasting more time on refuting fringe nonsense," "arguing this obvious point," "life is too short," while citing nothing outside opposing editor's over-idealized self-conception of expertise (that's supposed to be accepted at face value?), means no substance to opposing editor's position and leaving the field of battle to concede defeat. Then opposing editor reverts a reversion of opposing editor's original edit/deletion, which like the original deletion/edit, is knee-jerk and is trying to win an argument on stubbornness and imperiousness alone. This kind of thing should not exist on Wikipedia. Cite what you do not agree with, which was referenced, with "dubious," and then proceed to the Talk. Save imperious statements like, "rm completely irrelevant aside on Gaelic society; the term discussed had no etymological relation to szlachta" for the Talk, where it can be challenged, and in this case, destroyed. That's constructive, not knee-jerk deletions/edits of referenced information that opposing editor could not fathom, because their so-called expertise got in their way, which deny readers the information. "Completely irrelevant" - no, opposing editor is just completely ill-informed.

From the looks of outside references, opposing editor's position crumbles in the face of the facts. This kind of the thing should not exist on Wikipedia - trigger-happy editors deleting something they cannot fathom because of their ignorance, and deleting without discussion. This was a peculiar instance of gratuitous Wikipedia violence and savagery against the mind, nothing short of a Wikipedia atrocity, committed openly, and defended, no less. This kind of egregious mental sloth, and utter, benighted ignorance deserves a summary response. - Exxess (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur that this seems like linguistic OR. None of the sources cited discuss szlachta. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Opposing editor stated "sliocht" and "szlachta" have no etymological relation. Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'" Gaelic, Irish: Sliocht sleachta; Polish: SZLACHTA - posterity. Original research or not, that's a ridiculous conclusion, and it's false. Anyone who challenges that engages in an exercise of futility of denying the obvious.

The sources do discuss szlachta - descendants of kings, who held land on the basis of that subsequent nobility, and organized politically in clans/septs - the sliocht.

wiktionary:sliocht - "sliocht m (genitive singular sleachta, nominative plural sleachta)" - "1. offspring, progeny"

wiktionary:szlachta - "Etymology; From Middle High German slahte ('genus, kind, species, race') (compare German Geschlecht)."

German and Celtic are a hybrid. That is not original research and appears in sources, cited above. Szlachta, from the above, has a Germanic/Celtic origin, Celts originating in continental Europe. No source that says it that directly - YET, but to deny it is to deny the obvious.

This could be stated in the article, Etymology section, as, "The German and Celtic people are a hybrid people.[source] Gaelic society has a word 'sliocht' identical in meaning to the Polish word 'szlachta', the Polish word derived from Middle High German 'slahte' (genus, kind, species, race). The Gaelic word 'sliocht' means 'progeny/posterity/heritage,' as does the Polish word 'szlachta.' See the Irish phrase - "Sliocht sleachta ar shliocht bhur sleachta. 'Blessings on your posterity.'"[source] The Polish szlachta and the Gaelic sliocht, both descendants of kings, held land on the basis of that subsequent nobility, and organized politically in clans/septs.[source][source][source]"

The above is factual and neutral. All can be sourced. If someone can point out original research in the above, please do so. I do not think Wikipedia should prevent readers from drawing inferences that are obvious on an objection of synthesis. Each statement above can be sourced, and each statement is factual. Let readers draw what inferences they will. I do not think Wikipedia should engage in presumptions of dictating what conclusions readers might draw from facts that are sourced. That stops thinking. See opposing editor's reply.

My opinion - trigger-happy editors should not be denying readers information, but should instead improve the article. Build on the information presented, which was reasonable, do not deny it to readers. My hunch is the original deletion/edit was based on presumption, easily shown to be false, and was not constructive. It was destructive. Then, time and effort are wasted on refuting a punctilio of objection the most flimsy and ill-informed. Again, before trigger-happy editors start deleting, on information that is reasonable, cite what raises one's umbrage with "dubious" or "original research," then go to Talk. - Exxess (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Szlachta → Polish nobility – Formal request, to put forth the suggestion of TheEditMate below Lembit Staan (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, I want to propose to move this page to "Polish nobility". All other articles about the nobilities in various countries simply use English world "nobility" with adjectives such as Swedish nobility, Spanish nobility, British nobility, etc. and Polish one is literally only one standing out of the rule. The word szlachta is not special nor limited to use towards Polish variety. It directly translates to the word nobility and is used both to nobility within Poland as well as in the entire world. What is more, even Polish Wikipedia doesn't differentiate the world simply calling the article "Szlachta w Polsce" (Nobility in Poland). There is no reason whatsoever to keep this article with this name when it is not any particular world that can't be translated. Personally, I believe the reason it was created as such, is weird custom noticeable with a lot of Polish-speaking internet users, who tend to favor Polish worlds in the contrast to the English ones when referring to anything Polish-related for no particular reasons, which in my opinion is problematic, especially in translating anything Polish-related. TheEditMate (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. In English, the word wikt:szlachta means "Polish nobility". A while ago the same issue was handed with the Russian term Dvoryanstvo. I reverted the page move of TheEditMate because it was accompanied with brainless replacement of the word "szlachta" with "nobility" in the article, but I had no time late at night. Lembit Staan (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  Let me think more. Britannica and some other major sources use title Szlachta. So that WP:COMMONAME rule must be considered. Lembit Staan (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Lembit Staan, Food for thought. GScholar hit count: "gentry in Poland" 50, "nobility in Poland" <200, "nobility of Poland" ~200, "Polish gentry" 2k, "Polish nobility" 6k, szlachta Poland 17k... (I added Poland to control for English language, but I will also admit there are some false hits like to articles by a scholar named Szlachta). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Object. The word szlachta exists in English academic discourse (here's a random example: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40999944 "The Cossack experiment in szlachta democracy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: the Hadiach (Hadziacz) union"), no need to dumb it down. Redirects to here will do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. The term "szlachta" does indeed appear in English-language sources. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Indeed, in English the szlachta is the nobility in the context of Poland. Of the five WP:CRITERIA, consistency is invoked in the move request, but insufficient evidence is given to support the move to meet the others. —Michael Z. 14:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Mzajac, Good point, and I would also like to clarify a point made User:TheEditMate above. Yes, in Polish, szlachta means "all nobility" (ex. "szlachta francuska" -> "French nobility" [1]), but in English, it means Polish nobility only (or Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian one wants to split hairs). So the term is a linguistic false friend. pl:szlachta = nobility. pl:Szlachta w Polsce = szlachta. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidance that szlachta isn't the wp:commonname in english—blindlynx (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH based on the Google Ngrams[2]. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I'll ping User:Nihil novi, my go-to expert on Polish and English terminology in English. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Title = Szlachta (Polish nobility) [Polish-English alliance continues, peace ensues] - Exxess (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The term "nobility" is used with different meanings in different countries; therefore the proposed title, "Polish nobility", is likely to promote confusion rather than clarity. The fact that the word szlachta is the most common term in English for this Polish institution, is a further good reason to retain the word "Szlachta" as the title of this article. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, Nihil novi is correct. Nobility ranks below royalty. In Poland, the szlachta were equal before the king, and the king was not the overlord of the szlachta. The szlachta were not the king's tenants. To be precise, the szlachta were above nobility. Nobility implies hierarchy and feudalism. Adam Zamoyski writes feudalism was never introduced into Poland. - Exxess (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, the opening sentence is incorrect, too - "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class in the Kingdom of Poland ...." Should be: "The szlachta was a lawfully privileged caste in the Kingdom of Poland." Adam Zamoyski writes the szlachta were a warrior caste. - Exxess (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Nihil novi Dawid2009 (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits by Exxess

I looked a bit at the upper part of the article and noticed that Exxess very liberally treats the source cited, incuding outright misinterpretations and delving into [[WP:NOR|original research]. I don't have much time; someone has to review the article carefully. The most glaring misinterpretation is to call szlachta atristocracy. Not. As the very source cited by Exxess themselves say. [3]. @Nihil novi:, @Volunteer Marek: : please review. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the changes here and no problems were introduced (maybe they were removed in the meantime). Szlachta was not aristocracy; it was nobility. It had its own aristocratic subclass - and we have an article about that too, the magnates of Poland and Lithuania. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The term "aristocracy" as applied to magnates is informal, just as business oligarchs are not really oligarchs, but business magnate and they are called "oligarchs" due to their great influence. Something ust e written to this end into the article about Polish magnates. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. <grumle-grumble> While working on this article yesterday I reviewed a pile of articles on Polish history, historical politics, demography, etc. and sadly have to say that (1) there are A LOT of sloppy and ignorant statements in them and (2) A LOT of Poland-related subjects are not covered in enwiki. I will be working on them slowly, but I am, too, not a profesional historian, simply a careful reader. And I dont have much spare time (often wasting it on useless articles, such as Jolanta Sikorska-Kulesza ‎, Bimbam, or Wąchock jokes :-). Lembit Staan (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, review the following very carefully: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord."

Read what Adam Zamoyski writes and comprehend: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

Undoing my edits evidences an extremely superficial and ill-conceived notion of nobility. Nobility means subordinate to the king, per other countries, per feudalism, which the szlachta never had under any Polish king. The szlachta were not subordinate to the Polish king, nor was the Polish king the overlord of the szlachta. Consider the quote very carefully: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord."

Extremely superficial, knee-jerk, and ill-conceived edits, considering this: "... All of them were equal before the king; ..."

Adam Zamoyski: "Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily."

Obviously, since my edits were undone, they need to be stressed very heavily here.

It was a mistake to remove the following, which is more precise and more accurate:

The szlachta (Polish: [ˈʂlaxta] , exonym: Nobility) were an aristocratic warrior caste, paralleling the patricians of ancient Rome, who exercised extensive political rights and power in the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

This is my conclusion - whoever undid my edits does not understand land, does not understand landholding, does not understand law, does not understand nobility, does not understand aristocracy, does not understand feudalism or its basis, does not understand citizenship, does not understand Polish history, and does not understand why the Polish aristocracy paralleled the republicanism of ancient Rome, and why the szlachta fought the autocracy of the Russian Tsar.

Conclusion, the edits were knee-jerk based upon a knee-jerk, superficial understanding of nobility and aristocracy, and Poland's history, resulting in an ill-conceived, horrifying, bastardized mess of concepts and terms of feudalism with the szlachta, a feudalism which never existed in Poland.

Quoting Adam Zamoyski and read it very carefully: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

Extremely slopping thinking, extremely sloppy editing, knee-jerk editing, propagation of ill-conceived ideas. Quoting Korzeniowski: "The horror! The horror!"

OPPOSE MOST STRENUOUSLY.

It does NOT get more clearer than this - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

Once more - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." - Exxess (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The disdain for titles was not a matter of szlachta personal preference. It was a matter of law, based upon szlachta land tenure, which made the szlachta equal before the king. The szlachta rejected feudalism and never had it under any Polish king.

I am going to presume the best of Wikipedia editors, and hope this bastardized mess of feudalistic embarrassment of the szlachta and Polish history will not remain the current notorious monstrosity the reading public is now subjected to. What we have here is an article heralding black is white, for all intents and purposes.

Yet again - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." - Exxess (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Exxess, Your argument would read better if you didn't repeat yourself, and your quotes, 3-4 times. I am not sure if it is intended, but to me it just makes your posts here look sloppy and difficult to read, no offense meant. And walls of repetitive text are just going to make people ignore you. Simplifying it, the issue we face is whether szlacha should be described as nobility, or aristocracy, yes? The problem is that as William Doyle observes, those terms are not clearly distinguishable in literature. Some historians try to do so, others just give up. " in more general terms the description 'aristocratic', or the nouns 'aristocrat' or 'aristocracy', are widely (if imprecisely) understood to mean much the same thing as noble or nobility. Both are terms for European elites". And in his book Aristocracy: A Very Short Introduction he writes on szlachta that it was the "nobility of early modern Poland". So here we have an expert, who writes the book on aristocracy, but clearly calls szlachta nobility, not aristocracy. In his mangum opus on Poland, Davies provides a diagram of szlachta [4], which he calls the Polish "noble state", and he does not use the term aristocracy in his book at all. Here you have another historian [5] divide szlachta into the aristocracy (elites) and gentry (the masses). Etc. various terms are used, but while Zamoyski makes an interesting argument, his terminology did not become widely accepted.

The other interesting argument I see you make, following him, is that there was no feudalism in Poland. I'll also ping User:Volunteer Marek, who I think Is familiar with some literature on the historical Polish economy. That's an interesting argument. Davies discusses it briefly here: [6], and provides references for some scholarly articles: [7], [8], and one titled Tadeusz Manteuffel (1964), "On Polish Feudalism, " Medievalia et Humanistica that I cannot find a link to? Anyway, here, it certainly seems that the sources do support the assertion that the answer to the question "was there feudalism in Poland" is "it's complicated". If there are issues with discussion of feudalism in this or another article, however, please start a dedicated thread about it. One that does read less like a rant, please. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Ill-Conceived Edits of Lembit Staan; Bastardization and Monstrosity of Szlachta and Polish History with Feudalism

This discussion is redundant, but the bastardization of feudal concepts and terms with the szlachta and Polish history is so egregious, the refutation bears repeating in its own section.

Polish history, from its beginning was divided into the two castes that mattered: szlachta/aristocratic/patrician clans and plebian/commoner/peasant/serf paralleling ancient Rome. There were poor patrician/aristocratic families in ancient Rome. Polish kings would align themselves with varying Polish szlachta clans/patricians, depending on the king's political objectives, despite these szlachta clans/patricians at times being insignificant compared to other szlachta/patrician clans. From Radwan coat of arms: "From Little Poland, the Śreniawa family/gens was insignificant and financially modest; however, King Kazimierz the Great (1310–1370) supported them in Little Poland."

Strictly speaking, review the following very carefully: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord."

This caused Polish kings problems. Quoting the Szlachta article: "Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority."

Read what Adam Zamoyski writes and comprehend: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

Undoing my edits evidences an extremely superficial and ill-conceived notion of nobility. Nobility means subordinate to the king, per other countries, per feudalism, which the szlachta never had under any Polish king. The szlachta were not subordinate to the Polish king, nor was the Polish king the overlord of the szlachta. Consider the quote very carefully: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord."

Extremely superficial, knee-jerk, and ill-conceived edits, considering this: "... All of them were equal before the king; ..." Understand what that meant in law: "But the Parliament was at best a clumsy body, as the deputies were not free agents, but were bound by their mandates from the real sovereign bodies, the local Diets or Sejmiki. The representative of a Sejmik had the right of vetoing all legislation in the Sejm, since he spoke for a whole province or tribe."

The patricians/szlachta composed the local Diets/Sejmiki, not the plebeian peasants/serfs, and those patricians/szlachta could undo all legislation, if they opposed. Think hard for another word for that kind of power. Was szlachta wealth a consideration, or was being szlachta/patrician enough to exercise that kind of power? Then ask yourself where the basis for that power came from.

Consider the above, in light of this: "The resistance to the royal policy [Polish kings attempting to impose feudalism] was so strong however that by far the greater part of the land was held by the knights as allodial, not as feudal property, which is in striking contrast to the land conditions in England."

Adam Zamoyski: "Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily."

Obviously, since my edits were undone, they need to be stressed very heavily here.

It was a mistake to remove the following, which is more precise and more accurate:

The szlachta (Polish: [ˈʂlaxta] , exonym: Nobility) were an aristocratic warrior caste, paralleling the patricians of ancient Rome, who exercised extensive political rights and power in the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

This is my conclusion - whoever undid my edits does not understand land, does not understand landholding, does not understand lordship, does not understand law, does not understand nobility, does not understand aristocracy, does not understand feudalism or its basis, does not understand citizenship, does not understand Polish history, and does not understand why the Polish aristocracy paralleled the republicanism of ancient Rome, why the szlachta fought the autocracy of the Russian Tsar, and why the szlachta allowed Confederations against Polish kings, which the szlachta regarded as constitutional weapons against tyranny.

Conclusion, the edits were knee-jerk based upon a knee-jerk, superficial understanding of nobility and aristocracy, and Poland's history, resulting in an ill-conceived, horrifying, bastardized monstrosity of concepts and terms of feudalism with the szlachta, a feudalism which never existed in Poland.

Adam Zamoyski states the szlachta were not a class, but a warrior caste.

Quoting Adam Zamoyski and read it very carefully: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

But there it is, after undoing my edits, right in the beginning of the Szlachta article: "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class ..." And now the world gets to enjoy a complete misunderstanding of Polish history and society.

Szlachta = patrician = always paralleled ancient Rome. Quote: "Poland was the great power of East Central Europe, and the Polish Sejm dictated to the East as despotically as the Roman Senate itself."

Extremely slopping thinking, zero rigor, extremely sloppy editing, knee-jerk editing, propagation of ill-conceived ideas based on huge misconceptions. Quoting Korzeniowski: "The horror! The horror!"

OPPOSE MOST STRENUOUSLY.

It does NOT get more clearer than this - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

Once more - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

The disdain for titles was not a matter of szlachta personal preference. It was a matter of law, embedded in the constitution, based upon szlachta land tenure, which made the szlachta equal before the king. The szlachta rejected feudalism and never had it under any Polish king.

I am going to presume the best of Wikipedia editors, and hope this bastardized mess of feudalistic embarrassment of the szlachta and Polish history will not remain the current notorious monstrosity the reading public is now subjected to. What we have here is an article heralding black is white, for all intents and purposes, but the editor(s) that undid my edits, i'm sure will pick themselves up after stumbling upon these facts, and plow forward like bulls in a china shop.

Yet again - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

As Zamoyski writes and cannot stress too heavily feudalism never took hold in Poland, and as Zamoyski writes one cannot substitute the terms "nobility" or "gentry" for szlachta, understand what aristocracy means and patrician means, particularly as their were poor patrician, aristocratic families in ancient Rome. Poland maintained the division between patrician/szlachta and plebeian/serf. This article should avoid incessant attempts at hammering square pegs in round holes.

Whoever is undoing my edits needs to do a complete re-think. - Exxess (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Exxess, I am not rereading this. 90% of this seems to duplicate your post above. Please don't do this. I am afraid that tomorrow I will another post of yours, with 5% new content, and even a longer repetition. How can you expect anybody to engage with you with this style, I don't know. Please delete this entire section if possible (and I give you permission to delete my comment you are reading too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Do not delete this discussion. What I am writing needs to be written. Editors come in, knee-jerk, zero discussion, and just start deleting, and the reasons for their deletions are not accurate. This discussion is referenced by authorative sources. Address the issues, and do not address the issues by asking for a deletion of the discussion. Since this a discussion of the szlachta, a warrior caste, remember this principle - He who leaves the field of battle first, concedes defeat. The statements and reasons editors posted for the deletions are directly opposed and contradicted by Adam Zamoyski. And you suggest deleting the discussion? Hold yourselves to a higher standard and get the facts right, since the world is reading this article regarding Poland's history. The same misconceptions get repeated over and over and over. - Exxess (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Address the facts. And get the facts right. Those facts are in the discussion. And referenced. Focus on the facts. Refute the facts, not the style. Facts. Refute them. With authoritative sources. That is where the focus needs to be. Not on anything else. We are discussing centuries of Polish history. - Exxess (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Zamoyski writes and cannot stress too heavily feudalism never took hold in Poland, and as Zamoyski writes one cannot substitute the terms "nobility" or "gentry" for szlachta. Therefore, to be precise and rigorous, as Zamoyski writes Poland originated from clannish structures, which again, parallels ancient Rome, which consisted of patrician clans, rich and poor, distinguished from the plebeians, which again, parallels centuries of Polish history, with its distinction between szlachta and peasant/serf/commoner. The szlachta even used the Roman naming convention of the tria nomina (praenomen, nomen, and cognomen). But, the lead of this article starts out with, "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class"; but the sources say "warrior/military caste," not class, and szlachta, not noble, which has connotations of feudalism, which Zamoyski says never took hold in Poland, and is a fact which cannot be stressed too heavily. I have written my objections, and the references support my position. This requires a major re-think on the part of editors who come in and make knee-jerk deletions with zero discussion. The lead sentence of this article is misleading, and not factual. - Exxess (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Nihil novi made a very precise point. Quoting Nihil novi:

The term "nobility" is used with different meanings in different countries; therefore the proposed title, "Polish nobility", is likely to promote confusion rather than clarity. The fact that the word szlachta is the most common term in English for this Polish institution, is a further good reason to retain the word "Szlachta" as the title of this article. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

When that line of thinking is referenced, one discovers the facts and references support that position. Yes, it is more convenient, and takes less effort and thought to write "nobility" and "gentry", but, it is not accurate, as the words connote feudalism, but the szlachta paralleled the republicanism of ancient Rome, and the szlachta were organized in clans, just as the patricians of ancient Rome were structured in clans. Read what aristocracy meant in ancient Greece - "The term aristokratia was first used in Athens with reference to young citizens (the men of the ruling class) who led armies at the front line. Aristokratia roughly translates to 'rule of the best born'. Due to martial bravery being highly regarded as a virtue in ancient Greece, ..." That's precisely what the szlachta was - a warrior caste, per Zamoyski: "A more apt analogy might perhaps be made with the Rajputs of northern India. ... unlike any other gentry in Europe, the szlachta was not limited by nor did it depend for its status on either wealth, or land, or royal writ. It was defined by its function, that of a warrior caste."

And when we state Rome, we state, "Greco-Roman", hence the szlachta was an aristocracy in the correct sense of the word referencing the word aristocracy's original meaning in antiquity, martial/warrior caste. - Exxess (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

ARISTOCRACY AND CASTE IN THE REFERENCE WORKS AS USED IN THE SENSE OF ARISTOCRACY AS USED ABOVE

".... there we find an exact counterpart of Polish society: the dominant settlers establishing themselves as an upper caste, all politically equal among themselves, and holding the lands (or more frequently, simply drawing the rents) of the country."

"All races, however republican in practice at home, tend to develop this Meerassee system of tenure - this aristocracy of equality - when they settle as conquerors among another race. It is especially characteristic of the Indo-Teutonic peoples, into whatever country they have entered as conquerors. The so-called democracy of Athens was in reality a republican aristocracy resting upon a basis of slavery."

"These remark exactly express the view which we entertain in regard to the population of Poland. There we find an aristocracy of equals resting upon a basis of serfage, an upper caste drawing the rents of the land, monopolising the government, and composing the army of the country, and who, in the course of long centuries, have imparted much of their own spirit and ideas, and, with the license of a gay aristocracy, not a little of their blood also, to the subordinate population."

In light of the multitude of references stating the szlachta were an aristocracy and a warrior/military caste, composing the leaders of the army (see directly above), it boggles the mind why user Lembit Staan would delete the following as the lead sentence of the Szlachta, given it is precise. User Lembit Staan made false claims of false statements and original research. Where? What is written below is supported by a multitude of references, but user Lembit Staan, stumbles over the facts, picks himself up, then begins knee-jerk deleting with zero discussion, along with making claims of false statements and original research. There is none. Click on each of the references that support the use of the word "aristocracy" and "warrior caste."

The szlachta (Polish: [ˈʂlaxta] , exonym: Nobility) were an aristocratic warrior caste, paralleling the patricians of ancient Rome, who exercised extensive political rights and power in the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Strictly speaking, in terms of striving for precision and accuracy, and in light of Zamoyski's statement one cannot substitute the terms "nobility" or "gentry" for szlachta, and in light of Nihil novi's statement that "Polish nobility" is likely to promote confusion rather than clarity, the following lead sentence below is a problem. Following the logic of the current lead sentence below, the article should be titled "Polish nobility," but the argument was made to keep the article titled "Szlachta," a contradiction. There is a huge distinction in law, power, and rights, between szlachta versus nobility and gentry, therefore, the only terms that are left is aristocracy, and then caste, not class, which the references support. The problem is the use of terms like "nobility" and "gentry" have feudalistic connotations, when all of Polish history bears witness to the fact Zamoyski's statement is correct that feudalism never took root in Poland. Zamoyski states this fact cannot be stressed too heavily, but user Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus states i am stressing this fact too heavily to the point user Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus wants me to delete the discussion. It boggles the mind. Does anyone read or comprehend what the references state? The following lead sentence is a contradiction to the article title "Szlachta":

The szlachta (Polish: [ˈʂlaxta] , exonym: Nobility) was a legally privileged noble class who exercised extensive political rights and power in the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Again, the deleting editors need to do a complete re-think, because the Szlachta article immediately gets off to a very bad and inaccurate start. - Exxess (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at modern history, there was a lot of propaganda concerning Poland's history, and early history, and Poland's alleged "underdevelopment" and "primitiveness" compared to her enemies. My hunch is, upon a close inspection of the facts, this is false: "Frederick the Great settled around 300,000 colonists in the eastern provinces of Prussia and aimed at a removal of the Polish nobility, which he treated with contempt and described Poles as 'slovenly Polish trash' in newly reconquered West Prussia, similar to the Iroquois." It seems much of Polish history has been interpreted and presented by Poland's enemies, and obviously, those enemies preferred propaganda as opposed to the facts. Poland was ever a pawn in the long game of surrounding, hostile, autocratic powers, certainly not interested in the szlachta's land titles and allodial tenure, when it came to foreign, hostile powers' designs for land grabs. - Exxess (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A discussion was just closed determining the title of the article should not be "Polish nobility," but should be "Szlachta," which means there is a distinction. Then immediately below the article title follows the lead sentence, which states: "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class ..."

User Lembit Staan has this quote: "I reverted the page move of TheEditMate because it was accompanied with brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility' in the article, but I had no time late at night. Lembit Staan (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)"

Using user Lembit Staan's logic above, I removed "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class ...", and replaced "nobility" with "aristocracy" and "warrior caste", because a multitude of references support using those exact words ("aristocracy" and "warrior caste"), and then user Lembit Staan, with the statement "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'", reverts the edit, and proceeds to equate "Szlachta" with "nobility", in the lead sentence, after a debate where user Nihil novi stated, "therefore the proposed title, 'Polish nobility', is likely to promote confusion rather than clarity.", so the titled remained "Szlachta"; but immediately below the title "Szlachta", the lead sentence begins, "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class ...", a superlative brainless example of Lembit Staan's statement, "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'", and all this after a debate determining the title of the article should not be "Polish nobility"; but the lead sentence is in direct contradiction to the article title "Szlachta." Brainless and confused indeed. Knee-jerk editing.

If the lead sentence, immediately following the title is going to assert the Szlachta was a noble class (wrong, strictly speaking), then there is no reason why the title of the article should not be "Polish nobility." Per Zamoyski's statement - one cannot substitute the terms "nobility" or "gentry" for szlachta. Per user Lembit Staan - "... it was accompanied with brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility' in the article ...". Per user Nihil novi - "therefore the proposed title, 'Polish nobility', is likely to promote confusion rather than clarity." And after all this, an article entitled "Szlachta" begins with the lead sentence, "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class ...". It boggles the mind. - Exxess (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The current lead sentence, "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class ..." annihilates any reader understanding Zamoyski's statement: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." That supports this statement from Dmowski: "The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe." - Exxess (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Then, from user user Lembit Staan we have, "dubious claim cited from obsolete 1917 book and from a personal quote". This is ridiculous. It's a reference work from Dmowski. We are to presume there is a consensus a reference is an "obsolete 1917 book" and what Zygmunt Krasiński writes is dubious? Says who? User Lembit Staan? I am not part of that consensus.

Zygmunt Krasiński's statement is accurate in light of the facts: "Believe me and rest assured that apart from aristocracy there's nothing in Poland: no talent, no bright minds, nor sense of sacrifice. Our third state [bourgeoisie] is nonsense; our peasants are machines. Only we [nobles] are Poland."

Dmowski, in a published reference work, supports what Zygmunt Krasiński wrote.

Dmowski: "In the past the nobility in Poland constituted the nation itself. It ruled the country without competition on the part of any other class, the middle class being small in numbers and wealth, and the peasants being serfs."

These edits and deletions are beyond the pale. The situation is an ill-informed editor basically knee-jerk bludgeoned their way through editing and deleting the article, with zero discussion, to the point of self-contradiction. User Lembit Staan, with the statement "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'", deletes and edits, and proceeds to equate "Szlachta" with "nobility", in the lead sentence. - Exxess (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is not stressing the facts too heavily. Adam Zamoyski: "Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily."

This is the conclusion. The disdain for titles was not a matter of szlachta personal preference. It was a matter of law, embedded in the constitution, based upon szlachta land titles and allodial tenure, which made the szlachta equal before the king. Being equal before the king in England was called treason, as the English king was the English nobility's overlord. The szlachta rejected feudalism and never had it under any Polish king.

The current lead sentence is factually incorrect. In the interests of accuracy and precision and avoidance of contradiction, this stands as factually correct:

The szlachta (Polish: [ˈʂlaxta] , exonym: Aristocracy [in the original sense of the word]) were an aristocratic warrior caste, paralleling the patricians of ancient Rome, a body politic, who exercised extensive political rights and power in the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Opposed to the szlachta, the plebeians/serfs/peasantry were excluded from the body politic.

Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

Roman Dmowski: "The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe."

This is a contradiction, per user Lembit Staan, a "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'":

The szlachta (Polish: [ˈʂlaxta] , exonym: Nobility) was a legally privileged noble class who exercised extensive political rights and power in the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The current lead sentence is a disservice to readers and leaves them laboring under contradiction and misconception, per user Lembit Staan, a "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'". - Exxess (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

References

WP::SYNTH and revert war by Exxess

The editor clearly does not understand our roles about original research and WP:SYNTH, not to say about disrespect to fellow wikipedians. He calls my edits " knee-jerk deletions " without considering the concern expressed in edit summaries. Well, here you go:

1. [9]: "Rome devoted its attention nearly exclusively to agriculture" (cited from one source) + "as did old Poland" (cited form another source) - a classical example of WP:SYNTH. Not to say the statement in nonsense. Of course in old times there was no industry, and peoples were either feeding themselves or robbing each other.
2. [10] - I deleted the footnote which says nothing about the staatement to which it was attached, namely about Greek polis.

I invite a third party to evaluate my edits. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

From the article: "The szlachta ideal also paralleled that of a Greek polis—a body of citizens, a small merchant class, and a multitude of laborers."

From the reference: "Their ideal was that of a Greek city State—a body of citizens, a small trading class, and a mass of labourers."

Greek polis means Greek city state. This particular editor Lembit Staan is a bit too trigger happy with their edits, to the point of becoming absurd and contradictory. - Exxess (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not delete this reference. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence ends with "multitude of labourers" and the second reference you deleted supports "multitude of labourers."

"The peasants of Poland, as in all feudal countries, were serfs, or slaves; and the value of an estate was not estimated from its extent, but from the number of peasants, who were transferred, like cattle, from one master to another." - Exxess (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Please show which exactly part speaks about "multitude of laborers" in the country. The first ref does support this statement. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

From your grammatically incorrect sentences, such as, "which exactly part", "the statement in nonsense", i am doubting English is your first language.

Serf = Laborer; Slave = Laborer; "Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also in his mines and forests and to LABOR to maintain roads." Do you see and comprehend the word "LABOR" above? A labourer, as mentioned in the first reference, LABORS, and a SERF, as mentioned in the second reference, LABORS. Slaves, as mentioned in the second reference, perform FORCED LABOR, per the first reference, "a multitude of labourers." As I stated, English does not seem to be your first language. This is ridiculous arguing the obvious. - Exxess (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You did not answer my question; clarifying, which part of the second ref cited speaks about "multitude of laborers" in the country. Don't explain, just cite. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I did answer, and I am going to do so again: "The peasants of Poland, as in all feudal countries, were serfs, or slaves; and the value of an estate was not estimated from its extent, but from the number of peasants ..." EQUALS "a multitude of laborers". The first reference states, "mass of labourers"; but, I would not want to plagiarize, so I changed "mass" to "multitude."

Repeating: I did answer, and I am going to do so again: "The peasants of Poland, as in all feudal countries, were serfs, or slaves; and the value of an estate was not estimated from its extent, but from the number of peasants ..." EQUALS "a multitude of laborers". The first reference states, "mass of labourers"; but, I would not want to plagiarize, so I changed "mass" to "multitude." - Exxess (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No you didnt. The cited quote does not speak of neither "multitude" nor "mass" no other synonym, of laborers or peasants or serfs, etc. in Poland. 04:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

From the article: "Rome devoted its attention nearly exclusively to agriculture as did old Poland."

Explain where you see SYNTH beyond your knee-jerk evaluation two referenced facts regarding agriculture appear in the same sentence, leading to no conclusion beyond agriculture, in a paragraph discussing Poland's parallels to ancient Rome. Like I said, sloppy, knee-jerk editing, based on ill-conceived opinion. - Exxess (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I see WP:SYNTH in the word "as", i.e., the sentence says that Rome and Poland were similar in some respect. Neither source draws any comparison. You are doing the comparison. Lembit Staan (talk)

There is no WP:SYNTH here. From the article: "Rome devoted its attention nearly exclusively to agriculture as did old Poland." There is no conclusion reached beyond Rome devoted its attention to agriculture, and Poland devoted its attention to agriculture, explicitly stated in both sources. Obviously, in that regard, Rome and Poland were similar, in the context of a paragraph stating the parallels between Rome and Poland. - Exxess (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, in that regard, Rome and Poland were similar - That's what your sentence says, but sources cited do not. Please read and comprehend the policy WP:SYNTH, which specifically says exactly for such cases: "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research". Lembit Staan (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Stating the obvious is not WP:SYNTH. There is no extrapolating new information from the sources. The sentence is a summarization of the obvious. Stating Rome was primarily agricultural and Poland was primarily agricultural leads to no new conclusion. Instead of deleting, break the one sentence into two sentences: "Rome devoted its attention nearly exclusively to agriculture." "Old Poland devoted its attention nearly exclusively to agriculture." - Exxess (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I am done bickering here. I am waiting for a third opinion. If nobody else wants to work on the article, I am out of here. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not bickering. You are being challenged. Let me bring to your attention your statement is a contradiction, per user Lembit Staan, a "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'".

I replaced "nobility" with "aristocracy" and "warrior caste" in the lead, per your statement, then you deleted the edit, and replaced "szlachta" with "nobility".

I am trying to improve the article, by being somewhat conscientious and consistent. Obviously, you do not have that concern. - Exxess (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Peculiarities of szlachta compared to other nobilities

The article does say something in this respect, but does this in a sloppy way. IMO this issue deserves a separate section.

No, your edits and deletions are sloppy. You are not fully comprehending what the references state, so you are deleting without discussion.

Read what Adam Zamoyski writes and comprehend: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." - Exxess (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• analogy with aristocracy: szlachta was the second level in the society stratification right after the royalty. On the other hand the notion of aristocracy was rejected by szlachta. Even aristocratic titles sparsely used in Poland were transferred from other states.

Emphatically, NO. Factually incorrect.

Strictly speaking, review the following very carefully: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord."

This caused Polish kings problems. Quoting the Szlachta article: "Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority."

Focus on the word CO-PROPRIETORS, from the source - "CO-PROPRIETORS OF PIAST REALMS"

"But the Parliament was at best a clumsy body, as the deputies were not free agents, but were bound by their mandates from the real sovereign bodies, the local Diets or Sejmiki. The representative of a Sejmik had the right of vetoing all legislation in the Sejm, since he spoke for a whole province or tribe." - Exxess (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In the context of the law and the body politic the szlachta constituted, one must return to the original meaning of "aristocracy" and avoid the fast-and-loose meanings bandied about informally. Read what aristocracy meant in ancient Greece - "The term aristokratia was first used in Athens with reference to young citizens (the men of the ruling class) who led armies at the front line. Aristokratia roughly translates to 'rule of the best born'. Due to martial bravery being highly regarded as a virtue in ancient Greece, ..." That's precisely what the szlachta was - a warrior caste, with the role of defending Poland, and imposing Poland's will.

Again, much of Poland's history, through modern times, was written and interpreted by Poland's enemies for centuries, with an incessant emphasis on the so-called "backwards-ness" and "anarchy" of Poland. The facts require more scrutiny. - Exxess (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• analogy with caste: szlachta was a closed class: nearly no vertical mobility: ennoblements, as the article says, were extremely rare. "Warrior caste" - yes, this comparison is apt, since szabla was an indispensable attribute of a szlachcic: "without pants, but with szabla" - of petty szlachta the saying is.

• It looks like many English authors of the past use the term "Polish gentry" to translate the term "szlachta" - I didnt look in detail why they are doing so, but clearly they thought the term "nobility" as bad ttranslation.

Lembit Staan (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society

"Over time, membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries."

The class is not several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries, because the szlachta, strictly speaking, is not a noble class, as in other feudal societies, so the szlachta should not be compared to the nobilities of feudal systems, as in, do not compare apples and oranges, nor ducks and cats.

Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

Adam Zamoyski: "Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily."

Roman Dmowski: "The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe."

"Over time, membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries."

These kind of statements, a typical bromide, make Poland look ridiculous. What is worse, the statement is in the lead. The statement is a compound of feudalism and republicanism, and the result is a bastardized monstrosity, which leads to contortions of the mind too terrible to contemplate. Only Poland's enemies could have seeded minds with the idea of promiscuously breeding feudalism and republicanism - the Most Serene Republic of Poland, Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae.

The szlachta deliberately avoided being a feudal nobility: "In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted."

The szlachta avoided being a feudal nobility so deliberately it was a matter of law embedded as a constitutional principle: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord. Their relationship to the king was not feudal, i.e., based on feudal dependence, but rather it was regulated by public law. ... From the fact that the knights were equal before the king, the theory of equality was evolved, which later became one of the important features of the constitution."

Read what Adam Zamoyski writes and comprehend: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

My opinion, it is back to the old drawing board for a lot of editors after stumbling on these facts. Readers are better served conceptualizing Poland in the following article substituting "szlachta" for patrician and "peasant" for plebeian - Patrician (ancient Rome). Poland was known as the Most Serene Republic of Poland, Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae, like the Most Serene Republic of Venice, whose Great Council, was composed of 480 members taken from patrician families. Substitute "szlachta" for "patrician" in the Most Serene Republic of Poland. Avoid making readers labor under misconceptions and comparisons of the szlachta to the nobility of feudal societies. It makes Poland look ridiculous.

Most nobilities were 1%, to 2%, of a country's population. Think how stupid this makes Poland look:

"Over time, membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries."

And in Mazovia, there are numbers cited ranging from 25% to 45% of the population being szlachta in Lomza. - Exxess (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Petty nobility

It was replaced with "petite" There is no such term. The term is petty nobility. I restored the correct term, which was reverted with edit summary "Who cares? Petty is the wrong word. It is Petite, not Petty. Petty is the wrong in English."

I do not think a personal opinion about words is a valid reason for revert. We have established terminology which must be followed. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not very impressed. In English, it is Petite bourgeoisie, not "petty." Petty is a character flaw in English, so change the article title for "Petty Nobility". It is petite szlachta, not petty szlachta. Petty, in English, has connotations of being small-minded in English, and frivolous. - Exxess (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In English, as our article says "Petite bourgeoisie ( , literally small bourgeoisie), also petty bourgeoisie,". Lembit Staan (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

there is no Englisch term "petite szlachta". Lembit Staan (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There is now. "Petty" is the wrong word in English. "Petty" means small minded and frivolous, which are character flaws in English. Change what you have to change. The necessary and proper word in English is "petite." Avoid "petty" assiduously. "Petty bourgeoisie" originates from European writers who do not comprehend the negative connotations of the word "petty" in English. In English, the necessary and proper word is "petite." "Petty szlachta" in English has connotations of small-mindedness and frivolousness. "Petite szlachta" avoids those connotations. - Exxess (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

"Drobna szlachta" - Polish word "drobna" translates to English word "petite" on Google Translate

"Drobna szlachta" = "Petite szlachta" in English, not "petty szlachta." Again, "petty" has bad connotations of being small minded and frivolous in English, which are character flaws. - Exxess (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

CLICK HERE: Reference for Petite Nobility from English writer with enough brains to avoid the word "petty" - Exxess (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, szlachta is not nobility.

Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

Roman Dmowski: "The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe."

References

We should use the term 'petty', not petite, it's much more common in English. If anyone disagrees, please first get consensus to rename petty nobility to petite nobility, then we will follow suit here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with everything. It's a reflex. And there is always "de minimis szlachta" or "mini szlachta" or "miniature szlachta" or "itty-bitty szlachta" or "munchkin szlachta" or "teeny-weeny szlachta". - Exxess (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason why, in the expression "petite bourgeoisie", the first word sometimes has an e at the end, is that the French word "bourgeoisie" is grammatically feminine and therefore takes an e at the end. In English, as the same article, "petite bourgeoisie", states, the expression is often spelled with a y instead of an e – thus, "petty bourgeoisie".

A word's meaning is determined by the context in which it is used. Thus, "petty" can mean:

• "small, trivial, or insignificant in quantity or quality;
• "of contemptibly narrow mind or views";
• "spiteful; mean";
• "of subordinate or interior rank";
• (in law) "variant of petit".

In English, "petite" (adjective) means only "small, slender, and trim. Used of a girl or woman." (Noun:) "A clothing size for short women."

So, in English it's "petty nobility" (unless we're speaking exclusively of "small, slender, and trim" noblewomen).

Nihil novi (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid using obsolete sources

Please avoid using obsolete sources for potentially controversial or disputed claims. Let's focus on modern scholarship, defined as post-WWII. I am not saying old works are always wrong, but often they use obsolete terminology and claims that are no longer considered accurate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Calling references you do not agree with "obsolete" is a ridiculous tactic, not very magnanimous, and extremely petty. You have a choice - where it concerns the szlachta, the editors of this Wikipedia have it wrong, and the sources support that position. I am going to put in the referenced information you deleted again. As far as what is considered "obsolete," let us have a war about that. That requires consensus, not stating a position you personally do not agree with, or better yet, understand, is "obsolete." That is hypocritical in the extreme, and a tad bit tyrannical. As far as I am concerned concerning the szlachta, this is what I have to state - concerning the szlachta, there are statements that are a compound of feudalism and republicanism, and the result is a bastardized monstrosity, which leads to contortions of the mind too terrible to contemplate. Stop the trespass. - Exxess (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I am putting back the information you deleted with no justification. You are basically pitting yourself against Adam Zamoyski. Between you and Zamoyski, I choose Zamoyski. Again, stop the trespass, and let me work. - Exxess (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Face the fact, in light of what sources you disparage as so-called "obsolete" are telling you is you need to do a re-think of Polish history, but you choose deletion, instead of the more difficult work. Your choice as an editor, but it was knee-jerk. So now call in your posse with the same misconceptions. - Exxess (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is my recommendation to you. I am going to re-insert the referenced information you decided, unilaterally, the public should not have access to. You, in knee-jerk fashion, will delete that information because you have never considered it, you do not understand it, and I will undo your edit. Then, you will do, what should have done firstly - take it to the talk section. There is a lot on the szlachta article I do not agree with. You will notice, instead of DELETING, I created a section to discuss what I do not agree with. See talk section "Membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society". That is the magnanimous thing to do. In my opinion, that is a STUPID statement (10% compared to feudal nobility of Western Europe) that makes Poland look ridiculous, as it is comparing ducks to cats, but I did not delete. I opened up a discussion about what I do not agree with instead of deleting. - Exxess (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not see anything controversial about what I added to the article, which you deleted. Go to the article itself to check the references you slyly called "obsolete" because writers in more contemporary works are not being very precise with the terms "nobility" and "gentry," while a more astute writer, with an earlier work, such as Adam Zamoyski, understands one cannot substitute "nobility" and "gentry" for "szlachta." Roman Dmowski states the same thing.

That why assertions, to be frank, such as "membership in the szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries", make Poland look ridiculous and stupid, like Poland idiotically let its nobility gratuitously bloat unchecked. As Zamoyski states, one cannot substitute "nobility" and "gentry" for "szlachta." It's comparing ducks and dogs.

You wrote: "Let's focus on modern scholarship, defined as post-WWII". Zamoyski wrote what he wrote in 1987, with a fourth edition in 1998 - far post your arbitrary and presumptuous assertion WWII modern scholarship is better by virtue of date, which means we never reference Euclid's Elements. It's beyond the pale because some things are timeless, so unilateral judgements and opinions that a secondary source is "obsolete" are presumptuous in the extreme, having only one merit - they are indeed bold.

Skwarczyński's work is 1956. You deem that obsolete? The Encyclopædia Britannica article is 2017. The Milewska-Waźbińska reference is 2013. The Szacki secondary source is 1995. None contradict the pre-WWII secondary sources, because some things are timeless, like facts.

Before deleting what I added to the article (read below), it is already here in talk for a discussion, for whatever it is you find so controversial, which to me is dumbfounding and confounding. I see nothing controversial in these facts, but I am sure you will astound me. It seems very mundane and straightforward to me as it destroys the bastardized monstrosity resulting from the compounding of feudalism and republicanism.

From the addition to the article. Go to the article itself to check the secondary sources:

More precisely, the szlachta were not a nobility nor a gentry, but an electorate, as the szlachta fundamentally differed in law, rights, political power, origin, and composition from the feudal nobility of Western Europe. Feudalism never took root in Poland. The szlachta's relationship to the Polish king was not feudal, and the szlachta stood as equals before the king. The king was not the szlachta's overlord, as szlachta land was in allodium, not feudal tenure. Feudal dependence upon a Polish king did not exist for the szlachta. The szlachta exercised supreme political power from their local Diets or Sejmiki, and the representative of a Sejmik could veto all legislation in the Sejm.

The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles. In 1459 Ostroróg presented a memorandum to the Sejm (Senate), submitting palatines, or Voivodes of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, receive the title of prince. Sons of the prince were to receive titles of counts and barons. Castellans of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth were to receive the title of count. All these submissions were rejected.

The fact the szlachta were equal before the king and deliberately opposed becoming a feudal nobility became a matter of law embedded as a constitutional principle of equality. The republicanism of ancient Rome was the szlachta's ideal. Poland was known as the the Most Serene Republic of Poland, Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae. The szlachta, not as a feudal nobility or gentry, but as an electorate, and as an aristocracy and warrior caste, with no feudal dependence on a king, exercised supreme political power over that republic and elected kings as servants of a republic the szlachta regarded as the embodiment of their rights. - Exxess (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Why Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus created this talk section. Knee-jerk editor Lembit Staan strikes again. This editor is bitching and moaning at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta about the szlachta being called an "electorate" when the szlachta ELECTED their kings - Royal elections in Poland. That is what an electorate does - elect. This kind of prodigious, knee-jerk stupidity and idiocy is difficult to comprehend, yet alone tolerate. The real point is Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus knee-jerk wrote what he wrote in response to Lembit Staan complaining at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta.

Electorate - Secondary Source: Davies, Ivor Norman Richard; Dawson, Andrew Hutchinson; Jasiewicz, Krzysztof; Kondracki, Jerzy Aleksander; Wandycz, Piotr Stefan (2 June 2017). "Poland". Encyclopædia Britannica. p. 15. Retrieved 24 April 2021. "Ranging from the poorest landless yeomen to the great magnates, the szlachta insisted on the equality of all its members. As a political nation it was more numerous (8–10 percent) than the electorate of most European states even in the early 19th century."

Royal elections in Poland. The szlachta elected their kings. That is what an electorate does - ELECTS. Again, since Lembit Staan has a capacity to delete far beyond his powers of comprehension - Electorate - Secondary Source: Davies, Ivor Norman Richard; Dawson, Andrew Hutchinson; Jasiewicz, Krzysztof; Kondracki, Jerzy Aleksander; Wandycz, Piotr Stefan (2 June 2017). "Poland". Encyclopædia Britannica. p. 15. Retrieved 24 April 2021. "Ranging from the poorest landless yeomen to the great magnates, the szlachta insisted on the equality of all its members. As a political nation it was more numerous (8–10 percent) than the electorate of most European states even in the early 19th century."

Lembit Staan gonna' try to round up a posse and a clique at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta, so he can make some half-assed, idiotic attempt at "consensus" despite what the sources state.

Here is another one Lembit Staan cannot grasp nor comprehend:

Quoting Adam Zamoyski (1998) [1987]. THE POLISH WAY: A THOUSAND-YEAR HISTORY OF THE POLES AND THEIR CULTURE (Fourth Printing ed.). New York City, NEW YORK, U.S.A.: Hippocrene Books. p. 55. ISBN 0-7818-0200-8. "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

I did not WRITE IT, therefore it is not ORIGINAL RESEARCH, Lembit Staan. Do you comprehend?

Another one Lembit Staan cannot grasp:

Adam Zamoyski (1998) [1987]. THE POLISH WAY: A THOUSAND-YEAR HISTORY OF THE POLES AND THEIR CULTURE (Fourth Printing ed.). New York City, NEW YORK, U.S.A.: Hippocrene Books. p. 24. ISBN 0-7818-0200-8. "Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily."

From a secondary source, Lembit Staan. Feudal system never introduced into Poland. This FACT cannot be stressed TOO HEAVILY. See above.

Lembit Staan bitches and moans at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta, then Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus comes along and knee-jerk deletes my edits, claiming "obsolete sources", like FACTS go out of style.

Friedrich Nietzsche - "Human, All Too Human" and pathetic.

Lembit Staan, you really think Wikipedia exists to reinforce your ignorance, misconceptions, and prejudices. You really have a problem with the szlachta, who elected their kings (Royal elections in Poland) being called an electorate, despite the szlachta doing what an electorate does - elect. Then you cry ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:SYNTH when your idiotic, knee-jerk deletions get challenged. There is no way to dance around the idiocy of this one.

Lembit Staan, a Wikipedia article is a SYNTHESIS of the assertions of secondary sources. Because you cannot comprehend what the secondary sources state, or an article does not reinforce your ignorance, misconceptions, and prejudices does not knee-jerk mean WP:SYNTH and ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

Keep an eye on this editor Lembit Staan. Really takes umbrage if editor's edits are challenged, particularly when they are stupid, like taking umbrage with the calling of the szlachta an electorate, when they elected their kings - Royal elections in Poland. Start here, Lembit Staan - Prince-elector, and make more than a half-assed effort to grasp what the secondary sources make clear before coming to the conclusion you know more than they do, and you start knee-jerk deleting. - Exxess (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

El C, can you take a look at the talk page comments above? I think there is a lot of WP:NPA/WP:CIV violations here, and those long-winded posts are scaring anyone with their wall-of-texts and unfriendly tone. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And what I counter that with, El C, is being forthright and honest is not WP:NPA/WP:CIV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I wondered why I was in the middle of an edit, and you came along, out of the blue, and deleted it. The reasons why was Lembit Staan was bitching here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta. so someone ping'd you.

I am going to be more forthright and honest, and to hell with your petty WP:NPA/WP:CIV. This is what I've experienced regarding Poland on Wikipedia. There seems to be a clique that regards Polish articles as their fiefdom. I defeated Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus in a request for deletion regarding the Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki, herbu Radwan family article. Then what Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus did was round up his little clique and posse, and I was accused of sock-puppetry. Now, we have another knee-jerk editor, Lembit Staan, who tried to round up a posse here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta. Lembit Staan is accusing me of original research, wp:synth, basically half-assed assertions. My edits are backed with secondary sources. But since the clique here has preconceived notions, anything that differs from what they they think, but is factually correct, is challenged with crap - like "obsolete sources", as if facts go out of style.

Lembit Staan is making accusations at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta that I regard this Szlachta article as mine, this article is full of WP:SYNTH, and original research, which boggles the mind, because I did not create this article. I added to it, and what I added is EXTENSIVELY referenced.

So, countering the stupidity of the false claims, is not WP:NPA/WP:CIV.

I am going to directly tell you, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - calling a spade a spade, and being forthright is not WP:NPA/WP:CIV, so I would suggest cut the petty crap, and stick to rebutting the information in the talk section. Lembit Staan taking umbrage with calling the szlachta an electorate is idiotic and stupid, when there is an article called Royal elections in Poland, but I get accused of original research and WP:SYNTH. It is stupid beyond belief.

I am going to suggest it again. Forget summoning your friends, and fight your own battles. Stay in the talk section, and rebut - fact for fact. This petty crap on Wikipedia needs to end. - Exxess (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

One last fact to consider, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Lembit Staan - I personally have nothing against either of you. I am neutral, but when facts start getting called "obsolete," WP:SYNTH, and original research, despite extensive secondary sources, that is a form of stupidity that contorts the mind into a shape too terrible to contemplate. You really do not mean to subject readers to that. - Exxess (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Lembit Staan - here is a real good one for lunacy. There was just a debate in this talk NOT TO CALL THIS ARTICLE POLISH NOBILITY - Talk:Szlachta#Requested_move_13_April_2021.

Then, I document, with extensive secondary sources, how the szlachta differed from nobility. There was just a debate not to call the article POLISH NOBILITY, but Szlachta, because there is a distinction. Then, after demonstrating that distinction with extensive secondary sources, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus calls those sources "obsolete." Lembit Staan bitches here about WP:SYNTH, original research - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta.

But, we just had a debate NOT TO CALL THIS ARTICLE POLISH NOBILITY, but SZLACHTA, because there is a DISTINCTION. It boggles the mind. To quote Lembit Staan - 'brainless replacement of the word "szlachta" with "nobility"'. Then, this same Lembit Staan claims I need to be watched.

STOOPID - brainless indeed. And mentally disordered. See lunacy above. - Exxess (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus and Exxess. Sorry, but I'm not really around that much for the next little while to be able to take something like this on. Hope matters get resolved amicably. Regards to you both, El_C 11:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi El C. The whole thing is amicable. Cutting through the petty crap that happens on Wikipedia when editors are challenged is considered WP:NPA/WP:CIV. Introduce facts editors who think they have it all figured out, then all hell breaks loose. Give the public information and the facts, not knee-jerk deletions of facts peculiar editors do not understand. And those facts are backed up with extensive secondary sources, post WWII. It is that simple. No harm intended. - Exxess (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}, monitor this, please, if you have time. Find the flaws in the logic. I do not claim infallibility, nor ownership of this article, but some things seem obvious to me, and I could be missing something (besides sanity) in my thinking. Please stop accusing me of a wall-of-text, when I anticipate a dispute, and I am trying to produce evidence of an extended discussion. I am trying to be precise and rigorous, not annoying or dominating. Wikipedia-wide, I get concerned when what I consider reliable secondary sources get dismissed.

"The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles. In 1459 Ostroróg presented a memorandum to the Sejm (Senate), submitting palatines, or Voivodes of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, receive the title of prince. Sons of the prince were to receive titles of counts and barons. Castellans of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth were to receive the title of count. All these submissions were rejected.[26]"

Another original research. The first sentence is editor's dubious opinion based on the subsequent example.

The article is littered with this kind of original research. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)\

SOURCE: Skwarczyński, Paweł (June 1956). "The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century". The Slavonic and East European Review. Salisbury House, Station Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire county, ENGLAND: Modern Humanities Research Association. 34 (83): 302. JSTOR 4204744. "In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted. The composition of the king's council provides another distinction between the system in Poland and regular feudal systems elsewhere."

Wikipedia:No original research - "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;"

"The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles." - That is not original research, nor is that reaching or implying a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source. The source is not the quote - "In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors,".

That cited quote is part of the source. The source is "The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century".

"The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles." - That conclusion is directly and explicitly supported by the source. Not LITERALLY, with that statement spelled out EXACTLY, with just the words rearranged on Wikipedia.

The ENTIRE source needs to be read - "The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century".

In that source, it is stated the szlachta resisted royal feudal policy, amongst many other statements along those lines. I think that supports, "The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles." - directly and explicity.

Is there some bit of obscure Wikipedia minutiae that's corrupting the logic above? - Exxess (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)