Talk:Pagan reaction in Poland

Proposed merge

I do think that "People's uprising in Poland (1038)" should be merged here - that's how I've generally seen it described in sources and "People's uprising" (who else's? Bears? Rabbits? Ghosts?) sounds sketchy, like "People's Elbow".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to translate "Powstanie ludowe" though, I think a better, though a less literal, translation would be "Popular uprising" rather than "People's uprising".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Merge done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Name

While English sources seem to prefer "pagan reaction", intermingled with a rather free use of words like uprising and rebellion, some Polish literature seems to indeed distinguish somewhat between "reakcja pogańska" and "powstanie ludowe" (people's uprising), throughmany sources do not do so. (Edmund Małachowicz (2000). Katedra Wrocławska: dzieje i architektura. Polska Akad. Nauk, Oddział we Wrocławiu. ISBN 978-83-910911-2-8. Retrieved 27 March 2013. for example writes: "Reakcja pogańska, jak określa się w Polsce wspomniane powstanie ludowe"). The latter seems to have occurred around 1037-1038 (search GBooks for "Powstanie ludowe" 1037), through one of the most modern refs (Gerard Labuda (1992). Mieszko II król Polski: 1025-1034 : czasy przełomu w dziejach państwa polskiego. Secesja. ISBN 978-83-85483-46-5. Retrieved 27 March 2013.) states "Na to wszystko nakłada się powstanie ludowe. W przeciwieństwie do ogólnie przyjętej chronologii (1037 lub 1039), Borawska dowodzi, że wybuchło ono wnet po wypędzeniu Kazimierza (1034)." In fact, her book about Mieszko II seems essential for lit review and; she on p.102 she has a chronology: 1032 - pagan reaction, 1034 - popular uprising starts (according to some historians), 1037/38/39 - popular uprising starts according to other historians.

That said, few Polish sources are online. Both probably can be discussed in one article, as many Polish sources do anyway (from what little I see, and anyway this was probably a series of several related events which are very poorly documented). I do wonder if a better name for this article wouldn't be Pagan reaction and people's uprising in Poland, for example as used in Jerzy Wyrozumski (1984). Historia Polski: do roku 1505. Państwowe Wydawn. Nauk. ISBN 978-83-01-03732-1. Retrieved 27 March 2013. ("Powstanie ludowe i reakcja pogańska")?

Oh, a few sources also use a term " bunt Miecława (Masława)", ex. Józef Lipiec (1988). Czas przesilenia. Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza. Retrieved 27 March 2013.: "Po śmierci Mieszka II, w połowie lat trzydziestych XI wieku, wybuchło w Polsce wielkie powstanie ludowe, znane jako bunt Miecława (Masława)". This is the only English source about this I find: Przemysaw Wiszewski (2010). Domus Bolezai: Values and Social Identity in Dynastic Traditions of Medieval Poland (C. 966-1138). BRILL. p. 223. ISBN 978-90-04-18142-7. Retrieved 27 March 2013.; but Wiszewski and our text in Miecław and related articles suggests that Kazimierz and Mieclaw did not fight till 1041 or so, so after the period of 1030s which most describe as "reakcja pogańska" / "powstanie ludowe". So I think that the Miecław rebellion, taking place in the 1040s, is a separate event, and should not be included in the scope of this article. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A separate, well-defined event deserves a separate article, even if this event is part of broader history. Of course, it must be handled according to WP:SUMMARY style guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's possible to treat Mieclaw's rebellion separately from the subject of this article. However, I don't think it's possible to disentangle the "Pagan reaction" from the "popular uprising" - it was more or less the same rebellion it's just that the people involved had multiple motives. My impression is that most sources put the "pagan reaction" part first and the discuss the social and economic aspects of it. I don't know, "Pagan reaction and people's uprising in Poland" is a bit clumsy. I guess the question is - if someone is thinking of the "popular uprising" part and is looking for information on that, how can we make it easy for them to find this article? Volunteer Marek 18:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've written a long argument on this issue, but my browser crashed and I was lazy to repeat, so I just answered on the direct question. Summary of my rant (which I guess was erased by the Hand of God :-) : "pagan reaction" is but a Catholic POV term. AFAIU, the reasons were economic hardships coming from politics and Church, and it is difficult to split hairs, since in some places both churches and manors were burnt at the same time. So I could have suggested the title Popular rebellions in Poland in 1030s/Popular uprisings in Poland in 1030s. However accroding to wikipedia rules we have to use the most common title, so I am in favor of the current one, albeit reluctantly. However one can create plinty or redirects, for searchability. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well I guess it's sort of "Catholic POV" especially if you think there are negative connotations associated with the word "pagan". Overall though I don't think you can really separate out the religious from the economic issues here, as the two were very closely correlated. NB, same thing was in true in the Holy Roman Empire at the time as well - see for example the article on Jaxa of Köpenick that I need to finish. There too you've got a dynastic struggle for control, which provokes a popular uprising which has a very strong religious element to it. In Jaxa's case, even though it also had a ethnic (Pagan Slavs vs. German Christians) aspect to it, many Christians, both Slavs and Germans joined the uprising (in fact Henry had to import Frisian and Flemish mercenaries/colonists to put it down because he couldn't trust the local Germans) for economic reasons (i.e. they had been oppressed). In absence of a compelling reason to change I would stick with "Pagan reaction in Poland", though it might be a good idea to add the date "1030s" there too.Volunteer Marek 19:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I do wonder to what extent the term "popular/people's uprising" is a POV of the communist era...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular, meaning of the people, or of the common people, is a generic concept. Widely used by the Marxists of course, in reference to all kinds of rebellions. Orczar (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Orczar above. Communist/Marxist historians tended to focus on the "popular" or "economic" (to them, more or less same thing) aspects of history and interpret everything in terms of class struggle. So I'm sure that during the communist era (particularly the early part) the economic aspect of this (and other) rebellions was emphasized relative to the religious aspect. But just because these guys always tried (try) to ram any kind of a peg into a class struggle hole, does not mean that "class struggle" or more broadly, economic issues, don't play a significant role in these kinds of phenomenon. In this specific case it really was both economics/class and religion. Volunteer Marek 02:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please allow me to disagree that "economic rebellions" is the same as "class struggle" : this is exactly Marxist POV. At the same time a common peasant does not give a shit who is the ruler and who is the god, as long as he "ma co do garnka wlozyc" and is not hit on his head with a cross too often. So I'd rather think that were the priest less aggressive, they'd be in peace. So I'd rather assume it was not religion per se, but religious establishment was to blame. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Reaction" is probably not the best word to use in this article's title, because "reaction" carries multiple meanings, including "an opposing action"; "a response, as to a stimulus"; "extreme conservatism"; etc. To a native Anglophone ear, this multiplicity of meanings lends a "fuzziness" to the current title, "Pagan reaction in Poland".

Perhaps a better word would be "resurgence" — "a rising again", a "resurging". With "resurgence", there is little chance of confusion.

Therefore I propose that the title be modified to "Pagan resurgence in Poland". Nihil novi (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That would make sense if it hadn't been short lived. "Pagan uprising in Poland (1030s)" or something like that captures it better.Volunteer Marek 05:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nihil novi (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

But it was I am pretty sure a series of uprisings, without any central, united authority. Maybe "Pagan uprisings in Poland (1030s)"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we're over thinking it at this point but making the uprisings plural here would imply that there were multiple pagan uprisings, rather than multiple uprisings, one of which was pagan related.Volunteer Marek 06:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought we already disussed this:

1. these was mix of both anti-Church and anti-landlord uprisings.
2. There is no commonly accepted term in literature to reflect this view on the events
3. Lacking better ideas, the most common term must be used.
4. Pagan reaction is a generic term, recognizable by scholars (and since yesterday, by wikipedia :-)

Staszek Lem (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pagan reaction in Poland" is part of a Wikipedia disambiguation page since yesterday only because you created that page yesterday. (The other 2 items that you placed there do not exist as Wikipedia article titles.) "Pagan reaction" is an ambiguous expression and inappropriate for the present article. Nihil novi (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, how else articles appear in wikipedia? Someone creates them. The fact I created it yesterday does not invalidate it. I created the article Magnates of Poland and Lithuania only last December. (A very nonnotable topic, I guess). "Pagan reaction" is a clearly defined and commonly used expression in numerous contexts for de-Christianization by pagans. <hint-hint>: "Google Books" is your best friend (after wikipedia :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether the term "pagan reaction" is primarily used in the Polish context may be better discussed at the talk page of that article. I thought I saw it in another context, but can't find it. Staszek, I'd suggest providing examples of other use on talk to avoid any deletion discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't look into the pages listed in this new disambig page I created. The other two cases are extensively called "pagan reaction" in literature (and in wikipedia). Therefore I listed them there. In other words, I did not invent it, and the page conforms the rules of disambig pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

<-- I don't really have strong preference on "reaction" vs "uprising" etc. I do think that the date (1030s) should be added to the title however.Volunteer Marek 17:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Reaction" is vague and ambiguous. "Uprising" is more concrete. "1030s" helps make the title still more concrete by locating the subject not only in space but also in time. Nihil novi (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pagan reaction" is an accepted term among historians in the subject. 'Vague and ambiguous' happens all the time. If you are not familiar with some area, some terms may look really weird (e.g. Nobles' Democracy - wtf?) "1030s" OK: correctly narrows down the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pagan reaction in Poland

In case anybody wants to review the hook, propose a better one, or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Feudalism

What is the meaning of the term "feudalism" in Poland in eleventh century A.D. beyond a marxist, ideological classification of the stages of socio-economic development?

The sentence I am questioning is the following one: "In addition to anti-Christian sentiments, the rebellion showed elements of a peasant uprising against landowners and feudalism.[4]"

Of course, there is a source for "feudalism," but if it is an article written from the perspective of ideological marxist take on history, shouldn't it be treated as POV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you calling the source Marxist?Nyx86 (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC) strike sock