User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Nederlandse Leeuw, and thank you for your contritbutions. You have removed several women from the category "Ancient women rulers". Some of these women were in fact rulers: not monarchs, but regents in place of for example an absent husband or a minor son. Regents are rulers just as monarchs are, just different types of rulers. You also removed Lady of the Lions: she was indeed a ruler, but she was a vassal to the Egyptian ruler and therefore used the customary diplomatic language as such, just as her male ruler-colleagues did: this did not mean she was not a ruler. Please read the articles more carefully before you remove the category from them. And please take care to remember that both monarchs and regents were rulers. Thank you again for your contributions, and have a nice day.--Aciram (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aciram Hello, thank you for your contributions as well. I think there may have been a misunderstanding. Category:Regents is not in the Category:Rulers tree, nor in its parent Category:Sovereignty. This is because, unlike "rulers", regents do not actually have sovereignty. Merriam-Webster states: regent: a person who governs a kingdom in the minority, absence, or disability of the sovereign. As I pointed out: They only govern the state on behalf of an underage monarch (or otherwise incapacitated monarch), who remains legally sovereign. A regent may be considered a "head of government" rather than head of state (which the child monarch is), although I haven't seen them commonly described or categorised as such. Several precedents at CfD have confirmed this in recent months. This is why in 22 April 2023 I removed Category:Women rulers as a parent of Category:Female regents, because the latter's parent Category:Regents is not in the Category:Rulers tree either. (Only now I see that you put it back the same day.) This seems to be the source of the misunderstanding. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am fully and completely aware of the difference between a regent and a monarch. A regent rules temporary on behalf of a monarch, that is not the issue. Please do not doubt I am aware of the difference. A "ruler" is simply a neutral expression for a person who rules, regardless for what reason, and regardless if they rule as regent, or rule as monarch. Both of them ruled. The regents should really by in the ruler-category. Both monarchs and regents ruled. This is a fact. That regents ruled on behalf of monarchs, and monarchs rules because they inherited the throne, does not change the fact that they both ruled, and the categories should reflect this fact, don't you think? It is also usefull to have a neutral mother-category to include both types of rulers.

Imagine this scenario: a reader wants to know: "Which women ruled during the 16th-century?" Well, women ruled both as regents and as monarchs in the 16th-century. The person will find all 16th-century women rulers in the "16th-century women rulers", regardless if they ruled as regents or if they ruled as monarchs. They both ruled. Of course, the "16th-century women rulers" could eventually have been divided in to "16th-century women monarchs" and "16th-century women regents", both included in to the "16th-century women rulers", but that had not been done yet. However, you appear to say, that Wikipedia has now decided, that we should pretend that regents did not rule. A regent governs and rules, otherwise he/she would not be a regent. The fact that a regent does not rule as monarchs, does not mean they do not rule.

This is not only obviously incorrect, but it also makes me deeply sad, as a contributor to Wikipedia since 15 years, and I might decide do leave Wikipedia. I have devoted my years here to women's history. It is very usefull to be able to find women rulers (regardless if they ruled as regents or as monarchs) sorted by century. If wikipedia now wishes to pretend that regents did not rule, then we will no longer have female rulers gathered by century any more. They female rulers will be split in monarchs and regents, of which regents are not sorted by century. Thus, the information will be harder to find for anyone interested in the subject, and the century category, emptied of all female rulers who ruled as regents instead of monarchs, will give an incorrect impression of how many women ruled under certain periods of time. A deeply destructive move of Wikipedia, to decided that regents did not rule. I can imagine it was perhaps influenced by the fact that England had few regents, which does not give a global view of the subject.

I consider this so destructive for the study and availability of women in history that I may decide to leave Wikipedia. It may no longer be a project I wish to participate in. If you wish, continue to remove all women rulers who ruled as regents from the century categories, so we can no longer find them, and no longer see how many women ruled during different centuries. I am sadder than I can express, after having worked with women's history for Wikipedia for so many years. To see this hapen is more destructive than I can put in words. --Aciram (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Aciram, thanks for your elaborate response. I am sorry to hear that you are saddened by my understanding that regents are not "rulers", which you appear to interpret as somehow undermining women's history. That is very much not what I am trying to accomplish (rather the opposite). I myself have also been contributing to Wikipedia for over 15 years, and although not from the start, have been actively writing about women's history for the past 5 years. In that regard, you and I actually have the same goal, I very much appreciate all the work you have been doing in these more than 15 years, and I appreciate it that you are warning me about possibly doing it wrong. I can make mistakes, of course, and I will gladly be corrected, especially about a topic which I consider to be important.

I do not in any way seek to erase "women rulers" from history by recategorising or renaming these biographies about female regents; it is just part of a wider process to better define what "rulers" even are, because it's a very ambiguous term that means lots of different things to lots of different people. At

WP:OVERCATegorised because they were already in subcategories such as Category:Ancient queens regnant or Category:Female pharaohs

, both of which are "Ancient women rulers" by definition.

Although I don't think regents should be categorised as "rulers", I do agree that we need something like a neutral mother-category to include both types of rulers. I have already created that category, namely Category:Female political office-holders. This is the parent of Category:Female regents and grandparent of Category:Ancient women regents, and also the parent of Category:Female heads of state and grandparent of Category:Women monarchs (of which Category:Queens regnant is a child) and Category:Women presidents etc., and also the parent of Category:Female heads of government (of which Category:Women prime ministers is a child). To visualise:

• Category:Female political office-holders
  • Category:Female regents
  • Category:Female heads of state
    • Category:Women presidents
    • Category:Women monarchs
      • Category:Queens regnant
  • Category:Female heads of government
    • Category:Women prime ministers

This is the exact same model that I am proposing (and together with other Wikipedians and working towards) for "rulers" in general. (My core proposal is to Merge Category:Rulers into Category:Political office-holders by role). Eventually, if the process does proceed as intended and expected, men will no longer be categorised as "rulers" either. I don't have anything specific or particular against "women rulers", I have something against the ambiguity of the word "rulers" in general. I'm really sorry that you perceive this as a "destruction" of "women's history", because in the bigger picture, it's not about, let alone against, women. I didn't mean to make you feel that way at all, and I'm sorry that I have upset you, but I'm glad you have reached out to me with your concerns.

I do think I may have made a few mistakes yesterday in regard to the edits of mine which you have (perhaps correctly) reverted. We can talk about the specifics of those cases (Karimala, Shibtu, Lady of the Lions, Tawananna, and Pheretima (Cyrenaean queen)) if you're willing. Again, sorry that I have upset you, that certainly wasn't my intention, as I think we generally share the same goals when it comes to documenting women's history here on Wikipedia. My apologies. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: If you'd like to continue writing inside biographies that this or that woman "ruled as a regent for [child monarch] in [place] in [time]", that is completely fine with me. I'm not some language police trying to ban the noun "ruler" or the verb "to rule" from the main body of articles. My goal is simply clear and unambiguous categorisation for the benefit of editors and readers alike. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aciram Hi, I would appreciate a response to what I've written to you above. I've done my best to apologise and explain several things that you were probably rightly concerned about. I really hope we could solve these issues together, because I think we largely agree. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Your statement that the Tradom of Russia does not equal the Russian Federation is a very good point. I have reviewd a few of the people who were in the 17th-century Russians categories and found some of them were in Russian Empire categories even though they died before the founding of the Russian Empire in 1723. I have to admit that I am also beginning to wonder since the Tsardom of Russia existed from 1549-1723 and the Russian Empire from 1723-1917 if it really makes sense to have by century categories at all, and if we should not end all the Russians by century categories, and just sort people based on the polity they were subjects of, since none of these polities have really been around long enough to justify splitting by century. It would have the added advantage of using category breaks that reflect something than the arbitrary end of a century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:SMALLCAT test, such as Category:1795 disestablishments in the Batavian Republic‎ > Category:1795 disestablishments in the Dutch Empire > Category:1795 disestablishments in Dutch India

, which contains only 1 item. Three completely useless cats that I'm ready to throw out like yesterday's newspaper, even though the Batavian Republic was founded and abolished in really categorisation-inconvenient times. The result was that these categories were upmerged/deleted, as you can see.

Incidentally, I noticed that someone arbitrarily changed some dates in the infobox, I've reverted that. Tsardom of Russia is commonly dated to 1547–1721, Russian Empire is commonly dated to 1721–1917. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• I fixed the Tsardom of Russia category heading. The people I found who were in Category:18th-century people from the Russian Empire who I removed I bleieve all died by 1717.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nederlandse Leeuw. I thought I'd reply here rather than than at template discussion. I hope you weren't upset by our first encounter, it certainly wasn't my intention. I thought of contact you afterwards, but didn't follow it up. I did mean what I said at RSN at the time, you comments on my talk page did give me pause (which is why I took it to RSN). I hope you understand it was never personal. My talk page is always open if you need anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for leaving this message here, I appreciate it. I know you were genuinely open to it, that is why I tried to make my case. It just unexpectedly backfired. As I said, I was forced (rightly! because I was the one invoking them as RS) to critically examine a documentary series / production team which I had appreciated for years, but overestimated as a reliable source. I just shouldn't have mixed that source with Wikipedia before checking it more properly. There is no need to apologise, you and User:Horse Eye's Back said what you had to. I mostly blame myself for not having checked the reliability and credentials earlier. It's a pleasure working with you two now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finless Foods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finless Foods until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Edit.pdf (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@

@

Talk:List of national leaders of Belarus#Before 1918. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk

) 19:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

fyi, after the template is deleted, you may want to check these pages with fmg.ac urls. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Frietjes Thanks! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Frietjes Okay this is gonna take me way too long to do manually. Is there a way to let a bot remove all references to http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands in every mainspace page? So all 1,326 links minus all the Talk:, Wikipedia:, User: etc. spaces? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Just saw your April delete nomination where you made multiple references to myself. I would've appreciated a ping to chime in on the discussion, considering that I, as you are fully aware of, spent years creating and editing articles in question. From the looks of it, you're passionate about european history and are trying to shoe-horn every other history (medieval islamic history in this case) to fit-in with the european notions on religion and culture you're acquainted with. I suggest you start by doing a search count on google scholar and other academic databases for "medieval islamic world", "medieval islamic civilization", and just "medieval islam" to realize that it's not just a made up word that a single editor came up with. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi Hi, thanks for your message. I suppose I should explain, because some of your criticism is warranted. The first is that I've only recently begun using Twinkle, which automatically notifies the creator of a category, article, template etc. that it has been nominated for discussion. Before that I rarely notified anyone because it was a hassle finding out the original creators who may have left Wikipedia 15 years ago already, and then manually posting a message on their talk pages. But for more recent creators it is useful. You should have been given a notification when I nominated those cats, so I hereby apologise. I'm glad I discovered Twinkle to make this whole process so much easier.

Secondly, I am passionate and critical of all history everywhere around the world. If I see something wrong, I will try to correct it, regardless of geography. A lot of "European" categorisations don't make sense either, so I will nominate them for deletion, merging, renaming or splitting as well (see the Category:European chronicles CfD as a recent example, where I fiercely criticise the label "European" as irrelevant or arbitrary). More broadly speaking, I've been arguing (often successfully) to rename categories from European/Asian/African/etc. foos to Foos in Europe/Asia/Africa/etc. if "Europe" is just a location and nothing more. A lot of people seem to want to make more out of it than it is in inappropriate ways. I think you and I agree on that more than you might think.

Thirdly, I know "medieval Islamic world" is not a made-up word, but it should not be over-used for categorisation purposes in cases where it doesn't apply (just like "European", "Europe", "Asian", "Asia" etc.). As a matter of fact, I've studied history in college, and one of the courses I took was actually "Christianity, Judaism and Islam in the Middle Ages", amongst many other relevant course, so I'm actually quite familiar with the the topic. I don't have anything in particular against any religion or culture other than those I am acquainted with, as you suggest; just like with history, I am interested in but critical of all information about all topics, regardless of how familiar I am with them. Usually I am more critical of topics I know more about, actually, because I can see which errors or misleading statements are made about it. And the basic issue of categorisating "medieval Islamic world" as if it were a country is, well, because it wasn't a "country". It may have plenty of other valid applications, but not as a "country". (Obviously "Europe" is not a "country" either). I hope this clarifies things, and you'll understand where I'm coming from. Constructive criticism is always appreciated, because like everyone else I can make mistakes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. All good. I'm curious to know how you arrived at the understanding that a category with "medieval Islamic world" implies that it is a country? That was never the intention obviously and I don't think it suggests anywhere that this "world" be treated as a singular entity. Perhaps, the misunderstanding is coming from you? Because we have Category:Military history of the ancient Near East and no one says that this suggests the "ancient Near East" was a country. Think of medieval Islamic world as a medieval equivalent of the ancient Near East (very roughly). It's true that medieval Islamic world is not really a country AND was extremely diverse...but it also makes a lot of sense to group the entities, cultures, peoples for that time + geography under one umbrella. I chose "medieval Islam" in the beginning, for us to be in line with the academic literature. However, statements like "Jews of medieval Islam" (which is standard usage in the academic literature) sounded confusing to some of the editors, and eventually it was renamed to "medieval Islamic world". Happy to consider renaming the categories. But the idea that we remove it altogether so everything medieval and Islamic is diffused under a generic "medieval" category is a step backwards. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Al-Andalusi, thanks for your response. Well, not all categories with "medieval Islamic world" in the name imply that it was a country. Only some do, such as Category:Treaties of the medieval Islamic world (that's why I CfM'd it).

Think of medieval Islamic world as a medieval equivalent of the ancient Near East (very roughly). Well, I don't think they are treated as equivalents, by you or anyone else. There is no Category:Treaties of the Ancient Near East, Category:Foreign relations of the Ancient Near East, Category:Ambassadors to the Ancient Near East, Category:Diplomats from the Ancient Near East, Category:Subdivisions of the Ancient Near East etc. I don't think they should be created, and I don't think that if they were created, they would be kept for long.

...but it also makes a lot of sense to group the entities, cultures, peoples for that time + geography under one umbrella. I disagree. Nobody even agrees what the geography of it is.

However, statements like "Jews of medieval Islam" (which is standard usage in the academic literature) sounded confusing to some of the editors, and eventually it was renamed to "medieval Islamic world". In this specific case I agree that it is better to say "medieval Islamic world" than "medieval Islam". As a matter of fact, I've got a book called The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom (from that history course I took). "Christendom" differs from "Christianity" (religion); I can't quite simply explain what "Christendom" (German: Christenheit) means, but it may be the Christian equivalent of "Ummah", or "Islamic world", or "Muslim world". (The term "Islamdom" has sometimes been used as an equivalent of "Christendom", but it appears not to have gained much traction).

"Christendom" is used in multiple senses, such as (A) "the sum of all Christians in the world combined", but also (B) "all states where a Christian denomination is the state church/religion", or (C) "all countries where Christians have a demographic majority". These, obviously, are three very different things. The United States has a majority-Christian population (about 65%), but it is a secular state. Does it belong to "Christendom" or not? A: Only those 65%. B: No. C: Yes. D: All of the above, depending on your definition of "Christendom". Answer "D" is correct.

I'm not sure if you would agree that the word "Ummah" is the rough equivalent of "Islamic world", or the Islamic equivalent of "Christendom", but I think the same issues apply here. When we are talking about "Jews of the medieval Islamic world" or "Jews of medieval (Western) Christendom" ("Western" means

Catholic here, as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy), we can imagine we are talking about Jews in the Middle Ages living in an area/society/state/country where Muslims / Christians are the majority, or the monarch/state is Islamic / Christian, respectively. But it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about geography. Jews in early medieval Toledo, Spain would be in the "medieval Islamic world", but Jews in late medieval Toledo would be in "medieval Christendom". The "borders" of what "Christendom" and "Islamic world" means/meant shifted, unlike Ancient Near East or Iron Age Europe. Therefore, I would be very hesitant to use it outside of an explicitly religious context, e.g. vis-à-vis Jewish communities within medieval "Christendom" and the "medieval Islamic world". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk

) 15:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because Christendom is tricky and there is no clear concensus on its meaning and use, does not mean we should likewise avoid medieval islamic world altogether. It should warrant a separate discussion. We follow the academic literature, and the usage of "medieval Islam" and "medieval Islamic world" is ubiquitous in the literature. If it is as problematic as you make it to be, then there would've seen a discussion about it in the sources.

As for the claim that its geography is not well defined. It would help if you could mention some examples to support the claim. Out of the dozen or so countries currently listed under the "medieval islamic world" container categories, which ones are disputed to be part of the medieval Islamic world?

The fact that borders changed at some point changes nothing IMO. Most modern countries have border disputes, that doesn't mean they couldn't have their own categories. I mean, wiki even has a category for an expanding setter-colonial state.

So far you brought up the question of whether the US is part of Christendom, which I agree is hotly debated, but it's not relevant to our discussion. For example, regions like the Levant and Al-Andalus remained majority Christian for centuries during early Muslim rule. Nevertheless, they are undoubtedly treated by historians as being part of the medieval Islamic domain.

Unfotunately Ummah won't work as it is exclusive to Muslims only by definition, and that's not what we're after. There are more than enough categories for Muslims, Christians and Jews separately (as well Arabs/Persians/Kurds/Jews...etc). What is missing, are categories that group the different people who were living together under the same rule. That's what the new categories serve. Container categories across all kinds of ethnicities, religions, cultures, languages,..etc in the society, and not just Muslim.

I don't see what the issue is with the medieval Jews of Spain. Those who lived under Islam are tagged with Category:Jews from al-Andalus, and those who lived under Christian rule are tagged with Medieval Aragonese / Castilian / Catalan / Majorcan Jews. Does this resolve the issue? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Just because Christendom is tricky .... and the usage of "medieval Islam" and "medieval Islamic world" is ubiquitous in the literature. I agree, but then we also need to take into account how and when 'the medieval Islamic world' (I'll just use 'tmIw' as shorthand from now on) is used in literature. I wouldn't be surprised if tmIw had no clear geographical application at all (let alone a static, unchanging one which neatly coincides with modern borders), but mostly a religious one in the context of non-Muslim minorities within Islamic-dominated states, just like 'Jews of medieval Western Christendom'. I should try to delve into the literature because this is an important point.

Out of the dozen or so countries currently listed under the "medieval islamic world" container categories, which ones are disputed to be part of the medieval Islamic world? I'm not sure if that's the right question, or at least one for which I can give a straight answer. I mentioned the Toledo example above, I'll use a similar example here for Category:Subdivisions of al-Andalus. Was the Upper March part of tmIw? Arguably yes, for as long as this area existed as the "Upper March" as part of the Caliphate of Córdoba. But both of them ceased to exist in the 11th century, while the "medieval" period is conventionally dated to end in 1500. One could argue there was still a mIw by 1500, but these areas were no longer part of it. The answer to the question whether they were part of the medieval Islamic world or not cannot be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", it depends on when we are talking about.

So I need to reject your assertion that The fact that borders changed at some point changes nothing IMO. Especially if you also assert that demographics are irrelevant (with the statement regions like the Levant and Al-Andalus remained majority Christian for centuries during early Muslim rule. Nevertheless, they [sic] are undoubtedly treated by historians as being part of the medieval Islamic domain., which I actually agree with). After all, once there is no Islamic state anymore controlling a certain non-Muslim-majority territory, in what sense can it still be said to be part of the medieval Islamic world? I don't think it can.

Something similar can be said about the Ghurid dynasty. Was it part of tmIw? The ruling house converted from paganism to Sunni Islam in 1011, but as a monarchy, it had already existed as earlier as 786 (225 years earlier), and would fall in 1215 (204 years later). If we want to be mathematical about it, it had been pagan for the majority of its existence, so maybe it shouldn't be categorised as Category:Sunni dynasties and Category:Islamic rule in the Indian subcontinent? Or should it? Given that the parent category Category:Ghurid dynasty has also been put in categories such as Category:Medieval India, one could - mistakenly - draw the conclusion that the part of 'Medieval India' ruled by the Ghurid dynasty (a 'Sunni dynasty') was part of tmIw, regardless of whether we are talking about before or after 1011. Or to take an easier example: the Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526) was an Islamic state from beginning to end, but that doesn't mean the territory it controlled in India or adjoining areas could automatically be assumed to have been part of the medieval Islamic world from 500 to 1500. This is stretching the 'Islamic domain' back into a time when it did not yet exist in certain areas.

So this isn't a simple yes/no question/answer, and in some cases it leads to obvious geographical/chronological contradictions. In many cases, religion is just

WP:NONDEFINING for a time or place. There is no Category:Pagan dynasties for the Ghurid dynasty

before 1101, for example, and I'm not even sure if it would make sense to create such a category. (Do you think it would?).

Unfotunately Ummah won't work as it is exclusive to Muslims only by definition, and that's not what we're after. Okay.

What is missing, are categories that group the different people who were living together under the same rule. I'm not sure we should have such categories at all, actually, so I'm not sure if we're 'missing' something in the first place. The only close equivalent to that might again be 'Christendom' in the form of Category:Christendom, and I'm not convinced that is a particularly helpful category either. (I might nominate it for deletion as well, come to think of it, but that will need more examination of that category tree as well).

Container categories across all kinds of ethnicities, religions, cultures, languages,..etc in the society, and not just Muslim. That's exactly the kind of

WP:ARBITRARYCAT

, or other core categorisation policies.

I don't see what the issue is with the medieval Jews of Spain. (...) Does this resolve the issue? Honestly, I can't say that yet. It depends on a couple of things, including whether we are to regard al-Andalus as a former 'country' or not (I don't think it was a 'country', but it is currently in lots of categories suggesting it was). This will depend on the Category:Treaties of al-Andalus CfM, and perhaps subsequent noms.

Whichever way the conversations and category discussions go, I do appreciate that we're having it in this manner. I think there are a lot of things that we can learn from each other going forward. Have a nice day! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Although I agree with this, it's a little harsh. Although I'm hardly one to be giving this advise, as it's something I fail at all to often, it's important to have a little kindness in comments. Especially when your in disagreement with someone. Although maybe misguided I don't believe they not here to try and improve the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Fair enough. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a little note: If a caption is not a full sentence, then no period should be put at the end. Please keep this in mind when captioning images on English Wikipedia. Nicholas0 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nicholas0 Dude, this is my user page, and it is a full sentence. I have no need of your corrections, thank you very much. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to be helpful and inform you about how things are done on the English-language Wikipedia since it's not your native language. This is actually a rule on English-language Wikipedia (stated here at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Formatting_and_punctuation): "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period or full stop. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period or full stop."

From your response I have now learned that you do not understand what a "full sentence" is. Let me explain in detail:

• "Het Denkgelag, a Belgian skeptical conference" is not a full sentence because there is no verb in it. There should not be any period here.
• "Ryan J. Bell" is not a full sentence because there is no verb in it. There should not be any period here.
• "Franca Treur" is not a full sentence because there is no verb in it. There should not be any period here.
• "Dutch Health Care Inspectorate" is not a full sentence because there is no verb in it. There should not be any period here.
• "Constitutional Reform of 1848" is not a full sentence because there is no verb in it. There should not be any period here, and indeed there is no period in the caption for the same image in its article Constitutional Reform of 1848.
• "EU Battlegroup sniper on exercise" is not a full sentence because there is no verb in it. There should not be any period here, and indeed there is no period in the caption for the same image in the article EU_Battlegroup#Further_details_on_specific_contributions.
• There is no period in the stitched artwork that you have translated as "Unhindered by any form of sourcing, you can claim anything", so there is no reason to add a period in the translation. If you want to, you could make the caption be "This Dutch phrase can be translated as 'Unhindered by any form of sourcing, you can claim anything'." Then it would be a full sentence requiring a period.

The point is not about it being your user page. The point is that if you are making these simple mistakes on your user page then you are probably making the same mistakes elsewhere in other captions on Wikipedia. That's why I wrote, "Please keep this in mind when captioning images on English Wikipedia." I was not simply talking about your user page. I don't want to have to go back and check every one of your edits to find all of the mistakes, so I was hoping that by informing you of this rule and demonstrating on your user page how to correctly format captions, you would be able to correct your own past mistakes and avoid repeating this mistake in the future.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to be helpful because I know how difficult foreign languages are and how confusing it can be that different rules apply on Wikipedias in other languages. Before you assume that I don't know anything about the situation, please know that I also speak Dutch (as well as several other languages). I would appreciate it if you would follow the Wikipedia formatting rules for the English-language Wikipedia from here on out and correct any mistakes you have made in the past. Mistakes are a natural course of learning and I'm not trying to attack you, but rather merely inform you of a rule here that you may not have known. Hopefully you can view this as a helpful tip and an opportunity to improve your editing capabilities on Wikipedia. --Nicholas0 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:UOWN: Bots and other users may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags. (...) Purely content policies such as original research and neutral point of view generally do not apply unless the material is moved into mainspace.. You could have just sent me a message on my talk page, and I would have agreed with you and acknowledged that you were right. I hope that you will not use this approach with other users, who may be similarly annoyed about their userpages being edited for this trivial reason. Anyway, have a nice day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk

) 11:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your massive contributions to "Finless Foods"! You've really helped bring the article into shape. Thank you again! Mvg, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 12:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm not sure I deserve this, it's only the beginning, but I appreciate the compliment nonetheless. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	The Barnstar of Diligence recognition is awarded to you in recognition of your deep-dive into articles on Turkic people and states. gidonb (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! It's only part of a larger process of related topics, and I'm not doing this all alone, but I do appreciate it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just for your own work on this topic, you already DESERVE this barnstar! Still, you got me curious. Is there one central place that briefly discusses this greater group and effort you now describe? Unfortuntely, I would not have the bandwith to join at this time. I do try to learn a bit about groups with shared interests! Or is it just a feeling that you are part of a greater community, in which you work alongside likeminded people? gidonb (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, it means a lot. For the language family/country crosscats there is not really a central place which describes the effort; the current AfD is the first time anyone has probably attempted to make a comprehensive overview on the "Turkic" issue in particular. I only joined Wikipedia in 2008, and only really got involved with categorisation a few months ago, so more credit is due to users such as Marcocapelle, William Allen Simpson, Laurel Lodged and many others I could name, who have been at it for far longer.

The way I got into this language family/country issue was due to the related greater effort that we have been making. This is described in a central place, although there is nothing "brief" about it: the "Rulers" CfM (still ongoing). This was my first major move into categorisation, and although I made a mistake of choosing a top-down rather than a bottom-up approach, which upset a lot of people initially, most of them eventually agreed with me (including the three mentioned above). And we started renaming, merging, splitting and deleting all sorts of "Rulers" categories everywhere. This eventually led to my 4/7 March 2023 "Turkic/Germanic/Celtic" etc. CfDs, which were just follow-ups to the January 2020 "Countries and territories by language family" CfR/Ds by Marcocapelle, and my Feb 2023 "Rulers" CfM.

Although we sometimes make mistakes as well, and not always succeed, our effort has so far been a great success (although a small minority might beg to differ, in a few cases for good reasons which I understand). Just like the others, I try to be fair and balanced, open to learning new things, improve our strategy and tactics all the time and take any criticism and feedback seriously. I hope to eventually complete the "Rulers" process, I think we are long past the middle, but some of the toughest challenges may still be ahead. If you find this interesting and important, you are welcome to contribute. Once again, thank you for this recognition, but really, I didn't do it alone, it's a team effort, even though we are all editing as individuals. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nederlandse Leeuw, thank you for explaining in detail! I will look out for these initiatives. In the past, I engaged more in categorization than these days. Now, when I CfD a category or get tagged to comment on a category I created ages ago, I try to !vote in every debate for that day. It sort of keeps my knowledge current. I still overhaul templates, for example this is my latest intervention. Take care and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Best, gidonb (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gidonb Thanks for the compliment. Incidentally, you might want to look at another AfD I did yesterday, which is somewhat related to what we've been talking about. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

My memory did not fail me this time: it was an editor from Turkey who, under a variety of IP addresses, inserted many of those comparisons. I can't remember if there were accounts also. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies Thanks! I see you already did a lot of the work I am preparing to help finish. The country comparison articles I have nominated for deletion (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of the Baltic states) appear to be only the tip of the iceberg, although they were created by different people than those who created most of the country comparison sections in existing international relations articles. I'm close to getting the whole picture. Once the Baltic states AfD gets closed as Delete, I will try and set up a new AfD addressing the remaining country comparison articles/sections. If you've got any suggestions to add to those I have found, I would appreciate it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm looking at the list you drew up. I'm not going to go through all those articles to remove those sections--that's a bit much. So don't worry about the sections; they'll be handled in the normal editing process. And I remember there were conversations about it: there was consensus to remove them in one or two places, but I'd have to go back to the 2020 edits to find them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about some sort of automated process, like a

WP:BOTREQ. But listing all those sections already makes it easier to remove them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk

) 22:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Although the language may seem strange to modern ears (and I do notice that English is not your mother tongue), the first and largest part of the Textus is in Early English. This is the most important part of the book, the cartulary is of lesser importance. You might like to have a view of this Video on

@Martin of Sheffield Interesting, thank you! I really intended to put this article in the newly created Category:Latin manuscripts about England, as well as keeping it in Category:English manuscripts, which I have proposed to rename to Category:English-language manuscripts. As I read in the informative "Language" column at the end of the table in Textus Roffensis#Contents, most items are indeed written in English, but some in Latin, so it should be in both categories. Thanks for correcting me! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Rfc_on_Country_Comparison_charts/tables. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This is another issue with small expatriate and emigration categories. This is that in not all cases is it clear what to call someone as an X emigrant to Y. For example if someone was born in the Russian Empire in 1905, moved to the United Kingdom in 1910, so at age 5, then in 1920, age 15, moved to the US. What are they? Russian Empire emigrants to the United Kingdom, maybe, or were they just an expat, and coming to the US there is no more Russian Empire, but are they British yet? I would say it is much more straight forward to categorize them as an emigrant from the Russian Empire, an immigrant to the United Kingdom and an Immigrant to the United States, and have those 3 categories and not pair them with the other side of migration. In the expatriate category, I have found people who were born in one country, and clearly not a national of that country, but they had 2 expat parents, and later move to one of those countries their parents were from, but there is no reason to presume which country was primary. Also, on expats, I think we need to look at what is defining. I have seen people put in a half dozen or more expats categories from a careerin sports where they move around a lot. In some cases this is teams that often play outside their home country, and at least in the late-20th and 21st century some people play in a team one place, but maintain a different residence off season. I think in a case like that the various counties the person played in would normally not be defining, just that they were an expatriate of a specific home country. We have Andorran Emigrants which currently has 1 sub-cat with 3 articles, Assyrian Emigrants, which is referring to people by ethnicity and not nationality, also only 1 sub-cat, Bahraini emigrants with 5 articles in 4 sub-cats, Beninese emigrants with 6 sub-cats, Bhutanese emigrants with 5 articles, 4 in a sub-cat of 4 articles and 1 direct article, Botswana emigrants has 10 articles, 1 direct and 9 in 6 sub-cats, including a sub-cat under a sub-cat; Bruneian emigrants has only 2 articles each in the same sub-cat, it has another sub-cat that is empty; the list goes on and on and on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert Good points. You might want to mention those at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Expatriates A-G instead of my talk page. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would, but for now I think I am only allowed to make general comments on categories in other places, and not directly contribute to CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have however on some of the articles in the 320 or so categories posted notices explaining why they do not fit in the category they are in. For example British emigrants to Colombia has one article. Except she moved from Britain to what is now Venezuela when it was still at least de jure part of the Spanish Empire. She later lived in what is called by historians Gran Colombia, and may have died in modern Colombia's boundaries. I rethink putting her in British emigrants and Immigrants to the Spanish Empire and a People from Gran Colombia makes sense. I am not sure that cat exists, or what it is named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_13#Category:European_civilizations has been closed but only now I notice that there are Category:Asian civilizations, Category:African civilizations and Category:American civilizations sibling categories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle Thanks for the notice! Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:Asian civilizations. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at

Category:Viceregal consorts has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

Thanks, RevelationDirect (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Nederlandse Leeuw!

• The
  New Pages Patrol
  is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read
  project talk page
  with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider
  applying here
  .

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Nederlandse Leeuw, I didn't spend a lot of time preparing my evidence, I just reported the main thing I had seen. Do you think I was fair to the parties involved (especially BHG) and that the input was useful? I fear people will dogpile on her, possibly exacerbating her feelings of being under attack, and also making it look like people do gang up on her in general... I'm really not familiar with any of the people involved in this, other than having seen the admins around. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor Hi, thanks for asking me that question here. To be frank with you, this is the first time in my 15 years on Wikipedia that I have been a party in an ARC (which I hope won't be a recurring experience), and I'm not sure how to go about all this either. I've not previously interacted with the vast majority of users (including you, where I found your input quite helpful) who participated in the ANI, nor with any members of the Arbcom. These are almost all new names for me. The other involved parties are people I have only known from CfD since February this year, so that's not very long either.

I waited for other people to submit their evidence first, to get an idea of what it should look like. I initially prepared a tabulated overview like DanCherek did, but that didn't quite work out for the content and style of evidence I wanted to present. (I also rewrote it entirely after concluding I should focus on the

WP:CIVIL

issue instead of everything else). You and QEDK gave examples of a prose and bulletlist format, so thank you for that!

Regarding the contents, I think you have been very fair and balanced towards BHG. A case can be made for some misconduct on the part of RD and LL, but both of them have retracted/apologised for pretty much all such instances already (LL did so at my request), so I do not think these need to be highlighted. I expect BHG and perhaps some of her supporters to be highlighting these if they find them important, and I might concur with some of their findings.

Meanwhile, I've been examining some history of CFD theory and practice on English Wikipedia, particularly emptying categories out of process. I've written down my anonymised findings at

WP:CIVIL

issue we need to focus on, I would need to request a word limit extension, and LL and I are generally on the same side of that issue. So I'm reserving my words, evidence, and commentary on the categorisation issue for when that might become relevant.

For now, I'd like to thank you for your contributions, and asking me what I think about them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Just as a heads up in case you care and don't notice it, I've added some brief evidence about your interactions with BHG in my evidence section. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor Thanks for mentioning it. It's okay to include it in your evidence, I think, although I think you're making it larger than it is. Nevertheless, people are able to draw their own conclusions now, and that is what is most important to me.

I would also like to think you personally as one of the people who did indeed point

WP:BADGER

out to me. I was unaware of that rule, but you were correct that I was doing it. I disengaged as soon as I read your and MJL's recommendation to disengage / not bludgeon on 09:22, 9 July 2023.

I do not see the relevance of mentioning Bastun. Bastun only told me not to bludgeon on 19:37, 12 July 2023 (his first contribution to the ANI; he was rather "late to the party"); more than 3 days after I had already disengaged. (The only exception was 06:17/06:36, 12 July 2023, because I was tagged in a new section by Robert McClenon who sought to impose an IBAN on me (which was soundly rejected by the community), to which I felt I had a right to defend myself; after that, I immediately disengaged again, and did not respond or reply to anyone.) Bastun telling me over 3 days later after I had already disengaged that I should disengage in a thread I hadn't been active in since 23:49, 8 July 2023 seems to me a

WP:DROPTHESTICK

case. I do not think that I needed Bastun to tell me to disengage before finally walking away.

I did exactly as you told me as soon as I read it on 09:22, 9 July 2023. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to include all that because it certainly doesn't look like anything you could or should be sanctioned over. I dialed back how I phrased it a bit. It may provide insight into how BHG deals with situations where she feels insulted. I also wanted to reduce the number of things BHG may feel the need to document, because she has a lot of accusations against her, and seems to me to have a little trouble focusing on the important stuff. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor Thanks for dialing it back a bit. I would suggest mentioning MJL instead of Bastun would be an even better idea, don't you think? It was MJL and you combined who actually convinced me to disengage . I didn't read Bastun's comment until several days later because, well... I had disengaged already...

Yes, I agree that BHG may have a little trouble focusing on the important stuff. In fact, I have this, too. My apology probably didn't need to be this long. But I always feel it is important to provide "context"/"background". Many people find that helpful, but other people prefer I had been more concise, so.... yeah. I understand BHG's trouble.

On the other hand, I'm also actually somewhat glad that we've got word limits, because that forces me to focus on what is important, and not digress. I decided to focus on BHG not recognising the importance of being CIVIL in theory, relying on others for providing evidence of instances where she wasn't in practice. That way we're sharing the burden of proof amongst ourselves, with everyone focusing on the aspects they are good at. I was struck by how specific and accurate Oculi's evidence was, for example; I wouldn't have come up with that, but I'm very glad they did! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I've relisted Category:2nd-century women rulers ; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 29. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You'll receive a ping from me from the SMALLCAT case's evidence talk page, but I've withdrawn the question after reading some material on that page which I hadn't been aware of. I apologize for the (now) unnecessary ping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken No worries, I understood it. I appreciate how considerate you are in explaining this to me. Good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

While this was closed as no consensus, I think that's not exactly correct. I don't think anybody opposed the creation of new categories you proposed, there's just no consensus to delete the old tree. I hope you'll go ahead and create the categories you suggested. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus Thank you very much for this friendly note. I have been meaning to return to this question for some time. I think it is important, and I recognise the passion with which you and other editors have been opposed to the renaming of Category:Polish political prisoners which I suggested. Here's what I have found today.

When examining Category:Polish political prisoners, I asked the question what made each person "Polish"?

• the fact that they "had Polish nationality"? Compare Category:Polish prisoners of war and other categories in Category:Prisoners of war by nationality.
• the fact that they were "held by Poland", i.e. Polish governmental authorities? Compare Category:Prisoners of war held by Poland and other categories in Category:Prisoners of war by detaining country.

It turns out that

Partitioned Poland when, legally speaking, there was no "Polish state" and thus, legally speaking, no "Polish nationality". Nationality: Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law, establishing the person as a subject, a national, of a sovereign state. It affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state against other states. The great misfortune of the people living in "Partitioned Poland" (1795–1918) is that their state, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

, was destroyed and ceased to exist in 1772–1795; therefore, this state could no longer afford protection to its nationals against other states (in particular Russia, Prussia, and Austria).

The Category:Polish people imprisoned abroad (defined as People of Polish nationality imprisoned outside of Poland by an authority other than that of Poland.) and its Category:Poles - political prisoners in the Prussian partition and Category:Poles - political prisoners in the Russian partition are related examples of the same problem. It ascribes people a "Polish nationality" in a time when there was no Polish(-Lithuanian) nationality anymore. As Timothy Snyder has pointed out quite well, this is exactly what makes people more vulnerable to being harmed by other states who are under no obligation to protect them, and can arrest, harm and even execute them at will. This leaves us with a problem as Wikipedians, because although we technically can't categorise these people by "Polish(-Lithuanian) nationality" anymore, I think we cannot allow these people to be erased from history either. That would be tantamount of acquiescing to the destroying state's destruction of another state and the crimes then committed against the people who formerly had Polish(-Lithuanian) nationality, but now without a state to protect them against the destroying state. (The history of Poland is quite unique and tragic in that regard, for having its state destroyed twice in modern history, 1795–1918 and 1939–1944). As a historian, I think we should very much ensure that we document that these political prisoners in Partioned Poland existed and what happened to them.

Perhaps a case could be made for political prisoners of Polish ethnicity specifically for the History of Poland (1795–1918) (the Partitioned Poland era)? Ethnicity does not require a state. But that is an entirely different tree altogether. And there is currently no Category:Prisoners and detainees by ethnicity. Nevertheless, there is probably no other way in which we can objectively and correctly categorise these political prisoners as "Polish" in a situation where there was no Polish state and no Polish nationality. What do you think? Good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a complex issue, indeed. Consider Category:Egyptian prisoners of war which currently contains just an Ancient Egyptian-era person - did international law even exist back then - ditto for the concept of nationality? Granted, that might just a bad example (SMALLCAT to delete, etc.).

In general, in literature I am familiar with (as well as Wikipedia practice), Polish people of the partition period are called, well, Polish (see Category:Polish people of the partition period). I am not sure if we really need to go into the nationality vs ethnicity territory here, and it has its own pitfalls (consider Polish-Lithuanian identity - was this a nationality or ethnicity?). I'd need to read more about various dimensions, but for example this source suggests that Polish nationality was recognized at Congress of Vienna (1815) in some form, despite Poland not existing as a state. This is another good reading, but well, it's a tip of an iceberg.

Bottom line, I think that there was Polish nationality during the partition period. Polish (and Lithuanians and others) people existed, and self-identified as such, despite no state of their own. And it was not just ethnicity. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus Thanks very much for that insightful answer. I hadn't yet seen Category:Polish people of the partition period, thanks for pointing it out. I see all sorts of issues with it, particularly parent Category:Polish people by period and child Category:19th-century Polish people being in the Category:People by nationality tree. I think we cannot pretend states to have existed in times and places where they did not.

On the other hand, Category:People from Congress Poland is a good one, which at least could address people living in the Russian part of partitioned Poland (although it is currently limited to People involved in the government and politics of Congress Poland, I think we could extend that to everyone if we reached community consensus on that). Category:People from the Duchy of Warsaw is also a good one. We could argue that these two belong in the nationality-based Category:Polish people tree. If we want to interpret Congress Poland and the Duchy of Warsaw as "Polish states" (though not necessarily "sovereign" ones) which afford its inhabitants a "nationality" which can be called "Polish", that is something I think we can do.

Yet, Category:Polish Austro-Hungarians, appears to follow a different, ethnicity-based approach. It seems to be an ethnic Poles category, per parent Category:People from Austria-Hungary by ethnic or national origin, grandparent Category:People by ethnic or national origin, greatgrandparent Category:People by ethnicity. If we seek to instead follow the Congress Poland/Warsaw nationality-based approach, then perhaps we should consider the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria to also be a (non-sovereign) "Polish state" that affords its subjects a "Polish nationality"? If we do, then perhaps Category:People from the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria may also be included in the nationality-based Category:Polish people tree? Similar arguments could be made for the Grand Duchy of Posen; we might put Category:People from the Grand Duchy of Posen in the nationality-based Category:Polish people tree as well?

So, if we decide to follow the nationality-based approach, the following categories could be included in the nationality-based Category:Polish people tree (as well as Category:Polish people of the partition period):

• Category:People from Congress Poland
• Category:People from the Duchy of Warsaw
• Category:People from the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria
• Category:People from the Grand Duchy of Posen

Polish-Lithuanian identity is an interesting topic, and so is Thaddeus Bulgarin's assertion that the Congress of Vienna had recognised the existence of a Polish nationality. However, the book goes on to say several other people disagreed with Bulgarin's conclusions about nationalities, so we can't take them as fact.

I have no doubt that Polish (and Lithuanians and others) people existed, and self-identified as such, despite no state of their own. But that is what ethnicity is all about: self-identification. Conversely, nationality is all about the legal relationship between a state and the individual human beings it recognises as its nationals (subjects or citizens). So if we want to categorise by how people self-identified when they had no state of their own, we should probably follow the ethnicity-based approach of Category:Polish Austro-Hungarians. I hope this helps. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This deserves a much more throughtful reply I have time for right now; plus literature review of works like [1] and many others. I'd recommend a discussion at

WT:POLAND for more input. I'd point out the existence of Category:19th-century Polish people or Category:19th century in Poland as well, not to mention articles like History of Poland (1795–1918)

. Poland both did not exist and existed at that time, both statements are essentially correct.

Regarding KoGaL and Duchy of Posen, with the caveat that some (but not all) people from it were Polish, so the changes you suggest are correct. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I used {{