Talk:Chłopomania

"Peasant Madness"

This sounds like mental illness among peasantry. Googlebooks reveals 423 hits for "Chłopomania" [1] - the topic of this article - and only 34 for "peasant madness" [2], and the "peasant madness" hits are all for mental illness among peasants, nothing to do with the topic of this article.Faustian (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Which makes it clear that "peasant-madness", with the hyphen (being "mad about" the peasants), is not the same as "peasant madness" (madness among peasants). Nihil novi (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, the expression "money-mad" (the quality of showing "money-madness") does not refer to mentally ill money, but to an excessive interest in money. Nihil novi (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• And the expression "stir-crazy" refers not to a "stir" (prison) that is crazy, but to a person who has been made crazy by long imprisonment. Nihil novi (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Actually, "peasant-mania" is a correct English term, found in dictionaries and clear in usage. - Altenmann >t 07:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Concur with Faustian and Altenmann in this matter search results notwithstanding. Peasant-mania sounds about right, with or without the hyphen.[3] Thanks, Poeticbent talk 08:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you, Altenmann. You're right, of course!

Of the two forms, the hyphenated one seems the more unequivocal. "Peasant mania" might refer to a peasant's or peasants' mania; "peasant-mania" describes a mania concerning a peasant or peasants, which is what chłopomania is about. Nihil novi (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Peasant-mania" is certainly much preferable to peasant-madness and I do not object to it. However, "Chłopomania" in my opinion still seems to be the better choice because it highlights the specific Polish nature of this movement (the article topic).Faustian (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It is actually parallel to Western European 'Romanticism' (most specifically, Agrarianism). Perhaps the 18th & 19th century entry on that page should be developed to integrate this article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Uff, there is actually a subheading there already as 'Eastern Europe' which qualifies it as being Socialist Agrarianism tying in with the Russian socio-political movements of the time. I think that entry needs a clean-up as being 'In Central and Eastern European politics'. This article ties in with the Romantic movement. It should be represented, but differentiated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I contributed to writing this article already in 2009 and consider myself an involved person. I just repaired the linkrot to original PDF source-file brought in by User:Dahn who greatly expanded this article, from +1,314 initially to +5,253 characters. However, these edits by Aleksandr Grigoryev are wrong in my opinion because there's no support for them in the actual article nor in the Romanian source which you can now easily access. Not to mention the actual title of the article spelled in Polish. Please reconsider? Poeticbent talk 02:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The article mentions number of Ukrainian khlopomani such Volodymyr Antonovych, Pavlo Chubynsky, and many others. Khlopomanstvo is also known in Ukrainian history and Russian history. Khlopomanstvo gave rise to the Ukrainian "Hromada" (Community) organizations. Many Polish nationals treat Antonovych as a national traitor. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be fair about history, look for relevant citations outside Ukrainian and/or Russian textbooks. I have intentionally omitted Polish sources about Chłopomania in my PDF example from above, because there is hundreds of them everywhere. This is a cross-national subject in need of third-party referencing. Poeticbent talk 16:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Polish peasant-mania (and convolutions thereof), as well as Young Poland, yield a plethora of English language secondary sources. The same is true of its influence on, and ethnicity-specific variants (Ukraine, etc.). There is ample material available for developing subsections and, should anyone be interested in expanding subsections into lengthy nation-specific articles, they can be split off leaving only a summary on this article. The last thing we need is yet another POV edit-war article. For the sake of the readers, let's not create another murky, verbose and convoluted entry here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are references to Khlopomanstvo, as pertaining to the Anglicised version of its role in shaping the Ukrainian identity, eg. Alekseii Miller and Ilya Prizel... but I was bewildered by the Khwopomania. Is this some sort of Wikipedia Cyrillic transliteration of the original Polish word? I'm glad Poetic Bent brought up the question as I wasn't sure of whether to revert or not. There are no English sources that even hint at its existence that I'm aware of. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)