Talk:Adam Mickiewicz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Current vs. period place name

" of miscellaneous poetry at Vilna, which " Shouldn't the same place in one article be refered by the same name? Or maybe this Vilna refers to smth else? Well i change it. Sorry if that is a mistake.

No, this is the very same place, but we decided in the Talk:Gdansk discussion that cities should be referred to with the names they were known under at the time, not by present names. This creates confusion, but it was the only way to avoid certain users starting endless revert wars over the names ("he was born in Danzig." "No, he was born in Gdańsk" "No, you are stupid"... and so on). Halibutt 21:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think cities and other places, which changed names over time, should be writen as Vilnius (formerly Vilna). 80.43.94.8 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Decent?

I was curious where the information was found that the Mickiewicz family may be of Jewish decent. I'd like to look more into it (I'm Adam's great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter -- he bears an amazing resemblance to my grandfather!)

Thanks!

"Barbara Mickiewicz [the poet's mother], who died in 1820, also came from the petty gentry. Her maiden name was Majewska. In old Lithuania, every baptised Jew became ennobled, and there were Majewskis of Jewish origin. That must have been the reason for the rumours, repeated by some of the poet's contemporaries, that Mickiewicz's mother was a Jewess by origin. However, genealogical research makes such an assumption rather improbable." (Wiktor Weintraub, "The Poetry of Adam Mickiewicz") --Folantin 14:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Brückner

There is a link in this article to the Austrian composer Anton Bruckner, rather, I suspect that it should be to the great Polish literary historian and philologist Aleksander Brückner on whom there is no article as yet in the Wikipedia!! I am a descendant of Adam Mickiewicz and I am from Częstochowa, Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.33.164 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Machiavelli Quotation

Would someone please include the translation of the Machiavelli quotation?

Done. Chelman 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fashion to learn the Polish Language

When was learning Polish ever fashionable? --EuropracBHIT 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

Polish was the lingua franca of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and was spoken by many cultivated Lithuanians through the Interbellum. logologist|Talk 18:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

GDL rather than Commonwealth =

Mickiwicz was referring to Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an ojczyzna, not the whole Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.--Lokyz 09:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. And..? //Halibutt 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

maybe it should be mentioned in text, because text thgere is a bit misleading:)--Lokyz 14:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Regina Grol

My reference is a paper by Regina Grol, a staff member of the State University of New York[1]. Further, the paper[2] is on a web site run by the university. The fact that the paper had been published in the Bulletin of the Polish Arts Club of Buffalo is irrelevant to the fact that this reference has the authority of the university. It says "there is some basis for the allegation of his mother's Jewishness" and "the Jewish origin of his mother is quite plausible". Clearly, this source does not regard the matter as gossip, but as something likely although not proved beyond doubt.

The Polish Government has a POV to deny Mickiewicz' Jewish background [3]; Wikipedia, in the interests of NPOV, should present all of the facts.--20.138.246.89 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also this reference: [4] "Among very well known persons, with at least partially Jewish roots who have made great contributions to Polish culture, are Adam Mickiewicz, Julian Tuwim and Adam Michnik."--20.138.246.89 15:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, [5] talks about Mickiewicz's relationship to Judaism and Jewish culture, not anything about his background or religion, and one person's paper hinting that the whole government of another nation is "secretly denying" a Polish national hero's Jewish ancestry is basically like accusing a whole nation's government of antisemitism. Sorry but wikipedia is not a haven for conspiracy theories, even if they are written by someone more than just a hobbyist. Wikipedia WP:NOT guidelines does state that in the interest of NPOV we have to list every rumor or viewpoint printed on the internet, and "wikipedia is not censored" does not refer to the willful lack of citations to numerous viewpoints on the internet, but rather the "censorship" of profanity, pornography, etc. How exactly are we going to present this? "Mentor from the State University of New York Regina Grol states Adam Mickiewicz's mother may have come from a Jewish convert family"? No. Rumors have no place here and there are thousands of rumors on who could be Jewish. It's apparently a fad now. I've had this exact same discussion on List of Iberian Jews. LaGrange 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is farcical. I am not relying on the University of Michigan ref to establish his Jewishness; I have produced two other good sources for that. Still, as LaGrange refuses to believe that the State University of New York is a reliable source, let's try again:

• "Mickiewicz's mother, descended from a converted Frankist family": Encyclopaedia Judaica, art. Mickiewicz, Adam
• "Mickiewicz's Frankist origins were well-known to the Warsaw Jewish community as early as 1838 (according to evidence in the AZDJ of that year, p. 362). The parents of the poet's wife also came from Frankist families.": Encyclopaedia Judaica, art. Frank, Jacob, and the Frankists--20.138.246.89 10:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can report it for what it is - a rumor, but nothing more than that. LaGrange 23:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have since added it to the nationality section. LaGrange 23:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

His mother

Reverted. There are good refs that his mother was a descendant of Frankist Jews. No refs have been offered to support the contention that this is just a rumour without foundation.--Newport 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Barbara Mickiewicz [the poet's mother], who died in 1820, also came from the petty gentry. Her maiden name was Majewska. In old Lithuania, every baptised Jew became ennobled, and there were Majewskis of Jewish origin. That must have been the reason for the rumours, repeated by some of the poet's contemporaries, that Mickiewicz's mother was a Jewess by origin. However, genealogical research makes such an assumption rather improbable." (Wiktor Weintraub, "The Poetry of Adam Mickiewicz")

What is that?

The article does not state categorically that his mother was Jewish; it says that she may have been. Good sources have been produced to support that contention. Where good sources are in conflict, we are obliged by WP:V and WP:NPOV to report both of them.--Brownlee 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well further reading reveals we are also obliged by WP:NPOV to not give undue weight.

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

Therefore, because one "reputable" place gives us one viewpoint on the issue of who Mickiewicz's mother was, we do not report it with equal prominence to a more highly held one: that being that it his mother was from Polish nobility with a questionable background - nothing more nothing less. The minority viewpoints are promptly placed in the article as well. LaGrange 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. So we need to say that his mother may have been Jewish and not dismiss it entirely as misinformed rumour and speculation just because one source can be found that says so.--20.138.246.89 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, we are talking about Mickiewicz here - a man that became a legend yet during his life. It's normal that there were many rumours about him. Some ascribed to him alleged children - the number of his love affairs is still a matter of speculation - aristocrats claimed him a prince, and Jews claimed him a Jew (both claims weren't based on any real evidence). Even his death is uncertain. Some say that it was cholera, others that he was poisoned - both suppositions are disputed. Communists claimed him a socialist and erased all his connections with religion, while earlier all his connections with Towianski's sect were concealed by Poles. There were even various ideas about the date and place of his birth (i.e. in an inn on Christmas to alike his history to that of Jesus). Really, I heard rumours that Elvis is still alive!

The internet source by Regina Grol supporting the idea that Mickiewicz was a Jew is not a scholar historical work, only a summary of some other sources. There are again some rumours mentioned, no doubt to meet the interest of the local readers (i.e. an affair with an American feminist). The idea that Mickiewicz might have been a Jew came from his mother's name. But a name alone, and a one quite popular in Poland, is definitely not a proof good enough to built any assumption on it. Moreover it was later proved that the family of Mickiewicz's mother had nothing to do with Frankists. And if that wasn't enough his grand mother - the mother of his mother - was Orzeszkówna before she married Majewski. So the whole idea based solely on the sound of Mickiewicz's mother's maiden name is good only for trivia.

It's true that Mickiewicz was in Constantinople with Armand Levy whose task was to organise a Jewish legion (the plan was to make a sabotage among Jewish soldiers in Russian army), but earlier Mickiewicz tried to create a Cossack legion. Does it make him Ukrainian?

The first reference where author actually checked Mickiewicz's genealogy tree was "Adam Mickiewicz" by Konrad Górski, PWN, Warszawa, 1989. If there is another reference arguing with this one, or basing Mickiewicz's Jewish heritage on some solid evidence, I have nothing against adding it to the article.--SylwiaS | talk 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, there's some information already added stating that some people speculate his mother may have been Jewish. If you can find some information which either disproves it, or presents his genealogy, that could be edited too - changed to something like "Among Jews, he was seen as of a Jewish mother. Among Belarusians, he was a Belarusian native..." etc. Something more apropos to how many ethnicities/nationalities would like to claim him etc. etc.. LaGrange 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, its relevant to note that "Majewski" is the 29th most common surname in Poland today [6]. If, as the quotations above and on that page indicate, his mothers surname was the core of this rumor, this proves it isn't any typical Jewish surname. LaGrange 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Judaica, a standard reference, is unequivocal that his mother was Jewish. It is of course legitimate to note that other sources disagree; it is not legitimate to delete the reference.--20.138.246.89 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi 20.138.246.89! (btw perhaps you would consider registering and picking up a name we could address you with?) I'm not surprised that Encyclopaedia Judaica has his mother as Jewish, or many other references for reasons stated above. And I agree with LaGrange that it should be noted in the article that some sources claim him a Jew. However it doesn't make him Jewish, and the way it's stated in the article right now is rather confusing. Could you type in the exact quotation from the Encyclopaedia? Perhaps we might come up with an NPOV statement instead of flaming a revert war?--SylwiaS | talk 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the way it is now anyway? ". Also, a rumor among Polish exiles was that Mickiewicz's mother was a descendent of a converted Frankist Jewish family, however genealogical research suggests the claim is "improbable" albeit possible." Everything in that sentence is verifiable. LaGrange 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What is now, and what you quoted is perfectly OK with me. I earlier referred to a revert by 20.138.246.89 which I later reverted back having no response from him.--SylwiaS | talk 22:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mibelz has added a reference to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, together with a citation of the relevant text, further on in the article. It is inconsistent to delete this reference then ask for it. I suggest a form of words along the lines of "Some sources say that his mother was Jewish, the descendant of Fankists (EJ ref) but others dismiss this as a rumour (other source)." This seems totally NPOV. If it is acceptable to SylwiaS, I shall make the edit.--Brownlee 09:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but when I click the reference (the little number one) nothing happens. It doesn't direct anywhere. I'm fine with this, but I'd like to ask you to make the changes to the other version, because every time you revert the names of places change as well. I assume it wasn't intentionally. Also, please can we keep it to the Nationality section only? If you notice, there is no other reference to his nationality in the biography section. If we add one there, there will be soon a new revert war about Polish, Latin, Belorussian, Tatar etc.--SylwiaS | talk 10:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The little number works in this version. It links to the bottom where Mibelz's references were and have been for the last few days, so it completely baffles me why people are still reverting. People can adjust the sentence however tbey want, but need to make sure what is said is quotable from the sources listed. LaGrange 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No serious author supports the story to discuss it on sevral lines in the text. Encyclopaedia Judaica team apparently didn't study the problem, only copied the story - from where? Maybe simply the EJ is biased?

Mickiewicz (also father's family) is Ruthenian (Byelorus), Polonized. Majewska was either Polish or Tatar. Lithuanian means from Grand Dutchy, not ethnic. He might have had a Jewish ancestor. Xx236 11:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember reading this in the poem. Please give line references

Reading Pan Tadeusz is a basis to discuss it. Ignorance isn't a basis to remove someone's text. An example:

• Która krzyczała, Sędzię objąwszy rękami,
• Jako dziecko od żydów kłute igiełkami.

Book VIII - Zajazd, 667-670

Xx236 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this is supposed to prove or disprove (the contribution this is replying to is gone), but it should be clear that this comparison is ironic. (Much of Pan Tadeusz is ironic, by the way.)--Jec (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of Mickiewicz monuments

For this section of the article, does anyone have a photo of the Mickiewicz bust found in the park at Truskavets, Ukraine (before World War II, Truskawiec, Poland)? This monument is remarkable for being the only one that shows Mickiewicz as a young man. logologist|Talk 08:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC) http://www.allegro.pl/item164926247_truskawiec_adam_mickiewicz_pomnik_1932.html

A specific symptom of Polish anti-Semitism

Polish nationalists create lists of Polish Jews (sometimes false) which include, first of all, politicians and social activists. However, there is ONE specific exception to this general principle: prominent Polish cultural figures (poets, writers, artists, musicians, etc.) who were Jewish (or Jewish ancestry), such as Adam Mickiewicz, Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński, Stanisław Lem, Teodor Parnicki, Tadeusz Kantor, Jan Kiepura, Henryk Wieniawski, and many others. Polish “true patriots” do not agree with these facts, so they permanently remove them from the Category: Polish Jews.

Dr Mibelz 15:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? Well, I'd rather say YOU are a perfect example of jewish anti-Polonism.

Why? Wait, I'll tell you why.

First, we let your masses into Our Country. Then, we save 300000 of you during the WWII. And now you dare speak that Poles helped MURDERING jews or that we are anti-semites!!!

You tell me that Poland - where jews have all the corporations and politics in their pockets and they are the most influential persons - is anti-semitic?!

Whaha... in Poland, Poles are kept offended by jews and it's ok. But when a Pole offends a jew... Well, that's a tragedy and everybody has to cry - because jews say so!

Plus, did you forget that on the list of the most anti-semitic countries in the world, Russia and ISREAL are first? Don't believe me? http://209.85.129.132/translate_c?hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,9811,title,Heil-Hitler-z-Hajfy,wid,11355026,wiadomosc_prasa.html%3Fticaid%3D1893d&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.pl&usg=ALkJrhhTlvnCD9NbE1Lev6_jnmo9Mli_zw

But don't be affraid - nobody will ever forget your genocides on Palestinian People and your attempts to rule the world!

Or maybe... An anti-semite is not someone who hates jews... but someone who IS HATED by jews? Seems so. Because I have nothing against normal citizens of Israel - just against the jewish lobby trying to rule the world - and I am called an antisemite. Isn't there a bit of politics in your actions, jewish businessmen...?

Ugh... Sorry, people... But such people like mibelz are just so insolent these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.184.212 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

By the mid-16th century 80% of the world's Jews lived in Poland. There were approximately 3 000 000 Jews in Poland before WWII. And there were no tv, no online poker, nothing to do in the evening except one thing... Logically speaking every Pole must have jewish ancestors, just like every Jew from Poland must have polish ancestors. MC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.228.232.42 (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF?? Mickiewicz didn't have jewish roots, if he had he wouldn't be EVER that popular in XIXcentury Poland. Baczyński was noble, have you ever seen any noble jews? Kantor, Lem, Kiepura, omg... troll

Please consider notifying Poland related Wikipedia Notice board (talk), this should solve the problem, if any. BTW, does the category "Polish nationalists" include User:Zickzack (a native German, as he declares) who deletes the cats in Lem's article (and with whom you discussed the issue)? Please refrain from making useless generalizations :-) --Beaumont (@) 16:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a serious comment or not, but either way I'd suggest checking out a great short story by Jacek Dukaj - 'Przyjaciel prawdy' which discusses those issues.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mickiewicz didn't have Jewish roots. The subject used to be discussed here. Xx236 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The subject is still discussed further up the page. There are reliable sources that say that his mother was Jewish, so it would be wrong to say categorically that that is not true. And can we please have a source for the assertion that his mother was Tatar.--20.138.246.89 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography: http://www.nobility.by/bibliography/m/index.shtml Where:

• Rybczonek S. Przodkowie Adama Mickiewicza po kądzieli // Blok-Notes Muzeum Literatury im. Adama Mickiewicza. 1999. Nr 12/13.

He is probably the expert in genealogy: http://belarus-magazine.by/pl.php?subaction=showfull&id=1136117182&archive=1141385827&start_from=&ucat=4&do=archives Xx236 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ADAM MICKIEWICZ was a POLE!!!!!

I think that we need to take a little step back.Look up some history books and read that Poland and Lithuania were THE SAME COUNTRY until Russians grabbed it after second world war. Vilnius was not called Vilna , but WILNO and it contained 80% born Poles as did LWOW , another crib of Polish citizens and aristicracy.There were some groups of Lithuanians nationalisits that hated Poland and they still exist.So stupid to deny so much that was done in times of common culture. Adam Mickiewicz was a Pole and there is no doubt about it.He wrote and spoke Polish , since it was an official language of Poland. I know that other nations would like to call him their poet,but for God's sake , they cannot even read what he wrote.It is like a stupid discussion about Chopin. He was Polish and a fact that he wrote in France did not ever make him French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.15.100 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the difference is that Chopin didn't call France as his fatherland?:) I don't hear any arguments of Poles just "HE WAS POLE, HE WAS POLE!!! Don't steal our history!" The true is that you stole too much and now its too hard to say good bye for lot of things. -- Egisz

Recent changes: a note

AFAIK it hasn't been "established with reasonable certainty that Mickiewicz's mother was a descendent of a converted Frankist Jewish family". It's a possibility mentioned by some sources, but no more than that. WP:NPOV means we should represent it as such. Czeslaw Milosz, who was referenced as being in favour of this idea, was in fact against it: "The mother’s low social status – her father was a land steward – argues against a Frankist origin. The Frankists were usually of the nobility and therefore socially superior to the common gentry." (Land of Ulro p.116). He was also somewhat sceptical of the claims of the Encyclopedia Judaica: "The Encyclopedia Judaica assumes, perhaps rashly so, that Mickiewicz’s mother was of Jewish ancestry..." (loc. cit.). Wiktor Weintraub, in the quotation I re-added, writes: "Her (Barbara Mickiewicz) maiden name was Majewska. In old Lithuania, every baptised Jew became ennobled, and there were Majewskis of Jewish origin. That must have been the reason for the rumours, repeated by some of the poet's contemporaries, that Mickiewicz's mother was a Jewess by origin. However, genealogical research makes such an assumption rather improbable." Weintraub (whose Polish WP is here [7]) was a Harvard professor of Slavic Studies who wrote one of the definitive works on Mickiewicz in English, the very book I cited. (FWIW he was also Jewish). --Folantin (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a little bit of rephrasing is in order here. Perhaps something like "Historian Meir Balaban believed he had established with reasonable certainty that Mickiewicz's mother was of Frankist/Jewish ancestry.<cite 1> More recent scholars, including Wiktor Weintraub and Czesław Miłosz, have been skeptical of this claim."<cites 2 and 3> Quoting Balaban, Miłosz and Weintraub -- in footnotes, not to clutter the text -- I think could be helpful. If Balaban has not been translated into English, perhaps someone not involved in the dispute could do so? Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"...believed he had established with reasonable certainty..." That sounds too speculative and "psychological". It's too much like editorialising. "More recent scholars, including Wiktor Weintraub and Czesław Miłosz, have been skeptical of this claim..." Neither of them mention Balaban by name. My version would be: ""Some sources claim that Mickiewicz's mother was a descendant of a converted Frankist Jewish family [refs to such sources, inc. Balaban]. Other sources are more sceptical [refs to such sources]". I believe that is NPOV. --Folantin (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd also like to see some specific page references with extracts from the sources. I've done so with Weintraub and Milosz. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed this statement: "His mother came from a converted Jewish Frankist family." since the Czesław Miłosz reference doesn't support it. I wouldn't object to "According to historian Meir Balaban, writing in the History of the Frankist Movement (title in Polish?), his mother came from a converted Jewish Frankist family." (with cite to Balaban only on this line) Trying to find a compromise position here -- clearly Balaban has credentials, but other scholars are skeptical of the claim, so we have to craft a way to present both, and it's reasonable to say something about the mother in that paragraph. Anyway, out for now. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My position already is a "compromise". It presents both views. It does not claim a hypothesis is accepted fact. My version says "it's a possibility, but maybe not" and "some say, others don't". That represents the scholarly consensus per WP:NPOV. The speculation about his ethnicity should be left to the "Nationality" section. --Folantin (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I also want specific page references to Balaban with the relevant extracts (per verifiability). As we have seen, Milosz has been misused as a source. Plus I want the original research and editorialising removed now. --Folantin (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the same User:Galassi has inserted similar allegations into the "Chopin" article regarding the alleged Frankist descent of Chopin's mother and of Countess Skarbek, based on a dubious 1938 source (whose volume and page numbers he does not give) and on a Russian-language internet newspaper. Nihil novi (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute...I thought Chopin was French !:)) Or that's what the last edit-warrior on that page told us... Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Panie Nihil Novi, Kaskad is not an internet paper, but a web version of a regular paper periodical, that reproduces an article by a professional historian. I, of course, deeply sympathize with those who aresensitive about ethnic purity of national symbols['-). Galassi (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have stated elsewhere that "I don't care whether Chopin, Mickiewicz or [Countess] Skarbek were descended from Jews, Maoris or Eskimos. But I do care about the truth." Can you not find a source concerning Countess Skarbek's alleged Jewish descent, other than a Russian newspaper, print or electronic? Nihil novi (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I must now expand my question to include Chopin and Mickiewicz. As I have demonstrated on the "Chopin" discussion page, it appears that Galassi has never laid eyes on Mateusz Mieses's 1938 Polish-language book but was relying on Boris Klein's article in Cascade Russian Newspaper, "published in Baltimore since 1995."

I propose that Galassi's assertions concerning Chopin, Countess Skarbek and Mickiewicz based on Boris Klein's article be deleted as inadequately documented. Nihil novi (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Order of Sections

I suspect these aren't according to the Manual of Style; this would benefit from further editing. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples of POV

Beside Konrad Wallenrod and Pan Tadeusz, noteworthy is the long poem Grażyna

A fine vigorous Oriental piece is Farys. Very good too are the odes to Youth and to the historian Joachim Lelewel

--79.163.48.3 (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring of sources

Why Poles delete information that is supported by links?--Egisz (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that particular Ip just stalking my edits, like he is doing on different articles as well [8][9]. M.K. (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

M.K, if Wikipedia was not being taken as seriously as it is by people around the world, and wasn't the first (and most likely only) stop for the masses, I wouldn't bother. However, as it is, they need accurate information, not Garšva-esque "there are no Poles in Lithuania, just Polonised Lithuanians" propaganda, like President Grzybowska's recent line "we treat our minorities well". Or subjective views from a tour guide. 124.190.113.128 (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to reply to such irrelevant comment. M.K. (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well aren't we all high and mighty. 124.190.113.128 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Polish?

Was Adam Mickiewicz Polish or Belarusian or Lithuanian? Was Ignacy Domeyko Polish or Belarusian? Please join the discussion that is relevant to all of the famous Polish-speaking personalities who were born in 18th-19th century on the territories of what is now Belarus, and what was Great Litva back then. Talk:Ignacy Domeyko. --rydel 00:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) he never wrote anything in Lithuanian, 2) The "Lithuania" of which he speaks in some of his pieces is considered as a land, not a country, 3) he himself never considered as a non-polish, for example Czesław Miłosz was also born in Lithuania of lithuanian couple, Mickiewicz not, Miłosz also wrote in polish but he always considered himself as a Lithuanian in Poland. Mickiewicz was a Pole in Lithuania. Domeyko was also a Pole

- travis

1) it's a lie: http://anthology.lms.lt/texts/11/main.html . 2) Read another his works like Konrad Valenrod and you will understan what is a Lithuania for him.

One more thing, he was from Rymwid family. It is totally LITHUANIAN surname, we even can translate it. Anyway, is irishman speaking english - englishman? Scotsman speaking english - englishman? And finally, he was born in Grand Duchy of Lithuania in nowaday Belarus. i want to quote one letter of S. Woinilowicz in 1906 written in polish, and printed in Lithuanian News, 1906 number 246(564). Anyway, sorry for terible translation, but it helps better to understand: "[...] because of bad understanding of patriotism you made Lithuania small from what our enemies are happy[...] Poles are happy that accidently they've got so much[..] and they says that everyone polish speaking in Lithuania is pole. Clearly, that our genius poets and mans of sciense for them are also poles, because lithuanians, who speak lithuanian, politely offered them to poles, only because they had takken polish language as mother tongue. It is injustice for all Lithuania and you have to recompense, because you made that separation, and all we are suffering torments. Did Mickiewicz while writing "Lithuania, my fatherland" thought he was pole? Did Kondrat(owicz) writing "Lithuania, my one's native soil, my saint land" have he been feeling being pole? And Korotynski and Kosciuszko and many other. Like swiss is swiss despide french speaking and a lot of other nation, we will never deny our nationality, despite speaking and writing polish and we are suffering torment, that our Lithuania, of the times of Vytautas so Great, was pushed to the corner by patriots, calling us poles, us who here, few miles away have a grave of Mindaugas, that is called mountain of Mindaugas, us who have ruins of Naugardukas castle, and the heritage of all Lithuanian dukes, like in Lyda like in many other places. Have only few lithuanian, speaking polish died on gibbets or because of bullets in Siberia? did they die for Poland? Was i in Siberia and lost my wealth and more that wealth because i lost my baby and agonizing all life? Does anyone care? We died for Lithuania, because WE ARE LITHUANIANS?[...]" --egisz , 24 may, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 11:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Anyway, is irishman speaking english - englishman? Scotsman speaking english - englishman?" - You see, the funny thing is - Mickiewicz often referred to himself as a Pole and talked of Poland as his fatherland. And now: Would any single Scotsman referred to himself as being an Englishman?

.................

MICKIEWICZ was Polish , there is no doubt about it - maybe he knew some Lithuanian songs or verses but so what? Lithuania for him was a geograhpical area, not an ethnic one. Polish people frequently refer to it as Litwa, a place where millions of Poles lived for centuries. He was born in the land of Lithuania ( like the Andalusia in Spain or Lombardia in Italy ) but his whole family and his heart was Polish and he was a Polsh patriot. Lithuanians have no literature in their own language and thus they claim other nations poets as theirs. The problem is they don't accept the fact that millions of Poles settled in the geographical land of Lithuania when it was united with the Polish Crown - so did the Mickiewicz family but it always remained Polish in language and culture

"Lithuanians have no literature in their own language" - A pure chauvinistic nonsense made up by unhappy Polish. Do you actually believe Lithuanians don't have writers who spoke Lithuanian as their mother tongue?

................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.19.146 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of Polish nationalists. They attack even Lithuanian wikipedia. Lithuania isn't a place where millions of Poles lived for centuries. The true is that Statute of Lithuania that was confirmed by King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania forbidden to settle for foreigners in Lithuania. Thoose "millions of Poles" are nothing more but self-polonised(when they had to choose and when understanding of word "nation" changed) or compulsary polonised(during interwar period when Vilnius was occupied) Lithuanians or Byelorussians. Thats clear from them surnames. Only people who has never read Mickiewicz can say that he wrote about Lithuania as about geographical area. He wrote about dukes, "old capital of Lithuanians" and etc.Of course, Poles can think that he created the name Gražina accidentally.. If you give me your contacts, i can show his family tree, where you will see he was from Lithuanian Rymwid family. Rymwid is even Lithuanian surname. His poems are full of love to Lithuania, its history. Actually, except of nationalists lot of Polish people agree Mickiewicz was more Lithuanian. The sad true that wikipedia is full of Polish nationalists. -- --egisz, 26 July 2009, —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

Of course, wikipedia is full of Polish nationalists as well as full of Lithuanian nationalists. 1) Vilnius was occupied by Poland just like Klaipėda by Lithuania. 2) There was the settlement action in Lithuania and Belarus by Polish from Mazovia and Poles who lived there was Polish descent but most of gentry. 3) Mickiewicz felt himself as a member of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Polish, Lithuanian or Belarussian nationality did not mean the same in that period and today. 4) In my opinion Mickiewicz belongs to legacy of the three nations and he was Polish poet because he wrote in Polish, that's all. Polshauvinist--84.10.185.230 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see Lithuanian nationalists going even to Polish wikipedia to change "Polski" to "Litewski". Actually Lithuanians do not have view to history as much romantic as Poles. Similiarly wrote Norman Davies in his Gods playground. 1) Our object of discussion is Vilnius and its district, don't play like this in discussions. 2) Settlement of millions of Poles? Proove me.And family of Rymwids(Lithuanian surname) too? :D 3) Agree. So we should add explanation in this article? "Polish language poet whose fatherland was Lithuania"? 4) The same. --Egisz 11:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Please, don't use the term: "during interwar period when Vilnius was occupied" because Vilnius/Wilno was not under Polish occupation but inside of Polish legal independent and by some time democratic state and its inhabitants had the same rights as other Polish citizens. But if you want to call it occupation then be consistent and do it regarding Klaipėda. 2) Not millions of Poles, but thousands of Mazovians who had been settling down the territory of Grand Duchy, and southern Prussia as well, since 15. century. Most of gentry spoke Polish but of course they had different ancestors (as I know the surname Mickiewicz comes from belorussian name Miцькa/Mićka) and it's difficult to say they were ethnical Poles Belarussians or Lithuanians just like we may not recognize queen Elisabeth II as pure Englishwoman. Besides for me his nationality is meaningless and Julian Tuwim's and Jan Brzechwa's and even Joseph Conrad's one. They was the writers belonging to the original culture of Polish-Ucrainian-Belarussian-Lithuanian-Jewish-German-Latvian-Armenian-Tatar-Karaim former state.

1) It was occupied. Vilnius was created, developed by Lithuanians. It was capital of Lithuania since 1323 and that city is in the territory of Baltic tribes. As i said, Klaipeda is not object of discussion. 2)Show me trustful source with numbers. Most of gentry really spoke Polish, but language was not very important factor for identity. Just read memoirs of W. Meysztowicz, I. Domeyko and similiar ones. Otherwise you should say that lot of Polish gentry was Latin:) As i know Mickiewicz was Belorussian name, but Mieckiewicz derived them from Lithuanian Rymwid family. Look at his genealogical tree that is in Navharadah. --Egisz 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.64.152 (talk) well that is funny, look I agree that wilno should belong to Lithuania but only because You are a small country and You made it Your capital but Wilno was not created neither developed by Lithuanians, every single building that is built there is built by Poles!!so acknowledge that and stop being so nasty heh consider it as a gift from Poland-videl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.115.244.169 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do You know what nationalism is? When people of one nation say: "He is our poet/sculptor/hero because he spoke our language". And the others: "No, he is ours because he was born in our land and he wrote/said he was one of us". For me it's stupid. I don't care if he had Lithuanian or Jewish ancestors. It doesn't matter. I KNOW he was a man of the culture of Grand Duchy inhabited by users of many languages. As regards "the Polish occupation of Vilnius" that is issue for another discussion about Lithuanian historic propaganda. Occupant of German city Opole ;)--84.10.185.230 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with You. But then article is misleading. He must then be regarded as Polish language Poet of former Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Would You agree? Klaipėda was German, but district was not so German. Germans occupied thoose lands earlier. It was territory of Baltic tribes. I agree that Lithuania didn't recapture that district because it had never been part of Lithuania before. But would you say German occupation wasn't the same? Then maybe Latvians and Estonians must finish with them nationalistic propoganda and give back lands to Germany. But as i said it is different question. --Egisz 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.64.152 (talk)

Don't let us mix the terms annexation and occupation. Could anyone show me the southeastern border of "occupied" Wileńszczyzna dividing it from "occupied" Belarus? Vilnius region was annected to Poland with great support of the most of its people. That was unrecognized by probably one country only: Republic of Lithuania. The people of Wilno fought against Red Army as volunteers in 1939 helping for Polish Army, so they treated Poland as their Motherland. My request is not to be partial and to avoid unnecessery words. I agree with your opinion about Mickiewicz. His bonds with Lithuania understood as Grand Duchy was really very strong ("W takiej ciszy! tak ucho natężam ciekawie,/ Że słyszałbym głos z Litwy. - Jedźmy, nikt nie woła!"), and I think Czesław Miłosz felt the same. Former Polshauvinist :) 84.10.185.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

You know that in times of GDL territory of Vilnius and part of Belarus was part of Lithuania since its beggining. West Belarus is full of Lithuanian toponymes and hydronymes. XIX c. almost all Lithuania belonged to Russia. Thats why You don't see any border dividing it from Belarus. I don't know if Soviet Russia unrecognized Vilnius as part of Lithuania? What about 1920 07 12 and also deal of Suwalki? Poles made good information war in West Europe, and West Europe needed bastion against communism. 2) About support. If we follow like this then we get results like Osetins who got peace in Georgian territory and now claims they want to be with Russia. Maybe it is similiar. However, i wonder if that "great support" was so great just because of aggresive Poland. Furthermore, some historians says that conflicts in XX c. was rather civil war between pro-union and anti-union Lithuanians than war between Lithuania and Poland. Even polonised Lithuanians understood Vilnius as territory of Lithuania(read words of Pilsudski, Romer, or even Leon Mitkiewicz - first and last military attache of Poland in Republic of Lithuania. From his words i see that Vilnius was good plan to invite Lithuanians too union. I would agree:) ). But i still think why you made this discussion about Vilnius and Klaipėda in article about Mickiewicz. You don't agree that "linguistic nationalistic" polonisation existed there? Milosz, in my opinion, felt similiarly, but not the same. Maybe because he lived in times of linguistic nationalism. --Egisz 19:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Polish Poet

When it comes to the origin of his family or his right hand, you`ve need to know that if you shared the man in that way you can get result like polish-lithuanian-turkeys-german-french etc. You cannot prove nothing in that way. That`s why authors of books or filmmakers are described not from their nationality at the beggining but from the way which they are famous. Mickiewicz could be treated like polish-lithuanian but he isnt. He is famous in Europe as a Polish poet, not lithuanian poet, beacuse he writed in polish that makes him famous in Europe. It`s like with Polanski. He is polish filmmaker beacuse he was educated in the Łódż Filmschool. That makes him a polish filmmaker. Mickiewicz created in polish language so writing polish-lithuanian poet is I dont know what? You`ve try to describe him as a polish lithuanian in nationality and in language in one word ? That`a a nomenclature error. If you want to be clear, you `ve need to write that he is polish poet, and if you are stubborn to nationality then write he is polish-lithuanian.

Adam Mickiewicz even created the Polish legion and Jewish legion in Istambul, Turkey, to fight aganst Russians. And being in Paris he always stayed in the Polish community of immigrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricz1980 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"It`s like with Polanski. He is polish filmmaker beacuse he was educated in the Łódż Filmschool. That makes him a polish filmmaker." That's nice. The fact that he was born in Paris is meaningless. The fact that his mother was Russian is meaningless. The fact that he and his family were Jewish is meaningless. He was educated in the Łódż Filmschool and that makes him Polish. Well Mickiewicz wasn't educated at the Łódż Filmschool and funny how a large number of people who are actually of Lithuanian descent are claimed to be of Polish descent. When that can't be substantiated by reality, then the person becomes "Polish-Lithuanian". Unless of course it's Pilsudski or Mickiewicz. They are too "sacrosanct" to escape the slippery slope of POV and can only be simply Polish. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dr Dan I`m answering to you as a user Ricz1980, as eariler. You didnt really understand my point or you should read more carefully. I call Polanski Polish filmmaker not Polish man. You forget about my end word and when I add FILMMMAKER. It`s ofcourse truth. You cannot call him polish, jewish or rusiian in one time, but you can call him polish filmmaker. If Roger Guereiro which is Brazilian football player who was trained in Brazil by Brazilian Club, plays in polish football national team we call him Brazilian footballer playing in PL team. We cant call him Polish football player, beacuse that will be false. If Manuel Almunia will play in English team, english fans knows that he is Spain goalkeeper playing in english national team. But why am I saying this ? I`ve used it beacuse it`s simple nomenclature, same with Polanski. I didnt really attack his descent and determine his personality. I`ve just realated him to his proffesion from which he is known around the world. If he goes back to USA and make movie in some Hollywood studio that didnt make him an Amercian Director. And that all Doctor :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stronghold2033 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lithuanian poet definition doesn't mean that he was a poet of Republic of Lietuva. It means that he was a poet of multinational Grand Duchy of Lithuania which is beyond controversy. Nothing else, but the GDL lands gave Poland such a magnificent poetry inspired by the landscapes of Navahrudak along with beliefs of the people lived there such as a Dziady feast of commemoration of the dead forefathers which laid the foundations of the poem Dziady (even the poem's name, Dziady, is a loanword from Belarusian language) so it's a short-sighted point of view to say that he was only the Polish poet because he wrote in Polish language --Jauhienij (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think many of your points are well taken, Jauhienij, and would agree with lots of them. As for the "Republic of Lietuva", please consider the fact that this is English Wikipedia. It reminds me of an anecdote where the gentleman stated "I have der ключ vergessen" (I've forgotten the key) in three different languages. The Republic of Lithuania, known as "Літо́ўская Рэспу́бліка " in your native language, is what it is, and Belarus (Рэспубліка Беларусь), in your native language, is what it is. That's the reality today. I don't recall any Lithuanians desiring to be called Belarusians lately, or having claims to the territory of "Ruthenia". I do know that according to mainstream historical sources, the Lithuanians ruled over these areas and its inhabitants several hundred years ago. Since then, the Belarusians have been ruled by others. In the recent past the Belarusians acquired a degree of independence and some would now like to become "літвінi" (Lithuanians) as a consequence of having been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Perhaps it's "cool" to be Lithuanian. So that's it in a nutshell. Idi Amin thought he was "Conqueror of the British Empire" and "king of Scotland" too. Anyway, Mickiewicz wrote mostly in Polish and there is a smattering of his writing in Lithuanian (lietuvių kalba) as well. Out of curiosity did he write something in Belarusian? Also, what is your opinion concerning Pilsudki's ethnicity? Thanks and regards. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, FYI Grand Duchy Lithuania's official languages were Latin and Old Belarusian (also referred as Old Ruthenian), meanwhile Lithuanian was not an official one. Doesn't it tell you something? So was it really a Lithuanian republic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ales hurko (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't get back to you earlier due to the holidays and an extra intense workload. Thank you for the information. It's not news to me and I was aware of that fact. I don't understand your point. So Old Ruthenian and Latin were "official" languages of the GDL. So what? Why would Latin be used? Was it because it's inhabitants had some connection to the Roman Empire? Was it because the rulers of the GDL spoke Latin? And again, I don't think that the political entity we're talking about was a "republic", Lithuanian or Ruthenian. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruthenian (Old Belarusian) was used because most of Lithuanian nobility were Ruthenians. If it was other way the Lithuanian would be "in charge". Latin was an official language because GDL was Catholic. Religion used to be extremely influential back then. My point is Lithuania and Grand Duchy of Lithuania have little in common except for territory of GDL. Ales hurko (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(od) My point is that the "official" languages had nothing to do with who was in charge. The rulers had to deal with political practicalities, namely in dealing with the West where it was done in Latin and with the East, done in the Old Ruthenian language. Political considerations, wrapped up with religious considerations. In short, Medieval politics in a multi-national state. Besides, just as the modern inhabitants of Great Britain do not speak "Shakespearean" English comparable to today's English, you can be sure that the inhabitants of the GDL would have difficulty communicating with today's populations from the area. Belarusians, Poles or Lithuanians. In any case, what does this have to with with Mickiewicz? One of my questions was if he wrote anything in Belarusian? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know he wrote nothing in Belarusian. At least if there were any manuscripts they were not preserved. --Jauhienij (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

When he was born the consciousness of lithuanian nationality was none. He was writing only in polish, he speaked polish language. The polish students are learning his writings in original. The lithuanians only from tranlations. Mickiewiecz contributed to polish culture. We cannot link him with lithuanian culture. In "Pan Tadeusz" he wroted "Litwo Ojczyzno Moja" - but it's reffered only to the territory where he lived (this territory was influenced by polish culture) as a young man. He wanted to take part in november uprising - to fight for polish independent. This didn't make him a polish-lithuanian writer, but only a polish writer. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes about nationality

i am going to change the nationality from polish-lithuanian to polish because: 1)every encyclopedias state him as Polish 2)his ancestry is Polish 3)he considered himself Polish 4)he written in Polish 5)Lithuania was a district of Poland 6)the whole Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was in the Polish sphere of influence culturally,the nobility was polonised and only peasantry "stayed" Lithuanian Any arguments contra?(please, just dont start with he wrote about Lithuania as his fatherland-how many times does it have to be repeated that it was a district as mazoviens voivodeship etc...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.115.244.169 (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone going to discuss this instead of just slowly edit-warring about it? Do we have some more accessible and authoritative sources that describe him as Polish-Lithuanian? (The ones given seem rather obscure, and it's not clear why those two should have been selected to pronounce on Mickiewicz's nationality when there are so many easier-to-come-by ones that describe him as simply Polish.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of a contradictory statement. On the one hand, you ask for more sources, but you also seem to be expressing the view that if a majority of sources call him simply Polish, no need to address the complexities in the lead. But here are some other sources anyway. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 'M., who was born in the ethnically Belarussian region from a father who belonged to the Lithuanian family of the Rymwids...' [10]. Central European University Press: '...most probably of Lithuanian ethnicity (if such a description makes any sense.)' [11], Taylor & Francis 'A Lithuanian Pole born in (or near) the town of N., Adam Bernard...' [12]. Novickas (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant sources that call him a "Polish-Lithuanian poet" or something close to that. (The last of those sources you cite calls him a "Polish poet", which rather supports the opposing viewpoint.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see that his nationality has been changed to Polish(somethimes Polish-Lithuanian)and I think this is the compromise I will have to agree to, but only to stop useless reediting of the article, but still believe it is a claim without any proofs, someone on the page said Mickiewicz was from a Lithuanian family of Rymwids(altough I found Poles of this surname)but even beliving in the authenticity of it he still would be Polish because both of his parents were Polish!!!also look at other example-Dostojewski-he was of Polish descent does Pole reedit article in wikipedia that he was Russian -Polish?obviously not because he saw himself as Russian, next - Lithuanian authorities dont view him as Polish Lithuanian but simply Polish- he was one of the greatest slavic poets yet almost nothing(comparing to Polish school)of him is taught in Lithuanian school. Conclusion- I am going to leave it as it is but is just not an encyclopedia and it is sad that some people dont listen to the arguments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.32.161 (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That he is sometimes called Polish-Lithuanian is just a fact; at Wikipedia we should simply be reflecting what reliable sources say, not trying to impose our own points of view, however well argued. I think the current lead properly reflects the fact that most sources call him Polish, while a few can certainly be found that call him "Polish-Lithuanian". But regarding the addition of "Polish-Belarusian" as another alternative - can sources be provided for that? --Kotniski (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the current compromise and appreciate your flexibility.

For future reference, I'm going to post some more quotes+book links here (they may come in handy if this dispute re-ignites and some might be useful as references in other ways. It would be nice to get rid of the swathes of florid late 19th-century prose, which are good for a chortle, but...) Anatol Lieven: 'M. and Pilsudski, both of whom came from similar backgrounds in the Polish-Lithuanian gentry'. [13]. Taylor & Francis: '...Towianski, like M., was of Polish Lithuanian origin...' [14]. Alfred E. Senn: 'The most notable example of such Polish Lithuanians was, of course, the poet A.M.' [15]. Greenwood Publishing: 'After all, the greatest Polish national poet A.M. was also Polish and Lithuanian.' [16]. Aarhus University Press: 'A.M., whose Polish national epic introduced this section, saw himself as belonging to the ancient Polish-Lithuanian gentry...' [17]. SAGE Publications: 'The romantic verse of Polish-Lithuanian A.M....' [18].

Haven't found any 'Polish-Belarusian' refs. One 'Lithuanian-Belarussian' from the Cambridge History of Russia [19]. Novickas (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, I see an IP from the other side is edit-warring now, this time without any explanation at all. Can he or anyone else say what they object to in the statement "a Polish..poet (also described as Polish-Lithuanian...)" ?--Kotniski (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What is going on?we reached the compromise, now someone has written that Mickiewicz was Pole, Lithuanian or Polish-Lithuanian, so where is he called simply Lithuanian?if he is not called simply Polish than Polish-Lithuanian because of former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, there is no argumnets to call him Lithuanian. Because the compromise has been broken I am changing him to Polish, otherwise it is just laughable this whole wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kociewicz (talk • contribs) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• While there can be sources found that speak of him as Polish-Lithuanian most do reckongise him as Polish poet. B-the sources that Novickas brought describe him as Polish-Lithuanian, in that particular order, not Lithuanian-Polish as was inserted into the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun I googled google books, Mickiewicz "polish poet" gives over 6.320 results, mickiewicz "lithuanian-poet" gives only 87.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why reasonable arguments are not heard?and someone keeps on changing his nationality?any chance for conversation?because I say so is not enough to call him Lithuanian, Belarusian, Tatar or Jewish, eh, please people it is encyclopedia...

Using Milosz as source

While Milosz was a writer and studied history of literature I am really against using him as source of historic information about ethnic makeup of the territory.Surely they are better sources--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

He seemed to be right a lot of the time. People would have called him out on it if he weren't. Getting a Nobel involves a lot of vetting. But if you have some other sources, go for it, altho it might be then best summarized in a footnote. In the meantime you could attribute the ethnicity description to Milosz. Novickas (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He was professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of California, Berkeley. That gives him academic clout.86.183.138.41 (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation request

WRT to the dismissal of the Jewish ancestry question. Without having that good of a grasp of PL, it looks to me as tho the source - in our article it is being used to support a firm statement that it is not true - is not quite so positive about it as the article currently makes it out to be. Could someone translate the relevant passage from the online interview with the historian here [20]? Novickas (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Novickas, I read it but am not going to translate it here. Essentially it's a small biographical sketch about the mystic, Jacob Frank and concludes with the possibility that Mickiewicz's ancestors were descendant's of "Frankists". Biggest problem with that "theory" is the chronological proximity of the two individuals. One could lend more credence to the hypothesis if there were a few more generations clouding the possibility. Even then, if true, it would only fire up the debate as to whether he was a Belarusian Jew, a Lithuanian Jew, or a Polish Jew. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted the wrong link for translation request. That one has just one sentence at the end stating it's possible. The other ref supporting the article sentences 'The poet's mother, Barbara z Majewskich Mickiewiczowa, was a devout Catholic of ethnically Polish background, as explained by Tomasz Łubieński in his 1998 biography M jak Mickiewicz. It was another Majewski family in Lithuania of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth who were descended from Frankists.' is an interview with a M. biographer [21] - Tomasz Lubienski. The relevant part of the interview goes 'Jedna z uczestniczek moich zajęć na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim napisała przekonującą pracę na temat motywów kabalistycznych w "Dziadach". Ale do zrobienia takiej interpretacji matka Mickiewicza nie jest w ogóle potrzebna. Jeżeli jej przodkowie byli frankistami, to co z tego ma wynikać? Barbara Mickiewiczowa była katoliczką, bardzo głęboko wierzącą. Zresztą i tak nie ma i nie będzie bezpośrednich dowodów na jej frankistowskie pochodzenie. Owszem, żyli na Litwie Majewscy - frankiści, ale nie wiadomo, czy oni w ogóle byli krewnymi Barbary. Mnie się wydaje, że nie. Matka Mickiewicza była po prostu córką ekonoma, zaś frankiści to byli jednak zwykle ludzie wykształceni, materialnie dobrze sytuowani.' Doesn't look to me as tho he is saying that the question is settled or that she was ethnically Polish. Unless someone disagrees here I'll roll it into the 'this is described as improbable on the grounds of her low social status' sentence. Novickas (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

'...the question of Mickiewicz's "Jewishness" remains unresolved' concludes the discussion in the recent English biography by Roman Koropeckyj (Cornell University Press, 2008, page five.) I haven't read the whole book but it would be a good source to use to revise this article which has some very old-fashioned sounding prose, is patchy in a lot of areas and seems a bit over-converned with the matter of M's ethnicity. 86.183.138.41 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

86.183....., would you be so kind as to give an example or two as to what you think might represent "overkill" in R.K.'s book concerning his ethnicity? What's the gist of what he says anyway? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say there was any "overkill" in RK's book? RK says there is no archival evidence that AM's mother's family on either side was Jewish. What we have are claims by contemporaries such as Zygmunt Krasiński that AM was Jewish, second-hand claims that AM himself said he was Jewish, the fact AM married a woman of Jewish ancestry, founded a Jewish legion, called for Jewish emancipation and got angry when he heard someone refer to "filthy Jews". 86.135.126.21 (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should be focusing more on the links that DO say Majewski was a Frankist. One of the refs cited [22] doesn't actually make any statement that Mickiewicz was descended from Frankists at all. 72.144.92.101 (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to Magdalena Opalski and Israel Bartal, Poles and Jews: a Failed Brotherhood, on page 119 is: "It also affected Adam M...such crucial Jewish influences on his work as the Frankist background of the poet's wife, mother, and a number of close associates..." (emphasis added) [23]. Novickas (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Definition

I just read the preamble of this article. Sadly, I have never saw such a totally disturbing way of creating literary and historical research. Although it could be argued that an insert could be made that some historians have claimed that A.M. was Lithuanian or Polish-Lithuanian, it is absolutely false to discribe him in the first sentence 'as it is'. Since it is not according to a vast majority of sources. And a large amount of them would be Mickiewicz own writings as a publicist, thinker and a man of letters. I discount his poetry as a source, for this could be claimed as licencia poetica. To mix modern understanding of nationality with that of an early XIX century and disregard the reality of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on its eastern lands sounds like a great deal of arrogance. Being a good Lithuanian was the only way and the best way for Mickiewicz to be a good Pole and a Polish patriot. To an extent there was always a sort of rivalry if Poles from Western or Central Poland were 'better Poles' than Poles from the lands of former Grand Duchy of Lithuania. To be called a 'Litwin' (Lithuanian) at that time implied without saying being a Pole. Mickiewicz was a Polish romantic poet. One of the main pillars of Polish romantic period. No more and no less. Nationality as it is was perceived in the XX century, based on strict ethnicity was a concept foreign to XVIII and XIX century Europe. Their concept was closer to that of Roman or Cariolingian state-nation. Since we all descended probably from African horn near Ethiopia and Somalia some 100 odd thousands years ago, shouldn't we call him 'properly': a Polish-Lihuanian poet of African descent? These reflections of mine in no way purport to diminish or in any way negatively affect Lithuanian literature or people. It has its own and rightful accomplishments. It does not need to borrow them from others. with respect, --Emanek (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, well, what you write is common sense and accurate. Good luck with that. This is Wikipedia, and this is a "Polish-Lithuanian" topic. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • thanks for a sensible albeit sort of sarcastic comment. I do not prescribe to any notion of 'difficult' or 'impossible' subjects. Polish-Lithuania, American-Iranian, straight-gay, black-white and so on. Sources, sources and reputable sources are the only logical arguments. The rest is a lot of hot air. If there is 20 books well researched and published by notable authors arriving at the same conclusion - than this is the 'letter of the law' in editing. If there happens to be 4 or 5 books/articles of reputable authors claiming different view than it is worth mentioning - but not in a way that would place it at the same footing as the prevailing 20 books. It is not so much about common sense but about a sense as a whole. When the 'sens' is missing it becomes nonsense. yours, --Emanek (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationality and ethinicity-again

The whole section nationality and ethnicity is a misunderstanding, he was descended from old Lithuanian family of Rymwids-Mickiewicz?and what is his surname?isnt it Mickiewicz if so he was only 1/4 Lituanian, also I have no sources about his family or any others at that time to consider themselves Lithuanian- it happened a long time later, what do you think about it?does anyone going to change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kociewicz (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good day. Sometimes surnames were taken from the name of living place. Krzysztof, son of Walenty Rymwid Mickiewicz(both of them - ancestors of Adam Mickiewicz) was "dziedzicem wsi Mickowce". In the similiar way Dostojevski's surname was born too. (Egisz (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

heh, of course most of the times the surnames were taken from the place of living but long, long before Mickiewicz was born. I also wonder why his biographers dont state him as Lithuanian. P.S. Dostojewski was of polish descent please read his bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kociewicz (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is annoying, we have academic sources which confirm that Adam Mickiewicz personalty considered himself a Lithuanian ( like: Lost and found: the discovery of Lithuania in American fiction, p.23), therefore it completely unacceptable "proposed" formula sometimes described as. M.K. (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I really dont see You understand this period of time, Lithuania was a district of Poland, Pole was Lithuanian,, the nation - Lithuanians as it is now was formed later in some way artificially. I also dont believe in every source because I even found some claiming Spartacus to be Lithuanian!!!!Mickiewicz didnt speak Lithuanian, his coat of arms Poraj was Polish(only 2 Lithuanian families adopted this coat of arms)so he was not even polonised Lithuanian but he was a Pole, I can go on and on. Because You would want to is not enough for sth to be true. Have a good day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.147.136 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That will be the page which says "although Mickiewicz considered himself a Pole" ?? But the question is not whether we can find sources saying various things (we already know we can do that), but how to best reflect the balance of the sources - and there is no doubt that the vast majority of sources describe him as a Polish (not a Polish-Lithuanian or Lithuanian) poet, so the article should reflect that.--Kotniski (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

By doing personal research editors are breaching WP:NOR, better to be on the safe side rather then commit OR. M.K. (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what is that supposed to mean? How is anyone breaching NOR?--Kotniski (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are multiply academic sources stating sometimes described as Polish-Lithuanian. Which source concluded this sometimes. None. This passage was based on sloppy Google search conducted by wikipedia's editors using presumed number counts. So far Wp:NOR policy clearly states then editorial count allowed, and inventing personal conclusions is till not allowed. So, it is seemingly violation of WP:NOR. Second, per MOS such wording (some, some say etc) should be avoided. apart of these technical issues, person in question regarded himself as Lithuanian (and we have sources for that), so marginalizing this issue only by saying sometimes described is distortion of sourced facts. M.K. (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is quite normal to research google books for discussion-the same was IIRC done with Jagiełło during debates about his name. Anyway the sources describing Mickiewicz as Polish dwarf the ones describing him as Lithuanian(Mickiewicz "polish poet" gives over 6.320 results, Mickiewicz "lithuanian-poet" gives only 87), of course we could narrow that down but I doubt it will change the final outcome. To be fair I think that naming him in the lead as Polish Poet(sometimes described as Polish-Lithuanian) is a reasnoble compromise, with such small number of sources this could be WP:Undue and better suited in later section. Of course if you disagree we can always ask for third opinion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) I believe you are applying the same logic to the first sentence wording, or the first paragraph wording, that is used in article titling - since there can only be one, we are forced to determine a single most commonly used name. But I don't see any requirement that a single ethnicity, to be determined by surveying the literature, must be used in the first sentence.

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph - The opening paragraph should have: Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)); Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death); Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. What the person did; Why the person is significant.

So what to use for context - location, nationality, or ethnicity. Location is problematic since technically the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was gone three years before he was born. Nationality is simple, Russian Empire, and should probably be mentioned in the lead. Ethnicity is relevant but not simple because we have very high quality, recent sources describing its complexity and the consequences of that. See above for refs. (For sources clearly stating his ethnicity was complex, and that the issue is relevant to modern scholars, see [24], [25].) I don't think it's unreasonable to briefly address the complexity in the lead. Accuracy is important and there is room.

It would be nice to solicit opinions from neutral outsiders. Many experienced WP editors are probably really tired of EE disputes, but maybe not all. Novickas (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not most sources refer to him as Polish poet and this has to be reflected. As a compromise we might add that some view him as Polish-Lithuanian(although that number is awfully small) but I don't see any reason for naming him as Lithuanian in the lead as some tried.

Nationality is simple, Russian Empire, and should probably be mentioned in the lead

I would prefer citizenship instead, as nationality has ethnic connotations

since technically the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was gone three years before he was born I think it was gone in 1791 already with the reform to unified state. I don't think it's unreasonable to briefly address the complexity in the lead.

Is there any complexitiy widely reckognised or is shared only by minority of sources? Remember WP:UNDUE

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Article content is not based on popular usage. It's based on the best available modern sources. We don't need to follow other sources' simplifications. Here, for instance, is how his entry in the Cambridge History of Poland 1971, Vol. 2, p.326 runs.

"Lithuania is inseparable from Mickiewicz. The Eastern borderlands, always beloved of the Pole if only for their secular position as Poland's output against Tatar and Turk, inspired the so-called Ukrainian school. Mazovia had her own poet.

Adam Mickiewiecz (1798-1855) opened his career by his ode to youth, a clarion call to the young to abjure egoism and to lead humanity on a new road. But his fame was first established by ballads which after the fashion of the day attracted his pen, and which in his case were based on Lithuanian legends. The setting of his Lithuanian home became the background of the greater part of his poetical creation." [26]

If this book uses the word Lithuania three times in six opening sentences, that says to me Lithuania should be mentioned to a roughly comparable extent in our lead. Just how, I'm not sure, that's why I'd like more outside opinions.

With regard to the importance of his ethnic complexity, I see modern scholarship as increasingly focusing on that. That's what modern scholarship does. E.g., "In typically Central European fashion, A.M., the greatest poet of the Polish language, might be claimed by three adjoining nations as one of their own." Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. [27]. From A concise history of Poland, Cambridge University Press 2006: "He is also highly regarded as a national poet in Lithuania and Belarus. Mickiewiecz's patriotic sentiments (evocatively expressed in his epic Pan Tadeuz) were associated with the former multi-lingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania and would be alien to the narrow ethnic nationalisms, whether Polish or Lithuanian, that emerged after 1863-4." [28]. Novickas (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well dozen of EN sources states that person in question regarded himself as Lithuanian. And it is definitely not UNDUE to outline self attestation. Therefore it is just unacceptable to have old OR and POV term. M.K. (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

All right, let's say the current version ("...variously described as...") is acceptable as regards nationality (it still seems a gross distortion of the sources - sources which simply mention Lithuania in relation to him, like the one quoted above, are not saying that he was a Lithuanian), but still - we should presumably make it clear that the language of his poetry was Polish - I'll try to put that in without making the sentence too awkward.--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

At the time of Mickiewicz Lithuania was not defined as nation state as it is today.Some Poles defined themselves as Lithuanians, to them it was just an specific area of Poland.Anyway let's not turn the discussion into Lithuania topic. The overwhelming majority of sources describes Mickiewicz as Polish author and poet, few do otherwise.This needs to be reflected.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski regarding, "we should presumably make it clear that the language of his poetry was Polish " is a fact, and hardly being disputed. Certainly I agree with you that is the case. The thornier issue is his ethnicity, and language is hardly the yardstick to measure ethnicity or nationality. My "mother-tongue" is English, yet I'm not English. Joseph Conrad wrote in English and he was not English. Pilsudski studied at Kharkiv University, presumably in Russian (and I'm sure we at least both agree he was not Russian). In any case, difficult as it may seem to some, there are enough sources and enough evidence to suggest that Mickiewicz truly was a son of the multi-cultural Grand Duchy of Lithuania (where earlier Poles, Lithuanians, and Belarusians got along better than some of them do today on Wikipedia). Best Dr. Dan (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to imply that language=ethnicity, just that when we're talking about a writer, the language he wrote in is obviously of prime significance and needs to be stated prominently (if it isn't already naturally implied by the way his ethnicity is described).--Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is going for ages, I dont see any arguments to state his nationality as: variously described... because then we would have to add belarusian, jewish ar even tatar. I have already given arguments to call him simply Polish but havent heard any serious 0nes to call him Lithuanian!I think the only reasonable thing to do is come back to: Polish romantic poet(sometimes described as Polish-Lithuanian)dont You think it is reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.33.137.193 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that was quite a reasonable solution, though clearly having Poles and Lithuanians arguing it out is never going to reach a solution (the reasonable ones tend to be driven out by the extremists). We need some outside voices in the discussion - knowledgeable, but neutral (ah, would that were possible...)--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some doubts about "neutral outside voices". It will never be enough neutral - due to different understandings of nation among the peoples - German will give his version, Frenchman will give different - and due to influence of Polish or Lithuanian (but, rather Polish than Lithuanian) historiography. "Polish - Lithuanian" or just "poet, variously...", i think, are the only neutral solutions. Great Adam Mickiewicz had important connections (roots, fatherland), that had very big influence to his ideas of poetry, with Lithuania. As i see, Lithuanian side, contrary to Polish, never wanted to write that he is only "Lithuanian" poet. And it is reflected even in wikipedia of Lithuanian language. On the other side, even if in English wikipedia's discussions we reach answer that one or other man is Polish-Lithuanian or even just Lithuanian, in Polish wikipedia he will always be "Polski" general, poet, scientist, etc. (Egisz (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

I really dont thnk it is the matter of neutrality. Facts are facts and point of view doesnt have much to do with this. I think that Poles are really trying to reach compromise, for example as it is with Kopernik-even though it is internationally known that he was Polish, wikipedia doesnt state his nationality, because there is not enough arguments to do that. And now coming back to Mickiewicz You didnt give anything to prove Your point (if You did-then please remind me). I think that what I proposed plus the whole section about nationality and ethnicity is enough done (on Poles side) to reach compromise. Also I think it is encyclopedia and so personal feelings shouldnt matter just the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.243.136.101 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He has deep roots in Lithuania, he named Lithuania as his fatherland not only as the territory of Poland, but also with connection to the state - Grand Duchy - his poetry is full with historical episodes of sovereign state of Grand Duchy (or not historical but still with distinction). (Egisz (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

The trouble with nationality descriptions is that they are not simply "facts" (like saying what year someone died). They are necessarily syntheses of several different facts, and there is no unique way of doing the synthesis - different biographers are going to arrive at different descriptions, even in the ideal situation where they have access to the same facts and have no personal biases. Since at Wikipedia we are not supposed to be doing original synthesis of our own, all we can do is give a balanced representation of the syntheses that other reliable sources have made. Sometimes that means acknowledging that there are two or more different descriptions.--Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As for encyclopedia standards I think Kotniski explanation should be enough, but I dont think that is gonna be understood by Egisz so if the arguments I gave before are not enough, lets have Mickiewicz something to say(in Polish-sorry I dont have englkish translation):

Dziady part III: POLSKA od pół wieku przedstawia widok z jednej strony tak ciągłego, niezmordowanego i niezbłaganego okrucieństwa tyranów...

Dzieje męczeńskiej POLSKI obejmują wiele pokoleń i niezliczone mnóstwo ofiar; krwawe sceny toczą się po wszystkich stronach ziemi naszej i po obcych krajach.

Wtenczas podniesiono na cały ród polski prześladowanie powszechne, które coraz stawało się gwałtowniejsze i krwawsze. Wystąpił na scenę pamiętny w naszych dziejach senator Nowosilcow. On pierwszy instynktową i zwierzęcą nienawiść rządu rosyjskiego ku Polakom wyrozumował jak zbawienną i polityczną, wziął ją za podstawę swoich działań, a za cel położył zniszczenie polskiej narodowości. Wtenczas całą przestrzeń ziemi od Prosny aż do Dniepru i od Galicji do Bałtyckiego Morza zamknięto i urządzono jako ogromne więzienie. Całą administracją nakręcono jako jedną wielką Polaków torturę, której koło obracali carewicz Konstanty i senator Nowosilcow. (...) [Nowosilcow] założył główną kwaterę katostwa w Wilnie, w stolicy naukowej prowincji litewsko-ruskich. Były wówczas między młodzieżą uniwersytetu różne towarzystwa literackie, mające na celu utrzymanie języka i narodowości polskiej. Kongresem Wiedeńskim i przywilejami imperatora zostawionej Polakom. (...) skazano kilkudziesięciu studentów do min sybirskich, do taczek, do garnizonów azjatyckich. W liczbie ich byli małoletni, należący do znakomitych rodzin litewskich. Dwudziestu kilku, już nauczycieli, już uczniów uniwersytetu, wysłano na wieczne wygnanie w głąb Rosji jako podejrzanych o polską narodowość. [here clearly-Lithuanian family, polish natioanlity-because, once again, Lithuania was a district of Poland!!!] (...) Autor chciał tylko zachować narodowi wierną pamiątkę z historii litewskiej lat kilkunastu: (...) do litościwych narodów europejskich, które płakały nad Polską jak niedołężne niewiasty Jeruzalemu nad Chrystusem, naród nasz przemawiać tylko będzie słowami Zbawiciela: (...)

A wiesz ty, co to będzie z Polską za lat dwieście?

• * *

Tyran wstał - Herod! - Panie, cała Polska młoda / Wydana w ręce Heroda.

• * *

And so on and on, and here is a great example that Mickiewicz believed that a Lithuanian was a Pole, Lithuanian was a Pole coming from the land of former Grand Duchy o Lithuania

Chodziły wieści, że żołnierz zdeptany Był młodym chłopcem, rekrutem, Litwinem, Wielkiego rodu, księcia, grata synem; Że ze szkół gwałtem w rekruty oddany, I że dowódzca, nie lubiąc Polaka, Dał mu umyślnie dzikiego rumaka, Mówiąc: "Niech skręci szyję Lach sobaka(Lach=ethnic Pole)

I wouldnt dare to translate it by myself, but You can use an online translation. Mickiewicz was not Lithuanian by ethnicity nor he felt Lithuanian. I did agree to the form "sometimes described..." only out of courteousy but the form: Pole, Lithuanian or Polish-Lithuanian is a nonsense as much as half of the ethnicity section. 

I see that Egisz is not being very neutral stating for exaple that Poland has stolen You sth?what exactly did You mean?and what does it have to do with Mickiewicz?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.138.107 (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC) 

I think You could easily translate most important parts of the text and try to explain what it could mean - thats how discussion must look like.

I agree with Kotniski (variously described as...). 

I don't want to speak about stealing, etc - it doesn't look serious, i just saw the fact that Poles in Polish language's wikipedia often write "Polski" even discussion in English shows one or other man wasn't only or absolutely was not a Pole. So i will try again: 1) He has deep roots in Lithuania. His family tree begins with Rymwid - Mickiewicz. I still have a pic of his family tree that i made in museum of Adam Mickiewicz in Belarus. 2) Not in one text of Mickiewicz we can find clear distinction between Poland and Lithuania, that was his fatherland.(Egisz (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC))

Well, basically  what You could see in his, works there is no distinction between a Pole and a Lithuanian, there are synonyms, but when he speak about a country as whole he says Poland-hope that will be enough for translation(besides if You read DziadyIII You know what I mean).
I mentioned stealing because You were talking about it in one of Your previous posts so I thought that if we clear that one out we can have more neutral attitude in the main conversation.

about 1)ok, so in his family tree we have a Lithuanian surname, and what does it mean? that his great grandfather or even grandfather was Lithuanian?does it make him a Lithuanian?not really, this is what for we have an ethnicity section, and his surname- Mickiewicz was Polish, as well as his coat of arms. about 2) Yes!!exactly there is no difference for him between Poland and Lithuania!as I am trying to convince You for a long time now, because Lithuania was a part(a district) of Poland, look there is not much in common between those people and todays Lithuania, even the language is partially artificial. Also, You should remember that according to Davies in Wilno voivodeship there was only 5% Lithuanians!!!(God's playground-page 627) ok.just imagine I am a famous writer(heh)and I write extensively about my home(lets say silesia)and I say i am Silesian and I am Polish, years later Silesia becomes a separate country and they say I was not a Pole but Silesian, that is a nonsense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.116.42 (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

1) His family name means that he has deep roots in Lithuania. I offer You to check this: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rymwid . Then i offer You to check this: http://www.genealogia.okiem.pl/mickiewicz.htm - this shows that Rymwid - Mickiewicz family(check from Walenty Rymwid Mickiewicz(with him begins his family tree in Navahrudak) comes from old times, and all of them - in Lithuania. "Mickiewicz" may mean only the branch of Rymwids family. And it isn't Polish, but rather Byelorussian than Polish, and possibly rised from the toponyme Mickowce. Remember, that ancestors of Mickiewicz were "inheritors of Mickowce". And could You find any of Rymwid - Mickiewicz before great Adam, living, working in Poland? Coat of arms? Lot of Lithuanians used Coat of arms that came from Poland, it doesn't proove anything. Even having Polish coat of arms they were Lithuanians, citizens of Lithuania with possibility to be officholder of Grand Duchy. Also You can check this link - http://books.google.lt/books?id=3Eedyf3LEE4C&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Rymwid++Poraj&source=bl&ots=ma5TfnUT2j&sig=4_f9W14Faycgu5JvIYrDmC7JQ0k&hl=lt&ei=inpyTOSBMMehONbhuLAL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Rymwid%20%20Poraj&f=false . It means he had Lithuanian-Ruthenian surname(both from Grand Duchy of Lithuania!) 2) THERE IS difference! For example in 4th book of Pan Tadeusz: "Bogarodzicy Panny, Królowej Korony Polskiej; zowią ją dotąd i Księżną Litewską! Koronęć jeszcze dotąd piastuje królewską, Lecz na Litewskiem Księstwie teraz syzma siedzi!" 3) Lithuania was never district of Poland. Neither before 1795, nor after. And Sejm of 1791 just one more time stated dualism of the state. And why do You say that language artificial? 4.1. You should quote that place of Davies, because i found something different. He writes that according to 1897(at that moment there were no voivodship of Wilno) census only 2 percent of people of city of Vilnius was Lithuanian. But we have to have in mind this: 1) It was many years after Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was partitioned, while Polonisation had its fastest "speed" exactly in XIX century. 2) City of Vilnius, like all cities had different situation than whole region. And it shows that in gubernia of Vilnius there were more Lithuanians than Poles. 3) No one asked about nationality during the census. The question was about mother tongue. As we know, there were lot of Lithuanians who, even being Polish speaking, named themselves as Lithuanians. So the gap between Polish and Lithuanian population would be even bigger. (http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php?reg=32) 4.2. Possibly that would be nonsense, but Silesia and Lithuania are different. Lithuania was country from the middle of XIII century to 1795, had its own nation, different history. Mickiewicz, being from Lithuanian family, also made distinction between Poland and Lithuania, wrote about its history, "old capital", and named it as his fatherland. Ok, it is enough for this time. (Egisz (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC))

Oh, i want to add something. Looks like, You tried to support Your opinion by God's Playground. Why wouldn't You like to quote this: "Mickiewicz, for one, saw no reason why he should not be a "Pole" and a "Lithuanian" at one and the same time" (Egisz (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC))

Once again if his grandfather or great great grandfather was Lithuanian(Rymwid)what difference does it make?in every family tree especially in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth times, the ethnicity of families were very much mixed. So, I really dont understand what the nationality of one of his many ancestors has to do with it? And his coat of arms was adopted only by 2 Lithuanians families either of them were Mickiewicz, his coat of arms I believe is a really good proof of his nationality. Also the surname Mickiewicz is a Polish surname, his mother was Polish and it is really a nonsense that we have to prove he was Polish or Lithuanian by his blood while it didnt really work that way because You cant really say he didnt feel Polish, can You?

But if this is what You need here we go- Mickiewicz:"„Mój ojciec z Mazurów, matka moja Majewska z wychrztów"mazurians=slavic tribes(later germanized)so is this enough for You?I brought it but dont really think the blood because the nationality is what You feel.But whatever it should be enough About the point 2- I really dont understand, did You prove anything?

As for staying a separate state- as far as I know the constitution of 1791 created one country-Poland.                                                                                            Every voivodeship had its capital, and You must remember Poles were very sentimental about Lithuania, and again writing about Lithuania what does it mean?it means he loved this beatiful land where he was born, when a traveler writes about beautiful places he lived in what does it mean? You didnt give me any serious argument for calling him Lithuanian or even Polish-Lithuanian.                                                                                         " Looks like, You tried to support Your opinion by God's Playground. Why wouldn't You like to quote this: "Mickiewicz, for one, saw no reason why he should not be a "Pole" and a "Lithuanian" at one and the same time""-but this is what I am saying!!heh I dont think we understand each other well. I am sure if You asked Mickiewicz he wouldnt even know what You are talking about, because Poland and Lithuania was the same(but few sentences up You tried to prove sth totally opposite-that this coutries were separate-I am confused).But then here we are trying to find out what would be his nationality in XXI century.

about 4.1 There might be a bit of true in what You are saying, but I am really not sure about this mother tongue and nationality, I mean it was really tricky at that time, and You must remember that polonisation was not forced onto this people so... Lithuanian language in nowadays form was created about 1900-1917- I think so, as it happened with Romanian I am not so sure though- but it was created by some people(not developed naturally)this is why I called it partially artificial. In the times of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth this language was used only by peasantry so even Radziwiłł if he rose from the death bed he wouldnt understand it. Eh, sorry for such a mess in my answer:]but this is taking really long to write. Maybe lets leave the off topics. And if You have any buts( and I am sure You do) just write one by one, or lets give arguments one by one to call him Polish(me)and Lithuanian(You)ok?because otherwise I dont think we will get anywhere any soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.112.13.178 (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Its not about grandfather or great-grandfather. Its about all Rymwid - Mickiewicz family that is Lithuanian of Byelorussian rather than Polish. Rymwid - Lithuanian, Mickiewicz - Byelorussian words. || So first reason to name him Lithuanian is his genetics. Where from did You get that quote about Mosuria? How he could tell that if the information tells that his father is from Grand Duchy(Navhrudak)? 2) His self testimony. He called Lithuania as his fatherland and also he named himself as Lithuanian. 3) He made clear distinction between Lithuania and Poland in that quote(and we can find lot of them) of Pan Tadeusz i gave to You. 4) He is really VARIOUSLY described as Pole, Lithuanian, etc. (Just look to the Davies quote) All this means that "Lithuanian" cannot be deleted from this page. Double identity doesn't mean that any of it musn't be shown. Coat of arms doesn't proove anything. Lot of Lithuanians had coat of arms that came from Poland, but it doesn't mean anything.

1791 made one dual country, with equality between Grand Duchy and the Crown(Constitution wasn't just one doccument of all Sejm). Lithuanian language wasn't created in 1900-1917. There are Lithuanian text from XV-XVIII centuries that we can understand. Of course, there is a difference, but just try to read Polish text of XVI century...(Egisz (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Mickiewicz isn't a polish-lithuanian poet, only a polish poet. He wrote only in polish. For POV fighters, who support the version "polish-lithuanian" I got one short tip. Let's look into book of history and check the status of lithuanian language in XIX century. How someone who did not write in lithuanian could be described as polish-lithuanian poet? We cannot spread false information. I suggest to look on polish version of this article and read sth about polish history and november uprising. The fact that before partition had been existed Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth doesnt implicate that each person who lives in that time is polish-lithuanian. For example, Vaclaw Havel has lived in Czechoslovakia for most of his life but he's a Czech not a Czechoslavian politics.Andrzej19 (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Being in language doesn't mean being in nation. He was Polish language poet, but not Polish(or not only Polish). We saw him texts. Why didn't You try for example, to discuss my arguments? (Egisz (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC))

City naming

1. Before reverting to Polish names, can you explain why not to Russian for instance? In the period of his life any of these currently Lithuanian cities were part of Russia. 2. Why are you using "Warszawa" instead of English Warsaw?

Please use factual and non-misleading edit summaries when reverting

In regard to this [29]; if you're going to revert at least use a factual and non-misleading edit summary. Specifically:

• whether an edit is "helpful" or not is not up to a particular editor to decide. Personally I, and others, may find the edit to be quite helpful. Don't editorialize.
• Don't falsely claim a "consensus" where none exists. Possibly you meant "status quo" which is different (and changing the status quo is in the nature of any edit). We don't have consensus here, rather, the usual polarization between Lithuanian editors and everyone else. (Dec 2, VM)

more on edit summaries

Please also see this edit summary by Novickas [30]. Citation needed tags are removed from the lede, per WP:LEDE, since supposedly, these claims are references later on in the article. The "Polish" and the "Polish-Lithuanian" are in fact referenced later in the article. The "Lithuanian" by itself is not. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WP: UNDUE

No source has been provided to back up the claim made in the article, much less the lede. It should be removed and the lede should reflect what the vast majority of sources state. This is Wikipedia policy. Abide. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Adam Mickiewicz "Polish poet"" - [31], 6530 hits
• "Adam Mickiewicz "Lithuanian poet"" - [32], 73 hits AND OF THOSE:
  • looking at the first ten, we have 1 that is in fact using the form "Polish-Lithuanian Poet", 8 that that mention Mickiewicz but are referring to a different person (a translator, someone influenced by him; Milosz, Kudrika, Halban, Kossu...) when using the phrase "Lithuanian Poet", and one possibly that calls him "Lithuanian" in the context of the Gombrowicz quote which ... stresses his Polishness.
  • Looking at the second ten, again we have a one or two sources which are actually using the form "Polish-Lithuanian poet", most are again calling SOME OTHER poet "Lithuanian", not Mickiewicz, and one which explicitly calls Mickiewicz a "Polish poet". There is one, by Paulaskiene, that maybe refers to him as "Lithuanian", but also stresses his Polishness.
  • At first glance, the third ten might look a bit better. We have 4 works which appear to call him Lithuanian (the other 6 are referring to different poets and are using the form "Polish Lithuanian"). Of these 4, 2 are from the 19th century and appear to be referring to geography, not ethnicity. Then you have the "Handbook of Soviet Nationalities", which calls him a Lithuanian poet but notes he wrote exclusively in Polish, and the "Empire of the Tsars" source which calls him Lithuanian but is obviously again, referring to geography and not ethnicity, as it introduces the sentence with "As regards the Poles...".

Being extremely generous, let's suppose that half of those 73 hits are in fact calling him "Lithuanian poet". That's 73/(73+6530)=.55% of relevant sources. So we have about one half of one percent of sources calling him a "Lithuanian poet", at best. Hell, let's be really extremely generous and suppose - though we know otherwise - that all of those 73 hits are calling him a "Lithuanian poet". That's still only about one percent of relevant sources.

• • "Adam Mickiewicz "Lithuanian poet" -Polish" gives 27 hits [33]. Of those we essentially have the two or three that were mentioned above, a duplicate listing of these, and again, references to Lithuanian translators of Mickiewicz, or people influenced by him, not Mickiewicz himself. In the most extreme case, that would make it less than one half of one percent or about .005 of sources and it is likely much less.

Please see WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE, if you're not already familiar with those policies. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can people please answer these arguments if they want to put "or Lithuanian" in the lead? It really is irrelevant for the purposes of the lead that you can provide one obscure (and rather vaguely defined) source that says this, when we have thousands of sources which say something else. Please forget national pride and concentrate on making the article reflect, in representative fashion, what the sources say.--Kotniski (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

more false edit summaries

[34]. The reverted version is neither stable nor does it have consensus. "Stability" is also not some kind of policy nor criteria. I note that neither of the reverters, MK nor Lokyz, has bothered to address issues on talk. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Answering your question - stable version means consensus, that had been proven to be satisfactory for all parties, and not considered WP:POV. Attempt to start old and forgotten edit wars is unproductive, if not to say provocative. Thenk you for your respect for Wikipedia policies. Have a good time of a day.--Lokyz (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not a very good answer. Stable version DOES NOT mean consensus. Not sure where you get that one from. Regardless, a quick look at the article's history [35] clearly shows that there hasn't been a stable version here for awhile. Finally, any version needs to observe WP:UNDUE - the fact that 99% of sources refer to Mickiewicz as either "Polish" or "Polish-Lithuianian" (with the overwhelming majority of these simply going with "Polish"), and less than 1% call him "Lithuanian" (and these usually discuss his "Polishness" right away, just don't use the words "Polish-Lithuanian").

I'm fine with having "Polish-Lithuanian" in the lede even though that is a bit undue also, in the spirit of compromise. But there's virtually no reason to have "Lithuanian" by itself there (or in main article text for that matter).

Please address the issues raised here and in the section right above first, rather than just reverting with inaccurate edit summaries. Or we can go for Third Opinion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, never heard that nationality is counted only by percents of mentionings. Yeah, of course, his self testimony, his origin, and thoose other percents(just poor Tomas Venclova - professor or Yale, writer Witold Gambrowicz, historian Norman Davies. They are just nothing yes? (Egisz (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC))

I don't quite understand what you're saying. His nationality was ... I dunno, "Russian", then something else (the concept wasn't as well defined then as it is now)? I take it you mean his ethnicity. And that, going by sources was "Polish" or at best "Polish-Lithuanian". A better example here would be Zbigniew Herbert. We wouldn't call him "English". Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

editorial respect

The entire article does provide many sourced versions of Mickiwiecz's nationality/ethnicity. These are not questioned or, to be precise, removed/revoked. However, as writer he is beyond any doubt known for being Polish national poet. Period. And his poetry is the main reason of his notability. Not his ethnicity. Therefore in the definition it should be clearly stated. And provided notable source speaks of him as such (Polish national poet). The rest of this so called controversy (although there is really not much of a controversy about it either way) is explained in the body of the article. So, please leave the definition as it is sourced. respectfully yours, --Emanek (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, read the article carefully, especially the parts where it is acknowledged, that Mickiewicz did know Lithuanian language, Lithuanian history and spent significant part of his life in Lithuania.

A short question: do you read Litwo as Poland? Is that soooo obvious?--Lokyz (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• as for the short question: of course I did. As well as most of his native readers. That was obvious than and still is. Mickiewicz did not know (to our knowledge) Lithuanian language, and if he did it was on less than rudimentary level (see attached as source essay by Venclova). It so ahistorical to use modern (today's) understanding the term 'nationality' to XIX century lands of former Commonwealth.Even in the lands of Grand Dutchy the ethnic Lithuanians where in minority comparing to Ruthenians. And the concept of Lithuanian (as nation) was just emerging from tribal traditions. To assign it post mortem to anyone is really a stretch of arrogance. I could understand the elegant (although not really factual) try to use Polish-Lithuanians, but Polish-Lithuanian is baseless. Anyhow, best luck in rewriting history. It could be amusing at times. yours, --Emanek (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sad to hear that you cannot distinguish Lithuania and Poland. And Mickiewicz would certainly not understand what is 'Polish-Lithuanian (adjective)'. Even the writer from 19th century - Sienkiewicz know that Lithuania and Korona are two separate entities.--Lokyz (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ay, Lokyz, don't be insulting to other editors. You'll know you'll get into trouble, just like you know that everyone here is perfectly capable of distinguishing between Lithuania and Poland. Emanek's right about that Mickiewicz did not know Lithuanian, that a Lithuanian "nationality" or even "Lithuania" meant something else in 19th century than it does today - certainly to Mickiewicz at least. And the "Polish-Lithuanian (adjective)" was a suggestion by your good friend Dr. Dan. And as crazy as it sounds, two things can be "separate" (actually the appropriate term is 'distinct') and yet be part of the same whole. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't have an intention to insult anyone. Did you have any other intention than patronise me? Yikes, the eemls sanctions are still here.--Lokyz (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To be sure, Marek, "Poland" also meant something else in the the 19th century, other than it does today. As is the case for many countries in the world today. So what? As much as some people in this discussion continually want to believe that Lithuania was, and is a "province" of Poland and that is what Mickiewicz "meant" when he called the geographical region, "Lithuania, my Fatherland you are like health itself". We can't ask Mickiewicz. What puzzles me most is that some people think somehow Poland has a unique quality concerning the issue. That is to say that Poland and Poles in the 19th century represent Poland today, whereas Lithuania and Lithuanians in the 19th century do not represent Lithuania today. To the best of my knowledge Lithuania was never a province of Poland in any century (well, maybe a slice of it was for 17 years in the 20th century due to duplicity and military aggression), but Poland was a province of Austro-Hungary, Prussia, and Russia for over a hundred and twenty years. Another thing that bugs me is this "language" issue. Most Poles that I know would say that Joseph Conrad was Polish. I think so too, but he wrote his famous works in English. It didn't change his ethnicity. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, what do the sources say? They say "Polish" or at best "Polish-Lithuanian". Virtually none of them say "Lithuanian" by itself. And he wrote in Polish, spoke Polish and wrote patriotic pamphlets about Poland. It's pretty obvious - and the sources agree - that he regarded Poland and Lithuania as inseparable. So yes, in a way we can ask him, and we can ask reliable sources.

Joseph Conrad's article calls him "Polish born English novelist". I'm fine with Mickiewicz being called "Polish poet born in Lithuania" or something similar.

All that other stuff you mention is just the standard irrelevant red herrings. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Geez, not that "Red Herring" shtick again. Frankly I don't care for the "Polish born English novelist" myself. Conrad was a Pole who wrote in English. But I still don't understand your and some others commentary here about Lithuania and Lithuanians in the 19th century meaning something different than what it means today, and that is not the case with Poland? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There is much more fun, dating further back in the history - Battle of Kircholm, where all sources praise Lithuanians and Polish sorces translate it as Polies. It's soooo ridiculous, that even ain't funny any more. Especially the quotation of gen. Lennartsson - Your majesty, you'll sooner see Dvina river flowing back, than Lithuanians retreating. Poland's educational system reads it, well, you might guess it - not Lithuania. While I do find it strange, to doubt a general who did know, what army he was confronting.--87.247.108.135 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence

Can we sort out, once and for all, and in a spirit of cooperation and neutrality, what the first sentence should say as regards nationality? "....Mickiewicz was a [XX] Romantic poet...." - what should the value of XX be? Do we agree that it's been established by now that the vast majority of sources call him Polish, while there are a smaller number that call him Polish-Lithuanian, Belarusian-Polish or some such, and probably a few isolated ones that call him just Lithuanian or just Belarusian. How do we express this in a way that properly reflects the balance of the sources, without making the article's introductory sentence into an unreadable mess?--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Can we sort out, once and for all what is meant by the argument "Poland and Poles in the 19th century represent Poland today, whereas Lithuania and Lithuanians in the 19th century do not represent Lithuania today"? This has been the gist [36] of one side of this debate that wants to deny or at least minimize Mickiewicz's ties to his Lithuanian ancestry. Hell, the man never set foot in Warsaw or Krakow, and formulated his world view in Vilnius and Kaunas. And this blather that he wasn't familiar with the Lithuanian language? Let me throw out another "red herring". And I suppose Pilsudski (medical student at Kharkiv didn't know Russian either). There are way too many examples of people writing in languages other than that of their ethnicity and "knowing" these languages to have any significance to settling this. That argument is a moot one. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of any of the above (it's not up to Wikipedia to make original interpretations of facts, or to wilfully misrepresent how the sources interpret them), but anyway, what would be your proposal for the first sentence?--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, my edits concerning the first sentence speak for themselves. It's alright with me as it stands. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hiding a reply that concerns the editor rather than the issues of this talk page. Click [show] to read, but please continue such discussions elsewhere.

Oh for Christ sake, can you PLEASE stop derailing all these discussions on Lithuanian/Polish articles? No one has made the argument that "Poland and Poles in the 19th century represent Poland today, whereas Lithuania and Lithuanians in the 19th century do not represent Lithuania today". For starters. This is just completely ridiculous. Anytime anyone makes an attempt at compromise, you show up and bring up some completely irrelevant shit which basically torpedoes the said attempt at compromise:

You start talking about people's grandmothers and grandfathers or something, and/or you start posting links to people's personal user page pictures for no reason, and/or you try to personalize the discussion in some other way like asking them whether or not they own cats or something, and/or you make up imaginary discussion (as in discussions that never happened but somehow you came to believe they did) where somebody somewhere supposedly said something wrong, or you link to some discussion from like four years ago which is of no relevance to the present discussion, and/or you start talking about how many yachts/boats/floating devices you own, and/or you let everyone know how many thousands of dollars it costs you to fill up the said boats/yachts/floating devices with fuel, and/or you mention how you would love to participate in these discussion but since you have to go drink expansive fancy champagne with your friends you will just blind revert instead, and/or you try to show off how many different languages you supposedly speak (good for you), and/or you bring Pilsudski just for shitzngiggles, and/or you start insulting people and poking fun of people in ways which you think are witty but which are frankly boorish, unimaginative, painfully vapid and just low class.

Diffs can be provided to support each one of these things in case anyone cares. Under normal circumstances, in a "normal" topic area, this would just be your run of the mill Wikipedia annoyance and bother, but since this is part of a very contentious topic area, it adds up to a basically concerted effort to propagate battleground mentality across this area. Any kind of constructive dialogue or discussion is hijacked by this bullshit, again and again.

Enough. All of these things DO constitute disruptive behavior. Most of them are also extremely incivil and often insulting though not in the usual way where one user calls another user an idiot, but in a "subtle" (actually, not so subtle to anyone who edits this topic area regularly) way which repeatedly tries to violate the spirit of civility and collegiality while observing the "letter" of the incivility policy. This makes it even worse, because it's such an obvious WP:GAME gaming of the rules. This kind of behavior has already earned you several interaction bans as well as warnings about your talk page conduct. Worse, it has ensured that dozens of Polish/Lithuanian articles, some of which, like this one really deserve to be brought up to Good Article status, languish as Wikipedia-semi-crap simply because Dr.Dan likes to argue about irrelevant stuff on the talk page and edit wars over innanities on the articles themselves. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sufficient to say, a huge majority of sources (almost all in the past) called Mickiewicz a "Polish poet". That should be the only rule that applies here. It absolutely doesn't matter what I or any other editor from wikipedia thinks on that subject. It is a simply as that. Further discussion is really not even merited and starts to veer off into unrelated issues of some sort of national/chauvinistic 'us versus them'. The sentence to have sense and validity should read: Adam Mickiewicz - a national Polish poet of Romantic period.. Fact that some historians or historians of literature call him "Polish-Lithuanian" or even "Lithuanian" is and should be mentioned in the body of text. It is not the role of wikipedia editors to render verdicts on such matter of dispute. Majority of serious sources - that is the end of discussion. It starts to border on insanity. And leave modern day Poles and Lithuanians out of it. Same with pre-war histories and gievances. That happened well after the old world of Mickiewicz and his Rzeczpospolita died never to be reborn again. Was Plato a Greek? Yes, he was. Despite the fact that his modern day 'greekness" is as valid as any other European with roots in western civilization. But it does not make him French or German (or Polish or Lithuanian, for that matter). --Emanek (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should convey clearly the fact that most sources regard him as Polish (i.e. we should try to avoid a sentence that gives equal weight to "Polish" and "Lithuanian"), but my impression is that there are enough sources that deal with his Lithuanian-ness - and the fact that in his most famous work he calls Lithuania his fatherland - that to leave out any mention of Lithuanian from the lead would give an overly one-sided impression, and leave many readers wondering why it's been omitted. (There's also Belarussian to be considered, of course, as mentioned in the Ethnicity section of the article.) --Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What sources exactly? Google Hits, a corporation, that has multiple issues with copyright holders? This argument has been thrown many times, and many times it has been denied to be working.

Polish sources? Russian sources? Ukrainian, Lithuanian, UK, US, German, French? Australian???

There is a simple mechanism to check this - who is quoting who in the line of books. That would be rather intriguing, I can promise you that. And let me remind you, that there is no common consensus on what wp:rs are.--Lokyz (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is rather obvious situation; how modern historians called Mickevičius is rather secondary issue, primary issue how the person called, identified himself and we have more then enough RS for this, he called himself Lithuanian like noted in Lithuania:past, culture, present; 1999, p77; Vilnius:the city and its history, 2002 etc etc. And writing such information in the lead is perfectly ok with all WP policies, despite attempts from Polish nationalists to prove otherwise. So, opening passage could be as follows: ...was a poet of the Romantic period, who is known primarily as the author of the poetic novel Dziady and national epic Pan Tadeusz. While born in Russian Empire he called himself a Lithuanian.... Of course if we have other RS there is noted that he called himself in other ways, we could add them too.M.K. (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, it it is highly relevant how modern historians call him - what we write in Wikipedia ought to be based on what such scholars say. One single source saying something different from the great majority of the others is perhaps worthy of note somewhere in the article, but I don't see how on its own it can justify rewording the lead sentence to accommodate it.--Kotniski (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• with all due respect my friends: the phrase in his famous Invocation: "Litwo, ojczyzno moja" meant beyond any doubt to be a call to 'old Poland', the one prior to Partition of Poland. 'Litwa' and so called 'Kresy' (eastern lands of the Commonwealth) were seen by many Polish patriots as the epitome of national treasures, as the romantic outpost of democracy and Christianity against the devils of authoritarian regimes (Moscow, Vienna and Berlin) and/or non-believers (Ottoman empire and hordes of wild Islam). These notions were not necessarily correct, nonetheless that's how they were perceived by his contemporaries. And because his epic "Pan Tadeusz' was meant to remind readers of particular 'paradise lost' of innocence, honor and somehow bucolic life of Polish noble manor in the unspoiled by outside influence Lithuanian countryside - hence the call "Litwo!". It denotes his strong attachment to a region of his youth, a region that was to be the rebirth of entire country: Poland. Just as Poland as whole was, in his believes, to be the rebirth of new Christian and just Europe (the Polish messianic movement). The very strong influence of all this lands (mainly within the borders of Grand Duchy in union with Kingdom of Poland) on the entire literature and art in Poland (specially in the XIX and very early XX century} was almost spellbinding. That is how it existed than. The 'nationality' of Lithuania did not exist yet. The ethnicity did, but not a nationality. People of standing called themselves either 'Koroniarz' (Crown - central and western Commonwealth), 'Ruski' (eastern and southeastern Commonwealth) and "Litewski' (eastern and northeastern) - to distinguish themselves from others and out of local and historical pride and traditions - it all meant "Polish". I am not even sure that it meant "Polish' in an ethnic sense. But it meant 'Polish' in a state sense, in a sense of belonging to 400 hundred years of tradition (in some eastern lands before the time of independent Grand Duchy in Middle Ages - the tradition was 700 or 800 years old). These realities of the past as it did exist cannot and shouldn't be changed by a modern day sensibilities and new realities. Polish romantic period in art and literature did create later very negative or painful inabilities to deal with new political and national realities after the I world war. There was a strong and unrealistic desire to rebuild the Commonwealth as a federation. But by that time the entire notion of 'Polish Commonwealth' was associated exactly with that: 'Polish'. And therefore it fell short of offering a confidence in new-born nations of Lithuania and Ukraine (Belarus was entirely different matter). That it another subject. In that romantic period (roughly 1820-1840) Mickiewicz understood himself and was understood by others as a Polish poet. No amount of modern day philosophical or literary arguments can change that. yours truly, --Emanek (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Emanek, that was quite a mouthful. Especially, "...the phrase in his famous Invocation: "Litwo, ojczyzno moja" meant beyond any doubt to be a call to 'old Poland'... Really? Beyond any doubt? "Mickiewicz understood himself and was understood by others as a Polish poet. No amount of modern day philosophical or literary arguments can change that." Yes, Emanek and no amount of modern day nationalistic, chauvinistic arguments can change the fact that Mickiewicz was a Lithuanian who could speak Polish and Lithuanian. Just like Čiurlonis. Btw, did you ever give some thought to the fact that the Three Bards all came from the east, as did Conrad and Szymanowski. All of them from the Kresy. Who was it that once said Poland is like a doughnut, empty in the middle, sweet on its edges? Wasn't it the Lithuanian dictator of Poland, Pilsudski? Or were the Pilsudskis not Lithuanian either? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to know Pilsudski was aware of what an American doughnut was like. Strange though that he'd choose an American dessert to make an analogy about Poland. Or are you just not familiar with what a Polish paczek or for that matter a Lithuanian spurgos looks like? Here's a helpful image where you can practice looking for the empty middle: [37]. Best of luck. Volunteer Marek  04:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Pilsudski's quote, V.M.? Check with User:Halibutt. He'll give you the correct pastry in Polish. The term "doughnut" was his translation not mine.Dr. Dan (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me save you the trouble, Ochotniku. The quote came out of this mess. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=179420956. You'll find it under the 'Pilsudski's Nationality' section. Also, you'll find some more opinions on Mickiewicz's ethnicity there too. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Halibutt was trying to say something nice and conciliatory but somehow you've managed to turn that ... 5 year old! comment of unknown relevance into a battleground tactic. And the funny thing is I specifically predicted above that you would do something like that. Volunteer Marek  10:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Halibutt was trying to say something nice or not is besides the point. You seemed to have a problem with the part about the doughnut. But since it appears that you are some kind of 'seer', in your own mind, please remember the part..."but the existence of the paranormal is generally not accepted by the scientific community." One thing is certain and that is you generally make a lot of statements that when called upon to explain, you never do. As for the five year old comment. Yep, comments and behavior from the past don't just go away. Even if you change your identity. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dan, making a logical prediction based on a consistent pattern of past behavior hardly involves any more clairvoyance or paranormal skill than the ability of a doctor to diagnose a disease based on a patient's symptoms. It's just empirical inference based on observable data, the bread and butter of scientific research.

In the past you've asked me to explain statements which I did not make, and even statements which no one else had ever made, including ones that did not actually exist - now if I could actually explain such ethereal ghost-statements THAT would truly be an example of supernatural ability, straight out of Borges. So please forgive me if I don't always oblige these fanciful requests of yours. Volunteer Marek  00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Well, here's a couple of statements that you did make a only week ago [38], at this page. What exactly does "...Lithuanian "nationality" or even "Lithuania" meant something else in 19th century than it does today - certainly to Mickiewicz at least", mean? You, I'm sure know exactly what it meant to Mickiewicz. And regarding "...Emanek's right about that Mickiewicz did not know Lithuanian (sic)...", how would you know what languages he knew or could speak? Or is that also an example of "bread and butter" scientific research too? Or is it wishful thinking on your part? Or the paranormal? Or the same old, same old, that one can come to expect when it comes out of your little group? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, how about you ponder these mysteries yourself. Volunteer Marek  05:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll let everyone else ponder about your mysterious statements, and your reluctance or inability to explain them. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• this entire page turns into rather funny and intriguing case of 'national paranoia' and arguments base on faith not reason. Thanks god wikipedia allows for using its material outside. It would be interesting to publish the content of this page in some sort humorous social commentary magazine. Now, would Jesus of Nazareth be still a Jew or a Roman, or Judean? The founder of modern independent Poland is now a Lithuanian (as he was in exactly that sense that Mickiewicz was, which has very little to do with modern day state-nationality of Lithuania). And if we have any doubts on any of these questions we can always eat a doghnut or pączek - I am sure a revelation wll come to us. Lets the donuts to be a modern day Pythia. with my best to all, --Emanek (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it just clearly illustrates, to what extent Polish educational system is one sided and presents as "Polish" cultural events and people in history, that are clearly documented or even stated otherwise themselwes. There is plethora of examples, beginning with Copernicus, following to the more complex examples of the Last citizen of GDL, or Battle of Kircholm. Btw, there is a funny line, on how Pilsudski explains his nationality to British Prime Minister (David Lloyd George if I remember correctly) - "We, the Lithuanians, were the last pagans in the Europe, and we are not like these Poles" - and points his finger to Poland's foreign minister (actually, his own minister). It is published in George's memoirs. A really funny read,If you'd ask me.--Lokyz (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Lokyz, how many times does it have to be explained to you? If Pilsudski is referring to Lithuania and Lithuanians he doesn't really mean Lithuania or or Lithuanians in the modern sense. When the brother of the man who became Poland's first president signed the Lithuanian Act of Independence he wasn't dealing with Lithuania and Lithuanians. Not really. Not only have Volunteer Marek and Emanek explained that here concerning Mickiewicz, but others have told you countless times on Wikipedia what Lithuania means. Furthermore I believe it has also been explained to you that both the language and the Lithuanian nation are modern "artificial creations". By Poles no less. Why don't you simply accept this since it has been told to you over and over again. Don't forget there are a plethora of "Google Hits" that can prove it. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the "Polish educational system" being used a source in the article? No? It's actual English language sources? Oh my. The thing is that it isn't just the "Polish educational system" which calls Mickiewicz Polish, but hundreds of English language sources, as well as the "American educational system", the "British educational system", the "French educational system", the "German educational system", the "Russian educational system", the "Mexican educational system", the "Egyptian educational system" and probably most other of the world's "educational system". There may be one particular "educational system" that does it differently, I don't know. On the other hand virtually no sources call him "Lithuanian". Ad naseum. Volunteer Marek  19:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

English sources or English language sources? There is a difference.--Lokyz (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede section inlines

I've removed all the inline citations from the lede, as the lede usually do not get inline citations. Rather, the lede should summarize the rest of the article, and hence contain only the info which is already sourced and inlined in rest of the article.

Also please keep in mind that this is a guy who wrote Księgi narodu polskiego i pielgrzymstwa polskiego (The tomes of the Polish nation and of Polish pilgrimage). I don't think his self-identification as Polish is in any doubt. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Litwo! Ojczyzno moja! ty jestes jak zdrowie. Indeed explanatory. One should note, that it wasn't spelled Poland exactly.

And the game about style is not so stylish. It is a bad tone to remove inline ref's. --Lokyz (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You're equivocating and you know it. In the above "Lithuania" refers to a geographic region. It's like as if a person from Alabama called themselves an Alabamian (as in "Sweet Home Alabama"). They would still be an American. Again, where are the sources (let's have more than .05% of them) which call him just "Lithuanian"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And btw, what language is that in? Lithuanian? Polish-Lithuanian? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not Alabamian. And what does language has to do with it? Lithuania, you're like heart or Lietuva, tu kaip širdis - certainly does not make a big difference in the meaning. And indeed it's the same geographical region. There is a lot of people, who speak Polish, but call Lithuania homeland. So why wouldn't people let Mickiewicz decide by himself, where his hearth was at? (Especially after he's written it down rather clear and sound)--Lokyz (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. Anyway, sources call him either Polish or Polish-Lithuanian. There are virtually no sources which call him just Lithuanian. How many times does this have to be repeated? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Mickiewicz somehow managed to miss to mention a geographic region called Poland-Lithuania. And, actually, we're not discussing sources. We're discussing Mickiewicz's writings by his own hand. How many times does this have to be repeated?--Lokyz (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly discussing sources. I don't know what kind of original research you're doing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just reciting Mickiewicz writings in several languages. No politics attached. You should read his poetry, it's great. And let me remind you, that removing of the inline citations is, well, not acceptable by any means (since you insist, that this section is about sources).--Lokyz (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that he wrote down those writings in Polish. And of course I've read Mickiewicz (though generally I prefer Slowacki). In fact one of the earliest pieces of real verse I memorized as a kid was O czymze dumac na Paryskim bruku Wikipedi talku, przynoszac z miasta uszy pelne stuku, przeklenstw i klamstw, przedwszesnych zamiarow, zapoznych zalow, potepienczych swarow (or something close). But hey, thanks for presuming otherwise. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact, that you're writing in International (or rather US English, not sure about that) English Language in English Wikipedia does not make you an English man - is also a fact. Not quitesure what geographical region you're living in, and what region you do call homeland. --Lokyz (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but if I wrote poetry in Polish, I'd be a Polish poet. But what matters for us is how the sources refer to him. And btw, before you start "suggesting" that other people read the guy, you might wanna get your translation right - it's not Lithuania, you're like heart; it's "good health", not "heart". I'm pretty sure that even when it was translated into Lithuanian, it was sveikata, not sirdis. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

See Jurgis Baltrušaitis or Oscar Milosz - one was writing poetry (mostly) in Russian, another in French, but they're both considered Lithuanian poets because of their own choice. As for the translations, you did surprise me by Lithuanian language. That was a pleasant surprise. And I do admit my wrong translation.

As for a good poetry, I'd reccomend Lithuanian poet Henrikas Radauskas.

Nakties nėra. Diena ateis.

Ir juokas angelo.

Let the next year will be a good one. I'm off for now.--Lokyz (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lokyz, you shouldn't be surprised by Volunteer Marek's proficiency in Lithuanian. If I'm not mistaken he once stated that his grandfather spoke Lithuanian. If you don't recall, I'll try to dig up the "diff" for you. Besides Google translator comes in handy from time to time. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want a diff for that? What does it matter? As a matter of fact he did. And I've never claimed to be proficient in Lithuanian - hell, right below I state that I don't know it. And yes google translator is quite "useful" - I'm pretty sure you know that quite well. Ciao. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'm happy that I don't have to dig up the difference. Since as a matter of fact your grandfather did speak Lithuanian, may I ask if he was Lithuanian? Although it's a rarity that a foreigner can speak Lithuanian, it's not impossible. And yes, Google translator can be useful especially if one doesn't understand a language and even if they do it helps with spelling, diacritics, etc. Ciao, back! Dr. Dan (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too (that is meant 100% sincerely, just in case you're wondering). Anyway, I'm afraid that despite my attempts at Lithuanian above I'd be unable to appreciate Radauskas unless there is a Polish or English translation out there. Is there? Also, the Polish Wiki could use an article on him. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

From what Volunteer Marek wrote i can only see one - he didn't try to read discussion, where we discussed his nationality, origin, analysed his conception of Lithuania. Looks like, he even didn't read great Adam. (Egisz (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I read it. You obviously haven't read the part where I show that virtually all sources call him either Polish or Polish-Lithuanian. There is no source which calls him just Lithuanian. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this is getting quite tiresome, I'm going to ask for third opinion. Hold on a sec. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did You find such a methodology when someone's nationality is found by a number of mentioning? (Egisz (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Again, you're confusing nationality with ethnicity. And the policy is here [39]. On Wikipedia we follow what reliable sources say, "not whether editors think it is true". Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confusing nationality with ethnicity. And what do You want to tell? (Egisz (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

Hmmm, actually since this is a disagreement between more than two editors it should be an RfC, not a 3O. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you people to make a New Year's resolution to stop carping at each other and work together on making accurate and well-written articles?--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the inline cites in lead, also I was unaware they were removed so I rereferenced (some of) them with other sources (sigh). I agree that cites in lead are optional, but 1) the article makes a number of serious/possibly controversial claims and 2) the lead makes a number of cites not repeated/not referenced in article. If anybody would like to remove cites from the lead, please leave an inline note that contains the ref information. And please confirm that the content is indeed referenced in the body. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that uncited leads lend themselves to easy removals that aren't immediately obvious to page watchers. If references are taken out, the rules aren't clear but usually if an IP does that the edit is flagged by a bot with 'references removed'. Check this page's history, it's happened a lot. (Thank you Kotniski for following this article). But if someone with 15 edits takes out what they don't like and the accompanying refs, in the lead or in the body, it's not flagged, and newer editors often don't use edit summaries. So I'd say let's leave the lead cites/references alone - if it gets to GA it might have enough watchers to enforce that custom. Novickas (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine to keep'em in there. I've given up. One thing though - at least let's not have like 50 million cites to a particular claim (of the sort "x is z [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]...[50000000]) as it just looks ugly. One solid ref should be sufficient.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather keep cites out of the lead - the lead should summarize the article, and the cites can be found within the article. But if the things we say in the lead are going to be controversial, I suppose we can tolerate a few cites (but as Marek says, not lots of them for the same thing). However, on a question like his nationality, where we know that there are many sources and that they say different things and the best we can do is synthesize them into a statement that makes a reasonable summary, it makes no sense at all to provide a single source in support of a lopsided position (since someone who wants us to have the opposite lopsided position can just come along and replace it with a single source that supports that).--Kotniski (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)