Jump to content

Talk:Johann Dzierzon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 2

Johann Dzierzon → Jan Dzierzon

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus

I'm closing this discussion as "no consensus, hence no move". There are some reasonable arguments on both sides: For "Johann", there's the (moderate but apparently consistent) majority use on English Google books, somewhere near 2:1 according to Srleffler's counts above. For "Jan", there's the prevalence in modern book catalogs. For "Johann", there's his presumed own written usage; for "Jan", there's his presumed native use in his mother tongue (but we don't really have sources about that). When it comes to his own usage in his own print publications, which would probably have given a strong argument, we draw a blank: all 19th-century publications prints of his books appear to name him merely as "Pfarrer Dzierzon", with no first name at all. – Given this summary of the arguments, the distribution of !votes is a draw. Trying to distinguish opinions based on factual arguments from knee-jerk votes motivated by the typical factional divisions doesn't lead to a clearer result either. There is no argument that either the one or the other name is factually wrong, against policy or otherwise severely damaging to the encyclopedia, so no basis for imposing one outcome in the face of lack of consensus. Hence, leave as is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Johann Dzierzon → Jan Dzierzon — Page was previously moved based on a flawed Google search that appeared to show more usage of "Johann" than "Jan". A correct search shows much greater use of the latter name. It is time to have a new discussion about the best name for this article. Srleffler (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The previous move discussion is above. The flawed Google search is discussed above as well. See above for improved Google results. I am ambivalent about which name is best, but I think that a new formal move discussion is needed due to the flawed information used last time.--Srleffler (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I was incorrect about the Google search being badly flawed, however I still feel that the Google results are not definitive enough to use as the primary source for the decision. Google counting is not very reliable; it would be OK if one version of the name were much more common than the others. It's not worth much when the results are all about the same order of magnitude. See here for more on the limitations of Google counting.--Srleffler (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Note, since Varsovian has began "neutrally notifying" various editors of this vote, I've also added a note at Wiki Project Poland [1]. I would appreciate it if someone put a similar notification at other related projects (like WikiProject Germany, and I believe there is a Wiki Project or Task Force on Silesia. Don't know if there is one on Bees).radek (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support moving back to "Jan Dzierzon" (no preference on the "z") per the fact that Encyclopedia Britanica uses "Jan" [2], per the fact that "Jan" is used by the International Bee Research Association and hence the English language Journal of Apicultural Research [3]and finally, per the fact that when Dzierzon's book was published in English (and when it is currently reprinted in English) the name of the author chosen by American and British publishers was/is "Jan Dzierzon", not "Johann": contrast [4] with [5] and Library of Congress catalog [6] [7] (and this [8] makes me suspect that even German publishers of the time used "Jan" and he only became "Johann" later, for political reasons - sort of same like on Wikipedia where the article was under "Jan" for a very long time).radek (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Also I might add: even German publishers appear to have used "Jan" rather than "Johann". English language publishers most certainly used "Jan".radek (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Above here you acknowledge that a Google book search does give more results for Johann; could you strike out 'per fact that previous Google search was misleading', as Srleffler has? Novickas (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I did take it out, though I want to note that your search was indeed misleading as it contained quite a number of German language sources, making the difference appear larger than is really the case.radek (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose As per reasons given in first move discussion. Use of Encyclopedia Britanica is not appropriate: that source is ignored when it says things like Chopin being "Polish-French". As for "Jan" becoming "Johann" for political reasons: Johann Dzierzon's tombstone shows that precisely the opposite is true. Varsovian (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get your point about Chopin. His father was French and his mother Polish. He emigrated to France and became a French citizen. That makes him Polish-French. In any event, what the Encylopedia Brittanica has to say about Chopin is irrelevant to what it says about Dzierzon. The E.B. is a reliable source.--Srleffler (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Adding the adjective "strong" doesn't add any weight to your opinion - anybody can do that - especially when it is not backed up by any kind of evidence or argument. The Chopin thing is addressed above - it is a case of a red herring and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Furthermore, there's a fundamental difference between using EB to support article text (generally not recommended as it is a tertiary text) like you want to do in Chopin, and using EB to decide on article name. Please actually read the relevant guidelines (though I believe this has already been explained to you numerous times). His tombstone was under "Johann" - is that an English language source btw? If not then what is the relevance? - because he was buried by German authorities during a Germanization campaign. As is common knowledge.radek (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Having closely examined all the evidence presented on this talk page it is my opinion that the article should be moved back to Jan Dzierzon.  Dr. Loosmark  14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I find the argument based on reliable English language sources of reference, such as those presented by radek about the Library of Congress and Encyclopedia Britannica, far more persuasive than any Google count. I am not convinced, however, that choosing either page title makes any significant difference to the reader - both names are have wide use in sources, so readers are roughly as likely familiar with one as the other. The redirects make sure you end up here no matter which you put in the search box, and all variants are prominently listed at the top of the article. Whichever is picked roughly the same number of readers will arrive at the name they are familiar with, so no matter what the result of this discussion is, I don't think it'll be to the significant benefit or detriment of the reader. Knepflerle (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Per established naming used by modern scholars when debating the subject of the article in international conferences, per google books results, and per the fact that it was his real name, only later Germanised(the family didn't knew German).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Difficult. There are strong currents of advocacy in much of the previous discussion. If you keep doing Google searches for long enough, eventually you'll find one that supports your POV. It seems agreed that both the German and Polish names are commonly used in English, the German probably because that's the name under which he was originally published and the Polish for obvious reasons. Other language Wikipedias go some one way, some the other, and may be in a similar dilemma. Both names have been promoted over the years, for reasons of nationalism and political correctness and possibly others. It's hard to imagine what evidence could be relied upon under these circumstances. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, please see my link to the LIbrary of Congress record above - it seems that he was originally published under "Jan" EVEN IN GERMAN, and of course English as well. Currently, reprints of his work in English are published under "Jan". It appears that the "Jan" was changed to "Johann" only later and in only some versions of German language works.radek (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
However true that may be, I don't see that it helps! Andrewa (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well what it roughly means is that if you were to go to your local library and try to find works by the guy, you'd have much more success looking under "Jan" than under "Johann", since his English language works (and some German language too!) were published under the authorship of "Jan Dzierzon". I do think that's suggestive of convention Wikipedia should follow.radek (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I had no success looking under either! See [9] and [10] for one book I did eventually find in local collections. And it does call him Jan. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's UC Berkeley library: [11] Note the "Your entry Dzierzon, Johann would be here", right below the entry for "Jan" (which actually takes you to a German language book - again showing that even German publishers used "Jan"). I'll look up some other libraries too. It might be different.radek (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's UC Davis (I'm just starting on the West Coast): nothing for "Johann" [12]. 3 for "Jan", including again, German language ones, [13].radek (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's Urbana-Champagne (skipping libraries that have neither): [14]. Again, the author of the books is given as "Jan".radek (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's University of Michigan [15]. Again it shows that "Jan Dzierzon" is used even in GERMAN editions of his work.
Ok, that makes it the largest 15 libraries in US and libraries in the UC System - which all either don't have works by Dzierzon, or, if they do, have it under "Jan". There isn't a single listing for a book by "Johann Dzierzon", even German ones (which are also under Jan).radek (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Looks good. Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Moving back and forth and back again doesn't solve the problem. Dzierzon used both names, he had no problem with it as modern nationalism was unknown to him. As User:Srleffler now withdraw his accusation of a "flawed" result in the discussion above, there is no reason to restart that discussion again. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Notwithstanding that there's some invalid argument on both sides, I think a good case has eventually been made for preferring Jan over Johann. But adding the Polish diacritics is a separate issue. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Weakish support, the evidence presented seems to indicate that, if anything, he's more likely to be encountered as "Jan" in an English-language context, particularly a modern one (and since it seems his achievements are now promoted mostly in Poland, it's likely that the Polish name will continue to gain in prominence). However, let's spend some time examining this properly so we can make sure we've got it right and don't have to keep changing the name of the article every few months. What about the diacritics, then - does anyone know how the two forms (with and without the accent on the "n") came about? It seems that the form without that accent is more used today (in Poland).--Kotniski (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment You are right that we need to get this right now rather than moving it back and forth every few months. I'm wondering if a good solution might be to give both names in the lede, perhaps Johann 'Jan' Dzierzon (or the reverse)? Or even Johannes 'Jan' Dzierzon (given that his official name was presumably Johannes). Varsovian (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a separate issue than the title of the article, but I don't really like that way of doing it (it makes it look as if the form in quotes is a kind of nickname or diminiuitive).--Kotniski (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I meant that the title should be Johannes 'Jan' Dzierzon (or similar). As for nickname or diminiuitive, well he can't have been officially called Johannes and Jan (or if he was, the title should reflect that). Varsovian (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia article naming conventions allow having two forms of the name in the title. We handle dual names through redirects: Jan Dzierzon and Johannes Dzierzon both point to the same article; one will be the article and the other a redirect. Both forms of the name can appear in the lede, but not in the title. This discussion is just about the title (and therefore also about which name will come first in the lede).--Srleffler (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree, putting both names in the title has been tried with a number of other articles and this attempt at compromise has never lasted. Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

From this we can judge that Johann is the more widespread form, beating Jan by 39 results, with the latter actually being one of the least common forms. We should not move something only because this is the wish of some Polish nationalists, who want to promote a person's "Polishness"; I recently encountered a similar push in Nietzsche's article, and then noticed that this is happening all over the place. Tropical wind (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh, strange that you should bring up Nietzsche here, as that sort of jugs the memory a little. I think I remember something about that. Not sure yet what, lemme think about it a little more and see what I can come up with. BTW, my wife says that "Tropical wind" is a very nice name for a Wikipedia user. Radek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)
Indeed this language and arguments remind me of former arguments and language used by another user.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Always amusing to see ex-EEML people getting together to imply that another editor might be breaking an unspecified rule. Clearly those fine words when appealing topic bans were heartfelt. Varsovian (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Google counting is not very accurate.[16] It can be useful when one term gets many times more hits than another. In this case, the number of hits is so small and they are all within a factor of three. This has some value, but is not a very strong argument for "Johann" by itself. We need to consider other sources as well. Policy specifies that we follow the usage of reliable sources where possible, and recommends checking the usage of "major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias,..., major scientific bodies and scientific journals". Supporters of "Jan" have cited several such sources above. It would be good to have some comparable references from the "Johann" side. I have not seen any (although I haven't checked to see if I missed some above.)--Srleffler (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Google search problems mentioned in the above link apply here. First page estimates - we're past that; caps all queries at 1000 results, not applicable; polysemic words, punctuation, N/A; link bombing, N/A. Using the diacritic yields only a few extra EN results.[17] Could you point to a particular issue for this search? There are a few items with non-English titles in all the searches; I'd be willing to post counts that exclude those. I'm pretty sure it will stabilize at about Johann 2X Jan (for Gbook searches using name+ bees, or +parthogenesis, or +movable hive) but if you and others feel 2x is a weak result, there wouldn't be much point.
You mention checking other high-quality sources. UC Davis [18], Nature Publishing Group (which publishes Nature (journal)) [19], and Genetics Society of America [20] all used Johann during the 2000s. Novickas (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC) A couple more; New Scientist [21], European Parliament [22]. Novickas (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
How about finding an actual book published under the authorship of a "Johann Dzierzon"? Even in German. Ive looked quite hard actually and I dont think such a thing exists (maybe). It seems that whenever his works were published either in English or German it was always under "Jan". No ones disputing that some sources use Johann within them, while others use Jan. But the difference is small. Hence, the fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica, as well as American professional organization dedicated to bee keeping use Jan IN ADDITION to the fact that all his publications (even in German) appear to be under Jan should be enough. Radek (sorry, cant find tildas on this keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)
I recommend that Mr Radek actually takes a look in Dzierzon's books or, alternatively, in their scans, available on Google Books or the Internet Archive, as this would lead him into noticing that the author is usually called "Dr. Dzierzon", or "Herr Pfarrer Dzierzon", with his first name being seldom used by himself - and indeed the Jan form is never used in his books. Radeksz claims otherwise, but can he provide a single piece of proof? Srleffler asked for examples for the usage of "Johann" in major English-language sources; these easy to find: 3rd European Congress on Social Insects always uses "Johann", as does the American Nature Publishing Group, the publisher of the Nature scientific journal. Tropical wind (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Oh, I´ve noticed that in many cases he is referred to as "Dr." rather than by first name. It seems lots of works find it convenient to avoid the whole issue of naming in the first place. Unfortunetly on Wikipedia we don´t have that option and must decide. And of course, it was already pointed out that, yes, in SOME English language sources he is referred to as Johann while in others (such as Encyclopedia Britannica and the major American bee association, among many others) he is referred to as¨"Jan". But the thing is, whenver his books were published, in English OR in GERMAN, they were always published under "Jan". Also, no need to call me "Mr. Radek". We´re on first name basis here, right? Radek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose. It seems to me that the move request is based on nationalist biases. It is a complicated issue. Both sides have valid arguments. The fact is that the man himself used Johann Dzierzon not Jan Dzierżoń. That is the reality of the situation regardless of the political and historic reasons causing this to be the case. That is the basis for my vote. Furthermore "Jan Dzierzon" is right there in the lead and the article explains most of the pertinent facts concerning the man. Changing the title does not change any of these facts. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there are arguments on both sides, and either title is quite acceptable to me, but can you explain why you think the man himself did not use "Jan"?--Kotniski (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This is quite untrue. Dzierzon family didn't knew German, he himself learned it only being 10 years old. He used German in scientific and official documentation, but in private life an sermons he used Polish, they are both letters and papers with sermons left in Polish language.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me that his having learned German at ten is relevant to the claim that he himself used "Johann". If he used the latter form for his entire life after age ten, that would provide some support for keeping the current article title. The language his family used in his early childhood is irrelevant.--Srleffler (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
But does anyone actually know, based on reliable sources, what name he used? Much of this discussion just seems to be people's personal speculation. Anyway, we're more interested in what he is called by reliable sources than what he was called by himself.--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is one bee journal article he wrote in 1904 that begins 'Von (By) Dr. Johann Dzierzon'. [23]. It's written in the first person, note the 'habe ich' in the second column, 3rd line. Novickas (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The move request is not based on nationalist biases, although some of the argument on each side may be. I am neither Polish nor German and have no particular interest in the outcome. I felt though that the previous article move had not been adequately discussed, and had been based largely on an inadequate measure of usage of the various forms of the name. The discussion this time has been a bit more substantive.--Srleffler (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely aside from the outcome of this vote, I would genuinely like to know, out of personal curiosity, whether there actually exists or at least once existed any book by Dzierzon that was published under the authorship of ¨Johann Dzierzon¨ rather than ¨Jan Dzierzon¨ in German or English. If it is indeed the case that even German publishers used Jan then I find it a quite interesting historical fact which throws some light on the general issue of Poles in Prussia in the 19th and early 20th century and the difference between forced Germanization policies of the Prussian government as opposed to apparantly quite different attitude of what can be loosely called the ´´German private sector´of the time. So if anybody knows the details abuot the publication name, I would appreciate a note on the subject. Radek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)

A Worldcat search shows that a number of libraries worldwide catalogue the author as Johann [24]. A Swedish translation, for example, published in 1856, is catalogued that way in the National Library of Sweden. Along with the 19th-century Czech and Norwegian translations. This makes me doubt his books were originally published under Jan. I think it likely that the cataloguers needed to make a decision on his first name, despite what looks to have been a habitual use of only 'Pfarrer' or 'Dr.' in the books themselves, and at some point decided to use what they saw as the commonly-known professional version. For an example of his own use of Johann in a journal (1904), see [25]. Novickas (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
What I would appreciate is knowing why there is a continual superfluous running commentary going on at this request at the voting section, and why they are not being required to be placed in the commentary section? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Scandal! Conspiracy! Sabotage! Continual superfluous commentary! The roof is on fire! Let's call the United Nations!  Dr. Loosmark  01:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Loosmark, I'm wondering why you haven't removed your unhelpful and ridiculous comment by now? Dr. Dan (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
And why have you not removed your ridiculous comment that there is a "superfluous running commentary" going on? The point of having a discussion on the move of an article is to confront the arguments so the discussion is anything but "superfluous". Otherwise we can only "count the numbers" so to say.  Dr. Loosmark  22:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
A good question. See below. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I will assume that the change in indenting which I am now reversing was some sort of accident. It completely misrepresented my views. Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see now. I was wondering about that too. Your good question comment was intended as a reply to Dan's initial question rather than his "ridiculous" question, right? Well might have been some sort of accident who knows. Maybe Dan's finger slid [26] on keyboard and he accidentally changed the indents... It happens I guess. Let's just hope that it doesn't happen again.  Dr. Loosmark  22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for providing that diff, I hadn't even bothered to find out who was responsible. Yes, I was replying to the question I repeated below in a new section, to which the comment linked. Changing the indenting made it confusing, as the link and timestamps still indicated the string correctly, but the indenting made it look as if I was replying to a different question entirely. Not good. Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The request was based on the assumption that the books.google screening results were flawed, and this has been settled [27]. Several books.google 'hit lists' were compiled on this page and Johann clearly gets the most returns, Jan and John the least [28] [29] [30]. Srleffler further outlined general problems with the relevance of books.google screenings [31], for this, I find Novickas' answer convincing [32]. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Google books results are not convincing either way. One has to note that the article was stable under the name Jan Dzierzon for a very long time until it was controversially changed to the Germanized version of the name, "Johann". Since Jan Dzierzon was a Polish patriot I see little sense in using the German name for him, after all we don't use Polish names for Germans either. And Encyclopaedia Britannica also uses Jan Dzierzon which should seal it, really.  Dr. Loosmark  21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
(1) "Science does not know borders or nationality". That's what Dzierzon said.
(2) If EB was the alpha and the omega, what are some of us doing here writing an encyclopedia? Novickas listed high quality sources using Johann [33].
(3) The respective RM was uncontroversial [34]. The 'controversy' was started three weeks later by an EEML member who evaded his topic ban with a sock to post this. Two months later, another EEML member returned from their topic ban and re-activated the dead thread [35]. Yet another EEML member who had returned from a long block chimed in [36] and there we go again.
Skäpperöd (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Skapperod:
(1) Indeed it does not. And what does that have to do with anything? Just because the science does not know borders or nationality, it does not mean that Polish scientists have to use German names on Wikipedia.
(2) The "high quality" sources presented by Novackis are webpages. Sorry but I trust more EB than I trust webpages. Most serious books use Jan. Fact.
(3) Uncontroversial? Really? How it is then that an editor, Matthead, who voted for renaming the Polish scientist Jan Dzierzon to Johann is now banned from all Polish topics due to his continuous disruptions?  Dr. Loosmark  22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I looked up Matthead's case, and he was blocked for posting a scan of Dzierzon's birth cerfiticate and a scan of Dzierzon's death certificate to his talk page, violating a topic ban not arising from anything related to Dzierzon. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Skapp, if you really sincerely believe that ´"Science does not know borders or nationality" then why the stubborn insistence on ´Johann´? His books were published under the name ´Jan´, Encyclopedia Britannica calls him ´Jan´, and the google hits are close together. Or is this like, ´Science knowns no bounderies when it means keeping a German names but we got to draw some boundaries when it comes to Polish names´? I could quote that quote in any kind of naming dispute and it would make it look like I was on the side of ... science or something ... but it would be equally as meaningless as it is here. Also, that "úncontroversial move" (after years of the article being stable under ´Jan Dzierzon´") had two votes on it, one by an editor now topic banned from Poland related articles and the other one by an editor whose entire contributiojn to Wikipedia consists of making consistently NEGATIVE edits about Poland and Poles. That may be "uncontroversial" to you but it sure doesn´t look like that from here. Radek —Preceding unsigned comment added by radeksz (talk • contribs)
Could you kindly attempt to discuss the issues at hand rather than making insulting comments about me? Thank you in advance. Varsovian (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere are the books.google hits "close together", which is why it was moved. Please refrain from belitteling me with a diminutive of my username and attacking others as "stubborn", also sign your posts properly. Please redact your post accordingly asap. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
"Since Jan Dzierzon was a Polish patriot I see little sense in using the German name for him" is a very edifying argument, Loosmark. I'd ask you for a citation on that comment except that I have no reason to doubt that you could undoubtedly come up with one from somewhere. As I recall at a Marxist-Leninist course that I was required to take while studying in Poland, I attended a lecture about Rudolf Virchow. On that day, he too was a "Germanized" Polish patriot. Perhaps one day we can have a vote about how to name his article according to "google hits" and "reliable sources" too. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to doubt your erm.. story. Personally I am unaware that Rudolf Virchow is Polish. If you have an evidence of the contrary do present it please. On the approprite talk page, if possible.  Dr. Loosmark  23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
One has to remember that up to 1918 Poland was defacto under German occupation. It is thus not suprising that in 1904 Jan was forced to use the Germanize version of his name Johann. It's not clear under what circustances the webpages you list above use the name Johann, maybe they just show things like his work from 1904 when he was forced to use the name Johann. Encylopedia Brittanica is a reliable source and easily beats webpages.  Dr. Loosmark  17:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Loosmark please, Dzierzon was "forced" to use Johann? "It is thus not suprising (sic) that in 1904 Jan was forced to use the Germanize (sic) version of his name Johann"? Then you bring up the issue of clarity with "It's not clear under what circustances (sic) the webpages you list above use the name Johann", I'm sorry but again that is probably a language issue that you have to work on. The information is quite clear as it is presented. Are you claiming that many famous Poles living in the German partition (or other two partitions) were "forced" to abandon their Polish names and surnames? I don't think that that is the case. Just like many Polish-Americans who changed or shortened their names after leaving Poland, no one "forced" them to do so, they might have thought it advantageous to do so, or whatever, but no one was "forced" to do so. In fact many did not do so. As for EB, I remember quite distinctly that when Encyclopedia Britannica was invoked as a source depicting Pilsudski as a "Polish-Lithuanian" the argument was made by many Polish Wikipedians, editing the English language version, that it was "outweighed" by other sources (lots of magazine articles, etc.). Can we have it both ways? Can EB be the reliable source when it fits our POV, and not be a reliable source when it doesn't? Novickas makes a lot of sense when she says it a good source, but that in this case it's outweighed by the other sources. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you claiming that many famous Poles living in the German partition (or other two partitions) were "forced" to abandon their Polish names and surnames? The Germans were pushing a heavy Germanisation during the partitions, so yes that's exactly what I am claiming, if you wanted to do a carreer you were forced to use a German name. As for Encyclopedia Britannica, I don't remember I have ever claimed that it was "outweighed" by webpages. About Piłsudski, as far as I remember Lithunian editors strongly opposed the idea that Piłsudski was a Lithuanian but I might be wrong. Anyway I don't quite see how the men compare really.  Dr. Loosmark  19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinion, Loosmark. Many Silesian Poles did not change their names, because they were not forced to do so. Like Stanislaw Adamski for example (there are plenty of others). In 1904, Dzierzon was 93 years old and hardly concerned about building his carreer (sic). I'm not claiming that the Pilsudski matter was about you or what you claimed EB's weight carried concerning that debate. Check the talk page archive concerning that matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes Dan, it can indeed be that EB is a source which was handed down to us on Mt. Sinai but only when it supports a certain PoV. When it says things about topics such as Chopin being Polish-French or Pilsudski being Polish-Lithuanian, it is utterly wrong. See, for example the comments made by Radeksz when I first pointed out that EB is being praised to the heavens here are completely ignored in other discussions. Please note that, in keeping with my interaction ban, I make no reference to or comment upon any post other than yours (I particularly make no reference to the post above Dr. Dan's or below my own) and make no comment on or remark concerning or reference to any editor other than the ones specifically named in my post, i.e. Dr. Dan and Radeksz. Varsovian (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that a Polish bishop, born more than 44 years after years after Jan Dzierzon, allegedly kept his name is a proof that Dzierzon vollutary changed his name from Jan to the German Johanann? Right, whatever. And are you sure that the German documents use the name Stanisław Adamski? A source for that would be welcome.  Dr. Loosmark  20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you claiming that many famous Poles living in the German partition (or other two partitions) were "forced" to abandon their Polish names and surnames? I don't think that that is the case. In German partition-yes definetely, there was a forced campaign to Germanize Polish names, which included enforcing parents to sign a Germanised birth certificate for example.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) This is what I have experienced over time with some editors who have a different spin on the subject than I do. Example 1. If a "Pole" is Germanised he does not become a German but stays Polish. Example 2. If a Lithuanian is Polonised he becomes "Polish", period. There are plenty of other similar examples. I still believe the ultimate reason for this move request is based on nationalistic biases. In short, Dzierzon was "Germanised" and forced to change his name during the Kulturkampf, but he was "re-Polonized" during the People's Republic of Poland. Pretty much sums it up. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Loosmark, concerning your self-revert [47] with " Polonised Lithuanian? You mean like Władysław II Jagiełło? There the anti-Polish side was going bananas and the article had to be changed to Jogaila because the guy was orinigally (sic) Lithuanian (of course the small matter that he was most notable for being a Polish king was conveniently ignored)". I didn't have Jogaila in mind at all, since there were plenty of foreigners on the Polish throne, so that part is an insignificant matter (mało piwa) . Henri III got off the Polish throne as soon as he could (but at least having been King of Poland for three or four months greatly benefited France), because I've read that France learned table etiquette as a consequence of Henri becoming King of Poland, and the French learned how to use a fork. As for the part about opportunistically assuming whatever position one can to rename as many people with non Polish names as possible. Do you mean Polish people? Or people like this man? Was he a pole? Was his son, Pranciškus Smuglevičius, a Pole? The bottom line here regardless of all of this OT stuff is that Johann Dzierzon used Johann himself in the first person. The preponderance of reliable sources use Johann. And the majority of the contrary claims come out of Communist Poland. The PRL was an entity that today (and during its existence too), the majority of the Polish people that I know, not only rejected, but knew was spewing out a lot of garbage through it's propaganda apparatus. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Commentary

It it interesting that this whole debate appears to stem from Radeksz's 20 July reply to a statement made by an editor who was quickly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMamalala&action=historysubmit&diff=359894354&oldid=358177110 blocked] as being a sockpuppet of a banned editor who was a member of EEML. Please note that I do not in any way state or wish to imply that there has been any misconduct or improper off-wiki co-ordination related to this debate. Varsovian (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting that you keep making false allegations by implication and insinuation and then quickly follow them up with a "I do not in any way state or wish to imply that there has been any misconduct or improper off-wiki co-ordination related to this debate" - if you do not state it, then don't state it, rather than pulling these kind of hypocritical phony stunts. You've done this at Sandstein's talk page. You've done it at other talk pages. You've even come to my talk page and done it there.
You seem to think that making personal attacks and threats is OK as long as one denies really quickly that one is in fact making personal attacks. It is not. It is simply a way of trying to GAME Wikipedia rules, which actually acerbates the initial breaking of policy by making personal attacks in the first place.radek (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Radeksz, I'm reading all of these comments not because of any notification made to me, but because the subject is on my watchlist. I plan to vote and make a comment based on the arguments, not on "google hits", nor be influenced on the vote tally. Usually, neither are helpful in resolving these kinds of things. And Radeksz, please do not give anyone lectures about GAMEing Wikipedia rules. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Dan, have I addressed you in any way in regard to this matter? No? Then what are you talking about?
But really Dan, I hope you vote soon, because personally the suspense over which way you'll vote is just killing me!!! The same is probably true for everybody here, all of whom no doubt await with bated breath to see which way you'll cast your vote! Oh the uncertainty! Bookies must be recalculating their odds tables now. How will you consider arguments, not the google hits or the vote tally? Will you vote 'support' or 'oppose' - nobody knows the answer in advance. You have definitely been very unpredictable in the past and your voting certainly has been inconsistent. Perhaps you should make up your mind once and for all whether to vote against any kind of Polish names every single time, or for them, and then stick to that stubbornly, unflinchingly and uncompromisingly.
Seriously, sarcasm off, everyone knows how you gonna vote, so just go ahead and vote (and your vote is welcome here).radek (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I'm listening to the arguments. My vote will be based on them and the consistency of the arguments made in relation to other articles by many participating here in this discussion. In cases like Antoni Wiwulski, or Frédéric Chopin and many others. And regarding my other suggestion, I wasn't being sarcastic, it would be better if you didn't give anyone lectures about GAMEing Wikipedia rules. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange. There doesn't seem to EVER have been a discussion on Antoni Wiwulski, nor did anyone who's commented here so far ever edit that article, as far as I can tell. However, I'm sure you can come up with a way to compare the consistency of the arguments made here to the arguments which were never made and do not exist on Antoni Wiwulski - quite an achievement and very worthy of you. You have to tell me the secret of how you do that sometime - compare things which exist to things which never existed, and then use that comparison as a basis for a decision. You should also come up with a name for this new revolutionary practice and patent it before anyone steals the idea. Then you can go around country teaching others how to do this. Maybe you'll make enough money for a second boat (oh, sorry, I didn't mean to assume you only owned one. If you indeed have several, then please forgive me) and even more expensive champagne.
Are you sure you're not just addressing figments of your own imagination here?radek (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this off-topic bickering is not helpful. Let's stay focused on the issue at hand.--Srleffler (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Radeksz, perhaps a better example than Vivulskis would have been Laurynas Gucevičius, although an anonymous editor with an IP of 124.++ working out of Australia [48] [49] [50] [51] can be found weaving in an out of articles similar to Dzierzon elsewhere with a strong POV. You might enjoy looking over a discussion from almost four years ago concerning LG [52]. Concerning my boats (yep, got more than one) and good champagne (love it, and bison grass vodka too). I don't remember discussing my good fortune about my boats or my appreciation of good (not necessarily expensive) champagne with you. What brought that up? Hmmm? If you prefer to discuss it at my talk page instead of here, that's fine with me. I'd rather deal with Dzierzon here. Oh, and the operative words were "In cases like Antoni Wiwulski, or Frédéric Chopin and many others". LOL, you picked Tony instead of Freddy. Many others, Radeksz, many others. I guess you're out of the pen, congratulations. Play nice. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Btw, can you hook me up with one of the bookies that's taking bets on how I'll vote here. I could use the gas money, my last fill up was almost two grand.

General warning: There are so many personal attacks in the above that perhaps everyone involved should check what they've said and take this as a level one warning if appropriate. See

for more information. In particular, note that a personal attack as the term is used in Wikipedia may be both polite and well-intentioned. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, regarding your above edit [53], don't you think Amnesty International would have been a better choice than the U.N. As I recall there already has been some allusion made to them concerning past disputes? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A good question

From above:

What I would appreciate is knowing why there is a continual superfluous running commentary going on at this request at the voting section, and why they are not being required to be placed in the commentary section? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians enjoy a great deal of freedom. In defence of these instream comments, there isn't actually a survey section above, and it's a bit late to create one now.

But take a step back. The goal of the survey section of a Requested move is to satisfy the closing administrator that a move should take place; The goal of those opposing presumably is to satisfy the admin that it should not. We admins look for consensus and also at the arguments, particularly but not only at whether they are supported by policies and guidelines. Anything that helps us to do this is welcome. Anything that doesn't, isn't.

So it's self-policing really, because we admins are human, and we tend to read and respond to the arguments of those who help us. Or to put it in stick not carrot form, if you want your arguments ignored, just clutter up the survey with irrelevant stuff. We'll wade through it to get to the bottom of what others say, that's our job and it's only fair to them. But we may not take the trouble to even read the arguments of those who seem responsible for the cluttering. That may not be an ideal response, but it's surprisingly effective. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Header refactor

See this diff for why I've changed the header levels... the section now headed Commentary is all part of this second move debate, otherwise comments added to the discussion in good faith have been removed. Perhaps this will help with resolving the good question above. Andrewa (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Communist era and pre-war sources

Several Communist era and pre-war sources were recently added to emphasize an alleged political stance of Dzierzon. I don't think the sources can be treated as reliable sources in this regard and moved them here:

He was viewed sympathetically by the local rural population, whose interests he defended against the German administration. In his sermons he used the Polish language, and during the [[Spring of Nations]] he took the side of the Silesian peasants, organizing meetings, publishing leaflets and articles against exploitation by Prussia, and encouraging the peasants to modernize their holdings.<ref name="Słownik">Stanisław Feliksiak, ''Słownik biologów polskich'', [[Polish Academy of Sciences]] ''Instytut Historii Nauki, Oświaty i Techniki'', [[Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe]], 1987, p. 149.</ref> Following his defense of the Polish parishioners, false charges were made against him by a Prussian tenant, and in 1868 he was forced to resign as parson.<ref>Zygmunt Antkowiak, ''Patroni ulic Wrocławia'', Osselineum, 1982, p. 68.</ref> All his life, he emphasized his roots in the Polish peasantry of Silesia, dressing in simple rural garb while attending German and international [[apiology]] conferences.<ref>Kazimierz Popiołek, ''Studia i materiały z dziejów Ślaska'', vol. 2, Zakład Narodȯwy im. Ossolińskich, 1958, p. 579.</ref> His nephew [[Franciszek Dzierżoń]], with whom he had lived in later life, was outraged that the orchestra would play the German imperial anthem at his uncle's funeral, and refused to attend.<ref>''Pszczelarz polski'' (The Polish Beekeeper), vols. 5-6 (1934), p. 34.</ref> Following the 1939 German [[Invasion of Poland|invasion of Poland]], many objects connected with Dzierzon were destroyed by German [[gendarmerie|gendarmes]] on 1 December 1939 in an effort to conceal his Polish roots.<ref>''Mówią wieki: magazyn historyczny'' (The Ages Speak: Magazine of History, [published by] the Polish Historical Society), vol. 23 (1980), p. 26.</ref> The Nazis made strenuous efforts to enforce a view of Dzierżoń as a German.<ref>''Komunikaty: Seria monograficzna, tomy 2-11 (1960), p. 138. [http://www.instytutslaski.com/www/index.php Instytut Śląski w Opolu]</ref>

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Such Communist propaganda has no more place here than Nazi propaganda that claimed things such as Copernicus was 100% German (which clearly is a lie). Varsovian (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Skapperod you already claimed that sources published between 1945 and 1989 in Poland aren't reliable on Reliable Sources Noticeboard-it was explained to you that yes, they can be used[54].Please don't beat the dead horse. Also there seems to be no debate about his nationality at all(besides Nazi claims of course), so this section is completely unneeded.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is what they can be used for. And don't come up with that old EEML stuff. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't come up with EEML stuff to discredit discussion on reliable sources on RS Noticeboard,where btw the gross majority of those confirming the reliability of sources never were part of it. If you have any sources contradicting specific publications please show us them. You can't delete information wholesale based on no reason at all besides Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Also don't term sources that describe Nazi propaganda as bad[55]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you can't just cherry-pick the most "dramatic" Communist era and pre-war sources regarding Dzierzon's alleged political stance. We should all be glad that the respective regimes broke down, and you should not cherry-pick biased statements from such sources, present them as the truth and pretend that the wikipedia community is backing you with that by linking to a part of an EEML-forged discussion which despite EEML involvement did not result in your desired outcome, as you pretend. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Please provide sources contradicting information contained in the specific sources presented. Thank you in advance.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that Nazi propagandists churned out something. Will that do? Varsovian (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Please provide sources contradicting information contained in the specific sources presented that were removed. Thank you in advance.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
No. If it wasn't for WP:UNDUE, your sources could go in a section "How a beekeeper was intrumentalized post mortem during the Polish communist/nationalist era." For that, they are reliable, not for what you did. If any of the above carries true elements, and I do not outrule that, there should be other sources saying so. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't provided any sources providing contradicting information from any specific source you removed. Please do so.Thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As Molobo points out this discussion has already been had, more than once I believe, and the consensus was that sources from Communist era can used albeit with caution (i.e. not in cases where they´re widely contradicted by other sources). So I call shenanigans on Skapperod´s claims above as well as his against-policy-removal of sourced material:

1. Skapperod is the one who tried to have sources from pre 1989 Poland declared únreliable´- of course some most definetly are, but many aren´t. radek (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

see response to (2). Skäpperöd (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

2. NOBODY agreed with Skapperod that such sources should be considered unreliable. Except maybe EEML member Peters radek (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from that thread (EEML comments excluded, though divided on that issue):
  • "If nothing else, we can use the material with attribution for a historiographical statement (ie a statement as to what was thought about the topic during the Communist era), to be compared to more modern (post-Communist) sources. Blueboar"
  • "They should be used with attribution, and they should likely be treated either as we would treat a political watchdog group ( because of political bias ) or as a primary source ( on opinion during the Communist era ), but still RS. Squidfryerchef"
  • "Sources published in one country relating to that country's negative relations to another country are almost always biased, whether due to censorship or just systemic bias and self-censorship. This requires careful reading between the lines, double-checking as far as practicable, attribution etc., not discarding of sources. --Hans Adler"
  • "In addition, when dealing with biased sources, we should use proper attribution, so that readers are aware that bias might exist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly we should adhere to WP:Undue which is problematic if an article or section of article is based entirely on communistic writing. Taemyr"
Skäpperöd (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Blueboar, Hans Adler, Squidfryerchef and Taemyr, among others were not part of the EEML or even remotely connected to it. They all disagreed with Skapperod and of course Skapperod knows this very well. radek (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the above persons had anything to do with the EEML. But as you well know, this was discussed widely in the EEML archives, and surprisingly even divided the group. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


4. As such, the invoking of EEML in this context by Skapperod is nothing but a trick to try to present a discussion as sometihng other than what it was. In fact, this is another instance of disruptive forum shopping by Skapperod, combined with insinuations that amount to personal attacks - I would love for him to actually have the chutzpah to go to Blueboar´s talk page, or Hans´, or the others, and make these kind of accusations to their face. radek (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a personal attack of the worst kind, please redact asap. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line - this was already discussed and the overwhelming consensus was against Skapperod´s proposal to declare sources unreliable solely based on his IDON´TLIKEIT. Skapperod knows this, but by removing sourced material he is refusing to conform to Wikipedia policy and respect consensus. He is also forum shopping by bringing this up again. Finally he is using the EEML issue as a red herring to try and bully his way through.radek (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As is clear from the quotes above, such sources need to be treated with utter care, attributed, and following WP:UNDUE. There was no consensus to treat them as reliable per se. Your comments on my alleged mindset are another personal attack. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
User Skapperod shouldn't treat every disagreement with his views as personal attack, and remember WP:Battleground. In addition is arguments don't seem convincing in view of his previous defense of German Empire's XIX century sources asreliable[56] as well as Nazi publication regarding Polish history[57].Also there was no discussion about sources from interwar Poland, and the discussion about sources from 1945-1989 Poland never and nowhere stated that they should be deleted without discussion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems obvious that all sources should be treated individually on their merits -- neither accepted uncritically as holy writ, nor rejected out of hand without examination. Some very good scholarship was published in Poland between 1945 and 1989, and some of it is used in Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree. The problem is that some sources published in Poland between those dates was not very good and was written with a particular aim in mind, particularly when it was about certain topics (see for example the stuff published about the AK). The Polonization of historical figures was one such topic. We are rightly very careful with using Nazi-era German sources about nationalities (for example, would we immediately use any of such regarding the nationality of Copernicus?). I submit that before the sources you mention are used, they should be discussed in depth. Varsovian (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be a very good and reasonable proposition. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't compare Poland with the genocidal racist Nazi regime. If you have any information contradicting historical research presented provide it for disucssion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The proposition by Varsovian was reasonable. I am not interested comparing NS Germany with communist Poland. Nor am I interested in whitewashing or giving a "carte blanche" to the Soviet controlled communist Polish propaganda apparatus. Most people in today's Poland have relegated that regime's credibility to the dust bin. As pointed out, the communist Polish interpretation of Pilsudski and the Armia Krajowa, are only two examples of historically misinforming the Polish people about their history, and by extension the rest of us, if it is not questioned and disputed. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but that was precisely the point of the RSN discussion. Some sources from communist Poland - for example those relating to AK or Pilsudski are unreliable. Others - for example those relating to Nazis - can be reliable. Basically there was no need to exaggerate stuff about Nazis for propaganda purposes since they were already bad enough. So unless the claims are contradicted by other sources there's no reason toremove the text. There's certainly no reason to remove sourced text under the pretext that all sources from communist Poland are unreliable as that is contradicted by consensus at RSN.radek (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

POV check

This article makes use of sources from Communist Poland for a one-sided pro-Polish argumentation - suspicions have been raised that these sources are not reliable, and indeed: where is the proof of their reliability? If the claims are notable and correct, then there should be more recent sources which state the same. Tropical wind (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly given the Nazis' recording the fact that they tried to Germanize Dzierzon doesn't seem unlikely, on the contrary, it looks very probable.  Dr. Loosmark  14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously there would be new research an publications if the previous one was flawed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If so call "Communist Poland" source are not realiable so much more the Nazis' pretends and Prussian megalomaniacs before them. The Dzierzon words and motto says: "Wahrheit, Wahrheit über alles!" (Truth, truth above all!) it is not - absolutely not "DEUTSCHLAND, DEUTSCHLAND über alles". Anyway the German-language tombstone where the motto is memorialize was founded by Austrian not by Prussian or Germans. Is it not interesting the exchange word "Deutshland" into more valuable and universal "Truth"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.139.174 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

first movable frame beehive?

The claim in this article that he designed the first practical movable-frame beehive is disputed at best and I feel it should be edited to say 'claimed' or something, but given the tone of the debate on this page I'll leave it to you lot to fight it out. Eva Crane's World history of bees and beekeeping is an excellent authority on this point. Dublinblue (Simon in Dublin) (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly it is: "and designed the first successful movable-frame beehive" - the word "successful" is the essence. The attempts to make movable frame was somewhat earlier. The investigators problem was the mixing bee preferred distance between combs vs. distance between side frames and and hive walls. Even Eva Crane does not set the fact that the distance between combs is 2 times the minimal beespace (2*1/4 of inch). This is what nobody set it until now - and it should be delivered from bee size body.
The distance between combs are variable anyway and depends what the bees after first build-up do in ther comb - for honey they extent the dip of the cells. For brood they keep original space between combs. This is the example how people follow each other mistakes not paying attention to reality.
Existing authorities never free me from independent and critical thinking. Ms. Eva Crane, this or other way forgot, or some historical facts were not known for her.
You have question I will attempt to answer to you. The story of so call "beespace" I investigated on original documents. Cleaghyre (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johann_Dzierzon/Archive_3&oldid=1102641340"