Jump to content

Talk:Romuald Giedroyć

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 9 October 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus.(non-admin closure)

Litwo, Ojczyzno moja! ty jesteś jak zdrowie;
Ile cię trzeba cenić, ten tylko się dowie
Kto cię stracił.

Polish-Lithuanian issues can be sensitive given the shared history of the two countries, including national minorities of each living in each country. There has therefore been a great deal of rather contentious discussion here, much of it not obviously grounded in the guidelines and policies of EN Wikipedia. This is particularly the case with the discussion of the differing policies of Polish and Lithuanian Wikipedia. It is therefore impossible to adduce a clear consensus from this discussion.

If further discussion on this is needed, I encourage both sides of this discussion to look at WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME and to produce arguments in line with those guidelines, grounded as they are in long-standing consensus of a large number of editors. Only one editor appears to have compared the prevalence of the different names in English and this appears to have been based only on a brief internet search - read WP:HITS for how to better construct arguments based on internet searches. FOARP (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romualdas Giedraitis → Romuald Giedroyć – (Roumald-GizzyCatBella🍁 22:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)) Romuald Giedroyć is the actual name that was used by him and his contemporaries which is supported by multiple sources of that time. The name engraved on his grave is: "ROMUALD KSIĄŻĘ GIEDROYĆ", książę meaning "prince" (the picute is linked in the article). It's also the name used by his daughter in her book about uprisings in Poland. "Romualdas Giedraitis" on the other hand is a Lithuanisation of the original name used by modern Lithuanian historiographyMarcelus (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) A grave in France will have a name that is affected by Francization, a grave in Germany will have a name affected by Germanization, and a grave in Russia will have a name affected by Russianization. By itself, the name on the grave doesn't mean much, although it is extremely helpful in knowing who is buried, people's Wikipedia's articles are not called by the name that is on their grave (and many don't have that luxury either - we don't know their graves!).
2) Moreover, the source given doesn't mean much, because then there would be a necessity to rename many Wikipedia articles, like Tadeusz Kościuszko → Kosciuszko Thadé, Hugo Kołłątaj → Kollontay Hugues, John Baptist Albertrandi → Albertrandy Jean-Baptiste and many, many more. The list you gave doesn't mean much.
As for what name to use in English, the fact of the matter is that not a lot has been written about Romualdas Giedraitis in English. There is in French and Polish, but there is no unanimity about his name, with many variations being possible, e.g. in Polish - Romuald Giedroyć/Giedrojć/Gedroić. Now, looking at WP:UE, there is this statement - If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). The only logical way is to use a Lithuanian name for a Lithuanian general. Ergo, Lithuanian names should be used in topics concerning Lithuania.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid these historical figures of the Commonwealth might be often disputed. I'm thinking.. is there any way of applying both names at the same time? In this case, it would be "Romualdas Giedraitis or Romuald Giedroyć " was a generall of the ...." ? I’m not sure, I’m still thinking about it..GizzyCatBella🍁 22:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella The real problem is that Lithuanian historiography and in general Lithuanian language always Lithuanise foreign names. So there always we'll be able to find contemporary sources for Lithuanian names of all figures, no matter Lithuanian or non-Lithuanian. I mean current prime minister of Poland (Matuesz Morawiecki) is called "Mateušas Moravieckis" on Lithuanian Wikipedia, English football player Harry Kanes is named there "Haris Keinas". So as you can see contemporary Lithuanian sources aren't reliable in these type of cases. Marcelus (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cukrakalnis I listed more sources below Marcelus (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I'm attempting to accommodate the dilemma that pops up once in a while dealing with the Commonwealth's history. The subject of this particular article shares a common Polish-Lithuanian heritage, so it should be defined as per all RS sources. I'm not sure how to approach that yet, but I believe that eventually, a long-term solution needs to be worked out. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that Polish historiography and in general Polish language always Polonize foreign names. So there always we'll be able to find contemporary sources for Polish names of all figures, no matter Polish or non-Polish. I mean the past ruler of Lithuania (Vytautas) is called "Witold Kiejstutowicz" on Polish Wikipedia, French football team Olympique de Marseille is named there "Olympique Marsylia". So as you can see contemporary Polish sources aren't reliable in these types of cases.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: Another example of you not arguing in the good faith. First of all we aren't talking about football clubs but about historical figures. And Polish language doesn't Polonize names of all historical figures. It traditionally only applies to ancient and medieval rulers from Europe. Antanas Smetona is Antanas Smetona on Polish Wiki, not "Antoni Śmietana", Čiurlionis is Čiurlionis not Czurlanis, although he was using that name. You must be blind to not see the why Lithuanian approach can be problematic in cases like this Marcelus (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: I took your statement and filled it out with objectively correct statements. This is precisely another example of me arguing in good faith, you claiming it's in bad faith is revealing in that it demonstrates your inability to look past your biases. This is a literal inversion of what you said and suddenly it's all bad because it is not pro-Polish. If it was a good argument, there would be no need to engage in such things. I too can correctly state that the Lithuanian language doesn't Lithuanize the names of all historical figures. The names of most articles in Lithuanian are actually titled in the original language, e.g. Donald Trump or George Washington. To paraphrase you, "You must be blind to not see the why the Polish approach can be problematic in cases like this".--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The names of the articles are named in the original language, but in the text proper the name "Donaldas Džonas Trampas" is used. Polish approach is different as your proved in my previous comment, so I won't repeat myself.Marcelus (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Polish article still has "Donalda Trumpa" and etc. in its text proper, so there is no large difference between Lithuanian and Polish approaches as you claim.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Polish nominative case is the same as original English. The spelling of the name is also the same. The only difference is declension, in Polish language suffixes are added in cases other than nominative. Lithuanian is very different. Nominative case is Lithuanised by -as suffix. The spelling is Lithuanized and finally declension adds suffixes. Marcelus (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference. Because the name isn't polonised, it's just declined in Polish that's all. Marcelus (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, "declined in Polish" counts as Polonization, because as literally stated in the article: imposition of elements of Polish culture, in particular the Polish language. So, there is no big difference, which you so fervently argue for.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are you even talking about? Marcelus (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Making a name fit into a French is Francization of the name. The same goes for making a name fit into the Polish language, which means Polonization.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis - Please use sound arguments.
Polish Wikipedia does not modify Trump's name.
  • In Polish Wikipedia his name reads - Donald John Trump [1]
  • In Lithuanian Wikipedia, his name reads - Donaldas Džonas Trampas [2]
So you are very incorrect here and that weakens your arguments - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: I am using sound arguments. Are you telling me that adding an "a" to the end of all the name's components is not somehow modifying the name (as with Donalda Trumpa)? If the article had only been the English "Donald J. Trump"/"Trump"/etc. throughout, with no additions or changes, then of course there is no modification. Yet, changes are made in the Polish Wiki for the name to fit into the Polish text. Sure, the Lithuanian wiki Lithuanises names (as with Donaldas Džonas Trampas), but the Polish wiki does that too, regardless of how extensively, in what manner or precisely how and why. The Lithuanian wiki doesn't make Donald J. Trump's name into "Donaldas Jonas Trampas" (i.e. proper Lithuanisation) and neither does the Polish wiki make his name into "Donald Jan Trump". Basically, Marcelus' claim that the changes in names on Lithuanian Wiki have no comparison to the Polish Wiki is false.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not. It was already pointed out to you above that adding sometimes an “a” at the end of the name is a grammatical outcome in the Polish language. Do you understand that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself admitted the grammatical outcome in the Polish language, then the same is true for the Lithuanian counterpart. No denial there. Your justification reaffirms the existence of modification in Polish, your saying only proves that it is indeed the case. Only two choices are possible: 1) The name is left by itself, without modifications of any kind or 2) there are modifications with additions/changes. That's that. That is the whole point of this thread.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s NOT the same thing. In Polish the name is spelled - Donald John Trump [3] and in Lithianian Donaldas Džonas Trampas [4] as per these links ANYONE can verify right here in 4 seconds. Why on earth are you arguing otherwise Cukrakalnis? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here -->
Polish Wikipedia --> quote:
  • Donald John Trump (wym. /ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/ ( odsłuchaj); ur. 14 czerwca 1946 w Nowym Jorku) – amerykański przedsiębiorca, osobowość telewizyjna oraz polityk, 45. prezydent Stanów Zjednoczonych w latach 2017–2021. [5]
Lithuanian Wikipedia --> quote:
  • Donaldas Džonas Trampas (angl. Donald John Trump, g. 1946 m. birželio 14 d. Kvinse, Niujorke) – garsus amerikiečių verslininkas, investuotojas, televizijos laidų vedėjas, knygų autorius, politikas, 45-asis Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų prezidentas. [6]
- GizzyCatBella🍁 16:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it isn't in the first sentence, the Donalda Trumpa is in the actual text, not the WP:LEAD. It seems we aren't on the same page, so, because I am repeating myself and you are too, and none of us is making our points clear to each other, let's just stop it here, because you are clearly escalating into WP:SHOUT and it is tiresome of going on and on about the same thing.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: No, GizzyCatBella point is very clear to anyone who unlike you is willing to admit that Marcelus (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: If GizzyCatBella's point (and I assume yours too) is clear, then it should have been clear long ago that the fact of the matter is that the difference lies in how various people see Polonization. What some see as Polonization, you and GizzyCatBella deny that such things are Polonization. There is no need to pursue the matter anymore because it will result in negligible gains for anyone involved, regardless if a common conclusion is reached. It's INSANE that a 15k bytes page has a 75k bytes talk page. If all this petty bickering had been directed into the improvement of this article, then it would have been improved to an incredible extent.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: Your comments are purposefully misleading, it's clear that you don't want to admit that Lithuanian language customs is to Lithuanize every foreign name, because it destroys your whole argument. As I said before Polish language only adds suffixes in declension, but nominative is always the same as original Marcelus (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one can admit that "Lithuanian language customs is to Lithuanize every foreign name", because that is a lie. Names like Guntis Ulmanis, Anatols Dinbergs, and many others that are from foreign languages are NOT Lithuanized. My argument was not destroyed, but yours was, because you were proven wrong.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis
Lithuanian Wikipedia for Adolf Hitler is Adolfas Hitleris [7]
Lithuanian Wikipedia for Albert Einstein is Albertas Einšteinas [8]
Lithuanian Wikipedia for Bill Clinton is Bilas Klintonas [9]
  • Polish Wikipedia records:
Adolf Hitler as Adolf Hitler [10]
Albert Einstein as Albert Einstein [11]
Bill Clinton as Bill Clinton [12]
@Cukrakalnis: These are literally exceptions that proves the rule, the thing that only counter-examples you were able to give are from the other Baltic language, actually weakens your argument. Marcelus (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus and @Cukrakalnis Okay, can you fellows explain why, in general, international names are being spelled differently in Lithuania? I understand names translated from different alphabets such as Chinese or Russian but why different spelling within the Latin alphabet family language? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I got some of it here - [13]. It’s actually a law also [14] GizzyCatBella🍁 22:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis does it have something to do with the protection of the Lithuanian language that was abused especially during the Soviet times? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: You really have a way with shifting goal-posts all of the time. You said "Lithuanian language customs is to Lithuanize EVERY foreign name". I give you examples why this is not the case and instead of admitting that you made verifiably false statements, all you do is go into some random direction of "exception proves the rule", which is a weakling's escape. You said "every", fact is that it is not "every", and that's that. It does not weaken my argument, because it served its purpose.
Now, as for the fact it was from the same Baltic language branch, then yes that is correct, but you can't blame it that much considering the Polish language has a clear upper hand with related languages due to the much wider Slavic language branch, which lends to use in Polish relatively easily (just as Latvian does with Lithuanian). In this precise case of Donalds, Donald could be a Polish first name (Donald Tusk), which means an overlap of sorts with the Polish language. Overall, this thread is leading nowhere and it should just stop.
@GizzyCatBella: The main idea for " international names are being spelled differently in Lithuania" is probably that:
1) the names would fit into the Lithuanian language when writing/speaking and
2) so that they would sound closer to their original pronunciation (so the French Jeanne would be spelt in Lithuanian as Žana, while the English John would be spelt in Lithuanian as Džonas - although I *personally* would wholesale just change the English John into Jonas while writing the whole original name in brackets next to it, so that you could actually find who the person is, but that is not the standard now in Lithuania).
Frankly, there is no standard and it really is a free-for-all: This Lithuanian article goes into detail and analyzes just two books and how there was not a clear approach to surnames, which was just indicative of the current "system". The goal IS Lithuanization, but there is no harmony in doing it. Sometimes it's properly Lithuanized, e.g. Hohencolernai, while other times it is e.g. Casparas Danckwerthas, which is just wrong on so many levels (The C should be K, the w should not even be there, etc.) and many, many other variations as shown in the article.
The does it have something to do with the protection of the Lithuanian language that was abused especially during the Soviet times? fits more with regards to why the Lithuanian language was made the sole official language of Lithuania, both in the Interwar and the decades after 1989. When it comes to legal affairs, this leads into the necessary Lithuanization of international surnames because that is officially necessary. It would be disastrous having names with letters non-existent in the Lithuanian alphabet (e.g. w or x) inserted into the legal system, because this basically removes Lithuanian as the official language. Moreover, the desire to protect the Lithuanian language goes way back, to Merkelis Giedraitis, Mikalojus Daukša and even the Pole Maciej Stryjkowski, who sought to protect Lithuanians against Polonization. The overall answer is that Lithuanians number only a few million people (there would be far more if not for Slavicization), which is not a good situation to be in culturally, linguistically, and in many other ways. So, for the prosperity of the Lithuanian language and culture, it is necessary that they are not pushed aside.
Then again, there seems to be so much carelessness with the surnames, with there being many articles where the Lithuanian language rules are broken on sites like Delfi (web portal) - e.g. this article: Jozefui Pilsudskiui (instead of the correct Juzefui Pilsudskiui, or if you want to be extra - should be Juozapui Pilsūdiškiui), Ernst Kantorowicz (no attempt to even do anything, totally incorrect), Arc de Triomphe (should be translated into Triumfo Arka), and suddenly there are Vašingtonui, Džefersonui (Which I would consider properly Lithuanized). And there are many more examples of such cases. All in all, I would say that the need to just even remotely make the name usable in Lithuanian means it is necessary to Lithuanize it, or you automatically break the rules of the Lithuanian language, basically distorting it in the process. The necessity for this comes from the importance of protecting the Lithuanian language. I spent way too much writing this, but I hope it serves some purpose here.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis thank you, good to know all of this. I believe I understand the issue now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: Donald isn't originally Polish name, but a Scottish Gaellic, and it's not really very popular in Poland.Marcelus (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Great to hear the appreciation! Thank you for reading it and taking it in. @Marcelus: I agree with Donald isn't originally Polish name, but a Scottish Gaellic, and it's not really very popular in Poland. I am happy we can at least agree on this.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ Narky Blert - Yeah, I believe you are right. WP:COMMONNAME has to be used eventually - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.. but in English it would be spelled GIEDROYC not GIEDROYĆ as we can see here - [15] - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Such difference comes from lack of or omitting of diacritic that aren't popular in English. I linked couple English-language sources that use a proper spelling Marcelus (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO we should generally use diacritics even if lazy or careless English-language sources don't. They affect the pronunciation. For example, our article Antonín Dvořák uses all three even though they are often dropped (and ř/r are hugely different - ř is pronounced like 'rzh'). Narky Blert (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this? - General Romualdas Giedraitis Artillery Battalion -->[16] - description of an issue we are dealing with --> quote - ...the majority of the Lithuanian leaders of the time had been Polonized and subscribed to the phrase "Gente Lituani, natione Poloni". They took pride in their Lithuanian heritage but accepted the proposition that Lithuania had become a province in the State of Poland.[17] - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: We aren't disputing here the name of the batallion (it's a Lithuanian batallion they can name it as they want) or the identity or nationality of Romuald Giedroyć. We are disputing here what is the proper name of the article, which should be an actual name of the figure, which judging by all sources we have was "Romuald Giedroyć" not Romualdas Giedraitis - which is just Lithuanised version of his name used in modern Lithuanian-language texts. Marcelus (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: What do you mean WP:COMMONNAME hasn't been invoked? I already mentioned several times, that there is not a whole lot written about this Romualdas Giedraitis in English (regardless of which form of his name you use). Did you even read what I wrote? As for what name to use in English, the fact of the matter is that not a lot has been written about Romualdas Giedraitis in English. There is in French and Polish, but there is no unanimity about his name, with many variations being possible, e.g. in Polish - Romuald Giedroyć/Giedrojć/Gedroić. Now, looking at WP:UE, there is this statement - If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). The only logical way is to use a Lithuanian name for a Lithuanian general. Ergo, Lithuanian names should be used in topics concerning Lithuania.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a Lithuanian general. He was a Polish-Lithuanian one. From the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Please avoid conflating the modern state of Lithuania with the historical GDL. Do we even know if the subject here spoke Lithuanian language, and did he ever write his name in Lithuanian? Most of the GDL elites of that time period were polonized and spoke and wrote in Polish, not Lithuanian. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I didn't want to touch this subject, because I was already accused of "Polish chauvinism", but it's quite obvious from his biography. Because even if he was general of the GDL army, he later was a general in Congress Poland army, earlier was active Bar Confederation and Polish eimigree organisations. Overall making clear cut separation between Poland and Lithuania is artificial, it's quite obvious that he identified as both Lithuanian and Polish. But as I said that's secondary, the most important factor is the name he actually was using Marcelus (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even Grand Duchy of Lithuania at this point, he spent most of his military career in Lithuania proper, both in the 1790s and 1812-1813, so there is pretty firm basis to consider him as Lithuanian, or having a far deeper relationship with Lithuania instead of Poland. A major shortcoming here is the lack of writings on Romualdas Giedraitis, because as far as I am aware, there is not a single book or even larger chapter purely dedicated to him, who is significantly important - he was in charge of organising a Lithuanian army in 1812, after all.
Overall making clear cut separation between Poland and Lithuania is artificial, it's quite obvious that he identified as both Lithuanian and Polish. Well, the problem here is that too much, as it stands now, is mixed into one, when clear differences are obvious. It should never be forgotten that the joint state of Poland-Lithuania was no monolith in any meaning of the word, with many, if not most, institutions being separate between Lithuania and Poland. It is no minor feat that a distinct Lithuanian identity, separate from the koroniarze/exclusively Polish existed into the 20th century (remember Józef Piłsudski?), even among the very Polonized ones. Identifying as "Polish" in the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was akin to someone saying they are "European" because they feel a deep connection to the European Union, while not renouncing their loyalty to their country. Pope John Paul II said something along the lines of PLC being a precursor to the EU. Lithuania having separate institutions and being pretty much a separate state, except that it had a shared ruler and parliament with Poland, puts Lithuania above the role of a province like some say because Lithuania by itself was close to an independent state. Hence, the "Polish" in "Polish-Lithuanian" puts too much emphasis on Poland, just as "Euro" in "Euro-Lithuanian" puts too much emphasis on Europe.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said he identified as both Polish and Lithuanian, in any way I don't deny his Lithuanian identity, but it's pretty clear from his biography that he considered himself also Polish. But as I said multiple times it's irrelevant, because even if he would be solely Lithuanian he still should be called "Romuald Giedroy c" - because that is his name Marcelus (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The odds are the subject did not spoke or wrote Lithuanian, but spoke and wrote Polish. We should use the name of the subject as would be recognized by him. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the following basis:
  • Perhaps we can weight whether the biography of a particular person primarily rests in the history of Kingdom of Poland or Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It seems to me that in this case it's the latter.
  • A quick search on Internet suggests that "Romualdas Giedraitis" is more dominant than "Romuald Giedroyc" in the English language. This suggests that the current title is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME.
On a general note: names from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth era are going to be controversial. The historians in both countries, naturally, prefer their spelling. Even the descendants of a family may live in both countries and prefer to Lithuanize or Polonize based on present day realities. --Mindaur (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As more and more people are joining this, I will tag some people who might be interested in this - @Renata3:, @Sabbatino:, @Mindaur:.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That might actually backfire again... You shouldn't have selectively notified editors due to WP:CANVASS and WP:VOTESTACK. Now it's too late but be aware that this is inappropriate conduct in the consensus-building process. If you want to bring a broader range of uninvolved editors to this discussion, try to place a message on some notice board next time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know :( It's the first time I hear about notice boards... I remember tagging from another debate - here, and no one seemed to mention anything about WP:CANVASS or WP:VOTESTACK. So, I thought it's ok, but thanks for telling it to me now, at least I won't repeat the mistake.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Sorry to bother you, but where are these so-called notice boards? I would like to add a notice, so that I know how to do it next time, because if I don't do it now, then I won't do it later, because I won't know how to.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)~[reply]
Lithuanian board and Polish board for example. Make sure you post on both. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just pay attention to such things next time. Unfriendly editors would report you for that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: That's basically brigading what Cukrakalnis is now doing, especially that it seems that all users he tagged are Lithuanians Marcelus (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK calm down everybody, I will tag non-Lithuanians to show that my intention was not to WP:CANVASS: @Super Dromaeosaurus:, @Kazimier Lachnovič:.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe pinged editors should hold commenting for a while until others' opinions are seen. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, to redress any perceived mishandling, I have put up notices like @GizzyCatBella: suggested in the talk pages of WP:LITHUANIA, WP:POLAND and WP:FRANCE.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is deeply problematic. A user who self-identifies as Lithuanian pings three other editors, at least two of whom self-identify in a similar fashion, during a discussion about whether the subject is Lithuanian or not. As GCB said, best practices are not being followed here. Please remedy this ASAP by notifying Lithuanian, Polish and maybe Belarussian and Russian WikiProjects. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s okay, they did (not the Belarussian and Russian). PS - Piotrus, a short correction, I believe this argument is not about if the subject was more Polish or Lithuanian but about what language he used to write his name and what version of his name is used by most RS’s today. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this person was considerably more connected to Lithuania than Poland, fought on several Lithuanian military units and "was a founder of a secret patriotic organization in Lithuania in 1797", I'd give a weak support to using his Lithuanian name. However, since Polish influence was very common in Lithuania back then, things such as a Polish-Lithuanian identity existed and the Wikipedia article of the princely family of this man uses the Polish version (Giedroyć family), I would have voted weak oppose had he not seemingly been a Lithuanian patriot (that's what I got from the article). I would like that, had the person closing this discussion read all the comments and was not sure what the outcome should be, my vote was not used to decide it (probably won't be the case), as I am not entirely sure. Nor do I think that this discussion should not be used as a precedent for other articles, since many of the arguments in favor of using the Lithuanian name are based on who this person was and what he did, specific things from the biography in question. Super Ψ Dro 09:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said before, the discussion here shouldn't be about if the person was more "Polish" or "Lithuanian", because it is possible to be Lithuanian with a Polish name. I would also like to add that this article is pretty selective Marcelus (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Do we have any record of the man himself signing his name in Lithuanian version? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GizzyCatBella: Not to my knowledge, his correspondance is held in Russian State Archive. It's certain that he was writing in Polish and French, and Polish was his first language. Although several Lithuanian scripts was published during Kościuszko Uprising, so it's possible that his name was used there Marcelus (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Dromaeosaurus - That’s a good comment, thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the link to the whole 1839 portrait of the general

The trimmed version of that portrait is used on our page in the infobox. Please note the spelling of the general's name used by the author.

Wikidata [19] description of the trimmed version is:

  • English - Romuald Giedroyć also known as Romualdas Giedraitis
  • Polish - Romuald Giedroyć

GizzyCatBella🍁 19:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Romualdas Giedraitis -> Romuald Giedroyć

[edit]

Don't you think the page should be moved under that name, hence it's the name he actually used? Marcelus (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Romualdas Giedraitis' whole life centred on Lithuania and Lithuanians and so it is more accurate to use his Lithuanian name.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's more accurate to use his actual name, not the name he or any of his contemporaries ever used. Marcelus (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Giedraičiai (family) was known for their consistently pro-Lithuanian attitude, with individuals like Merkelis Giedraitis (16th century) and Juozapas Arnulfas Giedraitis [lt] (the late 18th century and early 19th century), who encouraged strongly the use of the Lithuanian language. As for Romualdas Giedraitis, it is more fitting for him to have the Lithuanian name, considering he is a descendant of the Lithuanian dukes and was himself very concerned with Lithuania.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every Giedroyć is a descendant of Lithuanian dukes from obvious reasons. It's irrelevant. The article should be named after the actual name of the person. Marcelus (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles that are not, as you say, "named after the actual name of the person". A prime example is Władysław II Jagiełło. He was actually Jogaila. Another is Joseph Stalin or Alexander the Great. There are many, many more.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are names used in English literature, same applies to Romuald Giedroyć. This discussion is really pointless Marcelus (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising and pushing your own biased WP:POV, the man we are talking about was named Romuald Giedroyć. Unless you have a source that he used the name you are pushing here Marcelus (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one vandalising and pushing your own biased WP:POV by inserting names and place names that are not named in the main sources on which the article was built.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, there isn't even uniformity with regards to his name in Polish sources, as some use Gedroić (https://archive.org/details/Bartoszewicz/page/212/mode/2up?q=Gedroi%C4%87) instead.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or even - Giedrojć - as written here (https://archive.org/details/wewntrznedzieje03korzgoog/page/n243/mode/2up?q=Giedroj%C4%87).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are purposfully using Lithuanian names or Lithuanised names in the English Wikipedia article; this is clear violation of WP:UE, only original names or Anglicizations are allowed on English Wikipedia. Giedrojć, Giedroyć or even Gedroić are variations of the same name, with Giedroyć being the most popular spelling, used during his time and on his grave. Marcelus (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no violation of WP:UE, as it itself states - If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). After a quick search on google books and google scholar, and finding few if any reliable English-language sources, it is only fitting to use a Lithuanian name for a Lithuanian general. As for using Lithuanian names or Lithuanized names in topics concerning Lithuania, that is fully in-line with the WP:UE. It is you who is in the wrong, e.g. by adding Polish names to Lithuanian place names.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And Lithuanian isn't a proper language for Romuald Giedroyć for obvious reasons - he didn't use it, and he was also a Polish general and politician. In general applying Lithuanised names to historical figures from 18th century Grand Duchy of Lithuania is ahistorical and improper, hence they all used Polish as their first language. "adding Polish names to Lithuanian place names" - never done that, I don't know what you mean by that. If you are refering to Sałaty I did that so the later mentioned name of the garnisson will be understendable Marcelus (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Romualdas Giedraitis is not at all Polish, because everything he did was connected to Lithuania. His actions speak louder than words. As I have repeated many times, speaking a lingua franca does not make you belong to the ethnicity from which the lingua france originates, just as writing most things in a certain language, e.g. English, does not make one English. As for Saločiai, you purposefully added the Polish names and the "later mentioned name of the garnisson will be understandable" is a nonsensical argument because you yourself added both of these mentions in the same edit. As for "In general applying Lithuanised names to historical figures from 18th century Grand Duchy of Lithuania is ahistorical and improper" is an incorrect statement, as there are documents with such names, like here. The Lithuanian language was used more widely at the time than most would think nowadays.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant if Giedroyć was Polish or not, his name he himself used was Romuald Giedroyć, and that basically ends the whole discussion. I don't argue if he was Polish or not, it's irrelevant. Although he was division general of Congress Poland after his return from France. And he was fighting for the country, not only Grand Duchy. But as I said it's irrelevant: his name was Romuald Giedroyć, which isn't even Polish name but Polish-Lithuanian. As for Saločiai, you purposefully added the Polish names and the "later mentioned name of the garnisson will be understandable" is a nonsensical argument because you yourself added both of these mentions in the same edit - the source was saying that the regiment was named "Salaty" not "Saločiai", so I changed that and added the name earlier, so it will be obvious for reader where the name came from Marcelus (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Stop pushing Polish nationalistic POV in a Lithuanian topic. Lithuania never was part of Poland and Polish language never was a state language. Many languages were used alongside the Lithuanian language (e.g. Latin, Ruthenian, French, etc.), thus the most accurate name for a Lithuanian person is in Lithuanian (Romualdas Giedraitis). Nationalistic POV violates WP:NPOV and your nationalistic edit warring in article Romualdas Giedraitis will result in sanctions (likely WP:BLOCK) if you will not stop. -- Pofka (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka stop spreading empty threads, I don't push any nationalistic agenda, contrary I am trying to prevent one. The accurate name of the person is the name he actually used, which is Romuald Giedroyć, not Romualdas Giedraitis, if you aren't able to prove otherwise, your point is invalid Marcelus (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Prove that he considered himself as a Pole, not as Lithuanian and we can discuss Polonization of his name. Otherwise, Polish sources will have one name, Ruthenian sources will have another, French - yet another and so on. So the most accurate, neutral name is in Lithuanian language because he was Lithuanian. Consequently, if you will not stop your nationalistic edit warring, I will certainly report your nationalistic POV pushing and request for sanctions. WP:NPOV violations very often results in WP:BLOCK because such behavior is absolutely incompatible with the most important Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia rule. I strongly suggest you to forget chauvinistic attitude as soon as possible if you want to continue editing Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pofka I don't really care if he considered himself a Pole, it's irrelevant. I just want the biography of this great man being titled with his actual name, that he used, and which is engraved on his grave. And as I said before stop with the empty threads, if you want to report me feel free to do so, frankly I am not afraid of the result. But I will not tolerate your constant name-calling me.Marcelus (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: I already told you: it depends on sources. You will not find his Polonized name in non-Polish sources. Stop your chauvinism towards the Lithuanians and start respecting them as equal. Otherwise, you are WP:NOTHERE. -- Pofka (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: I warned you to stop name-calling, now I am informing you that I am going to report your behaviour.Marcelus (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you two take a rest for a few moments and then come back here? Seriously, just halt those warnings and work to reach an agreement. I’ll happily help. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ Marcelus - withdraw this[20] and let's achieve some consensus here, okay? GizzyCatBella🍁 21:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ GizzyCatBella I'm afraid I'm not able to do so. I asked User:Pofka to stop his behaviour, he didn't listen. I know him from other discussions and I have multiple, equaly bad experiences with him Marcelus (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, Marcelus in the past attempted to discredit Lithuanians and Lithuanian language as well. -- Pofka (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: Another baseless insult Marcelus (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, really? Well, if anyone will be interested then there was a discussion at Talk:Pahonia and Marcelus aggressively put priority of Ruthenian/Belarusian/Polish words over Lithuanian language words. His biased arguments were dismissed by an admin. -- Pofka (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: 1. No, I wasn't doing anything aggressively; I wasn't just agreeing with you, it's your problem that you see everything that goes against your opinion as agression. 2. I wasn't putting priority of any language above another, but only pointing out the fact that Ruthenian/Polish name of CoA are are attested in earlier historical sources than Lithuanian names 3. No, nothing I ever said on Wikipedia was dismissed by admin, that's a straight up lie. Marcelus (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The admin, who closed Pahonia's RFC, said that he read the entire discussion. Your and other opposers arguments were rejected as baseless. Fact. -- Pofka (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: Where did he say that? Can you link it? Marcelus (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He read your arguments and rejected them: statement by an admin. -- Pofka (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The option A prevailed that's all Marcelus (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If his name is really Romuald Giedroyć, then why is it also written Giedrojć or Gedroić? Clearly, the Polish create many different names for one individual, i.e. Romualdas Giedraitis. As for a nationalistic agenda, it is clearly you who is pushing it when you call avowed Lithuanians Poles (like with your revert on the Polish Wikipedia here) and you who put in a lot of effort to prove "Polish origins" when that is not the case, as with Silvestras Žukauskas.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If his name is really Romuald Giedroyć, then why is it also written Giedrojć or Gedroić? - because all of them are pronounced the same, I already explained that Marcelus (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you pronounce Giedroyć, Giedrojć or Gedroić, you still hear the same as Giedraitis, so there is no issue here and you are wasting your time and energy for nothing.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I see you stopped arguing in a good faith, so there is no point of talking with you Marcelus (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not bad faith to state the obvious, it is indeed good faith.--20:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I will cease engaging in ethno-nationalist ... and will dedicate myself purely to editing military and neutral history, with any other edits being of a neutral nature... [21] - Cukrakalnis, you need to be careful I think. Let’s not get the above conversation and your recent edits backfire, okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, this is an article about a military person. Second, his allegiance to Lithuania is undoubted. Furthermore, calling him Romualdas Giedraitis, because the vast majority of the sources that I used for this article called him such, is not at all a breach of neutrality. There is no correlation between ethno-nationalist provocation and calling a person in the manner the sources name him.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: The problem with this discussion is that Marcelus is attempting to Polonize an ethnic Lithuanian name. This is a Polish chauvinistic behavior which certainly violates WP:NPOV. I don't see any disruptive behavior in Cukrakalnis' actions because he did not attempted to Lithuanize name of an ethnic Pole. Poles and Lithuanians relations were turbulent in the 20th century (see: Polish–Lithuanian War), thus I request to respect and protect Lithuanians (a significantly smaller nation) from baseless Polonization attempts. I believe that according to WP:NPOV the Lithuanians names should be written in Lithuanian language, while Poles - in Polish language. -- Pofka (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You fellows can do what you consider being right. I'm not your mother. I'm just encouraging Cukrakalnis to be rather careful due to the unblock promise. Their recent edits are far from ...CEASED of ethnic-nationalist edits... and dedicated purely to editing military and neutral history, with any other edits being of a neutral nature... and for you Pofka... throwing threats around is not the way either. Please try to work this out peacefully. And to all of you - sharing is caring. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: From the edit history of this article, I can see that Cukrakalnis had created a quality article and put a lot of effort into it. Then Marcelus came and attempted to Polonize this article of an ethnic Lithuanian. Being Lithuanian myself, I perfectly know that in the 20th century some Polish nationalists loudly shouted that the Lithuanians do not exist and annexed their capital Vilnius. Many Poles now respects the Lithuanians and the Lithuanians respects Poles, but there are some people in Poland who look into the Lithuanians by wearing the same 20th century googles and want to Polonize everything, erase Lithuanians history. This is a really sensitive topic and Lithuanians, being a significantly smaller nation, should receive respect and support when being attacked by such nationalists because the Lithuanians did not appeared out of nowhere in the 20th century and in the past we had created the largest state in Europe - Grand Duchy of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good article you created Cukrakalnis by the way, good for you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, GizzyCatBella🍁, I put a lot of time and effort into it :) --Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What RS call the man?

[edit]

Romualdas Giedraitis

  • List sources below:

Here are some reliable Lithuanian sources:

Writing ethnic Lithuanian name in Polish, based on Polish language sources, is an absolute non-sense and violation of WP:NPOV. The Lithuanian sources will always use name and surname Romualdas Giedraitis. So the main question is: was he Lithuanian or a Pole? The answer is clearly presented in this article and is unquestionable, so the rest is nothing else than violations of WP:NPOV. -- Pofka (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Romuald Giedroyć" isn't Polish, Lithuanian or Chinese name, it's the actual name this person was used. Which I proved by citing many historical sources, and two of them were signed by him with that name Marcelus (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is only natural that Polish-language sources and those based on them would use a Polish-language/Polonized name. That would be like trying to prove that the name of Vytautas should actually be Wytawtis, Witoldis, or Wytoults. Just as Vytautas is called Vytautas and not anything else, so too Romualdas Giedraitis must be called Romualdas Giedraitis and not anything else.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romuald Giedroyć

Discussion

Sources written by Poles like Michał Balogh, Zygmunt Kazimierski, Marcin Mielnik, and Nina Taylor-Terlecka, will use the Polish version of the name, so that is no different from using Polish-language sources to "prove" that this person should be named in such a manner.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: I added another source by Digby Smith. Overall it's secondary, because we have documents signed by Romuald Giedroyć with that name, so they are conclusive Marcelus (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
link to the above source [22]GizzyCatBella🍁 21:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Digby doesn't even get his name right. If you were to make a decision based on him, you would need to go with Ronauld instead of Romuald. As for your other statement, it is not as conclusive as you like to portray, considering that he signed a Polish-language document, so it is only natural he would use the Polish version of his name. If he were to sign French-language documents, he would have signed with the French version of his name. E.g. Józef Poniatowski signed French-language documents with the name Joseph Prince Poniatowski. That's how things were back in the day.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he were to sign French-language documents, he would have signed with the French version of his name. How do you know that? GizzyCatBella🍁 18:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: He probably wouldn't change his surname, as Poniatowski didn't do that. There is absolutely no reason for him to not use Giedraitis if that was the surname he was actually using. Can you provide a source where he is using that surname? Overall I know from where you are coming from, but we are talking here about important family that still have living descendants, it's not a mistery what surname they were using Marcelus (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: Unfortunately, I don't have access to Giedraitis' personal archive, so I can't really point to precise occasions where he signed French documents, but what I mentioned is a very likely possibility, as others from his era did so, like Poniatowski. @Marcelus: Actually, I don't think I have ever stated that Romualdas Giedraitis indeed used the name which is given in the article, but the core thing is that Lithuanian names should be used in topics/articles exclusively connected to Lithuania. That's according to the WP:UE.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while in France he signed his name this way - (page 157 and 159) [23] GizzyCatBella🍁 20:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that as much the place that matters, but the language. As he was signing a Polish-language document, he would sign in Polish, and if he was signing a French document, he would sign in French. I must admit I am in the awkward position of not having any French-language documents that Giedraitis signed (wouldn't it be just great to have available the Giedraitis' personal archive?). Nonetheless, Adomas Mickevičius' letters are a really interesting source, so thanks for that, although I do not speak or read Polish yet (I intend to learn that language one day, one way or another!).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the person was a Polonophone person fighting for the Polish cause but had Lithuanian roots, then the Polish name should be used. As do all other wikipedias apart from the English language and the Lithuanian language one (which is natural, given the linguistic specifics of Lithuanian). Many Polish-Lithuanian noblemen of Lithuanian descent had become completely Polonized by the 18th century. Try to take a look at more authoritative sources, Britannica, Russian Efron-Brockhaus, scholarly sources from Google Books etc. Mere Google hits will show nothing. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC) strike sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek[reply]
@Polska jest Najważniejsza - Polonophone, hua? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:GizzyCatBella - sorry if I was mistaken, but based on what I read on Polish Wiki and the sources provided above I really came to the conclusion that it was one of the Mickiewicz-like figures, who were all but Poles despite their Lithuanian ancestry. I vaguely remember there was even some dispute 5 years ago or sth. when I joined that even Mickiewicz might have been a "Polish-Lithuanian", perhaps even "Lithuanian" poet! My suggestion still stands. Take this approach as the basis. Mere Google Hits counting won't lead us anywhere. So, it was just a suggestion. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC) strike sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek[reply]
I am repeating myself over and over - I just checked the sources you mentioned (Britannica, Russian Efron-Brockaus, Google books and etc.) and the aren't any results for Romualdas Giedraitis in those, while there are very few cases of the Polish spelling of his name in English-language sources, with some English sources pointing to an entirely different person and where the Polish name is used, it is written by Poles typically. Plus, no one even mentioned mere Google hits. Moreover, I will point out the fact that not all other Wikipedias use the Polish-language name, as the Belarusian ones use Рамуальд Гедройц (Ramuaĺd Hiedrojc), the French one has Romuald Gedroitze, and only the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias use the pure Polish-language name.
As for "Polish cause", that is not true, because Giedraitis fought for the Lithuanian cause (do you know about the Statutes of Lithuania, which lasted until mid-19th century and guaranteed Lithuania's distinction from Poland, no matter how Polonized it got?), although that did fit into the Polish-Lithuanian cause of war against the Russians, there is a line to be drawn between two states which each possessed a separate army, judicial system, administration, etc.
And @GizzyCatBella: Polonophone means Polish-speaking, like Russophone means Russian-speaking and Francophone - French-speaking.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: First of all we have sources that provide without any doubt what name Romuald Giedroyć was actually using in his lifetime. We also have English-language sources that use this name exactly. There is nothing like that for "Romualdas Giedraitis"; also the other person of this name you talk about is not entirely different, but a grandson of Romuald Giedryoć, and people of the same family typical have the same surname. Marcelus (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, a person using a certain name does not preclude using another one for their Wikipedia page, e.g. Merkelis Giedraitis. He has a Lithuanian-name wiki page, while it is possible that most of the documents he signed would have been in Latin, Polish, etc. and not the Lithuanian language. Second, We also have English-language sources that use this name exactly. is only the case because mostly Polish people wrote the English language material in this case. Third, as for not entirely different, I meant it in the sense that it is an individual with his own story, which doesn't seem to overlap too much with military affairs or Lithuania, so there is quite a difference. Of course, I know surnames are passed down through families (although there are cases where they are distorted compared to the original, like e.g. Guédroïtz (Ania Guédroïtz).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Digby Smith isn't Polish author. Merkelis Giedraitis actual name was kniaź Malcher Matuszewicz Gedrojc - that's how he is named as a delegate on 1569 union sejm. Marcelus (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Digby Smith isn't Polish author. Digby Smith misspelt the name, so no conclusion should be reached based on him. Merkelis Giedraitis actual name was kniaź Malcher Matuszewicz Gedrojc - Nonsense because he wrote his last name as Gedrotius. You making such baseless claims which you present as definite is not the first time this has happened either.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not baseless and I don't present it as definitive. That's how he is named on the list of 1569 Sejm delegates, according to Wolff, Kniaziowie litewsko-ruscy od końca czternastego wieku Marcelus (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "Merkelis Giedraitis actual name was kniaź Malcher Matuszewicz Gedrojc" is a clearly definitive statement. Your claim of "his actual name" is baseless because you jumped to conclusions without extensive examination.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having just come upon this, I went to Commons to look at his grave. The carving states Romuald Giedroyć. It takes nothing away from his lustrous Lithuanian identity. Presumably his family could have insisted on the Lithuanian form, but it was left in the polonised spelling. His descendants in the English-speaking world tend to be known as Giedroyć. In fact, I met one of them, Michał, in London. He was the founder of an extant removals firm, called "Eagle Transport". Inevitably, I support the move.--Po Mieczu (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For public awareness

[edit]

Not only is there just this Romualdas Giedraitis, there is also a person with an identical name that was born in 1913 and died in 1980 - article on Lithuanian wiki here. There is also a person called Le prince Romuald Thadée GIEDROYC, who wrote about Portuguese history in 1875, so he is clearly not the same person as general Romualdas Giedraitis. The article about the one who wrote the Portuguese history is here.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis:Le prince Romuald Thadée GIEDROYC is actually the person we talk about - prince Romuald Tadeusz Giedroyć (1750-1824), the writer who wrote among other things about Portugese history is his grandson - prince Romuald Władysław Giedroyć (1842-1899), son of Aleksander Konstanty Julian Giedroyć Marcelus (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Please take a look at this. Two people with the exact same name in the same century.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: Take a look at this, general was called Romuald Tadeusz, his grandson was Romuald Władysław [fr]Marcelus (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: No mention of Władyslaw on the page. As for the general being called Romuald Tadeusz, that does not mean that his grandson could not have had the same name, plus the source given is heavily pro-Polish, making basic mistakes and inventing a polono-lithuanian army when none existed and many other inaccuracies.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: Romuald Władysław is mentioned on the French Wikipage I linked. I don't know when you are seeing pro-Polish bias, although it really doesn't matter 88.156.139.211 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: When I said "the page", I meant this. I saw the French article, it indeed is named as such.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

I believe Cukrakalnis is right here -->[24]. You jumped the gun Marcelus. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: I believe that the arguments I presented in the previous discussion (the name used in English literature, the name used by the person concerned and his contemporaries in historical documents, the inscription on his grave, the fact that he was a Polish-speaking person) justify the use of the name Romuald Giedroyć.Marcelus (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a request to revert this undiscussed controversial move at WP:RM. My advice about how to seek a further discussion on moving can be read in the close of the November 2021 move discussion above. FOARP (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP @GizzyCatBella What is your opinion, how this biography should be named? Do you not have enough data, or something else? We can set up new discussions, I can repeat myself over and over. But at the end of the day it will be me against Cukrakalnis. Someone more needs to take a concrete stand. The same thing is happening in the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Language_in_the_former_Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth discussion, which is dead. It will probably be closed immediately without any concrete decisions being taken. FOARP closed the previous discussion about Giedroyc, despite the fact that I gave plenty of evidence about what name he used and how he is referred to in English texts. What new information do you need to determine whether Romuald Giedroyć's name was "Romuald Giedroyć" or something else, in a language he did not even know.Marcelus (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read the close. It says exactly what (in my view) you needed to do. Try it and see if it works. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, try that Marcelus. And be patient, as I said before some kind of consensus will eventually materialize. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP @GizzyCatBella But what's your opinion? Can you answer that or you don't have one? And no, you have not written clearly what you expect. You wrote that This is particularly the case with the discussion of the differing policies of Polish and Lithuanian Wikipedia, which is simply not true. The Polish Wikipedia is not relevant here. Only one editor appears to have compared the prevalence of the different names in English and this appears to have been based only on a brief internet search - read WP:HITS for how to better construct arguments based on internet searches, I think you were talking about me and again you are wrong. I have quoted very specific publications in which Giedroyc's name is mentioned, with titles and authors. I also looked through a dozen or so English books on Napoleon's Lithuanian expedition and the period in question in the hope of finding a reference to Giedroyc, without success. I do not know what more I can do, if you can write to me directly. Besides, what are we talking about here, this man's children bear the name "Giedroyc". This is simply absurd. Marcelus (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is written in the close above. Looking at specific books raises the question of whether the books are a representative sample - that is why numerical data is more likely to be convincing, if it can be provided. I stated in my close that I thought that the policies of Lithuanian and Polish Wikipedia were not likely to be very relevant to a discussion on English Wikipedia. Open another discussion if you want to build a consensus on this issue. FOARP (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you not ask this before closing the discussion? Don't you think that would have made it a lot easier. You could have also made an effort to count the references I gave (4) with the references given with the Lithuanian version (0). Marcelus (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 April 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 23:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romualdas Giedraitis → Romuald Giedroyć – Second attempt to move the article under the correct name. Here we are dealing with a Polish-Lithuanian general, from a Polish-speaking family, who used the name "Romuald Giedroyć" all his life. What we can find out by looking at his grave. Despite his rather prominent role in local history, he did not gain such prominence as to be frequently mentioned by authors writing in English about the Napoleonic Wars etc. Nevertheless, I managed to find 5 such mentions. I have not found any use of the lithuanised form of his name in English texts. So there is no basis for such a form to be used. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - interested editors, please voice your opinion here as well --> [25] - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recognizability - Lean slightly towards Romuald Giedroyć on this one. Giedroyć appears to have referred to himself primarily by this name and as such it is more likely to be the one that people will recognise.
  • Naturalness - Lean again slightly towards Romuald Giedroyć here for the same reason as above. People are more likely to be searching for this based on e.g., his grave stone and descendants.
  • Precision - This is 50:50.
  • Concision - Lean strongly towards Romuald Giedroyć here, which is 16 characters including the space. By contrast Romualdas Giedraitis is 20 characters including the space. Per WP:CRITERIA the title should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Even if both titles are considered to identify the subject equally well, Romuald Giedroyć is clearly shorter and therefore the title that should be chosen.
  • Consistency - There does not seem to be any clearly-established rule for the naming of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth generals. Instead, per the recent discussion, these should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, there is nothing to be consistent with.
Looking at Google Scholar hits, I see 30 hits for "Romuald Giedroyć" (of which two are in English, and both are about the subject - see 1 2). By contrast a Google scholar search for "Romualdas Giedraitis" returns 15 results of which two are in English (but both are not clearly referring to the subject - one refers to the "General Romualdas Giedraitis Artillery Battalion" which is a modern-day Lithuanian army unit, another to Iranian foreign policy). Please note that there are a number of articles with English-language abstracts that are actually in Lithuanian - I have not counted these as being in English since the subject is not mentioned in the abstract. A text search of the book library on the Internet Archive brings up 8 hits for "Romualdas Giedraitis", of which two are in English but neither is about the subject. In contrast a text search on the Internet Archive book library for "Romuald Giedroyć" brings up 84 hits, of which none appear to be in English. I don't think it is possible to say that there is a common-name for the subject but if there is one then it is "Romuald Giedroyć".
All-in-all this is obviously a difficult case but on balance especially conciseness points towards "Romuald Giedroyć" rather than "Romualdas Giedraitis". FOARP (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP is there any chance to create a standard for such articles or do we have to go case by case? See this [26] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was the discussion I was referring to in my !vote - I think this can only be meaningfully done on a case-by-case basis, as was concluded in the discussion. For some the Polish name will make more sense, for others the Lithuanian one, and perhaps in some cases even another name not in either language? FOARP (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly Belarusian, Ukrainian and even Russian names will come into play in some cases. Not to mention the Ruthenians during the time of the Commonwealth and the GDL Marcelus (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having just come upon this, I went to Commons to look at his grave. The carving states Romuald Giedroyć. It takes nothing away from his lustrous Lithuanian identity. Presumably his family could have insisted on the Lithuanian form, but it was left in the polonised spelling. His descendants in the English-speaking world tend to be known as Giedroyć. In fact, I met one of them, Michał, in London. He was the founder of an extant removals firm, called "Eagle Transport". Inevitably, I support the move. Po Mieczu (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Po Mieczu - I agree with your conclusion but TBH the name he went under, and the name his descendants use, is a very minor point. Jesus wasn't known as "Jesus" during his lifetime, but our article is called "Jesus" and not "Yēšūaʿ" because "Jesus" is the name that our policies and guidelines point to. Since there doesn't appear to be a common name in English for the subject this means looking especially at what WP:CRITERIA says. People seem to think that the name of the article is about what the subject's "real" name is, but this is wrong - if "Romualdas Giedraitis" was the common name of the subject in English, or if WP:CRITERIA pointed to it as the appropriate name, then it wouldn't matter really what was on the subject's gravestone or what their "real" name was. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, I agree with what you say and thank you for the WP:CRITERIA link. Recognizability and the rest make sense. Po Mieczu (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romuald_Giedroyć&oldid=1235351219"