Jump to content

Talk:Władysław Syrokomla

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

Sources

[edit]

Władysław Syrokomla designated himself as a Pole. So he was a Polish poet, not belarusian. If belarusians designates this man as belarusian only because he was born in territory that is part of Belarus today, so Władysław Syrokomla should be russian poet, because in 19 century neither Poland nore Belarus didn't existed.--82.135.217.36 14:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Could You quote please how he considered himself as Pole? Actually, very known his phrase is: "Being Lithuanian in Lithuania I was unable to speak with Lithuanian". You can found it in his "Jaunts from Vilnius throughout Lithuania". Sad, sad Poles, that soon You will have to acknowledge that Your romantic view to history is too old for modern times.. -- User:egisz 08:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Don't you know his famous lyric "A writting on a mug"?
"Germans wanted to steal Copernicus from Us
(...)
They wanted to prove that beer comes
From their invention
But in Dietmar's writtings left
Is a souvenir old, annalistic, alive
Boleslaus the Great greeted Otton
With a mug of beer"
I really don't understand how foolish one can be to claim that a Pole who spoke Polish and was born in a Polish family - was a lithuanian.
I do not know who you are, but your arrogance and primitive insolence makes me NOT want to know you. 85.89.184.212 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what angry Polish chauvinist think and i don't care what so stupid guy who thinks that only language is the main factor that says about the nation of the man. He said, he was Lithuanian so i don't care about Your screams "POLE!POLE!POLE!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egisz (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chauvinist? Are you a communist or something like that? Because usually extreme leftists use arguments like that... Or you're just a fearful little man who consider anyone not agreeing with him a chauvinist or a fascist?
Anyway, you forgot about some important particles - for example his parents were Polish and everything he wrote was Polish. But I guess you don't care about such little details.
And where did I scream? I'd rather say you're a panic-monger falling into an outrage every time someone tries to promote the Truth - if you ever heard that word.
From 85.89.184.212 (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC) with love ;)[reply]
PS How can you explain Władysław Syrokomla fighting for POLISH independence from Russia? Any arguments?
PS2 Look at Syrokomla Coat of Arms - is it Lithuanian? No. Take a closer look. It's Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.184.212 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are You blind? He wrote: "Being Lithuanian i was unable to speak with Lithuanian." And who cares about language at that time? There were lot of Lithuanian patriots who were Polish-speaking, but named themselfs as Lithuanians. It's not unique in the world. Look at Irish or Scottish people. Lithuanians used lot of Polish Coat of Arms. My ancestors also used Kusza, but it doesn't say anything. So its not only Polish if he wrote himself that he is Lithuanian. Why do you ignore his own view? --Egisz (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind? First, answer to all of the arguments I mentioned above.
Who cares about language? Well... I dare say it IS important. But that's 'only' my view... You continuously try to beat the arguments by calling them "not important". What kind of retorics is that?
And I don't care about Irish or Scottish people - I concentrate on Władysław Syrokomla. I don't need examples from outside. Again, you try to drive the discussion towards the topics that doesn't say anything about Syrokomla.
You say Lithuanians used a lot of Polish Coats of Arms... Why? Didn't they have their own? It's something not right here...
Well... He may have called himself Lithuanian to express his admiration of Lithuanian culture and ethnics, but that doesn't change the fact he was born on Polish lands (under partitions) by Polish parents that teached him Polish language - and of course he was a Polish Patriot. Tell me - if I say I'm a green creature from Mars, does it make me one...?
And here you have a proof I DO NOT ignore his own view, as I just intepretated it my way which is correct, as I dare hope. 85.89.184.212 (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even understand how patriot could delete link to the memoirs of his heroe! --Egisz (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... That was a rather weak offence. Because I wouldn't dare consider it an 'argument'.
I just think the reference you put in this article is needless. 85.89.184.212 (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. He was born in modern Belarus 2. Language was not the main factor of identity then. Lot of Lithuanians spoke Polish but felt Lithuanians. Scots, Irish people are only another examples. 3. Yes, Lithuanian used lot of Coat of Arms that came from Poland and it doesn't say anything about identity. 4. Reference is necessary because it answer to question about his nationality. So, because he wrote he was Lithuanian and was Lithuanian patriot too, i have nothing to do, but restore information that is supported by his own minds. --Egisz (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure Syrokomla was referring to himself as a Litwin instead of what is considered to be the modern Lithuanian, and therefore talking that quote out of context (just like you are for Mickiewicz)? Egisz has also raged about that Litwin article being pointless, so it is clear what point of view he is coming from. Egisz, here's a photo from Rossa cemetery in Wilno. 124.190.113.128 (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Syrokomla clearly stated his identity, and there is nothing to talk about, all argument againts his own words are speculation and rewriting of his own view, based on your wishes or modern historic understanding. Besided removing reference to stated fact is way to much --Justass (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He stated his identity, but in the following 150 years, the meaning of the word to describe himself he used had changed. Hardly "my" wishes. I see you implicitly agree with Egisz here. 124.190.113.128 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contributor already presented source [1] with Syrokomla's self testimony, however opponents presented zero sources and only speculations. Speculations however are not valid for main space per WP:OR M.K. (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speculations? You call facts the speculations? Try harder. 85.89.184.212 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he was so Lithuanian, why didn't he call himself "Vladislovas Sirokomlas"? Why is his grave at Rossa Cemetery written in Polish? 124.190.113.128 (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the source with Syrokomla's self testimony there he said "I am not Lithuanian, but a Pole", so far no proper sources presented, while opposite self testimony are already present and cited with proper ref [2]. I will not engage into future discussions until sources are found with Syrokomla's self testimony. M.K. (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh for heaven's sake

[edit]

Re: [3] We've been over this a thousand times. What matters is how the sources describe him.

By typing in "Kondratowicz poet" we get:

... this list goes on and on in the same way. I have not found a single source which calls him Lithuanian (because he wasn't. Maybe "Belorussian", but not Lithuanian).

and this goes on and on and on... There's not a single source I've been able to find which calls him "Lithuanian". I've found 1 (one, uno, jeden, raz) source which refers to him as a "Polish-Lithuanian nobleman". Lithuanian authors call him Polish. Polish authors call him Polish. American writers call him Polish. Russian writers call him Polish. But some people on Wikipedia insist on calling him "Lithuanian" and edit war to remove "Polish".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: How should Kondratowicz's ethnicity be described in the article

[edit]

Per my statement above [6] and per Sandstein's suggestion I am opening an RfC on how this person's ethnicity should be described in the lede. The current wording is:

"Władysław Syrokomla was the pseudonym of Ludwik Władysław Franciszek Kondratowicz of Syrokomla Coat of Arms (1823–1862), was a Lithuanian romantic poet, writer and translator."

Whether he should be described as a "Lithuanian" or "Polish" has been a subject of dispute for awhile.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am a totally disinterested outsider on all this. 2. Boundaries in any area, and particularly in eastern Europe, do not follow (indeed, have never followed) any rational lines based on language, ethnicity, cultural or religious heritage or any other reasonable system at all. 3. The language a person uses is not sufficient to be the only determinant of how the person is described. 4. The place of birth is not sufficient to be the only determinant of how the person is described. 5. The assumed ethnicity of the person is not sufficient to be the only determinant of how the person is described. Everyone follow this so far? Suggestion? Say the truth - the person wrote in the Polish language, but in various places stated an identity with Lithuania, and that no absolute statement about him being one particular category is accepted by everyone. I know that satisies no one, but is about as accurate as I can see for this all to be. Collect (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is already noted in the body ("During burial ceremony, Edvardas Jokūbas Daukša emphasized, that while Syrokomla was influenced by Polish culture, he was Lithuanian poet, closest to Lithuania after Adam Mickiewicz.") although the sentence may need some tweaking and expansion. I'd also like to hear from a Lithunian-speaker, how reliable is the source. Back to the issue: the problem is about the lead. Most, if not all, sources, as VM shown above, call him a "Polish poet. But some editors seems to replace that with "Lithuanian poet". Based on that, I think the lead should state he was a "Polish poet". If the article is expanded and reliable sources are presented, the lead can also mention some connection to Lithuania, although at this point I am not seeing sources to justify that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WRT to the reliability of the source. It is Galve.lt, a regional newspaper covering Trakai and Elektrenai [7]. The author of the cited piece, Birutė Lisauskaitė, is most probably this archeologist, who has apparently done quite a bit of work at Trakai. [8]. (One of Syrokomla's better-known works was about Trakai, aka Troki) [9]. Novickas (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to not try making a categorization in the lede, but keep the discussion in the body of the article, where readers may look at it dispassionately. I see no over-riding requirement to ascribe ethnicity in this article. Collect (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this article be different from others? It is common practice to include subject's nationality in the lead. Next, consider WP:V. We have plethora of sources that describe him as Polish, and none as Lithuanian (see also my analysis below). Not describing him as Polish in the lead seems to violate WP:NPOV (UNDUE) by allowing an editor (editors?) pushing a fringe claim to destabilize an article. Putting ethnicity in lead is a common and regular practice. Of course, if an ethnicity is disputed, and there are reliable sources for various points of view, we often add a dedicated section (see for example Adam Mickiewicz). I see no reason why this article should be different (other than for Mickiewicz, at least some sources for alternative (Lithuanian) POV have been found, here - so far, none). PS. I've just finished expanding this article, adding 9 inline cites. Many sources call him Polish poet; I haven't seen a single one calling him Lithuanian (although yes, several sources note his connection to Lithuania, and the Vilnius region, where he spend his life). Nobody is denying that connection, but it is hardly a rationale for replacing "Polish poet" with "Lithuanian poet" in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity in English literature through Google Books (please note that quotation marks break wikilinks, so you'll have to readd them after clicking to get the same results as I did):

I hope this proves my argument above that vast majority of sources are for him being a Polish poet (not Lithuanian). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recently expanded article on Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) may be quite helpful, and I am open to further discussion whether Syrokomla should be among the individuals described as "Polish-Lithuanian". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • So: he self-identified as Lithuanian; he was born in and spent most or all of his life in what had been the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; "wrote tales in easy verse of the rustic life in Lithuania that was his own;" [10] was often called "the Lithuanian lyre-player" [11], in Polish sources too [12]; Tomas Venclova writes "In one sense Mickiewicz and Syrokomla are Lithuanians..." [13]; Czesław Miłosz calls him a "native of Lithuania." [14] (These last two authors are late 20th century, in case some outsider shows up here). But he wrote mostly in Polish. Yes, it's clearly complicated. To me, it seems that Polish-Lithuanian is the best way to go in the lead. If some reliable source goes into detail about his identity, put it in the article. Novickas (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This "he self-identified as a Lithuanian" thing - where exactly is it? Above I'm just seeing assertions to that effect but no explicit source or quote (something about him saying "I live in Lithuania but I can't speak Lithuanian" or something to that effect).
And that, once again, is leaving aside the thing that "Lithuanian" did not mean the same thing back then as it does now.
Of course he was a "native of Lithuania" - and Johannes Daniel Falk was a "native of Poland" or if you'd like a "native of Gdansk". Tomas Venclova very very very carefully qualifies and explains what he means. Funny how you quote one part of his sentence but omit the one immediately next to it which states "The matter of Lithuanianess or Polishness is historically badly confused because the notion of 'a Lithuanian', as well as the notion of 'a Pole' changed over centuries". You can't try to use one sentence - torn out of context to make it mean something it clearly doesn't - and omit the other.
Having said all that - and putting aside the fact that still not a single source has been produced which calls him "Polish-Lithuanian" or even "Lithuanian" (all those sources that call him a "native of Lithuania"... why exactly don't they just come right out and call him a "Lithuanian"?) I'm not going to object if you really want to call him "Polish-Lithuanian" and link to the Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) article. It's just not worth it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where there is a dispute on facts like this, omit them from the lede and discuss them in a dedicated section. Instead, replace his nationality in the lede with his place or birth - many articles refer to people as, for example, Lithuanian-born. His place of birth should be more verifiable than the vague concept of nationality. If he was indeed born in Lithuania, rework the sentence to the effect, '[...] was a Lithuanian-born poet [...]'. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with using LT 'nationality', in its modern meaning of citizenship, is there wasn't any Lithuania (or Poland) at the time of Syrokomla's birth or ever during his lifetime - see the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Technically he was Russian-born and a Russian citizen all his life. In practice authors routinely ignore these sorts of complications, in the interests of concision I suppose, and WP editors follow their lead. Would two sentences work better - "S (dates) was a Romantic poet. Born in what had been the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, he wrote of its history, largely in the Polish (language)." If you have any ideas about how to word an alternative first sentence in these circumstances, please offer them. Thanks for participating - <3 outsiders. Novickas (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with self-identification

[edit]

The problem with this supposed self-identification as "Lithuanian" is - and this is the big bear in the room that nobody is willing to discuss - that the term has shifted in meaning over time. The term "Lithuanian" at Syrokomla's time did not mean the same thing as it does today. Without explaining this change in the usage of the term (and Venclova has written about this, as have others) to the readers we are misleading them. For a similar problem in other context see this comment [15] and the discussion it was part of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is what Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) article is about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constatnt removal of referanced info

[edit]

It is becoming silly to see that IPs are constantly removing referenced info on this article regarding this person [16]. I would love to see full explanations regarding such edits . M.K. (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was polish, not polish-lithuanian

[edit]

I am upset, because of giving false references to prove false informations. He was polish, he wrote in polish, his name is polish. I don't understand why english Wikipedia is giving false information, on polish Wikipedia everything is clear. Andrzej19 (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most references given to provide info that he was Lithuanian poet, on another hand there is some references which labels him solely as "polish", so I think it is ok to keep both Lithuanian and Polish as such; while link to "Polish-Lithuanian adjective" is indeed redundant. M.K. (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC) P.s polish wikipedia is not a gold standard for English one, so it is completely irrelevant that PL wiki says alongside personal opinions of editors.[reply]

Polish-Belarusian?

[edit]

Anon recently added that claim. Considering Syrokomla, according to our article, wrote some content in Belarusian, this seems plausible, but we could use some RS.

Btw. Pl wiki just calls him Polish. Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian, Polish-Belarusian. And Lithuanian, of course, calls him Polish-Lithuanian. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Władysław_Syrokomla&oldid=1209685880"