Talk:Jan Dzierżon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Silesian Dzierzon Family Locations in Kr. Kreuzburg

[edit] Insistence on Polish

Dear 1) Dzierżon first name is Jan. This name was given him at baptism and should be respected. 2) His family name is Dzieżon the second z is with dot on top. This is how he signed himself in Polish language. 3) He left clear statement saying: “As my name says I am Polish..” so he is Polish not only by origin but from choice. 4) He resigned from presbytery in 1868 but it does not mean he become free of priesthood orders. 5) His family was Polish not ethnic Polish. Both father and mother did not speak German at all. 6) You have no evidence about joining Old Catholic Church by Dzierżon. You supposition are on the base of wrong Soltisec statement. You do not have any other documents as registration from the Old Catholic Church etc.

I revert you changes, also some that could be matter of comas. It is just to much to repair all you ravage step by step. Please take for consideration the 6 major points above and start discussion and proving. Also be sure I will not be convinced by some Nazi or neo Nazi publications dated decades ago. In Polish and English newest publication discuses facts and documents. I do not know any recent SCENTIFIC publications in German which would support you statements. If you have some let me know and we will look for mediator. Andrew Serafin 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Andrew/Serafin

First off, I agree fully with you that names should be respected. You do not show an actual document , but I go along with Jan. Wikipedia does not respect names though. German names are constantly translated. Only Polish names are wide-spred- despite wikipedia policy against this. The German Wikipedia article and the Silesian 2006 newspaper show the Old Catholic. To your point about Polish or ethnic Polish. He was born in Silesia, Prussia and died in Silesia, Germany. There was no Poland in his lifetime. There was a Polish Russia, be he did not live there. If you think you want to ravage the article again and remove all info, I will not make any further corrections on it. I inserted the 2006 article from Silesia on him.

I added Family website with photo of Johann Dzierzon's grave. Labbas 29 Nov 2006

[edit] Record of Johann Dzierzons birth filmed by LDS Mormons

For his name look here... --80.133.9.237 09:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirchenbuch (church book) entries of Lowkowitz, Kreis Kreuzburg

At the Mormon LDS Fimily History Centers FHS one can order and look at the filmed records of the original Kirchenbuch (church book) entries of Taufen, Heiraten, Tote, Birth, Marriage, Death) of inhabitants. The church book for Lowkowitz, Silesia, Germany was filmed and is available at the LDS from 1765 - 1948, when Communist Soviet Union and Poland conquered and administered eastern Germany.

Labbas 4 December 2006

Good you agree with Jan since in English would be John but not Johann :) Regarding the Old Catholic issue, I sent a request to the author to fix his mistake. It is no matter that Poland did not existed on the map (thanks the Prussian aggressions anyway). Are you suggesting that a country seize other and can additionally arrogantly claim achievements of grabbed population as its own culture? I will ask you something if you country would be sized by other one would you accept the occupants statements you are no German? Thanks for you good attitude you will not destroy the article content. I will continue my effort to provide true information about Dr Jan Dzierzon with my best knowledge. Best regards, Andrew Serafin 05:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Andrew /Serafin someone # 131. had removed a number of facts, which I had gathered in the meanwhile.

It has become clear, that Dzierzon was born in Silesia in the Kingdom of Prussia , and he died in the same place , when it was Germany. His grave stone shows Dr. Johann Dzierzon, the entry of his birth (actual filmed Kirchenbuecher (church books), shows Johann Dzierzon, father Simon, mother Maria. Hundreds of other Dzierzon with German first names are listed in the church book entries at the LDS, Utah. There are less than a handfull entries of Dzierzon claimed to have been born in Poland. There is one entry for Jan Dzierzon, claimed to have been born in Poland.

Sorry , but the last king of Poland resigned and left and there was no Poland. Besides that, Johann Dzierzon did never live in the part, that was Poland, but he lived in Silesia, Prussia, Germany. It might well have been that at same previous time some of his ancestors might have been Polish, that was or is standard for many Germans, because a thousand years ago, when the German emperors gave Land in Lien (Land on Loan) to Mieszko I, by making him the first duke of the Polans there was never a line that said Poles are not allowed to live in Germany or vice versa, not until the 20th century anyway, when allied super powers for the first time in a thousand years came up with those dividing lines and took land away from people and 'gave' it to others ('Treaty' of Versailles) (Potsdam Agreement).

Until you can post here actual documents (copies) showing otherwise, he was born and he died Johann Dzierzon, a Silesian, Prussian, German with perhaps Polish ancestors. Labbas, 1 December 2006

I possibly mentioned to you that the grave stone was put there by Austrian Beekeeping Society (it is free translation of the name). The German was the official language of that time and was preferred by the founders. Originally for first year there was simple wooden cross and plate in Polish language (Brożek 1978). The grave stone is not prove that his Christian name was Johann. Kingdom of Prussia existed from 1701 up to 1918, thus Dzierzon was born and died (1906) in Prussia. Again, he was born in Prussia but he was Polish, is it impossible? It is one thing to be citizen of a country (even fully accepting citizen duties and the country boarders) and be a Polish or German nationality. Why A. Einstein is not call German? (see English and German Wiki). The Poland continued its existence in hearts of Poles for centuries – prove the Silesian plebiscite in 1918. Actually I feel offended by a German who recall nonexistence of my country as a prove to his doubtful hypothesis. I repeat nonexistence of Poland ON MAPS was a result of Prussian aggression, as one of main things.

Silesia was part of Polish Kingdom at least from X century and it is very possible Dzierzon was the descent of the native Slavic population in Silesia. Name of his great-grandfather Jerzy (1717-1800) appears in the oldest Polish chronicles of Lowkowitz (W. Kocowicz 1987). His father and mother did not spoke a word in German it is known since in courts cases a translator was employed (W. Kocowicz 1987). Also his nephew Franciszek confirmed that (L. Brożek 1978, W. Kocowicz 1987 and others). Thus not his ancestors but most closely his parents were Polish.

It is very nationalistic and unfunded claim that German emperors give land to Mieszko I, nobody make him duke. You do not have prove he pledged to German emperors, do you? In addition, Bolesław I Chrobry was not vassal but considered as sovereign and friend of emperor in 1000. For the Potsdam and Versailles was a god reason, was it not? I feel much more assured with such separation that there will be no more wars, conflicts or just simple argues. Regarding you request for posting documents: 1) I agree he was born in Kingdom of Prussia (it is secondary – non important fact) 2) I give you two publication in English: W. Kocowicz 1987 and W. Chmielewski 2006 seems to me you ignored it. Also I provided three possition in Polish. I suppose if you want dissuse Jan Dzierżon history you should study the positions also – as I study publications in German. It is obvious for me that to talk about subject you should study the oposite views also. If you do not know Polish you should leave the discussion to some German who knows it. I will give you a name of sombody like that. He disscussed with me on German and Polish Wiki, he knows my arguments. 3) There is no doubts about his parents origin so you “perhaps” shows absolute lack of knowledge. 4) Jan Dzierzon said: “As my name says I am Polish…” he considered himself as Pole. Call [1]for this confiramtion. 5) Also there at the link: [2] if you would make a minimum effort the “Urodzony w polskiej rodzinie…” means “Born in Polish Family…” 6) Because of this family staff his given name was Jan.

I ask you to enter the German new links in order after those which were first - nobody removed this new links they were put in different order.

Lowkowitz, Landkreis Kreuzburg O.S. (from 1936-1945 called Bienendorf after him) and after 1945 Łowkowice, where he died on 26 October 1906, at the age of 95. It has no sense. Rychbach was renamed after his name. Łowkowice was renamed Bienendorf in years 1936-1945. In 1945 returned to the original name. You removed more important subject.

He discovered the parthenogenesis in 1835 and publicized 10 years later. Just he wanted to be sure. OK?

That was 1838 when he modernized Christa’s hive to some level. This was not movable-frame but movable comb hive. Movable frame was devised in 1852 by Berlepsch on base of Dzierzon discoveries and directions.

There is the link to his Ausführliche Biografie [3] let me know where is the Old Catholic story. I could not find in the past or present search.

He reported that most of his publications were done at Beck-Verlag in Nördlingen is little interest I think. Best, Anderew Serafin 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish?

Isnt it somewhat strange, to call someone Polish when 1) all his works mentioned in this article where written in German, 2) he was born in Germany, lived in Germany and died in Germany, 3) he went to school and studied in Breslau (which was a German city than) where of course he had speak and write German, 4) his grave stone reads Johann, which is a German name (and not Jan), 5) his own biography was written in German description of his live by him self 6) his relatives now live in Germany (like here gand-grand-niece Ursula Nordhorn)? There is still no proove for the constant claim by Mr Anderew that he called himself Polish. Might we see some Polish patriotism at work here? --Adbo2009 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Kluczbork city site Dzierżon's parents were Polish. It means probably that they talked Polish/Silesian at home. I don't know what was the opinion of Dzierżon's about himself, I would rather believed he was German. However points 1 to 6 don't prove he was German. The same points can be used to describe many Lithuanians/Ukerainians who learned Polish and their relatives now live in Poland. Many points are true for allegedly pure Lithuanian Laurynas Gucevičius. Was Joseph Conrad English? It's not obvious. Xx236 16:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, not obvious. As my grandfather came from the village Chudowa, close to Kluczbork, most of the people there were quite well integrated in German society, although they had Polish names and spoke both languages (more or less). But that does not prove a thing about Dzierzon himself. I was just surprised he was definetely Polish. Difficult to describe. --Adbo2009 12:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The introduction

I mentioned him as a Prussian-German in the lead as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph:

  • Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.).

I listed both his Polish and German name and mentioned that he published in both languages (as mentioned at de:Johann Dzierzon). Olessi 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Putting aside the argument over whether he was Polish or German, this article should be at a title that is English (dubious for this individual) or is most recognizable.

From Google Books:

  1. Johann Dzierzon
    • Bees In America: How the Honey Bee Shaped a Nation by Tammy Horn [4]
    • Bee by Claire Preston [5]
    • Bramble-Bees and Others by Jean-Henri Fabre [6]
    • Science, History and Social Activism: A Tribute to Everett Mendelsohn by Garland E Allen [7] (also uses Johannes Dzierzon)
    • Psyche: Journal of Entomology and A Century of Mendelism in Human Genetics also use " Johann Dzierzon", although their contents have been removed from Google Books.
  2. Jan Dzierzon
    • Ohio History by the Ohio Historical Society [8]
    • Placenames of the World by Adrian Room [9]
  3. John Dzierzon
    • The ABC And Xyz of Bee Culture by A. I. Root & E. R. Root [10]
    • The Queen Must Die: And Other Affairs of Bees and Men by William Longgood [11]
  4. Johannes Dzierzon
    • Robbing the Bees: A Biography of Honey by Holley Bishop [12]
    • Science, History and Social Activism: A Tribute to Everett Mendelsohn by Garland E Allen [13] (also uses Johann Dzierzon)
    • American Philosophical Society Proceedings [14]
    • The Dark European Honey Bee by Friedrich Ruttner, Eric Milner, John E Dews [15]

From regular Google with English language searches (disregarding forks):

  1. Johann Dzierzon
    • ScienceDaily.com "Honeybee Gene Find Ends 150-year Search" [16]
    • Milestones and Rates of Growth in the Development of Biology by Bentley Glass (JSTOR)
    • Gregor Mendel & His Precursors by Conway Zickle (JSTOR)
    • The Handbook of Texas Online [17], based on the work of W. Geiser
    • NewScientist.com - "Honeybee sex mystery solved at last"[18]
    • Journal of Heredity Online - "Some Oddities in the Delayed Discovery of Mendelism" by Conway Zirkle log-in required
    • The Emergence of Hymenopteran Genetics by Robert E. Page, Jr., Jürgen Gadau, and Martin Beye [19]
    • BioEssays - "The dice of fate: the csd gene and how its allelic composition regulates sexual development in the honey bee, Apis mellifera" by Martin Beye [20]
    • Australian EJournal of Theology - "Historical Participation of Christian Church Ministers to the Development of Science: An Ecumenical Survey" by François Barriquand [21]
    • "Cultivating a ‘slavic modern’: Yugoslav beekeeping, schooling and travel in the 1920s and 1930s" by Noah W. Sobe [22]
  2. Jan Dzierzon
    • "Apiculture and Culture- Books on Bees and Beekeeping" (exhibit) [23] [24]
    • Darwin Correspondence Project "Letter number 2260" [25]
    • Core Historical Literature of Agriculture (library listing as "Jan") [26]
    • IBRA "International Apicultural Scientific Conference on the Centenary of Jan Dzierzon's Death" [27]
    • Ohio History "Volume 57" [28]
    • Beedata.com "Apis-UK Issue No.34 April 2005" [29]
    • First European Conference of Apidology - "Pollination and the pollinator imperative" [30]
    • Kluczbork city history [31]
    • National Museum of Agriculture in Szreniawa [32]
  3. John Dzierzon
    • Bee Tidings (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) [33] [34]
    • Controlled Mating in Honeybees by Lloyd R. Watson (JSTOR)
    • Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society - "Beekeeping Benefits Include Pleasure, Profit"[35]
  4. Johannes Dzierzon
    • "Life Before Model Systems: General Zoology at August Weismann's Institute" by Frederick Churchill [36]
    • History of Biology: Cuvier, Schwann and Schleiden [37]
    • "Spermatogenesis of a Haploid Parthenogenetic Hymenopteran, Spilocryptus extrematus (Cresson)" by Carl H. Koonz [38]
    • A Review of Parthenogenesis by Everett F. Phillips (JSTOR)
    • Brazilian Journal of Genetics "Sex determination in honey bees (Apinae and Meliponinae) and its consequences" by Warwick Estevam Kerr [39]
    • "Arrhenotokous / Thelytokous Reproduction" Fred Legner [40]
    • 3rd European Congress on Social Insects - "Portraits and puzzles in the history of insect sociobiology" by Christopher K. Starr [41]

While there does not seem to be an overwhelming usage of one name over another, "Johann(es)" seems to be used a little more often in English texts. Olessi 00:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Dzierzon

It is offensive to equalize citizenship with nationality. The nationality has nothing to do with citizenship until the interested individual freely integrate with second nation. It is not case of Jan Dzierzon. He considered himself Polish. It is offensive to Polish people to seize achievements of one of us. I ask many people, many time, to give me recent example of serious work in German language (that means German historians, museum) which claim Jan Dzierzon was German. I mean recent since on German Wiki cites Nazi propagandist Karl Fleischer. In the case of Polish biographers, they prove he was not willing to integrate and he considered himself Polish. I already mentioned in previous part of the discussion on En Wiki where you can search for Polish sources. Andrew 06Dec06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I mention again the manual of style- Dzierzon was a citizen of Prussia (and later Germany), and the manual of style specifically mentions including citizenship (and places a lesser emphasis on ethnicity). A proper phrasing would be "... was a Prussian-German apiarist of Polish ethnicity. He was famous for ..." Olessi 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name Jan

This is since for decades the nationality of Jan Dzierżon had been provided in wrong way. However it can not be continued. The erros have to be fix up for the true. No aceptation for twists of the name. Andrew 06Dec06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Keep in mind that there are differences in English between nationality and ethnicity. As an English-speaking American editing on the English Wikipedia, I am interested in how this individual is primarily known in English. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) explains that the ideal title is "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". Hence, my investigation through Google to find out how he is most commonly known in English.
I did not pay attention to the publication dates of the material, so some of them may indeed be outdated. Based on the evidence at my disposal, it seems that he traditionally has been known by Germanic names he published under, which is why I suggested the change. The lack of widespread sources mentioning Dzierzon means that there is not a standard designation for him, however, and I am certainly not insisting on a page move. If you can provide more recent English works attesting to the usage of this individual's Polish name, I would certainly be supportive of his name being at the Polish title.
Would you happen to know if Dzierzon was of Polish or Silesian background?
I would like to advise all involved parties to assume good faith and tone down some of the rhetoric used. Please remember that Wikipedia works by building consensus. Olessi 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

I added the [citation needed] template to the statement that he "recognized himself as Pole". While I have no opinion on the accuracy of the statement (I had never heard of him before this week), it is vitally important to provide verifiability, and I could see the statement being challenged in the future. Olessi 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you on duty from Ge Wiki? You did not heard about Jan Dzierzon up to recent week and you want switch article, yes? You have given there two English position and three Polish in Literature. Please read it. In this circumstances, direct you also to contact Kluczborg museum and ask for facts. There was an article in: Dziennik Zachodni 1961, nr 190 B. S.: "Samo moje nazwisko mówi, żem Polak z urodzenia". There should be most of answer to you questions regarding citation. I will be appreciate if you will first ask me question before changing the text. Because you are completely unfamiliar with the subject I sense you action as hostile intrusion. See my comments to revisions also. Andrew 07Dec06 1:02am

I am not "on duty" from the German Wikipedia; practically the only editing I do there is interwiki linking. As I mentioned before, I am disinterested in how his name is presented in Polish or German, rather I am interested only in English sources (WP:UE). Unfortunately, I do not speak Polish and have no way to access Dziennik Zachodni. I did not list [citation needed] to doubt you, but so that a reference can be added to the article. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for how and why to cite references. I will incorporate Dziennik Zachodni into a References section to assist you.
I am not a monarchist or revanchist; I listed both Prussian and German since those were the states he held citizenship with. Wikipedia's manual of style explicitly states to mention that. Additionally, including "only" when describing his Prussian Order of the Crown (4th class) is not describing the situation from a neutral point of view. It can be included if there is a published reason why Dzierzon "only" received it in the 4th class, but not just if you are simply of the opinion that he deserved a higher honor.
Keep in mind that there is no ownership of articles. It is unusual for my actions to be seen as a "hostile invasion"; I ask again that you assume good faith.Olessi 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prussian citizenship

Yes Dzierzon was citizen of Prussia and I will fix it to “citizen of Prussia”. Ethnicity is = “An ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties.” This is something different then Nationality = The status of belonging to a particular nation by birth. Ethnicity is very weak term. Nation is something more then ethnic group. Please do not switch.

As an English-speaking American editing on the English Wikipedia, I am interested in how this individual is primarily known in English.

I am not interested in the English way of dealing with words. This can be used for names of thinks like knife or building. We deal with historic person whose name should be respected according to his wish – even if totalitarian, occupant or somebody like this changed it - actually for his sneaky purpose.

Based on the evidence at my disposal, it seems that he traditionally has been known by Germanic names he published under, which is why I suggested the change.

I suggest to respect the will of the person and his compatriots, and do not continue the Germanic drift. Looking on you interests on you web page seems to me you are interested in that, are you not?

The lack of widespread sources mentioning Dzierzon means that there is not a standard designation for him, however, and I am certainly not insisting on a page move. If you can provide more recent English works attesting to the usage of this individual's Polish name, I would certainly be supportive of his name being at the Polish title.

I hope you will not change the name anyway, but I will look for other older edition in English. Take for consideration that we had limited option to do such editions before 1990. I suggest you to look for most current standpoint in Kluczborg museum. At present time when Poland communicate with world more intensively the old Nazi propaganda is there verified.

Would you happen to know if Dzierzon was of Polish or Silesian background?

You provoking me or you present lack of knowledge. Silesians happened to be Slavic tribe. They spoke Polish or some Polish dialect, if you like. (You can believe me the dialect is not much different from literary (official) Polish language than any other Polish dialect.) Dzierzon recognized himself as Polish. He also consider himself as Silesian since in the same sentence he says: “Regarding my nationality, I am obviously, just as my name says, Polish of birth, since on Silesia people speak Polish…” This is rough (word to word) translation from Polish, however I believe you got the sense. Somebody can call himself Silesian because he lives in Silesia no matter what nationality he is Polish, German or Czech etc. However, true (native) Silesian is somebody like Dzierzon whose family is so ancient that could come from the ancient, native Slavic tribe.

I would like to advise all involved parties to assume good faith and tone down some of the rhetoric used.

Thank you for advice :) but I do not advise anybody if the person do not ask for. It is offensive since, it suggest I am wiser than the other is :). It could be doubtful is not it?

Please remember that Wikipedia works by building consensus.

As you possibly know, a consensus not always is possible. Take for consideration a case when somebody take other prosperity and become accustomed to it. Do you think Poland took something what does not belong to her? Seems to me this could be somebody trouble.

Unfortunately, I do not speak Polish and have no way to access Dziennik Zachodni.

Well if you have a good will you can at least read one of the publication in English. You could see that I am not only one who says Dzierzon is Polish and his name is Jan Dzierżon. If you want be objective you can found that there is lack of recent German publication saying he was German.

I did not list [citation needed] to doubt you, but so that a reference can be added to the article. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for how and why to cite references. I will incorporate Dziennik Zachodni into a References section to assist you.

Thank you for assistance. I have so many assistances on German Wiki.

I am not a monarchist or revanchist; I listed both Prussian and German since those were the states he held citizenship with.

Yes. I as told, the true – citizenship will be here as well as the nationality.

Wikipedia's manual of style explicitly states to mention that. Additionally, including "only" when describing his Prussian Order of the Crown (4th class) is not describing the situation from a neutral point of view.

No it is not neutral. It is totally objective and Dzierżon’s subjective.

It can be included if there is a published reason why Dzierzon "only" received it in the 4th class, but not just if you are simply of the opinion that he deserved a higher honor.

You can judge yourself. As I mentioned to you this is one of examples how Prussian governors treated Dzierzon and vice versa. Obviously, somebody like Karl Fleischer (NSDAP) pass over these facts. Obviously it would proof Dzierzon did not integrated with Prussia.

Keep in mind that there is no ownership of articles. It is unusual for my actions to be seen as a "hostile invasion";

You revert the article upside down. You show much of interest in Polish-German affairs. And you did the revert after week (or less) of study only. Conclussion …

I ask again that you assume good faith.

I do not assume good faith after my German Wiki experience. Are you able to understand this? Andrew--Serafin 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I have not made any comments out of a desire to provoke you. I have been editing this article out of a desire to ensure it meets the standards and conventions of the English Wikipedia. I am sorry you had a negative experience with the German Wikipedia, but that is a separate project from this English project. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of the English Wikipedia; I advise you to give editors a chance instead of assuming the worst. I inquired about Silesian/Polish because Silesians are sometimes considered a separate ethnic group. I am not sure what you mean by "reverting the article upside down"; my editing has been done to ensure that its formatting and style is consistent with other biographical articles. As I do not anticipate being able to copy-edit the article further, I am removing it from my watchlist. Good luck with the article. Olessi 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me the one about Laurynas Gucevičius. He was born in a Lithuanian family, he was using Polish name Wawrzyniec Gucewicz. The article is protected since July. If Gucewicz is Lithuanian Laurynas Gucevičius, so Jan Dzierżon is Polish and the article should be protected. Xx236 10:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do you mean is the protection at Gucevičius? I found any on En Pl Li or Ge Wiki. I first time hear about Gucevičius anyway.
Seems to me he was mixed origin. Problem whose origin father or mother should be first (mean Polish-Lithuanian or Lithuanian-Polish). But I am in favor of the individual declaration, if existed. In the case of Lithuanians they very often Polonaised (I would not say Polished :))) freely – even they did not recognized difference between Lithuanian and Polish. I think Mickiewicz would be good exempale, Piłsucki, can be Sienkiewicz - who can count all of them. Any way this is somewhat easier to accept Lithuanian-Polish or even Lithuanian than some other cases. (For modern Lithuanians point of view – they lost intellectual elite)
What about Mary Curie-Skłodowska? On Fe Wiki seems to me is “French naturalized Polish physicist”, it is not too bad. Chopin is a composer and a Polish pianist. Dzierzon at least on En Wiki is Polish.
Well, I think most blocks are on Ge Wiki :)))))). If somebody counted? Andrew--Serafin 04:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The protection was removed just after my comment, En.

Xx236 12:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "I do not assume good faith after my German Wiki experience." - correction: the german wiki doesn't assume good faith any more after its experience with you ;-) --217.91.17.62 10:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For the ANONIMUS: German Wiki need not assume my good fight. It will be enough if German Wiki will respect true ie. will be objective. After that, you can look for definition of “chauvinism”. Of course, I cannot imagine that you ever will apologize for you errors :)))). This is characteristic of higher culture. Best, Andrew Serafin 06:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Serafin, please do not attack this anonymous user. no personal attacks are allowed whatsoever on Wikipedia. the anon also bordered on a personal attack, but seeing as he was pointing out a flaw in your logic I do not think it would be a personal attack. I fail to see how you can possibly claim that all of the thousands of German wiki users are wrong, but you are right, especially when you have run into the same objections here, from Polish editors nonetheless, seeing as you have come accross as a polish nationalist so far. I am assuming you are the same editor as this anon
--Jadger 11:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't assume, here you can read it! --80.133.67.41 12:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes to German chauvinists

See [42] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

please, no personal attacks.
--Jadger 19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has an opposing view than A.Serafin on Dzierzon, please state it here:

[edit] Documents of the the German Family of Johann Dzierzon

I am posting this (temporarily) to show the Dzierzon family menbers in Silesia and Saxony. Website http://www.familysearch.org LDS, Utah (type in Dzierzon)

Johann Dzierzon wrote down his own biography and stated that he lived with his brother's youngest son Franz Dzierzon. There are about 150 Dzierzons in the 2006 German Telephone book, including several Franz Dzierzon.

!31... Andrew Serafin is posting intimidating, attacking messages at EN and DE wikipedia. His insistence on Polish, not backed-up by any factual documents, only by someones book note, are contrary to all documents available including Dzierzon's own family descendends website.


Result from LDS

 search for:  Dzierzon]

LDS Church Sites | LDS Country Sites

This was posted temporarily only for viewing. It was removed Labbas 16 December 2006




[edit] I hope you will be the person who will change errors on Ge Wiki

Dear Anonimus or 71.159.31.82 go to “Notes to German chauvinists” and link #42. Read there: “This is a note to the primary of Chauvinists” you will find there some sources of informatin which supports my assumption. Your gerealogy certificate prove only the forceful germanizsation in Prussia. If you will enter “Jan” instead “Johann” you will get [43] “Franz” in Polish is “Franciszek”. What is most interesting you have his name in German phonebook and we Polish have his testimonies that Jan was Pole :))). Plese do not ask me to translate all the books about Jan Dzierzon from Polish to English or German.A

I would not recommend reading the "notes to German chauvinists" as the title obviously shows it is just a personal attack and has no basis in fact. It is best described as user:131.104.218.46's own kind of Mein Kampf, wherein he blames a conspiracy theory on the German wikipedia (and now on the english one) of meddling with his version of history. Why is the fact that his ancestors hundreds of years before were Poles? do his ancestors determine what he does with his life? the answer of course is no, so why does his ancestry matter? it had no impact on his life or why he is notable on a encyclopedia
--Jadger 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

All the facts are there even if some arrogants removed them from view.

As you know, the Silesia was part of Poland from X century. People in villages preserved the original Polish dialect for centuries. It is not unusual story. For example in Lithuania, it was part of Polish federation (yes, federation - we did not conquer Lithuania), the peasants preserved Lithuanian language thou all nobles during 400-500 hundreds years Polonaised. The ancestry of course determined his life. He recognized himself as Pole. The point is that the brain everybody descends from his parents. He never Germanized, opposed Prussian authorities and has strong sense of Polish origin. The roots and sentiments of such person, even he was mostly noted as apiculturist and researcher and less known from national/class sentiments and origin should be noted. It is for the heritage of his compatriots. You should understand it. A.

you are incorrect, Silesia was a part of Poland before the 10th century, but then it became property of the Kings of Bohemia, etc. etc. you can look it all up on the Silesia article if you do not believe me or any other wikipedia user. The fact that his family was expelled with most of the other Germans from the area speaks volumes, the Poles didn't even consider him Polish, you comments are simply historical revisionism.
--Jadger 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, just to let you (and possibly others) know... you apparently are not aware of the existence of Dzierżoniów. Poles do consider him Polish. They did it in 1946, when the town was given the new name. Stay cool...and informed at least. Revisionism accusations are not helpful. --Beaumont (@) 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, they like to take credit for every notable person that at one time or another lived in the area, but his descendents were not even considered by Poles as being Polish. that's like saying "Ok, you're famous, you're Polish. your son isn't famous, he's not Polish" he lived at a time when there was no Polish nation, so he considered him a Polish person by race/ethnicity, not by citizenship. We can't apply some modern PC revisionism to a time when racism and cultural differences were present. And remember, you're relying on the renaming done by Communists to substantiate claims; they renamed Chemnitz to Karl-Marx-Stadt and of course there is Leningrad and Stalingrad as well as Kaliningrad to talk of here also. Kalinin never came near Königsberg, so how can you use such reasoning to substantiate racial claims by a government that had a clear motive? You're using some very faulty reasoning, just because it was named something by communists does not make it true, I tend not to trust communists when there is such an obvious motive.

--Jadger 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to confuse nation with statehood. In spite of this, I'm tempted to agree with you that he probably considered himself Polish not in terms of citizenship but of race, ethnicity, language and nation. As for your concerns about expelled relatives, there is no need to be of one nationality in one family, especially in Silesia. I know something about it (BTW, it was his nephew who confirmed Jan's self-identification). As for renaming by commies, do you try to suggest that they had clear motive to name a town by someone considered German (or doubtful) by Poles?? I did not claim "he was Polish", I claimed, contrary to you, "he was considered Polish by Poles" (either you missed the point or you're using some very faulty reasoning). --Beaumont (@) 23:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As for your concerns about expelled relatives, there is no need to be of one nationality in one family, especially in Silesia sure not anymore, but in 1945 when ethnic Germans were expelled, it was another matter, these expulsions were based on race, not nationality. Again, you are applying modern PC revisionism to a time period when racism was commonplace. I am saying that by naming it after this person in Postwar Poland, it was an attempt to claim him as their own, in order to "one up" the Nazis, who named Lowkowitz Bienendorf, which was implied but not directly as obvious as the communist name changes. I do not confuse nation with statehood, I was just showing how often in English nation is used as a synonym with state and that we need to be careful of our choice of words as we are not writing this article for history or Politics majors, but the average layman who often views them as the same thing.

--Jadger 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Beaumont, whether a formerly German town was named Dzierżoniów or not in 1945, has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding this discussion. In the wider scope of the debate it's a big Zero. If you feel it's necessary to sashay or flit, into the discussion, tell us something something useful, instead. Dr. Dan 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, modest understanding of WP principles permits similar claims. So I here is my help. Whether Poles regard(ed) him Polish or not is a key observation about existence of a considerable point of view. If someone happens not to be aware of this POV (or to deny its existence), I try to explain. Below you'll find some usefull clues about the baptismal certificate question you insist on. If you had some more problems, do not hesitate to ask more directly. --Beaumont (@) 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Jadger,
1) Right, the naming the town Biennendorf was a similar action; no doubt Germans consider(ed) him German. Now you understand there are at least two POVs. We can negotiate the balance and the language, go to the sources etc, but not just deny existence of one's POV. BTW, do you have any contemporary English language sources considering him German? Some sources claiming the contrary were indicated (I think I could find some more). 2) If you do not confuse nation and statehood you recognize the claim "he's not Polish" he lived at a time when there was no Polish nation" incorrect. 3) As for modern PC... If we agree that these were times of racism and yet he declared himself Polish, then it is hard to assign other nationality to him. Especially, if one realizes the jus sanguinis classical German concept (as opposed to French jus soli). Actually, I have more complex views on this (I'd explain later). --Beaumont (@) 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. That is what I stated, they were doing it more subtlely is what I said. Tell me, did you read what I wrote or just random words that fit what you want to pretend that I said?
  2. I was showing by example what I outlined above, and I was pointing out that he was not Polish, he was German, his blood/ethnicity/whatever you want to call it was of Polish extraction. He was a Pole, but not Polish.
  3. as jus sanguinis states, not necessarily by blood, but language, etc. most of his writing was in German, and the dominant language in the region at the time was German. As I have previously stated, I would not be adverse to calling him a Polish-German, but he was simply not Polish.

--Jadger 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted 18Dec06

I would like to encourage you to read previous discussions first before making changes. It is enough to use “Find” from web browser, for example: “Old Catholic”. You will found some new proofs go ahead. If you repeat old stories without proof, it is only annoyance.

>Old Catholizism (Old Catholic Church) in 1873.

In ”Insistence on Polish”; point 6) You have no evidence about joining Old Catholic Church by Dzierżon. You supposition are on the base of wrong Soltisec (Scholtyssek) statement. You do not have any other documents as registration from the Old Catholic Church etc.

>since 1871 Germany, where he also died.

Kingdom of Prussia existed up to 1918. It was a PART of German Empire since 1871

>Polish wiki does not seem to call him Polish.

For Polish folks it is obvious. Look in title like: ”W. Chmielewski "World-Famous Polish Beekeeper - Dr. Jan Dzierżon (1811-1906) and his work in the centenary year of his death" in Journal of Apicultural Research, Volume 45(3), 2006. If you know Polish: „H. Borek i S. Mazak "Polskie pamiątki rodu Dzierżoniów" Opole 1983” on: [44] „Urodzony w polskiej rodzinie w Łowkowicach”. All other books in the „Literatura” say he was Pole. Can you read them? Do it.

>Polish wiki does mention Old Catholizism-Starokatolikow

All the story about Jan Dzierzon’s Old Catholicism are from one source from Scholtyssek writings. There are no actual proof of it.

>Dzierzons Family was Silesian and German, in 1945 they were all expelled.

This is other story. It has nothing to do with Jan Dzierzon. He was priest. His nearest relative was Franciszek - his nephew, this one who testified Dr Dzierzon was Pole. Franiszek children also preserved Polish nationality. All of them, according to my knowledge. Some Dzierzons could Germanized or even be unfairly recognized as Germans and expelled. But as I say it is other story it has nothing to do with Polish sentiments/nationality of Jan Dzierzon. See also: [45]

>He was not Polish

Unfortunately, you are not right. A.

[edit] Latest claim: Dzierzon was Polish-born

Dzierzon was Polish-born is incorrect. He was born in Lowkowitz, Silesia, Prussia and he died in Lowkowitz, Silesia, Germany. He was not born in Poland, he never went to Poland. Poland at his time was Russia(n Poland). To accomodate the Dzierzon was Polish crowd at wikipedia one can add that he was ethnic Polish, or partially Polish, which is the way people are described in USA. One could also add that he had a Polish ancestor or ancestors. But Polish-born or just Polish is incorrect. Besides the church records of birth, marriage, death of Lowkowitz and the German expellee/refugee website of his family show otherwise, Labbas 4 January 2007

Polish-born means born to Polish parents, not born in Poland. Obviously the latter would not be possible, as Poland did not exist at that time (see Partitions of Poland). --Lysytalk 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Lysy, Polish-born means born in Poland, sample:

Google search: [46]

[47] . 'Born to Polish parents' is probably, what you are trying to say.

Anyone elses input on that? Labbas 4 January 2007

why does it matter? are the bees in Poland unique from every other bee? or did the German bees get expelled in 1945 along with the Germans who lived in the area?
--Jadger 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, changed to "born to Polish parents" to keep Labbas happy. --Lysytalk 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jadger,

  • Lysy-

"born to Polish parents" is a way of describing a person, who is born in a different country, than his parents. In the case of Dzierzon, the parents and a number of other relatives are all born in Silesia and towns very near or in Lowkowitz. They were and are all Schlesier (Silesians) for many centuries, not Poles.

So it is still incorrect, the way it is now. I am posting here again (temporary) partial LDS list: birth, marriage, death records for the Dzierzons, so you and Jadger can take a look. Why do some people insist on wrongly calling him Polish ? and why do people continously remove the info, that he joined the Old Catholic Church in 1873 ?

(removed temporary posted LDS list of several hundred Dzierzons in Silesia) Labbas 5 January 2007)

Labbas, I'm not sure what are you trying to prove ? That there were no Poles in Silesia ? By the way, I would recommend you to take a look at WP:OR. You should rely on published secondary sources and not conduct your own research. --Lysytalk 07:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe these questions have been already answered, but can someone humor me with brief answers. Was Dzierzon baptised "Johann" or "Jan", back in 1811? Did he write letters to family in Polish or German or both (especially in his youth)? Lastly any student of history knows that after the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned, great number of Poles and other nationalities became "citizens" of one of the three empires involved. Did these Poles become Russians, or Germans, or Austrians, and lose their ethnicities? If so, in what time frame? After one year, twenty years, fifty years? Please consider the fact that some one hundred and twenty-three years after the last partition, there were millions of people who acknowledged their true "ethnicity" in word and deed. Probably the best explanation as to why these countries didn't truly disappear, and were resurrected rather easily. Lastly, this belief that there "was no Poland" during the partitions is a goofy, hateful, POV, a "technicality" that was not born out by history, as a glance at the world map today will show. Dr. Dan 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, none of this is Original research. All the information is on internet (I am posting it below)

It is OR because you are doing the research and drawing the conclusions based on sources available on the Internet, instead of using published research results. Should not be doing this.--Lysytalk 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan, first of all, what does Silesia have to do with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ? Johann Dzierzon lived all his live in Silesia, never in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Anyway, Dr. Johann Dzierzon, Altmeister der deutschen Imker [48], and his family, longtime Silesians, can be seen on family photos and with his own biography, that he wrote August 4. 1885 at Lowkowitz Johann Dzierzon Biography. The LDS church records of his parents,[49] him and and his brothers, his nephew, Franz Dzierzon, with whom he lived, can all be seen on LDS http://www.familysearch.org (search: Dzierzon) The family website with Dzierzons own biography also has a biography written 20 years after his death, where the same house Johann Dierzon lived earlier, belonged to Alois Dzierzon. Apparently his brother had children, but he did not. A photo taken from his gravesite [50] before 1945 shows Johann Dzierzon . Is his graveyard and gravesite still there today ?? Looking at all the Dzierzons in Silesia at his time and looking at todays German telephone book with 121 Dzierzon families [51], one can say, yes the answer is clear.

A university website Johann Dzierzon bee link: [52].

The wikipedia article should not even be named Jan Dzierzon (In English it would be John anyway) Considering that all his family are refugees/expellees, that seems like spitting on his grave, which is probably destroyed, like nearly all of the graves, when the communists and Poles took over Silesia. Labbas 5 January 2007

Labbas, you should be more careful with your accusations. From Polish Wikipedia: Grób Dzierżona znajduje się w Łowkowicach, a w domu, w którym mieszkał pod koniec życia, mieści się izba jego pamięci. - his grave is in Łowkowice. --Lysytalk 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lysy, about the graves, that is not an accusation, that is reality. I have seen some of the grave yards, or rather what is left of them, if anything. If his grave is still there, then probably what was done, the gravestone was hidden somewhere and has recently (after the fall of the Iron Curtain and as new member of the E.U.) been re-posted, because as we can tell from the External link- there is a Schlesische Minderheit (Silesian minority) Germans still in Silesia. The internet links and Jan Dzierzon External links post publications. So Lysy, please no distraction attempts from the real issue.

Labbas 5 January 2007

Come on, the Poles named the town, Dzierżoniów, after Dzierzon - why would they be destroying his grave at the same time ? You are right about many other graveyards, alas, many are neglected, and you might have noticed that I've had actually posted a photo illustrating this, but as always, generalisations and easy conclusions are not good things. --Lysytalk 21:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually , the one you posted still looks pretty good, one can tell, the grass, weeds have been cut. This is more like what most left over grave yards look like [53] , or worse with a whole bunch of garbage thrown on top, if they were not completely bulldozed alltogether. On the other hand I have also have seen some recent memorials or attempts to salvage what is left of grave stones kept decent and with flowers. Labbas 5 January 2007

If things have cooled down a bit, I would first like to thank Labbas for ackowledging part of my remarks (although nether he nor anyone else answered my basic question). As for the relationship between the PLC and Silesia, it was not my point to associate the two any more than your and Lysy's associating the condition of the German graves in Silesia today has to to do with the ethnicity of Dzierzon. But I must say that there is most definitely a Slavic link by way of Bohemia and Poland that can be connected to Silesia, but that's long before Dzierzon. I brought up the PLC only to demonstrate that during the partitions, the ethnicities of its components might have been denied, de juris, but not could not be defacto, by the partitioners. And in its own convoluted way, this denial finds its way into these arguments over and over again here and elsewhere. To a Pole with a true feeling of love and patriotism for things that are, and people who are Polish, and find this debate insulting and untrue, read the talk pages on Laurynas Gucevicius or Antanas Baranauskas. Then you will get a better perpesctive on the "issue". Meanwhile, Labbas was kind enough to show me Dzierzon's tombstone showing "Johann" before 1945. Would he be so kind as to show me a copy or link to the baptismal certificate (or anybody else), that I asked about? Can we get a photo of the grave today (I have a feeling that there has been some "adjustment")? For the record, personally as a witness to the desecration of German graves in the territories that Poland acquired as a result of Germany's defeat in the Second World War, I found it sad and barbaric. I hope it was more of a result of the communist regimes fomenting this ugly hatred, than a Polish trait to do so on its own. Dr. Dan 03:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While we are off-topic here, as for the condition of the graves, it varies a lot. I think it'd be over-simplification to attribute it to post-war hatred or Communist propaganda alone. It's been a mixture of negligence, stupidity and a number of other conditions that resulted in this. Some of the cemeteries were destroyed by administrative decisions of the regime, some others were vandalised, finally many others decayed simply because nobody cared for them, but similar fate of also many Polish graves, monuments or historical buildings that did not fit the "working class" agenda of the regime. Despite this, some graves had been taken care of by locals and survived. This is being reversed now, but slowly. Too slow, in my opinion. --Lysytalk 11:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As for Dzierzon, the fact that someone spoke Polish would be an indication that he was Polish, but speaking German would not indicate anything. My Polish ancestors spoke German and had German names all right. --Lysytalk 11:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Since they had German names and spoke German, Lysy, what is your criterion to say that they were Polish? Maybe that could clarify this debate. Dr. Dan 14:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
They considered themselves Polish, and others considered them Polish. In the beginning of 20th century they would speak Polish at home, but not outside, went to German kindergarten, schools, etc. So no Polish language in documents etc. Interestingly, I have German ancestors as well in the same branch of the family tree so apparently they did get along well :-) BTW: my grandparents had high respect for Germany, German culture etc. Until WW2, that is. --Lysytalk 15:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't completely understand what and others considered them Polish, means, but that they considered themselves Polish is a sufficent explanation for me. Although I wonder what happens when a Zulu "considers" himself a Pole or a German? BTW, what was on Dzierzon's baptismal certificate? Jan or Johann? Anybody! Dr. Dan 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just some quick remarks,

Dr. Dan, Lysy,

as a Catholic priest in Silesia, Dzierzon certainly would have learned Polish, besides Latin, so one could say, he was multi-lingual. This was of course nothing unusual for a learned man in Europe of his time or for people living in border regions in general. Kids learned one language from the father , another from the mother, yet anyother from the grandparents. And if one area of Europe had problems, people moved to another area, often whole village together (just check out genealogy).

Germany is not an immigration country, yet has a great number of people from all over the world, inner cities often overwhelming. Law says something to the effect that anyone who considers him or herself of partial German ancestry or belonging to or just interested in German Culture, speaks German, living for a time in Germany can be a German. The same, a German can live for a long time in another country, yet remain German.

Dr. Dan, I am pretty sure that his birth/baptism certificate most likely stated Latin: Ioannes. Labbas 6 January 2007

Dr. Dan, concerning the baptismal certificate, the wikipedians are not supposed to rely on primary sources (it is considered OR), but on the secondary ones (roughly, published articles, books etc..,for names encyclopedias are good as well, see WP:RS). But the baptismal certificate is virtually meaningless here, a big Zero if you like your formule :> --Beaumont (@) 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not planning to rely on anything. I am looking for an answer to my question. As for your remarks concerning primary sources vs. secondary sources, you'll find that your own links make it obvious that secondary sources obtain a great deal of information from primary sources. As far as what is named and not named in Poland (street names, town names, etc.), as evidence of nationality, please research the Henryk Batuta case. In the meantime has anyone located a copy, or know what's on the baptismal certificate? Dr. Dan 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Batuta was not Polish but Belarusian of Jewish origin. Therefore he's not relevant here. --Lysytalk 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The List of Polish Jews (a travesty in its own right), lists many Jews who are not Polish either. Dr. Dan 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems almost all the notable Poles were Jewish. As you can see, Batuta is not on the list. He must have been Belarusian. --Lysytalk 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Batuta, you're kiddind, arent you? Batuta was a hoax, I can not see why it could be of interest here. BTW, I know the case in details and for a long time. A nice foto (a primary source) used there clearly shows some danger assigned to this class of sources. Dr. Dan is perfectly right claiming that secondary sources rely on the primary ones. The difference is the generality and the synthesis level, and the fact that the necessary interpretations are given by qualified experts or scholar authors (we, wikipedians are not supposed to do this).
As for notable Poles, your quite right, while slightly OT; try to take it back below. --Beaumont (@) 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How about Yitzhak Shamir? He's on the list, isn't he? Dr. Dan 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Born in Ruzhany, Belarus. --Lysytalk 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yet on the List of Polish Jews. Dr. Dan 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, feel free to add Batuta there as well. He's dead so he cannot defend himself. --Lysytalk 08:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Lysy, Henryk Batuta is a "special" and uniquely Polish contribution to Wikipedia. I would not dare touch it. You can keep him alive and defend him instead. And Beaumont, when Lysy and I are having a "pissing match," (and we've had quite a few now and then), kindly stick your nose somewhere else. We're quite aware of the hoax, thank you. Dr. Dan 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, you are confusing wikipedia with USENET or some other forum. WP talk pages are not meant to provide space for "pissing matches". If you enjoy them so much, consider moving elsewhere where you could freely develop your eristic talents, thanks in advance. EOT --Beaumont (@) 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

..back from OT? Since I'm becoming busy in real life, I just give my stance on Jan Dzierzon and plan to take a wikibreak (good news!). Well, nothing new: while born to Polish parents and identified himself as a Pole, Dzierzon was Prussian/German citizen. He was involved in the local(and wider) culture, predominantly German (he published both in Polish and German). As far as I can understand the sources (indicated somewhere above), he was reluctant to nationality issues, especially when considering himself. He stated that the science has no nationality (well, yes, he was a "forerunner" of "modern PC", as a great deal of scientists...). All this makes me feel that we could apply a similar attitude in the article (i.e. no "pure nation" presentation, not too much stress on nationality/ethnicity). The text is not far from this, although I'd prefer to see the words "German citizen" (seems like few versions back there was something like this). --Beaumont (@) 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. --Lysytalk 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He/they are back

He/they are back and at it again (A Serafin aka 131..)[54] and here [55]

Labbas 8 January 2007


This very pathetic that the troll like activity is accepted. The article was edited and established year before the troll knew anything about. I accepted move of nationality to second paragraph. I accepted the format given by Lysy on 4 January also. I was also in the way to accept the nationality in the second sentence in second paragraph. However I am not going expansion of the German word stick front of nationality. There a two reason for that: 1) the troll like chasing because biased view was eliminated (lack of acceptance of truth and historical facts) in other article (namely “recovered Teritories) 2) Citizenship is as little important as worth is paper of a passport. It has nothing to do with intelligence, work and discoveries of an individual. In opposition the origin – genes and brain goes from the parents is not it :) (in fact the social environment is also important, for good and the bad result) In the case of JD he was bring up in Polish family and local Polish society. Inevitably the childhood is most influential period for development. I will not discuss the German environment and education just to avoid irritation of the troll(s). I am very sorry I disappoint you Lysy sense of compromise but I found such philosophy unpractical Best--Serafin 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


You yourself are trolling in much of your rambling speech there 131/Serafin (let he who is innocent cast the first stone). By calling others Trolls, you yourself are inciting them and trolling.

  1. no idea what you said there, perhaps someone more competent can translate for you on wikipedia so we understand what you are saying.
  2. any proof that he was brought up in local Polish society? I would like to see a source, as has been discussed, his family was Germanized, hence why they were expelled in 1945, he was brought up in German society, in German schools, in a land mostly populated by Germans. Genes are not solely responsible for his genius as you are claiming (which is of essence claiming his Polishness was his source of knowledge/genius). Any person, even brilliant people like Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein can have children that cant speak any language whatsoever, or learn anything except the most basic things (I'm thinking along the lines of feral children). What is your next claim? that because Black men naturally have more muscle mass than whites they should be our slaves doing all our manual labour?

--Jadger 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone kindly help Serafin? After reading his remarks several times, I could not make any sense as to what he was trying to tell us. Maybe someone can interpret these remarks for us. It's also quite possible that he could not understand Jadger's response either. Serafin, if you are paying for an electronic translator, you need to get a refund. Dr. Dan 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beaumont's comments to Jadger about 'Dzierzon's self-identification'

Hello Beaumont,I noticed that you have recently joined the Dzierzon discussion and especially Dzierzon's self-identification. You may want to read his own biography and look at his family photos at [56]. He himself states that his mother Maria and father Simon had a small farm in the same place in Silesia. In other words they were longtime burghers of Silesia, as well as him. You look at the church records with birth, marriage, death from Lowkowitz and surrounding area and all his Dzierzon family members, who all wound up after 1945 in Western Germany and you find no traces at all of either him or his parents having moved from Poland to Silesia, Germany. His grave stone also identifies him as Johann Dzierzon.

The only Polish people, who came to the Silesian town, I find reference to, is by the way on the current Polish Kluczbork.. (?) site, which tells us that Protestant Polish people took refuge there in the 1600's. We all know, that the Counter-Reformation and the Jesuits 'convinced' the Silesians and others to re-catholizise. Perhaps that is, where Johann Dzierzon had gotten his surname from.

I have not seen any self-description of him by himself as a Pole. The wikipedia Polish group, lead by A Serafin, who is also Nr. 131.. are the only ones with a note from a 1961 book, which is added to the incorrectly named Jan Dzierzon wikipedia article. This not only claims, that he said that, but insisting on, that he actually did say that. Where is the actual proof? Can you please post an actual proof. For weeks people were asked to post proof, but nothing yet.

That quote, supposedly from him,'identifying himself as a Polish person', actually just says, that his surname is a Polish-based surname. Now on this same claim do you or do all Polish people now have the right to claim, that anyone with a Polish surname anywhere in the world , is a Polish person? I am truly puzzled by 'Dzierzon's supposed self-identification', which seems to be only in a 1961 book note by someone else. Labbas 9 January 2007


[edit] Why is Serafin/131.104.. answering for Beaumont

The previous message was addressed to Beaumont. For some strange reason someone with Number 131.104.218.46, who is also A. Serafin has answered for Beaumont.

I do not believe, that Beaumont is one and the same as Serafin/131..

Why then is Serafin/ 131.. answering for Beaumont?

Seems to me, that, that that is very similar to Serafin/131.. answering for Dzierzon.

I do not mind discussion with anyone one this, however after a number of 'discussions' with Serafin/131.. previously, I had already stepped back. For obvious reasons I will again do so and for the tume being, no further discussions on Dzierzon.

Labbas 9 January 2007

sorry, I'm quite busy now.. intending to respond, but unable to do that quickly. BTW, I'm willling to do some more research (or go back sources I've found before) as well. Thank you for your understanding. --Beaumont (@) 13:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To Beaumont No problem, understand. Anyone who has tried to discuss this particular matter for some time, will most likely sooner or later get 'too busy' or like me, just step back for the time being, not wanting to continue running in circles, talking to the wall and whats more , wanting to avoid the constant attacks on many by said user (therefore also my 'oh no, he's back and at it again). Labbas 10 January 2007 ______________________

The following message was addressed to Beaumont, taken apart and answered by 131.104.218.46/ A. Serafin:

>Hello Beaumont,I noticed that you have recently joined the Dzierzon discussion and especially Dzierzon's self-identification. You may want to read his own biography and look at his family photos at [56].

What exactly the autobiography is supposed to prove? That he wrote German. And where he identifies himself as German? And what the photos suppose to proof?

>He himself states that his mother Maria and father Simon had a small farm in the same place in Silesia. In other words they were longtime burghers of Silesia, as well as him.

Yes they were: “Name of his great-grandfather Jerzy (1717-1800) appears in the oldest Polish chronicles of Lowkowitz “(W. Kocowicz 1987).

>You look at the church records with birth, marriage, death from Lowkowitz and surrounding area and all his Dzierzon family members, who all wound up after 1945 in Western Germany and you find no traces at all of either him or his parents having moved from Poland to Silesia, Germany.

It only proof that the official language was German and Germanisation was on the way look: V. Raczek, "Erinnerungeu all den Altmelster der Bienenzuclit Dr. Dzierzon"

>His grave stone also identifies him as Johann Dzierzon.

The grave stone is repeatedly mentioned by many as proof. The stone was funded by Austrian Beekeepers’ Association and have nothing to do with Dzierzon’s family will. I already mentioned about it in earlier part of the discussion. Lokk up.

>The only Polish people, who came to the Silesian town, I find reference to, is by the way on the current Polish Kluczbork.. (?) site, which tells us that Protestant Polish people took refuge there in the 1600's. We all know, that the Counter-Reformation and the Jesuits 'convinced' the Silesians and others to re-catholizise. Perhaps that is, where Johann Dzierzon had gotten his surname from.

You like to forgot that orginal population of Silesia was Polish people. Look for “Recoveret Teritories” article. The orginal Polish language survived for hundred od years. (It is not exceptional facts you can found such event on Lithuania and others countries where the native language was not changed in vilages). As you can imagine because there were fewer schools.

>I have not seen any self-description of him by himself as a Pole.

I am not surprised of it. German do not publicised such things. You need read Polish. You have editions by Polish authors in English. You can find them in “Literature” sections. Also you disbelieve recent Polish authors but you believe on NSDAP propagandists Karl Fleischer (his editions are 50-70 years old). I ask many times for recent German beekeeping historians who say Jan Dzierzon was German.

>The wikipedia Polish group, lead by A Serafin, who is also Nr. 131.. are the only ones with a note from a 1961 book, which is added to the incorrectly named Jan Dzierzon wikipedia article.

The correct name of Jan Dzierzon is Dzierżon the z is with dot above. “Dzierżyć” means to keep in Polish language. What do you mean a note from 1961. All Polish beekeeping historians say Dzierzon was Polish. You just disregard parts which are inconvenient.

>This not only claims, that he said that, but insisting on, that he actually did say that. Where is the actual proof?

In Kluczbork museum. There is many more interesting thinks about the Polish Dzierzon family and their testimonies. I will encourage you to find proof of yours statement JD was German. Nobody yet give me one except the NSDAP propagandists Karl Fleischer scribbles. Autobiography do not say anything of such, we already know it, is not?

>That quote, supposedly from him,'identifying himself as a Polish person', actually just says, that his surname is a Polish-based surname.

The citation say: “Regarding my nationality, I AM obviously, just as my name says, Polish of birth, since on Silesia people speak Polish…” in Polish version is: "Samo moje nazwisko mówi, żem Polak z urodzenia" which is “just my name says I AM Pole of birth” Further the sentence says: “because from 10 birthday I found myself in Breslau and I studied there I become German educated, but the education does not accept borders or nationality.” I did not include the other part before as I avoided irritating Germans chauvinists. Now you have it.
Original Polish text: „Co do mojej narodowości, jestem oczywiście, jak już samo nazwisko moje mówi, Polakiem z urodzenia, gdyż na Śląsku mówi się po polsku, a że od 10 roku życia znalazłem się we Wrocławiu i tam studiowałem, stałem się Niemcem z wykształcenia. Ale nauka nie uznaje granic ani narodowości.”Original in Museum of. J. Dzierżona in Kluczborku, sygn. 35, 14, 11 Folge, Zur Charakteristik Dr. J. Dzierzon.
Are you really assume that Prussia was an asylum of tolerance and love? If so you would be surprised. Dzierzon did not have a reason to love Prussia.

>Now on this same claim do you or do all Polish people now have the right to claim, that anyone with a Polish surname anywhere in the world , is a Polish person?

No. But who has claim that a member of a family living presently in Germany have to be definitely Greman.

>I am truly puzzled by 'Dzierzon's supposed self-identification', which seems to be only in a 1961 book note by someone else.

No. It is in all Polish books.

Best, A

This previous text was written by A.Serafin/131.104.218.46 10 January 2007

[edit] "he considered himself Polish" - OR?

In the article the stated text ("and he considered himself a Pole [1]") is apparently sourced by this line: "[1]^ Dziennik Zachodni, nr 190 B. S.: "Samo moje nazwisko mówi, żem Polak z urodzenia" 1961.". However, this sentence seems to have come from Jan Dzierżon himself, the subject of the article, a primary source. "he considered himself a Pole" is only a mere interpretation of "Samo moje nazwisko mówi, żem Polak z urodzenia" (Poltran translation: "My surname says just, that pole from birth"). "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source," says the policy. Do you have a (reliable secondary) source for the claim "he considered himself a Pole"? Sciurinæ 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sciurinæ, extreme wikilawyering is a sign of desperation, you know ;p -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, so are personal attacks like the one you just made.
--Jadger 02:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, what's your point then, Jadger ? --Lysytalk 02:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The only violation of WP:NPA I can see here, Jadger, is your slander above. Per Lysy: what's your point?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, wikilawyering means breaking the spirit of a rule or guideline, not quoting it. If someone "sources" a statement about a disputed point by adding a source but in reality this doesn't back the claim up, ie pseudo-sourcing, then this is wikilawyering; but not demanding compliance with NOR and V to avoid that practice. And when you really thought that wikilawyering was just arguing like a lawyer, then I guess you've broken the spirit of the essay wikilawyering. ;-P Sciurinæ 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"żem" is not equal to "że". "żem" is an older langage word and means "że jestem" in English means "I am". AS>

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

It's the title of the article. The article itself is the secondary source. --Lysytalk 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
... in which you can find what translates as "He considered himself a Pole"? Sciurinæ 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't know the article. Probably Olessi, who posted it as a source would do this best. --Lysytalk 17:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
131.104.218.46/Serafin first mentioned that source above. As he/she was unfamiliar with how to add it as a reference to the article, I assisted with that. I have not read the article in question. Hope this helps... Olessi 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The best source of Dzierzon biography is L. Brożek "Jan Dzierżon. Studium monograficzne" Opole 1978. There is everything including the Jan Dzierzon self reorganization. The problem is that some people need to have meal directly front of them, and in their own language. The same time disregarding second hand statements even if there more then one of the same kind of. Best AS>

since 131 edited in the middle of previous posts, i will quote him here: ""żem" is not equal to "że". "żem" is an older langage word and means "że jestem" in English means "I am". AS>" so? your point being? it doesn't change anything, so the translation is now My surname says just that, I am a Pole from birth instead of My surname says just, that pole from birth (no difference). this doesn't change anything about the discussion, the discussion is the fact that it is only stated in 1/2 a sentence in the whole webpage, and is in the title. the discussion is about the credibility of the article and finding a better source, not about what the sentence says, we have all accepted what it says.

--Jadger 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If Brożek concludes that Dzierżon was Polish, then simply quote him with a page number. --Lysytalk 08:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You welcome. Half of the book discuses the nationality issues and is in " Further reading" section, but if you wish single page no problem. AS>--131.104.218.46 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Serafin/131, if "he considered himself a Pole" is based on several sources, as you claim in the article, quote their relevant passages. There are enough Polish wikipedians here who could translate it. Sciurinæ 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Original Polish text: „Co do mojej narodowości, jestem oczywiście, jak już samo nazwisko moje mówi, Polakiem z urodzenia, gdyż na Śląsku mówi się po polsku, a że od 10 roku życia znalazłem się we Wrocławiu i tam studiowałem, stałem się Niemcem z wykształcenia. Ale nauka nie uznaje granic ani narodowości.”Original in Museum of. J. Dzierżona in Kluczborku, sygn. 35, 14, 11 Folge, Zur Charakteristik Dr. J. Dzierzon. from Brożek. It was already above in discussion given. There are sevaral English texts so need not translation. Seem to me only Germans do not want recognize this obvious fact, is not it? --Serafin 15:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read it before. Did you not read my first comment here about primary sources? Now, do you have any (secondary) sources saying explicitly that he considered himself Polish? If so, quote them. Sciurinæ 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly you want know who and when the citation created. On the page 43 of "Jan Dzierżon studium monograficzne" the author cities the words and provide the signature in Museum of. J. Dzierżona in Kluczbork. The format of the narration does not assure me if this letter (paper) is directly from Dzierzon handwriting or is cited by the recipient of Dzierzon's letter. If you want be 100% sure you need contact the museum I can give you some e-mail and some of Polish administrator can get what you want. What I can do for you I can photocopy the page and send to you as picture? via e-mail? or something like that. Now, this is not the single foundation that Dzierzon considered himself as a Pole. There are testimonies of his nephew and ward Franciszek (Frank). Most important, you can start believe on our Polish statements or trouble the issue in infinity. However expanding this argues in infinity is double irritating because in Prussia people who show his national and social sentiments were in deep trouble for it. Dzierzon had the troubles and attempted to avoid multiply them. The Prussian persecutions were systematic and virulent. He avoided to say directly what now you investigate as long as he could. Thus the so characteristic Prussian approach accumulates with present German jingoism. On other words in the past Dzierzon had to avoid the direct declaration and presently some Germans arrogantly refuse to accept any proof then the absolute one. I revert to them the question: Where Dzierzon says he considered himself a German? We have many small proofs and few good ones that he considered himself a Pole, but except that Dzierzon spoke German and had to be German citizen (he actually had no choice on his native land in this matter) nothing shows he liked to be German. In opposite he had very unfriendly relations with Prussian government. Let me know specifically for what citations (I mean from what book more) you asking for. In this way we can solve the query faster. We probably will not be able to write all the monograph again in English and probably it would be necessary to accept Polish statements more easily.--Serafin 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arrogant or a jingoist, nor do I refuse to accept proof, so focus completely on the matter at hand, please. I've asked for the line "he considered himself a Pole" to be fully sourced, as the article pretends it was. I tried to explain to you that a previously unpublished interpretation of a primary source, whether it is true or not, is not enough according to policy. If you have a source that really states that Dzierzon "considered himself a Pole", quote it. If not, don't waste your time talking. If you believe that he couldn't describe himself as a Pole in Prussia, quote a source directly related to Dzierzon saying so (in case you can't find anything like this, make sure you don't establish a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position to get round it). Sciurinæ 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


>I'm not arrogant or a jingoist, nor do I refuse to accept proof, so focus completely on the matter at hand, please.

I did not say anything about your attitude. I pointed to you my point of wives regarding some other individuals’ claims. It is important for me to show the historical background of the case. Without that we can not balance the sources of information.

>I've asked for the line "he considered himself a Pole" to be fully sourced, as the article pretends it was. I tried to explain to you that a previously unpublished interpretation of a primary source, whether it is true or not, is not enough according to policy. If you have a source that really states that Dzierzon "considered himself a Pole", quote it.

The "he considered himself a Pole" is fully sourced. I will not talk about it any more. If you have a reasonable question about texts from the sources I will provide to you. In other way it is only annoying expanding of artificial considerations.

Best --Serafin 19:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Regarding your first point, I had written "I'm not arrogant or a jingoist, nor do I refuse to accept proof, so focus completely on the matter at hand, please." in response to your lines (I've highlighted the train of thought)

"Most important, you can start believe on our Polish statements or trouble the issue in infinity.However expanding this argues in infinity is double irritating because in Prussia people who show his national and social sentiments were in deep trouble for it. Dzierzon had the troubles and attempted to avoid multiply them. The Prussian persecutions were systematic and virulent. He avoided to say directly what now you investigate as long as he could. Thus the so characteristic Prussian approach accumulates with present German jingoism. On other words in the past Dzierzon had to avoid the direct declaration and presently some Germans arrogantly refuse to accept any proof then the absolute one."

The subtle message I infer from this is not that you "did not say anything about [my] attitude". I'm German, refusing to accept your "proof" and addressed with 'you' so according to you, I'm on the red side and should start to get onto the green one. No matter whether you're referring to Labbas and me and/or your previous interlocutors in de.wikipedia, just avoid it, please. Sciurinæ 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As regards your second point, you added sources but you didn't back up/source the statement fully. I'm neither confirming or denying that Dzierżon considered himself Polish, because I honestly don't know, and I bet you don't either. If he really said or wrote so, it means that probably, but not necessarily, he felt so. But for me "he considered himself" without time measurement implies a time like from his childhood to his deathbed (ie timeless), or just most of the time, not five minutes or even five years. If this quote is authentic and actually translated in a way and not followed by another thought, then he probably regarded himself as a Pole at one point of time, in one of his innumerable writings, nothing more. "German education" is also in this quote, so maybe he saw himself as a German student. More importantly, what about Silesian? You've argued desperately and without success that he was Polish rather than Silesian in de.wiki. Maybe in the quote he just wanted to make a point about the old Polish borders, the nation, but usually favoured the view of himself as a Silesian. I do not anticipate that you're convinced by this, nor that you're going to sweep away my doubts (though clearly you're going to argue against it), which boils down to your point of view and my sceptical one. But only one point of view regarding the addition of statements is endorsed by WP:NOR, and it is not the one which interprets a primary source. Sciurinæ 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Serafin, if you have secondary sources (articles etc.) confirming that Dzierżon actually considered himself to be Polish, can you simply quote the relevant parts in this talk page (or provide links if these are online sources). No matter if they are English or Polish, please just do it. Someone would be able to verify and confirm it. And this would finally address the Sciurinæ's scepticism. Ideally this should be someone (a researcher, an author) claiming that Dzierżon considered himself Polish. --Lysytalk 07:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (especially "Use English words") & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

OK. If you wish I will attempt to answer to you question directly. Please do not expect I will fulfill all you request or we will get a consensus. This is because I recognize you POV as quite inflexible, but I will tray to minimize you frustration as possible.

>Sciurinae, you forgot to specifically ask for English language sources, which is required at wikipedia, normally.

Let me know what you mean by English language sources. Do you mean English authors? ABC of Bee Culture last (40th ) edition is one. I will introduce it there.

>By now everyone seems to have gotten it, that Serafin/131.. and many Polish people insist on Dzierzon (or other people) as Polish, after all he was born in terrritory, that is 'Polish' now.

And was before was under Prussian control from the beginning of state formation in this area is not it?

>This intolerance and disregard for any other citizenship or affiliation is shown over and over at wikipedia by many Polish people.

There is mentioned in the article: “Prussia (later Germany) thus he was a German citizen.” I think you do not tolerate the thing the nationality is before that.

>The Polish law on Citizenship seems to supports something like this attitude. While dual citizenship is tolerated, no other citizenship than Polish is recognized.

You mean on territory of Poland. Yes I believe it is if you are Polish citizen and you enter Polish territory you can not disregard the any the duties as such. You can not be both at the same time on territory of Poland and claim different treatment and rights. Simple you can not switch with rights and duets as it is convenient at a moment. I think this is reasonable solution

>Poland only recognizes a dual citizenship person as being only Polish.

It is not so simple but something like I explained above.

>Johann Dzierzon was not born in Poland. His father, grandfather, etc were not born in Poland. They were all born in Lowkowitz, Silesia, Prussia, Germany.

You know, my perception is that in history Germans changed their minds. When was convenient the people were Germans citizens (subjects) on other time when convenient there were some individuals were set as alien element because their origin. This imperial politic injustice.

>The person Johann Dzierzon on Wikipedia is now Jan Dzierżon, completely overloaded with Polish-language sources.

And it should be as Jan Dzierżon is Polish name and he recognized himself as Polish. Also his closest relatives in at least two next generation continued this way.

>Many of those are already in the bottom references, so now we have the same Polish 'sources' plastered onto Dzierzon double or triple times.

Sorry. You can dislike it but “Further reading” is chosen set of most informative publications. That is other purpose.

>Seems like complete overkill and against Wikipedia policy. I do not know what you mean. >No wonder Encyclopedia Britannica reflects this kind of overload . There is also on some newest French encyclopaedias on line. I am sorry you are disappointed. It sometimes hapend that our own point of view is not the common one. Best regards, --Serafin 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "received the additional description"

I'm confused with this sentence:

From 1936 to 1945 his hometown of Lowkowitz received the additional description as Bienendorf.

What is "received the additional description" supposed to mean. Was it renamed or not ? What is a "description" of a town ? Who describes it ? --Lysytalk 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not put enough attention to the changes. It seems to me it was done long time ago. I changed it with historical reference. See: "Nazis' idea 1936"--Serafin 22:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What language did he speak as a child

An interesting addition to the discussion on whether he felt Polish or not, would be that he did not know German language until he went to the secondary school in Byczyna, where he learnt it, so his mother tongue was Polish. Would anyone be able to confirm this with references ? --Lysytalk 07:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be important? I can only see this fueling the nationalist debate even further. It is not like his learning German allowed him to make the breakthroughs that he did.

--Jadger 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johann Dzierzon's relatives - Polish ?

Temporary text - will be removed

1. Alfred Paul DZIERZON - Ancestral File Gender: M Birth/Christening: 14 Sep 1901 Siebenlehn, Drs, Sax, Germy

2. Alma Martha DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: F Birth/Christening: 18 Jun 1898 Grossroigtsberg Drs, Sax, E Grmn

3. Elli Ema DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: F Birth/Christening: 18 Mar 1907 Grossschirma Drs, Sax, E Grmn

4. Elsa Bertha DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: F Birth/Christening: 2 May 1900 Grossroigtsberg Drs, Sax, E Grmn

5. Erhardt Paul DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: M Birth/Christening: 22 May 1908 Grossschirma Drs, Sax, E Grmn

6. Erna Elsa DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: F Birth/Christening: 24 Sep 1905 Kleinroigtsberg Drs, Sax, E Germn

7. Frieda Dora DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: F Birth/Christening: 11 Jun 1911 Grossschirma Drs, Sax, E Grmn

8. Johann DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: M Birth/Christening: 12 Dec 1830 Niederkunzendorf, Silesia, Prs

9. Johann DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: M Birth/Christening: 1801 Nieder Kuenzendor, Schlesien, Prussia, Germany

10. Martha Elsa DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: F Birth/Christening: 16 Mar 1903 Kleinroigtsberg Drs, Sax, E Germn

11. Peter DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: M Birth/Christening: 14 Oct 1873 Bischdorf, Rosenberg, O/schlesien, Prussia

12. Robert John "Robbie" DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: M Birth/Christening: 3 Jun 1970 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah

13. Simon DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: M Birth/Christening: < 1775 <Nieder Kunzendorf, Schlesien, Prussia, Germany>

14. Wolfgang Kurt DZIERZON - Ancestral File

Gender: M Birth/Christening: 29 Jul 1943 Planitz Zwk, Sax, E Grmn

15. EVA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index / CE Gender: Female Birth: 22 DEC 1795 Kotschanowitz, , Opolskiego, Poland

16. Jan Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index / CE

Gender: Male Birth: 1811 Lawkowice, , , Poland

17. MARIA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index / CE

Gender: Female Birth: 08 JAN 1809 Kotschanowitz, , Opolskiego, Poland

18. ROSINA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index / CE

Gender: Female Birth: 22 AUG 1789 Kotschanowitz, , Opolskiego, Poland

International Genealogical Index / Germany - 194+

Select records to download - (50 maximum)

1. Adam Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1726> <Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen>

2. Mrs Adam Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1730> <Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen>

3. Adolph Thomas Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 11 FEB 1849 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

4. AGATHA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Christening: 08 FEB 1852 Katholisch, Falkowitz, Schlesien, Preussen

5. Alwine Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 16 DEC 1850 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

6. Alwine Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 14 DEC 1855 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

7. Andreas Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 19 NOV 1785 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

8. Andreas Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 28 FEB 1797 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

9. Andreas Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 28 FEB 1797 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

10. ANDREAS DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 28 FEB 1797 Kunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

11. Andreas Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 08 JUL 1821 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

12. Andreas Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1842 Of Oberkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

13. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 21 JAN 1777 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

14. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1800> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

15. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1800> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

16. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Christening: 29 APR 1802 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

17. ANNA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Christening: 29 APR 1802 Kunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

18. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Christening: 29 APR 1802 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

19. Anna dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Christening: 26 OCT 1827 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

20. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 18 JAN 1833 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

21. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1842 Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

22. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1848 Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

23. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1848 Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

24. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 08 MAY 1848 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

25. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 23 JUN 1849 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

26. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 26 JUL 1863 Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

27. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 24 MAY 1864 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

28. Anna Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Marriage: 16 NOV 1916 Breslau,Nreslau, , Schlesien, Preussen

29. Anton Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 10 JAN 1850 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

30. Anton Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 01 JAN 1864 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

31. Apollonia Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 09 FEB 1846 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

32. ARNO KURT DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 27 AUG 1915 Grobschirma, , , Sachsen

33. Augustin Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 17 AUG 1853 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

34. August Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 29 AUG 1854 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

35. Balzer Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1816 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

36. Barbara Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1763 Of Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

37. Barbara Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 16 NOV 1789 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

38. Barbara Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 16 NOV 1789 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

39. Barbara Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1834 Of Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

40. Barbara Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1834 Of Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

41. BARBARA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Christening: 06 DEC 1854 Katholisch, Falkowitz, Schlesien, Preussen

42. Barbara Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 03 DEC 1855 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

43. BARTHOLOMAEUS DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 25 AUG 1844 Katholisch, Falkowitz, Schlesien, Preussen

44. Beata Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 14 DEC 1855 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

45. Bertha Alma Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 11 OCT 1876 Grossvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

46. Bertha Alma Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 11 OCT 1876 Grossvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

47. BERTHA ELSA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 02 MAY 1900 Grossvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

48. BERTHA ELSA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 02 MAY 1900 Grossvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

49. Christine Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 29 AUG 1854 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

50. Christina Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 20 JUL 1868 Oberkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

51. Christina Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 29 FEB 1868 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

52. Daniel Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1814> Bodland, , Schlesien, Preussen

53. Daniel Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1814> Bodland, Schlesien, Preussen

54. Dominik Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1799> <Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen>

55. Mrs Dominik Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1803> <Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen>

56. Dominik Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 31 JUL 1850 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

57. Ella Martha Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 18 JUN 1898 Grossvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

58. Ella Martha Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 18 JUN 1898 Grossvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

59. Ella Martha Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 18 JUN 1898 Grossvoigteberg, , Dresden, Sachsen

60. Ella Martha Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 18 JUN 1898 Grossvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

61. ELLI EMMA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 13 AUG 1907 Grossschirma, Dresden, Sachsen

62. ELSA BERTHA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 02 MAY 1900 Grossvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

63. ELSA BERTHA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 02 MAY 1900 Grossvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

64. EMMA ELLI DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 18 MAR 1907 Grossschirma, Dresden, Sachsen

65. EMMA ELLY DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Marriage: 13 APR 1929 Grossschirma, Dresden, Sachsen

66. Erna Elsa Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 24 SEP 1905 Kleinvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

67. Erna Elsa Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 24 SEP 1905 Kleinvoigtsberg, Dresden, Sachsen

68. Erna Elsa Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 24 SEP 1905 Kleisvoigtsberg, , Dresden, Sachsen

69. Eva Katharina Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 18 OCT 1861 Wittendorf, , , Germany

70. EVA KATHARINA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 18 OCT 1861 Wittendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

71. EVA KATHARINA DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 18 OCT 1861 Wittendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

72. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1837 Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

73. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1844 Of Oberkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

74. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 22 NOV 1845 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

75. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 27 MAY 1847 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

76. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 20 JUL 1853 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

77. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 24 FEB 1861 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

78. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 10 APR 1863 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

79. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 07 JUL 1865 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

80. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 17 JAN 1866 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

81. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 01 DEC 1867 Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

82. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 25 JUN 1870 Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

83. Franz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 25 JUN 1870 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

84. Franciska Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 19 SEP 1844 Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

85. Franciska Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1848 Of Oberkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

86. Francisca Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 14 FEB 1853 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

87. Frieda Dora Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 11 JUN 1911 Grossschirma, Dresden, Sachsen

88. Frieda Dora Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 11 JUN 1911 Grossschirma, Dresden, Sachsen

89. Frieda Dora Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 11 JUN 1911 Grossschirma, Dresden, Sachsen

90. Frieda Dora Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 11 JUN 1911 Grossschirma, Dresden, Sachsen

91. Gregor Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1717 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

92. Gregor Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1717 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

93. Gregor Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1756 Of Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

94. gregor dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1765 Of Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

95. Gregor Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 06 MAR 1806 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

96. Gregor Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 06 MAR 1806 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

97. GREGOR DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 06 MAR 1806 Kunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

98. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1760 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

99. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1760 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

100. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1763 Of Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

101. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 10 OCT 1771 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

102. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 12 OCT 1778 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

103. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1785> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

104. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1785> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

105. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1831 Of Oberkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

106. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1841 Oberkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

107. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: About 1841 Oberkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

108. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 22 SEP 1847 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

109. Hedwig Francisca Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Christening: 04 OCT 1849 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

110. HEDWIG DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Christening: 27 SEP 1849 Katholisch, Falkowitz, Schlesien, Preussen

111. Hedwig Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 17 OCT 1856 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

112. Ignaz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 28 JUL 1848 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

113. Ignatz Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 05 MAY 1856 Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

114. Jacob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 25 APR 1788 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

115. Jacob dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 04 MAY 1825 <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

116. Jacob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 20 JUL 1835 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

117. Jakob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 20 JUL 1835 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

118. Jakob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 20 JUL 1835 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

119. Jacob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 28 JUN 1853 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

120. Jacob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 27 APR 1856 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

121. Jacob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 15 JUL 1862 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

122. Jacob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 23 JUL 1863 Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

123. Jacob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 23 JUL 1863 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

124. Jakob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 30 MAR 1866 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

125. Jakob Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 30 MAR 1866 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

126. johanna dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: 29 JUL 1795 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

127. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1749 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

128. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1749 Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

129. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1752 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

130. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1752 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

131. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1753> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

132. Mrs Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1757> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

133. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1763> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

134. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1766 Of Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

135. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1766 Of Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

136. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 11 OCT 1777 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

137. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 01 DEC 1780 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

138. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 15 MAY 1782 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

139. johann dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 14 NOV 1791 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

140. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1800> <Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen>

141. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1802 Of Lowkowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

142. Mrs Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1804> <Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen>

143. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1805> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

144. Jan Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1807> <Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen>

145. Jan Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1807> <Of Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen>

146. Jan Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1808> <Of Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen>

147. Mrs Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1809> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

148. Mrs Jan Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1811> <Of Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen>

149. JOHANN DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 16 JAN 1811 Low Kowitz, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

150. Mrs Jan Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1812> <Of Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen>

151. Johann dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 07 APR 1814 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

152. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1817 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

153. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1819 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

154. Johann dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 19 MAR 1820 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

155. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 12 JUN 1825 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

156. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1825 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

157. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 12 JUN 1825 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

158. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1827 Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

159. Jan Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1830 Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

160. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 12 DEC 1830 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

161. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 12 DEC 1830 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

162. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 12 DEC 1830 Niederkunzendorf, , , Germany

163. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1830 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

164. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 12 DEC 1830 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

165. JOHANN DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 12 DEC 1830 Kunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

166. Johann oder Jan Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 03 JUN 1832 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

167. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 22 JUN 1838 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

168. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 22 JUN 1838 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

169. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1847 <Bischdorf,Rosenberg, , Schlesien, Preussen>

170. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 23 MAY 1850 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

171. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 24 MAY 1853 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

172. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 19 MAY 1856 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

173. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 13 DEC 1857 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

174. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 02 NOV 1859 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

175. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 21 AUG 1860 Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

176. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 21 AUG 1860 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

177. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 31 DEC 1861 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

178. Johannes Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 03 SEP 1865 Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

179. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 17 OCT 1865 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

180. Johann Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 24 JAN 1869 Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

181. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 01 JAN 1787 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

182. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1796> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

183. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1796> <Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen>

184. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 12 JAN 1796 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

185. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 12 JAN 1796 Niederkunzendorf, , Schlesien, Preussen

186. JOSEPH DZIERZON - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 12 JAN 1796 Kunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

187. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: < 1800> <Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen>

188. Mrs Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Female Birth: < 1804> <Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen>

189. Joseph dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Christening: 11 APR 1812 Lowkowitz, , Schlesien, Preussen

190. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1822 Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

191. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: 1824 Oberkunzendorf, Schlesien, Preussen

192. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1826 Of Oberkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

193. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1839 Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen

194. Joseph Dzierzon - International Genealogical Index

Gender: Male Birth: About 1841 Of Niederkunzendorf, Kreuzburg, Schlesien, Preussen


This is only to J - there are more - ([57] type in Dzierzon, search)

This text is temporary and will be removed- Labbas 19 January 2007


If that is true, his oldest known ancestors come from Saxony, is that not correct? or are these just people with the same last name?
--Jadger 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TO Sciurinæ Britannica & ..

>As regards your second point, you added sources but you didn't back up/source the statement fully. Sciurinæ

I only can suppose you mean the Britannica . I ask you to be specific. This is the reference: Britannica Encyclopedia, 15th edition; article "Dzierżoniów" page 312. I segregated the sources in to two sections. If you do not like it in one of them this will be move to the second ie. “born to Polish parents.” You also question some other but I can not understand you action. 204.13.69.220 02:28, 20 January 2007
The statement I was talking of was, of course, "he considered himself a Pole". As I said earlier, if you have any source that really states that Dzierzon "considered himself a Pole", quote it. I said nothing about Britannica. (The current) 15th edition of Britannica? It reads that the town Dzierżoniów "was renamed for the Polish priest Jan Dzierzon." Nothing more on Dzierzon. Are you seriously suggesting that if I didn't like it behind "he considered himself a Pole", as if it verified that, it is to be put behind "born to Polish parents" then, as if it verified at least that one? I'm shocked by this suggestion. Sciurinæ 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not be shocked. If he was Polish it means his parents were also. If you still do not like this you can put all new sentence. Jan Dzierzon was Polish.
"Polish" does not (necessarily) mean that one's parents were Polish. Or does every Polish citizen have Polish parents? Sciurinæ 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

>I'm neither confirming or denying that Dzierżon considered himself Polish, because I honestly don't know, and I bet you don't either. Sciurinæ

You will be suppressed I know. All the available resources I investigated. 204.13.69.220 02:28, 20 January 2007
Self-evidently you read those resources you added and I'm sure you know a lot about Dzierzon, but I doubt that you know his self-perception for sure. This is simply my impression after trying unsuccessfully to get you to verify "he considered himself a Pole" properly. Sciurinæ 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not my conclusions that he was Polish or consider himself Polish this are conclusions of all the Polish authors. Until now nobody give me modern German author who says Dzierzon was German (one exception Karl Fleischer, NSDAP propagandist in 1930’s - last time in 1956).
The point of view that Dzierzon was German does exist even in non-Google-books sources on the net in English ([58] [59] [60] [61]) and there are many more google books, but quantity is not decisive in Wikipedia (or probably it would say that God exists). The WP:NPOV is decisive, not the majority point of view. I also don't have to assert that he was German (maybe like an agnostic doesn't have to favour another reason why we exist). This pdf (in German) also deals with the question as to which nation Dzierzon belongs to - Polish or German - and concludes that Dzierzon connects both nations. I'm sure this is intolerable for you, just like "Silesian" (which might be the fairest option). Sciurinæ 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

>If he really said or wrote so, it means that probably, but not necessarily, he felt so. Sciurinæ

I already mentioned to you that it is not only one word or sentence. All his live indicate his strong filings in the matter. You impute me nonchalance very strongly. It is, let say improper. You attack people integrity instead question a definite item from the subject. I like logical step by step scientific considerations you doing opposite. 204.13.69.220 02:28, 20 January 2007
Please don't take it personally when someone questions the foundation of your statement. And I'm unsure what you mean by saying I should "question a definite item from the subject". The item I generally focused on is the claim that any of the sources you added behind the statement "he considered himself a Pole" verified this statement. Since there are still no relevant passages quoted here that clearly say that Dzierzon considered himself a Pole and since neither of the two sources I could check out (the Britannica article and the Dzierzon quote) verify the claim "he considered himself a Pole", I would even say that I was right in questioning it. Sciurinæ 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You can ask Lysy and read my description to Lysy. I am not obstinate with the fragment he considered himself a Pole. We can put: "Jan Dzierzon was Polish priest and beekeeper" or something like that. It is perfectly all right for me.
I see a trend: none of your comments refer to my previous ones and are just a new thought in general. This shouldn't be carved up putting each part under another of my statements as if in response, either. You do not need to have the last word in every of the points. Sciurinæ 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

>But for me "he considered himself" without time measurement implies a time like from his childhood to his deathbed (ie timeless), or just most of the time, not five minutes or even five years. If this quote is authentic and actually translated in a way and not followed by another thought, then he probably regarded himself as a Pole at one point of time, in one of his innumerable writings, nothing more. "German education" is also in this quote, so maybe he saw himself as a German student. Sciurinæ

Consider “all the time”, and I mentioned to you only with you good faith and realistic talk we can discusse. This format questioning artificial points consume time, nothing more. 204.13.69.220 02:28, 20 January 2007
So you do believe that he considered himself a Pole "all the time". Well, you're free to believe it and I'm not saying it is a wrong belief. But you can't bring this unverifiable statement into Wikipedia, which also means that we don't even have to put one another's faith into question. Sciurinæ 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You know what for me is perfectly verifiable. You just do not want believe what I saying. You do not accept Britannica, nor other English language sources. Just you decided to say is unverifiable. Can you verify that our globe is spherical until you will believe some other people talk :)))

>More importantly, what about Silesian? Sciurinæ

Silesian is not a nation. Silesia is a region originally inhabited by Slavic tribe Silesians who integrated into Old Polish Kingdom IX-XIV century. Some Germans like to underline the region differences and some attempt to mix in the internal Polish affairs on this base. Native language there is Polish or Polish dialect if you wish. 204.13.69.220 02:28, 20 January 2007

>You've argued desperately and without success that he was Polish rather than Silesian in de.wiki. Maybe in the quote he just wanted to make a point about the old Polish borders, the nation, but usually favored the view of himself as a Silesian. Sciurinæ

As I know 170.000 inhabitants is small percent who imagine a Silesian nation exits. 204.13.69.220 02:28, 20 January 2007
Look, I wasn't going to insert that he was Silesian and trying to convince you (this is what your previous interlocutors in de.wiki did, not me). Please do not carve up my whole reply and respond to each part separately because, as was the case, you may miss the point. The only reason I brought up "Silesian" was because I'm unconvinced by his alleged view of himself as a Pole, an explanation I only wanted to give you for understanding my point of view. Does anything in your two above statements rule out the possibility of him favouring the view of himself as Silesian? No. Sciurinæ 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea of separate nation was invented by occupied powers most probably Austrians for political reason. Living in Poland and having contact with inhabitants of Silesia I can say that except strong regional patriotism they considered themselves as Polish or Germans. I never met there a single Silesian who expressed idea of separate new nation. Now I know that there are some group which request some separation, but it is small group I wander if can be the 170 000. In Dzierzon’s time the idea of small independent nation in centre of Europe would be consider as out of sense - there was Prussia, Austria, Russia and Poland straggling for surviving. Beside there is so many things known about Dzierzon live and character that I have no doubts. Any way I would like to read a book which would discuss the separate Silesia idea in Dzierzon case :)

>I do not anticipate that you're convinced by this, nor that you're going to sweep away my doubts (though clearly you're going to argue against it), which boils down to your point of view and my sceptical one. Sciurinæ

I hardly see you arguments which should convince me. And I would found some other word then “skeptical” :) 204.13.69.220 02:28, 20 January 2007
That missed my point again. And "skeptical" means being uncertain if something is true, which neither implies "rightly" or "wrongly" so. If there is a more neutral word for it, you should just have said it. On the other hand, if you only had a pejorative word to offer (like "arrogant", "jingoist" etc) and therefore didn't say more, please avoid insinuating as well. Sciurinæ 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You see Skeptical and skeptical is different. Skeptical with capital S is when somebody has reasonable arguments against a theory. It is constructive. The skeptical by small s is just saying "NO" or "I do not believe. Do you understand me in this point?

>But only one point of view regarding the addition of statements is endorsed by WP:NOR, and it is not the one which interprets a primary source. Sciurinæ

Would you be more specific? I hardly understand what you are talking about. Explain me what is you question. - Specify what is wrong and what exactly you want. Could you? AS> 204.13.69.220 02:28, 20 January 2007
No surprise then, that you misunderstand my conclusion if you don't look at it as a whole. My point of view is skeptical of your one regarding Dzierzon's self-perception (maybe like an agnostic is doubtful about the view of a believer). I tried to explain my point of view to you but you just saw it as another opportunity to argue against it. But even if you were right, WP:NOR is against the introduction of previously unpublished interpretations of primary sources, so after your block has lifted, verify it - if "he considered himself a Pole" is verifiable. You won't get round by arguing with me ad infinitum following the fact I didn't get onto the 'green side'. Sciurinæ 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Simplifying what would convince you?

--131.104.218.46 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've told you to verify the statement "he considered himself a Pole" (and how to do so) for six times in a space of thirteen days. Not only did you not do it, but you wasted your and my time talking and now you ask me again what would convince me as if the thirteen days had never happened, without even admitting you couldn't verify it. I've therefore removed all the sources that obviously do not verify "he considered himself a Pole" but pretend otherwise. Beaumont, by contrast, added an aged source that says something about his self-perception as a Pole and did not waste his time trying to talk around the subject. If I ask for something because I'm not yet convinced, what do you expect will convince me other than what I asked for? Anyway, you're supposed to avoid editing for one month unless you don't mind being blocked indefinitely. Sciurinæ 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TO Lysy - Secoundary sources?

>Serafin, if you have secondary sources (articles etc.) confirming that Dzierżon actually onsidered himself to be Polish, can you simply quote the relevant parts in this talk page (or provide links if these are online sources).

I really do not know what you mean by secondary source. For me primary source is original document in a museum. I quoted the fragment and cited the signature of the letter in Kluczborg museum. I offer you to send photocopy of adequate pages from “Jan Dzierzom stadium monograficzne”. Title from “Dziennik Zachodni” refers to this citation from the same letter. In A. Gładysz "Jan Dzierżon, pszczelarz o światowej sławie" Katowice 1957; page 28 the author discuses this latter also.
The S. Orgelbrand "Encyklopedia ..." 1861; see article: "Dzierżoń" is mentioned in A. Gładysz "Jan Dzierżon, pszczelarz o światowej sławie". The cite from the encyclopedia is: ‘Dzierżon, ks. Pleban w Karlsmart, w Górnym Śląsku, powiecie brzeskim, uznający się za Polaka, tem samem i jego metoda do pszczolnictwa polskiego należy.”
Also I mentioned that all authors W. Kocowicz , A. Kuźba, W. Chmielewski, L. Brożek, A. Gładysz all of them strongly underline Dzierzon is Polish. "Tracing Jan Dzierżon Passion", "Jan Dzierżon. Studium monograficzne", "Jan Dzierżon, pszczelarz o światowej sławie" are books and discuss in many details why we should consider Jan Dzierzon as a Pole. I added there only most relevant pages numbers. There can be found many facts about Dzierzon activity against Prussian authorities, his nephews testimonies, what was Dzierzon family historical background etc. All the authors are not a simple street guys they did their job properly.
I can give several titles of articles written by world famous scientist in Beekeeping field professor Woyke. I did not read this articles but I know he says Jan Dzierzon was Polish and refers to the books above. Any way I sense a lot of arrogance from many individuals. I say CAN THEY PROVIDED MODERN (not of f. Nazi from 1930’s and 1956) EDITIONS saying DZIERZON IS GERMAN. No none of the wises could do that, so? It is easy to annoy saying “No” and all the time “No”.

>An interesting addition to the discussion on whether he felt Polish or not, would be that he did not know German language until he went to the secondary school in Byczyn, where he learnt it, so his mother tongue was Polish.

In W. Kocowicz i A. Kuźba "Tracing Jan Dzierżon Passion" Poznań 1987; page 8 is something in this sense (cite as it is in English: “Jan Dzieżon was born on January 16th, 1811 in Łowkowice near Kluczbork (Silesia). His pesant parents, Szymon and Maria née Jantos, were Poles. Dzierżon started his education at the local elementary school. Since he turned out to be a very clever pupil, he was sent at the age of ten to the school at Byczyna where he took up German as his second language.”
Similarly in "Jan Dzierżon. Studium monograficzne" page 9/10: „To samo stwierdził w swych wspomnieniach obiektywny niemiecki biograf Dzierżona, V. Raczek, śląski działacz pszczelarski: "Ponieważ Łowkowice były jeszcze wtedy czysto polską wsią, oddano chłopca w dziewiątym roku życia dla wyuczenia języka niemieckiego do szkoły w odległym o jedną milę miasteczku Byczynie.” (V. Raczek, Erinnerungeu all den Altmelster der Bienenzuclit Dr. Dzierzon, muzeum im. J. Dzierżona w Kluczborku, nr 1, s. 1.)
So on so on. Ten one’s scepticism is a sin if he does not have foundation for different assumption. As I say saying “NO” is easy.

AS>

[edit] sources

Multiple reliable sources do verify quite directly what was deleted, just read it. To give it a chance, I reinstate the previous version. If you find important English language sources that contradict this we can make a more balanced claim of type "nowadays he is identified as xxx(surces) yyy sources" (or whatever) and rework some text. But the sources first, please. Deleting substantiated claims "just because" does not seem to be a good idea. --Beaumont (@) 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Sciurinæ 23Jan07

>"Polish" does not (necessarily) mean that one's parents were Polish. Or does every Polish citizen have Polish parents? Sciurinæ 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish mean Polish nationality or Polish origin. Citizenship has nothing to do with origin. Polish citizen can have different origin or nationality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you're trying to say, a source says what it says, not what you think it could also imply. If Britannica says "Polish", then it says "Polish" and not, as you suggested, "born to Polish parents" and/or "considered himself a Pole". That was the point I wanted to explain to you. I didn't want to chat about Polish citizenship. Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

>The point of view that Dzierzon was German does exist even in non-Google-books sources on the net in English.

Thanks for the links two of them are contemporary. The German will be more difficult to change (it looks as some student work) but I will contact the British author for sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by contemporary? In our or Dzierzon's time? No, wait, since Dzierzon was considered a German mostly in literature of his time (or in your words, "Jan Dzierzon was by over 100 hundred years recognized as German"), you'll probably only count nowaday's sources (if you count them at all). Well, you can also contact the universities of Kentucky and Cambridge ( [62] [63] ) if you like. Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

>also deals with the question as to which nation Dzierzon belongs to - Polish or German - and concludes that Dzierzon connects both nations.

This kind of convenient illusion are ethically incorrect in the case of Dzierzon. This is because Dzierzon himself suffer, and his ancestors also, the Prussian invasion. Yes, invasion since Dzierzons were the natives of the land. He perfectly knew that and felt respectively. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you decide which source is right and which is not. I would be arrogant and a know-all not to take your word for it, I presume, so I'll leave it at that. Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

>I'm sure this is intolerable for you, just like "Silesian" (which might be the fairest option).

You got it. This is sneaky manipulation to equalize regional name with nationality. This is what German revisionists want most. Irritate, provoke and manipulate. Are you by some change a descendant of German inhabitants of Silesia or other part of Poland? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear. "Sneaky manipulation". And Guilt by association and assume bad faith. Whatever. As you wish. Why are you talking of "German revisionists" and then ask me whether I was a descendant of Silesia or another part of Poland as if you wanted to get to know the background of my "revisionism"? You don't need to imply I was a revisionist. I'm German, thus vilified by you enough, because as you've "found out" already "That what I thought, all you Germans are arrogant primitives. I did not meet a single one who would be civilized. The history of WW II was not an accident. This is good we have the internet. The entire world will see you rotten “civilization”. In one word you are boors. You will see the result of it. Andrew and Edgar" Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

>I see a trend: none of your comments refer to my previous ones and are just a new thought in general. This shouldn't be carved up putting each part under another of my statements as if in response, either. You do not need to have the last word in every of the points.

I think if you will read you sentence above you will not understand what its sense is. I have difficulties to understand you talk and most above you intentions. Please do not say me I am stupid. I leave on the world long enough and have academic degrees from both Poland and Canada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, I'm sorry. I'm not calling you stupid. You split up my message into different points but your reply to each is not always directly related to it (eg Point: "Anyway, you're supposed to avoid editing for one month unless you don't mind being blocked indefinitely." Reply: "You no what. You are really waking problem. I do not see you started with goodwill. Just be polite and approach subject scientifically.") I'd rather you didn't carve up my posts in the first place. It is rarely done in Wikipedia anyway. Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

>I've told you to verify the statement "he considered himself a Pole" (and how to do so) for six times in a space of thirteen days.

If you mean to remove it there will be no agreement. Beside “I’ve told you” is something supervising order or what format? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What's next? Battle for the Germany article arguing "if you remove my sentence, there'll be no agreement"(= because Serafin doesn't agree)? ;-) Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

>Not only did you not do it, but you wasted your and my time talking and now you ask me again what would convince me as if the thirteen days had never happened, without even admitting you couldn't verify it.

I think you misunderstood my intention. I ask you to find some compromise instead I experience an lecture. If you feel waste of time in this journey to truth (I assume still it is our common goal) just leave the article free of you editions. Verification you got there is three Dzierzon contemporary editions and three modern bibliography books.

Every reasonable English author would have to use the sources for his work. You disregard them, why? Do you have better primary documents and facts? You do not have.

>I've therefore removed all the sources that obviously do not verify "he considered himself a Pole" but pretend otherwise.

Do not try to be authoritarian. You decisively push to editing war. Now it is visible what is character of you actions. Do not try name it skeptical. You ravaged the article nothing more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
How can removing sources which do not source the statements in the article be "authoritarian", forcing edit wars and mirror my evil soul? Can there be a better example of assuming bad faith? Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

>Beaumont, by contrast, added an aged source that says something about his self-perception as a Pole and did not waste his time trying to talk around the subject.

You do not want from definition any statement like “he was Polish” or “consider himself as Pole”. You do not like any of the options, are you. No matter how many sources and authors will say so you will contradict it. Are you born nitpicker or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Remain civil, thank you. Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

>If I ask for something because I'm not yet convinced, what do you expect will convince me other than what I asked for?

If you are not convinced why you change editions instead questioning? You are convinced for conflict are not you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You made a statement in a Wiki-article, which means that the burden of proof concerning verification is on your side, not anyone else's. Everyone can just claim anything and say, "it's in this Chinese book." - "If so, quote it", would come the reply, because no one would travel to China to prove your statement for you. But when the person who had made the claim remains evasive and doesn't come up with a quote after a reasonable amount of time, nor gives a very good explanation why he/she hasn't provided the quote yet, then the claim should be removed until the person who made it presents the quotes - or else the claim which might be a lie is maintained for too long in Wikipedia. Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

>Anyway, you're supposed to avoid editing for one month unless you don't mind being blocked indefinitely.

You no what. You are really waking problem. I do not see you started with goodwill. Just be polite and approach subject scientifically.
Best, AS> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It is hardly the first time that you allege in a discussion that others have bad motives, and that's easy, needless, unfair and destructive to do so. Your behaviour in discussions will also play a role if a decision is being formed what to do about your editing privileges, and I can assure you that it would be best for you not to further evade admin decisions.
When I started the discussion, I didn't expect a lenghty discussion. I had seen some of your conclusions before and, after all, users on this page had used the words original research before too and I rightly presumed that your statement was based on that.
There must not be any advantage gained from likely block evasions, which was not the case when Beaumont supported Erudra (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Silesian had consensus in de.wiki, the exception being of course Serafin (assuming bad faith, it was not consensus but Nazi/chauvinist/etc cabal). I will not argue for any nationality but say to those who're dissatisfied with the current version that the fact that I did not further insist on undoing Erudra's edit again is not acknowledgment that the version was right or the only one supportable by wiki guidelines, but just that Beaumont took over full responsibility for it and those dissatisfied can argue with him. I realise I've now been too lenient with Serafin's block evasions myself: all his edits should be made undone or reported, not just in the article space. Sciurinæ 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes Dzierzon

Google has 2600 entries for Johannes Dzierzon

plus 1820 for Johann Dzierzon = total 4420

The very POV version: Jan Dzierzon has 826 google hits.

Shouldn't this be under Johannes Dzierzon ?

Well, the answer depends pretty much on the question. And if we exclude "pl" and "de" domains...
"jan dzierzon" -site:pl -site:de 477 hits;
"johannes dzierzon" -site:pl -site:de 96 hits
"johann dzierzon -site:pl -site:de 129 hits
Of course, there are problems with interpretation of such results (e.g. mirrors, other people of this name etc.) - google test alone is never definitive...
Britannica has Jan Dzierzon, so it is difficult to claim that in the English speaking world this is "very POV". --Beaumont (@) 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

750 year old town of Lowkowice answer: Pfarrer Johann Dzierzon

This is a nice private webpage. See WP:RS etc.. --Beaumont (@) 14:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

His name in encyclopedia should be definitely conserved to Jan Dzierzon, as it is in Britanica. It needs to reflect the native language of owner. For ages British changed foreign names and graduated to “systematization” applied in their first dictionary which accepted most popular spelling as the correct. The result we know all. I do not think this method is hold still in UK. Why Wikipedia need to stick to some principle which has little sense in this case.

Regarding the “Pfarrer Johann Dzierzon” website it is written by person who considers himself as German. You can be suppressed that there still Germans in Poland, actually having privileges which Polish minority does not have in Germany. I think his POV can not be considered as objective one. I believe he will consider change the Johannes in Polish translation. In Wikpedia it is given Johhan Dzierzon (German) as a second; you can change it to under Johhan (Johannes) Dzierzon (German) it is additional valuable information. However changing order is inappropriate since Dzierzon’s origin and self-reorganization.

IMPORTANT:

I am afraid that the issue of Dzierzon’s nationality can not be resolved comparing Google/Internet entries numbers. Jan Dzierzon was by over 100 hundred years recognized as German since his works were written in this language. Between 1791-1918 Poland did not existed on the maps, also Dzierzon (not by his choice was) automatically Prussian citizen. Whoever is familiar with history of Prussia knows that tolerance was not part of that organism. We Polish perfectly know about this. Dzierzon could only get additional persecutions saying loudly about his nationality and sentiments. (I say additional because he had many already by opposing Prussian officials/government and supporting Polish peasants). The simplest proof how the relationship between Dzierzon and Prussian authorities looked like is fact that despite many foreign decoration the Kaiser’s decoration appeared at 90 Dzierzon’s birthday, and was really not high rang in competitions the others “alien”. I say simplest proof because there are many many others evidence of the mutual “love” Concluding: 1) considering the difficult personal situation in Prussia and lack of national tolerance there the Dzierzon national sentiments were not widely known. 2) Obviously most publications from start (1845) to the moment when Poland recovered independence first time (1918) were referring to Dzierzon as German. 3) The real Polish effort to display the truth start around 1925 when Dzieron’s archives were bring to Poland. 4) from early 1931 Nazis become publicize their “truth” and smearing facts. 5) After WW II for long period of time Poland had been separated from West hemisphere and was much less influential in scientific flow of information then West Germany was. 6) The Dzierzon’s nationality only for last three to four decades could be pronounced easier without disturptions.

Taking for consideration all the facts I will expect many wrong Internet entries. The objective conclusion about Dzierzon’s nationality can not be achievement by Internet search. This is only possible by studding the historical facts. The supporter of different Dzierzon’s nationality actually have no historical evidence that he Germanized. They assuming he was German because 1) he was Prussian citizen 2) he publicized most of his works in German 3) his grave stone has German description. However they have no written Dzierzon’s word he says: “I am German”. AS>

[edit] Lose with honor

>Whatever you're trying to say, a source says what it says, not what you think it could also imply. If Britannica says "Polish", then it says "Polish" and not, as you suggested, "born to Polish parents" and/or "considered himself a Pole". That was the point I wanted to explain to you. I didn't want to chat about Polish citizenship.

Ye, ye, every time something wrong – if it is not what you imagine. It is what I thought you going to expand it to the end of the Word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.167.254.68 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You still don't understand? Look, if a source says "The 8 hottest years ever recorded have been in the last ten years," then this sources the sentence "The last ten years also saw the eight years that had the highest temperature ever recorded" or something to that effect, but not "reflecting sunlight may prove essential to combatting the imminent threat of global warming". It's just common-sensical. Why can't you agree with me? Sciurinæ 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

>What do you mean by contemporary? In our or Dzierzon's time?

I copy for you what I wrote already above:
I am afraid that the issue of Dzierzon’s nationality can not be resolved comparing Google/Internet entries numbers. Jan Dzierzon was by over 100 hundred years recognized as German since his works were written in this language. Between 1791-1918 Poland did not existed on the maps, also Dzierzon (not by his choice was) automatically Prussian citizen. Whoever is familiar with history of Prussia knows that tolerance was not part of that organism. We Polish perfectly know about this. Dzierzon could only get additional persecutions saying loudly about his nationality and sentiments. (I say additional because he had many already by opposing Prussian officials/government and supporting Polish peasants). The simplest proof how the relationship between Dzierzon and Prussian authorities looked like is fact that despite many foreign decoration the Kaiser’s decoration appeared at 90 Dzierzon’s birthday, and was really not high rang in competitions the others “alien”. I say simplest proof because there are many many others evidence of the mutual “love” Concluding: 1) considering the difficult personal situation in Prussia and lack of national tolerance there the Dzierzon national sentiments were not widely known. 2) Obviously most publications from start (1845) to the moment when Poland recovered independence first time (1918) were referring to Dzierzon as German. 3) The real Polish effort to display the truth start around 1925 when Dzieron’s archives were bring to Poland. 4) from early 1931 Nazis become publicize their “truth” and smearing facts. 5) After WW II for long period of time Poland had been separated from West hemisphere and was much less influential in scientific flow of information then West Germany was. 6) The Dzierzon’s nationality only for last three to four decades could be pronounced easier without disturptions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.167.254.68 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Those claims - I have to just believe them? Sciurinæ 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

>Well, you decide which source is right and which is not. I would be arrogant and a know-all not to take your word for it, I presume, so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

>How can removing sources which do not source the statements in the article be "authoritarian", forcing edit wars and mirror my evil soul? Can there be a better example of assuming bad faith?

There is no better example of bad faith than saying “NO” only by purpose to annoy other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.167.254.68 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
And who said "NO"? Are you seriously telling me what intentions I have rather than you? Have you access to my head or your one? Truth and mere assumption are two different things. And because your assumptions - even ridiculous ones like my supposed intentions - are expressed as the truth, I never know how trustworthy your statements are. So why don't you just keep your beliefs for yourself? Secondly, alleging someone wants to annoy the other is easy. I could say, "You're alleging I was trying to annoy you because you only want to annoy me". To which you could reply, "After I found out your intentions, you just twisted it and now I was the one who tried to annoy the other when really it was you". To which I could reply "You were trying to annoy me all along and therefore you twisted it and now you claim I twisted it", so thirdly, it is going nowhere. So please avoid further allegations. Sciurinæ 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

>Remain civil, thank you.

In opposite to you. That is the surprise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.167.254.68 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I was uncivil in opposite to you? Can you explain? Sciurinæ 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

>You made a statement in a Wiki-article, which means that the burden of proof concerning verification is on your side, not anyone else's. Everyone can just claim anything and say,

I quoted it and directed you to place. You just did not want to perceive it. This is the civilized habit. You need analyze the whole discussion and put more attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.167.254.68 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, right. You based a statement ("He considered himself a Pole") on a previously unpublished interpretation of a primary source, violating WP:NOR, as I've told you many times before. And the last word and all my supposed evil traits put together won't change that fact so long as men can breathe, or eyes can see. Sciurinæ 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

>It is hardly the first time that you allege in a discussion that others have bad motives, and that's easy, needless, unfair and destructive to do so

Yes. You expressed it well what you doing. Problem is what will be the effect for you psyche when you will continue it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.167.254.68 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
My psyche? Can you explain? Sciurinæ 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

>Your behaviour in discussions will also play a role if a decision is being formed what to do about your editing privileges, and I can assure you that it would be best for you not to further evade admin decisions.

It looks you can not stand any more. Sorry, the truth always win. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.167.254.68 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I would know just the answer to that, but it would be too sarcastic to submit. Sciurinæ 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

>When I started the discussion, I didn't expect a lenghty discussion. I had seen some of your conclusions before and, after all, users on this page had used the words original research before too and I rightly presumed that your statement was based on that.

You are real comedian. You blame me you do not see obvious things. Ask Lysy he can find older and newest messages with Polish citations (no one but many) which was addressed to him and pointed meantime to you. Once again when questioned about nationality Dzierzon says:

“just my name says I AM Pole of birth” and in next sentence “because from 10 birthday I found myself in Breslau and I studied there I become German educated, but the education does not accept borders or nationality.” That means he is Polish not a German.

I do not answer for rest of you questions and supposition. I thing, most of the time you do not know yourself what you talking about. I hope the Wikipedia will not become snake pit. Out of logic it is already. Regarding you, you are not able to lose with honor.AS> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.167.254.68 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
We've gone through it many times before. A previously unpublished interpretation of a primary source is considered original research. You know that, at least you should know that. You can argue that your original research was right, but of course original research is original research. The reasons why your original research doesn't convince me were included in the second paragraph of this. You can call me anything, vilify me, devalue my writing and evoke the image of a snake pit but that won't change a thing about the subject. You shouldn't view it as a fight in which there is a winner and a loser. Sciurinæ 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You provoke me and report on me. Do not you?

>It's just common-sensical. Why can't you agree with me?

Those sources as follow give you the words which you suppose I interpreted wrongly. This only what I can do.
Source 6: Mieczynski Adam. “Dzierzon sam sie uznaje za Polaka”
Source 7 „Rys dziejów pismiennictwa polskiego” identivcaly: “ Dzierzon sam sie uznaje za Polaka”
Source 8 cites Dzierzon’s words – little modified fragment of the statement recalled in source 9: „Samo moje nazwisko mówi, zem Polak z urodzenia”
Source 9: exact cite: Co do mojej narodowosci, jestem oczywiscie, jak juz samo nazwisko moje mówi, Polakiem z urodzenia, gdyz na Slasku mówi sie po polsku, a ze od 10 roku zycia znalazlem sie we Wroclawiu i tam studiowalem, stalem sie Niemcem z wyksztalcenia. Ale nauka nie uznaje granic ani narodowosci.”Original in Museum of. J. Dzierzona in Kluczborku, sygn. 35, 14, 11 Folge, Zur Charakteristik Dr. J. Dzierzon.
Source 10: „Dzierzon, ks. Pleban w Karlsmart, w Górnym Slasku, powiecie brzeskim, uznajacy sie za Polaka...”
Source 11: identicaly as source 9 „Co do mojej narodowosci, jestem oczywiscie, jak juz samo nazwisko moje mówi, Polakiem z urodzenia,...
If you want interpret them differently let me know. For me “jestem… jak ... nazwisko moje mówi, Polakiem z urodzenia..” is clear declaration and equal to: „uznaje sie za Polaka” (en: I consider myself as Pole). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.13.69.220 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. After so many comments you finally 'concede' that some of the sources you provided were in fact secondary ones. Why didn't you do that in the beginning? You didn't need to question my intentions and talk about what you think of Silesian and my bad intentions again and the victory of the truth and my losing without honor etc. Why didn't you just answer the following statements right away?
  1. 'Do you have a (reliable secondary) source for the claim "he considered himself a Pole"?' Sciurinæ 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (last and main sentence of the first post of mine on this talk page)
  2. 'Serafin/131, if "he considered himself a Pole" is based on several sources, as you claim in the article, quote their relevant passages. There are enough Polish wikipedians here who could translate it.' Sciurinæ 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. 'I've read it before. Did you not read my first comment here about primary sources? Now, do you have any (secondary) sources saying explicitly that he considered himself Polish? If so, quote them.' Sciurinæ 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. 'I've asked for the line "he considered himself a Pole" to be fully sourced, as the article pretends it was. I tried to explain to you that a previously unpublished interpretation of a primary source, whether it is true or not, is not enough according to policy. If you have a source that really states that Dzierzon "considered himself a Pole", quote it. If not, don't waste your time talking.' Sciurinæ 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. 'Serafin, if you have secondary sources (articles etc.) confirming that Dzierżon actually considered himself to be Polish, can you simply quote the relevant parts in this talk page (or provide links if these are online sources). No matter if they are English or Polish, please just do it. Someone would be able to verify and confirm it. And this would finally address the Sciurinæ's scepticism. Ideally this should be someone (a researcher, an author) claiming that Dzierżon considered himself Polish.' --Lysy 07:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. 'The statement I was talking of was, of course, "he considered himself a Pole". As I said earlier, if you have any source that really states that Dzierzon "considered himself a Pole", quote it.' Sciurinæ 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. 'The item I generally focused on is the claim that any of the sources you added behind the statement "he considered himself a Pole" verified this statement. Since there are still no relevant passages quoted here that clearly say that Dzierzon considered himself a Pole and since neither of the two sources I could check out (the Britannica article and the Dzierzon quote) verify the claim "he considered himself a Pole", I would even say that I was right in questioning it.' Sciurinæ 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Not answering to my main question was like beating around the bush in my eyes. Oh, whatever. Anyway. Of course, I've removed those of the sources (8,9,11) that just contain the Dzierzon-quote but though the others are Polish sources from the early 1860s (one is even older), I've kept them just to meet you halfway. Sciurinæ 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

>Those claims - I have to just believe them?

You can make you research or ask me some questions. But please formulate them in simple way, be specific and consider my time.

>I never know how trustworthy your statements are.

Because you never check any. Because I see it I say: “saying “NO” is easy”. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.13.69.220 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not right. I've started checking your claims ever since your unfounded allegation that you were exposed to attacks by chauvinists and Nazis in the German-language Wikipedia. Like I said, in my opinion you express both ridiculous assumptions and those likely to be facts equally and I therefore find it hard to believe a statement of yours where checking it would be difficult. Sciurinæ 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

>I was uncivil in opposite to you? Can you explain?

I explained to you in the sentence just above. Saying “NO” only for purpose to annoy others is uncivilized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.13.69.220 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In other words, another allegation of bad intentions is the basis. Sciurinæ 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

> on a previously unpublished interpretation of a primary source?

Do I understand you correctly? You assume the sources 6 to 8 are not publications? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.13.69.220 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out what you're trying to say. If your questions are just a repetition of your first comment under the headline "You provoke me and report on me. Do not you?", then I guess I don't need to repeat my answer to that here, too. Sciurinæ 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

>My psyche? Can you explain?

Yes. I am afraid if you will continue you obstinacy to avoid facts you become mad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.13.69.220 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you care about my psyche so much, let me tell you what really is making me mad. It is for example when I stop reverting a blocked user evading their block because another user took over responsibility for the edit and then the blocked user says thank you to the other because his action allegedly stopped the "aggressive folks", "trolls" who "systematically provoked and persecuted" the blocked user, and looking at the headline "You provoke me etc" it becomes completely obvious that one of the provoking and persecuting aggressive trolls you were referring to must be me. Stop that please. Sciurinæ 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

>>It looks you can not stand any more. Sorry, the truth always win. >I would know just the answer to that, but it would be too sarcastic to submit.

This is from yours source [64] »Wahrheit, Wahrheit über alles!« Those are the Dzierzon’s words. Does not remained you the Prussian/Nazi anthem: “Deutschland , Deutschland über alles!« think why Wahrheit replaced Deutschland. My be this will stop you from sarcasm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.13.69.220 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In the knowledge of the Nazis and the "fact" that August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben was a Prussian, Dzierzon replaced the word "Deutschland" with "Wahrheit"? Or Dzierzon altered the quotation because - just as the source above mentions - he didn't want his achievements qualified for one single nation and emphasised that science knows no borders, which means that the search for the truth is his personal main goal, not as envisaged by Fallersleben the unification of the scattered German states. But, let me guess, you'd beg to differ and we could discuss even that for all eternity. Why'd you bring up another issue anyway? Certainly not to "stop [me] from sarcasm" and certainly not because you were provoked like you claim below. Sciurinæ 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

>You shouldn't view it as a fight in which there is a winner and a loser.

You obstinacy to role back and forth convince me that it is fight. You avoid or you unable to simplify questions. Take for consideration: “simple is genial”. I do not remember who pronounced it :)
PS. You provoke me and the same time report on me. Do not you? This is what could be named uncivilized and primitive.
In this condition I will not answer to you offences until I will recognize you goodwill to search problem instead annoying me. You have all necessary directions to study Polish sources, which obviously are much more reliable then Karl Fleischer Nazi propagadist, anyway only German „research“ with „scientific“ claime in the subject.AS> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.13.69.220 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ironically you allege that I provoke you and at the same time you use provocative words like "uncivilized and primitive" and "you offences". And I should report your evasions during your one-month block but, just for your information, I haven't. And if your previous beating around the bush and your bringing up of new issues is anything to go by, it's not your main objective to work towards getting the discussion over with, so "being provoked" is the wrong term for you anyway unless you're really determined to impose eternity on those who don't believe you/join the green side. And provocative remarks like the headline "Lose with honor" seem to me to be taunts to make me continue the fruitless discussion with you - you indirectly signal that if I don't continue, I would concede that I lose. And your focus shouldn't ever be on my psyche. I guess that was all there is to say. Sciurinæ 13:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the war personally

  • You've got to be kidding me. After so many comments you finally 'concede' that some of the sources you provided were in fact secondary ones.
Do not use the jargon. Say what is wrong in you opinion and why.
  • Not answering to my main question was like beating around the bush in my eyes.
As I say, you use a jargon which unnecessary I can understand. Beside you long sentence (similar to Jadger’s) are not very communicative. When I ask you what you mean you repeat the same phrase, which does not show you good will.
  • Like I said, in my opinion you express both ridiculous assumptions and those likely to be facts equally and I therefore find it hard to believe a statement of yours where checking it would be difficult.
Those are not my assumption. They are conclusion of Polish scholars. And if the Polish scholars are not right where are the modern Germans scholars who opposite them. Where you have a modern German book in the field of Beekeeping History where they clime Jan Dzierzon was German. If you do not have one why you making the fight with me? Hmm?
  • In other words, another allegation of bad intentions is the basis.
Of course claims with foundations and bad intentions are offensive. Systematic repetition of it is uncivilized behavior. Simple hooliganism or vandalism as you like. Do not think so?
  • I can't figure out what you're trying to say. If your questions are just a repetition of your first comment under the headline "You provoke me and report on me. Do not you?", then I guess I don't need to repeat my answer to that here, too.

Why you need not to answer? Because you do not have reasonable answer? :)

  • …. Stop that please.

Regarding the long question preceding the “Stop that please.” I have my reason to dislike you attitude. I expect to talk about facts and words. Using unspecific jargon is not friendly. Reverting on background of it is also very unpleased. This took you long time to realize that you should be more specific and more friendly.

  • In the knowledge of the Nazis and the "fact" that August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben was a Prussian, Dzierzon replaced the word "Deutschland" with "Wahrheit"?
I do not understand you question at all. I suppose you do not want to see the sense of that quotation with "Wahrheit". I referred to Prussian and after the Nazi German anthem they certainly used the “Deutschland über alles”
Regarding interpretation “science does not have borders” it is bad explanation. This is a part of paragraph and only removing the last sentence from the context your can get such understand. If you will analyze whole paragraph you will get other sense. The sense is that science, or better to translate “education”, do not make nobody nationality. See the paragraph: Source 9 in the chapter ”You provoke me and report on me. Do not you?” You proved you understood the correct sense of the Jan Dzierżon statement by removing just the sources 8, 9 and 11 :)
  • Ironically you allege that I provoke you and at the same time you use provocative words like "uncivilized and primitive" and "you offences".
You see I think you are more experienced Wikipedian than I am. If you found that some less experienced person fill offended why you continue the aggressive attitude? Now instead stop it yourself you request me to calm down. Give me a reason? Instead discuss the weight of the sources (8, 9 and 11) you just authoritatively remove them. How I can sense you attitude? As friendly and civilized person or in opposite?
  • And I should report your evasions during your one-month block but, just for your information, I haven't.
Good, thank you that you answered for my question, but you attempted to terrorize me by adequate promises. Do not you remember it? So…
I think after all that you goal is to fight with me not to discover the truth. Since you can not provide modern German Beekeeping historian who support you claim this point is obvious. You goal is to disturb my work. Also, since I know a lot more then you about Jan Dzierzon biography I can say who will loose, that is point #2.

Finally I ask you to return the removed sources (8, 9 and 11) since they are results of authors who personally investigated the museum (i.e. original) sources and documents. Whatever you classification is the research of the museum evidences is most scientific work which can be done. Where is the German research of museum evidences? The request for returning the sources is to show good will and allow you stop the war personally.


What the? Do you realise that you demand more and more? You got "Polish" in the lead and the sentences you wished for and only irrelevant sources got deleted and I let you have the last word. Not long ago you didn't care for "he considered himself a Pole" at all if there's "Polish" in front of Dzierzon. ("I am not obstinate with the fragment he considered himself a Pole. We can put: "Jan Dzierzon was Polish priest and beekeeper" or something like that. It is perfectly all right for me.") But now that you got the adjective, you also want the sentence. No, wait, that's the past already: you also got the sentence but now you want as many sources behind it as possible.
And also now every of your comments calls me aggressive or that I was terrorising you or that I was manipulating the truth or that I just "do not want to see the sense of that quotation" or phrases like "hooliganism or vandalism".
I've told you that Dzierzon's words are a primary source and he didn't even say that he considered himself a Pole, though you interpret his words like that. What next? Let me guess: you also want to add the Britannica source behind the sentence "he considered himself a Pole" again, because after all it said "Polish priest" or something. I've told you that a source says just what it says even though it may provide the basis for wishful thinking. "Aus einer im Museum erhältlichen zweisprachigen Handreichung geht hervor, daß Johannes Dzierzon 1811 in einer »polnischen Familie in Lowkowice (Lowkowitz) bei Kluczbork« geboren wurde, an der Breslauer Universität Theologie studierte, 1834 zum Priester geweiht wurde und hauptsächlich in der »polnisch-sprachigen (!) Pfarrgemeinde Karlowice (Karlowitz) – Kreis Brzeg (Brieg)« tätig war;"
("A bilingual assistance available in the museum says that Johannes Dzierzon was born in a »Polish family in Lowkowice (Lowkowitz) near Kluczbork«, studied theology at the University of Breslau, became a priest in 1834 and was mainly active in the »Polish-speaking (!) parish Karlowice (Karlowitz) Brzeg (Brieg) - district Brzeg (Brieg)« ")
Does the text agree with what it read in the museum? Why didn't it say: "In the museum I learn the basic facts about Dzierzon: He was born ...etc"? And also to me the "(!)" expresses just the opposite - that the text distances itself from what it perceives as Polish advocacy and at the point (!) even ridiculed the emphasis on his supposed Polishness. It sources what it says: the museum says that Dzierzon was born to a Polish family and nothing more. You don't need to put so many sources behind it anyway. Sciurinæ 14:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

authorities took offence

  • This a summary from book: L. Brożek "Jan Dzierżon. Studium monograficzne" Opole 1978:

At least from 1848 (Springtide of Nations) Dzierzon was in conflict with German squire of Karlowic Amtsrat Hildebrand. In 1866 Dzierzon wrote a complain on Hildebrand in defense of Polish peasants to king of Prussia. Since that year the Wroclaw (Breslaw) curia become rain with complains on Dzierzon (where come from we can recall this technique?). Also after Hildebrand’s denunciation the fiscal authorities intervened in Wroclaw curia and a case took place front of bishop consistory. The case last from 1Oct1866 up to 7Mar1867. The consistory freed Dzierzon from accusation of usury but recognized some negligence in praying from breviary and found too rare visitations for control the village school and its teacher. As the punish Dzierzon got 8 days of penance contemplations (again similarities to Wikipedia :)), and had to pay the costs of lawsuit and investigation. The relatively slight sentence Dzierzon own the testimonies of his peasant parishioners.

In summer 1867 last second case front of second level of bishop consistory (consistory of appeal) with accusations even more serious. Without extra details the sentence was similar, no economical crimes and small priesthood offences. After couple years of such witch-hunt Dzierzon wrote: “ Es ist schon bekannt, dass ich müde der Inquisitionen bin.”

In 14 Dec 1867 Vicariat pass to Dzierzon a letter of Breslaw bishop Henry Förster. The bishop announce a consequence in the case of continuity of further disobedience. At the same time (20 Dec 1867) Vicariat, directed by the bishop, obligated dean from Brzeg (Brieg) priest Herzog to inspect Dzierzon activity. Dzierzon had to pay 28 thalers as the cost of lawsuit also. Dean Herzog did not reported any offences. Since that on 28 Apr 1868 the Vicariat demanded reports in 14 days. In last day on 13 May Herzog wrote that up to that day Dzierzon did nothing wrong. However Dzierzon expressed a will to resign from presbytery to what Herzog strengthen him. The main Dzierzon’s concern was to erase every impression of push away from church (Absetzung). The resignation was accepted with the end of 1868. Dzierzon retired with preservation of title Vicar and pension of 200 thalers per year. I total he worked as priest 34 years.

Now it is dependent on you if you assume the ‘righteousness’ of Prussian civilian and church authorities you can write as: “Years later his religious authorities took offence at his scientific research and retired him..”- This form is for me a suggestion that the authorities was right - at least in some way.” Myself, because I avoid unnecessary deliberation and conflicts, I would write “ Dzierzon resigned from presbytery in 1868 or 1869. The time indication can differ probably because the resignation was accepted at the end of 1868 but came in effect at beginning of 1869. In the depth of my hard however I would say differently. I believe the truth was completely on the Dzierzon’s side and he was forced to resignation without background.

Relatively objective German scholar prof. R. Gärtner in his draft about Dzierzon ( Johannes Dzierzon, Schilesisch Lebensbilder. Breslau1931) wrote something like that : “a rain of complains regarding his priesthood flowing to curia inclined Dzierzon to resign from presbytery”. The author does not penetrate the sources of the complains at all, in this way he avoided personal or dubious judgments.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.104.218.46 (talk • contribs) 4:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, boy, what now? Not even "Years later his religious authorities took offence at his scientific research and retired him.." is okay with you? You suggest it implied that Prussian civilian and church authorities were morally correct, at least in some way. ... What? ... And as alternative to fix it you propose: "Dzierzon resigned from presbytery in 1868 or 1869." ... What? ... Then you also tell me that you believe "he was forced to resignation without background". ... I'm sorry but I neither understand why my sentence would suggest that Prussian civilian and church authorities were righteous (except when I take into consideration that most of your comments tried to imply I had bad intentions together with your concession that you view the discussion as a fight) and nor am I able to recognise your alternative would remove any bias.
Sources on Dzierzon are relatively sparse on the net and I was lucky when I found one with material to rewrite the clumsy bit that said Dzierzon took over a parish from 1835 to 1868. It was clumsy because a takeover is a single action, not something covering decades. So when I was wondering what the appropriate verb for 1868 was (kept it until, administered it until, lived in it until, was responsible for it until, etc), I stumbled accross a source about Dzierzon that was relevant there. It suggested that they retired him in 1869 and so I included that without trying to sneak in any supposed bias for Prussian authorities or whatever. End of story. Sciurinæ 15:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Sciurinæ 14Feb07

  • No, wait, that's the past already: you also got the sentence but now you want as many sources behind it as possible.
This is you who wanted the source. Now you say it is too many and erase those who are fundamental.
  • I've told you that Dzierzon's words are a primary source and he didn't even say that he considered himself a Pole, though you interpret his words like that.
Yes he say so. You just do not know Polish language. Beside it is not my interpretation. This is interpretation the researchers whom I cite. I believe you want argue there in the citrate is not the word consider. If you say: “I am German” is not equal “I consider myself as German”?
  • Let me guess: you also want to add the Britannica source behind the sentence "he considered himself a Pole" again, because after all it said "Polish priest" or something.
Did I ever put the Britannica after “consider himself” if so that was mistake. But would I put it after “was Polish”.
  • that the text distances itself from what it perceives as Polish advocacy and at the point (!) even ridiculed the emphasis on his supposed Polishness.
What? What are you talking about? Explain please the ridiculous conclusion.
  • It sources what it says: the museum says that Dzierzon was born to a Polish family and nothing more.
The museum is not only source about Dzierzon.
  • You don't need to put so many sources behind it anyway.
Yes I maybe I need not but because there is so many argue I did. Beside those source which you erase are the most important. Ask in the museum what book is the most extensive study about Jan Dzierzon. I give you the spelling: author: L. Brożek title: "Jan Dzierżon. Studium monograficzne" Opole 1978. There is no any better work untill now in any other language Polish, German, English or any one.

[edit] Possible solution?

Although I doubt that this propositon will work, one could take a cue from the many Polish editors who when confronted with significant evidence that a historical "Polish" figure from Lithuania, is Lithuanian, they'll compromise by making them "Polish-Lithuanian". Perhaps Dzierzon can become "German-Polish" (juxta-positioning of the countries done alphabetically)? Dr. Dan 19:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

He is in any case German. His father and mother were Polish. He consider himself as Pole. This is not a marketplace to to strike a bargain. The example you talking about, I think, is father Polish, mother Lithuanian. --131.104.218.46 16:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm thinking of several cases where Lithuanians, born in Lithuania, are considered to be Poles by the Polish WP contributors. Often citing that they were not born in Lithuania, but in the PLC, educated in Polish schools, wrote in Polish, or could speak Polish. And as I said in my above remarks, when confronted with substantial evidence that they are not Polish afterall, they acquiesce to Polish-Lithuanian. A concept that is more clear to them than to the Lithuanian editors, but is their frequent solution to the issue in this similar debate. Dr. Dan 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway Wikipedia is not a marketplace to strike a bargain. The historical facts only counts. First what counts is the declaration of the individual. If somebody was born in Poland or in Polish family and decide to call himself German – “God bless him”, but it is not the case of Jan Dzierzon.--131.104.218.46 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

we understand that block evading vandal, but Jan Dzierzon wasn't born in Poland, there was no Poland at the time. I ask you this however block evading vandal, why is it so important for you to demand that he be called Polish?

--Jadger 21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this block evading vandal, if I had known this earlier, I would not have had any dialog with this person. I can put up with many things that are flawed in the WP project, even the frequent "Troll Fests". But I completely loathe the sneaky "Sock-puppeteer", and disdain as much as I can to have any kind of interaction with such types. Dr. Dan 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery of Beespace

It's much more interesting to me how many people want to take (or give) credit for discovering beespace to people who were obviously after Huber.

François Huber wrote as early as 1789:

"I forced the bees to build them perpendicular to the horizon and so that the lateral surfaces were three or four lines (3 lines=¼ in.=6mm. 4 lines=1/3 in.=8.5mm) from the panes of the hive. This distance allows the bees sufficient liberty, but prevents them from collecting in too large clusters on the surface of the comb. By such precautions, bees are easily established in very thin hives. There they pursue their labours with the same assiduity and regularity; and, every cell being exposed, none of their motions can be concealed."--13th August 1789

"Here I am led to what I believe is a new observation. While naturalists have directed our admiration to the parallel position of the combs, they have overlooked another trait in the industry of bees, namely, the equal distance uniformly between them. On measuring the interval separating the combs, it will generally be found four lines (4/12th in. = @5/16th in. = 8.5 mm). Were they too distant, it is very evident the bees would be much dispersed and unable to communicate their heat reciprocally, whence the brood would not be exposed to sufficient warmth. Were the combs too close, on the contrary, the bees could not freely traverse the intervals and the work of the hive would suffer. Therefore, a certain distance always uniform is requisite, which corresponds equally well with the service of the hive and the care necessary for the worms. Nature, which has taught bees so much, has instructed them regularly to preserve this distance."--1 October 1791

"As all the boxes are of equal dimensions and of the necessary width for receiving a comb, the bees having sufficient space for constructing a new one in the empty division introduced into the hive, will not fail to build it, because they are under the necessity of never having more than four lines between them (4 lines = 4/12ths in = @5/16 in. = 8.5mm). Without any guide, this new comb will be parallel to the old ones, to preserve that law which establishes an equal distance throughout the whole."--1 October 1791

http:\\www.bushfarms.com\huber.htm

So obviously it was not discovered by Dzierżon or Langstroth. Huber's writings were widely available in both the USA and Europe by the time of both. Langstroth gives much credit to Huber for his ideas, so it seems obvious that he got them from Huber.

Of course some Greek with a basket top bar hive may have observed it long before that.

Michael Bush 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You Michael are talking about different and additionally wrong assumption. Between parallel combs the distance must be bigger 1/2 inch = 12 mm. The last two cites from Huber refer to the "comb space" and assumes 8.5 mm between combs. The popularly named "bee space" is = 6-9mm and would be correct to the distance described in first cite. However Huber says: "I forced the bees..." thus he did not recognize the distance as the natural occurrence. Beside he had been convinced the distance is the universal space as you see from the next two cites. Personally I would name the "bee space" rather "bee corridor" as it was perceived from observations of the wholes at hive walls. It was done by Dzierzon most probably because he had to cut the combs from the walls of his hives. Best regards, Andrew

A "beespace" is between 1/4" (6mm) and 3/8" (9.5mm). It is not one fixed size. That space as observed by Huber (and many others) is the same whether between comb faces or between the comb edges and the walls. You may be able to force the bees to have 1/2" between capped brood, because the brood is a fixed size and you have changed the spacing with foundation and frames to 35mm on center, instead of the natural space (as observed by Huber) of 32mm, but the space between combs the bees build on their own and the space between honey comb and honey comb, where they will thicken it to fit, is still a beespace. Which is between 1/4" and 3/8" (6mm and 9.5mm). Huber was observing natural comb and the spacing was not 1/2" (12mm) between the combs. What he observed was "never having more than four lines between them (4 lines = 4/12ths in = @5/16 in. = 8.5mm)", which is the median of "beepspace". Michael Bush 20:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • A "beespace" is between 1/4" (6mm) and 3/8" (9.5mm). It is not one fixed size.
That is right.
  • That space as observed by Huber (and many others) is the same whether between comb faces or between the comb edges and the walls.
This is not compactly wrong. Between comb faces the distance is no less than 12 mm.
  • You may be able to force the bees to have 1/2" between capped brood,
It need not any force. The ½” is natural space there. Huber was wrong.
  • because the brood is a fixed size and you have changed the spacing with foundation and frames to 35mm on center, instead of the natural space (as observed by Huber) of 32mm,
The distance center to center must be more than 36 millimeter 2*11mm of depth of brood cell + approximately 2-3 mm foundation + 12 mm between comb faces (for two 6mm layers of bee blanket). In Langstroth hive it is 37.5mm. Huber distance 32mm was wrong look for example the “The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting” by Eva Crane.
  • but the space between combs the bees build on their own and the space between honey comb and honey comb, where they will thicken it to fit, is still a beespace.
This is not. They thicken the comb where they store honey. In brood chamber they cluster on face of brood and need adequate operational space.
  • Which is between 1/4" and 3/8" (6mm and 9.5mm).
No it is not in the brood space between comb faces.
  • Huber was observing natural comb and the spacing was not 1/2" (12mm) between the combs.
Huber was observing nothing what you suggest.
  • What he observed was "never having more than four lines between them (4 lines = 4/12ths in = @5/16 in. = 8.5mm)", which is the median of "beespace".
He was observing nothing like “bee space” but wrong “comb space”. Bee space (i.e. bee corridor) is not in the place between combs faces. Huber assumed that between glass and comb the space must be the same as between combs faces witch is totally wrong. Experimentally he got the 8.5 mm from glass to comb but had no idea what is what.

Best regards,--Lapacz 04:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/n/Talk%7EJan_Dzier%C5%BCon_618b.html"