Talk:Bogusław Radziwiłł

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

Contents

[edit] NPOV??

I find this article biased as it is centered on the "treason" from the Polish viewpoint. I find this view as a traitor aged, as well as such sayings as "tarnish the name" and similar, because he actually did not betray his own state i.e. Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Seriuos reworking of the last part needed. Iulius 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
His own state was Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. GDL was only a part of federation. Boguslaw was a traitor to PLC, just as Jefferson Davis was a traitor to USA, if you want a comparison.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is an alternative POV, it should be noted in the article as well. Is Bogusław a respected person in Lithuania ? --Lysytalk 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Even schoolbooks in Lithuania provide objective view of the so-called "traitors" Radziwills, not even mentioning that they were "bad guys" as Wikipedia does. In modern Lithuanian historiography they are considered some sort of "independists", but not vilains as they are depicted here, as long as I remember. Besides, the article does not in any place call Davis a traitor. I find it unreasonable, as there are no just "bad people" and "good people" in the history - they all have their own motives of actions, whatever they would be. Iulius 20:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Bogusław is the archvillain in a novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz, which is mandatory school reading in Poland, and is also the basis for a very popular film, The Deluge (film). This surely biases the view that Poles have of him (and Janusz Radziwiłł as well). A good check of both articles for bias would be very useful. That said, by every reasonable standard Bogusław was definitely a traitor to the PLC, as Piotrus said. His possible reasons for that betrayal should be discussed at length. Balcer 23:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not deny his actions, however different objective evaluations may exist. For example at the time when Lithuania's relationships with Poland were not so great to say the least, some guys as Maironis held that that action expressed the aim of creation of a Lithuanian state separate from the Crown. Most may agree that Radziwills were the greatest Lithuanian (GDL not PLC) patriots from entire szlachta at that time, besides they have always opposed the Lublin Union and it would be natural to presume that they did not consider PLC as their own state and had no feelings towards it, to say the least. One cannot betray something he is not morally or mentally attached to. Besides Radziwills were clever and experienced politicians who have not played pointless games with foes, as swedes were, but certainly had far reaching goals, and one of them probably was to get rid of Poland's supremacy. Therefore I consider this article the Polonian POV. Iulius 07:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Both Lithuanian and Polish POV should be presented and properly referenced in the article. Until then let me POV-tag it. --Lysytalk 07:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd first prefer to see some refs that suggest a different POV exists.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not directly related to Bogumił, but how about this very recent memorial of Janusz Radziwiłł in Kiejdany large market square ? Usually one does build monuments of respected people, not the villains . --Lysytalk 20:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice picture. Both articles need much expantion, and much referencing; but after our recent edits I do not believe there is any need for NPOV tag anymore.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
NPOV should and will be removed after some other POV will be presented, these edits are still not enough. Besides, another Janusz Radziwill monument was built in 1931 by Juozas Zikaras in Biržai. Iulius 06:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to present this other POV ? I think it should be rather done by a Lithuanian editor. I feel unfit for this. --Lysytalk 07:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
My take on it is that POV tag should not be insterted at all unless some sources showing the POV are presented at talk. Don't get me wrong: I think that the article was POVed and that there is still much room for improvement - but unless you (or sb else) takes an effort to prove this, I am afraid that tag cannot be used. Especially as we have now addressed the points raised here and mentioned that he is view as traitor in Polish sources; with this disclaimer I do not see how the article is POVed any more.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Another tag (not a dispute) maybe ? Or stubify it to signify that it is not complete ? --Lysytalk 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
{{unreferenced}} or {{Poland-noble-stub}} both come to mind.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Btw, from my studies of that period I'd say that if we look for a Lithuanian patriot, Albrycht Stanisław Radziwiłł would be a much better choice then either Boguslaw or Janusz.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Spins and Twists:

Radziwills were Princes of the Holy Roman Empire (Reichsfürsten) since emperor Maximilian I granted them the title and thereby positions and responsibilities. Naturally they had differing outlooks, functions and responsibilities.

EN Wikipedia (largely controlled by our dear friends, the Preposterous Polish POVers) has been and is still doing its darnest to Polonize just about everything and everyone that they come across. They hide- refute- revert- dispute- disrupt- discredit anyone and anything that does not conform to their total version of 'always has been Polish (and if it wasn't then darn-it- it should have been'.

Therefore, anyone, who is used to reading reputable books and documents and knows the facts, can only wonder in amazement about the never ending 'historical fantasy spins and twists' the PPPOVers come up with.

Labbas 8 December 2006

[edit] Gdańsk a part of Poland at the time of Bogusław's birth

Again correction: there was no such country as "Prussia" when Bogusław was born. There was only a Polish fief of Ducal Prussia, of which Gdańsk was NOT a part. There was also a region called Royal Prussia, of which Gdańsk WAS a part, but the region was a Polish province. With a degree of autonomy, yes, nevertheless a Polish province. Hope I shed some light on the issue for you. Regards. Space Cadet 00:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just remembered: the Great Elector was his uncle so he didn't necessarily have to be a native of the Duchy of Prussia, you see, to be the governor. Gets? Space Cadet 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Reichsfürst Boguslaw Radziwill, born in Danzig, died in Königsberg

Imperial Reichsfürst Prince Boguslaw Radziwill was born in Danzig (western) Prussia, a republic, a city state and he died in Königsberg eastern Prussia. He was not born in Gdansk, Gdansk came to Poland in 1945- so just remember that. 75.8 Nov 2007

[edit] Master of the Stables of the Great Duchy of Lithuania Bogusław Radziwiłł, born in Gdańsk (Danzig), died in Königsberg (Królewiec)

I write "Königsberg" with an umlaut, you can write "Gdańsk" with a kreska and "Bogusław Radziwiłł" with a bar. Prussia at the time was not a republic or even a separate country, which I already explained above. It was nothing more then a geographical region: part directly in Poland, part a Polish fief. Gdańsk was in Poland since it's foundation in 980 to 1308 invasion by the Teutonic Knights. Many Germans died for trying to bring Gdańsk back to Poland (Hecht, Letzkau etc.). It returned to Poland in 1466 and remained there till 1793. Just try to keep that in mind, will you? Space Cadet 17:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influence

How else do you call the estates of Prussia (especially in Königsberg/Królewiec) demanding return to the Polish crown? Space Cadet (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, we use German names (once in the lead) for places sharing German-Polish history even for the periods when those places belonged to Poland. So I don't see the problem. I myself removed the word "Królewiec" from an article dealing with XIX century [1], but XVII century is another story. Regards Space Cadet (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: Treaty of Wehlau, Treaty of Bydgoszcz and Treaty of Oliva were all "illegal" because they were signed without the approval of the Estates of Prussia. Political system in Ducal Prussia was still far from absolutism of the eighties (not nineties as I previously wrote, my mistake). Space Cadet (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered: have you ever heard of homagium eventuale? Hieronim Roth, Christian Kalkstein - do these names mean anything to you? Well, that's your "influence" after 1660. Look it up, please. Thanks. Space Cadet (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)