Talk:Jan Kiliński
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Military work group. | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Briefly; I'm using the accepted "English" version of Wilno, Vilna, Wilna, etc., which is Vilnius. Shouldn't have the Polish or Russian spellings in En-Wikipedia anytime it's mentioned. Just as the English article about Marie Curie says she was born in Warsaw, not Warszawa or Varsovie. Dr. Dan 15:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I changed that back for the reason explained a zillion times. The modern name of that town was invented after 1918, with the language reform of the Lithuanian language. Previously it had a zillion names, but the most accepted English one was Vilna - hence I used that one rather than an anachronism. We're not changing St. Petersburg to Leningrad either. //Halibutt 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A couple of points: One, your first change was not to Vilna. Two, my addition of the the city into the article (which previously wasn't even there), concerns the name of the city in the English language today. Do you agree with my analogy concerning Curie? Should we call Warschau and Krakau, the names of these Polish cities, during the German occupation in WWII? Lastly, you should honestly ask yourself, if there isn't a twinge of latent nationalism motivating your position, rather than a desire for historical accuracy. The culmination of this nonsense lets people get away with absurdities like trying to deprive Copernicus of his ethnicity. This recent Copernicus debate was actually scary. Dr. Dan 16:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Of course there is a twist of my own POV in... err... my POV, just like there is a tad of your national POV in your point of view presented above. However, I don't see how's that relevant to this discussion. As to the name itself - we have a long-established consensus to call some of the cities by their contemporary names rather than modern ones, at least in the cases where both the population and the name changed in history. Thus we have the Free City of Danzig and Battle of Stalingrad and not Free City of Gdańsk and battle of Volgograd. If Warsaw had a notable German minority at any time in its history (not to mention a majority, as was the case of Gdańsk), I wouldn't oppose calling it by its German name in historical context. My problem is that I simply do not like anachronisms, especially those introduced to push some political agenda. That's why I find it hard to suggest that someone was born in Vilnius even though the name did not exist until centuries later. Andronicus II did not live in Istanbul and Peter Stuyvesant was the a founding father of New Amsterdam rather than New York City. Get the point? //Halibutt 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, my friend, I get your point and do agree that it is not without merit. But somehow you fail to grasp my point, and it is about the English, not Russian, or Polish, or German, or the Lithuanian languages. If you or I, are making a contribution to the Polish Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia about the city of Munich, I'm going to use Monachium and Monaco respectively, not München. And I will do that in spite of it's actual German name being München. So should you, with all due respect. Take the Italian name, Monaco, as an even further example that begins to confuse the unaware and unknowledgeable high school student, who thinks that Munich has something to do with Grace Kelly. Consistency, consistency, consistency. One article that touched upon Wilno, had every language in use through out the article (not the lead mind you), and one line read Vilna, another Vilnius, another Wilna. This doesn't work. Unfortunately for your ...err POV, the current name recognized by major English Encyclopedias is Vilnius ( got lucky, maybe?), so I'm not out of line in my reasoning. I'm sure by now, you know that I'm not a Zivinbudas, in sheep's clothing, and I believe neither are you. Where you and I really disagree on the matter, is more about the ability of a Lithuanian speaking person not having geographical names for cities and towns, or rivers and lakes until centuries later. That somehow, because the Lithuanian language's written expression was stunted for a variety of reasons, it is incorrect to accept that geographical locations did not have names in the Lithuanian language. As I said earlier in the above discussion, your initial "knee jerk reaction" was to make it Wilno, not Vilna ( a smidgen of the old Polish POV), but the current accepted English name is Vilnius, which I will continue to copy edit. Fortunately, there are lots of Polish links to most of these articles where the appropriate Polish nomenclature can be applied or learned. Dr. Dan 01:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) p.s. The Pan, Pani question on my talk page is still not completely clear to me. p.p.s. I will get back to you on the matter I "lost," a couple of Sundays ago.
-
- Dan, of course I do appreciate your comment. After all it's always good to learn something new. Yet, you did not touch the main point I made above: anachronisms. I understand Lithuanians might be as touchy when it comes to their modern Vilnius as Poles are to, say, Danzig (see Talk:Gdańsk). However, this has little to do with historical usage, be it in English, Russian, Polish, Yiddish or even Lithuanian. While consistency is at most times necessary and needed, at times it might simply be misleading. This would be the case of calling a 17th century Dutch colony with a 19th century English name, calling the 17th century German town with a modern Polish name and... calling a pre-20th century Polish town with a modern Lithuanian name. You are of course right that the current accepted English name is Vilnius and the former English name of Vilna (or Vilno!) gets forgotten gradually. The same is with the names of New Amsterdam, Stalingrad, Sirmium, and zillions of other places in the world. However, their historical names are what they are and we're not going to replace them in WP with their modern counterparts just for consistency's sake since it would be simply misleading. Battle of Stalingrad is not becoming more and more the battle of Volgograd just because the name of that time changed. Same with me: I was born in a tiny suburb of Warsaw that got attached to it some time in the eighties. Yet I do not claim to be born in the borough of Praga just because of that. I was born in the suburb of Zalesie and nothing is going to change that, neither linguistic, cultural or administrative arrangements. We're calling 17th century Gdańsk with its contemporary English (and German!) name in WP even though in modern times people in UK and US barely know it. Same goes for New Amsterdam, battle of Stalingrad and so on. //Halibutt 03:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I did more than touch upon your point: anachronisms. Check out the definition of the word, and see if if doesn't apply more to my perspective, than to yours. I believe Wilno is the anachronism, not Vilnius. We're ignoring the English language argument, with double talk, aren't we? On mieskał w Nowym Amsterdamie, nie w Nowym Yorku, doesn't cut it in English, but I agree that that is the location where Peter Stuyvesant lived, New Amsterdam. Should we say that Wacław Sobieski lived and worked in Lemberg? Should we say that Kościuszko that took his sacred oath in Krakau (a very emotional place, for me, on the rynek w Krakowie, 24 Marca, my birthday), because with "Halibutt's Doctrine," historical accuracy, is being served. I don't understand your motives completely. You imply that that I have nationalistic motivations for my copy edits, and I tell you, you are mistaken. You have a very incorrect perspective regarding the Lithuanian language, to boot. Can you understand, that you are totally wrong in believing that "Vilnius" as a geographical location, is something that was created in 1918, by Lithuanian nationalists? Can you tell me or us, why your first edit, to my addition of Vilnius in English Wikipedia, to the Jan Kilinski article was to Wilno, not Vilna? Isn't that the real point? Please understand, that I like your intelligence and contributions to the Wikipedia Project, but you really have to take a deep look into what your need, to almost chauvinistically perceive Lithuania, or the Lithuanian language as something less important than you give them credit. I see in your vast travels, you appear to have skipped Lithuania on the itinerary (God forbid you've been there, but don't think it's important to mention, or worse, you thought you were in Poland), because I don't see it's little flag on your user page. I hope it's not because you were jilted by a Lithuanian lover, because Shakespeare was right about a lover scorned, and you'll keep a closed mind on the subject. Finally, in all seriousness, your point about the Battle of Stalingrad is correct, and has nothing to do with my position. Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul have nothing to do with with my position either. Vilnius is the name of the city in English today, and BTW was the name of the city in Lithuanian too, when Kilinski briefly lived there. It's name in Russian was not, it's name in German was not, and finally it's name in Polish was not, Vilnius. But if you link to these sites in Wikipedia you won't get Wilno ang: Vilnius. Halibutt, please understand that my little crusade is not to remove necessary historical connections to Wilno, where they are appropriate, and I will help you, if necessary, to implement them in the proper context. I will however, implement consistency in the English Wikipedia, and continue to copy edit as needed. The article about the city is fine as it stands, but when referring to Vilnius in the English Wikipedia, that's the ticket, please no RVs 'cause of POVs. Dr. Dan 04:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC) p.s. I was delighted to meet Jan Paweł II w Rzymie, and John Paul II in Rome.
-
- Dan, please, take a deep breath. No need to get emotional or resort to personal arguments. My arguments have little to do with me personally and I would defend them in any other case, be it in the case of Gdansk, New Amsterdam, Wrocław or whichever similar city you can think of. I've never been to Lithuania not because of any alleged emotions, but because of lack of funds. As simple as that, no need to look for some fancy conspiracies, ok?
- As to the main topic: you are mistaken. In the times of Kiliński the Lithuanian name of that city was Wilnius (with a variety of other similar spellings also used), not Vilnius. As I said, it was not until the 20th century language reform that the modern spelling was introduced - together with the V letter as such. And in fact the modern Lithuanian alphabet has been modelled after Czech rather than Polish for a purpose.
- As to why my initial edit was Wilno rather than Vilna - it's rather simple as well. I always use the contemporary name first (which happens to be Polish in this case). When someone turns out to be touchy on the matter - I simply switch to some more neutral name - in this context the contemporary English name rather than the modern one. The same would be the case of NYC. At first I would most probably add Nieuw Amsterdam, then switch to New Amsterdam if anyone had any problem with the Dutch name. No need to accuse me of nationalism here. If that is indeed how nationalists behave, then I'm probably a Polish/Russian/Dutch/German/English/<put your nationality chain here> nationalist since I follow the same rules everywhere. And it works quite nicely. Just check the history of the article on Gdańsk before and after the compromise was reached.
- Having said that, if you really, really insist we renamed battle of Stalingrad to the battle of Volgograd, then perhaps you could propose such a policy first? Or perhaps changing the name in this article from [[Vilna]] to [[Vilnius|Vilna]] would be enough? Or perhaps Wilno (modern Vilnius)? I'm not really sure what's your point here. In any way, feel free to contact me on my talk page. //Halibutt 03:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I will leave poor Jan Kilinski out of our argument for now, and move our discussion/debate to our respective talk pages, if it becomes necessary. Before we leave, however, let me respond briefly to three points. 1. I never stated that I wanted to change anything about Stalingrad, nor did I imply that I ever wanted to. 2. Halibutt's travels to Lithuania, a joke (no conspiracies, fancy or otherwise). 3. You may think you always use the contemporary name (which BTW in English, implies current name), whereas in fact, you are merely using Wilno, which is the Polish name, then and now). Logically, or in fairness, if you prefer, we should use the languages of the partitioners of the Commonwealth, when discussing cities and towns in the PLC, so Lemberg and Kovno are the ticket. Right? Dr. Dan p.s. Thanks, but I really didn't need to take a deep breath.
- Re your last point: sure, I even proposed such a solution to talk:Gdansk dispute once :) You know, all the Varshavas, Roms, Auschwitzs and so on could be nice to have in our wiki... err... only joking. //Halibutt 15:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
