Talk:Kazimierz Siemienowicz

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.
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article is supported by the Military work group.
Kazimierz Siemienowicz is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Poland Portal
Kazimierz Siemienowicz is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Picture

IMO picture of a medieval man made in 20thentury is a misleading fantasy and POV, and has no place in encyclopedia, which is supposed to present true information. mikka (t) 17:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not perfect, but it seems to be the only picture I can find. It is an artistic interpreation, but... why medieval? The costume looks more like contemporary 17th century Swedish/Western garb to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Found a possibly better picture at [1], but is seems copyrighted and I am not 100% certain it is him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

Kazimierz Simonowicz lived in GDL and was from Lithuanian dutchy nobleman family.

And like all Lithuanian nobles was polonized. Let's not quarrer whether he was Polish or Lithuanian because there is no good answer. Either we say he was a Polish-Lithuanian noble, or we say simply he was from PLC.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. `'mikka (t) 17:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but this is getting pathetic, is Elfi von Dassanowsky a Pole?

Unfortunately not, he was Germanized and he is a German. Are the autochthons of Silesia Germans or Germanized Slavs? If someone’s ancestors are assimilated than it would be logical to think that the descendant is a member of the assimilating group. Is every person from present-day Wrocław whose surname ends on “wicz” a Belarusian? Ruthenian?? Siemenowicz was a szlachcic. He was a man of Polish language and culture. So who he was? A Lithuanian peasant? --Jurand 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If some people speak a polish – he is a polish!? NO! During commonwealth times sometimes it is trick to separate who is who; to avoid misleading notes (which is quite obvious in this case) should be written polish-commonwealth noblemen or something similar. It could help avoid addition tension because if you referring to as “pole” it looks like that you ignoring Grand Duchy of Lithuanian.M.K 07:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Polish-Lithuanian is a compromise that is both closest to the truth and should satisfy everyone. Btw, you may be interested in the argument at Talk:Polish_Constitution_of_May_3,_1791#Title as well as Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#LDKMember.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusian ethnicity should be mentioned

The Siemienowicz szlacha were of Ruthenian (Belarusian) origin and i think that should be mentioned. In the Biography i added the link that mentions him among other famous people of Belarusian origin. I remind you Belarus was also part of the commonwealth, and im part of the Lithuenian state so it's nothing unussual. I'm not a Belarusian so i dont really care about the case bit i think it's a fact theres no reason not to mention. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ruthenian yes, but did Belarusian ethnicity existed back than? I thought it and Ukrainian ones split from Ruthenian later? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You are 100% right. But today he would be considered Belarusian. Thats the same thing like... Today we call many people from Prussian history Germans, but the German ethnicity havent existed back then. And Ukrainians and Belarusians never split from the Ruthenian ethnicity. the word Ruthenian, in latin, simply means Rus. Which means, the people of Rus. You dont have a word like Ruthenian in Russian, you have Rus. The term Belarusians, White Russia, existed back then. It was a name to the region which is today Belarus, and the Ruthenians in it were called after it. Just like... Ukraine was originaly called Little Russia, due tot he fact this region was considered small reletively to the rest of Russia. Then it became Ukraine, from the word, Kray, which means edge, since it was geographicaly on the edge of the empire. In fact, while being part of Lithuenia Belarusians were refered to as Litvins. A friend of mine, an historian by the way, told me when studing about Belorusians: "Lithuenized Russians who were later Polenized with the whole Lithuenia. It was easy for them to become Poles, because both are Slavs". -wicz, -Sky, are the endings your most likely to find in Belorusian surenames, but also in the Polish ones. Thats why you see a Belarusian named Pole because of having such a surname, you wont be surprised. But a Lithuenian with such a surname?? When you see a lithuenian with such a surname it's most likely a Pole or Lithuenized Belarusian. At the link i gave Siemienowicz is refered to as Belarusian. Infact, this is completely normal. Johann Sebastian Bach is refered to as German, thought Germany havent existed back then. Thats why i used both of the terms to make it clear. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"But today he would be considered Belarusian" But he wasn't born today. And please no pseudoscientific 'Slavs are all the same' theories. Poles and Byelorussians are as similar as Americans and Germans. Or pseudoscientific "name declares nationality" theories as they have been debunked over and over again, they are Germans with Polish sounding names for example and Poles with German sounding names as well. --Molobo (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What?? You havent understood a word of what i said. I said that the term White Russia always wxisted and the people from there were White Russians. Go to the Bach article and delete the German composer entrence. Slavs are not the same, and thats not what i said. When i quoted my friend it already was not about the text, but just as a "by the way" because the Belarusians question is still not understood to many. I referenced what i entered to the text. If you got something wrong use the talk page and ask. When talking about last name it was just an example how the Belarusians culturaly assimilated. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not the article about existance of White Rus(not Russia,those are two different terms), I fail to see any connection to Bach of this person. As to pages, personal webpages are not considered reliable references, and also if you will get some extraordinary claim from scholary source outside of majority view it will be have to be presented as such in latter text not in the lead.--Molobo (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you yyourself got confused why you revert me. He was ethnicaly, ethnicaly! Belarusian, and i referenced that. Then delete the Web-Pages from the reference list, not all i entered!!! Am jaority view is not obvious. In the CIS the majority view he is Belarussian, since it was his ethnicity. In Lithienia he is considered Lithuenian, because it was the duchy of Lithuenia. In Poland, Polish, because he spoke and wrote Polish. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know CIS countries have unified scholary world views, also how did they determine his ethnicity in Belarusian regime ? I gather it were not genetic tests since the material is not available ?--Molobo (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that you unifed scholary world views. I show that every area has a different view. The belarusian regime and politics ARE NOT A FACTOR IN THIS QUESTION. Get a life and use reasonable arguments. He is from a well known Belarusian noble szlacha, Siemienowicz. There are documents saved from that era. It's a stupid edit war your are having and youll get blocked for it if you wont stop. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Dictatorships are notorious for abusing and twisting history to suit their interests and gain support of their people. Thus dictatorship-based historical sources aren't reliable sources of information.--Molobo (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The regime and what you think of is has nothing to do with it. Democracy to twists the history. Every regime does that according to what it needs, and again, that doesn't metter here. Your not liking Belarus doesn't mean that we have the right to delete facts about those people. Plus if Belarus is a dictatorrship or not is an arguable question. As someone who visited Belarus, i can tell you that the majority of Belarusians like that goverment because it didnt give the Oligarchs to turn Belarus into a crime state. While Orange Ukraine, seen as Democracy be the USA and the EU, is a complete dictatorship violating human rights. Again, the regime and what we think of it has nothing to do with it. I myself Live in Israel so i dont care about it. But it's a well known old fact that this man is Belarusian. If Lukashenko will say he likes the writer Vasil Bykaŭ will you like: "That's it! Lukashenko said he likes him, then this man is not a writer anymore!"? I'm shure not. So lets be objective. There are alot of links indicating he is Belarusian, i chose the first ones randomly. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when Raseiniai is somehow related to Belarus?--Lokyz (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not. But were not talking about WHERE he was born. We are talking about ETHNICITY. His ethnicity was Belarusian, and to that i gave links. If an etnic Lithuenian is born in Moscow can you say: "He was born im Moscow, since when is moscow Lithuenia?", you can but that won't change the fact his ethnicity is Lithuenian. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And about the sources. Some are written by scholars and academians, and one is govermental. Reliable enough. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Free hosting on Geocities and some site propagating plagiarism for students, providing free referats. Well, it does not seem reliable enough.--Lokyz (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it has more then 2 sources. I rendomly took the first once. I gave you 5 sources. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please cite some book or published materials, not patriotic sites. I'm well aware of this theory, but you failed to provide at least one reliable source. A source that calls Polish-Lihuanian Commonwealth a "Belarusian state" is more than ridiculous.--Lokyz (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said that the commonwealth was Belarusian, dont twist my word. I used normal sites. Some of them by scholars and one govermental. There was a book i dont remember it's name about Belarusian nobility, you could read about that family in those guide books about nobility. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious references

Term Belarus is not used until 18th century, so you're doing huge WP:OR here. Now about your "references.
1st one is rather odd - some essay with no citations, personal page obviously. Rubbish.
2nd one site propagating plagiarism for students {free referats for copy paste - I find it disgusting, sites like this should be banned from wikipedia), no sources, notable that no author is given. Rubbish
3rd well, president's office is not a research organization, by the way no author.
4th - some popular read, seen many of those. Seriously doubt, that any of the authors has at least degree in history. no references or sources given. Was amused b statement, that artillery general is considered a "мысліцель-гуманіст". Trully funny:)
5th - replica of 6th.
6th is rather patriotic read, that has nothing to do with research.
7th no author, another шпаргалка.
Conclusion - not a single source is reliable per WP:RS, since only one of them has clearly stated author (and he does not seem to be academic), and they do not cite any sources. Another one thing - these sites could be considered as somewhat heplfull, but now they are not supported by any English source - read WP:ENGLISH. Find some respected sources or stop POV pushing. --Lokyz (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The term was always used. "You" might band the second site, but what you want to do is nothing. The 3d is an offical govermental web site giving a well known fact. 4th, an exelent article which gies references, so stop pushing YOUR pov by spreating lies about references. 5-6 Tell about great Belarusian people, whats our problem with them?? 7. The references are given so be quite.
Conclusion, 5 out of 7 references are just fine. You are probably just a Lithuenia feeling mad that the only great man from Lithuenia with contribution and fame is not Lithuenian. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
References to ther people's antionality are considered a Personal Attack, as is disrupting name o Lithuania. And btw, using sockpuppets is also disencouraged - despite if you're logged in or not, the 3RR rule still has power.--Lokyz (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you format your references according to WP:CITE? Author, articl name, publisher, ISSN/ISBN, page, date of access? Are any authors academics? Are there any non-Belarusian sources which repeat those claims? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
1. There are no references in English simply because out of the CIS most belive Belarusians are a sub-group of Russians so they dont think of them as a nation. Whats a formating? I'm a new editor so i dont know how to do it. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few links you might want to see: [2], [3], [4], [5] (quote: process was the influence of the Ruthenian population of the Grand. Duchy of Lithuania. ...... science only in their Polish forms (e.g. Siemienowicz); ...). No Free Nickname Left (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Now, about the Siemienowicz family. When reciving nobility, his fathers were originaly from Vitebsk. This is all told here [6], [7]. It is also written in the Belarusian version of the article about the man. I only started studying Belarusian (together with Ukrainian and Polish), and i know it really bad, but i can understand the meaning, plus my teacher translated it to me. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. My fault. I should have given you this links and explanation in the first place. I was shure it's such a known fact that no explenation will be needed. Sorry here. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If Belarusian ethnicity is claimed by Belarusian writers, but not recognized by others, this should be noted per WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE, and should not be presented as a mainstream opinion. If this is controversial, I'd recommend WP:RFC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave you alot of links, it's a to known fact to be clamed by Belrusian writers, and it's nothing controversial. It's not an opinion it's a fact. Just like he was born in the Grand duchy of Lithuenia which was part of the Polish-Lithuenian Commonwealth. Whenever i have a doubt at something, or i belive that i'm not familiar enough with the subject, i shut up. But here i dont see what the problem is. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I can agree with other editors: there was no such thing as separate Belarusian ethnicity as we understand it today back in the 17th century.Iulius (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There was. White Russia (transl: Belarusian) is a historical name, it wasn't invented yesterday. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
They had different names in different languages. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuenia they were called Litvins, the Poles didnt see a difference between them and Ukrainians and called them both Ruthenians. Read the Belarusians article: "In 13th-18th centuries Belarusians were mostly known under the name of Rusins (Ruthenians) or Litvins (Lithuanians), which refers to the state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Litva, Vialikaja Litva) of which the White Ruthenian lands were part of since the 13th-14th centuries and where Ruthenian language was widely used". No Free Nickname Left (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. In Belarussian there ain't such a word Litvin or Ruthenian. In Belarusian they already then refered to themselves as Belarusian and their language as Belorusian. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont get the problem. You were given alot of links that all show that: 1. His fathers were from Vitebsk. 2. Their family is of the Belarusian nobility.

So what is the problem?? All your questions were answered. All the links were given. My point was proved.

I dont get it. Lokyz and Lulius. are you mad that a great Lithuenian turned out to be Ruthenian? Because if yes then: 1. It aint a factor for entering or removing information. 2. It was the grand duchy of Lithuenia so he is also Lithuenian.

Piotrus. There aint such thing a "concensus" or a "majority deciding" when the information is proved. By this logic a few Germans who are shamed that Hittler was a German can go and decide he was Polish, and when you will say: "What?? No he was not. He was a German and he hated Poles" they could tell you: "Sorry. Your in a minority, a concensus was reached". This doesnt work out this way.

I proved every pointed i said, so stop reverting. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That his family was from Vitebsk and of Ruthenian origin is likely and I have no problem with adding this to the article, if properly referenced. But which out of your several references state that? You have still not answered my questions about academic reliability of those; "geocities" in the first link is not a good sign. And being of Ruthenian origin does not make one Belorussian; this term is also used for Ukrainians and - if I am not mistaken - Russians themselves. What do you mean by Belorussian nobility? There was Polish szlachta. There was Lithuanian nobility. There was Russian nobility. But Belorussian? Perhaps you should start by creating a referenced article on this concept first. Finally, please mind WP:3RR. Consensus by majority is not always perfect, but often enough to be a rule on this project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, i didnt write he was Belorusian but of Belarusian ethnicity. All of those i added to the article state that. Near every phrase i entered references, and they are the once. Please read wwhat i wrote to you yesterday here i explained their. The geocite link can be deleted, it was added just to show that in Belarus its a to known fact. You are not mistaken about the use of the Ruthenian word, but i also said that in the Belorusian language they refered to themselves Belorusian already back then. There aint such a word Ruthenian in Belorusian, its a latin word. Please see my explenation to Lulius. "Concensus" isa not a rule and i already have seen administrators reverting a decicion of a majority because they were wrong. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate on reliabilty of each of your refs; so far I see no claim any was written by academics, and they have been questioned above by Lokyz. Please check WP:RS if you are not sure what is meant by 'reliable' in this context. If we have scholarly refs for the facts you want to include, let's stick to those; using websites like geocities may weaken, not strenghten, your argument. If we disagree on what is reliable, there is also WP:RSN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Mmm could you wait 10 minutes before i do that? I have to go to the near store to buy something. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, so lets start:
[8]. It's from a book released in 1999 that has in the end alot of references. Unfortunately, they havent uploaded the reference list to the web site. Those two are academics in the Minsk University. Both in history. (Tkachau is also a prophesor in archeology, [9]). Those two wrote many books about Belorusian history. P.S. In the history faculty in the tel Aviv University where i study we learn the history of Jews in Belorusia by a book those two wrote: Jews in Belorusia.
The same two wrote another book. Here it is, it's on Siemienowicz. As it says: Асноўнай крыніцай аднаўлення ягонага жыццяпісу служыць кніга «Вялікае мастацтва артылерыі», дзе рэдкія звесткі і ўспаміны рассыпаны дробнымі залацінкамі. Акрамя таго, біёграфы адшукалі ў архівах жменьку фактаў пра некаторыя старонкі яго жыцця. Which means the two main sources for this book were: Artis Magna Artilleriae Pars Prima. Studio et opera Casimiri Siemienowicz. Amsterdami, apud Joannem Janssonium, Anno MDCL., and archives. At the bottom you will see alot of references, books about rockets and stuff. Now heres a quote([10]): Мяркуючы па дакументах, К.Семяновіч паходзіць з роду дробных князёў Семяновічаў, якія валодалі ў ХІV-ХVІ стагоддзях землямі на Беларускім Падняпроўі. Паводле дароўнай граматы князя Дзмітра Семяновіча за 31 траўня 1393 года, ім належаў тут «двор Быхово», а таксама «земля пустая Дубровенская»[6]. Такім чынам, абшар іх уладанняў абыймаў частку Магілеўска-Віцебскага Падняпроўя. It says that he was born in the noble house of Siemienowicz having lands in Vietiebsk. It's from his birth documents, for the record. Another document is the thank-you letter given to his grat-great... father, Dmitry Siemianowicz from 1393 in which as a thank you for his service he recives more land in the area he lived in. NOW, an interesting thing: He called himself not a Lithuanian (Літоўск)-noble, but a Litvin (ліцьвін)-noble. Litvin is an old name for a Belarusian. The quote: К.Семяновіча так няпэўна напісаць пра сябе, што ён шляхціч-ліцьвін з тэрыторыі Вялікага Княства Літоўскага. Heres another interesting quote: Дакументы, якія захаваліся з ХVІІ стагоддзя, асабліва напісаныя рукою самога К.Семяновіча, даюць правапіс прозвішча ў гучанні таго часу як «Siemienowicz» (Семеновіч). У дакументах жа кароннай артылерыі яно часам перайначваецца на польскі манер - «Siemionowic» (Семёновіц). Варыянт «Siemjonowicz» (Сем'ёновіч) не сустракаецца. Натуральна, што сапраўдны правапіс свайго прозвішча ведаў найперш сам вучоны. Гэта адназначна, і таму ў гісторыі сусветнай навукі назаўсёды застанецца прозвішча, якое ён сам ужываў.
Спробы ж летувіскіх даследнікаў прарабіць з прозвішчам лінгвістычна-жанглёрскі эксперымент, вывеўшы з «Семяновіча» форму «Семенавічус - Сіманавічус», трэба лічыць не больш чым нацяжкай. Непераканаўчай падаецца і спроба атаясаміць з ім якогасьці «Казіміра Сымановіча», які ў актавай кнізе Віленскага ўніверсітэта, датаванай 1650 годам, праходзіць як магістр філасофіі і свабодных навук. Гэтаму пярэчыць уся біяграфія нашага героя. Яна ні словам не звязаная з навучаннем філасофіі, магістрам якой нібыта ён быў. Няма доказаў і таго, што ён нарадзіўся ў Расейнскім павеце на Жамойці[7]. It says that later, after his life, they attempted to write his surname as Siemienowiczus (Семенавічус), to make him look Lithuenian, but documents he signed while being alive cleraly show it was Siemienowicz. Those facts are also clamed by this Polish book.
[11] agovormental sait mentioning his Belorusian.
[12] also mentions that the Siemienowicz family were from Vitebsk. It's from a web site which has biographies of famous Belorusians.
This is about the area of Belarus in those centuries.
This is the cite of Vitebsk, and this is a page of famous people connected to the place, and again, they repeat Siemianowicz's were from Vitebsk. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
And now my friend, check an interesting detail i kept to the end on purpouse. Some of those references state he was BORN in Vietebsk, and only later moved to Samogitia. I think that the Lithuanian encyclopidia (for a reason released in Boston, which shows it's not academical) made a mistake. Tadeusz Nowak "Kazimierz Siemienowicz, ca.1600-ca.1651", MON Press, states it. First page. It's also stated in most of the sites i have given. He only LATER moved to Samogitia. After all that it will be nice to see a copy of exacly what was written in the Lithuenian encyclopidia. Because it might have been written: An engeneer from Samogitia, and its true about him, but that doesnt nacceserily mean he was born their. By the way, an older version of this Wikipedia article stated that: [13]. As you can see itwas chenged kater according to two Lithuenian encyclopedeas without Academical support, and it stands in contrast with Belorusian and Polish sources. I repeat, Tadeusz Nowak "Kazimierz Siemienowicz, ca.1600-ca.1651", MON Press, states that he was born in Vitebsk. Sorry i tell you it only now but only today i got this book. We have it at the Tel-Aviv University, and i read it their today. I went their esspecialy for that this morning. Now less importent sources but showing the claim: [14], [15]. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the first book (from 1999), you forgot to cite what it states. Regarding the second, we need to create a proper Litvin article; the ref seems to be a reliable source (written by an academic) to claim he was of Litvin-Ruthenian ethnicity. Btw, thanks for quotations, but I (and many others here) don't know Belorussian, so if you can, try to translate key points (like you did with Lithuanian vs Litvin). I have Nowak's book, but I couldn not find the fact about Lithuanization of his name into Siemienowiczus in it - could you give me a page to it? Unfortunately, neither could I find the fact about him being from Vitebsk. In the biographical note at the end Nowak writes: "Siemienowicz urodził się około 1600 roku w rodzinie szlacheckiej herbu Ostoja, osiadłej w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim" which translates to "S. was born c. 1600 in szlachta family of Ostoja coat of arms settled in GDL". The web references you link are of dubious reliability (being anonymous web references) and for two out of four you don't mention what is their claim.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious, no need to repeart these allegations. What we do, ask you to provide authors of those writings, and some proof of their academic credibility.

CommentI know the source of this myth about Belarus origins - it based on similarity of the name of Semenovic (some relatively unknown dukes from Vitebsk vicinage, mentioned in 14th century). Albeit, there are no referenced relations of this family with with Samogitian szlachta family Siemenawicz from 17th century, that resided near Raseiniai, and where Casimir was born. I'll explain to you - that person mentioned in 1393 (or 1392) by any means cannot be father to a person born in 1600. And there is no sources, no family line provided that connacts those two people. Wishfull thinking at the best.

As for reliability of other so called "references" I can only say, that I tend not to trust sources, that say Vytautas, Radziwills, Chodkewicz, Kosciuszko, Adam Mickewicz, Emilia Plater and even Pilsudski were Belarusians. Partly most of them did not even knew the term Belarus, secondly because theyr origin is well known - like for example Plater, who was born in German family.Please familiarise yourself with international opinion on these matters, not only Belarus patriotic non academic writers. Ah, and BTW - Lithuania is written wit a, not e. Please try to be more careful and mind your grammar and orthography.--Lokyz (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave more sources their, including a book by Tadeusz Nowak. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Some sites replicating Wikipedia texts is not a reference. Lithuanian encyclopedias are written by people with academic background, and published by specialised academic insitution.
And sorry, your English is getting not quite understandable, could you please use dictionary to check on ortography?.--Lokyz (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Is Nowak copying from Wikipedia? Are those two academians from Belarus copying from Wikipedia? The wikipedia text was given as a prove then even it Wikipedia it used to be Vitebsk.
I would expect a Lithuenian Encyclopedia to be released in Lithuenia by Lithuenia Academians. This one you gave was released in Boston, not by a University and not known by what academians. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, dont get me wrong. I dont say its bad. Thats why i said that their are TWO versions in the text. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, the Nowak book. P.7: "Kazimierz Siemienowicz was born in Vitebsk, to the nobility of Siemienowicz". No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way! You yet gave me the page in quote from the Lithuenian encyclopedia. Till now onmly i was asked, and was answered. Why do you think you are free from it? I want pages and quotes. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Editig other users text on talk page is also disencouraged, that's why I did not touch your mistakes. And, please read the article to find out what Engrish is.
As for Nowak, I did like to see page of the text and exact citation from the book, this would save my time in Library, because I'm quite busy. I'm asking yo to provide citation, because the book is also used as a reference in Lithuanian Encyclopedia. So it seems that you and editors of LE were reading not the same book because two different views cannot be supported by the same book. since I do find Encyclopedia more reliable than your word, please cite. And bby the way, there are two different Encyclopedias provided.
Encyclopedias are not published by Universities, they are published by Publishing houses. EL was released by remarkable internationally renowned Lithuanian scholars including Mykolas Biržiška, Pranas Čepėnas, Zenonas Ivinskis and many others.
Once again - check dictionary of Lithuania (Lithuanians), there, and others. Best wishes.--Lokyz (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Who did told you, that I'm free form anythin? I do follow WikiPedia policies. Here goes citation: "Simonavičius, (Semenavičius) Kazimieras [apie 1600 Reseinių aps. - po 1651) liet. inžinierius, artilerininkas. Studijavo Vilniaus Universitete..." and so on. Want me to translate it?

It would take me about an hour to get citation form Encyclopedia Lituanica. anyway, the fact that he was refering to himself "Lithuanian noble" has quite a lot references - Latin, Lithuanian and other languages. If you're interested I might provde them. By the way, they are written LithuAnian. --Lokyz (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A. I already gave 2 messeges ago the quote for Nowak: "Kazimierz Siemienowicz was born in Vitebsk, to the nobility of Siemienowicz". Please go thru all the conversation here because as i can see you dont read all i right and that makes it hard. B. It's not an offical encyclopedia so it's not reliable enough. Some encyclopedias call him Polish withot taking notice he was born in Lithuania. Encyclopedias to sometimes make mistakes and contrast each other. For exemple: The hebrew university states that Dysney was an anyusemite. But a while ago a Tel Aviv University lector published an article that proves it aint true. The whole rumour started by a story that he made Warner lose his job because he was a Jew, but according to Warner, the opposite is true. Dysney told Warner that he is talented and he should have his own company, and even helped him to found it. Why do i give you this example? Because i could reference Dysney as an antysenite and give a reference to the Hebrew Encyclopidia. C. If you'll notice i presented both of the views in the text. You wouldn't do that. You sinply have a blind revert war. I could delete the version he was born not in Vitebsk, but i havent, out of respect to you. Please act the same. D. Well, the English version since the begining was based on the book of Nowak, and as i referenced to a history page, the Wikipedian article also once wrote he was born in Vitebsk. Again, i presented both of the versions. E. Lithuanian Noble, because he was born in Lithuenia. Nationality and Ethnicity are to different things. For example... I'm an Israeli, and a Jew. I refer myself as an Israeli, but that doesnt change the fact i'm a Jew. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The spelling mistakes are not on purpouse to make you mad. It's just that it's not my mother tounge so when writing fast and thinking of the content i kind off forget to check my writing. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A: Nowak was writing in Polish, so I'd like to see that citation in Polish, because i do have a reason to doubt your translation abilities, nothing personally, just want to make sure. Your provided sence does not make any sense. And I would like to see page number of the citation.
B. Official Encyclopedias are only in dictatorships and states with authoritarian regime. In the free world encyclopedias are published by the publishing houses (ant there are two encyclopedias). Your argument in this context is rather absurd:) and Dysney is by no means related to Encyclopedia Lituanica. Please stay on topic.
C. You did start the revert war, all I did was revert to the stable state, until differences could be solved. I found it suspiciuos, that two different views are based on the same book, so I chose more reliable one (see above).
D. Gosh, was it referenced by any means? Do you relly think it was based on Nowak's work? Do you have any proof? Was tere inline references? Or maybe someone found a book and presented it as a general reference?
E. Please read Lithuanian nobility article before teaching me lessons.
P.S. What makes you think I'm mad? It's only you who does insult others and call names. I'm presenting you arguments, and you turn call me mad. What does insult me, is when you repeatedly write my country name with error.--Lokyz (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A. I wasnt the one translating but a man who teaches Polish who i asked for help. Since i dont have the book i cant give you it. It belongs to the university library, and as i said, i had to go their this morning esspecialy for that. If you could get the book to and see all you need it will be nice. B. Dysney was an example so dont act as ifyou didnt understand what i mean to say. I gave it as an example that encyclopedias often contrast. Besides, I KEEPT THE VERSION HE WAS BORN IN SAMOGITIA. I could have a useless revert war but i decided to show both of the versions, because it's the best option. C. The stable state? i dont think it was stable i think it was wrong. Again, you cant decide what version is more stable. A Pole who teches Polish translated me what i said to you. D. In the begining the book and the article didnt contrast, and now they do. E. I dont mind he belonged to the Nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuenia, it's obvious. But how does that affect on his ethnicity? But you are right here that Ruthenian Nobility is the wrong phrase so i changed that, as you can see. P.S. See?? You dont read what i write. I didnt say you are mad like, psycho. I met being mad like, annoyed. You a few time told me about my speling, so what i meant is that i dont do those mostakes on purpouse to annoy you. Thats what i meant. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice you simply taged all my references without checking them? That really was rude. Again, you cant just tag a reference. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A. Translated into which language? That sentence you provided above is rather "no language", and paga number is still missing. Ah, and how did you show the book to the Polish langauge teacher? Did you took it from library (then it would not be difficult to take t once again, and provide waht I do ask you), or did you bring him into library? And also it would be interesting to know - do you speak or read Polish?

Sure thing I'll go to the library, once you'll prove you have been there and provide me exact citation (in Polish) and exact page names of the citation, it is valid request per WP:V. Furthermore, you did ask me to provide citation and i did.

B. Dysney has nothing to do with it, and the Samogitia version is at lest decently referenced, contrary to some patriotic (referats) papers for students to copy paste.It's you who began the edit war and your version will not stay unless you could provide what you were requested. That what you present as references simply does not hold water.
C. What you think is rather not important. Unless you can provide references valid per WP:RS, nd it is the one Piotrus found as a stable - so it's not you who decide it.
D. I do say it does differ from printed and by scholars written encyclopedia, that is much more reliable than any source you've provided so far.
E. I barely can understand your Engrish. :::I've told you countless times, how Lithuania is spelled, and you do it over and over, even telling that you do not do it on purpouse. Not that it does matter now very much, but i'm about to begin to believe you do it on purpouse.
Removal of tags without resolving questions rised is considered disruption. Please restore them until discussion will be finished or you'll provide AUTHORS of those text, and provide CITATIONS asked. until then, thers is nothing to discuss further. Your references do not hold water. I've read every single word in them, my knowledge of Belarus language is not the best, but I did understand every thing. And I've referenced them per reason given above 1.Unknown authors, 2.referat pages should be banned (no authors again), 3. No references in them, 4. Dubious hosting, 5. No citation or even page number provided for Polish book (do you read Polish?) Ditto.--Lokyz (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A. He translated from Polish to Hebrew, and i here from Hebrew to English. I wasnt lazy to go so you to dont be lazy. Since i yet dont know Polish, i brought him to the library. Sorry, but no. I have been their and gave the quote. The only way to check it is if you go and see it for yourself. Why not? Afraid to see you are wrong? You were given all the information and quotes, now it's up to you to check.
B. The book written by two professors is not just a patriotic referat, but a serious one. And a Lithuenian encyclopedia releasen in Boston instead of Lithuenia is not serious. And could they reference it?? I doubt. The referet i gave referenced it.
C. You havent managed to show my references are wrong, so mine is the stable.
D. I dont think so. In an encyclopedia they need to write on many topics so they dont have a serious research on each person.
E. The last times i wrote Lithuania, the correct way. If you would read what i write you would see.
I'm not going to restor tags. I to could tag the whole text. You nead a reasnoble explanation to tag. You cant tag a serious work with references.I ALREADY PROVEDED QUOTED IN BELORUSIAN AND TRANSLATED THEM. Nothing will happen to your finger if you will go up on the screen here in the talk page. AS i proved, for the 100th time. The authors are known. The quotes also were given, it's just that your lazy to go thru the talk page and see them. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A. Ok, no citation - no reference. I'm not lazy, I do just follow rules. Would you please remove the reference yourself, or someone should do it for you? Calling someone lazy is violation of WP:NPA.
B. Please evaluate which book is it, which Universities the Professors are teaching, what have they graduated, and how Plater managed to become Belarusian?
C. Read all the talk above - all the arguments are present.
D. well, sorry to ask you, how old are you?
E. let me cite you: "I dont mind he belonged to the Nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuenia, it's obvious. But how does that affect on his ethnicity? But you are right here that Ruthenian Nobility is the wrong phrase so i changed that, as you can see. P.S. See?? You dont read what i write. I didnt say you are mad like, psycho. I met being mad like, annoyed. You a few time told me about my speling, so what i meant is that i dont do those mostakes on purpouse to annoy you. Thats what i meant."
Another citation: "The authors are known" - sadly only to you, I do not know them, there are no mentions of authors on the pages - no mtter how much I'll move my finger, they do not show up. Calling me lazy is Personal attack. So it seems it's your time to move your finger, and format those references per WP:CITE. Best luck.--Lokyz (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
A. The references were given, and so are the quotes. Here, in this section, go up. Once you notie Belarusian text? Those are the quotes and those are the translations. I gave you all the references, if you dont belive about Nowak go and check yourself.
B. You dont read what i write, and thats your problem. 3 teimnes i wrote University of minsk. Both with education in history and one also in archeology. IF YOU DONT SEE WHAT I WRITE, I'LL WRITE THIS WAY. GO UP AND SEE. I ALREADY TOLD ALL THAT, INCLUDING BELORUSIAN QUOTES TRANSLATED.
C. Same thing.
D. 22.
E. I alrady gave the information about those writers. Go up, and see it all. It all was explained and told. Lazy is an insulte only when refered to a man who is not lazy, while you are. How much times i told you go up here on the talk page? All you asked for a few times was already told and cited by me it's not hard to go up on the tolk page. Use the mouse, use the keyboard arrows, something. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, go thru the whole conversation and read all iv'e been asked and what iv'e answered. Most of what you ask was already asked before, and showing you havent read the conversation really shows disrespect and makes the discussion harder. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard talk

To make it easier for you, edit given fields: I'll make it a template, please replace request between - with a requested information. Thank you.

1. Here goes author (person) here goes his scientific credibility - for example university" here goes publisher here goes publishing year here goes publishing house

2. Here goes author (person) here goes his scientific credibility - for example university" here goes publisher here goes publishing year here goes publishing house

3. Here goes author (person) here goes his scientific credibility - for example university" here goes publisher here goes publishing year here goes publishing house

4. Here goes author (person) here goes his scientific credibility - for example university" here goes publisher here goes publishing year here goes publishing house

5. Here goes author (person) here goes his scientific credibility - for example university" here goes publisher here goes publishing year here goes publishing house

6. Here goes author (person) here goes his scientific credibility - for example university" here goes publisher here goes publishing year here goes publishing house

7. Here goes author (person) here goes his scientific credibility - for example university" here goes publisher here goes publishing year here goes publishing house

And a citation request - please not from Polish-Hebrew-English, give plain Polish over here, since you've not convinced me that you've read the book:

Thank you for your understanding. Good luck.--Lokyz (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd second that with the added request that we need a field here goes their claim - original text, translation into English. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wait guys, i didnt get it. What am i suppose to do? I already gave the links and the quotes. No what? I get the feeling i simply dont understand what you request. Could you show me an example here on the talk page with one link? Because i got a little confused. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And P.S. I havent said i read the whole book, only the intruduction and the first chapter, and with the help of a Polish techer in the university, and i copied the translation of the quote i needed. If you want to see it in Polish, take the book in a library. The quotes are needed in English. Why? Most of the Wikipedish in the English Wikipedia dont know Polish. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Example:

"Link" Author-Someone important, Ph. d., gives lectures in Prague University, Publishing year-2001, Publisher-Prague University.

I requested it because I could not find any authors in your references, and those i did found seem to be virtually unknown, and thus fails WP:V.--Lokyz (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A. Where did Piotrus said he read the book?? B. [16], enter the names of the writers in Google, and youll see alot of information on them. The quotes and the translation where given by me to Petrus up this page, again, go up. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Since it's hard for you to go up, i copy-pasted it:
Right, so lets start:
[17]. It's from a book released in 1999 that has in the end alot of references. Unfortunately, they havent uploaded the reference list to the web site. Those two are academics in the Minsk University. Both in history. (Tkachau is also a prophesor in archeology, [18]). Those two wrote many books about Belorusian history. P.S. In the history faculty in the tel Aviv University where i study we learn the history of Jews in Belorusia by a book those two wrote: Jews in Belorusia.
The same two wrote another book. Here it is, it's on Siemienowicz. As it says: Асноўнай крыніцай аднаўлення ягонага жыццяпісу служыць кніга «Вялікае мастацтва артылерыі», дзе рэдкія звесткі і ўспаміны рассыпаны дробнымі залацінкамі. Акрамя таго, біёграфы адшукалі ў архівах жменьку фактаў пра некаторыя старонкі яго жыцця. Which means the two main sources for this book were: Artis Magna Artilleriae Pars Prima. Studio et opera Casimiri Siemienowicz. Amsterdami, apud Joannem Janssonium, Anno MDCL., and archives. At the bottom you will see alot of references, books about rockets and stuff. Now heres a quote([19]): Мяркуючы па дакументах, К.Семяновіч паходзіць з роду дробных князёў Семяновічаў, якія валодалі ў ХІV-ХVІ стагоддзях землямі на Беларускім Падняпроўі. Паводле дароўнай граматы князя Дзмітра Семяновіча за 31 траўня 1393 года, ім належаў тут «двор Быхово», а таксама «земля пустая Дубровенская»[6]. Такім чынам, абшар іх уладанняў абыймаў частку Магілеўска-Віцебскага Падняпроўя. It says that he was born in the noble house of Siemienowicz having lands in Vietiebsk. It's from his birth documents, for the record. Another document is the thank-you letter given to his grat-great... father, Dmitry Siemianowicz from 1393 in which as a thank you for his service he recives more land in the area he lived in. NOW, an interesting thing: He called himself not a Lithuanian (Літоўск)-noble, but a Litvin (ліцьвін)-noble. Litvin is an old name for a Belarusian. The quote: К.Семяновіча так няпэўна напісаць пра сябе, што ён шляхціч-ліцьвін з тэрыторыі Вялікага Княства Літоўскага. Heres another interesting quote: Дакументы, якія захаваліся з ХVІІ стагоддзя, асабліва напісаныя рукою самога К.Семяновіча, даюць правапіс прозвішча ў гучанні таго часу як «Siemienowicz» (Семеновіч). У дакументах жа кароннай артылерыі яно часам перайначваецца на польскі манер - «Siemionowic» (Семёновіц). Варыянт «Siemjonowicz» (Сем'ёновіч) не сустракаецца. Натуральна, што сапраўдны правапіс свайго прозвішча ведаў найперш сам вучоны. Гэта адназначна, і таму ў гісторыі сусветнай навукі назаўсёды застанецца прозвішча, якое ён сам ужываў.
Спробы ж летувіскіх даследнікаў прарабіць з прозвішчам лінгвістычна-жанглёрскі эксперымент, вывеўшы з «Семяновіча» форму «Семенавічус - Сіманавічус», трэба лічыць не больш чым нацяжкай. Непераканаўчай падаецца і спроба атаясаміць з ім якогасьці «Казіміра Сымановіча», які ў актавай кнізе Віленскага ўніверсітэта, датаванай 1650 годам, праходзіць як магістр філасофіі і свабодных навук. Гэтаму пярэчыць уся біяграфія нашага героя. Яна ні словам не звязаная з навучаннем філасофіі, магістрам якой нібыта ён быў. Няма доказаў і таго, што ён нарадзіўся ў Расейнскім павеце на Жамойці[7]. It says that later, after his life, they attempted to write his surname as Siemienowiczus (Семенавічус), to make him look Lithuenian, but documents he signed while being alive cleraly show it was Siemienowicz. Those facts are also clamed by this Polish book. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me repeat: I cannot find anything in Nowak's book to verify this. Please cite page and preferably quote Polish text.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, this time i don't intend to go into specifics of writing of names in different langusges, but well, what we do have - Lithuianians present document (sic!). Do the Belarusian authors present any documents int teir book to verify their claims of birth in Vitebsk, except similarity of family names of two person (one in 14 th century, another in 17th)? is there any reference to the claimed birth document with all scientific apparatus: e.g. archive or museum wehere is it kept? And by the way, Belorusian source does not say "birth documents" it say "some documents" - "Мяркуючы па дакументах". I would like to see reference to those documents.
Various books on rocketry do not interest me now, we are talking about a person here.
As for lithuanian noble he did not call himself Літоўск as you're presuming, he rather used latin formula "Eguitis Lithuani"
as in "Artis Magnae Artilleriae Pars prima, studio et opera Casimiri Siemienowicz, Eguitis Lithuani, olim artileriae Regni Poloniae".
Another sidenote - he did also use another spelling - Casimiry Symonowicz.
And now back to the references - I'm still waiting for you to present authors of your other references, and any some written credibility of above mentioned authors.
As for Litvin is an old name of Belarusian - it is rather a bad joke than a fact, weel, not the least because they were using latin formulas Lithuanian rather than Litvin. I'll not go further into the difference between Orthodox and Catholic nobility, that clearly divides Ruthenians and Lithuanians in the early stage of the Grand Duchy, the formula gente Ruthenus, natione Lithuanus and many other things.--Lokyz (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
dont go into things you dont understand nothing about. Litvin is Belarusian. As i said, a lready gave books and quotes. In the botom od the book of the 2 writers they gave a lonk of references. As for Nowak, the first chapter. I'm tired of repeating myself and obviously you try to spin the talk in a circle because you lost. GO, READ THE BOOK, then talk. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And Piotrusm you add links which call him a Polish engeniir. Those links are a joke. It was a Polish-LITHUENIAN commonwealth, and not just Polish. And he himself was born in the Grand Duchy of Lithuenia. So links which declare he was "A polish..." are nothing but a joke. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Polish in this context is but a shorter version of Polish-Lithuanian, just as PLC is referred to as Poland. Not the most accurate, true, but sometimes shorter is better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the academical series' book

I came here just now and I have to say that the article includes, without explicit marking, some pieces of information (birthplace, nationality and spelling of the name, as self-given), which are disputed in modern scientific schools. Also, the shortcut "Polish" is dubious choice, the "Commonwealth" would be more proper.

That said, here is some info from the Belarusian book "Great art of artillery" by Byel'ski and prof. Tkachow (Бельскі, Ткачоў, "Вялікае мастацтва артылерыі") published in Minsk, 1992 as a part of the Belarusian academical series "Our famous countrymen" ("Нашы славутыя землякі") in my translation:

p.8: ...There are very few data remaining on K.S. ...the principal source [for these] is his book... where scarce data and memories are scattered... also, biographers managed to discover some data concerning some episodes of his life in archives...

Judging by documents, K.S. hails from the family of lesser princes Syemyanovich who owned lands in the Belarusian Dnieper-land in the 14—17 centuries. Per the ... (дароўная грамата)... of the May 31, 1393, they owned then a possession Bykhovo (ruth. двор Быхово), and also "idle land Dubrovna" (ruth. земля пустая Дубровенская). Therefore, their possessions embraced the part of Mahilyow-Vitsyebsk Dnieper-land.

It seems that later the family switched to Catholicism, and was among the lesser nobility of the Grand Duchy. K.S. referred to himself exactly so — "noble-litvin" (шляхціч-літвін). We can only deduce he was born ca. 1600.

p.10: [the lexics and context of references made by K.S. himself to the objects of the vernacular life — barrel, bucket, weight and volume measures, esp. byerkavyets] give away his place of birth — Vitsyebsk land, apparently Dubrowna land...

p.16: ...the documents of the XVII cent., esp. those written by K.S. himself, give the spelling of his name as "Siemienowicz". In the documents of the Polish Crown artillery his name was written in the Polonised manner: "Siemionowic". There's no occurences of the spelling "Siemjonowicz".

...And the attempts of the Lithuanian researches to make a linguistical juggling with is name, by deducing a "Siemienavicius — Simanavicius" [these written in Cyrillic in the original] form, are to be regarded as no more than fact-stretching. Also, unconvincing seems the attempt to identify with K.S. some "Kazimir Symanovich" [written in Cyrillic in the original] who was recorded in the Acts of Vilnius university (dated 1650) as magister of philosophy and liberal arts. The whole biography of K.S. contradicts this. His activities were never involved with the philosophy, of which he was supposedly a magister. Also, there is no evidence that he was born in "Raseynski pavyet" (Расейнскі павет) in Samogitia, which is asserted, e.g. in the encyclopedia "Lithuania" (Літва), Vilnius, 1999, p.542.

The frontispiece of the book bears the heraldic shield with the Astoja and monogram "C.S.". However, no known branch of this family beared the surname Siemienowicz. Most possibly, K.S. was adopted to the device, with the permit of the owners, to increase his weight in the society [which was important to him, because he wanted better popularity of his book]...

p.17: ...It seems, it was the absence of the coat of arms of his own, which forced K.S. to write of himself so vaguely: "noble-litvin from the GDL".

I think this ought to be included, after the review, into the article, in balance with the other claims. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as soon as proper citations (WP:CITE) are provided. Does this book have ISBN number? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well,the only one name attributed to him is - : "Artis Magnae Artilleriae Pars prima, studio et opera Casimiri Siemienowicz, Eguitis Lithuani, olim artileriae Regni Poloniae".

The document provided from the Academia Vilnenisis is the the only known attributing to Casimir, or do you know at least one document that connects Casimir with 14th century guy from Ruthenia? I'm still avaiting citation.

And next one thing "the whole biography of K.S. contradicts this." (what?) vs p.8: ...There are very few data remaining on K.S. ...the principal source [for these] is his book... where scarce data and memories are scattered..." This does not sound convincing.

Let me cite once more from his book: "Artis Magnae Artilleriae Pars prima, studio et opera Casimiri Siemienowicz, Eguitis Lithuani, olim artileriae Regni Poloniae".

p.17: ...It seems, it was the absence of the coat of arms of his own, which forced K.S. to write of himself so vaguely: "noble-litvin from the GDL". - despite that argument - strange enough his COA is known. And what's more he did not refer to himself as a GDL noble, he refers to himself as a Lithanian noble, and Polish officer - but not by not any means Belarusian:) --Lokyz (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the book has ISBN 5-343-00881-X.

As to the objections put forward by Lokyz, let's summarize my citation:

  • Precious little is known of origin of K.S.
  • Modern Belarusian scientists point out that "judging by documents" and by K.S. own lexics, he came from the family of smaller nobility owning lands in the Dubrowna vicinity in Vitebsk land. Modern Belarusian scientists discard modern Lithuanian scientists' claims of Samogitia as K.S. place of birth.
  • Modern Belarusian scientists point out that Lithuanian (litwin) in Medieval period didn't mean the same as the modern Lithuanian. It was politonym, not ethnonym. Therefore, his self-denomination, as it was, didn't at all equal Lithuanian, only "coming from GDL".
  • To descript K.S. description as "Polish officer" should= officer in Polish Crown army.
  • Modern Belarusian scientists point out that tying the Vilnius university magister of philosophy of 1650 with K.S. is incorrect. "The whole biography of K.S. contradicts this" means "this claim", obviously.

As a consequence, yes, K.S. was very probably of Medieval Belarusian ethnicity, and Polonised culturally. We can't be more decisive than scientists, therefore we include all claims, in proper Wikipedia order (claim-counter-claim) and do not put anything disputed by scientists as a "fact" without clearly marking it as disputed (place of birth etc.). Yury Tarasievich (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, but I still have a few questions more:

    • I should point out that the answers were already given — in my first post, which was chiefly the relay from the book I talking about. Everything in italics excepting the square brackets is my translation of the passages from the book.
  • "judging by documents" and by K.S. own lexics" - please could you share what documents we're talking about and what lexic - from latin book? Or there are some letters of him surviving?
    • I have no idea, I don't do research on Siemienowicz.
  • Modern Belarusian scientists discard modern Lithuanian scientists' claims of Samogitia as K.S. place of birth. - Based on what?
    • Based on lack of evidence (per Byelski, Tkachow).
  • Modern Belarusian scientists point out that tying the Vilnius university magister of philosophy of 1650 with K.S. is incorrect. "The whole biography of K.S. contradicts this" means "this claim", obviously. - well, don't you think that this one condradicts with little of him is known.
    • It's perfectly clear from the context that it means "his whole known biography" or "all that's known of his biography".
  • 'Modern Belarusian scientists point out that Lithuanian (litwin) in Medieval period didn't mean the same as the modern Lithuanian.
This one is rather popping around for quite long time so it needs an explanation: I've already provided you with a usage of Latin term Lithuani (not Litwin, as you insist) - would you please provide any document written by K.S. and usage of Ruthenian form?
    • Oh, but I don't have to run around in search of manuscripts. I provided the citations from the book printed in academic series'. Here my mission ends.
    • I didn't yet see any documents written by K.S. and using Lithuanian (as in modern Lithuanian) form, anyway.
As for litvin - it is quite along story - but well, Belarus - litvin (or Polish - litwin) is Slavic name of anyone who identifies himself with tradition of Lithuanian statehood - hence Lithuanian nobility and by not any means "Belarus" as such.
There are certain temptations for those who haven't researched history to oversimplify things, and assume that our ancestors were stupid and did not know who is who. I can assure you this is not the case. Most probably you've heard term "gente Ruthenus, natione Lithuanus", and most probably you know that many influential Ruthenian families have sought to be descendant from Lithuanian families. And it was clear distinction between them, and quite funny - that language was not a distinction. It was 19th century, 100+ years of Russian propaganda and romanticism and "awakening of nations" that changed identification scheme.--Lokyz (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Here in and in following paragraphs of your post, what claim are you making, exactly? That word "Lithuani"/"Lithuanian" had in Medieval period the same meaning as now? That it was ethnonym? That is not even a "common knowledge" anymore, not for a long time, let alone the scientific proof.
    • Anyway, this is not a subject of the article. The issue there is that the modern Lithuanian researchers claims are disputed and that's that. The point of view, as long as it is academic, does not have to accomodate everybody to be included in the article.
    • JFYI, "this one" is "popping around" for 100 years or so. That some schools of thought choose to ignore the issue, is also no news. And your taking of much condescending tone "explaining things" to me is, at best, inappropriate. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's sumarise this - in my opinion a book, that refers to "some documents" and does not provide any references to them is not an academic book, it's rather speculation (see WP:WEASEL and WP:RS). It's not the POV that does not suit me, it's the book's reliability. And let me repeat "some documents" and "some research" is not very valid.

As for distinction between Lithuanians and White Ruthenians - there is plethora of studies done by Polish, Lithuanian, English, Russian scholars. And yes - Lithuanians was ethnonym, same way as it is today. And it is used as such from 11th century on. Later it got another connotation, but primary meaning of the word remained the same, despite some new born "schools" trying to prove otherwise while playing with different forms in different languages. A proof is that you failed to provide reference to any document (as the authors of supposedly academic book do), that Siemenowicz has written anything in Ruthenian language, insist that he was "Litvin". And once again - language was not issue of self identification at the time - see francophonic English and German aristocracy for example. As for my tone, I'm already tired explaining the problem for n'th time. I do know, that turning argument ad hominem is quite an easy way to avoid answering problems raised, but I'd prefer that we'd rather discuss the problem.

  • We hardly can discuss every edit like this ad perpetuum. We need NPOV'ed version. I'll try to give the very essence of what I want included, together with the very explicit mention of scarcity of the data: 1) place of birth put as unknown, with the two theories (modern Lithuanian and Belarusian) explicated further in text; 2) self-denomination of ethnicity put as unknown, with the two interpretations of the available data like in prev. item; 3) shortcut "Polish" changed to "Commonwealth" where referring to the citizenship. I can take or leave the inclusion of the mutual reasearchers' critique, this is fairly irrelevant, after all.
  • My reasons for inclusion of these: the mentioned book from the academic scientific-popular series; the article in the academic magazine "Artifacts of the history and culture of Belarus" (3/1973); the article in the "Encyclopedia of History of Belarus" (V.6 part 1, p.286); the article in the "Belarusian Encyclopedia" (V.14).
  • I do not have an obligation to prove the validity of my sources, especially as I didn't write them. As far as they are reputable, per the policy, they suffice. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I know how long it's popping and I know why it is popping - there was such Tsarevna Yekaterina in Russia, and she was the one, who began politics that lasted for almost 100 years. taht politics in short ment - Lithuanians do not exist, there are only "Russians seduced by Poles" - i.e. GDl in fact was Russian state (not Lithuanian and not even Belarusian), and all the inhabitants are Russians except for few "imported" Polish landowners. I see now, that the seed sown by her is still growing and some schools are building "modern" theories on this rather shaky ground. Cheers.--Lokyz (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As for your tone — well, it's this actual tone I'm encountering right now, and for me it seems to be somewhat abrupt. As for your explanation (frankly, expostulation) — sorry, but it seems that this is what you choose to believe about other people's views. Also, your analysis of the modern theories is tad dubious in my opinion. However, let us limit ourselves strictly to the matter at hand, and not attempt to solve all science's problems right now. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, would there be any problem with following WP:V and simply attributing the statements by discussed Belorussian scholar(s) to him (them)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what I'm proposing, on par with attributing the Lithuanian scholar(s) claims to themselves. The only sensible thing to do in the deliberately compilative source which the Wikipedia is. And I don't understand where's a problem in that. Am I not making myself clear enough, perhaps? Or should we have a mediation or what? Yury Tarasievich (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
We will see what Lokyz will reply, and consider a mediation if you cannot reach an agreement. Which statements by Lithuanian scholars do you think deserve an attribution? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that the K.S. birthplace and ethnicity self-denomination should be put as "unknown/disputed" in the lead paragraph, and constructed into separate paragraphs, told in third person w/r to the Lithuanian/Belarusian claims and attributed to respective sources. The most complete rendition of "Belarusian" claims (available to me) was already posted here by me (translated) and may be used for the "Belarusian" POV.
And sorry guys, I'm not interested in any more of the abstract discussions (like West-Russism's influence) nor do I see why I have to replicate the work of academics running around in search of some "documents". Yury Tarasievich (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, let's move on. Please edit the article with the desired changes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BY Dubiousity

A. returning to previuos question - do the sites cite specific documents? B. I tool a liberty removing Litvin allegation, unless you'd provide some citation from Symonowicz book/handwriting. BY researchers do not prowide a single reference here.--Lokyz (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking part in this any more. I request mediation on this, please. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. I can join as a party, since I've been observing this discussion since it's start.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kazimierz siemenowicz.jpg

Image:Kazimierz siemenowicz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)