Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:45, 27 July 2006

DYK!

An entry from Laurynas Gucevičius appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 16, 2006.

Google shows 25 English language hits for Wawrzyniec Gucewicz and 17 on Laurynas Gucevičius . That in itself would not convince me to move this article, but Google Print recognizes only the WG name (3 hits). He is also linked under his Polish name from Polski Słownik Biograficzny (User:Piotrus/List of Poles/Grodecki-Hoscki) and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Art & Architecture/G2. PS. There are no Google hits for 'Laurynas Gucewicz'. Without limiting ourselves to English pages, we get 235 hits for LG and 260 for WC . I'd tentatively suggest moving this article to Wawrzyniec Gucewicz, there may be some issues I have overlooked. It would be quite useful to know what name did he use himself - i.e. was he polonized?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh Piotrus, just stop it. The number of Polish people is ten times larger than Lithuanian, and your google hits just don't count in this case and are ridiculous. Gucevicius was from Lithuania, he was pure Lithuanian and the first professional Lithuanian architect. His works are in the territory of current Lithuania and some in Belarus. He means much more to Lithuanian heritage than to the Polish. Your Polish language sources will tell you he was 'Polish' architect, but don't always believe what they say 100% :). As the starter of this article I strongly object to the move to Wawrzyniec Gucewicz. The redirect is enough. --Juraune 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Juraune M.K 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated above, the above calculations are done solely on English language page - not on Polish or Lithuanian. I certainly agree that due to Poland's size, the Polish POV is much more visible then the Lithuanian one, and certainly various Polish sources tend to overgeneralize 'Polish-Lithuanian' as 'Polish'. However the question remains what was the language that LG/WG used: did he speak in Polish and write his name as Wawrzyniec Gucewicz, or did he speak in Lithuanian and sign himself as Laurynas Gucevičius? It is a fact that in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth majority of educated people were polonized. Was he an exception? If so, then it's all well and good, but please, can you privide a source for that?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, Gucevicius was granted to be called a noblemen, this indicates that he was not a pure noblemen (and as a rule not pure noblemen kept their ethnical ident.) besides if I not mistaken I saw somewhere that his name was already lithuanzied version of that time. And i believe (if my memory correct) he spoken and polish too as well as Lith. M.K 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If he spoke no Polish, I sincerly doubht he could have worked as an architects for the magnates. Anyway, it seems to me beyond any doubht that he was a citizen of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, with more ties to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania then Crown of the Polish Kingdom. I certainly have no objections to listing him as Polish-Lithuanian. The issue at hand is whether we should use here the Polish or Lithuanian version of the name. The fact that there are more Poles then Lithuanians, which certainly favours the propagation of the Polish variants, is not an issue here: we are not making a more 'political correct' world, but an English encyclopedia. According to the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, we should use the version of his name as used by majority of the English sources. However as I have shown above, none has a significant majority, thus we cannot decide his correct name based on it's use in English sources. The only way to break this deadlock, as I see it, is to find documents written (or at least signed) by him and see what was the name he signed with (and if possible, what was the language he habitualy spoke in and wrote with).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite a silly idea because at that time Lithuanian last names were not well developed and stabilized. Besides, his family is not exactly nobility... so flip a coin. Much less painfull :) Renata 01:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, certainly he did not sign his name with the post-1918 Lithuanian version of the Lithuanian grammar, did he. //Halibutt 17:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But he wasn't Polish. Under Soviet Union I used to sign my name in Russian, so what? Juraune 18:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But he wasn't Lithuanian either :) I agree with Renata here, though I also agree with most of the authors out there who - be it right or wrong - consider him a Pole... Anyway, in my new version of this article both names are bolded in the first sentence so there is not much of a problem there I guess. The only problem I see is the title of this article, but I could back down on this one, just for friendly atmosphere's sake. 212.76.57.103 (bah! it logged me out - //Halibutt) 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Halibutt, and after that you'll say again, you're not nationalist. I do especialy like when someone states, that Gucevičius was Polish: with link that points to "Poland (Polish: Polska), officially the Republic of Poland (Polish: Rzeczpospolita Polska (help·info)), is a country located in Central Europe. It is bordered by Germany to the west, the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the south, Ukraine and Belarus to the east, and the Baltic Sea, Lithuania, and Russia (in the form of the Kaliningrad Oblast exclave) to the north." If you'd put Polish-Lithuanian, I'd agree. But it seems you put it only in the places,where you want to hide your true intentions:) Grand Poland Ueber alles?--Lokyz 08:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lokyz, there is no reason to abuse others and mummble about nationalism. You know pretty well that the nationalities where not that obvious then, especially when we talk about Polish/Lithuanian one. Every educated person knows that Lithuanian nobles/educated people of these times considered themselves as Lithuanian but in fact were completely polonized, used this language, traditions, even lived in Poland and when their progeny was to decide where they want to stay: reborn Poland or Lithuania, they chose massively Poland.

The fact is, they used Polish as their language and AFAIK Polish written names and became part of the Polish tradition, culture - and people. Yes, Mickiewicz started his work with "Lithuania, my mother country" but everything he wrote was in Polish. Similarily Miłosz. Lithuanian nobles underlined this fact but again - they spoke Polish and took this tradition...

In case of Copernicus rationale of Germans (and other anglo-saxons) was that the most probably his first language and tradition was German although he proved to be a fathful subject of Polish monarchs. Here mr. Gucewicz/Gucevičius not only spoke Polish and was Polish-Lithuanian subject.

I don't know how we should call this situation - he was Lithuanian and such a description can be used in Polish AFAIK but not in the 20th century meaning of a nation but of the background - his and his family's. It should be worked out on the Misplaced Pages somehow as Western World historians are not too eager to make it fair and reliable (I still remember one Aussie here who was pushing his POV as "neutral" while he simply lacked basic facts about Central-Eastern Europe).

So how to describe the situation briefly is an open thing for me. However, it's not the case with the name and refering to this man using modern Lithuanian name, "forgetting" about polonization etc. and presenting that as neutral. The fact, that Nitzche had some Polish decents and argued havily that he was a Pole doesn't make him Polish although there is such a country like Poland. :) Mr. Gucevičius/Gucewicz had fairly stronger links with Lithuania however his nostalgy to Lithuania as a mother country - like in the case of Mickiewicz and many others - is not a sufficient reason for the present state of the article.

Greetings, aegis maelstrom δ 12:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gucevicius/Gucewicz is not a case of Adam Mickiewicz, he wasn't born noble, and got his nobilitation in 1790, so he was over 40 then. He signed his surname as Montrym-Gucewicz. Montrym is also a surname of Lithuanian origin, initials would be M-G. I found a photo of a drawing made by him in a monograph by Eduardas Budreika "Verkių rumai", where Stanisław Poniatowski, not a King, but Gucevicius/Gucewicz contemporary wrote on a drawing of this architect: 'd'une Maison ... Campagne pa... Gucewicz Architecte Lithuano...s" (sorry, I couldn't completely comprehend the handwritten French) So, how about: "Don't do to Lithuanians, that you do not want do be done to you by bad Aussies in Copernicus case. It is a pitty that the articles concerning Poland-Lithuania biographies end-up as a 'fight over the bones of a dead man'. If Lokyz had to argue with you, instead of Halibutt, who regularly "edits" every mention of Lithuanian identity, there would be no "abuse of others and no mumble about nationalism", I am sure. Best respects, Aegis Maelstrom, your comment here is like a whiff of a fresh air. Juraune 07:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Eduardas Budreika should provide the full translation of the note. Use it in article ;) M.K. 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhuh - nationalities not obvious, and that is not a problem for some editors to point out, that Gucevičius was Polish in modern sence, and he knew abut Polish Nation in modern sence.

As for "Every educated person" - I'm educated too quite well, just from you i did hear that Lithuanian rulers were so barbaric, they didn't had theyr own customs and had to take them form Polish colleagues.

reborn Poland or Lithuania, they chose massively Poland would you please show at least one example? In the article it is clear written, taht Gucevičius was liwing and working in Lithuania (even by nowadys terms), or am I not educated enough and miss something?.

Mickewicz here is not the case. I've told my opinion about him further.

Either you forgot or intentionally not mention that, following your "Lithuania" argument at the other talk page, I agreed with you. So what is your problem here? ]n is ok, ] is not? Don't get it. //Halibutt 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see - he was not born in nowadays geographical location of Poland neither in kingdom of Poland- so it's not ok:)--Lokyz 15:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, what makes you think that his declaration that he subscribes his works to his Polish brethren did in fact mean Polish-Lithuanian brethren or even Lithuanian brethren? Or did I understand the source wrongly? //Halibutt 15:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of the (lost at the time) state:) And waht makes you think, that he subscribed all his works to modern Polish republic?--Lokyz 10:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not the Polish republic, but the "Polish nation" (narodowi polskiemu). At least that's what is written in the book I cited as a reference for that statement. //Halibutt 13:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

At the time meaning of "narod" was inhabitants of certain state, in this case - Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.--Lokyz 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So the Polish nation was All inhabitants of the PLC, while the inhabitants of GDL were Lithuanians? Strange. Besides, note the date of his death... //Halibutt 07:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, you are doing original research with surnames, and I warned you not to do so. Suggest you editing articles on topics that you consider yourself to be a renowned speciallist of. Juraune 08:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's not me to do original research. The Latin name is provided by the author of that Lithuanian article and it's Masul, not Masiulis. Whether modern Lithuanians render the name in such a way might be interesting, but not really relevant. //Halibutt 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rimša states, that his name was Masiulis. He is professional historian. You are not. So you do original research not Jaraune. And Rimša is not wrong, he just have much more expirience in reading original documents than you do.

Another one thing - ethnic Lithuania is widely recognised as such, and you state it is speculation:) You do believe what you like, not what professionals say. And that makes any cooperation with you just impossible - because you simply deny facts that you don't like.--Lokyz 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, does actually Rimsa state that if the Genitivus Singularis of a word is Masulis, then the Nominativus Singularis of that word is Masiulis? That would be a sole case in the history of the Latin language, which - btw - is quite long. And how about that guy's wife? Does Rimsa state that the surname Masulowa is actually Masiulisowa, but written differently? How about that? I wonder what is Rimsa's explanation for the fact that the name he uses is completely different then the one he cites in the Latin document himself. Anybody care to translate the relevant part? Might be funny... //Halibutt 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no Masul family name in Lithuania - neither Polish, neither Lithuanian. As for Masulowa it is cleraly denotation of wife, not proper family name. I've allready told you in a different place how such "contemporary" names are born - Polish speaking people did not bother to spell name correctly only, just approximately "by the sound", and relying only on phonetics when writing words of other languages is very misleading. In many cases writing of one man's name could be completely different in every attempt.

And I think you know that, it is just a good place to play game called "contemporary spelling". The real proof is family name "Ziekonaycia" written properly it would Žėkonaitė or Žekonytė, and this is clweearly recognisable Lithuanian form of unmarried girl by -aycia suffix(her father name woould be similar to Žekonas or Žekonis). To proove that, someone needs to go and check the records book at Migonys church. But this would be a job for historian, not wikipedian. And Rimša is one, and I'm absolutely sure, he's done his job properly. So I'm quite sure, that in the book are more mentionings of other form of Masiulis or (Masulas), taht led to this reconstruction.--Lokyz 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I wanted to hear: the original name mentioned in the document is Masul and Masulowa (lit. Masul's wife). Perhaps Rimsa states some explanation for his reconstruction of what would the name Masul look like in modern Lithuanian, but we don't know that. What we know is that in his short article he quotes the document, in which the Masul family is called that way, and not as Masiulis, Masulisis, or with any other similar name. And Ziekonaycia does not appear in that fragment, nor does it even loosely resemble the name of Masul, so it's not relevant here.

Why do you switch back to the invented name then, when there is no source for that, while there is a source to call him Masul - and quite a serious one, as birth records usually followed one's declaration rather than some official documents? //Halibutt 05:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem?

I notice the ending of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Laurynas_'Gucevi%C4%8Dius'

and it is a bit worrying :(

This is not a major problem - the browsers can't display the symbols, but they understant them when they are inputed. You'll see the same problems in various articles using Polish, Lithuanian or other 'strange' letters.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

yup, but making in adress bar Laurynas_Gucevicius would be better M.K 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We would have to lose the 'č' for that, and I do object to englishizing names. Make it Polish or Lithuanian, but don't invent a new English variant - that's my rule (for names that have no obvious/common English spelling, of course).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

not in articale itself! M.K 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The link http://en.wikipedia.org/Laurynas_Gucevicius also brings there, so there is no problem.

A, yes I see now. in this case there is no problem. And it is good!M.K 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A redirect, you mean? Certainly all articles using non-standard letters should have them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Classicism and Neoclassicism

I see that some guys here don't know the meaning of "classicism" in English. Not only do they confuse it with Neoclassicism, but are prone to reverting edits of superior editors adn swelling the article with peacock terms. I'm leaving this article at their mercy in disgust. --Ghirla 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments which you did not liked was made by the author of the articale . and I belive that you as such "superior" editor shuold know that if author who wrothe whole text himeself is makeing mistkes report and produce your opinion and not such as "silly" comment in summary. this is a main principles of wiki. inform main author not me.M.K 12:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ghirla. There is no need for harshe words here. In fact, I stumbled across that problem and Your reverted correction. Things don't seem to be so easy. As a person, who is indeed no expert on periods, I looked this up in the German wikipedia, for which I translated this article (thanks Juraune for Your work) and found in de:Klassizismus Hauptsächlich aber wird als 'Klassizismus' eine Epoche der gesamten Kunstgeschichte im späten 18. Jahrhundert und frühen 19. Jahrhundert (etwa zwischen 1770 und 1830) bezeichnet, welche die (vor allem griechische) Klassik zu erneuern versuchte. which reads roughly classicism ist mainly seen as the period of art history in the late 18th and early 19th century (about 1770-1830), that tried to revive (chiefly Greek) classic. de:Neoklassizismus (Kunst) says: Neoklassizismus (seltener Neuklassizismus) ist eine eklektizistische Kunstrichtung, die sich gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts innerhalb des Historismus entwickelte. ~= Neoclassicism ist an eclesticistic direction of art, that developed during the end of the 19th century as part of the historism movement. I also found out that the English wikipedia is not that clear in dating these periods. There might be differences in English and continental use. But since the original author explicitly used the words Lithuanian classicism, this terminus seems valid in my eyes. Best regards --Gf1961 12:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gf1961, it should be noted when classicism came to Lithuania; the formulation Lithuanian classicism is pointing to it , but I see to some "superior" is is not understandable. But he could look in some catalogs of Vilnius and he would see the same I recomend to see/buy "Vilniaus Architektura" there are and Russian explanations too ( sutable to "superior")M.K 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, Gf1961. I really appreciate Your work and your comments there. I moved the sentence left by Ghirla to a section of an article were the style of the architect is discussed, since in my oppinion, his sentence is formulated very clumsy and doesn't fit as the first sentence of the encyclopedia article. As my dictionary shows, the word "proponent" is "a defender, someone who is offering something", while as much as I know Laurynas Gucevicius didn't offer his style to others, and he was an architect, not merely a propagator of particular architectural style. Juraune 06:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ghirlandajo for the explanation of the "peacock language". Now I really agree with you on that. And you really understand about styles of architecture. Drama of songs is when a poet becomes a playwriter and writes a play Juraune 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo

There is this photo on flickr which could be used here. Renata 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add present day photos of Vilnius Cathedral, Vilnius Town Hall and maybe Verkiai Palace. These buildings do not differ much from the days of the architect. Juraune 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Citation of Halibutt: "sources call him Polish. I added three in three different languages, but could add more if you please. None of them calls him Polish-Lithuanian"

And my questions: Would you please care and exagerate, what Polish means in every source, because I know three different meanings ot the word: 1. Citizen of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (until recently this name was used as Poland.} 2. Polish by enticity 3. Polish as a person who lives in Poland, i.e. - Rzeczpospolita Polska

Another one question - how many of your cited sources relay on research, based on documents, and how many on XIXth century naming traditions - i.e. every educated Lithuanian is Pole in a principle like this . The book is about Ruthenia, but teh same principle was used also in Lithuania. This question arises because one of the book is written in the beginning in XIX-th century, and I'm affraid, it had laid foundation for a questionable tradition, that is disputed by Rimša research, based on original documents.--Lokyz 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have it all wrong, Lokyz. It's not up to us to decide what were the authors' intentions. We don't do original research, we simply report what others say. And in this context they say that Gucewicz was a Pole. Regardless of why did they call him that way, he was a Pole for them - and apparently for himself as well, though back then there was no conflict in being both a Pole and a Lithuanian (in geographic/cultural/traditional/whatever sense).

Neither it is up to us to decide whether the authors (and especially the almost contemporary French one) were conscious of the problems of Lithuanian national identity or not. Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. They're no better no worse than the press article by Rimsa you linked to the article (is it his mistake to call his father Masulis instead of Masul, BTW?). //Halibutt 03:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think Rimša is mistaken? He's professional renowned historian, with international status. You might confront him writing an article, and stating he's wrong and just saying it in Misplaced Pages IS an original research. And I do doubt you would write such an article because your arguments are not strong enough. BTW I'm just interested, at what level do you speak and understand Latin?

As for sources evaluation - it is basic priciple of historian work, if someone wants to find truth - but for you finding truth is not interesting. You only need a mention of "Poland, Poland, everywhere", don't you? That's ery clear seen because of your contradictoryactions: you do not have any doubt: "It's not up to us to decide what were the authors' intentions." of articles, that refer to him as a Pole, and try to criticise an article where it is clearly shown, that he is not. That's funny.--Lokyz 08:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he is not wrong. You are. Latin declension is pretty simple (at least it's logical) and I passed my university exams from Latin last year (scoring B), so I guess I know the language enough to get that when the original names mentioned in the record are put as babtisavi infantem nne Laurentium patris Symoni Masulis et Matris Catharinae Masulowa de villa Migance, patris is Gen. of the third declension (pater, patris), so is that person's surname (Masul, Masulis; lit. Simon of Masul, if we wanted to translate the etymology of the Latin grammar; in fact this seems to be the Possesive case). This is further confirmed by the feminine suffix of his wife's surname (-owa), which is added to the root Masul, Masulis (in the latter case she'd be called Masulisowa). not The -is suffix is hardly reserved for Lithuanian names, which must've fooled either you or the author. The Greek Polis is hardly a Lithuanian name, neither Propolis and Conjunctivitis are Lithuanian surnames. Let's go further that way. The title of the book Rationes curiae Vladislai Jagiellonis et Hedvigae, regum Poloniae does not suggest that the king's name was Vladislai Jagiellonis. Eventhough his surname indeed is of Lithuanian origin, its' Nominative case is in this case Vladislaus Jagiello and not Vladislai Jagiellonis (quite strangely, as the latter form would seem more Lithuanian; what a lovely -is suffix). Let's go with another monarch then, how about Orzechowski's Oratio in funere Sigismundi Jagiellonis? It does not mean that the guy's name was Sigismundi Jagiellonis. It was Sigismundus Jagiello. Another example? The title of the official publications of the University of Łódź is Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, which does not mean that the Latin name of that town is Lodziensis, neither does it suggest that the Latin name of that institution is Universitatis Lodziensis. I thought Lithuanian also has declension, but apparently I was wrong...

Besides, de villa Migance means of the village of Migance, not of the village of Migonys. This is a clear-cut mistake. I don't speak Lithuanian so I can't say whether it's the author of that article to commit that mistake or whether it was you personally, but the case is pretty clear. If you don't believe me, consult any grammar or declension tables of Latin. Or ask anyone who speaks it. //Halibutt 08:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhuh, am I wrong? I didn't say anything about latin language or didn't interpret anything. Just asked you, if you really think, that Rimša is wrong:) Would you please tell me - where I'm wrong? In asking? --Lokyz 09:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If the guy states that the name of his father was Masulis, then Rimsa is wrong. If he doesn't say that and it's just your mistake, then he is not wrong. Is it clear now? //Halibutt 12:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So wihout seein those docuemnts you say, that you know that issue better that Ph.d. of history, vice director of Lithuanian history institute and President of Lithuanian heraldic comission? Applause, I do not have any words to say any more. And how about, let me cite you: "We don't do original research, we simply report what others say." I'd say you've just done an original research:)

And please, remove that untrue statement in your edit about my error. I didn't say a word about latin text neither gave any interpretation of it any way, nor did I put anything about latin language into main article text. Now you're behaving uncivic and blaming me for things I haven't done.--Lokyz 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The Latin text is quoted in the Lithuanian article and its grammatical forms are pretty clear. The Latin Genitive is Masulis, just like standard Nominative is Masul. It might be that the Lithuanian Nominative is Masulis, which is what creates confusion here. However, English language does not add the -is suffix to nominative forms. It's like me arguing somewhere in Polish language Czytałem tekst Lokyza (I read the text by Lokyz), and then argue your user name is Lokyza, just because a suffix was added in the Polish version of the text. //Halibutt 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What is "Masul"? Sigitas 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Masul ibn-Ak Sunkur - was a sultan of Aleppo, it seems like Laurynas Gucevicius was Arabian (Kurdish?) architect Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a decent proof he was a Lithuanian... Now seriously, Masul is pretty uncommon surname in modern Poland, but its derivates are more popular (Masiul is pretty common, so is Masur, Masulik and there's even a single Masiulis family. So what..? //Halibutt 07:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Google: Masiul 11900, Masiulis 608000 (Masiulowa - 0, Masulowa only 2 - one is in Wiki another is source mentioned in this Wiki article). Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So..? How does that change the fact that the Lithuanian article specifically mentions the name of Masul and not Masiulis? Is the Lithuanian article wrong? And who says that? //Halibutt 18:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Article mentions name Masiulis (author reads Symoni Masiulis that way). If you read another way, fine it is your POV, find another article written by scientist thinking same way as you, and cite. By the way, why surname of Masulowa is not in Genitive? or perhaps priest (or someone dealing with birth records) was quite a sexist? "Thou shall not put womens surnames in Genitive, only Polish noblemen deserve Genitive in their Polish surnames" sayeth he.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 06:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My dear of Encyclopaedia Editing Dude, I have no idea why. Perhaps the priest lacked the specification of the gender in Latin and instead used simply her Polish name, but it's a sheer speculation. What is not disputable is that the article mentions the specific document which is pretty clear. Perhaps it adds the Lithuanian -is forms to all names because it's written in Lithuanian. If so, the article on Piłsudski would call him Pilsudskis, the article on Shakespeare would call him Šekspyras and an article on Homer would use the name of Homeras. Which however does not change the fact that the original name, as mentioned in the said article and in the original document quoted there, was Masul. And that there is absolutely no reason to Lithuanize it at all cost, especially that it's quite controversial.

So, I'm asking for some citation to state explicitly that the name of that person, as used by the guy himself, was Masiulis and not Masul. //Halibutt 08:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

I made some general edits to smooth out the English in the article, and where possible, tried to rewrite sentences so as to de-emphasize his exact nationality, since I can see that there are claims that he is both Polish and Lithuanian. Hopefully both sides will agree with my edits. --Elonka 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Thanks for the copyedit. On the other hand I don't see why we should not mention his nationality if it seems to be 100% clear to all except the Lithuanian author we have in the list. //Halibutt 03:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong preference on it, but it seems that if there are multiple sources which differ as to whether he should be declared a "Polish" architect or a "Lithuanian" architect, that it makes sense to either re-cast the opening sentence to indicate that he is both, or to simply omit specific mention of his nationality in the opening sentence, but include other verbiage elsewhere to show that he is claimed by both. Maybe like, "Most Western and Polish scholars refer to him as being Polish, though after the breakup of the Soviet Union, some Lithuanian scholars also began declaring him as primarily of Lithuanian ethnicity." I think that would actually make for a stronger article, to represent the differing views, rather than us trying to make a determination as to the one "best" answer for Misplaced Pages. --Elonka 18:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

He was considered as Lithuanian already in interwar republic (1918-1940), two monografies stating the same appeared in 1954 and 1965. It is conflict of Polish only tradition and moderns research.--Lokyz 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Who were the authors? Would it perhaps be more appropriate to say: "Gucevicius was born in what was then known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and modern scholars differ as to whether Gucevicius should now be considered "Polish" or "Lithuanian". --Elonka 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Autor is given among references - i.e. Budreika.--Lokyz 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems a fine solution. Indeed, the Lithuanian authors seem to be pretty alone in that. //Halibutt 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want it, i could go to library and make a full list of Lithuanian bibliography and historiograhy on Gucevičius. It would take some time tough, and trust me - it would not be a pile of books. As for Lithuanians are alone - no suprise, as "educated Lithuanians were Poles" assumption still works. Only it just began to reverse in example of usage in English books name of for Jogaila example. More to come:)--Lokyz 11:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, some western authors started to refer to Jagiello under his Lithuanian name when referring to his "Lithuanian" period. However, I'm not sure how does this example apply here. Besides, there's no need to prove that Lithuanian authors believe everyone born in what is now Lithuania was a Lithuanian. What there is to prove however is that their assumptions are backed up by anything but their own beliefs. //Halibutt 11:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you call international renovned historians liars or dreamers? That's not very nice of you:) As for "Lithuania now" - it hadn't changed location from the days of Kingdom of Lihuania, so it's quite obvious, people born here, are Lithuanians:)--Lokyz 11:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the way the nationality question is handled at the Adam Mickiewicz#Nationality article? --Elonka 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, this is not the case of Adam Mickiewicz, and nationality cannot be handled like in Mickiewicz article. The main difference is nobilitation was bestowed on him when he was over 40, and there is no 3-side dispute. Juraune 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's contraversial - especialy, because speaking about his beliefs, and his famous "Litwa, ojczyzna moja" there is no mention of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Even in Commonwealth there was this feeling of separate loyalty betwen "Korona" and "Grand Duchy (Poles and Lithwins respectively). Even Pilsudsky called himself Litwin, but there is not and I'd doubt ever will be mentioning of this. That's because in most cases Polish means Poland, and everything, that has Lithuanian roots with a little help of our friends soon becomes Polish-Lithuanian, on the werge to becoming completely Polish:) it's a three hundred years tradition, so it's dificult for some nations to accept other point of view:)

As for personaly me - I have not seen, that "many" modern historians think of Mickiewicz as an Lithuanian, rather than Litwin of Ruthenian (or Belarus) ethnicity. But on other hand I do think, that Mickewicz works are also heritage of modern Lithuania, like also of Belarus (not only Polish and Poland).--Lokyz 09:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

King question

As the article is currently written, it says that Laurynas received a scholarship from King Wladyslaw August Poniatowski. I don't have access to the references, but could someone please doublecheck this, as I'm unaware of a king by that name. Is it perhaps meant to refer to Stanisław August Poniatowski (1732-1798) ? --Elonka 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a silly error. //Halibutt 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And, an understatement. Dr. Dan 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How so? Is the name of Stanisław any more respectable than the name of Władysław? //Halibutt 02:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, but it's not any reason to give errors respectability either. Dr. Dan 23:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to understand why a silly error in someone's first name is an understatement, but perhaps it's just me. EOT. //Halibutt 07:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the so called silly error, not the name, that's the understatement. EOT, tambien! Dr. Dan 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)