Talk:Karolina Proniewska

I do not intend to go into further discussion, but just wanted to notice, that removal of referenced information and accademic book is evident: after halibutt's edit passage, referenced by accademic book somehow did dissaper, despute claiming it in an uncivil edit summary check it yourself - removed part is: a Samogitian noblewoman,Egidijus Aleksandravičius (2003). Giesmininko kelias (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Versus Aureus. pp. p.82. ISBN 9955-601-00-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help).

This edit also removed linkified place names, and this is also considereda as disruption in Wikipedia. --Lokyz 08:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Lokyz, I have no intention to discuss with you as long as you vandalize wikipedia. //Halibutt 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, now we get WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violation.--Lokyz 08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, Lokyz. You try to convince me that Samogitian equals Lithuanian, which is not what the sources say. Similarly, someone born in Mazovia is not a Pole by definition, just like people born in Lorraine are not French by definition or people born in Basque Country are not Spanish by definition. It's yet another example of you and yours trying to forcibly Lithuanize articles on people of mixed descent, to put it mildly. My version call her a Polish-Lithuanian poet, as she clearly felt Polish and Polish was her native tongue, yet was also strongly connected with Lithuania and even learnt Lithuanian (or rather Samogitian, as she put it). Yet, in your version you erase any doubts by misinterpreting sources and deleting any trace of her being Polish. I can't agree to that and I'd rather you found some better source before engaging in mindless revert war.

The webpage you include indeed uses the Lithuanized form of her name, just like many other Lithuanian web pages use the names of Džordžas Volkeris Bušas, Michailas Gorbačiovas, Viljamas Šekspyras or Lechas Valensas. Does it mean that all of the abovementioned people are Lithuanian? Nope, Lokyz. //Halibutt 08:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just out of curiosity - what has to do with Poland a Samogitian noblewoman born in Samogitia, Lithuania (or Russian Epmire if you prefer it better) into family, that was at forefront of Lithuanian national revival (part of the process called Samogitian nobility revival), and that has never left Lithuania in her life? As for family - they had close ties with Motiejus Valančius and Simonas Daukantas, spoke perfectly Lithuanian (as a mother tongue, btw).

As for Samogitian - it is dialect of Lithuanian language. And btw, I do not intend to discuss rules of Lithuanian orthography. --Lokyz 09:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't plan to discuss the rules of Lithuanian orthography either, as long as you don't try to convince everyone that modern Lithuanian ortography is a proof that some people are Lithuanian. As to Samogitian noble woman. She was clearly a member of the szlachta. She spoke Polish perfectly well and that's the language she wrote all of her works in (except for the translations I guess). I don't say she had anything in common with the Republic of Poland, just like she had nothing to do with the Republic of Lithuania. //Halibutt 09:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure you did - [[Poland|Polish]] - is quite dubious.--Lokyz 10:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I find nothing in an English-only search for "Karolina Proniewska -wikipedia". Eight English pages for "Karolina Praniauskaitė -wikipedia". Novickas 11:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, I did [[Poland|Polish]]-[[Lithuania]]n poet. Besides, I chose that version out of simplicity's sake. Otherwise we'd have to discuss whether she was more Lithuanian, more Polish, whether she felt [[Polish people|Polish]], [[Lithuanians|Lithuanian]], or both, or whether she had anything in common with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I thought it might be acceptable, at least more acceptable than your [[Lithuania]]n poet. Anyway, good we're done with that idiotism now, let's focus on other issues.

As to the link to Samogitian noble family, I'd rather have it as [[Samogitia]]n [[szlachta|noble family]]. It's sure that she was from Samogitia and she considered that region to be her motherland. However, whether she felt part of a Polish noble family or Lithuanian noble family is not that certain (couldn't find any source to support either version). Let's stick to the link to szlachta, as the article is on Polish-Lithuanian noble class rather than Polish or Lithuanian. Doesn't it sound like a decent compromise?

Finally, someone keeps adding the name "Pranauskaite" to the lead sentence. Could anyone provide any citation that she indeed used the name? Otherwise we'd give the spelling undue weight, just like mentioning the Lithuanian name of Shakespeare on English wikipedia. //Halibutt 11:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As to Novickas' search terms, I could find only one English-language page using her Lithuanian name ([1]), which is an excerpt from Encyclopedia Lituanica. The excerpt also notes that she was raised in an estate where Polish culture predominated... All the other links were to "Pranauskaite Library", which is a proper name of the library, not necessarily the person. //Halibutt 11:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

One of your own references, reading "Polsko-Litewska", could probably eliminate some of the excess refs in the lead. The LT version belongs in the lead because there is a lot of material out there that uses it. PS, please cite the English-language reference to the Polish version of her name. Novickas 11:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's already in the article, no need to repeat it :) Anyway, I don't have references calling her a Polish-Lithuanian poet. I have two references calling her a Polish poet, which however would not be to your liking I guess. Technically she was also a "[[Polish language|Polish]] poet", as she didn't write poetry in Lithuanian, but that's another story. Anyway, that's another reason why I went with "Polish-Lithuanian" rather than "Polish" (as the sources suggest) or "Lithuanian" (as Lokyz suggests). What's exactly the problem with that? //Halibutt 12:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since my long answer was lost during edit conflict hers is a short one:

Read the lines in the article and the talk about her brothers being active in Lithuanian national revival.

Aletration of cited text by renowned historian is disruption at large - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to disrupt citation of academic work, that has been peer reviewed. Wikipedia is not a place for reinventing facts. If you want argue go meet Prof. Hab.dr. Egidijus Aleksandravičius and discuss tihis issue with him. I do only provide what is written in his book, and you tend to alter it, going against WP:OR rule.

Furthermore i do not intend to look for any about clues how she felt - simply because there is no policy that requires me to do so. There is a policy WP:CITE and my arguments are properly cited.

[[Poland|Polish]] has to be deleted, because she did not have a slightest thing to do with Poland. Russian Empire, Lithuania, Samogitia - yes, Poland - no. It does not seem, that her family was not even Polonised - usage of Polish language to write poetry is not a sign of nationality.

Lithuanian: Karolina Praniauskaitė is notable enough and has to stay, since it is used in numerous academic books.

Comment on Lithuanisation on the book of renowned author is purely WP:OR and has to go, there will be no further discussion about it. Nobody cares about your POV, unless it can be supported with academic research.

Last thing - I'm not going to participate in this WP:ORish discussion any further per WP:DNFTT. Explanations why - provided above.--Lokyz 12:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As to her brothers being active in Lithuanian national revival - I have no problem with that. Even self-declared Poles were active in that movement. So what?

As to cited historians, I did not alter any texts of any cited historians - not that I noticed. Or do you mean that unsigned webpage that doesn't call her Lithuanian, yet you pretend so?

As to arguments properly cited - so are mine. Now we have two sources calling her a Pole and one web-page calling her a Samogitian writer. Do we have any sources calling her a Lithuanian writer? No. But still I have no problem with calling her a Polish-Lithuanian author, just for the sake of compromise. What's your problem with that?

As to the usage of Karolina Praniauskaitė in academic books - I believe it's not notable enough. I bet the names of Michailas Gorbačiovas or Viljamas Šekspyras are also mentioned in such books. That doesn't change the fact that the people in question did not use those names.

I have no idea what are you talking about when citing Lithuanization. Lithuanization in this context is a purely linguistic term and should be treated as such. A girl used the name of Proniewska, yet her name is Lithuanized into Pranauskaite, just like it probably could be Latinized as Pronevska or Russified into Проневская. What's wrong with that?

Lastly, I source all my claims in the article, so this discussion is not WP:ORish. It's WP:CITEish, and that's a different story. //Halibutt 14:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Recently Lokyz reverted several times a minor change of the links arguing that it wasn't discussed on talk page[2]. It was[3]. //Halibutt 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding yet another revert by Lokyz ([4]), correct me if I'm wrong, but in Lithuanian bajoras means member of the noble class, and both Lithuanian and Polish noble class is... szlachta. //Halibutt 06:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Halibutt since when do you read Lithuanian? And if you do, please cite Aleksandavičius book, because disruption as such is utterly unacceptable and summary that's what the source say. I can assure you - it does not say that. If you have read the book, please provide citation, if not - please stop disrupting citations with your assumptions. And despite tossing references around, and presenting scraps with 7 lines visible as a more reliable source than a peer reviewed monograph, I still did not see "Polish szlachta" in the scraps you call reference either. Another assumption I suppose?--Lokyz 11:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Halibutt keeps reverting to the quite messy version: [5] There are two probolems with this version: a.) Reference named "Baranowski" (actually, I suspect, that it is a foreword to Anykčių šilelis translation, but since no one has seen the book we cannot be sure) does not support "Samogitian noblewoman" b.) Aleksandravičius book does not say "from Samogitia", it does say "žemaičių" i.e "Samogitian", and Halibutt while he did not read the book, is still trying to "improve" the referenced text. Actually there is a third one - while reverting to a dubious version Halibutt is constantly accusing other editors on vandalism. I do find it unacceptable.--Lokyz 08:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Bravo! Indeed, the book is the Polish translation of Baranowski's poem. I've read the book and seen it, so can you. But hey, since you didn't see it, how come you're so sure it does or does not support anything?
2. Yup! Samogitian. Does it say "lietuvių"? Nope. Then why do you insist on Lithuanian nobility when the source says otherwise?
3. The "dubious version" is sourced. Your version is based on your own beliefs, as the above example shows. Such reverts are what I call disruption of wikipedia. Hence I use the anti-vandal tools. //Halibutt 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

A Disclaimer for every interested party: If Halibutt will call me a vandl once again, this will lead to formal bureucratic actions to get this ab-user of many policies banned. my patience just run thin. Piotrus, if you you still think that this editor has some value, take your steps to civilize him (since in your interview civility is the most important issue and prove that there is no Cabal(issimus) (remember, we just not do it, they do it:))).--Lokyz 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have received [6] question regarding this. Explanation:

• Contemporary name which, supported by English sources should go in the lead first. I have to see any English publication which uses Karolina Proniewska and any sources which concurs that this name is contemporary. Such explanation is ORIGINAL RESEARCH
• Lithuanian authors not author, because it supported by authors, no need to spam article which dozen references only to prove this well know issue.
• I requested to provide citation to Juozas Vaina, but in vain.
• for Krowin was requested [7] citation, but was installed a ref which do not support request [8].
• Accusation of vandalism as was did here is disruption.
• Conclusions: further OR, POV pushing and general disruption will removed, per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc. M.K. 10:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Nope, we have a proof that Pranauskaite is a modern name, I'm still waiting for any proof that she ever used it - or that it was used in her times.
2. Perhaps, but there's only one author mentioned. And per WP:CITE I request another author to be added if the plural is to be used.
3. You're wrong, direct quotations were provided by Piotrus at Talk:Karolina_Proniewska#Request_citations
4. Really? Prove it! Provide any book that would suggest that the Lithuanized form of her name is anything more than that.
5. You didn't like the reference, so I added another one. Why don't you post that diff as well?
6. And removal of sourced information is not?
7. Conclusion: provide sources before you once again revert to the version so far supported solely by your own beliefs. //Halibutt 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not know if you answering to my points presented in November 5, (however it is not particularly important). But these are important issues - what do you refer as we. Yes I do not have any proof that Pranauskaite is a modern name. Would like to cite source with particular quote which would confirm that Pranauskaite is a modern name? M.K. 16:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

New section just because indentation was running amok.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): "Nationality - (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)" And the Einstein article lead, which I imagine is quite contentious since it's locked, reads "German-born physicist". So lead should be changed to Russian-born poet who wrote in Lithuanian and Polish.

The Lithuanization statement is clearly OR unless someone can find a reference that states exactly that. Novickas 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Novickas, are you sure you do not mix ethnicity and nationality things?--Lokyz 13:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also not sure about Russian born justification , besides we have sources stating she was a Lithuanian poet. M.K. 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, without having surfed thousands of pages of WP history, I'm guessing that this policy was enacted to help settle exactly these kinds of disputes. Presumably because nationality can be documented with passports, etc., whereas ethnicity is supported either by DNA testing, the spelling of their names, or by trying to determine how they felt, all of which are much more slippery. In this case, it's pretty clear how she felt - you guys have documented that fully. Also there is a standard rule of translation - you translate INTO the language you are best at, which says a lot in this context, even if it's not documented in her case. I really think readers of the article, even if they don't know this rule, will get the picture about her sympathies. Altho some more context about the relative usages of the language at this time might not hurt. Novickas 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I find such solution absurd in this context. Equally absurd as, say, calling Gordon Brown a Scottish politician, Richard Wagner a Rhinean composer or, Tomas Venclova a German scholar. However, if that's the only compromise Lokyz could accept - fine with me. But please be sure to merge the entire category of Category:Lithuanian writers into Category:Russian writers, as all of them were born in Russia. Novickas, will you help me on that one? //Halibutt 14:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, BTW, M.K., could you please provide the sources you mentioned? //Halibutt 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Look in the article's history, they are all there. M.K. 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Following Novickas' logic I created a random list of Russians wrongly called Lithuanians in English WP:

• Antanas Smetona
• Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas
• Jonas Basanavičius
• Vaclovas Biržiška
• Simonas Daukantas
• Kazys Binkis
• Vincas Krėvė-Mickevičius
• Vincas Mykolaitis-Putinas
• Kazys Bradūnas (de iure born in Russia, de facto in Germany - a German then?)
• Henrikas Radauskas (this one was born in Cracow, so he must've been Austro-Hungarian)
• add here a name of your choice.

BTW, following the same logic all of you are Soviet wikipedians, as you all were born in the Soviet Union. Am I right? //Halibutt 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Halibutt, seems like you're creating precedent - I'm simply curious: will it affect Adam Mickiewicz, Władysław Syrokomla and Juliusz Słowacki too? I can easily make a list similar to yours, even including Российскй дворянин Юзеф Пилсудски.

I'm just trying to show you, that your attempt to create yet another WP:POINT incident and disrupt Wikipedia has far going consequences.

And dear Novickas - please read WP:DNFTT.--Lokyz 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, one article at a time. Don't forget Pilsudski in this list. Halibutt, if you feel the policy is absurd, please discuss at its talk page. Gordon Brown's Scots ancestry is not mentioned in the lead because Scotland was and still is part of the UK. Just trying to stick to the policies, part of a general philosophy of rule by law. I think it's pretty good as it stands now. Novickas 15:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Of course, after finishing off the Lithuanian list we should go for the others as well. And then the Russian, German (no Germany prior to 1871!), and so on. After you, Novickas. //Halibutt 19:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

One should actually thank Hali for his "logic". By telling us that Wagner was not a Rhinean composer, but implies that he is known by the rest of the world as a German composer, one would think that K.P. was a Lithuanian rather than a Samogitian, by the same logic. Don't know how Henryk Radowski escaped the "dragnet" though (just lucky I guess). And Brown does happen to be a Scottish politician. Dr. Dan 01:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

A trully sad view indeed to meet with such reference [9]- {{pl icon}} {{cite book | author =[[Antoni Baranowski]] | coauthors =Józef Jacek Rojek, Mieczysław Jackiewicz, Juozas Vaina | title =Borek oniksztyński (Forest of Onikszta) | year =1987 | editor = | pages =XV-XVII | chapter = | chapterurl = | publisher =Pojezierze | location =Olsztyn | isbn= | url =http://books.google.com/books?id=86AhAAAAMAAJ&q=Proniewska&dq=Proniewska&pgis=1 | format = | accessdate =2007-10-09 }} I have a few questions regarding such, well, let's call it a reference:

1. Was Anykščių Šilelis written by Antanas Baranauskas, or editorial team?
2. Can the authors from 1987 be called Co-Authors? (let me remind you, that Baranauskas died 1902)
3. Do the so called Co-Authors speak Lithuanian to be able to contribute to the classical work of Lithuanian literature?
4. Didn't i just see Karolina Ona Praniauskaitė on one of the scraps?

Or maybe they were translators, foreword writers and so on? I guess you cannot determine, unless you'll find a way to library, because those scraps only say inbetween: "K.Proniewska zasczepila u Baranowskiego miloszci do jezyka i kultury litewskiej, sklonila go by zaczal pisacz w jezyku litewskim". Referenced statement btw. Do you know what the reference refers to? Maybe a letter from Baranauskas? No - we do not know it either you nor I, so such references are nothing less than rubbish. If you feel that google books scraps references as such belong to Wikipedia - feel free to translate that statement and add to the article.

Sometimes I do just wonder, does anyone read paper books in these google generation times?--Lokyz 17:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lokyz, I was using the Polish edition, and cited the Polish edition. Should I cite some Lithuanian edition even if there is no such biography in it? As to specific concerns:

1. Baranowski did not write his own biography published in that book (as a preface)
2. Yes, as they authored the preface and the biography
3. I have no idea. One of them has a Lithuanian surname, so probably yes, but that doesn't really matter as the reference specifically points to the biography of Baranowski and not to his work (though both were published together in one book).
4. Perhaps. Where?

As to the rest - I don't really get what's wrong. You yourself found the relevant part that reference is used for, so what translation do you need? //Halibutt 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, since you do not read sources you provide, (see that "where?"), there is nothing to discuss.--Lokyz 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right, Lokyz, that's the good way to go! Great spirit of cooperation, compromise and work towards a common goal! Disrupt articles, but when asked to cooperate - simply ignore all the questions. If only everyone here was as cooperative as you are... //Halibutt 06:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The "best" examples of great spirit of cooperation are these: revert ultranationalist edit. I did not remove any references, M.K.; undoing some of the vandalism caused by Lokyz; Sorry, Lokyz, I have no intention to discuss with you as long as you vandalize wikipedia.. M.K. 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The cooperation should be mutual - for a starters before asking where? you could go and read the passage I did refer to - there are barely nine lines, you cold not have missed it. So I'll stick with WP:DNFTT.--Lokyz 09:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did read the passage - and, judging by the fact that you don't find my reply satisfactory, still don't understand what's your problem. Care to elaborate? //Halibutt 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's really unfair use links taken out of context or even as "fact" use notice about event! The reliable sources are those where is researched the biography, but not like these "facts": [10] [11] [12]. Karolina Proniewska became famous for his poetry in Polish, but not in Lithuanian language. Modern Lithuanians not existed in the mid of 19th century, instead there was Samogitians and Lithuanians. And if person named herself as Proniewska - she was Proniewska, and if she identified as Samogitian - she was Samogitian. It's fundamental. --62.80.252.65 (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I request original and translated citations for highly dubious claims, which marker in article, please provide and page numbers. M.K. 12:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

From Borek oniksztyński ([13]):

p.XV "polsko-litewska poetka Karolina Anna Proniewska" -> Polish-Lithuanian poetress KAP

p.XVI "Karolina Anna Proniewska urodziła się... w rodzinie szlacheckiej" -> KAP was born in a szlachta family.

From Stoberski, Historia... ([14])

p55 "poetka polska Karolina Proniewska (1828—1859), nazywana z litewska Karolina Praniauskaitė" -> Polish poetress KAP, known in Lithuanian as KP:

I hope that helps.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing - dictionary just say szlachetny - means noble, not szlachta [15]--Lokyz 19:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Strange thing, looking in provided links I cant see any thing like "polsko-litewska", "w rodzinie szlacheckiej", and this link is only blank page. Any more contributors has same problems? M.K. 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can see the words in the scraps for the first ref. But the second one is also empty on my screen. BTW there is at least one reference that refers to her as an LT poet - "pirmoji lietuvių poetė" - with no qualifications that she was only a translator - from the Lithuanian Writers Union [16]. Novickas 15:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can see more if you try Google Book search for those quotes, or get the books from a library.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well' all the burden of evidence lies on the one who does present it.Since there are 7 lines visible - only those are acceptable - other ones ( where only half of the sylables are seen) need to be verified. Be bold Piotrus, visit a library before sending there others. Ah, and I would be more than interested to ask: are those scraps from one page, or from few? How many pages does foreword take? How many pages there are? What exactly page is every one of the scraps? In what context everyone of those 3x3 lines are used in?

Anyway there is peer reviewed monograph cited that is more scientific valid per WP:RS than 7 lines from foreword to a poetry translation.--Lokyz 20:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would also like to see border citations for the context, please contributors who used these sources provide this information. M.K. 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Following Lokyz's logic presented above we should remove the Aleksandravičius refs altogether, as they are off-line and not even 7 lines are visible. Is that what you meant Lokyz? //Halibutt 10:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

My logic is that i can see whole 256 pages on my table, and can fully grasp the context in which terms are used. I've read the whole book. Strange enough you continue to put references to Aleksandravičius to some fringe theories of yours, while it was added to support Samogitian noble family, not szlachta, not [[Poland|Polish]] nobility or something else.

As for Samogitians, while they do have selfidentity, consider themselves part of Lithuanians. As Lithuanians they were recognized in Konstanz and later in Bazel church councils. Special delegates were sent, who acknowledged the fact - that people in Samogitia and in Lithuania speak the same language and have the same customs. Since then no one would ever doubt this, until now. In other words you're creating a gargantuan WP:OR here.

I do not put the quote and translation, since there is one in another article, that is constantly removed under various pretexts despite WP:Village Pump and third party suggestions to leave them. I have strong suspicion it would happen the same here.

I'm getting tired of this POV pushing without taking a note of historical background, historical traditions and context.--Lokyz 11:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Does the guy call her a member of the Samogitian noble family or a Lithuanian noble family? If it's the earlier - all is ok, as a Samogitian noble family could be Polish, Lithuanian, Tartar or even German. Samogitia is merely a geographic term - hence there is no contradiction here. However, you use the reference to call her a member of the Lithuanian noble family, which doesn't seem right - and does seem like your own interpretation of the sources rather than quotation.

So, if the source says "Samogitian noble family" - then let's use Samogitian noble family and not Lithuanian noble family - especially that we have two more sources confirming that she was one of the szlachta from Samogitia.

As to Samogitia - we're not speaking about ethnic Samogitians here. We're speaking about a Polish language poet who lived in the region of Samogitia. Equally she could've lived in the regions of Mazovia, Lorraine, Essex or Bavaria. People living in a region do not belong to the dominant nationality by definition. By comparison: Mazovians are Polish, people living in Mazovia - not necessarily. There are Jews, Germans, Hindu, Brits, even Lithuanians living here - and all of them are Mazovian yet not Polish. //Halibutt 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

At Novickas' request, I have commented about some of the technical issues.

There is provision for having footnotes as distinct from references in WP:CITE, section 3.4.2.2 Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" -- and a small number of WP articles use this technique extensively. Ideally they should be a separate section, but that is a little tricky. But otherwise, just what is the problem there? That the footnote itself needs a citation? I see from that page that citations cannot be nested, using some of the automatic techniques, but would need to be specified manually as best they could. I'm a hardened academic, and I am quite accustomed to the very complicated footnote apparatus often used in history and the humanities, but I agree that for WP something relatively simple and straightforward is preferable.

It would seem to me that the footnote "It is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite is an apparently sensible sort of comment-- although i gather from this talk page this may or may not be correct. Apparently this is fundamentally a content dispute. If it's controverted, why not just say so? A great deal of unproductive debate has been spent on thousands of articles on just how to give such information in the lede paragraph or in infoboxes --I support giving the commonly held version, of stating the alternatives quickly, and discussing more fully later in the article. . As for the technical way to present the information, I think there is provision for doing things this way. There has been a good deal of unresolved discussion of how to present multiple alternative names without confusing the user. There is something to be said for using footnotes for this purpose, rather than trying to get it all in the text.

Hope this helps. Though I'm not qualified to comment on the fundamental issue of her ethnic feelings, I'm glad to have had the opportunity to learn something about her. DGG (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

For a way to get separate footnotes with cite.php citations, see Soviet invasion of Poland (1939).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

For further discussion, including links to the sometimes controversial nature of interpretative text and wikilinks in notes, see User_talk:DGG#Question_re_Notes_usage. Novickas 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As much I do know to be able translate poetry in a high level one has to be a poet himself. Besides, as her archives were burned, this does not mean that she did not write poetry in Lithuanian. As far i do understand, survived only her published works?--Lokyz 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might be right or wrong. On one hand you have to speak a language quite well in order to translate to that language. On the other hand I used to translate poetry myself even though I'm by no means a poet. However, we have to stick to facts rather than assumptions. What we know is that she didn't publish a single poem of her own in Lithuanian. What we don't know is whether she wrote poems in Lithuanian or not. Sure, there might've been such poems in her destroyed archives, but we simply don't know that. We might just as well assume that her burnt papers included notes on Martian atmosphere, agriculture in Africa or a dictionary of Lusatian language. We simply have no info to prove it right or wrong. //Halibutt 08:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure your translations were acclaimed by literature critics and had a great impact on Polish culture.--Lokyz 11:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

How does it add to the topic? //Halibutt 10:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a compliment to me, no? Besides you added it to the topic yourself. Only God knows why. Dr. Dan 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

To illustrate the problem. //Halibutt 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think your reference to "notes on Martian atmosphere (sic), agriculture in Africa, or a dictionary of Lusatian language" (sic), does a better job at illustrating the problem. Dr. Dan 01:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. //Halibutt 10:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. Just keep on giving us more of your illustrations on your trying to achieve that ephemeral "modus vivendi" with the Lithuanian editors (and non-LT ones too), that you wanted to achieve way back when, and continually strive to achieve. Dr. Dan 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since you insist, please share your thoughts about how and why Samogitian nobility is different from Lithuanian nobility?--Lokyz 13:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is better discussed at Talk:Samogitian nobility.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It can be discussed here as they are very related. Sort of like Prussian nobilty and German nobility are related. Or English and Scottish nobility are related topics. Dr. Dan 23:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, just like French and English nobility are related. Or Spanish and Austrian nobility. So?

The bottomline here is that Samogitia is a geographic term. That's why sources call Proniewska a descendant of the szlachta from Samogitia and not Lithuanian nobility, Polish nobility or any other. Yet, our dear Lithuanian friends argue that nobility from Samogitia has by definition anything in common with the Lithuanian nation. //Halibutt 19:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the bottom line here is that Samogitian is an adjective. Szlachta is not an English term, just as Bajorai is not an English term. Samogitian nobility is merely a more specific part of Lithuanian nobility. Perhaps you simply disagree that K.P. was Lithuanian, and want to emphasize sources that support your POV. You should try to be a little more consistent in your editing. Dr. Dan 15:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just like renaissance is not an English term, yet it is used in modern English. As to your point - I'm constantly waiting for some proof of it at the relevant talk page. In countless sources the term is used geographically (Samogitian noble = noble from Samogitia), very seldom as an ethnic term (Samogitian noble = Lithuanian noble). In this specific context no source calls her a Lithuanian noble and there is no reason to pretend they do. What M.K. and Lokyz do is pure original research. Finally, I have no problem with the fact that modern Lithuanians call her a Lithuanian poet (eventhough she did not write a single poem in Lithuanian) and that modern Lithuanian authors prefer to refer to her as Pranauskaite, eventhough she did not even know that name herself. I only have a problem with WP:UNDUE. It's the very same situation as with adding (and bolding) the name of Džordžas Volkeris Bušas into the article on George W. Bush. Sure, the name is used in modern Lithuanian, but that doesn't mean Bush is Lithuanian or that the form of his name is prominent enough to be mentioned in the header as one of the two alternatives. //Halibutt 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I suppose you could provide at least some citations regarding Samogitians as "region", since most authors I've read in Lithuanian speaks about Žemaičių bajorai, not Žemaitijos.

And remember things are not the way you like them to be, things are just the way they are (so is it with pl.wikipedia, that you left, so it will be with en.wikipedia). Praniauskaitė - is very contemporary name, used in Baranauskas letters. So - your guess is a complete miss and pushing of your POV is a waste of many busy people's time.--Lokyz 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lokyz, and that's precisely what we need here! You know their letters - provide citations and we'll all be fine! I was searching for some trace of Proniewska's letters to Baranowski, but found only a mention that she ordered all of them burnt. As to the letters by Baranowski, I also found some, but all of them were written in Polish, which makes them hardly useful for you here. But if there were more letters published - then why not add them as a source to this article? Or are they merely a translation of the Polish language letters they exchanged? //Halibutt 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What made you think, that he did write letters only to her? he was quite productive author and has left a lot of letters on various subjects - not only in Lithuanian , but also in other languages. And I think I put a reference to Aleksandravičius book, where one of such letters is cited.--Lokyz 09:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The last time I checked, no one was trying to add D. V. Bušas (it would be Jurgis, btw), to the English Wikipedia, only Kraków. Want to change it back to Cracow? Dr. Dan 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bottom line is that our dear Polish friends on Polish W.P., consider your opinions unwelcome there, and you to be a persona non grata. Or do I have it wrong and actually you simply prefer to spread your "good will" to Lithuanian related matters on English W.P.? Could that be the real issue?Dr. Dan 22:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't really get what you mean. Do you suggest I was banned on Polish wiki, or what? Besides, let's not make this personal: it's a content dispute and I'd rather you refrained yourself from off topic comments. Use user talk pages for that. //Halibutt 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't want it to get personal. I feel that you have followed a pattern in your activities regarding Lithuanian related articles on English WP that are not consensus building, fair, or constructive. In fact, many of your edits have been quite to the contrary. I still hope this will one day stop by your own volition, and the sooner the better. As to Polish Wiki, of course you are not "banned" to participate there, but there is some kind of issue causing you to not entend your abilities to add to or improve its pages. My impression is that you feel unwelcome there as a result of past disputes. You have expounded upon it on your user pages, and maybe I have missunderstood your own explanation. As to having a chat with you on your talk page, may I remind you that you asked me not to grace it with my thoughts a year or so ago. Nonetheless you are always welcome on mine. Have a nice day! Dr. Dan 16:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. I can't believe you equate the association of Samogitia and Lithuania on the same plane as to what England is to France. Besides I was using the Prussian and German and English and Scottish examples which are more comparable.Reply

If you don't want it to get personal then stop accusing me of fancy things and be constructive. Above you wrote 10 phrases on my humble person and only one on topic. Get the idea? Over and out. BTW, I'm still waiting for Lokyz to speak up. //Halibutt 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Forget about your humble person and my "10 phrases". Try to anwswer my question on the "topic/isuue" for a change, and you might even get Lokyz to speak up, too. But until you do that, he probably will ignore you. That's his call. Btw, the substantive issue was why you think Samogitia and Lithuania's relationship to each other, correlates with England's relationship to France. Hmm? The personal "issue" was why you feel a need to demean the Lithuanian component of the PLC, or Lithuanians in general on English WP? Dr. Dan 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. No accusation of you doing "fancy things", either. Whatever that means.Reply

1. No, I was not banned on Polish wiki. I withdrew from that project because I don't like the style of most of the articles and I'd have to spend too much time correcting it.
2. As to Lithuania, Samogitia, France and England, it's your words, not mine. I was speaking about relations between the noble classes, not the regions/countries
3. As to demeaning the Lithuanian component of PLC - it's yet another of your own lies, and has nothing to do with what I think or what I do. //Halibutt 10:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
4. Never said you were "banned" on Polish Wiki. Thanks for explaining why you have a problem with Polish WP.
5. You brought up France and England, not me. Perhaps you thought by mocking me through this absurd comparison, you proved your point. Don't think you did though.
6. Thank you for your kind words. Unfortunately your edits don't back up your explanation. Dr. Dan 15:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. You're welcome. Now it's your turn: please be so kind as to explain how was that related to this dispute?
2. It's not an absurd comparison, nor was meant to mock you. Try to focus on my points and not on possible reasons to state them. Focus on the problem, not the participants. Focus on Proniewska, and not on Machocki.
3. Really? Then start an RfC and propose some ban on me (with diffs and links) instead of harassing me and trying to turn all disputes I take part in into off-topic chatter on my alleged guilts. //Halibutt 10:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

If I were to take the Polish Poet Adam Asnyk (always liked him), and say he was a Polish-Lithuanian poet, you'd think I was nuts. And then if I said,"well he was born in Kalisz, but it was once part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", and this was justification for my lack of logic, you'd think that I was nuttier still. So what we have here are are objections to polonized Lithuanians breaking out of this cocoon that later {now) became an established and successful member of the European Union. Lokyz, WP:DFTT. Lokyz, maybe now you can better understand Pilsudski's quote about what he was dealing with. I certainly understand why Miedzymorze had a snowball in hell's chance to succeed. I'm wondering if this agenda might even explain the partitions too. Maybe some sensible and fairminded Polish editors can get this group to back off. Maybe? Dr. Dan 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many poets and artists considered themselves to be citizens of the Commonwealth rather than being exclusively Lithuanian or Polish. Their Commonwealth identity was expressed by some, up until the XXth century.--Molobo 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Somehow it seems that in the XX1st century, their expression is suppressed here on English WP. Dr. Dan 03:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, let's assume the version of M.K. and Lokyz is nice and neutral. I have a set of questions then:

1. How come her Lithuanian surname is equally valid if she died in 1859, roughly 60 years before modern Lithuanian grammar was born (with the introduction of the ė letter)
2. What works did she write in Lithuanian?
3. How come we use plural for a single author (according to Lithuanian autors)
4. What works of Lithuanian literature did she translate? So far we have sources to say she translated some works of Polish literature to Lithuanian, not the other way around

//Halibutt 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was so entertained reading this peace above. Thanks. I was just looking to this peace. Hmm there are ž, ą, į, š, ų etc. etc. and even ė. This is not 1918 yr. text. Hmm something is not right. And I know what - this ORIGINAL RESEARCH claims, not the last one and not the first either. Not surprisingly that majority of editors refused to discuss Original research claims of this kind. M.K. 10:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Define "modern Lithuanian grammar" and how did it change traditional Lithuanian names and Lithuanian surnames? How did it affect Lithuanian phonetics, morphology, pronouncation or dialects? BTW, care to provide any references to support "modernity" of Lithuanian grammar? Or are you referring to the last form of standardized ortography?

As for the rest, i do not intend to go for supporting your already proven WP:OR and stick to my favorite WP:DNFTT, since all the answers are already on the talk page. Ah, and please see - WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought especially nr.4.--Lokyz 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. It did change Lithuanian names as after 1918 Radwiła would become Radvila in Lithuanian
2. Still waiting for your answers. Otherwise I might tag the relevant parts with {{Fact}}, but thought it might be easier to solve it here
3. No answer from you
4. No answer from you

//Halibutt 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, Hali, are you suggesting that the letter Ł was part of the Lithuanian language prior to 1918? Didn't know that. Are you sure? Dr. Dan 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since this is escalating, it's time to file an RFC, with a narrow focus on the bolding, apart from the complex issue of her ethnicity. The Lithuanian editors and the American-of-Lithuanian-ancestry editor think that it warrants bolding because Praniauskaite appears in a number of EN-language publications in a Gsearch [17], and several other EN-language sites use Praniauskaite, as seen in the article's references. Many of the Google hits point to the public library in Lithuania that was named for her; however, it has been asserted that this is an invalid application of the "usage in English" rule. Novickas 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why post this? See article history page; 3RR block filed in connection to the article; [18] today's edit to the Jonas Basanavičius article, bolding Polish version of name, with edit summary of "per the Karolina Proniewska rule", [19] which may well lead to more edit warring; long history of related conflicts that led to Arbcom [20]; lack of strong WP guidance with regard to bolding alternate names. Novickas 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should be particularly stressed an issue that name Karolina Praniauskaitė is used not only on English web pages but also in English encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Lituanica Vol.4 p. 337, while I did not saw any English language sources which would use Karolina Proniewska as a name.M.K. 09:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with bolding of the name, I withdraw all my objections, as long as similar changes to other articles are not reverted. //Halibutt 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to the manual of style, names should be in boldface in the lead sentence. For example: "Boris Karloff(November 23, 1887 – February 2, 1969), born William Henry Pratt" In this case, the current revision seems to be appropriate; perhaps replacing "or" with "aka" or "also known as". As far as I can tell, policies support bolding all names that a person is known by. _Jame§^ugrono 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

One user still cannot leave the article in peace. Not that it would surprise me much, but somehow confusing like according to Lithuanian authors{{Fact|date=December 2007}},<ref name=EA>. What's that request? Should a reference to be provided that Egidijus Aleksandravičius is Lithuanian? Or request to add reference in the middle of the sentence, while there is one at the end. i did put that, It is not so difficult but more than strange anyway.--Lokyz 15:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The user to write this article cannot leave this article in peace for a reason. Some guys invent facts and present them as if they were real. Let me explain every single tag I added:

1. The {{Totally-disputed}} tag is because both neutrality and factual accuracy of the current version are disputed. Neutrality due to undue weight given to one of the options and factual accuracy because of numerous lies presented in the article against any source (see below)
2. The "she wrote in Lithuanian" is a tad difficult as no Lithuanian work by Proniewska has ever been published nor survived to our times (and that's what several sources specifically say). If so, then why are we mentioning her hypothetical Lithuanian poetry in the lead (and even before Polish, mind you)?
3. The "Lithuanian noblewoman is indeed my mistake, I didn't notice that you stopped changing the link to Samogitian nobility (what sources say) to Lithuanian nobility (unsupported by sources). Feel free to remove that one.
4. As for citation request for "she wrote Polish and Lithuanian languages" - we need some confirmation that she indeed wrote Lithuanian language poetry. This might be hard to find - see point No. 2
5. As for "poet-translator of Lithuanian literature" - I need a single piece of evidence that she translated any piece of Lithuanian literature to any foreign language. We have plenty of evidence that she translated some Polish works to Lithuanian, but not the other way around.
6. As for Proniewska instilling "into Baranauskas a love for Lithuanian language and culture", perhaps the tag is not as specific as it should be. Anyway, the vocabulary is extremely POVed. Love, hate, traitor, hero - this set of words should be avoided in an encyclopedia, and if not- those should be used with caution.

//Halibutt 15:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. I'd rather say it's classical case of WP:IDONTLIKE, than neutrality dispute.

2. Poetry translations IS a work in Lithuanian, we've discussed it earlier many times. Topic closed per WP:DNFTT - I do not intend to waste my time in circular discussions repeating the same over and over agsin.

3. Samogitian nobily IS Lithuanian nobility, we've discussed it earlier on this very talk page. Topic closed per WP:DNFTT.

4. see 2. Read Syrnicka - you'll find Lithuanian literature. Topic closed per WP:DNFTT.

5 See the reference introduced into article by you. What's funny I've told you many times it is just scraps, but you insisted it is good. Well, that's why it is present, ant that's why citation is present. It s written in Polish, you might check it yourself, and it would be nice if you'd stop removing references - hence restoring. As per POV - I do not think every book should suit someones beliefs. Researcher tend to find more than someone's misconceptions based on one article on the web. Topic closed per WP:DNFTT.--Lokyz (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. Yes, I don't like it because it's POV as hell and it's full of lies.
2. She did not write poetry in Lithuanian. She translated poetry to Lithuanian, it's a difference. Do you suggest Miłosz was the author of Venclova's poems? Or perhaps he authored the Bible? Nope.
3. No, we did not discuss it. You claimed it, which is a different thing.
4. Yes, it's mentioned as "she entered the annals of Lithuanian literature". Not as "she translated the works of Lithuanian literature". Still need a citation for that.
5. Still, the vocabulary is POV. Do you want me to include what Russian newspapers write of Lithuanian politicians in the lead of articles on them? We'll have plethora of sources for all kinds of POV vocabulary - but would it be ok? Nope. //Halibutt 05:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sadly your accousations on "lies" are incivil, and your behaviour calling each user, who tries to do something positive a "vandal" is unacceptable.

By the way it's you who introduced newspapers and scraps into this article as reliable sources. If you'd be so kind and reread the discussions up above, you'll find that I did doubt about their academic credibility. I did introduce only peer reviewed academic monographes, that you began spoiling with interpretations on your own way of liking. Not that I do have much (or even at all) hope convincing you, but I just wanted to inform you, that I do know author of provided referencepersonally, and I did ask him what was his meaning of Samogitian noble. The answer is given above.

Since you state on your userpage that you do like reading a lot, I might suggest you reading Michał Pius Römer study Litwa. Studyum o odrodzeniu narodu litewskiego. He's not the one you might call Lithuanian nationalist, but well, he things juch more close to my position, than yours. It is written in 1906, so he had quite clear view on what was happening back then. The book is considered not lost it's scientific value until these days.--Lokyz (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. I did something positive: I wrote this article. You also did something "positive" - you added plenty of dubious claims to it and now do your best to present them as facts. Shall we continue the pro-personam dispute or perhaps shall we stick to the NPOV and content dispute?
2. Sorry for calling disruption of Wikipedia vandalism, I'll try to call it "disruption" next time.
3. Yes, it was me to add most of the sources to this article. So..? How's that related to this dispute?
4. Let's stick to the source - and it doesn't call her a Lithuanian noble. Aleksandravičius might have told you anything, but it's not in the source, is it.
5. Sure, I'll see if I have time. However, this does not explain why do you remove the tags without answering my questions above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halibutt (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. I'm not sure - it seems, you've freely translated/interpreted Syrnicka article (without asking her for permission) and you think you're the author? (more questions arose after you forgot to sign)

2. Try to do something positive instead of calling names, like for example sighn with your name.

3. Sure thing, You might be happen the one who added any of peer reviewed monographs? Please cite Authors and some lines of them? Like the <ref name=Baranowski> I'm still interested Who is author of this book.

4. Person I did ask not told me nothing new, he did told me about Lithuanian nobility - It's not POV, it's historical tradition - Roemer and Mykolas Biržiška are the cornerstones in this research. And Roemer's diaries are now published in Lithuania and Poland. You'd be surprised how much he was involved into things going on, and how much he did knew.

5. Sure. I did remove them because you acted rough and accused other editors to be lying, to be vandals and so on (not very positive edits, you might agree), and rationale for removal of various tags were present in the edit summary.--Lokyz (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. No, I did not translate her article. I used it as one of the sources though (WP:CITE). This is entirely legal as I never claimed I'm Syrnicka - or that I'm the author of her work. Nor did I extensively translate her prose. Note that the author is entitled to copyrights to his/hers prose, but not to all of the facts mentioned. For instance one cannot copyright the birth year of a noted personality. Besides, it was me to write most of this article. I don't WP:OWN it, but I wrote most of it. And I feel responsible for its quality, which I feel threatened by POV statements and counter-factual info added to it by some editors (you among them).
2. Sure, I will.
3. I already explained that above (or was it in the article on Baranowski?): the author is Baranowski himself, but the fragment cited in the article is the preface, written by Rojek and Vaina. This is specifically mentioned in the footnote.
4. Sure, but your private chat is not a source. Chat with some noted guy is a great source for a journalist, but not for a Wikipedian (per WP:SOURCE).
5. Sadly accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not a valid rationale. For instance why do you add the "Baranowski" source to support "love for Lithuanian", even though the source says nothing of love? //Halibutt 01:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. :)

3. Baranauskas might be author of poem, but foreword was not written by him.This reference should be improved.

4. Chat with my university teachers and fellows is a reality check, to find out whether I'm on the right track. I do have other authors in my sleeve that I did consult with. And, well, I do not intend to bring them, unless someone will be interpreting the sources of people I could ask about. --Lokyz (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nobody argues that it was Baranowski to write the foreword. That's simply how the references are done: you always cite the author of the work first. Check WP:CITE for more info. Note that none of the problems with this article have been solved so far. We had a nice chatter, yet the problem remains. //Halibutt 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, read WP:RS and WP:V. And read some articles on academic referencing. Limitations of reference generator should'nt be a problem for an educated man.--Lokyz (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kindly explain to the readers of English WP and its editors, why linking the Polish language terminology, "szlachta," is more "accurate" than using the English description, i.e., Lithuanian nobility, in this article. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, because it's a more generic term, including "Lithuanian nobility", "Polish nobility", "Ruthenian nobility" and all those local high-class guys who formed The Nation of the Commonwealth. Secondly, by using a more generic term I was trying to evade getting into the same swamp again by claiming she was Polish nobility, Lithuanian nobility, Samogitian nobility or whoever. Szlachta is a compromise solution. Then, there is no source to claim she was Lithuanian nobility and the sources we have refer to her either as member of the szlachta or sometimes with a geographic delimitation ("of Samogitia"). It's all in the sources presented. //Halibutt 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Exactly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Exactly what? Samogitians had never formed a state, hence there was no Samogitian nation per se. Secondly, why would a selfaware Samogitian encourage Baranuskas to write in Lithuanian, not, let's say for example, Samogitian?--Lokyz (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

At first glance this explanation seems reasonable enough, but it contains several fallacies. First, "Szlachta" is not a "generic" term but the Polish term for its nobility throughout its history, not only during the PLC, but before the creation of the PLC, as well as after its demise. Second, since accuracy is paramount to the WP project, the link to Lithuanian nobility rather than szlachta makes more sense. If the subject in question had been born in Masovia my link would be inappropriate. But she hailed from Samogitia, a specific region that is in Lithuania. Furthermore the use of English should always take precedence in matters like these, especially because this remains English WP. Lastly an encyclopedia should be presenting facts, not making attemps to "compromise" how information should be presented in order to assuage someone's POV. When an article's lead begins...Karolina Proniewska or Karolina Praniauskaitė (1828 - 1859) was a romantic Polish[1][2][3][4]-Lithuanian[5] poet and translator...requiring 5 "references", one must give pause to what is taking place here. If you truly want to prevent returning to the "swamp" as you claim, I suggest that you review your recent edits on WP concerning Lithuania and the purpose behind them. Otherwise this cycle will unfortunately begin again. I hope not. I will return the more accurate and appropriate link to the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your arguments don't make much sense, I am afraid. Szlachta is the correct term, as used by many English sources, and no sources claim KP was "Lithuanian nobility". EOT, per DEADHORSE, OR and DFTT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

For starters, P.P., I suggest that you tone down your insulting attitude. It is not only unbecoming for an administrator or any other editor on WP to behave as you are doing in this discussion, nor is it necessary. Especially for one who has recently been admonished at your third ArbCom. This is the second time, within several days, that you have inserted "DFTT", concerning our interaction on two article talk pages. Please reconsider your choice of words. Next, whether or not my remarks "don't make much sense" to you is neither here nor there. These discussions are aimed at garnering a consensus, based on the facts relating to them and not your personal interpretations of them, and to anyone else who wishes to contribute to the discussion. This is primarily the reason that I did not object to Halibutt's input (quite a bit more civil and a good attempt to give a reasonable explanation for his viewpoint) when the question was actually directed to you. "Szlachta" is the correct term" is not correct, it is the Polish term for nobility. The focus of this article was born in Lithuania, was "Samogitian," and not of Polish heritage. What language she wrote in is also neither here nor there. I'm sure that even anyone involved in mind games on WP would not try to insist that Joseph Conrad was British, even though his major works are exclusively written in English. You do not own this article and if it is EOT for you, so be it. The issue has not been closed by your waving some kind of wand over it. It remains open to further discussion. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Karolina Proniewska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703012532/http://nasz-czas1.tripod.com/025/syrnic.html to http://nasz-czas1.tripod.com/025/syrnic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply