Talk:Józef Kożdoń

Article Title

Title of this article should be: Josef Koždon or Josef Kozdon, because this form his name is used in English-language literature. This is English wikipedia, not Polish. On his symbolical tomb is Czech form, so not Polish too. (unsigned) 16 January 2010

You are correct. I plan to move it shortly if there are no objections. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems there are some Silesian topics enthusiasts in Lithuania. I object the move, as the problem of his name is not that black and white. - Darwinek (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I object the move. Seems that Dan is trying to do another Dzierzon.  Dr. Loosmark 

Darwinek, I'm not editing from Lithuania (although I don't understand why someone from Lithuania might not be interested in Silesia). Loosmark, I don't understand what Johann Dzierzon has to do with this. But more importantly why is Kozdon's name rendered in Polish on English Wikipedia, when evidently he's not even Polish? Especially if this remark in the article, purportedly made by him, "I'm not a German, but I'm not and I don't want to be a Pole" is true. But I'm listening to both of you (or anyone else), for your reasoning as to why the man's name should be rendered in Polish on English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And what's with the fact he is not a Pole? Jan Dzierzon was most certainly not a German and yet you lobbied extensively to change his name into the German name "Johann". So what's exactly wrong with a Polish speaking Silesian having a Polish name?  Dr. Loosmark  15:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What's exactly wrong? Kozdon stating "I'm not (a Pole) and I don't want to be a Pole" would be a good start with what's wrong with your reasoning. Furthermore any argument that he could speak German (which he did, fluently) doesn't make Kozdon German. I believe that was the gist of your argument about Dzierzon. According to you, even though JD was Germanized and operated in the German language he was Polish and his Polish name was the proper one to use. In so far as Kozdon is concerned, there seems to be greater evidence that he was from Czechoslovakia. I'm sure you don't believe Marie Curie was French even though she was French speaking or that Haitians are French either. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kozdon stating "I'm not (a Pole) and I don't want to be a Pole" would be a good start with what's wrong with your reasoning. It seem that you are on some sort of auto-pilot when trying push renames but still it would be good to check what the article say. The lead does not describe him as a Pole but instead states that he was a Silesian autonomist politician. Which, incidentally, is exactly what the Czech wikipedia says too. Btw interesting that now you want to apply my reasoning from the Dzierzon article, does that mean that you were wrong there and the article should have been under the name Jan Dzierzon?  Dr. Loosmark  16:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus on Kozdon. If there is any good reason that this article's title should be rendered in the Polish language there won't be any reason to move it. It's that simple. The fact that he could speak German or Polish is not the issue. Nor am I denying that he was a Silesian autonomist politician. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a few facts for your consideration. Legally, Kożdoń was not from Czechoslovakia, nor from Poland. He was born in Austria-Hungary in a village, which had 99.4% Polish population according to the 1910 Austrian census. Politically, he was surely a Silesian autonomist, there's nothing controversial here. However ethnically he was Polish. The fact that he did not feel personally as a Pole does not matter here. Father of footballer Miroslav Klose said frequently he did not want to be considered Polish, yet he is included in "Polish footballers" category without any controversy. As for the article name itself, various variants appear in English-language literature, with no prevalence for any specific variant. - Darwinek (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Darwinek for your information. Regarding the 1910 Austrian census, I was actually reading some of its statistics at the Opava article (where Kozdon is buried) earlier today. If I'm not mistaken the village where Kozdon was born is today divided into two parts. One part is in the Czech Republic, the other in Poland. Not that it would be totally a deciding factor, but do you know what part Kozdon was born in (according to today's map)? Are you sure you want to stay with the argument, "The fact that he did not feel personally as a Pole does not matter here"? Does that logic work the other way around too? Does a non-Pole who personally feels that he is a Pole become a Pole? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Leszna Górna, where he was born, was divided forcibly in 1920. It was a political division, not an ethnic or language one. It would be hard to determine, in which part (from today's parspective) he was born. Anyways, the division doesn't matter completely, as it happened long after his birth. As for your question, I didn't make myself clear enough. His personal national/ethnic feelings have no influence on the article name. That's not a WP policy. - Darwinek (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Darwinek, you seem to be more knowledgeable about this largely unknown geographical and political region than most Wikipedians are. Horní Líštná, the Czech part of the village, today has some 300 inhabitants, while the Polish part has some 700 inhabitants. Presumably this village had even less inhabitants in 1873. I don't understand why it would be hard to determine what side of the 1920 border Kozdon was born on. Someone has to know. Let's try to find out. Another question is who "forcibly" divided this village and the region. Obviously, it wasn't Austro-Hungary which no longer existed at the time. As for WP policies, I'm familiar with many of them. From my perspective, some make sense, others do not. None are written in stone, and many have been changed and amended since I've been involved with this project. I do not see the need to invoke them at this point in an informal discussion about Kozdon, not yet. Forcible political divisions, as in the cases of Słubice or Görlitz aside, are not the issue here. Why, out of three possible choices (involving Silesia) concerning Kozdon's name, is the Polish version the preferable one here? That's not been explained yet. Maybe there's even a fourth choice. That would be an English rendering of Kozdon's name as opposed to a Czech, German or Polish version. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have census data for the region from 1890, if you need some population info. "Someone has to know" ... yes, probably, though we should have in mind that wooden houses so typical for this region no longer exist. Also, have in mind that Kożdoń was merely a regional politician, it is not common to commemorate them much. :) There were even government ministers hailing from that region, yet they are not commemorated by any monument/memorial plaque in their birthplace. The only exception being Jerzy Buzek, though even his birthplace house still does not bear any plaque. Leszna is really a tiny village and the forcible division imposed on the people by the Western powers, Czechoslovak and Polish diplomats, does not really matter here. Why? First, because the divided villages like Leszna, Marklowice or Puńców were homogenous. Second and most important, it has completely no relevance for the name of this article. Kożdoń could be born in Paris/Vienna/Helsinki and it would not have any specific significance for the name of his article. As for the name itself, we have three options. The Polish one - Józef Kożdoń, the German one - Josef Kozdon, the Czech one - Josef Koždoň. All of them were relevant at some point of his life. The question is however, which is more frequently used in literature. - Darwinek (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your perspective. It seems that what Kozdon considered himself is not important. It would seem that the name that he himself used is also not important. It would seem what is on his birth certificate is not important. It would even seem what is on his tombstone is not important. It would seem that therefore whatever is "more frequently" used in literature would be the deciding factor as to what name to use on English Wikipedia. Presently a non-English name is being used. I personally have a problem with a policy that would insist that Kozdon's name be rendered in Chinese on English Wikipedia if it could be demonstrated that somehow a Chinese transliteration of Kozdon is "most frequently" used in literature. May I remind you of your earlier statement a day or two ago, namely ..."the problem of his name is not that black and white". Perhaps this discussion can be expanded with some other people's input. I would especially hope that some Czech Wikipedians could weigh in. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-war

This article needs to be expanded by his WW II and postwar activities. In short, he saved hundreds of people, was decorated by the German Nazis, almost abducted by Polish Army after the war, and protected by local minorities in Czechia, and then by the government, pacem the Czech and Polish wikis. Anybody knows reliable English sources so that we can expand it? Zezen (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)