User talk:Egisz

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editorial conflict

Hi and Merry Christmas. I have noticed that you consistently remove or ignore referenced entries in the definition of Adam Mickiewicz article. It is rather dominating in the literary research and the history of literature to recognize A.M as a 'Polish national romantic poet'. If anything else it was own Mickiewicz's beliefs, actions and writings that were strongly anchored in his Polish patriotism. I am fare from dislodging him from a strong regional Lithuanian patriotism. But one must not forget what a Lithuanian patriotism consist of in the old Rzeczypospolita (Republic) mainly among the gentry. They were staunchly Polish and also very staunchly regional. They consider themselves respectively 'Ruskis' (Ruthenia - southern estern provinces of Volynia, Podolia and so called 'Dzikie Pola'), 'Litwini' (old territories of Lithuania Proper) and 'Koroniarz' (Crown lands or Greater Poland, Masovia and Smaller Poland) - but that was within a family of one state and country. It does not preclude ethnic lineage which was either Ukrainian (Kiev Rus, Halich Rus and other principalities of early Rurykovich or Piast dynasties), Lithuanian (Lithuanian-Prussian frontier, along Niemen river, western and northern parts of what is now White Rus) and ethnically Polish (Smaller and Greater Poland, Masovia, Pommerania). Although the local peasant population retained a very strong attachment to their original roots and culture, the majority of gentry and aristocracy embraced a unifying concept of polonization. A nationality than was understood mainly as being a subject of one's crown. Modern understanding of nationality did not formed itself until late XIX century. Mickiewicz might have had indeed Lithuanian ethnic roots. It did not change his nationality from Polish into different one. The old Rzeczypospolita (Republic Poloniae) was his and his countryman most powerful dream and reason of action against the tyrannies of partitioning powers (Russia, Prussia and Austria). I don't see anything preventing you or other editors from exploring the issue of his ethnic lineage in the body of the article. But for the purpose of an encyclopedic entry the definition of this title is beyond doubt a "Polish national poet". At the very end one must be also conscious that neither modern day Poland nor modern day Lithuania is a full and rightful descendant of the old Rzeczypospolita or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But that is a subject for (perhaps) different discussion. Wishing you all the best in the New Year. respectfully, --Emanek (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing. This should be discussed in main page of discussion. 1)Dominating position doesn't mean that its right position. Thoose, who write about his "Polishness" never tried to ask, what was being Pole, what was Lithuania, etc. Lithuania had been gone in the vision of Europeans. Strong Polish historiography made big influence into making the gap. Anyway, between thoose, who doesn't deny his Lithuanianship we can find known historians(Norman Davies), writers (Witold Gambrowicz), specialists of literature(professor of Yale Tomas Venclova). Then how can You deny that? 2) Regional? His texts shows that it was not only regional("region of Poland") patriotism. His patriotism had strong connections with Grand Duchy. He often separates Poland(Korona) from a Grand Duchy. Following this logics, we should call him "Rzeczpospolitian" poet, because Poland(Korona) was also just a region of common state. I can't understand a wish of Poles to reduce double identity to "regional patriotism". 3) Nationality really wasn't understood in modern categories. Thats why argument, used by lot of Poles("he wrote in Polish") doesnt fit here. But it doesnt mean that modern Poles has more right to him than modern Lithuanians. I think great Adam would condemn both of them. 4) His self testimony, his origin, his text, known authos, i had mentioned before, doesnt deny his Lithuanianship, but shows his strong connections, identity with Lithuania and it cannot be removed.

Good luck (Egisz (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Arbitration enforcement warning: Eastern Europe

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision.

This is to notify you that you have recently made a revert at Władysław Syrokomla that continues a very old edit-war about how to describe this person's nationality. Please be aware that you may be blocked for participating in an edit war if you make even one more revert related to this topic. See User talk:Sandstein#So... for the discussion that made me aware of this issue, and for a recommendation how to resolve it without further reverting. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Adam Mickiewicz

You truly disapoint the idea of true knowledge. The Wikipedia has to follow the facts, which make Mickiewicz a polish poet, not a polish-lithuanian. In his signature You can see (even on lithuania Wikipedia) - "Adam Mickiewicz", also "Pan Tadeusz", "Dziady" and others have been written in polish. Adam Mickiewicz had the great contribution into polish culture and our nation is very proud of him, becuase we can read his poetry in original versions in polish. On polish Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Britannica is given true version - he is a polish poet. Please don't use false facts. Mickiewicz's parents were polish as well, Poraj is also polish. He wrote in polish, his signature was polish. And He lived in Russia, because both: Poland and Lithuania werent on map in his lifetime. There is no consensus about his polish-lithuanian nationality. Andrzej19 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like You dont even know realities of 19th century, understanding of ethnicity. Many of Lithuanians used Polish language and proudly called theirselves Lithuanians. He called Lithuania as his fatherland, his roots comes from family with Lithuanian surname. We are also proud. So i'm not going to waste my time with people who even can't think in categories of that time, trying to imagine that it was the same understanding of nationality at that time. --Egisz (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to enter into an edit war with you. If you have evidence of Mickiewicz's identifying himself as being Polish-Lithuanian, please bring it to the talk page of the article. Having known his works for many years (as I am of Ukrainian origin), I have read up on him in various languages & the same conclusions have been drawn as are found in the section regarding his ethnicity. If you have some original, new information on the subject, I would be more than happy to discuss it there. I do not have access to the text you are referring to so would be grateful if you could provide the relevant passages. Thank you for your courtesy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You. I did as You advise. My arguments aren't new or original (genealogical and his self consciousness). But just ignored by many. --Egisz (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I can sympathise with your frustration but, considering the body of his work, his push for Polish nationalism, etc. it is difficult to establish that he considered himself to be Lithuanian as being a primary part of his self-perception per se. I know that these issues are extremely convoluted in Slavic history (particularly post 'The Deluge'). I noticed that you only gave an except of his letter on the talk page. Would you be able to provide me with a link to the entire text (I've tried to look it up online but can only find references to the actual book which isn't available at my university's library). If I could read it in context and felt that this is a truth which is being overlooked I would be prepared to help you present your argument... but I would need to feel convinced that there is a substantial case. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You very much for trying to understand. Online publication of Mickiewicz's letter to his brother can be found here: http://plaszcz-zabojcy.blogspot.com/2013/03/odcinek-640-adam-mickiewicz-1841-rok.html I definetely agree with You that ages of nationalism changed the understanding of identities. But it fits not only to Lithuanians. Monoethnic Polish society is not the same as ancient. Dmowski was not a same Pole as Mickiewicz. Furthermore, Mickiewicz had great feeling of separate of Polish Lithuanian nation. Lets, for example, read his introduction to a poem written in 1828 (so 13 years before a letter i mentioned above) Konrad Wallenrod: "Naród litewski, składający się z pokoleń Litwinów, Prusów i Lettów, nieliczny, osiadły w kraju nierozległym, nie dosyć żyznym, długo Europie nieznajomy, około trzynastego wieku najazdami sąsiadów wyzwany był do czynniejszego działania.". (full text: http://wolnelektury.pl/katalog/lektura/konrad-wallenrod.html )I don't want to criticize A. Mickiewicz for including Prussians and Latvians to Lithuanian nation, but this quote helps to reveal how Mickiewicz felt a distinction. He knew that Lithuanians, Prussians and Latvians are not Slavonic tribes. His genealogy is also an argument as he is from noble Rymwid (Lithuanian surname) family of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. When all theese things combined i cant see any reason to stubbornly delete that one word helping to understand Adam's identity better. I don't need to delete "Polish" from article. But "Polish" alone cannot express complexity of his self - consciousness. There in "talk" one more argument was given. Argument (very strange for me) based on google search with "Mickiewicz Polish poet" and "Mickiewicz Lithuanian poet". I'm not sure why it is so important. Are theese works found on google a researches about his identity? Or just a lot of different (in quality's meaning) works about Adam Mickiewicz with "Polish poet" repeated unquestionably. Still, given numbers (~500 vs. ~130) shows that "Lithuanian poet" makes a quite solid minority. Especially when knowing that his Lithuanianship wasn't denied by authors like Norman Davies (historian, link: http://books.google.lt/books?id=9Tbed6iMNLEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=lt&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Lithuanian&f=false page 10), Witold Gambrowicz (Polish writer), Tomas Venclova (poffesor of literature in Yale, known for his tolerant and friendly attitudes toward Poles, his interesting article: http://www.lituanus.org/2007/07_3_03%20Venclova.html) Thank You very much. And my apologies for my bad English and sorry if i forgot to review any of aspects of problem You raised --Egisz (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether it is useful or frustrating for your POV, google searches for key words and phrases are used as a rule of thumb in editing. It may be useful for you to read up on this. Remember, also, that, as regards the complexity of ethnicity (particularly in an historical context) Wikipedia not a vehicle for personal research and analysis. No one has "stubbornly deleted one word" [sic]. It is being taken very seriously and a discussion is still underway on the talk page. There is a problem with working such information into the structure of the article without compromising the balance within the context. There is a distinct difference between intentionally ignoring information and maintaining the integrity of the predominant perception so that it remains obvious to the reader. Thank you for providing your sources and explaining your arguments to me. I'll take a look at these in the next couple of days as I'm working on researching other Wikipedia articles at the moment.

P.S. There's no need to apologise for your English. I have no difficulty in understanding what you're expressing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, few months ago You asked me sources which I keep as a proof of Mickiewicz Lithuanian identity. Still didn't hear Your conclusion:)Egisz (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, Egisz. I did start working through them and still have them bookmarked. Unfortunately, I work on so many articles (& there have been some major edit wars) that I've had to put it on the backburner. That's not to say that I've forgotten my promise and will certainly get around to exploring the sources thoroughly ASAP. I appreciate your patience & understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)