Talk:Laurynas Gucevičius/Archive 2

Compromise solution

All right, I asked this article to be blocked in order to let people cool down a little, sit back and talk. Time to settle the issue and move forward. I was entirely happy with the original version stating that he was a Polish-Lithuanian architect. It was later changed and the whole struggle started, but perhaps we could return to that wording? Alternatively, we could just add one of the following:

1. Because he was born in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and most of his works were built in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Lithuanian scholars consider him the first professional Lithuanian architect, even though he is considered a Pole by many non-Lithuanian scholars (and here go the refs deleted by Dude, I could add more if you please)
2. Considered a Pole by his contemporaries (French reference here) and modern scholars(the rest of refs), he is also considered the first professional Lithuanian architect by many modern Lithuanian scholars, who underline that he was born and spent most of his life in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania(the Lit. ref here).

What do you say? //Halibutt 20:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do those "solutions" seem very favorable to the Polish camp? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The alternative is to pretend the guy is not considered a Pole by lots of sources, to pretend he did not considered himself a Pole and to pretend he signed his name Gucevičius, even though there is no evidence he ever spoke Lithuanian (which is quite probable, BTW). I'd say it is very favourable to the Lithuanian camp. //Halibutt 20:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How bout that: Because he was born in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, or to be more precise in ethnic Lithuania, to parents bearing Lithuanian surnames (Masiulis and Žekonaitė) and most of his works were built in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Lithuanian scholars consider him the first professional Lithuanian architect, even though he is considered a Pole by many non-Lithuanian scholars, who keep basis of their assumptions in secret for reasons unknown (and here go the refs deleted by Dude) :) We could start bargaining from here. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's go step by step "Because he was born in Grand Duchy of Lithuania" Minsk was in Grand Duchy, Kupiškis was in Grand Duchy, but in Kupiškis region (now) more than 97 % of population is Lithuanian and only 0,3% is Polish, so it could be called "in ethnic Lithuania". Sure ethnic composition has changed in time (Jewish presence was much, much more significant back then IN TOWNS), Polish also (among SZLACHTA), but we are talking about PEASANT here (Masulis). C'mon. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

At least I tried... //Halibutt 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Another understatement, if you don't mind me saying so (but I'm sure you will). Dr. Dan 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's an understatement. I should've said At least I tried hard. And perhaps add some pro-personam remarks here and there. Which won't change a thing here: my attempt at seeking some sort of a compromise met with... you see yourself. //Halibutt 20:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree with Halibutt. Based on sources we have, up to and including English encyclopedias and academic sources, there are only two solutions: Polish or Polish-Lithuanian. I completly agree that to say he was just Polish is an error, but so is to say he was Lithuanian. Polish-Lithuanian is a reasonable compromise solution. On a related note, the current name of the article should be changed: I can't find a mention of its being used in Scholar or print. I am not saying we should go with the Polish name which gives only 1 English hit on print ([1]) but surely if he is so notable there must be some English variant that is more popular then 0 or 1 hit?? PS. Please note that that reference again lists him as 'Polish architect'...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'd try looking not for Gucevicius or Gecevicius as you did, but for Gucevičius you might find this [2]--Lokyz 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we were to look more closely on google books, there are more instances:

1. Wawrzyniec Gucewicz (called a Polish architect)
2. Wawrzyniec Lawrence Gucewicz (one of Poland's most eminent architects)
3. W. Gucewicz
4. Gucewicz (Polish architect Gucewicz)
5. Gucewicz
6. Stuoka Gucewicz (this one is particularly interesting, as the guy to use his Polish name is... Tomas Venclova, one of the most prominent Lithuanian writers of all times).

Do you see small number near the name? Please, follow it to see that it states. M.K. 09:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. There's also a funny thing here: among a lengthy listing of prominent Poles there is certain architect Albert Gucewicz, which with all certainty is the same guy (I doubt there were any more prominent architects of that surname in the end of 18th century).

Simple google gives much more links, even if we discount all Polish sources. //Halibutt 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So now I think its time for 'other camp' to show their English, academic citations to back up their cause.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now English sources. Please, tell me what's wrong with Lithuanian academical sources? That they're based on original documents and not on your favorable tradition?--Lokyz 23:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with them, but I am sure for each one I can give you a Polish academic source with Polish spelling and 'Polish-only architect'. Therefore we should concentrate on English sources, which are likely to be least biased (besides, this is English-language Wiki and English language sources are preffered, see WP:RS#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English). PS. Polish sources are also based on original documents, and I don't think Lithuanian sources would be any less pro-Lithuanian then Polish sources would be pro-Polish.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, allow me this small digression. I admit it's a bit off-topic. But please try to see the point (or the tree in the larger forest), and it's relationship, to the general argument we are considering. I say this because under normal circumstances you tend to be more fair and level-headed than some others, in many of these types of discussions. If we take the first President of Poland, we find Gabriel Narutowicz, an individual born in "ethnic" Lithuania. He spoke Polish fluently. So did his older brother (the signer of the Declaration of Independence of modern Lithuania), who also definitely spoke Lithuanian. After the Litwa Srodkowa Crisis, and the assassination of his brother, Stanislovas chose to live in the Republic of Lithuania, where he died. Were they Polish, were they Polish-Lithuanian, or were they Lithuanian? Was one Polish, and the other Lithuanian? In this more recent case, we are closer to the facts and the events, than with Gucevicius/Gucewicz, and can take a closer look at what is a rather similar dilemma. Maybe by answering my question to you, you can help with the final compromise, or even the solution. Dr. Dan 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This interesting case reminds me somewhat of some of the histories from the region I was born: Silesia, and the cases of close relatives joining either Wehrmacht or Armia Krajowa... and in the end, the best solution I came across was to say that the families had roots in both countries, in essence many were Polish-German. Without reading more about Narutowicz's that I know now, I can hardly say more then they, like Gucewicz, look like yet another case of Polish-Lithuanian case: the relic of the multicultural PLC (multi, not two!), for which perhaps no word exists that could perfectly describe the nuances, and attempts to use today's nation's adjectives are cumbersome at best. That said, I have yet to see a better solution that 'Polish-Lithuanian', which seems both like a good compromise of today's adjectives, and even better, the correct adjective from the 'Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources. If you look at sources provided by Halibutt what would you get, "Guzewicz Polish architect", and that is it - you will not find any discusion, arguments, facts, studies of particular matter (ethnicity, cultural identity etc). "Polish" what does it mean? That he was Ethnic Pole? Don't think so. That he was citizen of PLC? No one is denying that. That he was architect "in Poland". It's not very accurate (Halibutt's words) it's rather GDL/PLC. If you'll try www.rambler.ru search "Stuoka", you'll find that Stuoka-Gucevičius - "Lithuanian architect". So Halibutt's "generous" "compromise" even though he is considered a Pole by many non-Lithuanian scholars (Russians are Lithuanians too Halibutt?) does not feel like compromise seeking at all to me. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 06:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it that way: we have books calling him a Pole. We have some web-pages calling him Lithuanian. Why not make use of both, instead of deleting any mention of the Polish trace? The latter is not an option and is certainly further from any form of compromise than my proposals. What would be a compromise for you then? //Halibutt 07:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have cited books (so far) calling him Pole. They call him Polish, architect in Poland, and so on, to be precise. As to compromise - let us concentrate not on secondary sources calling him Polish, or Lithuanian (without any further discusions of subject). But on subject itself - why he might be regarded as part of Lithuanian and, of cause, Polish, heritage. Simple as that. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gente Lituanus, natione Polonus. I.e. - born Lithuanian, citizen of Poland (altough I still not like the idea that Commonwealth is called only Poland, at the time there was strong tendency to use that short name, and that IMO is a stone, on that all compromises break).--Lokyz 08:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

AND let us stop this word play "we have BOOKS calling him ... We have SOME web-pages calling him..." Because we also have books calling him ... and in cited books that call him ... no proof of his ...ishness is given. Don't start it all over again. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a book of the same Tomas Venclova, Yale University professor, written in English, it is called "Vilnius. City Guide", I was able to add it to the list of books before the page was locked for editing. The index has "Stuoka-Gucevičius Laurynas" and "Gucewicz Wawrzyniec see Stuoka-Gucevičius Laurynas". I found a lot of interesting facts there: the autor says that the rebels issued a proclamation both in Polish and Lithuanian, though at that time Vilnius was occupied by Russian army. Other facts: Bishop Ignacy Massalski was his patron, financed Gucevicius studies in France, then on return employed him as an architect. This book is not on the internet, but it is very interesting and valuable source of information. How about that? Juraune 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I could add the ~300pg. tree language book Vilnius Architecture/ Вильнюсская Архитектура/ Vilniaus Architektura – they all writes Gucevičius (Л.С.Гуцявичюс) and sates the “Lithuanian”. So it is more when “web page source”. About Lithuanian language in rebellion – yes the proclamations were issued and in LT it is common fact. Usage of LT language was quite noticeable back than. M.K. 09:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Juraune, there is also a zillion books in Polish to call him Polish, which does not lessen the problem we have here. If we are to include Lithuanian side of the story, what exactly is the reason why we should not include the rest?
2. Dude, we have books calling him Polish, Polish architect, a Pole, and so on. Whatever be the reasons behind that, there are authors to mention him as Polish. Interestingly, outside of Lithuania authors very seldom do focus their works on discussing nationality of historical personalities, proving their ancestry or doing similar stuff. Perhaps the only case I could think of is Copernicus, who however is a tad different case, being a mediaeval personality and not near-modern one. Anyway, we have a single article to argue that Gucewicz was in fact Lithuanian by ethnicity, even though he might have not known it himself. We have a plethora of books simply stating the fact that he was a Pole, or Lithuanian, or Martian, or whomever, without going into much detail. Why not use all of them if we have them? I still fail to understand why did you delete those links, but I am patient, perhaps one day you'll explain that.
3. Lokyz, that sounds more than probable. Hence the original version I supported was "Polish-Lithuanian architect", without too much details. Dude apparently could not accept such a solution - could you? //Halibutt 10:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Why not use all of them if we have them?" Because they are saying "L.G. is ...-ish/-anian ARCHITECT" (beacuse cited books, articles are not about this particular problem, authors do not care about this problem, all they care that he is an ARCHITECT), and not saying "L.G. is ...ish/-anian architect because: 1. ... 2. ... and 3. ...". Polish-Lithuanian, Lithuanian-Polish, Gente Lituanus, natione Polonus is fine with me (as I said before, but apparently someone "is a writer, not a reader" here) (may I be excused for this In-joke).Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Probable? Why? What makes you think, he was Pole in modern meaning?--Lokyz 10:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and according to Halibutt, apparently Žekonaitė was Polish. Why oh why is this so apparent to him? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OMG, gentlemen, you quarrel with me even when I agree with you... Jeez... Lokyz, you stated that you believe he might've been of the "Gente Lithuanus, natione Polonus" type. I stated that I believe it's more than probable that he truly was in that category. So, in other words, I stated that I believe you are right on that one. What is it to discuss here? //Halibutt 10:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So have we reached consensus on 'Polish-Lithuanian'? And on a sidenote, dear EEDude, please familiarize yourself with WP:V: our goal is not to find 'the truth', but to state what sources available to us say about a given fact. Majority of those sources state that he was 'Polish/of Poland' etc., fewer state that he was 'Lithuanian/of Lithuania'. A Polish-Lithuanian compromise is therefore more friendly to the pro-L faction then to pro-P one, if you want to split hairs :) but I don't see any 'pro-Polish' editors demanding anything but a reasonable 'Polish-Lithuanian' compromise.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, what you are saying is not a compromise. Unless Halibutt recognizes that he did original research and used mere speculations when writing his story about the life of this architect, I am not going to agree. And why you always show up as a pair everywhere? This is not a allusion to any questions regarding sexuality of you as editors, this is my observation for the almost 4 months of Wikipedia editing. No mocking intented. I am very serious. Juraune 14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's way overboard. I doubt if they've ever even met. If we reach a compromise here, is Lithuanian-Polish, O.K., with everybody? It's alphabetical that way! Dr. Dan 14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian - born; how about it? M.K. 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And where is any compromise in that? I could accept 'a Polish-Lithuanian architet, born in Grand Duchy of Lithuania from a family of Lithuanian peasantry origins' or something like that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise based on facts. If you like Polish-Lithuanian Comm. you could add - Lithuanian born; architect from PLC. M.K. 09:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan - FYI I have met Halibutt once on the airport in Warsaw, for about 15 minutes :p And yes, thank you for pointing out that personal attack, I am tired of doing so all the time.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If no "compromises" and cheeky talk such as even though he is considered a ---ish by many non- ---nian scholars translating into English "Oh my god, look at those ---nians, what the hell is wrong with them, they must be deranged, despite, that ALL the world's best scientist know and HAVE PROVEN (nevermind that in cited sources we find ZERO, NULL, NONE, ZILCH of proofs, who needs it nowadays WP:Don't ask why), that L.G. was ---ish, they keep repeating, that he was --nian, without any basis whatsoever, what is their problem?" is involved, I'm in for Lithuanian-Polish, Polish-Lithuanian and never had any problem with that. Now it's interesting part "Symoni Masulis". Have your say Piotrus.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

EEDude, can you try to refactor your posts so they are easier to understand? Not for the first time I have no idea what you are trying to say.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian seems more natural (note that in European languages in such pairs usually the shorter one goes first, Pat and Patachon, Scylla and Charybdis, Galicia and Lodomeria, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and so on), but I'm not going to fight for this one. As to me and Piotrus - we did meet in the real life: once, at the Warsaw airport, for some 5 minutes prior to his departure to the US :) And, while I'm not sure how is that related to our matter here, I'd like to also respond to other suggestions by Juraune. You probably see us take part in the same disputes less frequently than Piotrus sees us, I mean you and me. Or perhaps as frequently as I see you, Lokyz, M.K and DD go together and play in tune. Which, however, does not mean you're siblings... or are you? ::Finally, if it makes you feel better, I admit I used Rimša's original research to expand this article, just like I used a number of other sources. Some are still there, others were removed. But I guess most of their authors conducted some original research. //Halibutt 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a small side note to all. As irrelevant as my personal opinion may be, here it is. Two absurdities that a newcomer has to overcome when they begin to get involved in the WK project, is the belief that "google hits" are some kind of "Supreme Justicar" to settle a matter of historical or social significance. And secondly this absurdity about "No Original Research", I understand the basis for this, since it prevents "crackpots" from putting in a lot of nonsense into the project. The problem with it though, when taken to the extreme, actually prevents the development and expansion of information and knowledge. Some people are very capable of scholarly, unbiased, and useful original research. It doesn't bother me. The idea that the "truth" (whatever a consensus of the word means), is unimportant and repeated several times recently, does trouble me, quite a bit in fact. Dr. Dan 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case you may want to carefully read WP:V. Sure, truth is nice - but only if it is noncontroversial and verifiable. When it is not, we are faced with the common occurence of my truth, your truth, his truth, and so on.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. The WP:V is there to remind us, that we can't pursue the mentality of the totalitarian states. Inspite of it, that mentality of the totalitarian states hangs on and refuses to accept "the Truth", pretends it doesn't exist, and challenges one to tell everybody, what it is. No answer will ever be acceptable to that mentality. I have always loved the line in Bulgakov's the Master and Margarita, when Pilate asks Jesus, What is truth? followed by some drivel like And what would a vagabond like you know about it anyway? The question is found being asked originally in the Gospels, again no answer. But maybe you can give me a direct answer to my question above, regarding President Narutowicz and his brother. I know you are from Silesia, I have relatives in Zabrze, Walbrzych, and Wroclaw, maybe we'll have a beer sometime. Can I get an answer, it might help here. Dr. Dan 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave you may answer above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the guys and gals from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy did a great job on Truth. Yet, none of the 15+ definitions presented there would help us in cases like this. //Halibutt 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlier today, I chided Juraune for suggesting that you might be like the Bobbsey Twins, maybe I was too hasty. Regarding the concept of Truth, I don't know if I can find it in Wikipedia. For me, it is significant that Christ is supposed to have remained silent, when asked by Pilate to explain it. Together with Love and Death, it may be one of three great mysteries that will never be resolved by a living person. A much smaller mystery is Piotrus' answer to my question regarding the Narutowicz brothers' nationality. Armia Krajowa and Wehrmacht, Silesia, and round and round, blah, blah, blah. How about this, they were Lithuanian. Lech Walesa, Polish. Valdas Adamkus, Lithuanian. At what particlar point in time did a Lithuanian have the right to claim his nationality. I met Adamkus in Michigan years ago at a picnic, when there was little chance of either Poland or Lithuania throwing off the yoke of communism. I was with a girl from Poland who spoke very little English, and Adamkus was very gracious to her, and fluently conversed with her in Polish. I laughingly told him in Polish that he'd have to teach her Lithuanian for our next conversation. No one could have dreamed that he would become President of an Independant Lithuania that day. Is there ambiguity about his nationality too? Before I began to be exposed to this kind of blatently biased crap, I thought how could any one doubt the Polish heritage of Copernicus or Chopin. Please don't drive me into the other camp, by hiding behind some pseudo-intellectual obsfucation. That's what has been done to Poles by their enemies for a long, long time. I hope that mentality hasn't rubbed off on you, Piotrus. Is a simple answer possible, or not. Dr. Dan 01:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your stories, Dan, by they don't give your arguments - or questions - any more force. I thought I told you clearly, but I will repeat: the Narutowicz brothers were Polish-Lithuanian. Maybe one was more Polish (how could a non-Pole became a president of Poland) and the other Lithuanian (how...), but it is evident they had ties to both countries (or perhaps more correct, cultures), thus, again, being 'Polish-Lithuanian'. They are not easy cases, and it's hard to compare to clearly cut cases of Adamkus (L) or Wałesa (P). Even so I fail to see your point, unless you agree with me that they were P-L?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my stories, Piotrus, but I'm not looking to gain more force as a result of them. What I will tell you however, is that I'm glad to finally get an answer from you. In spite of your explanation about the brothers, we disagree. My analysis of the Narutowicz brothers is that they were Lithuanian. No big whoop! Regarding the remark, how could a non-Pole become a president of Poland, show a little more intelligence and less bias. I know you are not stupid, so think before you speak ( or write). How could a Lithuanian become King of Poland, and establish a dynasty that reigned over Poland's Golden Age ( yes from that pygmy nation, that you reminded us on the talk pages of the Battle of Grunwald, that learned how to write in the 17th-18th centuries)? Today, in our global economy, or whatever you want to call it, we have Japanese presidents in South America , and Jewish mayors of Dublin, in Ireland. Just imagine, a Lithuanian as president of Poland (coś takiego); it was a master stroke on Pilsudski's part, but got a good man killed. Was it another example of Poland being ahead of its time, or of a Polish ruler (Pilsudski), of Lithuanian ancestry, demonstrating how to "get it right"? Just another story, that will probably be "dissed" or be ignored, until you're pressed by me or others to address the issues. Or will this time be different? Dr. Dan 03:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Setting your personal attacks aside (I know you didn't mean them, that's just your style), you make some interesting points, especially with Piłsudski's plan. If you could reference them, they would make good additions to to Narutowicz/Piłsudski's article. But we are getting quite OT here, especially as in the end it's the references (like those presented by Halibutt) that count (according to the policies of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE and such), not arguments about some other guy, unreferenced and bordering on NOR (which is not to say that I don't appreciate them, or that you didn't manage to convince me somewhat about Narutowicz nationality - but it has little to do with the question at hand).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And I presume that the question at hand is Gucevicius' nationality, not Narutowicz's or Copernicus'. Right? Right! So let's answer some of the arguments that were made about him, O.K.? But just the same, when can a Lithuanian who can speak Polish, and has ties with Poland, be able to become a Lithuanian? When did or does that magically happen, in your honest opinion? Or is that as elusive as the Truth? Obviously you let Adamkus go free. Dr. Dan 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh - I do also speak almost fluent Polish from my quite early childhood (altough cannot properly write), I do have some relatives in Poland, so maybe I'm also Polish-Lithuanian? My grandmother was attending Polish gymnasium and almost became complete polonised - tough she had n choice, there were no lithuanian schools at the time. Should I go and change inscription in my passport to Polish-Lithuanian, or even Polish?--Lokyz 10:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz - this should also answer Dan's question above: if a person feels he is of certain nationality, that is enough. If we had any source in which WG would himself clearly state 'I am Lithuanian', that would solve the problem. But we have no such sources (we have on the other hand plenty were English academics decided he was Polish...), and besides, for his contemporaries Lithuania was just part of the greater whole: not Poland, the the PLC - just at Poland (or ratther, the Crown), or Royal Prussia, or Livonia, or Dzikie Pola were parts of it. It was a much more complex time then then it is now, after the nationalisms of the 19th and 20th century, plus some migrations executed by Unlce Soso ensured that there are few multicultural countries in Europe.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Dan, but I don't believe you're serious. The tactics of devil's advocate might be nice, but you claim you're a historian, which makes you look strange when you ask questions like these. The baseline here is: we're not discussing a modern personality born within the borders of a modern, post-19th century nation-state, with codified official language, education system, passports, ID cards, national censuses and so on. We're speaking of a guy who was born in the multi-national GDL, to either Polish, Lithuanian or simply local parents, who spoke Polish and was among the prominent Polish architects of the epoch, yet was also one of the prominent architects to be active in not only the GDL, but also what is now the Republic of Lithuania. While I believe his last will is informative, it is by no means a declaration of nationality in a modern sense.

Now then, when could such a person become Polish, or Zulu, or Martian in the meantime? I guess only after his death, as I doubt the nationalities in the modern sense of the word would mean much to him. Or perhaps there is something I'm missing here.

As to what Lokyz wrote above: if you feel Polish - you're a Pole. If you feel Lithuanian - you're Lithuanian. In modern times it's as simple as that. If however you'd make no such choices yourself, had no citizenship in modern sense of the word and expressed a hint on your nationality only in your last will, your great-grand children might have a problem with defining your nationality, as some could argue that since you were born in what would be then, say, the Kingdom of Krakozia, you should be treated as a Great Krakozian rather than anything else. //Halibutt 10:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about his last will. Please provide your sources, then the text you cite translated to English. Juraune 13:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again Halibutt, you miss my point (or pretend to). It's precisely my point that Lithuanians eventually became more cognizant of their nationality (a phenomenon not restricted to them) in the "national awakenings" that began in Europe after the French Revolution, and reached their pinnacle after the First World War. And the fact that this more defined Lithuanian Nationality came out of the the former GDL, by way of the PLC, and to a large extent the Russian Empire, doesn't negate the existence of it in the past. And this Nationality (in the modern sense of the word) arose out of a people with an ancient past, culture, and language. We know that many of them were Polonized, or Russified, but they survived as a national entity in spite of that. The Teutonic Order did a number on them in Lithuanian Minor, and might have done to them what they succeeded in doing to the Old Prussians, but the Lietuvininks hung on. You see, the fact that Gucevicius wasn't a Zulu, or came from Mars, is lost on you, as you ramble on about WP:This and WP:That. In Nazi Germany they had scientific and scholarly "Institutes" set up, with all kinds of rules and guidelines, which were set up to tell people that historical and cultural personages like Copernicus or Chopin were not Polish. Last I heard, there are not any job openings at any of these "Institutes". Dr. Dan 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, Dr. Dan, I think it is you who misses the point (btw, are you familar with the Polish proverb 'Mówił dziad do obrazu?' :>). We are not disputing that WC was partially Lithuanian. We agree with you and others that he was, indeed, significantly influenced by L. culture. The point of difference seems to be, however, that you, M.K. and others deny he was also influenced by Polish culture. We have already proposed a reasonable compromise: 'Polish-Lithuanian, born in GDL, family of L. origins' - yet for some this is not enough, as they want to apparently erase any trace of his connections to Poland. I don't understand how somebody who claims to be a professional historian, and often shows deep understanding of issues of nationalism and compromise, can fail to see our point here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Piotrus I am familiar with the proverb, but let's be frank here. If this was the first or only time that these issues were brought forth, in the manner that they are habitually brought forth, this talk page would have been a lot shorter than it is. An agreement would have been obtained, short and sweet, and much sooner. Unfortunately, there is a "lot of unresolved baggage" that makes these talk pages much more complicated than that. You, are perhaps the least vitriolic and biased when it comes to matters pertaining to Lithuania. You are definitely more mellow here, than on the Russian and Ukrainian talk pages. Just an observation. Forgetting Gucevicius for a moment, it strikes me as a shame that some of these newbies are brutalized, and swooped down upon the minute they create an article by the same people, with some very biased and flimsy objections. Typically these attacks are couched in some hypocrisy concerning the rules and regulations of WK, that are ignored and flaunted by themselves, when convenient to do so. Please understand that my thoughts on this are not about any particular person, and is not limited to the Polish and Lithuanian matters either. We have all been involved in this aspect of the WK project. It's time consuming, and a waste of time to boot. But it is not likely to stop soon. Regarding this article, I never said that the compromise obtained was good or bad (if one has even been obtained), and will leave that up to everyone else concerned and involved. I simply wanted to get some of my thoughts about it out in the open. Finally, not only do I know that WK is not a chat room, but have stated that myself, on a number of ocassions. Just the same, I do consider the talk pages in a different vein than the article pages, and many things have been "ironed out" in many different ways on them. Maybe you're familar with the American "proverb" Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. Dr. Dan 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you take no stance on this article, and this entire discussion is mostly off topic on some general truths that I think we both agree on (WP:DBTN and such)? In that case, and we EOD it now and go back on topic, i.e. discussing why some people oppose 'Polish-Lithuanian' compromise and insist on 'Lithuanian only' when majority of evidence (i.e cited English academic references) seems to support 'Polish only' case (which I never advocated, and never will, but based on the sources I could make a good case for it ;p)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are in other words, not mine, that you (I) take no stance on this article. I merely wanted to point out that I do not presumptiously believe that I can wave a magic wand, and pompously declare that We now have a resolution and the matter is settled. There are other people's opinions that have to be considered beside my own (and yours too), and then we can say that we have successfully achieved an agreement. Clearer, now? Dr. Dan 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that somehow we got almost completly OT. EOT for now, I guess, and let's get OT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Juraune, both the reference and the citation are already there.

Again, Dan, I fully agree with what you wrote about Lithuanian national revival in 19th century. What's more, I consider that a truly fantastic achievement of a group of dedicated people who raised a language and culture from the level of folklore to the level it occupies now. Which however does not explain how come the 19th century achievements of the Lithuanian nation influenced the life of Gucewicz who, let me remind you, was already dead (a better question would be how those achievements influenced Gucewicz's death :) ). Besides, comparing anyone to Nazis is a no-no. So, it appears my constant rambling about WP:CIVIL is quite important.

And now I believe the ball is on your court. I could adopt the same tactics I already did at the talk page related to Baranowski (who miraculously became a pure Lithuanian as well, following Lokyz's change from Polish-Lithuanian to Republic of Lithuanian), and repeat the same question again and again, waiting for some reply. I did not receive one there, but perhaps it could work here. So: what's wrong with the original version of this article, that accidently is also our proposal for a compromise solution? As it seems the decision to change the original version of this article was unsubstantiated, yet there's a plethora of people defending it against obvious facts. So what is the reason for that? //Halibutt 11:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As per stone thrown into my contributions - Halibutt - Baranauskas WAS pure Lithuanian. His Father tongue WAS ethnic Lithuanian and so on, and so on (otherwise, why would he write letters to his parents and mother in Lithuanian). The same applies to Gucevičius. Your ignorance is now showing at a legendary scale.As for link you should check it more carefull before accusing somone:)

Let me paraphrase your statement: "if a guy wrote some poems in Polish, he should be automatically concerned as a Pole?" Start reading books, for Heaven's sake, not googe books, but prinded monographies. because this futile discussion will lead us nowhere: People are stating facts, cite monographies and research - and here comes Halibutt and sez - "I know better, just because I like it better".

As for language "folklorism" you should considfer reading section Lithuanian literature, and read at least article toponyms. BTW there is Polish historian Jerzy Ochmanski who does find Lithuanians all over our common hisotry. Therea are plenty of evidences, that Lithuanian language was used even in Royal palace in Krakow, the last one who did that was Alexander Jagellon - and you talk about folklore... I think this really explains waht you think of Lithuanians - some mad barbarians, that can only sing songs, and cannot neither read nor write. Only Poles are able to do that - so everyone born in ethnic Lithuania who can write or even read - is autmatically a Pole. Ant that idiocy of yours - "modern" Lithuanian city names: they ar not modern, they're just spelled Lithuanian way - not Polish or Latin, or Ruthenian. And they're not modern. They're much older than Polish spelling, that are based on: "I say and write the way I can hear this barbaric folklore".

And the last thing - if you once more mention that link to Lithuania, I personally will make you a list of articles about Polish kings, szlachta, poets and other clebrities that for the last 800 years were born and lived in Poland- I.E. .... modern Republic of Poland. It would be a very long list, trust me. So start collecting stones of your own, before throwing them at others.

A bit emotional, but sometimes people don't get it other way:)--Lokyz 11:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my ignorance proves everything. Go on, call me an ignorant jerk who doesn't know a thing yet tries to prove his own POV he himself invented the day before. But before you do that, bear in mind that Baranowski started his poetic career in Polish language, not Lithuanian. So, calling him a Polish-Lithuanian poet seems natural, as he wrote poems in both Polish and Lithuanian. Also, before you go on with offences and with putting some strange things in my mouth, please respond to the original question: what would be the acceptable compromise in the case of Gucewicz? //Halibutt 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough. If you were born in India at the Brithish coloninial times, went to school in India and started your carrier writing poems in English, you would be English then? Or let's say, you are born and grow up in Kenya, go to local school and start a carreer writing poems in Swahilli, you are automatically Kenyan for the rest of your career? Juraune 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian-Polish architect would be good for me (take a look deeper into links). It's exact representation of "gente Lituanus, natione Polonus".

As per ignorance - do you know how many poems did Baranuskas wrote in Polish, and how many in Lithuanian? What literatural significance have ones and what others? Or could you recite at least one of his Polish poems? I especially liked when you started to tear off your shirt shouting that he was born in Polish family. If he was so Polish, why did his brother lived in Kaunas until 1928, when he died? Why did they write each other letters in Lithuanian language?

And as for Praniauskaite (ok,ok, let she be Proniewska) you told that she newer read a word in Lithuanian, when she PERSONALY encouraged Baranauskas to write poems in Lithuanian language, an they definitely were in love. Quite an interesting wish for someone, who does not speak Lithuanian, don't you think? You simply do not know these facts - that's why I did call you ignorant on this matter. No offence ment, just constatation of an obvious fact--Lokyz 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jaraune please, do not interevene into my text, because signature gets lost, and someone might think this is your proposal:) Also please take deep look into links.--Lokyz 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Lokyz, this chapter about a compromise got too long, and because of shortage of time browsing through it, I wrote my questions to Halibutt in a wrong place. If others don't mind, I move it now where it should have been originally. Really sorry for making some mess, if somebody could point me where the Wikipedia rules regarding the order of writting oppinions on discussion pages are written down, I would appreciate that. Juraune 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And you are apparently ignorant when it comes to what I actually said, at least that's the only conclusion one might draw when comparing my words with what you state above. Good to know the compromise suits you. Could we now unblock the article, or are there more things to be fixed? //Halibutt 19:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Imo, there shoud be vote for two months, and then we'l go through another procedure:)

And now seriuosly: would you trully accept (Lithuanians|Lithuanian)-(Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealt|Polish) formula exactly the way i've put it links and order of nations name?--Lokyz 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's acceptable, although we may still have other details to work out later. But I still think that my version is more informative (not that I am going to add it to article, but I ask you to consider it): Lithuanian-Polish architect from Polish-Lithuanuan Commonwealth, born in Grand Duchy of Lithuanian in a family of Lithuanian ancestry (we have references for all that, do we?).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to this heated discussion, I visited some libraries and gathered several books with chapters and descriptions of this architect's life. There will be enough of good references in English to prove his Lithuanian origin, and the fact, that he was called Lithuanian architect by his contemporary Stanyslaw Poniatowski. The questions unsolved are architect's last will, when it was written and what are the contents in English, the extent of Lithuanian language used back then, and I do believe prof. Tomas Venclova, when he states that documents where written in Lithuanian during uprising, the use of Vilna/Vilnius/Wilno in historical context, which name is appropriate for which context and ... (ok, I am not in mood tonight for saying something, that might be interpreted as some sort of "personal attack".) Juraune 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

All raised questions should be solved first M.K. 20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with

Halibutt, oh Halibutt, you are a peach. Didn't I tell you once, if I was Emperor of Rome I would consider adopting you? Regarding the heading Compromise Solution, please! You make the inane statement, Call me an ignorant jerk, who doesn't know a thing, blah, blah. No one called you that directly, or indirectly. Your mind is capable of working in weird and wonderful ways. Can't you see that, that tactic is old, tired, and inappropriate nonsense, if you are truly working to achieve a compromise here. As for the remark, speaking of the Lithuanian people's emancipation from it's "wannabe overlords", I consider that a fantastic achievement of a group of dedicated people who raised a language and culture from the level of folklore to the level it occupies now. Wow! One could almost think you were equating their achievement with the part of your heritage that is not Polish. And was this fantastic achievement accomplished by the Estonians, and Latvians from the level of folklore, too? Did the Finns, do the same? You once suggested that I leave this talk page, because it's not a chat room or a forum. Maybe you should consider your own advice, before telling yourself that you are attempting to reach some kind of a compromise here. Get a life! Dr. Dan 00:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, I must say that I hadn't noticed the links. It puzzles me why not [[Poles|Polish]]-[[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth|Lithuanian]] or [[Poles|Polish]]-[[Grand Duchy of Lithuania|Lithuanian]]. But seriously, I rather thought of [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth|Polish-Lithuanian]], which seems the most natural choice.

Dan, read the comments I was referring to before you read my reply. I was not called a jerk directly, but I was indirectly called an ignorant dumbhead who does not know a thing, yet quarrels here and there for no apparent reason. As to other questions - yes, the people you mention did also live through what is called a national revival. Revival. To follow the trace of Lithuanian culture instead of focusing on other nations, how many Lithuanian writers did we have in 18th century? And then in the following two centuries all of a sudden Lithuanian was raised almost from the dead. Now you have everything, Lithuanian literature, Lithuanian grammars, Lithuanian poetry, history of the world and the region written in Lithuanian and so on. That is a true revival of the language, isn't it. And I do consider that a fantastic achievement. OTOH I did not understand your remark on equating their achievement with the part of my heritage that is not Polish. Could you elaborate? //Halibutt 07:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things I need to tell you, and I'll try to answer your request to Elaborate on my remarks made above. First, I want to let you know that there are many things that I do not know, and would like to know. I am ignorant of them, and ignorance in itself is nothing to be ashamed of. When I am aware of my ignorance that's great, then it's an easy event to handle. If I am not aware of my ignorance, and it is brought to my attention, I need not get "my underwear tangled up in a bundle", and accuse someome of callling me an ignorant jerk. No one called you that, and no one heard that, other than your imagination. You often tell people that they are calling you something when they are not. You often tell people they are putting words in your mouth, when they are merely paraphrasing things that you have actually said. That's how I see it. I guess you do not, but you could consider my hypothesis. Let's dissect this aspect of your statement that begins ...Now you have everything....history of the world and the region written in Lithuanian and so on. The region? Is Lithuania a region? "na Litwie" but "we Francji? na Ukrajina" but "we Włoszech"? Forgive the spellings. Do you get the point? Are Lithuania and Ukraine sub-consciously "Provinces" or mere "regions"? Did you ever wonder about these nuances of the Polish language? I do.

Regarding your request to elaborate on the other remark, it's hard to believe that you are puzzled by a very obvious analogy. If you truly are confused by it, than do me a favor and tell me what your understanding of Folklore is. Maybe I'm reading your interpretation of the word incorrectly, and this could be the basis of the confusion on your part. Dr. Dan 19:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain my point - 1.I didn't call anyone ignorant specifically. 2. I just said, that without knowing certain facts about the subject (that is how I understand the word ignorance), and arguing a point that seems contradictory, certain Wikipedia contributors are accused unfairly. 3. I hope this little misunderstanding won't spoil our cooperation in the future. And I suggest putting a section in every article called read further - i.e, citations and refrences, related to the case.--Lokyz 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz's interjection stopped my train of thought, regarding our discussion. If you wish to continue Hal, fine. If not that's O.K. with me too. Dr. Dan 00:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Dan, is it possible to believe that Polish-Lithuanian matters could move from the deragatory attitudes and hidden mockeries, elaborate acquisations, nationalistic POV pushing to an openhearted discussion, where we could share interesting facts and discover new things, Lithuanians about Poland, Polish about Lithuania and Lithuanians, for the richer understanding of the common part in our national heritages (which are not completely part of each other)? Is it possible for Polish to accept the fact that Lithuania was all the time alive in its peasantry, who spoke in variety of dialects (the abundance of Lithuanian dialects prove the archaic nature of Lithuanian language, only the newest languages have little or no dialects) and who created the most beautiful language of nature wisdom and philosophy that grew from pain and hardships in their folklore, myths and songs, it was alive in Polish speaking Lithuanian nobility, living on the ethnic lands of their predecessors, who left their part of Lithuanian heritage in their Polish language writtings? Juraune 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will excuse me for answering this question myself, before Dr.Dan: this is not only possible but it was the case on Wikipedia for several years, during the time we wrote such Featured Articles as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. For some reason the situation has detoriarated in the past few months, especially with nationalistic and uncompromising comments added by some new users from both (or more?) sides. Hopefully we have reached the point when the newcomers have learned the various Wiki policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIV and such, and we can go back to collaborativly working on improving the status of various Poland and Lithuania related articles. This entire gigantic discussion about a minor issue (not the only one) is a gigantic waste of time, with megabytes going into talk pages, when they should have gone into content creation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When you referring to “some” new ones, I could refer to “old” one/s which was accused by other editors, not noobs, for spreading his/their nationalistic and uncompromising comments and ideas… M.K.

May I suggest we stick to facts, not finger pointings?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan, what you write about being ignorant is all fine and well. However, when you have indeed something to say on the topic (and you've already proven that) and ask very specific questions, and all you get back is accusations of ignorance, then something is not right. I agree I'm completely ignorant when it comes to zillions of topics, from physics to folk attire of 16th century Zulu. Which does not influence our discussion here, does it. I'm aware of my ignorance in areas where indeed I have no idea whatsoever. However, when I present facts (which in themselves prove that I'm not that ignorant) people do not like and instead they decide to ignore them, claiming I'm ignorant, then it's simply neither right not fair. I could equally accuse Lokyz of ignorance on Lithuanian language. Whether right or wrong, some filth of such accusations would stick to him. Also, it's all ok with me when people paraphrase things I said. However, it is not right when people state some obvious absurdities and claim that this is what I said, whereas in reality I said something completely different.

As to the regions: indeed, Grand Duchy of Lithuania is nowadays a region, not a state. It covers large chunks of Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine and Russia. Hence I wrote of our region's history, as there are people who try to Lithuanize also the history of Poland, Germany, Russia, Belarus and so on.

As to the folklore: that's exactly what I meant, and that's what Juraune confirms above. For centuries the Lithuanian culture was almost frozen in the peasants. There were no (or almost no) Lithuanian writers, poets or simply people to hold Lithuanian language in high regard. There were no Lithuanian language schools, no Lithuanian at universities, virtually no Lithuanian books, handbooks or anything. At the time when Polish, French or English evolved from their mediaeval forms into what they are now, including the literary languages, the Lithuanian language was limited to a small (at least numerically) group of peasants. Sure, there were notable exceptions, but most people of higher classes were Russified or Polonized. And then, all of a sudden, the period of romantic nationalism came to Lithuania, just like it did to zillions of other nations. Illyrian movement, Bulgarian national revival, Latvian national awakening... also Ukraine, Catalonia, Estonia, Finland (remember the conflict between Finnish and Swedish Finnish nationalists?), Slovakia, Bohemia... all trace their roots to the very same process that took place in Lithuania around 19th century. And I indeed do consider the achievements of the guys who all of a sudden decided to use the language of their ancestors instead of the language of the educated classes astonishing. The linguistic part of the process is particularly visible in the case of Czechs, whose language was almost frozen after the battle of White Mountain and whose "educated people" spoke German. In 19th century (and in 20th century as well) they reclaimed their language and re-created it almost from the scratch, often translating German terms literally to Czech (believe me, some of the constructions sound really bizarre to a Slavic ear). They created the spisovna cestina (literary Czech), which was not spoken by anyone, yet became an official language. People still spoke their own local dialects, yet became aware of the status of their literary language. That's amazing too. I really don't understand why should someone be ashamed of the recent history of his or hers language or culture.

Juraune, and how about a small steps policy? I ask a question, you reply to it and ask yours instead of casting accusations here and there... then you ask me a question and I reply to it..? That's seems a fine first step, don't you think? So, how about my question? As to your specific questions:

1. Is it possible for Polish to accept the fact that Lithuania was all the time alive in its peasantry, who spoke in variety of dialects (...) - yes. As a matter of fact I would have yet to meet anyone who wouldn't accept that fact. At least not at my faculty.
2. it was alive in Polish speaking Lithuanian nobility - well, I would yet to see some proof of that, as I don't believe that "Lithuanian language was alive in non-Lithuanian speakers", just like it would be hard that Saxon language was alive in French speaking Norman nobility. Sure, there were some borrowed words in local dialects, but that's about it.
3. who left their part of Lithuanian heritage in their Polish language writtings - sure. And that's exactly what I believe. Perhaps it's time for our Lithuanian colleagues here understand that as well. The fact that some 19th century pal felt a part of the Grand Duchy does not mean he was Lithuanian in a modern sense of the word. Mickiewicz was Polish, even though his "Litwo, ojczyzno moja" would suggest otherwise. I bet he wouldn't care that much about modern Lithuania, inhabited purely by Lithuanian speakers. He was a Grand Duchy of Lithuanian, not Republic of Lithuanian. Not to mention guys who never in their lives mentioned the GDL or their alleged Lithuanian ancestry, yet who are being Lithuanized centuries after their death. Is it possible for Lithuanians to accept that fact? Fortunately I personally know several Lithuanians who have no problem with that. Just like I don't have a problem with Lithuanian names of Polish cities. Too bad my Lithuanian friends do not have time for wikipedia.

But we're drifting off topic here. What about my initial question? //Halibutt 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I bet Mickiewicz wouldn't give a damn about modern Republic of Poland M.K. 21:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. //Halibutt 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And do you believe Poles of XVIII th century are the same ones so nowadays? Do you believe there was no peasants, speaking different dialects and not caring about anything else outside their village? How many educated poeople there were at the end of XVII th century? And somehow you let them being Polish, and Lithuanians altough speaking different dialects preserved until today you call non existant and folklore? You see, written language is not not necessary for a culture to exist. It is merely technology, very usefull, yes, but many cultures survived without writing for ages. And one more thing - people were living and using not their ancestors, but their own language. It was not recreated it was simply allowed to use. and this is your main mistake - you still do not believe, that most of nowadays Lithuania in XVIII-th century spoke Lithuanian. Then you should take a look at this map[3]. And what's more - they understood, what language they're speaking. Whatewer it's status. And they were teching kids it - like Gucevičius or later Baranauskas. :Polish language users they became only in schools, because there were no Lithuanian schools.

You see you're making the same mistake, you're accusing me. You completely forgot, that until end of XVIII-th century language was not necesary component for a nation. Two or even three languages were normal, as in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, also in Germany, in Great Britain and Poland (you forget the French - without it, you would not be allowed to any higher society neither in Warsaw, neither in Krakow, neither in Vilnius). Only ND'ks invented the myth, that all Polish language speakers belong to nowadays Poland. As for Mickiewicz, I sincerley doubt he wold accept nowadys Poland as it is (like you said - he would not accept Lithuania), and Krajowcy said - it's not true.Krajowcy, the bearers of Grand duchy of Lithuania taditions - like Czeslaw Milosz,Mykolas Riomeris, Stanislovas Naruševičius - not previuos peasants new born Polish nationalists. --Lokyz 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You see? That's precisely what I mean when I speak of putting something in my mouth...

1. I don't believe Poles of 18th century were the same people as modern Poles, only without cars. Yet, the national consciousness among them was certainly much higher than among "Polish" or "Lithuanian" or "tutejszy" peasants.
2. When I clearly state that there were peasants, I certainly do mean that there were peasants, not the other way around, as you put it.
3. How many educated poeople there were at the end of XVII th century? I guess you mean some comparison. Well, to be frank I have absolutely no clue. And..?
4. I never called any part of Lithuanian culture or language non-existent. It's your invention, not mine. I merely pointed to the fact that until 19th century the Lithuanian nation was composed mostly of peasants, and the percentage of other classes within Lithuanian-speaking society was close to none. Some priests here and there, but that's about it. And how many times do I have to repeat that I consider Lithuanian national revival to be a truly great thing?
5. You see, written language is not not necessary for a culture to exist. - Well... you see, I study ethnology, I know that. I never said there was no Lithuanian culture or no Lithuanian language. What I said is that it was a culture and language used by peasants, in the middle of nowhere. There were not yet Venclovas to popularize Lithuanian language abroad, there were not even Baranowskis to popularize it in Lithuania itself. Mostly uneducated people who used it just like their forefathers did, but who did not have much national conscience. The same was true to 70% of the Poles as well at that time, so that's nothing to be ashamed of. If you'd ask a Polish-speaking peasant of his nationality in 17th century, he'd most probably stare at you mindlessly. I would expect the same reaction from a peasant who spoke Lithuanian or Ruthenian or German, for that matter.
6. As for recreated - take a look at my earlier statements. It was recreated in the sense that it regained its place as a proper literary language, used by serfs and educated people alike, and not by just peasants. That's the very same step in evolution Polish language has achieved after Kochanowski. The same step the Brits have achieved after Shakespeare and Chaucer...Some modern nations did cross that line in 16th century, others in 19th century, yet others did not cross it so far at all. Many Silesians still consider their language to be something inferior to Polish and try to drop it as soon as they enter university. The Kashubians are developing their own literature only now, in modern times. So what?
7. I do believe that most of today's Lithuania spoke Lithuanian in 17th or even 18th century. I do not believe in those fancy "linguistic" maps as it seems to be a Lithuanian speciality, based on wishes more than anything else (never seen similar maps for, say, Spain or France, not to mention Poland; the reason is that there were no censuses back then and there's absolutely no way to prepare such a map in a scientific way). Despite that, I do believe that most of todays' Lithuania spoke Lithuanian centuries ago. Just like I do know that most of todays' Lithuania was inhabited by peasants back then. Which does not change the fact that modern nationalism did not emerge there that early, and that Lithuanizing all contemporary personalities ex post, basing solely on geographic terms, is something of an absurd to me. And, it seems, not only to me.
8. As to the rest of your language comments - now I'm completely lost. As long as we stick to the language criterion, all is fine. We have something tangible, something definable. He spoke Polish - we speak of him as a Pole. He spoke Lithuanian - we speak of him as a Lithuanian. However, if we drop that criterion in this discussion, then it gets completely absurd. He spoke Polish - yet he was Lithuanian. He spoke of himself as a Pole? So what, he was Lithuanian. He was born in Warsaw and merely published a book in a city that became Lithuanian only in 1945 (I know, I know, it used to be Lithuanian before as well) - so what, he was Lithuanian. A German mediaeval chronicler from Marburg mentioned a Lithuanian ruler in his work - he surely is Lithuanian... That way this discussion has no sense. If we drop all written sources, drop people's own self-determination, drop the language they used and stick solely to modern Lithuanian beliefs, then half of Europe is Lithuanian. Including Andžejus Leperis, Marburgietis, Gucevicius, Ignas Domeika, Viljamas Šekspyras and many others.
9. As to your final statement on krajowcy - I'm not sure whom are you comparing them with. Could you elaborate?
10. And let me add a pointer to my original question here. It puzzles me why can't I get a response. //Halibutt 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As for Lithuanisaton yo can't stand - i is just so that these endings are needed because of specifics of Lithuanian language. You see, without all those endings like -as or -is this language simply cannot function. The Lithuanian language is a highly inflected language where relationship between parts of speech and their roles in a sentence are expressed by numerous flexions - i.e. different endings have different meaning. English language on the otherer hand uses almost mathematical operators all those - all those prepositions that makes flexible endings unnecessary. And all -as'es are aded not for sake of stealing someone's identity for Lithuanian sake, just for sake to understand what's said.

Simple example:

Schumacher aplenkė Button. - is a nonsence santence, it does not mean anything. On the other hand it could mean two things:

A. Schumacher took over Button - i.e. Schumacheris aplenkė Buttoną. B. Schumacher was taken over by Button - i.e. Shumacherį aplenkė Buttonas.

That's why I do say, that all cities names are not new - simply, because without those endings they could not function in this language at any time.

Also an ending is used to denote gender - Vigandas or Viganda

As for Marburgietis - it is simple and direct translation of latin Marburgensis, if we would use Eglish or German form it would be Wigandas (of, von) iš Marburgo

Andžej - it's tradition, and I'd say bad tradition, although discussion whether to transcribe foreign names is going on for many years, it is still done until now. Many prefer to write original spelling, only adding endings, elder people still transcribe names. It's coming from German (in case you didn't notice, Germans translated ALL of international words into German), and also Russian tradition (because their written language is not based on Latin script, they're transcribing everything and anything they like). It's simply to understand, because most of 19-th century Lithuanian learned people were studying at universities of those traditions, this tradition is quite alive until now. And another one thing - we have some "State Language Commission" - some sort of language censor, that is checking, whether everything's written is according to rules, they produce - for example rules, how to transcribe foreign names. Trust me on this, this commission is very unpopular amongst anyone, who lives from writing.--Lokyz 07:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, you don't have to explain that Lithuanian is inflected, so is Polish. What I was pointing at is the logical fallacy among Lithuanian wikipedians to subscribe anyone whose name is written in Lithuanian in Lithuania to the Lithuanian nation. Such a solution leads us to a complete absurd:

1. Everyone's name is written "Lithuanian way" in Lithuanian so...
2. ...everyone in the world is Lithuanian

Or, to put it another way, certain Lithuanian author called Gucewicz Gucevičius in his works, which for you is a proof that Gucewicz was Lithuanian. Wrong, my dear. //Halibutt 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As for your 8 question - now we're getting to the main point. It's very complex issue and cannot be understand if you'd hang on nowaday's understanding of language and national identity. And trust me on this, understanding and meaning of "nationality" has changed over time. But for explanation of that I'll need more time. In short there are two traditons: 1. French, UK, and partiali of PLC - language does not matter if you're serving your country. Traditions count, languages do not matter very much. You see, most of 18 (and partialy)19-th century people living and working in nowadays Lithuania were bilingual or trilingual. They used Lithuanian to address lower strata, Polish to read, write and communicate and French to communicate in higher society. And this mix of languages was so natural, and was not a problem to anyone. 2. A new one, born at the end of 18-th century and beginning of 19-th century in German universities - nation is ethnicity - i.e. one language speakers (and of course, the later Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer), and of course made this ethnicity an important and objective being. It was a form of protest against francophone German aristocrats, alienated from true "Geist" (i.e language) of nation. Let me remind you, that at the time Germany was divided and by German people this was perceived badly. Of course, after this theory emerged, it spread into older states.And here comes education the main weapon of all nationalists - you see good educations system eradicates all dialects and local languages - so happened in France,UK - teh problem was solved: now nation was not only a state, it was also monolingual. If Komisja Edukacijna would have happened 50 years earlier, i think there would be no stubborn Lithuanians problem:) Anyway, together with concept of enhnicity collision was born - what is more important - whether loyality to his ex-state (it's a leitmotiv of Baranauskas and especialy difficult choice of Krajowcy), or ethnicity - i.e. modern nationalism like Dmowski or Smetona on both sides. It's a bottomline of many personal tragedies, difficult choices Whether to choose his beloved Lithuania or cultural and linguistic tradition you're living in. -especialy when old ideals collide with shrotmindness of new "patriots". S.Naruševič(ius) and M.Roemer chose Lithuania - and said, you, we are citizens of this country for centuries, although Roemer wrote his diary Polish until death. There are more examples. Have you read Milosz reference about how he was alienated when he had read "lenkas" in his new passport, after Lithuania regained Vilnius? So let's get back to Gucevičius - he was bilingual, he spoke Lithuanian, was born in Lithuanian language family, he was culturally patriot of PLC (or rather GDL, because tensions between duchy and Korona preserved until partitions), and he was ethnical Lithuanian (born in peasants family). So how we should define him? I do not like Polish-Lithuanian, because it does not show all the complexity of this issue, it's a bit pro Polish.--Lokyz 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As for logical fallacy as you call it - it's your fallacy , to subscribe everyone who wrote at least three words in Polish to Polish nationality:) So, probably Smetona and Basanavičius are also Polish? This time you're trying to conwince, that we're using your own beliefs - against all proof given you say, that Gucewicz was Polish because ... his name in Polish language was written Polish way:) (Wit Stwosz anyone? or the recent Marcin Knackfus(s)) --Lokyz 08:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Our discussion however is highly unproductive. I think, Lithuanians could defend their point of view, but not in general as Halibutt implies to do. If we say, that the person was Lithuanian, it could encompass any meaning of the word, couldn't it? Not only the meaning according to the point of view, that Lithuanians were peasants only. The usage here in Wikipedia however needs to be pointed to the most patent meaning. I think anybody will agree with this too. What the most patent meaning of the word Lithuanian is? I think it's that: Lithuanian is a member of Lithuanian nation. Anybody would add more, like that speaks the Lithuanian language or that lives in Lithuania, but this is not necessary. Now, when we use Lithuanian in a bit different sense, than the main, we should add a notice (or a link), what we mean instead. I think, it's acceptable and is according to the rules too. The same way we should act with the word Pole then. This Gente Lituanus natione Polonus meant something different from the modern understanding of Pole, not speaking about modern understanding of Lithuanian. The main problem, that this former understanding no more persists nowadays. The main our reproach to Polish users, that they don't make ever a difference between Pole of the main meaning and Gente Lituanus natione Polonus. That makes us to quarry, who was the subject person of an article. We can't find anything that proves that Adam Mickiewicz or some other person, was Lithuanian in some more modern sense, but we however find arguments from works of historians, that some personalities can be treated as Lithuanians. Laurynas Gucevičius is among them.

Gente Lituanus natione Polonus have descendants both in Lithuania and in Poland. Let you say to some Lithuanian descendants that their (known) forefathers were not Lithuanians! They'd answer that it means nothing, that these forefathers communicated in Polish. Means nothing... - The problem however rooted in the situation, that noble persons, that defined themselves as Lithuanians in the first instance, existed always, after the end of the Grand Duchy too. An example the father of Oscar Milosz was, who lived quite far from Lithuanian-speaking areas. And much more nobles of this sort were in the Lithuanian-speaking territory. So, all this idea that all they were Poles in the patent sense is no less far from the truth that the statement that they all were Lithuanians in the patent sense. But, however, Lithuanian users, as I see, don't claim, that the whole nobility of the GDL must be defined as Lithuanians. We restrict our list to some people, where we have some proofs, that the person may be defined this way. I don't think it's unfair, even if we are wrong, concerning a certain personality. Well, we base on arguments of historians, but historians aren't omniscient, are they? Linas Lituanus 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Linas, and again I'm forced to admit I missed you here :) Frankly, except for a few minor points I could agree with all you wrote above. The points are:

1. You state that The main our reproach to Polish users is that they don't make a difference between Pole of the main meaning and "Gente Lituanus natione Polonus". This is plain wrong, at least when it comes to those who took part in this discussion. Notice that, while the majority of sources presented call Gucewicz a Pole (or a Polish architect), Polish users (yours truly) defend the stance that he should be called Polish-Lithuanian instead. It's our dear fellow Lithuanians to insist that the name he used was Gucevičius and that he was purely Lithuanian.

As to the understanding of Lithuania and Lithuanians, I believe this essay by Venclova could be of great help to our Lithuanian friends. They don't believe me, but perhaps they will believe their own countryman.

And as to linguistic aspect of the problem - again, I fully agree with you. But let's follow that trail a step further. If a person spoke Polish and considered himself member of the nation, who are we to Lithuanize his name? If he wrote his name as Gucewicz, why should we insist on putting it down as Gucevičius, eventhough there is absolutely no evidence he ever put it that way? And finally, if the person was apparently the Gente Lituanus natione Polonus case, who are we to claim he was only Gente Lituanus, forgetting about his natione Polonus? And that's basically what our Lithuanian friends do here. Here we have a single Lithuanian guy who tries to prove that, while most people out there treat Gucewicz as a Pole and so did he, in fact he was Lithuanian. Fine with me, but why do we chose a single source over several others? And why do we chose certain guy's vision (whether true or not, it's but an interpretation) over other guys' visions - or the words of Gucewicz himself?

As to what Lokyz wrote, I again agree with most of your general remarks. The problem is that they are... general remarks and I don't see how is that related to our problem here. Do we have any work by Gucewicz, in which he states that he has a problem with chosing the right side to support? Nope, Lokyz. What we have is several authors to consider him a Pole, a Lithuanian author who claims he was Lithuanian, Gucewicz's own works in which he used his Polish name exclusively and a single //Halibutt who tries to understand why should we chose a name for Gucewicz he did not even hear of himself. And who tries to understand what was wrong with the original Polish-Lithuanian architect that all of a sudden got Lithuanized. //Halibutt 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just stumbled upon yet another rule for our fellow Lithuanian contributors to read: WP:NCI. When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use.. It doesn't matter whether modern Lithuanians consider the Lithuanian surname more correct. Gucewicz did not use it and that's what counts. Do not assume that a different term is more inclusive or accurate.. //Halibutt 12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

He is considered Lithuanian not because he was born in G.D. of Lithuania, but because his father was Lithuanian. New collection of biographies of famous citizens of Vilnius by Tomas Venclova "Vilniaus vardai" (Names of Vilnius) specifically says that his parent was a peasant of Lithuanian ethnicity (lietuvis sodietis). Sigitas 14:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Venclova's essay

Thank You, Halibutt, for pointing to the essay by Tomas Venclova (this essay). I think, that it's even more significant what is said, than who said it. I've read it, but now I have many reservations on his ideas there. (Perhaps its better to comment it in other place, but let it be).

He gives many associations connected with facts of Lithuanian Rebirth and with Mickiewicz. Some of them are partially true, some of them are hypothetical (ipse dixit) and some are dubious, but the article can't be considered a good abstract of the history of Lithuanian Rebirth.

Mickiewicz had taken something from Lithuanian thinking to his works, something he changed or added his own, how it seemed to him. He also proportionated all his visions according to his idea, that Lithuania is one part of two indivisible oppositions (like T. V. or many others say). But he suggests a quite strange role for Lithuania. I doubt if any nation would wish to take such a role: to be uncivilised, wild, historically conservative etc. in order to nurse some complexes of other nation. This should be considered a sign of national egoism in his works. However he didn't ignore the ancient Lithuania, describing its vestiges inspiredly and with love. That's why many Lithuanians admired and, at lesser extent, admire his poetry as well as works of other Polish writers (not necessary Lithuanian Poles), that didn't ignore the ancient Lithuania.

But... Do you think, i hadn't known all this, what T. V. says, before? :) Linas Lituanus 10:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think you might find that essay informative. On the other hand I had an impression that some other Lithuanian users who dispute my every word would benefit from such example of different perspective on Lithuanian history and what is Lithuania. It seems to me that the issue I have with our dear fellow Lithuanians above is partially a result of only one vision being taught in modern Lithuania, while in Poland the very term "Lithuania" is used in a much, much broader context. But perhaps it's just me. Anyway, it's pretty much OT here, let me know on my talk page if you're interested in what I think about the essay. //Halibutt 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed from the Polish Wiki article Wawrzyniec Gucewicz Polish nationalistic statements. Lithuanian Wiki doesn't even inform, that he had used the Polish name.

I have a big book about Vilnius. No picture shows any Polish word. I don't know the city, but I bet there existed Polish inscriptions in many churches. Either they were destroied or carefully omitted by the authors. We did such things in formerly German areas, but we don't any more (I hope so). It's interesting than young Lithanians behave like old Poles. It's probably the nationalistc school. Xx236 08:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's very nice that you have a Big Book about Vilnius. It's also nice that you don't know the city, but are able to make "bets" concerning it. Regarding what you did in former German areas, but you don't do anymore, (I hope you don't too). Maybe some of these young Lithuanians are behaving like old Poles, because these old Poles were once young Lithuanians. Like Pilsudski, maybe. Dr. Dan 02:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Luckily, the Lithuanians did not follow (with some exceptions) the Polish pattern of destroying historical inscriptions or cemeteries. What I've noticed however, is that they tend to ignore them or pretend they're not there. Maybe that's what they were taught to do, similarly as the Poles were taught before to think that everything German was wrong. --Lysy^talk 07:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to overgeneralize, but I would forward a hypothesis that young nations feel they have to 'prove' themselves. Certainly during the times they did not have self-governance - be it partitions of Poland, colonialism, or membership in the Soviet paradise - all countries affected such way were subjected to policies from - whatever-ization to at the very least lack of funding and support for their own local traditions. When such countries regain independence, there is a very strong tendency to overreact - distance themselves from any beneficial influences their former occupiers/partners/whatever might have had, and rewritte history from black and white to white and black, forgetting then in the end everything is a shade of gray. I am sure then in the future more Lithuanian editors will be able to 'share' Gucewicz and admit he was not 100% Lithuanian. Until then, we have to do what we can to preserve NPOV. As for Lithuanian or Polish wiki, I have long given hope that such local projects can be NPOV, although I am really very, very positivly suprised at the NPOV level of Polish wiki (Copernicus article is much more NPOV (read: much less stressing Polish claims) then on this en wiki). But that's all mostly a digression. Now, I hope that more reasonable Lithuanian editors like Renata3 will help us achieve a compromise on issues relevant to this article. Alas, there is a tendency for such reasonable contributors to avoid the mess created in such places. Still, there is hope...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So this means you are less "reasonable"? M.K. 17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it means you miss the point (or want to miss it), but this is hardly any suprise.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sure"....M.K. 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Piotrus! You usually don't write such drivel... Not to overgeneralize ...young nations feel they have to 'prove' themselves. You're from Silesia, didn't you see how your Rodacy (fellow Countrymen) had to remove the "besetz" and "frei" signs from the shitters in Wroclaw and other cities and towns in the area. On top of that I personally saw the desecration and destruction of German cemeteries all over the place (and interestingly the Jewish ones too). I think in spite of some attempt to remove various aspects of non-Lithuanian occupation, Polonization, or Russification, the response by Lithuanians has been mild in comparison to what I witnessed in Silesia. I don't remember the sanctity of cemeteries violated. Is this an example of Poland being a "young nation" too? Or something else? Does your above paragraph apply in this case as well? Maybe it was young nations that triggered my outburst. Neither Poland or Lithuania are young nations. Furthermore no one is 100% anything, regarding ethnicity. But we say Pasteur is French nevertheless. Instead of trying to recruit Renata into this issue, take a good hard look at the whole picture yourself and see what you can do to equalize the relentless desire of Polish (and other) contributors who debase and demean the historical relevance of Lithuania, outside of being a "province" of some "superior" entity. Also this anti-Polish garbage that I read concerning Copernicus is so absurd that it smacks of the kind of history that you'd expect out of the Third Reich or Soviet Russia. Let's not allow Wikipedia to become a forum for these kinds of purposes and pretend openness and fairness, hiding behind google hits, and biased one sided sources written in the Thomas Carlyle period of historical writing. Dr. Dan 02:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus likes to hide behind other editors, but this is hardly any suprise M.K. 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Piotrus meant "young nation" in the sense of recently regained independence, so maybe "young independence" would be better words. I fully support Piotrus that such countries, be it Poland or Lithuania tend to have increased level of nationalism compared to the countries that enjoyed their independence for longer time. This said, I think that Lithuanian behaviour is much less destructive than that of Poles following WW2. Sure, parts of the Rasos Cemetery were destroyed during road construction or some Polish historic buildings decay in Vilnius without proper conservation, but this is still mild and harmless compared to the active destruction performed by Poles in Ziemie Odzyskane. What can be a bit more annoying is the Lithuanian habit of changing the spelling of the names of the Poles living there, something that was not practiced in Poland, where people could still use names like Schneider or Schmidt and were not forced to replace them with Sznajder or Szmit. I hope that such ideas are already past in Lithuania, however. --Lysy^talk 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry to disappoint you Lysy, but the inter-state agreement on spelling of names of modern people signed in early 1990's by Poland and Lithuania has still not been fulfilled by the Lithuanian side. Which means that a Lithuanian living in Poland could safely have his name spelt properly in his passport (with all those ž, č and so on), while a Pole living in Lithuania is now able to have his passport changed so that his name does not appear in a Lithuanized form (which was a common thing until recently), but with no Polish signs allowed. And this is a problem in case of people living in our times, not to mention those who died 100 years ago or more. Šekspyras anyone..? //Halibutt 06:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

hahaha, this one about Šekspyras is really funny - Szekspir[4] anyone...?--Lokyz 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just funny, it keeps getting funnier and funnier each time it is repeated. All the brightest minds of Milky Way galaxy are laughing their butts off, looking at ludicrous mis-spellings of Lithuanian folks: why are they spelling Shakespear as Šekspyras, when everybody knows, that they should spell it as Szekspir? Only Portuguese wise men might know answer to this question, but sadly it looks like their opinion does not count in Polish-Lithuanian discussions (or at at least some unbiased editors say so) Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That ought to settle that matter, seeing that unbiased expertise on the subject has been brought forth. Dr. Dan 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For me. I'll take one. Clones in other spellings keep for yourself. It is you, who judge where to link the references by the last names of book authors. Just enough to look at one edit of yours "rewritten, reworded..." If Lithuanian last name, of course, writes about nationality. Can't stop laughing. How about Baranowski last name, is it allowed to be written Baranauskas in your modern world? (Antanas Baranauskas heavily influenced by Adam Mickiewicz). As to life of the architect, he started as a Lithuanian jungle Mowgli, poor nameless orphan rased by Polish good aunty Gucewicz, so he somehow got to study engineering in Polish Academy and Polish King financied his studies, so he traveled through Europe, offering his servises as an architect, then heavilly influenced by notable French had to return to be heavily influenced by Polish Knackfuss and so on. Then bloodless uprising that ended in heavily injuries, and last will to leave all his creations to the Polish nation. Great contribution to un-nationalising Lithuanian nationalism. Nya, I will not delete this after few minutes, instead of appologising. :) Juraune 13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As Lysy pointed out, by young I meant 'recently independent'. And yes, I certainly did include Poland in that, and to the 'Ziemie Odzyskane' vandalism (of which, I have to admit, I am not that familiar, and would love to read a well-referenced article on), I would add a SPR example of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw. On that note I have yet to see anybody trying to "demean the historical relevance of Lithuania". Care to point out a specific example of such an instance, preferably done by one of us engaged in this discussion?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

P.P., I appreciate Lysy's clarification of what you meant. Not everything discussed on the talk pages has to be "sourced", as many things are considered "common knowlege". Do you believe that the German infrastructure was not removed or vandalized in Silesia or East Prussia? You need a source for that? And Hali, please, stop with the Shakespeare already. Jerzy Waszington and Wit Stwosz are tired of it too. Dr. Dan 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Infrastructure? That was either destroyed in IIWW or moved to SU by the Red Army. Monuments are a different issue, and I have not read almost anything about their destruction (while I would not be suprised it happend), so I'd like to read more about it (especially post-1945, i.e. post war).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You're using too narrow a definition of infrastructure. Not all of it was destroyed or sent to the S.U. either. And I don't completely blame the Polish people for much of the vandalism, as the communist government had to keep stirring up this hate, in order to keep people's minds off of the fact that they could barely provide toilet paper for their "utopia". Modrzewska anyone? Dr. Dan 14:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, there are many more visible signs of Polish past in Vilnius than of German past in Wrocław. I believe there are many reasons for this. I'd be happy to discuss it but all this seems increasingly off-topic here :-( so maybe we should either stop or move the discussion to userspace ? --Lysy^talk 15:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe it is so, becauese all the heritage is perceived not only as Polish but rather Polish-Lithuanian, or rather as Polish speaking Lithuanian past? Lithuania for centuries was tolerant, and do not divided it's citisens by language. At least a litte bit of this tolerance is left until this day.--Lokyz 15:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the tolerance will not diminish but grow instead. Most Lithuanians seem to understand that Polish language simply used to be (and to some extent still is) part of Lithuanian culture. Some other explanations could be that, after all, the Poles did not give as much reasons for Lithuanians to hate them as Germans gave to Poles. Also Vilnius was not so much destroyed and devastated by war and then by Soviets as Wrocław was. --Lysy^talk 18:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Lysy , hopefully the tolerance will not diminish but grow instead. But it certainly is not being nurtured on these talk pages lately. Since this particular talk page is getting lengthy and very, very off topic, I would like to move the "essense" of the disagreement elsewhere, to the article Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania (another real beauty), and would like to invite anyone who has an interest in these matters to join me there. Dr. Dan 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. Lysy you're too intelligent to really believe that sentence of yours, about Vilnius and Wroclaw, and war and destruction, and Soviets yadi, yadi. Or do you?

No I'm not too intelligent for this and I'd appreciate your enlightenment. You're welcome to use my talk page if you feel this does not belong here. --Lysy^talk 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to move off of this page, but unsuccessfully. Your statement, Irpen, regarding Wroclaw seems odd, since unlike the multi-cultural Vilnius, Breslau had been almost completely Germanized for over seven hundred years. The destruction and havoc that took place there from the war and by the Soviets, was not done to Poland or to Poles. The concept struck me as an odd and awkward comparison, as you wrote it. But I still think you to be intelligent anyway. Dr. Dan 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, the names of both Vilnius and Breslau start with "W", this is not a coincidence. --Lysy^talk 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (BTW, how did you find out that I was Irpen's sockuppet ?).

Unprotect?

Can this be unportected now? It's been like this for a month now. And last edit to talk page was 10 days ago. Renata 23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still wondering. You could unprotect it, but I'm not sure any problems were solved here at the talk page. Which means that, with all probability, the same old story would be resumed the very moment you unprotect it. //Halibutt 01:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

For the record, I'm not sure if "Werki: palace of the Wittgensteins" image is the right illustration for this article. The picture shows the Wittgensteins palace, which is one of the previous side office buildings. As far as I remember Gucewicz designed the main palace (torn down by Wittgenstein), and several other buildings, but not necessarily the side office buildings. Need to be checked. --Lysy^talk 14:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The name

"Talk:Laurynas Gucevičius" - name one non-Lithuanian source using the name. Prove that Gucewicz spoke Lithuanian. "Most probably" - really... In his last will he dedicated all of his projects to the Polish nation - certainly Polish nationalists have produced his last will. Laurynas Gucevičius wouldn't have done such thing. Xx236 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as something does not conform with a Lithuanian point of view on history, it must've been falsified by the Polish nationalists... //Halibutt 06:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again unbiased reason has spoken. That should be the final word. Dr. Dan 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan, but the original question still stands: is there any non-Lithuanian source to refer to Gucewicz as Gucevičius? //Halibutt 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of Russian encyclopaedias and dictionaries - www.rambler.ru keyword "Stuoka" AND , that's a surprise, even one Portuguese source Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 07:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Russian books continue Soviet ones. Lithuania was a part of the Soviet Union. 2. Portuguese - If someone quotes Lithuanian source, he/she copies the names from the original text. Please Dude, don't use unfair arguments.

Google is rather for Gucewicz (12 to 10), but it includes contemporary Polish movie writer and director. Xx236 07:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Question was "name one non-Lithuanian source using the name" so I've given not one, but whole bunch of non-Lithuanian sources. 2. As to Portuguese source... :) ... well since it was clearly stated in one quite similar discussion, that Lithuanian and Portuguese POV is irrelevant, on topics of Lithuanian history, I began to wonder - WHY? (why Portuguese POV is irrelevant, that is). Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All names with -icz are Slavic, mean "son of". So some ancestor of Gucewicz probably Lithuanized. Is Polonization of Wawrzyniec less important? Xx236 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all, no most surnames are a rather "new" concept on the continuum of history, sort of like National Flags and National Anthems. Especially concerning the common people. That's hardly the best litmus test of nationality. Ask a Janissary with a Turkish name. Dr. Dan 02:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This can also mean, that some Polish Priest did not bother to write name properly, and wrote it the way he heard or wanted.--Lokyz 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But then similarly, if someone quotes Polish source, he copies the names from the original text. Overall, I find all this discussion rather silly. I wish wikipedia would allow to use more than one name for an article (well in fact it does, through redirects). --Lysy^talk 08:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some Lithuanians rewrite the history. There is also Byelarus-Lithuanian dispute about the "Lithuanian" coat of arms (Polish Pogoń) and geographical names. I don't think that radical nationalists of any nation (including the Polish one) should be allowed to rewrite history. I expect proves, that Laurynas Gucevičius felt to be Lithuanian, but was forced to hide his ethnicity and to use the nasty name Wawrzyniec Gucewicz.

There is a Lithuanian article about Gucewicz' roots [5]. I don't read Lithuanian. Xx236 08:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And good to you, cuz you wouldn`t like what is written there M.K. 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather say, the problem is that someone does not want to accept the fact that Lithuanians existed in pre 1918 world, and follow tis line systematicaly be it Branauskas or even Jogaila.

There were few propositions how to solve this case, altough somenone does not like any mentioning of Lithuanian except this half-compromise Polish-Lithuanian (just in this case would be much fairer to use Lithuanian-Polish, noting that he is from Grand Duchy, not Crown AND because of his Lithuanian father. No he is considered Pole despite the fact, that he allmost al his life lived in Grand duchy, seweral times refused to stay in Krakow and returned to Vilnius, and all arguments are greated wit original researh and clling respectfull Lithuanian professor "that guy". i do not see how under those conditions any agreement could be reched.--Lokyz 17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All this reminds me the dispute about Copernicus' nationality. The advantage there is that Copernicus has a name in English, while here we need to use either Polish or Lithuanian name for the article's title (or both ?) --Lysy^talk 09:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lysy means has a Latin name in English, I think. Dr. Dan 02:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. As to google arguments, a google fight is also instructive to some extent. //Halibutt 09:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, a more specific seach gives less impresive results - google fight not to mention this one that is also very specific. Or do you believe that iun the whole world there was only one Gucewicz?--Lokyz 10:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we think of a better way than saying that he was e.g. 65% Polish and 35% Lithuanian? I'm sure we'll all agree that this approach does not make much sense. Poland and Lithuania shared common history and culture for ages and it does not make much sense to try to say today that an 18th century person was more Polish or Lithuanian. Probably our discussion here would seem quite absurd to Gucewicz/Gucevičius himself. Is it at all possible that both Lithuanian and Polish editors acknowledge that much of our heritage is common and adopt some compromise in order not to waste energy on the fights for a name of each article on a more prominent person of our shared history ? --Lysy^talk 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with each and every word. But the devil lies in details. Declarations always sound great, because they are abstract, but when it comes to adopting them in real life, they fall apart. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Polish culture doesn't make a user of it Polish. These google fights to determine the popularity of the name are entertainment for the guys, who dream to punch one other's nose but can't :). There are the google pages about a real person who lived in Lithuania, who had Lithuanian roots and was unfortunate not to be able to use his real name for achieving what his talents enabled him to achieve. He was studying, teaching and creating drawings of buildings and supervising the constructions, and he wasn't thinking day and night about his nationality and his signature. See and read these pages to learn more

1. Stuoka Gucevičius Laurynas [6] 90 pages as for today.
2. Gucewicz Wawrzyniec [7] 32 pages. Juraune 14:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about using Laurynas Gucevičius/Wawrzyniec Gucewicz for the article's name (and using appropriate redirects pointing to it) ? Such an awkward title would signify the existing name controversy at the same time. --Lysy^talk 17:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, when we check other cases than the nominative, we make sure only Polish and Lithuanian links are counted.

Lysy, that's what I'm proposing since the very beginning. However, a double naming of this article would give too much significance to the Lithuanian name of that person, as it seems the person itself did not even know it - and for sure did not use it. We could equally change the article on William Shakespeare to William Shakespeare/Viljamas Šekspyras. //Halibutt 05:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to repeat yourself, your agenda that Lithuanian POV on Lithuanian history is insignificant and irelevant is well known and appreciated. After all, Lithuanians have to do with Lithuanian history as little as Portuguese do (or even less). Don't they? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks, especially when you are twisting others words beyond any plausible recognition.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

...Sure, as long as something does not conform to a Lithuanian point of view on history, it must've been falsified by the Polish nationalists...Where have I heard this before? Dr. Dan 13:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr.Dan, if you have nothing constructive to contribute to the discussion, please consider doing something else then playing Sarcastro.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, am I to assume that you think that Halibutt's remark to be constructive? Dr. Dan 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dan, it was directly related to this discussion and as such it was constructive, at least it was meant to be.

Thanks Halibutt, for answering my question to P.P., about your own remark. Great answer, too. Dr. Dan 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, my agenda is that Lithuanian POV should not be prioritized over NPOV or other POVs. In this context, I believe that the Lithuanian POV should not be more important that what Gucewicz thought himself. And apparently he did not use the Lithuanian name - and perhaps didn't even know it. Sorry, but this is a lost case, Dude. We could agree to a compromise, but not to adopt a modern Lithuanian POV over any logic. Note that it was me to defend the Polish-Lithuanian, even though he is considered Lithuanian... only in Lithuania. //Halibutt 08:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To say that he didn't know his fathers surname (in church documents it is Guzewiczas, not Guzewicz) is an insult to intelligence. As to "only in Lithuania", here we go again, round and round it goes, one more time, Russia is Lithuania too?Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

.... and there is no mention of Wawrzynec - read this "babtisavi infantem n(omi)ne Laurentium"--Lokyz 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As to "Sorry, but this is a lost case, Dude" if you'd look more closely, you'll see only case I was involved so far is Masulis case, which is far from being lost. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we shuld understand each other terminology before entering a kickstand. Dear Halibutt, please explain, what meaning do you put into term "Polish-Lithuanian".--Lokyz 08:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know there are many documents containing the name Wawrzyniec Gucewicz and one with (kind of) Laurynas Gucevičius. As far as I understand, you use the Lithuanian name, because you believe he should have used it. Do I understand correctly?

What - according to you - is the correct name for Joseph Conrad article?--Xx236 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not care about Joseph Conrad, although I think it is quite important to know what name is given by father and mother don't you think. This "one" document is a church record of child baptisation. do you find it irrelevant?--Lokyz 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not important what I think but what are the rules here. Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Bolesław Prus, Marilyn Monroe, Pola Negri and many others are listed under their pen names. Even if the real name was Laurynas Gucevičius, his pseudonym was Wawrzyniec Gucewicz. You may not like it, but it happened. Xx236 14:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Xx236, The current practice in English books written by scholars is to use the spelling of the name of the artist or scientist according to his ethnic origin, not how it was written centuries ago. So, when Tomas Venclova, professor at Yale University uses Lithuanian name instead of Polish in his English language guide of Vilnius, and he uses Polish names for Polish artists and scientist, and acceptable Russian transcription for spelling Russian names and so on, it is a good proof for the acceptability of such name in English and it is an example to be followed. Juraune 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

1. This is Wiki, not a book written by scholars.
2. Which academic book about Conrad uses his legal name Józef Konrad Korzeniowski rather than his pen name?
3. Venclova happens to be Lithuanian.
4. Franciszek Smuglewicz contains a beautiful text "Because he lived the latter part of his life in a city that became predominantly Lithuanian after 1945, he is often considered to be Lithuanian and his name is rendered Pranciškus Smuglevičius."

I'm afraid, because my family used to live in Grand Duchy. In several years I may be informed that my name should be Lithuanized. Xx236 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in fact this already happened, all the names of the Poles living in Lithuania have been officially Lithuanised. Anyway, it's a stalemate here. I see good reasons to use both Gucewicz and Gucevičius for the article's title, and no hope for anything near a consensus on this. Any ideas on how to proceed in a constructive way, anyone ? --Lysy^talk 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a Polish-Lithuanian agreement allowing local Poles to use Polish names, not respected by Lithuanian government. Is Lithaunian policy constructive?

I have partially Lithuanized Gucewicz and Karol Podczaszyński in Polish Wiki. A constructive Lithuanian would add Wawrzyniec Gucewicz into the Lithuanian article. Is there any?

If the story about his last will is true, we become classical last will dispute. The family knows better than the deceased, maybe a psychiatric certificate will allow to change the will? Xx236 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Xx236 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's not election tribune so nor need to shout and point fingers to Lithuanian government. We're discussing not policies of one or another state. (Or are these provocations intentional, to break any possibility of consensus building?)

Maybe I'm overreacting, but from what i can see, holding a normal an coherent discussion with someone who does not read academical books and cannot state his arguments in any acceptable logical and not insulting order - is impossible.

We're discussing whether child baptised as Laurentius Masulis, who has later chosen family name Gucewiczas was born Lithuanian or rather Pole. All the proofs are given - invluding original documents of baptisation. We do not speak about all who were born in GDL, we do not speak about Lithuanising or stealing someone's agelong family name tradition. And now we get to the point where comes argument about evil Lithuanian government. Does this discussion completely sunk in a swam of demagogy?--Lokyz 15:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Xx236, I'm sorry but you are confused. And until you straighten out the absurd mess you left hanging on my talk page user:Dr. Dan, concerning the Polish-Lithuanian Union, I will probably also remain confused with lots of your edits. Please try to do that (straighten out the mess), or retract your fallacious statements, soon. O.K.? Why then, do I say that you are confused here on this talk page? To equate or compare the names Samuel Clemens, and Mark Twain, as the same thing as Laurynas Gucevicius and Wawrzyniec Guciewicz, is like equating those two names of Twain, to Grodno and Hrodna, or Kijów to Kiev. Dr. Dan 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Lokyz, couldn't have said it better myself. So, what would you do about it?

As to the baptism, it was Laurentii Masulis - hence the Nominative is Laurentius Masul. Disce, puer, latine... But still, the Lithuanian faction has got a single web page to support the idea that he was Lithuanian. The Polish faction has got a plethora of books to call him a Pole, his own drawings with his own name written with his own hand and a mention of his last will in one of the books. Yet, the Polish faction proposes to call him Polish-Lithuanian while the Lithuanian faction, against all arguments, insists that we used the name the person was not using himself. So far the most constructive edit I saw was the removal of all the sources that did not support the Lithuanian-only version. What are we going to do about it? //Halibutt 08:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignore your biased reasoning? (know how you like rhetorical questions) Dr. Dan 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Dan, it's not my reasoning. It's merely pointing to facts (with diffs) and asking what could be done about it. Not rhetorically. //Halibutt 01:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Halibutt, your reasoning is very biased. By now, anyone following your trail, is very aware of this. I see the "facts" as you call them, quite differently than you do. You see, all of these obsfuscations, the smoke and mirrors of your arguments, are based on your lopsided and non-neutral sources, and a refutation of the sources that you find objectionable. It's really that simple. Take the timeline: Jogaila, Laurynas Gucevicius, Baranauskas, Narutowicz, Gimbutas. The closer we get to where people can speak for themselves, the argument fades. In a nutshell your argument that these Lithuanians are Poles, is as non-sensical that Copernicus was not. Dr. Dan 02:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To Halibutt. Take a Latin grammar (Latin grammar), look at declensions, then look the row where inflexions of the Genitive are put. And You'll see necessary, that the word, that has the Genitive inflexion -is can take few inflexions in the Nominative, including an inflexion -is. So, if we have Masulis in the Genitive one possible variant of the Nominative is Masulis too. You say the contrary, perhaps basing not on your own knowledge, but on some information, that was provided by others and isn't so very precise; because nobody can defend a false argument so ensuredly, as You did, knowing that the argument is false. You just suggest, to learn Latin, to a user, not knowing it yourself. By the way, we shouldn't be latinists here or historians, but it's not very good tone to play an expert :) It isn't so profitable even for your side, as You may think.

And yet about Latin. As an ending of the Genetive may imply different endings of the Nominative, the church Latin avoided to decline not Latin surnames, because an inscription in, say, Genetive, might couse doubts, what the form of the Nominative was. The rule not to decline surnames pertained to surnames in those languages too, which have their own declension like Lithuanian. This rule was applied almost everywhere but to Latin or Latinized names (like Laurentius or Sarbiewius). You may check what I say in many places or using different available sources. Weren't we right, concerning alternative geographical names, that your side (at least some users) put any name with POlish orthography as historical, without checking sources or reasons? This is the second evident proof after Kłajpeda, that some of you misuse your rights of user. So i suggest you to check the grammar, and to to express at least some regret for this repeating of false arguments, that can be easily put under verifying. I think, our team will support my suggestion. Linas Lituanus 11:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Linas, I agree that in certain cases the -is, -is ending is possible. While marginal, such cases indeed occur. But why exactly is this version supported by your club here if, as you say, one possible variant of the Nominative is Masulis too. One possible, though hardly the most possible variant. Yet we have a club devoted to claiming that the only possible variant is Masulis. Is it me or is there some logical flow here? This is yet another evident proof... nyah, I will not reply in kind.

As to not declensing surnames, I'm afraid I can't agree with you. Last week I spent a day in the state archives looking for my own ancestors and guess what, both their names and surnames (!) in the church records were latinized and not left in their original form. Am I a descendant of the Romans then? Or perhaps my ancestors were in fact polonized Lithuanians, as the -ii or -is suffixes are almost non-existent in Polish..?

But all of these questions are just side remarks. The bottom line is that the guy spoke Polish (as evidenced, for instance, by his signatures under his works, they are also available in Vilnius, go and check for yourself), felt Polish (as suggested by his last will), was considered Polish by his contemporaries (as evidenced by the books I linked in the article - before they were removed for not being consistent with the one and only true vision), his father might have or might have not a Lithuanian surname (as you put it yourself above), yet he is called a Lithuanian and the article has got completely lithuanized. //Halibutt 14:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary

I think we are on the road to nowhere, repeating similar arguments in loops. Can we summarise the major points for either version (while I still stand that the question whether he was Polish or Lithuanian is completely wrong and should not be asked).

• Gucevičius is considered Lithuanian because he was of Lithuanian origin.
• Gucewicz is considered Polish because he spoke and felt Polish

--Lysy^talk 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. BTW, my original request for clarification whether the guy ever even heard the name of Gucevičius, as opposed to the surname of Gucewicz he was using himself, still stands. //Halibutt 13:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask that all sides interested in this debates now present all of their references, as they are the main issue that can decide who is right (per WP:V, we are interested in verifiability, not truth). I'd also add to the above that this is English Wikipedia, and we should pay attention to whether majority of English language sources calls him Polish architect Gucewicz or Lithuanian architect Gucevičius. I also think that this debate has gone long enough: present your numbers, call a RM and get this over with!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wawrzynec Gucewicz name spread from Polish sources only. I would like to see sources presented that he felt Polish. Juraune 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Polish brethren remark of his will seems pretty convincing, but of course maybe he committed a typo... well, perhaps the entire will (obviously written in Polish) was one gigantic typo as he in fact intended to write it in Lithuanian... //Halibutt 09:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, probably I've missed it but do we have a source reference for this. --Lysy^talk 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, it's the reference No. 16 in the article. It got deleted some time in the past, but is there in the blocked version of the article. Next time I'm in the BUW I'll check the relevant page if I got it all right - or perhaps make a photo of the relevant page for all to see.

Xx, I couldn't agree more. //Halibutt 13:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My point of view is different than the on wepresented in the Summary. Gucewicz was using this name, so we should use it in the Wiki, without discussing his feelings. Gucewicz was a Lithuanian architect, because he worked there. The same Mickiewicz was a Lithuanian poet. The problem is that the word Lithuanian meant something different at that time. Many people from Vilnius area are Lithuanized, Polonized and Byelorussified by force. More respect for them. Xx236 11:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that; this is why I suggest to use 'from Grand Duchy of Lithuania' instead of 'Lithuanian', or 'Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth' instead of 'Polish'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we actually have two questions here, which I missed in my summary:

1. Was he "Lithuanian", "Polish", or "Polish-Lithuanian" ?
2. Should we use the name Gucevičius or Gucewicz ?

How about a poll, to see how far we are from consensus ? --Lysy^talk 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody seems interested in moving from here ? --Lysy^talk 23:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, let's go for it. //Halibutt 07:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Just checking how far we are from consensus now. Support as many options as you like. Please do not oppose any (will be removed). --Lysy^talk 07:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mind that this survey is for indication only and not a rename vote, as no formal WP:RM request has been filed. And I strongly believe that rename should not be forced unless some sort of consensus is reached. --Lysy^talk 19:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Gucevičius/Gucewicz should be presented as a Polish-Lithuanian architect

1. Support. --Lysy^talk 07:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. - Orionus 12:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support //Halibutt 15:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - Andrius 19:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support.Balcer 18:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article should be named Laurynas Gucevičius

1. Support. --Iulius 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. - Second choice Orionus 12:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should be named Laurynas Gucevičius/Wawrzyniec Gucewicz (with appropriate redirects)

1. Support. - First choice Orionus 12:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. - First choice. Awkward but I would not mind as long as it solved the problem. --Lysy^talk 12:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Sigitas 16:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should be named Wawrzyniec Gucewicz

1. Support. Second choice. --Lysy^talk 07:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. The double naming is a bad precedent and would be counter-factual. //Halibutt 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. This is the variant used in majority of English language print and academic sources ([8] vs [9]).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Reichenbach 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - strange double naming is just too awkward for Wikipedia, at this point at least. This means we have to go with the name most used in English language sources, which is this one. Balcer 18:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per Piotrus --Beaumont 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --Tarakonas 15:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion and comments

Please, maybe someone could explain what does "Polish-Lithuanian" mean? Pole born in Lithuania? Lithuanian feeling Polish citizen? Son of Lithuanian mother and Polish father? Left hand Lithuanian and right Polish? I do find this term serves it purpose to deactivete tension, although is rather misleading and not exact: first of all because pepople form the Crown (Koroniarze) of the time still are called Polish (without -Lithuanian) and therefore ar not perceived as citizens of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Therefore I do ask again, to define what do you mean by term Polish-Lithuanian. I cannot vote without knowing what that term means.--Lokyz 11:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid in this particular context it can be seen as a weasel term to get us out of the blocked/revert-war situation. On the other hand you can look at it as somebody whose origin and life had to do with Poland-and-Lithuania one or another way. Finally one could ask similar question about what "Polish" or "Lithuanian" would mean today when referring to an 18th century person. Equally misleading in my humble opinion. --Lysy^talk 12:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian is an adjective to PLC. I always supported using for all ppl who lived in that era, and many from 19th century. And before we start beating that dead horse again, I'd suggest editors newer to Wiki review past discussions like the one at Talk:Ignacy Domeyko, where this issue was discussed in detail.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Halibutt, the source number 16 is no proof that he felt Polish. Lithuanian language was used at the time of uprising and there is a proof for that in the book by Tomas Venclova, who has an insider knowledge of Lithuanian matters. Poles and Lithuanians called each other brothers when the great threat to their homelands freedom was obvious. Lithuanians then and in the case of Laurynas Gucevičius in the modern sense too. He was born in ethnic Lithuania. He was called a Lithuanian architect by his contemporary, there is a proof for that in the books by Budreika. He continued to work for Russians even after the Third and last Partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795, so he hardly was a Polish hero in the sense of WWII, sacrificing his life in the battle against aggressors.

XX236, and everybody else, back then nobody was Lithuanised by any kind of pressure. Unless somebody comes up some unbelievable story, that some Pole was forced to become Lithuanian speaking noble or even better, was turned to some Lithuanian speaking servant or serf :D

And since the vote started, I suggest to count each Lithuanian vote doubled by 10 to Polish vote, since there are about 10 times more Poles than Lithuanians in the world. More numerous nations are not entitled to appropriate the cultural heritage of less numerous ones. Juraune 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on Juraune, try to look at it in a more friendly way, not Poles vs Lithuanians again :-) --Lysy^talk 20:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Female votes should count 0.9 male votes as there are more women than men. ;-) But seriously, I know what you mean, but I think you are too serious about the survey, calling it a "vote". --Lysy^talk 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Juraune, the reference No. 16 cites his last will written in Polish. Sure, the Lithuanian language was used by some even before the times of Gucewicz, but apparently not by the person himself. As to your hero remarks, I'm afraid they are completely absurd here in this context, especially that it was not until the times of the January Uprising that the general attitude towards the Russians changed into "us vs. them", before that most of the Poles considered Congress Poland - and even Russia proper - their state. So what? Did Gucewicz die for Lithuanian cause? Nope?

Your proposal to count Lithuanian votes differently is indeed telling. Especially that there are currently more Lithuanian users in wikipedia than there are Polish users. But indeed, since you're a woman your vote should count less. And since I'm a Polish Jew my vote should count some 20 times more (since there are only around 10,000 Polish Jews, compared to several millions of Lithuanians). Want to continue that logic? //Halibutt 06:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hohohoho, what a great remark "Lithuanian language was used by some even before the times of Gucewicz" is indeed revealing about your complete and uttermost ignorance on the matter:) And as for Laurentius Masulis, later chosen name GucewiczAS, (as it is put in the church books) you seem to completely ignore original written sources, and have yourself already admitted, that you did conduct original research in finding near Kupiškis an arabic surname "Masul" case. That's why i didn't vote (anyway, Lysy said it is not a vote just an effort on consensus building).

And here we go again:) I know, i know: not the first ant not the last time you did state, that Lithuanians are martians who fell form the sky in the 1918 and occupied ethernal Polish teritories, called Kresy. This is utterly tiring and absolutely non productive. If it is your strategy in driving Lithuanian editors out of Wikipedia, ok, you did succeed. I think, I'm the next on the list after Renata. Good bye, and have a good time in creating Great Polish Imperial Encyclopedia.

And let me state it clear: the only reason I'm leaving is your constantly repeating and absolutely unprovoked ignorant insults towards my nation and my language by Halibutt.--Lokyz 11:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you replace Polish by Lithuanian, you will become, how I see some aspects of Lithuanian creativity. I understand that Lithuanians rewrite the unjust history 1500-1918 at home, but don't do it here. I try to remove naive Polish ideas. Be mor ecritical about Lithuanian books. Xx236 09:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That was certainly not my intention to see you leave, Lokyz, when I restarted the discussion with the survey here. Probably I've made a mistake and should not touch it in the first place. Please do reconsider your decision and do not leave, as there are plenty of things to be done in WikiProject Lithuania here. I'm trying to help in my clumsy way but when I see Lithuanian editors leaving, my morale also drops. And I'm not even a Lithuanian, why should I get involved if the Lithuanians leave ? --Lysy^talk 11:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, please take a deep breath and reconsider. I recommend a good stress reliever in form of writing about non-controversial subjects, like for example M.K. is doing good job with his castle series.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now. I was only joking and I believe Juraune did as well, and I'm sure you did, too. If the "Polish" editors wanted to outvote Lithuanians, this would have been announced at Polish noticeboard, first (but it was not). The purpose of the survey was, as I stated, to find out *how far* we are from consensus. I have no doubt that we will not reach common ground at this time, but I hope with time some mutual understanding can develop (I'm referring to both sides of the dispute). More empathy ! :-( --Lysy^talk 08:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How words and deeds are differ. M.K. 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems I'm loosing my sense of humour lately, at least on certain talk pages...

Anyway, while by no means I agree that this page should have been moved to where it is now, I appreciate your recent addition in the header of the survey above and I too believe that it's better to talk it over before we move it back. //Halibutt 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As to Lokyz's comment, I'm really puzzled as to what could be said. I'm apparently ignorant since I believe that not every single person on earth spoke Lithuanian back then. I believe that some people spoke it, while others didn't. But perhaps I'm wrong.

As to Masul, I did not comment on any Arabic names whatsoever. I merely commented on the Latin text I could understand. I did not comment on the Lithuanian text I didn't (despite my pleas for a brief translation).

I did never state that Lithuanians are Martians, those are your own words and I'd appreciate it if you kept them for yourself instead of putting them in my mouth.

As to your outraging repeating and absolutely unprovoked ignorant insults towards my nation and my language remark, let the facts speak for themselves. Cite a single diff where I made such remark any time in the past. A single one will do, no need to cite "repeated". Unfortunately for yourself you'd have trouble finding such diff as there was none. And I bet you know it. You can't talk nicely - fine. But don't accuse me of things I neither did nor said, just like I do not accuse you of anything. //Halibutt 10:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To avoid further puzzling, I suggest you to open some sort of official survey in order to find that other contributors thinks about your contributions, possibly you will be surprised that you will find out. M.K. 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The number of awards and thanks Halibutt has received speaks for itself. You have much to learn from him.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus. As to what M.K. wrote - don't you think that posting a single proof for anyone's accusations should be the first thing to do when casting them? Or should all wikipedians start casting accusations right and left, without even a slightest grain of truth in them? //Halibutt 05:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Does awards shows and “contributions” related with forcing other contributors to leave? Does failed nomination for admin is just an accident? And delivered criticism there is bias also?

Sorry, P.P (Prokonsul Piotrus), but if I need to learn from people here in wiki, I will choose another idol, if any. M.K. 08:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you're crossing yet another line. Initially some people blamed me for some fancy things and even went as far as to accuse me of following some campaign of hatred towards Lithuania, which is a complete nonsense, as their lack of diffs and links shows. But now you're suggesting that not only was I the reason why they left but that in fact I forced them to. Would it be a waste of my time to ask you to provide some backup for your slander? Or should I start asking you when did you stop beating your wife? //Halibutt 13:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• And let me state it clear: the only reason I'm leaving is your constantly repeating and absolutely unprovoked ignorant insults towards my nation and my language by Halibutt. (Lokyz)
• And in case you wonder why... because I cannot live with such nonsense. Every Lithuanian is destined to have a problem with Halibutt, because his mission here is not to allow anything Lithuanian on WP (no Lithuanian toponyms for Vilnius or Rumsiskes, no Lithuanian ancestry for Gucevicius, no Lithuanian poets in Anyksciu silelis, no Lithuanians in Central Lithuania). (Renata)

M.K. 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating those unfounded accusations once again, but could you actually find a single proof:

• that I ever committed an ignorant insult towards any nation at all
• that I ever committed an insult towards any language at all
• that by promoting the Lithuanian culture and history on wiki I actually try not to allow anything Lithuanian on WP
• that by discussing things with everyone at the talk pages instead of revert warring I pursue a mission of not allowing anything Lithuanian
• that I every suggested no Lithuanian toponyms for Vilnius should be used
• that I ever suggested that there was not a single poet among the tourists to visit the forest of Anykščiai
• that there were no Lithuanians living in the area of Central Lithuania.

As I already said, a single diff or link to my comment would do. Is that such a problem to find evidence for your slander? Apparently it is... //Halibutt 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Special delivery about famous contribs: Errr... judging from the latest edits I guess the page would soon be moved to Eustachiusasas Tyškievičiusasas, or some similar name...[10] btw, the denial is also a symptom of serious illness M.K. 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So what's possibly offensive about this edit, M.K.?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Try to guess M.K. 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that we should stop feeding the trolls; thus unless you have something constructive to contribute instead of flaming other editors, it is EOT for me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That was precisely what I thought when I removed the abovementioned comment three minutes after I added it. No need to feed. Over and out. //Halibutt 05:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Suddenly you became so quiet, maybe you are sick from bolded text? M.K. 08:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I am really confused – Halibbut asking for details to see his contributions, which concur other contributors words (who are left), but is unhappy without them, with them unhappy again. Yup, it could be some explanation so called “self moderation”. But this action is created a bad precedent – so it would be nothing if I write some nasty words and after some time I will redraw them - it will be ok? This type of contributions is repeated all over the wikipedia. Let me show another piece of it:

The rest of your story could be used as a pretty good example on why do I question your tactics of mixing ideology with facts for some obscure reasons. You are of course a Ku-Klux-Klanist American historian, right? If we chose some ideology of some of the locals - out of the blue - and apply it to the entire people, then why not this particularly interesting part of American history? So, let's go forward and paraphrase your comment. You are a KKK historian (or McCarthyist, or Imperialist, or... pick any adjective you like). You, dear Dan, were born after that criminality was on the ropes and the writing of that inevitable fact was on the wall. Your perspective is somewhat tainted by the fact that you probably had many relatives that held prominent positions in the Ku-Klux-Klan (McCarthy's commission, whatever; please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that I am). (...) Don't kid yourself listening to some nostagia from the revisionists, of what it was.

Tit for tat?

I was born early enough to know all what you describe, which however does not explain why do you believe that everything here in Poland (even a foreign tourist with bucks in his pocket such as yourself) was communist. So, you shared the fate of the rest of the people and ate frankfurters or black pudding instead of schabowy. Does it explain why do you believe the black pudding was communist? Nope. I enjoyed reading your fancy stories, but it seems it's an art for itself - and a waste of time. //Halibutt 06:05, 16 August 2006

Really ”interesting” “contribution”, just wondering there was P.P (Prokonsul Piotrus), which his famous “be civil” contribution. apparently these contributions do not applied to Halibutt`s contribs. And yes the message was “self moderated” if we can call these words “nyah, will rephrase that” so. Yup another example how “rephrase” is done. M.K. 08:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, oh, my... Funny you brought that here. Somehow it doesn't seem a proof for any of the accusations, which were:

• that I ever committed an ignorant insult towards any nation at all
• that I ever committed an insult towards any language at all
• that by promoting the Lithuanian culture and history on wiki I actually try not to allow anything Lithuanian on WP
• that by discussing things with everyone at the talk pages instead of revert warring I pursue a mission of not allowing anything Lithuanian
• that I ever suggested no Lithuanian toponyms for Vilnius should be used
• that I ever suggested that there was not a single poet among the tourists to visit the forest of Anykščiai
• that there were no Lithuanians living in the area of Central Lithuania.

But still, you failed to mention that my comment above was an exact copy of the comment Dr.Dan left at my talk page himself. I merely changed Communist Party for KKK, Poland for US and so on, but the comment is still an exact copy. And it's completely irrelevant here.. But of course I'm still waiting for any proof for your accusations. //Halibutt 11:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, oh, my...new game type, last one was called “self-moderation”, now “lets pretend”. No need to avoid answers and pretend. M.K. 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a break, A self imposed moratorium. Just to demonstrate that it can be done. A big waste of time. Halibutt, your remark above that "your comment was an exact copy of the comment left by Dr. Dan at my talk page" is untrue or more bluntly put, a lie, typically twisting the truth to convince anyone but yourself and the other half of the dog and pony show that's always defending your transgressions and reminding us of your "awards" and many "contributions" to WP, of its veracity. Jasne? Dr. Dan 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan	Halibutt
You drogi Halibutt, were born after that criminality was on the ropes and the writing of that inevitable fact was on the wall.	You, dear Dan, were born after that criminality was on the ropes and the writing of that inevitable fact was on the wall.
Your perspective is somewhat tainted by the fact that you probably had many relatives that held prominent positions in the PZPR (please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that I am).	Your perspective is somewhat tainted by the fact that you probably had many relatives that held prominent positions in the Ku-Klux-Klan (McCarthy's commission, whatever; please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that I am).
Don't kid yourself listening to some nostagia from the "Red Bourgeosie", of what it was.	Don't kid yourself listening to some nostagia from the revisionists, of what it was.

Care to call me a liar again? Oh, and dear M.K., you still failed to provide any support for your accusations. //Halibutt 12:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Read talk page again. M.K. 07:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I did and there's nothing here but your unsupported accusations. If the evidence is so easy to find how come you can't find any (any) diff to provide backup to your slander? //Halibutt 08:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey conclusion

There is a clear consensus on the statement that he should be presented as a Polish-Lithuanian architect. On the other hand have the obvious lack of consensus on the naming: not surprisingly the "Polish" editors support Wawrzyniec Gucewicz while the "Lithuanian" support Laurynas Gucevičius. I guess we have to acknowledge this difference and live with it for now. Can we agree that there will be no changes to his name until this is settled in discussion ? If we can agree on this, then we could unprotect the article (and guard it against pushing either way before further agreement is reached). --Lysy^talk 06:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A wise suggestion Iulius 06:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No renaming without a proper WP:RM is a standard.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant embargo on any name changes or similar edits within the article, not only its title. But this needs to be supported by more editors than just Iulius and myself before the article can be unprotected. --Lysy^talk 07:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you know what I think, but I'll say it one more time. I believe this article should not have been moved to where it is now in the first place. Further, the guy in question did not even know the name his article is at during his lifetime, which is IMO enough to move it back. But if that would make anyone happier we could agree to have it here for some time. This would be inaccurate and would not further the goals of wikipedia (as we'd violate both accuracy and verifiability, not to mention other conventions), but would at least make our Lithuanian friends feel better. But then, what should be done after some time? Should we return to the same discussion, with the same arguments, same sources and... same outcome? I say let's move it back to where it was in the first place, then we could think of moving it to Laurynas Gucevičius, Laurentius Gucewicz or any other place. //Halibutt 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I support Halibutt, but the guy in question did not even know the name his article is at during his lifetime is an exaggeration. Xx236 08:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently it's not; there's plenty of his works and projects preserved to our times and it seems none of them bears his Lithuanized name. I know he might have felt GDLian more than Polish or Lithuanian, but so far there's no proof he ever used the name of Laurynas Gucevičius. On the contrary, it seems evident that he was using the name of Wawrzyniec Gucewicz. //Halibutt 08:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that he did not even know the name. His family was Lithuanian. Xx236 09:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, his family might have been Lithuanian. However, there's not a single instance of him using Lithuanian or even mentioning the Lithuanized version of his name. Not to mention the fact that there is not a single mention of that name in contemporary works of other people. Or is there? But anyway, there's no need to argue as both of us seem to share similar view here. //Halibutt 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

His family came from GDL. To call him Lithuanian, however, is no less misleading as calling him, or anybody from PLC, Polish. He was influenced to varying degrees by both Polish and Lithuanian cultures. This is why I think for all noblility (and other educated and more or less polonized social classes) we should avoid Polish or Lithuanian and stick with Polish-Lithuanian, adding place of birth (like GDL) and such. Polish is sometimes acceptable, especially for szlachta from the Crown given that they were not subject to any 'lithuanization' or anything like that, but even so I'd think that calling them just Polish can lead to confusion of 'Polish then' and 'Polish today', and thus 'Polish-Lithuanian' is still prefferable. Unfortunatly some people think the world will end if they admit their hero was not pure-blooded Lithuanian (or Pole), and thus we have such book-lenght discussions going in circles...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've readed discusions. So there are two main problems: who was this architect - lithuanian or pole. Well, we should find sources where architect designates for himself who he was. The sources of 18 century should solve this question, but not we. But in these times it was popular to designate himself as lithuanian (in polish - litwin), while people were talking in polish. Second question - how this article should be named: Laurynas Gucevičius or Wawrzyniec Gucewicz. He was well educated man, usually architect named and signed himself with Wawrzyniec Gucewicz name. And that's enough - if man named this way, we should respect his choice. And during his life architect became famous after Wawrzyniec Gucewicz name. Yes I know, for lithuanians it's hard to admit, because even today schools are named in Laurynas Stuoka Gucevičius style. And this Stuoka was added long after the death of architect. This addition Stuoka even became an argument to architect's lithuanity. --Tarakonas 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough

Halibutt and M.K.: I'm fed up with your fruitless dispute here. I believe I was the last one following it and I'm taking this article off my watchlist now. --Lysy^talk 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! M.K. 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Lysy, I was slandered and thought I deserve at least an explanation, but this is indeed not the right place. I'm waiting for MK to take it to RfC, otherwise I'd do it myself as I'm fed up with such behaviour myself. //Halibutt 03:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---