Talk:Stanisław Narutowicz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lithuanian noble?[edit]

Well, he was born in a Polish-Lithuanian (Rzeczypospolita) noble family. Then Lithuania was a part of Poland...

Hello Kowalmistrz! Hope we can be friends and cooperate in mutually beneficial editing on WP. Will get back to you on the question of my origins soon. Please try to understand that Lithuania has never been a part of Poland, any more than Poland has ever been a part of Lithuania. They were partners in a union that was supposed to be "equal". Please check what the name in English, Polish, and Lithuanian was (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) for this entity. As for Stanislovas Narutavicius, unfortunately he was not born in Poland, and although he was born on Lithuanian territory, neither Poland or Lithuania were independent and theoretically in existence as sovereign states at the time. But enough of the history lesson. This whole concept of "Polish-Lithuanian" is something that needs to be looked into, as it seems to be bogus, and in need of evaluation. Are we to consider someone born in Krakow in 1645, to be Polish-Lithuanian on the basis that they were born in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? I think not. But this seems to be the logic being applied to too many Lithuanian personalities by some on WP. Look forward to working this out with you, and any others with open and fair minded thought processes. Dr. Dan 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Just in case anybody wondered - I recently destubbed, expanded and sourced the article. I also moved it to the name Narutowicz used himself. This is supported by the source provided, but also by the act of independence of Lithuania, where he used the Polish form of his name and not Lithuanian. //Halibutt 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure - but sadly it is not supported by his Lithuanian national passport. As for Poish sources - they tend to Polonize lots of names, Rzym including.To move something you need a consensus or your beloved discussion and vote. Therefore moving back. Have a good day.--Lokyz 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the passport then. If you can't - take a look here. It's his own signature. As to other of your revisions - I could have guessed that it would be you to remove any mention of Poland-Lithuania and make him purely Lithuanian. I can live with that, your delusions are none of my business. However, could you explain why did you remove the part on his widow? What's wrong with it? //Halibutt 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop moving without discussions and stop conducting WP:OR. M.K. 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be constructive then: what is OR here? Exact spot please. And please present your sources to claim otherwise. Right now we have two sources to prove that he was using his Polish name even as Lithuanian politician. Do we have a single source he used a Lithuanian version as well? //Halibutt 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys, that's enough. I wanted to expand the article, but I couldn't. Your ways are both disgusting and against the rules of wikipedia, but it's not my problem. I will revert the article to the false - yet plausible to the Lithuanian ultras - state and forget it. It makes no sense to work on any article if the two of you are still around. //Halibutt 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last time ultras were seen in Lithuania they were wearing Legia colors of your hometown. As for Narutavičius family - it was established long before PLC came to existance.--Lokyz 16:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before you continue, familiarize with WP:POINT too. M.K. 22:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't continue. Nor will you, as I have yet to see an article you expanded and sourced up to wiki standards. Besides, let's make a deal: I will re-read the WP:POINT, but you will read the WP:CITE. Ok? //Halibutt 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would add Vilnius Castle Complex and WP:NPA to your reading list. Renata 23:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Halibutt that Polish spelling is more appopriate. There are several reasons: 1) As Halibutt has pointed above, the subject used the Polish spelling himself; 2) Google Print search is inconclusive: 5 hits for Lithuanian spelling - books in Lithuanian language only, 19 hits for Polish spelling, Polish books only but Stanislaw Narutowicz has 12 hits, including 1 English and 2 German books; 3) Google Scholar gives few hits but Lithuanian spelling is used in 1 Lithuanian publication while the Polish one is used in 1 Polish and 1 English. It would thus appear that Polish spelling is more prelevant among both reference works in general and non-Polish non-Lithuanian reference works. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Stanislovas Narutavičius → Stanisław Narutowicz — For rationale, see my post above. — Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Stanisław Narutowicz. Per the passport signature and the Google Books results. This one seems pretty straightforward. Appleseed (Talk) 04:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with proviso. I think the article should give primacy to the Polish spelling. However, it obviously should retain a link to the Lithuanian (as it naturally would in a move). The only way I might have a problem with it is if definitive evidence were found to suggest that, in fact, the subject disdained the Polish spelling, but assented to it during his lifetime only because it was politically easier, in the some way that some Sudetenland Czechs adopted German stylings in their youth, but eventually returned to their Czech names by the time of their death. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we use the same argumentation presented by Piotrus simple googling gives 6 hints for Polish spelling, Lithuanian one 57. Using modified version of the name google books gives and English hints in Lithuanian name [1] . Also worth noting, at least to me, in whole web Polish spelling gives 65 hints, Lithuanian one 552. So it is clear which name is more popular . M.K. 08:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your search results include Wikipedia and its mirrors. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, search results for regular Google searches (as opposed to Google Books or Scholar) are not supposed to be used anymore. I think Piotrus' Google results were more accurate. Appleseed (Talk) 16:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking out wikipedia leaves 20, of which eleven are either in Lithuanian or are Wikipedia mirrors. However, the Polish results are all either in Polish or Wikipedia pages and mirrors, including one of Piotrus' user subpages. This is too small a sample to mean anything, but 9-0 against not a great case to move either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - he did choose his loyalty and nationality himself, and paid high price for this - right winged Polish nationalist killed his brother. furthermore - do not see a reason to follow some dubious list, to rename everyone who's even loosely connected with Poland's history into Polish manner. BTW, google hits is not a policy. It's quite a time stop using this form of ignorance. Ah yes, the signature - for mine I do use 5 letters, would it be proof that it is a true name of mine? --Lokyz 17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that unfortunate? Dr. Dan 18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose: No case to move visible. Piotrus' evidence on English is the book by Wandycz, and the paper by Krakovska; this sample size hardly proves an English name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stanisław Narutowicz for the reasons already stated. We have yet to see a single instance of him using some form of Lithuanian name. On the other hand we have his hand-written signature on the Lithuanian Act of Independence, which to me is a proof in itself. Or perhaps the Lithuanian club believes that the act was a Polish falsificate? LOL //Halibutt 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean secret Piotrus list?--Lokyz 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I mean the following:
  1. The guy clearly used the Polish name for all of his life (as in the Act of Lithuanian Independence, his works, his name in his newspaper, and so on)
  2. So did his family: his brother, his wife and his son (all three of whom ended up as Polish citizens)
  3. There is no evidence the guy used the Lithuanian form of his name. Not a single example. Nothing.
  4. The Polish version of his name is also used by English academic publications ([2], [3]), while the only English language publication to use the Lithuanized name I could find ([4]) Lithuanizes his name in... the Act of Independence, where his signature does use the Polish form. Apparently the author was more clever than Narutowicz himself...
  5. There are even Lithuanian publications to use his name ([5])
  6. Altogether, if there was a single piece of evidence that the current title of this article is historically accurate I might want to reconsider my views. However, there is no such evidence so far. //Halibutt 21:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure - Talk:Paweł Holszański or another instances of "Polish" people sadly provides your ignorance and a list that is usually used to direct ignorant people to "support" dubious "nationality". Ah the google generation and Piotrus list. Someone does not eve need to brainwash people from the early youth - you just provide a list, and someone bashes a head into wall. It's unfuny, it's scary. --Lokyz 21:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
were you serious about this as an evidence? It is just hilarious - search term, a scrap with Lithuanian families (only 3 are seen clearly) and an evidence. Yup, the world did really turn crazy.--Lokyz 17:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For reasons stated above.--Molobo 20:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Halibutt. -- Space Cadet 22:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Clear cut. He had a choice. He chose Lithuania. All the rest of of this is a "game". One brother sacrificed on the altar of chauvinistic nationalism from this family is enough. I just finished Norman Davies' description of his brother's inauguration, the mud and garbage thrown at him, and 10,000 "citizens" paying homage to his murderer at his funeral. Perhaps another motive for Narutavičius' later suicide. Dr. Dan 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He chose Lithuania, but he also chose to use the Polish name. But no, we should be more clever than he was... //Halibutt 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not S.N. trying to be clever here. We have plenty of Kowalskis in the U.S. who changed their name to Smith. Once again, we have another "Polish-Lithuanian" who chose Lithuania. But relax Pilsudskis, another "Polish-Lithuanian", chose Poland (no need to change his name). Dr. Dan 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this particular Kowalski decided to remain Kowalski. He was born with that name, he kept on using it for all of his life and he died with it. //Halibutt 00:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although this individual does not seem to often mentioned in English, the publications mentioned indicate a preference for the Polish spelling. Alexandra Ashbourne's Lithuania: The Rebirth of a Nation, 1991-1994 uses the Polish spelling in a book about Lithuania. The signature is also indicative to me. Olessi 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Comment - no wonder, Halibutt got into this edit, Piotrus list is as as always there - [6]. Maybe it's time to stop with such lists, especially including people who did not chose Poland as their Vaterland, and people whose brothers were killed for not being "Polish enough"?--Lokyz 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't understand half of what you are trying to say, thank you for reminding us that indeed Stanisław Narutowicz is one of the people mentioned in one of the largest biographical dictionary of the world, the Polish Biographical Dictionary.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder indeed. People who coin others nationality without even trying to grasp context of the world they were living - I do not wonder, that you cannot understand what I'm talking about. Google books and google hits education on the large.--Lokyz 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me simplify it for you P.P., because I don't wish to strain your English language skills. Although it's unfortunate that "Władysław Jagiełło", Pilsudski, and Narutowicz weren't Polish like you and Halibutt are, I don't blame you for wanting to make them so. It seems that you are adamant in Polonizing the English language (and everybody elses language too) whenever you can take a shot at it. See Elzbieta Rakuszanka talk, Operation Wilno talk and a few other gems. Maybe you should straighten out the Free City of Cracow (talk) debacle first. I thought the mind games might be over. Am I wrong? Dr. Dan 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment

After looking at the above survey, really LOL! Dr. Dan 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

According to the evidence presented, the Polish spelling was the one used (exclusively?) by the subject, and is the one most commonly used in English sources. No evidence has been presented of extensive use of the Lithuanian spelling in English sources. This article has been renamed from Stanislovas Narutavičius to Stanisław Narutowicz as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request of translation[edit]

Would like to see exact formulation in the source of this and its translation. M.K. 08:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Dr. Dan 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The publication can be found here. On p.45 it said that he said that he considered himself, simultaneously, a Samogitian, Lithuanian and a Pole. I'll adjust the article accordingly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could you pls also confirm whether the source draws this analogy with the Walloons - In his vision, the Polish minority in Lithuania would gain a status similar to the Walloons in Belgium: with separate culture and language, but... I ask this because it seems anachronistic in terms of Walloon status at the time, per the WP article History of the Walloon Movement. Novickas (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide motivation[edit]

There is absolutely no need to incorporate the speculations out of a tygodnik into an encyclopedia article. If we are going to use Pan Buchowski as the basis for these assertions, we need to know where his information came from. A suicide note perhaps? Without a specific source this has to go, and I will remove it soon, if it is not verified. It would be as absurd as trying to say that Bronislaw Pilsudski committed suicide as a result of being depressed because his brother the Naczelnik Panstwa betrayed his family's Lithuanian heritage. Maybe Bronek just got sloppy drunk and drowned. Dr. Dan 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What tygodnik? What pulp fiction? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm mistaken. Did Pan Buchowski write a book on the subject, a monograpgh, or is the information being sourced (as I suspect) from a magazine article. This has been too often the case from my experience with many of the citations and sources that are presented on English Wikipedia. If the tract is not from a tygodnik (weekly magazine), please help me out with the specific references proving the psycholgical basis of the claim that Pan Buchowski has for S.N.'s suicide. Dr. Dan 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from inline references in the article, the source used is an academic journal; the author (Bukowski) is an academic (historian and sociologist). I am sure that if you really are interested in his article, obtaining it (for example, via interlibrary loan) will not be that difficult.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are fond of linking this kind of information perhaps you can treat everyone to it. When you have time of course. And I hope it includes "evidence" of a concrete nature, rather than speculations of this historian and sociologist. You know letters, suicide note, that kind of thing. Lothar Machtan is a professor too. Dr. Dan 00:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretations are quite interesting thing, even if they're political motivated. Reality sometimes prove to be less spectacular, for example I've heard that he took his life due to financial problems and problems, family troubles he had at the time.--Lokyz 09:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, Lokyz. I agree with you regarding "interpretations" and political motivations (for the benefit of those who do not read Lithuanian, the article linked by Lokyz concludes with the statement that financial and personal problems caused S.N to take his life). In my own studying of the works of psychohistorians, and even more so when reading psychobiographies, one should be very careful. More often than not, theories and speculations included in them are unprovable. Unless we have a specific reference from S.N. himself referring to his "supposed" despondency over the treatment of the Polish minority in Lithuania causing him to commit suicide, that statement doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I was recently told that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Let me add that it is even less of a vehicle for propagandizing an agenda. This whole matter is beginning to border on something close to that. I hope this phenomenon is not beginning to rear its ugly head all over again. Dr. Dan 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the financial trace is taken from Narutowicz's suicidal letter to his family (written in Polish, BTW), where he made a remark that could be roughly translated as I'm sorry for not caring enough for your safe future. //Halibutt 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His letter seems to be geared more towards the "economic hardship" argument, doesn't it? Did he make any mention of ..."the increasingly hostile stance of the Lithuanian government towards the Polish minority in Lithuania..." in his suicidal letter (written in Polish)? Were there any allusions to that POV made by Buchowski whatsoever? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmoon[edit]

Before disputing validity documents of Parlament of Lithuanian Republic, relax, take a deep breath and reconsider reading WP:CITE. The request to WP:CITE your allegations still prevail Talk:Stanislovas Narutavičius#Request of translation. For God's Jeusus Christ - provide CITATTION - e.g. phrase you are trying to relate to. or is it too difficult for google generation? --Lokyz 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to waste my time. That wouldn't make you provide the citation I asked you before (you'd do it if there was any). Nor would it make your club apologize for offending me on several occasions. Nyah, play your games alone. //Halibutt 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in lieu of actually voting[edit]

If this were real life, I would have to recuse myself, since my father's signature was "Nowiki" in his youth, and he belongs to this frequently contested class of LT/PL/LT-PL/PL-LT people. So some comments instead. 1) The naming conventions guidance at WP:Naming conflict does not give preference to reference works, apart from encyclopedias - it uses a different standard than reliable references does. 2) The Google counts cited by PMAnderson above indicate a predominance of the Lithuanian version on English-language pages. More results are found when bypassing "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to...". 3) Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions "if there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail." Novickas 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that; I don't have a well-founded belief on the subject. The most that should be concluded is that there is no evidence for a Polish predominance there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I used your particular Google search in this section in error. The sample size really is tiny. Hence point #3.
The LT name is used in Encyclopedia Lituanica, which is in English. (Volume and page number will be provided soon). I find one English-language usage of "Stanislaw Narutowicz" in Google Print and one in Google Scholar, again hardly overwhelming evidence. Apart from the sample size issue, if GP and GS results are preferable sources in naming disputes, that shift in policy should be discussed/stated on the naming convention pages. Novickas 17:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Lituanica uses Stanislovas Narutavičius - volume IV, page 20. Novickas 14:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A policy to read[edit]

WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Best luck recovering from your injuries [7]. II mean it.--Lokyz (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of mentions of Brewiki and Telsze[edit]

Polish toponym names belong here for the same reason the article is at Stanisław Narutowicz, and not Stanislovas Narutavičius. Polish names are very relevant to the times Narutowicz lived in. One could argue whether in fact it is correct that the Lithuanian names are used throughout the article and Polish ones are mentioned just once, but complete removal of Polish names is little different from vandalism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P., please explain the logic behind your reasoning. I mean from the standpoint of English. Whether you want to call the famous physicist Marie Curie or "Maria Sklodowska Curie", she worked and lived in Paris, right? Not Paryż. What exactly does the remark..."Polish names are very relevant to the times Narutowicz lived in"...mean? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were few Polish speakers in Paris. There were a lot of Polish speakers in the heavily polonized Grand Duchy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure to visit Samogitia. You'll be surprised, but allmost noone speaks Polish there. As Stanislowas Narutis-Narutavičius was born, PLC did not exist for almost century. Wishful thinking I'd say.--Lokyz (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse modern times with a century ago. There is a reason why modern Vilnius is not the Wilno of the past (hint: 50% Poles and 2% Lithuanians in 1920s vs 90% Lithuanians and few percent Poles today...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.P., isn't the issue about Brewiki and Telsze, not "Wilno". What does Wilno in the 1920's have to do with any of this. What statistics do you have for the percentage of Polish being spoken in Samogitia at the time of SN's birth? Specifically, in Brewiki and Telsze. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple, really. Where as Narutowicz born? At his parents manor. What language was spoken there? Polish, possibly Lithuanian, too. How was the manor called? "Dwór w Brewikach" (or "dworek w Brewikach"). How was the village called? "Brewiki" by Polish speakers, possibly "Brevikai" if inhabited by Lithuanian peasants. If anything, it is less certain that we should use Lithuanian names for that period, until you can prove that the village was inhabited by Lithuanian speakers. Still, I have no problem using both languages in the article. But removing the name of the place Narutowicz was born and the one he himself was the most familiar with is not helpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) "It's simple, really"?... "What language was spoken there? Polish, possibly Lithuanian too...How was the village called? "Brewiki" by Polish speakers (in the heart of Samogitia?), possibly "Brevikai" if inhabited by Lithuanian "peasants". Were these peasants sitting in the dirt wearing bearskins, too? P.P., I think any objective observer would think you're "flaming" a little bit here, and showing some true nationalistic bias. I'd ask you to re-read the policy concerning WP:OR, but I imagine you probably have some "reliable source" out of a Sunday morning magazine printed in the PRL that would back up these absurd statements. And in answer to your other questions..."Where as (sic) Narutowicz born? At his parents manor. And where was his parent's manor?" answer: In Samogitia, which was in Lithuania, then part of the Russian Empire, where Lithuanian was the primary language spoken. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacurek, ..."-shaking may head with disbelieve (sic)"... is Not a reason to replace an heavily undue edit, that doesn't belong in the article. Referring to an appropriate revert of your edits, those you believe to be useful "information," as vandalism borders on a WP:PA. Please explain your rationale here before further edit warring. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, will you ever stop asking questions in your comments or edit summaries? This comment was addressed to you and you know exactly what I'm talking about. If you don't know then forget it.--Jacurek (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Tanks.[reply]
Wikipedia is not about you, nor is it about me. "Questioning" activities and edits are what the "talk" pages are all about. Our edits and reverts cannot be sloughed away with comments like these ... "and you know exactly what I'm talking about". Actually, I have no idea about what you are talking about. If you prefer, just explain your reasoning concerning your edits for the benefit of those in a position to analyze your activities regarding this article. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Please, P.P., your latest edit summary: ..."there is no consensus for removal of this information". That's pretty obvious, by now. But P.P., your earlier statement ..." Polish names are very relevant to the times Narutowicz lived in"... seems very nationalistically based POV. Can you source that? Or since this is the talk page, can you further explain what you meant by that? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was the time of nationalist sentiments everywhere. Polish names were important, just like Lithuanian were, and I will defend the right of both to be present in this article, as they are used by contemporary sources in that context and exclusion of either would hurt the reader (and puzzle Narutowicz himself, if he was alive to read this). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that..."the time of nationalist sentiments everywhere", has nothing to do with the argument. It actually seems that "nationalist sentiments being felt by some today" has more of a basis for the insistence to include Polish geographical toponyms in Samogitia, by certain editors, unfortunately yourself included, than anything else. I think the miniscule number of readers that require "knowing" what the Polish name for the city of Telsiai was, and the tiny hamlet of Brewiki was, would be better served by you establishing the appropriate links to them on Polish Wikipedia. As for your conclusions regarding Narutavičius being, puzzled himself, if he were alive, I'll leave that one for others to make heads or tails out of. Your interpretation of SN being puzzled is welcome on the talk page. Unsourced, it is not welcome in the article. That includes your POV and interpretation about what SN would feel about our discussion. It is not important, either. Same goes for your opinion that not having this undue information included, "would hurt the reader." Dr. Dan (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, I'm afraid we have no consensus for removal of the information which was here in the first place and YOU keep removing it. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jacurek, take Jan Pawel II's advice, "Don't be Afraid". As for what you call the "first place," I think it was this [8]. Please give a rational explanation as to why you insist in placing Polish toponyms for this specific Lithuanian locale. Thanks, back. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is connected to Poland in many ways, born on the territories which were once Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, his brother was Polish president etc, etc, etc , etc . 100 more etc. and for more please refer to endless hours we spent discussing same issues over and over and over on other talk pages. Then please read the article again for more reasons why the Polish name should be included here. Thanks Dan and best regards to you. --Jacurek (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Jacurek, I'm always looking for ways to come to an agreement with your point of view. Thanks to others less willing to compromise, our recent "newly agreed upon consensus" regarding geographical toponyms came to naught. That's over and done with. Regarding SN, however, your rationale is very weak to say the least. Just as we do not add 藤森 謙也 in the Peru article, or Курилівка in the Ignacy Jan Paderewski article, your insistence in placing these Polish toponyms into this article are simply undue and unnecessary. "...born on the territories which were once Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth" (an entity extinguished over two hundred years ago) is not a good reason. " his brother was Polish president etc, etc, etc , etc. " is a meaningless argument (that is what my above reference to Fujimori is about). As an aside, the assassination of Gabriel Narutowicz by that ultra-nationalist, Polish anti-Semite, Eligiusz Niewiadomski, was the final blow to the Naczelnik Państwa's dream for Międzymorze. Pilsudski was a brilliant strategist, and political genius. By naming a Lithuanian to be Poland's first President (and whose brother was an influential activist in the Lithuanian Independence Movement), he was that "--" close to changing the future history of the two formerly associated nations, and re-establishing some sort of union or at least confederation. That idiot did that all in, and as I recollect caused Pilsudski to become disillusioned, depressed, and enter into a period of pessimism. I've read the article again (per your request), and I see absolutely no "good" reasons why the Polish name should be included here. Acquiescing to this request is tantamount to simply pandering to someone's nationalistic vanity. Everyone has a little of that vanity, but that's not what this project is about. I won't spend my holidays prancing around in a Żupan, or looking up my past Coat of Arms either. Thanks back Jacurek, and best regards to you too. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanisław_Narutowicz&oldid=1209313970"