Talk:Johann Dzierzon

REMOVE "Johann" this is result of "Kulturkampf"

The is no Johann name in Polish language, thus as Pole Dzierzon should be call Jan. This is time to remove offending "Kulturkampf" result. Germans stop be arogant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Silesian Dzierzon Family Locations in Kr. Kreuzburg

• 1600s Map of Silesia with (Lowkowitz) Creuzburg territory of Silesia in Duchy of Brieg, later Oppeln
• Silesia, incl. Bri(e)g, Oppeln on 1635 Germany map

Łowkowice

The first sentence of the article states that JD was born (and died) in "Łowkowice". Just curious if there is any evidence (on a map or in a book) that this name was used in the Polish language, and spelled that way during his lifetime, prior to his death. Otherwise it might be violating the standards prohibiting original research. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reversions

Reversions of my changes are not factual. Dzierzon was from Upper Silesia clearly. Lomkowitz was spelled that way officially, and not in the later Polish version. It is sad that Dzierzon is caught up in certain chauvinist word plays, which are not factual. I added many important things, like Dzierzon having been an Old Catholic for some time. Dzierzon's national allegiance can be discussed. I adhere to the thesis that he considered himself Silesian, that is Slavic Silesian, and a speaker of the Polish language dialect of Upper Silesia too, but not a Polish citizen or Polish nationalist in the modern sense. He was no proto-Wojtiech Korfanty (German: Albert Korfanty). In fact the Old Catholic Church of Germany which he joined from 1873 to 1902/1905, was very German-nationalist and glorified Germanic culture, like Georg von Schönerer did in Austria.Smith2006 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith2006, please read the Gdansk/Danzig vote. In biographies of Polish persons - and Dzierzon was a self described Pole - from areas that have had a "complex" history the Polish spelling of places should be used. This is why, for example, the name "Danzig" is used in the article on Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit even though Gdansk was at the time part of Poland. Same here. BTW, this has already been discussed many times. You're basically trying to restart old feuds - and also being uncivil by referring to "Polish chauvinism" and "POV".radek (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is what the Gdansk/Danzig vote notice, now added to the top of this page, actually says (quoting relevant parts):

1. For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945
2. In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively
3. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively.
4. For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Fahrenheit lived between 1308 and 1945, and his home town was called Danzig in that time, this fact needs to be duly reflected in Wikipedia articles. Apparently, Radek believes that Dzierzon and Fahrenheit are "clearly Polish persons"? (Asking a question to avoid calling it "Radek's POV" and getting accused of incivility) -- Matthead  Discuß   13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, you're missing the point. Dzierzon was clearly a Polish person. Fahrenheit was clearly a German person (hence Danzig is used in his article, even though it was part of Poland). A little good faith please. Let me remind you as well that you're supposed to stay away from me.radek (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so we agree on Fahrenheit being clearly a German, at least. Regarding Dzierzon: citizenship-wise, nobody was Polish during his lifetime, while Silesia had been part of the HRE, and became part of the German Confederation when he was child, and of the German Empire when he was 60. As for the language skills, Dzierzon surely published in German, even his own magazines. I'm not so sure he wrote/published in Polish himself, rather than having somebody else translate his works. Can anyone investigate? Google Books show some of his works translated into English and other languages (like a Scandinavian one), but surely nobody claims he was an Englishman or a Norwegian. It's funny that Lesław Łukaszewicz lists him as Dzierzon twice, without a dot on the z, even though he made use of the "ż" in the word należy. As for staying away: My first edit of this article was on 14 January 2007, yours on 7 May 2009. My first talk entry here was on 13 January 2008, and yours, let see ... today. Or did I overlook some earlier edits of yours? Do I have to consider every article on my watchlist taboo as soon as you appear, like Talk:Jena? -- Matthead  Discuß   17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, I have publications in English but that doesn't make me English or American for that matter. Nena Hagen sang in English, but that doesn't make her English either. People publish their works in non-native languages all the time - for publicity reasons, for monetary reasons or because they are forced to. That a citizen of Kingdom of Prussia and Germany - and btw, when those (few and in between) sources call him "German" they are referring to his citizenship, not ethnicity - would publish in the language of the state (a very nationalist state) he lived in is unsurprising. But it has nothing to do with Dzierzon's ethnicity. (and "dot over the z" = nice red herring).

As for you staying away from me - the arbitration ruling was made on May 6th, 2009. Since then you have not edited this page. It doesn't matter who edited this page back in 1992 or whatever. The point of the arbitration ruling is that you're not supposed to follow me around and revert my edits and vice versa. Yet, lately you've been showing up on pages I've recently edited and reverting my edits. I might as well remind you at this point is that in fact you're restricted to 1RR on ALL Eastern Europe related articles.radek (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Radek, you are not restricted from providing translations and facts and sources to this article. I'm really curious about the English meanings of Dzierzon's Polish works - no need to give us a German translation (like pl-Wiki does with his Nationale Bienenzucht), as Dzierzon would have translated it into German himself if he wanted us to know about it. BTW, is Nena Hagen a Polish singer? -- Matthead  Discuß   20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? Who said Nena Hagen was Polish? What are you talking about?radek (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, many unanswered questions, and unasked answers. So Nena Hagen sang in English, but that doesn't make her English either, roger that. Dzierzon wrote in German, but that does not make him German. He also lived all his life in Prussia/Germany, but that does not make him German. So what makes him Polish? Publicity reasons? -- Matthead  Discuß   20:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, his ethnicity? The fact that he said "I am Polish" or the fact that he said "It's obvious from my name that I am Polish"? Are you just denying the general existence of ethnic minorities here? Seriously?

BTW, I write my professional publications in English, submit them to English language journals, have them reviewed by English speakers (some of whom aren't even English) and I have yet to translate a single of my professional articles back into Polish. And yet, I am Polish and not English. Weeeeeiiiiiiirrrrrdddddd.radek (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me reask this question, " The first sentence of the article states that Jan Dzierzon was born (and died) in "Łowkowice". Just curious if there is any evidence (on a map or in a book) that this name was used in the Polish language, and spelled that way during his lifetime, prior to his death? Otherwise it might be violating the standards prohibiting original research. That unresolved issue needs to be addressed. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Górny Śląsk w świetle nazw miejscowych Henryk Borek, page 176. Łowkowice - comes from first known name Łowko.

It's actually a fairly standard Old Polish surname. There are a couple of Łowkowice in Poland. I don't know when the Łowkowice was used first after Łowko.--Molobo (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish Nationalist POV

This article is increasingly manipulated by Polish Nationalist editors. I do not have time to correct all their false claims. Lomkowitz was never called "Lomkowice" is modern spelling at that time officially. Later Polish spelling is not relevant. But it is pushed, like Dr. Johann Dzierzon's nationality is pushed, although he was never a Polish nationalist and always a German citizen, even in German nationalist Old Catholic Church of Germany organization, during his schismatic period until 1902.Smith2006 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course he was a German citizen - he had no choice in the matter as Poland didn't exist back then, having been partitioned by German Prussia (+Austria and Russia). And one more time - tone down the uncivil tone of your comments, this is getting insulting.radek (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I must have forgotten: when exactly had Prussia partitioned Dzierzon's home land, Silesia? Was it the First, Second or Third Polish partition? And, rather than the German/Prussian Universität Breslau, wouldn't a staunch Pole choose the Uniwersytet Jagielloński in nearby Free City of Kraków instead? The Kraków Uprising occurred in 1846, when he was 35, so surely he could have spend 15 adult years fighting for Polish freedom. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is the relevance of any of this?radek (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So basically you're saying that to be considered a "true" Pole, one must always choose a Polish university over a non-Polish one (oops, there goes my ethnicity) and that it is necessary to fight in every available national uprising. Well, that contention is not quite as ridiculous as the earlier one, that no such thing as ethnic minorities exist, so I guess that's an improvement.radek (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

---

the relenvance??? "Polish Jan" Dzierzon is an invention of the 1950/60s (Communist Nationalist Polish era),as the google book searche below clearly shows'

You might also want to look at the funeral service, the speech by the priest, the people attending, the 1 year after (1907) dedication of the grave stone memorial of Dr. Johann Dzierzon, emerierter Pfarrer (according to his own signature) etc etc

You might think twice, why there are before 1920 309 book in German language and 419 in English about Johann Dzierzon and 1 book in Polish, 1 by 1950 and 6 by 1960 about Jan Dzierzon. But then again, for all the Polish nationalists at English-language Wikipedia, I guess, that would only proof "that he was Polish".

Johann Dzierzon's favorite phrase was Wahrheit, Wahrheit ueber alles. His Impkerfreunde (apiary friends) engraved it on his grave. As the grave yards in 'former' Germany were all bulldozed over by the Communist Polish administators of the "regained territory", I wonder if that grave and gravestone for Johann Dzierzon remained throughout the Communist Polish take-over years ???

Death notices, grave stones, funeral speeches for Johann Dzierzon gest 1906

death notice

On Johann Dzierzon’s grave stone: Hier ruhet in Gott… -Ruhe sanft- Wahrheit, Wahrheit ueber alles

Johann Dzierzon 1907 Einweihung Grabdenkmal (Grave stone installed in 1907) grave stone

Leipziger Bienenzeitung

Rheinische Bienenzeitung

Google search by 1920:Johann Dzierzon in German: Result 309 Johann Dzierzon ,German =309

Google search by 1920 Johann Dzierzon English: Result 419 Johann Dzierzon English 419

Google search Jan Dzierzon Polish books by 1950: Results 2 Polish- 2

Henryk Biegeleisen 1889 mention a Jan Dzierzon Stanislaw Wasylewski 1937

Google search Jan Dzierzon Polish by 1960 : Result 6 by 1960 Polish = Result6

Observing (70.133.64.127 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

You should know that it is Polish "Enlightenment" to claim those whom you cannot claim. In order to pop up territorial annexations. That is behind the Polonization of Dr. Johann Dzierzon from Lomkowitz/Silesia: to Polonize him is to justify the massacring of German citizens during the Expulsion of 1945-49, to prove the "ancient Polish history" of Silesia, and to justify Polish crimes after the war. You can recognize this tendency by e.g. the reference to the partitions of Poland in this article, on a Silesian priest, in Silesia, which was never affected by the partitions.Smith2006 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I like how you put the word "former", in "'former' Germany" in quotation marks, as in "we'll get it back someday, treaties signed by various German governments not withstanding". And you have the gall to call other people "nationalists". That nationalistic German writers tried to Germanize Dzierzon is no surprise. However, the proof is that he called himself a Pole.radek (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no necessity to Germanize a German priest-scientist, who had a Polish grave sign, who was a German citizen, and never described himself as Polish - but he did describe himself as Silesian. In 2060 of course author Kundery Grasz will be declared Polish too - as he lived in "Eternally Polish City of Gdansk stolen by Teutons, Reactionaries, Prussian imperialists, Hitlerite Germans and Fascists from the Greater Polish Empire from Ural to the Atlantic Ocean". And of course Hamburg will be annexed then by Greater Poland. After all, who cares - Polish city of Grasziów (called Bremen by 2009 German nationalists) is eternally Polish land and was simply reclaimed. And in 2200 all will know that Berlin is "Angela Merkela Zdrój" in the Central provinces of Poland in the voivodeship Barlinski. Facts. Because it will be changed that way in wikipedia. All who deny the Polish identity of Berlin are Nazis and Polonophobes who will be expelled or decapitated in the KZ Lamsdorf - it's still reactivatable after all.Smith2006 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And this still doesn't answer the question of relevance - what does University of Wroclaw or the Krakow Uprising have to do with any of this?radek (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"You might also want to look at the funeral service, the speech by the priest, the people attending, the 1 year after (1907)" Right, just after bans on using Polish language in public issued by German state or orders to Germanise Polish surnames in public records. That really was not a very strong argument...--Molobo (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So What's in a Name?

What is ..."the fact that he said "It's obvious from my name that I am Polish"..." supposed to mean? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It simply means that he considered himself a Pole. Nothing more, nothing less. Tymek (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. What do these two names mean, Hallenberg and Zelewski? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on language they come from. Polish names can sound German and German names can sound Polish. It's a common misconception.What does it have to do with the topic ?--Molobo (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I have too little time to write about everything, have a good night.--Molobo (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Życzę Wam tego samego. Słodkie marzenia. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If this keeps on going...

I think the best solution will be for me to go library and get some books on the person. Instead of the constant exchanges and conflicts I think it will be better if I just write an expanded version of the article :)--Molobo (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, Molobo. Before you do, maybe you can answer this one. This will be my third attempt ...Let me reask this question, ...the first sentence of the article states that Jan Dzierzon was born (and died) in "Łowkowice". Just curious if there is any evidence (on a map or in a book) that this name was used for this village, in the Polish language, and spelled that way during his lifetime, prior to his death? Otherwise it might be violating the standards prohibiting original research. That unresolved issue needs to be addressed. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comes from Old Polish surname Łowko, 'u Łowki'. Górny Śląsk w świetle nazw miejscowych Henryk Borek, page 176. Fairly standard name in Poland anyway.Couple of villages have it.--Molobo (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

O.K., and when was Henryk Borek's book, along with page 176, published? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you are capable of finding the book yourself Dan.--Molobo (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very capable, Molobo. But these discussions are not about me, nor you. Please consider all interested parties. I suspect that the book has nothing to do with Dzierzon's lifetime. Are there any book or maps during Dzierzon's life time (or even before) depicting this village with a Polish name? It's really a simple question, requiring a simple answer. I'm beginning to doubt it more and more. But I still have an open mind regarding the question. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, while it's fine - and sometimes even productive - to constantly ask questions and demand answers, put in fact tags in articles, and engage in interesting but unrelated talk page discussions, after a certain point it is expected that the editor who does so actually goes out and does some of the leg work him or herself. If you really want to know, why not try to find out for yourself?radek (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, if you took the trouble to answer some simple questions, all of that terrific advice of yours wouldn't be necessary. And I wouldn't have to suggest that you take some of it yourself. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Added on his early life

I added on his early life.--Molobo (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! Any evidence regarding "Łowkowice"? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing threads here, also unless you present any reliable source denying use of Polish name, I am afraid I am not able to see merit of discussion. Cheers.--Molobo (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not confusing any threads. I think the burden of proof of the use of Polish name (sic) during Dzierzon's lifetime would be on those attempting to violate WP:OR, not me. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Any evidence that Polish name was not used ? Or is this complete OR ?

--Molobo (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not how the system works, besides I thought you were going to bed. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dzierzon nationality

He was clearly of Polish descent, but there is no evidence provided, that he considered himself Polish. Josef Klose and Miroslav Klose also are of Polish descent or Slavic Silesian, but consider themselves Germans and Silesians. The mother of Dzierzon was Polish-speaking, but his father's family is unsure. Gertrud, Hermann and other names of Dzierzons in Lomkowitz indicate a German orientation in mid 19th century. I am tired of Polish BAD ENGLISH SPELLING and Polish POV pushing by deleting clear facts. Also the deletion of Dzierzon's Old Catholic Church of Germany allegiance from 1872 until 1902 (he re-converted to Roman Catholicism in Lomkowitz in 1905) is silly. Why is this done, but for Polish falsification of historical reality? This is getting childish. Yes, he was a Prussian and German citizen, of Polish descent, with a Polish language mother, Jantosch. Not the Polonized versions. Stalinist Polonization and Polish imperialism and chauvinism are over. Pan-Slavism is just as unscientific as German attempts to consider Tusk a Slavic-Scandinavian name for "Tysk" (German) and thus Kashubians being Germans.Smith2006 (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Look. It doesn't matter what language he published in. People publish in non-native languages all the time. What matters is 1) He described himself as Polish and 2) the overwhelming majority of sources, including other Encyclopedias, call him Polish. It doesn't matter how you feel about this or what you your opinion (or mine for that matter) on the subject is - what matters is what the sources say. Please stop your uncivil attacks and accusations of "Polish imperialism and chauvinism". If you keep up with these, you will be reported for incivility.radek (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, a Pole who is a citizen of Poland and pledges allegiance to a Polish people or culture or nation, would publish in Polish. Johann Dzierzon published in German. Not in Polish. He is of Polish descent. You can report me. This article's neutrality and reliability is compromised due to 60 year old attempts by Polish authorities to annex Johann Dzierzon in order to legitimize the annexation and expulsion of Germans from Lower Silesia and Upper Silesia. It is uncivil to falsify history and state Dzierzon's first name is "Jan" while it was Johann, and by Polonizing his mother's first name. Your dirty People's Republic of Poland took away German last names in force from those who had to stay in Upper Silesia, and 100,000s were massacred only for being Germans during post-war deportations. And I am not even German, but irritated by this arrogant one-sided description of Dzierzon.Smith2006 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, a Pole who is a citizen of Poland and pledges allegiance to a Polish people or culture or nation, would publish in Polish. - where does this crazy criteria come from? First, it's hard for a person to be a citizen of a country which does not exist. Second, I happen to be a citizen of Poland and I guess I ... pledge allegiance to a Polish people or culture or nation (whatever TF that means) ... yet I have never published anything in Polish but I have published in English. Yet I am still Polish and not English. Inventing these ridiculous criteria out of thin air is simply OR and hence unacceptable. We go with what the sources say.radek (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is denying he was a German citizen; all Poles living in the Prussian partition (and Silesia) were Prussian/German citizens (since mid-18th century, previously some were Austrian/Bohemian, but that's not relevant here). He was an ethnic Pole and a citizen of a German state - those categories are not exclusive. Where's the problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Upper Silesia at the time was not a Prussian partition, but Silesia, and not Polish in the sense of statehood. Ethnic Pole means of Polish descent at most, as there exists no proof in which Dzierzon says he is a Pole himself first and foremost. Obviously Dzierzon's mother was Polish-speaking. But else? That does not make Dzierzon a Pole and "not a German". I do not claim Dzierzon is a German either. Upper Silesian seems a good compromise temporarily.Smith2006 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know they are not exclusive. Due to Johann Dzierzon's ethnic Polish, or rather Slavic Upper Silesian (he considered himself the Silesian Bee's Friend, not the Polish Bees' Friend!), descent, I can live with a category Polish apiarist. But stating in the introduction that he was a "Polish apiarist and priest", is pure falsification. What is relevant, that anachronistic post-1945 annexationist attempts are not transferred into articles on a scientist-priest who died in 1905, as a German citizen in a German province of Upper Silesia - which remained part of Germany until July 1945. Many Dzierzons live in Germany - they are Germans and Silesians. But not Poles. They are relatives of Dzierzon. They have Polish descent. But they are not for always "Polish scientists" etc. Kopernikus was an ethnic German, but a Polish state citizen. No problem with that. I would not accept the Nazi one-sided claims of Copernicus having been only German. Two things are not exclusive, but nationalist POV must be banned from wikipedia.Smith2006 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

...so who has nationalist POV here ?--Jacurek (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You. There is no scientific article claiming Johann Dzierzon as a state Pole or Polish citizen, nor is there any proof of this, except for Polish Stalinist-era publications, and some before the war. Again, Dzierzon's mother seems Polish, but the Gertrud Dzierzon and Hermann Dzierzon in the books from Lomkowitz, Leobschütz etc. are Germans and live in West Germany since 1946. It is nationalist annexationist POV to claim Dr. Johann Dzierzon as "Jan Dzierzon" (a name he never used himself in writing ever) first and officially, and then to proceed by styling him as Polish, where in fact he was a "Prussian and German" citizen and priest-scientist first and foremost. Of Polish descent (via his mother primarily). I think we must falsify the wikipedia article on Miroslav Klose also (a forced Polonized name from Communist-era Poland in 1980s), and state that Josef Klose is "Jozef Klosinsky" or something? Just to serve the Polish view and some Polish publications from a politicized and censoring era. As a Dutchman (I am not German in any portion of my blood), I laugh about these falsifications of history, but I am insulted that wikipedia is mutilated in this way. Dzierzon only published in German - and Latin - himself. Never in Polish. Polish and English translations exist. Dzierzon did not publish in Dutch himself either. But translations exist. So what is your motivation in reverting my changes? Johann Dzierzon is his official name. Use it.Smith2006 (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

<---One more time. Please avoid battleground rhetoric and cut these "stalinist-annexationist-nationalist-pov" accusations out. Second. And also one more time. No one's denying that Dzierzon was a German citizen, since he pretty much had to be. No one's denying that he lived in Upper Silesia (though "Upper Silesian" is not really an ethnicity or a nationality - "Silesian" is). Finally. And also also one more time. The majority of sources spell his name "Jan Dzierzon". The majority of sources refer to him as Polish. We go with sources, not your personal opinion. He also referred to himself as Polish, according to both pre war and post war sources. Again. We go with sources, not your personal opinion.radek (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dzierzon was a German citizen, and not a Polish citizen. No quote is given from his works, that he considered himself Polish. Only Polish propaganda sources are quoted in this regard. This article is one big flop and unworthy of an encyclopedia. Thank you, Polish Propagandists, for falsifying a complex historical personality, who was a German national, an Old Catholic (Old Catholics were nationalists in Germany mostly), who had Silesian ancestry. Annexing him as a Pole. Also numerous false historical anachronisms and lies are made in this article: There is the allegation that Silesia was part of partitioned Poland, a lie pushed by Jacurek. I will not engage in an edit war. Keep your Polish lies' band. This article is not encyclopedic and is no more than a collectively orchestrated Polish Chauvinist propaganda piece. Thank you again. And keep ignoring historical facts and complex reality, all for Poland after all. All lies' brigades for Poland and Annexated Polish Greater Polish History. From the North Sea to Minsk: Greater Empire of Poland. Capital: Warszawa. Regional Capital: Hambork and Barlin, Breminiów (German: Bremen), in 2050. Good luck to you all.Smith2006 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I find your arguments not only unconvincing but also rude/uncivil.--Jacurek (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You know what is rude? The institutionalized Polish falsification of history of Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig, East Prussia, Lebuser Land and Neumark, of Stettin and general European history - and the denial of war crimes and Polish crimes against humanity. (Yes, Germans are humans too.) Unconvincing? I do not have the illusion that professional Polish historians and brainwashed Polish chauvinists can be convinced by my irony and sarcasm. But the general reader will know that this article is worth nothing, because it is a piece of Polonization propaganda.Smith2006 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

....sorry but your arguments are not only unconvincing and rude/uncivil but also incorrect[1][2].--Jacurek (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because an English source copied a Polish source falsifying Johann Dzierzon's history, does not mean you are right. You are biased. Thanks to the Polish Agitation and Propaganda Chauvinist Commitee for having me banned.Smith2006 (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Łowkowice

~250 works with this name, including English language and German language (!). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dzierżon's mother

Please note that not a single source supports "Maria Jantosiów" - but neither does a single source supports "Maria Jantosch." The German name seems to be completly unused in literature ([3]), the correct Polish version is "Maria z Jantosiów" or "Maria z Jantosów" ([4]). This publication (Bogdan Cimała, Kluczbork: dzieje miasta', 1992, states that neither of his parents spoke German: "...Jana Dzierżona, którego rodzice Szymon i Maria z Jantosów nie znali w ogóle języka niemieckiego". Studia i materiały z dziejów Śląska, 1958, also seems to have some interesting discussion on their surname ([5]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be Jantos, without -ch. This was my mistake. Jantos is used. The Polonized extremely Slavic-Polish name is based on nothing however. Jantos is official name.Smith2006 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

re-re-adding information about what Johann Dzierzon himself wrote about his life (was removed by User:Radeksz and User:Jazurek)

Johann Dzierzon "ich bin in Lowkowitz geboren...", his life story in his own words Johann Dzierzon's own life story was printed in 1906/7, as he states, he wrote it in 1889, while he lived at Lowkowitz with his nephew Franz Dzierzon, the youngest of his brother's sons. References to the book were removed by User:Jazurek Anyone interested in Johann Dzierzon's own words (which differ greatly from the repeated post WW II propaganda currently pushed at Wikipedia), may read them in this book posted here. Observing(70.133.64.127 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

---

It was removed because it was being used to misrepresent something. Of course he wrote the book in German. If he had written it in Polish it would've never been published [6]. All that proves is that a German language book used German language place names and had a German language title. It doesn't prove anything about Dzierzon's ethnicity. It's also a primary, not a secondary source.radek (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Not so (to Radeksz' comment). Apparently you did not look at the book reference at all and you just defend the (wrongful) removal by User:Jazurek. What the book shows is Dr. Johann Dzierzon's life story, that he himself wrote in 1889, in print. He starts with (tranlated) "I was born in Lowkowitz near Kreuzburg", he tells" I went to school in Pitschen for a year" and many other events from his life, including the honey bee theory.

So here again is Johann Dzerzon's life story in his own words, pages 22-26, which was printed in the 1906/7 edition of the Jahresbericht der Schlesischen Gesellschaft fuer vaterlaendische Kultur. Observing (70.133.64.127 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

---

Citing Google search results as a reference (currently ref 14)

I'm pretty sure this is not an acceptable reference, but can't find the exact policy page. Will look some more tomorrow. Novickas (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, could someone supply quotes and translations for those refs supporting "considered himself a Pole." Novickas (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the search result ref. Could someone answer the second request- separate references to his self-identification. "Most sources call him an ethnic Pole recalling his proclaimed self identification" uses references that don't mention self-identification. Novickas (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

attempted POV forking of talk page...

... was removed. This anon has a bad habit and history of trying to do this (for example, at Adam Stanisław Grabowski). I am re-entering the non-PoV-fork comments below

---

References to the book were removed by User:Jazurek Anyone interested in Johann Dzierzon's own words (which differ greatly from the repeated post WW II propaganda currently pushed at Wikipedia), may read them in this book posted here. Observing(70.133.64.127 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

It was removed because it was being used to misrepresent something. Of course he wrote the book in German. If he had written it in Polish it would've never been published [7]. All that proves is that a German language book used German language place names and had a German language title. It doesn't prove anything about Dzierzon's ethnicity. It's also a primary, not a secondary source.radek (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so (to Radeksz' comment). Apparently you did not look at the book reference at all and you just defend the (wrongful) removal by User:Jazurek. What the book shows is Dr. Johann Dzierzon's life story, that he himself wrote in 1889, in print. He starts with (tranlated) "I was born in Lowkowitz near Kreuzburg", he tells" I went to school in Pitschen for a year" and many other events from his life, including the honey bee theory.

Re Citation request, archiving

Why I asked for a citation on all modern beehives are descended from this design. This book [8] (Taylor & Francis, 1999) distances itself somewhat from this claim by stating "Dzierzon became known in German-speaking countries as the father of modern beekeeping" and describes L. L. Langstroth's as the "first practical hive with moveable frames". The issue looks more complex than is currently presented. That is not unusual in these cases. See Leibniz and Newton calculus controversy. This article doesn't need to be that exhaustive, but a little more distancing wouldn't hurt.Novickas (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is 190 KB and its top 2/3s should probably be archived, rather than being subject to edit wars. Novickas (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

D.'s life as interpreted by his museum's website

An editor has disagreed with my characterization of the museum's statement "Spełnia Jan Dzierżon wszystkie warunki, aby nie dzielić Polaków i Niemców, ale łączyć oba sąsiednie narody." as an attempt at cultural reconciliation. From Google translate of the last sentence in the webpage, I see "Jan Dzierzon meets all the conditions so as not to divide the Poles and Germans, but to connect neighboring nations." [9] Novickas (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the problem with your translation and/or characterization.radek (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia Reference page 789 is claimed as stating J. Dzierzon is Polish

Where does the Polish language book say, that Dzierzon was born in Poland or that he was of Polish descend ? [10] this is used to identify Jan Dzierzon as Polish

It does not state that on page 789, as claimed and I could not find it in the book anywhere, that Dzierzona(a) urodzil sie w Polsce (born in Poland) or J.D. urodzony w polskiej rodzinie. Please post the place in the book ,where it is supposed to state that, here ........... thank you Observing (70.133.64.127 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Proposal

I've allowed myself to make a compromise proposal on dealing with the nationality silliness that has been tearing this article apart:

1. De-focus the whole issue. The question of what nationality or ethnicity this person was is interesting only to a few disruptive POV warriors on Wikipedia, not to the world at large. The issue should not take up more space in the article than absolutely necessary. There is no need to have all this massive over-sourcing, neither in order to push in your favorite nationality POV or to push out the opposite view. (Whenever I see more than two footnotes marks in a row, I know an article has been butchered by nationalists.)
2. The lead sentence should talk first and foremost about his profession, which is what he is notable for. Having the lead sentence speak only of his nationality and not mentioning the rest at all is just silly.
3. It seems uncontroversial that the guy was Polish by ethnicity, and German by citizenship. It is also common knowledge and uncontroversial that there were many such people native to Upper Silesia. This is trivial. I suggest "Polish-German" as a first approximation in the lead sentence. This is deliberately vague; the vagueness corresponds to the importance of the information, which is low. This is followed by "from a Polish Silesian family" in the biography paragraph. There is no need for more explicit justification of this simple fact in the article itself, nor for overt discussion listing dozens of sources of whether he has been called this or that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally I agree, but not with the "Polish-German" I presume it's true (I don't know the citizenship law of the period) that he was a Prussian citizen and later a German citizen, though it's something it would be nice to have a source to confirm. But "Polish-German" or "Polish-Prussian" doesn't mean "of Polish ethnicity and German/Prussian citizenship", it means (to me) "having features of both Polish and Prussian/German ethnicity". If we consider his citizenship important enough to be mentioned in the lead (and I don't see why we should - we already say he was from Prussian-ruled Silesia, which should give it to people - well, that's all that gives it to us at the moment), then it should be written out explicitly (something like "an ethnically Polish citizen of the Kingdom of Prussia, from Silesia").--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski, if he was really Polish by ethnicity and German by citizenship then the article should simply say so. An encyclopedia should be precise rather than making vague approximations.  Dr. Loosmark  11:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Where I live, nationality compounds of the form "X'ian-Y'ian" can mean exactly this: people who have the nationality of state Y but the ethnicity of X, or vice versa. And if you think the citizenship is unimportant, why is the ethnicity any more important? Both are mentioned in more detail in the next paragraph. Your suggestion "an ethnically ..." etc., to my mind, is just too long and gives too much importance to the issue. In the lead, four syllables is the maximum I'd want to invest in it; the details are for the next paragraph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How about my current attempt? At least it now says what he was famous for first, and then adds a sentence about his nationality and where he came from. (Like it or not, ethnicity is one of the things that people are primarily interested in about people, and Wikipedia is by no means exceptional among reference works in customarily including that information very near the top.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To my mind, that version still duplicates too much of the second paragraph. As for emphasising ethnicity, WP:MOSBIO actually recommends including nationality, but not ethnicity: it "should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" (which, in this case, it is not). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it the same thing in this case? I know definitions are vague, and MOSBIO emphasizes citizenship over nationality "in the normal case" (which this isn't - the Poles are a nation but there was no Polish state at that time, so if we went by citizenship we would have to say that Chopin was a Russian-French composer etc.) In any case, I don't think the lead, with its three sentences, can possibly be considered excessively long.--Kotniski (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support 'Polish-German': it is short, accurate (while still being deliberately vague) and to the point. Varsovian (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only accurate if you know in advance what it's supposed to mean. If you don't, you'll be misled by it. If it's deliberately vague, then it certainly shouldn't be used - there is nothing to be vague about here.--Kotniski (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish-American = an ethnically Irish citizen of the USA. Polish-German = an ethnically Polish citizen of Germany Varsovian (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Would be nice, but it doesn't work like that. The "*-American" ones are well known and well understood (I suspect "*-Canadian" too); others aren't. We're not here to invent a new language (however logical) or a new truth.--Kotniski (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the lead should be split into two paragraphs - the opening paragraph could just say what he was famous for (the bee stuff), and the second pararaph (still above the table of contents) could give the rest of the not-quite-so-key information in the form of a very brief summary of his life (nationality, where he lived and worked, the fact that he was a priest).--Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That would work for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, just removing at lot of "bad" sources won't do. Stating "came from a Polish family" in the lead is still undue, when the corresponding "came from a German family" is not included in many corresponding articles of persons from areas associated with the Polish Crown. I agree that the "bee stuff" is most important, and he possibly has chosen to become a priest in a rural parish in order to pursue "bee stuff". He apparently got into trouble for not caring enough for his clerical duties.

As for the nationality mess, it has to be made clear that he always lived in Prussia/Germany, and published almost exclusively in German (hundreds of articles in German, even in self-published magazines, vs. only one or three short introductory articles in Polish). As for his background: his ancestors had lived in Upper Silesia, which was Bohemian/Austrian for some centuries before the Prussians took over in the 1740s. There's no indication that they had immigrated from the nearby Polish kingdom which existed until 1795. According to a 1872 quote of his in German, published by Polish sources ([11], see German WP article), he explained his background, probably to Germans unfamiliar with Upper Silesia and the existence of a Polish minority there:

"Meine Nationalität betreffend bin ich allerdings, was mein Name andeutet, ein Pole von Geburt, da in Oberschlesien polnisch gesprochen wird. Da ich aber mit 10 Jahren nach Breslau kam, und dort meine Studien durchmachte, so bin ich von Erziehung ein Deutscher. Doch die Wissenschaft kennt keine Grenzen, keine Nationalität."

"In regard to my nationality, I am, however, as my name indicates, a Pole by birth, as Polish is spoken in Upper Silesia. But since I came at the age of 10 to Breslau, where I pursued my studies, am I am a German by education. But science knows no borders, no nationality."

It is telling that a 1960 Polish book omitted everything after "a Pole". Also, in 1966, the Poles added a plate to his tombstone (photo at http://www.willisch.eu/Bilder/07_Dzierzon/Grab.jpg)

Original Inscriptions	English Translation	Photo
Hier ruht in Gott der hochverehrte Altmeister der Bienenzucht Pfarrer Dr. Johann Dzierzon Ritter p.p. * 16. Januar 1911 † 26. Oktober 1906 Ruhe sanft! Wahrheit, Wahrheit über alles!	Here rests in God the revered old master of beekeeping Pastor Dr. Johann Dzierzon knight etc. * 16 January 1911 † 26 October 1906 Rest in peace! Truth, truth above everything!	File:JohannDzierzonGrab.jpg
Tu spoczywa wielki uczony twórca nowoczesnego pszczelarstwa żarliwy patriota i obrońca polskiego na Śląsku, Ks. Dr Jan Dzierżon Płytę ta ufundowało w 60 ta rocznice śmierci Społeczeństwo Ziemi Kluczborskiej 26 X 1966	Here lies the great scholar, founder of modern beekeeping ardent patriot and defender of Polish Silesia, priest Dr. Jan Dzierżoń This plate was funded at the 60th anniversary of his death Society of Kluczbork Lands 26 Oct 1966

According to the Polish TV documentary "Truth above everything" „Prawda ponad wszystko“ by Teresa Kudyba nominated for the 2008 award Deutsch-Polnischer Journalistenpreis and its German translation „Wahrheit über alles“ - Eine kleine Erzählung über Pfarrer Dzierzon (PDF), at Breslau University, Dzierzon registered as "Schlesier" (Silesian).

It seems to me that our Andrew Serafin, keeper of hundreds of socks, (and probably many Polish editors of en-WP who had emigrated before 1990), was educated by 20th century Polish communist national propaganda, aimed both against Germans and against historical truth. Dzierzon's parents might have taught him also Polish resp. the local Silesian dialect at home, as he would have been exposed to German anyway, but that does not make him a Pole, let alone an "ardent patriot and defender of Polish Silesia". He probably was a local Silesian patriot, in regard to 19th century Silesia with a majority of Germans. It is wrong to call him a patriot for the post-1945 Polish Silesia where millions of Germans were expelled from, including some of Dzierzons relatives with the same name. It seems the son of his nephew Franz Dzierzon, Alois Dzierzon (died 1963 near Leipzig), became mayor in 1938, as member of the Nazi Party. And, while AN/I might not be the proper place to mention it: a "Dzierżon Jan" [12] represented the German minority of Opole in 2003 as vice voivode, before he was axed due to Polish pressure. I'll try to create an article on him, at "Jan Dzierżon".

Yes, the article name needs to be moved to Johann Dzierzon, as on the tombstone and in contemporary sources. It is a shame that the article still is kept at "Jan Dzierżon", a name promoted by Post-1945 Polish propaganda, and echoed by too many unreliable sources. And having four bolded names plus two Polish IPA pronunciations is plain silly, folks. Well, at least it illustrates that the Poles invented not only one, but two names. Hey, why not choose a fifth one, with is definitively invented? WP:UE! "John Dzierzon" might be a compromise as his first name (nor the initial) seemingly never appeared in publications, in which he is referred to as "Pfarrer Dzierzon", "Dr. Dzierzon", or "Herr Dzierzon"). -- Matthead  Discuß   18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What a pathetic rant. /me shakes head. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this pertinent and thoughtful statement, it will be helpful towards the improvement of the article. Oscillating the head may also improve blood circulation of the brain. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some background on the history of the article and its naming:

• The article here at "Jan Dzierżon" was created in 2005 by User:Naive cynic, representing Polish POV.
• The article over at "Johann Dzierzon" was created in 2006 by User: Superslum, representing German POV.

In August 2006, and again in September, an Anon (later as User:Serafin), using the 131.IP-range of the University of Guelph, added Polish POV to both articles, and links to each other. Noticing the existence of two articles on the same subject, User:Naive cynic simply replaced the content of Johann Dzierzon with a redirect to Jan Dzierżon, thus choosing his own article and choice of name over the other. Is that how Wikipedia establishes consensus? -- Matthead  Discuß   20:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting the newer POV fork to the preexisting article was most certainly the correct thing to do, sure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of AGF? I see no indication that the newer article was a deliberate POV fork from a user who knew that an older one existed. An older article is not automatically the correct one, or do we have now WP:Primogeniture as a policy? -- Matthead  Discuß   21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources provided above are useful, especially the two recent Polish publications who indicate (a) that there is a dispute concerning Dzierzon's nationality, which (surprise) is rooted in the age of nationalism, and (b) Dzierzon's stance on that, who considered himself to be both Pole (by birth/tradition) and German (by education/culture). Thus, FPaS' proposal to write "Polish-German" seems plausible. I put the refs in a footnote with the respective quotes and translation. The are sources further useful to reference large previously unsourced parts of the article, which I did, and I encourage everyone to keep the focus on his carreer and achievements. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thx for improvements, question re status as priest

The article is looking much better - many thanks to its recent editors. A little quibble - the article states at one point that "As an ordained Roman Catholic priest he took over a parish in Karlsmarkt (Karłowice) in 1835, an office he held for 49 years." (i.e. to 1884). But it later states that "his questioning of papal infallibility were not accepted by the Church,[3] which consequently retired him from the priesthood in 1869." Both are ref'd, so how to reconcile them? Novickas (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Polish version of the article, he was forced to retire in 1868 (and excommunicated in 1873 - our article doesn't mention that at the moment). 1884 is given as the date when he moved back to Lowkowice. (Incidentally the Polish article also notes the claim that we make - that he joined the Old Catholic Church - and says that it's untrue. It also says nothing about an eventual reconciliation with the RCC before his death.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: moved. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Jan Dzierżon → Johann Dzierzon — English sources most often use "Johann Dzierzon":

• Google booksearch results with "[name] +bee+OR+bees+OR+beekeeping":
  • "Jan Dzierzon" - 53 hits (8 hits with publishing years 1990-2010)
  • "John Dzierzon" - 63 hits (2 hits with publishing years 1990-2010)
  • "Johannes Dzierzon" - 87 hits (21 hits with publishing years 1990-2010)
  • "Johann Dzierzon" - 117 hits (26 hits with publishing years 1990-2010)
• Google scholar search results with "[name] +bee+OR+bees+OR+beekeeping":
  • "Jan Dzierzon" - 8 hits
  • "John Dzierzon" - 1 hit
  • "Johannes Dzierzon" - 18 hits
  • "Johann Dzierzon" - 24 hits

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure these figures are in themselves overwhelming enough to justify renaming the article, particularly as the general Google results (not restricted to books or scholar) go in quite the opposite direction. Clearly books and scholarly articles will have a bias towards the name he published under (though I'n not saying that isn't relevant), but we should be more concerned with how he's referred to in works of a biographical nature - any data on that?--Kotniski (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the hits above pretty well reflect English usage outside the world of wiki mirrors and web crawlers. Biographical works in English are rare, if not missing, and thus won't help to establish the most common English spelling of Dzierzon's name. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another issue is whether to use the dot over the second 'z' in his name. I get the same counts Skäpperöd got with the Google scholar results, with the exception of 9 rather than 8 hits for "Jan Dzierżon". Is there a way to require the search to pay attention to the presence or absence of the diacritic? --Atemperman (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. He was called Johann for short, his full name was Johannes. The family name was Dzierzon, without any dot. "Jan Dzierżon" is just a translation used by Poles, heavily promoted by their propaganda in the 20th century. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for any of this?--Kotniski (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The results show that Johann Dzierzon is the most commonly used name. The fact that is is also the name put on his tombstone adds extra weight. Varsovian (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Translations?

The article currently claims (no doubt on the insistence of Matthead) that Dzierzon's publications were all initially in German and only "after translation" in Polish. Leaving aside for the moment that the sentence as it stands is ungrammatical, but is it true? We are citing one Polish language article from 1845, which would place it right at the beginning of his authorial work. Is there evidence (non-OR) that this publication is not original; was the same article published earlier elsewhere? And, has this whole matter been discussed in reliable secondary sources at all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see some sources before we include that particular statement in the article. Varsovian (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Some Polish sources (whether reliable or not) have mentioned that Dzierzon has written in Polish, and as that is barely discussed in English or German sources, I decided to have a closer look. I came to the conclusion that the Polish article is just a basic introduction to beekeeping, without the groundbreaking parthenogenesis news published in German. Sorry about that evil OR. Dzierzon has started to publish in the Frauendörfer Blätter, issued by a Bavarian society for Gardeners [13]. These early articles have been collected and reprinted later. In 1845, a teacher in Pless, Christian Schemmel (†1862), started to publish a weekly newsletter for peasants in Polish/Silesian language, and Dzierzon contributed to the 20th issue of the "Tygodnik Polski Poświęcony Włościanom". As it was just the 20th issue overall, with 4 pages per week, the whole annual page count has just reached page 80 by mid November. Dzierzons two-page article starts with, as far as I can figure out (barely), the remark that he had read a question in the Frauendorf newspaper about the best way to eradicate weeds (Raphanus raphanistrum) called ognichą in Polish/Silesian and Hederich in German/Silesian. What follows seems to be a lecture that those weeds are valuable for beekeeping. The article ends (as I understand) with the statement that not only the experience of him (Dzierzon), but also that of other beekeepers can be found in the "Bienenzeitung, herausgegeben zu Eichstädt", and if readers of the Tygodnik wish, more can be written about beekeeping. Seemingly, nothing was published in later issues, though, but Dzierzon obviously has continued to published a lot in German. Please do some OR and use the (just updated) link to download the file. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One source says "Biografowie Jana Dzierżona przypisują mu autorstwo trzech artykułów opublikowanych w czasopismach polskich. Są to: Sztuka zrobienia złota nawet z zielska publikowany w "Tygodniku Polskim Poświęconym Włościanom", R.1 nr 20 (Pszczyna 15.11.1845), Wyjaśnienie uzdolnienia matki pszczolnej, składania jaj pszczolnych i trutowych zawsze w odpowiednie komórki w "Gazecie Rolniczej, Przemysłowej i Handlowej" 40/1857 oraz Dzierżona spostrzeżenia pszczolarskie w roku ubiegłym i nieco o pszczołach włoskich. Ten ostatni artykuł z drobnymi zmianami opublikowały: "Gwiazdka Cieszyńska" 12/1863, "Gazeta Rolnicza" (z dnia 20.04.1863) i "Ziemianin" 19/1863. Niewątpliwie przygotowane merytorycznie przez Dzierżona materiały zostały we wszystkich wypadkach poddane językowej korekcie redakcyjnej.Niewiele z bogatego dorobku Jana Dzierżona przetłumaczone zostało na język polski."

Google translate [14]: "John Dzierzon biographers attribute to him the three articles published in Polish periodicals. They are: Art done with gold, even weeds published in "magazine devoted to Polish peasants, R.1 nr 20 (Pszczyna 15/11/1845) Clarification of talent pszczolnej mother, laying eggs and trutowych pszczolnych always in the appropriate cells in the Gazeta Agricultural Industry and Commerce "and Dzierzon 40/1857 pszczolarskie observations last year and a bit of Italian bees. The last article published with a slight modification: "Star Cieszynska 12/1863," Gazeta Agriculture "(dated 20/04/1863) and" terrestrial "19/1863. Undoubtedly, prepared substantially by Dzierzon materials were in all cases subject to correction redakcyjnej.Niewiele language of a prolific John Dzierzon been translated into Polish." Skäpperöd (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Johan?

Why is this Polish beekeeper is called Johann? Have I overlooked something?--Dr.Mamalala 09:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the discussions on this page. (Basically the title is that because references to him in English tend to use that name.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I see...--Dr.Mamalala 09:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically the title is that because references to him in English tend to use that name - but that is simply false. The above google books searches are very particular, and other search strategies result in quite different results.

For example: The above search used "Google booksearch results with "[name] +bee+OR+bees+OR+beekeeping"". Why not the simpler "[name] + bee"? Maybe because it gives only 96 hits for Johann [15], while Jan gives 389 hits [16]

Or why not "[name] + Silesia" since that's where he was from? Johann gives 29 results [17], but Jan gives 40 [18].

The point is that these searches can be manipulated to give whatever results one is looking for, particularly since both Johann and Jan are used in English language sources. I'm not saying that's what's happened here but the searches themselves need to be analyzed and discussed.

Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Jan": [19]. That's an English reference, and a pretty influential one at that.radek (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The title should be reverted to "Jan Dzierżoń". Nihil novi (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not simpler? OK, let's make it simple: "johann Dzierzon" 713 hits, "johannes Dzierzon" (for which Johann is clearly the short form) 295 hits, "jan Dzierzon" 650 hits. So that is 1,008 for Johann/Johannes Dzierzon and 650 for the Polish version. As for the "[name] + [location]" search, given that " "jan Dzierzon" silesian" gets 41 hits and " "johann Dzierzon" german" gets 48 hits, we can most probably discount that idea. Varsovian (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And ""Jan Dzierzon" Polish" gets 64 hits [20] beating out your "48" for German. And if you're going to try variations on "Johan" and then add them up, then why not try also different permutations of "Dzierzon"? The point is that we can play these kinds of games here for ever. One thing that is clear though is that BOTH versions are extensively used in English language sources. And Encyclopedia Britannica, still a respectable encyclopedia, uses "Jan". So the statement that references to him in English tend to use that name is not true; or at least not wholly true. References to him in Enlish tend to use both names.radek (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica? Would that be the same Encyclopedia Britannica which describes a certain Frédéric François Chopin as "Polish-French"? Oh yes, it is. Would you like to change the Chopin article based on what EB says or shall I? Varsovian (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Red herring. Other stuff. Stay on topic please. I have never edited the Chopin page (AFAICR), have no opinion on the matter and don't intend to edit in the future. Stay on topic please.radek (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious; using "Johan Dzierzon" (or "Johannes Dzierzon") or "Jan Dzierzon" doesn't work for the simple fact that these search terms do not filter out non-English (Polish, German, other) sources. In fact, if you look at your search for "Johann Dzierzon" the first entry is obviously in German. There is another German entry on the first page of search results, as well as, I think, a Slovak one. For the "Johannes Dzierzon" search, the second entry is in German (and most of the other entries on the first page of the search are from 1903, with basically same two works being listed multiple times). So it's a pretty good bet that a very large portion of your "1,008" hits for Johann/Johannes are non-English sources.

That's why even the original proposal for move used an additional English language word in the search term. Including "bee" tends to filter out non-English sources as that happens to be an English word. Yes, simple is generally good. But not so simple it becomes wrong.radek (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Flaw in previous move discussion

The previous Requested move discussion seems to have been flawed. The discussion relied heavily on Google Book and Scholar search results, but no attempt was made to restrict the search to English sources, and the search was done on the German version of Google. I obtain very different results doing the same search on the English version of the site. Searching for '"[name]" bee OR bees OR beekeeping' on the English Google books site, I obtain:

• Jan Dzierzon: about 368 hits
• John Dzierzon: about 42 hits
• Johannes Dzierzon: about 65 hits
• Johann Dzierzon: about 85 hits

(See next section for further discussion. I used the estimates on the first page of the Google search results. I should have known better.)--Srleffler (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the previous discussion relied on relatively small differences in counts between Jan and Johann. Google result counts are not very accurate.[21] (And contrary to what someone else asserts above, you can't simply add results for Johann and Johannes, since some books may appear on both lists.)--Srleffler (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps a speaker of German could confirm the meaning of the word "bees". Varsovian (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Who made the counting based on search on German google book that resulted in this gross error? I suggest moving back the article since the previous vote was made on false data.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... usually it doesn't matter (much) whether one uses English or German or whatever Google books - they all tend to give similar answers. I've used Polish google books and it always gave the same numbers as doing English google books searches (which I usually do to make sure). So that's not what's going on here.

In fact, I'm not sure what's going on here. When searching German google books - by going in to "http://www.google.de/books" then copy pasting the search string from Skapperod's link I get in fact, 336 hits [22].

Furthermore, if I click on Skapperod's link above - this one [23] I do get the page which says "1 - 10 von 29". But then if, already there, I click the "Nach Buchen suchern" button it pops up with the 336 hits [24].

I checked the settings and I'm still not sure what's going on.radek (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Flaw in previous book search counts - they used estimates given on first page, not final results

Searching for '"[name]" bee OR bees OR beekeeping' on the English Google books site, I obtain final counts of:

• [25]: Jan Dzierzon 31 results
• [26]: John Dzierzon 29 results
• [27]: Johannes Dzierzon 60 results
• [28]: Johann Dzierzon 74 results. Novickas (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think that "Archiv für Bienenkunde in Verbindung mit H. v. Buttel-Reepe", "Dr. Johann Dzierzon aus Lowkowits: der altmeister der deutschen imker; der mann und sein werk", "Honungsbiet i saga och sanning", "Südwestdeutscher Imker: Verbandsorgan der Landesvereine ...", "Allgemeine deutsche Imkerzeitung", "Berichte Biochemie und Biologie" - just to name 6 hits from your "74 results" "Johann" search that appear on just one (1!) page - should be counted as English language sources. But maybe that's just me.

Let me also repeat my question above: why use THIS particular search, with three (3!) different additional filtering terms? Why not just use "[name]" bee" which gives the balance to "Jan"? Or why not use ""[name] Silesia", which also favors "Jan"?radek (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because adding additional terms with "OR" should increase the number of valid results, ensuring that we count as many relevant sources as possible. Adding "Silesia" might bias the results, since sources focusing on his Polish heritage might be more likely to use the Polish form of his name.--Srleffler (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how adding "Silesia" would bias the results - "Slask", sure, but "Silesia" is an English term and it's not the same as "Poland" (as some people will be happy to tell you).radek (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

With English filtering on, I get 20 hits for "Jan" with Silesia, and 25 hits for Johann with Silesia. Searching for '"[name]" bee' gives almost identical results to '"[name]" bee OR bees OR beekeeping', as one would expect. Note that to get an accurate value for the number of matches, you have to page through to the end of the list of results. The number Google displays on the first page of results is inaccurate; often wildly so. --Srleffler (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Novickas has identified a flaw in the searches I did. I should not have trusted Google's first-page count, which is notoriously inaccurate. Repeating my search (which nominally filters out sources that aren't in English) but going to the last page as he has done, I get:

• Jan Dzierzon: 28 hits
• John Dzierzon: 27 hits
• Johannes Dzierzon: 51 hits
• Johann Dzierzon: 67 hits

These results are really too close to call any of them a clear winner, given the unreliability of Google counting. As Radeksz has pointed out, other searches give other results. I don't think we can rely on Google counts for a solution to this matter.--Srleffler (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring, wow, major display of integrity. Thanks. Novickas (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Srleffler, yeah, it appears your search is correct, I get the same thing.radek (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally the modern international conference on the person in question used the name Jan Dzierzon not Johann Dzierzon

There was a international conference on the person in question just recentely in 2006. The title of the conference used name Jan Dzierzon not Johann Dzierzon. International Apiculture Scientific Conference in centenary of Jan Dzierzon's death, Pulawy (Poland), 25-27 Apr 2006 [29][30]

This data is valuable since it informs us that modern scholars use the term Jan Dzierzon in english based literature. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be in Pulawy next Tuesday, while I'm there I'll ask at tourist info what they think would happen to anybody who dared to suggest that a conference in Poland should use the name which is on the bloke's tombstone as opposed to the name that was put onto his tombstone during the Polish communist era. I wonder what they'll say. Varsovian (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you publish it in a reliable source, we can't use your claims per WP:OR. Thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OR? You mean like the claim that a conference in Poland using the Polish name means that English speakers use the Polish name (and not the name which is actually on the man's tombstone)? Varsovian (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The title of the international conference in English is available for all to see. As well as multiple articles from the conference translated into English. If you claim the conference and the articles presented another version of the name in English please present reliable sources confirming this. Thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Translated into English"? Good to know that you don't claim it was English native speakers who used the word Jan. Given that Polish speakers call John Paul "Jana Pawla", what would they call Johannes Paulus? Varsovian (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please present any reliable source that shows the international conference and its articles used different English versions of the name. Thank you. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that this back and forth discussion about the conference is not very helpful. The conference is not very good evidence one way or the other on the question of what version of Dzierzon's name is most common in English. A conference run by English speakers in an English speaking country would be useful evidence. An international conference held in Poland is not nearly as persuasive.--Srleffler (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Johann Dzierzon → Jan Dzierzon — Page was previously moved based on a flawed Google search that appeared to show more usage of "Johann" than "Jan". A correct search shows much greater use of the latter name. It is time to have a new discussion about the best name for this article. Srleffler (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The previous move discussion is above. The flawed Google search is discussed above as well. See above for improved Google results. I am ambivalent about which name is best, but I think that a new formal move discussion is needed due to the flawed information used last time.--Srleffler (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I was incorrect about the Google search being badly flawed, however I still feel that the Google results are not definitive enough to use as the primary source for the decision. Google counting is not very reliable; it would be OK if one version of the name were much more common than the others. It's not worth much when the results are all about the same order of magnitude. See here for more on the limitations of Google counting.--Srleffler (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, since Varsovian has began "neutrally notifying" various editors of this vote, I've also added a note at Wiki Project Poland [31]. I would appreciate it if someone put a similar notification at other related projects (like WikiProject Germany, and I believe there is a Wiki Project or Task Force on Silesia. Don't know if there is one on Bees).radek (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support moving back to "Jan Dzierzon" (no preference on the "z") per the fact that Encyclopedia Britanica uses "Jan" [32], per the fact that "Jan" is used by the International Bee Research Association and hence the English language Journal of Apicultural Research [33]and finally, per the fact that when Dzierzon's book was published in English (and when it is currently reprinted in English) the name of the author chosen by American and British publishers was/is "Jan Dzierzon", not "Johann": contrast [34] with [35] and Library of Congress catalog [36] [37] (and this [38] makes me suspect that even German publishers of the time used "Jan" and he only became "Johann" later, for political reasons - sort of same like on Wikipedia where the article was under "Jan" for a very long time).radek (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also I might add: even German publishers appear to have used "Jan" rather than "Johann". English language publishers most certainly used "Jan".radek (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Above here you acknowledge that a Google book search does give more results for Johann; could you strike out 'per fact that previous Google search was misleading', as Srleffler has? Novickas (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I did take it out, though I want to note that your search was indeed misleading as it contained quite a number of German language sources, making the difference appear larger than is really the case.radek (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose As per reasons given in first move discussion. Use of Encyclopedia Britanica is not appropriate: that source is ignored when it says things like Chopin being "Polish-French". As for "Jan" becoming "Johann" for political reasons: Johann Dzierzon's tombstone shows that precisely the opposite is true. Varsovian (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point about Chopin. His father was French and his mother Polish. He emigrated to France and became a French citizen. That makes him Polish-French. In any event, what the Encylopedia Brittanica has to say about Chopin is irrelevant to what it says about Dzierzon. The E.B. is a reliable source.--Srleffler (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding the adjective "strong" doesn't add any weight to your opinion - anybody can do that - especially when it is not backed up by any kind of evidence or argument. The Chopin thing is addressed above - it is a case of a red herring and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Furthermore, there's a fundamental difference between using EB to support article text (generally not recommended as it is a tertiary text) like you want to do in Chopin, and using EB to decide on article name. Please actually read the relevant guidelines (though I believe this has already been explained to you numerous times). His tombstone was under "Johann" - is that an English language source btw? If not then what is the relevance? - because he was buried by German authorities during a Germanization campaign. As is common knowledge.radek (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Having closely examined all the evidence presented on this talk page it is my opinion that the article should be moved back to Jan Dzierzon.  Dr. Loosmark  14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• I find the argument based on reliable English language sources of reference, such as those presented by radek about the Library of Congress and Encyclopedia Britannica, far more persuasive than any Google count. I am not convinced, however, that choosing either page title makes any significant difference to the reader - both names are have wide use in sources, so readers are roughly as likely familiar with one as the other. The redirects make sure you end up here no matter which you put in the search box, and all variants are prominently listed at the top of the article. Whichever is picked roughly the same number of readers will arrive at the name they are familiar with, so no matter what the result of this discussion is, I don't think it'll be to the significant benefit or detriment of the reader. Knepflerle (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Per established naming used by modern scholars when debating the subject of the article in international conferences, per google books results, and per the fact that it was his real name, only later Germanised(the family didn't knew German).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Difficult. There are strong currents of advocacy in much of the previous discussion. If you keep doing Google searches for long enough, eventually you'll find one that supports your POV. It seems agreed that both the German and Polish names are commonly used in English, the German probably because that's the name under which he was originally published and the Polish for obvious reasons. Other language Wikipedias go some one way, some the other, and may be in a similar dilemma. Both names have been promoted over the years, for reasons of nationalism and political correctness and possibly others. It's hard to imagine what evidence could be relied upon under these circumstances. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, please see my link to the LIbrary of Congress record above - it seems that he was originally published under "Jan" EVEN IN GERMAN, and of course English as well. Currently, reprints of his work in English are published under "Jan". It appears that the "Jan" was changed to "Johann" only later and in only some versions of German language works.radek (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

However true that may be, I don't see that it helps! Andrewa (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well what it roughly means is that if you were to go to your local library and try to find works by the guy, you'd have much more success looking under "Jan" than under "Johann", since his English language works (and some German language too!) were published under the authorship of "Jan Dzierzon". I do think that's suggestive of convention Wikipedia should follow.radek (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I had no success looking under either! See [39] and [40] for one book I did eventually find in local collections. And it does call him Jan. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's UC Berkeley library: [41] Note the "Your entry Dzierzon, Johann would be here", right below the entry for "Jan" (which actually takes you to a German language book - again showing that even German publishers used "Jan"). I'll look up some other libraries too. It might be different.radek (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's UC Davis (I'm just starting on the West Coast): nothing for "Johann" [42]. 3 for "Jan", including again, German language ones, [43].radek (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's Urbana-Champagne (skipping libraries that have neither): [44]. Again, the author of the books is given as "Jan".radek (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's University of Michigan [45]. Again it shows that "Jan Dzierzon" is used even in GERMAN editions of his work.

Ok, that makes it the largest 15 libraries in US and libraries in the UC System - which all either don't have works by Dzierzon, or, if they do, have it under "Jan". There isn't a single listing for a book by "Johann Dzierzon", even German ones (which are also under Jan).radek (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Looks good. Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Moving back and forth and back again doesn't solve the problem. Dzierzon used both names, he had no problem with it as modern nationalism was unknown to him. As User:Srleffler now withdraw his accusation of a "flawed" result in the discussion above, there is no reason to restart that discussion again. HerkusMonte (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with the stipulation that the surname be written in its correct Polish form — presumably, "Dzierżoń". Nihil novi (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Notwithstanding that there's some invalid argument on both sides, I think a good case has eventually been made for preferring Jan over Johann. But adding the Polish diacritics is a separate issue. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Weakish support, the evidence presented seems to indicate that, if anything, he's more likely to be encountered as "Jan" in an English-language context, particularly a modern one (and since it seems his achievements are now promoted mostly in Poland, it's likely that the Polish name will continue to gain in prominence). However, let's spend some time examining this properly so we can make sure we've got it right and don't have to keep changing the name of the article every few months. What about the diacritics, then - does anyone know how the two forms (with and without the accent on the "n") came about? It seems that the form without that accent is more used today (in Poland).--Kotniski (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment You are right that we need to get this right now rather than moving it back and forth every few months. I'm wondering if a good solution might be to give both names in the lede, perhaps Johann 'Jan' Dzierzon (or the reverse)? Or even Johannes 'Jan' Dzierzon (given that his official name was presumably Johannes). Varsovian (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a separate issue than the title of the article, but I don't really like that way of doing it (it makes it look as if the form in quotes is a kind of nickname or diminiuitive).--Kotniski (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the title should be Johannes 'Jan' Dzierzon (or similar). As for nickname or diminiuitive, well he can't have been officially called Johannes and Jan (or if he was, the title should reflect that). Varsovian (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia article naming conventions allow having two forms of the name in the title. We handle dual names through redirects: Jan Dzierzon and Johannes Dzierzon both point to the same article; one will be the article and the other a redirect. Both forms of the name can appear in the lede, but not in the title. This discussion is just about the title (and therefore also about which name will come first in the lede).--Srleffler (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, putting both names in the title has been tried with a number of other articles and this attempt at compromise has never lasted. Andrewa (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Having researched this, it is my belief that the most useful argument is the number of Google hits:
• Jan Dzierzon: 28 hits
• John Dzierzon: 27 hits
• Johannes Dzierzon: 51 hits
• Johann Dzierzon: 67 hits

From this we can judge that Johann is the more widespread form, beating Jan by 39 results, with the latter actually being one of the least common forms. We should not move something only because this is the wish of some Polish nationalists, who want to promote a person's "Polishness"; I recently encountered a similar push in Nietzsche's article, and then noticed that this is happening all over the place. Tropical wind (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh, strange that you should bring up Nietzsche here, as that sort of jugs the memory a little. I think I remember something about that. Not sure yet what, lemme think about it a little more and see what I can come up with. BTW, my wife says that "Tropical wind" is a very nice name for a Wikipedia user. Radek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)

Indeed this language and arguments remind me of former arguments and language used by another user.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Always amusing to see ex-EEML people getting together to imply that another editor might be breaking an unspecified rule. Clearly those fine words when appealing topic bans were heartfelt. Varsovian (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Google counting is not very accurate.[46] It can be useful when one term gets many times more hits than another. In this case, the number of hits is so small and they are all within a factor of three. This has some value, but is not a very strong argument for "Johann" by itself. We need to consider other sources as well. Policy specifies that we follow the usage of reliable sources where possible, and recommends checking the usage of "major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias,..., major scientific bodies and scientific journals". Supporters of "Jan" have cited several such sources above. It would be good to have some comparable references from the "Johann" side. I have not seen any (although I haven't checked to see if I missed some above.)--Srleffler (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Google search problems mentioned in the above link apply here. First page estimates - we're past that; caps all queries at 1000 results, not applicable; polysemic words, punctuation, N/A; link bombing, N/A. Using the diacritic yields only a few extra EN results.[47] Could you point to a particular issue for this search? There are a few items with non-English titles in all the searches; I'd be willing to post counts that exclude those. I'm pretty sure it will stabilize at about Johann 2X Jan (for Gbook searches using name+ bees, or +parthogenesis, or +movable hive) but if you and others feel 2x is a weak result, there wouldn't be much point.

You mention checking other high-quality sources. UC Davis [48], Nature Publishing Group (which publishes Nature (journal)) [49], and Genetics Society of America [50] all used Johann during the 2000s. Novickas (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC) A couple more; New Scientist [51], European Parliament [52]. Novickas (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How about finding an actual book published under the authorship of a "Johann Dzierzon"? Even in German. Ive looked quite hard actually and I dont think such a thing exists (maybe). It seems that whenever his works were published either in English or German it was always under "Jan". No ones disputing that some sources use Johann within them, while others use Jan. But the difference is small. Hence, the fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica, as well as American professional organization dedicated to bee keeping use Jan IN ADDITION to the fact that all his publications (even in German) appear to be under Jan should be enough. Radek (sorry, cant find tildas on this keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)

I recommend that Mr Radek actually takes a look in Dzierzon's books or, alternatively, in their scans, available on Google Books or the Internet Archive, as this would lead him into noticing that the author is usually called "Dr. Dzierzon", or "Herr Pfarrer Dzierzon", with his first name being seldom used by himself - and indeed the Jan form is never used in his books. Radeksz claims otherwise, but can he provide a single piece of proof? Srleffler asked for examples for the usage of "Johann" in major English-language sources; these easy to find: 3rd European Congress on Social Insects always uses "Johann", as does the American Nature Publishing Group, the publisher of the Nature scientific journal. Tropical wind (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Oh, I´ve noticed that in many cases he is referred to as "Dr." rather than by first name. It seems lots of works find it convenient to avoid the whole issue of naming in the first place. Unfortunetly on Wikipedia we don´t have that option and must decide. And of course, it was already pointed out that, yes, in SOME English language sources he is referred to as Johann while in others (such as Encyclopedia Britannica and the major American bee association, among many others) he is referred to as¨"Jan". But the thing is, whenver his books were published, in English OR in GERMAN, they were always published under "Jan". Also, no need to call me "Mr. Radek". We´re on first name basis here, right? Radek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. It seems to me that the move request is based on nationalist biases. It is a complicated issue. Both sides have valid arguments. The fact is that the man himself used Johann Dzierzon not Jan Dzierżoń. That is the reality of the situation regardless of the political and historic reasons causing this to be the case. That is the basis for my vote. Furthermore "Jan Dzierzon" is right there in the lead and the article explains most of the pertinent facts concerning the man. Changing the title does not change any of these facts. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are arguments on both sides, and either title is quite acceptable to me, but can you explain why you think the man himself did not use "Jan"?--Kotniski (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is quite untrue. Dzierzon family didn't knew German, he himself learned it only being 10 years old. He used German in scientific and official documentation, but in private life an sermons he used Polish, they are both letters and papers with sermons left in Polish language.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that his having learned German at ten is relevant to the claim that he himself used "Johann". If he used the latter form for his entire life after age ten, that would provide some support for keeping the current article title. The language his family used in his early childhood is irrelevant.--Srleffler (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But does anyone actually know, based on reliable sources, what name he used? Much of this discussion just seems to be people's personal speculation. Anyway, we're more interested in what he is called by reliable sources than what he was called by himself.--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is one bee journal article he wrote in 1904 that begins 'Von (By) Dr. Johann Dzierzon'. [53]. It's written in the first person, note the 'habe ich' in the second column, 3rd line. Novickas (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The move request is not based on nationalist biases, although some of the argument on each side may be. I am neither Polish nor German and have no particular interest in the outcome. I felt though that the previous article move had not been adequately discussed, and had been based largely on an inadequate measure of usage of the various forms of the name. The discussion this time has been a bit more substantive.--Srleffler (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely aside from the outcome of this vote, I would genuinely like to know, out of personal curiosity, whether there actually exists or at least once existed any book by Dzierzon that was published under the authorship of ¨Johann Dzierzon¨ rather than ¨Jan Dzierzon¨ in German or English. If it is indeed the case that even German publishers used Jan then I find it a quite interesting historical fact which throws some light on the general issue of Poles in Prussia in the 19th and early 20th century and the difference between forced Germanization policies of the Prussian government as opposed to apparantly quite different attitude of what can be loosely called the ´´German private sector´of the time. So if anybody knows the details abuot the publication name, I would appreciate a note on the subject. Radek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)

A Worldcat search shows that a number of libraries worldwide catalogue the author as Johann [54]. A Swedish translation, for example, published in 1856, is catalogued that way in the National Library of Sweden. Along with the 19th-century Czech and Norwegian translations. This makes me doubt his books were originally published under Jan. I think it likely that the cataloguers needed to make a decision on his first name, despite what looks to have been a habitual use of only 'Pfarrer' or 'Dr.' in the books themselves, and at some point decided to use what they saw as the commonly-known professional version. For an example of his own use of Johann in a journal (1904), see [55]. Novickas (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What I would appreciate is knowing why there is a continual superfluous running commentary going on at this request at the voting section, and why they are not being required to be placed in the commentary section? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Scandal! Conspiracy! Sabotage! Continual superfluous commentary! The roof is on fire! Let's call the United Nations!  Dr. Loosmark  01:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, I'm wondering why you haven't removed your unhelpful and ridiculous comment by now? Dr. Dan (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And why have you not removed your ridiculous comment that there is a "superfluous running commentary" going on? The point of having a discussion on the move of an article is to confront the arguments so the discussion is anything but "superfluous". Otherwise we can only "count the numbers" so to say.  Dr. Loosmark  22:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A good question. See below. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I will assume that the change in indenting which I am now reversing was some sort of accident. It completely misrepresented my views. Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see now. I was wondering about that too. Your good question comment was intended as a reply to Dan's initial question rather than his "ridiculous" question, right? Well might have been some sort of accident who knows. Maybe Dan's finger slid [56] on keyboard and he accidentally changed the indents... It happens I guess. Let's just hope that it doesn't happen again.  Dr. Loosmark  22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that diff, I hadn't even bothered to find out who was responsible. Yes, I was replying to the question I repeated below in a new section, to which the comment linked. Changing the indenting made it confusing, as the link and timestamps still indicated the string correctly, but the indenting made it look as if I was replying to a different question entirely. Not good. Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: The request was based on the assumption that the books.google screening results were flawed, and this has been settled [57]. Several books.google 'hit lists' were compiled on this page and Johann clearly gets the most returns, Jan and John the least [58] [59] [60]. Srleffler further outlined general problems with the relevance of books.google screenings [61], for this, I find Novickas' answer convincing [62]. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Google books results are not convincing either way. One has to note that the article was stable under the name Jan Dzierzon for a very long time until it was controversially changed to the Germanized version of the name, "Johann". Since Jan Dzierzon was a Polish patriot I see little sense in using the German name for him, after all we don't use Polish names for Germans either. And Encyclopaedia Britannica also uses Jan Dzierzon which should seal it, really.  Dr. Loosmark  21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) "Science does not know borders or nationality". That's what Dzierzon said.

(2) If EB was the alpha and the omega, what are some of us doing here writing an encyclopedia? Novickas listed high quality sources using Johann [63].

(3) The respective RM was uncontroversial [64]. The 'controversy' was started three weeks later by an EEML member who evaded his topic ban with a sock to post this. Two months later, another EEML member returned from their topic ban and re-activated the dead thread [65]. Yet another EEML member who had returned from a long block chimed in [66] and there we go again.

Skäpperöd (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Skapperod:

(1) Indeed it does not. And what does that have to do with anything? Just because the science does not know borders or nationality, it does not mean that Polish scientists have to use German names on Wikipedia.

(2) The "high quality" sources presented by Novackis are webpages. Sorry but I trust more EB than I trust webpages. Most serious books use Jan. Fact.

(3) Uncontroversial? Really? How it is then that an editor, Matthead, who voted for renaming the Polish scientist Jan Dzierzon to Johann is now banned from all Polish topics due to his continuous disruptions?  Dr. Loosmark  22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked up Matthead's case, and he was blocked for posting a scan of Dzierzon's birth cerfiticate and a scan of Dzierzon's death certificate to his talk page, violating a topic ban not arising from anything related to Dzierzon. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Skapp, if you really sincerely believe that ´"Science does not know borders or nationality" then why the stubborn insistence on ´Johann´? His books were published under the name ´Jan´, Encyclopedia Britannica calls him ´Jan´, and the google hits are close together. Or is this like, ´Science knowns no bounderies when it means keeping a German names but we got to draw some boundaries when it comes to Polish names´? I could quote that quote in any kind of naming dispute and it would make it look like I was on the side of ... science or something ... but it would be equally as meaningless as it is here. Also, that "úncontroversial move" (after years of the article being stable under ´Jan Dzierzon´") had two votes on it, one by an editor now topic banned from Poland related articles and the other one by an editor whose entire contributiojn to Wikipedia consists of making consistently NEGATIVE edits about Poland and Poles. That may be "uncontroversial" to you but it sure doesn´t look like that from here. Radek — Preceding unsigned comment added by radeksz (talk • contribs)

Could you kindly attempt to discuss the issues at hand rather than making insulting comments about me? Thank you in advance. Varsovian (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere are the books.google hits "close together", which is why it was moved. Please refrain from belitteling me with a diminutive of my username and attacking others as "stubborn", also sign your posts properly. Please redact your post accordingly asap. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Since Jan Dzierzon was a Polish patriot I see little sense in using the German name for him" is a very edifying argument, Loosmark. I'd ask you for a citation on that comment except that I have no reason to doubt that you could undoubtedly come up with one from somewhere. As I recall at a Marxist-Leninist course that I was required to take while studying in Poland, I attended a lecture about Rudolf Virchow. On that day, he too was a "Germanized" Polish patriot. Perhaps one day we can have a vote about how to name his article according to "google hits" and "reliable sources" too. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt your erm.. story. Personally I am unaware that Rudolf Virchow is Polish. If you have an evidence of the contrary do present it please. On the approprite talk page, if possible.  Dr. Loosmark  23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both versions are used in reliable sources, but Johann prevails by about 2:1 in a Google book search, and is also also used in a variety of other high-quality English-language sources; UC Davis [67], Nature Publishing Group (which publishes Nature (journal)) [68], Genetics Society of America [69]; New Scientist [70]; European Parliament [71]; Arizona State University's Embryo Project, which is supported in part by the National Science Foundation [72]; the Journal of Heredity [73]; the Institute of Genetics at University of Düsseldorf[74]; a paper published by Penn State [75]. (I'm listing only those webpages and scholarly papers for which a viewer can see sentences containing 'Johann Dzierzon' ). His own 1904 usage of Johann here [76] - two years before his death he apparently decided to publish an article under Johann rather than Dr or Pfaffer Dzierzon - should also be considered. At this point, the proponents of Jan have shown two other non-book EN-language reliable sources, E. Britannica and a conference article. These are good sources, but they are outweighed. Novickas (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One has to remember that up to 1918 Poland was defacto under German occupation. It is thus not suprising that in 1904 Jan was forced to use the Germanize version of his name Johann. It's not clear under what circustances the webpages you list above use the name Johann, maybe they just show things like his work from 1904 when he was forced to use the name Johann. Encylopedia Brittanica is a reliable source and easily beats webpages.  Dr. Loosmark  17:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark please, Dzierzon was "forced" to use Johann? "It is thus not suprising (sic) that in 1904 Jan was forced to use the Germanize (sic) version of his name Johann"? Then you bring up the issue of clarity with "It's not clear under what circustances (sic) the webpages you list above use the name Johann", I'm sorry but again that is probably a language issue that you have to work on. The information is quite clear as it is presented. Are you claiming that many famous Poles living in the German partition (or other two partitions) were "forced" to abandon their Polish names and surnames? I don't think that that is the case. Just like many Polish-Americans who changed or shortened their names after leaving Poland, no one "forced" them to do so, they might have thought it advantageous to do so, or whatever, but no one was "forced" to do so. In fact many did not do so. As for EB, I remember quite distinctly that when Encyclopedia Britannica was invoked as a source depicting Pilsudski as a "Polish-Lithuanian" the argument was made by many Polish Wikipedians, editing the English language version, that it was "outweighed" by other sources (lots of magazine articles, etc.). Can we have it both ways? Can EB be the reliable source when it fits our POV, and not be a reliable source when it doesn't? Novickas makes a lot of sense when she says it a good source, but that in this case it's outweighed by the other sources. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that many famous Poles living in the German partition (or other two partitions) were "forced" to abandon their Polish names and surnames? The Germans were pushing a heavy Germanisation during the partitions, so yes that's exactly what I am claiming, if you wanted to do a carreer you were forced to use a German name. As for Encyclopedia Britannica, I don't remember I have ever claimed that it was "outweighed" by webpages. About Piłsudski, as far as I remember Lithunian editors strongly opposed the idea that Piłsudski was a Lithuanian but I might be wrong. Anyway I don't quite see how the men compare really.  Dr. Loosmark  19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Loosmark. Many Silesian Poles did not change their names, because they were not forced to do so. Like Stanislaw Adamski for example (there are plenty of others). In 1904, Dzierzon was 93 years old and hardly concerned about building his carreer (sic). I'm not claiming that the Pilsudski matter was about you or what you claimed EB's weight carried concerning that debate. Check the talk page archive concerning that matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Dan, it can indeed be that EB is a source which was handed down to us on Mt. Sinai but only when it supports a certain PoV. When it says things about topics such as Chopin being Polish-French or Pilsudski being Polish-Lithuanian, it is utterly wrong. See, for example the comments made by Radeksz when I first pointed out that EB is being praised to the heavens here are completely ignored in other discussions. Please note that, in keeping with my interaction ban, I make no reference to or comment upon any post other than yours (I particularly make no reference to the post above Dr. Dan's or below my own) and make no comment on or remark concerning or reference to any editor other than the ones specifically named in my post, i.e. Dr. Dan and Radeksz. Varsovian (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a Polish bishop, born more than 44 years after years after Jan Dzierzon, allegedly kept his name is a proof that Dzierzon vollutary changed his name from Jan to the German Johanann? Right, whatever. And are you sure that the German documents use the name Stanisław Adamski? A source for that would be welcome.  Dr. Loosmark  20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that many famous Poles living in the German partition (or other two partitions) were "forced" to abandon their Polish names and surnames? I don't think that that is the case. In German partition-yes definetely, there was a forced campaign to Germanize Polish names, which included enforcing parents to sign a Germanised birth certificate for example.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(OD) This is what I have experienced over time with some editors who have a different spin on the subject than I do. Example 1. If a "Pole" is Germanised he does not become a German but stays Polish. Example 2. If a Lithuanian is Polonised he becomes "Polish", period. There are plenty of other similar examples. I still believe the ultimate reason for this move request is based on nationalistic biases. In short, Dzierzon was "Germanised" and forced to change his name during the Kulturkampf, but he was "re-Polonized" during the People's Republic of Poland. Pretty much sums it up. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Commentary

It it interesting that this whole debate appears to stem from Radeksz's 20 July reply to a statement made by an editor who was quickly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMamalala&action=historysubmit&diff=359894354&oldid=358177110 blocked] as being a sockpuppet of a banned editor who was a member of EEML. Please note that I do not in any way state or wish to imply that there has been any misconduct or improper off-wiki co-ordination related to this debate. Varsovian (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that you keep making false allegations by implication and insinuation and then quickly follow them up with a "I do not in any way state or wish to imply that there has been any misconduct or improper off-wiki co-ordination related to this debate" - if you do not state it, then don't state it, rather than pulling these kind of hypocritical phony stunts. You've done this at Sandstein's talk page. You've done it at other talk pages. You've even come to my talk page and done it there.

You seem to think that making personal attacks and threats is OK as long as one denies really quickly that one is in fact making personal attacks. It is not. It is simply a way of trying to GAME Wikipedia rules, which actually acerbates the initial breaking of policy by making personal attacks in the first place.radek (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Radeksz, I'm reading all of these comments not because of any notification made to me, but because the subject is on my watchlist. I plan to vote and make a comment based on the arguments, not on "google hits", nor be influenced on the vote tally. Usually, neither are helpful in resolving these kinds of things. And Radeksz, please do not give anyone lectures about GAMEing Wikipedia rules. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Dan, have I addressed you in any way in regard to this matter? No? Then what are you talking about?

But really Dan, I hope you vote soon, because personally the suspense over which way you'll vote is just killing me!!! The same is probably true for everybody here, all of whom no doubt await with bated breath to see which way you'll cast your vote! Oh the uncertainty! Bookies must be recalculating their odds tables now. How will you consider arguments, not the google hits or the vote tally? Will you vote 'support' or 'oppose' - nobody knows the answer in advance. You have definitely been very unpredictable in the past and your voting certainly has been inconsistent. Perhaps you should make up your mind once and for all whether to vote against any kind of Polish names every single time, or for them, and then stick to that stubbornly, unflinchingly and uncompromisingly.

Seriously, sarcasm off, everyone knows how you gonna vote, so just go ahead and vote (and your vote is welcome here).radek (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I'm listening to the arguments. My vote will be based on them and the consistency of the arguments made in relation to other articles by many participating here in this discussion. In cases like Antoni Wiwulski, or Frédéric Chopin and many others. And regarding my other suggestion, I wasn't being sarcastic, it would be better if you didn't give anyone lectures about GAMEing Wikipedia rules. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange. There doesn't seem to EVER have been a discussion on Antoni Wiwulski, nor did anyone who's commented here so far ever edit that article, as far as I can tell. However, I'm sure you can come up with a way to compare the consistency of the arguments made here to the arguments which were never made and do not exist on Antoni Wiwulski - quite an achievement and very worthy of you. You have to tell me the secret of how you do that sometime - compare things which exist to things which never existed, and then use that comparison as a basis for a decision. You should also come up with a name for this new revolutionary practice and patent it before anyone steals the idea. Then you can go around country teaching others how to do this. Maybe you'll make enough money for a second boat (oh, sorry, I didn't mean to assume you only owned one. If you indeed have several, then please forgive me) and even more expensive champagne.

Are you sure you're not just addressing figments of your own imagination here?radek (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this off-topic bickering is not helpful. Let's stay focused on the issue at hand.--Srleffler (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Radeksz, perhaps a better example than Vivulskis would have been Laurynas Gucevičius, although an anonymous editor with an IP of 124.++ working out of Australia [77] [78] [79] [80] can be found weaving in an out of articles similar to Dzierzon elsewhere with a strong POV. You might enjoy looking over a discussion from almost four years ago concerning LG [81]. Concerning my boats (yep, got more than one) and good champagne (love it, and bison grass vodka too). I don't remember discussing my good fortune about my boats or my appreciation of good (not necessarily expensive) champagne with you. What brought that up? Hmmm? If you prefer to discuss it at my talk page instead of here, that's fine with me. I'd rather deal with Dzierzon here. Oh, and the operative words were "In cases like Antoni Wiwulski, or Frédéric Chopin and many others". LOL, you picked Tony instead of Freddy. Many others, Radeksz, many others. I guess you're out of the pen, congratulations. Play nice. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Btw, can you hook me up with one of the bookies that's taking bets on how I'll vote here. I could use the gas money, my last fill up was almost two grand.

General warning: There are so many personal attacks in the above that perhaps everyone involved should check what they've said and take this as a level one warning if appropriate. See

• Template:Uw-npa1
• Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black
• Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

for more information. In particular, note that a personal attack as the term is used in Wikipedia may be both polite and well-intentioned. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Loosmark, regarding your above edit [82], don't you think Amnesty International would have been a better choice than the U.N. As I recall there already has been some allusion made to them concerning past disputes? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A good question

From above:

What I would appreciate is knowing why there is a continual superfluous running commentary going on at this request at the voting section, and why they are not being required to be placed in the commentary section? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedians enjoy a great deal of freedom. In defence of these instream comments, there isn't actually a survey section above, and it's a bit late to create one now.

But take a step back. The goal of the survey section of a Requested move is to satisfy the closing administrator that a move should take place; The goal of those opposing presumably is to satisfy the admin that it should not. We admins look for consensus and also at the arguments, particularly but not only at whether they are supported by policies and guidelines. Anything that helps us to do this is welcome. Anything that doesn't, isn't.

So it's self-policing really, because we admins are human, and we tend to read and respond to the arguments of those who help us. Or to put it in stick not carrot form, if you want your arguments ignored, just clutter up the survey with irrelevant stuff. We'll wade through it to get to the bottom of what others say, that's our job and it's only fair to them. But we may not take the trouble to even read the arguments of those who seem responsible for the cluttering. That may not be an ideal response, but it's surprisingly effective. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Header refactor

See this diff for why I've changed the header levels... the section now headed Commentary is all part of this second move debate, otherwise comments added to the discussion in good faith have been removed. Perhaps this will help with resolving the good question above. Andrewa (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation request/Konopnicka meeting with Dzierzon/

While I am quite able to translate simple sentences into English perhaps somebody more fluent can try to translate this W tym miejscu warto przytoczyć słowa Marii Konopnickiej, która w roku 1895 tak napisała w "Kurierze Warszawskim": "Kto pszczoły hoduje, ten dobry być musi - powiedział kiedyś Dzierżon, i takim też sam być się zdaje. Coś ludowego, coś niespożycie żywotnego jest w tym blisko 90-letnim człowieku (...) na polskie pozdrowienie z szląska odpowiada, w oczy bystro i głęboko patrzy, a gdy pozna żeś swojak z ducha, że się Bożem dziełem zadziwiać umiesz, a przyrodę kochasz, wnet z pamięci to lub owo o pszczołach swoich wyszuka, powie słowo jakieś tak mocne i proste a ważne, że to na samo dno duszy pada, jak złota, ciężka kropla lipcowego miodu". --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Communist era and pre-war sources

Several Communist era and pre-war sources were recently added to emphasize an alleged political stance of Dzierzon. I don't think the sources can be treated as reliable sources in this regard and moved them here:

He was viewed sympathetically by the local rural population, whose interests he defended against the German administration. In his sermons he used the Polish language, and during the [[Spring of Nations]] he took the side of the Silesian peasants, organizing meetings, publishing leaflets and articles against exploitation by Prussia, and encouraging the peasants to modernize their holdings.<ref name="Słownik">Stanisław Feliksiak, ''Słownik biologów polskich'', [[Polish Academy of Sciences]] ''Instytut Historii Nauki, Oświaty i Techniki'', [[Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe]], 1987, p. 149.</ref> Following his defense of the Polish parishioners, false charges were made against him by a Prussian tenant, and in 1868 he was forced to resign as parson.<ref>Zygmunt Antkowiak, ''Patroni ulic Wrocławia'', Osselineum, 1982, p. 68.</ref> All his life, he emphasized his roots in the Polish peasantry of Silesia, dressing in simple rural garb while attending German and international [[apiology]] conferences.<ref>Kazimierz Popiołek, ''Studia i materiały z dziejów Ślaska'', vol. 2, Zakład Narodȯwy im. Ossolińskich, 1958, p. 579.</ref> His nephew [[Franciszek Dzierżoń]], with whom he had lived in later life, was outraged that the orchestra would play the German imperial anthem at his uncle's funeral, and refused to attend.<ref>''Pszczelarz polski'' (The Polish Beekeeper), vols. 5-6 (1934), p. 34.</ref> Following the 1939 German [[Invasion of Poland|invasion of Poland]], many objects connected with Dzierzon were destroyed by German [[gendarmerie|gendarmes]] on 1 December 1939 in an effort to conceal his Polish roots.<ref>''Mówią wieki: magazyn historyczny'' (The Ages Speak: Magazine of History, [published by] the Polish Historical Society), vol. 23 (1980), p. 26.</ref> The Nazis made strenuous efforts to enforce a view of Dzierżoń as a German.<ref>''Komunikaty: Seria monograficzna, tomy 2-11 (1960), p. 138. [http://www.instytutslaski.com/www/index.php Instytut Śląski w Opolu]</ref>

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Such Communist propaganda has no more place here than Nazi propaganda that claimed things such as Copernicus was 100% German (which clearly is a lie). Varsovian (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Skapperod you already claimed that sources published between 1945 and 1989 in Poland aren't reliable on Reliable Sources Noticeboard-it was explained to you that yes, they can be used[83].Please don't beat the dead horse. Also there seems to be no debate about his nationality at all(besides Nazi claims of course), so this section is completely unneeded.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is what they can be used for. And don't come up with that old EEML stuff. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't come up with EEML stuff to discredit discussion on reliable sources on RS Noticeboard,where btw the gross majority of those confirming the reliability of sources never were part of it. If you have any sources contradicting specific publications please show us them. You can't delete information wholesale based on no reason at all besides Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Also don't term sources that describe Nazi propaganda as bad[84]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't just cherry-pick the most "dramatic" Communist era and pre-war sources regarding Dzierzon's alleged political stance. We should all be glad that the respective regimes broke down, and you should not cherry-pick biased statements from such sources, present them as the truth and pretend that the wikipedia community is backing you with that by linking to a part of an EEML-forged discussion which despite EEML involvement did not result in your desired outcome, as you pretend. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources contradicting information contained in the specific sources presented. Thank you in advance.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that Nazi propagandists churned out something. Will that do? Varsovian (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources contradicting information contained in the specific sources presented that were removed. Thank you in advance.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No. If it wasn't for WP:UNDUE, your sources could go in a section "How a beekeeper was intrumentalized post mortem during the Polish communist/nationalist era." For that, they are reliable, not for what you did. If any of the above carries true elements, and I do not outrule that, there should be other sources saying so. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any sources providing contradicting information from any specific source you removed. Please do so.Thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)