Talk:Bolesław Kołyszko

Moving pages without discussion

@Cukrakalnis and Marcelus - You guys are moving this page[1] without any discussion to your preferred language version as you did with other pages in past (I politely asked you not to do it without discussion and agreement to do so, but you did it yet again) Do you mind moving it back please or reach a consensus before moves? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella I am not moving pages to my preferred language version, I am moving articles under their actual names. Bolesław Kołyszko was Polish-Lithuanian, Polish-speaking person who was using the name "Bolesław Kołyszko". Just because Lithuanian literature is Lithuanizing every single name, especially of people born on the territory of contemporary Lithuania it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should follow this custom. I am not "Polonising" names of Lithuanian-speaking Lithuanians or a person who was actually using Lithuanian-sounding names. In my opinion, it's a proper way to go. Marcelus (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marcelus - So we are back to the same thing as before... Okay, what English literature calls him? What is his name in English? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella Yes we are back to it. English literature doesn't call him in any way, because there is no English literature about January uprising that would mention such rather minor figures like Kołyszko. Also it seems like gathering literature is useless, because despites my effort in our previous long discussion, about Romuald Giedroyć, nothing have happened, although I proved without a shadow of doubt that not only it was his actual name, but also that English literature use that name. It seems really pointless to me at this point.Marcelus (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marcelus your input is not pointless - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There will always be an issue with these folks from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as far as their names. Some answer to this problem needs to be found eventually. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The answer is simple. At least for 19th century - let's use the names used by the historical sources, if sources use both Polish and Lithuanian name, in roughly the same amount, and the person was born and active in Lithuania, then Lithuanian name should have precedence. Just like in the case of the priest Vincentas Šliogeris/Wincenty Szlagier or Szymon Dowkont/Simonas Daukantas. Also the name doesn't determine ethnicity, for example Adam Kirkor didn't really like Poland that much, but he was writing in Polish and using this name, not a Lithuanised form. It's really not that hard, but you need to have a good will from the users like Cukrakalnis Marcelus (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:UE is the way to go, because it provides exactly what should happen in cases without extensive English literature, and I quote: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). Lithuanian historical persons, ergo Lithuanian.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but we are talking here about "Polish-Lithuanian person" Marcelus (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis - But how do we know he was Lithuanian and not Polish? - OR - How do we know he was Polish, not Lithuanian? I'm afraid the rule is not serving this particular case. Poland and Lithuania were one country for centuries. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Polish-Lithuanian" is a cop-out and a false "solution", because Boleslovas Kolyška was mostly concerned with Lithuania. He was born in Lithuania proper, studied there, and finally fought even deeper in it, i.e. north of Kaunas. (He is even mentioned in Samogitian folk songs - in this song, there is a line "Kajetons kap šėtons": translated into Kajetons like a satan. I know this WP:OR, but there are practically no famous Kajetonas and so the likelihood that it refers to this person is almost certain.) To deem him Polish because of political sympathies and cultural ties to Poland is unwise, as he had far more tendencies to Lithuania, something self-evident from his actions. I suppose that Polish from the Kingdom of Poland cared not a bit for Boleslovas Kolyška, let alone mention him in their folk songs. As for that it was one country, I will reply that the difference between Lithuania (Grand Duchy) and Poland (Kingdom) persisted until the very end (1795) and beyond, and were still obvious into the 20th century - think of Józef Piłsudski and Lucjan Żeligowski. Mixing of individuals from the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania with those from the Kingdom of Poland was practically never done by insiders at the time, and clear distinctions were always maintained.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not a false solution, but the actual term used in historiography to describe such people. And no one is claiming that Kołyszko was Polish to the bone, I am saying that he was Polish-Lithuanian. Also, you are painting here a false picture because no one in Poland was thinking that Piłsudski, Żeligowski, Mickiewicz, Kołyszko and so on were less Polish because they were born outside of central Poland, they were both Polish and Lithuanian, but it doesn't make them less Polish. Kołyszko actually was attending a Polish military school in Italy and after the uprising started he moved to Kraków, from where he was sent to Lithuania. So it's really not that simple as you paint it. You cannot separate fully Poland and Lithuania/Belarus in the epoch of the January Uprising. All of that is secondary as I repeat for the hundredth of times, we should use the actual name this person was using. Marcelus (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You are misportraying the situation. The Polish view as a whole was that Lithuanians were considered somewhat Polish and Lithuania was viewed as a region of Poland, regardless of the fact that this was never the case. Even with this Polish view, that does not mean that these individuals should be named Polish-Lithuanian. Why should the Polish view supersede e.g. the Tsarist view, just for example? The Tsarist administration sometimes viewed Lithuanians as Russians who just needed to be "re"-Russified or as Poles (one of the reasons why so many Lithuanians were sent to the Polish I Corps in Russia). This does not mean that 19th-century Lithuanians are to be labelled as Russians. So, neither should they be labelled as anything else than what they were. The "actual name" argument is not good, because that is not how Wikipedia works - it typically first chooses the Anglicized name (e.g. Casimir Pulaski) and then according to the WP:UE (which I already frequently quoted) - something for pretty much everything, e.g. Vytautas the Great, Gediminas and Antanas Mackevičius.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I do not, you are the one trying to create some artificial, full separation between Poland and Lithuania, which wasn't the case before like 1880, certainly not in the case of nobles. And I am talking about personal identification, not administrative labels Marcelus (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

How is it artificial if the term Lithuanian was ALWAYS present? The Lithuanian ethnicity lived on, the Lithuanian traditions, culture and language also did. The Polish ethnicity, traditions and etc. also lived on. There was always a degree of separation between Lithuania and Poland, throughout the many, many centuries before 1880. A Pole would not call himself Lithuanian in the slightest during any century. You contradict the individuals you yourself are talking about - the difference between koroniarze vs litwini lasted into the 20th century. To deem "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" as just an administrative unit would be an insult to those whose so-called "actual names" you are so attentive to.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I never called GDL just "an administrative unit", I don't know where that comes from. Many Poles, would call themselves Lithuanian if they settled in GDL. For example Augustinus Rotundus was born in central Poland, but settled in Vilnius and was even wójt of the city, he certainly would call himself Lithuanian. There was a degree of separation, but it wasn't full at least in the mind of the people who we usually describe as Polish-Lithuanian or Lithuanian Poles. You may not like it but the term functions in historiography and is commonly accepted. Marcelus (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrative labels was definitely a reference to something and I guessed that you implied the GDL. We were talking mostly about the time of the Commonwealth and after, and the cases of Augustinus Rotundus and Maciej Stryjkowski were before it and during its first years, and even then neither is called Polish-Lithuanian. Rotundus is called a Pole. Stryjkowski is also called a Pole. In fact, both are Poles, even if they politically sympathised with Lithuania. So, this means that the reverse is possible - Lithuanians who sympathise politically with Poland are not necessarily Polish-Lithuanian. Lithuanian Poles as a descriptor for notable individuals of the GDL is not something I have ever encountered while reading about the topic. As for "Polish-Lithuanian", I have already voiced my doubts about it with concrete examples, considering how it is a one-sided thing.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

By administrative labels I was reffering to you saying that they can be as well called "Russians". Rotundus certainly self-identified as Lithuanian in a way at least, but of course we are limited here by sources. I can recommend you article The “Old” and “New” Lithuanians: Collective Identity Types in Lithuania at the Turn of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries by Rimantas Miknys and Darius Staliūnas, who make a clear distinction between Poles in Lithuania and Lithuanian Poles. There is even nice qoute from Mikołaj Romer, who said that he would be a part of "Lithuanian Polish Nation" if something like this existed Marcelus (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Especially given the provided evidence that even Lithuanians use the Polish name when referring to him in English. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Boleslovas Kolyška → Bolesław Kołyszko – Similar situation to Talk:Romuald Giedroyć#Requested move 5 April 2022, Polish-Lithuanian figure of January Uprising, from the Polish-speaking family. Bolesław Kołyszko is the name used by contemporaries, as one can see in the biography published in 1864 Marcelus (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Contemporary biography is a good source, not affected by the soon-to-come era of nationalization ("mine!" "not, mine!"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

In light of:

• this

followed by

• Lituanistika database were his name is spelled Bolesław Kołyszko

followed by

• Spelling of his name as Bolesław Kołyszko on the Government of the Republic of Lithuania official website

Quote from the above website: The following men were also executed for different acts of resistance to the tsarist rule: Bolesław Kołyszko... [2]

I support the move. PS - Please maintain a clear Lithuanian spelling next to the Polish one as well. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Following WP:UE: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on), I would prefer the Lithuanian-language name instead of the Polish one.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Since his identity was Polish-Lithuanian, UE goes both ways. Are you tossing a coin? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a toin coss, UE goes one way here, because Boleslovas Kolyška was born in ethnographic Lithuania, fought exclusively in ethnically Lithuanian lands, commanded Lithuanian rebels, and is buried in Lithuania. UE is clearly not saying Polish names for Lithuanian historical figures, so UE does not go both ways. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.