Talk:Jan Baudouin de Courtenay

Question

Is it possible to get more citations for Baudouin de Courtenay's life? I see several for his work/accomplishments, but there are very few for his life and education. Klarahenry (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Wow it says a lot about his genius that his views of the phonology and morphological are more up to date than a century of bad structuralist and generative linguistics produced after his initial concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.105.150 (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to the editors

Please note that Baudouin de Courtenay is the full family name of the scientist and it should not be cut to Baudouin (unlike king Baudouin). Cherurbino (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

I don't think describing him as Polish-Russian is a neutral POV. Majority of sources describe him as Polish; few as Russian, thus this seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE.

He is described as Polish by:

• Britiannica ([1], in the page header)
• Encyclopedia of Ukraine ([2])
• Encyclopædia Universalis ([3])
• Andrzej Karcz (2002). The Polish Formalist School and Russian Formalism. University Rochester Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-58046-110-8.
• Margaret Thomas (27 April 2012). Fifty Key Thinkers on Language and Linguistics. Taylor & Francis. p. 135. ISBN 978-1-136-70749-0.
• Willem Levelt (25 October 2012). A History of Psycholinguistics: The Pre-Chomskyan Era. OUP Oxford. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-19-162720-0.
• Anders Ahlqvist (1 January 1992). Diversions of Galway: Papers on the History of Linguistics from ICHoLS V, Galway, Ireland, 1-6 September 1990. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 319. ISBN 90-272-4555-X.
• Ewa M. Thompson (1 January 1971). Russian Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism: A Comparative Study. Walter de Gruyter. p. 19. ISBN 978-90-279-1845-1.

I think the above - from Google and Google Book top 20 or so results - is a sufficient sample; I haven't seen a single source describing him as Russian. I am therefore removing the Russian nationality claim: [4] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am reverting your removal based on red herring argument. He is not described as "Polish-Russian" he is desrcibed as polish and russian scientist, with citations. Besides he was citizen of russian empire. -No.Altenmann >t 07:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Altenmann: It's weaselish to describe him as a Polish-Russian scientist, as this wording often implies nationality. The article already states that he spend most of his professional life teaching at Russian universities. I have no problem adding a referenced sentence that he had Russian citizenship (which he most likely did), through we should also make it clear he renounced it at some point by becoming a Polish citizen. User:Halibutt did however argue in his edit summary that he was a citizen of Congress Poland, so this claim may be doubtful... in theory at least, CP was an autonomous state, not synonymous with a Russian Empire province. Finally, I'd appreciate if you could find English language sources that discuss the extent of his connections to Russia. Note the sources I've used above are not Polish, but English (and, ok, one French I think). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

i don't really care to fight with polish russophobia here and not going to waste my time. i would only like you to know that en wikipedia specifically says that there is no demand of using only english sources. and removing referenced facts under dubious pretexts an twisting facts is bad wikipedianship. denying russian academic sources validity calling them "fringe" is ..er.. russophobia. especially in article on a person who received numerous russian state awards, but i don't see any polish state recognition, only silencing the russian awards. -No.Altenmann >t 14:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Altenmann:, calm down, no need to resort to name-calling, accusations of Russophobia and such. We're all friends here mate :) Congress Poland was indeed an autonomous entity, but it's hard to call it a state by modern standards. On one hand there was a customs border between Poland and Russia, (even though the two states shared the same currency at least since the 1840s). Also, when Baudouin de Courtenay was born the passports of the Kingdom of Poland were still separate from those of the Russian Empire (though they were issued in Russian exclusively; this probably changed a little after 1847 in the case of internal passports). It was not until 1874 that Polish citizens were officially declared Russian citizens and the documents were unified across the border.

So if we were to apply modern standards, Baudouin de Courtenay was born in [[Kingdom of Poland|Poland]], to an undeniably Polish family (both in terms of language and culture and would hold a "Polish" passport. However, as after the November Uprising the actual independence of the Kingdom of Poland was gradually being eliminated by the Russian authorities, we could also call him Russian, the same way we could call all people born in Germany "Germans", regardless of whether they really were Germans. I bet it's also safe to call him a "Russian scientist" the same way we could call Albert Einstein an "American scientist": he wasn't born in the US, he was most definitely not American by culture, but he spent a large part of his life in America. Also, the case of famed Russian aviator Ivan Nagurskiy comes to mind :)

All in all, what's wrong with how the article looks now? //Halibutt 15:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

re "russophobia" - now, please pick your own negative epithet for statements that call Russian academic and encyclopedic sources "fringe" and russian-language references inadmissible. -No.Altenmann >t 03:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

re ethnicity - I have nothing against request of Piotrus to base text on references. I am only against his way of picking sources. I also don't like his way of twisting my words: I don't describe him "Polish-Russian scientist". My limited knowledge of English tells me that "Polish-Russian scientist" is not the same as "Polish and Russian scientist". I may also agree that may may be only Russians call him "(Polish and )Russian" scientist, since I don't bother to search for non-russian sources. (For example I dont read Albanian or Chinese.) Russian science does recognize his Polishness. Heck, there is even a Russian term "Polish linguistic school" in reference to his Kazan work. -No.Altenmann >t 03:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

re: "what's wrong with the article" - Don's ask me. -No.Altenmann >t 03:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mikka, I am really disappointed to hear you slinging the Russophobe epithet at me and Halibutt. I think we have buried that hatched long time ago. Anyway, I've nothing against the current statement that Russian sources call him Russian. It's clear he did much of his work in Russia (and perhaps in Russian). The correct term I thing would be a Polish expatriate in Russia, through sources don't seem to use this (and of course post-1867 the question of whether Poland existed, officially, is another sticky topic). I do, however, disagree that he was born in Russia. Until 1867 the place of birth for those born in Congress Poland should be Congress Poland, as it was nominally independent (if in personal union with RE). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)