User talk:+JMJ+/Archives/2022/June

DYK nomination of Dniepr Balts

Hello! Your submission of Dniepr Balts at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Move

Hi C. You may want to explain your move on the talk page to avoid potential issues. Keep in mind this -->[1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Dnieper Balts

On 20 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dnieper Balts, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Dnieper Balts might have worshipped bear heads on pillars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dniepr Balts. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dnieper Balts), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,133 views (422.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Jan Kazimierz Wilczyński

You know that "Album Wileńskie" consists illustrations of object from all over the old country, not only from Vilnius, but also Warsaw, Poznań and others? Wilczyński also published Albums about Kyiv and Warsaw. So you POV depiction of him as "Lithuanian patriot" is simply false. Stop falsification of history. Marcelus (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not my POV, the "Lithuanian patriot" is in the provided source. It's a question of sources, nothing more. There is a source saying that he was a Lithuanian patriot. If you deny it, then do so with a source. There is no falsification of history here. Such accusations are useless. Moreover, there is no contradiction in publishing something from other lands, even if you are a patriot of your own land. There is a lapse of logic in your statement. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You are distorting facts presenting Wilczyński as solely "Lithuanian" publisher, what's more you are posting incorrect information saying that "Wilczyński had the idea of publishing a collection of images of the most famous art monuments from the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania", because Album wileńskie consist illustrations from all over the country, not only Vilnius or Lithuania, but also Warsaw, Poznań, Podolia and so on. That's simply misleading Marcelus (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I was writing what was written in the WP:RS sources that are provided, as Wikipedia instructs. If you have issue with what those sources say, I can't do anything. Insulting me by saying You are distorting facts... won't change anything, and name-calling typically only aggravates the situation. It is not incorrect information (as you claim) to state Wilczyński had the idea of publishing a collection of images of the most famous art monuments from the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, because that was what his first publication was about - The first notebook of the album released by Wilczyński was mostly related to Vilnius, its architecture and surroundings, as stated in the article, and only later were other cities and places included, including those in Poland. Calling him Lithuanian is not wrong either, unless you think that Lithuanians didn't exist from the formation of the PLC in the Union of Lublin in 1569 until the declaration of Lithuania's independence in 1918 and that only "Polish-Lithuanian people" existed at the time. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is that you are writing a biography with the assumption that Wilczyński's activities and self-identity were limited to Lithuania, which is not true. His identity was broader than that.Marcelus (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The premises for viewing Vilčinskas in a Lithuanian light was: According to the information published in 1908 by his nephew, historian and archaeologist Algirdas Vilčinskas (Vilčinskis), who lived in his uncle's home, Jan Kazimierz Wilczyński spoke exclusively Lithuanian at home. As for Lithuania, he was pretty focused and attached to it, even if he did look at other places too. Nowhere was it written that his activities were limited to Lithuania (they clearly weren't, he worked in Warsaw as a doctor, he travelled to Paris & London), so I have no clue why you thought that this was one of my assumptions. As for his identity, that's a question of sources, especially ones from Vilčinskas himself and his family. So far, the ones I know of, indicate that he was more Lithuanian than Polish. And it's all a matter of sources on Wikipedia. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I am not interested in whether he was 80% or 15% Polish, Lithuanian or Australian, the point is to describe his character and activity as it was, not to write it "in a Lithuanian light". Secondly, the statement that Wilczyński spoke only Lithuanian at home is highly questionable. Who was Algirdas Vilčinskas and what was his relationship with Wilczyński ? I guess he was the son of one of his brothers, which one? Franciszek or Józef? Why did he live with him in the house if the only heiress of Wilczyński was Kazimiera Sorokówna, whom he raised. There are no writings by Wilczyński in Lithuanian, he wrote mainlu in Polish, so it is doubtful if he knew Lithuanian at all. Marcelus (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

the point is to describe his character and activity as it was I fully agree, but the sources indicate precisely what I meant by the "Lithuanian light", by which I meant that he was closer to Lithuania than he was to any other country. I realize that I should have been clearer from the start.

Algirdas Vilčinskas calls his father Prancisius Vilčinskas in the source, so the Polish-language name is Franciszek.

Secondly, the statement that Wilczyński spoke only Lithuanian at home is highly questionable. Why? There is no way that you know the contemporary situation better than direct witnesses of it. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that Wilczyński's identity was not Polish or Lithuanian, but Polish-Lithuanian, and this cannot be separated. This is an anachronism, an attempt to separate Lithuania and Poland, which at the time, at least in the minds of the nobility and the upper classes, was something unnatural. As evidence one can cite his letter to Emperor Napoleon III:

28 October 1858

To His Imperial Highness Prince Napoleon Sir, Your interest in the affairs of my country and the generous patronage with which you deign to surround the Polish institutions of Paris, pervade the hearts of my fellow-countrymen with the deepest gratitude. Emboldened by the kindness to which you give so many proofs, I take the liberty of offering you the Album de Wilno, in which I have endeavoured to collect various Polish-Lithuanian souvenirs. This work is not available in bookshops. I have tried above all to give it an artistic character, using for its production the most talented draughtsmen and engravers, lithographers and printers in Paris. I shall therefore be happy and proud when Your Imperial Highness deigns to accept as a tribute my publication, so to speak French-Polish in form but highly national in content. I ask you also to allow me to present you with four relics of deep Lithuanian antiquity, dating from the 10th century and found in the barrows of Lithuania at a time when paganism was still the religion of the country. These objects may find a place next to the collections, brought by you from your journey through the seas of the North and the Scandinavian Scandinavian countries, countries which for a long time maintained close relations with Poland and Lithuania. I am with the deepest reverence Your Imperial Highness the most humble and obliging servant, Jan Kazimierz Wilczyński Polish nobleman.

Franciszek Wilczyński lived in Jasonys, while Jan Kazimierz lived in Vilnius, where he raised Kazimiera Sorokówna. Why would Algirdas live with his uncle and not his father? Wilczyński was Polish. Actually can you qoute the exact words where Algirdas is talking about Wilczyński speaking only Lithunian at home? Marcelus (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I can quote, here it is: Mana dėdė turėja tarnus iš Jesanių ir namėja lėtuviškei kałbėja. Translation: My uncle had servants from Jasonys and spoke Lithuanian at home. The context is a paragraph describing Algirdas Vilčinskas' studies in Vilnius Gymnasium. The whole source is here, bottom of pages 2 and 3.

Original paragraph, in Lithuanian: Paskui man vėl nuvežė Vilniun. 1850 metos instajau gimnasijon. Tamet studintai, kurių daugiause dvarponei būva, terp savi lėtuviškai ir lenkiškai kalbėja. Makslas buva gudiškas. Ašei gyvenau pirma Romera namuos, un Savičia ulyčias; paskui perzgabenau un susidūrima Didėjas ir Subačiaus, kur būva dėdės Jana Kazia Vilčinska magazinas. Mana dėdė turėja tarnus iš Jesanių ir namėja lėtuviškei kałbėja. Tamet visuos namuos, un visų ulyčių ir takų, visi tarnai, darbinykei, amatnykei, sargai lėtuviškei kałbėja.

Translation: Later they brought me to Vilnius. In 1850, I entered gymnasium. In those years, the students, the majority of whom were nobles, spoke Lithuanian and Polish in between themselves. Studies were in Belarusian (Lithuanian: gudiškas). I first lived in Romer's house, on the Savičius street; later I moved to the intersection of Didėjas and Subačiaus streets, where the store of my uncle Jana Kazia Vilčinska was. My uncle had servants from Jasonys and spoke Lithuanian at home. In those times, throughout the whole home, in all streets and pathways, all servants, workers, tradespeople, guards spoke Lithuanian. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

So it seems that he was just speaking in Lithuanian with his Lithuanian servants? It's a bit different than "speaking only Lithuanian at home". Also FYI Algirdas Vilčinskas was a Russian historian publishing under the name Ольгерд Вильчинский (he also published couple articles in Polish as Olgierd/Ołgerd Wilczyński, but nothing major). Marcelus (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. He was speaking Lithuanian at home, not only to servants, but also to Algirdas, i.e. his (extended) family. Could you send me the Polish-language articles? They might reveal something interesting, one never knows. Plus, I would add them to the article on Algirdas Vilčinskas, when I create one about him, because he's WP:Notable enough to have one. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

PS: Was this [2] the article?--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

From the article you posted it is clear that Wilczynski only spoke Lithuanian with the servants. Besides, the whole account is questionable because he claims that the teaching at the gymnasium was in Belarusian. This is hard to believe, it contradicts what we know from other sources. Besides, this is a primary source (WP:PSTS) and as such does not meet the requirements of W:RS. If you want to create an article about the author of this memoir, you should call him Olgerd Vilchinsky, because he was a Russian historian who published in that languageMarcelus (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

it is clear that Wilczynski only spoke Lithuanian with the servants. No, it is clear that Lithuanian was the only language at home.

Besides, the whole account is questionable... I re-checked, so Lithuanian: gudiškas could fully well mean Russian, not only Belarusian, which fits in with what is known about Vilnius Gymnasiums (The primary meaning of Gudas is Belarusian, but it could also mean Polish or Russian).

As for Primary sources, them being primary does not exclude them from WP:RS. WP:PSTS says nothing of the sort. In fact, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

From WP:RS:

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Following WP:RS, the source of Algirdas Vilčinskas is reliable, because of his familial ties, which is his qualification for him being authoritative in relation to the subject of his family. Furthermore, he was an established and accepted historian, so there is no real reason to discredit his reliability. Ergo, the primary source of Algirdas Vilčinskas is sufficient in its reliability.

Calling him Olgerd Vilchinsky is non-sensical. Such a proposal, giving a Russian-language name to a Lithuanian fighter against the Russian Empire in the 1863 Uprising, is practically insulting. Following your "logic", one could reason out Jan Kazimierz Wilczyński to be French-Russian and rename him to Jean Kasimir Wilczinski, because that's the name he put on his magnum opus, which itself was in the French language, and because he was born and lived in what was then the Russian Empire. Of course, such an interpretation would be absurd. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)