Talk:Ignacy Domeyko

message: The idea to steal great Polish people is pitiful, just as this band of fools is. They probably never heard about term of "little homeland". Poles were, are and will be Polish.
:: Don't steal Copernicus as a Polish then. -- Ke an (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  well, several fools have a party? 

message: :Regardless of rather harsh attitude of Witkacy, there is some serious point in what he writes. Most of all, if we followed your logic we'd have to quote also other translations or transliterations of his name (which was one, the other versions seem just that). For instance, he was born in Russia, so a Russian rendering should be mentioned. He was also born in former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so perhaps a Ruthenian or Lithuanian version could be mentioned..? Finally, the area he was born in what soon after his birth became France, so how about adding Ignace Domeyko..? 
:Anyway, all these translations of his name were not what he signed his works with. Why to pretend it was not so? Halibutt 09:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
::Well, concerning the writing of his name - here is the same logic as with when we call Lithuanian Dukes Algirdas, Vytautas etc though they never called themselves like this. Damiejka is considered to be Belarusian (at least we can not deny his direct relation to Belarus), there are about him in Belarusian language, so for it being easier to find info about him it might be useful for readers of this article to place the Belarusian name here (does it really take that much space?).--Czalex 17:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Domeyko vs Damiejka

message: Both of you guys exceeded the limit. Please stop. mikka (t) 21:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-revert rule 

message: Sorry, this won't give me rest:  if Domeyko "returned to Europe" after May 22, 1884, then how did he die January 23, 1889, in Santiago de Chile?
The beautiful Domeyko quotes, above, should be placed in Wikiquotes.  logologist 01:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To trzeba zmienic, w 1884 przyjechal do Polski na 4 lata (pozwiedzal tez Europe), gdzie otrzymal miedzy innymi doctor honoris causa uniwersytetu jagiellonskiego, ale wrocil do Chile.--Witkacy 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Domeyko's place of death

message: I gather Domeyko married and had a family.  If so, it would be well to include some information on this in the article.  Also, I suggest placing in Wikiquote his toast regarding "the rocks of the Cordilleras."  logologist 15:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Domeyko's family

message: I've read the discussion with real interest. I will say in advance that I am Polish, though I wonder whether all of you would agree with that. My ancestors were French nobles and had to leave France due to the French Revolution. They bought an estate in Lithuania. Their son fought in the January Uprising and was imprisoned. My family had to sell their estate to buy him out.  With the remaining money they bought a couple houses in Kovno. The son eventually married my great-grandmother, who was from East Prussia. They moved to Pinsk (Belarus today). However, they still had problems with the Russian tsar and eventually fled to Lvov. From there they were forced by the tsar to move to Khabarovsk. After Poland regained independence, the Committee for Polish Refugees offered to take some of their children to Poland. Only four of them were of a proper age, among them my grandfather.
They always considered themselves Polish, though they neither came from Poland nor had even ever lived there according to our present borders.
But my point is not to argue that everyone is Polish, only to ask all of you what we consider by our nationalities. Over two hundred years of living in one country (plus over two hundred years in the Union) and over one hundred years of living under common occupiers are not to be disregarded. I understand that if we claim everyone as being Polish, then other nations like Belarus will not have their heroes at all. But please let us think for a moment what our nationalities, cultures, histories really are. Can we say that we would be the same people today if there had not been a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Our countries or country were never homogenous before. What we are today is a mixture of all of us. The real question is: will we agree on our common history at last, or are we now going to say that those times were a mistake and we have nothing to do with each other? Please think about it before we start to quarrel about songs, legends, food, clothes etc. I don't really think there is a problem who Domeyko was, only that we have a problem about who we are. Can't we just presume that we all come from one country in which all our ancestors lived and the history is common? I really think that the term, "citizen of PLC," should be agreeable to everyone. I'm not saying that a Belarusian should feel more Polish than a Pole feels Belarusian, but I'm certain that we all feel the bond with each other. We, all the nations in the Commonwealth, influenced each other and that is what may be called our culture now. Our fate is now separated, but the sources of it will never change. So maybe instead of looking for the differences in the past, we should rather admit our similarities nowadays when referring to our history. Maybe in the main article about the Commonwealth, the role of other nations should be underlined more, so that everyone feels that it concerns him more personally. I know that everyone is mentioned there, but maybe you can suggest more particulars to show the individuality of Belarus in the country which was homeland to all of us.
I'm not sure whether you like the idea, but sometimes I feel that we still treat history as the communists did. I read an announcement about Kosciuszko from the Belarusian Embassy in the USA. Not even one word about the Poles. I saw a Napoleonic Wars exhibition in Vilnius. On English signs all the information referred to Lithuania only, not even the word “Commonwealth” under maps, uniforms etc. What about the Polish Eagle on them? I also read an article here about Polonization. Maybe I misunderstand something, but it sounds as though all non-Poles were forced to speak Polish. Then what about the 60% of PLC citizens who did not speak Polish just before the Partitions? I really think that first of all you should decide how you feel about the Commonwealth. Either you were equal citizens of a great country with common interests, and then all the people like Mickiewicz, Kosciuszko, Domeyko and many others, wherever they were born, were your folks as well as ours, or you feel you were unjustly suppressed and then you can't claim your connection to these individuals, as your interests were obviously opposed.
Sylwia
P.S. I understand writing names in Cyrillic, but I don’t understand spelling them variously in the Latin alphabet. I personally hate it when people cannot spell my name properly.
P.P.S. One of my grandpa’s brothers who was brought to Poland together with him died in the Warsaw Uprising, while two of his brothers who had stayed in Khabarovsk watched the smoke over Warsaw as Russian Army soldiers on the opposite bank of the Wisła River.  History!  SylwiaS 06:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen.  All these peoples once were part of one great commonwealth, and may be so again (some already are) as members of the European Union.  Therefore it would seem to behoove them all to be civil to their once and future compatriots.  logologist 09:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *applauds Sylwia*. Well said. I wage battles on various English-speaking historical forums to make ppl use the term PLC instead of Poland (most often) when reffering to PLC from 16th to 18th century. And the same problem is causing trouble here. When somebody refers to the 17th century person as Pole, this should always be an abbreviation of PLC, not Poland. Pole then was a more general term, encompassing ppl from GDL, Cossacks and many others, not meaning only 'inhabitant of Poland proper'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: 100% true. I have nothing to add :) --Czalex 23:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all Belarusians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Poles 

message: As this page has become a focus on matters involving Belarus, a question for our colleagues of that nationality:  Is a citizen of Belarus properly termed a Belarusian or a Belarusyn?  And is the adjectival form of "Belarus" either of the above?  logologist 09:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In English it's definately Belarusian--Czalex 23:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it in the original language?  logologist 00:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Belarusian?  Belarusyn?

message: Likely a regional branch of Unesco. It is in lithuanian and I can't possibly known what they claim. Citation with translation would be required. Additionally even that claim would be a claim among sources stating him Polish.--Molobo (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: original statment "Aš jau niekuomet nesugebėsiu pakeisti savo pilietybės, bet Dievas man suteikia vilties, kad nesvarbu kur - ar tai būtų Kordiljerai, ar Paneriai - mirsiu lietuvis" translation provided in article. So stop your reverts. Thank you. M.K. (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Provided statment present his remarks, per Wp:V and WP:RS policies it is perfectly valid edit in contrast to the reverts and speculations; btw, wikipedians are prohibited to conduct OR per WP:NOR.M.K. (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I dont care here about Želigovskis and Mickevičius, provided web page is under © UNESCO; article written by PH.D in history Reda Griškaitė, perfectly valid per WP:RS. M.K. (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Fell free to add WP:RS sources rather to remove them and the information which they have. M.K. (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, why don't you add this quote: "he always regarded Poland as his motherland" from the official Polish governmental website? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to present person in question own words, m? M.K. (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's edit:this is not Unesco claim but a claim by a Lithuanian site that Domeyko was Lithunian 

message: I suggest rename this article to the Spanish name Ignacio Domeyko. It is much more neutral than Polish one and in the other side Domeyko was Chilean citizen so we should use his official name. Hugo.arg (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your proposal fully. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: How popular is that variant when compared to others used in English literature? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: There's been a slow edit war , recently intensified, about the inclusion of a statement of Domeyko's sourced to UNESCO and to the former president of Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus. Both of these are strong sources. In this case it's inappropriate to use the edit summary of "Anon vandalism reverted"  when removing the quote and its sources - please see WP:Vandalism. It's a content dispute. Could those who think the quote doesn't belong in the article pls state their reasons here. Novickas (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Low-grade edit war on quote

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ignacy Domeyko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080619052435/http://www.unesco.lt:80/domeika/biografija/ to http://www.unesco.lt/domeika/biografija/#2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218012246/http://www.president.lt:80/lt/news.full/9433 to http://www.president.lt/lt/news.full/9433
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.skc.edu.by/vydanni/damiejka-zmiest.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Yes, yet again, but this time conclusively:
1. This is English-language Wikipedia. If Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians or Chileans (or Russians!) want to claim him as having been exclusively of their nationality, they are welcome to do so. NOT here.
2. Belarusian claim is an anachronism. No Belarus before 20th century, only Lithuania (multi-ethnic, multi-lingual). We'll leave it at that.
3. Polish claim is insufficiently referenced. Definition of sufficient here would be reference to where he (himself) claims to be Polish.
4. Publications which claim Domeyko as Polish have NOT been removed, however they are politically anachronistic and also lazy. One way to improve this would be to source scientific instead of popular references. Just because 3 random mass-market books say Domeyko was Polish is not good enough.
5. Please discuss here any further changes to the text as per the nationality dispute. It is not acceptable one ethnicity warn other(s) in hypertext against changing nationality (!). If in doubt please read Wikipedia rules.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.202.156 (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment above constitutes original research. Volunteer Marek  16:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't personally see any dispute, even in other Wikipedias, databases or sources. Both Polish and Chilean identities are most frequently found or cited, which is factual. Merangs (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, this is all one user’s original research. Volunteer Marek  17:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Other Wikipedias, as you know per relevant policy, bear no relevance on any particular Wikipedia. 213.222.183.137 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed nationality