Talk:Karolina Proniewska

message: At Novickas' request, I have commented  about some of the technical issues. 
::There is provision for having footnotes as distinct from references in WP:CITE, section 3.4.2.2 Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" --  and a small number of WP articles use this technique extensively. Ideally they should be a separate section, but that is a little tricky. But otherwise, just what is the problem there? That the footnote itself needs a citation? I see from that page that citations cannot be nested, using some of the automatic techniques, but would need to be specified manually as best they could. I'm a hardened academic, and I am quite accustomed to the very complicated footnote apparatus often used in history and the humanities, but I agree that for WP something relatively simple and straightforward is preferable.
::It would seem to me that the footnote "It is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite  is an apparently sensible sort of comment-- although i gather from this talk page this may or may not be correct. Apparently this is fundamentally a content dispute. If it's controverted, why not just say so?  A great deal of unproductive debate has been spent on thousands of articles on just how to give such information in the lede paragraph or in infoboxes --I support giving the commonly held version, of stating the alternatives quickly, and discussing more fully later in the article. . As for the technical way to present the information, I think there is provision for doing things this way. There has been a good deal of unresolved discussion of how to present multiple alternative names without confusing the user. There is something to be said for using footnotes for this purpose, rather than trying to get it all in the text. 
::Hope this helps. Though I'm not qualified to comment on the fundamental issue of her ethnic feelings, I'm glad to have had the opportunity to learn something about her. DGG (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a way to get separate footnotes with cite.php citations, see Soviet invasion of Poland (1939).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For further discussion, including links to the sometimes controversial nature of interpretative text and wikilinks in notes, see User_talk:DGG#Question_re_Notes_usage. Novickas 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: presentation of material in footnotes

message: As much I do know to be able translate poetry in a high level one has to be a poet himself. Besides, as her archives were burned, this does not mean that she did not write poetry in Lithuanian. As far i do understand, survived only her published works?--Lokyz 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right or wrong. On one hand you have to speak a language quite well in order to translate to that language. On the other hand I used to translate poetry myself even though I'm by no means a poet. However, we have to stick to facts rather than assumptions. What we know is that she didn't publish a single poem of her own in Lithuanian. What we don't know is whether she wrote poems in Lithuanian or not. Sure, there might've been such poems in her destroyed archives, but we simply don't know that. We might just as well assume that her burnt papers included notes on Martian atmosphere, agriculture in Africa or a dictionary of Lusatian language. We simply have no info to prove it right or wrong. //Halibutt 08:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure your translations were acclaimed by literature critics and had a great impact on Polish culture.--Lokyz 11:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it add to the topic? //Halibutt 10:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a compliment to me, no? Besides you added it to the topic yourself. Only God knows why. Dr. Dan 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To illustrate the problem. //Halibutt 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think your reference to "notes on Martian atmosphere (sic), agriculture in Africa, or a dictionary of Lusatian language" (sic), does a better job at illustrating the problem. Dr. Dan 01:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you. //Halibutt 10:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. Just keep on giving us more of your illustrations on your trying to achieve that ephemeral "modus vivendi" with the Lithuanian editors (and non-LT ones too), that you wanted to achieve way back when, and continually strive to achieve. Dr. Dan 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poetess or translator

message: If I were to take the Polish Poet Adam Asnyk (always liked him), and say he was a Polish-Lithuanian poet, you'd think I was nuts. And then if I said,"well he was born in Kalisz, but it was once part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", and this was justification for my lack of logic, you'd think that I was nuttier still. So what we have here are are objections to polonized Lithuanians breaking out of this cocoon that later {now) became an established and successful member of the European Union. Lokyz, WP:DFTT. Lokyz, maybe now you can better understand Pilsudski's quote about what he was dealing with. I certainly understand why Miedzymorze had a snowball in hell's chance to succeed. I'm wondering if this agenda might even explain the partitions too. Maybe some sensible and fairminded Polish editors can get this group to back off. Maybe? Dr. Dan 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many poets and artists considered themselves to be citizens of the Commonwealth rather than being exclusively  Lithuanian or Polish. Their Commonwealth identity was expressed by some, up until the XXth century.--Molobo 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow it seems that in the XX1st century, their expression is suppressed here on English WP. Dr. Dan 03:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Games People Play

message: Ok, let's assume the version of M.K. and Lokyz is nice and neutral. I have a set of questions then:
# How come her Lithuanian surname is equally valid if she died in 1859, roughly 60 years before modern Lithuanian grammar was born (with the introduction of the ė letter)
# What works did she write in Lithuanian?
# How come we use plural for a single author (according to Lithuanian autors)
# What works of Lithuanian literature did she translate? So far we have sources to say she translated some works of Polish literature to Lithuanian, not the other way around
//Halibutt 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was so entertained reading this peace above. Thanks. I was just looking to this peace. Hmm there are  ž, ą, į, š, ų etc. etc. and even ė. This is not 1918 yr. text.  Hmm something is not right. And I know what - this ORIGINAL RESEARCH claims, not the last one and not the first either. Not surprisingly that majority of editors refused to discuss Original research claims of this kind. M.K. 10:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So, Hali, are you suggesting that the letter Ł was part of the Lithuanian language prior to 1918? Didn't know that. Are you sure? Dr. Dan 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute part II 

message: Since this is escalating, it's time to file an RFC, with a narrow focus on the bolding, apart from the complex issue of her ethnicity. The Lithuanian editors and the American-of-Lithuanian-ancestry editor think that it warrants bolding because Praniauskaite appears in a number of EN-language publications in a Gsearch , and several other EN-language sites use Praniauskaite, as seen in the article's references. Many of the Google hits point to the public library in Lithuania that was named for her; however, it has been asserted that this is an invalid application of the "usage in English" rule.  
Novickas 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be particularly stressed an issue that name Karolina Praniauskaitė is used not only on English web pages but also in English encyclopedias like  Encyclopedia Lituanica Vol.4 p.  337, while  I did not saw any English language sources which would use Karolina Proniewska as a name.M.K. 09:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with bolding of the name, I withdraw all my objections, as long as similar changes to other articles are not reverted. //Halibutt 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC re bolding of alternate name (Praniauskaite)

message: According to the manual of style, names should be in boldface in the lead sentence. For example:
"Boris Karloff(November 23, 1887 – February 2, 1969), born William Henry Pratt"
In this case, the current revision seems to be appropriate; perhaps replacing "or" with "aka" or "also known as". As far as I can tell, policies support bolding all names that a person is known by. Jame§ugrono 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Kindly explain to the readers of English WP and its editors, why linking the Polish language terminology,
"szlachta," is more "accurate" than using the English description, i.e., Lithuanian nobility, in this article. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, because it's a more generic term, including "Lithuanian nobility", "Polish nobility", "Ruthenian nobility" and all those local high-class guys who formed The Nation of the Commonwealth. Secondly, by using a more generic term I was trying to evade getting into the same swamp again by claiming she was Polish nobility, Lithuanian nobility, Samogitian nobility or whoever. Szlachta is a compromise solution. Then, there is no source to claim she was Lithuanian nobility and the sources we have refer to her either as member of the szlachta or sometimes with a geographic delimitation ("of Samogitia"). It's all in the sources presented. //Halibutt 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what? Samogitians had never formed a state, hence there was no Samogitian nation per se. Secondly, why would a selfaware Samogitian encourage Baranuskas to write in Lithuanian, not, let's say for example, Samogitian?--Lokyz (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

text: At first glance this explanation seems reasonable enough, but it contains several fallacies. First, "Szlachta" is not a "generic" term but the Polish term for its nobility throughout its history, not only during the PLC, but before the creation of the PLC, as well as after its demise. Second, since accuracy is paramount to the WP project, the link to Lithuanian nobility rather than szlachta makes more sense. If the subject in question had been born in Masovia my link would be inappropriate. But she hailed from Samogitia, a specific region that is in Lithuania. Furthermore the use of English should always take precedence in matters like these, especially because this remains English WP. Lastly an encyclopedia should be presenting facts, not making attemps to "compromise" how information should be presented in order to assuage someone's POV. When an article's lead begins...Karolina Proniewska or Karolina Praniauskaitė (1828 - 1859) was a romantic Polish[1][2][3][4]-Lithuanian[5] poet and translator...requiring 5 "references", one must give pause to what is taking place here. If you truly want to prevent returning to the "swamp" as you claim, I suggest that you review your recent edits on WP concerning Lithuania and the purpose behind them. Otherwise this cycle will unfortunately begin again. I hope not. I will return the more accurate and appropriate link to the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments don't make much sense, I am afraid. Szlachta is the correct term, as used by many English sources, and no sources claim KP was "Lithuanian nobility". EOT, per DEADHORSE, OR and DFTT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, P.P., I suggest that you tone down your insulting attitude. It is not only unbecoming for an administrator or any other editor on WP to behave as you are doing in this discussion, nor is it necessary. Especially for one who has recently been admonished at your third ArbCom. This is the second time, within several days, that you have inserted "DFTT", concerning our interaction on two article talk pages. Please reconsider your choice of words. Next, whether or not my remarks "don't make much sense" to you is neither here nor there. These discussions are aimed at garnering a consensus, based on the facts relating to them and not your personal interpretations of them, and to anyone else who wishes to contribute to the discussion. This is primarily the reason that I did not object to Halibutt's input (quite a bit more civil and a good attempt to give a reasonable explanation for his viewpoint) when the question was actually directed to you. "Szlachta" is the correct term" is not correct, it is the Polish term for nobility. The focus of this article was born in Lithuania, was "Samogitian," and not of Polish heritage. What language she wrote in is also neither here nor there. I'm sure that even anyone involved in mind games on WP would not try to insist that Joseph Conrad was British, even though his major   works are exclusively written in English. You do not own this article and if it is EOT for you, so be it. The issue has not been closed by your waving some kind of wand over it. It remains open to further discussion. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation please, [[user:Piotrus|P.K. aka P.P.]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Karolina Proniewska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703012532/http://nasz-czas1.tripod.com/025/syrnic.html to http://nasz-czas1.tripod.com/025/syrnic.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified