Talk:Adam Mickiewicz/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Tomas Venclova

Re: [1] - Lokyz, can you indicate where the Venclova source says something like "that in Mickiewicz's time the Polish word Litwa ("Lithuania") still carried a strong association with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, an important part of the Commonwealth, " - I've searched the article for the "Polish word" Litwa and didn't find it. I've also looked specifically at every instance where the words "Grand Duchy" are used (in addition to reading through the article twice of course) and didn't find anything about association of the word "Litwa" with the Grand Duchy.

All I saw was text which said that: "First of all, one may note, so to speak, the oscillating semantics of the very term "Lithuanian." It might be applied either to the former Grand Duchy in its entirety, that is, to the lands which were ethnically Lithuanian as well as to those which were ethnically Belorussian, or to the old pagan Lithuania with its non-Slavic language and specific cultural heritage. Mickiewicz more frequently than not used the first concept; in other words, he perceived Lithuania rather as a historical region than a linguistic and cultural entity. "

And also: "The story of Mickiewicz's appropriation by Lithuanian culture elucidates the dynamics of ideological constructs and myths typical for more than one Eastern European society. The history of modern Lithuania may be reasonably well described as the history of the semantic shift between two concepts of the Lithuanian: that of inhabitant of the former Grand Duchy and that of a person loyal to a new, Lithuanian-speaking national state. Any attempts to conflate these two concepts failed, reflecting a larger failure of endeavors to postulate direct historical continuity between the Grand Duchy and modern Lithuania. "

And also: "Only the critical and satirical parts of the poem could elicit positive response. The attitudes of Polish-speaking gentry were, for Lithuanian speakers, grotesque if not pernicious; the idea of union, so dear for Mickiewicz, was judged to be a tool for perpetuating the dominance of that supposedly colonialist and anachronistic group. This re- evaluation went to virtually any length. In 1927, the translation of Pan Tadeusz was reprinted for use in Lithuanian schools, with the excision of all the references to Poland (General Dabrowski became a nameless "commander"). No wonder this bizarre operation stirred strong Polish protests."

(that next to last sentence perhaps can explain where a lot of this confusion stems from. Maybe we didn't read the same books though with the same titles and the same author)

(my emphasis).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for proving that this is pure OR, Grand Duchy lands became Slavic population! M.K. (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What's OR? That "he often used the term "Lithuanian" to refer to the Slavic inhabitants of the Grand Duchy"? Here let me repeat it for you:
"First of all, one may note, so to speak, the oscillating semantics of the very term "Lithuanian." It might be applied either to the former Grand Duchy in its entirety, that is, to the lands which were ethnically Lithuanian as well as to those which were ethnically Belorussian, or to the old pagan Lithuania with its non-Slavic language and specific cultural heritage. Mickiewicz more frequently than not used the first concept; in other words, he perceived Lithuania rather as a historical region than a linguistic and cultural entity. "
Should I repeat the other parts too, or should I wait till they're incorporated into the article, then removed under strange pretexts, and then we wind up here again? BTW, I'm still waiting for you to put in that 4% Lithuanian population into the relevant Wilno articles, from the source which you added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
LAND. Thus user:Lokyz is right with this edit [2], M.K. (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Land what? What is he right about? Restoring text which is not in the source?Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you'll have trouble dealing with the Chewbacca defense... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we have clear example of attempt of a WP:SYN.--Lokyz (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)--Lokyz (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait

Why exactly where these categories removed [3]? Am I missing something?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Polish-lithunian?

Adam Mickiewicz had contribution only in polish culture as he wrote in polish. I dont agree with falsification of history and attempts to describe him as lithuanin poet or writer. Lithuanian national consciousness didnt exists when Mickiewicz was living. I'm dissapointed that because of few lithuanian editors this article is given false information. In Poland we learn Mickiewicz poems in oryginal version, which is only polish, not polish-lithuanian. Please - try to follow facts and dont change it. Andrzej19 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Rhetorics aside, Mickiewicz was indeed a Polish poet, he wrote in Polish and there are almost no scholarly sources available at Google Books that would use the characterization 'Polish-Lithuanian'. It seems to be OR/pushing of marginal POV and should indeed be omitted.Estlandia (dialogue) 10:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe in the interest of compromise (which is never offered when the shoe is on the other foot, btw), it was agreed to include a link to the article Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) in order to further clarify the issue. But yes, English sources overwhelmingly call him Polish, it's not even close. Thousands of hits vs. six. (as 1 2 3 4 5 6).VolunteerMarek 20:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have included Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) link. The source 24 doesn't define "Polish-Lithuanian" (but it is about Polish nationalism). The source 23 is quite funny - 1893. Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I would like to keep current version of the headline of this article. Now a day are even rumours about his jewish nationality - but he left behind the contribution to polish poetry and that made him polish. Andrzej19 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Please correct my Reliable Sources entry: [4]Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The origins of the article

"This entry was originally from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." copied in 2003, and some parts of the original text are still present.Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It says this under the references section. Span (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I mean that 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is a very obsolete source influencing the quality of the article.Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Many Wikipedia articles took original text from that edition as a starting point. Work on the article is always welcome. Span (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

By the time I am done all text should be referenced to modern, reliable sources. I do wonder if the above attribution should still be retained? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Status

This article currently fails B-class review, but intend to work on this in the near future to bring it up to a GA level. I'll be using PSB as my primary source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Lithuanian historic themes" in Mickiewicz's work

The article statated that "Lithuanian historic themes" "would exert a major influence on his work". Source given was [5], but I am not seeing this claim clearly confirmed by the source. Feel free to restore it, but please comment here on why, and please add a quote that supports the claim. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Mickiewicz family descendent from Lithuanian noble family Rimvydas?

The article states that "Mickiewicz family was descended from an old Lithuanian noble family (Rimvydas) with origins predating the Christianization of the country". Source is [6]. Can somebody tell us who is the author and what makes that source notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The project "antologija.lt" is initiated and supported by UNESCO. The author of the texts about the early period writers (up to the end of the XIX century) is Prof. Juozapas Girdzijauskas [7]. So the source seems to be reliable. GiW (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. If you an format the reference, I think it would be good to add a note that "According to Lithuanian historian (?) Juozapas Girdzijauskas..." with this claim. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
lt:Juozapas Girdzijauskas seems to be a linguist.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
In Lithuanian language literatūrologas means literary theorist, not a linguist. GiW (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

All served as inspiration during regional uprisings and as foundations for the concept of Poland as "the Christ of Nations."

Pan Tadeusz is about eating, drinking, fighting, hunting but "the Christ of Nations." ? Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please try to write sentences that are meaningful. Or add another version po polsku, because the English one above is meaningless. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Pan Tadeusz is about eating, drinking, fighting, hunting but is not about "the Christ of Nations." Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

Coming from WP:MHAR: There are a few problems with the images in this article. First, why are all of the images thumbed so small? Per WP:IMGSIZE, images should generally be left at the default 180 (which allows users to set their own preferences for sizing). Also, some of the images are currently sandwiching text, which should be avoided per WP:IMAGELOCATION. Also, they're clustered mostly in two groups, leaving several sections without any images. These problems are probably the result of putting too many images in the article - some should probably be cut or spread out to avoid cluttering the article. For instance, what value does a photo of the church Mickiewicz was baptized in really add the to article? And do we need 2 photos of busts? Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Tnx, I tried to address size and clustering. Some pics may be replaced by better ones, feel free to do so if anyone has a particular idea which pics to add. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Uncle

If Mickiewicz "was born... on his uncle's estate near Navahrudak", was it a maternal or paternal uncle, and do we know his name? Nihil novi (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

PSB notes it was from the father's side ("stryj ojca") but does not mention a name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

B-class

WPBIO reassessement was done: [8]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Copy-edit completed. Nihil novi (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Systematic Bias

There remain a lot of problems with sources. I note that more than two thirds of the footnotes (counting sub-footnotes like abcde...) are from the People's Republic of Poland (and some are older). The articles suffers from a type of systematic bias:

  • bias by using old sources
  • bias by using sources from a country under a Communist regime
  • non-verifiability because of too many foreign-language sources, WP:NONENG
  • bias regarding nation. For example, there were discussions about whether Adam Mickiewicz was "Polish or Belarusian or Lithuanian" on this talk:page. Compared to an earlier version [9], I see no other nationalities in the larger lede of today, including inconsistency as a result. In the main text he organized a "Jewish legion"; in the lede he organized "Polish forces".

Considering the great fame of the poet in the present, hopefully those grave issues can be fixed writing a neutral version and reducing the number of said sources to no more than a fourth or a fifth or, better, to none. --walkeetalkee 21:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Unless you can cite specific examples of how the sources are obsolete or bias, we don't dismiss sources due to particular time or place. I am certainly wary of bias found in communist era works, but I have not detected such bias in the sources I was using;
  • WP:NONENG does not prevent us from using non-English sources, and in fact for non-English topics both the quality and quantity of non-English references is superior;
  • Compared to old revision, low quality sources were removed. I have no problem if anyone wants to add more from Lithuanian or Belarusian sources, through I am not seeing their lack as significant. Unless you can present sources that argue that Polish sources are biased on Mickiewicz, I see no grounds for such an assertion. You are also not correct that in the main text he organized just a Jewish legion, he organized Polish and Jewish forces (I've added the note about Jewish forces to the lead). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Your suggestion would be almost giving a blank check to the writings of the People's Republic of Poland. It would be easier rewriting the whole article than evaluating each source and comparing it to others. With most content presently based on such sources, the article would be better described as "Adam Mickiewicz in literature of the People's Republic of Poland". If reliable secondary-sources of the last few decades support the same assertions, I see no reason why those aren't used in their stead. This would leave some bias because the article would still retain the form of the old point of view but it would be a good start into the right direction.
In regards to other obvious POV issues, I was surprised to read that he wrote a poem in Lithuanian in the main text while the infobox mentions only as language "Polish". I was more surprised again reading that part of his writing is in the Lithuanian national anthem but there's not a single word "Lithuanian' in the lede. --walkeetalkee 22:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Virtually all the sources used in the "Adam Mickiewicz" article were published outside of Poland, or in Poland after the demise of the Polish People's Republic (1989). The major exception is Kazimierz Wyka's biography published in Polski słownik biograficzny in 1975. However, there are no grounds for considering Wyka's biography of Mickiewicz to have been inappropriately influenced by political ideology; and the Kazimierz Wyka Award, established in 1980 in commemoration of his contributions to literary scholarship, continues to award annual prizes to this day, in capitalist Poland. Nihil novi (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Yet again it would pay if you'd read the article more correctly. Nowhere did it say he wrote a poem in Lithuanian; we have an image that caption states "Lithuanian folk song written down by Mickiewicz in Lithuanian". I'd think it is clear folk song =/= poem, but since you shown it isn't, here's the full story and context. Once, on a single occasion, he transcribed a Lithuanian folk song. I've added some sources; as far as I can tell this is not discussed in any reliable English source (here's one for your reading pleasure). This is a proof that he knew some Lithuanian, yes, but not that he wrote poem(s) in it. Also, if you looked into a documentation of Infobox Writer, you'd see that the language parameter is for "language of published writings". Which for Mickiewicz is Polish. I don't think French is worth mentioning (I don't think any of his French writings were actually published), and certainly the single 13-verse song transcription on a piece of paper doesn not make the Lithuanian worth adding there, neither. I have now added some referenced information to the article.
As for another of your incorrect assertions, "there's not a single word "Lithuanian' in the lede". Wrong, the lead mentions "Lithuanian", in the sentence "the national epic poem Pan Tadeusz, the last great epic of Polish-Lithuanian noble culture". PS. That said, I agree that we should mention GDL in the lead, I've now fixed that that, adding a sentence about his region of birth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I read the article correctly. The main text said "With his friend Armand Levy, he also set about organizing a Jewish legion." while the lede said "Polish legion". I just didn't want to make an issue of how correct I am and how wrong you are like you just did, particularly after it has been changed now. "Pan Tadeusz, the last great epic of Polish-Lithuanian noble culture" with a link to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is no "Lithuanian" for me, combining just a poem with the Commonwealth that included many countries (You can see them in the "Today part of" description in the main article of the Commonwealth). You're technically right that the other was a "folk song" rather than a "poem", a little difference and it was based on my memory from the day before. As you can see, I'm not having much time these days but I'll provide more over the weeks to come. If you need things moved along faster, I can ask other members of Wikipedia that were previously dissatisfied with the representations in this article for more input. The issue still remains that this article is dominated by references to Polish Cold War sources and reflects mainly their point of view. --walkeetalkee 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
And you still have not cited a single source to support your assertion. Your personal POV about the POV of this article is not enough, through you are welcome to ask others for input. Just make sue to keep your WP:CANVASSING appropriate. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm having difficulties understanding what your objections are, Walkee. Having read through the article, I seriously don't see any problems with it. As noted by Piotrus, you haven't cited any post-Cold War analysis of substance. Within themselves, old sources don't automatically mean 'Cold War' tampering or revisionism. Where are you going and what precedent will this set as regards to something that isn't considered contentious being turned into potentially contentious? Should, for example, the fact that Pushkin had Ethiopian ancestry merit a tractat on how this may or may not have influenced his writing and pose the question of whether he should be considered an Ethiopian writer? Until you're in a position to present a concise case, I think it best that you leave this section you've started alone. There's nothing constructive to be gained in talking of things you'll be bringing to the table in the coming weeks. Don't misunderstand: I'm not suggesting that I've closed my door/mind. I'd certainly be interested to know what your objections to this article actually are and how you propose to redress perceived biases in order to bring the entry up to date as an NPOV article. I've seen nothing from you here that would even begin to merit opening a dialogue about bias. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Communist era sources on non-historical aspects, artistic or literary personalities, for example, are fine. In my own article work I've used the Concise Encyclopedia of the Latvian SSR for material on Rainis. After a while you develop a sense for it, and it's usually possible to cross reference to English sources (which usually cover such topics in less detail). And quite frankly, there's a lot more us of foreign language sources elsewhere. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
A salient point made by Vecrumba. I could, however, cite many instances of literary figures whose works were redacted or poems omitted due to anti-Russian or anti-Soviet sentiment, but the crucial body of their work/s were still analysed with integrity. The same applies to pre-Soviet historical figures who were hailed as heroes while others were virtually written out of history in Soviet scholarship. Ultimately, when there is additional information from other sources at hand, one develops a sense of the integrity of the texts being cited, including useful supplementary information & analysis. It would be ridiculous to dismiss all Soviet research and analysis as if it were all so badly tainted that it should be relegated to some trash heap of pure propaganda. If we were to base articles eliminating all Soviet works as being unusable due to prejudice, in fairness, material from every other source would have to undergo equally rigorous scrutiny or be automatically scrapped as the poisoned fruit of US propaganda, Indian nationalist propaganda, German nationalist propaganda, English nationalist propaganda, French propaganda ad infinitum. Contributors are given the benefit of the doubt as to their neutrality until others call certain contentions into question using reasonable sources and citations and putting forward a constructive case substantiating their doubts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There are similar, small ways in which Mickiewicz's life and works have been treated differently in communist times, particularly with regard to try to minimize all the conflict in Polish-Russian relations. This was hard, of course, as it was so central to his life, and he was too big of a figure to be swept under the carpet. This is why I use some other sources for that, and of course we have no problem linking to and mentioning terms like Russian partition or such. As such, while I acknowledge this particular bias in communist era sources, I am pretty sure this bias is not present in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Mickiewicz was not much of a problem to Russian or Polish communists because his conflict was with Imperial Russia, not with the Soviet Union (he died over six decades before the October Revolution). In 1975 People's Poland placed him on a 10-złoty coin. Poland's communists only had problems when Adam Hanuszkiewicz staged Mickiewicz's Forefathers' Eve and spectators saw, in the play, analogies to contemporary Polish-Russian relations. Nihil novi(talk) 05:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly true. Remember that Jacek Kaczmarski's "Rejtan, Report Ambassadora" was also "banned" (I forget the exact circumstances, it might have just evoked a complaint from the Russian embassy) despite the fact that that too dealt with Imperial Russia, not Soviet Union. Some of it was a game between writers/artists and censors - using Imperial Russia (which was "bad" from Soviet POV) as an allegory for Soviet Union itself (oh, and in SU itself Vladimir Vysotski got in trouble even for his Hamlet, also used in an allegorical, similar, way), and then eventually the censors picking up on it. Plus there's the whole "Lithuania, my homeland!" thing, which had the possibility of making people wonder why Lithuania was part of the Soviet Union at the time. I remember it was hard as hell to obtain a copy of "Pan Tadeusz" because while not "banned" it just wasn't printed - that's actually an interesting question, how many editions of the book and in what number came out during PRL? I think Piotrus is essentially correct; Mickiewicz was too big and too important to ban or ignore outright, and the authorities where even willing to put him on a coin, but he was also "uncomfortable". While the poet was given adulation, his works were swept aside (this too very "Vysotskian").Volunteer Marek 01:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, through I cannot find any good refs for that. There's a little about the 1968 censorship of Dziady, but that's already mentioned in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
A friend who attended secondary school in People's Poland in the latter 1960s, two decades before the fall of communism, recalls reading Mickiewicz's Dziady and Pan Tadeusz as part of the regular curriculum. Nihil novi (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, it would be interesting if you could find out whether it was the full version or a redacted version. I can compare this to Taras Shevcheko's works in the Ukrainian SSR. He was certainly taught in schools but only a heavily redacted version of his definitive work, "Kobzar'" was printed under Soviet governance. All poems with anti-Russian sentiment ceased to exist in that version (I have copies of the pre-revolutionary and the Soviet versions which can verify this. Perhaps someone in the Polish diaspora can provide you with copies of how it appeared in the Soviet curriculum in order to compare? Again, I know that versions of poems by Shevchenko which did not appear in Soviet editions are currently to be found on the internet, but some of the wording (while not particularly significant) differs to the 1908 edition I have. Could I venture a guess that Dziady and Pan Tadeusz may have been significantly different? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As already noted, I've read the article and can't see anything which could be interpreted as bias and various problematic areas such as ethnicity, etc. have been addressed. The entry could, at some point, be tidied a little but, as you would have the same problem as every other Wikipedian - being much on your plate and other, more pressing priorities - that's one for the back burner. It's virtually impossible to source anything new or ground breaking when it comes to well established and previously researched writers of note. My reading of his complaints is that he doesn't actually have anything constructive to say and I find it irritating that he is wasting people's time casting aspersions about the integrity of this article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
An interesting idea. I've asked about it at pl wiki pl:Wikipedia:Kawiarenka/Artykuły#Czy_Mickiewicz_byl_cenzurowany_w_PRL.3F, as I still cannot find anything in sources myself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know whether you manage to source anything. Wishing you powodzenie with that, Piotr! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iryna Harpy (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right. The worst thing about such unfounded accusations is that they distract contributors from their work and confuse readers who are equally ignorant of the subject as the accuser. Nihil novi (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Adam Mickiewicz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 15, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  1. NOTE: Please respond below this entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout these points, thanks!
  2. I went through and did some minor edits for formatting, other than that, the writing quality is quite good. I suggest a peer review for the next step, with wide solicitation for input from previously uninvolved editors, and possible submission to WP:GOCE.
2. Factually accurate?:
  1. Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources. Only one problem, noted below:
  2. There are several commented-out-portions-of-text. These have to go. They are uncited for the most part, unencyclopedic, and inappropriate in the text. Please either cite them and actually add them to the live main article body text, or remove them.
3. Broad in coverage?: Quite broad in scope, covers major aspects.
4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone and matter-of-fact language style, NPOV structural presentation overall.
5. Article stability? I inspected the article edit history. I also looked over the talk page and its history. I note some discussion on the talk page about "systematic bias", but I believe that all of these concerns were adequately replied to and sufficiently addressed in an appropriate manner. In any event, the discussion fortunately did not impact the article's edit history stability.
6. Images?:
  1. File:Mic br.jpg - Please move this image to Wikimedia Commons and fill out all fields in the information template there.
  2. File:Adam Mickiewicz Monument, Kraków.jpg - Please move this image to Wikimedia Commons and fill out all fields in the information template there.


NOTE: Please respond below this entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout these points, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— — Cirt (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I've started to address this. As I may be traveling without good 'net connection for the next 2 weeks or so, I'd appreciate if we could consider a ~2-3 weeks hold for this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
2-3 weeks is a bit much, I'll be traveling myself during that time, but maybe within the next 2 weeks would be ideal. Really the above shouldn't be too much to handle quite easily. — Cirt (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, I'm in the midst of a bunch of other GA Reviews at the moment, so I'll keep this one simmering on the back burner and get back to it at the end of the other ones, or 2 weeks, whichever is later. Unless, of course, the above stuff is addressed sooner. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe all issues have been addressed. Thanks for the wait! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There is still a commented-out-portion-of-text that would be better off as a sourced footnote. — Cirt (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Where? I don't see them... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@Piotrus, still a commented out portion of text, Wyka notes contradictory dates in available sources, should instead be a sourced footnote. — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:Cirt - I went ahead and simply removed it; the sentence already states the very same fact ("Sources disagree") and is ref'ed to Wyka. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
@Piotrus, I'm traveling out of town at the moment in remote areas with limited Internet access, should be able to address above in a few days. — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, same here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. Thanks for the responsiveness to the comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies about the IP undo

Apologies about the IP undo at DIFF, there was no edit summary so I assumed it was drive-by innocuous vandalism. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite understandable. Thanks for your interest in the article! Nihil novi (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lithuanian nationality dead horse, take 7

Previous discussions on this topic: Talk:Adam_Mickiewicz/Archive_1#Polish.3F, Talk:Adam_Mickiewicz/Archive_1#Polish_Poet, Talk:Adam_Mickiewicz/Archive_1#Changes_about_nationality, Talk:Adam_Mickiewicz/Archive_1#WP:_UNDUE, Talk:Adam_Mickiewicz/Archive_1#The_first_sentence and Talk:Adam_Mickiewicz/Archive_2#Polish-lithunian.3F.

Consensus has been to use the term "Polish poet". To quote one of the past discutants: ""Adam Mickiewicz "Polish poet"" - [31], 6530 hits; "Adam Mickiewicz "Lithuanian poet"" - [32], 73 hits." and relevant policy: WP:UNDUE. Let's start by providing a direct quote for the ref used here. It should be in Polish, plus translated. Perhaps it can be added to Adam_Mickiewicz#Ethnicity, where we already have a sentence "Mickiewicz called himself a "Lithuanian"". I would not be against including a link to Polish-Lithuanian identity in the lead if anyone can think of a smart way of doing so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


In 1841 Adam Mickiewicz writes letter to his brother (Adam Mickiewicz, Listy, [w:] Dzieła, red. Julian Krzyżanowski, t. XV, Czytelnik 1955, s. 390-391.) with this sentence: Może też wyrobię się na profesora bez naturalizacji, bo mi jakoś żal przestać być Litwinem urzędownie i przedzierzgać się w Francuza niemiło. There are also important arguments of his genealogy as he was from Lithuanian noble family. --Egisz (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

All of which is covered in the ethnicity section, and as explained in detail in the Polish-Lithuanian identity, it is not correct to call him a Lithuanian. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not correct as much as it is not correct to call him a "Polish". Thats why i offer to use "Polish - Lithuanian". In his text Mickiewicz clearly separates Lithuania and Poland, express his Lithuanian identity. He believed that Lithuanian nation constists of Lithuanian, Prussian, Latvian tribes (introduction to Konrad Wallenrod). His clearly expressed self consciousness, his genealogy cannot be ignored. --Egisz (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There are two correct links: Polish people, and Polish-Lithuanian identity. You keep adding the incorrect link to Lithuanian people. As explained in the PLi article, the modern Lithuanian culture has very little relevance here; Lithuanians explicitly rejected the multicultiralism as represented by the PLC nation a century ago. Moving on, here are modern Google Books results for Adam Mickiewicz "Polish poet" (505 hits), Adam Mickiewicz "Lithuanian poet" (131 hits), and Adam Mickiewicz "Polish-Lithuanian poet" (58 hits). I am afraid the inclusion of the Lithuanian claim still smacks of WP:UNDUE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I am wholeheartedly with Piotr on this issue. While I sympathise with the desire to include Mickiewicz's Lithuanian background - as I believe we're all familiar with complexity of ethnic suppression/oppression in post-Deluge Slavic history - I, for one, can't see any method of incorporating his Polish-Lithuanian identity in the lead without a lengthy diatribe which would alienate English language readers. For those interested in the complexities, there are links within the article allowing them to investigate these issues. Unfortunately, it would only serve to turn Mickiewicz's biography and importance of his works into a confusing battleground of current nationalist agendas. Sadly, English Wikipedia is already rife with such messes. In case no one has noticed, non-Slavs already know very little about 'that' part of Europe and see Slavic ethnic groups/nations in a negative light. Is it really worth sacrificing the great contributions to the arts (and sciences, etc.) by figures who have been all but forgotten by the rest of the world, largely due to the events of the 20th century? The Western counterparts of these significant figures have never been forgotten in the English-speaking world. Geniuses the likes Mickiewicz are well overdue for being restored to their rightful place in history.
That being said, I have asked Egisz to provide me with a link to the full text as I can't access it online & my university doesn't have a copy of the specific book by Krzyżanowski being referenced. Dependent on that, I don't have any qualms about working the excerpt into into the Ethnicity section as an additional ref. The issue, as I see it, is that Mickiewicz was a product of the PLC nation which embraced cosmopolitanism, the age of enlightenment and the age of reason. To be honest, it would take an incredible new find to convince me otherwise. Unless it is intelligently structured, there will be continuous attempts at reverting it to the simplistic nonsense advocated by Walkee only recently [10]: a badly written piece of Lithuanian propaganda with no citations or references except the convictions living in that contributor's head. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The only way we can add something to lead without messing it up would be a footnote (see Template:Efn for example); that said such a footnote would just direct readers to the ethnicity section anyway, or would risk duplicating it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The only manner in which I can see Template:Efn being used in the lead would be as something to the effect of, "Mickiewicz's ethnicity is discussed further in the 'Ethnicity' section." It sounds superfluous but could be workable when considering how many times the issue has been brought up throughout the history of this article. Anything beyond a citation of the briefest variety would have to read like an academic treatise. I've made contact with Egisz on his talk page where he has directed me to his sources. I will take a look at them in detail in the next couple of days but can only see them as potentially meriting a small expansion of the Ethnicity section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Since the English Wikipedia includes Polish names on famous Lithuanian people, as in the case of Szymon Dowkant, Abraham Kulwieć, why can we not say that Adam Mickiewicz is also known as Adomas Mickevičius in Lithuanian and even Adama Mickiewicza?[1] Also, you include variants of the name for Martynas Mažvydas, so why can we not do it here? Henkt (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's a good point: "But that's how many of our Lithuanian friends use Lithuanian names in, say, the article on Karolina Proniewska. And that's how the WP:MoS suggests we did that. Either we apply the rules to all articles equally, or we scrap the rule altogether. Consistency is the key to resolve the issues Lithuanian wikipedians have with people of mixed Polish and Lithuanian culture. Otherwise this dispute will never end. //Halibutt 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)"

Geography!

Odessa is NOT in the Crimea! - As far as I know (see Ascherson, "The Black Sea"), M. took a trip to the Crimea while he was living in Odessa, accompanied by a number of interesting characters, including a Tsarist secret agent. Maelli (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Source clear on excursion to Odessa, then Crimea over late 1824 to 1825. Probably a typo which should have read as 'and' Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture swap

I propose to change the main picture in the info-box to an actual coloured painting created by Władysław Ciesielski, currently held at the National Museum in Warsaw. Although made in 1899, long after his death, it shows all the distinct features of Adam Mickiewicz and could be considered an exact, but coloured, replica of an earlier daguerreotype.

Oliszydlowski (TALK) 24 May 2015, 14:11 (UTC)

I vote for the original 1842 daguerrotype. Ciesielski's version distorts that original and sacrifices face space to body that is not in the original. Nihil novi (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Protection

I would like to ask for a lock to be placed on this article that would block an unregistered user to edit it. This article has been recently vandalised by an anonymous person. (Nationality issue)

Thanks ;) User:Oliszydlowski (talk) 7 October 2014, 12:24pm (UTC)

@Oliszydlowski: I just saw it, and I doubt an admin saw your request. In the future, please go to WP:AN or better, Wikipedia:Requests for protection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adam Mickiewicz. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ [11]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam_Mickiewicz/Archive_2&oldid=1089882639"