Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 19 July 2006

DYK!

An entry from Laurynas Gucevičius appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 16, 2006.

Google shows 25 English language hits for Wawrzyniec Gucewicz and 17 on Laurynas Gucevičius . That in itself would not convince me to move this article, but Google Print recognizes only the WG name (3 hits). He is also linked under his Polish name from Polski Słownik Biograficzny (User:Piotrus/List of Poles/Grodecki-Hoscki) and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hotlist of Art & Architecture/G2. PS. There are no Google hits for 'Laurynas Gucewicz'. Without limiting ourselves to English pages, we get 235 hits for LG and 260 for WC . I'd tentatively suggest moving this article to Wawrzyniec Gucewicz, there may be some issues I have overlooked. It would be quite useful to know what name did he use himself - i.e. was he polonized?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh Piotrus, just stop it. The number of Polish people is ten times larger than Lithuanian, and your google hits just don't count in this case and are ridiculous. Gucevicius was from Lithuania, he was pure Lithuanian and the first professional Lithuanian architect. His works are in the territory of current Lithuania and some in Belarus. He means much more to Lithuanian heritage than to the Polish. Your Polish language sources will tell you he was 'Polish' architect, but don't always believe what they say 100% :). As the starter of this article I strongly object to the move to Wawrzyniec Gucewicz. The redirect is enough. --Juraune 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Juraune M.K 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated above, the above calculations are done solely on English language page - not on Polish or Lithuanian. I certainly agree that due to Poland's size, the Polish POV is much more visible then the Lithuanian one, and certainly various Polish sources tend to overgeneralize 'Polish-Lithuanian' as 'Polish'. However the question remains what was the language that LG/WG used: did he speak in Polish and write his name as Wawrzyniec Gucewicz, or did he speak in Lithuanian and sign himself as Laurynas Gucevičius? It is a fact that in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth majority of educated people were polonized. Was he an exception? If so, then it's all well and good, but please, can you privide a source for that?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, Gucevicius was granted to be called a noblemen, this indicates that he was not a pure noblemen (and as a rule not pure noblemen kept their ethnical ident.) besides if I not mistaken I saw somewhere that his name was already lithuanzied version of that time. And i believe (if my memory correct) he spoken and polish too as well as Lith. M.K 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If he spoke no Polish, I sincerly doubht he could have worked as an architects for the magnates. Anyway, it seems to me beyond any doubht that he was a citizen of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, with more ties to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania then Crown of the Polish Kingdom. I certainly have no objections to listing him as Polish-Lithuanian. The issue at hand is whether we should use here the Polish or Lithuanian version of the name. The fact that there are more Poles then Lithuanians, which certainly favours the propagation of the Polish variants, is not an issue here: we are not making a more 'political correct' world, but an English encyclopedia. According to the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, we should use the version of his name as used by majority of the English sources. However as I have shown above, none has a significant majority, thus we cannot decide his correct name based on it's use in English sources. The only way to break this deadlock, as I see it, is to find documents written (or at least signed) by him and see what was the name he signed with (and if possible, what was the language he habitualy spoke in and wrote with).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite a silly idea because at that time Lithuanian last names were not well developed and stabilized. Besides, his family is not exactly nobility... so flip a coin. Much less painfull :) Renata 01:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, certainly he did not sign his name with the post-1918 Lithuanian version of the Lithuanian grammar, did he. //Halibutt 17:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But he wasn't Polish. Under Soviet Union I used to sign my name in Russian, so what? Juraune 18:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But he wasn't Lithuanian either :) I agree with Renata here, though I also agree with most of the authors out there who - be it right or wrong - consider him a Pole... Anyway, in my new version of this article both names are bolded in the first sentence so there is not much of a problem there I guess. The only problem I see is the title of this article, but I could back down on this one, just for friendly atmosphere's sake. 212.76.57.103 (bah! it logged me out - //Halibutt) 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem?

I notice the ending of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Laurynas_'Gucevi%C4%8Dius'

and it is a bit worrying :(

This is not a major problem - the browsers can't display the symbols, but they understant them when they are inputed. You'll see the same problems in various articles using Polish, Lithuanian or other 'strange' letters.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

yup, but making in adress bar Laurynas_Gucevicius would be better M.K 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We would have to lose the 'č' for that, and I do object to englishizing names. Make it Polish or Lithuanian, but don't invent a new English variant - that's my rule (for names that have no obvious/common English spelling, of course).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

not in articale itself! M.K 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The link http://en.wikipedia.org/Laurynas_Gucevicius also brings there, so there is no problem.

A, yes I see now. in this case there is no problem. And it is good!M.K 08:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A redirect, you mean? Certainly all articles using non-standard letters should have them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Classicism and Neoclassicism

I see that some guys here don't know the meaning of "classicism" in English. Not only do they confuse it with Neoclassicism, but are prone to reverting edits of superior editors adn swelling the article with peacock terms. I'm leaving this article at their mercy in disgust. --Ghirla 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments which you did not liked was made by the author of the articale . and I belive that you as such "superior" editor shuold know that if author who wrothe whole text himeself is makeing mistkes report and produce your opinion and not such as "silly" comment in summary. this is a main principles of wiki. inform main author not me.M.K 12:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ghirla. There is no need for harshe words here. In fact, I stumbled across that problem and Your reverted correction. Things don't seem to be so easy. As a person, who is indeed no expert on periods, I looked this up in the German wikipedia, for which I translated this article (thanks Juraune for Your work) and found in de:Klassizismus Hauptsächlich aber wird als 'Klassizismus' eine Epoche der gesamten Kunstgeschichte im späten 18. Jahrhundert und frühen 19. Jahrhundert (etwa zwischen 1770 und 1830) bezeichnet, welche die (vor allem griechische) Klassik zu erneuern versuchte. which reads roughly classicism ist mainly seen as the period of art history in the late 18th and early 19th century (about 1770-1830), that tried to revive (chiefly Greek) classic. de:Neoklassizismus (Kunst) says: Neoklassizismus (seltener Neuklassizismus) ist eine eklektizistische Kunstrichtung, die sich gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts innerhalb des Historismus entwickelte. ~= Neoclassicism ist an eclesticistic direction of art, that developed during the end of the 19th century as part of the historism movement. I also found out that the English wikipedia is not that clear in dating these periods. There might be differences in English and continental use. But since the original author explicitly used the words Lithuanian classicism, this terminus seems valid in my eyes. Best regards --Gf1961 12:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gf1961, it should be noted when classicism came to Lithuania; the formulation Lithuanian classicism is pointing to it , but I see to some "superior" is is not understandable. But he could look in some catalogs of Vilnius and he would see the same I recomend to see/buy "Vilniaus Architektura" there are and Russian explanations too ( sutable to "superior")M.K 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, Gf1961. I really appreciate Your work and your comments there. I moved the sentence left by Ghirla to a section of an article were the style of the architect is discussed, since in my oppinion, his sentence is formulated very clumsy and doesn't fit as the first sentence of the encyclopedia article. As my dictionary shows, the word "proponent" is "a defender, someone who is offering something", while as much as I know Laurynas Gucevicius didn't offer his style to others, and he was an architect, not merely a propagator of particular architectural style. Juraune 06:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo

There is this photo on flickr which could be used here. Renata 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)