Talk:Radziwiłł

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Książę 2 Polish? 3 Szlachta 4 Remains 5 Expansion 6 Structuration

[edit] Książę

Tytul "ksiaze" byl im przyznany przez Rzplita (jak w przypadku Czartoryskich), czy tylko nadany przez Cesarstwo?--Emax 19:40, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See The Princely Houses of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish?

Were Radziwills really Polish? Join the discussion that is relevant to all of the famous Polish-speaking personalities who were born in 18-19th centuries on the territories of what is now Belarus, and what was Litva back then. Talk:Ignacy Domeyko. --rydel 00:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the name of their very country (Polish-Lithuanian...) commonwealth suggest it is a complicated issue. I'll take a look at the talk page you suggest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, not Polish. Any members of the Radvila (Radziwill) family who appear until Union of Lublin must be called nobles of Grand Duchy of Lithuania; the rest of them - nobles of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.--UmR 06:12:04, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

UmR, you sound like a Lithuanian nationalist (further supported by the fact that you aren't even a Wikipedia user). The Radziwill family stopped being "Lithuanian" after assimilating into the Polish szlachta and marrying into Polish nobility (this allegiance to Poland of the nobility in Lithuania was what some attribute as the cause of the resentment among rural Lithuanians, particularly during the rise of nationalism, that they were being ruled over by Poles). After the creation of an independent Lithuania, you will see that the Radziwill's since have often a strong patriotism for Poland, not Lithuania (i.e. Stanislaw Radziwill founded the Sikorski Historical Institute in London, for example). This is not an unusual phenomenon, that some distant origins begin elsewhere. If one were to nitpick everyone's DNA, you'd be suprised how mixed up Europe is. Take all those Lithuanians with Lithuanized names of Polish origin. --Vegalabs 00:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

M.K., why have you removed the qualifier from the article? There is nothing ambiguous about it. It is ambiguous at this point, and in fact the article as it stands makes clear the Lithuanian bias. I wonder how a Radziwill would feel today based on your and your compatriot's claims. Please see above if you have not read it yet. --Vegalabs 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Vegalabs, because it is very very delicate way to say they were Polish from Grand Duchy of Lithuania or just Polish. I read you post and its Polish POV :) strong patriotism for Poland, not Lithuania interesting “fact”. DNA ? yes Radzivill originated in Lithuania. The main strong holds of them were in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They oppose Liublin Union, even refuse to command an army then Polish “counterparts” arrived, this family members initiated and some interesting treaties like Union of Kėdainiai. And other interesting deeds. I do not going to deny impact of polonization to them and their deeds to Poland. But as you see to say just polish is a bit not right. And you know majority of Russian noblemen spoke in French as a main language tried to imitate them in appropriate time. So they French too? M.K.

MK, while I agree there are moments when this becomes a sensitive fact, I do not believe this is the case. First, I do not argue that language had anything to do with it. Low German was an "official" language of the PLC but its use does not make its users necessarily German. By becoming "Polonized" I was refering to the whole cultural and national implications this had (that is, integration). While it is undeniable and certainly true that the Radziwill family originated in Lithuania, a similar statement can be said of many families in a variety of countries. We might as well claim that decendents of Romans in Italy are Romans and not Italians (and interestingly, Lech Walesa has a distant connection with Roman nobility :). I believe that in this situation, where we refer to the family in the present tense, it is proper to say that they are a Polish noble family. They have made it quite clear what their nationality is (I've already mentioned Stanislaw Radziwill as a clear example, which is a fact you can look up). I am willing to say that they *are* a Polish noble family, and I'm willing to acknowledge that it began in Lithuania and became a powerful family in the PLC, but at this point, in the *present tense*, it is not at all ambiguous. As the article stands, is it Lithuanian POV since emphasis is placed on their origins. As far as DNA studies are concerned, my point is that ethnicity is a meaningless and bad argument for nationality and I've seen it slipping into arguments all over Wikipedia (even though it's not too applicable here, but I digress). Also, you point to Union of Kėdainiai as if it were a good thing. Janusz Radziwill is not at all viewed as a positive force for either Lithuania or the Radziwill family :). --Vegalabs 19:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Union of Kėdainiai was seen by many lithuanian nobles as a way to save Lithuanian independance and is not reearded as a very bad thing. Stop spreading Senkewicz based "obvious truths". As for your earlier saying - polish, with lituanized names: well, that reveals your ignorance of scientific discipline called history and philology , and love for XIX-th century polish literature:) Radvilos weren't Polish, up to XVII-th century they were absolutely not Polish patriots, but Lithuanian in a broader sense, meaning GDL.--Lokyz 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)P.S. And also as an ally way to fight again Russia, as Krown prowided NO support - neither by military neither by financial help.

[edit] Szlachta

I was not able to find such a word in a few English dictionaries that were available to me at the moment. The suggestion is not to use it, as not existent in English language. The problems about the word are:

1. Not existant in English language.
2. Szlachta or Šlėkta (lithuanian) is understood in Lithuania more as an offensive word to describe a degenerated person which due to some reason shows arogance as if he was noble. Both words didikas (lith. noble) and šlėkta are sometimes used in the same sentence as if reffering to two different things. Thus lithuanians reading an article a) might get insulted by someone calling a "lithuanian" noble šlėkta b) might get inadequate overall picture of personality, due to incorrect associations.
3. Pro-Polish POV. Existing in almost all the articles written or edited by polish users. Extensive application of polish names, definitions, place-names is used, intentionally or incidentally (which I believe less and less as I read the articles and discussions here), to form an opinion in readers mind that an object of an article is (only) Polish related, while it is not true.--UmR 06:12:04, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

I initially opposed the usage of the term, but I got convinced to some extent. Firstly, the phenomenon of szlachta, that is the Polish gentry as they are sometimes referred to in English sources, is pretty much unique, both in terms of their numbers, culture, beliefs and so on.As such, the word is entering usage in English language as calling them gentry would suggest some similarity to the British gentry, which would be misleading.

We have no influence over various connotations of words in different languages. Nor I believe we should use it as a criterion for choosing names of articles.

Well, in this very context the Polish perspective is most surely the correct one. While the family traced its roots to Ruthenian boyars of the Grand Duchy, its history in the last several hundred years is primarily associated with Poland rather than Republic of Lithuania. The situation here is pretty much the same as with, say, British royal house. They are of German descent, yet the article on them describes them from the British perspective rather than German. It seems simply the most logical solution. //Halibutt 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i'm absolutely sure, that every time you call "Radziwill The Black" "Polish", he turns around in the grave. You should study more his works and writings - let me put it in a polite way: he did'n like Poland at all.--Lokyz 10:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

'Szlachta' is used by hundreds of books.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remains

During excavations in Dubingiai (Dubinki) in 2004, in the place of currently destroyed church, archeologists found a number of human remains. On ~2005-05-02, after a year of investigations on the remains, they made a press conference in which it was anounced that mostly probably some remains found belong to Radziwills: Mikalojus Radvila Juodasis (Mikołaj 'Black' Radziwiłł) his wife Elžbieta Šidlovecka-Radvilienė (Elżbieta Szydłowiecka), Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis (Mikołaj 'Ginger' Radziwiłł), Jonušas VI Radvila (Janusz VI Radziwiłł). There is quite little further info available at the moment (at least to me :)), I can search for more if someone is interested.

This information can be added to the articles, if no disagreements occur.--UmR 06:12:04, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

This article is no longer a stub, but I know far too little about the history of this family and of Poland-Lithuania to expand it properly. If you know more about this than I do, please help out. NatusRoma 9 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

[edit] Structuration

I think the intro of the article (before the first section comes) should be shorter and many too detailed points should find theur way in later parts of the article.

Further, I think that because the article actualy tells as much, even more, what they were than what they are, it should also say it. Somehow this gives an impression that they are powerful in today Poland. Is it true, I mean, are they truly powerful in today Poland? Shilkanni 21:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly this needs a proper WP:LEAD and a copyedit. Please don't hesitate to be bold and improve it; editing articles is much more useful then moving them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)