Talk:Konstantinas Sirvydas

Surname
Was he actually using the name of Sirvydas, or is it rather a modern version of his original name?  // Halibutt 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Monsieur le Halibutt, would you care to reread title of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in polish? And would you care to read, what is stated in Union of Lublin? Anykščiai is not and newer was Poland, so i do not see any need to put Polish name here. It's lithuania, and everyone speaks Lithuanian. You might come and check. And of course, because ha was speaking lithuanian he referred to himself in Lithuanian, its quite clear from latin form of his name. BTW Vilna - is Jewish name of Wilnius, not polish. --Lokyz 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And does it really matter? Przemyśl has never been Ukraine, yet the Ukrainian name is mentioned there. And..? As to his name, it might be a discovery for you, but it's his Lithuanian name that is different from both Polish and Latin name - and those were the ones he apparently was using himself:. So, let me repeat my question: is it some original name, or rather a modern translation to Lithuanian (Juzefas Pilsudskis anyone?). As to Vilna - it's not only Jewish, Ruthenian and Belarusian name for that town, but it's also the English name, prominent until really recently. That's why instead of fighting whether to call it Wilno (as most of its inhabitants called it) or Vilnius (as most of them do now), why not stick to a neutral name?  // Halibutt 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is his name. And as of polish - I'd doubt he preceived himself as such. He was born Lithuanian, otherwise he wouldn't study this language, don't you thnink? Here you go - a proof that there were educated lithuanian speking persons in XVII cewntury.--Lokyz 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No doubt about that. But let me repeat my question: was he actually using the name of Konstantinas Sirvydas, or was he using only the surname featured in his books? Is there any contemporary mention of Konstantinas Sirvydas anywhere, or is it a modern "translation" of "how would his name look if he was born in modern times"?  // Halibutt 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any polish documents, where he did put his name in polish? I'd say, he was using Ligva franca of contenporary scolars - latin.
 * As for lithuanian language modernity - well, read some research on folklore - taht part of language, that does not change over centuries has all what reallay hate - including Vilnius, Kaunas, Liškiava and all the endings in -as, -us, -is.
 * About modern spelling - as issues about Cracow about Jagiello diacritics are unsolved, I would not not bother about this topic here. Because as far I know, modern Polish language was formad at the times of Adam Mickewicz.--Lokyz 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the two documents I linked above. Both have his surname put in Polish, the earlier has his Christian name in Latin, the latter in Polish as well. As for what you call "modernity" here, I have no idea, but I believe it's not important here. Whether folk lore changes or not does not influence the language much, or does it. And of course modern Polish language was formed in 19th century (and indeed Mickiewicz had a huge influence over it, he even invented a popular Christian name used to our times). Yet, this does not change the fact that the two documents we have here do not put his name as Konstantinas Sirvydas. So let me become even more boring and ask the same question again... Did he actually use the name of Konstantinas Sirvydas anywhere - anytime, or is it a modern translation of his 17th century name?  // Halibutt 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so now google counts do not count, and contemporary speling counts. That probably would suggest me moving to Jagello and Radziwill The Black issues. Neither of them were Polish, and neither one of them were spelled modern way. Go ahead, move the page. That would be fun:)--Lokyz 20:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please respond to what I actually ask and not what you believe I do. Neither do I plan to move this article nor do I deny that most contemporary sources (check Google for that) would probably call him by this name. Which however does not answer my question of... you know it already, don't you. Does your reply above mean that Sirvydas did not use the name of Sirvydas himself?
 * Just take note that it's nothing unusual among historical people. We have an article on Gallus Anonymus, eventhough the guy would most probably never call him that way.  // Halibutt 20:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, my reply only means, that i do know your intentions:) As or a name - yes, he did use it. In Lietuvių kalbos raktas, because it was lithuanian book. Unfortunately there is no copies left. Could you deny that?
 * Btw I can show you how Radvil wrote his name himself.--Lokyz 20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So you read a copy of a book that did not survive to our times, right? Quite a notable achievement... or perhaps you mean that you believe he used the name? Apparently in his surviving Lithuanian texts he did not use that name, so what's the proof that he did use it in the one that did not survive? Apparently you also believe you know my intentions, eventhough you don't.  // Halibutt 02:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy Editing
Instead of arguing with Halibutt, some of you should appreciate his desire to copy edit your article. By arguing with him, you take away his abilities and the time he could spend on the many Polish articles in English WK, that need lot's of work and copy editing. I still hope to see some progress on the Wojna kokosza. You know Hal, BTW, Lithuanians call Hitler, Hitleris and Pilsudski, Pilsudskis. Why does that bother you so much (Juzefas Pilsudskis anyone)? Jerzy Waszyngton, which is how George Washington (check Polish link), is written in Polish, doesn't bother me at all. Dr. Dan 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. And Hal, maybe you'll have better luck than I had, when I put the Lithuanian name for Lublin, in the article way back when. It lasted a couple of hours. Could you do that for me?
 * Nobody argues with me here, I'm simply asking a single question and people respond to zillion of others, but not the one I'm asking. But it's not arguing, is it. And what is the Lithuanian name for Lublin? Use Talk:Lublin for that please, let's avoid OT, ok?  // Halibutt 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

By OT, do you mean the Old Testament, because my remarks are far from "off topic". The Washington and Pilsudski comparisons are to help you Focus like a Laser with your problem regarding the Lithuanization of "foreign names". And you certainly must know the Lithuanian name for Lublin, if you know the Polish name for Anyksciai. I suspect this more because you've demonstrated your knowledge to me, of what the proper name in English is for Kraków. Dr. Dan 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Knowledge of English is not exactly the same thing as knowledge of Lithuanian. You know, these are different languages. You might know how to say hello in English, but have absolutely no clue as to how to say that in Lithuanian. And my knowledge of languages has little to do with article on Konstantinas Sirvydas (better place would be User talk:Halibutt). The city of Lublin has little to do with him as well (Talk:Lublin is the place to solve your problems). And no, I don't have a problem with Lithuanization of foreign names as many nations do it. Czechs have their Danielle Steelová, Lithuanians might have Danielle Steeliene, I don't really care. My question above is pretty specific and is not why is this name Lithuanized but is this a Lithuanized name. Get the difference?  // Halibutt 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure I do. What does (Juzefas Pilsudskis anyone?), have to do with (the) article on Konstantinas Sirvydas? And thanks for letting everyone know that his name in Latin and Polish are the same. Dr. Dan 05:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. It's Liublinas, do be an angel, and put it in the Lublin article for me. And if you have time, put it in Polish Wiki, too, for the Polish readers to know what it is. "Knowledge is Power" -Dr. Dan


 * I don't know what does my Juzefas Pilsudskis remark have to do with this guy as so far there was noone to be able to tell me whether both names fall into the same category or not. As to Lublin, I will put it into the English article, but don't expect me to use Polish wiki, I withdrew from there long time ago and have no intention to return. Go and do it yourself. Really. Finally, next time please use appropriate talk pages. PLEASE.  // Halibutt 07:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vilna and Academy of Jesuits
Halibutt, explain please? Juraune 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Explained above and in a zillion of other places, but why not once again. To make long thing short, neither was the modern Lithuanian name of that city used prominently at the academy back then, nor was it used by the city's inhabitants. At the same time a safer choice would be to use the Polish name, as this was the teaching language, or in Latin. However, as I know many Lithuanians have a problem with anything that could suggest that Vilnius has not always been Lithuanian, be it name or anything else, I thought that perhaps using the English name of that town would be a decent compromise. Especially that it's the same as the Latin name for that town.  // Halibutt 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, just a few lines below it is explained that the academy is a distant predecessor of the modern University of Vilnius, so I doubt there is any problem with that. Or is there?  // Halibutt


 * And now the name got changed to Polish... why so? What's wrong with the English name? I'm fine with it, but I guess it's been added to prove some point somewhere... Or am I wrong?  // Halibutt 00:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Per your explanation: "At the same time a safer choice would be to use the Polish name, as this was the teaching language, or in Latin." Juraune 07:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But why not Latin/former English name?  // Halibutt 12:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not Vilnius? Juraune 07:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it was not the name of that town back then.  // Halibutt 08:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * if people that lived there were not calling city by it's proper name, it doesn't mean it was not the name of city. If i'd be living in Poland capital and call Warszawa Varšuva would it mean that city name changed? And please, don't repeat yor favorite argument: "it was not written that way". There is agelong spoken tradition that is known from folklore and songs. Ever heard about saga? In lands, taht did not have writing they lived for ages.--Lokyz 09:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Who cares? Should we write long explanations to every city name, when we mention it, how it was called through the centuries? Why don't you write explanations to the Kraków every time its mentioned, or to Gdańsk, or to Bródno (modern  Warsaw)? Wilno is allowed as an exception, but not as the rule of Wikipedia, and Vilna is no longer used in English, except in Jewish history context. PLC history ended more than 200 years ago, so Lithuania is not part of Poland in any sense. Juraune 12:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! Juraune and Lokyz, you are forgetting the most important part of the argument. What's wrong? Can't you read? It's clearly explained above, Because it was not the name of the town back then. At least not in Polish! Dr. Dan 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Juraune, you apparently forgot that we actually do add such explanations and everybody's fine with that. Just open up your google page and search for wikipedia pages with "Danzig (modern Gdańsk)" or "Stettin (now Szczecin)" to get the idea. In the case of the towns of Wrocław and Szczecin I even usually avoid adding the Polish name at all and usually simply write Breslau . It works fine for all communities here - except Lithuanian one.  // Halibutt 03:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming
Juraune, perhaps you have the right idea. Maybe we should rename Vilnius to Wilno in the English WK. This would stop a lot of bickering. Since we already have Krakow instead of Cracow, that one is settled. Changing Rome to Rzym, will be harder, but we can try, can't we? Dr. Dan 14:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If this Polish Lady Małgorzata Kowalewska thinks it is ok to use Vilnius Academy, the slight possibility exists, I guess... :) Juraune 20:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If Messieur Halibut would read modern Polish historiography, he'd be very surprised. But I don't think that such a copyedit busy would find a minute for books witten later than Sienkiewicz. Let he continue his important work.--Lokyz 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding, kind tone and effort to settle the problem you have with the naming constructively. It's always easier to use pro personam arguments or play dumb, but I'm glad it's not what you do.  // Halibutt 00:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding of pro Lituania nation problems of perception of the world, it is the best choice ever to come to these kind of arguments: "However, as I know many Lithuanians have a problem with anything that could suggest that Vilnius has not always been Lithuanian, be it name or anything else". I am glad that you help "us" so much. :) Juraune 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This question has one aspect, that's, perhaps, psychological. User:Halibutt wasn't the first Pole, who accused Lithuanians to unfairly lithuanize Polish names. Well, when Poland and Lithuania had the common state, changing of name variants depending on language, according some traditional forms, was common practice. So, nobody objected when Polish surname Pac had being converted to Pocius in Lithuanian. And presently, when Lithuanians talk about a person from this period from Lithuania, they use to apply traditional Lithuanian forms, particularly if a person was known to be Lithuanian. It's so. But Lithuanians never apply this lithuanizing to persons that are from other periods or not from Lithuania, except few well-known figures, connected with Lithuania, like Adam Mickiewicz or Oscar Milosz (the last sometimes used the lithuanized form of his name himself). But everybody, who have read a Lithuanian newspaper knows, that sometimes strange forms of names can be found there. The first part of it are endings. Lithuanian nouns always have endings, so we add them to any foreign name. It seems like: Bush -> Bush'as. Poles and many others do the same, except the Nominative case, that remains clear. But it's not the all. Lithuanian language always used the so-called phonetic writing for foreign names, especially using it in the Soviet period. It was easier to translate Russian texts using this form of writing, that was important then. The phonetic rewriting is not a lituanization in a proper sense of the word, and its objective isn't to make a word more Lithuanian, but to make a word more readable. So, Bush'as ->Bušas. I'm, personally, against this form of writing, because it warps the written form of a name, but this writing still remains popular in Lithuania. Even among Lithuanian Poles, that often use it declaring their surnames, although having right to use Polish forms and graphics in personal documents. So we should conclude, that in Lublin --> Lublin'as --> Liublinas the last isn't a special Lithuanian name for the city, but merely a phonetically written adopting for the first word, that is, i believe, Polish. But I understand, that it can seem as a full lithuanization, being quite far from the original form. By the way, I feel some discomfort too, when foreigners decline Lithuanian masculine names adding the second ending to the first Lithuanian one. For example, Poles do it, when they decline "Rimas – Rimasa – Rimasowi" etc. But I don't think it's a polonizing.

Returning to the article, why Lithuanians should use Polish forms presently for the names of Lithuanians of the 17th century, if they didn't used such Polish forms then, speaking Lithuanian? Perhaps our problem is, that we often leak objectively true written forms in Lithuanian, how the person called himself, but it's no doubt that Lithuanian forms were used. User:Dr. Dan is right, saying that Lithuanian language isn't an invention of the 20 century. He said in this short phrase the argument, that have also been said in discussion on Vilnius. It was, when somebody said about Vilnius, that the name of the city was changed after WWII. But in reality the word 'changed' is true for the official name of the city only. And both Lithuanian and Polish (and Ruthenian) forms of the name are just variants of the one name, that all were used simultaneously. By the way, Lithuanian form could be seen as the prototypic, the same way as many languages still use latinized Florentia instead of its derivate Italian 'Fiorenza' for the name of that Italian city. So, looking from this point, the name wasn't changed but an earlier more original name was reverted. And this is valid for many names, that were officially used in their Polish or Ruthenian forms in Lithuania of  15 – 18 centuries. --Linas Lituanus 18:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Linas, thanks for your comment. It's 80% correct and really informative, especially its part on Lithuanian versions of non-Lithuanian names. There are two points you stated wrongly though.
 * Firstly, I did not accuse anyone of anything. I merely asked (and repeated the same question again and again) whether we have some proof that the guy indeed indeed used the name that is the current title of this article. From the two books he published it's clear that he himself put down his surname as Szyrwid, not as Sirvydas (neither Sirwydas, Sirwyd, Sirvyd, Syrwid or anything similar). So it seems that this is not a case of people using two versions of their surname depending on the language they speak, but the case of modern Lithuanians putting down the name of a guy in Lithuanian, eventhough the guy himself put his name down differently. It's not even a phonetic variation as the "Lithuanized" version of Szyrwid would be Šyrvidas, I believe). But of course I might be wrong on that one, feel free to correct me.
 * Second point is your rhetoric question in the latter part. If you're asking why Lithuanians should use Polish forms presently for the names of Lithuanians of the 17th century, then we might as well ask ourselves why should Lithuanians use Lithuanian forms for names that were put in Polish in 17th century - and even in contemporary Lithuanian did not look roughly similar. Oh, and a side note: nobody here ever argued that Lithuanian language was invented in 20th century.  // Halibutt 19:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I accept what you say, but can we deny, that my question is consequent. Why we, Lithuanians, should call historical persons with their Slavic name variants, when they had Lithuanian name variants and used them. If there was any exception, say, a person from the later Lords estate as Radziwill, I don't think, we should change the rule. At least for what sake? Later Radziwills perhaps never used Lithuanian variants themselves, but from the other hand Lithuanian variant of just this name was widely known in Lithuania. Lithuanian was never a dialect of the poor estates only. It always held a sign of the former language of Grand Dukes, despite if almost not being used in literacy purposes. And, comparing the situations, what sense if somebody demanded you to use Latin variants of Polish names (that exist, as we know)?


 * What concerns Sirvydas, we used the form Širvydas, that is almost typical Lithuanian surname, till one historian (I don't remember, who) argued, that he had found original Lithuanian version of his name. I'll tell more exactly, if I know, but his version was recognized. You are right, saying, that Sirvydas isn't a phonetic variation. It's a Lithuanian surname, and a very typical one (and its Polish representing is typical for this Lithuanian surname). We never convert to Lituanian not typical names and try use original names (at least phonetic substitutes) for the persons, that were not born in Lithuania Propria. For example, we never lithuanize the surname of the poet Sarbiewski (Phonetic Sarbievskis or latinized phonetic Sarbievijus with j added is also used in Lithuanian literature) nor convert the name of any Witold Matulewicz, that considers himslef Pole, to Vytautas Matulis. But it's quit logical, that we revelt name of a hypothetic Vytautas Matulis or Matulevičius from Witold Matulewicz in his passport, if we know, that he was Lithuanian.


 * By the way, as a joke, does any know who was Alexandros o Megas? --Linas Lituanus 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Sirvydas – i‘ve used most common and recognizable name, call it tradition. Of course it would probably better call him Širvydas (from Širvydai). I do not have any objections against latin name also. Just according recent discussions I repeat – i‘ve used the most common name in Google search Although I do agree, I’ve used some bully approach here, to find out our colleagues editors from Polish side. And it was worth it. Now we know, that Sirvydas was polish writer born in Polish city. This is unjust, don’t you think? Another issue - Anykščiai. Although Antanas Baranauskas in his late age used to call himself Antoni Baranowski, you have to understand political and social circumstances. But that’s another big story. My Grandgrandmother used to call my grandmother “chamynka”, because she was speaking Lithuanian. Altough, trust me it’s not personal issue. Just an illustration of complexity of the problem. What has here to do Antanas Baranauskas? Oh well. It has to do a lot – for example he’s interesting, just because he wrote poem not „Szilelis of Onykszta“, but somehow managed to name it „Anykščių Šilelis“. I know this is "modern" transcribtion, because ą, š, č, ų were borrowed from Polish aand Chech languages, and some of the sylables vere invented to represent already existing sound, and of course – to separate from Polish language (because of fierce dicussions if not to call it battles with Polish ND‘ks, and ignorance of krajowcy by the NDks). It has also a lot to do with “międzymorze”. Just it is too long to explain it here. To get closer to understanding, someone needs to read a lot of books from both sides.--Lokyz 19:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lokyz, please, calm down. Let's discuss with what we actually write and not what our opponents put in our mouth. If my question (question!) made you so upset then please be so kind as to cite the exact diff where I stated that he was a Pole and that he was born in Poland. Otherwise please stick to my arguments. BTW, what does chamynka mean?
 * Linas, and again thanks for a calm and informative response, I really appreciate that. As to your question - indeed there is no need to force Lithuanians to use Slavic variants of people's names, just like there's no need to force Poles to start calling Olgierd with his Lithuanian name. However, note that this is not the same case, as I'm asking whether there is any proof that his original name (in whatever language it was) was even loosely similar to the current title. Are there any documents in which the name of Sirvydas would be mentioned as such? Because so far I was able to find only two (by his own hand, BTW), in which he put his name completely differently. And it doesn't really matter if Szyrwid is a Polish, Ruthenian or contemporary Lithuanian spelling. What matters is that he apparently used it himself, regardless of the language.
 * And sure, I know who Alexandros was (though he wouldn't call himself the Great himself, would he), just like I know who were Wilhelm Szekspir and Daniela Steelova :)  // Halibutt 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a typical example of the negative provocations that you continually put on the talk pages, "Lokyz, please calm down". Then you feign confusion and hurt, and don't understand why you're accused of it. "Opponents put in our mouth". Very interesting!
 * There was nothing erratic, hostile, or needing to be calmed down in his remarks. But let me not speak for Lokyz, and ask him. Did you need to be "calmed down", were you upset, or bent out of shape as you responded, with your remarks? Dr. Dan 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I‘m perfectly calm. And do enjoy this discussion very much. Because it is really fun:
 * Halibutt states that he does not force Slavic names, and puts name Onykszta (for a place, that never has been Poland). Then he doubts that Sirvydas know how to write his name in Lithuanian, so he insists that Slavic name might be better. After all that he calls Vilnius Vilna, because of Russian imperial tradition it’s better name, than allready widely recognized name Vilnius. A subtle no-force attitude:)
 * Maybe Halibutt just does not know, that he’s pushing Polska Ueber Alles attitude? That is called aggressive nationalism with standpoint, that no compromises should be allowed. It's just my impression, no offence ment.
 * I do respect LinasLith for his patience and polite tone, even speaking to the wall. Because for few last weeks Halibutt hasn’t changed his POV even a bit. And I have no hope he ever will, that’s why I don’t want to get involved in these “Polish culture only, no Lithuanians allowed” disputes. I do not wanna go through the same discusion every time I do/wil do publish an stub/article.  And now it seems that for every article Halibutt finds and pushes another conventions, in particular case he does not agree with "most widley recognised name". I've seen dicussinion under Gucevičius, there is the same story. And I'm affraid that it will go on and on withe every at least a bit Lithuanian oriented article.
 * Halibutt, please, be sincere: could you ever accept fact, that Lithuanian born and Lithuanian speaking people created GDL, and that our language was spoken not only by peasants but also by educated and high ranking people between let’s say 1235 and 1795? At least one? Or is it all Polish culture creation. Anyway, just interested. You may not answer, if you do not want, I know it is offtopic:)
 * And Dr.Dan, I do not feel neither upset nor angry. People are different, and everyone chooses his way of being. I respect that, just wanted to explain my point.--Lokyz 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Lokyz, I know you were not upset or angry. I also know you didn't need to calm down, nor did you express yourself in an excited, or hostile manner. This is why I'm making a point of it. It is a negative provocation, trying to get a particular response, and throw off the other person's argument. It's a cheap trick known in debating, but more common in low end mercantile haggling (handel). I bring it up now to everyone's attention, so that I'm not accused of "putting it in his mouth", later. I've seen this tactic employed with the Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian editors, pretty frequently. Can't say I care for it. I think your analysis of the problem is Right On. Dr. Dan 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Better Encylopedia :))

 * I think national Encyclopedia as a reference in english Wikipwedia is, well, funy thing. I did put previuos link to online polish encylopedia ONLY as a proof, that in Polish encylopedia Sirvydas (Szirvyd) is called litewski. It was just a simple note to Piotrus, who did put him under category:polish lexicographers. Funny, it got corrected with paper encyclopedia. Now, probaly, I should remove it and put even better one - "Lietuvos enciklopedija"?
 * This is getting really ridiculous and also enormous fun, watching Halibutt and Pioturs finding Polish spirit everywhere:)--Lokyz 22:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had no idea why did you put the encyclopaedia reference there. In any case, I replaced your link to a really bad one with the most respected encyclopaedia we have here in Poland - and an on-line one as well. I simply forgot to add the link, no hidden intentions there. And the PWN also calls him a Lithuanian lexicographer, so I don't know where's the fire, especially that the link is there now.
 * And by the way, please be so kind as to explain to me what does changing one Polish language encyclopaedia for the other have to do with finding Polish spirit? Is the Polish spirit in PWN and not in the other encyclopaedia? Or what?  // Halibutt 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not because of encyclopedia i did mention search for Polish spirit. Anyway, this is not the right place to discuss that.--Lokyz 08:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right Lokyz, this isn't the right place to discuss that. Btw, I read your above remarks, and can tell you you did a good job in making your points. As a matter of fact a lot better than 80%. Keep up your fine work. Dr. Dan 23:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So let's return to my original question then, perhaps Lokyz would do equally good replying to it. Is there any (I mean any) instance of the usage of his "Lithuanian" name, or is it a neologism coined in modern times? Did Szyrwid at least once used the name of Sirvydas? So far we have a proof that in both of his books he used the name of Szyrwid, but perhaps there are other documents?  // Halibutt 16:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to use latin name? I'd be ok with it. At the time it was considered "Proper" (not "mothers") Lithuanian language, not the spoiled one that was used from the birth:) And of course it was spoiled in centuries so much, that even you, clayming your origins from GDL cannot understand why you still want to let me cite myself: "Go ahead, move the page. That would be fun:)"

And last although simple question - when did you last time use your Mothers language in Poland?--Lokyz 20:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)"--Lokyz 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean Constantinus Szyrwid? I guess it might be a decent compromise. Anyone?
 * As to my mother tongue, I use it every day (being a journalist and all). And why do you ask?  // Halibutt 22:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No I do not intend to move it, because it would be uttermost not serious. Try Google books - and you'll find few mentionings of Polish form (with additions in Lithuanian), NO mention of Latin form, and a bit more of Lithuanian form (especialy in specialized lexicographic dictionaries). Besides, all Polish encyclopedias agree he was Lithuanian - so why make another problem, where it is not existant? Google books is your tool, you know my opinion on it. Ah there is also Konstantinas Širvydas form, although almost not used these  times, it gets no hits as such, but "Širvydas" gets much wider results, but I do doubt you'd lik e to move this page to another Lithuanian form.
 * Sometimes I do just ask myself, why do you hate everything that's Lithuanian so much.--Lokyz 09:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And why do you hate anything that's Martian so much? And when did you stop beating your wife? Please, Lokyz, stop spreading such slander all around, as it doesn't help us get anywhere.
 * Anyway, how should I understand your Latin remark then?
 * As to the sources, it seems Szyrwid beats Sirvydas 5:1, even if we include all links to certain Donna M. Sirvydas, a renown dentist.. But still, the Latin could be good, as it was actually used by the person himself.  // Halibutt 13:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh thank you:) Now we know that Lithuanians are the same as martians.
 * Latin remark was a complicated one - you might reread it a few times. A short explanation, following mythology formed in the middle of 16th century, that stated: Lithuanian gentry is from Latin origin, and only in the time language was spoiled, so everyone should return to the original language - Latin. That was ironical remark, nothing more.
 * And a remark for book count - simple mentioning os Sirvydas or Szirwyd is not enough, because we do not know whether it does mention Konstantinas, or let's say Piotr. only exact "Konstantinas Sirvydas" or "Konstanty Szirwyd".--Lokyz 14:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

move
As per above, I've been waiting for half a year for a single piece of evidence that the modern Lithuanian name was known to the guy in question. Apparently it was more than enough time to offend me a number of times, so I guess if there were any documents to support such a name, they would be presented. I took the liberty to move the article to his Latin name, the one he apparently was using himself. Hope Latin is the way to go for all sides involved.  // Halibutt 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Controversial moves belong to WP:RM. Renata 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Controversial?! It's been half a year since the current title was controversial. Nobody was able to present a single piece of evidence to back up the claim that the guy even knew his "Lithuanian" name. Yet you still call it a controversial move? Jeez... perhaps I should've waited a year...  // Halibutt 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps I should consult WP:RM the way you did with the other articles on Great Lithuanians? LOL  // Halibutt 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Konstantinas Sirvydas → Constantinus Szyrwid — The person in question has at least two names in modern use: the Lithuanian name of Konstantinas Sirvydas and the Polish name of Konstanty Szyrwid. That's quite typical for people of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth who were either of mixed ancestry or simply used both Polish and their local language (be it Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Russian or any Tatar languages). However, in this context it seems that the person in question did not know the Lithuanian name and it was coined long after he was dead, just to make him sound more Lithuanian. Half a year ago I asked for some documents to back up the current title of that page, specifically a single instance of usage of Konstantinas Sirvydas. However, no sources have been provided. Instead I was able to find two original issues of books by the person and it seems he himself was using the Polish version of his surname (Szyrwid). However, as Polish names seem to be problematic to some modern Lithuanians, I suggest to move it to his Latin name instead. This way both the Poles and Lithuanians shouls be happy. Besides, when using Google Books Szyrwid beats Sirvydas at least 3:1, even if we include certain Donna M. Sirvydas, a renown dentist of the same surname.  // Halibutt 15:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Per my nomination.  // Halibutt 15:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) You gotta be kidding: Constantinus Szyrwid gets 8 Google hits, and 4 of them are Wikipedia and its mirrors... Renata 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  M.K. 15:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Opposing reasons: "evidence" it seems he himself was using the Polish version of his surname is WP:OR, provided links (such as ) to name is met exclusively in polish sources. Proposed name Constantinus Szyrwid matching only 3 abstracts (non English all); current name Konstantinas Sirvydas match 19 including English. Simple googling 3 names for Constantinus Szyrwid; 119 names for Konstantinas Sirvydas. I thought contributor likes googling to present his point...
 * 3) Oppose. Halibutt, you seem to never get enough: Even UNESCO admits his Lithuanian name  maybe this one will convince you. And Polish, and German encyclopedias admit he was Lithuanian, not some sort Polish-Lithuanian (care to explain what does it mean?). Whats wrong with you, don't you have anything better to do, than haunt every single article on Lithuanian people? (Jogaila, Gucevičius, who's next on your list?)--Lokyz 19:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lokyz, please stop with the personal attacks. Appleseed (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * UNESCO ..., not a word more--Lokyz 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to UNESCO, I was referring to you comment: "Whats wrong with you, don't you have anything better to do". Appleseed (Talk) 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, Ive been to emotional for scholar. By previous post I've stated, only UNESCO part of my comment counts, is it ok? I think it's irrelevant now whether i remove last part or not, it was read by any side anyway. --Lokyz 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lokyz, could you point me to the place where I said he was not Lithuanian? If not, please stop putting things in my mouth. This is not about nationality, it's about proper names  // Halibutt 17:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Checked Google and Google books for English usage and the current name seems to be prevailing over both Latin and Polish form. --Lysytalk 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, I did not follow the discussion above.
 * 2) Oppose. I'm afraid Latinizing his name is a compromise solution that pleases no one (especially if it's seldom used). Appleseed (Talk) 18:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * Guys, the Latin name was my proposal of a compromise solution. If that's not what you want, we'd have to move it to a Polish name of Konstanty Szyrwid. That one's:
 * supported by sources
 * more popular with the academic community
 * used by the guy himself in his lifetime
 * What do you say?  // Halibutt 16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I dispute the "more popular with academic community." If you do a Gbook search for newer books, say from 1980 (Sirvydas - 33, and ca. 13 in English and Szyrwid - 23, and only one in English) you will see it's not the case. Renata 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago I heard an argument that in such cases the latin name is most appopriate and often used. What do you think of that? As for 'Polish vs Lithuanian', I think both variants are ok, and if our Lithuanian friends prefer the Lithuanian one - I see no reason to object, this is at the very least a borderline case (as Renata showed, we have quite a few English academic refs using the L. version). And the guy researched the Lithuanian language, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the Lithuanian name is the most often used in English language literature. Latin would be a bit superficial. --Lysytalk 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be afraid P.P. cast your vote! Because now your comments are bit pointless, actually... M.K. 11:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that his Polish and Latin names are original, while the "Lithuanian" name was apparently invented some 300 years after the guy died, after the reform of the Lithuanian language. So, in other words, the current version of the article calls the guy by the name he did not only not know, but would've probably not understand at all. We've had half a year to find a single piece of evidence that would back up the name, but apparently there is none (otherwise our Lithuanian friends would've found one, right?).  // Halibutt 11:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Władysław II Jagiełło looks familiar? M.K. 11:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Halibutt, would you care to elaborate what exactly reform you're referring to, and what exactly did it change in Lithuanian language?Lokyz 12:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just open up any book on Lithuanian language and check how did it look like before 20th century. Wilnius looks familiar?  // Halibutt 12:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it mean, that you cannot point to any specific reform, or give any specific details?Lokyz 12:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Lokyz, half a year was not enough for you to find a single source that would prove that Szyrwid even knew his modern Lithuanized name. Three months was not enough for Renata to apologize for her slander and offences. Just give me some time and perhaps I'll start responding to your questions such as this one. But the ball's in your court now, so I'll wait.  // Halibutt 14:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how relevant it is what form he used himself. What we should be using for the article's title is the name most commonly used in English language sources and this seems to be Konstantinas Sirvydas. --Lysytalk 17:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By googling is impossible to say most commonly used in English. M.K. 12:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Konstantinas Sirvydas. 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/20050912031123/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/73007_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/73007_1.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) 10:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)