Jump to content

Talk:Jan Bażyński

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Johannes von Baysen)

name

[edit]

Google books: "Johannes von Baysen" + "Prussia" = 3 hits [1] "Jan Bażyński" + "Prussia" = 14 hits [2] (lists 18 but 3 are in Polish and 1 is the Webster thing)radek (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book search is flawed. Actually, only one old book of Nisbet Bain qualifies as a proper, though old English source, which appears several times in the search. Then there is that old "accession list" and an old journal. Most of the books listed are Polish books containing English text, all but one from the Communist and pre-war era, and as such do not qualify for determining English usage.
The books search results (query '"Jan+Bażyński"+Prussia'), one by one (it is not 18, but 16 results):
  1. Instytut Bałtycki (Poland) - 1938
  2. Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases
  3. Robert Nisbet Bain - Slavonic Europe reprint
  4. Robert Nisbet Bain - Slavonic Europe reprint
  5. Robert Nisbet Bain - Slavonic Europe reprint
  6. Instytut Historii, Polska Akademia Nauk. - 1959
  7. Instytut Historii (Polska Akademia Nauk) - 1987
  8. Edmund Cieślak, Czesław Biernat - 1995
  9. Paweł Jasienica - 1978
  10. Journal of central European affairs 18 (1958), author? chapter? one reference "speech of Jan Bazynski (Johann von Baysen)", p. 72
  11. Polska Akademia Nauk. Ośrodek Rozpowszechniania Wydawnictw Naukowych, Polska Akademia Nauk - 1955
  12. East European accessions list - 1956
  13. Władysław Konopczyński, Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Instytut Historii (Polska Akademia Nauk) - 1935
  14. Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu. Wydział Nauk Historycznych, Prawniczych i Społecznych - 1983
  15. Gerard Labuda (date? in Polish)
  16. Andrzej Wakar - 1976
If anything, the article could be moved to Hans von Baysen, since there are some mor English sources using that name [3], but a move to Jan Bazynski based on the above seems premature. I have undone the move, unfortunately, Radeksz moved it a second time to his preferred title. I would appreciate a self-revert and an RM. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English language sources published in Poland are still English language sources. I'd also like to point out that the some of the same "Polish" sources show up in your search for "Hans" - apparently most sources use both. Likewise a good many of the sources under "Hans" are duplicates of the same work. 1876 isn't exactly recent either. Finally, the entire last page last two pages of the search plus some earlier hits are obviously non-English (German for the most part) sources. I'm willing to be convinced - it's possible Bazynski was a German speaker who like many of his compatriots felt more loyalty to Kingdom of Poland then they did to the Germanic Teutonic Order - but you need a bit more than that. Any idea how he is presented in other Encyclopedias?radek (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The "English sources using that name" are as follows:

  1. The History of Prussia: A.D. 1390-1525 - Walter James Wyatt,1877
  2. The history of Prussia: tracing the origin and development of her ... - Walter James Wyatt, 1876
  3. A History of the Crusades: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, ... - Page 766 - Kenneth Meyer Setton 1975
  4. History of Prussia ... - Page 118 - Tuttle and Adams, 1883 (listed second time as 1971)
  5. Baltic and Scandinavian countries - Instytut Baltycki 1938, shows up in the Bazynski search as well
  6. Research and progress ...: review of German science - Karl Kerkhof, 1937. This appears to be an English but it I think it's a German Nazi-era publisher
  7. Internationales Recht und Diplomatie - Volume 1960. Not sure if this is actually an English language source

Then: All same source, variously presented, show up in the Bazynski source:

Acta Poloniae historica - 1863 (listed thrice)
Communitas princeps corona regni: studia selecta

A history of Europe from 1378 to 1494 - William Templeton Waugh - 1960 - but doesn't actually use the name Hans von Baysen except when citing a German language source.

Literature of medieval history, 1930-1975: a supplement to Louis John Paetow's A guide to the study of medieval history, Volume 1 - 1981, unclear how the name is used

The rest are either just library catalog hits or German language sources. So you've got basically two 19th century authors (Wyatt and Tuttle + some co authors), a couple sources which show up in both searches, one Nazi era German publisher and a couple works which appear to be footnoting German language sources. The only source which I think can be considered for our purposes here is the "A History of the Crusades: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries" by Setton. That's not a lot of support for "Hans".radek (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Bazynski" side, ignoring hits which list both names and considering only post WW II sources at the very least we have Cieslak and Biernat, Jasiennica, and Wakar (the Labuda source is actually in Polish). Then there appear to be couple journal articles, published in Polish journals, but in English.radek (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should however be discussed in an RM, please move the article back to its established title and request a move. The arguments supporting your move are weak, the move is controversial. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that "Communist era Polish sources" can be entirely reliable, per discussions at RSN. We've been over this a half dozen times. Jasienica is a very well respected and known historian and the American Institute of Polish Culture is a non-profit cultural organization, so what? That does not disqualify it as you'd like to pretend. The Cieslak and Biernat source may have been published in Poland but is in English, which is what counts here. The paucity - almost the "non existence" - of hits for "Johannes von Baysen" was a perfectly legitimate basis for the move. There hasn't been any legitimate reason given for moving it back.radek (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any consensus/RSN discussion legitimizing the reliability of Communist era Polish sources for the common English usage of names/English article titles. A diff would be helpful here. Your moves were not uncontroversial, the (not even a) handful of google.books results are debatable and do not constitute a basis to move an article. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are virtually no sources for "Johannes von Baysen" the move was indeed uncontroversial. Of course it's always possible to create controversy where none should exist. If you think the article should be moved to "Hans von Baysen" then you can start an RM; and like I said I'm willing to be convinced though you'll need more than just that one source which isn't even on the topic and apparently mentions the guy in passing.
As far as the diff for the RSN discussion I am sure you can easily find it yourself, particularly since this has been brought up at least three times in the past two weeks. And each time it was pointed out that consensus in the RSN discussion was strongly against you (and using partial quotes to give the impression that this wasn't so doesn't change that fact).radek (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to this RSN thread, there is nothing in there legitimizing the reliability of Communist era Polish sources for the common English usage of names/English article titles. Anyone can read through this thread and see for themselves.
Regarding "virtually no sources for "Johannes von Baysen"": This is only true for the google book search, and it is likewise true for the google book search with the "Jan Bażyński" query. Please move the article back and consider starting an RM.
Skäpperöd (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thread does establish the consensus that pre-1989 Polish sources can be used and are reliable unless evidence to the contrary is presented. This generally applies to using them in the text, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply to article titles as well. Anyone can read through this thread and see for themselves. Re Regarding "virtually no sources for "Johannes von Baysen"": This is only true for the google book search - since a google book search is all that has been presented you're admitting here that in fact there are virtually no sources for Johannes. So you're agreeing with me but saying you disagree. How does that makes sense? Re: it is likewise true for the google book search with the "Jan Bażyński" query - no, there are at least 3 reliable sources for Bazynski.radek (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it's simple - show me evidence of extensive usage of "Hans" or "Johannes" and I'll support moving the article back; I'd have no problem with a yet another example of a German-named Prussian who preferred to be part of the enlightened Kingdom of Poland rather than the repressive Teutonic State. But such evidence has not been produced.radek (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Johannes von Baysen" from the article

[edit]

With this edit, Radeksz removed the name "Johannes von Baysen" from the article. I disagree with the move anyway, as pointed out above, but the removal of the person's name that was the stable title of the article for more than four years and is used in English is likewise unacceptable. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because while there may be a source or two for "Hans" there's no sources for "Johannes". The fact that this article was under "Johannes" and had that name sprinkled through out has to do with 1) the fact that the article was started by Matthead and 2) it's not a high profile article. "Johannes" does not seem to be used in English language sources.radek (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming background?

[edit]

Removed stuff about the supposed Fleming background of the family as that is contradicted by some (though old) sources [5].radek (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Relevant passage: "Wies Leszcz (Haselecht) pod Dabrownem, w ziemi sasinkiej, pierwotnie Polskiej, (...) byla kolebka rodu (Bażyńskis). Nie ma watpliwosci, ze byli rodem tubylszym, polskim"

Translation: "The village of Leszcz (Haselecht) near Dabrono in Sasin land, which was Polish (...) was the cradle of the Bazynski family. There is no doubt that this was a native Polish family".

Maybe they were related to Flemish immigrants in some way, but if so we need a reliable source to that effect.radek (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before moving the page again, please at least try to address the topic on this talk page. For example, by considering the usage of the name in English language sources - which appear to be using "Jan Bazynski" about five times as often as the Johannes von Baysen. At least discuss this first.radek (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please move back the page and start a RM. There you can state your reasoning, and I state mine. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evidence of usage of "Jan Bazynski" in English language sources is pretty unequivocal. There's no "tyranny of status quo" in regard to article naming. If you'd like, you can start a RM and state your reasoning, and I'll state mine.radek (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions disrupting footnote reference

[edit]

This addition of content by Radeksz is unsourced and disrupts the footnote reference to Heckmann, part of the addition now appears as if sourced to Heckmann where it is not. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress, I'll add sources soon. How does it disrupt the (badly formatted to begin with) Heckmann reference? I'm not sure what you are talking about.radek (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addtions were made in the midst of a sentence sourced to Heckmann, that read
"Baysen was a founding member of the [[Prussian Confederation]] and led their uprising against the Knights.<ref name=heckmann257>{{cite book|title=Der Blick auf sich und die anderen: Selbst- und Fremdbild von Frauen und Männern in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Festschrift für Klaus Arnold|volume=2|series=Nova mediaevalia|editor1-first=Sünje|editor1-last=Prühlen|editor2-first=Lucie|editor2-last=Kuhse|editor3-first=Jürgen|editor3-last=Sarnowsky|last=Heckmann|first=Marie-Luise|chapter=Zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Die Selbstsicht der Führungsgruppe des Deutschen Ordens beim Ausbruch des Dreizehnjährigen Krieges|pages=237-264: 257ff|publisher=V&R unipress|year=2007|isbn=389971339|language=German}}</ref>"
Yes, because there is no sense in stating twice that he was the founding member of the PC and that he led the info. I added text on how the founding of the PC came about and how the uprising started. Hence it made sense to combine the text that you give above with what I added.radek (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is the reference "badly formatted"? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's aesthetically displeasing. The reference section appears to take up as much space as the entire article mostly because the same reference is listed wholesale three times over. How about having a "Works cited" section, putting the full ref info there, and then just using "Heckmann, pg. xxx" in the inlines.radek (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored one sentence about Baysen's origin and linked it to a reference in a new reflist available by jumps from notes sub section. Is it this, what you mean with "Works cited" section? --Henrig (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhhhhh... let's see. You've either just committed a copyright violation by quoting text verbatim from a source without quotes. Or ... well, just who is the author of this source? And why is it under the title "People from the monastic state of the Teutonic Knights"? Sorry, that's a reprint of Wikipedias articles - not a real source. Remove until a real source can be found.
And in regard to citation style - no that's not what I meant. In fact doing it that way is even worse as it included a dead link and is confusing about what the actual source is.radek (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this [6] is not exactly a reliable source either. I'm not sure if it's a webpage "of" the family or "about" the family, but regardless, it seems to be mostly based on Wikipedia articles as well - it has links to Polish Wikipedia for example. There does appear to be some really old sources there but to the extent they could be used (and I would recommend against it), the actual source should be cited, not the webpage.radek (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(More about this family webpage can be found in the next section 'Break'.)--Henrig (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]

A Google book search for "Hans von Baysen" + Prussia results in 185 hits [7] including the "Acta Poloniae historica", published by the "Instytut Historii (Polska Akademia Nauk)" [8] and pl:Karol Górski's "Communitas princeps corona regni" or this english-language History of the Crusades (published by the University of Wisconsin in 1975). The result is quite unambiguous. Radeksz, it would be a good sign of good faith to move this article accordingly. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Click on the little "4" on the bottom to get the actual number of hits. The "Acta Poloniae historica" uses both. The "History of Crusades" by Setton is the single legit contemporary source. But I already said all of this above - so please read first.radek (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, tricky. Well it's still 36; following your initial logic it should be named "Hans von Baysen". HerkusMonte (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be misleading. But it's not 36 either. See what I wrote above. To repeat myself: most of those 36 are actually German language sources (for example, "Acten der Ständetage Preussens unter der Herrschaft des Deutschen ... - Seite 3"). Then there are some 19th century sources. And these are listed several times. Then there's a couple which only use "Hans von Baysen" in the Bibliography when citing German language sources. Then there's a bunch that's just hits to library catalogs, again most likely referring to German language sources. After all that you're left with a small number of which all but one (the Setton source you mention above) use both names. It's a bit of a pain but you pretty much have to go through these kinds of searches hit by hit (unless there's so many to make it unfeasible - in which case I'd recommend using some kind of "randomizing procedure" to try and get a representative sample of hits).radek (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reiterate that if sources can be provided for "Hans" (I doubt there's much out there for "Johannes" - which is why I moved it) I'm perfectly happy with moving it to such a name. But they haven't been provided. Also, consider that the guy's brother's name was "Ścibor" - a very Slavic, rather than Germanic, name (though it can be Germanized to "Stibor").radek (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize: You moved the page without prior discussion. To use a Polish name for a Teutonic Order knight might be a controversial thing (as you might have anticipated). Now you expect others to do what you preferred to ignore – start a WP:RM and seek WP:CONSENSUS until you are "convinced"? That’s a joke, right? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, to reiterate, the article was under a title that is not used at all by sources, which is why it was moved to something that is used by the sources. If you have a third alternative then an RM is appropriate now.
Also, was he a "Teutonic Knight"? He was knighted by King of Portugal apparently. Skapp wrote that he was a "native familiaren". Not sure why we need the German word "familiaren" in the English Wikipedia - particularly since it is not clear at all what that entails. Can we get the relevant passage and translation from the source of what that was? The word "native" also appears to be misleading - native to what? Teutonia?radek (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the context I'm starting to wonder whether "native" in this sense doesn't in fact mean "non-German". You know, as in native vs. colonist. As in the way that Squanto was a "native" to the British, particularly since the one source we do have says he ws from a "native Polish family".radek (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most Teutonic knights came from Western Europe, most of them Germans of course. They were enlisted to serve in the order, influential families like the Eulenburgs and Dönhoffs later received large estates as a payment for their services. As a catholic order the knights had no natural offspring and depended on such a recruitment from German noble families. That was, btw, a reason for the creation of the Prussian Confederation, because these knights became more and more a kind of a "foreign" power to the native populace. Baysen was one of the few native knights, born within the territory of the monastic state, that's all. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But he wasn't a knight - he was a lay associate of the order. The "native" does appear to mean "non-German" in this context though I'm waiting on the clarification/text from the actual source. Also, you could just as well say he was a knight in the service of King of Poland (which would actually be accurate).radek (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, even Polish Wikipedia mentions the descent from the Flemings.
See also the hompage of the family, which I've added it to the article as reference. The page is still in progress, but says already, that it was a noble family with the name 'Von Baysen'. In later times they polonized the name and use today the German and the later Polish version as a double name. --Henrig (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above about the reliability of that homage page - it relies on Wikipedia articles as its basis and hence is not RS. "Baysen-Bażyński" would be a good compromise though. But that still leaves Hans vs. Jan.
Also I'm not rejecting the notion that there were some Flemings involved here - I just wanted a source for that claim, since another source directly contradicts that claim. My guess is it was probably a bit of both - some Flemings moved to the area and intermarried with local Poles. And "Bażyński" means the exact same thing as "von Baysen" so it wasn't a "later Polish version".radek (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it relies on Wikipedia articles as its basis
Or family members have largely written in the article on German Wikipedia and perhaps Polish Wikipedia. On German Wikipedia there were a number of corrections by an IP followed by further corrections by an user 'Vonbaysen' And the homepage links also to Wikipedia articles. The homepage seems serious. Contact is Lidia v. Baysen-Bażeński with full address. --Henrig (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. However this still doesn't make it a RS - it's entirely possible for a homepage to be "serious" yet still not a RS for Wikipedia purposes. But like I said, the documents which are used on the cite may perhaps be used.radek (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption of a native Polish populace in that area in that period is actually absurd (see: Old Prussians, Prussian Crusade). HerkusMonte (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. There were plenty of Poles who move to Prussia between the 10th and 14th century. The "border" was very fluid and many settled there. Furthermore, Gdansk Pomerania - which was covered by organizations such as the Lizard Union and the Prussian Confederation - had been Polish for quite some time before the 1308 takeover.radek (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


3O request

[edit]

Based on a Google book search the article was moved without a prior discussion from "Johannes von Baysen" to "Jan Bażyński".[9] At least one modern (2008) english source uses Johannes [10], Jan Bażyński is used in several Polish sources, [11] some of them also using "Hans von Baysen". This variety (Hans is a short form of Johannes) is used in German and several older English sources[12]. Whatever might be the "right" name, a move should have been discussed and based on WP:Consensus, instead User:Radeksz protects his controversial move[13] and expects others to seek consensus and convince him in some kind of WP:Game. Maybe an uninvolved view could be helpful.HerkusMonte (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the arguments above and tried to do a bit of checking myself to see which name is more notable in the English language. Since this is the English language site, whichever name is used more commonly in that language should generally take precedent, but I can't see a large amount of difference on a quick Google Books search - however I'm not familiar with the subject and I defer such matters to you guys. To the debate at hand though, the above request asks for a third opinion on the actions of User:Radeksv in changing the name without discussion. If the move is expected to be controversial, it should always be discussed first and a consensus reached. If the majority of people who take an interest in this article disagree with the change and have good reason to do so, the change should be reverted under the guidelines of WP:Consensus.
However, an alternative option would be to compromise and agree to settle on an article title, set up the appropriate redirect, and mention the alternative name in the main body of the article. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate ( talk ) 09:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I moved the article it was under the title "Johannes von Baysen". The article was three sentences long, and there isn't a single reliable English language source which uses "Johannes von Baysen" - the source Herkus lists above is to a self published historical novel. Or actually "alternative history"; hardly reliable. So moving it from Johannes von Baysen seemed like a no-brainer and I didn't expect it to be controversial. I also want to note that Herkus is making accusations about WP:GAME rather than actually providing sources in support of his position. The distribution of sources is discussed above; 1 (one) English language source which uses "Hans", 3 (three) Enlish language sources which use "Jan" and about half dozen which use both.
Finally note also that the name that Herkus and a couple other German editors wish to move the article to is "Hans von Baysen" not "Johannes von Baysen" - different from the initial unsupported name. That's fine. But since now controversy has been created, a proper RM should be made and, per Perspeculum's 3O, consensus sought.radek (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was three sentences long
A matter of opinion. Your first action was, to shorten the article from 7,776 bytes to 1,553 bytes, by removing long German text passages about the biography, which were marked as comment with the request to translate them into English. --Henrig (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article WAS 3 sentences long [14]. Maybe four. There were long German text passages which were within <-- brackets and hence invisible. Actually originally the user who created this article had the German text right in the article itself, despite the fact that this is the English, not German, Wikipedia. Somehow nobody bothered to do the translation (nm if it was based on rs or not) for four years. There was no reason for it to be there.radek (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name, which this knight bore in his lifetime, was 'Von Baysen'. His full Christian name was most likely Johannes, a name seldom used in daily use. The used name version seems to have been Hans. The English version is John and there are also English sources, which use 'John von Baysen.( The Cambridge history of Poland , p. 244[15] ), ( The Scots in Germany, p. 3 [16] ). Controversial should only be the first name. An article of the whole family history until today would be another case. --Henrig (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because we have sources which use Jan Bazynski. So now we have 1 source for Hans, 1 source for John and 3 sources for Jan. Your source for "Scots in Germany" is from 1902. If we're going to use pre WWII sources then I'm going to and put in that he was from a "native Polish family from Bazyny", and not a Fleming, from the pre WWII source I have. BTW, what year is that CHoP? I can't find the publication date but it doesn't look to be of recent vintage either.radek (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the supposed fact that this guy's name was "Von Baysen" (which means precisely the same thing as "Bazynski") is contradicted by the fact - which you yourself uncovered - that today the family uses the form "Baysen-Bazynski".radek (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "controvercy has been created" because User:Radeksz moved an article, stable since May 2006 to a Polonized name, which was immediately objected by several users. And the version prior to that controversial move is the one where a WP:RM should start. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name under which the article was previously is not used in any sources. That's what makes the move non controversial.radek (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note to people involved/interested - an offshoot discussion regarding this is taking place on my talk page. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate ( talk ) 01:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick third opinion after having skimmed through the talk page: it looks odd if the Polonized version of the name of a Teutonic knight is used, esp. if he was likely of Fleming descent. It's hardly thinkable that he communicated in Polish with his fellow knightts or was known as Pan Jan Bażyński amongst his German(ic) brethren in arms. In fact, the use of the Polish name (apparently motivated with the usage of such name in Polish sources) in that context here is laughable.
This abrupt unilateral move should be undone. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Miacek but you are active in German topics connected to right-wing publications and activities[17] so your neutrality in this area can be disputed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm equally active in left-wing topics related to Germany, too 1, 2. Of course I'm not perfectly neutral, but I'm not a complete layman either, being germanophone after all, unlike most of your tag-team. My opinion is still much more neutral than yours, given your editing manner, that's been going on for years. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A third opinion has already been provided, by somebody actually uninvolved and unbiased - who didn't find anything wrong with moving the article to Jan Bazynski. This third opinion was then completely ignored by Skapperod who moved the article back to the one single name which is not used in ANY English language sources. So much for the efficacy and usefulness of requesting third opinions I guess. And so much for following Wikipedia naming policy.
And I don't know why it's necessary to repeat myself here, but again, he wasn't a "knight" - there were no "his fellow knightts" nor any "German(ic) brethren in arms"; the fact that you jump to this conclusion pretty clearly shows that you haven't even bothered to familiarize yourself with the topic before commenting. He was a "a lay associate" of the order, i.e. an employee. In fact he was a "native" lay associate of the order which in this context probably means explicitly non-German though Skapperod hasn't been forthcoming with the relevant text from the source (and we know Bazynski wasn't German from other sources).
And I will also repeated myself again, since it appears to be necessary; the usage of the Polish name is not "motivated with the usage of such name in Polish sources". It is motivated by the usage of such name in 4 (four) English language sources. On the other hand there are 0 (zero) English language sources for "Johannes" (ignoring a self published "alternate history" novel) and only one source for "Hans" (Stetton).
BTW, the honorific "Pan" was not yet extensively used at this time, except maybe in the context of a class of wealthier yeoman peasants. Again, it helps if one is familiar with a topic one is discussing or commenting on.radek (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus/compromise

[edit]

Per User:Perspeculum's suggestion that we should "compromise and agree to settle on an article title, set up the appropriate redirect, and mention the alternative name in the main body of the article" I'm going to outline the basic debate here.

The proposed alternatives are

  • Jan Bażyński
  • Hans von Baysen
  • Johannes von Baysen

and apparantly

  • John von Baysen

I'm going to dismiss "Johannes von Baysen" out of hand because the only English language source which uses this name is a self published novel of "alternate history" by somebody named Florian Stone Wells. This also goes back to why there is no sense in moving the article back to this title.

I also think that "John von Baysen" is very awkward and doesn't make much sense, despite the fact that the Cambridge History of Poland (of uncertain publication date) uses it. I don't think anyone here would want the article under that name though correct me if I'm wrong. Of course a redirect for John von Baysen can be set up.

So that leaves "Jan Bażyński" or "Hans von Baysen". If it was just a matter of the last name, then we could adopt the strategy which has apparently been used by the guy's descendants and have him be under "von Baysen-Bażyński". That's actually not an unreasonable compromise though 1) that form is used only on the family website, not in sources and 2) it still leaves the question of the first name open.

In regard to that, considering only post WWII sources we have;

Then there's about half dozen sources which use both names (for example Acta Historia Polonicea). Additionally there's some pre WWII sources for both names but these also split evenly.radek (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be not barely correct, to claim, that there are no references in English for Johannes von Baysen. [22].
This noble familie was of German origin and has a German-Polish and in some way also Lithunian history. That was never a question. Hans used the name 'Von Baisen'. As first name I would prefer Hans, but had no problems with John. It's the English Wikipedia and John is clearly recognizable as English version. In a Latin article I would suggest 'Johannis de Baysen' (not 'de Bażyny'), because this was the name on his signet ring. (See picture on the family's website). For the 'very notable Polish historicans' you mentioned above. I don't try to dispute this in any way, but as Poles they are used to use the Polish name. Btw., there is a good Poish website in English, which uses as first name Johann (another shortform of Johannes) and links to German letters by this knight. ([23]Johann von BAYSEN ) ([24]Correspondence between Dantiscus and Johann von BAYSEN). --Henrig (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is that webpage? How about some academic RELIABLE sources? And now the story changes; I thought his family, according to you, were Flemings? So where does the German come from? Of course it's possible that there was some Germans in the family AFTER the person under discussion. The Polish website in English uses both forms. And no one's doubting that he could speak German, just like I hope no one's doubting he could speak Polish.radek (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was use, that new noble or noblelike families called themselves after their property and Albert Fleming received Baysen. Maybe the first bearer of the family Fleming got this name, because he came from Flanders. --Henrig (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but "Bażyński" means "of Bażyny", just like "von Baysen" means "of Baysen" and of course Baysen=Bażyny, so that really doesn't tell us anything.radek (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Baysen' was the name he used with 'Von' and in Latin 'DE'. And is it perhaps possible, that Polish sources at the begining of the 19th century used for family members of the 15th century still the name 'De Bajsen' like in [25] this Polish book (pp. 137-141) from 1827? --Henrig (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what name he used? My guess would be that he probably used "von Baysen" when talking to the GMs of the TO and "Bazynski" when talking to the King of Poland. And putting aside the fact that at the beginning of the 19th century Poland had been partitioned, the link you provide is about somebody named ... Gabriel De Bajsen, not the person that this article's about. Quite possibly the name got Germanized over time.radek (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all written above. Albert Flemming (Flemming was a name!) received Baisen, and it was use for noble families to call after their property. Baysen was also in Latin the name on his signet ring. Georg von Baysen (Georg de Bsjsen), the name, you find in this Polish book from 1827, (without mentoning the current Polish name) was the name of one of his brothers. The Latin name version 'De Bajsen' you can also find in old, but younger Polish sources about family members (but then beside the Polish name ('Bazenski' or 'Bazynski'). It seems in 1827 still the original name was used. Btw., the 'Century of Nationalism' in Europe started in the Napoleonic wars and shortly after Napoleon (When did it end in Poland?) and such things as renaming old names of formerly living people and writing history accordingly, spread around especially since those time. --Henrig (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's written above that you think that he used "von Baysen" as his name. It is not written what kind of modern English language sources can support this. You basically construct a story based on the village that the family came from. I can tell a similar story; Albert Flemming (if that was indeed the ancestor of the Bażyński family) settled in the village of Bażyńy, and since at the time it was the custom to name noble families after their property, became known as "Bażyński", a name which was passed on to his sons. On his ring he used the Latinized form of his name because that was the custom back then. I also want to note that out of all the sources you cherry picked one 19th century work which uses "De Bajsen" and ignored the ones that use "Bażyński". Basically this doesn't really get us anywhere, as I've stated above, since "von Baysen" and "Bażyński" mean exactly the same thing.radek (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name 'Von Baysen' or 'Von Baisen' appeared on documents since the 14th century. In a letter - available on Wikisource - Copernicus wrote about a 'Jorge von Baisen'. --Henrig (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Johannes von Baysen

[edit]

The above discussion has shown that the two moves to "Jan Bażyński" performed by Radeksz [26] [27] are not backed by consensus [28], run contrary to BRD, and that the few English language returns of the books.google search are for the most part Communist era and pre-war Polish authors [29]. As was further sorted out, there neither is a substantial return of books.google search results in English language books for any alternative name, suggesting that there is no established English usage. The names used are listed below with the overall total of books.google search results (nearly entirely non-English) in parentheses:

  • Johannes von Baysen (17)
  • Johannes de Baysen (16)
  • Johannes von Baisen (2)
  • Johannes de Baisen (3)
  • Johannis von Baysen (2)
  • Johannis de Baysen (7)
  • Johannis de Baisen (2)
  • Johann von Baysen (189)
  • Johann von Baisen (99)
  • Hans von Baysen (1,330)
  • Hans de Baysen (1)
  • Hans von Baisen (1,260)
  • Hans de Baisen (1)
  • Jan von Baysen (2)
  • Jan de Baysen (4)
  • Jan von Baisen (1)
  • Jan de Baisen (4)
  • Jan Bazynski/Bażyński (576)
  • John von Baysen (2)
  • John of Baysen (1)

"Johannes" has not the majority of returns, but it is the version the other used forms "Johann", "Hans", and Jan" are diminutives of. The Latinized "Johannis" and the Anglicized "John" do not turn out as being significantly used in the above searches. "von Baysen" and "von Baisen" are both the most used spellings of his surname, with "Baysen" getting most returns.

The article should thus be moved back to its previous title "Johannes von Baysen", and all the diminutives of his given name, the "Baisen" spelling variant of his surname as well as the Anglicized, Latinized and Polonized forms should appear bolded in the lead. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that shows is that German sources use Johann (and variation) and Hans (and variations). But this is the English Wikipedia. Not German. Google books hits which show that German sources use German names are completely irrelevant. I'm not sure what is the point of even showing this.radek (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And one more time (this is like, what, fifth time in the past three weeks that this has to be pointed out?), per this RSN thread, pre-1989 Polish sources are RS as a general rule, unless of course it can be shown otherwise for individual sources.radek (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well as the Anglicized, Latinized and Polonized forms should appear bolded in the leadSorry Skapperod but this is English Wikipedia not German one. The Germanised version of the name can be mentioned but can't be primary one. Also using 1945-1989 completely acceptable per Wiki rules and per consensus as has been demonstrated numerous times.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one name that is NOT used in sources

[edit]

Skapperod, can you explain how it makes the least bit of sense to move the article [30] to the one name that is NOT used in sources?radek (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia naming policy Most generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article. There isn't a single "reliable English language source" for the present naming so why was it moved to it?radek (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half a week later, still waiting for an answer as to why this article was moved to the one name which is NOT used by the sources.radek (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

The word "familiaren" was tagged as "clarification needed". Familiaren were a kind of lay brothers. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking for full text from the source.radek (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm still waiting for the text from the source to be provided for clarification.radek (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

"Johannes von Baysen": = no English language sources [31], maybe 1.

"Jan Bazynski": = About 30 English language sources [32]

So I'll be moving it to the name found in English sources.

At this point someone will come around and say "start a Request for Move" first. BUT. That would make sense ONLY IF there was some kind of a parity in the English language sources as to the name. There is not. Currently, this article is under a name WHICH NO ENGLISH SOURCE uses. By any definition of common sense, the burden of proof - and the need for a request for a move - should be on those who want to move it to a title not found in English language sources.

Volunteer Marek 01:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And might as well throw the English language sources which use "Jan Bazynski" out there:

On February 18, 1454, during the celebration of the nuptials of Casimir and Elizabeth - [33]

Jan Bazynski - [34]

Jan Bazynski's oak - [35]

[36] - this one's a German or Dutch source. So even those use "Jan Bazynski"

The deputation was led by Jan Bazynski (whose ancestors originated from Warmia), an outstanding representative - [37]

Jan Bazynski, with a request for support and assistance in the realization of the plans they had devised - [38]

especially its leader, Jan Bazynski, and influenced the preparation of the armed campaign - [39]

I can keep going, but that's what it is.Volunteer Marek 02:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were some results for 'Johannes von Baysen'. However, there are plenty of sources for 'Hans von Baysen' [40], apparently more than for 'Jan Bażyński'. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
apparently more than for 'Jan Bażyński' - not in English.Volunteer Marek 13:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Skäpperöd (see above) plenty of different ways are used to write Baysen's name. Please discuss a move and try to seek consensus before you move the page. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much clearer I can be. This is the one name which is NOT used in ANY English language sources. That's in direct violation of Wikipedia's naming policy. So how about we put it under a name which actually IS used in English language sources and THEN we talk about an RM? Anything else is just game-playing and obstructionism for POV reasons.Volunteer Marek 14:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I should point out that I've been waiting two and a half years for someone to actually provide English language sources for "Johannes von Baysen". No one's done that. Neither has anyone replied to my query above as to why this article was under the one name NOT used by sources. You had two and a half years!Volunteer Marek 14:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument has been made that there's "plenty" ... ways of spelling Johann (in German). I don't know how that is relevant. What matters is if there are sources or not. And the argument was made "per Skapperod above". So here is Skapperod's searches but I've struck the numbers which give a false impression that these are English language sources we're talking about (and of course, you also have to go to the last page of the search to get the right ghit count). And I've indicated the actual number of English language sources turned up by the search.

  • Johannes von Baysen (17) - 0 English language sources (mostly German, with 1 Polish)
  • Johannes de Baysen (16) - 0 English language sources (mostly German, a few Latin and 3 or 4 Polish)
  • Johannes von Baisen (2) - 0 English language sources
  • Johannes de Baisen (3) - 0 English language sources
  • Johannis von Baysen (2) - 0 English language sources
  • Johannis de Baysen (7) - 0 English language sources
  • Johannis de Baisen (2) - 0 English language sources
  • Johann von Baysen (189) - 0 English language sources. Zero, not "189".
  • Johann von Baisen (99) - 0 English language sources. Zero, not "199".
  • Hans von Baysen (1,330) - 0 English language sources. That's right, zero, NOT 1330 as claimed (even the number of German language sources is only 30 or so.
  • Hans de Baysen (1) - 0 English language sources.
  • Hans von Baisen (1,260) - 0 English language sources. And I only get 15 German language ones not "1260". Where in the world did that come from?
  • Hans de Baisen (1) - 0 English language sources.
  • Jan von Baysen (2) - 0 English language sources.
  • Jan de Baysen (4) - 1 English language source
  • Jan von Baisen (1) - 0 English language sources.
  • Jan de Baisen (4) - 0 English language sources.
  • Jan Bazynski/Bażyński (576) - 15, that's fifteen English language sources. It's not 576, but 15 > 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
  • John von Baysen (2) - There is 1 English language source.
  • John of Baysen (1) - Yes, this one has 1 English language source.

So there's zero for "Hans" or "Johannes" or "Johann" etc. There's one for John von Baysen. There's one for John of Baysen. And there's fifteen for Jan Bażyński. Which makes sense seeing as how he was a Polish politician.

English language sources here are pretty clear here. Sorry.Volunteer Marek 17:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we using different search machines? Hans von Baysen' does have English hits: Under the leadership of men like John Czegenberg and Hans von Baysen and supported by towns like Danzig and Thorn [41], Hans von Baysen appointed gubernator [42], [43], While Hans von Baysen placed the [44] Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked Skapperod's link which does not have any English language hits. Your search omits the quotation marks but it does come up with four English language hits. Ok. But that's still less than fifteen.Volunteer Marek 20:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are English translations/editions of Polish publications, they do not prove an established usage of a certain spelling in English, they just prove the usage of the Polish spelling in Polish sources. There's an established way to move pages, I'm sure VM knows. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
??? Some of these are English language sources which happen to be written by Poles, which are perfectly acceptable as guidance to naming here. Others are written by English/American or even German authors. Now... where are the English language sources for "Johannes von Baysen"? I'm getting tired of asking this question and I'm getting tired of observing the thousand and one ways people try to dodge the question.
In light lack of ANY English language sources for the present title this insistence on a RM is a simple tactic of gaming the system (because an RM is susceptible to a filibuster into a "no consensus" based on shoddy excuses)Volunteer Marek 15:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a single English language source for the current title? .......Volunteer Marek 17:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another week and still not a single English language source for the current title? ..........Volunteer Marek 00:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source that was not translated and the name it identifies this Teutonic knight as "Johannes von Baysen". Wells, Florian Stone: 'The Sword and the Shield of the Realm: Merchants of Time' (2008). p. 337 (http://books.google.com/books?id=-xZJkpPmzqMC&pg=PA337&dq=Prussian+Confederation+teutonic&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Prussian%20Confederation%20teutonic&f=false) --walkeetalkee 14:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was mentioned above and that is not a source but rather an "alternative history" novel, possibly self published.Volunteer Marek 14:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, MOST DEFINITIVELY self-published - vanity press.Volunteer Marek 14:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and.......?Volunteer Marek 02:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and that is the English source you asked for. It's not necessarily a "reliable source" but you didn't ask for one. I suppose you didn't ask for one because the present-day Polish name isn't based on reliable English sources either. I also suppose you need this article under a Polish name to turn the struggle between Royal Prussia and the Teutonic knights into an unhistorical struggle of Poles against Germans, as certain nationalists in Poland do. However, on the unlikely assumption that you only bother about the reliable sources, I suggest we move this article to Hans von Baysen.--walkeetalkee 17:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the only source which uses "Johannes von Baysen" is a self published, vanity press, "alternative history" novel. Sorry, not good enough. The English language sources (much more numerous) which use "Jan Bazynski" actually ARE reliable.
For "Hans von Baysen" there's like... two or three... English language sources. For "Jan Bazynski" there's around 15. That's a 5x difference.
Also 1) I'd appreciate it if you kept your opinions about my motives to yourself, particularly when they're grossly incorrect and 2) let us know the name of your previous accounts, if any, and whether or not these are subject to a topic ban from Poland-related articles. Volunteer Marek 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Translations of books from Poland under the Commies are no reliable English sources. I am not a sockpuppet and you can go file a report but you cannot continue making uncivil accusations like that. "the first Polish governor of Royal Prussia" is only supported by an early version of the Polski Słownik Biograficzny and that is obviously not a reliable secondary source, nor an unbiased source. Contrary to your edit summary, it was not in the article body before you put it there.
I am going to investigate the issue of his name more closely over the following days but I suggest you come to terms with your obvious motives and that you stop making controversial changes to the naming.--walkeetalkee 18:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
English language books published before 1989 are reliable. "first Polish governor of Royal Prussia" is supported by multiple sources (two currently in the article but it's trivial to find many more). Polski Słownik Biograficzny is a reliable source - btw, why are you bringing up this source even though it's not even used in the article? Strange. Historical Dictionary of Poland is reliable. So is, presumably Ernst, Wermter (a German source) (which is the source used in text, I referred to in the edit summary).
As to the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry issue, it looks like you waited 3 months so that the IP address would not be retained by checkuser. Your editing history also suggests a long term sleeper sock puppet account. Your ability to find obscure articles like this particular one (started by topic banned user Matthead) or this one, Karlsschule Stuttgart (started by you, expanded by topic banned user Matthead) suggests sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Your appearance on the Copernicus page and the hunt of User:Serafin's socks (who used to be Matthead's arch-nemesis back in the day) suggests the same thing. Also the ability to quickly find obscure policy discussions from 2008 like this one [45] when your walkee account was NOT active on Wikipedia [46] leads to similar a conclusion. WP:DUCK and all that.Volunteer Marek 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I lost a lot of respect at the point where you said about your translations of books from Poland under the commies to support the attempted name change: "English language books published before 1989 are reliable." But this gets worse with every sentence.
You wrote: " "first Polish governor of Royal Prussia" is supported by multiple sources (two currently in the article but it's trivial to find many more). Polski Słownik Biograficzny is a reliable source - btw, why are you bringing up this source even though it's not even used in the article? Strange. Historical Dictionary of Poland is reliable. "
First off, it's currently supported by ONE source, not two. This source names as its source for your sentence "PSB, I", the Polski Słownik Biograficzny, I. You'd know that if you hadn't removed the link to the source. Go on and find reliable English sources for your statement. It must be easy being so "trivial".
I have nothing to do with Matthead. Without ever having had communication with him, he expanded my Karlsschule article and renamed it. The user seems to be a prolific editor in German history articles and Karlsschule, where among other famous persons Friedrich Schiller (Wikproject Germany, Top-importance) studied is in no way obscure, appearing in hundreds of reliable sources.
The rest of your "evidence" is so ridiculous that it's certainly only intended to convince someone with no clue. Concerning this article, I saw the dispute when I looked at Estlandia's recent edits, Herkus Monte's or yours. Because you got here first, you need to be the one to justify finding this obscure article of Matthead and trouble-making. Let's get to the next one. Because I was involved in the dispute on Nicolaus Copernicus another IP address identified as Serafin [47] jumped at me. I wasn't involved in the hunt of his socks but I can see it was rather obvious that it was Serafin [48]. Finally, I found the "obscure discussion" by entering Wikipedia:Stalking into the search bar. There's a link to it in that redirect. As you may see, I prefer to research rather than have obscure knowledge. I'll give you another link: Confirmation bias. You'll find that one once you read the DUCK page. Another one is Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet.
Are you over this now, are you going to start a sockpuppet report like against Serafin or are you going to bring up your absurd and false suspicion every time we meet in an harassing manner?--walkeetalkee 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please stop removing text sourced to reliable sources from the article? The source is Historical Dictionary of Poland [49], which uses PSB as a source. Also, I don't care what your opinion of pre-1989 Polish sources is, the fact remains that they are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia. But this is a source from 1996. Here's that singular source which uses "Hans von Baysen": [50]. Says the same thing. This source [51] calls him "Royal governor" with "royal" referring to the king of Poland.
And going back to the original question - is there a single English language source for the current title? No? Then why the hell is it still under it? Shows how much some people actually care about Wikipedia policy - only if it's convenient.Volunteer Marek 21:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
VM, you accuse me of "Will you please stop removing text sourced to reliable sources from the article?", but it is clear, even for any outside viewer (also as written clearly in my edit summary), that in my edit I am not removing, but moving the statement (that he would have been the "first Polish governor") down from the lead. The two new sources you bring in now simply state that he was a governor, not that he was the "first Polish governor", which you certainly know is the core of my criticism.--walkeetalkee 22:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One source says explicitly he was "first Polish governor", another source says he was "governor of Polish Prussia". Third source states he was "Polish gubernator" (i.e. governor). Don't remove it from the lede either, as being the first governor of Polish Prussia is very much what makes him notable.Volunteer Marek 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you gave included "Polish gubernator". Google said: "Your search - "Polish gubernator" - did not match any documents." This is becoming a worsening misrepresentation of sources.--walkeetalkee 13:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad for google. "Na czele Prus stanął jako gubernator polski aktywny działacz Związku, Jan Bażyński".Volunteer Marek 13:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jan_Bażyński&oldid=1204688581"