Talk:Ignacy Domeyko

Polish, Lithuanian or Belarusian ?

Some firm evidence before anyone claims his nationality again, please. Lysy 21:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's a hard question. I have a similar one: Is Alexander Lukashenko Russian? He speaks Russian 98% of the time, he reads Russian newspapers and he meets with Russians all the time. What's your answer?

In the same way you can ask the question about many 18th and 19th century famous personalities that were born on the territories of Rzeczpospolita/GDL what is now modern Belarus. Who was Ignacy Domeyko? Who was Tadeusz Kosciuszko? Who was Adam Mickiewicz? Who was Kastus Kalinouski? Who were most of Radziwill nobles? Who was Edward Wojnilowicz, Roman Skirmunt and Uladyslau Syrakomla? Finally, who was Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky?

With each of them the answer is like that for mister Lukashenka and several million other modern Belarusans. Just replace "Russian language" with "Polish language". All of them spoke Polish as their first language (just like now millions of Belarusans speak Russian as their first language), and they were reading Polish books and knew Polish culture (just like now millions of Belarusans read Russian magazines and watch Russian TV).

The point is that one's native language is an important part of one's national identification, but it's not the most crucial. The most crucial is your own self-perception and self-identification. In addition, you can also judge people by their deeds. So, on those terms, it's obvious that Tadeusz Kosciuszko did not have Polish identity in the modern sense. He wrote and said on many occasions that he was born a Litvin (that he is from Litva, the Grand Duchy, now Belarus; and that he views himself as the citizen of Litva). Similarly, Adam Mickiewicz wrote "Litwo, ojczyzno moje, ty jestes jak zdrowie. Ile cie trzeba cenic ten tylko dowie kto cie stracil." He identified himself with Litva, not Polish crown. The same story with the rest of the guys (and even with Nobel-prize winner Czeslaw Milosz who wrote in "Rodinna Evropa" (Native Realm) that he perceives himself as a citizen of Great Litva). So each of the above-mentioned famous personalities (Tadeusz Kosciuszko, Adam Mickiewicz, Kastus Kalinouski, Radziwill, Edward Wojnilowicz, Roman Skirmunt, Jan Sereda, Uladyslau Syrakomla, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky) had Polish as their first language. As for their identity, it was somewhat Polish, but to a varying degree, and not really Polish in the modern sense.

Of course, Adam Mickiewicz wrote not only Pan Tadeusz and Dziady (although they are his key works), but also other works, that relate more to real Poland, not our Litva. So in each case, for each of those persons, there's space for speculation.

But the main problem is obvious: they couldn't have been something else, because there was no third choice at that time. The choice was between Russia and Poland. There was nothing in between. There was neither Litva/Litvin identity, nor Belarus/Belarusan identity. Well, there were such two identities, but the latter was quickly becoming extinct (because GDL did not exist anymore) and the former existed only marginally (mostly among Belarus villagers who didn't even care about it). So of course, between the two choices: Polish and Russian identity they were leaning to the one which was ideologically and culturally closer to them. That's only natural. (And it's only natural that modern Polish people want to have them as their own heroes.)

As for the concrete case of Ignacy Domeyko, I think he is a more clear case of Litva/Belarus identity. Yes, he was Polish-speaking, but everything else (perception, identity, culture) points the other way. For example, I read a very good book about him, a collection of essays and articles from our historians called "Ihnat Damiejka and the present-day Belarus". Unfortunately, it's in Belarusan, but they have translated the Preface into English.

So that's the situation. As for the current situation in Belarus, it's not so straight. So for example, Ignacy Domeyko is usually called Belarusian (and so are Radziwills), but for example Adam Mickiewicz is usually called Polish, Belarusian-Polish or Polish-Belarusian or even Lithuanian-Polish-Belarusian, and for example, Czeslaw Milosz is called exclusively Polish, obviously. And KGB chief Dzerzhinsky is sometimes called Polish and sometimes Belarusian.

Sorry for being a bit too verbose, but I think that's a very important topic. --rydel 23:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the above is a great explanation and IMO a significant part of it deserves to be a section in the Belarusian people article, to close the issue once and for all. Mikkalai 00:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Mikkalai. I'm afraid that most of these ideas cannot be turned into concrete biographical entries. I didn't read the book, but from the blurb Rydel posted a link to it's pretty clear that there are more assumptions than facts. I. Damiejka revealed his Belarusian mentality, his heaven-born nobility through his orientation towards moral values. Our compatriot mirrors the best features of the national character such as openess, search for truth, love of freedom, pride, restlessness.. Following this path we'd have to name all people of high moral values Belarusians, regardless of their personal beliefs, their culture, language and/or political alignement. While this would be ok with me, the world we live in is not that ideal.

That's why I believe that most of what Rydel wrote above would be a good addition to the article on Belarusian nation. Especially that it describes whom do the Belarusians consider to be their countrymen and not who these people truly were (which, in many cases, is quite obscure and hard to judge by modern standards). Halibutt 03:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

There are 2 main problem here. First, the fact that the people we are talking about were citizens of a country which no longer exists (see Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Demographics_and_religion). Second, that the concept of nation state and nationality was not the same then then it was today. To be Polish or Lithuanian or Bielorussian or Cossack (etc.) then is not the same as today, especially considering that some states/cultures (like Bielorussian) have drastically evolved since then, and would likely suprise Domeyko and others living in 16, 17, 18 even 19th century. Rydel makes good point about self-perception and the then-Polish culture (language, etc. domiance. Consider Domeyko contemporary Adam Mickiewicz, the most famous Polish poet, who when reffering to the most beautiful country wrote about what today is Lithuania (Litwo, Ojczyzno Moja...). He, like Domeyko and many others, was neither Polish, Lithuanian or Bielorussian or other-existing-today-country's-adjective. I believe they were citizens of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, not the citizens of any of today's countries like Poland, Lithuania, Bielorussia. Those countries view PLC as their ancestor (perhaps in case of Bielorussia and Ukraine they also view Russia in a similar way?), but it menas - in a way of speaking - that they are simply fragmented parts of something that was once whole. PLC was something greater then a sum of its parts, and I believe that Domeyko and others would find our discussion puzzling, amusing, and in case of some nationalist bickering (which fortunately have not found this discussion yet), saddening. I propose that a solution and compromise would be to refer to those people not as Polish/Lithuanian/Bielorusian/other, but as 'citizens of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I believe this is what they would have wanted and this is a policy I have pursued in my articles, replacing Poland/Polish (which is most often) with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I believe this should be applied to Lithuanian/Bielorussian/etc. regarding that era as well. This would be similar policy to one reached in Talk:Gdansk/Vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most excellent proposal, Piotruś. Halibutt 13:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree this seems to be most sensible compromise in cases where there are controversies as to the national origin. "Born in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is certainly true and informative statement and on the other hand does not indicate the nationality to be Belarusian, Jewish, Lithuanuan or Polish. You're all right, that the concept of nationality in 19th century or earlier in the PLC was not what it is today. I also agree that it would be good to expand Belarusians to explain the complexity of national descent, as described here by Rydel.

Just for completeness, when Mickiewicz wrote "Litwo, ojczyzno moja" he did not refer to what is today Lithuania, but Belarus. And as to his nationality, apparently his grandparents were Jewish ... :-) Lysy 16:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the 18th century, I would not refer to anyone as "Belarussian" unless they were Eastern-Orthodox or Eastern-rite Catholic, and spoke a dialect of what would now be described as Belarussian. I'd add that I see no problem with simply using "Polish" as the adjective short form for "someone from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth," at least if they were Catholic and in the upper classes and largely spoke Polish, as most of the figures in question were (in my understanding.) john k 19:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is an interesting question wether Lukashenka is "Russian". I think the peculiarity of the lands, formerly known as Commonwealth, was that the culture of its society differed much from that of its neighbors: Russia (Muscovy), Germanic states, and Crimea. The "mood" of that society should be taken in consideration when deciding who was/is who. It maybe the correct way to just mention the fact of a person belonging to that society ( nationality ), and the ethnicity, religion, and language as additional important factors. I believe that Commonwealth culture was its modus operandi, and that even at that time it was pretty clear who was who. Indeed, labeling Mickiewicz "Belarusian", or "Polish" is only obscures that true "mood", yet he is another obsticle - Polish culture had retained, apropriated, and developed many of the aspects of the common culture of the Commonwealth. It is unfortunate that the "mood" in Belarus and Ukraine had been diverted into a rather opposite direction of Muscovy. And naturally, the term "tutejszy" is hardly useful in the Enlish entries... Anchorite 03:18, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ignacy Domeiko was Polish speaking Lithuanian nobleman. It was usual for Lithuanian nobility of that time to speak Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juraune (talk • contribs)

Actually, above all things, the allegiance of the person in question is important. For example, if a Pole emigrates to France and declares his allegiance to France and does not consider himself Polish, then he is French, and not Polish. The basis of nationality on some bogus concept like ethnicity is worthless (recent DNA studies show the melting pot nature of Europe, and in particular Poland -- heck, my great grandmother's last name was Berg, which doesn't sound Polish at all. You don't see me declaring myself German or Dutch or Danish or what have you). In any case, Domeyko makes it clear that his allegiance was to Poland (and he was living during a time period when nationalism was already on the rise, and the idea of patriotism as relevant to Europe certainly predates the modern idea of nationalism by centuries). --Vegalabs 00:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Polishness - Why Domeyko is called a Pole? He was born in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, to a Lithuanian nobleman family, and called himself a Lithuanian. Language doesn't make him a Pole. Language becomes as a sign of nationality only after the Spring of The Nations - since 1918. James Joyce was an Englishman? Prove it. -- Ke an (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no proof he called himself Lithuanian. Lithuania was a region not a country. If someone is from Cheshire does that mean he is of "Cheshirean" nationality. Or if someone is from Mallorca, does that make him of Mallorcan nationality? As you said only after the Spring of Nations, Lithuania gained language and identity. Also, look at Domeyko's grave in Chile. It clearly says in bold Polonia. I think that settles this. Oliszydlowski, 03:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

First clear plain stupidity and ignorance: "Lithuania was a region not a country." Lithuania is a country at least since 1253 crowning of Mindaugas. Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Second - Polishness as a people speaking Polish was formed only after Spring of the Nations - after 1918. Inscription on a grave doesn't settle this - people make mistakes and maybe not historically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there is no obvious evidence that he called himself Lithuanian. Using Lithuanian sources is just ironically unacceptable. Using Polish sources wouldn't settle the matter either if both claim that Domeyko is theirs. How about you look into Spanish and especially English ones since this is an English language Wikipedia. Your statements sound like it's your own personal opinion. This was discussed as you can see many times and that's also what settles this. Don't forget that Lithuanian nobility became Polonized as well so the most Domeyko could say realistically is that he is of Lithuanian noble descent. Oliszydlowski, 04:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I would look at Polish sources very critically as much it's historiography school(or pseudohistoriography) was influenced by Endek worldview. Claiming everyone and everything in the territory of Polish-Lithuanians commonwealth Polish, but at the same time they distinguished Polonia propria and Borderlands(not so very Polish :)). Which is a stupid logical error per se. Very typical claim of this school was made by Oliszydlowski - "Lithuania was a region not a country". If we look at biography of Domeyko: https://www.geni.com/people/Ignacio-Domeyko-Ancuta/6000000003736941924; we will find he is descendant of Lithuanian nobleman Kontrym(Kontrimas) which is clearly Baltic(Lithuanian), Domeyko(made from Dominicus) and Ancuta are often occuring surnames in Lithuania currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yet again about the origins of Domeyko. It is well known he was born to a family of Lithuanian noblemen. Next - ethymology of origins:

• Kontrimas -> made from earlier form Kantrimas comes from Baltic,Lithuanian word "kantrus" - patient.
• Ancuta -> made from earlier form Baltic,Lithuanian Ansas, which was made from German "Hans".
• Domeika -> made from earlier form Baltic,Lithuanian Dominykas, which was made from Latin "Dominicus".

The most civilised way of attribution would be to name him as citizen of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as proposed by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Polish is simply too narow. -- Ke an (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone speaking lithuanian in those times where lithuanian. Neither poles nor belarussians spoke lithuanian. Regarding chilean President Lagos Ignacio is considered both son of Chile and Lithuania. Why poles claims this so hard is because the exchange status the both countries have, but that is being changed in Chile recently. Mille Castillo (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The above appears to be very subjective and reminiscent of a personal opinion rather than fact. I think the answer can be found on Domeyko's grave/tombstone. Merangs (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

References

well, several fools have a party?

The idea to steal great Polish people is pitiful, just as this band of fools is. They probably never heard about term of "little homeland". Poles were, are and will be Polish. 195.68.232.103 (talk · contribs)

Don't steal Copernicus as a Polish then. -- Ke an (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

He never considered himself Belarusian and no serious scholars consider him Belarusian today...--Witkacy 20:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Lithuanian, Belarusian and Polish!

He never considered himself Belarusian and no serious scholars consider him Belarusian today. So please stop.--Witkacy 05:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ihnat Damiejka was a person of Polish language and probably kind-of kresy wschodnie-Polish cullture. But

1. the man was born in Belarus and at least this is a reason good enough to mention him as Belarusian.
2. His forefathers did not migrate from Poland (oh, or you have evidence?), but were Belarusian. Even Damiejka is a Belarusian (Ruthenian, but not Polish) surname.
3. In Belarus he is officically considered to be Belarusian. This can not be ignored

Just be fair!--Czalex 06:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• the man was born in Belarus and at least this is a reason good enough to mention him as Belarusian.

1. Belorusia dont existed at that time. 2. Milions of Poles lived befor the 2ww in todays Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. Even today 4% of the Belorusian population are Poles. See Demographics of Belarus.

• His forefathers did not migrate from Poland (oh, or you have evidence?), but were Belarusian. Even Damiejka is a Belarusian (Ruthenian, but not Polish) surname.

Do you have some evidence that they NOT migrate from Poland? His surname is of no importance - are all Belarusian with ski surnames Poles? And BTW his surname was DOMEYKO and not Damiejka..

According to his ancestors last names, they were not Belorusian, but Lithuanian (Vizgird(as) and Kontrim(as)) Domeika can be perfectly Lithuanian last name as well. Part of the territory that now is Belorusia, was Lithuanian ethnic land.

• In Belarus he is officically considered to be Belarusian. This can not be ignored.

In Belarus Lukashenko is officically a hero :)

You just ingnore the fact, that he never considered himself Belorusian and nobody do that. Please also stop to add Belarusian names for other Poles like Lucjan Zeligowski, that's ridiculously... Wielka Encyklopedia PWN: [1] --Witkacy 06:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Belorusia dont existed at that time. 2. Milions of Poles lived befor the 2ww in todays Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. Even today 4% of the Belorusian population are Poles. See Demographics of Belarus.

Belorusia does not exist even today. I know only Belarus or White Ruthenia and people who can not write correctly. There where never "MILLIONS" of Poles in Belarus - several tens thousands migrated to Belarus between WWI and WWII - that's all!

• His forefathers did not migrate from Poland (oh, or you have evidence?), but were Belarusian. Even Damiejka is a Belarusian (Ruthenian, but not Polish) surname.

Do you have some evidence that they NOT migrate from Poland?

I was the first to ask, so - go ahead!

For your inspiration here some links to what I have found concerning roots of the Damiejka family (unfortunately Russian only).

Damiejka family were Litvin.

• http://www.rulex.ru/01050607.htm
• http://www.slovarik.ru/slovari/beo/?slovo=4980

Домейко - литовские дворянские роды. Первый из них, герба Долэнга, происходит от Константина Ивановича Визгирда-Домейко, владевшего поместьями в 1659 г., и внесен в VI часть родословной книги Виленской губернии. Второй род, герба Дангель, происходит от Юрия-Казимира Семеновича Контрыма-Домейко (умер в 1682 г.). Из его потомков Александр Фаддеевич был виленским губернским предводителем дворянства (1856 - 77). Этот род Домейко внесен в VI часть родословных книг Виленской и Минской губерний.

Poland not mentioned at all

'hope you don't have trouble reading cyrillics.

Damiejka considered himself as Litvin, probably spoke Polish as mother tongue but was Belarusian (Litvin) of origin. So, I suppose it makes sence to singify him as both Polish and Belarusian--Czalex 17:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

)) Polish and Belarusian, but his ancestry was actually Lithuanian.

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc, etc ....

"... In the year 2002 we have the 200th anniversary of Ignacy Domeyko's birthday /1802-1889/ an outstanding Polish patriot and scientist. On this occasion Polish Post together with Chile Post will issue a post stamp ..."

"Damiejka considered himself as Litvin, probably spoke Polish as mother tongue but was Belarusian (Litvin) of origin"

No. He did not, and he never used the name Domejka ...

"Belorusia does not exist even today. I know only Belarus or White Ruthenia and people who can not write correctly. There where never "MILLIONS" of Poles in Belarus - several tens thousands migrated to Belarus between WWI and WWII - that's all!"

I have said milions of Poles in Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania... Poles migrated after the WWI? No Poles in todays Belarus in times of the PLC? and partitions of Poland? That's interesting... BTW: 4% of 10,310,520 = 400 000 Poles (today).

However... He was a Pole, and your own opinion dont change simply facts...--Witkacy 07:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion - these are facts! :) Thank you for the links, but we are not speaking about of what nationality Ihnat Damiejka is considered to be, but about his origin. I gave you links where it is said that Damiejkas are Litvin (Belarusian) noble family. If you claim Damiejka to be Polish, please give reference to where it is said that Damiejkas migrated to Belarus from Poland.

Meanwhile I will translate the Russian text for you:

Domeyko are Litvin (Lithuanian) noble family. One branch, of the Dolega arms, comes from Konstantin Ivanovich Vizgird-Domeyko, who owned lands in 1659 and is put into the part No VI of the Vilna gubernya nobility book. The second branch, of the Dangel arms, comes from Jury-Kazimir Semionovich Kontryma-Domeyko (died in 1682). Of his ancestors Alexander Fadeevich was the Vilnia gubernya nobility chairman (1856-77). This branch of the Domeykos is put into part VI of the Vilnia and Minsk gubernyas

(bold by me) --Czalex 17:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It's enough. He was born in family of noble Lithuanians, his surname is Lithuanian. After taking citizenship of Chile he said: "I will never change my citizenship now, but god gives a hope for me, that even it will be Cordillera, or Paneriai - i will die as Lithuanian.". Also he took part in rising of 1830-1831 and was in only of LITHUANIANS formated regiment. In his memories he wrote: "General staff was very glad with US, LITHUANIANS". So i can't see reason to ignore Lithuanians just because he wrote in Polish. Then. Is Irishman speaking English - Englishman? Or is Scotsman speaking English - Englihman? --Egisz 11:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I added refs, if any problems will rise again, give me a note . M.K. (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have his memoirs and i'm pretty sure - he had never called himself Pole in contemporary way - Koroniarz. It's clear that he understand Poland as common state of Korona and Lithuania. And he use the word "koroniarz" while speaking about Poles. I don't know what we should do now.. Egisz 17:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Domeyko vs Damiejka

Regardless of rather harsh attitude of Witkacy, there is some serious point in what he writes. Most of all, if we followed your logic we'd have to quote also other translations or transliterations of his name (which was one, the other versions seem just that). For instance, he was born in Russia, so a Russian rendering should be mentioned. He was also born in former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so perhaps a Ruthenian or Lithuanian version could be mentioned..? Finally, the area he was born in what soon after his birth became France, so how about adding Ignace Domeyko..?

Anyway, all these translations of his name were not what he signed his works with. Why to pretend it was not so? Halibutt 09:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, concerning the writing of his name - here is the same logic as with when we call Lithuanian Dukes Algirdas, Vytautas etc though they never called themselves like this. Damiejka is considered to be Belarusian (at least we can not deny his direct relation to Belarus), there are about him in Belarusian language, so for it being easier to find info about him it might be useful for readers of this article to place the Belarusian name here (does it really take that much space?).--Czalex 17:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

3-revert rule

Both of you guys exceeded the limit. Please stop. mikka (t) 21:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Polish/Lithuanian/Belarussian

I( suggest you both review all talk at this page. Both sides have their reasons. The only possible solution is, like I wrote, to expand the article "Belarusians" with explanations and refer to it in all questionable cases :Domeyko, Dzierzhynski, Mickiewicz, Napoleon Orda....

There is a third side, that you forget. Litvin is Lithuanian.

Also, please keep in mind that for Belarus today "reclaiming" somer names in not the matter of stealing of someone's glory, but a matter of pride for their own people. I don't see contradiction in being both Pole and Litvin at the same time. In Great Britain there are Scots, and there are clans among Scots. Nothing unusual to have a "layered"/"nested" attribution. mikka (t) 22:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing wrong with it as long as we keep the 20th century nationalism out... Halibutt 23:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Be careful with slapping labels. You probably meant 21st century. Or you do want to keep Polish nationalism of Pilsudski out as well? BTW, I recall a very fervent 20th century killer of 20th century nationalism while being Father to All Soviet Peoples. Many people love to dig in genealogy trees deriving their families from King Arthur's knigts, from Pilgrims, from Rurik, from Muhammad. Why some peole deny this hobby for Balarusssians? mikka (t) 23:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You know, it is not about deriving one's roots from Jesus Christ or King Arthur. It's about reviving Belarus' history and the truth of people who are Belarusians by birth, though known as Polish/Russians etc. Being Polish geologist for Damiejka doesn't mean that he can not be Belarusian scientist at the same time. One thing our friend Witkacy is unable to understand is that Belarus was claimed to be part of Poland at that time. So, Minsk, Hrodna and Mahilou could easily be called "cities in Poland", just because "Poland" used to be a name for a wider territory than nowadays.--Czalex 17:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Czalax, I usually try to stay out of this petty nationality conflicts, but I will make an exception in this case, since your arguments are so easy to counter. Consider the existance of the phenomena known as time. You see, those cities you mention were once in Poland (specifically, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]]. At another time, they were also the cities of the Russian Empire. Of course now they are in Bielarus and thus are Bielarussian. Nobody disputes that. Just as nobody disputes they were once not-Bielarusian, as that very country didn't exist until early 20th century. Same with people. Many people who lived in those territories in those times considered themselves Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Jews...but very few were Bielorussian, since that country - that nationality - didn't exist then. Do also remember that due to polonization much of Bielarus, Ukrainian and such cultures trace their roots - and true national heroes - to rural areas. That Bielarus exists now - and people born there are Bielorussian - nobody disputes. But even now there are lot of people living there who have Russian citizenship, and let's not forget about those who emigrated to Russia proper after collapse of Soviet Union. If they feel Russian, aren't they Russian? Same with Domeyko. This just proves that being born in one place, and even living there does not make one a member of a state that exists there now - even if it was created soon after their births. And Bielarus was created over a century after Domeyko death! How on earth could he have considered himself a member of a country that would not be formed for many decades? Sure, he would surely agree that he was born in the territory/district/region/voivodship of Bielorussia, same as today's Poles would claim they are 'Małopolanin' or 'Wielkopolanin' or 'Warszawiak' - but those are not nationalities. Finally, as Witkacy points out, Domeyko called himself a Pole. In light of that evidence, if Bielarusian sources he is Bielarus, I am afraid this does not prove he is, just that they are sadly mistaken. You can't make black white, and vice versa.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While you are saying some correct things, I am afraid you are confusing the notion of nationality and ethnicity. We are speaking about Yotvingians, Krivichs, Wends, although there was no Yotvingia, Krivia, Wendia (of course, there were various warlords who controlled certain "prinicipalities"). If czalex may present solid reasons to believe that Domeyko, may trace his roots to Belarusian ethnos, let him write a section. At the same time, I agree that this would be a only secondary classification, just like an attempt to make a point by calling him a Chilean geologist, which is basically correct, but not a phrase in the intro. mikka (t) 18:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People declare their nationality themselves, without this assumption not a single national census would make any sense. Now ask yourself, what nationality did/would Ignacy Domeyko declare if asked ? Just my 3 cents. Lysy 19:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You again are confusing "nationality" and "ethnicity". Please go, read these articles, and then we shall probably talkthe same language. (or fix the corresponding articles if you disagree with definitions there and tell me to read myself :-) 19:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me quote from nationality article then: "In Central and Eastern Europe, ..., the cognates of nationality is understood as a synonym of ethnicity". So how can I confuse notions that according to that article are considered synonymous in the part of Europe that we're discussing here. Are we talking the same language now ? :-) Lysy 20:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are speaking English here, not Central European. Cognates are quite often "false friends", you know. Another term pertinent to the current discussion is "ethnic origin". And it occurs to me now, this is probably what our Belarusian friend has in mind. mikka (t) 00:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that a person declares his nationality. Additionally, ethnicity is a largley bogus concept, esp. in the light that Poles, as with Europe in general, is a mixed bundle of people, particularly such cases. There is no proof either way anyhow. If Domeyko declared himself Polish, then he is Polish. Also, a note about Mickiewicz: it is quite naive to use the first line of Pan Tadeusz as some sort of "evidence" of what he considered himself as. He is, as is well known and accepted in academia, refering to the geographical region of Lithuania. Anyone with any understanding of poetics can see that. It's just sorry to see some of these counties that have only recently been formed because of a recent "nationalist consciousness" try to acquire random people to try to boost their nationalist self-esteem. That's like the Italians trying to credit themselved with Roman culture. --Jonassen

It's just sorry to see some of these counties that have only recently been formed because of a recent "nationalist consciousness" try to acquire random people to try to boost their nationalist self-esteem. That's like the Poles trying to credit some people what where born hundreds if not thousands of kilometers from ethnic Poland and who may have never been to these lands, nor felt ties with them, claim these people (and peoples) were Poles in contemporary meaning of this word, trying to credit themselves with Commonwealth culture, just because these peoples talked Polish. Probably person, who has Latin inscription on his grave also could be made "Roman" by Italians like Poles do with all those random people from other countries. :) But wait, wasn't all the artists, who built 95% of Baroque architecture in Poland, Italians? No, they where... Poles. Check their wiki sites. Bartłomiej Berrecci, Tomasz Dolabella, Jan Maria Bernardoni, Andrzej Spezza, Maciej Trapola, Jan Trevano, Tomasz Poncino, Wawrzyńec Senesa, etc. sounds very Polish to me. :D Some recently formed national states, acquiring random people are still very young... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.32.253.10 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Section proposal

Here a proposal for the section:

===Roots===

Domeyko (Домейко, Дамейка, Damiejka) are a noble family with origin in Minsk and Vilno regions.

One branch, of the Dolęga arms, comes from Konstantin Ivanovich Vizgird-Domeyko, who owned
lands in 1659 and is put into the part No VI of the Vilno gubernya nobility book. The second
branch, of the Dangel arms, comes from Jury-Kazimir Semionovich Kontryma-Domeyko (died in 1682).
Of his ancestors Alexander Fadeevich was the Vilno gubernya nobility chairman (1856-77). This
branch of the Domeykos is put into part VI of the Vilno and Minsk gubernyas

Because of his Belarusian origin Domeyko is considered a person of national notability in Belarus. 

what do you think of this? --Czalex 18:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my grasp of English seems to be to weak to comprehend what you've just written above. What is e.g. part VI of the Vilno and Minsk gubernyas ? And what all these have to do with Ignacy Domeyko ? Were these people that you mention members of his family ? I'm not trying to be difficult, but am just confused now. Lysy 19:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to the proposal, it contains certain inaccuracies. The marszałek szlachty of the vilnian gubernya in the years 1855-1878 was not Alexander Fadeevich but Aleksander Domeyko, indeed a relative of our Domeyko, but by no means his ancestor. He was brother to Kazimierz Domeyko and Ignacy's cousin. Halibutt 01:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Fadeevich Domeyko and Aleksander Domeyko is the same person ;)--Czalex 23:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is definitely known of Ignacy Domeyko's ancestry? Did it in fact include Rusyns or Belarusyns? If so, why not share the glory and describe him as "a Polish geologist and mineralogist of partially Rusyn [Belarusyn?] descent who is also claimed by some Belarusyns as a Belarusyn national hero"? logologist 01:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As always, Logologist seems to put all our ideas in a beautiful English package :) Sounds good to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ignacy Domeyko a Polish geologist but also of 1/31 Ruthenian, 1/45 Lithuanian, 1/1628 Tatar, 1/55552 Ukrainian and of 1/9909090909009090909090909090 of every nation descent (his grand, grand.. father was probably Noah)" ? ;) Domeyko called himself a Pole and was btw a great patriot, and that is most important. Fyodor Dostoevsky's family was of Polish descent (and he even did not like Poles..) should we start an edit-war and claiming that he was a Polish writer??... :) --Witkacy 11:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather trade Domeyko for Dzerzhinsky ;-) sorry, I could not resist it. Lysy 16:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. But I'd say not by some Belarusians, but simply by Belarusians, because the consideration of Damiejka as of a Belarusian prominent person is quite common.--Czalex 23:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Czalex/Rydel

Pls read this: "Ignacy Domeyko – Spiritual Bridge between Poland and Chile" "....Pablo Domeyko, the grandson of Ignacy Domeyko and the son of Kazimierz Domeyko had the presentation on the history of the house of Domeyko in Cueto Street in the old district of Santiago. The house has been taken care of by the subsequent generations of Domeyko family. The most serious contribution to its maintenance was made by Dona Hortensia Perez Tupper, the widow of Kazimierz Domeyko and Dona Anita Domeyko Alamos de Salazar – the only living granddaughter of Ignacy Domeyko. Since our early childhood we were acquainted with the authentic relics of Saint Casimir, with the picture of Our Lady of Ostra Brama, the picture of Adam Mickiewicz and Odyniec, the medals of King Vladislaus Jagiello and Saint Hedwig, the Queen of Poland, King Jan Sobieski and others who kept up the spiritual contact with Poland and its eternal values, said Pablo Domeyko in his speech." more on [7]

• [8]
• [9],
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13] (PWN encyclopedia)

etc, etc ....

And stop your reverts...--Witkacy 15:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Then please go to all these pages: Stanislav Shushkevich, Alexander Lukashenko, Vasil Bykau, Max Mirnyi, User:Czalex, User:Rydel, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. and correct their nationality to Polish.
2. Read my comments above. --rydel 22:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• 1. And you to: Roman Polko, Izabella Scorupco etc., etc. and correct their nationality to Belorusian...--Witkacy 23:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Domeykos quotes:

Domeyko I.: Listy do Władysława Laskowicza [Letters to Władysław Laskowicz], Instytut Wydawniczy Pax, Warszawa 1976

He experienced the pain of longing for his native Poland particularly strongly in Chile, and it seemed that he would not last till the end of his six-year contract. The letters from Europe, dispatched by sea mail, had taken a mere... three months to arrive in America, at that time: "I have never felt so bad as I do now and it is only in God that I look for my consolation, strength and rescue. For indeed, when I was leaving Poland, I had so many people in this world who had loved me as their own child, and I too loved so many people, that I almost forgot about God. Yet, since that time all of the ones who loved me so much, have died... (p. 67)

In March 1846, in a letter from Coquimbo addressed to Władysław Laskowicz in Paris, he wrote the following: I see the whole world open before me; the only place which remains sealed off is Poland and I suddenly feel the atmosphere is so close around me that at times it is difficult for me to breathe (p. 69)

His fifteenth Easter in Chile [1847], Domeyko spent in the country’s capital Santiago: It is hard to spend one’s fifteenth Easter outside one’s native country. If throughout the whole year of one’s wandering life, one constantly feeds on longing as if it was one’s everyday bread, on the solemn days of grand holidays, this longing becomes doubled and I can think of nothing else but my country [...] I tell you that until my native land loomed closer to me than my old age, I did not care for it [...], today when I see my old age closer to me than my country, I feel much the worse for it (p.88-89)

In his letters addressed to his friends in Paris he asked mainly for news of Poland. He did not lose hope for better times to come: I can still feel the strength and readiness to hardships and to sufferings within me, yet I would be glad to live long enough to see the day when one could freely work for Poland, and not wander aimlessly through God knows what land [...] And if death finds me working on alien land, this will not be without benefit for Poland particularly if among some distant tribe, the furthest possible from us, they will remember the Polish man, will wish Poland well and be supportive towards it (p. 104-105)

I like Chile, but I long for Poland (p. 390)

--Witkacy 00:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Domeyko's place of death

Sorry, this won't give me rest: if Domeyko "returned to Europe" after May 22, 1884, then how did he die January 23, 1889, in Santiago de Chile?

The beautiful Domeyko quotes, above, should be placed in Wikiquotes. logologist 01:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To trzeba zmienic, w 1884 przyjechal do Polski na 4 lata (pozwiedzal tez Europe), gdzie otrzymal miedzy innymi doctor honoris causa uniwersytetu jagiellonskiego, ale wrocil do Chile.--Witkacy 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Jeszcze jeden cytat (w czasie pobytu w Polsce):

When during his visit to the Krakow Academy, he was asked how it came about that he had not forgotten his native tongue, Domeyko replied: "how could I have forgotten if I have always thought in Polish, prayed in Polish and loved in Polish" (vol. III, p. 107/108). When proposing the toast at a reception, he stated: "I struck a hammer against the rocks of the Cordilleras, so that the echo would smother the nostalgia after Poland" (p. 116)."

--Witkacy 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Domeyko's family

I gather Domeyko married and had a family. If so, it would be well to include some information on this in the article. Also, I suggest placing in Wikiquote his toast regarding "the rocks of the Cordilleras." logologist 15:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To all Belarusians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Poles

I've read the discussion with real interest. I will say in advance that I am Polish, though I wonder whether all of you would agree with that. My ancestors were French nobles and had to leave France due to the French Revolution. They bought an estate in Lithuania. Their son fought in the January Uprising and was imprisoned. My family had to sell their estate to buy him out. With the remaining money they bought a couple houses in Kovno. The son eventually married my great-grandmother, who was from East Prussia. They moved to Pinsk (Belarus today). However, they still had problems with the Russian tsar and eventually fled to Lvov. From there they were forced by the tsar to move to Khabarovsk. After Poland regained independence, the Committee for Polish Refugees offered to take some of their children to Poland. Only four of them were of a proper age, among them my grandfather.

They always considered themselves Polish, though they neither came from Poland nor had even ever lived there according to our present borders.

But my point is not to argue that everyone is Polish, only to ask all of you what we consider by our nationalities. Over two hundred years of living in one country (plus over two hundred years in the Union) and over one hundred years of living under common occupiers are not to be disregarded. I understand that if we claim everyone as being Polish, then other nations like Belarus will not have their heroes at all. But please let us think for a moment what our nationalities, cultures, histories really are. Can we say that we would be the same people today if there had not been a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Our countries or country were never homogenous before. What we are today is a mixture of all of us. The real question is: will we agree on our common history at last, or are we now going to say that those times were a mistake and we have nothing to do with each other? Please think about it before we start to quarrel about songs, legends, food, clothes etc. I don't really think there is a problem who Domeyko was, only that we have a problem about who we are. Can't we just presume that we all come from one country in which all our ancestors lived and the history is common? I really think that the term, "citizen of PLC," should be agreeable to everyone. I'm not saying that a Belarusian should feel more Polish than a Pole feels Belarusian, but I'm certain that we all feel the bond with each other. We, all the nations in the Commonwealth, influenced each other and that is what may be called our culture now. Our fate is now separated, but the sources of it will never change. So maybe instead of looking for the differences in the past, we should rather admit our similarities nowadays when referring to our history. Maybe in the main article about the Commonwealth, the role of other nations should be underlined more, so that everyone feels that it concerns him more personally. I know that everyone is mentioned there, but maybe you can suggest more particulars to show the individuality of Belarus in the country which was homeland to all of us.

I'm not sure whether you like the idea, but sometimes I feel that we still treat history as the communists did. I read an announcement about Kosciuszko from the Belarusian Embassy in the USA. Not even one word about the Poles. I saw a Napoleonic Wars exhibition in Vilnius. On English signs all the information referred to Lithuania only, not even the word “Commonwealth” under maps, uniforms etc. What about the Polish Eagle on them? I also read an article here about Polonization. Maybe I misunderstand something, but it sounds as though all non-Poles were forced to speak Polish. Then what about the 60% of PLC citizens who did not speak Polish just before the Partitions? I really think that first of all you should decide how you feel about the Commonwealth. Either you were equal citizens of a great country with common interests, and then all the people like Mickiewicz, Kosciuszko, Domeyko and many others, wherever they were born, were your folks as well as ours, or you feel you were unjustly suppressed and then you can't claim your connection to these individuals, as your interests were obviously opposed.

Sylwia

P.S. I understand writing names in Cyrillic, but I don’t understand spelling them variously in the Latin alphabet. I personally hate it when people cannot spell my name properly.

P.P.S. One of my grandpa’s brothers who was brought to Poland together with him died in the Warsaw Uprising, while two of his brothers who had stayed in Khabarovsk watched the smoke over Warsaw as Russian Army soldiers on the opposite bank of the Wisła River. History! SylwiaS 06:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amen. All these peoples once were part of one great commonwealth, and may be so again (some already are) as members of the European Union. Therefore it would seem to behoove them all to be civil to their once and future compatriots. logologist 09:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• applauds Sylwia*. Well said. I wage battles on various English-speaking historical forums to make ppl use the term PLC instead of Poland (most often) when reffering to PLC from 16th to 18th century. And the same problem is causing trouble here. When somebody refers to the 17th century person as Pole, this should always be an abbreviation of PLC, not Poland. Pole then was a more general term, encompassing ppl from GDL, Cossacks and many others, not meaning only 'inhabitant of Poland proper'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

100% true. I have nothing to add :) --Czalex 23:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it was interesting to wrote what you wrote, and I agree with some points, but this post just highlights that you don’t fully understand what other ethnicities which were part of the union feel.

If a person is American of Italian ethnicity, does it mean they are no longer ethnically Italian? Even if they fully identify with America and say ethnicities is a thing of the past, does it change the fact that their origin, their ethnicity, is Italian? And if another Italian-American says about this guy “he is of Italian ethnicity”, does this mean this guy feels “oppressed” by America and has no right to identify himself with America?

I’m half Polish and half Belarusian. From the Polish side they were intellectuals, and from the Belarusian side they were people who became nobles during the Great Duchy of the Lithuania, they fought in the Kościuszko uprising against Russia and though they spoke Belarusian and were ethnically Belarusian, they considered themselves Poles and you can’t doubt their loyally. The fact that they were Polish by self identification and nationality, doesn’t change the fact that they were of Belarusian ethnicity, and if someone says that because I say that they were of Belarusian (at the time called Litvin) ethnicity then I don’t have the right identify with the union of Lithuania (which was mostly Belarusian then) and Poland… I find it a bit rude to be honest. Being a part of it doesn’t mean you have to give up on your origins.

For example, no one doubts that Kościuszko was a Polish hero and he fought for Poland and he identified himself as a Pole, the problem starts when some nationalists try to take monopoly on him. It’s like either you consider yourself a Pole and stay quite about the ethnic origin, either you are no longer a part of the union. Which is not really fair. The whole point is that the ethnicity, the origin of the person, doesn’t contrast the Polish nationality or the loyalty to Poland. When in Belarus or Lithuania they have exhibitions not mentioning Poland about such figures I also feel uncomfortable, but I understand why it happens, because in the rest of the world those characters are referred to as Polish but their ethnic origins are totally ignored, so Belarusians and Lithuanians don’t fell the need to mention Poland due to the fact everybody knows about it anyway. I saw a really good exhibition about Kosciuszko and Warsaw, and not a word was said about the Union and about the fact his family origin.

Also, the Union had a long history, and regarding to being a part of it or being oppressed by it it’s not so black and white. Someone might feel like they were a part of it, but at some points they feel like they were oppressed, again, like Italians in America. They are very patriotic, but they do feel like they were discriminated at a certain point. Also, oppression doesn’t have to be something a person is conscious about. For example! Kosciuszko’s family was of Belarusian ethnicity, but they were Polonized due to the fact the union then encouraged the polonization of all of it’s citizens. Were they oppressed or no? It’s not they really resisted being Polonized, and they didn’t feel humiliated by it, but when a Belarusian learns about it, he does feel uncomfortable because Belarusians in fact were the majority in the Great Duchy of Lithuania, their language used to be the official language, and they are suppose to be in an equal union in Poland, so how come the people are encouraged to forget their own language and to speak Polish? Is that’s what’s suppose to happen in an equal union? So they are still loyal to the union, but they feel that with that issue they were oppressed, even if they didn’t feel it at the time it happened.Danton's Jacobin (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Belarusian? Belarusyn?

As this page has become a focus on matters involving Belarus, a question for our colleagues of that nationality: Is a citizen of Belarus properly termed a Belarusian or a Belarusyn? And is the adjectival form of "Belarus" either of the above? logologist 09:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In English it's definately Belarusian--Czalex 23:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is it in the original language? logologist 00:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From a student

Hey I am an archaeology student specialising in Balts in the early medieval (Yatviegs and Prussians) from Warsaw and I'm sorry that I don't have a wiki account but this just botheres the hell out of me and I fell I should contribute because many people here from both sides of the fence have a too modern view of how the past looked! First of all it was much different and you could say much simpler. I posted this in another talk page but I feel it would be more important to post it here for all to see. please dont kill me :)

Of course Kosciuszko was of ruthenian/rusin (NOT russian) descent! His name suggests that! But he was a citizen of the commonwealth, he was szlachta which was a specific state of people who had their own mythology and traditions. The Commonwealth was a multinational country and many people who had non polish roots considered themselves SZLACHTA and therefore part of the Polish culture which was it's main component (others include Turkic (especially) , Lithuanian, Latin and Ruthenian culture which formed the metling pot). Hence Kościuszko was a Pole in the SZLACHTA sense just like Radziwills (sorry Lithuanian friends for the Polish spelling), who polonised in the 16th century, Wisniowieccy, a very powerful ruthenian clan and maaaany others. They where SZLACHTA, gentry, nobility, aristocracy and they had a strong tie to the SZLACHTA culture which came out of Poland. City dwellers, jews and peasants did not feel this tie that's why after the fall of the commonwealth Lithuanian could be reconstructed by Tadeusz Wróblewski because the local peasants still spoke it (and quite interestingly it was an archaic form from the medieval. Wróblewski obviously himself was SZLACHTA and spoke Polish even though he lived in Lithuania.

Also let me point out the names of some prominent polish politicians in recent years : Miller, Hausner, Huebner, also check out the wiki-article on John Albert Habsburg who was a polish soldier during WW2. "Poland" was a melting pot of many cultures and many ethnicities that were tied by a common grand culture (Sarmatianism, "polish" baroque). In the cities most were Germans or Jews, peasants only felt local ties and only were the subjects of the king and the gentry was very diverse! Potocki , Koniecpolski were medieval polish families... Radziwills came out of Lithuania, Wisniowieccy, Glinscy, Ostrogscy, Sapieha were Ruthenians (actually most magnate families were ruthenian). I guess you could compare it to the situation in the US.

The important question is when did the modern polish nation form? In the XIXth century. The culture and feeling of a grand national tie started applying to the peasantry (80% of the populace)... Mostly thanks to literature... What was the link between a Poznan city shopkeeper under the prussian partition and a farmer in western ukraine? Mickiewicz, Sienkiewicz, the myths and pathos of national uprisings. Also the XIXth century is the time of revival of Lithuanian nation which has the same roots but grew different branches.

btw the great polish researcher Joachim Lelewel is a national hero in Belgium where he fled to after the 1831 uprising. The Belgians treat him as his own.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.191.226 (talk • contribs) 17:15, December 20, 2006

Today's edit:this is not Unesco claim but a claim by a Lithuanian site that Domeyko was Lithunian

Likely a regional branch of Unesco. It is in lithuanian and I can't possibly known what they claim. Citation with translation would be required. Additionally even that claim would be a claim among sources stating him Polish.--Molobo (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

original statment "Aš jau niekuomet nesugebėsiu pakeisti savo pilietybės, bet Dievas man suteikia vilties, kad nesvarbu kur - ar tai būtų Kordiljerai, ar Paneriai - mirsiu lietuvis" translation provided in article. So stop your reverts. Thank you. M.K. (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Source where the statement was issued ? And did he meant Lithuania in terms of nationality or cultural belonging-after all Mickiewicz also calls Lithuania his homeland and he was Polish. You realise that the term can have many meanings-cultural, geographic and national. Anyway-there are multiple sources of reliable nature that call him Polish.--Molobo (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Provided statment present his remarks, per Wp:V and WP:RS policies it is perfectly valid edit in contrast to the reverts and speculations; btw, wikipedians are prohibited to conduct OR per WP:NOR.M.K. (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Source of the statements, reliability of the source ? That Lithuania doesn't mean just state but cultural sphere and geographical one is obvious as seen in case of Żeligowski or Mickiewicz who viewed themselfs as Lithuanians yet Polish. --Molobo (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont care here about Želigovskis and Mickevičius, provided web page is under © UNESCO; article written by PH.D in history Reda Griškaitė, perfectly valid per WP:RS. M.K. (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to claim that Domeyko belongs to only one country is a sad example of nationalism. Here's a good article, whose title sais it all: Ignacy Domeyko: Geologist, ethnographer and citizen of the world. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fell free to add WP:RS sources rather to remove them and the information which they have. M.K. (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, why don't you add this quote: "he always regarded Poland as his motherland" from the official Polish governmental website? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to present person in question own words, m? M.K. (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"I can still feel within me the strength and readiness for hardship and suffering, yet I would like to live long enough to see the day when I might freely work for Poland, and not wander aimlessly through God knows what land.[...] And if death finds me working on alien soil, this too will not be without profit for Poland, particularly if among some distant tribe, the farthest possible from our country, they will remember a Pole, will wish Poland well, and will be supportive toward her." — from Listy do Władysława Laskowicza (Letters to Władysław Laskowicz), Warsaw, Pax, 1976. 85.222.54.163 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever read his memoirs? There clearly You can see that he understand Poland as united country of Korona(The Crown) (now we would say Poland) and Lithuania. And he never consider himself as Crowner. Only as Lithuanian or Pole, and Pole in contemporary meaning, not in todays. Egisz 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename

I suggest rename this article to the Spanish name Ignacio Domeyko. It is much more neutral than Polish one and in the other side Domeyko was Chilean citizen so we should use his official name. Hugo.arg (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I support your proposal fully. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How popular is that variant when compared to others used in English literature? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about English literature but I tried various Google results (general, English, from UK, etc) and there are always much more results with Ignacio Domeyko than Ignacy Domeyko. Sure, some info from authoritative English literature would be an advantage to make a decision. Hugo.arg (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Low-grade edit war on quote

There's been a slow edit war [14], recently intensified, about the inclusion of a statement of Domeyko's sourced to UNESCO and to the former president of Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus. Both of these are strong sources. In this case it's inappropriate to use the edit summary of "Anon vandalism reverted" [15] when removing the quote and its sources - please see WP:Vandalism. It's a content dispute. Could those who think the quote doesn't belong in the article pls state their reasons here. Novickas (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ignacy Domeyko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080619052435/http://www.unesco.lt:80/domeika/biografija/ to http://www.unesco.lt/domeika/biografija/#2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218012246/http://www.president.lt:80/lt/news.full/9433 to http://www.president.lt/lt/news.full/9433
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.skc.edu.by/vydanni/damiejka-zmiest.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Disputed nationality

Yes, yet again, but this time conclusively: 1. This is English-language Wikipedia. If Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians or Chileans (or Russians!) want to claim him as having been exclusively of their nationality, they are welcome to do so. NOT here. 2. Belarusian claim is an anachronism. No Belarus before 20th century, only Lithuania (multi-ethnic, multi-lingual). We'll leave it at that. 3. Polish claim is insufficiently referenced. Definition of sufficient here would be reference to where he (himself) claims to be Polish. 4. Publications which claim Domeyko as Polish have NOT been removed, however they are politically anachronistic and also lazy. One way to improve this would be to source scientific instead of popular references. Just because 3 random mass-market books say Domeyko was Polish is not good enough. 5. Please discuss here any further changes to the text as per the nationality dispute. It is not acceptable one ethnicity warn other(s) in hypertext against changing nationality (!). If in doubt please read Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.202.156 (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comment above constitutes original research. Volunteer Marek 16:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't personally see any dispute, even in other Wikipedias, databases or sources. Both Polish and Chilean identities are most frequently found or cited, which is factual. Merangs (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yup, this is all one user’s original research. Volunteer Marek 17:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias, as you know per relevant policy, bear no relevance on any particular Wikipedia. 213.222.183.137 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)