Talk:Tadeusz Kościuszko/Archive 1

Descendent

The Kosciusko family still lives on in France. Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet is currently a minister in the Sarkozy administration. Her brother Pierre is a prominent young entrepreneur. They are the great-grand children of Tadeusz's brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish

The Polish article has him born on February 4, 1746. The day of the month could be Julian/Gregorian calendar discrepancy, but the year...? (Disclaimer: I don't read Polish but a handful of words.) --Brion 11:19 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence

The article states that Kosciusko sought out Jefferson because he admired his authorship of the Declaration of Independence. To my knowledge Jefferson's authorship was kept secret until a later time, making this very unlikely. Jefferson was identified strongly with this and other revolutionary documents at the time however, and had no small public image, so the fact that Kosciusko would want to meet him is not surprising in itself. Small point, but I believe important. Windthorst 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved from the article page

The following was moved from the article page by your's truly. I believe that the following could be included into the article, bud definitely not the way User:Nikhilajain did it.

Kosciusko, Thaddeus (kŏs´´ēŭs´kō) , Pol. Tadeusz Andrzej Bonawentura Košciuszko, 1746—1817, Polish general. Trained in military academies in Warsaw and Paris, he offered his services to the colonists in the American Revolution because of his commitment to the ideal of liberty. Arriving in America in 1777, he took part in the Saratoga campaign and advised Horatio Gates to fortify Bemis Heights. Later he fortified (1778) West Point and fought (1780) with distinction under Gen. Nathanael Greene in the Carolina campaign. After his return to Poland he became a champion of Polish independence. He fought (1792—93) in the campaign that resulted in the second partition (1793) of Poland (see Poland, partitions of). In 1794 he issued a call at Kraków for a national uprising and led the Polish forces against both Russians and Prussians in a gallant but unsuccessful rebellion that ended with the final partition of Poland. He was imprisoned, and after being freed (1796) went to the United States and later (1798) to France, where after the fall of Napoleon he pleaded with Alexander I of Russia for Polish independence. He died in Solothurn, Switzerland, and is buried in Kraków. His devotion to liberty and Polish independence have made him one of the great Polish heroes.

See studies by M. Haiman (1943, repr. 1975 and 1946, repr. 1977).

PD phot0

http://www.usma.edu/Tour/Monument_img.asp --evrik 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

---

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.

KOSCIUSKO, TEXAS

belongs in Things and places section http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/KK/hlk13.html

Unencyclopedic

His descendants are still among us and honor him to this day.

This is bad style. Wikipedia is supposed to sound objective - first person pronouns (who is "us"?) and a reverential-poetic tone are absolutely unsuitable. Also, I suppose not only the man's descendants honour him?! So the only remaining relevant info is that he has living descendants. I'm not sure if this is so important, a lot of notable people do. The sentence might as well be removed altogether. --91.148.159.4 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are all the sources for this article? If this guy is so great there should be loads of other sites who can back up. There are a number of sentences which make some pretty black and white statements abouthow everyone thinks he is aweseom and perfect; it doesn't strike me as terribly objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.10 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

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

The result of the proposal was - Clear consunsus to leave at current title. Keith D (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The name of the general should be Thaddeus Kosciuszko and not Tadeusz Kościuszko per wiki policy on usage of English. English Subtitle (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Which policy, exactly? Thaddeus is used in English, but Tadeusz is used in English-language works too - Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedia and God's Playground all use the latter just for starters, with Encarta jumping between the two. You would need to show that Thaddeus is the most frequent usage in English over Tadeusz, and I don't think that's the case here. Knepflerle (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Use the English name, and move it. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The" English name? Thaddeus is used in English. Tadeusz is used in English. We should use the one which is used most in English usage, not the one which is perceived to be somehow more English - that is what the guidelines and policy says. Knepflerle (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another source that lists him by his current Wikipedia name, "Tadeusz Kościuszko," is Encyclopedia Americana.

Ditto Adam Zamoyski, The Polish Way: a Thousand-Year History of the Poles and Their Culture, New York, Hippocrene Books, 2000, ISBN 0-7818-0200-8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihil novi (talk • contribs) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The man is known by just one name in the original Polish (the current Wikipedia name); by several variants in English, including "Thaddeus Kosciusko" (minus the letter "z" in his surname). Nihil novi (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Object per Nihil novi.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Object I admire User:English_Subtitle's eagerness to contribute, but please, can we have some experience here? User:English_Subtitle signed up 2 weeks ago and made his first 21 mainspace edits as of today. I suggest looking around WP:MOSBIO a little more. There’s a mention of François Mitterrand and other foreign politicians there. --Poeticbent talk 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to focus on the creator. (besides, it's not two weeks but a year and two weeks) Sciurinæ (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, he did sign up one-year-and-two-weeks ago... without making a single edit for six months between 2007/6 and 2007/12.[1] I agree though that that piece information is not 100% relevant. Thanks for pointing it out. --Poeticbent talk 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Diacritics are allowed in article names on English Wikipedia. - Darwinek (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This might have been his common name in English long ago, but it isn't now. For the same reason we don't move Cesare Borgia to "Caesar Borgia". --Folantin (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose-per accepted name in English language and Wiki policies.--Molobo (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "Thaddeus Kosciuszko" is a popular name for him in English (and yes: also nowadays) [2], but not necessarily the most [3] . Sciurinæ (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "Tadeusz Kościuszko" is perfect English. Húsönd 02:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

International Hero

Out of curiosity, is Kosciuszko really famous in Belarus and Lithuania? To what extent is he regarded as a national hero in those countries? I am especially interested in opinions of Belarusian contributors, as Kosciuszko fought against Russia, and current government in Minsk is rather pro-Russian as I presume. Thanks in advance. Tymek (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the current government in Belarus has very little to do with the issues that are concerning you, Tymek. And inspite of your presumptions, I don't think the Russian people are particularly anti-Kosciuszko either. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dr Dan for joining the discussion, even though you have nothing to say about the issue. Still, I am just curious, and perhaps somebody familiar with the subject might answer. I am not denying Kosciszko's being a hero in Belarus and Lithuania, I just want to know what is his status as a hero of these nations. Tymek (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Kosciuszko is considered a national hero in all three of those nations, which were part of a single commonwealth. The Polish nation that existed prior to 1795 encompassed, and treated equally, several nationalities other than the Poles themselves. He is also a national hero of the United States, where he also held citizenship, and where there are literally thousands of places and objects named in his honor. And he is respected in France (where he was also a citizen) for the service he rendered to that nation in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras. As for Belarus, he fought against Russia in defense of Belarus (as a constituent part of Poland). The current government of the United States is pro-British, but does that mean George Washington is no longer a U.S. national hero because he fought against Britain? Jsc1973 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Recruited?

recruited in France by Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin,

Deane and Franklin were not in Europe to recruit people; they spent all too much time turning away volunteers who would be happy to be generals if the Americans would pay their expenses. A source for this (American National Biography does not support it) would be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Polish, Belarusian and Lithuanian at the same time

Whole article shows Tadeusz Kościuszko as a non-Polish person while Kościuszko was 100% Polish hero! Stop stealing from us our heroes and citizens same with Chopin, Mickiewicz and Curie! --DumnyPolak (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Poland, William Morfill, 1893, "by birth a Lithuanian". VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Who am i, if not Lithuanian?" - Tadeusz Kosciuszko(from letter to Niesiolowski) - Egisz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.64.152 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It clearly says in the article: the man was born in Belarus into a local family (that never migrated from Poland) and was descendant of both Lithuanian and Ruthenian nobility. Is there a more precise definition for a Belarusian? *rhetorical question* Kosciuszko (Kasciushka) can be defined as both Polish, Belarusian and Lithuanian, and there is no need to argue about that unless you are a childish nationalist finding no other place to realize your complexes but Wikipedia.--Czalex 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the once who try to steal someone not entirley yours only to yourself. By nationality he was both Polish and Lithuanian because it was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth back then, and he faught for the independence of the whole commonwealth (not only Poland), and by ethnicity he was Belarusian. So everything is fair actualy. Free Belarus (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I don't agree with this theory about ethnicity of Kościuszko. This article is the poorest and the most uninformed in the world. The peoples forget why exist Wikipedia. First to say that Kościuszko was Polish is not a stupid childish nationalism and pleas do not in insult nobody. This argument that Kosciuszko was born in Belarus is not determinant that he couldn't be Polish. This line of interpretation of history is simple politicisation of history. Till now in Belarus lives 400.000 Poles. And the informations that he could speak in Belarusian is not confirmed by other resource. As fare what I know he never was speaking in Lithuanian and the Lithuanian in XVI-to first part of XX was associated to the Citizens of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, were ethnicity in the modern time was not correlated with them. In Grand Duchy Lithuania lived as well Poles ethnicity and ignoring this is really childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrzejSkulimowski (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

don't lie stupid pole, there is no polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, there is Lithuanian-polish commonwealth (http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gegu%C5%BE%C4%97s_3_Konstitucija) or The Republic of Both Nations...Belarus was created out of Lithuanians and Lithuania90.219.188.76 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he is Lithuanian rather than Belarusian. For me Belarusian ethnicy is combined from people who had polish, russian and lithuanian descent. By the way he is clearly European.--Rotgild (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

By nationality Koscuiszkko was Polish and he loved and fough for this country, his family became noble in the Great Duchy of Lithuania even before the union with Poland, and by ethnicity he was Belarusian. If you look at his geneology you see that his parents and grandparents were all Belarusian (then it was known as Litvin or Ruthenian). He even stated: "I am a Litvin", and Litvin is the old name for Belarusian (in fact, the name Belarusian was made by the Russians in the 19th century, after they occupied Belarus. The terms Belarusian existed but for the White Rus region, not for the ethnicity). When he wrote letters to his parents he wrote them in Belarusian (and he was writing the prists to organise his mothers funeral in Belarusian). So it's actualy simple: He was Polish by nationality, Belarusian by ethnicity, and his family became noble during the Great Duchy of Lithuania (like many other Ruthenians/Litvin families, after all, they were a majority in the Duchy). Danton's Jacobin (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Kościuszko was never Lithuanian military leader

Nor during his service in Army of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nor in Kościuszko Uprising Kościuszko was never Lithuanian military leader as states art. During Polish-Russian War 1792 he was a commander of division of Polish Crown. In 1794 he became a Commander of the National Armed Force. (in this case national learn Polish). Even more neutral source like Encyclopedia Britannica found him as a Polish military leader [4]. By the way since 1569 there was one state Commonwealth and both nobility of Polish Crown and Grand Duchy of Lithuania were Poles. Mathiasrex (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A handful of reliable sources, including his own words, says otherwise. Please leave your personal opinions about all of PLC nobility being simply Poles outside Wikipedia. Thank you, Renata (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And now situation is very interesting. There are lot of sources showing he was Lithuanian, but Polish version don't have to be supported? Why? Should we try to find Kosciuszko claiming himself as "koroniarz"? --Egisz (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese and Lithuanian names

Per Novickas' recent edit I'd like to ask why was the Japanese rendering of his surname removed from the article?

1. The guy knew neither his modern (post-1918) Lithuanised name, nor the Japanese rendering
2. Yet there are more people referring to him by his Japanese name in modern times (as there are many more Japanese than Lithuanian speakers)
3. So if modern Lithuanian rendering of his name is worth a mention, then why not the Japanese rendering?

I can back that rendering with a source using it if you please. //Halibutt 21:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My reading of policy is this: if reliable EN sources use an alternate proper name, it's acceptable to include that in the article. The general principle governing names is avoidance of the issue of what some thing/some person should be called, in favor of citing what reliable sources do use. There are several other reliable EN sources that use Tadas Kosciuška in addition to the one currently used: [5], from the Lithuanian Art Museum; [6] from the LT foreign ministry; this book [7], University of Massachusetts Press. If you know of equally reliable sources (i.e. not Wikipedia mirrors) that use the Japanese rendering in EN articles or books, I would not object to its inclusion, but would appreciate some background on the publisher, etc. if it's not immediately obvious. Novickas (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that the only reliable source of the three you mentioned (that is not a web-source that Lithuanises all names by default) is at the same time the one that discredits the "Tadas Kosciuska" as a reliable name. The quote goes like this: "In the Lithuanian American homemaking story, Tadeusz Kościuszko became Tadas Kosciuska, >>the great Lithuanian hero of the American Revolution<<". Note the sarcasm. Read on to find some more amusing examples.

BTW, note that I don't consider Lithuanising names in Lithuanian webpages a bad thing, as - as far as I know - it's a common practice in Lithuanian (just as it is in Czech and it was in Polish until 20th century). But think of the consequences: similarly I could find an article written by a Pole in English and mentioning the name of Jerzy Waszyngton, and then demand that name to be included in the header of the article on Washington. Get the picture?

To make long thing short, either we include alternative spellings because of the policy, or we include them because "nation X calls him so". In the earlier case the Lithuanian name doesn't deserve a mention and neither does Japanese. In the latter case both deserve equal treatment.//Halibutt 05:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the guideline I have in mind. Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Treatment_of_alternative_names. "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc."

IMO the LT rendition of his name is significant because he was born in the Grand Duchy of LT; his family is described as derived from Lithuanian nobility along with Ruthenian nobility; he is a national hero in LT; and its recent EN usages include publications by a university, the government of LT, a notable historian, the LT national musem, a book by a reliable publisher. None of these factors apply to the Japanese rendition AFAIK.

Since LT/PL editors have a long history of conflict in this regard - and these conflicts have often quickly escalated - I think it might be appropriate to call for an earlier-than-normal RFC for this. Here is how I'd word it: Should the Lithuanian and/or Japanese renditions of Tadeusz Kościuszko's name appear in article text. Novickas (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I back down, no need to quarrel. Indeed, Kosciuszko is not considered a national hero of Japan. Perhaps I overreacted as this seemed yet another instance of "we call Shakespeare Viljamas Šekspyras so that name must be included in en wiki article on him", which seems quite a common attitude among your fellow countrymen. Apparently I misjudged your intentions, sorry for that. //Halibutt 11:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad we could come to an agreement :) Novickas (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Belarusian/Polish

Was Ignacy Domeyko Polish or Belarusian? Please join the discussion that is relevant to all of the famous Polish-speaking personalities who were born in 18th-19th century on the territories of what is now Belarus, and what was Great Litva back then. Talk:Ignacy Domeyko. --rydel 23:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed Bialorussian. Sorry this is just plain wrong. i Dont't want to hurt any national feelings, but kosciuszko was 100 % pole. his familiy was polonised since since severeal hundred years, and probably intermarried with other polish families. he spoke polish, he fought for poland. bialorussion did not exist back then. he would have never considered himself a biorussian. its like saying that germans who were born in silesia were no germans because there ancestors were germanized slavs. sorry, but its just stupid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.225.76.180 (talk • contribs) April 12, 2005

Witkacy removed this from the article - while I don't think it is very imporant, it may be useful: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is known that he spoke Belarusian among other languages, and was Baptised in an orthodox church, like was done among the Belarusians, so you can't delete the fact he was at least partly Belarusian ethnicaly. And there are no references he had any Polish ethnicity in himself. And the "probably" is not for Wikipedia. We referenced the stuff, and there are no excuses on deleting the Belarusian part. Free Belarus (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is especi lly important to note that three nations (Lithuania, Belarus, and Poland) presently claim Thaddeus Kosciusko to be of their nation. Research has shown that the Kosciusko Family was of a mixed Lithuanian (Baltic/non-Slavic/Catholic) and Ruthenian (Eastern Slavic/Orthodox/modern-day Belarussian) ancestry. Many tend to confuse him as a Polish (Western Slav/Catholic) because he was Catholic (from his Baltic-Lithuanian ancestry) and Slavic (through his Belarussian ancestry). He was Polish in the sense that he came from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. During that period all people from the Commonwealth were called "Polish". While abroad, most citizens from the Commonwealth would call themselves "Polish Citizens", but would also note whether they were of Poland, "the Kingdom", (signifying that one was ethnic Polish), of Lithuania, "the Grand Duchy", (signifying that one is Ethnic Lithuanian or Belarussian). In the Untied States Library of Congress, a letter from Kosciusko states specifically that he is from Poland, but of Lithuanian nationality. In general, many families from the region of his birth are from mixed Lithuanian (Baltic) and Belarussian families. The first families were Baltic-Lithuanians (non-Slavic), who later intermarried with the Eastern Slavic (Belarussian) clans who began to occupy the same territory. Many of today's modern Belarussians (People from the modern Belarus, Republic of) are neither wholly Slavic or Baltic, but a mixture of the two, similar to what Thaddeus would have been considered.

Agree with you. It's a big mistake to call him only pole because he spoke polish. Is english speaking irishman - englisman? Or is english speaking scotsman - englishman? No. The memory of common history, knowledge of being from country (this case Grand Duchy of Lithuanian), makes him more Lithuanian/Ruthenian(Belorusan), than polish. (remember his ethnic origin too). --egisz, 24 may, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 10:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right! The Polish nationalists has lost their mind already, it's the same as deliting the English people of Irish descent tag from the Paul McCartney article, only because he was born in England and spoke English. Kościuszko was even born on the territory which is Belarus, he spolke Belarusian, he was baptised orthodox (like done by Belarusians). Free Belarus (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Polish ethnicity didn't even exist at this time. Only nobles were considered to be true Poles, the rest of the population were Polish speaking but not considered to be part of the "Poles". Now these days Polish nationalists wants to retroactively rewrite history to pretend everyone was Polish even if they were Lithuanian, Belarusian, or a peasant Pole (non-Pole). What I am trying to say, I guess, is don't presume anything and only state facts, if the person identified with the Polish ethnicity, or is widely considered to be so, fine, but don't make assumptions or revise history.--Львівське (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My grandmother was born in Second Republic of Poland (now this territority is Belarus), she was ortodox, but it not enough to call her Belarusian. She call herself Pole. Being ortodox is not enough to call somebody Russian or Belarusian. Poles are ortodox too (aroud 7%). I do not revise history, but he is as much polish as lithuanian (at this time there was no country such as Belarus). For me Belarusians is combine of Russians, Lithuanians and Poles.--Rotgild (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Piotr is obviously not familiar with the life of the person we are talking about. Kosciuszko did speak Belarusian, in fact, that was his native language (that's the language he used to write his parents letters). So his family wasn't so "Polonised for centuries" as you say. Also, he was christened Orthodox and Catholic, which was a habit of Belarusian nobles. But most important! He himself stated he was a Litvin, which is the name of Belarusians before the term Belarusians even appeared (so when you say Belarusians didn't exist yet... they did, but they were known as Ruthenians or Litvins. The Russian government made a big affort to get rid of the term Litvins and change it to Belarusians in the 19th century). You argue as if Polish national heroes are being "stolen" from the Poles by others, but to be fair, it's much more simple: You obviously don't know the fact that a person might have more then one identity. Ethnicity, nationality, religion, they are different identities which don't have to match. No one doubts the fact that Kosciuszko loved Poland, fought for it, that he is Polish-Lithuanian by nationality and that he is a Polish national hero, but all of that doesn't change or contradict the fact that by ethnicity he was Belarusian (Litvin or Ruthenian as known then). Danton's Jacobin (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that my post there begins with the word "Witkacy", and what is above is an unsigned comment by an anonymous editor, yes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that, I thought by mistake that you wrote the post I responded to. I apologise about what I wrote, I refered it to you when actually I should have refered it to the anonymous. Again, I apologise because I wrote it harsh to you and you didn't deserve it! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Latin interwiki

Latin interwiki stands for Thaddaeus Kosciuszko, not Taddeus Kosciuszko. Plz stop changing it. M.K. (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I just reviewed this page and subsequent ones. To engaged into edit warring even after formal warning notes, is completely unacceptable.M.K. (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

References to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

The Commonwealth was previously referred to as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. 90.219.188.76 has a problem with calling the Commonwealth that, so they changed the name to the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth. I reverted their edits, and messaged them in order to discuss their edits; however, I believe it would be better to discuss the issue of how to refer to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on this page. You can see what 90.219.188.76 and I have said on their talk page. --Piast93 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe we already had this discussion (possibly with the same user back in the days when he was not anonymous, to put it mildly; it's but my guess though). Anyway, it should be somewhere in the archives of Talk:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Anyway, the short explanation is:

1. regardless of whether it's Polish-Lithuanian or Lithuanian-Polish, the term was born in 20th century (just as the term "Commonwealth of Both Nations", coined by Jasienica). So no historical arguments are valid (nor needed). The contemporaries called it "The Republic" or "The Union" or with a variety of names.
2. in most Indo-European languages shorter element in a coined phrase usually comes first. Shorter in terms of syllables. That's why we have Pat and Patachon, Lares and penates, Scylla and Charybdis, Anglo-American Treaty and so on, and not the other way around. Americano-English Treaty would sound bizarre, wouldn't it.
3. but the above two points are of secondary importance. The basic truth is that regardless of the motivations or etymology or whatnot, the PLC is simply the name most frequently used by English language sources on the topic. Which is what counts. (WP:UE and WP:V, among other things). //Halibutt 23:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I used to know how to pronounce this man's name. In school we learned it as koss-key-USE-koh. That is of course hardly like the pronunciation that he, himself used, I'm sure. From the American point of view, however, the one I learned is no more incorrect than GEE-zuss, EYE-zick, Jehovah, V-8 Namm, or Charles dee-GALL. (I refused to accept, however, my high-school art teacher's pronunciation of Limoges, France, as LIMM-oh-gees.)

The article gives the pronunciation as taˈdɛuʂ kɔɕˈt​͡ɕuʂkɔ, and even if I were to do the research needed to decipher the IPA phonetic characters, I still would not know what was intended. Is it the same as the sound clip? I'm not competent to judge, as I only know how to pronounce English, French, German, Swedish, Spanish, Japanese, Italian, Danish, and possibly Russian. The phonetic rendering makes sense only to those already experts in its use, and even then only to those who can distinguish correctly the particular sounds used in the various languages and dialects of Eastern Europe. Those linguists already know how to pronounce Kościuszko, and (given the acrimony in earlier talk sections) probably disagree strongly with each other.

If I were to attempt to show the pronunciation in the sound clip to other speakers of English I would write tah-DAY-oosh kosh-CHOOSH-koh. The several geographic places named in honor of the general are usually pronounced some other way. The geographical articles generally do not discuss the pronunciation.

I understand that the use of IPA (or whatever it's now called) is Wikipedia policy, but it is confusing to many, and often seems deliberately obfuscatory. Snezzy (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Tah-DEH-oosh Kosh-CHOOSH-koh" is a rough approximation but distorts the sibilants in "Kosh-CHOOSH". The sound, represented in Polish respectively by "ś" and "ci" (the latter, pronounced "tś"), occurs seldom in English and has no English phonetic representation.

In the best of circumstances, it is difficult to represent sounds unequivocally in English spelling, because English spelling is not consistently phonetic, due to the grab-bag way in which the present language came into existence. In this regard, English spelling may be one of the most difficult after Chinese ideograms. Nihil novi (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

Why on English Wikipedia Polish heroes are always shown like they are not Polish? Kopernik was Polish, not German, Sklodowska-Curie was Polish, not French, Kosciuszko was Polish, not Lithuanian. He was not a "Polish-Lithuanian" but Polish. He spoke Polish, he was born in Poland and he fought for Poland. Even Encyclopedia Britannica mentions him as a Polish general not "Polish-Lithuanian". This is pure anti-polonism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.16.229 (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

He was born in Lithuania, and the state he fought for was Poland-Lithuania...--Львівське (говорити) 17:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lvivske, you are well known OUN-UPA sympathizer on Wikipedia, you edit all articles related to Poland with anti-Polish stances. At the time of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nobody even heard of such thing as 'ukraine' so you shouldn't even dare to comment here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.16.229 (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lithuanian-Ruthenian I believe. In all this arguing about Polish Exclusive or Lithuanian claiming of native sons and daughters you would think Poland and Lithuania were never united. Polish-Lithuanian relations are still paying the price for Vilnius between the wars, forgetting the centuries before then. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In my brief study of the history of Central Europe in school we learned that one of the standard concerns of Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary was the question, "How shall we divide Poland?" Apparently the concern exists to this day. Snezzy (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's stupid to have it as Polish-Lithuanian. Lithuanian to contemporary people referred to Ruthenian populations of Belarus that lived in the Duchy of Lithuania part of the commonwealth. Modern Day Lithuania back then was referred to was Samogitia. In any case, he definitely is not Lithuanian (The link in the article links to modern ethnic Lithuanians) you could call him Polish-Litvin if you want to be politically correct, but if you wish to have a non-biased factual article, he should simply be referred to as Polish. (polskaGOLA) (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed to Polish-Lithuanian, which describes the correct phenomenon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Because maybe sometimes they are not entirely Polish, and therefore might have few identities? You are obviously not to familiar with his life. I'll copy-paste what I wrote in a discussian above about the topic: Kosciuszko did speak Belarusian, in fact, that was his native language (that's the language he used to write his parents letters). So his family wasn't so "Polonised for centuries" as you say. Also, he was christened Orthodox and Catholic, which was a habit of Belarusian nobles. But most important! He himself stated he was a Litvin, which is the name of Belarusians before the term Belarusians even appeared (so when you say Belarusians didn't exist yet... they did, but they were known as Ruthenians or Litvins. The Russian government made a big affort to get rid of the term Litvins and change it to Belarusians in the 19th century). You argue as if Polish national heroes are being "stolen" from the Poles by others, but to be fair, it's much more simple: You obviously don't know the fact that a person might have more then one identity. Ethnicity, nationality, religion, they are different identities which don't have to match. No one doubts the fact that Kosciuszko loved Poland, fought for it, that he is Polish-Lithuanian by nationality and that he is a Polish national hero, but all of that doesn't change or contradict the fact that by ethnicity he was Belarusian (Litvin or Ruthenian as known then). Danton's Jacobin (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Before you accuse others of ignorance, you may benefit from reading articles like this one, and citing sources (for the record, I glanced at K.'s PSB entry, which describes him simply as a Pole). Also, Danton, you are aware that the above is a discussion, with several editors participating, and the initial question was posed not by me but by an anonymous editor, yes? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw that the post I though you wrote was published by an anonymous editot, and again I'm sorry I accused you of saying what actualy you didn't say. Actually when someone in the article changed it from Polish Lithuanian to Polish I didn't change it back, I only fixed a small mistake which was done in writing there but kept it. What I spoke against was the accusation that on the English Wikipidea Polish heroes are not shown as Polish. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, at the end of the day, how we describe him should reflect how the sources describe him. And I'm 99% sure that the vast majority of sources are going to call him just "Polish". It's how West Point describes him. Now, strictly speaking this may not be 100% accurate, but it's not our job to engage in original research. Of course there will be *some* sources which describe him as "Polish-Lithuanian" or "Belarussian" but these are going to be in a minority (personally I think it makes more sense to describe him as "Polish-Belarussian" than "Polish-Lithuanian"),

What we should instead is have a section which explains the contention. Volunteer Marek  17:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And I agree 100% regarding the fact that at the beginning of the article it makes sense to just say Polish, that's why I didn't argue with that point when someone made the edit and I will not argue with it in the future. What I spoke about was only the point that others try to steal Polish national heroes, which is an argument I find not fair because in my understanding it means others like Belarusians and Lithuanians have nothing to do with him (though he was ethnically Belarusian and born in the area which was the Duchy of Lithuania). So what I was speaking about was literally ethnicity and other identities he had, but what is used usually is the nationality so I agree that in the beginning of the article it should say Polish. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

Failed due to insufficient citations. I'll see if I can find time to improve this article later this year.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Early Life section (ethnicity, identity, etc.)

Hello. It's me who had modified the Early Life section, before the protection was applied (again). Let me outline the rationale for previous modifications and at the same time my disagreement with the current contents (as at 11/11/12).

(1) First of all, the changes made by Belarusian users are based on Belarusian & Russian sources, which the Polish ones do not necessarily confirm, hence I think there is a need to highlight same by writing "according to Belarusian sources".

(2) Now, that bit on "ethnically Belarusian Ruthenian nobility" is false, as there had been no Belarusian language & identity before 19th century (Ruthenian or White Ruthenian would be accurate). Equally false is saying that "Litvin is the term used for Belarusians before the word 'Belarusian' appeared", because heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania can be claimed by both present-day Lithuania, Belarus and Poland. The identity of "Litvins" had evolved along the course of history, whereby the likes of Kościuszko, Domeyko, Mickiewicz, Piłsudski or Miłosz are considered Poles. BTW, that bit on "Litvin" does not fit into the Early Life section.

(3) Thirdly, two of the references in that text (no's 16 & 17) seem to be invalid.

(4) And last but not least, after those changes made by Belarusian users, the style of this section is very poor and far from encyclopedic style, which should be the case for Wikipedia.

I don't understand why some Belarusian users are so stubborn in keeping inaccurate information in that article, however it won't be tolerated, for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.76.37 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, well done for finally discovering the talk page. Note that it's recommended to use it before edit wars. Now, lets respond to your claims.

(1) There is no point adding "Belarusian sources claim", just as their is no point to add "Polish sources claim". What is assesed is the quality of the sources, which in that case is various and reliable. The sources base their claims on his family history. That's the thing, those stuff were actually discussed many times (see numerous debates above). The Polish sources not confirming that information is not a reason to add this sentence due to the fact the Polish sources also don't contrast this information. Besides, the claim that all the sources are Belarusian is false. [8] is a Lithuanian source, and it says: Usually identified as a Pole, Kosciusko was born the 12th of February, 1746, the youngest child in a family of Lithuanian-Ruthenian stock.

(2) It's quite funny when you claim their was no such identity or language. They might have had a different term to identify themselves, but what language did they speak in that case? A good example is the book by Ivan Sakharov from 1836 about Belarusian customs which was originally called them Litvins, and only later Russian censorship changed it to Belarusians (in general the term Belarusians was actually forced on the Litvins by Russians to erase the Duchy identity). The term Litvin back then mostly applied to the Slavic residents of Lithuania. I remind you that the vast majority of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were slavic (Belarusian) and the offical language in the Duchy was actually Belarusian.

The examples of Domeyko, Pilsudski and Mickiewicz don't fit the case. Domeyko and Pilsudski were actually born into families which immigrated to Belarus from Poland, and even though I don't exlude the fact that they had Belarusian origins to (it's actually highly likely due to the fact many Belarusian families were polonized and didn't marry Belarusians), the only known origins of theirs we actually know about are those who came from Poland so they are actually ethnically Polish. Mickiewicz had few possible origins which have supporting and contrasting claims.

(3) Why are those references invalid? Could you please say what exactly is the problem with them?

(4) If you believe that the style is "not encyclopedic", you are welcome to change the style, but you have no right to delete valid information based on numerous reliable sources.

(5) I don't think it has anything to do with Belarusian users being stubborn, I am actually half Polish. The situation is much more simple. Kościuszko was a Pole by nationality and self considiration, but ethnically he was Belarusian. The fact he was ethnically Belarusian (or Litvin, or Slavic Litvin, whatever term you like) doesnt make him less of a patriot of Poland. Kościuszko came from a family which was known to be of Ruthenian/Belarussian/Litvin (whatever term you like) origin which was Polonized, we know his family history. Therefore, I don't see why you insist on deleting that information. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically, it was Ruthenian...which is Ukrainian AFIK (or were both languages divergent from the unified language at the time?)--Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I know the term Ruthenian applied to Ukrainian and Belarusian back then and the differences were even smaller then today, though already then the dialects started to develop. In fact, the only reason that Belarusians and Ukrainians didn't develop as one ethnicity is because the Commonwealth lost the territories of East Ukraine, while West Ukraine moved from being a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to being a part of Poland. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

-----

@Danton's Jacobin:

Well, you (or other Belarusian users) wanted to put into the article a point re "ethnically Ruthenian Belarusian noble family". That's fine, however I don't agree with that, since (as I said before) until 19th cent. there had been no Belarusian language & identity (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians). Therefore, such content is deemed disputed and one cannot leave it as is, because it would imply that such content is widely accepted by Wikipedia community. Hence, a need to highlight same by including the bit "accoring to some Belarusian sources". BTW, if the source article says "Lithuanian-Ruthenian", why did you modify it to suit your (Belarusian) agenda?

I think the examples of Litwins like Kościuszko, Domeyko, Mickiewicz, Piłsudski, Miłosz, etc. do fit in here, as I was trying to show you that the statement "Litvin is the term used for Belarusians before the word 'Belarusian' appeared" is incorrect, as the identity of people inhabiting the Grand Duchy of LT (or the area of former GDL), who considered themselves as Litwins, had evolved over time.

Re those two references, I thought they were invalid, as if you point the mouse on them, all you can see is a question mark ("?"). You might want to include some description there.

I had tried to correct the style, but you and/or other users were blindly reverting all edits...

Talk to you soon.

93.107.151.195 (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! That topic was actually discussed here a lot already. Your main argument is that there was no Belarusian identity or language, but that is not true. They had different names, but the basic definition was Rus Slavs (Ruthenians) living on the territory of the Grand Duchy (where they formed a majority) and where their language was the official language, so there is nothing really to be disputed.

The reason it just says Ruthenian and not Ruthenian-Lithuanian is because when looking at Kosciuszko’s family tree I didn’t see any Lithuanians as in the Baltic ethnicity called Lithuanians, so I think in that case it’s the same as in Italian American, the first word is ethnicity while the second one is Geographic location.

It’s true that the term Litvin could have been used in different contexts through history, as a nationality and as an ethnicity, but mostly it was used for Belarusians, after all, they were a majority. It’s the same as Russian, it can be used for a Tatar from Russia as nationality, but it is mostly used for people of Russian ethnicity. A good example is the book by Ivan Sakharov from 1836 about Belarusian customs which was originally called them Litvins, and only later Russian censorship changed it to Belarusians (in general the term Belarusians was actually forced on the Litvins by Russians to erase the Duchy identity). As you can see, Litvins was literally used for the Slavic/Belarusian/Ruthanian population of the Great Duchy.

The examples of Domeyko, Pilsudski and Mickiewicz don't fit the case because in the case of Domeyko and Pilsudski, they both had Lithuanian blood and Polish blood, so in their cases it’s highly likely they used it as a geographical term. In the case of Mickiewicz he was actually using the term to refer to the Slavic residents of the area:

"This semantic confusion was amplified by the fact that the Nowogródek region, although inhabited mainly by Belarusian speakers, was for several centuries considered part and parcel of Lithuania Propria—Lithuania in the narrow sense; as different from the 'Ruthenian' regions of the Grand Duchy." (Native Realm Revisited: Mickiewicz's Lithuania and Mickiewicz in Lithuania by Tomas Venclova)

I understand what you mean now! But that doesn’t make the references invalid as in “should be deleted”, it just means they need to be edited in a way to look better in the references section, it’s not a reason to delete them. No one was blindly reverting you, you didn’t just change the style but changed some of the context while deleting a lot of the other things (and that’s only after the first article protection, before that you were deleting everything). Danton's Jacobin (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just my comment, but " is false, as there had been no Belarusian language & identity before 19th century (Ruthenian or White Ruthenian would be accurate)"....really? Belarusian literally means White Ruthenian. Is the argument really going to stick to semantics / translations of a word?--Львівське (говорити) 15:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! That's the thing, Belarusians is actually a term which started to be used only after a lot of Russian effort in order to try to disconnect the Slavic residents of the Great Duchy from their Litvin heritage. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying that Livtin preceded Ruthenians? I mean, Ruthenians were a major part of the commonwealth, I've never heard of any social engineering to get the word changed.--Львівське (говорити) 16:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. Ruthenian came first, and that term talked about the Rus Slavs which becamse part of The Great Duchy of Lithuania. Litvin was mostly used when talking about those people after the Rus Slavs already became a majority in the Great Duchy, to an extent that in Vilnus their were more Belarusians then what is now called ethnic Lithuanians and the offical language was Belarusian. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus solved the problem of the bad writing style of the section, thank you for that! It looks really good now! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth

PSB uses 4 Feb, does not mention any controversy over the date, nor any alternatives. Regarding "Szyndler, Bartłomiej (1991). Tadeusz Kościuszko, 1746–1817. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Bellona. p. 103.—Kościuszko's exact birthdate is unknown, but February 12 is generally used." - can anybody verify that Szyndler actually states that Feb 12 is more popular than Feb 4? I want to make sure this is not somebody's OR. At this point with PSB entry vs newer Bellona entry I'd say we have "conflicting sources", not any consensus for one. We would need more sources, OR if anybody can figure out if PSB issued an errata for the Kosciuszko entry, perhaps? I could check it in December... or we could ask somebody like User:Picus viridis to do so sooner (he has a number of PSB tomes). PS. Please don't do edits like this. I know it was good faithed, but it actually falsified a reference sentence (introduced a claim not backed up by used reference). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I falsified a referenced sentence regarding the date of birth. I am also concerned that there are conflicting sources between the PSB and Bellona entries for Kosciuszko. I think we should ask one of the users to help check the PSB entry on Kosciuszko to see if the PSB has issued an errata about the date of birth. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I found that PSB has an errata for that entry in Tome 40 ("Polski Słownik Biograficzny - Uzupełnienia i sprostowania w t. 40 do art. Kościuszko Tadeusz"). I'll ask around if anyone can access it before I can do so in mid-December. PS. Please note that the date of 4 Feb is used in pl wikipedia and PWN Encyklopedia. WIEM and Interia encyclopedias do not give his DOB, the 4th is used for example in this printed source Bogdan Grzeloński (1976). Poles in the United States of America, 1776-1865. Interpress. p. 42. Retrieved 19 November 2012.. However his newest biography, available in English (and I think in Polish too) (Alex Storozynski (3 August 2010). The Peasant Prince: Thaddeus Kosciuszko and the Age of Revolution. Macmillan. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-312-62594-8. Retrieved 19 November 2012.) states February 12, his footnote (#8) cites Szyndler (1991:103), and states: "Kościuszko exact birth date is not known, but the twelfth is generally used. Szyndler examines theories of Kosciuszko's birth date." Given this, I think we should state in all places "sources vary", and add a footnote describing this issue (I'll do so shortly). If somebody could look into Szyndler for more details it would be nice (again, I may be able to do so in mid-December). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for translation and verification for (Belo?)Russian references

There are some references that are completely in Belo?Russian, and/or unformatted (http://kamunikat.fontel.net/www/knizki/historia/bienziaruk/kasciuszki/00.htm). Can somebody translate them into English and verify their claims? If not, I'll be removing them shortly during my review of references (I intent to remove all unreliable refs, then reference this article with reliable inline cites, starting with PSB, and remove all unreferenced claims as part bringing this article to B/GA class). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I'm at work now, will do it this evening! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, great. If you could also add to each reference a quote parameter, with the quote in the original and English? I can do the same for all Polish ones if any controversial text arises (that I can verify). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi :-) So lets start! I didn't have time to read yet how to do it, I will probably do it later today or tomorrow (stupid assignments from work), but here are the quotes:

[9] "Старадаўні беларускі шляхецкі род Касцюшкаў..." which means "The old Belarusian szlachta Kosciuszko..." so here they clearly refer to him as Belarusian. In fact, in the other two references:

Касцюшкі // Беларусь: энцыкл. даведнік / Рэдкал. Б. І. Сачанка (гал. рэд.) і інш. — Мінск: БелЭн, 1995. P. 379 and Хто такі Тадэвуш Касцюшка? // Іван Саверчанка, Зьміцер Санько. 150 пытанняў і адказаў з гісторыі Беларусі. — Менск: 1999; 150 пытанняў і адказаў з гісторыі Беларусі. — Вільня: Наша Будучыня, 2002. ISBN 9986-9229-6-1 they also said his family came from a Belarusian origin, the only problem is I don't have copied of them and due to the fact I live in England I have no way to put my hands on them and get the quotes, but I did see with my eyes that it has it ages ago.

Another quote from the article: "Сам Найвышэйшы Начальнік (як называлі яго падчас збройнага чыну) заўсёды ўсведамляў сябе л і ц ь в і н а м – грамадзянінам Вялікага княства Літоўскага – гістарычнай Літвы-Беларусі." says "The officer himself referred to himself as a Litvin, which was a name for a resident of the Great Duchy of Lithuania - The historical Lithuania-Belarus".

Another source is [10] which says "Гiсторыкi прыпушчаюць, што спачатку мацi Фёкла, якая паходзiла з беларускага праваслаўна-унiяцкага роду Ратамскiх, магла хрысцiць сына ў праваслаўе цi ўнiяцтва (так з'явiлася iмя Андрэй), а ўжо потым бацька Людвiг, берасцейскi мечнiк, якi выбiраўся ад шляхты ваяводства ў Лiтоўскi Трыбунал, перажагнаў малога ў каталiцтва." what means "Some historians says, that his mother, who came from thw Belarussian Orthodox clan of Ratmskih, could have baptise her soon as Orthodox, and that afterwards the father Ludwig, which came from a szlachta from the Lithuanian rule, baptized him as a Catholic".

So we know his mother came from a Belarusian famile and we know from his fathers side they were originaly from a Belarusian family. I know you deleted the word Belarusian, but I actualy thing we should return it due to the fact though in the past it was not used, Belarusian basically means Ruthenian from the land of Belarus (you know the story behind the name, how the Russians made an effort to get rid of Litvin).

[11] Here we have a quote: "Имя Тадеуша Костюшко (1746 – 1817) хорошо известно за пределами Центральной Европы. Белорус по происхождению, который боролся за независимость Речи Посполитой, воевал за США, не принял личного приглашения Наполеона Бонапарта, сотрудничества с которым искал Александр I на Венском конгрессе – короткая биография незаурядной личности, сына нашего славянского региона." The name of Tadeusz Koscuiszko (1746-1817) is well known outside of Central Europe. A Belarusian by ancestry, who fought for the independence of the Commonwealth, for the USA, who didn't accept a personal invitation from Napoleon..." and another qote says "Интересным для нас является самоидентификация Тадеуша. Добиваясь чина генерала в армии Речи Посполитой, он охарактеризовал себя как «природный литвин». На тот момент, термин «литвин» являлся одним из этнонимов белорусов." which means "an interesting for us fact is the self-identification of Tadeusz. When progressing to become a general in the army of the Commonwealth, he charactarized himself as a "authentic Lirvin". At that time, the term "Litvin" was one of the ethnonyms of Belarusians".

[12] Here it says: "Нарадзіўся Касцюшка ў 1746 годзе ў сям'і беларускага шляхціча" which means "Kosciuszko was born in 1746 in a Belarusian szlachta".

That's the thing, in the family tree of Kosciuszko we don't see any Lithuanians at all, and I use Lithuanians as the Baltic ethnicity, not people of the Great Duchy, that's why when they say Lithuanian-Ruthenian family in the Lithuanian source I think they mean Ruthenian from the Duchy of Lithuania. From the other hand, his mother was from a Ruthenian family, and his father came from a family which was Ruthenian but was Polonised. Another thing is, Belarusians=Ruthenians from the Great Duchy of Lithuania, that's why I think it's important to use the term Belarusian in the article. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The subject is difficult like hell, and I don't have time to delve into it thoroughly here and now but let me just emphasise that "Belarusians=Ruthenians from the Great Duchy of Lithuania" is quite an oversimplification. First please check what area was considered White Ruthenia at the time. A Belarusian source won't normally make a distinction between "White Ruthenia" and modern "Belarus". Second please notice that at times the Grand Duchy encompassed Ruthenian lands which using no definition could be considered "Belarusian" (especially before the Lublin Union).Zbihniew 16:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbihniew (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that, if you could edit the refs in the article and introduce latin/English transliterations/translations, it would be great. Now, I think that the sentence "Modern Belarusian sources, however, interpret his Ruthenian or Lithuanian heritage as Belarusian" should be good enough, plus we also have the discussion of the term Litvin in this context. The thing is, it is primarily Belarussian sources which use the term Balarussian. As you say, at that time, it was really Ruthenians, and those living in the territories Kosciuszko is from eventually developed the national identity we know today as Belarussian. I tend to dislike using the terms like Belarus or Ukraine when talking about those times, it is about as incorrect as (as you note) using the term Lithuanian for all inhabitants of the GDL. Or, for that matter, even the word Polish is is not without its pitfalls, that's why I prefer linking Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) rather than Polish people in this context. Now, regarding the term Lithuanian, I don't have any strong feelings about it, but I'd like to hear from somebody who can access Lithuanian scholarship on this issue. Anyway, I think that this section discussing his ethnicity/nationality is fine, but feel free to change it, and we will go from there. I'd strongly suggest living this sentence in "His family was ethnically Lithuanian-Ruthenian", but if you think it is potentially controversial, we can attribute it to its source (Lithuanian academic journal). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi :-) I agree, I think it looks perfect now! It’s true that using the term Lithuanian-Ruthenian might be controversial, but I don’t think there is any term that will not be controversial, and this one is the least controversial so I’m pro keeping it. We don’t claim he had Lithuanian origins because we don’t have references for that , but that’s why the word Lithuanian redirects it to Lithuania and not to Lithuanians. Regarding the term Ruthenian, it’s true that the Ruthenians in Belarus evolved into Belarusians, but at the time they had a different name and though those are the same people, it’s really good that we explained the situation, that way I think we are fair to the Belarusians who say that he was Belarusians, and to those who have problems with that claim. I really like how it looks now! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

Hello. I am thinking about revising the lead section. The lead section needs to summarize the article. As it stands, I believe it looks like it needs to be consolidated into four paragraphs and we should expand on his early life in the lead, as well as his legacy following his death. I am going to work on the lead in my sandbox. Thoughts or other ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks better, certainly. I'll give it a more detailed read tomorrow or so; I'd suggest trying to reduce the number of references there. I'd leave refs only for controversial claims. (On a sidenote, it's a nice surprise to be working on article that is actually being improved by other editors, thanks!). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotr. I am always willing to help out when needed. Also, on a sidenote, I am also thinking about taking this article up to FA status so we can feature it as a TFA on either a couple of important milestones: 2014 (the 220th anniversary of the Kościuscko Uprising) or February 2016 (the 270th anniversary of Kosciuszko's birth). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to help. I am tentatively thinking of getting it to GA January-ish. FA would require somebody with a good book, I can try to get a Polish source soon (maybe Szyndler 1991?), if somebody would put getting Storozynski's book on their list in the English version we should be good to go, sources wise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

lede

Honestly, it's too long, gives too much detail and repeats almost verbatim much of the information in the article body. A lede should summarize the article. I'm gonna cut it down.VolunteerMarek 03:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me and I have absolutely no objections, as I believe that the lead section may be a bit too long as well. However, per WP:MOSLEAD, we should try and keep the lead to at least 3-4 paragraphs. I will probably help out as well if possible with grammatical spellings, spacing errors and a lot of other things on the article as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done with PSB

Please note I am done with the expansion of this article from the Polish Biographical Dictionary article. We still need more for this to pass B/GA class reviews. Is there anybody who has access to a book? I also think more can be added from reliable online sources, including some already present in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. By the way, I have the online version of the Alex Storozynski book, and that provides useful information. I will see what I can do about citing pages in the book. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)