Talk:Czesław Miłosz

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Poland Top‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poetry Top‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Location

This edit says that Milosz now lives in California; this edit says that Milosz now lives in Poland. Robert Hass says California; Kraków says Poland. Which is correct? --Paul A 02:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The first edit does not imply that he lives in CA.--Jia ng 04:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"In 1961 he became a Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of California, Berkeley, where he now is a Professor Emeritus." --Paul A 08:43, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It makes sense for him to be returning to his homeland now that he's retired. I called his Berkeley office (+1 (510) 642-1535) and no one picked up. --Jia ng 20:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, being a Professor Emeritus at a university doesn't necessarily mean that one is actually at the university, then? The wording could do with some work. "...at the University of California, Berkeley, where he now is..." holds a clear implication, to my mind. --Paul A 02:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Retired professors are appropriately referred to as "Professor Emeritus". We could, however, do without the fancy wording.--Jia ng 02:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

How is his name pronounced? --Tothebarricades.tk 01:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Check the article now, I added both IPA key and .ogg file, hope you like it. :) Halibu tt 08:43, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nobel prize

I think someone should clearly state which book he won the Nobel prize for in the first paragraph, since it isn't very clear.

It was no only one book or poem. He won it because in all of his books and poems there are a very clever, anticommunist, antifascist and humanistic viewpoint. Nobel prize for Milosz "who with uncompromising clear-sightedness voices man's exposed condition in a world of severe conflicts"--Merdys (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Milosz to the category Lithuanian Nobel Laureates. I believe that out of consistency, the category only needs to contain people born in Lithuania, rather than ethnic Lithuanians. To be specific, the only other entry in this category is a Lithuanian Jew who emigrated and won his prize as an inhabitant of another country. By this standard Milosz meets the qualifications for this category. --160.39.177.15 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I heard it pronounced (at the Milosz Fest at Claremont College to honor his 90th birthday)"Chess Woff Mee Woshe." At this festival Robert Hass and Edward Hirsch spoke (two among many international acclaimed poets) It was an honor to see Milosz listening as these great contemporary poets read his poems and celebrated his work. I felt fortunate to be able to attend and experience it.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.211.6 (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, his father was ethnic Lithuanian, and Milosz lived much of his childhood in rural Lithuania, and it influenced his work. His novel Issa Valley is drawn from that. He identified with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and learned Lithuanian as a child. He attended school and the university in what is again Vilnius (then called Wilno as part of Poland), so was influenced by higher education in Lithuania as well. He refused to identify only as Polish or Lithuanian, although he wrote in Polish. Parkwells (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Degree

Czesław Miłosz graduated from Vilnius University in 1933. In 1989 he was awarded an honorary degree from Harvard University. Pray, there is a difference between the two! (I went ahead and corrected it). -- 198.36.32.29 13:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC) pl:user:Bmucha[reply]

School

If he founded a school of Polish poetry, what is that school called, when did it form, who is a member, etc? Hyacinth 23:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Although he did not speak Lithuanian,"

According to this article, he spoke fluent Lithuanian. heqs 08:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is wrong. I have that on the best authority: from the horse's own mouth. logologist|Talk 08:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Mr. Ed is dead, and so is Milosz, that statement will be difficult to disprove. Dr. Dan 14:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that original research? heqs 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heqs, that particular editor has a history of manipulating WP much worse than OR. Dr. Dan 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, WP:NPA is one of the basic rules of wikipedia. Reading it once again might save you from trouble. //Halibu tt 09:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. When did you read it last? Dr. Dan 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday. And when did you try to abide by it for the last time? If ever? //Halibu tt 17:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even according to Lithuanian researchers (Mindaugas Kvietkauskas) he didn't speak Lithuanian, was only able to read Lithuanian but unable to speak, also he was using Polish language when replying to Lithuanian letters. Sources: http://polonia.wp.pl/title,Litwini-praktycznie-nie-znaja-Czeslawa-Milosza,wid,13116445,wiadomosc.html http://www.wilnoteka.lt/pl/artykul/wspomnienie-przyjazni-milosza-i-venclovy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:A (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius having been incorporated into Poland after "Żeligowski's Mutiny

What is exactly the connection between Czesław Miłosz article and Żeligowski? Xx236 (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Milosz

The article doesn't inform about Oscar Milosz.Xx236 (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place name

Dear Piotrus, what makes you think that Russian Empire did use Polish place names? huh?--Lokyz (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of your question, but it is obvious the Polish place name was used by many inhabitants, including Miłosz himself - hence it is highly relevant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some English references to it? I mean language usage and also cartographic material from the second half of the 19th century and teh first decade of the 20th.--Lokyz (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Columbia: "b. Szetejnie, Lithuania (then in Russia)"; Encarta: "Born in Szetejnie, Lithuania"; Encyclopedia of World Biography: "He was born on June 30, 1911 in Szetejnie, Lithuania then in Tsarist Russia" and so on. Many English sources use Polish spellings, which is why they should be kept on English Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czesław Miłosz never heard about Šeteniai. He not knew Lithuanian, for him it was Szetejnie. In Russian Empire, in former lands of Poland (so were realised) were used Polish names, only transliterated to cyrillic: Kowno -> Ковно, Wilno -> Вильно, Telsze -> Тельше. Since the end of 19th century, especially after 1863 revolt slightly modified Russian endings (anyway slightly modified Polish) for easier pronouncation in Russian language started to use, -е were changed to -и, Вильно became Вильна, Тельше -> Тельши. Though such naming not affected small towns and villages, they were named in old way, in Polish, just transliterated. It's obvious you can check in maps of that time: [1] - year 1808, [2], [3] - end of 19th century. Therefore it's unhistorical use modern Lithuanian names for events prior 1918. Also traditional place names written in latin that were used by Lithuanian Poles in Russia were not changed. --62.80.255.6 (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one disagrees, so I will make changes. --62.80.255.6 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Among the Nations

Please see related discussion at Czesław Miłosz.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sontag interview

The external link in Profiles and interviews last Accessed 2010-08-04 for Sontag audio is a live URL, but the content was removed, so the link needs to be replaced.

There is ref to an interview at https://diva.sfsu.edu/collections/sfbatv/bundles/206378

Here is a link of possible interest: http://poems.com/special_features/prose/essay_haven.php

Related link to the prev. is http://books.google.ca/books?id=tCLo63-ypkkC&lpg=PA322

G. Robert Shiplett 10:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. There are already quite a lot of links in the external links section. Span (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

For WP:POLAND - failed, due to insufficient inline citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Czesław Miłosz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of stub articles into this page

I suggest merging stub articles about Czeslaw's literary work into this article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in principle because this was proposed while these articles were mostly at AfD, which could have resulted in 'merge' but didn't. Please do list specifically which articles you think should be merged though, and we can discuss those. Mortee (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content and Organizational Changes

Hi Wikipedians – I’ve made a bunch of changes to the Czesław Miłosz page and just wanted to leave an explanation. Overall, I thought the page needed improvement in the following areas:

Organization: I created some new subject headings (e.g., Asylum in France, Honors, etc.) so that info can be more easily found.

Content: I filled in some biographical content that was missing but felt, to me, important for a casual reader wanting to know Miłosz’s story. In adding this content, I rewrote some of the existing content so that the article would read well.

Undue weight: From the original article, a casual reader looking for quick info on Miłosz probably would have come away with a skewed impression of what was important about him. For example, the second sentence in the article, in the top line summary, was about him associating with Lithuania, whereas the fact that he won the Nobel Prize came two paragraphs later. In fact, there were allusions throughout the article to the “Polish vs. Lithuanian” question, which made it seem like this was much more important than other aspects of his biography, like his books and poems. Forgive me, but I don’t think the question of Miłosz’s nationality matters so much that it warrants being mentioned more often than his books in an article about him. For that reason, I created a subheading under ‘Legacy’ and noted the issue there, rather than alluding to it repeatedly throughout the article.

Clarity and Accuracy: The article contained some incorrect info (for example, calling The Seizure of Power Miłosz’s “second book” or claiming that he only authored work in Polish, etc.), some contradictory info (for example, there was a sentence that stated Miłosz refused to identify as either Polish or Lithuanian, but in the next sentence Miłosz was quoted as saying “I am a Polish, not a Lithuanian, poet”), and some non-English citations that likely can’t be verified by most readers of English Wikipedia. There are plenty of reputable sources about Miłosz available in English—academic studies, online articles, his own books, and a comprehensive biography from Harvard University Press (which I’ve cited extensively)—so I’m not sure it’s necessary to cite a non-English source here.

Of course, if you think the article needs further improvement, or if you disagree with my reasoning, feel free to proceed as you see fit. Thanks! IbIANTiA (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was some really outstanding work. Really impressive. Thank you! SteamboatPhilly (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! IbIANTiA (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed put the “Polish vs. Lithuanian” question into better perspective. And you have made substantial additions to the article that will take me some time to fully absorb.

Miłosz, in what may have been somewthing of a poetic conceit, referred to himself as one of the last citizens of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Most of the historic Grand Duchy's inhabitants did not speak Lithuanian but one or another Eastern Slavic language. Further, a lingua franca of the more educated and better-off citizens of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that had long since incorporated the Grand Duchy, not just of the Poles, was a Western Slavic language, Polish. The commander of the Lithuanian Army from September 1934 to April 1940, General Stasys Raštikis, had a perfect command of Polish. Miłosz's Wilno (now Vilnius) was a thoroughly Polish city, one of a handful of the principal cities of prewar Poland. Miłosz may well have picked up a smattering of the Lithuanian language but, when I asked him directly whether he knew Lithuanian, he denied it. (This cannot be put into the article, as it has not yet been published elsewhere.) As to Lithuanians honoring the centenary of Miłosz's birth on a postage stamp, what people—including Poles—does not wish to bask in the reflected glory of a Nobel prize? To Poles, the true inventor of polio vaccine was not Jonas Salk or even the Jewish Pole Albert Sabin but (with some justice) another Jewish Pole, Hilary Koprowski.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Polemical articles"?

The last section, "Polemical articles," is written in Polish and mostly links to articles that are in Polish. (There is a link to the English Wikipedia page for Sergiusz Piasecki, but it's not clear to me why it's there.) In my view, this section is of extremely limited usefulness on this English Wikipedia page and I propose deleting it. If I don't hear opposition after a while, I'll go ahead with deletion. Thanks! IbIANTiA (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first item is a defense of some maliciously or ignorantly misinterpreted passages from Miłosz.

The second, turgid item by Jacek Trznadel, with rather obscure references, is difficult to follow.

The third item, by Sergiusz Piasecki, is not linked to any text.

I would delete the "Polemical articles" section and wait for more enlightening texts about Miłosz.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! IbIANTiA (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality in the Lead Paragraph

Miłosz’s nationality is a complicated issue, and I think it would be best to post proposals here on the Talk page for how to describe it in his article before making changes. Several times since I did my rewrite of this article, someone has tried to change the description in the opening line from “Polish-American” to “Polish.” I've been reverting these changes, and I hope I can explain why here so that I don’t have to keep trying in the edit history.

First, there are several reliable sources cited for “Polish-American,” so anytime someone changes it to “Polish,” they are changing it to something that is not verified by the cited sources. Forgive me, but that’s just sloppy Wikipedia editing.

Second, I understand that there is strong nationalistic feeling around a figure like Miłosz. I come from a Polish background, which is why I was interested in him in the first place, but I can’t let my personal background or bias overcloud the facts. And the fact is that Miłosz was an American citizen, from roughly middle age until the end of his life. That is not something that can be disregarded. After all, he spent nine years in exile in France, and even got married there, but he never became a French citizen. He did, however, choose to become an American citizen, when he could have remained in the US under a different status. Becoming a citizen was a deliberate choice about how he wanted to be identified. And the only thing you need in order to call yourself an American is citizenship. That’s it--you don’t need to have been born in the US, or have any American family heritage. If you are an American citizen, then you are an American. Period.

By having been born outside the US and later naturalizing as a citizen, Miłosz joined a huge number of people who have been described as “hyphenated” Americans. For example, Chinese-Americans, or German-Americans, or Mexican-Americans, etc. (And again, these people are no less American than someone who was born in the US--as evidenced by the fact that Miłosz, for example, won the US National Medal of Arts, which is a highly prestigious honor given by the American government that only Americans are eligible to win. The American government did not care that he had been born elsewhere. He was a citizen, so that made him American.) This hyphenation is a common way of describing such people, and it is common to recognize dual nationalities this way across Wikipedia, as well. For example, Joseph Conrad is described in his article as “Polish-British.” Vladimir Nabokov is described as "Russian-American." Hannah Arendt is described as "German-American." Among recently Featured articles, I.M. Pei is described as “Chinese-American,” while Felice Beato is described as “Italian-British.” It’s just an honest way to inform Wikipedia readers about someone’s complicated nationality.

Now, from what I’ve read, Miłosz said lots of contradictory and frustrating things in public. For example, he held himself at a distance from his fellow Polish-Americans, who badly wanted him to embrace their community. At the same time, he publicly called himself an American. Of course, he also publicly called himself Polish, and Lithuanian, and Slavic, and a native of the “Eastern Empire,” so he was notoriously hard to pin down, and I wouldn’t necessarily use his own words as definitive proof. We have to go by the facts instead--the ones that are presented in reliable sources. In this case, there are multiple sources cited in the article that attest to the fact that Miłosz was an American citizen. This is undeniable, and omitting it from his description in the lead paragraph (or anywhere else) would be to misinform Wikipedia readers.

I hope this helps. Thanks. IbIANTiA (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Definitely it doesn't help : Arendt, Nabokov, Conrad WROTE in English, American, they were somehow and also American writers, thinkers. Czeslaw Milosz didn't, only at the margins, circumstantially. He was only a Polish poet. And your Polish bias is precisely based on the rejection of this fundamental dimension. Milosz wrote in Polish, and the rest is silence. He had regained his Polish citizenship as quickly as it was possible. None aimes to minimize his American connexions and his engagement in American culture, but describing him as Polish-American Poet as far as creation is concerned is a deep lie and a misunderstanding. How it looks in relation to writers whose situation can be compared to that of Miłosz, I give such an example. Well, Tomasz Mann left Germany in 1933, first to Switzerland, then in 1939 to the USA and back to Switzerland in 1952. After 1933 he never permanently - and because of his own choice - lived in Germany. Rather, it is not customary to call him a German-American-Swiss author. Look at the Wikipedia entry in English. Today in 2020 someone pushed through such a record, tomorrow there will be someone who finally will recognize that since Miłosz did not have Polish citizenship from 1951 (according to the table which is false since Milosz regained his Polish citizenship in 1995 !), in fact he was only an American poet. Remember that people nowadays are sensitive somehow to these matters, but there are generations for whom they will be wrapped in cognitive fog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARNOUD 11 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Adam Mickiewicz – another "Lithuanian" Polish poet (Mickiewicz was born in what is now Belarus, which used to be part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) educated at Vilnius University – after being exiled for five years to central Russia for his independence activism, in 1829 left the Russian Empire for the rest of his life. He settled first in Rome, then in Paris, where he lectured for three years at the Collège de France. He wrote in Polish and is waggishly described in Poland as "a Belarusian poet who wrote about Lithuania in Polish." No one calls Mickiewicz a "Polish-French" poet. Wikipedia calls him, accurately, a "Polish" poet.

By the same token, Miłosz was not a "Polish-American" but a Polish poet. Even when he pointed out the failings of the Polish people, it was in Polish.

Nihil novi (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with both of you. Setting aside that Milosz did plenty of writing and lecturing in English, the larger point is that nationality is not determined by language. Even if Milosz never wrote or spoke a single word of English, it would still be correct to describe him as an American, because that's the citizenship he held.

Thanks for your post. 100% agree. That's why I propose to write as soon as possible (what should be consider as a nod to these who want to enhance the American component) CZ M. was a Polish poet, prose writer, translator, and diplomat. He was a Polish-American citizen. Personally, I'm not versed enough in the Wikipedia's techniques. Could you do this?

Should it be recold that Wilno University in those times was a place where Polish was the language of instruction, the biggest university in fact not only in Central & Estearn Europe but also in the Russian Empire ? Wilno belonged to those Polish-Lituanian realms which were directly seized by the Russians at that time as opposed to the so called Kongresowka and after the Privislanski Kraj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARNOUD 11 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like your formulation, distinguishing his cultural work from his citizenship papers. Give it a try. If need be, I or someone else can adjust the wording.

>>>>> (talk) If we admit this approach, then we should say that Chopin was first Russian and after French, so was Mickiewicz. There wasn't a Polish citizenship at those times. ARNOUD 11

This is why your example of Adam Mickiewicz doesn't work--nobody calls him a French writer because he never became a French citizen. His Wikipedia page notes this. By the same token, take, for example, Samuel Beckett: he lived in France, and wrote in French, for much of his life, but he maintained his Irish citizenship. Nobody calls him a French writer simply because he wrote in French. To do so would be to invite confusion. He was Irish, because he was a citizen of Ireland. The same approach should apply to Milosz, because that's according to Wikipedia's standards. The lede paragraph describes him by his nationality according to reliable sources, not his native language. See Wikipedia's MOS for biographies. IbIANTiA (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC) (talk) (talk) Once again, you are mixing concepts & please - sorry to say so - don't denature what I've said. I/ When we write he was a Polish poet, we don't refer to his citizenship but to his works, their specific language. II/ Of course, Milosz made some texts in English, but his artistic language was Polish - there are no American poems that are significant to his creation. You can't deny that. Milosz never used American as an artistic idiom in a sufficient and significant way. III/ Because as opposed to You We I don't confuse nationality and artistic work, I proposed to edit it like this : Polish poet, polish-american citizen IV/ When you talk about American nationality you ignore Polish history, because as a matter of fact Poland didn't exist as an independent, sovereign country between let's say 1939 and 1989, that's precisely why Milosz decided to break up his relationship with the communist regime that ruled in those times Poland. The abandonment/forced loss of "Polish" citizenship is an inalienable part of history of Polish people. It shows a very primary, insensitive and counterfactual behavior when someone says in these circumstances "he took an other citizenship, so he's not Polish anymore". Doing so you behave like someone who adopts the torturers's perspective, the political police's point of vue. Milosz would be horrified by that, and deeply hurt, and he was in fact when this issue was risen V/ Finally, I remember You that the article is FALSE as far as Polish citizenship is concerned, because in 1994 Milosz recovers a Polish New ID and in in 1995 a Polish new passport. Not of the PRL's ancient communist regime, but these of the 3 thd Republic of Poland. ARNOUD 11[reply]

>>>> (talk) I beg you to take into account this comment about your Becket argument. We can only compare what can be compared : Ireland during Becket's adult life was an independent country. Becket wasn't forced to renounce to his citizenship, contrary to Czeslaw Milosz in 1951. ARNOUD 11

I'm sorry to disagree, but I'm not the one who is mixing concepts. Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies are clear. Here is the exact language from MOS: Biography: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." (Emphasis mine.) According to these guidelines, the formulation "Polish-American" is therefore the right one, since it informs the reader of the national affiliation when Milosz became notable (Polish) and the citizenship he held for the latter part of his life (American). Describing him this way does not deny his Polish-ness, as you argue. (Nor do I believe that Milosz would be "horrified" to see himself described as an American, since he described himself that way in public. See Haven, Cynthia, Czeslaw Milosz: Conversations, p. 8) It is simply a reflection of facts that are well documented. As far as I can see, there is no standard in Wikipedia for describing someone solely according to the language they spoke or used for their written works. As for whether Milosz obtained Polish citizenship in the 1990s (not honorary, which is noted in the article, but full citizenship), you are more than welcome to make that change in the infobox if you can cite a reliable source that proves it. IbIANTiA (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Of course you're mixing concepts, because the paragraphs you quote here are well adapted to countries like France or USA which didn't loose their sovereignty in recent history (hope this remain the case), but totally unwarranted when you talk about countries like Poland. Milosz had lost his citizenship which wasn't in fact entirely Polish but communist Polish at that time. Mickiewicz was never let me repeat NEVER a Polish citizen, so weren't Slowacki, Krasinski, Norwid etc so weren't Chopin, Lelevel etc. but Russian, but French. If Poland had a different history, this would never happen. Of course, he was horrified when (many) people (whose ranks you join now...) denied him his Polish identity - in 1951 there was a large smear campaign which aimed to do that precisely. "You're not a Pole anymore ! ", they claimed "You have chosen the American-French imperialist camp". Paradoxically this argument was popular once again in more recent times in the nationalist circles (sometimes guided by external factors). In an interview, asked about his feelings about America, Milosz would always say, yes I'm grateful, I even can feel at some degree American, but this is not a very important thing, it's not a big thing regards to the profound identity, and he was in fact very hurt when his Polishness was denied. So when I read you, that really takes the biscuit! ARNOUD 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARNOUD 11 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARNOUD 11: First, can you please familiarize yourself with the proper formatting for posting on a Talk page? I believe the instructions are linked somewhere on the screen when you create a new post. Your formatting is all over the place, and it makes it difficult to follow the discussion. Thanks. Second, if the concern, which you and Nihil Novi seem to share, is to differentiate between citizenship and cultural belonging, then doesn't "Polish-American" do exactly that? The average reader will understand that description to mean that Milosz was culturally Polish, or of Polish origin, but had American citizenship. Again, it's a very common formulation, and I'm frankly not sure why this is proving to be so difficult. I'm not going to address your accusations that I'm some sort of monster aiming to obliterate Poland or deny Polish identity, except to say that you're not helping your cause by making wild claims. I have no agenda; my only interest is in having a Wikipedia article that gives facts. That is why I revised this page last year to begin with--it featured the kind of agenda-pushing that you now seem to be engaged in, and my goal was to have an article that was more neutral, properly sourced, and accurate. I hope you will respect that. Thanks. IbIANTiA (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk):IbIANTiA:As I said it early on these posts, I'm not used to using Wiki and I try to do my best. So please, try to be tolerant, understanding, comprehensive and accept to hear some arguments based on a scientific ground. As I have said and proved (in my opinion) your demonstration suffers from an ignorance of the specificity of the history of countries like Poland (a pivotal issue regarding to Milosz) and from a logic which is bureaucratic and not humanistically-oriented as evidenced by the fact that for you someone's choice of writing essentially in Polish, in the artistic, poetic dimension, all his life long and with a deep engagement, involvement in the cultural sense, means nothing in front of bureaucratic arguments such as a passport. Yes, I can't help myself seeing you as a monster (this is nothing personal about it and sorry for that). Im not making "wild claims" since I have given you many arguments : Ireland and Becket, Mickiewicz and other Polish luminaries who never had Polish citizenship for the simple reason that it was impossible at those times, Milosz loss of Polish communist citizenship which comes to an end by his decision to recover a new Polish ID and a Passport in 1994-5. The page isn't more "neutral" nor does it give "facts" as you said, no. Il has become a theft and a distortion which in fact consists of a historical and epistemological denying. The best solution - as I suggest for the third time - would be - if you hadn't an agenda as you say and wanted to preserve neutrality by enhancing the American components in Milosz's life, with reference to more or less an adequate pattern conveyed by Thomas Mann - to write "Polish poet" (because Milosz in the literary sense wrote only in Polish) and Polish-American citizen. (talk) comment added by ARNOUD 11

I understand your argument. What I'm saying is that your argument is not convincing. There is no agenda or monstrosity involved in describing someone with American citizenship as American. It's factually accurate, according to reliable sources that are cited in the article, and it's in keeping with Wikipedia's biography guidelines, which I've quoted and linked. What you've offered to support your argument is not scientific; on the contrary, you've only offered your personal interpretation or opinion. (You propose to describe Milosz as a "Polish poet and Polish-American citizen," but there is no such country as "Polish America," so what you are proposing is inaccurate and, I think, will only confuse Wikipedia readers.) You've also argued that nationality should not be considered at all in describing Milosz, given Poland's troubled history, but, I'm sorry, not only is that not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, it's just not a sound way to approach biography. You may find that monstrous or insensitive, but that only proves that you are not approaching this question from a "scientific" standpoint. Instead, you're arguing to do away with a whole commonly used factual category seemingly because you don't like the result it provides in this case: the historical, verifiable fact that Milosz became an American citizen. But as I've argued before, it's not a fact that can simply be disregarded. And as I've pointed out, there is no good precedent that I'm aware of for describing someone in the lead paragraph solely by the language they used for their creative writing. (You've pointed to the Thomas Mann article, which strikes me as having many problems, including its lead section.) This lack of good precedent is for good reason. What you call bureaucratic or non-humanistic is simply factual, and Wikipedia is in the business of providing facts, not personal "humanistic" interpretations. You have your own nuanced understanding of what qualifies, or does not qualify, under the term "Polish," but it is not a generally accepted understanding. The average high school student who reads the Milosz article will not understand, without being told, that when he's described up front as a "Polish poet" it's solely "in the literary sense." Especially when so many other biographical articles on Wikipedia use nationality in the lead description, per the MOS guidelines.

I'm sorry that you feel an injustice is being done. I don't see it that way at all. But it seems to me your argument is really with Wikipedia, not with me. Maybe you should contact an administrator to make the case that nationality should not be considered in the guidelines for biographical articles? Or that an exception should be made for this article? Otherwise, as I said, it seems to me that the formulation "Polish-American poet, essayist, diplomat, etc." is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and should satisfy the concern to capture both Milosz's cultural belonging and his citizenship. Thanks. IbIANTiA (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Hey, you distort my words and I understand it because your arguments are really unsatisfactory and that's why you prefer to offer a caricatural vision of mine in order to impose your schematic and biased vision. You are buying yourself a good conscience at my cost and at scientific costs. I'll get straight to the point by highlighting your distortions and errors what can easily be done. You say to me : You propose to describe Milosz as a "Polish poet and Polish-American citizen," but there is no such country as "Polish America", sorry this makes me laugh, also because I really was thinking that you are much smarter than that. We are not talking about countries but INDIVIDUALS, or there is such a thing nowadays as DOUBLE NATIONALITY-CITIZENSHIP (the second term being better). In fact your claims are vain when you accuse me of not giving scientific arguments, I tried to be courteous by only giving you arguments like a gentlemen, hopping you'll unblock your brain, now since you seem to completely ignore this possibility, these are the facts : Milosz lost his (lost, can you grab the difference) Polish communist citizenship in 1951, obtained an American one in the '70 and - finally - recovered a real - we can say - Polish one in 1994 (ID) 1995 (Passport). You are accusing me of offering only "my personal interpretation or opinion" and of not approaching this question from a "scientific" standpoint" so let me seize the opportunity to cross the T's and dot the I's, all these facts were consciously recorded by Milosz's personal secretary when Milosz was actually living in Krakow (a fact that the notice didn't mention enough), Agnieszka Kosinska, who wrote a very precise book about all Milosz's domestic, let's say, affairs *Added archive https://books.google.fr/books?id=jrk9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT773&lpg=PT773&dq=milosz+czeslaw+polski+dowod+osobisty&source=bl&ots=5Q9MLVIVDl&sig=ACfU3U3F9v6ifHS8aJTm8-0GRq4KYBzLdg&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOhbGhsJfpAhWN2hQKHY92A4MQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=milosz%20czeslaw%20polski%20dowod%20osobisty&f=false So my demonstration is both scientific and logic, yours isn't and that's on the basis of these all arguments that I say the best solution would be (containing a nod to people like you who are ready to get killed in order to bring up to light American components in Milosz's biography and to prove that He was American :) ) to edit the entry in such a way : "Polish poet and Polish-American citizen" : it's simply the truth considering a) that Milosz didn't write any substantial poem in English and purposely had been continuing to write in Polish (Tworzył po polsku i polski jest językiem jego twórczości) while in EXILE (have You ever considered this pivotal issue when approaching his biography? I guess you didn't.) b) after loosing Polish citizenship he recovered it in the 90ies. You said also to me : "You've also argued that nationality should not be considered at all in describing Milosz, given Poland's troubled history", that's - of course - completely untrue. On the contrary, in order to satisfy your needs and fill cognitive gaps, I have stressed this aspect by showing its complexity, its real and deep context, and please don't be insulting by using such an unfair and simplistic cliché like "Poland's troubled history". What must be established is not the result of a "troubled history" but a different history that you persist in ignoring and denying and also being so stubborn in holding to your own clichés. I've shown that you simply can't put on an equal footing Becket and Milosz because Ireland during Becket's adult life was an independent country. Becket wasn't forced to renounce to his citizenship, contrary to Czeslaw Milosz in 1951. I've shown you that we shouldn't neither assimilate Milosz to such writers, thinkers like Brodsky, Nabokov or Arendt because they really wrote their literary, poetic or philosophic works in English, they conceived them in that language, contrary to Milosz. Let me repeat : of course, Milosz made some texts in English, but his artistic language was Polish - there are no American poems that are significant to his creation. You can't deny that. Milosz never used American as an artistic idiom in a sufficient and significant way. Actually, as opposed to You, I think it would be a confusion if we mixed nationality and artistic work in that very case, because Milosz's decision to write essentially in Polish despite his remoteness from "native realm" must be granted and honored. It should have been respected for both scientific, ethical, historical reasons and that is precisely what you deny when rejecting a formulation like "Polish poet and Polish-American citizen"which means that you don't respect Milosz's own words because as you know it very well in the Nobel speech he said : " I am a Polish(, not a Lithuanian,) poet." Let me repeat also for the last time The abandonment/forced loss of "Polish" citizenship is an inalienable part of history of Polish people. This is not 'troubled" history, that's just history, it's history tout court. (talk) (ARNOUD 11(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to close the debate (which I entered only on a precautionary basis, without personal involvement, actually I consider it as tremendously boring), these are facts that negate your arguments for rejecting the wording "Polish poet and Polish-American citizen" 1/ Let's begin by saying that your position contradicts the US embassy in Warsaw as demonstrated in this document : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgb0CTsYnQ0 2/ Other sources : https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/aug/16/guardianobituaries.booksobituaries

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1980/milosz/facts/

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/books/czeslaw-milosz-poet-and-nobelist-who-wrote-of-modern-cruelties-dies-at-93.html

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/29/czeslaw-miloszs-battle-for-truth https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/15_milosz.shtml

ARNOUD 11 3 May 2020 (UTC)

ARNOUD 11, I'm not quite sure what to say to you at this point, especially as you continue to lob personal insults at me, which, as I've said, doesn't help your case. But I'll tell you what: I have more pressing concerns to focus on than continuing this back and forth, so let's see what we can work out.

With regard to Milosz's passport, thanks for providing the link to the Polish-language book. (Finally, after several posts, you provided a source!) I note that the book says he received a Polish passport (which, of course, he was entitled to), but also that he maintained his American passport, which didn't expire until 2006, after he died. Therefore, the situation doesn't change: it's still completely accurate, factual, and appropriate to use the formulation "Polish-American." If you'd like, I will be happy to add the Polish citizenship info to his infobox, with a note that he held dual citizenship after 1995. Of course, as I said before, you are more than welcome to make this change yourself.

The remaining issue, then, is that you want to include the formulation "Polish poet" as separate from "Polish-American." On that, you still don't have a good argument. (And yes, I've read the articles you linked.) The sentence "Czeslaw Milosz was a Polish poet and Polish-American citizen, prose writer, translator, and diplomat" is just too unclear and confusing. Again, the common mode for biographical articles, per the Wikipedia guidelines, is to place subjects in the context of nationality. You, instead, want to introduce a linguistic context, but that meaning simply would not be clear from the wording. So let's try this revision instead:

"Czeslaw Milosz was a Polish-American poet, prose writer, translator, and diplomat. A seminal Polish-language poet, regarded as one of the great poets of the 20th century, he won the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature."

Would that satisfy you? IbIANTiA (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>>>>:Thank you for your efforts but I ask you for one more effort. I won’t address your (unfounded) accusations but only the core issues of this debate. The only sentence that is not only unclear but also false and disarticulated is the one which is broadcasted now : “Czeslaw Milosz was a Polish-American poet, prose writer, translator, and diplomat.” These are the objective reasons why. First series of reasons 1/ Was Milosz an American poet? No he wasn’t because there are no American poems that are significant to his creation and Milosz had made the choice of writing in Polish, in the artistic, poetic dimension, all his life long which means a deep involvement in a situation of remoteness from "native realm" that is in linking with his status of a émigré and an exiled writer (the latter given also in a deep metaphysical sense). 2/ Was Milosz an American diplomat? Of course, he wasn’t. 3/ Was Milosz an American translator? He essentially traduced from other languages into Polish, but, yes, to some extent it’s true, because Milosz had help some native and professional translators to translate some Polish poets in American, particularly Zbigniew Herbert. 4/ Was Milosz an American prose writer? Not essentially and there is no major Milosz’s text written directly in American. His American-language texts are located in the very margins of his oeuvre. Second series Contrary to what you say and contend about my explications, the clue that I propose to follow is not only linguistic but both linguistic and historical as I stressed it many times, and I really would appreciate if you would consider this aspect because as you can figure it is totally pivotal. Milosz had lost his citizenship and eventually recovered it while retaining the American one. Contrary to your allegations, I never denied this aspect, on the contrary it’s obvious that I’ve precisely tried to find out the best formulation for it and I think that in an English Wikipedia presentation it deserves to be mentioned, that’s why - again and again - I appeal to retain the only wording that appears to be justified honest, objective and scientifically proved : “Polish poet, prose writer, translator, and diplomat, Polish-American citizen.” (ARNOUD 11(talk) 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but your formulation doesn’t work. As I’ve explained, it’s not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, it relies on your personal interpretation of which aspects of Milosz’s biography should count in describing him, and it invites too much confusion. However, to address your concern about pairing nationality with occupation, I’ll propose this:

“Czeslaw Milosz was a Polish-American known for seminal contributions to Polish-language poetry. He was also a prose writer, translator, professor, and diplomat. Regarded as one of the great poets of the 20th century, he won the 1980 Nobel Prize in Literature…”

I think this is reasonable, in addition to being accurate and in keeping with Wikipedia’s biography guidelines. IbIANTiA (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The time has come to take stock. Thanks for your efforts but...since the beginning our discussion unfolds in a topsy-turvy world : as you have recognized yourself, you’re the one who has made some changes and decided on your own autority to withdraw a commonly accepted formulation and - as evidenced by the links to the several articles I have included on this page, they could be much more numerous – broadly used by journalists as well as by academics and institutions such as the American Embassy worldwide. And it is I who am summoned to explain myself and who, in addition, am accused of favoring a formulation, according to you, unclear. Several plans are intertwined here. I admit that, during the first exchanges, I left too much room for underlying feelings. It is because I knew from the start how full of innuendo and bad faith this discussion is; its effectiveness proves it : in reality it should never have started since it is based on the questioning of facts supposed to be intangible. My very last demonstration proves to what point the formulation which you introduced and which appears on the site now is full with nonsense and contradictions (American poet, diplomat). Without the changes you introduced, this problem would not arise. In this debate, it is the guardian and the owner who is accused and the thief who claims the right to be the judge and the accuser. Thus, you’ve said that The sentence "Czeslaw Milosz was a Polish poet and Polish-American citizen, prose writer, translator, and diplomat" is just too unclear and confusing. » while there is no doubt that this is your formulation « «Polish-American poet, prose writer, translator, and diplomat. » that meets these criteria as I’ve recalled and mentioned above. Another example is provided by those assertions that are as compelling as they are totally unfounded : « I’m sorry, but your formulation doesn’t work. As I’ve explained, it’s not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, it relies on your personal interpretation of which aspects of Milosz’s biography should count in describing him, and it invites too much confusion. » In reality, from the start, it is you who wish to impose your own subjective interpretation by upsetting the hierarchy of « aspects of Milosz’s biography that should count in describing him » since It’s you who display the will granting first place, in a context that is focused however on literature and literary creation, to the question of citizenship compared to well-established concepts such as 1/ the language of writing when using the word POET 2/ the whole context determined by exile and geopolitical issues in which Milosz’s life was engaged and entangled. Normally, it should be you who should explain yourself, giving sufficient reasons for introducing these types of changes. Your reasons not only do not convince me but if they are maintained, they will have the consequence of misleading your readers, of fostering a certain intellectual laziness so that, in effect, as you write, in the end they will be persuaded that what you offer (although introducing chaos into a commonly accepted hierarchy) is “ a very common formulation, and I'm frankly not sure why this is proving to be so difficult. » Sooner or later if not me then someone else will end up saying that since Wikipedia has to undergo the dictate of such a thinking style then that means that it is an unreliable source. Now you have all the useful arguments and the ball is in your court and I really hope that you won’t be mean, obtuse or stubborn. As far as I’m concerned Im giving up this game.

ARNOUD 11 (talk) 20:22 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry that you are disappointed, or that you feel something awful or nonsensical is being perpetrated in this article. You might feel that I'm imposing my personal interpretation, but as I've said repeatedly, I'm merely following the guidelines of Wikipedia, which I've quoted and linked so that you can read for yourself. It's Wikipedia that prefers to put subjects in the context of nationality in the lead description. There are many, many articles on this site that follow that guidance and use the exact same sentence structure that is used for Milosz. I've read your arguments and offered reasonable alternatives in a good-faith effort to try to address your concerns. But if you feel your concerns are still not addressed, then your argument is really with Wikipedia, not me. I would encourage you to contact an administrator and make the case that the guidelines need to be revised. Good luck! IbIANTiA (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil novi (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin did obtain French citizenship, but – by overwhelming assent – appears on Wikipedia as a Polish composer. We must distinguish citizenship and cultural belonging.

Nihil novi (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk). You are right. Nevertheless, The Chopin's case is different and in France, because also of Polish laxity in those issues and the problems that Polish people have with their own nationality (their complexes about more classical and more dominant identities in recent history) in France there is a real problem with the recognition of Chopin's nationality. They have - in apparence - two arguments his father was French, he spent one half of his life in Paris. In fact, his father was a peasant's son and it 's only because there was a strong connexion between Poland and his region, the Lorraine (with a Polish king in exile), that some Polish gentlemen established in the neighborhood gave Nicolas (Fryderyk's father) an education since he was 10. In that region, people didn't speak French but a local dialect. In fact, Polish aristocracy learnt French to him... At the age of 16, Nicolas went to Poland and was repudiated by his family. In fact, he polonized himself and fought for Poland's independence. Fryderyk Chopin not only considered himself as a Pole but his works bear the imprint of various Polish inspirations. Moreover, we come back to the previous motif : by setting down in Paris, Chopin didn't left Poland really, he only left Warsaw which was under Russian rule at that time, because Paris was a kind of capital for struggling for their culture and identity masses of Polish intellectuals and former soldiers/insurgents. The Czartoryski's family bought Saint Lambert Hotel, a big estate in the heart of Paris from where Polish intellectual and artistic life radiated. Chopin was a member of that community. Again and again, someone who ignore Polish history and adopt (as today's Poles do very often) the classical Western patterns, would say - ah, first and foremost let's go beyond an issue which is unpleasant and admit that Chopin was a French-Polish composer. In France unduly there is such a tendency and even - sometimes - in Poland (because of a growing lack of historical knowledge about those times). But I repeat - there are differences between those two cases, even though I must agree with you, it was and is my point, my postulate - we really should separe political aspects from the substantial ones, which means in these matters artistic ones. And we should be sensitive, not immensely vulgar. ARNOUD 11

Polish-American

I love it how all sources provided to prove Miłosz's American identity are also American, even though we are talking about a political émigré who had retained his original identity and language of expression throughout his life. Meanwhile Isadora Duncan is still listed as American, in spite of being a Soviet citizen at the time of her death in France. Are you heckin kidding me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.10.128.80 (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-American, again...

First, sources cited in lead currently are:

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (link): "Polish-Lithuanian-born American writer"
Lexico (link): "US poet and writer; born in Lithuania to Polish parents.". It is a dictionary website - probably not very reliable for such issues. And seriously, to call Miłosz an American writer is... sigh.
Mirriam-Webster (link): "Czeslaw 1911–2004 Polish writer" - this source explicitly states just Polish... that said, this is just another dictionary
Britannica (link): "Polish American author"
scholarly article, reliable (link): in passing it includes Miłosz in the group of Polish-Americans

Without digging into more sources, I think it is not unreasonable to describe him as a Polish-American (a Pole who emigrated to US). The lead should however stress that his primary language of writing was Polish.

Side-note: Polish Wikipedia describes him currently as a Polish poet. Lithuanian, as "a Polish and Lithuanian. French, as Polish. German, Polish. Spanish, Polish. I did not check other wikis.

I do remain concern to what degree the "American-" part is due in the lead, but I need to do more literature review before I have an opinion on this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to replace the dictionary citations with scholarly sources, here are two I found:

1. Pramuk, Christopher. "Milosz and Merton: Poets of Hidden Victories." CrossCurrents 60, no. 4 (2010): 487-494. doi:10.1353/cro.2010.a783256.

2. Gomori, George. "To. (Featured Reviews)." World Literature Today 75 (2001): 110. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A82262817/AONE?u=nysl_oweb&sid=googleScholar&xid=b9032af3

You could also cite Franaszek's biography, which confirms Miłosz's US citizenship, or Cynthia Haven's work (her most recent book about Miłosz describes him as an American from the opening pages, and is praised by Miłosz's son, as well as a number of experts in the field).

But, really, this shouldn't require sources in the lead at all. I only added them because people kept removing "American" and I wanted to demonstrate that it is not unusual to refer to Miłosz as Polish-American--plenty of authoritative sources do so. But Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography makes clear that citizenship/nationality should be used to describe the subject in the lead. Miłosz was an American citizen. That is factually accurate and verified in the article with reliable sources. That should be good enough. But people kept removing the factually accurate description in the lead, so here we are. IbIANTiA (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What did Miłosz write about? About matters American, or European? Which language did he competently write in, English or Polish? If you say "both languages", I'll quote you a text by him where he confuses the meanings of a Polish and an English word – two cognate words of completely different meanings.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tentatively guess that this is related to the mismatch between Polish and American sources. In Poland, nobody connects Miłosz with US (much) these days. At least, that's my impression. Will need to do more source digging. There could even be an academic paper to be written about Miłosz's nationality as seen from Poland and from outside of it... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see, in Miłosz's The History of Polish Literature, second edition, University of California Press, 1983, p. 299, on Bolesław Prus' historical novel Pharaoh:

"It can be defined [Miłosz means, in Polish, "określona" ("described"), which is calqued on the Latin definire, "to limit, to define"] as a novel on the mechanism of state power... Prus, by [Miłosz should here have written "in"] selecting the reign of 'Pharaoh Ramses XIII' (who never existed) in the eleventh century before Christ, sought a perspective that was detached from the [the article adjective "the", here, is unnecessary and clumsy] pressures of actuality [Miłosz is here thinking "aktualność", which in English is expressed by "topicality"] and censorship."

Please let me know if I can offer you some assistance, gratis, if you decide to write something on Miłosz for publication outside Wikipedia!

Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"What did Miłosz write about? About matters American, or European?" Ryszard Kapuściński wrote about Africa, Latin America, Iran. Should he not be described as a Polish writer?

"Which language did he competently write in, English or Polish? If you say "both languages", I'll quote you a text by him where he confuses the meanings of a Polish and an English word..." Plenty of native-born, English-speaking Americans make mistakes with English. Some of them have even been elected President of the United States. I'm sure they'd be surprised to learn that their mistakes with English warrant the removal of "American" from their biography.

As much as I enjoy discussing Miłosz, unfortunately I don't have time to keep pointing out that he was an American citizen, and Wikipedia says to use that to describe biographical subjects. I appreciate that you think an exception should be made, or that we really should think in terms of language or something else, but we are simply faced with the undisputed, well-sourced fact that he was an American citizen. If you don't think that should factor into a description of him, then I encourage you to raise the matter with the Wikipedia admins, and request that they change the guidelines for biographical articles. Good luck! IbIANTiA (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we should get different approach to figures which were forced to leave their homeland for political reasons. It's one thing to note their second citizenship, another is to describe their national identification as dual. We should it of course approach it case by case, but with having that in mind. In Miłosz's case I'm inclined to define him as solely Polish. Marcelus (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 1835 Chopin took out French citizenship but appears in Wikipedia's "Frédéric Chopin" as "a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist". On occasion, rigid "guidelines" yield to common sense and consensus.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are developed by common sense and consensus. They exist precisely to prevent certain arguments from happening over and over. And if you prefer to take other articles as guiding examples instead of the MOS guidelines, then I could cite many Wiki articles that properly reflect their subjects' dual nationalities in the lead description. IbIANTiA (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English works by Miłosz

What are his unique English-language works? As in, not the ones he translated himself, but ones he wrote in English, not in Polish? The History of Polish Literature? Anything else? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have collaborated a good deal with English-language poets, authors, and students.

Some of his writings were rendered into English by translators. You can check those on Amazon or Google.

When he did not have an adequate editor, you can find infelicities like the ones I've cited above.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosed COI

Hi! I work for the BYU Library, and I'll be improving this page. Please feel free to reach out with any questions, comments, or concerns. Noah Hickman (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Noah Hickman (BYU) (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Works Section

This section could use a little organizing. I think that the descriptions of Miłosz's work here are good, but the structure obfuscates what specifically set Miłosz apart as a touchstone writer. I think this happens partially because, as it stands, this section collapses his poetry, fiction, and essays/memoirs under the banner "work" even though Miłosz's logic and style vary between each genre. I think the descriptions of his poetry in this section do a good job, but the descriptions of his fiction and nonfiction are almost nonexistent even though Miłosz's most known work is, arguably, the book The Captive Mind (his Nobel citation goes as far as to make this same claim). I plan to reorganize this section into subsections organized by genre (see the T. S. Eliot page for a general sense of what I'm after). I know that Miłosz has some genre-bending works, but I plan to account for this in a fourth section which discusses the genre-fluid nature of some of his writing. Of course, I'm open to suggestions/critiques/conversation on this edit. If the change doesn't work, I'm happy to revert it to stand as-is. Noah Hickman (BYU) (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Noah. My only suggestion would be to model any revision on an article that has achieved Featured Article status, otherwise you may end up doing a lot of work that will just be revised again down the road. T.S. Eliot doesn't make that cut (that article has a B rating), but W.B. Yeats does, for example. You can see more Featured Articles by going to the main page and, in that day's featured article, clicking on the option for "More featured articles." You might notice that the descriptions of authors' work or style are typically brief, as the idea is to give a general reader a basic understanding/summary of the author's major work. Hope this helps. IbIANTiA (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is helpful advice - I'll pivot from the T.S. Eliot page to the Yeats page as an example page, and I'll try to keep the overview of his style fairly spare and to-the-point. Noah Hickman (BYU) (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An update: after reviewing the W.B. Yeats page and thinking about the relationship of the 'Works' section to the larger article, I think I will leave the section as-is (other than a few copyedits I made for the sake of clarity). Instead, I think Miłosz deserves a separate page for his poetry (a la the Poetry of Maya Angelou) and probably his fiction and essays. My relative expertise lies with poetry, so I will leave the potential fiction and essay pages to others. Noah Hickman (BYU) (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]