Talk:Lithuania/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Early discussions

Note: Some of these discussions from 2001 were originally at the Foreign relations of Lithuania article (then "Lithuania/Transnational issues"). See the contributions showing the text move at the Nostalgia Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Jesus, i read this again - who wrote it? Gintas Kaminskas by any chance? Lithuanian higher class dominated by Polish???? Damn, Radziwills were so dominated weren't they! Polonisation, once again, happaned not as result of state policy, but as result of constant contact with (higher at that time) Polish culture. I'd like to discuss that with author of changes, or i will change that to sounding more neutral, since this is strictly lithuanian, nationalistic, unrealistic, biased point of view. szopen

-- I would like to point, that ,,Polonisation of Lithuania was not effect of state policy, nor it was goal of Union of Lublin, that Jogaila wanted union with Poland as much as Polish lords, that ,,Western Lithuania taken by Poland in 1920 had majority of Poles who in in referendum voted to joining Poland (referendum was boycotted by Lithuanians, but even if it wasn't, that won't change results, and anyway, this article is _BIASED_ szopen from Poland

--

Before we go further, I would like to point out that the Annales Quedlinburgensis or Annals of Quedlinburg, are not imperial, nor even royal. They are monastic annals. Quedlinburg is a monastery. Remember Matilda, Abbess of Quedlinburg? JHK

Some Polish politicians claim the following problems present. Explanation why they do not hold in square braces
Ethnic minorities are discriminated. The discrimination is in several areas :

land ownership [owner should be citizen of Lithuania; most of polish people who permanently lives in Lithuania have citizenship - so no problem here]

nice talking but the facts are different [what facts are different? polish has no citizenship? or what?]

access to education in native tongues [state funds schools where education is given in russian and polish languages; number of such schools roughly coresponds to number of people with russian and polish native languages; by contrast there are just couple of lithuanian schools in Poland] in fact they receive most money from Polish organizsation, at least according to articles shwoing here in press, since they receive money from Lithuanian govenrment lately and not enough szopen

are there lithuanian children in Poland who cannot learn in their native tongue, and actually Polish schools are being closed in Lithuania [yes, there are lithuanian children in Poland who cannot learn in their native tongue; and about closing - lithuanian schools are closed too; and the only criteria is attendance in those schools]

access to native culture [there are tv programmes in Russian, Polish, Belorussian languages on national tv; there is Russian Theater in Vilnius; there are no restriction on books based on language they are published; so on...]
national and local government representation [elections are free; polish representatives are present in Seimas]

and changing voting districts just to leave Polish majority without representatives is OK ? [1) that do not affect local government; 2) as for representation in national parlament - polish districts ussually shows smallest participation in elections (which is not what you would expect from discriminated people)]

according to what i read in Polish press, Lithuanian gvt changed borders of districts so region with Polish majority was divided and added to regions with Lithuanian majorities, so in effectc Poles lost representation in local government szopen

transcription of names and family names that are written in Lithuanian [please name the country there this is not a case]

in regions where 100% population is Polish they still have to call themselves with those funny endings in administrative offices; and the greatest Polish poet is not Mickiewicz but Mickiewiczius ??? [do you propose to use one name in local administration and another in national? What to do when papers go from one level to another? do you claim that lithuanian in Poland could achieve his last name MickeviÄ*ius written according to lithuanian rules? you still did not name the country there are no adaptation of foreighn names to local language]

But in Poland, if your name is Mauricius, you will have that name in documents, not Mauricjuski, Mauricz or whatever. If you name is Schmidt, you are called Schmidt, not Szmid. While in Lithuania, they add an ending to name - that is, they are changing people's names!szopen

Quedlinburg was the imperial seat of the Ottonians and it also had a monastery user:H.J.

But aren't the Annals from the monastery? That monastery had an important connection to the imperial family (they supplied a series of abbesses), but it is incorrect to call it an 'imperial monastery.' Q. was an imperial residence - it's incorrect to see them as having one seat. And in 1009, Otto was dead.

The imperial belongs to Quedlinburg, but there is no article yet. An Ex president is still a president. user:H.J.

Well, no. 'Imperial' is often loosely applied to monasteries; we don't have to be so careless on Wikipedia. Once imperial does NOT equal always imperial. Under Henry IV imperial patronage shifted very decisively from Quedlinburg and Paderborn to Bamberg. Members of the Saxon dynasty may have remained in charge, but building and art patronage came to a screeching halt. The system by which, for instance, cities became Imperial Cities - a durable title which outlasted the reign of the individual emperor - or ministeriales became Imperial Knights is a much later phenomenon (14th century? Later than my period of expertise). And it doesn't matter who founds it - the name of the institution does not take on the term "Imperial". Bamberg is a nice example. The diocese and its cathedral was founded by Henry IV, but it doesn't really do that well with later imperial patronage. It would be incorrect to call it an 'Imperial Diocese' or 'Imperial Cathedral', despite its foundation. --MichaelTinkler

Even in the case of Royal or Imperial abbeys, the annals are still recorded by the inhabitants and are as such ecclesiastic. {Also, (and these sources are pretty familiar to me) royal or imperial sources say so in the title.} The rest only meant that the royals in question got some say over who was abbot or abbess, and a cut of the takings Before the Pope. JHK

BIAS? Mr. szopen, you accuse these pages of bias? Let us examine your bias: above, your sarcastic remark about the Radziwills implies that you think that they were not Polonized - yet, do you use their Lithuanian surname? Did they? No - you do not and they did not - because the Polish culture (characterized by you, with bias, as "higher") dominated. Pay attention, one of the countries in the "common"wealth was the kingdom, the other was the great duchy. Explain how that is not domination.

Their name is Radvila, by the way. Without a line through the l. By the way, szopen, you were, below on this page, complaining about Lithuanians converting Polish names? How do you explain what happened to Radvila? And Jogaila? And Gediminas (changed to Gedymyn) and Vytautas (changed to Witovt)?

There was, and is, a Polish ferver to dominate Lithuania. Lithuania and Poland started as countries in a union, and slowly, with treaty after treaty, the rights of Lithuania as independant were curtailed. By the time of the partitions of Poland and Lithuania, Lithuania had been so swallowed by Poland (in Polish eyes) that there was no need to even mention Lithuania as a separate state in the famous third of May constitution. And then, of course, Poland saw nothing wrong with breaking treaties and invading Vilnius (another name that is often Polonized to Wilno, by the way) in 1920. This Polonization continues today, especially in regions in Poland with a high Lithuanian population. Lithuanian culture is opressed, Lithuanian children in schools are ridiculed _by_ _their_ _teachers_ for wanting to learn their own language. And in Lithuania, the Poles demand separate schools, separate texts, separate teachers, all paid for by Lithuania. As for another example, down below, you state that "according to what i read in Polish press, Lithuanian gvt changed borders ...so in effectc[sic] Poles lost representation". Polish press with an anti-Lithuanian _bias_!

If there is any bias in the History of Lithuania page, it occurs in the WWII section. It portrays Lithuanians as fevered anti-semites. In fact, unlike many of the surrounding countries, no SS troops ever came out of Lithuania, and no death camps were ever built there. Lithuania was a small country caught between two madmen. Yes, Hitler and the Nazis killed many Lithuanian jews, but Stalin and the Soviets killed many Lithuanians in general, both during the war (especially in the June of 1941) and in the decades of Soviet rule afterwards.

tamulis

The lithuanian language link to the Lithuanian article on Lithuania does not seem to work, is there a reason?:-s. -fonzy

Now it works again - lt.wikipedia.org had problems.

Moved from article: Other sources including maps, give bigger numbers of smaller administrative units. I have doubts, whether those counties really exists?

They do exist. A quite big page about the subdivision can be found at [1], and it also links to the actual law which created them in 1994 [2]. I guess the map you saw was one which showed the 56 municipalities - maybe the map used pre-1994 boundaries. andy 18:58, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This way we won't get far, nor will we construct anything with border disputes... Just a set of facts that might end the dispute (though I must admit that I don't see signs of bias in present version of the History of Lithuania article).

Lithuania was not mentioned in the 3rd may constitution because both polish and lithuanian MPs decided that a new state be formed, therefore deleting both states from the map and replacing them with just one - the Republic (sometimes referred to as the Commonwealth). I will change the corresponding paragraph accordingly, for it were not the partitions to end the existence of Lithuania as a separate (or semi-separate as some may say) state.

As to the topic of Radvila/Radziwill: I had a discussion with some fellow Lithuanians recently and the only facts we found out were that 'The Family' (as they were usually referred to) gained the name of 'Radziwill/Radvila' not earlier than one generation before the Mikolaj 'the Black'/ Mikolaj 'the Red'/ Barbara generation (contrary to what the legends say). And all of them were already born in ruthenized (byelorussianized/russified/ukrainized/whatever) families. The only direct ancestor of Radziwills that can be found in latopises was Krystian Oscik (died 1442). It were either his children, or grandchildren to get the name. Which leaves not more than one generation for the lithuanian version of their name. After that its' either in its' ruthenized version, or in polish.

Jagiello/Jogaila is a different issue as on the court in Cracow he was speaking polish and quickly accepted the polonized version of his name while probably during visits to Lithuania he might've been speaking lithuanian still - and using the original version of his name. Gedyminas should obviously be switched to his original name.

As to the Wilno/Vilnius 1920 - I think that this problem deserves its' own page. I'll post a link as soon as it's ready for discussion.

Halibutt 20:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I almost finished my Central Lithuania project, but I still need some help, especially with the 'other leg' and the census of 1916. Could anyone help? Halibutt 22:34, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lithuanian-Polish relations and related topics

Good day for all friends of wikipedia and all ones, who take interest in our little Lithuania. But, I see, here only one aspect of Lithuanian life is shown. If here only Lithuanians and Poles discussed. I suppose it's so. So, i'll join a bit the discussion, which is interesting only for inhabitants of former “Commonwealth of both nations”. People of other countries, I suppose, look at the discussion pop-eyed. And a great expansion of the discussion even in wikipedia pages may cause the misunderstanding of Lithuania history and problems. But let it be. Firstly, I think, we must give thanks to Poles wiki-writters for taking a big part in preparing of wiki page about Lithuania. The page is good. Even despite some little imprecisions, especially concerning the former problem around Vilnius. For example. Zemaitija (Samogitia or -getia in Latin, Zmudz in Polish) did not coincide with Lithuania Propria (as in the “Central Lithuania” is said). Look ancient maps please! Plus to it, Zemaitija was the only part of former Lithuania, which never had a significant Polish population. Does it have some significance? How do you think?

So to the main theme of the discussion. You know, Lithuania – Poland relations never were very clear and all in the same key. Mickiewicz and other Polish authors show Lithuania as a land of mists and swamps. It may be understood not in the direct sense only. But how to answer the discussion questions? I'll try to find some basis to answer these questions and to reduce misunderstandings and, maybe, disagreements. So, sometimes there exist different states with the same official language (as Austria and Germany). And sometimes there exist the same state with two or even more dominating nations in it (as Switzerland was in its beginning). When we speak about “the Republic of both nations”, it was formed as one state with two different nations. But in the last years of the Republic not the official power, but the polish language, culture and Catholicism were main factors of unity of Lithuania and Poland,- as we deal with the state of the sort, first mentioned. So, Union of Lithuania and Poland was a bit of the first sort, a bit of the second. And these two “bits” allowed to preserve Lithuanian speaking majority in big areas of former Lithuania. In the middle of XIX century in these areas, the changing of language of Lithuanian elite into Lithuanian was only question of time. But the question of Lithuanian independence, of a Lithuanian state was more complicated. However the differences between Poland and Lithuania allowed to preserve lithuanian-speaking community, and this fact led towards the reestablishing of Lithuania on new, modern basis in the beginning of XX century. And it was inevitable, that Lithuanians and Poles divided heritage of former Lithuania. But had we to do it the such way? And, I think, we must recognize, that we have already divided this heritage, and not behave, as if historians or sociologists continued dividing and looked at one another from the different sides of a front-line. For example, I think, Polish historians are more objective (than Lithuanian ones), while concerning problems of the Great Duchy. But they are less objective, concerning problems of Lithuanian nation renaissance in the and of the XIX century. Maybe Poles subconsciously accept the words of their Genius: “All Lithuania is the past”? So let's more discuss about present Lithuania.

Linas Plankis, philologist, Vilnius (l.plankis@freemail.lt) LinasLit ____________________________________________________________

I'm no expert on Lithuania, but I've been there several times and read something about its history. More to the point, I've read a lot about the Teutonic Order. As far as I know, Lithuania (Litauen in German) never was subdued by the Teutonic Order, nor incorporated into their state, although for decades the Teutonic Knights conducted exploitive raids on Lithuania, the so-called Litauenreise, that attracted knights from other parts of Europe, including England. I believe all this stopped after the Lithuanians adopted Christianity, so that the 'Christian' knights could no longer justify the raids as forays against the 'heathen' Lithuanians. And of course, the Lithuanians participated with the Poles in the defeat of the Order in 1410 at Tannenberg, known to the Lithuanians as Zalgiris (and to the Poles as Grunwald). By the way, the Lithuanian coat of arms with the mounted knight is an allusion to this epoch-making battle. It's true that most of modern Latvia, and Estonia, were conquered by another German order, the Brothers of the Sword, who later become incorporated into the Teutonic Order, but the Order itself only held a thin coastal strip of modern Lithuania, including the fortress and port of Memel, today the Lithuanian port of Klaipeda.

user:sca 3may04

You are right all 100%. Lithuania was never occupied by the Theutonic Order. It's christianisation was voluntary. Some inner political and even military strives weren't avoided, and the Order participated in them, but it didn't change the situation essentially. Poland mediated in christening of Lithuania, not the Order. And Lithuania was christened in 1387, so it was in XIV century, not in XIII. - We must repair this false statement. I don't understood, how I missed it earlier.
I think I'll close it with comment marks now. And straight phrase for replace is needed.
Linas 09:08, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Non-Lithuanian names

I've been reading through entries of various Lithuanian towns and I notice that in most of them, the city of Vilnius is often called "Wilno". Without intending to cast ethnic slurs or insult the integrity of the Lithuanian people, wouldn't it be wiser to change them to "Vilnius" in an English language encyclopedia? "Wilno" does not (IMO) intuitively translate to "Vilnius", and it's probably a bit confusing to some English-language readers. Or is this another potential Gdansk/Danzig-type of situation that would lead to an edit-war-to-end-edit-wars? Dukeofomnium 19:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yup, after a naming compromise at Talk:Gdansk I started to use the policy in all articles about cities. To avoid any possible problems and revert wars (fortunately there weren't any yet; an interesting case: why are there so many rv wars in German-Polish related topics, while articles on Central European cities remain peaceful and civilized...?) I call all cities with the names used at the time, not current ones. This of course leads to another problem: at times (as with Vilnius in 20th century, for instance) the city changed hands (and official names) so fast that it might be a little confusing. However, as long as all names are mentioned in the very first lines of the article, it seems acceptable. Halibutt 05:27, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I can understand that. But if I'm reading an article about the geography of a town in Lithuania that mentions it's however many miles from "Wilno" (i.e., an article describing current conditions), wouldn't "Vilnius" be more correct (in a Wikipedia context)? I get the feeling, by the way, that a lot of these articles are written by someone whose native language is not English. The writer's syntax is not "English-like". Not intended as an unkind personal criticism -- certainly he's better at writing English than I would be writing his language -- but it gives the compulsive editor in me something to do. Dukeofomnium 12:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

AAMoF the idea behind the Talk:Gdansk naming compromise was to use different names in the history section, while at the same time using the present-day official name (be it English or local). If you see any non-current names in parts other than history (or related to the present-day city), it's a mistake and should be corrected. Halibutt 14:52, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

I dont agree that 'Wilno' or 'Kowno' names were used during Lithiuania-Poland Comonwealth times. I know Vilnius was inhabited mainly by non-lithuanians, but Kaunas always was primary lithuanian city. And Vilnius was mainly inhabited by jewish people, so why don't we refer it in jewish? Those polish names are just confusing and it is very doubtfull if tey were mainly used at any historical time. Knutux 09:02, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

There is always a problem with definig what was the name of the town in past centuries. In some cases the official language of the state is used -- in this case Kaunas should be referred to as Kowno since 1697, when the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was changed from Ruthenian to Polish. However, at times the language of the majority of the population might be used (as it is with Gdansk being referred to as Danzig even when treating about the period when the city was a part of Poland).

When it comes to Vilnius/Vilna/Wilno, the official names were as follows: firstly Vilnius, then as the town grew bigger and was populated by the ruthenized nobility the name used was most probably Vilna. And later, as the local population got polonized in 16th century the name was Wilno. Jews never formed the majority of the town (28% with Yiddish as their language in the 1931 census, 5,9% in 1919 (8,7% in 1931) of the voivodships population being of Judaist religion).

As to Kaunas, I don't think the language of the town population was Lithuanian prior to 20th century. As with most of the towns in the area, the local population was mainly polonized with Lithuanian language spoken in the countryside. Anyway, I suppose the most sensible solution for Kaunas would be:

Kaunas until 1697 (ignoring the fact that the local nobles spoke Ruthenian rather than Lithuanian)
Kowno until either the Partitions of Poland or November Uprising (the latter being the date when both Polish and Lithuanian were officially banned)
Kovno until 1918 (Kovna, Vilna, not Kovno. Ruthenian and Russian usage was of this kind. Jews used this form too. By the way, in 1915 – 1918, the country was under German rule. :-) Linas 09:58, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC))
Kaunas ever since

I'm not sure whether all the minor switches should be included (Kovno 1940-1941, Kaunas 1941-1944, Kovno or Kaunas 1944-1990). How about that? Halibutt 14:52, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Note: Language of population in Kaunas was Lithuanian in the end of 17th century. Later it became more Polish, but never 100%. Earlier data isn't known for me. This fact also explains very fast lituanization in Kaunas after 1919. Main centers of the Great Duchy, Vilnius and Grodna, were more much Polish, than such towns as Kaunas. Linas 09:58, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC).

I respect your posision, but my point of view is different. I'm sure you are right about majority population facts, but don't you think it is not consistent to call city in different names if it was never renamed? If that is the way of calling places, why don't we call Poland 'Polan' and Lithuania 'Litauen' then refering to those teritories in German occupation period? I understand the cases of St.Petersburg or Volgograd are different as the cities were actualy renamed, but if the city name is not changed, I believe it should be called not in 'native' language, but in English name, which is Vilnius and Kaunas in our case. Knutux 15:02, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

I guess I'm the wrong person to oppose you since your main argument (consistency!) was the same as mine in the Talk:Gdansk discussion. However, it was decided that avoiding revert wars and historical accuracy are more important than consistency. For me it was a choice between two bad systems, but the one chosen seems at least logical.

Also, take note that the English names did change a lot and in Central Europe it's very hard to find a place that actually has an English name that hasn't changed (Warsaw and Prague are the only two examples from the top of my head). Most of other cities were referred to with a plethora of names and I doubt one could find a 19th century English text referring to the present-day capital of Lithuania as Vilnius. Also, the city indeed was renamed since the signs on the roads leading to Wilno did change in 1945... Halibutt 19:41, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

I still prefer one (present) english name to be used in all historical times even if there are doubts if it was called this way in one or another epoch. But let's leave as it is. About changing of the name to Wilno I don't agree that was a rename - Vilnius was always 'Wilno' in polish and replacing of the road signs was just a change of official language used, not a rename of a city. As I understand in polish no one calls city Vilnius even as it is now official name in lithuanian and some other languages. But still, I will not argue any more, even as it is not nice (for me) to read my native city's name in other languages :). Knutux 06:44, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

I fully understand your point of view. Moreover, I see that the choice between one name throughout the ages and many names in different periods is a choice of a lesser evil (or rather choice between one oversimplification and the other). However, I believe it's a fair solution and hopefully will allow us to prevent countless revert wars if nationalists from either side start to put their propaganda here just as it is with Szczecin or Wrocław. Halibutt 13:41, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

To Halibutt. Your proposal of periods (see above) is consequent. There are such situations when different names denote different periods, as with Constantinople and Istanbul or Lutetia Parisiorum and Paris. But in our case it couldn't be taken as a rule. Why? I think, we should agree, that situations are a bit different. When the city was called Lutetia Parisiorum it wasn't called Paris and vice versa. The same is with Istanbul. But Vilnius, Vilna and Wilno actually is the same name with different adaptation in different languages. And, what is more essential in our case, all three variants were used by Vilnienses (i mean inhabitants of Vilnius) during all these periods. They were parallel variants, but not consequent. - So why, if Lithuanians called the city Vilnius in the 19th century, should I call Vilnius of 19th century Vilna? I think, there may be situations, when other variants were used, but its better to avoid such situations. Russians changed Vilna to present Vilnyus (I mean cyrillic alphabet here) and nothing dangerous happened. - And, finally, it's a problem minor, when we still have untrue and dubious statements to revise.

Linas 09:58, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

Dubious or untrue statements - that's what we should focus on. I prepared the main frame of the history section based on many sources (including my family memoirs; parts of my family originate from there) so there might be some false statements or oversimplifications. I suppose you refer to the History section since I doubt you would be mentioning some minor flaws in the percentage of women or city's area :) Let's concentrate on those flaws and move to Talk:Vilnius, shall we? Halibutt 13:41, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean any concrete false statement here neither any location, full of such statements :-) ! If I knew it, I would revise it. I only suppose, that they may exist, basing on, for example, the situation, described above (the piece about Theutonic order). What concerns dubious statements, they exist. But it also is more subjective decision, whether a statement is dubious or not. - When I thought about this Vilnius – Vilna – Wilno problem, I remembered many things, which could be mentioned, in connection to it. But such text enlargement could also be understood as we deal with the main problem. While it isn't main. That's why I said, what could be more significant, as I thought, than this problem.

Linas 07:22, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

To User:Halibutt. Your policy of using the names of the cities according to the "widespread" name of that time is flawed. Who decides what was the "widespread" or "accepted" name of the city at that time? Is it based on some historians of that time mentioning it in their articles? In that case how do you know that the historian was using the "widely accepted" name and not the nickname that his nation preferred to use at that time? What makes you think that in the XVII-th age lithuanians called their city Wilno or Kowno or some other non-lithuanian name? If you're writing to Polish Wikipedia, then you can stick to the Polish names, but we're talking about English here.
Your policy is wrong. Because at any given time in history there are many different ways that things are being named. The correct way to name the cities is by using the OFFICIAL name of the city of the time when the historical article IS WRITTEN. This is year 2004, english speaking people eventually got their act together and started naming things the right way - in English texts Vilnius is written as "Vilnius". And one last point: Wikipedia is built on collective work, one man improves on the other man's work. You've done your share of valuable work including enough Polish point of view about Vilnius, now it's lithuanians turn correct your mistakes.

--Faustas 22:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Faustas, it is not my policy and I'm not its fan. AAMoF I voted against such solution for the reasons you give. However, my opponents got their arguments too and I must say that they are pretty convincing. Read the Talk:Gdansk and refer to the arguments they used. As a sidenote - it's not Lithuanians' turn to correct my mistakes if there are such. It's everyones' turn. Halibutt 17:16, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Faustui: Dalykas čia labai paprastas. Kokia prasmė taisyti pavadinimus, kol pati medžiaga apie, sakykime, Vilniaus Universitetą pateikta tik ta, kurią žmonės yra surinkę iš savo lenkiškų šaltinių. Labai galimas dalykas, kad jie patys net nenori iškraipyti duomenų. Reikia pasakyti, kad pats istorijos mokymas Lenkijoje yra labai siejamas su tautiškumo ugdymu, susitelkimu vien ties savo tauta. Tas atsispindi ir straipsniuose apie mus. O mes - padarykim pirmiausia, kas būtų naudinga skaitytojams, o tada žiūrėsime.
Linas 15:27, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

List of cities

DĖMESIO! Attention, please... List of cities in Lithuania is incorrect finally. There are only few CITIES in Lithuania. Such localities as Paneriai or Dubingiai aren't even regional centers. Only two towns , Palanga and Neringa, which aren't regional centers, may be considered as cities, and even these only conditionally, for they go under the same administrative status as real cities in Lithuania. Additionally, only these regional centers, which have different municipalities from their regions, could be considered cities. (See Counties of Lithuania, which is more clear).
But now, I see, this article is used as “list of localities”. So THIS PROBLEM needs revision and more attention.
Linas 11:41, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

What is the Lithuanian way of granting a town city status? Halibutt 09:36, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

A CITY, i suppose, must have local municipality at least. The problem is, that Lithuanian name miestas means both 'town' and 'city'. We can solve this problem formally. There are two types of municipalities. The first one, when a town has the same municipality with its region (this type is called region for units, formed before 1990 and municipality for regions formed later). The second one, when a town with its suburbs (so, a city) has its separate municipality from its region. (e. g. Kaunas city and Kaunas region, see Counties of Lithuania). - This problem also has other solution. To rename the article List of cities in Lithuania moving it. But it's a painful operation, so i'm waiting for more responses here.
Linas 15:13, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

I know the term miestas has two meanings (after all it's been taken from Polish language.. :) ). However, don't you have something similar to the city rights in Lithuania? In Poland (and many other countries in Europe) a village becomes a town/city when it's granted city rights by the central authorities. That makes the things much easier. Perhaps you have such a thingie as well? Halibutt 18:11, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

The present administrative system is such, as I described above. Looking at the old tradition of granting city rights, which, applying to the Grand Duchy times, also is called 'ius Magdeburgense', it was kept till the postwar years. The division between towns and cities was in prewar Lithuania too. This elaborate system wasn't renewed after 1990 as, i think, too complicated for the not big country. This unite, what we call city here (applying to present Lithuania) is called miesto savivaldybė (an urban municipality) or simply miestas and it was called respublikinio pavaldumo miestas (city of republic-level administration) before 1990. Towns of region-level administration existed too before 1990, but they lost all relics of their specifics during latest reforms.

miestas :) had been taken from Slavic languages before the end of the 14th century. Perhaps from Polish one, but its more probable, that from a neighboring Eastern Slavic one. Later borrowings have not 'ie' but 'ė' in position like this. E. g. kalėdos from kolady (belarusian word, meaning Christmas in Lithuanian, which should be known in Polish too, at least in its dialects). :):):).
Linas 11:19, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

I see. So your government simplified the administration, but also at the same time made our job harder :D I think you should complain to your MP :D

As to the borrowed word - I'm 99% sure that it was taken from some Western Slavic language since it's the western Slavs who use the miest- or miast- root for town or city. Eastern Slavic languages use it basically as a word for a place. It might've been Polish (most probably) since until 16th century the Polish word was miesto. The ie was a simple left-over from the proto-slavic ie sound (and letter) that was dropped in Polish at a later stage. On the contrary, koleda (Czech), kolęda (Polish) or [kolyada] (Belarussian) were all taken from some ancient proto-Slavic or Slavic feast that fell in the middle of winter. Later it stayed as a name for the Christian feasts (as in Belarussian) or changed its' meaning (as in Polish and Czech) and started to mean a caroll. Slavic comparative ethymology is fun :) Halibutt 15:37, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I have changed region ( as an administrative unit in Lithuania) to district. The both had been used, but I myself vote for district, which is more concrete. The only problem is connected with Lithuanian specifics of administrative division. E. g. Kaunas district may be easily misunderstood as Kaunas' district (a district in Kaunas city), when it means a municipality around Kaunas city. That's why, I think, region is popular for this purpose too.

miestas is a problem. It's Slavic with no doubt. And my argument was wrong. But I didn't derived my statement from this argument, but remembered it from my linguistic studies. Latvian language also have miests, which means a town (not a city) there. This usage and other facts indicate older period of Slavic languages, than period of intensive contacts between Polish and Lithuanian languages. It's hardly probable, that Latvians got the word earlier than Lithuanians (and if it were so, problem would become even more complicated, for Latvian derivation would have emerged). Mazurs and Ruthenians lived near Lithuania...: Well, You hitted very interesting. miestas perhaps is the only word, which sounds Polish, but may have different source than Polish. Other Polish sounding words in Lithuanian, do not make such tricks. :-)). At least, as I know.

Linas 15:10, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

A district or a region?

Which word is more suitable and acceptable to translate rajonas and to use for second level administrative units of Lithuania in English?

APKLAUSA – SURVEY
district is more acceptable __________________________	region is more acceptable _________________________
put your argument here ARG	put your argument here ARG

Put longer reasonings, if you want, below the table, please
Linas 15:10, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

'Rajonas' is a municipality; like 'savivaldybe', so why to differ between them? A district sounds much bigger and can confuse a foreign reader. Jakro64 01:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

About the difference. there's surely no status difference between a district and a municipality. Municipalities are those, that were created after 1990. But nobody wanted to keep people at calling municipality what they used to call district, and these two variants remained this way.

About the translation. I could agree with you, that it were more clear to translate both with one word. But we deal with already existing translation. We deal as I've written, even with two variants, so municipality can appear in three variants in a translation from Lithuanian.

Linas 12:40, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Lithuania Minor

PROBLEM: Lithuania Minor is described as Klaipėda Region in the present article. It's INCORRECT.
Lithuania Minor doesn't mean the same as Klaipėda (or Memel) Region between WWI and WWII. Lithuania Minor had been formated since times , when Prussia still was small country, populated mostly by non- German people, in 16th century. The territory of then-Prussia, where Lithuanians lived was separated administratively, and subsequently called Lithuania Minor (Klein Litauen). Tilsit (Tilžė in Lithuanian, Sovietsk presently) was one of centers of this region. However Lithuania Minor was unofficial name of this territory. The official one, given by Prussian authorities, was Lithuanian counties. This or other way, this name means different thing than Klaipėda Region and it was used already before 1919 (and prevailingly before 1919 and even before 1871; later, it was used mostly by local Lithuanians themselves and historians). By the way, Lithuanian government pretended to all Lithuania Minor in 1919, but only the North part of it was separated, which one was known as Klaipėda Region later (Don't confuse with administrative unit Klaipėda region / district in the present-day Lithuania, which one is only a part of former Klaipėda Region).
It's significant thing to say, but I don't have concrete documentary data now, concerning genesis of Lithuania Minor. Linas 11:40, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

It's already revised, but still needs more input. See Lithuania Minor and ~~Klaipeda District~~ Klaipeda Region. Also Klaipeda must be revised, linking with ~~Klaipeda District~~ Klaipeda Region and moving counterparts. Linas 14:36, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

Klaipeda Region:

I'm sorry for this endless article moving. It was a result of disambiguating between district and region, region and county in translations from Lithuanian. Klaipeda district according our Lithuanian official translations is used for the present administrative “sub-county”. And region, which had been used for this purpose in Wikipedia, well suits for the Memelland, and, I think, does better, than a district (which in its turn is better and more used for a second level unit).
Linas 13:36, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Lithuanian characters etc.

I think it is not a very good idea to spell Lithuanian names with Lithuanian alphabet. Not everybody has them installed, and they will therefore appear on the screen as empty boxes. Remember that in the English alphabet ą, ž and ū etc. do not excist. It is also not very smart to name a page e.g. "Tauragė" without making redirect from "Taurage"... Jakro64 01:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. It isn't good, when one can't read in his computer a name with exotic letters. On other hand, we write an encyclopedia, so full information is necessary, including accurate written form of a name. The only question is proportion between using of true form and simplified for English reader one. When I wrote articles, I hadn't found a clear tradition for this case. But it was impossible to read main headings with Baltic script. So I almost forcedly decided, that main headings would be simplified and writing of a name in other cases would be original. At least it isn't a special question of Wikipedia, we deal with this problem generally in international communication, don't we?

Linas 12:35, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

NATO!

Sorry folks, Lithuania didn't join the NATO in 1999 as the article says but in 2004. :) Regards, Muhamedmesic 08:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Ribbentropf" ?

Vandalism archive

Congratulations to Wikipedia

Congratuliations to Wikipedia which employes the polish fascistes! I gratulate you with the best polish fascist propaganda in internet! Long live the rubbish Wikipedia!

You can always discuss troubling parts here. And sure, bye! :) Domas Mituzas 14:30, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Gerbiamas Domai, as ne karta padariau daugybe korekciju tekstuose apie Lietuva ir Vilniu, bet tas isgama slavas, sedintis administracijoje, ABSOLIUCIAI VISKA istryne ir vel atstate savo fasistini teksta. Nusiunciau skunda i centra, atsakymo dar negavau. Reikia kazka daryti, nes cia totaliai smeiziama Lietuva. Ka jus apie tai galvojate?

Arturas

Gal butu geriau jeigu ju PAAISKINTUMET jam, kodel jo klaidos yra klaidingos. Jeigu jus, be jokio paaiskinimo, tiktai teksta keiciate ir vel taip pat keiciate, tai labai sunku atskirti jusu darba nuo chuliganizmo. Man, asmeniskai, atrodo, kad butu zymiai geriau, kad ne tik tekstas butu teisingas, bet kad visi *suprastu*, kodel taip yra *teisingas* supratimas.

Atsiminkite, kad wikipedija skaito daug kas, kurie nieko daug nezino apie Lietuva arba apie Lenkija. Jiems atrodo, kad lietuviai ir lenkai cia be prasmes pesasi. O jeigu lietuviai be paaiskinimo "taiso" teksta, ir raso piktus zodzius (pvz. ziurekite toliau, kur labai "trumpiai ir aiskiai" parasyta), tai visam pasauliui atrodo, kad lenkai tikriausiai tiesus. Atrodo, kad mes izdyke vaikai, o jie mus taiso.

Atiprasau, kad as ne labai teisyklingai rasau lietuviu kalba. As lietuvis, bet uzauges, visus mokslus isejes, ir dirbu Kanadoje anglu kalba naudojamas. Ifdef 13:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The real, not falsificated History of Lithuania

The real, not falsificated by polish chauvinistes (nazis) History of Lithuania you can find on: www.Lietuva.lt -> history, www.istorija.net

Arturas

Dear Arturas, please try to discuss the facts that trouble you and not delete wikipedia contents. Lysy 19:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lysy, I never discuss with the open falsificators and with nazis, such most of slaves are.

Arturas from Vilnius

Arturai, šitokia kalba nieko nepadeda.

Sorry, Lithuanian was the first language I learned from my parents, but I have lived in Canada all of my life, and am much more fluent in English. Anyhow, Lysy has a good point: Just to say that someone is lying is not helpful. Why don't we start with the assumption that we are all writing in good faith, and that if someone writes something wrong it may be due to ignorance, and not because they are "chauvinistes", "falsificators" or "nazis". Actually, I don't think that it is helpful to use those kinds of words EVEN IF you are *sure* that someone is willfully, deliberately writing slander. As Lysy suggested, it is more helpful to discuss the facts. For one thing, you would look more like someone with a legitimate grievance, instead of looking like a rude, ignorant vandal (please note: I am NOT saying that you ARE one, only that that kind of behaviour makes you LOOK like one). For another thing, it may convince OTHER readers that what you are saying is correct, which can never be accomplished by calling people names. Finally, you may find that even the person you disagree with might be open to revising his opinions, or the two of you might agree to some wording that makes it clear that something is one way from one point of view, and a different way from a different point of view.

From the last changes, Lysy, you should be aware that from the Lithuanian point of view, Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania even during the time that it was under occupation by the Polish army between World War I and World War II. Kaunas was only the "laikinoji sostine" (literally, "temporary capital") or provisional, acting capital.

Please notice, that represents Lithuanian POV only, while the rest of the world, rightfully or not, accepted that Vilnius was part of Poland at least since 1923. Trying to maintain NPOV here, we are trying to keep this introductory paragraph down to basic facts only, while a wider explanation can be included in the history section. I have just amended the sentence in question in order to hopefully better stress this controversy.

Lysy 16:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to make of the other disputed sections. Should King Mindaugas be referred to as "king Mindaugas" (with a lower case "k") ? That would be non-standard.

The is no reason to use a capital letter in a noun such as "king". I've rephrased the sentence to better satisfy this desire of a capital letter by using a formal title "King of Lithuania", where there's no doubt that its use is justified.

Lysy 16:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was he crowned in Vilnius or Voruta? I have no idea, but there must be an objective way to settle such a dispute.

He was crowned in Voruta. What is dubious is whether Voruta was Vilnius or not. More probably it was Kernave or some other place. While the archeologists are not sure about this, there's no reason for us to claim he was crowned in Vilnius here.

Lysy 16:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was Lithuania a "great medieval Empire" or "part of an independent multi-ethnic Grand Duchy"? Hmm, I guess that depends on your point of view -- were Ukrainian and Belarusan lands conquered by the Lithuanians, or were they ruled by the Grand Duke of Lithuania in the same way as he ruled Lithuania proper?

Depends whom you ask :-) Remember about NPOV...

Did King Jogaila become the Polish king, or was Grand Duke Jogaila crowned as the Polish king? I think there is no doubt at all that he was only a Grand Duke before he was crowned as the Polish king.

Agree. I believe there's no doubt that he was the Grand Duke of Lithuania and the King of Poland, not the other way round.

Lysy

Was Poland-Lithuania a confederation that lasted until the Third Partition, or a new state that lasted until the 1791 May Constitution, etc.? As I understand it, it was a confederation until 1791, I'm not clear what was going on between 1791 and 1795, and everything was annexed in 1795 (in other words, I would use the word "confederation", but otherwise follow Lysy's wording for the end of that paragraph). And the dispute about what to call the disputed territories is clearly a POV issue.

Thanks for observing the difference between the meaning of federation and confederation.

Lysy 16:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess that it's true what they say, that people from countries tens of thousands of kilometers away from each other can get along just fine, but they cannot get along with their neighbours from ten kilometers away, because there is too much history between them. I find that, in Canada, I have *much* more in common with someone of Polish heritage (even though I am Lithuanian), than with someone whose ancestors came from Zimbabwe or Japan or Turkey (yet even there, I can find lots and lots in common with them, due to our common humanity). And to those from Kenya or Viet Nam or Morocco, Lithuanians and Poles are probably hard to distinguish. Yet sometimes we seem to treat each other as opposites and as mortal enemies. It must seem rather strange to the rest of the world.

Ifdef 03:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, personally I have many Lithuanian friends and I'm sure that most of Poles have great respect for Lithuanians and independent Lithuania and vice-versa. Still, there always will be some stupid Lithuanians or stupid Poles trying to build walls between the neighbours. Luckily they are very scarce nowadays, and I hope they'll grow up soon. Many thanks for your cool-headed approach :-)

Lysy 16:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read the explanation of the difference between a federation and a confederation. I wasn't aware that these words meant different things. In that case, indeed, I can see why this is a contentious issue.

Ifdef 13:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've written some stuff on my talk page to start a discussion, and would like to invite you to read it and comment. Please try to be gentle. :-) I'm just starting on Wikipedia. I think this is a fantastic idea in general, but I'm really disturbed by what I see here and some other places.

Ifdef 04:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very short and very clear

Slaves - to gas chambers.

What is written above is indeed very short and very clear, and also extremely offensive. I am embarrassed that someone, presumably from the country of my ancestors, would write such a thing. Not only write it, but keep putting it back after I try to clean it up. This is the work of hooligans, not people who are seriously trying to put forward a point of view. Is this how you usually try to solve your disagreements with other people?Ifdef 13:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ifdef, if you can, please refrain fro discussing with vandal who calls people nazis and sending them to gas chambers. It'll make removal/archiving of his offensive edits easier without any collateral damage. Just ignore him if you can. Many thanks. Lysy 15:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to polish chauvinistes - "administrators"

Dear "friends",

Why do you still openly falsificate history? Its retoric question, because I very good know WHY.

Yes, because monkeys, slaves and administrators intend to invade Lithuania.

1) Lithuania didn't recognize the occupation of capital Vilnius in 1938. It only contracted the diplomatic relations with Poland after the Polish ultimatum of assault to begin war. Kaunas was the temporary capital from October 9, 1920 (when Polish army craftily, perjured all international treaties occupied Lithuanian capital) to October 28, 1939 (when Lithuanian Army after 19 years of terrible occupation entered Vilnius).

Actually it was Lithuania, not Poland, who refused to cease the war as long as until December 1927. Eventually Voldemaras had to agree for peace when pressed by Pilsudski during the League of Nations meeting in Geneva. What do you mean by "terrible occupation" ?

2) The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was in force from 1569 (Lublin union) to 1795 (third partition of the Commonwealth). As you have to know, the Gardinas (Grodno - polish) seimas (sejm) abolished all decisions of constitution of May 3, 1791. But even in the time when the constitution of May 3, 1791 was in force, was bill the "Act of Guarantees of Both Nations" (Zareczenie Obojga Narodow), which guarantied the continuation of Commonwealth.

Do you have any credible sources to back your claims here ?

3) The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was CONFEDERATION - different teritories, different armies, different law, different officials, different capitals ectr.

Please read what confederation is first. Then check out the organizational structure and administrative system of the Commonwealth in Offices in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth article.

4) Duke Mindaugas (and earlier his father) united in one state ONLY Lithuanian dukes. And already the established Lithuanian state later annexed the slavic teritories (formerly Baltic Lands) and established the great medieval Empire on the rule of Lithuanians.

Actually, Lithuania in 12th century was quite small and hard to call an empire. As to the later multi-ethnic character of the duchy you'd have to ask Ukrainians or Belorusians about it.

P.S. IF YOU WILL CONTINUE TO FALSIFICATE OUR HISTORY AND CONTINUE TO ERASE ALL CORRECTIONS, I WILL FORCE TO CONTINUE MY TACTIC. WE WILL SEE WHO WILL WIN.

Oops, for a minute I thought you were serious. Lysy 07:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arturas from Vilnius

About Vandalism

Why do vandales deleate our Lithuania version? Our version is correct, the version of vandales is ONE ENTIRE FALSIFICATION. The main vandales are Lysy, Halibutt and Piotrus (this is an "administrator"). Vandales have to discuss every change of our version. We very hope that it will be in future. Antituteišas

AN OFFICIAL PROTEST

We Wikipedia's users from Lithuania declare an official protest against the licence of polish "administrators" and consider their actions (blockings and other) as a striving to eliminate Lithuanian users from the editing of Wikipedia. Those actions are even more strange and awful because of these articles being on OUR country and OUR capital topics. We FULLY SUPPORT our basic Lithuanian versions of Lithuania and Vilnius pages and reject the falsificated polish versions. In the name of many Lithuanian users, Ringaudas

See:

to "administrators"

Why did you remove the sign of the page's protection? Do you fear to show that Lithuania page is protected from Lithuanians??? That's Wikipedia! SHAME! Živinbudas

Now better. Živinbudas

Removed again. You are very kind. Antituteišas

Now again better. Antituteišas

to admines

Please stop vandal Lysy which erases discussion's commentaries and calls other users "vandales"! How long will this hooliganism continue??? Please block him after 3 changes!!! He usualy does 10 changes per day. Antituteišas

Why King Gediminas, King Jogaila et cetera

Since the crowning of Duke Mindaugas as a King of Lithuania in 1253, Lithuanian rulers called themselves Kings (Kunigas Lithuanian from German Konig). This continued and after the Mindaugas' death in 1263 and returning of Lithuania to paganism. Algirdas called themselves Basilleus (Emperor) already. They NEVER called themselves Grand Dukes and NEVER were called such by others. They were pagan Kings of Lithuania. When pagan King Jogaila after the christening became a polish king in 1386, he was not crowned as a christian King of Lithuania as well because of polish intrigues. He called themselves Supremus Dux (Supreme Duke English) of Lithuania. The first Grand Duke of Lithuania was Vytautas Grand - Vytautas Didysis - since 1392. He tried to be crowned as a christian King of Lithuania but, because of polish intrigues it was not happened. We can call Lithuania as a Grand Duchy of Lithuania only since 1386, until then it was Kingdom of Lithuania. This approach now become the main in Lithuanian history science. Antituteišas

Arturas, after Mundaugas death, Treniota declared himself GD in 1263. Then Vaišalgas also declared himself GD, not a king (and he was a Christian, not pagan) and so on. Take a look e.g. at the page you've recommended yourself: http://www.istorija.net/ (and specifically a link there to http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/en/dukes.htm). I hink that what you claim now are just your fanaties. Do you have any credible reference for this at all ? Lysy 07:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandal Lysy, could you provide though one primary source to your statements? Almost all your statements are or fantasy or falsifications. Antituteišas

Tinklapis http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/kunigaiksciai.htm rodo šitokį sąrašą:

 Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai
 A. Viduramžių Lietuvos valdovai
      Mindaugas 1238-1263
      Treniota 1263-1264
      Vaišalgas (Vaišelga) 1264-1267
      Švarnas 1267-1269
      Traidenis 1269-1281
      Daumantas 1281-1285
      Butigeidis 1285-1291
      Butvydas 1291-1295
      Vytenis 1295-1316
      Gediminas 1316-1341
      Jaunutis 1341-1345
      Algirdas 1345-1377
      Jogaila 1377-1381, 1382-1392
      Kęstutis 1381-1382
      Vytautas 1392-1430
      Švitrigaila 1430-1432
      Žygimantas Kęstutaitis 1432-1440
      Kazimieras 1440-1492
      Aleksandras 1492-1506
 B. Naujųjų amžių Lenkijos karaliai ir Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai
      Žygimantas Senasis 1506-1548
      Žygimantas Augustas 1544-1572
      Henrikas Valua 1573-1574
      Steponas Batoras 1576-1586
      Žygimantas Vaza 1588-1632
      Vladislovas Vaza 1632-1648
      Jonas Kazimieras Vaza 1648-1668
      Mykolas Kaributas Višnioveckis 1669-1673
      Jonas Sobieskis 1674-1696
      Augustas II 1697-1706, 1709-1733
      Stanislovas Leščinskis 1706-1709
      Augustas III 1733-1763
      Stanislovas Augustas Poniatovskis 1764-1795

Jie visi pavadinti "Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai", įskaitant ir valdovus prieš Jogailą. Aišku, kad Mindaugas buvo ir Lietuvos karalius ir Didysis Lietuvos Kunigaikštis, bet aš čia, Wikipedijoje, pirmą kartą skaitau, kad kiti DLK betkada vadindavosi "karaliais". Ifdef 21:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One problem revolves around how Antituteišas chooses to translate the word "Kunigaikštis". He seems to think it means "King", which is incorrect, as I shall explain. Versus how all Lithuanian students are taught: "King", in Lithuanian, is "Karalius" and not "Kunigaikštis". All Lithuanian schoolchildren learn that very few of the rulers were called "Karalius", we are all taught that they were "Kunigaikščiai". So now let us determine how to translate these words. "Karalius", stemming from "Karuna", or "crown", means one who is crowned, and rules by authority of the Church. But these leaders were not crowned, and indeed, there is a famous episode wherein the Poles are accused of stealing Vytas' crown, the crown having been shipped to Rome to be blessed by the Pope, and being delivered back to Lithuania. The theft was precisely so as to prevent a coronation, leaving Vytas a Grand Duke, and never being crowned to become King. The distinction of being King required a special cermeony, a coronation, involving the Church. Few Lithuanian rulers wanted, or had, such a cermeony. Thus, few were ever "Kings". Standard references for this include basic Lithuanian history textbooks; I think just about any will do and am unaware of any controversy of this sort among historians. linas 07:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right. But among other opinions the opinion also exists, that rulers of Lithuania should be called kings. This opinion isn't based on a mistranslation. It's based on documented testimonies, such as “Gedemin rex Letphinorum” (Gedemin the king of Lithuanians) in The letters of Gediminas (I write from my memory now, so the quotation isn't exact in level of separate symbols, and I can't give the exact location of the quote now. Letters of Gediminas is a collection of historical documents from the 14th century). On the other hand, the attempt to call the rulers kings goes across long lasted tradition, so it isn't very popular even in Lithuania. But this thing may be mentioned as a separate and uncommon opinion, as it's often done in the wikipedia.

Linas the I :-) 08:14, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

And that's fine. With the appropriate wiki markup, it would be perfectly acceptible to have an article called, say, Titles of Lithuanian Rulers, that explained all this. We could then say [[Titles of Lithuanian Rulers|King]] Traidenis; would that work? linas 18:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a tremendous difference between putting in a note about the translation of the word "kunigaikštis" vs. changing the text "Grand Duke" to "King" without explanation, again and again. There is no doubt that the traditional translation of DLK is "Grand Duke of Lithuania", but I think I have also seen "kunigaikštis" (alone) translated as "prince" and, as Antituteišas points out, it is etymologically related to King and Konig. But then again, so is "kunigas", which I have never seen translated as anything other than "priest". I don't think that there is always an exact parallel between the various terms in different languages. If one goes from the etymology, an argument could be made that ALL of the kunigaikščiai were kings, and that the DLK was the Great King, but I don't really think that would be very helpful. For that matter, one could argue that "Dux" really means "Leader" (from Latin "ducere") and not "Duke".

That said, this morning, while looking for an English translation of the legend of Vilnius (to see how to handle the pun of "garsas" meaning both "sound" and "fame"), I found, in a book on Lithuanian history written by a non-Lithuanian American about 60 years ago, references to "King Gediminas" and a quote of him being "Rex Lituanorum et Multorum Ruthenorum" or something like that.

I think the best thing to do is to keep the traditional translation, with a note about how this is the usual translation of a word that is etymologically related to the German word Konig. Otherwise, it would only be confusing. My "kvaila" opinion. Ifdef 18:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To protesting "Wikipedia's users from Lithuania"

First learn how to contribute (for example how to put your user page link) and then start complain about something. And remember - there are many lithuanians who are most probably smarter than you and still do not start edit wars on Lithuania and Vilnius articles. There is more true in those articles than you think. Knutux 17:15, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Užsiimk savo reikalais ir nekišk nosies, kur tau nereikia, kvailas kaimieti. Živinbudas

For those who did not understand lithuanian, I'll translate last comment of Živinbudas - "Do you our business and dont poke your nose into anothers businesses, foolish countryman". My response: I would like to be a countryman, but I cannot even distinguish cow from bull, so I'll probably never be one ;) Knutux 05:57, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Knutux, as always, let Wiki be your friend: cow & bull :D -- Halibu tt 06:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, before this revising war anybody might insert almost any idea to the article, supplying it with respective comment, according to acknowledgment of the idea by people, scholars or authorities. E. g. one should insert statement, that “some Lithuanians think, that all pagan Lithuanian rulers are better to be called kings because of varying of the dignity of Lithuanian rulers in Christian European sources” It would be accepted very normally and perhaps even wouldn't raised discussions. Now, we have been stopped and when we'll restart, we'll have to do approximately the same , that we did before, if we want to do anything POSITIVELY.

Well, I should apologize our colleagues not Lithuanians. Input of Halibutt is positive and input of Lysy is still not long, but positive too. Ant it would be seen as spiteful irony of Fortune, that namely Lysy fell under hitting point of the accusations.

I thought at the beginning not to interfere into this situation, but when Knutux was affronted (these humans perhaps think, that “countryman” is an offensive word), it's impossible to keep silence.

Žiūrėdamas, kas čia vyksta, prisimenu vieną dalyką iš Wikipedi'jos redagavimo. Buvo taip. Skaičiau R. Pakso biografiją ir pastebėjau, kad ten neįrašyta apie jo dalyvavimą konservatorių partijos vadovybėje. Galvoju: įrašysiu. Bet tada taip ir palikau likimo valiai. Tegu, sakau, gal ramesniais laikais, kad neužeitų kokie karštakošiai lietuviai, kurie dėl to vieno sakinio viską išbraukys. – Nors tiesa yra tas dalykas – tiesa, kuri labai gražiai parodo visą mūsų laikų Lietuvos istorijos prieštaringumą. – Tiktai, kad kad ir kaip saugotumeisi, vistiek kas nors kuo nors gali išvadinti... Toks štai gyvenimas. Živinibudui ir Antituteišiui: O gal ir gerai patarėte: nesikiškite. Gal iš tikrųjų reikia į tą jūsų sumanymą perrašyti visus straipsnius, kaip sakote, lietuviškai, nesikišti ir pasiūlyti administracijai lietuvių vardu tokio sumanymo nežiūrėti rimtai. Nebūtų visai neteisinga. Kodėl taip sakau? Todėl, kad vis dėlto, kad ir kaip šitas mano pasakymas jums atrodo, reikėtų truputį pamąstyti prieš ką nors sakant, juo labiau prieš rašant. Pirmiausia linkiu šito, o toliau teks žiūrėti.

Tingiu versti. I'm lazy to translate now. Nothing offending. :-). Linas 17:08, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Gerbiamas Linai. Mes apie viska mastome ir viska svarstome. Deja, priesingai negu jus. Jus esate naivuolis ar, atleiskite uz astru zodi, kvailys. Negi nesuprantate, kas cia darosi? Deka tokiu naivuoliu / kvailiu, kaip jus, lenku nacionalistai Lietuvos ir Vilniaus angliskuose puslapiuose vykdo samoninga antilietuviska propaganda pasauliui. Ar zinote, kokia opinija formuoja lenku sovinistai Vakaruose apie Lietuva ir Vilniu? Ir tai vyksta visuose universitetuose ir mokslo centruose. Santraukas galite pasiskaityti cia. Gerai, kad ne visi lietuviai tokie buki (atleiskite) kaip jus. Ringaudas

Jeigu mąstote, tai atleidžiu. :-) Linas 08:28, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

A cultural divide in styles of arguing

Reviewing the arguments here, it becomes clear that main divide is less about facts, as it is a cultural divide in the norms of behaviour. On the one hand, we have some Internet-savy editors who have learned over the years how to negotiate over the net, how to strike a reasonable pose, how to come to a consensus. On the other side, we have coffee-house orators who have honed thier skills with fiery language. I know both traits all too well. Unfortunately for the fiery orators, they simply do not understand the ways and conventions of netiquette. It took the rest of us 10 years to figure out how to talk on the net; they are coming on-line only now. They have not yet learned that strong langauge and insults will fail to win freinds. They have not yet learned that they will be held in low regard if they hurl epithets and call names. They will loose, as they are fighting the net and are using the wrong tactics. Ringaudas, this means you. You can't go around saying the things you say, and expect people on the internet to listen to you. They will kick you out. If you want to be heard, and be listened to, you have to find a different way to say it. Ringaudas, kol tu taip kalbesi, neiks taves neklausys. Tavo pasireiskimai visus nuvarys. Atsiprasau, visi tave nuvys. Matai, cia visi kiti cia jau senai ismoko kaip pasukti zodi kad gautu ka jie nori. Ir tau reikia ismokoti kaip pasireiksti, kad kiti klausytu. Kol kitus vadinsi 'kvailius', nepazengsi pirmyn. linas 08:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linas, I don't know Lithuanian, but what you wrote in English seems obviously right. With one exception only: there are no "fiery orators", this is one person using different signatures in order to confuse others. This is pretty harmful, as he creates the impression that Lithuanians do behave in such manner. But what can we do other than try to educate ? Lysy 08:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nusibodai, kvaily. Ankstesni lenku sovinistu tekstai vaizdziai rodo, kas cia laimedavo. Tikrai ne tokie asilai kaip tu. Gali isversti, asile. Antituteišas

-)))) Antituteišai, mąstote, bet pastabus nesate. - Visi šitie žodžiai turbūt skirti ne jums, Linai, bet man, kaip aš suprantu. Linas 08:31, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Vietoj to, kad cia ausinti burna, geriau ziurekite lietuviskas Lithuania ir Vilnius versijas -> history, lyginkite jas su lenku fasistu "versijomis" ir komentuokite. Aisku, jeigu ka nors nutuokiate istorijoje. Antituteišas

From the last comment I understood only yet another Polish fascists remark. It's becomming boring. Halibu tt 11:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

There are more “super-polite” words than that ones. Some of them are addressed to the author of this subsection, I think, supposing, that it's me. But it's not me, but our new contributor. I should concede him signature, for my signature is the user name shortened by signing automaton and linas puts his real user name as signature. So, let me be Linas lituanus. 13:00, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry User:LinasLit, I guess I became a Wikipedian a few weeks before you did, and grabbed the unclaimed given name. I can't tell if his last remarks are directed at me or you; they're rather rude. (Is there an article on the notable topic of Lithuanian swearwords?) Given the tone and style of the language used just now by Antituteišas and the eariler remarks by ?ivinbudas and Ringaudas, I'm inclined to think that all these, as well as "Arturas from Vilnius", are all the same person. I'm not clear on how Wikipedia admins investigate or deal with this; my understanding is that such people tend to get kick-banned. linas 18:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm constantly surprised that anyone doubts that it's the same person at all ... Probably a result of frustration, but certainly not a good sign of any sincere attitude :-( Hopefully this will end. Lysy 20:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(sorry the above refers to "Arturas from Vilnius", naturally, not the Linases)

No, my user name always was different from yours, so You took a free name naturally. The only problem is, that the signing automaton (when you put four ~ , it puts your user name and time, instead these “~” - I do now: Linas 12:51, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)) shortens my user name to five letters (I don't know if this shortening was intended or it is a bug). And I didn't play many attention to it, for our name has just five letters and it was sufficient for signing. Now, someone may confuse two users, that's why i wrote about it. - I contribute to wikipedia since 2003 year. Linas lituanus 12:51, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Lysy, why sorry? I understand, what You meant. That my answer was connected with the first lines of Linas' answer. Linas lituanus 15:18, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

I thought I did not understand myself ;-). I'm glad you did. Never mind. Lysy

interwiki

Please Add this Arabic interwiki to the source: [[ar:ليتوانيا]]

Regards, --Oxydo 11:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)