Talk:Zalavas

Zułów is not in Samogitia - so the statement "Soon afterwards the family was forced to sell all their properties in Samogitia (including Zułów and 19 other villages)" is quite strange.--Lokyz 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind the geographical meaning of the term until 20th century. Samogitia covered most of what is today Lithuania, while the term Lithuania was reserved for the entire Grand Duchy. So this statement might be strange by todays' terms, but was not that strange back then, when it was perfectly clear. //Halibutt 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's... umh... agh... Please see this map. To say that "Samogitia covered most of what is today Lithuania" is like saying that "Prussia covered most of what is today Poland." In short, if Švenčionys is in Samogitia, then I am a corner of a round house (sorry for a silly Lithuanian slang phrase, but the issue is that much silly to me). Renata 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't joke when dealing with "expertise" on Lithuanian geography and linguistics. Dr. Dan 00:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Hallibutt. You're wrong at any extent in this case. Zalavas -Zulow could never be a part of Samogitia. Perhaps some popular understanding, about what Samogitia was, existed in the 19th century, and perhaps this understanding differed from real boarders of the region, particularly after the removal of territorial autonomy in the forties of the 19th century and, particularly when the center of Kaunas archidiocese was moved (by Russian government) to Kaunas, the city, that even hadn't been a part of the genuine Samogitia (meanwhile the dicocese still was called Samogitian diocese then). These events might corrupt clear understanding, where Samogitia was. But i doubt if a such rude explaining of Samogitia could exist, where the region exceeded the historical boarders of Trakai county (meaning the primary bipartite division of the Grand Duchy in the 14th century). Such understanding, confronting with any possible understanding of history, couldn't be popular among szlachta in Lithuania, whose ideological basics were deeply historical. And, considering that Zalavas is outside the historical Trakai county, it hardly could be referred to Samogitia.

Also usage of the wikipedia should be noted here. We should refer to entities in their existing meaning, not in any other, at least if a particular note weren't added. But Samogitia has only two meanings currently : (1) A part of Lithuania, where people communicate in Samogitian dialects. Or (2) The historical Samogitia within certain known boarders. So your idea would be extra, even if it was right.

I write this, because i think to know the solution of this riddle. Zalavas, perhaps, was confused with a historical manor of Pilsudskies family here. The manor had a name Pilsūdai and it actually was situated in Samogitia, in the historicall Raseiniai county. Yet one known thing is that their surname were different (Giniat or Giniatowicz in then Polish usage, but later it was changed making an adjective that indicated their manor name their surname (Pilsūdai, Piłsudy > Piłsudski). If anybody wants to know this more exactly, i suggest to find a work (or an article) by a Polish linguist Smoczynski, who had researched this question. Linas Lituanus 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As the author of this map I'm quite well informed of the actual political borders of Samogitia. However, both in 19th century and before, the term was also used to denote the general Lithuania as opposed to GDL. I understand that it was not the case of people who actually lived there and knew perfectly well where was the border between the Duchy of Samogitia and, say, Troki Voivodeship. However, from countless memoirs from the epoch it seems that for the rest of the PLC Samogitia (Żmudź) was a handy term to denote "where the Samogitians live", that is "where the Lithuanian speakers live". As simple as that. It's the same in modern times. Next week I'm going to Pomerania, regardless of the fact that I'm actually going to Mecklenburg. Get the idea?

Having said this, Zułów was indeed politically a part of the Wilno Voivodeship and of the powiat of Święciany rather than Trakai (note that Samogitia was by no means limited to a single county). And I believe that the explanation of Zułów in Samogitia is much simpler than the one presented by Linas above. In any way, this is a purely academic discussion as nobody opposes any changes in regards to that statement. I merely pointed that it was not that entirely absurd. //Halibutt 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this one as a FA too?

While having a laugh reading the arguments on the merits of the Pilsudski article, I found the related article on Zalavas to be very interesting and very revealing about one part of the problem. Although a small group finds the Pilsudski article to border on "sublime perfection," they are part of the same group that would undoubtably find the Zalavas article to be worthy of a few barn stars, and the exchanging of high fives amongst themselves, as well as having the satisfaction of adding another "stellar" article to Wikipedia. The truth of the matter is that the Zalavas article contains a lot of irrelevant claptrap bordering on an ultra-Nationalistic rant. It is not an article worthy of an Encyclopedia, nor is it presented in an encyclopedic fashion. It's at best an essay, and a poorly written one at that. In reality Zalavas is a tiny village in Lithuania with a population of around two hundred people. O.K., a famous person was born there. Now to get a better feel for where I am going with this, please click onto the Hodgenville, Kentucky article for some ideas of what this article could look like. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln is not as important, well known, or as famous as the Naczelnik Panstwa is to the English speaking world, but that is neither here nor there. What you don't have in the Hodgenville article is a link to Antietam, or Copperheads, or the Thirteenth Amendment, or even Mount Rushmore. On the other hand Zalavas links us to Riga, and to the Polish Defensive War, it links us to magnates, and to Lenin, we are linked to assassination, and to Russification, to Aleksandr Ulyanov, to Rurik, the Polish-Bolshevik War, the 17th century and the 18th century just to name a portion of the plethora of imbecilities presented to us as an excuse for another "article". And there are plenty more of nonsensical links to boot. Before anyone jumps to conclusions regarding my position about links, let me say this. I like links. Links are good. But here is another example of where the line has been crossed, and puts Wikipedia in a position to be ridiculed. Instead of an article about Zalavas, what we have here is another "vehicle" to tell us more about the Billewicz family doweries and Soviets and 1934, and December 5, etc.,etc., etc., than information we have regarding Zalavas. And in regards to the Pilsudskis article, we have the same ramblings and attempts to further some cult of personality, an overkill of fawning prose (replete with too many photos), and a constant removal of sourced materials because some find it "offensive". Until these issues are resolved, that article remains in a non-neutral kind of limbo. I am hoping that this will be corrected and the article will reach FA status. Dr. Dan 02:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. I hope I gave everyone who likes these kind of links, a good dose of them today from me. P.P.S. Actually I'm surprised you haven't linked Zalavas to Bethlehem.