|WikiProject Lithuania||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
The article says "Inhabitants of Panevėžys area were the oldest pagans in Europe." If read literally, this says that there were no pagans in Europe before those inhabitants, which is clearly nonsense. I would change it, but I'm not clear what it is supposed to mean: does the writer mean 'among the last pagans in Europe to be Christianised'?
Polish name of the City
Lysy, you asked me if the addition of the Polish name in the article, "bothered me" on your talk page. Bothered me is too strong of a word, irritates me, is a better choice. This irritation is the result of a definite Double Standard, being applied to former cities of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth. If the purpose is to inform or educate English speaking readers of Wikipedia, that would be good, but I'm not sure that this is the reason it's being done. Panevezys was never part of Poland. I added the Lithuanian name for Gniezno, Molobo, reverted it, calling it "irrelevant", Kernavė, however has "relevantly" (sic) been edited with it's Polish name added by Halibutt and re-added by you. I added the Lithuanian name for Lublin, Balcer removed it, because it is "liguistically not connected to Poland". This, in spite of its historical, (Union of Lublin), association with Lithuania. My actual solution is very simple, if an English speaking Wikipedian wants to know what the Polish name for Rome is, he or she can search for Rome. They can then link to the Polish article and see that it's Rzym. No need to add Rzym in parenthesis in the English version. Back to Panevezys, there is a Polish article about the city. The English speaking Wikipedian can link to the Polish article if they need to know the Polish name of the city. If this doesn't seem fair or make sense, please explain why Panevezys (forget Gniezno, Lublin, etc. for the moment), in particular, needs to have its Polish name included. I am not asking this hostilely either. I'm looking at its history and demographics, and puzzled. Dr. Dan 15:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC) p.s. I think you are right about the above Oldest Pagans.
- Aha, you've chosen to respond here, how puzzling :-) These are not double standards. Panevėžys has never been part of Poland and Gniezno has never been part of Lithuania, no doubt about this. However, the historical name for Panevėžys was Polish, while historical name of Gniezno was never Lithuanian. What is the hidden intention that you seem to suspect ? Mentioning a historical name in the article's lead does not imply that the town is Polish in any way. In fact Panevėžys developed into a sizeable town only under Russian occupation in the end of 19th century. --Lysytalk 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, please forgive my intrusion into the argument. I would prefer to see both names, and other versions. This is because it is informative and useful. As I said elsewhere, I have needed to correlate the names, without knowing the language. I searched on the Polish name, within English Wiki, and found it. If it had been in Polish Wiki, I would not have. I appreciate now that there are differences on this, but in a part of Europe that has changed hands several times in the last century, surely it's common for there to be multiple names for places. Best wishes. Folks at 137 17:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
To the Folks at 137, did you read my above remarks? Since you say this information is beneficial and useful to you, should I edit the English Wikipedia and add Rzym to the article on Rome, instead of you linking up to the Polish article on Rome? Lysy, I moved these questions to this article, first, because you didn't answer the question entirely. Secondly, you also had a question in your answer. Thirdly, since the question concerns Panevezys, I thought the discussion should be moved off of our talk pages to the subject at hand, so others could weigh in. Does this seem unreasonable? I hope not? In any case, I did it without any ulterior motives. Now to your latest comment about Panevezys having a Polish historical origin (even though you agree it has never been part of Poland). Can you tell me where you get this "historical origin", from? Thank you. Dr. Dan 21:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- And, Lysy, ("Aha...how puzzling"), please don't be puzzled. If you could be so kind, could you give your opinion about Lublin, Kernave, and the other issues, too. If giving the names of even small towns, far from Poland's border, towns that have never been part of Poland, is not a double standard; if I do this to the name of Polish cities and towns, and they are RV'd. Thanks again, Dr. Dan 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- You've just asked me to "forget Gniezno, Lublin, etc. for the moment", and now you seem to be suprised that I did ? Personally, I don't mind any foreign names anywhere. However, before you continue this unproductive discussion, I beg you take a look at the proposed standard. It's been miraculously reached as a consensus in numerous discussions between Belarusian, Lithuanian, German, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and other editors (including North American). As you may imagine, it's been quite a challenge to satisfy anyone's concern. So instead of reinventing the wheel and moaning here, I'd sugest you take a look and hopefully contribute there in a more productive way. --Lysytalk 22:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, I don't "moan" and I don't "groan". Reinventing the wheel is one thing. Making a better wheel, is progressive and desirable. If a consensus has been reached in the past without me, please don't suggest that my input is somehow counter productive. Don't avoid the question or issue at hand by ignoring it, and bringing in metaphors and parables instead. If you need more examples of what I perceieve to be a Double Standard, I can and will do so. In the mean time please answer the question about the Polish origin of the city's name. Still waiting. Dr. Dan 22:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not feel offended that the consensus has been reached without you. I don't need to say you're welcome to contibute to the proposed standard and improved it (but try not to break anything). The "double standard" that you're complaining about is nothing else but an application of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). For similar reason we are mentioning "Danzig" in Gdańsk article, but not "Lipsk" in Leipzig. As for your question regarding the origing of "Poniewież" name, I'm sorry, I have not seen you asking about this before. But since you can speak Polish, I'm sure you can very well answer yourself (hint: try "Po+Niewież"). You're not trying to suggest that the town was named in Lithuanian language in 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, are you ? --Lysytalk 23:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Two things, first, some cities and towns in Lithuania today (those occupied after WW I, recovered after WW II), which were part of Poland, should or can have the Polish equivalent name somewhere in parenthesis. That doesn't irritate me. As for Gdansk and Leipzig, the analogy is Wilno and Panevezys. (Polish association/non-Polish association). It's the many Polish named towns in the English Wikipedia, without the association, that I am questioning. Those like Panevezys, or Kaunas, which do not. As for "Po+Niewiez" explaining the historical Polish origins of the name. As you know, po is a prefix in your example in Polish. What you probably don't know, however, is that pa is a prefix in the Lithuanian language. Second, it never ceases to amaze me, to read a statement like "You're not trying to suggest that the town was named in Lithuanian language (sic) in 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, are you?" What kind of an absurd question is that? Are you suggesting that the Lithuanian language suddenly sprung up in the later part of the 19th century (or yesterday), and Lithuanians did not have names for geographical locations that they lived in. Or for that matter, names for geographical locations that they did not live in? That they, like in Jerzy Hoffman's movies, went around in bear skins humming pagan dirges? Let me get this off my chest, it's precisely that kind of psedo-intellectual arrogance that destroyed the Rzeczpospolita back in the day. During my stay in Poland, I saw it over and over again. It was surprising, since it was a (nieby) "socialist" country, at the time. Dr. Dan 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Lithuanian is a very old language. However, the reality that you have to face is that Polish (and Ruthenian) was lingua franca of GDL for centuries, while Lithuanian was used mostly by peasants in certain parts of the country only and became gradually forgotten. You are right that Lithuanian was revived in late 19th century, when many Lithuanians started to learn it anew, almost as a foreign language. That's admirable but there's no point in pretending that Lithuanian was a dominating language in 17th or 18th century. Lithuanian history is very rich, and its cultural diversity is something to be proud of, and not to be hidden. --Lysytalk 15:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Dr Dan, Hi! Yes I had read your Rome/Rzym point, didn't realise it was serious, very sorry. Fair point, I suppose: you could try the addition and see what the consensus is (I wonder how many other names were given to Rome, could be a valid Wiki list). My assumption is that, given the history of eastern Europe, I am likely to find Polish and Lithuanian and other equivalents for places in English language history documents (unlike Rzym). Kaunas/ Kauen/ Kowno/ Kovno/ Каунас is an example. Folks at 137 08:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- There is always Names of European cities in different languages. Balcer 13:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Folks at 137, thank you again for your imput. Less a mistaken conception occur, that I have something against Polish names exclusively, your point about Kaunas, brings me to another issue. I removed all of the "foreign" names, except Russian ( Kaunas has a longer historical association with Russia ). The German, Kauen, in particular, was irritating. The Germans briefly occupied Kaunas in WWI, and the Nazi invasion brought them back for a little over three years in WWII. Like this necessitates the inclusion of the "German" name of a city, that's almost a thousand years old? Please! (You really need to know the German or Latvian name, go to the German or Latvian link, it's there). To see Gotenhafen as a name of Gdynia, borders on lunacy. Sure, put it in as a historical footnote if needed, but not as a "name" in the header of the English Wikipedia article. Dr. Dan 17:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I do see your point about "Kauen", although I was under the impression that there were scattered German populations throughout eastern and central Europe, that may have used Germanised names. Never mind, no offence meant: the whole issue is far more touchy than I expected. For the avoidance of confusion, I haven't added "Kauen" to the article. There are various English language documents that use all of the names - I've browsed a few. Probably some of them are sourced from Germany, particularly post-war (one oddity is that "kauen" can get translated as the English word "laundry"). I would politely urge you, for the sake of completeness, to keep the various names for the assistance of people like me who are unaware of the background. Place them in a footnote - fine. Link to the useful site that Balcer mentioned - ok. But as an ignoramus, I need to use information, for example, I was unaware that Gotenhafen and Gdynia were the same, although both names are familiar - so I need to get that data. There's an English expression: To rattle someone's cage. It means to irritate or to provoke someone. I appear to have rattled your cage. It was not intentional. Folks at 137 19:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, all the emotions aside, that it is simply convenient to have the historic names mentioned in the lead section of an article. Especially if you get redirected to the article from another name, it can save the confusion. Regarding Gdynia, the German name of the village was "Gdynien", then the town was built in the 1920s under the Polish name and it was renamed to "Gotenhafen" only for the Nazi occupation during WW2. Confusing, but also a good reason to have both German names mentioned in the article. --Lysytalk 19:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Lingua Franca insertion (which I am not disputing). Lysy, how about the hundreds of thousands or more (maybe over a few million), of Lithuanian peasants, did they have to relearn an almost foreign language? Or was it the Polonized Lithuanian szlachta, that had to relearn it. Like Narutowicz's brother maybe? Whether these peasants could read or write, does not mean they couldn't speak. Is there a possibility that the Lithuanian name Panevėźys, became polonized, instead of the reverse? You know, like Hirschberg and Jelenia Góra. Dr. Dan 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly Polonized Lithuanians did learn Lithuanian. I am neither a specialist in linguistics nor do I know Lithuanian. If you asked me what was the original name of the settlement, I simply do not know but why is it important ? I only explained that historically, the Polish name of the town was used. The town had significant Polish minority (even in 20th century) and again, historically, it had the status of king's town (which meant it belonged to Polish king of course). I never claimed the town was in Poland, did I ? As for "Polonization" and Lithuanian language, let me make a remark here. The Polonization process in GDL was something not to be confused with policies like Russification that we know from 19th or 20th century (or 20th century Polonization). Firstly the notion of national identity in 17th century was very different from modern nationalisms. Secondly, the Polonization of GDL was neither an organized policy nor was it forced upon anyone. Therefore, I do not see anything shameful that Polish names were used for Lithuanian towns etc.
- As you know, in the sense of culture, Lithuanian language was "reinvented" in 19/20th century on the wave of central/eastern European nationalisms. It's not an issue of Szlachta, who did not know Lithuanian. Virtually all the cultural elites and the emerging intelligentsia had (and wanted to) learn it. BTW, did you ask yourself (or probably you know) where from and how did the Czech letters come to Lithuanian ?
- As for the hundreds of thousands of Lithuanian peasants, let me just mention, that before the partitions Lithuania was much more than Žemaitija, where the language was used. Most of the Lithuanian territory was somehow silently forgotten by Lithuanians in 20th century. In Aukštaitija, Dzūkija and the lands of today's Belarus, the primary language of the peasants was Ruthenian, not Lithuanian.
- Back to the issue of the origin of the name, the "po-" prefixed construcion in Polish and other Slavic languages is quite common way to name a town or area adjacent to a body of water, e.g. Powiśle (from Wisła), Ponidzie (from Nida) or Poniewież (from Niewiaża). There are many more examples of course. My naive guess would be that the origin of Poniewież is Ruthenian, but as I said, I'm not pretending I'm knowledgable about this and this is not relevant to our discussion, anyway.
- To summarise, I still do not understand why mentioning the historic name of the town irritates you, unless you're driven by some irrational nationalistic emotions or want to rewrite the history and ignore the hundreds of years of influence of Polish culture in GDL. --Lysytalk 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
And the influence and significance of Lithuania in the GDL? What about it? Would you agree that Luiblinas can and should be added to the Lublin article in the English Wikipedia especially since the Union of Lublin was signed there? Lysy, how about you? Are you prepared to add it to inform our readers, like the Folks at 177? Or the Folks at 177, do they merely like to get the information rather than add to it? Or will the "Double Standard", again prevail. Dr. Dan 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Of course I don't mind, even if I don't expect "Lublinas" is to be often encountered in English language sources. Do you ? On the other hand, since "Vroclavas" is mentioned in Wrocław/Breslau article, why not Union of Lublinas ? Go ahead. --Lysytalk 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I already have, but Balcer reverted it. One of the reasons for my claim of a "Double Standard". So, Lysy, why don't you help me, an add it yourself. That way, the Folks at 177, can get the necessary and appreciated information without have to go to the Lithuanian link. Can I count on you? Dr. Dan 23:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC) p.s. Then you can finally go on your much needed Wiki Break.
- I removed it for reason's I have already stated on Dr. Dan's talk page. Let's keep in mind that Lublin is a modern urban center of close to 400,000 people and the largest city in Eastern Poland. Now, it really escapes me why we should mention in the lead of its article the Lithuanian name of the city, never used in English (I have yet to find even one real English webpage using it) and never used by its inhabitants, because a treaty was signed there over 300 years ago. In general, I find all this obsession with history on Wikipedia, expressed in struggles over names, to be rather unpleasant. My general position on the issue would be to list only the current name in the lead, unless it can be shown that a very significant number of English language sources use another form of the name. Balcer 23:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I can definitely agree, Balcer, and hard as it is to believe for some, that's my point. If there cannot be an equal treatment or even-handedness in these namings, then they need not be included in the English version of Wikipedia. BTW, the list of names in the Wroclaw article of Italian and Lithuanian, etc., are further examples of this stupidity taken to even more absurd extremes. If you need to know the name for Wroclaw in Portugese, go to the Portugese link or create one. Dr. Dan 00:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- The difference that you conveniently keep fogretting is that Wrocław or Lublin were not historically known as Vroclavas or Lublinas. While I appreciate your discussion here, I have commented out the Polish name of the city in hope that we both can engage in some more productive editing instead (and I can go for my desired wikibreak). This said, it would be interesting to check what was the name of the city when it was first mentioned. Would you be able to find this out ? --Lysytalk 09:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am very glad we agree. It is also clear by your statement that your edits on Lublin and Gniezno pages were violations of the guideline described in Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please, refrain from doing this in the future. This guideline exists for a good reason: we want editors to be editing in good faith, and really mean what they write. Balcer 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- While you two have been scrapping :¬) it's occurred to me how different our perspectives are. Take an example: for Dr. Dan, I think that "Kauen" was a very temporary name used by invaders whose presence lasted only a short, vicious period (my point about local German communities has not been commented on). I presume that "Kovno" and "Kaunas" have a greater historic validity, which I won't challenge. At my end of Europe, however, I think we view through German eyes, probably because we use their archives and because we are more likely to understand German than Polish, Lithuanian, Belorussian, etc. It's the same for "Gotenhafen"/ "Gdansk". I've been following a trail about the WWII Kriegsmarine, and these documents (British and German) refer to "Gotenhafen". No judgement is implied, it's just the usage. Now I know the connection between the names, I am better informed - which is what Wiki is about. In the future, if I hit upon eastern European names that I can't place on the map, may I consult either of you two? Goodnight, busy day tomorrow. Folks at 137 23:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Lysy, you are a real peach. We seem to come up with a friendly solution to the problem with Balcer and others. You include a tacit agreement, and conclude your remarks with "Peace". Then you return to the Panevezys article, to include the Yiddish name in the header. We know there were lots of Jews in the PLC, this is no longer the case. The demographics of the population in the 20th century are in the article. I have no doubt that you decided to add the Yiddish name to continue the fracas, nothing more. Due to the overwhelming pre-WWII Jewish population in Poland, I'm sure you won't object to my including the Yiddish names to every Polish city and town in the English Wikipedia. Sort of in the "Spirit of Lysy" and for the benefit of English speaking readers to know this important information. Sound good? Peace to you too. Dr. Dan 14:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I moved the name down to an appropriate place in the history section, where it belongs. Balcer 16:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Balcer. Dan: "I have no doubt that you decided to add the Yiddish name to continue the fracas, nothing more."; you are wrong but I don't think we need to continue this any more, as Balcer fixed it already. I'm sorry you're assuming my bad faith, this normally does not help. Above I said that I appreciated our discussion, but now I have to say that I do not appreciate your ad personam and judgmental attitude. I'm really off for now.--Lysytalk 17:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Peace, Lysy, like you said, Peace. Dr. Dan 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Communities of Poles, and Karaites, settled in the area as early as the 14th century
Karaites, yes. It is well documented, but not 14th, but 15th century. Where do this fairy tale "Community of Poles in the area as early as 14th century" come from? Žemėpatis (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)