Jump to content

Talk:History of Lithuania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Important fact

[edit]

I don't understand why this well referenced fact is getting removed. Battle of Warsaw (1920) saved Lithuanian from Soviet occupation in 1920 (as clearly noted by several referenced historians) and hence is a crucial event that shaped interwar Lithuanian history. The fact surely deserves to be mentioned? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is removed per WP:UNDUE. We've seen such adding the same info to multiple articles before, going by a wider and wider scope. This is unacceptable. The trick of pasting same info to several articles is not new ("Brest parade" or Russian Enlightenment (Zaluski library_ examples come to mind.)
There are narrow articles for narrow issues like that. This is the second largest by scope Lithuanian article. This is exactly what was done by now gone user:4 bity muzyki who added a section Homophobia in Poland directly into Poland article even though LGBT rights in Poland was readily available. Piotrus was right to revert the fellow back then and I expect the same standards applied to Polish and Lithuanian topics. --Irpen 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with pasting important fact into several relevant articles. This is a crucial fact that belongs here. The outcome of the Polish-Soviet War saved independent Lithuania - this is stated clearly by several historians who specialize in Lithuanian history (Lithuanian Senn, Polish Łossowski, and others). This is not a fringe undue issue like the one discussed above (a good counterexample); it's a major event that seems quite 'in place' here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your view that "there is nothing wrong with pasting" illustrates the problem perfectly. You did not pioneer this approach and you and I even managed to agree when this was done years ago by Molobo and together removed such stuff. I am saddened to see that you now resort to same. --Irpen 06:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is off topic, but there is nothing wrong with pasting information into many articles - whether it's a redirect / disambig fix, a relevant newly uploaded image, reference or expansion - as long as it is of due weight, as in this case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be more specific, we are talking the width of the scope here: both of the article (extremely wide scope, second largest scope of all Lithuanian topics) and the piece of content (narrow claim related to a fringe (by the sacle of the topic) event, besides a POV, even if referenced, rather than an undisputed fact.) Same info pasted into several articles of the same scope/width may be acceptable. This is not the case. Just curious, is there a reason why you did not paste this also directly to the Lithuania article to its history section or even lead? If you answer this question, it would be easier for you to agree with me here. --Irpen 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main Lithuanian article barely has room for the mention of P-L war and the P-S is a bit off topic to it. This article, which has room to mention both and go into the situation in more detail, certainly can mention the not-so-fringe battle (listed by some in the top twenty or so most important in mankind's history) that allowed Lithuania the crucial two decades of independence between the world wars.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the paragraph could be cut down just a tad, I think it can go in there. 1000 bytes of information, with appropriate citations (which this article lacks, btw), could be a bit much. Also use links when needed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Irpen here and per similar per WP:UNDUE concerns expressed per above dispute (which I will resume soon after will solve another one). Plus I would like to request a border citation of source Antanas Ruksa, Kovos del Lietuvos nepriklausomybes, t.3, p.417, to pin point a context. M.K. (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pasting a predictably contentious paragraph across several articles - not in the spirit of consensus. As an example of a differing interpretation, from the Cambridge History of Russia: "Not least because of the Royal Navy offshore, the Baltic States - Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia - were where Lenin cut his losses. He granted diplomatic recognition to these bourgeois regimes..." [1] (the recognition was in July 1920 - the Battle of Warsaw was in August). The concept that Russia was planning to overrun a multitude of other states has been contested by Orlando Figes in A People's Tragedy. I don't have any problem with the inclusion of a condensed version of this paragraph as long as it is balanced. Novickas (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The unfortunate fact remains that "a spirit of consensus" and "balance" are not something that a multitude of edits from certain quarters consistently demonstrate. Your differing interpretations are refreshing and appreciated. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Irpen here primarily due to WP:UNDUE concerns. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What UNDUE? The importance of battle of Warsaw for Lithuanian independence is not a theory of one fringe historian but a fact repeated in many publications by many historians. I have mentioned Senna, Łossowski, Ruksa. If that's not enough, have some more: Snyder Had the Poles been defeated in summer 1920, Bolshevik Russia would have certainly absorbed the tiny Lithuanian state."; Hiden: battle of Warsaw in August 1920, an event which brought considerably nearer the international recognition of the full independence of the Baltic countries; and others. I have no problems with shortening the para if editors think it is too long, but the event is certainly important (and no jokes about Royal Navy in the Baltic doing anything in 1920, please).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were many events that weakened the Soviets and stopped them from taking over Lithuania and other European countries. While the miracle at Warsaw is one of the most important of such events, there are simply too many of them. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you name the others? With 4 or more citations from major publications for each? I find it dubious that the battle is to undue, when we have an entire unreferenced para on Bermontians; when we have a place to mention the unreferenced but "crucial help of Saxon volunteers" and when we have two paragraphs on how the Poles took control of the Vilnius region - with enough space to go into elections and League of Nations involvement - but we cannot find space to note that the Poles have nonetheless saved Lithuanian independence by thwarting Soviet westward aggression.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you write in the [History of Poland] article that the miracle at Warsaw has thwarted Soviet plans for taking over the whole Europe (or at least Baltic states, Poland, Germany, Hungary)? --Doopdoop (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the relevant articles make appropriate claims; after all Battle of Warsaw (1920) has been a Featured Article for something like two years now. Notable historians such as A.J.P. Taylor, Norman Davies, Ronald Grigor Suny and others have noted as such (although often they refer to the outcome of the PSW in general, although this is a small detail - nobody can dispute that it was that battle which determined the end result of the war more than any other event of the war).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood my previous comment. Couple of minutes ago I have added abovementioned information to the History of Poland article, where it is much needed and was missing (maybe you would like to copyedit it a little bit). However in the context of Lithuanian history it should be noted that all anti-Soviet forces had a big role in stopping Soviets (there is even a book called "Churchill's Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia"), keep in mind that Soviets had to divide their resources to fight their many enemies. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just plain silly to compare battle of Warsaw and the Polish occupation of Vilnius in magnitude. Because battle of Warsaw is single bullet in the list. Moreover my plea for citations fo particular publications is not met till now. M.K. (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A major battle in the world (European) history versus a minor border dispute that is major only to Lithuania (with all due respect) are not always comparable; however this article is centered on Lithuania and hence this makes the Vilnius dispute relatively prominent.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefect, I see the change in attitude towards Norman Davies, a notable historian, as he described here. Somehow, last time I was using him as reference, he was accused of using flowery language. Any chance that we see at last his quote It was highly significant that Pilsudski could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation - which he once derided as "a nation of morons" - but a Lithuanian of Polish culture as cited in N. Davies; Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland.p.139? M.K. (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No strawmen or off-topic discussions, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus is correct. Pilsudski's calling the Polish nation morons is not relevant to the topic. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mere example, then in one instance it became "Important fact" in other "flowery language". Just trying to understand criteria, that is it. M.K. (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that P.P. likes to use Norman Davies as a source when Davies supports a contention of his, and to dimiss him when it doesn't. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was very saddened to have read this remark by Dr Dan, who pretends to be a NPOV user, and yet he retreats to personal attacks on Piotrus. What does Pilsudski's remark have to do with history of Lithuania? Perhaps we should stick to the article, it will help in the future. It was just a friedndly remark, Dan, do not be grateful. Tymek (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania, having weaker military power and unable to enlist international support for its cause, accepted the ultimatum

[edit]

The cruel Poles demanded normalization and poor Lithuania wasn't able to wage a war. A real tragedy...Xx236 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to the article

[edit]

I tried to improve this History of Lithuania article. Some periods are still barely covered and I hope to be able to do some more work here. Orczar (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval history

[edit]

A total fantasy, depicting "ethnic Baltic pagans" (allegedly solely carrying the name of Litwins (Lithuanians) - although never proved so) "brave warriors", "conquering" the neighbouring despised "Ruthenians"; and not regarding Belarusians as Litwins, although they carried that name. What can I say?... It is a total erotic fantasy of modern Lietuviai (so-called "Lithuanians") and Vatican fiction writers.

Few remarks: "St. Nicholas in Vilnius, the oldest church in Lithuania, built before 1387". It was well known not long ago, that this church dates back to approximately 1440, which had been the established dating up to recently. But "someone" needed to have an older catholic church in Vilna (older than orthodox churches), to depict Lietuviai (Lithuanians) as "traditional catholics". So what has been done? The church has been redated one hundred years earlier. Yes, there are mentions of it ca. 1387, but the early statements say that it was wooden, and the brick building was constructed much later, perhaps ca. 1440, as the previos investigations showed. Moreover, it is well known, that this church was a church of German merchants, in their traditional trading post. What has it to do with "traditional (??) Lithuanian catholicism in the 14th century"?? One needs to be a lunatic, to make the German merchant church in the foreign town block a symbol of "Lithuanian catholicism" in the 14th century, considering Lithuania was in the state of constant war with all catholic states up to 1387, and with the German Order up to 1410.

And what regarding "the oldest churches"? I wonder if the author of this statement has ever seen this cathedral church. It was founded by grand duke Olgierd in 1346, and from 1415 it was the seat of Lithuanian Metropolitan. Or this one? It dates back to 1331. Or this one, founded in 1340? Aren't they not "built before 1387" and not older than your German St. Nicholas being wooden before 1387 and existing in brick in 1440, in the trading post of foreign merchants?... Or you are just counting Catholic churches? You seem to be not very happy with Vilna, and in general, Lithuanian history. So what is the purpose of all these tricks? Just to turn a blind eye on the cathedral of 1346, and a church built in 1331 (by the way, founded by grand duke's wife) - to make your German merchant church, being wooden in the 14th century, "the oldest one in Lithuania". Still feel pleased with yourself? All these activities are just destruction of real Lithuanian history, and an ethnocide against Belarusians, and in general Slavonic people, who were called Litwins in GDL, and ruled it with their language, their administrative system and their culture. You should amend the lies in the article, otherwise you should be ashamed.

Remark No.2: the map "Lithuania in 1250". The borders of Lithuania here have totally nothing to do with reality. By 1250 GDL embraced Polack, Minsk, Mozyr, Pinsk and all Belarus, as all sources and all researchers admit, but this is not reflected in the map. And at least a part of this Slavonic population were also Litwins, as the papal document of 1257 states: "confinio Litwinorum" (the border of Poles on Lithuanians) lied between Lukow and Brest (Preussisches Urkundenbuch, Bd. I, H. 2, No. 4). If you don't believe me, look up Roger Bacon's Opus Majus of 1268: Bacon's "Lithuania" is "a large country equal to Germany (Allemania)" which borders on Estonia (i.d. comprises either Latygola or Pskov lands) and on Poland (n.b. not Mazovia, which had been an independent state up to 1526, but Poland - i.e. Bacon's "Lithuania" embraced Brest lands). So, that's what Bacon, the contemporary of 1250, said. He seems to be the last British ever telling truth on Lithuanian history...

I feel that commenting on the errors and outright lies in the articles on medieval Lithuanian history in English medium is senseless, because those seem to be totally consisting of lies or at least striving to do so, by total elimination of Slavonic language, culture and religion from Lithuanian history (although it was the only thing that really did compose its real history)... Rasool-3 (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information from Snyder's book

[edit]

I've incorporated the many valuable insights from Timothy Snyder's book. Orczar (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian speaking Lithuanians

[edit]

I wonder if scholars have produced a map of Lithuanian-speaking areas at the time of the smallest geographical distribution of spoken Lithuanian dialects, may be mid-19th century or something like that. It would be instructive to see what the starting point of the national revival was. Orczar (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Buchowski gives the following information, speaking of the interwar period and of the entire Vilnius Region: "In the near-Vilnius villages the Polish language dominated. Except that this was a fresh Polish, gradually established from the end of the 19th century, at the expense of the Lithuanian and Belarusian languages." This late advance of Polish, Polonization of the local populations, complicates the issue of the demographic/linguistic distribution. Orczar (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Lithuanian territorial issues 1939–40 needs key or at least an explanation, in the caption, of the colors. Sca (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klaipėda region

[edit]

...with its Lithuanian majority.

From Klaipėda region:

A Lithuanian census carried out in the region in 1925 found its total population was 141,000. Declared language was used to classify the inhabitants, and on this basis 43.5 percent were German, 27.6 percent were Lithuanian, and 25.2 percent were "Klaipėdan" (Memelländisch). Other sources give the interwar ethnic composition as 41.9 percent German, 27.1 percent Memelländisch and 26.6 percent Lithuanian.
Population German Memelländisch Lithuanian other
141,645 41.9% 27.1% 26.6% 4.4%

Therefore, above clause has been changed to ...with its large Lithuanian minority, and the exaggerated, POV map "Lithuanian-speaking areas in the 16th century" (which cites no sources) deleted. Sca (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox in the 1918-1940 period

[edit]

I think we should add one because people could see info about that period easier in the infobox. There is no problem if it is the same republic as the current one! For example, take a look at the Afghanistan 1996-2001 page! It's the same emirate as the current one, and there it not seems to be a problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.122.234 (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Lithuania&oldid=1274734440"