Jump to content

Talk:Lithuanization

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

Please expand on following points

[edit]

Renata removed some points that I agree where poorly referenced:

  • forced - we need to describe clearly and with proper references if Lithuanization was indeed forced
  • Most Polish schools, social institutions and political societies were closed, and the local Poles were forced to declare Lithuanian as their nationality. This was referenced with three Polish sources, no pages given. Please provide page numbers, quotes and translations to back up this serious claim.

In my spare time I will look for some additional sources to expand this article, but please, let's stick to WP:V and WP:RS as much as we can.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, if google scholar suggests Did you mean: Euthanization instead of Lithuanisation there would be another proof of Polish culture superiority. Bugaga:) Not to mention such great inglish idioms like is, to myknowledge. Exceptionaly reliable sources I'd say. Truly worth a google generation bureaucrat to be found by. --Lokyz 23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad ref

[edit]
  • It was also around that time that the newly-established Lithuanian state started aiming at cultural and linguistic assimilation of other large groups of non-Lithuanian citizens, mainly the Poles and Germans. (in English) various authors (1994). James Stuart Olson (ed.). An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. p. 258. ISBN 0313274975. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl= and |coauthors= (help)

That is not a valid reference. If you go to that book and that page you will see the following:

The only difficulty expereinced by germans during the interwar period was an attempt at lithuanization of Memelland from 1923 until the mid-1930's.

There is nothing else there about Lithuania. And the sentence above does not support such a vast and strong conclusion as presented in the article. Renata 19:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this needs to be rephrased or expand with other refs, as it is, this is a ref to show that Germans were subject to Lithunization too, nothing more, and nothing less.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the... reference is this? Lithuanization (sometimes also called the Lithuanianization[1]) ^ The Context of Mass Destruction: Agents and Prerequisites of the Holocaust in Lithuania, MacQueen Holocaust Genocide Studies.1998; 12: 27-48 Is Lithuanization equals Holocaust? Disagree. 88.222.99.66 (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanization of Ruthenia?

[edit]

Wow! Sorry, but it is a bunch of counterfactual nonsense. It was Lithuania itself that was Ruthenized following the conquest of Rus' by Gediminids.

"Within the [Lithuanian] Grand Duchy, the Ruthenian lands initially retained considerable autonomy. The pagan Lithuanians themselves were increasingly converting to Orthodoxy and assimilating into Ruthenian culture. The grand duchy's administrative practices and legal system drew heavily on Slavic customs, and Ruthenian became the official state language. Direct Polish rule in Ukraine since the 1340s and for two centuries thereafter was limited to Galicia. There, changes in such areas as administration, law, and land tenure proceeded more rapidly than in Ukrainian territories under Lithuania. However, Lithuania itself was soon drawn into the orbit of Poland.";;

Source: Ukraine article in the latest Encyclopædia Britannica. Please correct the article's speculations. --Irpen 06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done by rewriting the first para of section one. But there is nothing I could do with this stuff in the intro but removing it since it is just NOT Lithuanization. --Irpen 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to fit with some of what I have read. Hmmm, Ruthenization article, anyone? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more of it, should the times where Lithuanization was not talking place be covered at all? I rewrote the paragraph that originally somehow implied to the contrary simply to replace the incorrect info by the correct one. But sometimes, it is better to remove stuff, especially the stuff that does not belong to the topic. So, we can move this to, say GDL article. It is like recent addition of depolonization and Russification policies to the Polonization article by someone lately. We should not attempt to "neutralize" the material not to our liking by the off-topic stuff. I just purged some of the De-Polonization from the Polonization article. By the same token, Ruthenization material does not belong to Lithuanization. IMO, adding the irrelevant stuff to neutralize the relevant one is not "balancing" and WP:NPOV but rather "off-topic" and WP:TE. Objections? --Irpen 10:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"On the other hand, the Lithuanian conquest and rule of Ruthenian lands in the 13th-15th century was not accompanied by Lithuanization." Was it really a conquest? Sources please. As for Ruthenization, I suppose, Piotrus, it is not a proper link. Referring to Aleksander Brückner we may found the following passage: "Mikołaj Rej jeżeli później o Rusinach opowiadał, prawili mu po "litewsku" (tj. po białorusku; Litwin u nego zawsze tyle co Białorusin), nigdy po małorusku" (source: Aleksander Brückner. Mikołaj Rej. PWN: Warszawa, 1988, p. 14). Translation: When Mikołaj Rej later described Ruthenians they addressed him in "Lithuanian" (i.e. Belarusian language, for him a Lithuanian [person] is exclusively a Belarusian) but newer in Ukrainian (here literally: Little Russian). CityElefant (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

And what's with the title? While the concept of cultural assimilation of minorities by Lithuanians does exist as for any nation, this is such an obscure phenomenon that the term suggested by the article's authors is a pure neologism. The term produces only 57 google hits of which many are about Lithuanization of the software or the Lithuanization of the names (that is how foreign names, when written in Lithuanian, are modified by adding suffixes in the end). In the cultural assimilationist sense, the term is exceedingly rare. If one wants to have an article about this rather rare phenomenon, I suggest renaming to something like Cultural assimilation of minorities in Lithuania. While almost any valid dtopic may have Wikipedia articles, neologisms are inappropriate for the article titles. --Irpen 05:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A term used in 13 (at least) books, and 7 academic (or more) articles is notable. Also per our naming guidelines, shorter names are preferable to long descriptives. PS. Your term is unused in academia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC) PS. And your title produces 0 Google hits.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless those are neologisms. Using those for titles just makes no sense. Of those 13 books, 6 use the term in the "quotation marks". I would not object to the referenced term usage within the text flow but not the title. --Irpen 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term exists, is used by academics worldwide, and is definitely more handy than, say, Forced or voluntary cultural and linguistic assimilation of people by the governments and cultural associations of Lithuania or its predecessor states. Which, for me, is enough to have it where it is. BTW, what title would you suggest? //Halibutt 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, how could one possibly argue with, The term exists, is used by academics worldwide... (sic) ? Dr. Dan 02:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not if the claim was not false. Google search produces nothing. Half of the 13 google books hits use the "quotation marks" around this supposedly widely used term. Besides the article looked from the onset like an OR essay. Adding the times of Gediminas that no one ever calls Lithuanization, to the 19th-20th century, where those few who use the term refer to. Is a strange OR. I corrected the bizarre assertion of the Lithuanization of Ruthenia so that it is at least not counterfactual, but I still have doubts this belongs together with the assimilation material at all. --Irpen 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How could one not support all the constructive proposals you list here... //Halibutt 16:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please confirm that you do not object then to:

  1. removal of Ruthenian parapgraph as this has nothing to do with Lithuanization and is never called as such. (After I corrected your original writing it is factually correct but is still irrelevant in this article)
  2. renaming the article into Cultural assimilation of minorities in Lithuania.

Please confirm. --Irpen 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I abstain on the first issue (don't know enough about it) and object to the second one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What name do you propose? The current one is a neologism, obviously. The topic is valid, but in the lack of an established name it can be presented under the descriptive name. What's wrong with my name? --Irpen 17:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Why do you have to ask the same question over and over again? I support current name ('Lithuanization') and please don't ask me that again; also, please don't treat my lack of reply to your questions if you repeat them as silent agreement. My rationale: title used by scholars and suggested by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six books only means "used by scholars"? --Irpen 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is some other name more popular?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no well-established single word to define the phenomenon. In such case descriptive name is in order. I proposed one above. Do you have any better ideas? --Irpen 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in Google Books there's at least 13 books mentioning Lithuanization, another 3 for Lithuanisation, 7 for Lithuanianization and 2 for Lithuanianisation. More than enough, if you asked me ([1]). Besides, simple google search suggests that the word is also used by common people and also by Lithuanian sites in English. //Halibutt 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of those 13 with Lithuanization only 12 are viewable of which in 7 {more than in a half} "lithuanization" is use "in quotation marks", thus the author themselves consider the term odd.
  • My search shows not 3 but 2 books with lithuanisation (could be google books fluke) of which only one is in English and it also uses 'quoation marks'.
  • Of 7 books with Lithuanianization only in 6 you can see actual usage and in half (3) it is again "in quotation marks"
  • Of 3 books with Lithuanianisation, 2 use quotaion marks as well
  • Of 58 total google hits (not many), not all are English, despite requested, and some are about software, which is unrelated to the policies

Unlike the term-based names, descriptive name does not have to be strictly used in that exact form as long as it is reasonably correct and neutral. If you insist on descriptive name's wide usage requirement, please consider that "Massacre of Poles in Volhynia" has only 1 hit in google books. --Irpen 11:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no shorter term for that, at least ouside Poland ('rzezie wołyńskie', IIRC, and that's not that popular either). Here, however, we have a short term indeed used by some sources. Why not use it? Yes, it's not extremly popular. It's a minor notable phenomena and 50+ books is quite good, one way or another.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that the usage of the term in "quotation marks" or for the software related issue is "quite good" to justify the article about the political phenomenon? --Irpen 02:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say, let's not use Google to tell us what our encyclopedia should contain. I'm sick of seeing all those references to Google. — Alex(T|C|E) 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLE is not a policy or guideline. — Alex(T|C|E) 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you dispute a name, propose an alternative and back it up with policies, alternativly show how current name is wrong. "Lithuanization" has been shown to exist in scholarly literature, it is English and easily understandable, thus fullfilling common WP:NC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. The current name contradicts the policies by being a neologism. The claim of its sufficient use has been shown above to be false. I gave some ideas on what the alternative name should be but to propose anything specific I need to understand the intended scope of this article. Since originally the article was an essayish collection of unrelated (and false) claims, the proper title for it could not be determined. Once I get a clue of the topic and the article has some consistency, we can propose the final name. The current one is unacceptable for being an ORish neologism in the particular context. --Irpen 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: cite specific policies, not your ideas of what they should be. Give example of alternative name that is actually used, not your ideas of what it should be.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236 07:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re-Lithuanization http://www.forumvilnius.lt/print.php?news.36 Xx236 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious statement

[edit]

"Due to aggressive student recruiting actions by "Pochodnia," Polish cultural and educational society, the question of Polish schools was reviewed by Seimas" and is given the "source" [2] in fact it is an OR or worse a real false because there is no such words as "aggresive actions", check with "agresyvi", "agresyvios". Article in general describes situation and nothing more. By the way this is a schoolbook for pupils... --Tarakonas (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you correct the text to reflect the source? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tarakonas (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-Lithuanian

[edit]

Maybe ethnic minorities or ethnically non-Lithuanian? The objects are generally Lithuanian citizens.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section may contain original research or unverified claims.

[edit]

May?Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since 17 December 2007 noone cares to explain his/her point.Xx236 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lead should be exception from WP:NOR?

[edit]

I would like to see an academic source for the lead definition, namely that Lithuanization is a process of cultural assimilation - adoption, either forced or voluntary, of Lithuanian culture or language, experienced by non-Lithuanian people or groups of people. Explanation such like [3] that it is neutral definiton of any cultural assimilation is not an argument to neglect WP:NOR or WP:V. M.K. (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to provide a different, referenced definition. This one seems like a usual definition of cultural assimilation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Usual definition" is not an excuse to neglect WP:V and WP:NOR, in this case. Without academic material, such "definitions" is subject for the deletion. M.K. (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can nominate the article for WP:AFD anytime. WP:LEAD recommends summarizing article's content and defining the article, and this is what the lead should do. Removing the lead entirely as you just did is simply damaging the article. If you think that the lead is incorrect, rewrite it, with refs if you want, but don't remove it. I believe that the current definition is acceptable, and the lead needs expansion to be fully summarizing the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that "Lithuanization" in those cited sources mention very briefly. So others may argue that Lithuanization, instead cultural assimilation as you claim, is cultural imperialism, acculturation etc. All of those are OR without academic support. In this case it is better to have no lead, rather then originally researched definition. M.K. (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from 3O page: is there still a debate afoot? It seems the current first sentence is fine. I'd scrap off the "needs citation" tag, since the definition seems simple and straightforward, and non-controversial. Well, just a thought. Wikipedia has tonnes of articles that are not sourced, but which still add value for the reader. Is the current definition legitimately questioned? If so, I think it needs a reference, or to be changed to something with the backing of strong sources. If it isn't then it's easy to get rid of the fact tag. Better to leave a heading than none at all, which looks bad. If it's a bland definition, what's the problem?--Asdfg12345 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Asdfg for taking this and providing opinion. In general, I am not interested how bad or good other articles are, but I am interesting in this one. Issues surrounding MOS is secondary importance, while WP:V and WP:NOR is the must to all articles. Particularity per WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.. How you suggest that reader will be able to check that Lithuanianization is "is a process of cultural assimilation" rather then cultural imperialism, acculturation, to clarify this can only established scholars in RS, and definitely not wikipedians, even if they thinking that it is true. How readers will check that lithuanization applies exclusively to "non-Lithuanian people"? How? They don't, as there is no academic definition for it. How awkward this so called "definition" is, can be seen by looking to lithuanization of PC software [4]. So PC software should also undergone cultural assimilation? Wait a sec...software is not a people. I hope you understand now why this is essential to have properly referenced definition, by experts, rather then basing on wikipedians' beliefs. M.K. (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get it. There are a pile of references there, then--do none of them provide a simple definition that can be accepted by all parties? One thing is, the introduction should be really demilitarised if there are competing understandings on this topic. A simple way of demilitarising it might be just to keep it very general, and even shallow and vague if necessary (it has to be accurate though). Could it also be that the word has different meanings in different contexts--i.e., that it's used in more than one way? Could that be cleared up in the lede, stating that it is X and also Y? Sorry that I'm just armwaving and saying really obvious things. Can you point out some way that I can actually help?
Since I stuck my foot in here, I'll stick around until it's resolved (or start to think that it can't be, but that probably won't happen). My basic argument in the previous note was something like "if nobody cares, then there's no problem"--but that is meaningless if there is an active concern. So tell me, what can I do? By the way, do all those references refer to Lithuanisation without even defining it? If that is so, it would be weird, but if it's really so, then my view is that it's okay for wikipedians to cobble together something very simple for reader digestion, even if there is no source, as long as it's accurate, fair, and sounds right. Basically, I'm saying I believe in human judgement, and that people can make rational decisions and do sensible things, even if those things aren't exactly spelt out in rules.
Finally, I'll sum up my questions: what are the possible ways this boggle could be resolved? How can I help to resolve it? --Asdfg12345 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I haven't seen any clear definition of this word at all. The word appears in the different contexts, which had nothing to do with groups of people etc. Perhaps we should remove that definition and provide just a plain summary of the article itself? How it sounds? M.K. (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)P.S> other solution may be to have disambiguation page, there could be noted various instances of Lithz.[reply]
I agree that the sources don't have a clear definition. However, the use of the term makes it clear it refers to the process of cultural assimilation, such as polonization or russification, and I don't see a problem with using a similar, neutral definition. The lead should have both the uncontroversial definition and the summary of the article (after all, the article is about something that can be defined, or otherwise, it shouldn't exist in the first place). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non controversial original research or controversial original research, it still an original research. My proposal above still stands. M.K. (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from 3O I hesitated to wade into a topic like this that is rife with ethnic, political, and historical landmines over cultural identity. However, to the extent that abstract process of cultural assimilation is present in many other examples, I would emphasize using these articles as informal precedent to guide the discussion, perhaps articles from outside Eastern Europe to get some perspective (e.g., Americanization, Japanization, etc.), rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. A gScholar search returns 20 hits on the topic so its certainly encyclopedically notable and these sources should be incorporated. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, if you understand the problem here. The problem - should the lead definition be exception from the WP:NOR M.K. (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't, if there is a source. If there's a source that can take care of it, then what is the problem? If there's no source, then editors will just have to come up with something. I'm sorry I don't understand the problem more fully and um unable to provide better help..--Asdfg12345 09:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asdfg, I was referring to Madcoverboy. But yes as I said there is no academic material in which we had such definition. As it stands, it is confusing as those "Lithuanization" of software is rather illogical compered to the definition. I proposed using just a summary of article without any specific definition or make disambiguation page. Your opinion on that? M.K. (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your proof for this alleged confusion? The sources may not offer a clear definition we can cite, but it is obvious that they all refer to a well-defined process of cultural assimilation. This academic article, for example, discusses Polonization, Germanization, Belarusionization, and Lithuanization, putting them all on the same level. It is just one of many similar sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is plenty of scholarly evidence and definitions on what constitutes cultural assimilation. That the names and contexts change obviously means that different processes apply, but unless reliable and verifiable sources assert that Lithuanization is somehow a completely different form of cultural assimilation than has ever been observed or theorized, I fail to see how using this definition constitutes original research in the face of substantial scholarly evidence. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you in command of other sources, which I am not aware off. Therefore could you share with us those sources (in context of Lith.) with relevant quotations. And hopefully this will lead to the improvement of this article. M.K. (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm any help here. I'm going to take this off my watchlist and hope there is a good outcome. Madcoverboy seems to present a reasonable voice to the debate. --Asdfg12345 12:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian view of Lithuanization

[edit]

What's the Lithuanian language word for Lithuanization? I'd expect that in the Lithuanian scholarly works - which are currently mostly not present in the article - we could find much information, and hopefully, a good definition of the term.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lituanizacija, I think. M.K. (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any Lithuanian sources discussing this concept, and hopefully defining it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had it, I already implemented it. M.K. (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible option might be "lietuvinimas"... However, almost all references found by "Google" (for both words) are "false positives" - most often they concern adapting one or another piece of software to Lithuanian language... The results with "Google Scholar" are not much more relevant either... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

similarities

[edit]

This "who shared religious, cultural, and linguistic similarities with the Lithuanians" needs a source. Otherwise it's original research.radek (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This also needs to be settled and sourced

[edit]

On the other hand, the Lithuanian annexation of Ruthenian lands in the 13th-15th century was accompanied by Lithuanization. On the contrary, a large part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania remained Ruthenian,

vs.

The Lithuanian annexation of Ruthenian lands between the 13th and 15th centuries was accompanied by some Lithuanization. A large part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania remained Ruthenian

How much Lithuanization was there in Ruthenian lands? How successful was it? I'm sure there are sources on this.radek (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Litviny

[edit]

Added a ref, one of many possible ones.radek (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Lithuania

[edit]

"The state imposes Lithuanian form of people's names"

This should be clarified. I know a lot people who have their names not in Lithuanian form. For example Prišmont (LT form should be Prišmontienė or Prišmontaitė), Semaško (LT form should be Semaškienė or Semaškaitė), Romanova (Romanovienė, Romanovaitė) etc. Lithuanian form is not imposed. Lithuanian letters are imposed. Instead of Priszmont Lithuanians write in documents Prišmont. Besides Poles insist on including W which doesn't exist in Lithuanian alphabet while Poles do not have V in their own.

However, this is usual practice in many countries. Lithuanian names for example in England are only using English letter eg. Poškus is Poskus. Is it discrimination against Lithuanians? Besides if Lithuanians are British citizens and decides after marriage to have Lithuanian form of surname for example Sakalienė it would be very difficult to do because she could choose only husband surname or have her old surname. In this case could be said that English form is imposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnplastic (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanization is not an official state policy

[edit]

If something works, it exists.Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeniusz Römer (2001)

[edit]

A Lithuanian translation of a Polish text is quoted here. Why not an English translation of the Polish text?Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krajowcy

[edit]

The article should explain the politics toward Krajowcy. The idea of bilingual Lithuania was totally rejected.Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Targalski

[edit]

Jerzy Targalski has his site, not connected to Warsaw University.Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant as they do this every year + AWPL finances these strikes and forces people to go there

[edit]
  • You again fail to understand some sentences and think what you want to think (learn some English).
  • AWPL finance and organise these strikes. It's not the first and not the last time.
  • What do you mean by is the AWPL legal? If they weren't legal then they wouldn't exist, would they?
  • What do political and human rights have to do with these strikes? Why do you only mention Polish people everywhere? They're not some kind of gods to be mentioned everywhere. Why do you leave Russians, Belarusians and other ethnic minorities from these issues? On the other hand, Russians, Belarusians and others don't support these strikes and rarely participate in them. Poles are the only ones causing issues with things that aren't targeted at them. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't unsderstand even basic ideas like human rights.
Poles are the only ones causing issues - according to you there are no problems in Lithuania, only enemies of the people, like in the III Reich and SU. You haven't answered who controls the AWPL according to you - Warsaw or Moscow?
A legal organisation acts according to Lithuanian law and you don't like it. It's you problem, not to be discussed here. You are misusing this place to spread nationalistic propaganda and you don't understand your problem accusing me of nationalistic propaganda.
The Poles are citizens of Lithuania and European Union and they have their rights in the EU.
Are you sure you know history of Lithuania to discuss with me? Tell me when the name Vilnius was used for the first time. Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what human rights are. You're the one not understanding it.
  • You imagine things. I didn't say there were no issues in Lithuania. You decided that. I didn't mention anything about AWPL being financed from abroad. You imagined it.
  • I didn't say anything about not liking it. I don't spread nationalistic propaganda.
  • As for name of Vilnius, I already wrote about it here. Remember that letters were written in Latin language and Latin names were used.
  • If I didn't know history of my country then I wouldn't discuss about it with anyone. Furthermore, all countries' history books are different (Poles write what they want, Russians write what they want, Lithuanians write what they want, etc.) Every country have their POV on issues and this can be seen from your thoughts about everything. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like this discussion is leading nowhere... So, to get you two back to the article... Which one of you is claiming that "Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania" is engaging in Lithuanisation using strikes?

Sounds silly? But yes, that is what the article ends up saying at the moment. It is written (Special:Diff/705623849): "Bilingual Polish schools in Lithuania striked in September 2015. The strike was organised by Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania.". Nothing in it explains any other connection with Lithuanisation ("a process of cultural assimilation - adoption, either forced or voluntary, of Lithuanian culture or language, experienced by non-Lithuanian people or groups of people.", as the article defines it), therefore, the article ends up saying that it is an instance of Lithuanisation.

If you two (or one, or any other number) want this part to stay, get sources that explicitly state the connection to the subject of the article and specify - again, explicitly - what specifically is being said (and also who says so). Something like, "In an interview given to Y, Tomaszewski has described X as Lithuanisation.".

For that matter, it is not the only instance of content with questionable relevance to the article. For example, it is not clear what the illustration "An Anti-Polish cartoon published during the interbellum" has to do with this subject... Or "A Polish-Lithuanian woman protested when Wardyn was changed to Vardyn." - how is the reader supposed to find out what exactly is that "Wardyn" or "Vardyn"? A surname? A name of a street? Something else? And what exactly does it have to do with the subject (that is defined as "a process of cultural assimilation - adoption, either forced or voluntary, of Lithuanian culture or language, experienced by non-Lithuanian people or groups of people")? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added her last name to explain the Wardyn/Vardyn problem. Many people belive that a wife of Wardyn has the right to use the last name of her husband, Lithuania imposes the last name to be Lithuanized Vardyn. It's exactly forced Lithuanisation experienced by the person, even if it's legal.

Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue here the Lithuanian majority vs. Polish minority fight, however this Wikipedia isn't controlled by the Lithuanian government. It's obvious that your POV is differen't than a Polish one, it doesn't however prove you have the right to impose your POV here. Please add to the article We Lithainians know better that we don't Lithuanise anyone supporting Lithuanian schools against the bilingual ones.
Some Polish politicians want to support mass migration of ethnic Poles from Lithuania to Poland. You seem to support the idea.Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I have added her last name to explain the Wardyn/Vardyn problem." - good.
"It's exactly forced Lithuanisation experienced by the person, even if it's legal." - that could be relevant, but it does not fit the definition given in the beginning of the article: "a process of cultural assimilation - adoption, either forced or voluntary, of Lithuanian culture or language, experienced by non-Lithuanian people or groups of people.". Now it is true that this definition has not been supported by any reference, but in that case it should be improved. Until that gets done, article ands up claiming that changing one letter in someone's name succeeds in getting someone to adopt "Lithuanian culture or language" - and I don't think that it is obvious this is the case. And thus, it is necessary to demonstrate that this story is relevant to this article (and not to, let's say, "Poles in Lithuania" or "Human rights in Lithuania"). It is not hard: get a single source (a Polish politician will most certainly do) that says what you just said. Then we can write down: "[Politician] has described it as Lithuanisation." (or however that politician actually words all that).
"You continue here the Lithuanian majority vs. Polish minority fight," - it is true that there is a fight. The whole last section of the article is the result of it - it makes it look as if no one was ever trying to write it neutrally, or even to write it in a biased way, but well. But it does not have to be like that. For example, section "Evaluations and historiography" of article Suwałki Agreement was also a place of such fights. Yet now (Special:Diff/685208660#Evaluations_and_historiography) it is written neutrally, and everyone is happy enough.
It is not impossible to write this section likewise neutrally. But then someone has to write down what the POVs actually are, or else we'll end up with neutral, but not very informative "Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania thinks that Lithuanian government is trying to turn Poles into Lithuanians. Lithuanian government says that is not the case.". So, can you go and describe the "Polish" POV and find some sources (interviews or proclamations of some politicians, perhaps?) that would support this part? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesteing that no Poles from Lithuania is able to participate in this discussion. I'm not interestede enough to invest my time.Xx236 (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They just don't feel the need to participate here. Noone forbids them from expressing their view. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you invest hours here but you don't care about many pages about Lithuania, e.g. Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (1918–19).Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you again went off-topic. All you do is discuss the editor's actions and not the subject. And it's not for you to decide what someone should or shouldn't edit. Mind your own business. P.s. since I'm not a communist, I couldn't care less about Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (1918–19) or any other communist-related article. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corresponding featured article in Belarusian Classical Wikipedia

[edit]

Hi! How are you? Please, feel free to use the largest wiki-article about lithuanization from be-tarask:Летувізацыя in Belarusian Classical Orthography to expand the article here with translated text. It has 192 sources, including 20 by Lithuanian authors, among them 15 in Lithuanian. There is 7 times more content than in the corresponding English article. It would also be nice to translate the article about Belarusian Classical Wikipedia itself, in order to overcome a personal bias against it, including the one persistently revealed by a user in this edition of Wikipedia. Best wishes,--W (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a prime example of irredeemable and obnoxiously Litvinist WP:POV. The Taraškievica article on 'Lietuvizacyja' is riddled with:
  • False statements like For this reason, one cannot talk about the state-creating role and dominant position of the Baltic Lithuanian minority in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This sentence alone contradicts entirely what is written in international WP:RS about the rulers of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Basically, this article is denying the universal view that Vytenis, Gediminas, Vytautas and many more, were Lithuanians.
  • Accusations that 'lietuvisy' (the fringe Belarusian nationalist word for Lithuanians, because they [Belarusians] claim that they are the real Lithuanians, instead of Lithuanians) historians are deliberately distorting historical facts and engaging in forgeries. The article rebukes lietuviskich text books for continuing to propagate claims that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a lietuviskaj state, the ruling dynasty of the Gediminids were the Lietuvisami, that the core of the GDL lands was located in the lietuviskich lands [ Lithuania Proper ], and the capital of the GDL, Vilnius, stands in the center of those lands.
  • The article makes pseudohistorical and nonsensical claims about "Germanic origin of the Lithuanian nobility" as well as other outlandish statements.
  • While the en.wiki article is about Lithuanization (or Lithuanianization), which is defined as a process of cultural assimilation, where Lithuanian culture or its language is voluntarily or forcibly adopted, the be-tarask is about something very different and is effectively about denying Lithuania, Lithuanians, the Lithuanian language and the Lithuanian history. The be-tarask.wiki article is about Lietuvisation, defined as the following (subdivided by me into points):
i. the policy of inculcating the lietuviskaj language and culture among the non-Lithuanian population of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania
ii. as well as the promotion of the lietuviskaj chauvinist interpretation of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
iii. It consists of several components, including the identification of historical Lithuania [called Litvy in the article] and Lithuanians [called lićvinaŭ in the article] with modern Lithuania [called Lietuva in the article] and Lithuanians [called lietuvisami in the article]
iv. distortion of traditional historical names of localities and names of people in other languages ​​according to their forms from the lietuviskaj language,
v. denationalization of the inhabitants of the ethnic Belarusian territory (through their partial Polonization or Russification) with the gradual transfer of education and mass media to the lietuviskuju language in order to assimilate the local population to lietuvisami.
Overall, that article is very shoddily written and is basically going against historical reality, with a clear ideological bias being its main motivator. It is shameful that the Taraškievica wiki holds up such articles as FA-class.
It's also disturbing that statements such as those by user Алёхно are allowed to even exist on that page's talk page [5]:
The fact is that there was no "lietuviskaha population" in the GDL. [1] "Letuvis" were theoretically produced by Jesuits and Prussian freemasons in the 17th-18th centuries, and physically appeared with the Tsarist order of 1866. (original: Справа ў тым, што ніякага "летувіскага насельніцтва" ў ВКЛ не было. [1] "Летувісы" тэарэтычна выраблены езуітамі і прускімі масонамі ў 17-18 ст., а фізычна з'явіліся з царскім загадам 1866 г.).
Such conspiracy theorist-level of thought has no place on the English-language Wikipedia, but the Belarusian Taraškievica Wikipedia seems to have become a place where such ideas spread. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lithuanization&oldid=1203709507"