Talk:Principality of Alšėnai

Requested move 8 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Closing the move request for this page as there was a strong consensus against a move. I note that there is a proposed resolution to the dispute around names for this and related articles below which seems to have broad support, but by my read of that solution it wouldn't involve a change to this article. As this RM only discussed the one article, it seems safe to close this. (non-admin closure) Turnagra (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Alšėnai → Principality of Halshany – The place in question is a Belarusian town, not Lithuanian. Marcelus (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - The place in question was an unquestionably Lithuanian town during centuries relevant to this article and belarusifying it is a falsification of history. This also demonstrates the anti-Lithuanian WP:POV of Marcelus.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an anti-Lithuanian attitude, I just oppose the forceful Lithuanianization of the history of Belarus. WP:NCPLACE suggests using names appropriate to the historical context. Since it would be nonsensical to use Lithuanian names for the whole Grand Duchy (including such cities as Kiev, Minsk and Mstislavl), the border must be demarcated at some point. The border of modern Lithuania seems a reasonable, objective delineation. Especially since it was more or less the border of the Baltic and Slavic ethnolects in the 15th-16th centuries.Marcelus (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you were knowledgeable about the area, you would know that your statement Especially since it was more or less the border of the Baltic and Slavic ethnolects in the 15th-16th centuries. is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I recommend you carefully read the article Lithuania proper. Moreover, Baltic speakers (Galindai) still existed near Moscow in the 15th-16th century (some continued identifying as such until the 19th century!). So your claims are just divorced from reality.

Following WP:NCPLACE (If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) or the local historical name (in articles dealing with a specific period) should be used.). As the obscure theme of this article does not have an English-language name in WP:RS, the historically apropriate name should be used, and that is Lithuanian, as the territory, its inhabitants, the ruling state, were all Lithuanian. You are wrong to claim that it is nonsensical to use Lithuanian names for the whole Grand Duchy - Russian language names are used for the whole of the Russian Empire, regardless of what the locals called it or what it is called now (e.g. Vilensky Uyezd and many others).

It is lies to claim that this is Lithuanianization of the history of Belarus, when Balts/Lithuanians inhabited these territories for millenia before and after Christ. You seem to have an anti-Lithuanian attitude, because that emerges as a dominant trend after looking through your edits and page moves. Giving you the benefit of the doubt after these repetitive exchanges, going so far as you removing Polish-language sources when it is not to your liking like in the Jonas Alšėniškis article, seems unreasonable. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we obviously don't use Russian names for places that were part of the Russian empire. You know this well, because we edited the January Uprising entry together, and you yourself demanded the use of modern Lithuanian names, for places that are in Lithuania. Which I did not oppose. According to your logic Old Belorussian should be used for the whole Grand Duchy, because it was the official language. I don't really care what you think about me.Marcelus (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the Lithuanian Grand Duchy's Chancellery Slavic language simply Old Byelorussian is a severe historical lie, because the language was created for the use of chancellery and disappeared as soon as it was no longer needed, i.e. when the Polish language took its place (source: Zigmas Zinkevičius, [1]). You might as well call Latin as Old Italian following your misguided logic. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Sorry but the given rationale is absurd. Byzantium is now a Turkish city known as Istanbul, but nobody is going to try to move "Byzantine Empire" to "Istanbulite Empire". Furthermore, that we keep calling the state as Byzantine Empire doesn't mean we are "Greekifying" Turkish history. Halshany also seems to have been within Lithuania proper, so it is possible it was indeed an ethnically Lithuanian state. I haven't checked if sources have a preference on any of the two names, but neither did the person who started this RM, so I am not basing my oppose on that, at least for now. Super Ψ Dro 14:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good comparison. A better one would be Eyalet of Adrianople not Edirne or Minsk Voivodeship not Minskas, which use Greek and Ruthenian names respectively.Marcelus (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Also unlike Constantinople Halshany never changed its name Marcelus (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These examples will be valid if it is shown that Halshany was a Belarusian/Ruthenian-populated city at the time of the principality's existence. So far no proof has been given supporting or denying this. Super Ψ Dro 18:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a decisive factor? Should we then call Vilnius that way only when it was a majority Lithuanian city? The family that owned the principality was called Olshanski/Halshansky, they were Ruthenaized Orthoxod Lithuanians. The historical sources always call the city Halshany. I think that's an historical context that cannot be omited. Marcelus (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality of Alšėnai existed in a historical period when the territories that were part of it were ethnically Lithuanian and in a Lithuanian state (Grand Duchy of Lithuania). Ergo, as there is no established English usage for it, the historically appropriate Lithuanian language name should be used, as per WP:NCPLACE. Moreover, when writing Wikipedia, we are not thinking about what names the people called themselves, but what they are called in modern historiography. Sometimes it is the name they called themselves - like Józef Piłsudski, while sometimes it is not - like Catherine II (not Yekaterina or etc.). Hence, Vilnius is the name used for the city throughout the centuries, regardless of the polonization of its populations during a part of its existence. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's really weird coming from a person who insists on using Lithuanian placenames for Lithuanian towns in relation to XIX century events. You even insist on using Lithuanian names for towns in Prussia that never were part of Lithuania. That's really hipocritical. Marcelus (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not hypocritical. Modern historiography uses Lithuanian-language names for locations in Lithuania (as is to be expected and is perfectly reasonable). These towns in Prussia were located on the territory of Lithuania Minor. It makes sense to refer to them in names relevant to the context - unless you wish to use talk about Sovetsk instead of Tilžė/Tilsit or Gusev instead of Gumbinė/Gumbinnen in the centuries before 1945. Also, to draw a parallel between Wilno and Vilnius is improper, because Vilnius as a name was used for centuries before the 20th century (e.g. [2] from D. Klein's Grammar of the Lithuanian language from 1653). There is no contradiction involved.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's reasonable to use Lithuanian names for the towns within territory of modern Lithuania, but you're the one who just now claimed that only Russian names are used for the times of the Russian Empire. Furthermore, it makes no sense to use Lithuanian names on English Wikipedia for towns in East Prussia, especially since most of them never had a Lithuanian majority, such as Königsberg. I am simply showing your inconsistency. The only rule you follow is to use Lithuanian names for as much as possible and for as many places as possible. The persistent changing of Minsk to Minskas is a good example.Marcelus (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you're the one who just now claimed that only Russian names are used for the times of the Russian Empire That was about ARTICLE TITLES. The only rule you follow is to use Lithuanian names for as much as possible and for as many places as possible. Absolute nonsense - have you seen at least one case that I added Lithuanian-language names for places in the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland or other lands that were not previously part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? No. Moreover, most of Lithuania Minor did have a Lithuanian majority, but you seem to not want to admit that because of your ignorance or anti-Lithuanian bias.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just said that you were using word Karaliaučius in articles, although this town was never part of the GDL.Marcelus (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Alšėnai at the time was an ethnic Lithuanian town, ruled by an ethnic Lithuanian noble family of Alšėniškiai, so there is no need to Polonize its Lithuanian name per WP:NPOV. -- Pofka (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Polonisation are you talking about? Marcelus (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution

@Cukrakalnis: I will answer you here to the same of your comments in Talk:Ivan Olshansky about Halshany. I don't know why Zinkevičius didn't notice that the same source is calling Halshany also: Galschan and Holschen. Lithuania proper is not an ethnic area, it is an area which was early (in the 13th century) annexed by Lithuania and thus merged with Aukštaitija into one country, so that in the pre-partition period Minsk was considered part of Lithuania and Polotsk part of White Russia, although Minsk was of course mostly inhabited by Orthodox Ruthenians the whole time. The border was more or less on the Berezina. But the ethno-linguistic border in the 15th-16th centuries was far more to the east, about halfway between Ashmyany and Minsk. Which is not to say that there were no linguistic islands on either side (Lithuanian were, for example, Gaina and Obol'tsy, while Ruthenian was Lebedevo), especially since in the early Middle Ages the whole area was inhabited mostly by Baltic peoples. The Halshansky had estates on both sides of this border, hence probably their early Ruthenisation. I proposed the modern Lithuanian-Belarusian border because it corresponds more or less to the mentioned border with a shift to the west by about 50-60 km, but I understand the reasons why you do not accept it.

I propose such a solution: there were several principalities in the Grand Duchy, most of them were ruled by Ruthenised Lithuanian families or by Ruthenian families. Only two were established on at that time ethnically Lithuanian lands: Halshany and Svir. How about we call these Principality of Alšėnai and Principality of Svieriai, and the rest by Belarusian names (e.g. Principality of Lahoysk, Principality of Kobryn and so on? Marcelus (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus, I am very happy with the proposed solution. As for Lithuania proper, I will look more deeply into what is written about it, because so far, everywhere where I have looked (so far), it is considered as an ethnic area that included all of the Vilnius Voivodeship. Considering that Black Ruthenia was a name applied for totally different areas in the eastern part of Europe (one in what was then the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, another in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and another in the Tsardom of Muscovy), it is possible that there was a different definition of Lithuania proper according to different sources. Finally, the article Lithuania proper is comparatively small and could be improved, so I will try and improve it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we can end this discussion. As for Lithuania proper, citing Frost: Lithuania proper excluded Samogitia, and comprised the core territories of the grand duchy, including Black Ruthenia—the territories round Hrodna, Vaukavysk, and Navahrudak, and extending as far east as Minsk and Mahiliou. While Lithuanian settlements survived—some heavily Ruthenianized, others maintaining Lithuanian culture and the Lithuanian language—large areas of ‘Lithuania proper’ were Ruthenian in culture and Orthodox in religion. Contemporaries, including Dlugosz—who put the border between ‘Lithuania’ and ‘Ruthenia’ on the river Berezina—and even the Muscovites, referred to these lands as Lithuania. Term was introduced into academic discourse by Matvei Liubavskii, but it was also used historically.Marcelus (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support this proposal. A diplomatic approach. Super Ψ Dro 21:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.