Talk:Prussian Lithuanians

Milestones

While undoubtedly an impressive work, this article makes hasty assertations and claims, and misses important facts - like the fact, that the territory of Lithuania minor was colonized from Lithuania major, and most of Prussian Lithuanians despite the name were not direct descendants of Old Prussians. Also some very bold statements about Lithuanian historiography as a whole, about the fact that Lithuanians could not understand Lietuvininks language, alteration of names is quite disturbing. It will take some time to reach compromise on these issues.--Lokyz 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In the first instance the article needs to be rendered by the author or others into comprehensible English before it can be dealt with critically. Whole sections are confused and confusing, especially with the rather random, if unavoidable, inclusion of linguistic and ethnographic terminology. Being reasonably familiar with the linguistic and historical material, I attempted a correction of the English syntax, but, realising that this exercise would need many hours work, soon gave up.

One particular grammatical fault - common among non-native speakers of English - which runs through the piece, is the inability of the author to use correctly the English definite and indefinite article. There is no article in the case of the English indefinite plural. There are also numerous errors of sentence structure, verb-formation and tense usage, and mistakes in the choice of vocabulary and use of words. 86.143.100.141 11:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is written in generally bad grammar and thoruogh copyedit and rewrite into acceptable English is necessary.Iulius 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

In my view article is an important one (no doubt!), but very amateurish and biased towards germanized Lithuanians of former East Prussia (Lithuania Minor). First of all, the article does not touch upon history of former Prussia, and does not relate that history to the history of all Balts, for instance (except a map depicting approximate living territories of different Baltic groups in 11-13 centuries). From reading the article one might form an understanding that Prussian Lithuanians there completely different national group (although related). But that was not the case and it should be clarified.

I doubt that anyone knows outside of Lithuania, Latvia, and perhaps Poland that Germans never lived on the Eastern Baltic Sea shore until 13th century, and en masse until centuries later. During that period (12-13 c.) Crusades to the Middle East were waning down, and militaristic orders of eager fighters "for God's cause" were looking for new horizon's. They found new purpose much closer to home - Eastern Baltic Sea shore, where only remaining pagans of Europe lived. They were Balts, Estonians and some other Fino-ugric tribes in the north. Since Germany is in Northern Europe, German orders, namely Teutonic and others, were the ones to advance. Does anyone know in the West and the wider world that Catholic Popes actually sanctioned and declared Crusades, targeting pagans of Eastern Baltic? I bet that would be news to anyone except those specializing in certain European history.

German orders sanctioned by the Holy Seat started pouring into Prussia and Latvia "to turn infidels to Christianity". Another, more "earthly" objective was to establish a state or a permanent base for those military religious orders. So let's focus on Prussia. Teutonic Order found there very fierce and organized people with their own organized religion. In many ways Prussians were on the verge of statehood, having loose tribal alliances (if German Orders would have come 50 years later or so, we might have had very different history of Northern and Eastern Europe). Prussians by that period were separate Baltic ethnic group (they were Balts, of cause, close to Lithuanians, Latvians, Jotvingians, and others) and spoke Prussian language (the most archaic known Baltic language). They were against constant flow of new adventurous crusaders from Germany and Western Europe. Although Prussians resisted and rebelled (The Great Prussian Uprising of 13 c.) over several centuries, they were conquered in a brutal manner. Many were killed, some fled to Lithuanian state, but the most were systemically wiped out. Remaining Prussians assimilated with Germans or Lithuanians, who started moving into Prussia after 1422-1430. Last person who spoke Prussian died in early 17 or 18 c.

Most certainly Prussians and Prussian language influenced those Lithuanians who moved into Prussia. But that influence was neither wide nor deep. At the end of the day, Lithuanians of Lithuania Minor (Prussia) spoke Lithuanian dialect, not Prussian one. Prussian influence perhaps was more on distinct identity of Prussian Lithuanians.

Here we come to another misconception of the article, which declares that Lithuanians of Prussia saw themselves as different, almost distinct ethnic group. That is misleading. They most certainly were a product of assimilation between Prussians, Curonians, and the dominating side, Lithuanians (both Aukstaiciai and Zemaiciai). Most certainly they felt a little bit different, a newer tribe, if you will. In fact, in Eastern Prussia (Lithuania Minor) Zemaiciai and Aukstaiciai even preserved their distinct dialects, especially closer to Lithuanian border. Most certainly they identified with Lithuanians of Lithuania Major in a wider sense. There were quite deep familial, cultural, social and economic relations between both sides.

The last sentence is utterly wrong. There were no relations at all. Read this article by the Swiss balticist Niedermann in 1918:

http://forum.istorija.net/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3515&posts=1#M51305

Lithuanians from Lithuania Major always were welcomed and supported, especially in cultural matters (printing of books, magazines, newspapers, other support, etc.). And contrary to the article's claims, that support was much wider than solely from Lithuania Major's expatriates.

This book trade existed but was organized by Lietuviai alone. The book printers were all Germans to whom this was just business. Lietuvininkai didn't read these publications in Latin script.

I agree, however, that Lithuanians of Prussia thought about themselves as distinct Lithuanians. So what was it, making Prussian Lithuanians feel distinct? The answer is quite simple. First of all they lived in another state, frequently at odds with Lithuanian state or later with Russian Empire. That alone naturally made them think about themselves as separate from Lithuania Major. Another important factor of distinction - the socioeconomic structure of Lithuanian state v. Prussian state. Prussia was much more liberal and advanced economically, where peasants (majority of Prussian Lithuanians) could work and move for themselves and much easier than in feudal serf system of Lithuanian state, where peasants were property of their lords. In fact, that was one of the major reasons for Lithuanian migration to Prussia in 15-18 c. Again Prussian Lithuanians for those reasons were much better of than their counterparts in Lithuania Major.

In fact, until the 18 c. plague, which wiped out 50% or more of Lithuanian population in Prussia, and to some degree until the late 19 c. Prussian Lithuanians were the ones, who carried and advanced Lithuanian culture freely. One could argue that Prussian Lithuanians were the ones who acted and thought of themselves as a nation before their counterparts in Lithuania Major could finally join them in 19 c. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that Prussian Lithuanians as richer, more culturally aware and expressive, and perhaps "more western" Lithuanian thought about their brothers and sisters in Lithuania Major as "lesser" Lithuanians. This claim could be supported by the fact that Lithuanians of Lithuanian state always thought about Prussian Lithuanians as more advanced, more resourceful, and envied their conditions. Things changed in late 19 and early 20 c. because during that time Lithuanians of Lithuania Major finally were awakened and became a center of national revival, where as Prussians Lithuanians started being systematically germanized and indoctrinated to reflect values of German state. That is what Kudirka meant than he stated in 1905 that Prussian Lithuanians were "Germans speaking in Lithuanian". Article provides some statistics, that when Lithuanian language schools were abolished in late 19 c. Prussian Lithuanians protested that for years, but in early 20 c. there were no more such protests in Prussia. In my view, it should be viewed not as a evidence of German identity of Prussian Lithuanians as the article suggests, but rather as successful assimilation through schools policy of the German state.

In the Kaiserreich this assimilation was necessary. This assimilation through education opened new opportunities to underclass peasants. This was how Vydunas'/Wilhelm Storost's family could produce university professors:

http://juergen-storost.npage.de/ (curriculum vitae)

In fact, new Lithuanian Republic after 1918 was trying to reverse that germanization process in Klaipedos Krastas (Memel land).

With some unexpected results for Russian-Lithuanian occupants:

German- oriented parties always got around 80 per cent of the : vote.

That I think, is what the article is really describing, but from a wrong perspective.

Now I would like to address the article's contention that Prussian Lithuanians considered themselves German. That was not the case. There is no question that Prussian Lithuanians in any aspect considered themselves Lithuanians (although distinct). During 18 c. Prussian state's rulers sent many orders and regulations (in Lithuanian, by the way) to their Lithuanian subjects. Some of them demanded abandonment of Lithuanian customs, clothing (vyzos), and others asked why Lithuanians were escaping recruitment into Prussian army. That shows two things: one, the deep cultural believes of Lithuanians (certainly distinct from Germans), and second, the attempt by the Prussian (German) state to assimilate Lithuanian population or perhaps at that time to make it less distinct and more loyal. It follows that during 18 c. Prussian Lithuanians considered themselves Lithuanian to the bone. After the plague it became much more difficult to resist, because many communities became isolated, gradually surrounded by influx of new German settlers. Still during majority of 19 c. Lithuanian culture was alive and well in Prussia. During that time Lithuanians considered themselves as citizens of Prussia and later German state. That was nothing different of how, let's say, Czechs of that time considered themselves citizens of Habsburg Empire. Assimilation accelerated in late 19 - early 20 c. and many Prussian Lithuanians were assimilated during that time and later. However, many persevered and remained Lithuanian.

In conclusion I want to say that the article has to be corrected and edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanopa (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page, because it seems to be more relevant here--Lokyz 09:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC):

Not whole Lithuanian historiography, where did you find word "whole"? After long time of thinking, reading and comparing articles and books I've noticed trends. Will you deny that in soviet times events after WW2 were well known? Are these events were mentioned in Soviet historiography? Even in western countries such themes were omitted as uncomfortable. I don't believe situation was better in Lithuanian SSR. OK, say this in different words or throw away this sentence. Anyway, majority of events in this article are taken from modern Lithuanian sources. Otherwise then explain to me, why exists something like a movement among Lithuanians which requires attach Lithuania Minor to Lithuania, when Lietuwininkai were totally different people? Where is the origin of such claims? --Vulpes vulpes 09:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's address the spelling issue - Pruſû Lietuwa, Maźoji Lietuwa, Lietuwininkai is certainly not Lithuanian form, despite claims in the article. Lietuvininkai might have used this form, but author may denote this somehow in other form, because there is not Lietuvininkai language template. Besides this form is used rarerly and allmost in pre-WWI books and never in English books, contrary to Lietuvininkai form. The influence of Gothic script may be noted in the article. And let me note, that different spelling does not necessary means different sound or pronounciation.--Lokyz 13:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lithuanian language in East Prussia was different and used different letters and script. Is this hard to understand? Yes, this is Lithuanian language. Like American English and British English still are the English language. --Vulpes vulpes 07:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

These latest two contributions add little to one's understanding of the material, because they suffer from exactly the same linguistic faults as I have already made on this page.

Like so many articles on Wiki which may be described as somewhat 'contentious', this debate threatens to generate more heat than light, when what we are all (I hope!) trying to do is to make a reasoned and reasonable contribution to the non-specialists' understanding of a little-known and poorly understood period of European geographical history. 86.133.101.45 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is talk page, so grammar is not as important. I'm missing a point here, what's your suggestion? An who are you, because I cannot see any previous suggestion from your current identification (an IP address).--Lokyz 22:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar - syntax and correct use of words - is not important?? But surely if the author of the article and other commentators, such as you yourself, wish to reach a wider audience, whether on the main page or here in the discussion forum, comprehensibility is a 'sine qua non'? If we wish to make the intellectual effort worthwhile, then we need to be punctilious about the standard of the English that we use. Otherwise, perhaps you would prefer that the original article, and this discussion, be rendered into Lithuanian, Polish or German? Then, regrettably, those whom we wish to reach will 'lose out'.

On your point regarding my identity, I should make clear that I wish to remain anonymous. My contribution was posted below your own comment at the top of this discussion page on 16 September, where I made the point about the shortcomings in the standard of English in the article. This was promptly added to by another contributor, who made a similar comment. I apologise that this fact was not obvious: I have set up a new IP connection over the past few days. User:86.133.101.45 11:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

While the article text has to be rendered in good English, on the talk page per WP:TALK it is not required. Not all of he people in the world can speak or write perfect English. Therefore there is a request placed in form of Wikipedia:Template messages for Wikipedia participants, who are able to fix language and factual glitches, to improve this beginning of an article, written in a Nordic international Englich. If you have something productive to add to the article, like copy edit the text as you requested yourself, you're welcome. Cheers--Lokyz 21:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What should be discussed

The first qotation says: "mažlietuviai or lietuwininkai were neither Germans nor Lithuanians". It lacks the first half of the sentence: "The aim of her work, said S. Pocytė, was to prove / show, that minor-Lithuanians, or Lietuvininkai / Lietuwininkai, were neither Germans, nor Lithuanians". She might has proven (I has not looked to that work; did not see referenced)? While Lietuvininkai had different features, the better structure can be displayed by what they were (religion, other state - the main things), the situation of the different times shown. Being different, they still can be called Lithuanians. Separate Lithuanian ethnic group?

The part "traditional Lithuanian point of view" should have a better structure. The interwar period, the soviet period, modern day; then: the prevailing opinion(?), the political rhetoric(?) and some deeds (as the monument "for the liberation of Samogitia", while the land has became Lithuania Minor during the centuries; and it is good question, whether such slips are common?), the researching persons and their opinion. Dellijks 07:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Falsifications by user Dellijks

V. Vareikis original is such: "Memellanderers defined themselves separately not by ethnicity but by birthplace." On October 13 User: Dellijks [1] falsified line 64 in such way: "Memellanders built their self-consciousness on the place they were living, not on the ethnical group they belonged."

V. Vareikis original is : "Traditional Lithuanian historical scholarship, also failed to leave separate room for Memellander, accounting them Lithuanian. According to statistics from January 20, 1925 in the Klaipėda region 59,315 declared themselves German, 37,626 Lithuanian and 34,337 called themselves Memellander/Klaipėdiškiai. Lithuanian scholars from the interwar author Rudolfas Valsonokas to modern authors such as Petronėlė Žostautaitė and Zigmas Zinkevičius regard the Klaipėdiškiai simply as Lithuanian. The existence of a local identity is relegated by these authors to the realms of weakness of national consciousness.”

On October 15 User:Dellijks [2] falsified citation of Vareikis on line 192 adding words that weren't in V. Vareikis citation: "modern authors such as Petronėlė Žostautaitė and Zigmas Zinkevičius regard the Klaipėdiškiai simply as Lithuanian, after the language and culture, but not politics. The existence of a local identity is relegated by these authors to the realms of weakness of national consciousness.”

Probably understanding this won't go, on October 19 User:Dellijks [3] on line 214 not reverted own research, but fixed a bit: not taking interest in politics

This is a vandalism. Such users who falsifies original citations should be banned. Vulpes vulpes 09:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are using a blunt manner of a speech (falsification and vandalism, a lie). I made a mistake here – simply did not notice these were quotations. Sorry, of course. I did not like the repeated charging manner used by you in some of sentences, for example, you wrote that the property was not given back for Lithuanians in Lithuania Minor, but not gave any quotation. Here is a piece of your enunciation from the article Lithuania Minor [4]:

Now still exists opinion among Lithuanians requiring attach Kaliningrad oblast to Lithuania [14][15][16][17]. Acording members whole Kaliningrad oblast, is an ancient Lithuanian land i.e. Lithuania Minor is understand as a Lithuanian land from times immemorial. Lithuanian nationalist union requires atach Kaliningrad oblast to Lithuania too {any explanations - what is that nationalist union; is it important, that you can use it to ground a statement of immemorialities?}. According Lithuanian nationalists Lithuania is rightfull succes-state of Old Prussians, and even all Balts [18]. Such point of view is quite popular in Lithuania, among Nationalists and Neo-pagans {if you think some movements are important, then display a citation to see. And, for example, the error: quite popular among Lithuanians, but then your specification was quite strange: neo-pagans and, since it was not given what the nationalist union was and “Nationalists” were written with the capital first letter, one can understand that you meant that union. But you gave the reference “nationalism” in the brackets. It is not correct. When wording so, a text is a mess-up}

Dellijks 13:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion merged from Talk:Lietuvininks

What does that "It is argued sometimes that the term Lietuvininkas basically just meant Lithuanian in Lithuania Minor;" mean?

• ... just meant Lithuanian in the language called Lithuania Minor (as it could be understood by someone who does not know)
• ... just meant Lithuanian in the area called Lithuania Minor?
• ... just meant "Lithuanian in Lithuania Minor"?

--Matthead 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's simply poor English that needs to be copy edited, as well as many other parts of the article. I'll try to do it myself soon, but right now, I'm struggling with how best to proceed with the Wojna kokosza. Some people become so bent out of shape, when you're not careful. Dr. Dan 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Lietuvininkas was ancient selfname for all lithuanians. Those lithuanians who settled in XV century in Prussia this selfname preserved. Selfname of lithuanians who lived in Grand Duchy of Lithuania during time was transformed into lietuvis (and now is). Corect translation into english for lietuvininkas should be prussian lithuanian. In Prussia term prussian lithuanians was used even in XVI century. In the XIX and XX centuries lietuvinkas's used term prussian lithuanians - opposite to lithuanians who lived in Russian Empire.

I can just add to the words by Lookyz, that the new usage seemingly was used mostly in the XX century and more after the tragedy of the 1944 than before. Prussian Lithuanians understood (as in general) correctly this word till the end before the exiling. This is the basic argument why we shouldn't prefer this ethnonym to Prussian Lithuanians Linas Lituanus 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am from Lithuania, and I don't know who uses such strange name - Lietuvininks. It is strange dialectical variant. In Lithuanian literature usualy are found such terms: either Lietuvininkai or Mažlietuviai. 81.7.98.250 08:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging

The term Lietuvininks, in fact shoud be Lietuwinink(a)s, is a singular form of Lietuwininkai. Ethnicities are named under plural, not singular form. So, I suggest opposite solution - merge this article (especially etimology of name) into Prussian Lithuanians. --Vulpes vulpes 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Prussian Lithuanians or occasionally Lithuanian Prussians are the preferred English terms. Lietuvininkas, Lietuvninkas, or the current Lietuvininks are barely used in English. Olessi 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest to read what these books are about - many of them speak about times of Teutonic order (year 1225) and this is not the same as the 15-16th century formed Lietuvininkai, that was mix of Scalvians, Nadruvians (sometimes called Western Lithuanians) remains of old Prussian tribes and Western Samogitians, who had arrived from the land from Lithuania major. Second problem - most of those books are form 19th century and pre WWII, while newer books use Lietuvninkas. Further argument is that those people did use this name to call themselves. Another argument is that in Lithuanian language Lietuvininkas orLietuvininkai is predominant.

On the other hand I do not think naming is the biggest issue here, much bigger problem is the Prussian Lithuanians text itself, that is written in not NPOV language and has quite bald unreferenced statements.--Lokyz 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge Prussian Lithuanians to Lietuvininks. Motives, Lietuvininks article was written log time ago, while Prussian Lithuanians only before few weeks; Wikipedia does not encourage article forking as well. If for some reason and motives current article name is wrong, proper procedures of renaming had to bee applied rather then through merge. As it could draw bad precedent. Reviewing several proposed book hints, indeed Prussian Lithuanians are used in context of Teutonic order rather then distinct ethnicity of later times. M.K. 09:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I on the contrary would suggest to merge this article as a section to the article Prussian Lithuanians, which is more appropriate naming in the English language.Iulius 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I merged Lietuvininks (much the smaller page) into Prussian Lithuanians (much the bigger page). Anthony Appleyard 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This does not mean, that Prussian Lithuanians article is better.--Lokyz 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vulves Vulpes - thank you for your attempts to improve the article, just let me remind you that accusing other editors on vandalism and removing information added by others at the time is not the most constructive way to collaborate and can lead to serious actions against you. And please do not remove informational templates, like you did, unless the problems are solved.--Lokyz 11:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For Lithuanian users

Dear Lithuanian users, don't claim Lietuwininkai were Lithuanians. It is ridiculous to use highly biased, demagogic soviet books as arguments. I recomend you read some modern unbiased Lithuanian authors who interests in history of Prussia, like S. Pocytė or N. Strakauskaitė. "attempts to claim Lietuwininkai were Lithuanians are poor" - Balikienė B. "Labas ir sodeo, karaliene!: Prisiminimų karoliukai gražiosios Luisės vėriniui", Istorijos: žurnalas skaitantiems. 2007, 4 p.58-65. 81.7.98.250 12:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why sure, popular lifestyle magazine is a very reliable source for such strong statements. Ah, and please read WP:NPA and WP:RS. Just out of curiosity who were they in your POV - speaking Lithuanian language, having Lithuanian ancestry.

As for the books , please be more specific which book is demagogic and soviet? Such broad and insulting generalization is not the best way to prove you're right, but can be a good way to easy spoil your reputation as a positive contributor.--Lokyz 16:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

These are the words of leading researcher - N. Strakauskaitė. Better find and read an article, where in popular way some myths are destroyed. By the way, popular culture [5] is considered to be reliable. 81.7.98.250 07:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

---

They w e r e Lithuanians, but different ones - divided by more than 400 years of separate development. One might even argue that they were more "authentic" Lithuanians than those beyond the border who they regarded condescendingly as "pulekai" or "moscovites". "Litthauen", bizarre as this may sound today, denoted northern East-Prussia in the 19th century. People were not much aware that there were Russian-Lithuanians as well. When they appeared on the scene, the self-germanisation of the Lietuwininkai accelerated. Georg/Jurgis Gerullis, rector of Königsberg University, sums it up here: same blood, same language... but the cultural gap between them was too big: http://www.ostdeutsches-forum.net/Geschichte/Prussen/Preussische-Litauer.htm Or in Kudirka's words "they speak Lithuanian, but they think German".

Lutz Szemkus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.246.254 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Litthauen", bizarre as this may sound today? It doesn't sound bizarre at all. Thats exactly how Lithuania sounds in Danish, Swedish, German etc nowadays: Litauen--Termer (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What it interesting here is the fact that a region o u t s i d e modern Lithuania - a region in Germany - was called "Litauen", in the same way as we speak of "Bavaria" today. LS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.244.204 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Needs complete rewrite

This article needs complete rewrite, not saying that it draws extensive OR, it also have misused sources, for example - source was used for supporting claim that Mažlietuviai or Lietuwininkai were neither Germans nor Lithuanians, while actually sources says this Jos darbo tikslas, sakė S. Pocytė, buvo įrodyti, kad mažlietuviai, arba lietuvininkai, nebuvo nei vokiečiai, nei lietuviai., which translates as Her work goal was, as S. Pocytė said, was to prove that Mažlietuviai or Lietuwininkai were neither Germans nor Lithuanians, which have completely different meaning. Not surprisingly such info was added by disruptive sockpuppet user:Vulpes vulpes currently blocked and controlled by user:Tarakonas. Needs additional checking remaining sources. M.K. (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any resolve of previous questioned statements, even beginning with the first one on the talk page. I do know, that wine does get better in time, especially if it is kept according to some rules. The articles tagged POV do not. Hence tagging again, and please provide some better arguments than aging. Have a nice day.--Lokyz (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, just small look to the article and we see such ridiculous POV like They were proud they were better Lithuanians etc. etc. No surprisingly that this article was created by POV sock User:Vulpes vulpes, which master was user:Tarakonas. Article need complete and total rewrite M.K. (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so you all understand (Lokyz, for one) this:

1. If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag. (If someone disagrees they can just put it back!)
2. If the issues seem to be suitably resolved, remove the tag.

Is not my policy, it is WP:neutrality (aging....) I'm not involved in your article, don't shoot me. If you want the tags for your own reasons, you'll get no argument from me. Have a nice day! Nice article, BTW.Jjdon (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A bad article if you'd ask me. Rather an example of WP:POINT - created by copy-pasting few other articles, and cherry-picked citations taken out of context. I'd never do such a thing (my article ... gosh) and I did not intend to go personal with my comment. And please don't take it personally, and I'm unarmed and do not intend to shoot even with my finger;) Article is re-taged, I hope I'll have some time to begin fixing this mess (it's so WP:POVish, it gives me tremors). Cheers.--Lokyz (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, it is clearly wissible that this **** is written by a lithuanian or the author is someno who just have zerro knowladge level in this question.

At the first, there are few different etnonymes. Prussian Lithuanians (Prūsu Lietuviai) were only those who spoke west-augstaitian dialect, quite similar to Lithuania's lithuanian.

1. This is not correct. Prussian-Lithuania includes also what was called "Memelland" in the 20th century. It is true that linguistically they spoke a western-samogitian dialect which was also called "klapedisku (not sure about spelling) kalba".
2. As Lithuanian leading linguist Zinkevicius admits the Prussian-Lithuanian standard language is the basis of today's Lithuanian (not as Polish/Russian-Lithuanians -this is what they were called in Prussia in the 19th century - claim the Suwalki dialect).

Those who spoke so called "west samogitian" dialect - these people called them selves until the end of World War I : "Prūsu Būrai" (Prussian pesants) and sometimes "Šīšoniškai" (The people from there). Altrough this term was used when theey spoke to Curronians from Curronian Spit. Because of the fact that in this "west samogition" (or as they selves speak "Memellandisch") was alomoast no literarutre at all, the language was only for home use. So "Prūsu Būrai" were totaly bilingual for hundreads of years.They even today doesn't know how to write in own language/dialect. After World war I, the Memel territory which was habitated mostly by "west samogitian" speakers (rural areas near waters), was splitted of from East Prussia. And for Several years was almoast independant country under French protectorate, later - autonomous territory. In this time - they started widely to call themself Memellander. Balts used germanic name because western allies called territory only - Memel territory/Memelland. There was no baltic name at all. So if state is called Memelland, then just logic, that nationalists call themselves - Memellander. So, today the term "Prūsu būrai" is just remembered by elder memellanders. These Memmelanders feel closest relationship with Curronians, due to fact that the waste majority of words are the same in New-curronian and true memellandian. If we speak about grammar - then memellandian has more lithuanian type grammar but anyway with huge differences what makes it unable to communicate with lithuanian. The memellandian laguage is heavy mixture of old-prussian/old-curronian + low/high german + samogitian + new-curronian. Due to heavy load of germanisms (the same as in latvian) and fact of common-baltic words, that language is easyer undarstanable to latvian speaker, especialy if he knows the dialects of Kurland. Memellanders (moast) consider their speach a different language, mostly they consider themselves being compleatly different from lithuanians. And - as i know and i have heard myself - they are totaly unloyal to lithuania.

1. Memelländers hate (Russian-)Lithuanians because they robbed their farms and desecrated their cemeteries: See here: http://www.annaberger-annalen.de/jahrbuch/1995/Annaberg%20Nr.3%20Kap4.pdf

I know only one pro-lithuanian memellander, but even he spoke about memellandian language not dialect. in my opinion lithuanians speak imperialistic chauwinism if there is speaking about new-curronians or memellanders. They speak what thy think, without any listening to that what speak people the same, they do what they want - without looking what want people. As they "counted within" into lithuanians those who called themself Memellander, in the same type they made "Klaipeda revolt", and now in time when tere are less than a 1% of real local people, they tech this crap into scools. in Wikipedia there should be some midle way. Or in best case : written both point of wievs.

1. There should no place for cultural, linguistic and historical chauvinism in Wikipedia. It's incredible that the "Klaipeda revolt" article was allowed to stand for such a long time (well, I've changed the first passage now).

if more info needed Skype : kukuliic-lielais --MartinalSmith (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

1. What you say is refreshing, but I don't understand your criticism of the "Prussian-Lithuanians" article. Except language and style there is not much to be critizised.

Prussian-Lithuanian is the basis of modern Lithuanian

This is a sacred cow in present-day Lithuania. But Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevicius is quite frank about it: their language is an import from Prussia.

from Zinkevicius "History of the Lithuanian Language":

"The activists used as a model that language of Lithuania Minor which was described in the grammars of the great Lithuanian specialists Schleicher and Kursaitis and was universally adopted by comparative linguistics. This was the language taught at Moscow University by Prof. Filip Fortunatov, whose lectures were attended by many of the activists of the national revival movement. That famous Lithuanian model, in the words of Kazimieras Büga, "the skeleton of the written language", was, for all intents and purposes, used in the periodical and other press in Lithuania Major, but it was somewhat modified and adapted to new requirements. This language is the origin of current Standard Lithuanian. Hence, it developed from the former written Standard language used in Lithuania Minor."......

"Essentially this was not a new written language, but a further stage in the development of the written Standard language of Lithuania Minor, which was meant to satisfy the needs of Czarist Lithuania. This is evident from the many correspondences between current Standard Lithuanian and the written language of Lithuania Minor. The latter differed significantly from the Suvalkish dialect of that period, which dialectologists now call the West Aukstaitish Kaunas dialect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.203.140 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong then?

Why do those people who claim that this a bad article (yes, language is bad) give a few examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.254.179 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnonyms used by German balticist

Jochen Range, Professor of Baltic Studies at the University of Greifswald, editor of the first Lithuanian bible by the German pastor Johannes Bretke.

"Terminologisch ist zu beachten, daß sich in dem deutschen Schrifttum des 19.Jahrhunderts "litauisch" und "Litauen" allein auf die litauischen Gebiete in Ostpreußen (ehem. Provinz Litauen) beziehen. In der litauischen Literatur wird "Preußisch-Litauen" meist "Kleinlitauen" (Mazoji Lietuva) genannt. Das ehemalige Großfürstentum Litauen wird in der deutschen Literatur meist "Großlitauen" oder - nach der 3.Polnischen Teilung - "Russisch-Litauen" genannt, die litauische Literatur verwendet hierfür die Begriffe "Großfürstentum Litauen" (Didzioji Lietuvo Kunigaikstyste), "Großlitauen" (Didzioji Lietuva) oder einfach Litauen (Lietuva). Ich verwende für den vorgegeben Zeitraum bewußt die Bezeichnungen "Preußisch-Litauen" bzw. "Russisch-Litauen", um nicht den Eindruck entstehen zu lassen, es handele sich um autonome, unabhängige litauische Gebiete. Die kulturelle Entwicklung muß ja immer im Zusammenhang mit der jeweils gegebenen politischen Situation gesehen werden, was die Namen "Kleinlitauen" bzw. "(Groß)litauen" nur allzuleicht vergessen lassen. (Jochen D. Range, in: Preußisch-Litauen in kulturhistorischer Sicht, in Deutsche, Slawen und Balten, Meckenheim, 1989)

Prussian-Lithuanian firsts

1. -the first Lithuanian book (Mosvid, Samogitian))
2. -the first translation of the Bible into Lithuanian (Bretke, a German)
3. -the first Lithuanian grammar, and the second and the third (Daniel Klein, a German)
4. -the first modern Lithuanian grammar, and the second (August Schleicher, a German)
5. -the first Lithuanian dictionary in the variant that was to become standard Lithuanian, and the second and the third (Lexicon Lithuanicum , by an unknown German pastor)
6. -the first Lithuanian poems (Lafontaine's fables translated by a German)
7. the first piece of modern Lithuanian fiction, regarded as world heritage today (Donelatis, Prussian-Lithuanian))
8. -the first Lithuanian newspaper, and the second (Kurschat, Prussian-Lithuanian, published "Keleiwis") and the third ...
9. -the first collection of Lithuanian dainos (Rhesa, a Curonian)
10. -the first Lithuanian university department (founded by the Prussian king)
11. -the first Royal Lithuanian government
12. -the most prolific writer of Lithuanian (Bretke, a German, about 50 per cent of the 16th century language corpus is his)
13. - the first discussion about linguistic "correctness" (Möhrlin-Obermeyer, two Germans) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.254.179 (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All this would have never happened without the patronage of the German/Prussian government and church and the commitment of individual German pastors. Lietuviai (descendants of Russian/Polish Lithuanians) try to blur and camouflage these facts today in order to appropriate Lietuwininkai (Prussian-Lithuanian) heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.238.196 (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

---

In my opinion there should be moved out crap. Anything and everything "showing" prussian-lithuanian "desire" to join to Lithuania - for the first. Because it is major bull.. it is clear to everyone who knows real "prussian lithuanians" and real "memellanders" - that practicaly nobody wanted any lithuania, and nobody still wants any Lithuania. They hate it in fact, they hate it so much that they better germanise themselves that let them to lituanise... If anyone from these autors would speak to real peasants of Memel territory, it would become totaly clear about what is speaking and about what i speak. The victorious are never trialed. When germans spoke lithuanian - it was in meaning of anyone speaking baltic and being peasant. When germans spoke "kuren" then they ment everyone and anyone fishing. There was no linguistic criteria to call someone - curronian it is only - fishing and local fishing customs. Not all curronians spoke curronian. Often females even did not know it at all, because only in fishing it was "better" to speak curronian - because "then you catched more fish". Prussian lithuanians and memellanders are not the same, as i told you. Memellanders are only those who spoke so-called "western samogitian", those who spoke augstaitian were simply lithuanian when speaking about etnicity and prussian-lithuanian when there is political talk. in memmellan there was ~30% those who declared themselves - lithuanian, but only ~11% of population woted for pro-lithuanian parties. it shows us what i spoke about. We also cannot forget that before and after WWI ther was a massive catolic immigration in memmeland from samogitia... so maybe these 11% are composed of them. You people do not understand thet we (people from Prussian descent) have no TV stations, newspapers, mass-media. We even dont know where lives someone else from our origin. Because it was banned (not good idea if you dont want to meet polar bears or 9 grams led) for 60 years to seek, and to speak. We are scattered accros all world, without any normal hope for survival, our lands are raped, stolen and made "lithuanian", "polish" and "russian"... These facts are the ground for that, why there are no tonns of macculature showing "truth". There shouldnt be any citates from authors who are not from the autochtonous descent by themselves. And then we will see - on what is based "official truth".

About Zinkevičius i better will not speak at all... But we can always make fun from "official" lithuanian "reserch" on "west samogitian". From the series : They have "(99% from the further text)" - the same as in the standart lithuanian... And last phrases... and yes of course there are many local words (with 3 examples) and many germanisms (also 3 examples). The funiest fact is that those things they "have the same" as lithuanian are mostly COMMON BALTIC. That fact that "western samogitian" is not normaly communicable even with all other samogitian wersions means nothing... I am not stupid, and i totaly hate scientific chauwinism. --MartinalSmith (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear MartinalSmith, do you know what you are talking about? Your so called "western samogitian" is a sub dialect of Samogidian/Zemaitian dialect. In fact, Zemaitian dialect (or language as some consider) has 3 sub-dialects based on pronunciation of word duona(bread): douna (northern), duna (southern) and dona (western). So people speak that western zemaitian dialect you talk about and it is recognized, as the fact that Zemaitian (especially northern sub dialect) is influenced by Curonian/Kursian, in fact, they merged to a degree in northern Zemaitia. I have no doubt that Western Zemaitian is influenced by Curonian and Scalvian, Nadruvian and Prussian perhaps. And as someone who actually listened to northern Zemaitian every summer for 30 years, I have no problems with understanding it, and no one who speaks common Lithuanian should. Although many Aukstaitians have trouble understanding Zemaitian. But that is just a natural shock which happens than you hear different dialect, with time and careful listening problem disappears:). Similar shock one would experience after going let's say from London to northern England, Whales or Scotland, especially countryside;). And let me add, many Zemaitians express sentiments for their dialect/language to be taught, recognized and institutionalized... It is very similar sentiment as expressed by you.

I am quite appalled by your misinformation about Klaipedos Krastas or so-called Memelland. You seam to claim dissent from there, but from what you are saying I can tell that you either never been there and heard about it from some old emigrants you had access to, or you grew up in a very small and isolated community (which is still possible in Lithuania :)). In any case, you should know that Klaipedos Krastas has its own identity, even in modern Lithuanian state. And that identity is respected as it could be respected by mainstream.

I would agree with you that unfortunately many ethnicities and potential nationalities like Prussians and Curonians never had a chance. But why don't you blame Germans who are responsible for exterminating them or pushing them to marginality? It is not Lithuanians or Zemaitians fault that they became more organized and numerous. I would love that we would have viable and still culturally viable Curonians or Scalvians. In addition Klaipedos Krastas is relatively large, and what might be true on Kursiu Nerija, might not in Silute.

You seem to provide as a proof a different ethnic identity of memellanders, their sympathies and orientations in early 20 c. How reliable is that? of course, at that time population of memelland was indoctrinated and schooled to be patriotic German citizens. They had no contact with Lithuania Major on personal level, and I am not even talking about political or social/cultural interactions. In addition, memelland's Lithuanians were being subjected to systematic germanization through school system... They simply thought about themselves as more culturally advanced, above Lithuanians and Zemaitians of Lithuania... And let's not forget religion. So it is obvious that they did not vote for Lithuanian-oriented parties back then. They were culturally distinct and oriented by German education/indoctrination machine towards Germany. How can you miss this?

And if you claim you know those haters of Lithuanian state, so eager to rather germanize, than I must admit the effectiveness of German assimilation system, still reaping rewards 100 years later. Wow! However, the vast majority of inhabitants of Klaipedos Krastas currently ARE loyal to Lithuania (no doubt, Lithuanian indoctrination took over;)). At the end of the day, it is better to get assimilated into culturally and ethnically close rather than distant culture.Kanopa (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Kanopa (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To add to your non-sense about inability of other Zemaitians to communicate to Western Zemaitian dialect speakers... What are you talking about? What are you basing such claims on? Do not spread disinformation, please.Kanopa (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

You are not reading what i write. Today 99% of Memel region occupants are simply immigrants from Lithania - AND YES - they are totaly loyal to Lithuania. What a surprise. :) I bet that you have never heard a REAL "western samogitian" - i mean : Priekule, Drewerna, Kretingale. And : memellanders are not simply loyal to Germany. They are loyal to their land, and they distinct themselves from both - germans and lithuanians. I will give you some phrases in both, memellandisch and lithuanian. I speak lithuanian, and i know much about memelandisch. I speak (reconstructed) prussian, lithuanian, latvian, and +/- memellandisch. and recignise samogitian, and yes i know about your subdiwisions. But anyway - samogits do not understand that.

Memel Lithu Lat

apdumõjem česas - pagalvosime apie laikus - padomāsim par laikiem

žibink man apentas - šviesk man vėl - paspīdini man vēl.

dõk man žāk, eimu rops lašīt - duok monem maišuka, einu bulves surinkti - dod man maisiņu, eju kartupeļus lasīt.

aš misliju - aš galvoju - es domāju

aš ateis pri tevs - aš ateisiu pas tave - es aiziešu pie tevis

paļurok mans, turu pīwa atsenešt - palauk manes, reikia alaus atsinešti - pagaidi mani, vajag alu atnest.

i skapa skiwōkai bowa, skapa aderēk - spintoje lekštės buvo, spintą atydaryk - skapī šķīvji bija, skapi attaisi.

--MartinalSmith (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsence - how come hat Prussian -Lithuanian language gas more slavisms than mainland Lithuania? Care to cite where did you took such citations?--Lokyz (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I take these "citations" from my own expeditions to Memeland. And - Yes it is truely interesting why there are these "slawisms". About word - pīws, there is no problems - it is old-prussian - pīws. Pri - maybe from old-prussian (maybe-curronian) - prei, česas - true slavism, misliju - in curland speaks the same - mislis - duoma (lat) - galvojimas. Šķīvis = latvian, nehrungskurische, and of course in Samlandische plaatduitch - Skiwen. Dear Lokyz, i will make in next weeks expedition to Memel territory "darkart" :) you can join me. my tel nr +37129912383 Martin Woldemar Kukurs. I can bet to anything you want - that i will have the final truth. Real truth, about hatered they hawe and about the language they speak. It is not german, not latvian, not kurshininkai, not lithuanian, and even true samogitian (douninininkas) from birth does not compute it. It is anderes... And all what lithuanian "official" poin of wiev says - it is a major bull*hit, just to grab our lands and destroy our heritage. --MartinalSmith (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Another non logic statement - at first you say that there are (allmost) no Lietuvininks left, later you try to convince that they still exist. It's rather strange. it would be also usefull if you'd familiarise yorself with WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS.--Lokyz (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

---

And again - you are not reading what i say. There are almoast no lietuvininkas left = true. they stil exist = true. both are true. There are less than 100 people who still remember old language on level so can speak. a lot more still knows some words, and recognise meaning when word is told. there are less than 2000 Memelanders left. and with word Memellander you have to understand only those who speak "western samogitian". In Tilsit there was no memelanders, but lietuvininkas. normal "western samogitian" speaker never called himself - lietuvis and/or - lietuvininkas. Just - Būrs/Būrai Prūss/Prūsai Šīšonišķis/Šīšoniškai Prūsu Būrs/Prūsu Būrai. Yes i am familliar with that. But sorry - lithuanian writings are siply Chauwinistic Maccualture based on some facts and huge dose of viagra and patriotism. No original reserch... interesting - why i do not see here cited mamelanders for themselve... you know in ~1970 there was printed out a Memellandisches Worterbuch, with grammar and history of people... i see there nothing about... i see there nothing from sources witch speak diametraly other what lithuanian ones..

--MartinalSmith (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note the WP:CIVIL and also note that insulting notable researchers is not the best way to prove you're right. Unless you will change your behavior and wording I do not see a reason to continue this discussion.--Lokyz (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of these tags is disputed

And I am disputing it. These tags want to assert there was no Lithuania Minor. Well, this is high-emotion topic. Russia has Lithuania Minor or at least part of it. It's the region just east of Kaliningrad, in the lakes and swamps. If you don't know the issues then read about it before you write anything here, it will save some time. However right or wrong the Russians were we aren't going to get anything like the truth at all from Russians, Germans or Lithuanians, and probably not from the Poles either. What's so great about that country anyway? It looks like it is full of mosquitos. More premature dying has been done in that neck of the woods than anywhere else in the world. And for what? Regardless of your answer, the problem is that this article is not yet properly sourced so that leaves it open to all this bedlam, and that is what it is, bedlam. There was in fact a region called Lithuania Minor, which got populated with Lithuanians expanding southward into lands vacated by the Old Prussians dying en masse of the plague in the 18th century. This article needs a mind determined to be objective. It is like the Schleswig-Holstein questions that used to come up under Bismark, only much worse. I can't do it right now. Later.Dave (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

---

No bedlam. The article is exhaustive and carefully referenced with some minor issues, language and style, yet, need to be reworked. The problem is a bunch of Russian--Lithuanians that try to push their pan-Lithuanian agenda here. Read the "Klaipeda revolt" article and you will know what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.204.16 (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Polovinskas-Budrys

Quote: "According to the secret report by Jonas Polovinskas-Budrys, a professional in counterintelligence, made in 1923, around 60 percent of local inhabitants supported the Revolt, 30 percent kept a passive stance and 10 percent were against, namely the supporters of freistadt status or Germany." Jonas Polovinskas was a (Russian-)Lithuanian intelligence officer who commanded the occupant forces (regular Russian-Lithuanian army dressed as civilians). He adopted the fake identity of a dead Memelländer named Budrys. The fake Klaipeda "revolt" was prepared in Kaunas, as Lithuanian historians today admit: http://www.lrt.lt/english/news.php?strid=4271207&id=4283151 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.204.16 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of questions...

This article leaves lots of questions and seems to be written in order to make the ignorant reader believe that Prussian Lithuanians were definitely not Lithuanians (reminding me about the Hungarian Slovenes, who were definitely not Slovenes in the eyes of the Hungarians, especially during the interbellum).

One such statement: Prussian Lithuanians regarded themselves as Lithuanians (Lietuwininkai) only for themselves - they did not realize and did not want to realize they were the same people with Russian Lithuanians. At least one Prussian Lithuanian, Friedrich Kurschat, author of the Grammatik der littauischen Sprache (Halle, 1876), had a different opinion, since he uses the word Littauer for people speaking littauisch in Prussia as well as Russia (e.g. on page 3 of his grammar).

A question of a different nature: what makes Klaus Wowereit, mayor of Berlin, make a Prussian Lithuanian, except for his name? Fransvannes (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the election results at Klaipėda Region in the 1920/30s. Between 80 and 90 percent voted for German parties. People in Switzerland speak German, but they aren't German and Prussian Lithuanians spoke Lithunanian but "felt" German (BTW Religion was much more important at that time and they were protestants in contrast to "normal" Lithuanians). HerkusMonte (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What did the others vote for, then? What were they, if not Germans? It seems that not all Prussian Lithunian regarded themselves as Germans. That's not uncommon. Some Ruthenians regard themselves as Ukrainians, some as Ruthenians. Some Vlachs as Rumanians, some as Greeks, some as Vlachs. Etcetera. Fransvannes (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)