User talk:+JMJ+/Archives/2021/December

Use proper geographic names

When writing about Prussian military units, use the historical names of Prussian towns, not their lithuanised forms. See: For example, we have articles called Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Volgograd, and Saint Petersburg, these being the current names of these cities, although former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad, and Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Sieges of Constantinople; not to mention separate articles on Constantinople and Byzantium on the historical cities on the site of modern Istanbul – or part of it. It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different languages to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig (the detailed decisions at Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute; they are older than this page). There are other cities for which policy is still debated, such as Vilnius, which in various contexts is referred to as Vilnius, Wilno or Vilna. Marcelus (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

These name forms are not the "Lithuanianized forms" of German place names, but instead, the German-language names were the Germanizations of the original Lithuanian/Old Prussian (Baltic) names. According to It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different languages to indicate cultural or political dominance., it would still be valid to use the Lithuanian-language name, as certain places, e.g. Tilžė (Tilsit), were majority Lithuanian at the time. In conclusion, I will use both the German and Lithuanian language names.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all names like Instierburg or Königsberg are originally German, most other names are derived from Prussian language, not Lithuanian, so it makes no sense to use Lithuanized forms. Also claim that Tilsit was Lithuanian majority in early 19th century is not based on any historical sources. Nonetheless it doesn't matter, because Wikipedia rules are clear. These cities were part of Prussia and their names were German Marcelus (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Insterburg (Instierburg initially), like its de.wiki page says, "The city owes its German name Insterburg to the river Inster (oldest name Instrut / Instrud: several linguistic interpretations, the most likely being the mouth / influence; cf.Lithuanian: istras, intaka)". The Old Prussian language was closest to Lithuanian, and the individuals in those units were from the region that was variously called Lithuania/Lithuania Minor/Prussian Lithuania. Mentioning the names they would have used only makes sense.

When I said 'at the time' with Tilsit, I should have made it more precise that it had a Lithuanian majority in the early 18th century, according to dr. Algirdas Matulevičius in [1]:

In 1736, German settlers from the 13th century onwards and the colonisers in the 18th century's 1st half were 20-22% of the inhabitants of the Province of Lithuania, while 78-80% were Lithuanians. (1736 m. vokiečiai senbuviai (nuo XIII a.) ir XVIII а. I pusės kolonistai sudarė apie 20-22 proc. Lietuvos provincijos gyvento­jų, 78-80 proc. gyventojų buvo lietuviai.) and in [2]:

Until 1736, the centre of the Lithuanian Ämter (Amt) was Tilžė (German: Tilsit). As 10,000 protestant Salzburg colonists arrived from Salzburg in Austria, the centre of some of the Lithuanian lands became the most colonized Gumbinė (Gumbinnen). (Iki 1736 m. lietuviškų valsčių (Ämter) centras buvo Tilžė. Nuo 1732 m. atsikėlus per 10 000 kolonistų zalcburgiečių protestantų iš Austrijos Zalcburgo krašto, dalies lietu­vių žemių centru tapo labiausiai kolonizuota Gumbinė (Gumbinnen).).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Insterburg" means in German "a town over Inster", that's a German name, not Baltic. Even your article doesn't say anything about Tilsit being majority Lithuanian at the beginning of 19th century. As I said it doesn't even matter, because there is no reason to use Lithuanian names for Prussian towns Marcelus (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Just leave it be. There is no harm in giving the name that would have been used by the soldiers themselves" - that's not a proper reason. First of all it's your assumption, secondly Wikipedia rules are clear, there is no reason to make exceptions Marcelus (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The German-language names are already provided and giving additional correct information is not at all against Wikipedia guidelines. No one is making any exceptions here.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

No, first of all you are actions are against WP:NOR the Prussian units you describes as some kind of "Lithuanian army" were only Lithuanian by the name. So adding Lithuanised names of the cities doesn't make sense. Are you planning also to create an article about Russian "Litowskiy Leyb-gwardyi Polk" and write that it was formed in Varšuva? Marcelus (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

My actions are not against WP:NOR, because Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army precisely states "Units of the Royal Prussian Army that were officially titled "Lithuanian" at some point during their existence." They were not only Lithuanian in name, but at least partly in composition, as can be seen in 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment, where it is stated "The regiment was recruited almost exclusively from volunteers from its immediate homeland, i.e. Lithuania Minor, and was well reputed in the army at all times for having the best horses and riders." Adding Lithuanian-language names for locations in Lithuania Minor is a very reasonable thing to do.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Find reliable English sources that are backing up your claims. Lithuanians were citizens of Prussia of course they were conscripted into an army. Common name isn't a reason to create a separate category that would suggest it was something more than that. And you clearly are trying to pain that picute. Koenigsberg isn't in Lithuania Minor, but in Sambia Marcelus (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"Find reliable English sources that are backing up your claims." Excluding or denigrating sources you dislike (especially when no alternative exists) because they don't say what you like is against Wikipedia rules. Moreover, any characteristic is a good enough reason to create a separate category, as written in WP:CATEGORIZATION]. Your demands are unjustified. Sometimes, Karaliaučius is considered as part of Lithuania Minor (like here [3] and here [4]).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Koenigsberg isn't part of Lithuania Minor and never was. Change the name of category into "Units of the Royal Prussian Army that were officially titled "Lithuanian" at some point during their existence", because current name is misleading. Marcelus (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Koenigsberg was part of Lithuania Minor and your denial of it reveals a lack of knowledge on this topic. Your claims are contradicted by historian Algirdas Matulevičius and many others. Moreover, your objections of "current name is misleading" is baseless and just your personal preference. Prolonging a Category name should be avoided, because, as WP:NC states (which still applies in WP:CATNAME), a name should be precise, natural and concise. The specific form (Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army) is by far the most precise and concise rendition possible.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Lithuania Minor is a region inhabited by Prussian Lithuanians, in 18/19th century it were counties: Insterburg, Tilsit, Memel and Ragnit. "a name should be precise, natural and concise" - well it's not precise, that's for sure Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The naming of the category is precise, because those units were called Lithuanian. Just like other units in the Royal Prussian Army were called Westphalian, East Prussian, so on and so on. If anyone has any misgiving about what that designation means, all they have to do is go to the category and read a short sentence. You making such a big deal out of it is nonsensical. In addition, you linking to a map with practically no references (the supposed source is a dead link) adds 0 to the conversation, and demonstrates once more your superficiality in these topics. Linking to a map based on a dead link as an argument against what professional historians have to say is disappointing.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop spreading racist pseudo theories

You seem to really like Hesch. It was once removed, it will be removed again if you keep restoring his racists theories. If you really want to qoute him at least read his book and qoute him directly, and not via Lithuanian sources. Marcelus (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not about some sympathy for Hesch that sourced statements he made are not removed. It is because, under deeper inspection, disapproval of that source is found to be unwarranted. His statement is not racist, because it does not denigrate or consider any race as inferior, which is a defining trait of racists. In fact, his statements are part of anthropology. "If you really want to qoute him at least read his book" If I had access to the book, I would read it. Nonetheless, lack of access to the entire book is an insufficient reason to remove that book, because access to most books is limited. Many books from Antiquity did not survive to this day and parts of them are only known because others quoted them. Criticizing sources just based on their country of origin (except Russian propaganda and Propaganda in China) is against Wikipedia rules. Nowhere in WP:RS are sources in a certain language instantly discredited.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all if you don't have access to this book don't use it as source and reference. Hesch isn't the ancient author. Secondly: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (read: WP:FRINGE). Also Hesch of course was a racist, he created theory that Latvians, Lithuanians and Belarusian are one race in order to determine if they are valuable material to Germanise (surprisingly he found out they were) Marcelus (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The author of the article which referenced it is respectable - Algirdas Martynas Budreckis - and definitely knew proper procedures in academia. It is reasonable to cite what his research contains. Considering that a Baltic background is frequently mentioned for Belarusians, in this context, Michael Hesch's statements are not WP:FRINGE. Moreover, when Michael Hesch published the book in 1933, he definitely would not have had the justification of future Nazi policies in mind. Your claims are so far without any sources and substance, thus are unwarranted.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you realize that you are a Lithuanian national who is spreading nazi racist theories that Belarusians are in reality Lithuanians? You know how it looks like, right? Since you are refusing to remove this fringe theory I have to report it Marcelus (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Most of the research in the book was done by Rudolf Pöch, who died in 1921. You applying the label "Nazi" to what was essentially his research is just ascribing ahistorical attributes. Even ascribing the word "Nazi" to a book that was published in 1933 outside Nazi Germany and based on research from World War I, is dubious. "Belarusians are in reality Lithuanians" -> the source does not say that, it was far more nuanced - only some Belarusians have Lithuanian ancestry and that's all. What's so radical and fringe about that? That Belarusians are Slavicized Balts is stated by some Belarusians themselves. If it was a fringe theory with no basis in reality, then why do multiple different individuals from radically different backgrounds come to the same conclusion? Various Belarusians, Austro-Hungarians, and Lithuanians all stating the same? The insanity is that WP:RS are being removed because some persons value their opinion more than research by accredited academics.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)