Talk:Zalavas

Location

Zułów is not in Samogitia - so the statement "Soon afterwards the family was forced to sell all their properties in Samogitia (including Zułów and 19 other villages)" is quite strange.--Lokyz 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind the geographical meaning of the term until 20th century. Samogitia covered most of what is today Lithuania, while the term Lithuania was reserved for the entire Grand Duchy. So this statement might be strange by todays' terms, but was not that strange back then, when it was perfectly clear. //Halibu tt 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's... umh... agh... Please see this map. To say that "Samogitia covered most of what is today Lithuania" is like saying that "Prussia covered most of what is today Poland." In short, if Švenčionys is in Samogitia, then I am a corner of a round house (sorry for a silly Lithuanian slang phrase, but the issue is that much silly to me). Renata 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't joke when dealing with "expertise" on Lithuanian geography and linguistics. Dr. Dan 00:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hallibutt. You're wrong at any extent in this case. Zalavas -Zulow could never be a part of Samogitia. Perhaps some popular understanding, about what Samogitia was, existed in the 19th century, and perhaps this understanding differed from real boarders of the region, particularly after the removal of territorial autonomy in the forties of the 19th century and, particularly when the center of Kaunas archidiocese was moved (by Russian government) to Kaunas, the city, that even hadn't been a part of the genuine Samogitia (meanwhile the dicocese still was called Samogitian diocese then). These events might corrupt clear understanding, where Samogitia was. But i doubt if a such rude explaining of Samogitia could exist, where the region exceeded the historical boarders of Trakai county (meaning the primary bipartite division of the Grand Duchy in the 14th century). Such understanding, confronting with any possible understanding of history, couldn't be popular among szlachta in Lithuania, whose ideological basics were deeply historical. And, considering that Zalavas is outside the historical Trakai county, it hardly could be referred to Samogitia.

Also usage of the wikipedia should be noted here. We should refer to entities in their existing meaning, not in any other, at least if a particular note weren't added. But Samogitia has only two meanings currently : (1) A part of Lithuania, where people communicate in Samogitian dialects. Or (2) The historical Samogitia within certain known boarders. So your idea would be extra, even if it was right.

I write this, because i think to know the solution of this riddle. Zalavas, perhaps, was confused with a historical manor of Pilsudskies family here. The manor had a name Pilsūdai and it actually was situated in Samogitia, in the historicall Raseiniai county. Yet one known thing is that their surname were different (Giniat or Giniatowicz in then Polish usage, but later it was changed making an adjective that indicated their manor name their surname (Pilsūdai, Piłsudy > Piłsudski). If anybody wants to know this more exactly, i suggest to find a work (or an article) by a Polish linguist Smoczynski, who had researched this question. Linas Lituanus 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this map I'm quite well informed of the actual political borders of Samogitia. However, both in 19th century and before, the term was also used to denote the general Lithuania as opposed to GDL. I understand that it was not the case of people who actually lived there and knew perfectly well where was the border between the Duchy of Samogitia and, say, Troki Voivodeship. However, from countless memoirs from the epoch it seems that for the rest of the PLC Samogitia (Żmudź) was a handy term to denote "where the Samogitians live", that is "where the Lithuanian speakers live". As simple as that. It's the same in modern times. Next week I'm going to Pomerania, regardless of the fact that I'm actually going to Mecklenburg. Get the idea?

Having said this, Zułów was indeed politically a part of the Wilno Voivodeship and of the powiat of Święciany rather than Trakai (note that Samogitia was by no means limited to a single county). And I believe that the explanation of Zułów in Samogitia is much simpler than the one presented by Linas above. In any way, this is a purely academic discussion as nobody opposes any changes in regards to that statement. I merely pointed that it was not that entirely absurd. //Halibu tt 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out that it wasn't only the Poles to call Lithuania Proper with the name of Samogitia. According to the article on Prussian Lithuanians (here), they called the Lithuanians living in Lithuania with the name "Źemaicziai". Yup, that's a local translation of the term "Samogitians". //Halibu tt 11:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you made three obvious mistakes:

Do not put the chicken before the egg: Samogitians is latinized form of Lithuanian Žemaičiai (Zemaitie), not the other way. Or do you suggest, that that žemaičiai learned their Latin name from Germans and translated it into Lithuanian?.
If you'd take a look int the map, you'd definitely see, that Lithuania minor was bordering with Samogitian eldership (hence Zemaičiai). Another one thing - Lithuania minor was mostly repopulated by people form Lithuania magna (mostly Samogitia)
Obvious mistake - you're confusing Lithuania proper with Lithuania Magna (i.e. Samogitian eldership and Lithuania proper). In some contexts those terms are confused in literature, although tey're clearly separate.--Lokyz (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to answer both the earlier post and the last (if you aren't against :) )

You say, ""However, from countless memoirs from the epoch it seems that for the rest of the PLC Samogitia (Żmudź) was a handy term to denote "where the Samogitians live", that is "where the Lithuanian speakers live"". I am not so sure about the conclusion that "where the Samogitians live", means exactly "where the Lithuanian speakers live". However that's may be at some extent true, namely when we compare the percentage of Lithuanian speakers in Vilnius diocese with the percerntage in Samogitian diocese in the 19th century. Now, pay attention to these two entities, please: Vilnius diocese and Samogitian diocese. These two entities were not insignificant in everyday's life then. I think even illiterate people knew who was their bishop in the 19th century in Lithuania. So, there's no any ocasion to say, that some loose understanding, what and where Samogitia was, could be possible then.

Now, what concerns the full identifying (ethnic, Lithuanian speakers) Lithuanians with Samogitians, this idea is completely false. I believe that it may attract you, because some arguments in the dispute over Vilnius typically used by Poles (and eventualy by Belaruses) are based on this conception. Yes, this argument (although false) was used in the dispute. But the dispute over Vilnius was later; it was launched mostly after 1905, when vision of reforms in Russian empire become more clear.

That was Polish speaking szlachta who enshrined historical memories of the Grand Duchy in the 19 century, not ethnic Lithuanians. This fact means much in this case, because we know about distinction between Samogitia and "Auxtotia" from the letters of the Grand Duke Vytautas. He however stresses national identity of these two parts of Lithuania propria. And we can trace easily, what were going on in Samogitia and in Lithuania since that time. It was known thing, where Lithuanian lived and where not. The fact that ethnic Lithuanians lived both in Samogitia and in Vilnius diocese could not be a secret for anybody (inspite of the percentage). One must know completely nothing about his native country to allege the contrary.

Yes, there were disputed, where the Lithuania propria was. For example , Tyszkiewicz (Hr. Konstanty Tiszkiewic, for example in: K. Tyszkiewicz. Wilija i jej brzegi. Pod względem hydrograficznym, historicznym, archeologicznym i etnograficznym, 1871) used argument of Wilija - Neris river names. He said that the name changed near town of Kernavė (50 km north west to Vilnius). So he drafted the boarder between Lithuania propria and Ruthenia approximately at that place. Other researches proposed other arguments and got other results, but nobody identified boarder of Lithuania propria with the eastern boarder of Samogitia. That was the scientific approach of the 19th century.

What concerns the contrary allegations, they had no any more reliable argumentation. In fact, the suggestion that word (ethnic) Lithuanians meant no more than Samogitians could be no more than an urban legend, if it existed at all and wasn't created later. (The fact that the urban legend was used for political argumentation later isn't very particular. In fact many urban legends were used for political purposes.)

What about Prussian Lithuanians. Sorry, how they could name Catholic Lithuanian at all? Have you think about possibilities? The term "Great/Grand Lithuania" was never used by people, being a later invenstion of historians. So not any variation of "Grand-Lithuanians". They could not use the name of, say, Lithuania propria, because they supposed their Lithuania (i. e. Lithuania Minor - additional Minor was itself invention of German geographers) no less proper than the "Grand" Lithuania. - They had two possibilities, using the both: (1) to call "Grand" Lithuanians Catholics (not an ideal distinction - not every "grand" Lithuanian was a Catholic,- but possible) or (2) to call them Samogitians (Lithuania Minor boardered only with historical Samogitia and the biggest part of its boarder was with the later Samogitian diocese. The latter choise didn't give the ideal distinction, but it also was acceptable. In contrary, "Grand" Lithuanians called Prussian Lithuanians Lutherans or Prussians depending on situation. I think you won't suggest, that this meant Prussian Lithuanians to be ethnic Prussians in the proper sense?

I think this may end the discussion, except, perhaps, putting more arguments how etnographers and historians of the 19 - 20 centuries looked at the problem of Lithuania Proper. Linas Lituanus (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one as a FA too?

While having a laugh reading the arguments on the merits of the Pilsudski article, I found the related article on Zalavas to be very interesting and very revealing about one part of the problem. Although a small group finds the Pilsudski article to border on "sublime perfection," they are part of the same group that would undoubtably find the Zalavas article to be worthy of a few barn stars, and the exchanging of high fives amongst themselves, as well as having the satisfaction of adding another "stellar" article to Wikipedia. The truth of the matter is that the Zalavas article contains a lot of irrelevant claptrap bordering on an ultra-Nationalistic rant. It is not an article worthy of an Encyclopedia, nor is it presented in an encyclopedic fashion. It's at best an essay, and a poorly written one at that. In reality Zalavas is a tiny village in Lithuania with a population of around two hundred people. O.K., a famous person was born there. Now to get a better feel for where I am going with this, please click onto the Hodgenville, Kentucky article for some ideas of what this article could look like. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln is not as important, well known, or as famous as the Naczelnik Panstwa is to the English speaking world, but that is neither here nor there. What you don't have in the Hodgenville article is a link to Antietam, or Copperheads, or the Thirteenth Amendment, or even Mount Rushmore. On the other hand Zalavas links us to Riga, and to the Polish Defensive War, it links us to magnates, and to Lenin, we are linked to assassination, and to Russification, to Aleksandr Ulyanov, to Rurik, the Polish-Bolshevik War, the 17th century and the 18th century just to name a portion of the plethora of imbecilities presented to us as an excuse for another "article". And there are plenty more of nonsensical links to boot. Before anyone jumps to conclusions regarding my position about links, let me say this. I like links. Links are good. But here is another example of where the line has been crossed, and puts Wikipedia in a position to be ridiculed. Instead of an article about Zalavas, what we have here is another "vehicle" to tell us more about the Billewicz family doweries and Soviets and 1934, and December 5, etc.,etc., etc., than information we have regarding Zalavas. And in regards to the Pilsudskis article, we have the same ramblings and attempts to further some cult of personality, an overkill of fawning prose (replete with too many photos), and a constant removal of sourced materials because some find it "offensive". Until these issues are resolved, that article remains in a non-neutral kind of limbo. I am hoping that this will be corrected and the article will reach FA status. Dr. Dan 02:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. I hope I gave everyone who likes these kind of links, a good dose of them today from me. P.P.S. Actually I'm surprised you haven't linked Zalavas to Bethlehem.[reply]

Instead of bashing everything around take your time and help out to make this article look better. Tymek (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to expand this article with more info on the village's architecture, climate, or whatever. So far it includes mostly it's history - which is fine for most of readers I guess. Find sources, add them to the article - and expand it instead of spending so much time writing TLDR comments. Really, that would be waaaay more productive. //Halibu tt 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find linking the article on this village to Alexander Ulyanov to be quite a stretch. As well as a great number of other links that I mentioned too. Maybe we can rework it a little? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, feel free to expand this article. Find sources, add them and expand it. Deleting info ([1])is not the way to go, adding info surely is. //Halibu tt 15:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps you can remove some of the irrelevancies that you put into the article in the first place. Sometimes it's necessary to prune a tree in order to get it to blossom. The linking of this village to Lenin and his brother would be a good start. As a matter of fact you could put him into the article about Cracow, afterall he actually lived there for awhile. Seems to be missing information. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Information in English Wikipedia

It would be helpful if the anonymous editor using the IPs of 203.56.87.254 and 124.190.116.230 would desist from attempting to add undue information into this article on English Wikipedia. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zułów

Just to stop this slow edit warring here, let's make things clear:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses...". "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages"
"Zalavas village": 15 hits (Google Books) and 1 for "Zalavas village Piłsudski"
"Zułów village": 47 hits (Google Books) and 32 for "Zułów village Piłsudski"
Relevance of the Polish name is clear in the context of Piłsudski's birthplace

QED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mieciany

This article and the pl version claim that the village was first known as "Mieciany". I cannot find any reliable references for that... can anybody else? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can check with Halibutt, I believe he added the original information about it. Once upon a time the article also had wlinks to Aleksandr Ulyanov, to Rurik, the Polish-Bolshevik War and a lot of other irrelevant nonsense. A lot of stuff in this article is really superfluous and probably belongs in other articles, if at all. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]