Talk:Ethnographic Lithuania

Lossowski's idea?

First, let me express my surprise, that translation and abstract of one author's (namely Piotr Lossowski) book and thoughts landed here on Wikipedia. I'm aware of this author attitude towards Lithuania, and it does not surprise me to see such arguments presented. (I've read a peer review of the book, and the chapter on Vilnius region is called cold war like). What does surprise me, is the mix of only partially (if even partially) related subjects into one cocktail.

Yes, there is a reference to another author, but if one would check, what is written in the book, and how it is used to support Piotrus own ideas, it is an obvious WP:SYN

Now to my remarks:

I. Specific questions:

1. What is this article about? If it is about a concept of Ethnographic Lithuania, on would expect explanation what does ethnographic means, how was this term coined, and at least go into some historiography, when and how the term has evolved. If it is about Lithuanian aspirations to gain "more territory, than Lithuanians live in" it should be called likewise Lithuanian territorial aspirations after WWI or Lithuanian territorial aspirations in the begining of 20th century, but not ethnographic Lithuania. What I'm trying to say, ethnographic concept and politics are completely unrelated things.
2. What timeline and what situation does it reflect? 1905 and 2008 are rather different things. No one would try to elaborate, that that state of things and nowadays state are even similar. One should understand the situation back then, and not judge it by nowadays standards.
   And the situation was such, that after WWI there was much more Lithuanian speaking people (and caring Lithuanian traditions) in the region than it is now. Most of the 19th middle researchers (about it a bit further) agreed that this territory was inhabited by Lithuanians. They judged it by customs, traditions, lifestyle, religion and in most cases language. Those people were semi lingual (i.e mothers tongue Lithuanian, but others were also used). , and as there were no Lithuanian books because of Lithuanian press ban, and Knygnešiai did not reach te region. At the time language was slowly beginning to be replaced by a mix of Lithuanian-Polish-White Ruthenian/Russian languages. and it was accelerating, although large Lithuanian speaking islands remained up until WWII.
   The process was finalized by the situation of Lithuanian minority in Poland especially in interbellum, as most of the schools and even libraries were closed. The same applies to Byelorussian SSR after WWII, where even in major Lithuanian speaking islands there were no Lithuanian schools. And of course, one should not forget the modern -ization power, even in beginning of 20th century: with mass education and schools, with official state language that is required for every single person few days in a week, with newspapers representing official policy and forming an opinion (and with absence of newspapers in native language). I think, this is rather a case of forced Polonization and Russification, and a real hindering of seldetermination, that is cherished in the second paragraph of this article.

II. Citation

1. As far I can understand article contains Piotrus recitation of Lossowski's recitation of Mykolas Biržiška words. I'm not sure whether the true meaning was not lost of them in Lithuanian-Polish-English translation, and would like to check it myself. So my question is where were those words said?
2. Facts should be referenced, statements attributed. As a matter of fact there are more statements in this article, than facts. Should we go and add Polish historian Piotr Lossowski states, elaborates, etc. etc. ...?
3. As for the evaluation of re-Lithuanization threat by the mysterious "they": it is interesting to hear who they were and what did they do to give basis for such assertions? Biržiška, let me recite form the article, Lithuanian, since it is composed of one Lithuanian nation, regardless of whether it speaks Lithuanian, has forgotten the language or even holds it in contempt - it rather means, that language does not matter. I do not see any calls for re-Lithuanisation. I also do not see word ethnicity, rather nation. And nationality is rather civics term, rather than liguistic or ethnographic. In short: I'd like to see full citation of Lossowski's word and evaluation, and unless I do I'll consider it Piotrus own conclusion (ergo - WP:SYN at large) And about the remark on selfdetermination - the League of Nations did not see any possibilities to even attempt a plebiscite of selfdetermination in the region after Żeligowski's Mutiny.

III. And now my objections:

1. As a matter of fact, the concept is formed not in not early 20th century, it is defined in many works of middle of the 19th century Polish and Russian researchers, notably Theodor Narbutt - (this research of his was much more reliable than his book History of Lithuania), Piotr Keppen, Roderik Erkert, Anton Korev and Pavel Bobrowski, N. Kojalowicz, Michal Balinski, Michail Lebedkin. Most of them agreed on a rather similar territories, so there's nothing contraversial. And that's the basis the term was built on.
2. About Lithuanian eastern and southern ethnic borders did also wrote modern Polish historians Juliusz Bardach and Jerzy Ochmanski.

IV. Few comments:

1. The Minsk and Mohiliov were never considered a Ethnographic Lithuania, And I'm not sure, whether Lossowski has asserted that. It is rather territorial aspirations thing. There were some oddities, like Soviet and Lithuanian delegations represented by Adolf Joffe and Shimshon Rozenbaum agreed, that ethnic Lithuania is where Litvaks are living. Referenced passage on that is in Soviet–Lithuanian Peace Treaty. So this territorial aspiration has nothing to do with Ethnographic Lithuania, unless we would assume Ethnographic Lita. There was also a fraction of Belarus National Revival movement, that intended to cooperate with Lithuania, rather than create own state. There was even Belarusian regiment in Lithuanian army, and it suffered heavy losses in fights against Zeligowsk's "mutineers" supported by Polish aviation. So the growth of the territorial appetite is rather an example of "if they would give it to us, we'd take it", and not usage of the concept.
2. And lastly I'm rather surprised that civility advocate Piotrus goes into childish games like latinising renowned Lithuanian author's family name ending. I wonder, if he could correct himself. I do not think that writing name Aleksandravičius as Aleksandraviccaronius is a typo.--Lokyz (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please cite some references in support of your thesis; this article is well referenced with the work of an expert on the subject and Łossowski is one of the best historians of the Polish-Lithuanian history. To cite just some English academic reviews of his work: Here, Joseph Rothschild refers to his work as "splendid, refreshing, courageous and sound". Here his work is called "perceptive" (based on the names of the reviewers of this issue of Journal of Baltic Studies, I'd assume they are Lithuanian themselves). Here his work is noted as important by Alfred E. Senn. Here it is referenced by Anna M. Cienciala; I could provide many more examples of reliable historians citing his works - but so could anybody (via google scholar and print) which make it easy to determine that he is a reliable and widely cited author far outside Poland. Although since he is a Pole, I'd assume that "scholars" hailing Vilnija line would of course consider him unreliable. Can you show any negative reviews of Łossowski's work by English sources, or by reliable Lithuanian or Polish scholars?

And what other title would you suggest? As references (and a google search) show, this is a notable and relatively well-defined subject.

PS. Since you asked for Łossowski's sources: Birziska is cited from: 1) "Echo Litwy", 31 January 1925, nr 24 and 2) the memorial (memorandum?) to the Russians is from M. Romer, Litwa. Studium o odrodzeniu narodu litrewskiego., Lwów, 1908, p.428. I do wonder if the "Echo Litwy" was a Polish or Lithuanian language newspaper? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, would you answer the provided questions without going off-topic and even insulting Lithuanian scholars whith baseless allegations (as I can see the name of renowned author is still not corrected)? Questions are numbered for easier navigation.

I do not question Lossowski's credibility. I do question whether this abstract of him does really speak about Ethnographic Lithuania concept, or about Polish-Lithuanian conflict as such (hence the book name), and also if there is at least a section in te book, that describes the Ethnographic Lithuania concept, or is it mentioned only once or twice, speaking about Lithuanian territorial aspirations (then the article should be titled so). Could you please attribute statements of Lossowski's and separate them from your own, this would help a lot in fixing the article. Page numbers would be also helpful. As for now i cannot see any possibility to even start going into editing this article. As far I know there is no need to reference my statements on a talk page? I'll provide references when appropriate on the article mainspace, after we'll decide what this article is really about.

The title is notable subject, but this article this not about the subject, in current state it is about Polish attitude towards Lithuanian territorial aspirations. One would come to the article and ask himself what is "ethnographic" - there is even not definition of "ethographic" provided in the article. The first sentence of the article is Wp:Weasel like half said, half not said - Ethnographic Lithuania was an early 20th century concept that defined Lithuanian territories as significant part of the territories that belonged to Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuanians as all people living on them, regardless of whether they spoke Lithuanian language and considered themselves Lithuanian. By what was Ethnographic Lithuania borders defined ? What territories? Who are the mysterious they? What was the rural population percentage of ethnic Lithuanians, Belarusians and Poles? How many of them had national/ethnic identity at the time?

And btw, link you've provided to Jstor leads to the: Review: [untitled] Joseph Rothschild, Reviewed work(s): Dictatorships in East Central Europe 1918-1939. Anthologies. by Janusz Zarnowski. Is Janusz Zarnowski a Piotr Lossowski's pen name? Or is is it just a wrong link? As far I can understand the peer review should be devoted to the book, not only mention it in a single sentence while reviewing other book. The second link leads to selected bibliography, not really a peer review.--Lokyz (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to expand and improve the article; I find the current version rather clear.

Re: Zambrowski: Are you familiar with the concept of an editor? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article suits one's understanding of the subject, based on one book, it does not mean that it is correct or even close the subject, it is pretending to explain. Like ofr example why ethnographic?

And now for the third time - would you, please, correct Lithuanian author name or at least would you explain, why did you change it into unrecognizable form?

Re: Re:Was Zambrowski an editor of Łossowski, Piotr (1995). Konflikt polsko-litewski 1918-1920. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza, 13-19. ISBN 8305127699 ?--Lokyz (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more sources and expansion are used. Why ethnographic? It is the name that was used by the inventors of the term, Lithuanian nationalists of the early 20th century ([1]).

I have no idea what mispelling you are talking about; feel free to fix it yourself.

Seems so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you verify that name Aleksandraviccaronius does exist?

Could you provide a a page number and cite an exact sentence/paragraph you're referring to, rather than posting a link to an about a book webpage?

And who were the mysteriuos they in the second paragraph? Did they have names or they were acting incognito, or used a collective pseudonym we?--Lokyz (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Lithuanian alphabet breaks down copy and paste from this page. Feel free to correct the spelling of the author's name if you have the right symbols on your keyboard (I don't).

p.25-34 as noted in text. Btw, I learned recently that due to their own version of copyright paranoia, Google is limiting access to many publications outside US; hence links that give one full or partial view in US will only result in 'about this book' outside. A solution to this, of course, is to use a proxy (like this one).

They - those people. I hope this clarifies this matter.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A really strange breakage of copy paste, when instead of one letter "č" one gets six - ccaronius.--Lokyz (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, quite amusing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a little aid: Aleksandravičius. Hope, this one will c/p without problems. Best wishes.--Lokyz (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Presented source [2], do not reference this invention: Ethnographic Lithuania was an early 20th century concept that defined Lithuanian territories as significant part of the territories that belonged to Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuanians as all people living on them, regardless of whether they spoke Lithuanian language and considered themselves Lithuanian. The concept was in contrast to those of "historic Lithuania" - the territories of the Duchy - and the "linguistic Lithuania", the area where Lithuanian language was overwhelmingly spoken. Therefore it is OR. M.K. (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead is composed of definitions as given by this book and Łossowski.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then provide exact citations of used materials, as Thomas Lane source have no such information, quite contrary - contradicts that is presented now. Will see if Polish source does. I will wait for few days and if no requested info provided will restore {{fact}} tags. M.K. (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The current article uses single source, which as I understand was just translated. Is this not a Copyvio? M.K. (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Objections to DYK posting

Title: there are no WP articles entitled "Ethnographic (country x)". The word/category the author was looking for was irredentism - there are several articles in this category, such as Greater Armenia (political concept) and Greater Hungary (political concept). You definitely need a narrower title in this case, since Greater Lithuania is often used in its historical sense - see History of Lithuania.

As currently written the article is a vehicle for presenting one author. The other articles in the irredentism series use multiple sources, but many remain tagged and/or contested after months or years of work by multiple editors. Gatoclass showed foresight in pointing to this article as likely to be contested - and DYK#The_DYK_Rules states "If an entry is disputed, don't add it to the template until the problem is resolved." This dispute is unlikely to be resolved in 1 day or whatever is left here - that was predictable, from the heavy use of one author. It's not the kind of issue that could possibly be resolved that quickly. Here [3] is a Gbook link that discusses how complex the situation was. The current tags on this article are appropriate.

The single heavily-cited source is a book by Lossowksi in Polish - not in Gbooks, so we can't verify the content. Here is a recent example of why we have reasonable grounds to doubt this editor's interpretations of troublesome issues such as this one. See the last few paragraphs of [4] from April 14th 2008. In that case, it took days of prodding to produce the original passages from a Lossowski book, which quoted Alfred E. Senn, and a translation. In the end I got the Senn book from interlibrary loan, but that takes a while.

As it turned out, from Senn's "the Lithuanians cannot claim to have been strictly neutral" to "Alfred E. Senn explicitly noted that Lithuania has violated its neutrality towards Poland so far that Poland would have been quite justified in declaring war against Lithuania" was rather a stretch. Novickas (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the concept of Greater Lithuania. Łossowski dedicated a chapter to the concept of ethnographic Lithuania; since nobody has written the article on this as I suggested months ago I've used his work as the basis for this article (which of course needs to be expanded).

I still think that my interpretation of Senn's work was correct, and better than copyvio-ish quoting him word by word.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with contributors that current article's name do not reflect the info, it just speaks about principles of drawing Lithuania's borders, therefore it should be something like Lithuanian border changes or similar. M.K. (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While territorial changes of Lithuania and borders of Lithuania are notable concepts, they are quite different from the issue discussed here (a political concept of early 20th century Lithuanian nationalism).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a political concept. Ethnography is a social science which, like every social science, has sometimes been used for political or social ends. See Brown v. Board of Education for an example - the Court considered psychological findings. To make the current title appropriate, the article would need to begin with the social science aspects of the concept, its history and any current studies, and then discuss how politicians invoked it while trying to establish LT's early 20th century borders. I realize the article's creator is unlikely to do this, and that "so you fix it" will be invoked. But a) it's nice outside and b) the passing intelligent readers will notice these things too. Novickas (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's the main problem with the article. Ethnography is not a political concept. Renata (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnography in ethnographic Lithuania is as much non-political as socialism in national socialism :> The concept was quite clearly political - although of course it was dressed as a scientific concept to make it look more acceptable; another comparison would be of intelligent design to a scientific theory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

An impression from only one book might be utterly misleading.--Lokyz (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's law was an amazing insight. Novickas (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, better my book then no references and 'I don't like its'. That said, as noted above, I am looking forward to seeing this discussed by more sources; I'd expect there are some reliable Lithuanian sources that discuss this issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Patience, patience - the article will be fixed as soon I'll receive the books I've requested, (including Łossowski's).--Lokyz (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As for reliable sources, the extensive list of authors is provided above.--Lokyz (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WEASEL?

Please, could you be so kind, and cite what part or WP:WEASEL does not allow to mark speculations as such? And the title is still disputed, please take a look at the discussion just above.--Lokyz (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Explained at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words#.22Assume.22.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do just wonder, whether isn't this a citation of Endecja politician Bohdan Zaniewski Geneza konfliktu polsko–litewskiego, published in Myśl Narodowa circa 1937. A rather murky source, if you'd ask me.--Lokyz (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure Bohdan Zaniewski is related to endecja? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be free to correct me if I'm wrong. Myśl Narodowa is on the same wagon. Isn't it?--Lokyz (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with it. In either case, the more important question is the reliability of the author. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

to be sincere, I'm not really sure whether Zaniewski was the author, although the rhethorics and the citations rather fits the scheme. GL, I'm off for sleep.--Lokyz (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting concept

About "Ethnographic Lithuania does not end where the locals no longer speak Lithuanian, it spreads further, to the regions which do not speak - but used to - Lithuanian, since it is composed of one Lithuanian nation, regardless of whether it speaks Lithuanian, has forgotten the language or even holds it in contempt." This might present a challenge, as the corresponding "ethnographic Baltia" (Lithuanians + Latvians + ancient Prussians) if you will, extends deep into present-day Russia if you go back far enough.
   However, there is something to be said for making the case that, to paraphrase, "blood is thicker than language," that is, what is the boundary of Lithuanians by blood and not by language? The only way I see to read it is, how big would Lithuanian Lithuania be if it weren't for the (primarily) Polonization of Lithuanians? It's not an unfair question to ask, but it also speaks volumes regarding the inter-war Polish-Lithuanian relationship.
   That said, western scholarship generally portrays the areas of the current Baltic states as being quite close to the historical ethnolinguistic/cultural boundaries of settlement over the past few millenia or so. —PētersV (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of that relationship, ", and the chapter on Vilnius region is called cold war like" would be quite expected. The only reason there was not a Polish-Lithuanian-Latvian-Estonian Baltic Union despite the best efforts of the brilliant young Meierovics in concert with the Polish delegation was the Polish-Lithuanian conflict. —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I still find it surprising that some consider the failure of Międzymorze a good thing, especially given the alternative.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

" This might present a challenge, as the corresponding "ethnographic Baltia" (Lithuanians + Latvians + ancient Prussians) if you will, extends deep into present-day Russia if you go back far enough." That's an interesting statement. Neither "Ethnographic Lithuania" nor "Ethnographic Prussia" (taking into account that post-WWII events wiped Eastern Prussia of it's pre-WWII population, which can theoretically be identified with "Germanized Prussians") covers present-day Russia (unless one considers Belarus being part of it, which is an interesting POV). That leaves Latvia and forces you to go back good 1500 years, to pre-Krivich times. However, even this argument is weak, as Krivich tribes were not dominantly Baltic, they were Slavs who absorbed or displaced few Baltic and Fenno-Ugric components as they went Northeast. Asks questions (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I used ethnographic only in the sense of Baltic place names left behind, not in the Lithuanian version of what territory is inhabited by "ethnic by blood only." That would be parts of western Russia and yes, 1,500+ ago. —PētersV (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting map of the extent of Baltic names for bodies of water, boundaries indicate definite and potentially. —PētersV (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 100% of Russian territory didn't belong to Slavs 1500 years ago. To put things in perspective, 100% of US, Canadian, Australian and NZ territory didn't belong to ancestors of it's WASPish ruling elites of today as lately as 400 years ago, with wast majority of that being scooped up in last 200 years. And yes, map on community server is interesting indeed. However, I find it even more interesting that you're stressing encroachment of "Hydronimic Baltia" into Russia (what, 5% of European Russia, probably less) and mum about it claiming half of modern-day Ukraine. Asks questions (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't mean to give you the last word. The Balts did not "encroach" on Russia, they came through Russia. Ukraine likely too, obviously. Don't be so eager to invoke innuendo. PetersV       TALK 01:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081203052729/http://www.bialystok.ap.gov.pl:80/dziedzictwo/pliki/historycy.pdf to http://www.bialystok.ap.gov.pl/dziedzictwo/pliki/historycy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)