Talk:Lithuanian nobility

message: huh ?
very lame text (Unsigned comment posted 05:29, June 28, 2006 by Lokyz)
:: someone should create and evaluate section called "kunigaikštis", because there is redirecton to this article, and the term is not explained properly.--Lokyz 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: kunigaikštis

message: Lithuanian royal nobility association and especialy their magazine is a rather a dubious source, if you'd ask me.--Lokyz (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Šlėktos 

message: What's the best description for the changes in L nobility after 1569? I think it is fair to say it gradually merged with Polish szlachta, forming the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth szlachta, while preserving some regional characteristics. To quote from article's body: "for the most part Lithuanian nobility became part of both nations’ szlachta". I find the current construction "it became less distinguishable from the Polish szlachta" too wordy and confusing. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it actually merged your version would make sense. If it became less distinguishable from the Polish szlachta, and as you put it "preserved some regional characteristics", the original version makes more sense. Hopefully the fact that you are not a native speaker of English does not affect your ability to distinguish the semantics involved with the two versions. It is unfortunate that you find eight words "confusing" and "wordy", but this is not the Simple English version of the encyclopedia. As my original edit summary explained, your edit changed the meaning of the sentence completely. You didn't simplify its meaning, you changed its meaning. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  after 1569 

message: Why does the article use only Lithuanian sources (Schmalstieg may also be regarded as a Lithuanian scholar)? CityElefant (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lithuanian nobility. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100713011351/http://www.bajorusajunga.lt/en/home to http://www.bajorusajunga.lt/en/home
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Calling it "Lithuanian" is ambiguous. Not sure whether that has more advantages or disadvantages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.57.254.95 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that "Lithuanian nobility" is directly wrong term and "Nobility of Lithuania" not perfect either. Maybe "Nobility in Lithuania" would be more correct. Szlachta is Polish term and Lithuanian families being adopted (Horodlo 1413) to polish szlachta being or becoming "Pan" in Lithuania. It might sound a little strange but if you think about it, it makes sence :) Later (after 1413), many Lithuanian boyars or milites (note that Lithuanian boyar is not the same as Russian boyar since in Russia it was a title of highest nobility while in Lithuania "lower") become members of "szlachta" and in most freely taking Polish CoA as they liked or because their own family "signs" where similair to Polish CoA. I recommend Wladyslaw Semkowicz and his publication "O litewskich rodach bojarskich zbratanych z szlachtą polską w Horodle 1413 r.". Its really a mess and difficult for scholars to sort out. Regards, Camdan (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Polish nationalist interpretation of the subject. The article is about Lithuanian nobility, not about Polish view on Lithuanian nobility. Lithuanian Royal Union of Nobility (existing today) is not, may I point out, a "Lithuanian Royal Union of Szlachta". Szlachta would be considered borderline offensive today in contrast to "didikai" or "bajorai". 61.102.171.6 (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Just discovered Ukrainian Wikipedia article on Lithuanian nobility has been renamed to, and links to, Polish szlachta. Certainly no coordination between that and edit-warring on this article re: szlachta? Must be purely accidental... 61.102.171.6 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Fooian nobility vs nobility in Fooland are related but not necessarily identical topics. For now, I think the current name is good enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed renaming article to Nobility of Lithuania? 

message: Not able to source Wolff IRL (in real world). Unless this is a verifiable reference it should be removed.
Same for Lowmianski, which should probably be deprecated due to Lithuanian-Polish war/stand-off/Polish occupation of Vilnius in the interwar period.
--61.102.171.6 (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain open-minded about these 2 sources in principle. Other editors - please share where these two sources can be found IRL or on the internet. If I don't hear from you in 14 days from now (July 11) I will assume those sources do not exist, OR do not say what they are credited as saying, OR have serious impartiality issues. As a result I will do a thorough removal of the material that refers to the 2 suspicious sources. 61.102.171.6 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are looking for books, try library, it's a huge building with many books inside Marcelus (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolff 1895, Lowmianski 1932 

message: @Lokys dar Vienas, why did you remove "szlachta", it's a word used to describe nobility in the Commonwealth Marcelus (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article is about Lithuanian nobility. This is not a Lithuanian word to describe Lithuanian nobility. The Lithuanian word is mentioned in the lead. This is English, not Polish Wikipedia.  Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The szlachta were the noble estate of the realm in the Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth who, as a class, had the dominating position in the state, it's an English word adopted from Polish. Marcelus (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a valid source for wikipedia. And the footnote at the cited sentence in "szlachta" does not directly support this claim, because it is written in Polish, and in Polish "szlachta" means simply "nobility" (highlight mine):"Szlachta ukształtowała się w Europie w średniowieczu, najczęściej jednak wywodzi się pochodzenie stanu szlacheckiego z dawniejszych czasów, z arystokracji plemiennej (wodzowie plemion, starszyzna, uprzywilejowane kasty wojowników) okresu wędrówki ludów" = "The nobility was formed in Europe in the Middle Ages, but most often the origin of the nobility comes from earlier times, from the tribal aristocracy (tribal chiefs, elders, privileged warrior castes) of the Migration Period". As far as I remember the article zslachta was screwed up by POV-pushing blocked editor User:Exxess, who added lots of text basing on their own interpretation of sources. Best you can do is to use the term "Lithuanian szlachta" (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22szlachta+litewska%22+-wikipedia&oq=%22szlachta+litewska%22+-wikipedia&aqs=chrome..69i57.8296j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 szlachta litewsska). Yes, it is an English word, but it is indiscriminate, and it is not good to confuse readers. To better explain my point is by by comparison: the article about common tits define "Hypolycaena erylus, the common tit, is..." and not "Hypolycaena erylus, the common tit or tit, is..." Of course, whenever the context is known, we can call the butterflies  of "Hypolycaena erylus" species as simply "tits", but not in the definition line. Same kind of generalization here: yes nobility in GDL may be called szlachta, but it is not an equivalent term for "Lithuanian nobility". What is more, in English just so happens, the word "szlachta" means "Polish nobility" and rarely "lithianian nobility". I briefly read the article and noticed that in several places it does a good job in distinguishing "Polish szlachta/nobility" and "Lithuanian szlachta/nobility", so let's start drawign this distrinction from the very lede.  Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no clear disctinction between Polish and Lithuanian nobilty, as often especially in later times, Lithuanian nobles considered themselves both, and being part of "Polish nobility" was a source of pride and privilages. It reflects the complex relation between Poland and Lithuania. This article focuses on the szlachta of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. As you pointed out the term szlachta is often used to denote Lithuanian nobility. So there is absolutely nothing wrong in the title "Lithuanian nobility or szlachta" Marcelus (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you wrote is correct, but please re-read my argument once more. My suggestion is that the lede must say " "Lithuanian nobility or Lithuanian szlachta", because the article is not about szlachta in general, but about the Lithiuanian one. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to repeat "Lithuanian". Marcelus (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we dont repeat, then people wit think that szlachta is equivalent to Lithuanian nobility, which is wrong; I explained it several times: "tree" is not the same as "birch tree". Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody will think that, that's a baseless argument. Marcelus (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

text:  Nobody who knows subject will think that. But for a random reader the definition "Lithuanian nobility or szlachta" may well mean that "Lithuanian nobility"  is the same as 'szlachta". Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Szlachta 

message: Tis sentence in the lede is unreferenced and not coverted in article body. Please expand, footnote, and clarify, which is "it": surely not the last mentioned Baltic Germans are Palemonids. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  " It traced its origins via Palemonids to Polemon II of Pontus"