Talk:Vytautas/Archive

message: The fictional name Vytautas is the form used in the modern day Lithuania, a country ethnically, linguistically, and geographically different from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). GDL consisted of lands of Belarus, some parts of Ukraine, Russia, and Poland. The present day Lithuania was a small North-Western portion of this land.
During the life of Vytautas his actual name was Vitovt Alexander, as the dominant language in the Grand Duchy was the old version of Belarusian. The version Vytautas was invented by Lithuanian historians in the beginning of the 20th century as an attempt to show connection between GDL and today's Lithuania.
Thus, this article violates the neutrality principle, and abuses feelings of Belarusians and Ukrainians who claim Vitovt the Great as their Duke. Though I do not deny the right to call Vitovt Vytautas in the modern Lithuanian, this version cannot be used in the multi-national Wikipedia as his official name. Max Kanowski 04:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is not as simple as you make it seem. There are many names for this person: Polish, Ruthenian, Belarusian, Russia, Ukrainian ones - and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania under this ruler incorporated lands of every of those nations or their part. All names are written in bold at the start of the article, redirects exists from each of the names to this article. Because there are many names, we cannot just pick one - of course, Poles will want to pick the Polish name, Belarusians - Belarusian, Lithuanians - Lithuanian and so on. Instead, we have to see what name is more applicable, and, as it is *English* wikipedia, what name is more used. Now, in Google for example, your proposed name Vitovt receives only 23.500 hits (most of them non-English), Vitovt Alexander receives no hits at all. Vytautas receives over two million hits - not all of them are related however, but Vytautas the Great and Vytautas Magnus together still receives over 100.000 primarilly English hits (and, of course, this grand duke is not always called "the great" or "magnus", so those are far from all hits). So, this indicated more popular name in English for this rler is indeed Vytautas, and this is English encyclopedia. None of the names were inventented by historians - all of them are what people of the respective nationality used to call their rulers all the time. Another question that you raise is a "moral one" - that is, what name these dukes *should* be called. Here again, understand that there was *no* nationalism in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There was no official language as we understand it now - Ruthenian and Latin, later Polish and Latin were used to write various things such as laws, but the absolute majority of people (same a sin other countries at the time) were illiterate. And, of course, spoken business wasn't carried out in Latin or Ruthenian everywhere, but, depending on place, in the local language (be it Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Samogitian, Polish, Tatar, etc.). And the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was established at the territories inhabitted by then pagan Lithuanians, from where it expanded; the ruler families thus were also Lithuanian. However, as there was no nationalism by the time, it should be noted that if Lithuanian dukes were moving from ethnic Lithuania to ethnic Slavic lands, they usually used to adopt local language and religion and vice versa. Therefore, it would be indeed illogical if we would name *all* the local dukes in Lithaunain language. But this is not doen - now Wikipedia has a very good practice where those are more related to the Belarusians or Ukrainians nations are called in the respective names, the leaders that were related to ethnic-Lithuanian lands are called in the Lithuanian names while the leaders after the Polonization are reffered by Polish names (and, of course, redirects exist from every other name). This practice should stay, else we will get into countless revert wars. Burann 10:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Google search is good indeed, so just count how much you will receive for "Witold"… “Just” about 3.000.000.--Torden 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Name of Vitovt the Great 

message: Rarely have I heard a non-English speaking person, and of non-Lithuanian heritage put it more fairly and concisely than Buran just did. Dr. Dan 22:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Burann 17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: Indeed, this all seams logical. At this very point of time. Just answer me only one question: what shall we do when the number of hits for Vitovt in Google exceeds the one for Vutautas? 
Following your logic we will need to change the name back to Vitovt. Something tells me that it won't be a long wait. Max Kanowski 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, regardless of its imperfection, the Google hit ratio is an important indicator of which form is most widely used in English. --Lysytalk 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said however, the number of Google hits (which, by the way, should only be counted for usages of the word in the English pages, not in general, as this is English wikipedia) isn't of course the *only* means to decide what name we should use, we have common sense as well. I bet that probably for many leaders of the GDL, even older ones, who lived prior the polonization, the Polish name might be more used than Belarusian or Lithuanian ones - simlpy because there are more Poles, larger Polish diaspora, and because Poland stayed an independent country during the Cold War there were generally more Polish influence over world historians than Belarusian or Lithuanian influence. However, that does not means we should use Polish names everywhere. There is *common sense*, and we are not going to name some ruler who lived all his life in Belarus and ruled some local land in any other language than Belarusian of course. Burann 17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One correction: Poland did not stay an independent country during the Cold War. Soviet Army was present on Polish territory al the time. --Lysytalk 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ...we are not going to name some ruler who lived all his life in Belarus and ruled some local land in any other language than Belarusian of course...
So, by saying that you assume that Vitovt was not a Belarusian ruler.
- Regardless the fact that the original lands named Litva (Lithuania) all without exception were within the territory of the nowadays Belarus;
- Regardless the fact that all his life Vitovt, as well as the majority of other citizens of the Grand Duchy, spoke Old Belarusian during the entire life and probably did not know a word in any Baltic language;
- Regardless the fact that Belarusian lands made the core of the Grand Duchy through its entire history;
- Regardless the fact that it were the lands of the present day Lithuanians that were conquered by Mindoug, lost, and later re-conquered by his son Voishalk in 1263-1264. Unlike the present-day Belarusian lands which never fought against the GDL, and joined it peacefully. Both before the conquest of the Balts and after that conquest;
- Regardless the fact the Vitovt himself presented Zhamoizt (present-day Lithuania) to the Teutonic knights;
- Regardless the fact that he called himself Vitovt. His farther called him Vitovt, and everyone in those times called him Vitov;
- Regardless many many many other facts....
You think that Vitovt was not a Belarusian duke, a Belarusian ruler??....
Well, I do not know what to say... I guess, that the last thing left for you to prove here is that the Vitovt's surname was Landsbergis. This would be more consistent with your desire to create the modern Lithuanian history from nothing.
I am not asking you to call Vitovt in the nowadays Belarusian, this would make him Vitawt which is as false as the nowadays-Lithuanian Vytautas. I just want you to respect this outstanding guy and name him by his own name.
Sometimes I think that Vitovt made a huge mistake. He should have left those ungrateful Balts in the hands of the Germans. Maybe they would extinguish them all then, so we would not need to fight for his legacy now.Max Kanowski 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I am not trying to say what nationality he was. In fact, trying to find him ethnicity now is similar to calling Caesar Italian (which *might* be true, but still such assetion would be not encyclopedic). I said there are two ways to identify what form of name to use, one of them is widespread in English language and second is common sense. You, however, say many unprovable assumptions. There are no proves that this ruler spoke Belarusian all his life - chancery languages (used for writting) differed from the native language of ruler by the time, remember that all Europe used latin but that doesn't means everybody's native language was latin. As well, the first lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were not just the lands of modern-day Belarus - the first areas of duchy were in eastern Lithuania and western Belarus (I see the kind of map you provided (the one of early GDL) for the first time even though I saw many maps of early GDL - on what historical documents this map is based?). Of course, he is called Vitovt in written Ruthenian sources as this is the Ruthenian form of his name. Similarly, he is called Witold in written Polish sources as this is the Polish version of his name. As for the Samogitia (Zhmuzdzh), this is not whole present day Lithuania (only western part of it); in fact, Samogitians and Lithuanians by the time were considered to be different nations (Samogitian language is quite different from Lithuanian as well) and only latter both groups assimilated into a single nation. Similarly, nobody knows what langage the majority of GDL inhabittants *spoke* (there were no censuses about that or statistics). And indeed Samogitia has been many times lost and reconquered by GDL - but not so for Lithuania-proper. What I said is merely that as for rulers who had ruled local Belarusian lands, we will always use Belarusian names; for rulers, who ruled local Lithuanian lands, we will always use Lithuanian names, while for broader areas it will depend on situation; however, there is no need to try to put medieval history in the borders of present-day nations... Burann 07:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is a historical evidence, that the language that Lithuanians and Samogitians spoke was considered the same. There is a letter written by Vytautas the Great himself, where he says that Lithuanians and Samogitians are the same people, some living in the highland, some in the lowland. Juraune 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! ""one language and one people" Vytautas the Great letter to Emperor of HRE 1420. "I told you it in Lithuanian" Vytautas the Great letter to Jogaila 1429. letters in latin.M.K 19:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that ethnic Lithuanians, religiosly defined first as pagans and then as catholics, were always in power in the Grand Duhcy - the Orthodox Belarusians, although made a majority, were for example not allowed to get land by testament, only catholics were allowed. It is considered that the Grand Duchy was christenized when the pagan Lithuanian nation (and the grand duchies' rulers together with them) adopted Christianity, despite of the fact that Slavs of GDL were Christian all the time 193.219.141.198 10:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: However, many of the Catholics are Uniates (Greek or Eastern Rite Catholics). This form of catholicism is fairly recent there, it was spread in the times of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth as an attempt to convert Orthodox population into catholicism. It did not prevailed before late commonwealth times. Burann 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Buran 

message: Yeah, it is criticism of Yermalovich, but it is common to your case, Max Kanowski,  too. 
Espaecialy by calming Mindaugas conqueror :) and Balts lands. 
 
 
“you use a Soviet era dictionary” oh no, Max Kanowski, I use brand new  one which has many versions of Belarus meaning ; why I picked that one – because it was more common to my use that  word. But this is not a case I assume, right?
I am very happy that you not allowed your self silently edit topic Vytautas the Great word as you did with my post :)
My attention draw how you tried to backed your case. I not try to quote you word by word, but only one “Belarusian duke, a Belarusian ruler” this is top one :) look at his royal stamp – “…die gra(tia) Ducis Lithwanie alie et cetera” (latin!; yes it is proof of multilanguage usage  in Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) ) so as you see he was first of all duke of Lithuania; others like salvs tatars which are not identify as something important  or something as unit. 
Secondly as you may already know GDL was a multinational empire which used many languages to communicate with; I would not be so sure as you are that Vytautas did not talked in Lithuanian language too. Lithuanian language is the most archaic a live language of indo-European group. Acknowledge that may many very many your sayings of your first post is simply not true; 
“Sometimes I think that Vitovt made a huge mistake. He should have left those ungrateful Balts in the hands of the Germans. Maybe they would extinguish them all then, so we would not need to fight for his legacy now” these Balts   established Kingdom of Lithuania and later Grand Duchy of Lithuania, gave birth of one of the finest dynasties of al time and so on…..
Never the less some of your post are insulting and I believe that “insults” and nationalist  bias are not facts. Sadly to you. But don’t remove or edit them because let every body see which type of arguments your are using. Ok?
Ok lest stick to the name. 
@DeirYassin, it is much more just look to, Max Kanowski, “arguments”. 
EDIT: "Unlike the present-day Belarusian lands which never fought against the GDL, and joined it peacefully" - you killing your self with your own spear.
Lithy.
----
Lithy, I would like to see you editing Wikipedia more often. You seem as a very knowledgeable person. I suggest you register an account and help me and other Wikipedians improve the articles related to Lithuania and not only. I believe you have much knowledge to share. A good start could be WP:BSNB. Renata 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: It looks like instead of discussing Vitovt you prefer to discuss me. How about personal discussions - to personal talk pages.
Burann and Lithy, thank you for you replies. (Lithy, I have a ton of arguments against you, but I need to read your article first) Max Kanowski 03:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok. It becomes personal 

message: This seems to be a contest where everyone is saying, "MINE!" "MINE!" "NO, MINE!" and trying to come up with reasons why... let's see, Duchy of Lithuania, today's Belarus was bulk of territory at that time, what was the prevalent language of the time whether written or spoken in court or on the street, etc. etc. It's really quite fascinating what "nationals" try and claim for themselves. After all, most Latvians are quite proud that there's a Bay of Kurzeme in Tobago (and that the Courland Duchy's reign is remembered as one of the more progresive)--though I sincerely doubt that there was an ethnic Latvian in any position of leadership. And so we have it, what's in a name after all? Unless someone can through (non-original) genealogical research argue that Vytautas (ala modern Lithuanian) is Byellorussian/Slavic, then we should leave him to the Lithuanian historians who have laid claim and note alternate historical appelations for anyone interested in doing further research. --Pēters 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's really the question here?

message: All this bitterness enveloped in raw nationalism. Has everyone digressed so far from the point that this is about a name that is used in the English language. Its got to be something, and since even Encyclopedia Britannica uses Vytautas today, its simply a question of some people wanting to change it because of their biases, into something else. An analogy would be for an Italian wanting to change the English accepted version of Rome to Roma, because this is its original name. On this question, the train has left the station, and for the record the likelyhood of Vytautas being changed in English, has about as much chance of Grodno being changed to Gardinas. Put in the vernacular, "it ain't gonna happen". Have a nice day. Dr. Dan 15:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Torden, you are not rihgt. The language did matter in medieval times, although not in all regions and not in all times. Otherwise, how you would explain for example Dlugosz ranting about Poles living in meklemburg, Polish crown right to Pomorze because Poles live there, and calling Silesians traitors because they, although being Poles, fight against Polish kings. Or the accidents with Czech hussite burning Czech mercenaries who fight under TO, because they became traitors of "Slavic language" ... Szopen 07:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree that language could be considered for the important factor of ethnic identification at this period for certain degree, especially for Poland (but much less for the Grand Duchy). Still, not so long time ago I read Polish historian Tymowski’s analyzes of the medieval Polish kingdom genesis; so he pointed that the factor gens polonica (in medieval understating - native speakers of Polish) was only a secondary and quite insignificant issue in understanding of the original territory and claims of the Polish Crown. The main factor was the lands claimed by the divine right of the Crown: as for example Władysław I Lokietek in 1339 claimed Pomerelia by the argument that these lands were de regno - i.e. occupied lands of his kingdom. So, the terms corona and regno were much more important for Medieval and Early Modern Europe than “ethnicity” or even language IMO…--Torden 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English Language