Talk:Lithuanization

message: Renata removed some points that I agree where poorly referenced:
* forced - we need to describe clearly and with proper references if Lithuanization was indeed forced
* Most Polish schools, social institutions and political societies were closed, and the local Poles were forced to declare Lithuanian as their nationality. This was referenced with three Polish sources, no pages given. Please provide page numbers, quotes and translations to back up this serious claim.
In my spare time I will look for some additional sources to expand this article, but please, let's stick to WP:V and WP:RS as much as we can.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah sure, if google scholar suggests Did you mean: Euthanization instead of Lithuanisation there would be another proof of Polish culture superiority. Bugaga:) Not to mention such great inglish idioms like is, to myknowledge. Exceptionaly reliable sources I'd say. Truly worth a google generation bureaucrat to be found by. --Lokyz 23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please expand on following points 

message: *It was also around that time that the newly-established Lithuanian state started aiming at cultural and linguistic assimilation of other large groups of non-Lithuanian citizens, mainly the Poles and Germans.  
That is not a valid reference. If you go to that book and that page you will see the following:
:The only difficulty expereinced by germans during the interwar period was an attempt at lithuanization of Memelland from 1923 until the mid-1930's.
There is nothing else there about Lithuania. And the sentence above does not support such a vast and strong conclusion as presented in the article. Renata 19:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this needs to be rephrased or expand with other refs, as it is, this is a ref to show that Germans were subject to Lithunization too, nothing more, and nothing less.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad ref

message: Wow! Sorry, but it is a bunch of counterfactual nonsense. It was Lithuania itself that was Ruthenized following the conquest of Rus' by Gediminids. 
:"Within the [Lithuanian] Grand Duchy, the Ruthenian lands initially retained considerable autonomy. The pagan Lithuanians themselves were increasingly converting to Orthodoxy and assimilating into Ruthenian culture. The grand duchy's administrative practices and legal system drew heavily on Slavic customs, and Ruthenian became the official state language. Direct Polish rule in Ukraine since the 1340s and for two centuries thereafter was limited to Galicia. There, changes in such areas as administration, law, and land tenure proceeded more rapidly than in Ukrainian territories under Lithuania. However, Lithuania itself was soon drawn into the orbit of Poland.";;
Source: Ukraine article in the latest Encyclopædia Britannica. Please correct the article's speculations. --Irpen 06:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done by rewriting the first para of section one. But there is nothing I could do with this stuff in the intro but removing it since it is just NOT Lithuanization. --Irpen 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to fit with some of what I have read. Hmmm, Ruthenization article, anyone? :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking more of it, should the times where Lithuanization was not talking place be covered at all? I rewrote the paragraph that originally somehow implied to the contrary simply to replace the incorrect info by the correct one. But sometimes, it is better to remove stuff, especially the stuff that does not belong to the topic. So, we can move this to, say GDL article. It is like recent addition of depolonization and Russification policies to the Polonization article by someone lately. We should not attempt to "neutralize" the material not to our liking by the off-topic stuff. I just purged some of the De-Polonization from the Polonization article. By the same token, Ruthenization material does not belong to Lithuanization. IMO, adding the irrelevant stuff to neutralize the relevant one is not "balancing" and WP:NPOV but rather "off-topic" and WP:TE. Objections? --Irpen 10:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "On the other hand, the Lithuanian conquest and rule of Ruthenian lands in the 13th-15th century was not accompanied by Lithuanization." Was it really a conquest? Sources please. As for Ruthenization, I suppose, Piotrus, it is not a proper link. Referring to Aleksander Brückner we may found the following passage: "Mikołaj Rej jeżeli później o Rusinach opowiadał, prawili mu po "litewsku" (tj. po białorusku; Litwin u nego zawsze tyle co Białorusin), nigdy po małorusku" (source: Aleksander Brückner. Mikołaj Rej. PWN: Warszawa, 1988, p. 14). Translation: When Mikołaj Rej later described Ruthenians they addressed him in "Lithuanian" (i.e. Belarusian language, for him a Lithuanian [person] is exclusively a Belarusian) but newer in Ukrainian (here literally: Little Russian). CityElefant (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lithuanization of Ruthenia?

message: And what's with the title? While the concept of cultural assimilation of minorities by Lithuanians does exist as for any nation, this is such an obscure phenomenon that the term suggested by the article's authors is a pure neologism. The term produces only 57 google hits of which many are about Lithuanization of the software or the Lithuanization of the names (that is how foreign names, when written in Lithuanian, are modified by adding suffixes in the end). In the cultural assimilationist sense, the term is exceedingly rare. If one wants to have an article about this rather rare phenomenon, I suggest renaming to something like Cultural assimilation of minorities in Lithuania. While almost any valid dtopic may have Wikipedia articles, neologisms are inappropriate for the article titles. --Irpen 05:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A term used in 13 (at least) books, and 7 academic (or more) articles is notable. Also per our naming guidelines, shorter names are preferable to long descriptives. PS. Your term is unused in academia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless those are neologisms. Using those for titles just makes no sense. Of those 13 books, 6 use the term in the "quotation marks". I would not object to the referenced term usage within the text flow but not the title. --Irpen 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term exists, is used by academics worldwide, and is definitely more handy than, say, Forced or voluntary cultural and linguistic assimilation of people by the governments and cultural associations of Lithuania or its predecessor states. Which, for me, is enough to have it where it is. BTW, what title would you suggest? //Halibutt 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would not if the claim was not false. Google search produces nothing. Half of the 13 google books hits use the "quotation marks" around this supposedly widely used term. Besides the article looked from the onset like an OR essay. Adding the times of Gediminas that  no one ever calls Lithuanization, to the 19th-20th century, where those few who use the term refer to. Is a strange OR. I corrected the bizarre assertion of the Lithuanization of Ruthenia so that it is at least not counterfactual, but I still have doubts this belongs together with the assimilation material at all. --Irpen 02:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How could one not support all the constructive proposals you list here... //Halibutt 16:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I abstain on the first issue (don't know enough about it) and object to the second one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What name do you propose? The current one is a neologism, obviously. The topic is valid, but in the lack of an established name it can be presented under the descriptive name. What's wrong with my name? --Irpen 17:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Why do you have to ask the same question over and over again? I support current name ('Lithuanization') and please don't ask me that again; also, please don't treat my lack of reply to your questions if you repeat them as silent agreement. My rationale: title used by scholars and suggested by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is some other name more popular?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in Google Books there's at least 13 books mentioning Lithuanization, another 3 for Lithuanisation, 7 for Lithuanianization and 2 for Lithuanianisation. More than enough, if you asked me (). Besides, simple google search suggests that the word is also used by common people and also by Lithuanian sites in English. //Halibutt 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because there is no shorter term for that, at least ouside Poland ('rzezie wołyńskie', IIRC, and that's not that popular either). Here, however, we have a short term indeed used by some sources. Why not use it? Yes, it's not extremly popular. It's a minor notable phenomena and 50+ books is quite good, one way or another.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to say, let's not use Google to tell us what our encyclopedia should contain. I'm sick of seeing all those references to Google. — Alex(T|C|E) 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:GOOGLE is not a policy or guideline. — Alex(T|C|E) 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I repeat. The current name contradicts the policies by being a neologism. The claim of its sufficient use has been shown above to be false. I gave some ideas on what the alternative name should be but to propose anything specific I need to understand the intended scope of this article. Since originally the article was an essayish collection of unrelated (and false) claims, the proper title for it could not be determined. Once I get a clue of the topic and the article has some consistency, we can propose the final name. The current one is unacceptable for being an ORish neologism in the particular context. --Irpen 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: cite specific policies, not your ideas of what they should be. Give example of alternative name that is actually used, not your ideas of what it should be.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: "Due to aggressive student recruiting actions by "Pochodnia," Polish cultural and educational society, the question of Polish schools was reviewed by Seimas" and is given the "source"  in fact it is an OR or worse a real false because there is no such words as "aggresive actions", check with "agresyvi", "agresyvios". Article in general describes situation and nothing more. By the way this is a schoolbook for pupils... --Tarakonas (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you correct the text to reflect the source? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Tarakonas (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious statement

message: Maybe ethnic minorities or ethnically non-Lithuanian? The objects are generally Lithuanian citizens.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-Lithuanian  

message: May?Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This section may contain original research or unverified claims. 

message: What's the Lithuanian language word for Lithuanization? I'd expect that in the Lithuanian scholarly works - which are currently mostly not present in the article - we could find much information, and hopefully, a good definition of the term.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lituanizacija, I think. M.K. (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find any Lithuanian sources discussing this concept, and hopefully defining it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had it, I already implemented it. M.K. (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Another possible option might be "lietuvinimas"... However, almost all references found by "Google" (for both words) are "false positives" - most often they concern adapting one or another piece of software to Lithuanian language... The results with "Google Scholar" are not much more relevant either... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lithuanian view of Lithuanization

message: This "who shared religious, cultural, and linguistic similarities with the Lithuanians"  needs a source. Otherwise it's original research.radek (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  similarities 

message: On the other hand, the Lithuanian annexation of Ruthenian lands in the 13th-15th century was accompanied by Lithuanization. On the contrary, a large part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania remained Ruthenian,
vs.
The Lithuanian annexation of Ruthenian lands between the 13th and 15th centuries was accompanied by some Lithuanization. A large part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania remained Ruthenian
How much Lithuanization was there in Ruthenian lands? How successful was it? I'm sure there are sources on this.radek (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This also needs to be settled and sourced 

message: Added a ref, one of many possible ones.radek (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litviny 

message: "The state imposes Lithuanian form of people's names"
This should be clarified. I know a lot people who have their names not in Lithuanian form. For example Prišmont (LT form should be Prišmontienė or Prišmontaitė), Semaško (LT form should be Semaškienė or Semaškaitė), Romanova (Romanovienė, Romanovaitė) etc. Lithuanian form is not imposed. Lithuanian letters are imposed. Instead of Priszmont Lithuanians write in documents Prišmont. Besides Poles insist on including W which doesn't exist in Lithuanian alphabet while Poles do not have V in their own.
However, this is usual practice in many countries. Lithuanian names for example in England are only using English letter eg. Poškus is Poskus. Is it discrimination against Lithuanians? Besides if Lithuanians are British citizens and decides after marriage to have Lithuanian form of surname for example Sakalienė it would be very difficult to do because she could choose only husband surname or have her old surname. In this case could be said that English form is imposed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnplastic (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Lithuania 

message: If something works, it exists.Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Lithuanization is not an official state policy'' 

message: A Lithuanian translation of a Polish text is quoted here. Why not an English translation of the Polish text?Xx236 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugeniusz Römer (2001) 

message: The article should explain the politics toward Krajowcy. The idea of bilingual Lithuania was totally rejected.Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Krajowcy]] 

message: Jerzy Targalski has his site, not connected to Warsaw University.Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerzy Targalski 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lithuanization. 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/20070927204952/http://www.istorija.lt/lim/pocyte2003en2.html to http://www.istorija.lt/lim/pocyte2003en2.html
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) 07:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lithuanization. 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/20080303191252/http://mkp.emokykla.lt/gimtoji/ to http://mkp.emokykla.lt/gimtoji/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303191252/http://mkp.emokykla.lt/gimtoji/ to http://mkp.emokykla.lt/gimtoji/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303191252/http://mkp.emokykla.lt/gimtoji/ to http://mkp.emokykla.lt/gimtoji/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505183058/http://www.ambasada.lt/new/Default.asp?DL=P&SearchTXT=&EditionID=17&TopicID=294&ArticleID=380&Page=3 to http://www.ambasada.lt/new/Default.asp?DL=P&SearchTXT=&EditionID=17&TopicID=294&ArticleID=380&Page=3
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) 18:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified