Talk:Cultural regions of Lithuania

message: How about renaming this article to Regions of Historic Lithuania ? --Lysytalk 16:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, makes no sense whatsoever. Original Lithuanian name is etnografiniai regionai... But I am not sure if a direct translations is appropriate here. And why rename it in general? Renata 17:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought a rename would be in place, as the article and the map refer not only to Lituania but also neighbouring areas, mostly of Kaliningrad Oblast and Belarus. Therefore I assume the author meant "historic Lithuania", not present-day Lithuania, which would probably have the regions smaller ? Overall, the article has a tad revisionistic flavour to it, don't you think ? I do not insist on renaming, however, just asked.
Areas of dialects? Areas of tribes? Henq 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Lithuanian ethnographic regions" (but I see a direct thanslation might be inapprorpiate) ? Dialects would result in another divide, as I understand it ? Anyway, how many people speak Lithuanian in Kaliningrad Oblast ? --Lysytalk 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These regions are different in much greater extent than just dialect. It's dialects, clothes, all kinds of art, food, traditions, festivals, etc etc. Cultural regions? But then again, they are not only regions of historic Lithuania, they are very much present today. So the most accurate name would be Cultural regions of historic and present-day Lithuania. Renata 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Lithuanian cultural regions" ? Then it would not imply modern Lithuania so much. Or maybe it'd be better to rework the article ? Or split it into two ? Almost every country has such regions, are there similar articles for other countries ? --Lysytalk 20:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming ? 

message: :Image:Liet-etno-regionai.png is a very good and needed map, however its colours seem a bit pale and its readability suffers when thumbnailed. --Lysytalk 18:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not wrong, it's official, confirmed by some sort of commission in Seimas. Ethnographic regions have very little to nothing to with political history or recent population migrations. Renata 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then give a link or something. I know Suvalkija region has clear border, and this border goes by river Nemunas, but on these maps are shown another configuration. I guess there are shown linguistic areas, but not regions. If you are talking about lithuanian ethnographic regions, maybe this map is correct, but then area of Vilnius should be excluded because majority around Vilnius are poles!--Vulpes vulpes 12:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, Renata3, but regions in Europe and appeared due political circumstances. Let's not mix different things: regions and ethnographic areas. If this article about ethnographic areas, then this map is wrong. Around Vilnius, majority of population in Vilnius rayon consists of poles, with their own culture. I saw earlier maps where small towns near Nemunas are not in Samogitia, and from Lithuania Minor nothing is left. Where is this shown? If this article about regions of Lithunia, sorry, this map is wrong too. Since when Vilnius is part of Dzukija?--Tarakonas 13:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For crying out loud, argue with this map . And if you find a good translation for "etnografiniai regionai" be my guest. Renata 23:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I looked at the link you gave. First, there are no text why boundaries are such. Second, I looked carefully and understand why borders of areas are so chewed, it's because those "etnografiniai regionai" are based on seniorships! It's ridiculous draw boundaries based on seniorships, because seniorships are only some ten years old!!! While region of Samogitia is nearly 600 years old! Third, I looked at the proposals  and at least I was right, there is nearly nothing left of Lithuania Minor/Klaipėda district. Author of proposals talks nothing about Vilnius region, but it's clear this region has many differencies from another part of Lithuania. Probably, this is due negative attitude to poles. Most interesting there was an idea to draw boundaries based on rayons, while there are creation of soviet era! Fourth, it's clear this map is based on nothing - not on linguistic arguments, nore on historicals - it's hard to understand on what. Sorry, but this mаp still is wrong.--Tarakonas 08:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. (BTW, the proposals have nothing to do with the regions, they are about reform of administrative division.) But that's the only map available. And it's semi-official. So either you go to Seimas and start bullying that they are all wrong or stop complaining to me as per WP:NOR. Sorry to be rude, but that's not a place to change the world. Renata 11:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doing researches, I'm not changing the world. The fact: this map is wrong and unfinished. Better not use this misleading map at all. At first, you said this map shows ethnographic regions, but it's clear - this map is based on propasal of new administrative division - so it's not an ethnographic :-).--Tarakonas 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are mixing up several things. This map (link I provided) was designed by a special commission at Seimas to determine the borders or the etnografiniai regionai. The link you dig up was about proposed administrative division that would be based on these regions and have nothing to do with the map we are discussing here. Any map is better than nothing. How else to show where is Samogitia and where is Aukštaitija? Etnografiniai regionai is something abstract and their borders will be whatever we agree upon. And what's so misleading about the map? It shows regions as they were some hundred years ago. There are no regions today, if you haven't noticed. Renata 13:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it is idea to make administrative divison of Lithuania based on ethnographic regions. That's why such maps appeared. In proposals (the link I gave) this question is discussed. In proposals are said many things too. It's hard to understand on what is based this map we are discussing about. It's clearly written, the are no left differencies of Klaipėda Region from other part of Lithuania, and it's strange why Vilnius Region is not mentioned. I am repeating, borders of regions in map we are discussing about are wrong, because they are based on borders of seniorships, while seniorships are created some 10 years ago. Is it logical? It's shame for me, that we are misleading foreigners showing wrong map. You are saying this map shows regions they were some hundred years ago, sorry, but it is not so. First, explanation of this map says  - Regions as contained within modern Lithuania. Second, till 1795 in Lithuania existed Samogitia, Vilnius and Trakai voivodships. I agree, there are no regions in administrative division of Lithuania, but read once more the title of this map! But on other hand it's the fact: etnografiniai regionai exists today! If we want to show etnografiniai regionai that are today - this map is not representing them very well - simply misleads showing/not showing some etnografiniai regionai. We should show only good maps or nothing. To explain where etnografiniai regionai are let's write Samogitia is in the west, Aukštaitija is in the east. Why not say aproximate borders of ethnographic regions or something similar, or place old maps where Samogitia is showed? --Tarakonas 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am mixing nothing. There are no official regions in Lithuania, only projects. This map is based on project. Right? So, the caption should be: Proposal, project of Regions or something similar. What's the right translation of etnografiniai regionai into english - I am not sure. Seems, you are not sure too, because you wrote ethnographic region, now - etno region. Look, I know what are you talking about, I'd read many books about cultural differencies of Lithuania. You are right, the thing we are talking about (in lithuanian term etnografiniai regionai) is based on traditional culture of peasants. But if this map is based on traditional culture of peasants - where is shown Vilnius region, where many people speak in polish, and has different culture? Second, it's hard for foreigner to understand what we are talking about: is it ethnic regions, is it historical regions, is it cultural regions, is it geographical regions, is it administrative divison, is it what? The word ethnographical - it's a bit confusing. And for many foreigners such division is hard to understand, because in western Europe regions appeared due political circumstances: :Bretagne once was an indepenadant duchy, Schleswig-Holstein once belonged to Denmark, and so on. While etnografiniai regionai are based on other things.--Tarakonas 07:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Liet-etno-regionai.png]]