Talk:Upytė

message: Quo Vadis (novel) is latin for "Where are you going", and although I sometimes prefer the more archaic, "Whither goest thou," let's for the sake of this discussion, ask where are WE going with this instead?  And that's the question regarding the article about this Lithuanian village on English WP. It has been noted that a distinct group of Polish editors (and some of their friends) who participate on English WP, have a penchant of including POLAND, POLISH, etc., on very thin grounds when ever they can get away with it, and removing long established English usage with their preferences. And although Upyte is not "established" in English usage, it does illustrate the point I'll try to make here in a microcosm. They have attempted to change history, geography, names of people, cuisine, and other matters according to their world view. This in itself is not bad IMHO, and sometimes they are even correct to do so, but too often they cross a line that is not acceptable. It's especially humorous when some of them later deny their own arguments as valid, when it oppose their own POV in similar arguments against them. Upyte is a village in Lithuania, not in Poland, never a part of Poland. Although the two countries established a union, of seperate nations, four hundred and thirty-nine years ago, it ended ingloriously two hundred and thirteen years ago. In 1918, newly independant Poland attempted to re-establish a form of sovereignity over parts of Belarus, Lithuania, and Ukraine, which ultimately proved unsuccessful. Nonetheless on today' s English WP a certain group continues to add the Polish toponyms to Lithuanian geographical locations, let it die down for a while, only to start all over again after a pause in time. Usually upon being asked for an explanation or the rationale for their action, there is no response. If pressed you might get a doozie of an explanation like "I would prefer Marie Curie-Sklodowska...(instead of Marie Curie)...rather because I know her under this name". And on this talk page the crux of the matter is addressed with... "The incident was prominently mentioned in The Deluge, one of the best known Polish historical novels by Henryk Sienkiewicz and of course it was called Upita." I like Sienkiewicz aka "Litwos", and have read and enjoyed many of his works both in Polish and English. I have enjoyed the films of Jerzy Hoffman based on many of Sienkiewicz's works. Even the parts where Hoffman contrasts the "lowly" Lithuanians who are sitting in the forests of Lithuania, on the ground, wearing bearskins, to the "lofty" and elegant Polish noblemen trying to stave off the treachery of Polonized Lithuanian magnates. It's sometimes a hoot. But regarding this so called reasoning, which I referred to a the "crux of the matter", 1. the Deluge is neither.. "one of the best known Polish novels by Henryk Sienkiewicz..." (at least in the English speaking world)..., 2.  nor is "Upita" 'prominently' mentioned in the work... But even if that were the case, it is hardly the basis for putting the Polish toponym in the lead of the article about this Lithuanian village. As for the remark, ..."and of course it was called Upita". What a surprise!  A Polish author, writing in Polish, uses the Polish toponym to describe the village. Well, in Quo Vadis he uses Rzym to describe Rome. No surprise there either. Should we put Rzym, Polish for Rome, in the lead of the article on Ancient Rome? Quo Vadis is much better known in the English speaking world and Rome is REALLY mentioned "prominently" in the work.  Would that be a good reason to accept this rationale and add Rzym in the lead? I think this argument, if accepted, sets a bad precedent. As for me rhetorically asking if Krokuva, Lithuanian for Cracow, should be placed in the lead of the article regarding that Polish city, since Lithuania shares a cultural and historical association with the city, it appears that argument is not a good one in that case. It seems to only work one way. The Polish toponym is not necessary in the lead of this article. I do not dislike the information concerning any Polish associations such as Sienkiewicz, or the Pilsudski family. That is useful and pertinent, and frankly the connection to the Pilsudski family is great. It's more proof strenghtening the fact that this later Polonized family came from Lithuania. It might even be another reason that Encyclpoedia Britannica calls Jozef Pilsudski a Polish-Lithuanian, or that Norman Davies states that "Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture." The Polish Wikipedians contributing to English WP are in strong denial of this information, and object to the inclusion of this information in the Jozef Pilsudski article, but are alway quick to pounce on any opportunity to de-Lithuanianize historical personages if they spoke Polish (see: Milosz, Praniauskaite, and their talk pages) or studied in Poland, etc.  All comments are appreciated. In the mean time I'm removing Upita. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quo Vadis