Talk:Lithuanian nobility

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lithuania High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

kunigas mean priest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nynodede (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a positive contribution but requires additional work.

At first glance:

1. Polish name versions of oldest Lithuanian nobility 2. Some inexact or anachronistic expressions

210.57.254.95 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update Thu 3 March 2022: almost a month later Marcelus now has started edit-warring instead of engaging here as suggested.--211.48.164.1 (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing changes introduced by you on 2 March. You are either removing sourced material or adding unsourced changes, like:

* changing lesser/lower nobility to gentry - this isn't the same, and using the term gentry is confusing

* you are removing information about Lithuanian nobles aspirations to have the same rights as Polish nobles after the unions, which is a pretty important historical fact

* you are changing lords to magnates, while the text explains while those two groups weren't interchangeable

* you are adding unsourced information about the physical elimination of pagan elites and persecution of them

* you are removing information that many princes died in civil wars after Vytautas death

* you are removing sourced information that the term пан/ponai is borrowed from Polish

* you are changing the name of Commonwealth's Sejm to Seimas

* you are adding unsourced information that Catholicism was Polish while Calvinism was Lithuanian in terms of culture, it's incorrect, in fact most Calvinist books in Lithuania was printed in Polish, including Bible translation (Brest Bible), then you starts talking about Lutheranism all of the sudden

* you are adding the pseudohistorical fact that Lithuanian is older than Latin, which is incorrect because languages don't have age

* the whole section about "Representations in the arts" is very random, certainly not comprehensive

I will once again restore the article to the previous version. If you once again revert my edit, I will report you for vandalism. We may work on this article step by step if you are willing to do so. Marcelus (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "lesser nobility" in any international literature on nobility I've read - perhaps you could share some? In fact you could simply reference such books in this article.

Your "historical fact" is unreferenced. Perhaps you could provide proof of Lithuanian nobles saying that they aspire to have rights similar to nobles of a much smaller country, less old (therefore less prestigious) and nobles who did not earn their honors at war but largely from foreign countries (!). This would be extremely surprising. What was the allegedly superior status of Polish nobility backed with?

It's well explained in the article: Nobility, or szlachta, in Poland was already a well-established estate, its legal position was consolidated in the 14th century. At this point, it was basically impossible to enter the noble status otherwise than by birth. The development of the idea of corona regni aroused among the nobility a notion of being the main unifying force of the kingdom and of being responsible for its rule.[6] Lithuanian nobles aspired to this position. It's not, excuse me for the choice of words, "dick-measuring contests", Lithuanian nobles just wanted the same position in relation to their ruler as Polish nobles had, it was one of the main driving forces in the unification process of both countries. Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there is no need to introduce nomenclature of nobles unique to this article. It is not clear what you mean by "lords" (first time I'm seeing "lords" being used in Lithuanian context). Do you mean members of the "Council of the Lords"?

It's explained in the article, in XV centuries group of "pans" or in English lords was a separare group of nobles, who held high, central position in the GDL Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide that "pan" is borrowed from Polish - and it is a ridiculous assertion since Polish is a younger language than Lithuanian and is said by some to be a derivative of Lithuanian, since Baltic tribes lived across Poland into what is now eastern Germany (Leipzig and Berlin both have Baltic-language roots, as does Warsaw)

No language is younger than another. Let me qoute Robert Frost Under Vytautas, the documents began distinguishing between this group at the top and the boyar masses, using terms such as baro or baronis; dominus, domini ‘great boyars’, and, increasingly, the term ‘lord’, using a word borrowed from Polish (pan). I won't comment your pseudohistorical theories about Baltic roots of Germany Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that the common parliament was universally known in Polish instead of in Lithuanian, or in Latin, or in Ruthenian? Where is your proof?

I don't really know what you mean. Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is just as unreferenced as the entirety of your text, however differently from much of your text it happens to be true. Radziwills introduced Calvinism for reasons of national preservation (and you may also know that today, worldwide, Protestants are on average much wealthier than Catholics who come towards the bottom of income distributions, for example in the USA). Catholic Church has been the key polonizer of Lithuania, so much so that the Interwar relations with Vatican were extremely cold (from the Lithuanian side - the apostolic nunzio was berated or ignored during his first meetings in Lithuania a century ago). One sentence is not too much to add the important distinction that it was Swiss Calvinism and not German Lutheranism that Radziwills promoted, because Lutheranism was implicated in German colonization of Livonia and Prussia, and secondly, as nobles Radziwills could not have chosen the denomination of mere German traders.

I didn't really write that part of the text. I just referenced to your changes which are historically incorrect. Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not pseudohistorical - perhaps you could read up on linguistics? Polish is much younger than Lithuanian, Slavic languages much younger than Baltic ones (Slavic languages split from Baltic ones, not the other way round), and the oldest Indo-European languages are Lithuanian, Sanskrit and Latin, with Latin likely being youngest of the 3.

Why should it be comprehensive? If it were it would deserve its own Wikipedia page. Secondly, editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process and evolves over time. Why you chose to remove, without explanation, the section in the past?

We may work on this article step by step but one of us needs to discard the Polish siege mentality - the same that keeps much of the Polish Wikipedia articles on Lithuania in a sorry state, with Polish editors not working on the articles and rejecting any foreign contributions. Polish, German and French Wikipedias are very suspect of censorship and extreme national-centrism. Out of the successor countries to the Commonwealth, the only 2 countries with extant nobility are Lithuania and Poland, thus while Ukrainian and Belarusians may look lightly on Polish historical revisionism (they are still being born as nations), you cannot expect agreement on what seems to be several platitudes about ethnic superiority implanted by Dmowski a century ago alongside Catholic propaganda re: "pagan Lithuanians". There is no place for Catholicism and Polish-centrism in history in 2022. We live in a world where genetics, linguistics and digitization are making many entrenched myths difficult to sustain.

--211.48.164.1 (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to be accused of that low intentions. The article certainly isn't written from nationalistic perspective, my contribution simply describes the historical evolution of then noble estate before the union of Lublin. Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to source your changes first and then gain consensus, you don’t have it right now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B.S. - Marcelus did not gain consensus to post his 7,000 words of unsourced material.

--211.48.164.1 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Ping: Homo ergaster--211.48.164.1 (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The changes by Marcelus seem to be all sourced --> [1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, get your act together. There's a gazillion of sources in Lithuanian and even English, not to mention Russian, which can bring this article to the opposite extreme from where you are working to take it (to a century ago). This is not what editing in good faith is about. This is not a neo-Nazi forum of some sort, for Jesus' sake.--211.48.164.1 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I found Marcelus referencing Wolff (1895) and Frost (2015), plus a Lithuanian reference from 3 no-name authors from year 2000. 1895 references regarding Lithuania (30 years into ban of Lithuanian language) is hardly a trustworthy source. Frost I'm not particularly familiar with (he's not a recognized authority on Lithuania). So, we have 3 sources none of whom are recognized authorities on Lithuanian nobility.

What is even more problematic though are opinions and platitudes in Marcelus' contribution that run counter to facts and reason.--211.48.164.1 (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that Frost isn't an authority on the history of Lithuania you are simply embarrassing yourself. Józef Wolff is an author of the monumental work about knyaz families of Lithuania and Ruthenia, and it's still the best book on the topic (partially because many sources were lost during WW2). Also what 3 no-name authors you talk about? Do you mean Zigmantas Kiaupa, Jūratė Kiaupienė and Albinas Kuncevičius, they are some of the most outstanding Lithuanian historians of modern times. Marcelus (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of the communication between (talk) /why does not that user have proper account on Wiki?/ and Marcelus and I have to say that both sides have some points. Line 18 - refering to boyars need to be explained and it is by Marcelo claiming "the masses of ordinary nobility" so here the best might be to merge. Then "In time, the influence of gentry decreased while nobility acquired increasingly more power" might be less correct than "In time, the influence of lesser nobles decreased while greater nobles acquired increasingly more power" because when talking of szlachta we do not divide gentry from nobility. Furtheremore, "several dozen families of magnates" seems more correct than "several dozen families of lords" and "Initially, a group distinguished by prestige were the princely families, which members bore the title of knyaz" is not fully correct (see Wolff, Kniaziowie litewsko-ruscy do konca czternastego wieku). Then, claiming "The adoption of Polish coats of arms, in turn largely granted to Polish nobility by western Christian sovereigns" is competely wrong. I here recommend reading at least Sulimirski. Polish CoA where stiled in western way but where not granted by any western Christian sovereigns, at least not largely. I think cooperation here is the way and without any prestige or hard feelings. Regards, Camdan (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Camdan:, lords and magnates aren't the same, lord is the group of aristocrats that emerged in 15th century and were using the title "pan", to distinguish themselves from the rest of the nobles, they weren't using titles of "knyaz", because they didn't have hereditary rights to do so. Marcelus (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcelus: - first, I wish to say that your art. is of great value. Then, there are few issues to work on and its normal. Even professors writing a book need some feedback and help. To the matter you write about - I recall that every freiherr is a baron but not every baron is freiherr :) The title of "knyaz" does not refer only to hereditary title but is name of a group of families that either possess hereditary title or belong to the aristocracy - not in medieval time and to ab. year 1500. Some boyars where also included as "knyaz" although title was not hereditary. Same with russian boyars - it include also princely/ "knyaz" families in Russia. If I remeber this correct, there where three levels of the boyars in Russia. Some of those boyars moved to Lithuania, changing side against Moskow. Then, Lithuanian boyars are not the same as Russian since boyar i Lithuania refere to "lower class" (before merging with Polish "szlachta") and in Russia it refer to highest nobility. Also, in the art. there is information about families with Italian origin. It need to be verified since some artistocratic families in Lithuania in XVII century claimed their origin from Italy, they claimed that Lithuanian language origin from Italy. This in order to make their roots to be more prestigious. I'm very sure about Pac, that this family does not origin from Pazzi so thats why I changed it. As for the rest its necessary to check it more closer so I did not change anythig there. Im also not sure that "Lithuanian nobility" is correct term. More about titles - "comes" in Poland (medieval time) can not really be translated to western "count". "Barones" according to Dlugosz is not same as hereditary barons but refere to group of families - in Lithuania it refered to those that had right to judge. In Polish "Pan" refer to all "szlachta". As for the "Lord" - we had no such title in the Commonwealth but in some tranlations, its possible to refer to "Lord" - for example polish "Starosta" can be translated as "Lord of regality". In Lithuania there was Lithuanian Council of Lords but its not really same as "Lords" in England. Its all very difficult so its important to help each other to improve.

• One more thing - in the art. its stated that "The process of the formation of the noble estate in Lithuania accelerated after the union with Poland when there arose a desire to equalize the legal system of both countries. Nobility, or szlachta, in Poland was already a well-established estate, its legal position was consolidated in the 14th century.[5] At this point, it was basically impossible to enter the noble status otherwise than by birth - well, in most its correct but until middle of the XVII century there where also adoptions. Wealthy families become sometimes adopted to noble family because of economic issues. In that way, some of families that where not noble, become noble, receiving right to use CoA :) Best regards, Camdan (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All people with knyaz title were considered to be descendants of the ruling families (mostly of Rurik or Gedminas), and the title was hereditary. Originally (at the end of 14th century) all Lithuanians nobles were boyars, only with closer ties with Poland the name "szlachta" appeared, and not all boyars were considered to be part of szlachta, then titles boyar started to indicate lower class of nobility. I didn't write that part of Italian families, it's of course fake genealogy. I will check it at some point probably. In Poland all szlachta were pans, but in Lithuania in 16th century it was reserved for only those who were part of the council. Lord is the translation of the "pan" title, Council of Lords translate as "Rada Panów". Sentence At this point, it was basically impossible to enter the noble status otherwise than by birth refers to Poland in 14th century Marcelus (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Marcelus, what You write about lithuanian boyars is correct but it can not be fully compared with russian boyars that moved either to Lithuania or to Volhyn. No, not all people with knyaz title were concidered to be descadents of ruling families and the title was hereditary. Not in medieval time. Later, when Sejm prohibited all the titles used before (like comes) in RP, they also recognized knyaz titles as "prince" for those families You write about. The "Council of Lords" in Great Duchy of Lithuania encompassed only the most powerfull members of the society like Bohdan Sakowicz. According to Dlugosz, all that had power to judge (like starosta, Judge) where named "barones". Not necessary to write more about "Pan" and "Lords", we could work it out by communicating on our pages. Also in matter of possibility to enter nobility status in 14th century I do have doubts as I recognize several different cases where it was possible although it was difficult in general to enter that class. With kind regards, Camdan (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Several editors seem to dislike inclusion of sources that represent Lithuanian nobility as not in any particular way "Polish", which includes most or all representations in fiction. Re-adding the section to the article as no consensus was reached, or any arguments provided, for its removal as per Talk/Article editing history. --61.102.171.6 (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section is trivia, plus it's far from being comprehensive or even informative. Also such section if done properly would rather paint different picture than you suggest Marcelus (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not comprehensive you would add to it instead of deleting it. So far you are the only one to argue (without arguments) that it is not uncomprehensive (it does not have to be as per Wikipedia's rules) or informative. It is not trivia (see Wikipedia's definition. 61.102.171.6 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial does not add anything substantial. Please do not remove bibliography Marcelus (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2 bibliographical sources are my other worry and for reasons I stated. I look forward to your response on that topic as well. 61.102.171.6 (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that but you do not say why. The sources linked to meet Wikipedia's own notability guidelines. In my opinion it is extremely helpful to link to such works just as it is to link to various noble families.

When researching British nobility I found references to its portrayals and contributions to fiction extremely helpful. Not only that - I do not see how that would be harmful. 61.102.171.6 (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problematic about the sources used here Marcelus (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. So, since you know alternative portrayals that would make the section both more comprehensive AND informative, I look forward to your improvements. I would love to see portrayals of Lithuanian nobility in fiction as a. szlachta and b. Polish. Please make sure your sources meet Wikipedia's own notability guidelines, i.e. have their own English Wikipedia pages. Many thanks! 61.102.171.6 (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in writing this section Marcelus (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's hope someone else takes up the challenge. 61.102.171.6 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone link to the section? I do expect it would likely fail WP:IPC. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture we delete a lot of trivia content that is "lists of works in which concept Foo appeared in". WP:NOTTVTROPES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically this:

• I Lituani, an Italian opera (Milan, 1874)
• Lokis, a novella by Prosper Mérimée
• Delenda Est, a science fiction story by Poul Anderson
• Works of Adam Mickiewicz
• Works featuring Hannibal Lecter
• Works by members of the Filaret and Philomath fraternities
• Novels by Kristina Sabaliauskaitė

Marcelus (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly random WP:OR, I'd certainly oppose adding it too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Personal attack removed and maessage left on users talk page - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC) ... Aggressive edit-warring is uncivil, so please refrain. In my opinion this is an exhaustive and complete list of works that have their own Wikipedia articles. If you disagree, which works are missing? By the same measure do you also call Wikipedia random and OR? Elmenhorster (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, please do not edit other users' comments. I'll repost exactly what I said here, with the specifics of the users' behaviour (contrary to Wikipedia's policies) underlined. I'm not the first to complain about at least one of these users, and that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition of what a personal attack is.

...The repeated personal attack directed against other editors removed per WP:NPA - (Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor) - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC) ... Aggressive edit-warring is uncivil, so please refrain. In my opinion this is an exhaustive and complete list of works that have their own Wikipedia articles. If you disagree, which works are missing? By the same measure do you also call Wikipedia random and OR?[reply]

Judging from your giveaway spelling mistake ("massage" instead of message), should you not admit you are Polish too? Elmenhorster (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elmenhorster - You should reconsider commenting on contributors --> Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Such conduct will without doubt end up with sanctions. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think we need to repeat "Lithuanian". Marcelus (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nobody will think that, that's a baseless argument. Marcelus (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is a subject of the igniting edit war. Please refrein from it and discuss any proposed changes here (ping @Guccee and @+JMJ+). @Guccee can you self-revert to the stable name? Marcelus (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus, I'm still waiting for @Guccee to self-revert. +JMJ+ (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I do not see anything in his actions that would make me inclined to think he will self-revert after waiting for enough time (two days was clearly enough), so I will revert all the articles he changed to their stable version, because otherwise nothing will happen.--+JMJ+ (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing about it already since 2 days. I'll move the content of the conversation below. Guccee (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most reasonable solution for naming the article and leaving the name neutral will be "Nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania", because "Nobility of Lithuania" may suggest to the readers that all the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania belong to the current Republic of Lithuania.

It is worth mentioning that the vast majority (I suspect about 98%) of the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were Polonized. Calling them Lithuanians, especially since they were associated with Poland for the most time of history and came from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which is not the same as today's Lithuania), would be unnatural. I'm not here to stir up any disputes between todays Poland and Lithuania. I have Lithuanian roots myself. However, the historical facts are indisputable. Guccee (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I will just cite Marcelus word for word:

@Guccee But the scope of the article is clear: the Lithuanian nobility, that is, the nobility of the Lithuanian state or living on Lithuanian territory, without distinction whether it is a Grand Duchy or a Lithuanian republic or yet another form of Lithuanian state. The fact that some of them polonized or even considered themselves Poles changes little, besides that it is included in the article. Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [2][reply]

Btw, the historical facts are clearly not on your side, because certainly less than 98% became Poles. You should not make up fake numbers, because it only damages your credibility. I am also obliged to revert your article title change, because it was not discussed and very controversial.--+JMJ+ (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I will just cite my own words on his response:

@Marcelus Following your way of thinking, we could also create articles about the nobility of Masovia, Świętokrzyskie, Lesser Poland, etc., but still, after creating them, the nobility from these regions would be defined as, for example, Polish nobility from Mazovia or something like that.

Since almost 98% of the Lithuanian nobility was Polonized, shouldn't we call them Polish nobility from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania?

The issue of the subject is that the Polonized Lithuanian nobility is no longer Lithuanian, but Polish. This causes many problems that could be solved by calling the article "nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania". I propose the most reasonable and neutral solution.

According to Professor Błaszczyk, "about 98% of the currently living nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are Polonized", and according to my own experience, 100% of the great families of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania have been Polonized (I know this because I know all of them personally), which is also confirmed by Czesław Malewski, the president of the Genealogical and Heraldic Society of Lithuania. Guccee (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making factually untenable claims. The percentage of 98% is certainly inaccurate. The Lithuanian nobility was not polonized to the degree that you say it was, because Lithuanian nobles like the brothers Plechavičiai (Povilas and Aleksandras), the brothers Biržiškos (Mykolas, Vaclovas, and Viktoras), Vladas Putvinskis, and more, did not flock to Poland post-1918, but instead showed themselves to be Lithuanians in deeds and words.

Your argument falls apart under closer scrutiny, because Lithuanian nobility existed before and after the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There's also a standard framework of "x nobility" for calling articles like this on Wikipedia, e.g. French nobility, Croatian nobility, Belgian nobility, Dutch nobility, and many more.

The article rename you propose is just wrong and unjustified. +JMJ+ (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't the best examples, all people you named grew up in the Polish environment, in Lithuanian households where Polish was the first language. Although I'm like you sceptical about this very specific number and would like to see a citation.Marcelus (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"currently living" families, NOT families that "ever lived". His book was published in 2022, so these are estimates for 2022 and not the entire history of the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania after 1918.

Before 1413, there was no such thing as the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the European sense, but there were so-called boyars. Boyars were a higher social group in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but it was only when this group was given Western European features during the Union of Horodło that it was classified as nobility as we know it today, with the European heraldic system and other heraldic rules.

The term "nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is used by many specialists. Leon Łyczkowski writes that the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: citizens of the voivodeships of Brest, Livonia, Kiev, Minsk, Mstislav, Novgorod, Podolia, Smolensk, Trakai, Vilnius, Vitebsk, Volhynia and the Duchy of Samogitia and the fiefs of Courland and Semgallia. This statement itself refutes what @Marcelus wrote earlier. However, Łyczkowski continues that according to his analyses, this nobility in ethnic terms constitutes: Ruthenians and Poles about 65-75%, Germans (mainly from Courland and Semgallia) 25-30%, and the current Lithuanians only 10-15%. Of course, these data were prepared without taking into account the Polonization of all these families, but considering these statistics alone, it is difficult to call these families part of Lithuania.

All this brings us to simple conclusions, the main article should be called "The Nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania". Because it was from the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, that the nobility of today's Lithuanian, Polish and even Belarusian was created. I believe that thanks to this action, Wikipedia could actually achieve neutrality of articles and this would stop the ongoing wars over the historical affiliation of this social group in the future. This is also the solution closest to the actual history. Guccee (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing either my arguments or those of Marcelus. I'll repeat this statement by Marcelus again:

The scope of the article is clear:

the Lithuanian nobility, that is, the nobility of the Lithuanian state or living on Lithuanian territory, without distinction whether it is a Grand Duchy or a Lithuanian republic or yet another form of Lithuanian state. The fact that some of them polonized or even considered themselves Poles changes little, besides that it is included in the article. +JMJ+ (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you still don't understand what I'm trying to tell you. Nowadays, the term "Lithuania" is generally identified only with the current Republic of Lithuania. Nowadays, calling nobility who have never lived in the Republic of Lithuania - Lithuanian nobility - is somewhat misleading and a much better solution in this case would be to clarify it.

The article about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is not called "Lithuania" but the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, why? This is exactly the same situation. Guccee (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soon I will propose a vote on Wikipedia on this issue, to which I will try to invite some of the heraldrists I personally know, who are specialists in the heraldry of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It might help us to solve any issues related to the topic. Guccee (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point if you want to continue you should start an WP:RM. Although I would like to see the citation to Błaszczak, if that's possible. Marcelus (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"invite some of the heraldrists I personally know" - WP:MEATPUPPET is prohibited on Wikipedia.

Many Lithuanian nobles still live in Lithuania, as can be seen by the mere existence of the Lithuanian Royal Union of Nobility, whose mere mention you specifically removed here [3]. You are obviously WP:POVPUSHING to separate Lithuanian nobility as much as possible from Lithuania. +JMJ+ (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you stop treating me like an enemy, it will allow you to look at the whole situation a little more objectively.

You are tossing around various Wikipedia laws, pretending that I will try to act in bad faith. As I mentioned, I do not care about excluding the role of current Lithuania from the topic of the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, because it is unquestionable. However, this does not change the fact that some historical facts may not agree with your views on the matter.

Experts in the field will be able to look at the situation we are discussing objectively and not apply the WP:MEATPUPPET. As I mentioned, I have no intention of acting in bad faith.

I removed the information you mentioned because:

1. They were unsourced

2. According to other sources I have, the "Lithuanian Royal Union of Nobility" does not unite families based on nobility rights, and mostly unites families with distaff nobility affinities.

@Marcelus, regarding sources, I will present all quotes and research in the discussion I mentioned earlier. I currently have a little less time, but I suspect that in 2/3 weeks I will be able to get around to it. Guccee (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]