Talk:Administrative divisions of Lithuania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linui - 1944 nuėmiau, nes turiu žemėlapį 1945 administracinio suskirstymo tai ten vis dar apskritim suskirstyta kaip ir tarpukariu, nežinau, kada įsigaliojo skirstymas sritim ir rajonais, bet ir kita informacija sako kad pradžioje rusai išlaikė apskritis. Ar tikrai gubernijos buvo suskirstytos grafystėmis? Pagal mano turimus šaltinius, tai irgi ten apskritys buvo. Okupacija - valstybės užėmimas; terminas kaip ir vartotinas. Čia kaip ir su terorizmu, irgi toks terminas su neigiamu atspalviu bet šiaip wikipedijoje vartojamas.DeirYassin 10:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A vote started on the subject apskritis vs. county, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Apskritys of Lithuania - Vote.

[edit] Order

Why is this article in the reverse chronological order, by the way?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Most recent is most relevant and there is far more info about it. Renata 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, it looks strange. I would understand a reverse-chrono overview in the beginning, followed by properly ordered sections, but having the whole article constructed like this, to me, breaks the flow and is a bit unorthodox. Are there any other similarly structured articles?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, seems very logical to me. I checked a couple of other subdivision articles and they all have historical data at the bottom. Well, in this particular case the historical data is very extensive and the article almost could be renamed "History of subdivisions of Lithuania." Renata 14:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to some of those other articles, please? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions of France, States of Austria, Provinces of Argentina, etc. Just all of them history section rather short & small. Renata 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you mean.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but...

What is it: Minskas Voivodship - 3 powiats Mstislavlis Voivodship - 1 powiat Naugardukas Voivodship - 3 powiats Polockas Voivodship - 1 powiat Vilnius Voivodship - 5 powiats Vitebskas Voivodship - 2 powiats ??? when Miensk, Mscislau, Navagrudak, Polacak, Vilnia and Viciebsk are right variants/ Lithuanians, don't be so insolent, please. Don't distort the history! No -ass in belarusian names. Vitaut - not Vitautas, etc. --Zlobny 14:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when Vytautas is a Belarusian name? (vy(sti) - to see + taut(a) - nation + as) Iulius 15:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The case is that there is NO chronicles or annals, in which person called "Vytautas" is mentioned! This historical person is called "Vitaut" (belarusian - Вітаўт) in every document. It is a fact! If I am wrong, be so kind, prove your case please :)--Bacian 18:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Before re-editting, please explain me, why do you write Lithuanian variants of names in ENGLISH Wikipedia? You can call Minsk etc. whatever you want in Lithuanian, but why do you write Lithuanian names of Belarusian towns in English, for instance Minskas? It is complete nonsence! If you want to have an intelligent compromiss, we can write names of this towns in English, it would be the most reasonable--Bacian 20:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vitaut is written not in Belarusian but Ruthenian, as nobody wrote neither in Lithuanian nor in Belarusian at that time. And there have been no endings in Slavic languages, so he could not be called Вітаўтac. Can you provide the name's Belarusian ethymology if it is not Lithuanian? Besides, Algirdas named himself Algerdos (transcribed from Greek alphabet) in his letters written in Greek Language. Would he have done this if his name would have been Olgierd? OK, but be kind to resore wiki links, which were ruined by your edits. Iulius 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not argue, but you also should know that Ruthenian (or Old Belarusian as well) is an ancestor of modern Belarusian. I know that grand dukes of Lithuania were of Zhemaitian origin, but this doesn't mean that the whole country was "Lithuanian" in modern definition of this word. As well as we can't call Ancient Russian state "Scandinavian" only because the ruling dynasty of that country came from Sweden. Only 10 percent of the GDL's population was Lithuanian, but mostly it was Slavonic, that means Belarusian and Ukrainian. Old Belarusian was an official language & it's totally senseless to call Gedimin "Gediminas" etc, and even more stupid to call Minsk "Minskas". Because even your modern capital, "Vilnius", as you call it, was named Vilnia then :)--Bacian 10:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There were no offcial languages so long ago Ruthenian was just a chancery language besides Latin and others. Nobody used spoken Ruthenian back then. Therefore it is wise to call people as they themselves called and in that language they used. All Gediminids up to Sigismund the Old knew Lithuanian and most of them used Lithuanian in everyday life, since Ruthenian was only a written language and differed from the spoken one. Its a fact that genetically many rulers were half or more slavic, however ethnically they were Lithuanians, hence the ancient double-stemmed (some - single-stemmed) Lithuanian personal names they used, and the meaning of all of them may be easily traced in the modern or ancient Lithuanian language. i.e. Jaunutis - young man, Kęstutis - tough man, Vytautas - seeing the nation, Jogaila - strong horserider, Algirdas - hearing (maybe understanding) everything, Mindaugas - hard thinker, Daumantas - the same as Mindaugas only reversed. etc. Iulius 11:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see that you strongly beleive in your Lithuanian historical theory, and I understand that every country tries to show its look on history, it's your right. But you know, Belarusian history is quite other comparing to Lithuanian (even though Lukashenka tries to return Soviet historical conception, in our schools pupils still learn exactly modern Belarusian history) and you should respect our position also, because we are close neighbours and through centuries we had a common history. I think that in future, when Belarus will have become really independent national state, our historians should sit down at the table and just speak to find more alike views on our past. Do you agree with me? Now I'd like you to answer my question: why do you call ancient voivodships "Minskas", "Naugardukas" etc.? With regard to names of dukes you have some arguments, but here I am puzzled, why d'you call ethnically BELARUSIAN towns in ENGLISH Wikipedia after your own, Lithuanian, fashion? --Bacian 19:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

for me it is silly to tear apart our common history and former common state: was it Lithuanian - was it Belarusian/Ruthenian? It was neither and at the same time both. That is a common history: we are in fact the historically closest states from the former GDL (not taking Lukashenka's views into account) so there should not be differing interpetations of it, as it always happen with Poland. I hate hearing here such statements as "Lithuania was a Ruthenian state!" that is the same nonsense as calling it "ethnic Lithuanians' state".

Besides, it was not me who did this quite bizarre thing to name Mensk "Minskas"! :-) I just asked to make appropriate links with the respective articles about voivodeships or make redirects - do not leave red links, whatever views you have.Iulius 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)