Talk:List of Lithuanian rulers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] List of Lithuanian rulers

Supreme Council or Supreme Soviet. I knew, that such usage Supreme Soviet exists and the article about it exists too. However the thing is bit different here. After 11 Mart, 1990 Lithuanian institutions unofficially in English were called: representative institution was called Parliament and the leader of both the Parliament and the State was called President. These terms were common and even prevailed in Western media. However official designations (used, for example, in translations of legislative acts) were the Supreme Council and the Chairmen of the Supreme Council. Being without any doubt heritage of Soviet times, these terms after 1990-03-11 were directly translated from Lithuanian language, not using Russian term Soviet (cf. names of parliaments in Ukraine, China). The main thing is, that such usage existed officially, and we shouldn't use different parallel names, even if they are more common and understandable.
Linas 07:22, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

[edit] King Mindaugas II

From 9 July 1918 until 2 November 1918 Mindaugas II was a king-elect of the Kingdom of Lithuania. He never reached to rule, but must also be considered a head of state as long as one regards 16 Feb 1918 to be the day of Lithuania's independence. --Jakro64 13:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this article really a stub? Andres 12:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is - it is missing information in section "Lithuania as part of Imperial Russia". Also, section "Lithuania as part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is incomplete. Knutux 17:09, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the mess

I decided to clean up this mess a little. I added a number of tables (similar to those I used for the list of Polish rulers, Dukes of Mazovia and other monarchy-related articles. To avoid stressing edit conflicts, ideological quarrels and discussions whether "king XXXX spoke Zulu or Amharic", I listed the rulers by their most common English (or anglicised) name, which is followed by a modern Lithuanian spelling, Ruthenian/Belarusian name and finally Polish name.

Excellent idea.

The list for the times between Mindaugas and the Partitions seems quite complete now. However, I have a serious problem: is there a simple list of semi-legendary rulers before Mindaugas - and where they semi-legendary or rather simply legendary? There was a list posted there, which I commented out temporarily, until the matter is resolved by someone more knowlegeable than yours truly. Halibutt 21:36, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm reviewing my textbook reference now, Daugirdaite Sruoga (Sruogiene) "History of Lithuania". I'll review the pre-Mindaugas chapter & see if I can pull some names out. I'll post shortly. linas 01:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Nope ... nothing ... see below. linas 04:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I note some differences of dates. Traidenis is listed as ruling until 1293. Butvydas is listed only as the father of Vytenis, but not as a ruler. I know this book as a "canonical" work, but it may be that the author chose to "simplify" the presentation or was working from sources that listed alternate dates. It gives very few references; its not a scholarly work but a schoolbook. linas 01:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like somone added ad article on Pukuwer whom I never herd of, but seems to be alternate name for Butvydas. Note that Vytenis and Gediminas are brothers. Don't know why this article lists Skalmantas as father unless Skalmantas==Butvydas==Pukuwer. We need references/footnotes.
Also, to be politically correct, the articles w/ polish names should be moved to the Lithuanian spelling and made redirects. linas 02:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC) I just made some, not all, of these redirects. linas 03:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


As to the rulers and the dates - I used a number of (often conflicting) sources, including [1], [2] and [3]. The latter text lists many people, including the possible overlords (first among the equals) of Samogitia. However, the dates seemed only approximate and many of the people seem quite strange, as they could be dukes of all of Samogitia or simply dukes of some tiny part of it. I simply got lost and decided to leave the formative period to someone more knowledgeable.
As to Skalmantas - the Gediminaiciai article lists Budvydas-Pukuveras as the father of Gediminas. At the same time his name (is it the same person?) is listed differently in lietuva.lt, which also gives a pretty different succession scheme here. Finally, his name is mentioned as such by many on-line articles, including this one. I must admit that I got lost...
As to the Polish names - I did not create any articles on the actual rulers, I simply listed the most common English names (that is latinised or anglicised names for the Polish rulers and anglicised Lithuanian names for the Lithuanian/Prussian ones) and added the Polish names as one of the alternatives. If there are any articles that should be moved - please do so.
As to Traidenis: this article has him die in 1282, this one in 1281, so does our own wiki article on Traidenis.
Now you know why I asked for help on this one. Polish princes before Mieszko are waaaay more easy to track :)
--Halibutt 04:51, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
I'll ask my parents. In the meanwhile, how about a Category:Coat of Arms of Lithuania ? I was in Vilnius this summer, at the Lithuanian national museum, and flabbergasted to see the Starbucks coffee logo impressed on clay tiles, right next to the Vytis and the Polish eagle. These were tiles from a heater furnace that was dug up by archeolgists during the renovation/reconstruction of some state halls. Quite old, 15th or 16th century. [4] Unfortunately, I couldn't find fotos online.linas 06:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
As to the Coat of Arms of Lithuania - I know only two: the present Vytis/Pahonya/Pogoń and the Poles of Gediminas. Were there more of them? Halibutt 10:52, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to add some notes about the tile with, as You say, Starbucks coffee logo. I also saw one tile similar to it, or perhaps the same, some time before, but I don't remember some details now. I think we don't have a third coat of arms here, but an image of Virgin Maria (of the Holy Guardian of the Kingdom). This image isn't actually from typical Catholic iconography of that time. But it's not difficult to explain the difference. The tile should be dated, as You have said, by the 14th or 15th century, and had to be designed by a local master (anyway, whether we recognize Virgin Maria in the maiden or not). And cultural heritage of the earlier, the pre-Christian, times had affect masters thinking and style with any doubt. And the tile should be attributed to a rare category: the Christian art of the Old Lithuanian culture (of the 14th − 15th centuries) We see actually cultural distinction here, not Pagan – Christian. For better understanding, I'll give an example from a different period. When we take Christian icons from the Greek-Roman antiquity of the 3th − 6th centuries, these icons are more similar to then art in general, including the pagan art, than to later Catholic (and Orthodox too) iconography (that one was affected by the medieval culture of European nations). And who doesn't know the image of beardless Christ, that was painted in these centuries only? We have parallel situation with our tile here. At least, it's doubted, that pagan symbols might be impressed along with the Polish eagle in Lithuanian examples. Actually, these symbols shouldn't be treated as pagan by then people. Linas Lituanus 08:49, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
We should admit here, that they had different understanding of sign system in the ancient (at least pre-Christian) Lithuania. So, the significance of arms signs (or rather what we call arms signs) could be different in the early Lithuania. Ancient Lithuanians had very rich system of symbols (some scholars say they didn't have writing. But the symbolic system was very rich). What concerns the columns of Gediminas they had to be the sign of the ducal treasury of Trakai initially, basing this on what Dlugosz said about this sign. Its significance increased later, and it became as the second coat of arms indeed. However the only known coat of arms was the Vytis in the early Great Duchy, but taking into account, what I've said above. Linas Lituanus14:50, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Mindaugas episodes

In 1205, Lithuanian Zvelgaitis/Svelgates takes several thousand horsemen northward, through Riga, on the way to attack Estonia. Returning from Estonia mid-winter, he was attacked by the citizens of Riga, under the leadership of Vester. Zvelgaitis was killed by a javelin thrown by German Theodore Schilling. Not aLithuanian ruler per-se but an important actor. linas 04:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The rulers before Mindaugas

The modern historiography concerns Mindaugas the person , that united Lithuania from few local duchies. So, according to this view, he should be taken as the first ruler of Lithuania. When we want not to wander from the modern historiography, we should list all pre-Mindaugas rulers in a separate subsection, entitled “Lithuania as a local duchy” or alike. But I think, it isn't worth doing. For all these ruler personalities with their genealogies and ruling periods are more than doubted. And the existence of the local duchy, with the name “Lietuva”, isn't confirmed by any documents, but by presumptions of some historians only.

However the annalists and historians of the 16th - 17th centuries of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (I'll call them “mythographers” here for shortening purposes) had listed few names of rulers before Mindaugas. We have only very few isolated facts of genealogy and ruling dates of these persons in the earliest works of the mythographers. Works of the later mythographers present more much detailed genealogies and dates, but from the fact, that the genealogies, presented by different sources, too differ among themselves, we may suspect, that they are rather fictional, than based on some real sources. Its very likely, that the only source of these legends could be the earlier works of mythographers with their not rich factography.

Thus the mythographers list Erdvilas, Skirmantas, Utenis, Kukovaitis, Algimantas, Šventaragis, Ger(i)mantas, and Rimgaudas as the earlier rulers of the whole Lithuania. Rimgaudas is always considered as the father of Mindaugas. From this list Erdvilas, Skirmantas, Algimantas, Gerimantas and Rimgaudas are real personal names of Lithuanians (both then Lithuanians and the later), but not necessary of dukes. Utenis, very likely, is made from the name of Utena town or from the name of the real duke Vytenis or, perhaps, confusing these both words. Šventaragis is rather a title than a personal name, a person called this way figures in the legend about cremation of rulers of Lithuania. The valley in Vilnius, Šventaragio slėnis, called in this name exists till the now.

What concerns the modern official historiography, it doesn't acknowledge these all personages as real (great) dukes. The only exception is Rimgaudas. Some historians thought, that the father of Mindaugas, who is mentioned without name in some sources as “also powerful duke” could actually have the name Rimgaudas, and thus be identifiable with that legendary person. - So, i think, the respective subsection should be called The legendary rulers of Lithuania with no concrete dates.

Transcriptions of the Lithuanian names and other words mentioned: Mindaugas [Mindaugas], Erdvilas: [erdvilas], Skirmantas: [skirmantas], Utenis: [utænis], Vytenis: [vītænis], Kukovaitis: [kukōvaǐtis], Algimantas: [algimantas], Šventaragis: [ʃventarāgis], Šventaragio slėnis: [ʃventarāgiō slēnis] Ger(i)mantas: [gerimantas], [gærmantas], and Rimgaudas [Rimgaudas].
Linas Lituanus 14:16, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

ALL LITHUANIANS RULERS WHO MAMES IS REALY KNOWN IS HERE-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_dukes_of_Lithuania Dear Linas Lituanus Skirmantas, Utenis, Kukovaitis, Algimantas, Šventaragis, Ger(i)mantas, and Rimgaudas newer egzist. No suorces talking abuot them. Till in XVI century "Bychovco kronika" put them in laith. But from were why H. Latvis R. Vartberge. Livonische ReimChronike, number of rusians kronicles said nothing abuot such important persons. Erdivilas is form of Dousprungas son name.

Thanks, but, i'm afraid :), you've misunderstood something here. Read, the whole text above, please, and it'll became clear for You, that we discuss about no more than The legendary rulers of Lithuania. Their names were included to this article previously, and we discussed how to deal with these names. :) Linas Lituanus 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi occupation

Please note that the independent Lithuania in late June and July of 1941 is not the same as nazi occupation.This government was not created by the nazis - it came into power by deposing Soviets some time before actual invasion of the nazi troops, and although these troops entered the country, they did not removed the Ambrazevičius's government from power. This was done gradually and eventually the government was indeed dissolved - only then the actual occupation, when Lithuania was ruled by Germans appointed from the center, started. Prior to then Lithuania was in similar situation as e.g. Poland during the Cold War - heavily influenced by the more powerful foreign power, but still independent. See article Lithuanian 1941 independence for more information. DeirYassin 21:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

About merging "Early dukes of Lithuania" in to Early rulers (legendary and otherwise) 1. Dukes mensioned in "Early dukes of Lithuania" wasn't rulers of Lithuania. Some of them is Samogitians for egzample, but main thing is that in 1219 was no Lithuania state and in list said - dukes of Deltuva, Samogitia etc. 2. In case of merging real persons will be puted in same place with fantasies of XVI a. as Rimgaudas. [author of "Early dukes of Lithuania"]

[edit] About names

Why there are 2 additional languages in each name? It should be LT and EN only. M.K. 09:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is meant here too. But considering this everybody may say like You do: It should be PL, Ruthenian (BY ?) and EN only. Just the respect to Lithuanians as to traditional holders of sovereignty of Lithuania, allows us to put Lithuanian language, applying to the period of the Grand Duchy. Remembering yet, that some users dispute this evident historical role of Lithuanians, your suggestion doesn't seem well balanced. Linas Lituanus 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I revised earlier attempts to apply other languages to periods later than the Grand Duchy, and it was accepted. Linas Lituanus

You see others also have list or rulers of this period by the current state view. Plus if it was original idea to build up list of this sort as you say - German variants here should be added too M.K. 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with, as You call, Geman variants. What bad in it? - The current state view is possible when the previous state has a single successor state, when the Grand Duchy has at least two successors, Lithuania and Belarus. - By the way, i think it's not a problem of view, but of amount of information. Why we can't give the whole amount of information? (1) Official language was Ruthenian? - why not to give? (2)Persons that were responsible for Lithuania, like Muravyev or, especially, like Sniečkus (it was a real autonomy of Lithuania in boundaries of SSSR then) may be added too, because it gives full picture, it gives some pattern of continuity of Lithuania, inspite of occupations, its an information at least, that some readers may want to get.Linas Lituanus 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Firstly – it is quite “funny” thing that you started pointing out “heir” case directly to his article which involves only Lithuania case and issue, cuz this list is not the one and only which applies to all different nationalities - other nationalities also built this sort of list, this why it is free from name variation “commitment”, eh. Another eh, - official language; third eh, - Just the respect to
There are two ways – plunder additional different lang, and have per current sate view (as Wikipedia knows such precedents)language.
Another way – built list as “all in one” taking into account related languages. And this is mission impossible
But looking at this article now – it is neither a first nor the second way approach. M.K. 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. when apply to me it is unnecessary to write as You.
Where did you get that "official" language. No state had official language at that time, and GDL had? It's absurd.--Lokyz 10:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
How do i understand the word official here? I think it means that the language was used in the state office, if any existed. Official language in the modern sense of the state language didn't exist surely, but isn't easy to understand, what i wanted to say here? It's just a talk page, so that the word doesn't requires a big precision. Linas Lituanus 11:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
State office languages - Latin, Ruthenian, German, Lithuanian, Greek, Polish, they all match your definitions (but with diffrent time frame), as you see to be more precise is necessary. M.K. 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by state office language: The written Ruthenian one used in Lithuania was not quite a language, it was rather a tool, lingva franca. As Kiaupa said: "written language is not a language just yet". Official language in a state where only handfull people could read or write - it's another absurd. And another absurd is born measuring by that written language all Lithuanian nobility was ruthenised: on the contrary, there are mentions, that Ruthenian people learned Lithuanian[5]
By the way, at the same time another spoken languages - like Lithuanian, Samogitian, Rutehnian (slightly different from written one(sic!) and written - Latin, German were used up until XVII th century.--Lokyz 12:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid, that you discuss not with me here, but with somebody other, who says that Lithuanians were a minor nation in Lithuania, because many important documents like the Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania weren't issued in Lithuanian language. I never said this about Lithuanians and i never thought. Nation isn't a mere language. If it were so, many existing nations didn't exist at all. And nationalism isn't a necessary attribute of a great nation, if it's great indeed. - I suggest to close this discussion here, because it isn't useful anyway. OK? Linas Lituanus 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes we should not go to nationalism theories (but hey, who started it :) ), but mine question about language lineup remains. M.K. 08:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganize?

I suggest removing all periods when Lithuania was not independent. For exapmle, if you see section under ==World War I and subsequent power struggles (1914-1923)==, you will find a bunch of people and groups that had various claims on something but never had any real power. Under ==Imperial Russia (1795-1914)== you see another bunch of people, but nothing really depended on them, because Lithuania was under tsar. So I am going to be bold. Renata 13:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the principle to decide, how much depended on historical politicians. It's a formal list to get information. Lithuania preserved its continuity during the occupations (1) in being known as ocupied state (2) in administrative divisions (Severno zapadny kray, Lithuanian SSR) (3) continuity of the diplomatic service (in 1940-1990 only). I know that it's not very pleasent for us to see such persons like Muravyev and others in this list, but every nation has in its history something, that seems not very very... - I'm against the cut of this list, which is very informative now.Linas Lituanus 14:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
At least put that stuff somewhere else. I agree it's informative, but the list, as it stands now, is "official list." So I strongly disagree with putting Lozoraitis and Muravjov and Mindaugas II here. Same reason why "possiblly mythological" dukes were removed earlier by somebody. Oh, and the title should be List of rulers of Lithuania. Renata 15:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ouch. That's really bold stuff. I really don't see reason why information about rulers of REGION of nowadays Lithuania, whether it was fully independend or part of larger state, should be deleted and unavailable anywhere on Wikipedia. Really.
If you must separate information on rulers based on what state region of Lithuania was in, than create several subpages (i.e. Rulers of GDL, Rulers of Republic of Lithuania, Rulers of Lithuania during Imperia Russia, Rulers of lithuania following WWI, etc). If you do not reinstate the information you removed in a separate page(s), I will be bold and reinstate it in this page.
Persons in "List of early dukes..." were removed because there are serious doubts whether they existed at all, or what their influence was - it's not a list of tales. People which were on the list before your edits are all real, the same logic cannot apply there.
Futhermore, accoding to the "independence" logic, we should remove the Lithuanian SSR rulers (they were not that much different from governors), to the very least. Mindaugas II must be a part of the list as he was not less official as interwar presidents: he was given power by the same Lithuanian Council (which was taken away when it decided to remake the state as republic). If you recognize Lithuanian Republic, you must recognize Mindaugas II. Also, the periods of common state with Poland should seriously be considered: how much independent was Lithuania then, especially at the end of the common state?
As you see, taking the "independent" view really opens quite a can of worms, which should be debated over until bold changes. ASN 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There are two ways, how to purge the list. The first way is the principle of the independence: to include the rulers of the sovereign Lithuania only. The weak sides of this approach are already shown by ASN. The second way is the principle of international recognition. With it, the list will exclude Mindaugas II, Nazi period and other minor items, but it will include the period of the Russian Empire as well as it will may exclude the period of the Soviet dominance. - So what items are minor to be excluded? For me, it seems too arbitrary, what Renata says to be evident. Yet i believe that her intuition is almost right, but we need well based arguments here in addition to the intuitive approach.
However i don't object in general to what Renata says. My idea was, that it would make more troubles than profit. There was some logical sequence in writing of this article: There's no sense to skip the Soviet period (Lithuanian SSR), but if we don't skip the Soviet period, it has some consequences: (1) some users think, that if we add Soviet occupation why not to add Nazi German occupation. (2) and others think, that it's unfair not to add the data on the diplomatic representation of the republic of Lithuania led by Lozoraitis, if we add the Soviet period. And later (3) when the add these two minor periods, other users feel free to add the rest minor periods like Mindaugas II etc. - We get the result that is, perhaps, less official but more informative.
But if we implement, what Renata says, the information won't became incorrect, what is the main thing here in the wikipedia. It's just an alternative way, how to organize the data, no more, I think. Linas Lituanus 11:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Organizing a large monster-list into reasonably small chunks of information is usually a good idea. Only the information was not reorganized: instead, large chunks of it was deleted from Wikipedia and no longer available - and, apparently, not because it's incorrect or not relevant. - ASN 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I would think of making a whole another list. I was thinking that the info was good, and I am not proud about deleting it. It just does not belong here (I am doubting if Lithuanian SSR belongs here too). It is an "official list" and putting here every darn guy who had some claim to power, it's just... Why not to put then my neighbor Fedia, who claims to be grand-grand-...-grand son of Vytautas and therefore entitled to the crown? If you could come up with some useable concept of Rulers and leaders and other people who have claimed they are rulers of what is now Lithuania, I would be glad to help out! Renata 17:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The list was created as the list of first persons of Lithuania. But, who is the first person, the answer is relative, like answers to many other questions. E. g. looking formally not the first secretary was the head of a republic, but the chairmen of the Supreme Soviet of the republic. The same way Mindaugas II was actually never the head of state, but he may be considered as such looking formally. That's why we should combine different approaches not insisting, that the formal approach is the only possible or any other approach is the only possible in this list. But it seems to me, that You, Renata, suggest a single approach, and, moreover, that your approach is purely intuitive. You shouldn't make excuses surely and it's up to you. However I don't see anything different till now. What concerns Fedya, that is your neighbor, I would be the first, who excludes such an item from the list, if it appeared, so it's not the case. All items, that are presented in the list, are taken from official and verifiable sources of the history of Lithuania, so they can't be treated the way, that some readers may decide from your suggestion. I find only two questions here: (1) Can all personalities in the present list be treated as “rulers of Lithuania”? Or another, (2) is the title of the list corresponding to the contents of it? - These questions are up to discuss, but it's not a discussion when somebody starts to slight what isn't worth of slight at all. Linas Lituanus 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth - the land which is now called Lithuanian Republic was included very, very many states. At some point it was fully independed (GDL, interwar period, nowadays), at some other point it was part of a union (Rzecpospolita), for several times it was an administrative division of a different state (i.e. Russian/Soviet periods, the very end of Rzecpospolita). And then there was the transitional Imperial Russia-Republic of Lithuania period in early 20th century.
To make some sense of this historical mess, it would not be fair to exclude the periods in the List of rulers of Lithuania. As far as I'm concerned the heads of state of independend periods, the rulers of the union, and the rulers of the administrative regions must be acknowledged here, or maybe separate lists for various periods of history should be created. As it is, the list is not complete enough to be List of rulers of Lithuania, and is not even a List of rulers independend Lithuania.
Regarding Mindaugas II (who I believe you compare to Fedia): in contrast to your neighbor, Wilhelm Herzog von Urach was in 1818 selected to become king of Lithuania by Lithuanian Council - the same council which some month earlier proclaimed the Act of Independence of 1918-02-18, which is, I believe, considered the founding document of the current state of Lithuania. The same council in 1919 elected Antanas Smetona as the first president (after changing Lithuania's political system into republic).
If you assume that the Lithuanian Council had authority and legitimacy to appoint the President of Lithuania, then surely it must have had authority and legitimacy earlier to appoint a king of Lithuania. In other word's if you think that Mr. Wilhelm is as much a ruler of Lithuania as Mr Fedia - than Smetona was as much a president as Mr. Fedia is, and, one can assume, as are Smetona's successors like Mr Adamkus.
And I believe that, for instance, Mr. Muravyov would be very surprised if you told him that, in your opinion, he's just another guy who only has "some claim to power" here, and not a proper ruler of Lithuania. ;)
Stasys Lozoraitis is somewhat more debatable inclusion, although his simbolic "government in exile" claimed to be the direct successor of the pre-war Republic of Lithuania, while the Soviet rule is illegitimate.
Which is all very fine, but deviates from the main point - and that is that parts of the list of people who ruled over a region of Lithuania were arbitrary deleted, and without much debate. Not reorganized, but shortened by making selective arbitrary deletions. I believe this somewhat contradicts the wiki-priciple of "Be bold in contributions, not be bold in destructions" - ASN 20:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All that's very fine, but you don't propose any workable solution. So how about this one? Two separate list:

  1. This one dealing only with independent Lithuania: just like this list with two changes: Lithuanian SSR goes out, Mindaugas II comes in. It will strictly follow the definitions in the title: rulers (recognized officials) of Lithuania (independent state as a whole).
  2. Another one dealing with List of rulers and leaders of Lithuanian territory: there you could put all the people you want. You could even separate different regions (say, Vilnius Region was ruled by such and such Poles or Klaipeda by such and such Germans), include Lozoraitis and all the partisans, and in general, do whatever you want with it.

I hope you understand my point that this list is sort of the offical list of serious and recognized rulers, and seeing Muravjov here (when he ruled, there was no Lithuania at all), or Lozoraitis who ruled nothing like my neighbor Fedia, or some Soviet activist who proclaimed international revolution against capitalism, but was widely ignored, argh!... Renata 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To push for another list is not a solution at all, as well as including all people who proclaimed themselves as a rulesr of the state. M.K. 08:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


<Yawn>
Is anybody listening here? I'll repeat what I wrote in my earlier postings.
First of all, my point is this: I agree that the original list needed reorganizing. However, arbitrary deleting parts of it without much any debate is probably not the best way to do it (you've made your changes within few hours of proposing them; Wikipedia guidelines suggests to wait at least a day before implementing bold changes).
Second of all, I did propose a solution - which is making separate lists for separate periods.
But then there is no one "master list" and historical continuation gets lost and it still does not address the biggest problem I have - "officaldom." Renata 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Third of all, I did say that inclusion of Lozoraitis in the list is debatable. This doesn't mean that the rest of your deletions are justified.
Fourth of all, I do not believe anybody should be creating lists for each other. If a separte list is called for by the data we are organizing, let's do it. If you want to create a separate list just so you could do whatever you want in the first - sorry, I don't think it is a good idea.
Two lists are called for because by different functions they would perform. One: listing official rulers of independent Lithuania (something like that you would find in a history textbook), the second one: listing rulers of the territory that is now Lithuania. Where is a problem here? Renata 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Fifth of all, the list is not called "List of rulers of independend Lithuania" (and making such list would open a whole new can of worms - i.e. was Lithuania independed during its union with Poland? During Jogaila times?). It's called "List of rulers of Lithuania" (well, it's supposed to be called such). This point is debated below.
It is accepted it was. Anything else is original research. Renata 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sixth of all, there was Lithuania during Imperial Russia times - at some point the region was called Litovskaya Guberniya. Not independend, but still a Lithuania. I believe you'll want to debate whether the region was still Lithuania after guberiya was renamed... OK, let's debate ;)
When Muravjov was there it was Northwestern Krai with Vinius, Kaunas and Hrodna guberniyas (sorry for spelling). Renata 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Seventh of all, the "Soviet activist" you're telling about was indeed ruling over the region. I.e. he could issue laws, or execute those doubting that he's in charge ;)
I am talking about Vincas Mickevicius-Kapsukas in 1918-1919. Renata 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want "official" list - then was Landsbergis ruler of state on March 11, 1990? No other state recognized him as a ruler of independend Lithuania, you can say he was an opportunist, such as your beloved Mr. Fedia. ;)
He is now, by modern Lithuanian laws and foreign services. Renata 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to remove Landsbergis from the list - I'm only saying that you should define your criteria of "officialdom" better before making bold changes.
Those things are notorious for lacking clear definitions. Just look at recent controversies on what's officially a planet. Renata 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Seventh of all, if it was YOU propoposing and immediatelly making the bold changes - please, make a coherent suggestion how to reorganize the original list. Let's debate the suggestion. Let's implement whatever we agree upon. This is what should have been done in the first place - it's better to do it now than never. - ASN 11:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my bad. I apologize. Can we move on? Renata 15:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You referring to me? M.K. 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, to Renata ;) ASN 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
aaa, ok :) M.K. 14:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Your input/suggestions about reorganizing the list is very very welcome though ;) - ASN 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I know the only list, that can be called official: The pre-war Lithuania (Smetona...Smetona) - the diplomatic service of Lithuania (the both Lozoraičiai) - Lithuania since 1990 (V. Landsbergis and so on). Any other additions or deletions show no more than personal viewpoints on history, i think. Linas Lituanus 19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Lithuanian_rulers_2c39.html"