Talk:Brest, Belarus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Belarus To-do:
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale.

The following caught my attention: It was renamed Brest-Litovsk in the 14th century and became the capital of the combined Polish and Lithuanian kingdom in 1569. While the earlier might be true (but I guess that the city was not renamed per se but simply changed its name in one of the languages used around (while the others continued to call the city the way it was called). As to the latter statement - could anyone provide any info? I never heard of Brest being the capital of the Commonwealth since both the king, the grand duke and the sejm had their sites elsewhere... Halibutt 10:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC) Regarding Brest as a capital is quite wrong! 1569 has to do with Union of two churches. User:yogi555

Contents

[edit] Union of Brest

I slighty modified the history section reagrding the 1596 Union of Brest to make it more understandable, I also replaced "Uniate Church" with "Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church" (Uniate is a term us Eastern Catholics find offensive, it is kind of like calling a Jew a "kike"). User:starzaz —Preceding comment was added at 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

A locational map is needed. →Iñgōlemo← talk 23:56, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC) You can ask more yogi who lives in Brest yogi555@tut.by

[edit] Ukrainian?

I removed the following addition by an anon:

Some Ukrainian leaders who considered the city a part of the Ukrainian ethnic territory asked the Soviet authorities to make Brest a part of Ukraine, then a Soviet republic, but their request was never granted.

I've never heard about that, and it will not go into the article without confirmation. mikka (t) 00:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I know that the Ukrainian claims following the WWI included large chunks of modern Belarus (most of Polechia, actually), as well as the Carpathians up to the Tatras, but I never heard of anyone repeating such arguments in Soviet times. Halibutt 03:32, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
There were really Ukrainian claims on Brest and Polesia where people speak a dialect close to Ukrainean language --Czalex 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions, corrections and modifications

Additions, corrections and modifications are welcomed. Larry Schenker (Binenbaum) from Los Angeles, California, United States 05:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To 'add' to the deletion concerning the Ukrainian connection, it is surely worth stressing that Ukrainian nationalists were every bit as greedy (some maybe even still are - plus ca change) to get their hands on the city -and above all the vital railway junction - as the Poles, Russians, and so on and so forth. Details as to who made what claims and in what circumstances needn't be all that clear even now, because much of the documentation would still be inaccesible to mere mortal researchers.

Apart from that, it is important to stress the fact that a small number of avidly opinion-at-ed debators have lost sight of what here is the most important subject; i.e. not national or political isues but above all else the specific urban question of this exceptionally unfortunate city (ispan.72).

[edit] Dispute over name lineup

The dispute is over the name lineup. The names were Byelorussian, Polish, Russian and Lithuanian. So guy came and removed Lithuanian name in name lineup, saying that it is Lithuanian name removed as it is not used, but somehow the Russian and polish names has “Литовск” and “Litewski” (means Lithuanian) . Also, city was annexed by Grand Duchy of Lithuania. So, in my opinion, there is enough foundation to leave Lithuanian name in name lineup too. M.K. 14:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy expressed his oppinion in these words:"what is now called Lithuanian language was never widely used in the Grand Duchy - the Baltic name for the city was never used at all". It sounds as a case of denying GDL being Lithuanian, which is false statement. I think the previous version of the article should be reverted. Juraune 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
'The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a common state founded by Baltic tribes and dominated by Slavonic (Belarusian and Ukrainean) culture. Old Belarusian language was the official language of the GDL, but the language now called Lithuanian was never widely used. That's why also there should be a clear understanding of the difference between Litvin where the -Litouski comes in the name from, and the country that is today called Lithuania.
Brest lays far from the border to modern Republic of Lithuania and there is no Lithuanian ethnic minority there.
PS I insist on not calling me guy, my dear friends--Czalex 12:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Firstly about the main topic – name lineup was made quite a long time ago and to nobody it did not trouble ( . But one day some person came and changed everything …..
This is called Wikipedia--Czalex 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sadly Wikipedia have no immunity against nationalist like you.M.K.
Now about your statements:
Hmmm:
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a common state founded by Baltic tribes and dominated by Slavonic (Belarusian and Ukrainean) culture
Interesting do you personally wrote it or borrowed from somebody? Maybe you could comment a bit more widely? Please!
It's a common known fact.
I will tell you that is fact – Grand Duchy of Lithuania was founded by the Baltic Lithuanian tribe, which evolved several stages (like Kingdom of Lithuania), after annexation of Slavic lands (present day Belarus, Ukraine, parts of Russia) by Lithuanians, Slavic people played important role in state. And you comment – dominated- pure nationalistic statement. The most interesting thing your explanation of Slavonic culture…. M.K.
Old Belarusian language was the official language of the GDL.
It is not so simple. Firstly that you identified as official language had a different approach – chancellery language (ruthenian) of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Second point is - within chancellery other languages were used, and not fragmentary.
Documents clearly show the language dominating in the Grand Duchy. There was a famous case when the Republic of Lithuania started demanding medieval GDL archives that were brought by Russians to St.Petersburg and Moscow, from the USSR in 1920-ies. The Russians agreed to give to the RL all documents written in Lithuanian - and there was ardly a single of them found there.--Czalex 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
In one point you are right – indeed documents clearly show the language spread in Grand Duchy of Lithuania Chandlery. Take for instance time frame – until XVIc. In XVc. documents, which were written in German language, were used more greatly in numbers then Ruthenian, not even counting written in Latin. And just for interest until mid XVI c. Volhynia/ Luck dialect was so notable in Garn Duchy of Lithuania chandlery that to call it as you did below as nowadays called Belarusian is illogical.

And about give to the RL all documents written in Lithuanian – they had to give back at least from contemporary Muscovy positions, it had to … M.K. 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Later Belarusian was replaced by Polish. But the language nowadays known as Lithuanian was never used even as a chancellory language.--Czalex 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop, writing nonsense! There was no Belarusian language at all in chancellery! Polish language replaced Ruthenian language. Your pathetic statement - was never used even as a chancellery language – one more nationalism and only proving absence of your skills in this time period. “Interesting” you variation - the language nowadays known as Lithuanian- , - Belarusian was replaced by Polish –
The language that was in the Middle Age referred to as Ruthenian on the lands of the Grand Duchy is nowadays called Belarusian. The linkage is direct. --Czalex 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope there are no Ukrainians editors around, because they probably give you some hard words. First of all you confusing (not for first time) some points. Term Ruthenian (which applied if speaking about some Slavic languages/dialects) is scientist definition with contemporary base, definition includes Slavic dialects which were in present day Ukaraine, Belarus some parts of Russia and +- territory , and linked with dependence to Grand Duchy of Lithuania. So to place Ruthenian = nowadays called Belarusian is once again showing your absent skills.
BTW, contemporary Ruthenian was not applied only Middle Age …. Do you know Middle Age time frame in first place? M.K. 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I will tell you once more time in Grand Duchy of Lithuania was used Latin, Ruthenian (had several stages), German, Polish and documents were issued in…..Lithuanian language. Interesting how you call this: [1], yup it is in Lithuanian language. Yes Lithuanian language was not used so intensively like Latin in chancellery, but it was used and it was called Lithuanian language contrary then "Byelorussian” case….. M.K.


the language now called Lithuanian was never widely used.
How this now called Lithuanian was called then – litvianionexe?
It was enough wide for Grand Dukes to state – “I told to you in Lithuanian”;
“one language and one people" (the talk in this case was about Samogitians and Lithuanians without any deviation as such).
It was enough that dukes (especially early time ones) to have names, which as you say, only now called Lithuanian is preserved their meaning;
It was enough that oath were made in Lithuanian language. And so on…
Of course Ruthenian language was very noticeable, and later Slavs made contribution to state too.
that's why also there should be a clear understanding of the difference between Litvin where the -Litouski comes in the name from, and the country that is today called Lithuania.
Do you personally understand it? Could you please enlighten us?
You may simply follow the given link--Czalex 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you personally should follow these links… M.K.
PS I insist on not calling me guy, my dear friends
Sorry! I will try not to call you in this is way in the future, agreed? . M.K. 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
OK :)--Czalex 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There was no such thing as "official language" status in the times of GDL. "Official language" is a modern day terminology. Very few people could write or even read back then. Reading and writing was important in Christian countries, where the word of God came from written sources of Bible. Lithuanians as pagans worshipped nature forces and didn't feel the need to get the messages from their gods through the written texts. So the best educated people who could read and write where Ruthenian orthodox priests and monks, who came together with the Ruthenian and Slav Christian wifes of Lithuanian dukes. These marriages between ruler families were important in keeping peace between Baltic and Slavonian regions. The claim that "Litvins" were actually Bielarussians and not the ancestors of modern Lithuanians is ungrounded. There are many facts against this claim, some of them are mentioned in comments by M.K.
And saying that you do not see a Slavonic cultural and intellectual domination in the GDL?
Second it should be noted that edicts, documents of Grand Duchy of Lithuania in XVc. had been issued in German language much more often then in Ruthenian…..
And yes western culture impact was the most dramatic beginning from castle building techniques ending in unique correspondence. And much much more statements to put down your -intellectual domination- M.K.
No, I don't see. The Catholic church later dominated in GDL much more than Orthodox church. By the way, discussion about "domination" will lead to nowhere, especially "intellectual domination". Hitler also though that somebody is "intelectually" and "culturally" above all. Juraune 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
An other mistake often made by historicians from the Republic of Lithuania is to 100% identify modern Belarusians and medieval Slavs. All Belarusian lands were historically inhabited by Baltic tribes that were later assimilated by Slavs and actually just took a Slavic language. Some of this assimilation took place even in the Middle Age, so culturally and mentally the Belarusians are actually almost a Baltic nation too (or ancestors of Baltic tribes). Just like Scottish people are ancestors of Celtic tribes despite their speaking a Germanic language.--Czalex 20:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Super nationalistic theory! The main goal of this nationalistic theory which represents nationalist Czalex, is –people of present day Byelorussian territory assimilated with Slavs only in language level. Pure fantasy of course. While, nobody denies that Balts inhabited quite a bigger territory then today (parts of present day Poland, Russia, Byelorussia too) but statement - actually just took a Slavic language - is pathetic. The contradiction is in nationalist Czalex statements quite noticeable:- dominated by Slavonic (Belarusian and Ukrainean) culture-, - Slavonic cultural and intellectual domination- and - so culturally and mentally the Belarusians are actually almost a Baltic nation too- .
No comments….everything is clear. M.K.
Less emotions, more arguments, please :) your absurd Lithuanian nationalistic POV does not have anything to defend itself with--Czalex 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
From mine side there are no emotions and I do not need to defend mine self. In particular note of mine above, I showed what "ideas" (“arguments”) you talking and your “arguments” were killed by your own “arguments”. M.K. 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly Byelorussians identifies themselves as Lithuanians (or other Baltic tribe?) but difference is changed language? I lack of skills a bit here, please explain it, don’t leave his way :( ! M.K. 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The name "Brest" can be explained not only as the Slavonian word for Elm, but by the common words to Slavonic and Baltic languages with Indo-European roots: "бродить", "перебираться" in Russian, "bristi", in Lithuanian, which means to go through something, to cross a river in a shalow place. "Brasta" is the word for a shallow place in the river in Lithuanian.
There can also be the logic that the name Berlin comes from a word with Slavic roots, and old Ruthenian language also had the word Бэр - shall we therefore put Бэрлін on the names list?
You could, if “old” Ruthenian language as such, was still a live language. Like Lithuanian language is still a live with minimal changes compared to other European languages during the centuries, that’s way to linguist Lithuanian language is a treasure chest… M.K.
It might be a news for you - but Belarusian and Ukrainean are living languages directly deriving from the Ruthenian language. It did not disappear nowhere and simply changed ocer the centuries - just like the modern Lithuanian language differs from the language spoken on the territory of modern Republic of Lithuania 500 or 1000 years ago.--Czalex 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow thanks for enlighten me, now pick up your head and read that you wrote already above. M.K. 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The name Brest is not original. It was deriven by Russian occupational administration from the Polish name Brzesc. That was the way Poles assimilated the ancient name Bierascie (or Berestje). So, the similarity between Brest and Brasta actually seems to be what is called a translator's false friend --Czalex 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
There cannot be much harm done to anyone, if in the long list of languages, Lithuanian name of the city is mentioned. So, Czalex, please show a good will and stop deleting Lithuanian language from the list. Juraune 18:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Besides, we talk only about city name which have survived linkage with Lithuanian history till present day. And this is not the case then we going to make a name lineup with Lithuanian or other country names in all cities of Poland, Russia, Byelorussia and so on, only which has foundation to do so. M.K. 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The linkage between Brest and History of the Republic of Lithuania is not too close, actually...
A quite bigger when you think…. M.K.
I'd be thankful of you give me a link where it says about the first usage of the name Letuvias Brasta. I mean, the time when it was--Czalex 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you know then Litovsk (Литовский) came in front of name? As I said before Lithuanian name had a translation that Литовский mean at the first place… M.K.
From The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia - but not from the Republic of Lithuania that is a completely different state.--Czalex 08:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting formulation of contemporary state.
About Republic of Lithuania I believe that Republic of Belarus\ Belorussia\ Byelorussia\Insert_new_name_in_case have to be a bit more silence here.
By your thoughts Russian Empire do not have any business with Russian Federation too… M.K. 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't want to get too heavily involved. The name of the Belarusian city as its known today in English. Period. No Polish, no Russian , no Lithuanian, no Japanese. If there is a link in those languages, great. Then we can know what the name of the city in Catalan is, if necessary, and there's a link to Catalan. If a former name is warranted in the history section of the article, it can be added without POV and the rest of the crap, that exasperates people of good will trying to present a balanced Wikipeda. Dr. Dan 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I never tried to rename the main article name; I was arguing the secondary name lineup. Also I believe that possible solution could be as fallows – leave only the main name (Brest) without all these diff. languages and make link as this - see also other historical names of the city. I would not object for introducing this feature at all. M.K. 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the town was very important in Russian history and is commonly found in western sources on WWII under its Russian name. Hence that name should be mentioned somewhere. Also, for most of its existence it has been a part of Poland, which makes the Polish name relevant as well IMO. On the other hand I believe Czalex is right that the Lithuanian name was most probably never used widely enough, not even in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where Lithuanian language was used by but a minority of people for most of its existence. However, I do not feel very strongly about it. //Halibutt 08:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
M.K., if the dispute is only about the inclusion of Lithuanian name of the city, then the template "totally disputed" you put was an overshooting. Anyway, as you suggested, I'm linking it to the list of alternative names. --KPbIC 06:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
oky, I see new verion. M.K. 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree Russian is the official language of Belarus, that has actual preferance at present. If Minsk has a Russian heading Brest certainely cannot be an exception. After all Brest was part of a Russian official state from 1795-1915 and since 1944 inclusively (with small exception of early 90s). --Kuban Cossack 21:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Local airport

Closed? That is not the truth. See ru:Брест_(аэропорт). --Sesquialteral 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)