Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 12 January 2007

Name

Is there any historical document that would refer to the voivodship as Vilnius voivodship? If not, then this article should be merged with the article on Wilno Voivodship. Halibutt 13:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

At Gdansk discution which was/is often quoted the decition was reached to name cities (in pre-modern times) by the name which is used by the majority nationality. By the time Lithuanians were majority in Vilnius, only later it was slavinised. Therefore, it should not be merged anywhere; besides it works as a good natrual disambiguation as Wilno Voivodship and Vilnius voivodship are two very different things of different sizes and existed in different times. Previously this was section of Wilno Voivodship article and even there the section about this unit was titled "Vilnius voivodship" DeirYassin 14:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If so, then the article should be split onto two different articles: one on Wilno Voivodship and other on Vilna Voivodship, since before Polish, Ruthenian was spoken there. At the times when Lithuanian was the most notable language of that area, there was no voivodship there. Halibutt 16:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Ruthenian was used as a chancery language before Polish, but not spoken there; in XVII age most of territories in the voivodship were still Lithuanian speaking. I sent you one map about that and you can see for yourself and compare that with any map where Vilnius Voivodship is shown, you will see that most of area was Lithuanian-speaking. So was city of Vilnius (not nobility; but not rich people are also people so counts into majority, and there were way more of them than nobles). And the voivodship itself was established long ago, before Union of Lublin, together with Trakai Voivodship (at the time the LGD lands still weren't organised into voivodships, only these two). DeirYassin 16:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, it is not known if Litvins spoke Lithuanian language before the union (similarly to Samogitians). This is just a theory and there is no proof about this. The other (and personally I think more probable) theory is that in majority they spoke Ruthenian. Otherwise why Ruthenian was used in writing ? Anyway, as you say, there is no doubt that Ruthenian was the official language then, and thus the official name was not Vilnius. I hope that's clear ? Lysy 2 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

If by Litvins you mean Belorusians, then yes, they didn't speak Lithuanian of course. Nor did Samogitians, who always spoke Samogitian language; only later Samogitians and Lithuanians started to be considered as a single nation (and for example Samogitians from southwestern Latvia, where they are not exposed to Lithuanian language, find it extremely hard to understand Lithuanian). Lithuanian was spoken between Samogitian and Ruthenian. It is impossible that Lithuanian language would have suddenly appeared out of nowhere. And, as I explained bellow to Halibutt, there is whole science at determinateing influences of different languages in the past based on toponyms, hydronyms and such. Also, please note that there were no official languages back then in the way we understand term official language now. Ruthenian was the written language of GDL; however the need for writting/reading wasn't an everyday need back then as it is now, most of people were illiterate. Ruthenian was used for writting because the writting system was not developed for Lithuanian, other political reasons, also it is true that in late GDL more people spoke Ruthenian than Lithuanian. By the time there was no nationalism inside GDL and therefore there was no competing over nations over which language to use. As for official names for cities, there weren't official ones back then either; as far as I got explained once, in Misplaced Pages it was decided to use names for cities and such in pre-modern times depending on what the majority of population spoke at the time. I agree however that in case of Vilnius Voivodship, the exact majority might be hard to determinate.DeirYassin 4 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find that map credible. There might be some studies by Lithuanian scientists on when and which villages dropped Lithuanian, but in most cases it is magical thinking. On exactly what basis do they assume the dates of language shift, especially that the church records mention mostly Ruthenian names and were kept in either Latin or Ruthenian? Of course, if a person is mentioned as Ladislaus, we could forcibly make a Ladislovas out of him, but there would hardly be any reason for that apart from nationalism and trying to prove some point.

Also, my question on what document mentions such a name (I mean documents written before 20th century) is still valid. Especially that, as far as I know, Lithuanian language was reformed after 1918 and before the V letter was not even in the Lithuanian alphabet. Am I correct on that one? If so, then perhaps the name that might've been used (though I would like to see some proof) would be something like "Wilnius Woiwodija". Right? Halibutt July 2, 2005 12:43 (UTC)

As for writting systems, I don't think that should be taken into account much; there has always been and are language reforms, usage of some letters used to change in probably all languages over the time, and, what is more important, is that all nations started to use writting altogether only at a certain time in history. Spelling is more important. And Woiwodija or Vaivadija won't be used in wikipedia anyways, Voivodship will be, as this is more English equivalent. As for languages, where Lithuanian used to be spoken is determinated by where there are Lithuanian names of villages. towns, rivers and other places. Some of constructions are found only in Lithuanian language, e.g. ending of village name "iškis"/"iškės" and not in the nearby languages. Also, some names might be meaningful in Lithuanian, but meaningless in Belorusian or Polish, which would also indicate that they came from Lithuanian. Therefore by the percentage of Lithuanian names of villages, on the dates of their establishment/first mentioning where they are possible to find, it can be found out. River names tends to stay for longer than town names therefore data from older times is possible to find out from river names. Such science about hydronims, toponyms and such is applied not only by Lithuanians I am sure and is used in general to determinate the extent of different nations at different times of history; e.g. the situation of language groups by the time of Roman empire and such. By the way, although there are arguements to use Vilnia Voivodship here, I see almost no arguements to use Wilno Voivodship as the nobility polonized only in later time of the existance of the voivodship and the majority of people always spoke Lithuanian and Ruthenian/Belorussian. DeirYassin 4 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Yes, but then we name the article with the last used name in history, which in this case is Wilno Voivodship (BTW, note that it's English translation and not Polish, which would be województwo wileńskie). We do not make separate article for Wilno just because this is how Vilnius used to be called in certain period. Similarly, we don't need to create a separate article for Vilnius Voivodship, as all the information here already was in Wilno Voivodship. Therefore I'd ask not to split these articles, and re-integrate them back. --Lysy (talk) 4 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

I agree that only one article should remain but I think that should go under name Vilnius Voivodship. There is no standartised English name here in the way say "Jerusalem" is used over "Yerushalaym" or "Cologne" is used over "Koeln". The name is made by the name of capital city (Vilnius/Wilno/Vilnia) and the name of the type of administrational unit (Voivodship). Same is done with e.g. Oblasts of Russia and most of units which are called after the capital city. And as for the city itself, the name should be used for it which was used by the majority of population by the time as the Gdansk/Danzig vote showed afak (don't think it would be viable to do Vilnius/Wilno/Vilnia vote). The city was majorly Polish-speaking for some centuries, that is true, but not at the time the voivodship was established and not for the most of time the voivodship was existing. Regardless of werether one thinks it was Belarussian or Lithuanian used there back then, it was not Polish, the nobility was not yet Polonised either at the time. While what is done is calling voivodships of Grand Duchy of Lithuania by Polish city names even though Ruthenian or Lithuanian was used in them and that might make it seem that GDL was Polish on itself - and this is somewhat true only for the latest years of GDL. Sometimes Polish names are even used for fief of East Prussia cities where they were German speaking and did not have Polish nobility. What people needs to understand is that nationalism wa snot present back then; and that the fact that the Commonwealth encompassed all these areas does not mean they were all owned by Polish people or Polish nation. Same as the fact that Grand Duchy of Lithuania encompassed vast areas does not mean that they all were Lithuanian speaking or that this would allow adding Lithuanian name for e.g. Odessa, or (if you prefer Belarussian viewpoint) Belorussian name for Palanga for that matter. Nationalism just was not present back then and therefore the history of the time should not be seen from a nationalist standpoint. Therefore I suggest (for the history of pre-modern times) using names the majority of locals used at the time as otherwise it won't ever be agreed on what name is better to use in some cases. DeirYassin 8 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

I have merged the article and moved the talk page. Feel free to move it to Vilnius, but at least now we have one article instead of two.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Name is POV

The old discussion showing some remarks about this. The name itself is not used in google b. much. Can anybody clarify how this article was moved because it looks like two articles were merged. Also it would be good to split the articles leaving one only for Grand Duchy of Lithuania and PLC and other for 20c. events. M.K. 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What's POV about the name? Wilno: 2+2. Vilnius: 0+0. 1 for Vilna. The entity is known as Wilno Voivodeship. I don't see what's POVed about this title?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)