Talk:Balts/Archive 1

Hello-but's absurdity
"Editions" of Hello-but are total absurdity. Please provide sources. This user never provide sources. 85.206.192.188 13:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zivinbudas, why are you logging in anonymously and why are you changing other users' names when addressing them ? Lysy 16:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As per your request I added the sources I used for the preparation of this article. I guess you can find more sources in Lithuanian in any decent library. Halibutt 15:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since this is an English encyclopaedia, I suspect our readers would find sources/further reading in English more useful, if you could locate some; the 1911 Britannica is a start, but I expect the scholarship in it is seriously out-of-date by now. (As an added benefit, scholarship from more distant countries would be harder to dismiss as "Polish/{whatever} propoganda"..) Noel (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * At first I simply added the sources I used. I think I could find more English-language sources, but I can't check their credibility as they are outside of my reach. As to the Britannica article - indeed, at times it's simply funny and at times it's seriously flawed. Anyway, I'll see what I can do and post the results here. Halibutt 17:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Next time place all books on the topic from Google - it will be your "sources", joker, in jokers' wikipedia, sorry shitypedia. Zivinbudas 18:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, after a quick search through the amazon, I found a number of English-language books that might include some info on the topic.



As I said, I don't know which of those really describe the history of the Balts, neither can I check their credibility. Halibutt 18:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

With exeption of one book (Irena &#268;epien&#279;; which of course this polish nationalist didn't use) and non actual Encyclopedia Britanica from 1911 (why not from 1677) other his "sources" are only polish rubbish. So those are any sources. Zivinbudas 17:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles
Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 23:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.


 * -->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks! --Ling.Nut 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Maps (Yotvingians are not fully represented)
Here is an usual map which shows Yotvingians to live more south by that time ; What are the sources to represent Yotvingians in a smaller territory in 1200? Dellijks 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Estonians
In spight of the chance of getting ridiculed by a certain someone on here, I always thought that Estonians were included in the Baltic peoples, or am I getting that confused because it's considered apart of the Baltic region? Estonians are in fact Finnic correct? JanderVK (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Estonians aren't balts they are finno-ugric (like Finnish and Hungarian), but Estonia belongs to the three Baltic States. --88.222.81.179 (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Prussian language
"as well as the Prussians, Yotvingians and Galindians, whose languages and cultures became extinct in the Middle Ages." The article about Prussians states that their language became extinct "by the 17th century". This vague expression implies that there may have still been some speakers in the 1500s, or anytime until 1601. Well, if there were speakers of the Prussian language in the 1500s, then it didn't become extinct during the Middle Ages, because the Middle Ages had already ended by that time. -86.133.247.156 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They became extinct in middle of 17th century as far as I know, you're right, it isn't middle ages (and I'm also not sure if other nations became extinct during middle ages). Therefore I removed the part of text saying it was in middle ages Xil/talk 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In contrast to the evil Germanic stereotype it was mother nature that extinguished Old Prussian and I believe it was the early 1700's. For some reason they were susceptible to the plague and it struck them and destroyed the last few hundred thousand located in East Prussia. The last Old Prussian was probably spoken by the sick calling for help. The areas where they lived were depopulated. Lithuanians started moving in and the Prussian government invited other colonists such as Hollanders to take up the space. They formed many religious communities that later emigrated to the states (a safer place for pacifists). As for the dialects, they tended to reduce to one or a few with the rise of the modern states. There is plenty of room for more articles on all these events.Dave (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

East and west
The direction should not be confused with the language group. We know the Goliads were out by Moscow but we do not know what their dialect was. They were a bit early for the division between east and west. Simuilarly the Pomeranian Balts are only a theoretical prehistoric entity, not western Balts. So I will be changing that a little. Thanks.Dave (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tags on Summary of Baltic Peoples
We've got a new editor here who keeps reverting my efforts to correct this article without explanation and without discussion. Welcome to Wikipedia, my friend, but that is not allowed. Good protocol is that I give you a chance to explain yourself, which I would appreciate. Otherwise I will have to start reverting everything wrong you do, including your last changes to the table, and asking for other editors to take a look more formally. Basically there are three issues and two tags. Thank you very much. I would appreciate your cooperation on this. I have some misgivings because you are even reverting back to mispelled words. I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not for personal interpretations that would amount to original research and these are topics on which line-item references are needed. Since you are working on this right now I would hope for some swift replies. A failure to reply gives me the right to remove your material. If you remove these tags without responding I will be forced to treat you like a vandal. If I offend anyone of innocent intent I am sorry. Innocence now requires you to discuss. Thanks and once again welcome to Wikipedia.Dave (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I need to give you one more pointer. We aren;t making this up here and we are not interested in your or my personal opinions. What we want are data and the opinions of the writers on it. There is a little leeway of presentation, but these issues that I have mentioned are not in it. You are not free to classify a hypothetical Pomeranian as a western Baltic language when the language remains unknown except for a few reconstructed place names. And all these words apply to me too. The world is not interested in my personal opinion about whether there were any Balts in Pomerania and what language they spoke. So this is not a contest of personal opinions. References please or stop reverting my changes. I am going to start up the top now finding refs for the things that were said.Dave (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "confusing" is on there because you fail to distinguish between the Eastern Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian) plus Western Baltic (Prussian, Sudovian) language groups and the geographic location of any Balts there might have been. This error leads us to believe the Pomeranian Balts (if any existed) spoke a western Baltic language and the Dniepr Balts (if there were any) spoke an eastern Baltic language.
 * A second confusion is that if you mean the eastern or western Baltic language groups then you confuse a prehistoric hypothetical language with modern language divisions. All the known languages only date to the 2nd Millenium AD. But the supposed Balts of Pomerania and Russia are prehistoric of remote date, known only through place names and some disputable archaeology.
 * The references tag is on there because we need to know if anyone is dividing the Balts by geographic location, as that is not the customary way to do it. Customarily one divides the Balts by language.
 * PS - Oh, and there is one more issue, which is going to take a reference. If you are going to be on Wikipedia you need to learn how to do references so you can start here if you like. By transitional Balts I mean that as far as some linguists can tell the reconstructed dialects of those regions show similarities to both eastern and western Baltic. Old Prussian though was spoken in Skalvia and Nadruvia. Why do you put them under transitional?

Polish Bibliography
I am sure the Polish language is a very fine one but I do not know any and neither do most Americans. This the English Wikipedia. There are I think two English refs and yet there is quite a wealth of English writing on the Balts. I appreciate your wanting to work on the English Wikipedia but you need to do it in English. Thanks.Dave (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymolgy of Balts
I changed the meanimg from white guys to dwellers by the white sea but then it struck me this is wrong too. That might not be the etymology of Baltic Sea and that topic is covered in the article I linked. Here is my modified statement of the original in case anyone wants to do something else with it: (balti; baltai; Latgalian: bolti, lit. "white", with reference to the Baltic or "white" sea by which they live)Dave (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Widely accepted"
This article brandishes such outlandish claims like the "massive influx' of Indo Europeans is widely accepted, which its not. The so-called genetic evidence is only possibly an indirect supporter of such a theory. Hxseek (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this really covered by the reference?
The lead states, rather boldly, that The number of lakes and swamps in this area isolated the Balts, and as a result of this isolation the Baltic languages retain a number of conservative or archaic features and this is covered by a reference consisting of a mere bookpage quote.

I assume that what the book is saying is that conservative or archaic features have been retained in Baltic languages, but I am very suspicious of the other part being covered by the claim: lakes are no real communication hassle. Actually, with lakes usually come rivers, which used to be the real highways in those densely forested areas back in the day. Swamps, maybe, but there aren's so many anyway as to call the region "isolated". All in all, I dont see this region -which, by the way, is by the sea and even more open to foreign contact- being more isolated than any other.

Someone please confirm whether the book claim is covering the above mentioend part, otherwise, I may delete the "isolated" claim. Thanks.  MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done  MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no coverage of the more recent history of the Balts
At a minimum links to the history of Lithuania and Latvia with a short discription should be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.100.176 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why there is represented only one theory of formation of european laguages
Why there is represented only one theory of formation of european laguages? I mean this is not objective. Because there are two equally main stream theorys about formation of european laguages. One is about kurgan expansion and the other is Paleolithic Continuity Theory. Wouldn't it be wise to add a section on the other theory too. Because now article sounds as if everything is so clear and there are no doubts about history of balts and that is obviously diletants work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory --Ceckauskas Dominykas 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceckauskas Dominykas (talk • contribs)


 * Ofcourse there are disputes, but the Kurgan theory is most widely accepted by most number of linguists. Renfrew's Nelotihic/ Anatloian scenario is a distant second. The PCT is barely entertained by serious linguists Hxseek (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Scandinavians begin settling in Western Baltic lands in Lithuania and Latvia"
Who added this sentence to the article? Twice. Seems like a deliberate sabotage to interfere with history. Can someone delete it, as there is no sense to it. Nor to the section it had been added to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.68.28.134 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Baltic Prehistory - what?
"The prehistoric cradle of the Baltic peoples according to archaeogenetic research and archaeological studies was the area near the Baltic sea and central Europe at the end of the Ice Age and beginning of the Mesolithic period. They spread in the area from the Baltic sea in the west to the Volga in the east."

Uh... this would mean the Balts are all non-Indo-European autochthones. Or am I just mixing up Baltic language and Baltic culture with Baltic archaeogenetics? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you're right - but I am sure the writer didn't mean that. It was an over-condensation. The Indo-Europeans are no earlier than the Chalcolithic. They moved in among and mingled with the Finno-Ugrians no doubt. The latter are Mesolithic. Maybe an extra sentence or two would do it, but wasn't it said above?Dave (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are scientific studies such as - The Balts and the Finns in historical perspective: a multidisciplinary approach - ( Česnys et al. 2004 ) providing clear perspectives on the amalgamation of various cultures eventually merging into what are now known as Baltic people. Exchange of vocabulary between Baltic and Uralic languages illustrate the processes. Additional contacts are implicated by «ШАХМАТНЫЙ» ОРНАМЕНТ КЕРАМИКИ КУЛЬТУР РАЗВИТОГО БРОНЗОВОГО ВЕКА ПОВОЛЖЬЯ И УРАЛА, by О.Д. Мочалов, Stratum plus, №2, 2001-2002. pp 503-514. My pc says it is 2012, is it not? Sudowite (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Attention experts
New page: Prusi. - Staszek Lem (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Slavs
Are Balts a slavic people? I always thought so, but this is not mentioned. Sylvain1972 17:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you thought wrong. It's a great insult to call a Balt slavic. And I'm also slightly insulted by your ignorance T. Marc-cius 10:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont be so insulted - we (Slavs) and you (Balts) are from the same Balto-Slavic family, so I dont know why should you be so insulted. He just thought wrong (you dont know everything too). Slavs and Balts are very close related but they are two different indo-european branches.

Balto-Slavic family is a myth. We aren't "very close related" and we haven't lived in the same territory after the proto-indoeuropean times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.199.126.2 (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you fellows are getting all mixed up! No need for any Slavs to get into bed with Balts or vice versa. The family being referenced is not a biological one. The biological Balto-Slavic family is a myth for sure, mainly yours, but the linguistic family is pretty solid. Both Slavic and Baltic linguists will tell you that. I suggest you do some Wikipedia lookups on languages and language theories.Dave (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was an ancient Indo-European culture or group of tribes living in what is now today Belarus, according to social-cultural anthropologist, this culture may have been one of the direct ancestors of both Baltic and Slavic people. the Baltic people, only split off from Slavs as may lived together and among another ancient group of people in the Baltic region and eventually after further influences from the other cultures like the Finns, Scandinavians, and of course the Germans the Baltic People greatly differed from the Slavic people, both culturally, Linguistically and thus Genetically. This, mean that they were once related to one another but were influence differently by other cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.156.250 (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The question of whether Balts and Slavs are related is practically meaningless; from a purely biological perspective, there is no such thing as "Slavic" or "Baltic" (or for that matter, "Germanic"). Recent DNA sampling indicates that the people inhabiting Eastern Europe are almost totally genetically identical (see: Haplogroup R1a1a). The only differences between these groups are purely cultural, including language, arts and technology, etc.


 * The spreading influence of the Corded Ware culture in the Neolithic period does not indicate that a group of people (presumably the Proto-Indo-Europeans) moved en masse and conquered this region by force. Rather, it may simply be a matter of technological and artistic innovation that spread naturally as people interacted with one another. The genetic evidence seems to indicate that this latter theory does have its own merits, however the question of the origin and dispersal of the Proto-Indo-Europeans from their mythical Urheimat homeland remains a mystery (see: Mallory, J. P. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 1884964982), and anyone claiming to have solid proof that a particular branch of the Indo-Europeans is uniquely different from another ought to take care in making unfounded assertions.


 * As such, the creation of different cultures that sprang out of this earlier cradle occurred not because the various groups were unrelated, but rather due to political and economic contingencies. In other words, yes, the Balts and Slavs are the "same people", but so are the Prussians and Germanic Tribes, at least for the most part. However, the biased perception of a group's uniqueness often acts as a motivator to encourage people to do things such as make war against another group, support a demagogue leader, or stain themselves by committing acts of ethnic cleansing, etc. Such nationalistic furor should be left out of any Wikipedia article, since it does not reflect the NPOV stance, and should only be noted in context of its influence on historic events.


 * In summary, the similarities between Eastern European groups far outweigh the differences; let us not forget that. --Saukkomies talk 15:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Baltic region
If I'm looking at maps correctly, the Baltic region appears to be in Northeastern Europe. Eastern and Southeastern Europe are predominantly Slavic.


 * The Baltic Region is the area that borders the Baltic Sea. Sometimes. And depending on what time period you're talking about. And whether the local people living in a particlar location have an opinion about it. And a whole bunch of other things. But sure, a rough definition is the lands surrounding the Baltic Sea. Unless someone tells you different. --Saukkomies talk 15:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

An article "Proto-Baltic language" in Lithuanian
Hi,

I repost my question here. I would like to ask somebody for translation of this article to English. In English Wikipedia, an article Proto-Balto-Slavic language does exist. This is a mix of the Slavic and Baltic facts. English Wikipedia (and more than 30 in others languages) contains separate article Proto-Slavic language. I won't argue over existence of common Baltic-Slavic language period. I just think, it would be fair and useful cause to have the articles both for Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic languages. I'm asking you for the help again, I hope, you'll understand my broken English :) Write me here, please.--Ed1974LT (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Balts. 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/20050426150605/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/5504_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/5504_1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402100130/http://postilla.mch.mii.lt/Kalba/baltai.en.htm to http://postilla.mch.mii.lt/Kalba/baltai.en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation: BALT?
I found this page looking for Bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue; how should a link to that page be added to this one? (I've never made this kind of fix before and would like guidance)Myoglobin (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups
Hi, how are Finnic peoples / Baltic Finns related to Balts in ethnic terminology? I mean genetically, why not - but this page is not about genetics. See the Dutch people as an example - they have "Germanic peoples" and then very close neighbours from inside that grouping under related ethnic groups, because the Dutch are germanic people. I don't see how it's right that Baltic Finns are mentioned on this article. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One part of relation is genetics. The other part might be Curonians who were at some point considered Baltic Finns and/or Balts, and that is disputed until this day by some historians. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are there any sources which claim that Finnic peoples are a "related ethnic group" to Balts? I can not find a single source. Re Curonians - some scholars in the 19th century thought they were Finnic, but nowadays it's a consensus that they were Baltic. Clearly listed in the sources on the Curonians page as well. I don't know why it's relevant though. The Livonians were clearly Finnic and were also living in what is today Latvia. So the Livonians would be a better argument. They later assimilated into the Latvian ethnos. But why is that relevant? Ethnic groups are not defined by genetics. If genetics and assimilation plays a role, we should start listing Swedes, Danes, Germans, Poles etc as "related ethnic groups". See the related ethnic groups under Swedes it lists the other North Germanic peoples + generally mentions Germanic peoples. That's the way it should be. It makes no mention of Finnic peoples, although there's been a sizeable Finnic minority in Sweden for thousands of years. And Finland was a part of Sweden for most of its history. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, you cannot remove "Baltic Finns" from the infobox after one day since your message. Give it about a week before removing it. In addition, seeing that some IP keeps adding it back after the removal, I decided to ignore it as I honestly do not care or wish to edit war over such small thing. Secondly, I intentionally did not reply, because you keep changing your statement every five minutes, which is frustrating and sometimes it is hard to make a reply when someone is undecided what he/she wants to say (this is just a friendly observation, because that is happening a lot around Wikipedia). You either write what you want at once or leave an "EDIT:" or similar note if you want to add something. Thirdly, I looked through some books in Lithuanian language and none of them mention any relation to Baltic Finns (of course those are the books that I have at home and I am certainly not going to the library for that). I believe the main problem is the template itself, because there are no explanations about what should/should not be included in the infobox's parameters. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you Blomsterhagens (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Baltic countries and territories
It is currently being proposed that Category:Baltic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8. The deletion discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Baltic neopaganism. Krakkos (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Translation of Russian maps into English
This article contains three excellent-looking maps, however they are all in Russian. I would like to ask if someone could translate them into English and other languages please.Tolkien5 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first map seems to give too old an age for the Baltic Finns group. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)