Talk:Tutejszy

Lipscomb ref

 * Lembit Staan, seeing your edit here, I will try my best to explain it. This was the quote from here:
 * As late as the 18th and 19th centuries, ethnological maps, drawn up by non-Lithuanians, show the lands inhabited by the Lithuanians far to the east of Vilnius. Michal Balinski, a graduate of the University of Vilnius (a Pole), points out in a series of historical works that even in his day (the middle of the 19th century) Lithuanian was spoken beyond Lyda to the Nemunas. Even now, there are Lithuanian islands in the region of Slonim (Zietela) and Lyda (Lazdinai). West of Lyda, during Polish administration (1920-39), Lithuanian was spoken everywhere, or at least a mixture of Lithuanian, Byelorussian, and Polish. But this is the influence of very recent times, Even today, though these regions have been annexed to the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the older inhabitants still call themselves Lithuanians (litwiny) or natives (tutejszy).
 * It is very enlightening that a sharp cleavage separating Catholics and Orthodox runs along the boundaries drawn up in 1920 between Lithuania and Soviet Russia. During the negotiations in Moscow, it was admitted that this cleavage shows where the ethnographic border between Lithuania and Byelorussia ran, since the Lithuanians accepted Christianity later from the Roman Catholic church; they remained Catholic although later some of them were Polonized or Byelorussified.
 * So, to resume this quote, I will start with this: the older inhabitants still call themselves Lithuanians (litwiny) or natives (tutejszy). Why did they call themselves Lithuanians or tutejszy? Because they were such, and knowing that ethnographic Lithuania was where Lithuanians lived, and that they were locals that makes perfect sense. That's in the source. What religion where they? Catholic. That's in the source. Who were the Catholics of ethnographic Lithuania? Lithuanians. That's in the source. However, they remained Catholic although later some of them were Polonized or Byelorussified. All of this means that the tutejszy, within ethnographic Lithuania's borders, were Slavicized (general term for both Polonization and Byelorussification) Lithuanians.


 * As for WP:OR, "Rewriting source material in your own words, while retaining the substance, is not considered to be original research." As can be seen from my explanation, my previous and current actions were in-line with policy guidelines. In WP:GOODFAITH --Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * As for WP:SYNTH, I will draw attention to this - "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources." (from WP:NOTSYNTH). --Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cukrakalnis, I am afraid that both the author cited and you demonstrate a grave misconception about the Great Duchy of Lithuania (or of the modern established view on it). Please notice that Glenard P. Lipscomb, a politician, does not have any expertise to be cited in this Wikipedia article. (I have to assume that he was advised by a Lithuanian or even read some books, but  pieces of ignorance are  all over his text.) I will not try to educate you in history, just in Wikipedia rules. You draw your own conclusion from the source, which is itself ignorant, but you add more suppositions which are not true. The gravest error of both of you and the source is to assume that litwiny were ethnic Lithuanians. Please read the article Litvin. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lembit Staan After re-examining the source, I found this: This paper was prepared by the Committee for a Free Lithuania as a comment on various references, documentations, and statements concerning the history of Lithuania contained in the select committee’s report on Communist takeover and occupation in Byelorussia, and was forwarded to me by the Reverend John A. Kucingis, pastor of the St. Casimir’s Catholic Church, which is located in the 24th Congressional District of California.
 * Dismissing a source because you claim it is ignorant without proving that, is not firm. Your objection about litwiny would be valid if the discussion was about people in Gomel or Brest-Litovsk, but not with regards to lands that were ethnically Lithuanian until the very end of the 19th century. After all, many Litvins (still used for modern Lithuanians), were ethnically Lithuanian. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cold-war era CIA-funded Committee for a Free Lithuania is a long-shot from a neutral or an academic institution. Renata•3 00:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * it is ignorant without proving that I dont give a shit for proving that; sufficient to say it is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. But here is one small example: it says that Lyda is Lazdinai, which is nuts (a pun for those who know Lithuanian:-), and Slonim is Zietela. (By the way, our article about Lida was a bit smarter, but still with nonsense I've just fixed) Lembit Staan (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You clearly missed these words (in bold): "Even now, there are Lithuanian islands in the region of Slonim (Zietela) and Lyda (Lazdunai) (Lazduny 1)." It does not at all call Slonim = Zietela and that Lyda = Lazdūnai. The source only mentioned localities that were near the towns, in order to better help locate them. Misreading doesn't discredit a source.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad. I guess I have to improve my reading skills. I was offset by the name put in Wikipedia: Lazdinai. Still, we have to stick to sources of direct expertise. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)