Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was: consensus that this article should not exist on its own, and apparently information from here has been merged into Lithuanian Metrica, so this article has been redirected there to preserve the edit history per GFDL. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia

 * 1) Article name Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia  is not used widely  and  . Signs of original research and due to this almost impossible to reader find this article.
 * 2) Word Myetrika is distorted name to English wiki,  an academic English translation is Metrica.  Word myetrika is not used widely  too.
 * 3) Article lacks info on the main issue.
 * 4) Accidentally Lithuanian Metrica duplicates the Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia. Lithuanian Metrica is completed article. Compare spread of  articles in internet:   Lithuanian Metrica  and Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia.
 * 5) Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia have none usable info which could be used by merging these two articles, so merge is not a solution IMO.
 * 6) etc.  M.K. 13:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete M.K. 13:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant - duplication created only to illustrate Old Belarusian claim. --Lokyz 13:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The quality of the article is very bad. The information provided is too general and lacks important details, it is POV driven. No references are given. The name of the article is not an English name and not used in English sources. Wikipedia should not become a place for presenting pseudoscientific claims. Juraune 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep (though the expansion of several issues and subsequent merge may be needed)
 * 1) Request for deletion is too abrupt, no mention was made before of the existing article. The claims made by Lithuanian users may express the anti-Belarusian POV on history of GDL.
 * Comment. There are nothing ati-Byelorussian. M.K. 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)p.s and made only  assuming good faith
 * It's nothing personal or anti-. Just there's no need ot have two separate articles on the same issue.--Lokyz 11:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The disputed stub article represents the verbatim translation of the lead from the academic publication (encyclopedia of literature) and contains the vital facts on the language(s) of the documents (somehow missing from the current edition of the Lithuanian Metrica). There is none original research here!
 * Comment. About language – read a bit closer the article. And familiarize your self with English sources. M.K. 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On Old Belarusian' in main article Lithuanian Metrica it is mentioned, that it was written in Ruthenian. What's so vital in in mentioning Old Belarusian? IMO it cerates unnecessary mess, because by that formulation it is that nowadays Ukrainian language is also descendant of Old Belarussian. Or would you agree to call that language Old Ukrainian?--Lokyz 11:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Both Metrica and Myetrika are the renderings of the Polish word "metryka" (for archive) and as such none is more canonical than the other.
 * Comment.    Word Metrica used most common. Even the revived books which translated  to English used word Metrica not metryka' and definitely not Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia. M.K. 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Proofs "ad Google" don't seem good enough here. Provide academic sources, please. ---Yury Tarasievich 06:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Google is not perfect tool, but it is providing the direction which is very clear in this case. M.K. 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Claims for Old Belarusian are widely known (at least between Belarusian historians), it's not original research. As for name: in Belarusian it's Метрыка Вялікага Княства Літоўскага (this is incomplete but waht I definitely remember :-), so article name is just translataion of Belarusian name. Nothing incorrect there too. --EugeneZelenko 13:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel the duty to make a comment here too. I hope you don’t mine :) Sorry who accused that the Old Belarusian is OR of wikipedian editor? I pointed only formulation Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia. IMO user:Lokyz made a note (and right one) that Old Belarusian can’t be used as summarized term (especially when talking about chancellery issues) . Now about translation – why reinvent machine when it already invented. Word Metrica is “picked up” by professional historians which publications are used in Poland, Russia, Lithuania etc. and used in the international scale project and have biggest majority in English internet sources (BTW, translation of Myetrika … made by whom?).M.K. 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Lithuanian Metrica - not original, but the conditional name of a complex of documents. However this name is standard. "Ruthenian language" - not language, and the conditional general name of slavic languages in territory Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Ruthenian = Old Belarussian + Old Ukrainian. Lithuanian Metrica it is written basically Old Belarussian language, later Polish language. Only some documents are written Old Ukrainian language, but there are some volumes completely written Old Ukrainian language (so-called Volynian Metrica). --MaximLitvin 18:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will make a comment here too :), because user:Yury Tarasievich lost his temper and accused everybody of POV (even began to shouting on “bad” Lithuanian historians) only proving lack of his skills. But get back to main issue.
 * Hey, I didn't do that! Hearty laugh, I had. Lost my temper, didn't. :) ---Yury Tarasievich 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly I want to ask you – do you think name Lithuanian Metrica is bad for article or maybe you have other solutions?
 * I see you touched Volynian (Luck), but I feel duty to expand and a bit and adjust your comments. It is linguistically proven (Ch. Stang; Z.Zinkevičius; etc.) that Ruthenian lang. used in chancellery of Grand Duchy of Lithuania was dominated by Volynian until mid XVI century ( some linguist say that Volynian dominated until end of XVIc.). This conclusion was drown after analysis of Ruthenian documents issued by Grand Duchy of Lithuania chancellery. Second decisive moment is that when central dialect of present-day Belarus territory (roughly) was used – chancellery and spoken languages remain with notable differences; so it should be also clear division between chancellery and spoken languages – so it is another issue why terms with “old” can’t be applied without tremendous exceptions when talking about chancellery issues. M.K. 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. when talking about languages of metrica don’t exclude Latin (German as minor).
 * Moved the section on "" to Talk:Belarusian_language. Let's have a talk there. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, do not move comments elsewhere leaving here nothing, you can copy comm. and paste in different place, but don’t leave here nothing cuz it is important to this case here. Regarding Belarusian lang. article – it is a separate issue which should be taken with care cuz it have some major systematic mistakes. I will make comments after few days (or weeks), I have a bit intense timetable so I can’t work on several cases at once (his why I did not reply to your note on my talk)    M.K. 10:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Lithuanian Metrica - the standard conditional name (already it is above written by me). This name is necessary for using in Wikipedia.
 * 2. "… until mid XVI century … - … until end of XVI century." - a mistake. Correctly - "until mid XV century - until end of XV century". It speaks that Vitaut's Office was completed with the personnel on Volhynia in 1380-s years, and has then moved together with it to Vilnia. The Volynsk language influence was limited to the period of a life of the Volynsk personnel.
 * Actually there is no mistake at all ! I check and double check these conclusions and there are confirmed in other sources (“Definition problem of Slavic chancellery language in Grand Duchy of Lithuania”; “Inaccuracies of History approach” {my translations}; etc. etc. etc.). And all have point of XVI century as key moment. And analysis was not only Vytautas chancellery but much broader.
 * Second moment – not chandlery personnel lifetime, but lifetime of ruler, monitoring shifts of dialect. M.K. 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. Old Belarussian and Old Ukrainian - not colloquial languages, but literary languages. Spoken languages were not used in office-work MDL. However, spoken languages influenced on literary - it distinctions between Old Belarussian and Old Ukrainian. Old Belarussian speak and Old Ukrainian were generated on the basis of Ruthenian language under influence of local dialects. Therefore in clause instead of "Latin, Ruthenian, Polish and German languages" it is necessary to write "Old Belarussian, Polish, Old Ukrainian, Latin and German languages".
 * Here you confusing something, but not going to details - contemporary and scientific term Ruthenian taking into account all these “Old” with most care, so I convinced that chancellery issues should have Ruthenian definition.M.K. 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. At Ch. Stang and Zinkevičius have very different opinions concerning an accessory of language of office-work MDL. Unfortunately, I do not have not enough knowledge of English language that it is detailed about it to tell. --MaximLitvin 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC) p.s. Latin and German language there is no subject of our discussion.
 * Actually Ch. Stang and Zinkevičius provided landmark scholar works which are recognized as facts and there are not POV.
 * Zinkevičius also spent huge time analyzing Slavic language  and problems regarding of these languages, etc. M.K. 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have already added all the useful information of this article to Lithuanian Metrica. The title of this article is not even English (it should be "of the Grand Duchy"), and the transcription of "Метрыка" does not obey Wikipedia standards for transcription of Belarusian (it should be "Mietryka" or "Metryka"). Yes, the article Lithuanian Metrica looks a bit overly Lithuanian, but then, the Lithuanians have really done a lot for these texts. Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles, Russians, feel free to add your additional information. (By the way, why don't you who speak the languages expand the Lithuanian stub or write articles in Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian?) --Daniel Bunčić 12:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete noninformative article. If necessary, Old Belarusian language with appropriate citation can be included in to the Lithuanian Metrica. Orionus 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

English academic sources

 * History of Lithuanian Metrica (summary by O.Litskevich) --MaximLitvin 08:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Lithuanian Institute of History. News of Lithuanian Metrica. Vol. 1-7.Vilnius, 1996-2003.
 * Zigmantas Kiaupa. The Lithuanian Metrica and the Lithuanian Nobility at the End of the Eighteenth Century, in Lithuanian Historical Studies. Vilnius, 1996.
 * Publications of the Lithuanian Metricaand This is  publications of the international project which goal to publish Lithuanian Metrica, I believe you can`t challenge leading historians who working  on this project. M.K. 08:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The New Cambridge Medieval History (formulation Lithuanian Metrica)
 * By S. C. Rowell Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345 (formulation Lithuanian Metrica)
 * Ptaszycki, Stanislaw. The Lithuanian Metrica in Moscow and Warsaw: Reconstructing the Archives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
 * Metriciana: Research and Materials of the Metrica of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 2004

Extensive comments

 * Dear (Lithuanian) collegues. Some time ago, I'd noticed a dangling link to Metryka in Belarusian language and reasoned that there's no article if the link remained empty for so long. So I'd made a stub with the info most pertinent to the Belarusian language. I hadn't receive any notification from anybody that there is already a similar article. Maintainers stamped the article with categories etc. Then, out of the blue, this request for deletion happens. Frankly, I don't quite understand your problem.
 * I did stamp it with categories because you forgot to do it (it's for a more convenient way to find it). After that it was dicovered and proved, that it is a redundant dublicate.--Lokyz 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The article on Lithuanian Metrica you are pointing me to, is, in all truth, just another stub. Decorated with secondary issues and portrait, I'll give you that. About 80% of the volume is dedicated to the geographical moving of the books. However, the article somehow manages not to mention the important (and confirmed) fact of the prevailing languages of the issued documents, the several previous publications influencing the contemporary historiography etc. The fact that "L.M." isn't even a name, but a conventional denotation, isn't mentioned.
 * Oh please! With your “criticism”  -  “About 80% of the volume is dedicated to the geographical moving of the books” just shows that you do not ready any articles about Metrica history, don’t you? Actually the scholars who wrote publications sometimes even divide Metrica history by  it`s geographical location. You also making the mistake - fact of the prevailing languages of the issued documents - don’t you ever mixup archive of Metrica documents and issued documents as such. It is quite different things.
 * Metrica – is not a controversial name (even the Byelorussian scholars who worked (now not working due to lack of resources (finance and material) AFAIK) on international project “Lithuanian Metrica” agreed on this name), the true distortion and fantasy is name Myetrika of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia (if you tried to imitated the contemporary name – you badly failed)M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please answer my question - I'll repeat it for third time - was Old Belarusian proto-Ukrainian language? Don't you think, that statement about "Old Belarusian" language in lands of Podole or Halicz is errr... a little bit overexagerated? Another one question: please, tell me when term Belarus first emerged?--Lokyz 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your question and your attempts at ridiculing the concept shows your total unfamiliarity with the subject, esp. when repeated for third time. For a (incomplete yet) basic data, read Belarusian language and East Slavonic languages. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had a bit more patience discussion could be a bit better. M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to avoid unpleasant questions so I'll repeat them once more: please, tell me when term Belarus first emerged? --Lokyz 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And how is your repeated question related to my statement on relevant matter of the supposedly good article Lithuanina Metrica being shoddily done? What are you talking about at all here?? I'm saying those article misses important and confirmed true data. Your relevant answer, please. Or no answer please. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I know well there are places where Lithuaninan historians don't dare to go. That's not other peoples problem however. And I completely resend the claims of incorrectness of the use of the "Old Belarusian" denotation. The concept had been proved scientifically 100+ years ago in the seminal work of Karskiy. And nobody is "obliged" to use the archaic names of the languages. Again, I know quite well about discomfort such revelations cause in average Lithuanian reader, but is that everybody's problem?
 * Ruthenian – is not an archaic term, yes it is has contemporary base plus it is an scientific term which was used and still it using by linguist and less accusing notes would benefit to discussion.M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, isn't the place where Lithuanian historians do not dear to enter "The Old Belarussian state Litva", a sweet dream of Ermalovich? I do repeat my question for another time: who is Karskyi, and why do you not give any reference to him?--Lokyz 07:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the place they don't dare enter (one of them) is the fact that Belarusian nation did not spring from the ground overnight in 1918. The attitude of the Lithuanian historians on these matters was a running joke in Soviet times. I guess now it's not too different, as you guys both express the ol' familiar POV on "Belarusians not really existing till very very very recent time". ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh how interesting you calcified my too. Everybody her is bad and anti-, but you are the “only one”   knows the “truth”.  M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please show me at least one Lithuanian publication where it is said, that Belorusian nation sprung in 1918. AFAIK, term Belarus is known form XVIII th century. If you know ir from older times - wp:cite document. Your assumpions about POV'ness of "Lithuanian historians" needs proof, because what you ar saying now it is rather conspiracy theory.--Lokyz 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And you just confirmed your total unfamiliarity with the linguistical matters you dispense with so lightly. "Who is Karskiy"? This is ridiculous. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very carefully read user:Lokyz answer, valuate all his/her words. Because reading your comments its looks like you did not even understand that he/she wrote. Second thing your bad behaviour making this discussion hard and if you proceed with in this matter  the discussion with you could easily be over. And do you know that is Žuvelbirdevyčius is? M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are getting rude. Insults won't prove you're right. Ridiculous is your refusal to wp:cite him. Or you dont't have any reference?--Lokyz 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for "archaic" names - it is not archaic name, it is scientific term, and yes - it is everybody's problem: there were loads of disscussions on that issue, you might find them in different places on Wikipedia.


 * "Loads of discussions" on WP, which I'm supposed to find myself, yes? won't make one grain of scientific data. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This why user:Lokyz asked you to cite your sources. I am asking the question – do you wrote  any scientific article (not wiki article of course!) M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Google isn't a source on history nor a source on "direction of research".
 * The research is already done by professionals and we have their publications. Google is the tool of search. This means that with  help of google we can see the spread of term in internet, books and this means that we have the greater chances that average user would be familiar with one or another term/word  so in this order  they could faster found this article in wiki. As I said google is not prefect tool also. M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, as far as I understand the WP guidelines, this here article stays, most possibly as a redir source, and the article on LM goes to be expanded with the pertinent information. Cheers. ---Yury Tarasievich 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It will not stay that way, because it is dublicate. Probably it should be merged - but i do doubt, that anyone would accept Old Belarusian language because it is NPOV'ed.--Lokyz 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't yet know how to do it, procedurally, but I'm going to request the renaming of the Lithuanian Metrica as a misleading and informal. Any kind of word metrika in the main name (my version included) is misleading, actually. Metrika or whatever isn't even a word, it is just a very local convention only historian would recognise. The appropriate name would be smth. like Archive of the G.D.L.R.S. with various metrika* entries serving as a redirs into it. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha this is new development. Now lets remind to ourselves that user:Yury Tarasievich said a bit earlier - represents the verbatim translation of the lead from the academic publication (encyclopedia of literature)- and now - Any kind of word metrika in the main name (my version included) is misleading -. So we have several possibilities – user:Yury Tarasievich lied to as then he said that he used academic sources or deliberately ignored the facts or deliberately chosen to mislead reader. And this is one more argument why article Myetrika  of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia should be deleted. M.K. 12:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, M.K., credit me with some intelligence and knowledge of English. The text of the disputed stub is verbatim translation of the lead etc. But any rendering of "metrika" in name is, in fact, misleading for English reader, as it represents un-scientific, although conventional among specialists, name, which means nothing for non-historian and is not guessed easily from Polish or Cyrillic rendering. Just see how I missed when searching WP before creating the stub.
 * BTW, googling on Metrica without wikipedia yields at least 5 pages of Lithuanian-originating sources with 2 or 3 non-Lithuanian authors. So much for the established name. And I've seen the Lithuanian name is "metrika". Why the difference then?
 * Let's finish this pointless and irrelevant discussion. See section "Further talk". ---Yury Tarasievich 21:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yury ! You perfectly know that I can’t credit you intelligence, wisdom - these are goals of lifetime. I suggested you only to take more care that other editors are saying and asking; I also suggested to take a look in English sources how they formulating definitions. And now I also suggest you to relax a bit :)
 * About Metrica – are you sure that it is “un-scientific”? About “only historians would recognize” I asked for few people to provide history schoolbooks to me and you know these books talk about Metrica (of course in appropriate tongue).
 * About number of google sources in first page I counted “a bit” more then 2-3 sources of non-Lithuanian authors, while Myetrika none at all. Also you can see some of them of in English academic (academic +-) sources page. Why not  “Metrika” there is several key points  why  is “Metrica”  picked up one of them - see published metrica books of English part….M.K. 12:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you can't credit me with some intelligence but you can assume me lying. Okay. :)
 * So, when I tell you that googling without the word wikipedia yields 5 pages of Lithuanian-originating sources with 2 or 3 English or German, you may just dismiss that. :)
 * Like I've said before, the creation of Myetryka* was not the best move on my part and was conditioned only by not finding anything under the L. metryka or L. metrika. Creating the Archive* (understandably, now it would be created as a redir) would be much better for the common reader.
 * I know what I've seen, however (and I've saved all of the non-Lithuanian refs -- precisely for such occasion).
 * Yes, the decision on Metrica with native Metrika still seems strange to me. After all, this isn't translation (Archive is). Also, I don't know what the "appropriate tongue" would mean in such context.
 * The concept of "L.M." naming itself being un-scientifical isn't mine, it's moved by the researcher Halyenchanka in his ~5000 words encyclopedic article on L.M.
 * I've added the entry on the naming of the Old Belarusian preferred by Lithuanian researches. Let's have some names and refs there. ---Yury Tarasievich 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck in your very original research. Lithuanian Metrica is a common scientific term. If you want to discuss it - write scientific monography and then wp:cite.--Lokyz 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Further talk
I think all the relevant issues had been cleared by now. With kind help of Lokyz and M.K. the location of the existing article is now known, with your kind help, its quality is now known. The work may continue. The (Metrika of*)-s will serve as redir holders after the pertinent info would be merged into the previously existing article. All other threads of discussion should go into respective talk pages. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You should relax and breathe freely - procedural things have just begun, andalso Wikipedia is not your playground. Let me remind you wp:cite. --Lokyz 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the sweet smell of victory. :) But this is very very marginal issue, after all. Re-read -- did I want to keep this at all cost? Nope. Why should I, in such an obvious situation? My "keep until..." was moved primarily to make the point of un-acceptability of requests for deletion made in such tone, as made by M.K. and you. However, you, obviously, still do not see any problem there. Okay. We all know what's really going on here. Big news. The "WP not playground" works all ways. And thanks for the concern for my health. :) ---Yury Tarasievich 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.