Talk:Alšėniškiai

Moved

I've moved the page for the following reasons: [1], [2]. Reichenbach 10:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence that the guys from the 14th or 15th centururies spoke Polish (or even understood it)? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

if you doing comparison at least do it properly: [3] [4]

Btw trying to find polish in 13-14c? M.K. 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide any 13th-century sources that mention the members of this family? Thanks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is followed by tradition of family rooting (from Algimatas), btw you could spot and Dukes of Alšėnai, which also referred to his family. 13 source –hmmm hardly. Another note, is it correct that family in 14th century already Orthodoxy? As far as I remember this process was a bit in later times, may be I missed something. M.K. 08:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, how about using a Ruthenian name Olshanski? After all, this was a Ruthenian family of GDL, which itself was greatly Ruthenized? These noblemen are called as such in literature as well, see eg. [5], [6]. --Irpen 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop calling GDL ruthenized, that is bizarre. The only so-called ruthenisation is the use of Ruthenian as a chancery language and a majority of Ruthenian culture people in the Eastern GDL. However it is more reasonable to call them Olshanski than Hoszanski in Polish, which is also quite misleading. Iulius 07:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So called ruthenisation ? Iulius, please check the sources. Start from, eg. as much respected one as Britannica:

"Within the [Lithuanian] grand duchy, the Ruthenian lands initially retained considerable autonomy. The pagan Lithuanians themselves were increasingly converting to Orthodoxy and assimilating into Ruthenian culture. The grand duchy's administrative practices and legal system drew heavily on Slavic customs, and Ruthenian became the official state language."[7]

Anyway, that's a side issue. --Irpen 08:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

noooooooo!!!! not again official state language :( M.K. 08:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, but this Britannica's quote is an aged rubbish and by no means I can't say its respected source anymore. Almost no common Lithuanian ever became an Orthodox, only the dukes that ruled ruthenian lands and no official state language, as it has been said, - only chancery language beside Latin. Iulius 13:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can name six diffrent languages used in chancery. If we stay on topic some details should be specified, particulary family separation and faith. M.K. 17:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica is the oldest such project in the English-speaking world. It is annually updated by leading experts from Oxford, Cambridge, and other respected scholarly institutions. Your offhand dismissal of this source may be regarded as trolling. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Can you give any fact that any ethnic Lithuanian peasant has ever willingly taken up Orthodox religion? I cannot immagine that. And the Belarussian assimilation of Lithuanians in Vilnius region is a comparatively recent effect, almost irrelated to Ruthenian language and culture in GDL at all. I reitterate: I do not have noble people (dukes, magnates, etc.) in mind. Iulius 14:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Peasants have unlikely converted. Peasants were much less affected by any kinds of assimilations. The later Polonization in Ukraine was also mainly of the upper class, who also switched their language and religion. Let's just stick to the topic. --Irpen 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, neither Ivan, Semen or Paweł (the three best known members of that family) were peasants, so this argument is hardly relevant here. //Halibutt 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary. Since Olshanski were not peasants, they were Ruthenized. That's why their names is splelled in the slacivized form. --Irpen 23:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely what I meant when I agreed with you, Irpen. Nice to see you feel the need to correct me when we both share the same view... //Halibutt 19:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Denomination

During the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries the family was Orthodox by faith and Ruthenian by language, although Pavel Olshanski was a Catholic Church official.

One of the brothers of Pavel was named Janusz, his sister's name was Jadwiga. This strongly implies that Pavel was not the only Catholic in the family. 136.206.1.20 (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

BTW, calling "Holszanski" a Polish form of the name as opposed to Ruthenian is somewhat strange. Their name was spelled Holszanski, Гол(ь)шанский, in lots of Ruthenian-language sources (see the 35th volume of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles). Though the form Olszanski was surely used as well. 136.206.1.20 (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for move

In academic sources, Alšėniškiai is more frequently used than Olshanski. Google Scholar has:

• 43 results for "Alšėniškiai" "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" [8]
• 7 results for "Olshanski" "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" [9]
• 2 results for "Holshanski" "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" [10]

It has come to my attention that Google Books as a measure is not useful, because it throws up books like Cecil Rhodes: Man and Empire-Maker, The Baltic States After Independence or The history of Protestantism - Volume 3 - James Aitken Wylie - 1889 after searching for "Olshanski" "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (pages 9 and 10 of the search results) [11].--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis: You forget to limit your search to English results only. Real results:

• 11 results for "Alšėniškiai" search
• 4 results for "Olshanski" search
• 4 results for "Olshansky" search
• 25 results for "Holszański" search
• 6 results for "Holszanski" search
• 3 results for "Holshansky" search

It's rather clear that the Slavic form is more popular, which cannot be surprising because the family was Ruthenised early on. I prefer "Holshansky" because it's used by Robert I. Frost and Zenonas Norkus. Lithuanian authors of Lithuanian Millenium. History, art and culture, seems to prefer "Holszański" version of the name Marcelus (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved.(non-admin closure) Turnagra (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Alšėniškiai → Holszański – It's rather clear that the Slavic form is more popular, which cannot be surprising because the family was Ruthenised early on. I would prefer "Holshansky" because it's used by Robert I. Frost and Zenonas Norkus. But "Holszański" seems to be the most popular version in Google Scholar and Lithuanian authors of Lithuanian Millenium. History, art and culture, seems to prefer "Holszański" version of the name Marcelus (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Scholar:

• 11 results for "Alšėniškiai" search
• 4 results for "Olshanski" search
• 4 results for "Olshansky" search
• 25 results for "Holszański" search
• 6 results for "Holszanski" search
• 3 results for "Holshansky" search

Marcelus (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Most of the "Holszański" mentions are of separate individuals and not the family itself. The accurate rendition for the family would be "Holszańscy" (plural instead of singular) [12] - this gives only 3 results. Alšėniškiai is undoubtedly preferred to Holszańscy.-- Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • First of all, that's not true, because in English the family is often called "Holszański family" without any conjugation. Secondly we are looking for the way the family is refered in English literature, so the mention of individual members of the family are equally valid. What we are really interested in is which version is dominant - the Slavic name (here we will have to deal with several versions, because the surname was originally written in the Cyrillic alphabet in Ruthenian, and then in the Latin alphabet in Polish and Latin) or the Lithuanian contemporary reconstruction (because we do not have Lithuanian texts from that period and the family members were Ruthenised already in 14th century, and later polonised) Marcelus (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

    If it is called "Holszański family" (as you say), then why does entering that give 0 results? [13]. So, it is you who are saying things without proving them. Mentions of individual members of the family are not equally valid, because many members of the Giedraičiai (family) called themselves with various surnames: Gedroits (Vera Gedroits), Guedroitz (Wladimir Guedroitz, Alexis Guedroitz), Giedroyc (Jerzy Giedroyc) or Guédroïtz (Ania Guédroïtz). There is nothing wrong with reconstructions, exempli gratia - the name of Vytautas or Algimantas, the father of Jonas Alšėniškis. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Here: " the Holszański and the Giedroyć families"; and here: "Holszański kin". You are just looking for excuses. WP:COMMONNAME is pretty straightforwards. Marcelus (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A mere two relevant cases instead of the initially mentioned 25 results for "Holszański" search. Following WP:COMMONNAME, it should be (as it currently is) Alšėniškiai instead of any others. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? I don't really understand that logic. Nobody uses Polish declension in English texts Marcelus (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Some do use Holszańscy - Stephen Christopher Rowell uses it on p92 of this. Also, even when it is said to only search English pages, Google Scholar still gives Polish-language sources: this. Apparently, the latter source has a few pages on them, so I guess it might be of use to you.

Also, this states that the Latin name of the Alšėniškiai is Golsaniensis or Olsaniensis, while that of the Goštautai - Gastoldus. Could Latin-language names be a neutral compromise to these discussions about which language names to use? (pinging GizzyCatBella).-- Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the Goštautai surname - it was a Lithuanian family, the surname is of Lithuanian origin, the magnate branch died out early (in 1542), they were not deeply polonized, i.e. Polish was never their first language (except maybe Stanislaw). Of course, later there appeared people with the surname Gasztowtt/Gasztołd and so on, but the article is about the magnate family. However, the Holszanskis are a different case, they are already Ruthenized in a second generation, and even if the etymology of Halshany is Baltic, the surname is Slavic. So I would advocate using the Slavic form in their case. Marcelus (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Alšėniškiai is an ethnic Lithuanian noble family, so there is no need to Polonize its Lithuanian name per WP:NPOV. -- Pofka (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Olshanski was the stable name for this article

Regading the above move. This was stable under Olshanski for almost a decade. Where is the RM to move it from Olshanski to Alšėniškiai? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point; @Cukrakalnis moved it unilateraly without getting consensus ([14]); I think the move should be reverted via WP:RMT, and then we can start the eventual discussion about a proper name Marcelus (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The page move from Alšėniškiai to Olshanski was unilaterally done by Ghirlandajo here ([15]) without any RM. So, that move should never have happened in the first place in the way that it did. Reverting to the original article name was the right thing to do. Plus, you can't rename this article through WP:RMT because it would be contested.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it was stable for about 16 years, then you moved it unilateraly and it was immediately contested Marcelus (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)