Talk:Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

A fact from Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,403 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Seimas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was officially abolished by the Union of Lublin in 1569?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/September.

Wikipedia

Lithuania Mid‑importance

	Lithuania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column.
	Review comments: Renata (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Seimas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The result of the discussion was moved.

Different?

From 1569, was this sejm a part of the Sejm of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or was it different? Was it one of the sejmiks in the Lithuanian lands? Can we expand on the Lithuanian Convocations? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian POV

This article quotes only Lithuanian texts and uses the modern name "Seimas". Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, I'm not sure if your drive-by tagging is helpful. Using Lithuanian sources is not a violation of NPOV (excluding other sources would be) - it is only natural that Lithuanian historians have been the ones most interested in the parliament of GDL. If you have other sources that would contribute to the article, I'm sure it would be much appreciated by everyone.

I've also read the text of the article and I fail to find anything that would violate NPOV, except two potential issues. First, as you indicated, the name used is Seimas (a modern name). This is only a NPOV issue if it is not the most common name in English-language sources. However, I am not familiar enough with the subject to establish that. Second, I think references to "Lithuanian nobility" should be replaced with "nobility of GDL". However, that should be done simultaneously with moving the respective article "Lithuanian nobility" as it does not accurately describe the subject at the moment (in act, it deals with nobility of GDL, not just of Lithuanian origin).

Are there any other issues that I'm missing?No longer a penguin (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article (like may others) present Lithuanian POV based on Lithuanian sources. It's obvious that Seimas is the right word for modern Lithuanians, I'm not sure however if it's a neutral name outside Lithuania and if the word was used in the GDL. There exist a number of Russian texts using other name ( Сейм) referenced in Russian, Belarus and Ukrainian articles, I'm not copy/pasting the titles because I don't have time to read the texts.

There are many problematic articles starting from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania The Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Lithuanian: Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė) .Xx236 (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lithuanian nobility introduces peoeple gente Ruthenus, natione Lithuanus, so the name seems to be true, but an English reader will probably understand modern Lithuanian nobility rather than GDL one. This Wikipedia gives illusion of simplicity. but history remainds complicated.

I don't read Lithuanian so I'm not able to verify Lithuanian languge sources and some Lithuanian editors aren't cooperative. Xx236(talk) 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved all your comments under the same indent, I hope it's not a problem.

When it comes to the name, it doesn't really matter if the name was used in the GDL. Neither does the use in Lithuanian, Russian or other languages. The name most common in the English language should be the article title. Other names can be mentioned in the article.

That said, I don't know which is the most common name used in English language sources. Searching for '"X of the Grand Dutchy" Lithuania' on Google Scholar brings the following results for different X: Seimas (358), Seim (1), Sejm (5), Seijm (0), Diet (5). However, that is not the entire truth either, Andres Kasekamp uses "Lithuanian Sejm", Norman Davies uses both Seim and Seimas, etc. That said, most seem to use Seimas where not transliterating Russian texts and where the context is isolated from Sejms of the Commonwealth.

However, maybe some of the original contributors to the article (Renata3) can contribute their thoughts on the prevailing name?No longer a penguin (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seimas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania → Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – Diet of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called by the name adopted from Polish: sejm or in the Old Belorussian version sojm. The Lithuanian language was not in use at the time, and the word itself is much later and used to describe the parliament of modern Lithuania. A much later (mid-17th century) recorded translation of Polish 'sejm' into Lithuanian is 'Suſieimas'. The term 'sejm' is used by major Anglo-Saxon historians of ancient Lithuania: Stephen Rowell and Robert I. Frost. Marcelus (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Academic publications use both Seimas and Sejm. Furthermore, the Lithuanian language WAS in use at the state level at the time, because it is known that Sigismund II Augustus maintained a Lithuanian-speaking court, as written in Grand Duchy of Lithuania#Languages for state and academic purposes.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zygmunt August had indeed two courts Polish and Lithuania, but I doubt the second one was Lithuanian-speaking because the king didn't know that language, most people on both courts were probably speaking Italian or Polish. That's besides the point, because Lithuanian language wasn't used for Sejm purposes Marcelus (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nominator's rationale is convincing; this is pre-Lithuanian language revival era. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Came to close this and decided to look for a source instead, since it is better to go with sources than with opinions. This is the source, and it supports this move request; therefore, this title should be changed as proposed. (Here is another source that supports "Sejm".) Also wonder if we should use "Sejms" (plural)? I'm not well-versed in this area and don't know for certain. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 03:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "sejms" is a proper plural from Marcelus (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that WP:NCPLURAL guides us to use the singular "sejm" in the article title as proposed. "Seimas" seems to be used in the article both as singular and plural, i.e. "one seimas" and "two seimas", so its usage in the title may be considered singular (no such thing as "one seima"). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 06:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity, the final -s in the Lithuanian word is not a plural marker; -as is a nominative singular ending in that language. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.