Jump to content

Talk:Podlachia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethymology

[edit]

Current version of this article blocked because of Zivinbudas has the ethymology slightly flawed. It states that Some derive it from the word les, las, i.e., "forest" in Slavic languages, i.e., it is area near forest or area of forests, and in this sense Podlasie is synonymous with the adjacent Polesie.. Literally, the name means under the forest, which could be roughly translated to Latin terms as Cissilvania, while Polesie means literally to the other side of the forest and has a similar root as Transylvania. Of course the forest in question was the huge forest stretching from the Baltic Sea to Volhynia (N-S axis) and from Masovia to Polesie (W-E), parts of which remain a huge forest to this day (Puszcza Bialowieska for instance). Halibutt 11:39, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • What you claim is simply false. The prefix po- as in Polesie (and similarily in Pogórze, Pomorze, Powiśle, Połabie, Pobuże, Powołże, Połabie, Pojezierze and whatever else) has the meaning "along", "near", "under" etc. - and never "on the other side".
  • The ethymology refering to "las" ("forest") is also false, since the name has originated in the times when the Yotvingian population was subdued (and deported, exterminated or enslaved) and the area inhabited previously by them was divided among Lithuania, Teutonic order and Mazovia (fief of Poland). Then the area was cultivated and not covered with forests. It became so later on as a result of depopulation. The name did not mean "under the Polish rule" but "along/near the Polish (border?)".
  • NoychoH (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Podlasie probably means 'along/near the Polish' the statement 'Some claim it to mean "under Polish rule" which does not seem historically sound, as the area belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1569, and the southern part of it - until 1795.' is disputable. During the middle ages these areas belongs to polish/masovian states for some time.

Dialects

[edit]

Dear anon. I beg your pardon but I know what language speaks my family (Biala Podlaska area). For your information I enclose links to these maps:

http://www.harazd.net/%7Enadbuhom/mapy-historia/mapy_2.htm http://www.harazd.net/%7Enadbuhom/mapy-historia/mapy_3.htm http://www.harazd.net/%7Enadbuhom/mapy-historia/mapy_4.htm

If you have got any evidence to support your thesis, please enlight us before you start making mess again.Yeti 17:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re the links with maps - there is an ndonesian website only. Where are the maps?
I can only see the Indonesian advertisements. 49.190.240.166 (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

..................... Sorry for my being amateurish. Talking about ethnics groups, it should be mentioned the Tatars of muslim faith, still living in some of the willages. Descendands of the polish Tatars "Lipek"s, who get right to live there as instead of their military payment, in late 1670-ties. I was 15 minutes ago on the site from the county Sokólka, so now I know.  :) /SZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.181.54 (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Cities

[edit]

Drohiczyn, Sokołów Podlaski and Węgrów are important historical cities of Podlasie too Zofey 06:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There is a discussion about the proper name for the associated province, or Voivodeship. According to the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, it has been determined that an English/Latinized name should be used, but there is disagreement on just what exactly that is. For example, "Podlachian Voivodeship", "Polesian Voivodeship", "Podlasie Voivodeship", etc. Any editors who have an opinion, are invited to participate in the renaming discussion which is currently at Talk:Podlachian Voivodeship. --Elonka 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation

[edit]

I have removed this sentence as it is not correct:

"In 1947 the Ukrainian population of Podlachia was violently deportated in other regions of Poland in Operation Wisła, finishing the polonization of this historically Ukrainian region."

1. The Ruthenian population has never been deported (only some people considered by communist authorities were as Ukrainian activists were). 2. Podlachia is not a historically Ukrainian region, even if was populated by Ukrainian speaking population. Yeti 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To user: Vervin Podlachia is the only traditionally Ukrainian speaking area of present day Poland where the local population has not been removed in 1944-1947. Please, feel free to make a visit there to check personally. In contrary to neighboring Chelm region only a small number of people regarded as Ukrainian activists were resettled (including one person from my family). The reason was that at that time the local population in majority did not consider themselves Ukrainians and were Roman Catholics (even if they still used Ukrainian dialect as a vernacular language). So, please stop reverting, as this is ridiculous. Regards. Yeti 13:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Names

[edit]

There are a slew of Ukrainian names given; I added the one that seems to be actually used in Ukraine at this time, Підляшшя. Do we really need all the others? lubap

Most common name

[edit]

Google Book search results:

Commentary on names: Podlachia is the name of the region in Latin. Podlesie seems like a weird typo or rare variant that probably shouldn't be in lead. Podlasie is the name of the region in Polish. Podlaskie refers to the Podlaskie Voivodeship.

Based on the above, I'd recommend moving the article to Podlasie. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus after 43 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Podlachia → Podlasie — Per my analysis in the preceding section, it appears that Podlasie is much more commonly used in English than Latin Podlachia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:UE (use English) and WP:UCN (use common names). If you look at the test mentions of the Google Books you cite in the section above, most of the sources using Podlasie and almost all using Podlaskie are dealing with the modern Polish administrative region, the Podlaskie Voivodeship, and not the much larger multinational historical region which is the subject of this article. Sources such as Historical Atlas of Central Europe (Paul Robert Magocsi), Cambridge History of Poland, The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918 (Wandycz), Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Historical Dictionary of Ukraine, and Regions of Belarus all use Podlachia. Some other sources such as Shepherd's Historical Atlas and Muir's Historical Atlas use Podlesia. I can't find English sources referring to the historical as Podlaskie. Podlachia is a Latin name that has been adopted in various forms by many European languages (it:Podlachia, es:Podlaquia, Podlachie, de:Podlachien). This is a normal practice in English as well (cf. Silesia, Thuringia, Galicia). —  AjaxSmack  02:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We had this argument on Podlachia in 2008 and seem to be doomed to repeat it again in cycles. Nearly 100% of the Podlachia were spawned because sites just copied old information from EN:WP and it propagated. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Podlasie is my vote. It would not hurt to have a separate article for Southern Podlasie to cover the area between Lublin and the Bug, Podlasie would then cover the northern portion between Bialystok and the Bug. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Google Ngram Viewer comparing Podlachia, Podlasie and Podlaskie [1] it's clearly Podlasie.Ajh1492 (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change. Do not use this name, Podlasie because this region in in Belarus also in the area of Pinsk not only Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.182.21 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to Polesia this discussion refers to the areas east and north-east of Polesia. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Google Book results are largely false positives; even the first pages will show that. Ngram is basically the same information as a graph. Throwing those out, AjaxSmack's works of general reference are the available data; Piotrus, I'm disappointed in you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to burst your bubble, but AjaxSmack's references contradict his assertion . . . but on pages 267,340,363,364,437,521 and 598 of THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF POLAND, FROM THE ORIGINS TO SOBIESKI (TO 1696) it refers to Podlasie, there are no references to Podlachia in the text. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right—but so am I. I wasn't specific in which edition/volume I was referring and the various Cambridge histories use both forms. This Google Book results listing shows some examples in those volumes that Google has scanned. (And, for the record, I was referring to the 1971 Volume II where only "Podlachia" is listed in the index.) —  AjaxSmack  17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments only reinforce the point of this request, Podlasie is more widely used in English than Podlachia, not to mention the fact that the general geographical region in Polish is referred to as Podlasie. You have still not presented anything that refutes the fact that Podlasie is more commonly used. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kievan Rus' historical map 980 1054.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Kievan Rus' historical map 980 1054.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tatars

[edit]

Hello! I am sorry, but the paragraph about Muslim population should be removed. Both Bohoniki and Kruszyniany lie decidedly outside the borders of Podlasie. This is nowadays Podlaskie Voivodeship, but historically it was a part of Lithuania (Trakai Voivodeship). We may mention it in the article about contemporary administrative unit, but not here. Best regards, Propositum (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Podlachia&oldid=1227495963"