Talk:Litvinism

Belorussian names in the article

The article itself is written in poor English and needs to be heavily edited and by the native English speaker who I am not. First what must be changed - at least two Belorussian names which in this article are presented, for the reason unknown to me, are written in Lithuanian rendition. These are: Pavlas Urbanas - in reality Pavlo Urban Alesis Mikas - Alesj Mikasj

Juras Visockis aka Fide Nemini Vilnius, Lithuania 89.117.10.9 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Correction - Paval Urban instead ov Pavlo Urban

Juras Visockis Vilnius, Lithuania 89.117.10.9 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

I want to supplement this page in the “language” section with documents and works of historians of the 16th-20th centuries, giving links to sources. Purely from a neutral side and for informational purposes.

The theory of Jan Lalevich coincides with the opinion of some historians of the 19th and 20th century.

In the 4th volume of the Biblioteka Warszawska(pl) magazine for 1848, there is information that "...Poles usually call the Belarusian (Krzywicki) language Lithuanian, and Lithuanian - Samogitian" («…Polacy język biało-ruski (krzywicki) powszechnie nazywają litewskim, a litewski żmudzkim»)

Polish literary historian and linguist Alexander Bruckner emphasized - "when [Nikolai Ray] later described the Rusyns, they spoke "Lithuanian" (i.m, Belarusian; Litvin was always only Belarusian for him), never Ukrainianian"

Also in the work of 1578 (Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio, quae regnum Poloniae, Lituaniam, Samogitiam, Russiam, Masouiam, Prussiam, Pomeraniam, Liuoniam, & Moschouiae, Tartariaeque partem complectitur. — Cracovia, 1578. Fol. 25) it was reported that "other Slavs , like Poles, Czechs, Litvins and others who differ from the Russian language, they call the king by a different name, like Krol, others Korol, or Kral..." it can also be noted that the word "King" in the Belarusian language is translated as "Кароль(Karol)" . Aŭhust (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aŭhust  Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 23:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: @Aŭhust: This newly added quote (edit): "when [Nikolai Ray] later described the Rusyns, they spoke "Lithuanian" (i.m, Belarusian; Litvin was always only Belarusian for him, never Ukrainian)" has a strange structure and punctuation marks, therefore the literal translation from the source-reference likely should be improved (I cannot do it myself). -- Pofka (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Uniform name spelling of Alexander Krautsevich?

Both Kraucevich and Kravtsevich appear multiple times in the article. MKW100 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@MKW100:  Done: it was changed (see: 1) to an English variant according to Wikidata. -- Pofka (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Which treaty?

On 24 October 1991 Vytautas Landsbergis and Stanislav Shushkevich in Vilnius signed a declaration regarding the principles of good neighborly relations between the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Belarus." 

and

"Consequently, the agreement between the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Belarus on good neighborliness and cooperation was signed only on 6 February 1995."

Sorry if i may be wrong, but isnt this referring to one and the same treaty?

Regarding an February treaty, i found reference to the border treaty signed by Luka in another article

Belarus–Lithuania relations "The Belarus–Lithuania border is defined by a February 1995 treaty, with the ground demarcation of the border being completed in 2007. "

MKW100 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@MKW100: Hi, thanks for your input to this article. Answering to your question: no the declaration is not equal to a treaty in this case. The declaration between Vytautas Landsbergis and Stanislav Shushkevich was signed on 24 October 1991 (see "Spalio 24 d." explanation in the official website of the Seimas), but it was not equal to the later treaty of 6 February 1995 (see: here) which defined borders between Lithuania and Belarus. The 1991 declaration did not define borders between these states. -- Pofka (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wide Use of Unreliable Sources and Inconsistencies

I have gone through the sources cited in the article. It appeared that some of them are questionable, to say the least, and some lack information provided in the wiki article. Below, I put the list of quotes from the article and sources for those quotes that seem to be unreliable or misquoted. The sources are numbered as of 15.11.2023. Additionally, I put on the list inconsistencies and contradictions in the wiki article.

Source #1

"Litvinism began following the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, due to the Russian Empire's needs to change the old Grand Ducal Lithuanian identity into a new one that would better suit the Empire's interests."

Sutkus, Darius (2020a). "Litvinizmas: istorija, prielaidos, perspektyvos". Karys (in Lithuanian). 1: 3–9.

The quote above is a conclusion of the source article's author, which is based on his own criticism of Osip Senkovsky's and Ignacy Kołakowski's works. Darius Sutkus is not a professional historian but a journalist contributing to "delfi.lt" and "Karys" on various topics mostly connected to the military. The source article was published in "Karys", the military magazine of the Ministry of National Defence of Lithuania. As the conclusion in the quote is a personal contribution of Darius Sutkus, who is not a professional historian, and "Karys" magazine does not specialise in history, the quote seems like a personal unprofessional opinion.

Sources #11 and 69

"In 2018, Alexander Lukashenko stated during an interview with the Echo of Moscow that 'we are not the heirs of Kievan Rus', we are the heirs of Vilnius'".

Rimkevičienė, Liepa; Jakilaitis, Edmundas. "Dekonstrukcijos. Rusija propagandos mašina taikosi ne tik į LDK, Vilnių, bet ir Žalgirio mūšį". DELFI. Retrieved 4 March 2023. Gurevičius, Ainis. "Karininkas: jie kels ginklą prieš Lietuvą nuoširdžiai tikėdami, kad Vilnius priklauso jiems". Alfa.lt (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2 October 2023.

Source #11 does not mention the origin of Mr Lukashenko's quote. Source #69 is an interview with an editor-in-chief of the "Echo of Moscow", Alexei Venediktov. In the interview, Mr Venediktov says the abovementioned quote and states that it belongs to Mr Lukashenko. However, he does not mention any interview with Mr Lukashenko or any other occasion on which Mr Lukashenko said this quote. Google search does not provide any results for the origin of this quote, directing only to the words of Mr Venediktov. Notably, Mr Lukashenko did not give an interview to the "Echo of Moscow" in 2018.

Source #12

"It has been at times both tolerated and opposed by the state narrative of the Government of Belarus, and has found some support among the Belarusian opposition as a part of broader effort to express pre-Russian Belarusian culture."

Repečkaitė, Daiva (26 July 2022). "Medieval history powers a crisis of identity in Lithuania and Belarus". Coda. Retrieved 7 August 2023.

The source article mentions delving into the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a way to distinguish Belarus from Russia and put emphasis on their differences. What is "pre-Russian Belarusian culture", which is not mentioned in the source article and is not googleable? If I get the wiki contributor correctly, it would be best to phrase it as "non-russified Belarusian culture" or "to emphasise differences between Belarus and Russia".

Source #30

"Litvinism was also described as a form of fascism with expansionistic territorial claims to neighboring countries of Belarus."

"Gudijos fašistai atidarė filialą Vilniuj". Alkas.lt (in Lithuanian). 28 August 2023.

This is an anonymous article in a Lithuanian internet portal. The article is full of strong claims e.g. saying "according to sociological research, about 40% of Belarus' residents support their [litvinists'] ideas to varying degrees", without giving the reference to the source sociological research or going as far as to state "In essence, Belarusian society is divided between two forms of fascism, Russo-fascism and Litvin fascism." The article refers to statistics, quotes and pieces of news without clarifying original sources, and the information given is unverifiable.

Source #39

"Litvinists consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as being a joint Baltic and Eastern Slavic state. Litvinists claim this duality due to the significant Russian influence on the state."

"Grand duchy of Lithuania". Encyclopædia Britannica. 21 September 2023.

Encyclopædia Britannica's article does not mention litvinists or the reasonings for their claims. The Encyclopædia only mentions the influence of the "Russian subjects" (probably meaning Ruthenian) of the GDL on the systems of governance, military, finance, etc. The Encyclopædia states the existence of the influence but does not mention any connection of this influence to the litvinist ideas. Hence, the wiki contributor, the author of the quote, manipulates the original source and draws conclusions of their own.

Source #68

"For example, since 2013, during annual Zapad (English: West) exercises in which the Russian Armed Forces and Armed Forces of Belarus jointly participate, the narrative that the Vilnius Region should supposedly belong to Belarus is openly repeated."

Pankūnė, Dainora. "Kokiu tikslu Lukašenka svaidosi išgalvotais kaltinimais: ar baltarusių pajėgos ruošiasi naujiems iššūkiams". DELFI (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 11 September 2023.

The quote belongs to the Colonel Saulius Guzevicius, who however does not give any examples of the statements saying that Vilnius Region should belong to Belarus. Neither such examples are given in the main text of the source article, nor they are googleable. On the contrary, during 2017 "Zapad" military drilling, press secretary of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Belarus, Colonel Vladimir Makarov, negated any claims on the Vilnius Region (https://charter97.org/ru/news/2017/9/20/263470/).

Inconsistencies Start

The wiki article states "Litvinism is not supported by notable information sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica", while Encyclopædia Britannica says:

"During this period, much of the territory of the principalities of Smolensk, Polotsk, Turov, and Pinsk was controlled by the grand duchy of Lithuania, which was essentially an international or nonnational formation led by a foreign dynasty (of eastern Lithuanian pagan origins) ruling over predominantly Belarusian and Ukrainian populations. By the 15th century the dynasty had become Slavic in culture (a version of Belarusian was the official language of the realm), and at its height under Vytautas (1392–1430) it controlled all the old Kievan territory outside Russia proper—that is, most of present-day Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine."

"Russia - Novgorod". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 15 November 2023.

According to this wiki article's definition of litvinism, the quote above, in fact, aligns with litvinism:

"The Litvinists underline their closeness to Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrainians (Ruthenians) viewing the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a common heritage of the nations that live on its former territory."

"Litvinists consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as being a joint Baltic and Eastern Slavic state. Litvinists claim this duality due to the significant Russian influence on the state."

Inconsistencies Continue

The very definition of litvinism is ambiguous in the current version of the wiki article, including in one term ideas ranging from "the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a joint Baltic and Slavic state" to "the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Belarusian and has nothing to do with Lithuanians".

"According to this branch of Belarusian nationalism, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (they refer to this state as Вялікае Княства Літоўскае, Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje, and to modern Lithuania as Летува, Letuva or Жмудзь, Žmudź) was a Slavic or Belarusian state, the medieval Lithuanians were Belarusians, and modern Lithuania is a consequence of a falsification of history."

Please note that, in the quote above, the phrase "the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (they refer to this state as Вялікае Княства Літоўскае, Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje...)" sounds odd as "Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje" is a valid and only name for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Belarusian language. The phrase sounds equally absurd to "the French refer to Germany as Allemagne".

The ideas of Litvinism claiming that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a "Belarusian state" and that the Belarusians have "historical rights" to the Lithuanian capital Vilnius were expressed by the interwar period Belarusians, Belarusian Communists, long-term Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, members of the Belarusian opposition to Lukashenko, and modern Belarusian scientists.

Litvinists consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as being a joint Baltic and Eastern Slavic state.

When Alexander Lukashenko was elected president in 1994, he altered government historiography to be closer to Soviet historiography, claiming that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Lithuanian state while Belarus was created during the Russian Revolution. This marked a change from the Belarusian position before 1994, which regarded the Grand Duchy as jointly Belarusian and Lithuanian.

Conclusion

To improve the article, first and foremost, either one clear definition of litvinism must be chosen and any information going beyond that definition deleted, or it must be stated separately that different definitions exist.

Sources #1, 11, 12, 30, 39, 68 and 69 are either unreliable or misquoted, e.g. do not contain the information mentioned, are created anonymously or by people with no expertise in the field or refer to a non-verifiable quote with no clear origin. Information given by these sources in the wiki article has to be deleted, or other sources need to be found.

Depending on the choice of the final definition of litvinism for this article, the statement that "Litvinism is not supported by notable information sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica" could have to be deleted as Encyclopædia Britannica contains information supporting the idea of multiethnicity of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and importance of the Ruthenian component in forming the structure of the state. Tarsistes (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Your statements are provably false.

Karys is a reliable source as it fulfills the criteria outlined in WP:RS, e.g. editorial oversight, is not closely affiliated with the subject, etc., and so the articles within it are also by extension reliable.

The quote from Lukashenko definitely exists and the earliest that I can trace it back to is 16 December 2018 ([1]; [2]):

«Мы наследники не Киева, — говорит Лукашенко, — как Москва, мы наследники великого княжества Литовского. Мы наследники Вильно»

Translation: And we are not the heirs of Kiev,” says Lukashenko, “like Moscow, but we are the heirs of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. We are the heirs of Vilna.”

Multiple other sources attest to the existence of the quote.

Lukashenka did have an interview with the Echo of Moscow in 2019, so I see no reason to consider Venediktov as a person misrepresenting Lukashenko's views, as they have personally interacted.

The reference to Encyclopædia Britannica is not a "manipulation" of the original source as you claim, because the Encyclopædia clearly states that it was Lithuanian tribes under Mindaugas that created the state, which then conquered "Russian and Tatar territories", and that the Russians were the subjects of Lithuanians. Clearly, this refutes Litvinist views and thus it's mention is valid.

Russian disinformation is a thing, and post-Soviet states like Russia and Belarus both like to do things while simultaneously denying that they're doing them. I'm not going to take the words of an official from a country allied to Russia (with a whole article about Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine) at face value and neither should you.

Even the quote you provided from the Encyclopædia that you claim supports Litvinism actually does not, because it makes clear that Lithuanians conquered Slavic populations, whereas Litvinists deny the very existence of non-Slavic Lithuanians during the medieval period.

Claims about official languages for pre-modern states does not make sense. Furthermore, in the case of Lithuania, the court of the Grand Duke most certainly used the Lithuanian language until sometime in the latter part of the 16th century (Grand Duchy of Lithuania#Languages for state and academic purposes), so one could very well argue that Lithuanian was the official language of Lithuania.

No one contests that many ethnicities lived in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, because just like in all empires, there are many groups inside it. However, what matters are the people at the top, and they were generally ethnically Lithuanian, notwithstanding the exceptions of Ruthenians rising to power. After all, the state religion of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the late 14th century was always Roman Catholicism, the religion of Lithuanians, and not Eastern Orthodoxy, the religion of East Slavs.

PS: It is extremely suspicious that your first edit on any Wikipedia includes correctly functioning templates and knowledge of some Wikipedia terminology, which beginners do not know. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The links you have provided yet again refer to the words of Venediktov ([1]; [2]). I could not find an original interview with the Echo of Moscow, nor it is mentioned anywhere in Belarusian media. Given the specific nature of the Belarusian media, it is highly unlikely that Lukashenka’s one-on-one interview with a journalist would be left unnoticed. Moreover, as you said, Lukashenko gave the interview in 2019. As expected, Belarusian media made a fuss out of it with it being broadcast on the state channels, reposted by the Belarusian Embassy in Russia and published on the official government websites. ([1]; [2]; [3]; [4]) However, Venediktov and other sources say that the quote is from the interview dated 2018. Either it is me who cannot find it anywhere, or such an interview does not exist. As you mention later in your reply, Russian disinformation is a thing, and Venediktov cannot be trusted with no proof.

As I have pointed out, the current version of the article provides two contrasting definitions of litvinism. Indeed, Encyclopædia Britannica debunks litvinist theories in terms of the non-existence of non-Slavic Lithuanians or the creation of the Grand Duchy by the Slavs. On the other hand, the quote I have provided supports the idea of the joint nature of the state or, at least, common heritage. Reference to the “official language” is taken from Encyclopædia Britannica directly and does not belong to me. Nevertheless, my comment was not aimed at discussing the languages of the Grand Duchy. Instead, it was directed to show that while Encyclopædia Britannica does not contain any confirmation for the ideas of litvinism as per one definition, it does as per another (treating the Grand Duchy as a joint state of the common heritage). As both definitions of litvinism coexist in the current version of the wiki article, it creates an inconsistency. The definition of litvinism in the article has to be unified to exclude mentions of the “joint state and common heritage”. Otherwise, the idea of the “joint state and common heritage” is supported in Encyclopædia Britannica in the quote in my original post.

Regarding your last comment, there is a whole wiki article on Ruthenian nobility. Besides, the Privileges of 1434 and 1563 were not adopted for no reason. There was enough Ruthenian nobility, merchants, scholars, etc. Encyclopædia Britannica states that the Grand Duchy was “an international or nonnational formation” and that “by the 15th century the dynasty had become Slavic in culture”. Please, check the reference article in Encyclopædia Britannica from the original post.

PS: I am a scientist, and researching some terminology before posting was just a habit. Besides, it's the least I can do to be taken seriously. Fortunately, the guidelines are public. The templates are shamelessly stolen from other wiki talk pages. I take your comment as a compliment, even though it's sligthly rude. Tarsistes (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: All your mentioned sources (e.g. DELFI, Alkas.lt, Karys) qualifies as WP:RS, therefore duplication of Russian/Belarusian sources to support these Lithuanian sources are not necessary. Some additional comments regarding some of your described cases:
  1) "Source #30" does describe Litvinism as a form of fascism and Alkas.lt is a popular Lithuanian website about history, politics and the fact that the author did not provide his name and surname in this article is not a valid argument to claim that this source is non-WP:RS (Wikipedia article does not include statistics from this article, but only mentions that Litvinism was described as fascism).
  2) "Source #39" is not supported by Encyclopedia Britannica's article (there is a template in the article noting it), but I believe this information was taken from one of the other references (but the relevant template is missing) and is factually correct (Litvinists claims that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania either was a Belarusian state entirely or that it was a Belarusian-Lithuanian state with the domination of Belarusians in it; such ideas are reflected in other parts of this article and other references).
  3) "Source #68" see this sentence in the source: "Tai veda prie teritorinių pretenzijų – nuo 2013 metų per kiekvienas „Zapad“ pratybas yra kartojamas naratyvas, vedantis prie to, kad Vilniaus kraštas turi priklausyti Baltarusijai. Tai sakoma pakankamai atvirai įvairiais šaltiniais" (English: This leads to territorial claims - since 2013, during every "Zapad" exercise, a narrative has been repeated, leading to the fact that the Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus. This is said quite openly in various sources). Lukashenko and other Belarusians quite often state the the Vilnius Region is "Belarusian", therefore such words of Saulius Guzevičius clearly are not dubious.
  4) "Inconsistencies Start" the start of this Wiki article is correct because the Encyclopædia Britannica does not support Litvinistic claims that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created by the Slavs/Belarusians and the usage of Slavic languages alongside Baltic Lithuanian language is the "Slavic in culture" aspect (later Lithuanian rulers from the Jagiellonian dynasty were Polonized, but it does not deny their Lithuanian patrilineal origin from Gediminas - Gediminids).
  "Inconsistencies Continue" - Litvinism has different variants and since it is a pseudoscientific theory there understandably isn't one variant of it. This Wikipedia's article simply describe various Litvinistic theories which deny Lithuaniness of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania/Vilnius and emphasizes its Belarusianness/Russianness - that is the main aspect of Litvinism - to claim that the Lithuanians have absolutely no rights to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or were less important in the creation/development of it than the Belarusians (in Russian propaganda, Belarusians are described simply as yet another "Russians" and the aspects of "Russianness" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are emphasized instead), despite the fact that this state always had "Lithuania" in its name, not Ruthenia/Belarus/Russia. The name of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Belarusian language (Вялікае Княства Літоўскае, Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje) is clearly not described as pseudoscientific anywhere in this article - it is a really valid name of this state and is just included for simpler understanding of terminology in this Wikipedia's article (I see nothing wrong with that).
  Please keep in mind that many Belarusian language articles from the Radio Svoboda (Радио Свобода) were used in this Wikipedia's article despite the fact that the Radio Svoboda in its disclaimer (at the end of these articles) deny their responsibility for the validity of the content written by these unaffiliated Belarusian authors (not employed by the Radio Svaboda), but these articles are valid examples (evidence) in this Wikipedia's article to illustrate Litvinistic theories raised by Belarusian authors (they would be dubious sources elsewhere in Wikipedia where pseudoscientific theories are not tolerated and we only seek truthful content, e.g. in dedicated articles about histories of countries). -- Pofka (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Pofka My issue is with the absence of original statements of any Belarusian officials calling for the annexation of Vilnius or the Vilnius region. There is no doubt that Saulius Guzevičius said that “a narrative has been repeated, leading to the fact that the Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus”. However, there is no quote that actually states it that belongs to a Belarusian official. As an example, I can say that "Egyptian officials constantly and repeatedly state that the Vatican must belong to Egypt". However, whatever I say about what Egyptian officials say does not make it more credible than gossip without the source statement. While Lukashenka and others can say something along the lines that Vilnius is Belarusian, these statements do not go beyond admitting the significance of the city to the development of contemporary Belarusian culture (e.g., the presence of Belarusian schools, publishing houses, etc., at the beginning of the XX century). There are no statements that “Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus” as Saulius Guzevičius said and as put in the article. “Vilnius has a great significance in Belarusian culture and history” != “Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus”. Even "Vilnius is Belarusian" != “Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus”.

  As per my reply to @Cukrakalnis, litvinism is defined too broadly and vague in the article. Indeed, Encyclopædia Britannica does not support any ideas that the Grand Duchy was created by the Slavs or that Belarusians presented a dominant component in the state. However, it does support the idea of the Grand Duchy as a joint state or at least a common heritage. Therefore, it supports such definitions of litvinism mentioned in the article as in the quotes given in my original post:

  “The Litvinists underline their closeness to Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrainians (Ruthenians) viewing the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a common heritage of the nations that live on its former territory.”

  “Litvinists consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as being a joint Baltic and Eastern Slavic state.”

  These definitions do not mention any dominance of Belarusians/Ruthenians/Slavs nor question origins of the Grand Duchy. Understandably, there cannot be one definition of a pseudoscientific theory, but there should be a clear cut to avoid contradictions. At the moment, Encyclopædia Britannica does support some statements attributed to litvinists, while the article says it does not.

  To clarify, the quotes above do not try to assert any Belarusian/Ruthenian/Slavic dominance and do not question the creation of the Grand Duchy by Lithuanians but only state that the Grand Duchy is a common heritage and was a joint Baltic and Slavic state. Should they still be treated as litvinist and pseudoscientific? If so, then what is a non-litvinist view of the role of Slavs in the Grand Duchy and its historical heritage?

  The way the Belarusian name for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is put in the article sounds like it is used only by Belarusian nationalists:

  “According to this branch of Belarusian nationalism, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (they refer to this state as Вялікае Княства Літоўскае, Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje…)"

  Specifically, the problem arises with “they” after “branch of Belarusian nationalism”. Additionally, there is “refer”. English is not my native language, but for me, “refer to this state as” sounds like it is not a valid name, but the one made up specifically by this branch of Belarusian nationalism. Tarsistes (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Tsepkalo - the language of GDL

"In December 2021, Belarusian politician Valery Tsepkalo, one of the denied candidates of the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, stated online that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created in the current Belarusian territory in the 13th–14th centuries and later expanded, while the spoken language in the state was the Russian language ("Russkiy jazyk"), not the current Lithuanian language"

He mentioned not Russian, but the Ruthenian language, one of the names of which is "Russkiy jazyk", a few seconds later (7:30) he uses more specific words for it - "... называют кто западно-русским, кто старобеларуским" Гусак Звычайны (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, it is not fully clear what Tsepkalo meant with his words and whenever he considers Ruthenian as Western Russian or Old Belarusian language (or even both), so I also included a word "Ruthenian" to the sentence. It is noteworthy that Tsepkalo in this video is speaking in Russian, not Belarusian language, which makes it even more difficult to understand his point of view regarding the historical evaluation of Ruthenian language. -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Compliments! :)

Just want to say compliments. I think the article has been massively expanded in a very short time - the length speaks for itself - and in my opinion it reads very cleanly and informatively on the topic, and is above all certainly helpful for people who want a neutral perspective on the topic. As far as I can judge as an amateur Wikipedia user, the article is supported by many good sources and evidence and now surpasses many other articles in this subject area. MKW100 (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Cronicle of Grand Duchy Lithuania found by Byhovec

in cronicle of Grand Duchy Lithuania very clear explained that Grand Duchy was created by Roman colonists. Zhemaytians of modern Letuva had Roman settlers rank lower than Belarussians. Word Lithuania come frome Latin Listubania those Roman's that crossed river Villia to sunrise become Listubanya and those who lived near Baltic Sea were called Zhamoitia but main governor of Romans Duce Palemone Lebobone children crossed Villia river that why modern Belarus or Listubania was land superior to land Zhamoitia.Zhamoitia was under command from Lithuania-Listubania-Belarus that all explained in details in Cronicle. Roman's did not disappear they took surnames of city they had under there rule Belskiy,Ruzhinskiy,Mogilevskiy,Korbut, Golshanskiy and others come from Roman nobels and they live now as ordinary Belarus people.Reason that they not nobels becouse they lost war to Moscovia and lost money,castles,power. <ref>https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus/Bychovec/frametext.htm Александр Макович (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Bychowiec Chronicle is known to be full of bullshit wrong information. - Altenmann >talk 19:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WE in Belarus thinking that it most important Chronical from all. Александр Макович (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Speak for yourself: you cannot say what all people in BElarus think or know. - Altenmann >talk 16:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Lengthy wall of text by an IP (supposedly Александр Макович) reverted. Wikipedia is not a vehicle of promotion of personal views. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of article improvements basing on information found in reliable sources - Altenmann >talk 16:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia it not promotion of personal vews Александр Макович (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

reliable sources that you point fraud from my vew Александр Макович (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: The legend of Palemonids founding the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created because of similarities between Lithuanian language and Latin (Roman)/Italian languages, and this legend claimed that the Lithuanians are of Italian (Roman) origin. The Lithuanian language is in fact similar to the Latin and Sanskrit languages (see: source), so the Palemonids legend sounds quite convincing and proves what kind of language was spoken by the Old Lithuanians, who created the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and after whom it was named. It is absolutely clear that the Ruthenian language or the Belarusian language are not similar to Latin/Italian, so per Palemonids legend the Belarusians (basically Ruthenians) are obviously not of Italian origin. The nowadays Lithuanians basically speak the same language which was spoken by the founders of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (obviously, with modern additions as in other languages) and Lithuanian language is very, very different from Belarusian (which closely reminds other East Slavic languages), so confusing these languages is absolutely impossible. -- Pofka (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Legend of Palemon" was fake created during Soviet time when Samogitia was renamed to Lithuania within USSR. 207.107.113.94 (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Indian language a similar to Samogitian it a modern Lithuanian language. Italian Latin language was abandont 1529 year when Statut was translated to language of Rus Lituaniq or White and both nations become Grand Lituania one nation and Samogitia was part of Grand but Statut was not active in Samogitia so it belong to Lituania. 207.107.113.94 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  How you call call "Palemon legend" if I took from Chronical Bykhovets Coat of Arms of 5 highr Roman nobels and able to trace them till modern time, watch small videos on my tiktok Aliaksandr Makovich 207.107.113.94 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Until the Union of Lublin in 1569 there was no difference between the Belarusians and Ukrainians as all of them were just Ruthenians living in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was founded by non-Slavic Lithuanians. Only after the Union of Lublin the Belarusians became more distant from Ukrainians because the Ukrainian territories were joined to Poland, while the Belarusian territories remained in Lithuania. The Ukrainians do not call themselves "real Lithuanians" and rightfully associate their origin and history with Ruthenia. The Belarusians should not invent pseudoscientific theories that "Lithuanians are not Lithuanians" because scientific point of view will always confirm that the nowadays Lithuanians speak the language of the founders of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and that after them this state was named Lithuania. The Belarusians are Ruthenians with their origin in Ruthenia and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not founded by Ruthenians. -- Pofka (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well I did not get your point modern Lithuanian languige are Samogitian and it relative to Indian. All documents of Grand Duchy Lituania were on Latin languige till 1529 then on Slavic. Belarus or Rus Lituaniq were created by Romans who settled on territory of Rus thats when small Roman Lituania become Grand Lituania. Kiev Rus want land back and was big battle of Mogilno which Duke Skirmunt from Novogrodok won.Second big battle was Koidanova with Mongols Zhmont modern Lithuania or Samogitia was in too fighting on Lituanian side together with White Rus and won.Lublin created confederation becouse all nobels in Poland were Roman origin too they come from Litua-Belarus with Yagello when he merry Polish queen and Pols did it becouse they were weak compare with Grand Duchy Lituania that written in Chronicals.

  Name Lituania come from Latin words Tube and RIVER BEACH those Romans who went over river Villia were call themselves Litusbano and Rus call them Litva . Coat of Arm Belarus nobel Radzivil Tubes and when doughter of lDuke Radzivil was coming from England after independent she was saying that her father always speak Belarussian.Video were available on youtube. Александр Макович (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

kresy.pl

@AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam: editr summary: kresy.pl on the Polish Wikipedia is deleted due to and blocked by the filter due to unreliability and falsification of sources

Please provide the link to the corresponding discussions in Polish Wikipedia, for review, so that we can discuss it at WP:RSN. - Altenmann >talk 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You have a whole conversation on this topic here [1](Polish Wikipedia) AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The conversation accuses kresy.pl to be a shill of Kremlin, but provides no evidence. It is a serious accusation. If proven, it may be blocked in enwiki as well. Do you have anything to add?- Altenmann >talk 19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The Polish wikipedia also has a discord on which I am on, where one of the admins, when asked about this page, also said about falsifying sources and downloading from under Russian sources ones. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This an insufficient evidence for en-wiki. - Altenmann >talk 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the article cited, it is heavily non-neutral, signed by a Jan Bury, but there is no evidence he is the Jan Bury; author's expertise is unknown; the text gives no further indications on the source of its wisdom. Herefore I am inclined to remove it from the article. - Altenmann >talk 19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that general information which is presented in this Wikipedia article about Litvinism and is based on Kresy.pl source is basically correct, so I think it should not be deleted/modified. Anyway, I have no knowledge how reliable Kresy.pl website is on a broader scale, but maybe it depends on author who wrote an article for it (it could be that it openly accepts and publishes various quality and reliability articles from a wide range of authors?). Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that this Wikipedia article has descriptions of pseudoscientific claims based on articles from the Belarusian version of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (Радыё Свабода - Svaboda.org) and in these articles such pseudoscientific claims are not criticized by authors of the articles, so generally speaking it could also be concluded that Радыё Свабода presents fake news, but such sources and information based on them should not be removed from this article because it proves that there actually are people and even scientists who spread such pseudoscientific false claims about the history of Lithuania and Lithuanians. -- Pofka (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Litvinism from Belarussian point of vew

Litvinism was created in modern Lithuania , becouse Litvinism has baseless point that Baltic tribes created Grand Duchy of Lituania,Rus and Zhmont.Most reliable source existed in the world Chronicle of Bihovets say Roman empire immigrants created it from Roman sity Aquilea that sity located near slavic tribes that were part of Roman empire and emmigrated too within 500 famalies . "Lituanos ab italis originem" written in Statut of Grand duchy of lITHUANIA 1529 Александр Макович (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What a fake news! Everyone knows Lithuania was created by Germanic Luticy tribes and Goths who migrated from northern Germany into Navarahdak area MKW100 (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Samogitia that were renamed to Lithuania within Russian empire has language similar to Indian. Google it on YouTube.Lituanos always fought with Germanic tribes for control of Samogitia. On tribes Ятвяги was assimilated into Belarussians that's why Lithuanians call Belarussians- Gudai that's Goths. 207.107.113.94 (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Gothic toponyms stretch up to Kernave and Airogola, proving that Germanic Belaruso-Goths fought with Germanic Germans over the Germanic territory of modern Lithu-india. You can fact-check it using the Bel-tarask wikipedia and tiktok. MKW100 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

give example of Gothic toponims on Samogitian land 207.107.113.94 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Fact-check with TikTok? Really? Mellk (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

On tik tok 10 minits video I put information same as on YouTube with facts and proof 207.107.113.94 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have also never heard of Belaruso-Goths, can you provide a source for this? Mellk (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Two examples of glorious Litvinist mental gymnastics which almost won gold medals at the Olympics:

Kernave

"Kernau is a Magdeburg town in the historical Vilnius region, an ancient castle of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, on the ethnic territory of Belarusians."

"There is also a modern version of the German origin of the name (as in the case of Troka, Eyragola, Jurbark and certain other ancient settlements of Litvins"

Arigola

"The city belongs to the ethnographic region of Zhamoyt."

"One of the versions examines the Germanic origin of the name Airagola and connects it with the Gothic airus ― "messenger" and goljan ― to welcome.

"Eyragola on the river Dubisa was one of the first cities founded by the Litvinians"

MKW100 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not commenting on your nonsense 207.107.113.94 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am providing information, that I say that Italians founded Magnus Ducatus Lituanie and after Mongoluan invasion Lituanos went in RUS and cut part from it and settle there with time change lunguige it around 1529 whet they translated Statut on Belarussian. 207.107.113.94 (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk: Colleague, please don't waste your time on discussing crackpot theories [unless you are having fun :-), but again, it clutters the talk page]. I myself made the same mistake here. - Altenmann >talk 17:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought maybe there was common knowledge about the Belaruso-Goths and I was the crazy one here. Good to know this is not the case. Mellk (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You can also check the name section of various Litvino-Belarusian-Gothic figures such as Mindaugovich

Clearly, those figures and the region were everything but not "baltic Lithuanian".

MKW100 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

that Samogitian creation pretend to be Belarus 207.107.113.94 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: The legend of Palemonids founding the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created because of similarities between Lithuanian language and Latin (Roman)/Italian languages, and this legend claimed that the Lithuanians are of Italian (Roman) origin. The Lithuanian language is in fact similar to the Latin and Sanskrit languages (see: source), so the Palemonids legend sounds quite convincing and proves what kind of language was spoken by the Old Lithuanians, who created the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and after whom it was named. It is absolutely clear that the Ruthenian language or the Belarusian language are not similar to Latin/Italian, so per Palemonids legend the Belarusians are obviously not of Italian origin. -- Pofka (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Žmudź

I removed the following piece from the lede:

(they refer to this state as Вялікае Княства Літоўскае, Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje, and to modern Lithuania as Летува, Letuva or Жмудзь, Žmudź)

This is not written in the sources cited. There is a confusion what they were calling Žmudź, and whatever they mean must be referenced to their sources, not to hearsay, otherwise, after Wikipedians inserted into the refchain, it becomes "chinese whispers". One of the footnotes does say " o tikraisiais lietuviais gali vadintis tik žemaičiai" ("and only žemaitians can be called real Lithuanians") - but this is also a confusion: (ethnic) Lithuania in 19th century Russian sources was weirdly divided into высшая Литва (Upper Lithuania, i.e., literal interpretation of "Aukštaitija") and Жмудь (corruption of the Lithuanian word "Žemaitija", rather than literal "Lower Lithuania"). So I dont know who was confused here: Litvinists or Lithuanians reporting on Litvinists. - Altenmann >talk 17:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Pazniak wrote: "Дзяржава называлася Вялікае Княства Літоўскае (цяперашняя Беларусь), Рускае (цяперашняя Украіна) і Жамойцкае (цяперашняя Летува)" (The state was called Great Duchy of Lithuania (modern Belarus), Russia (modern Ukraine) and Samogitia (Modern Lietuva)", i.e., he did not equate the "Great Duchy" with Belarus, only its part. Also desription of his position is incorrect: he was against calling Belarusians Litvins; his position was the whatever it was in the past, during the last 150 years, the nation of Belarus was truly formed, i.e., he can hardly can be classified as "true Litvinist" - Altenmann >talk 19:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann: Hi, your recent removal of content in this article is wrong. Please do not remove referenced content without extensive analysis of this quite confusing topic and discussion. Litvinists claims that "гістарычнай Літва" (Romanized: historical Litva – Grand Duchy of Lithuania) is not "Лету́ва" (Romanized: Letuva/Lietuva – Republic of Lithuania since 1918) and that both these countries should not be called "Лету́ва" (Romanized: Letuva/Lietuva) are one of the main pseudoscientific arguments in the theory of Litvinism. From the scientific point of view it is of course an absurd because the Lithuanian language (Baltic) variant of Lithuania's name (Lietuva) was used already during the existence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so it is not a 20th century name as Litvinists try to falsely prove. The name "Літва" (Romanized: Litva) is just an equivalent of Lithuania's name in Slavic languages, so depending on language used (Slavic or Baltic) Lithuania can be called either "Літва" (Romanized: Litva) or "Lietuva" and both these names mean exactly the same country – Lithuania, including medieval Kingdom of Lithuania and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Claims that "Lietuva" is not "Літва" (Romanized: Litva) are equal to an absurd that "Empire Français" (French Empire) is not "République Française" (Republic of France). France is France, Lithuania is Lithuania.

This is very evident in Zenon Pazniak's article which you cited here and which is used as a reference in this Wikipedia's article about Litvinism (including in a sentence which you partly removed from this article). In that article Pazniak claims that "Фантастычная міфалогія гісторыі, на якой трымаецца Летува, ёсьць перакручаная рэальная гісторыя Беларусі (гістарычнай Літвы)" (English: The fantastic mythology of history on which Letuva is based is a twisted real history of Belarus (historical Litva). Another sentence from that Pazniak's article (which you cited): "Дзяржава называлася Вялікае Княства Літоўскае (цяперашняя Беларусь), Рускае (цяперашняя Украіна) і Жамойцкае (цяперашняя Летува)" (English: The state was called the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (now Belarus), Russian (now Ukraine) and Zhamoi (now Lithuania) only confirms that because Pazniak once again claims that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is nowadays "Беларусь" (Romanized: Belarus), while Samogitia is nowadays "Летува" (Romanized: Letuva/Lietuva). In 2024, Pazniak even congratulated the Belarusians with Freedom Day by saying that in 1918 the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was restored but with a name Belarus, while in the territory of Samogitia appeared "Letuva/Lietuva". So Pazniak undoubtedly support Litvinists claims that "Lithuania is Samogitia".

Another Belarusian Litvinist historian Alexander Kravtsevich also claims in his article that "Зыходзячы з прыведзеных фактаў, бачыцца цалкам апраўданым і нават неабходным выкарыстаньне двух розных тэрмінаў «Літва» (ліцьвіны) — для абазначэньня гістарычнай Літвы і «Летува» (летувісы) — для акрэсьленьня сучаснай краіны — паўночнага суседа Беларусі«" (English: Based on the given facts, the use of two different terms "Litva" (Litviny) — to denote historical Lithuania and "Letuva" (Letuvisy) — to describe the modern country — the northern neighbor of Belarus, is seen as completely justified and even necessary). Such Kravtsevich's claims are identical to Pazniak's thoughts that "Litva" is not "Letuva/Lietuva", and there are more such Litvinists (pseudoscientists, politicians or social media activists).

Here are additional Lithuanian sources confirming that Belarusian Litvinists falsely claims that "modern Lithuania (Letuva/Lietuva) is Samogitia", not equivalent to "historical Litva":

1) Interview with a Lithuanian historian: "litvinizmas – ideologija, paremta stipriai klaidingų istorinių faktų interpretacija. Iš to kyla įvairūs teiginiai: baltarusių mūsų valstybingumo savinimasis, kad valstybė pirminiame etape, kai kūrėsi, buvo visiškai nelietuviška, ne baltiška, o slaviška, stačiatikiška ir kad lietuviai, kurie kūrė valstybę, buvo dabartinių baltarusių protėviai. (English: Litvinism is an ideology based on a strongly false interpretation of historical facts. Various claims arise from this: the appropriation of our statehood by Belarusians, claims that the state was completely non-Lithuanian, non-Baltic, but Slavic, Orthodox at the initial stage when it was being created, and that the Lithuanians who created the state were the ancestors of the current Belarusians).

Taip pat tautybės savinimasis – kad jie tikrieji litvinai, o mes tiktai lietuvisai. Vadinasi, mes tarsi neturėjome valstybės, nes, jeigu sutiktume su teorija, jog nesame tikrieji litvinai, kaip jie sako – tie lietuvisai ar žmudinai, tai Žemaitija niekada nebuvo valstybė. Vadinasi, neturime teisės į savo valstybę – taip savinamasi tautybė. (English: Also the appropriation of nationality – that they are the real Litvins, and we are only lietuvisai. Therefore, it is as if we did not have a state, because if we accept the theory that we are not the real Litvins, as they say – those lietuvisai or Žmudins, then Samogitia was never a state. Therefore, we do not have the right to our own state – this is how nationality is appropriated.)

Iš to kyla teritorinės pretenzijos – dabar jie savinasi Vilnių, mūsų sostinę, tikslingai ir atvirai skelbiama, kad Vilnius – baltarusiškas miestas, kad Vilnius – mūsų. Baltarusiai kartais sako, kad jis tiesiog baltarusiškas ar baltarusių miestas. Yra visokių interpretacijų." (English: Territorial claims arise from this – now they appropriate Vilnius, our capital, purposefully and openly declare that Vilnius is a Belarusian city, that Vilnius – ours. The Belarusians sometimes say that it is simply Belarusian or a Belarusian city. There are all kinds of interpretations).

2) Article in one of the most popular Lithuanian online news website 15min.lt: "Kai kurių baltarusių galvose lietuviai – tik lituvisai ar „žmudai“: įrodinėjama, kad dabartinė mūsų tauta neturi nieko bendra su istorine Litva" (English: In the minds of some Belarusians, Lithuanians are only Lituvisai or "Žmudins": it is argued that our current nation has nothing to do with historical Litva).

3) Article in a popular Lithuanian news website Respublika.lt: "Istorijos diletantai ar sąmoningi iškraipytojai jau ima įrodinėti, kad tikroji lietuviams, tai yra baltams priklausanti gyvenamoji vieta yra Žemaitija, o Aukštaitija, įskaitant Vilnių, yra istorinės litvinų, tai yra baltarusių žemės." (English: History dilettantes or conscious distorters are already starting to argue that the real place of residence of Lithuanians, that is, Balts, is Samogitia, and Aukštaitija, including Vilnius, is the historical land of Litvins, that is, Belarusians).

I have reinserted to the article a slightly expanded explanation about this with precise referencing described in this discussion. -- Pofka (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Small interesting discovery

See https://president.gov.by/en/belarus/regions/grodno

This official Belarusian website (in English) uses the term "Litvans" to describe Lithuanians (in their tribal stage), avoiding the correct English term "Lithuanians".

However, when talking about the medieval state, the correct term "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is used.

MKW100 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

'Litvans' is simply an inept translation of the word 'литва' ('litva') in Russian text, a vague archaic collective term for Lithuanian peoples, usually in the contexts of them being invaders. In fact the term 'litvin' is a singulative form of 'litva'. See e.g. Vladimir Toporov's article or the book by Norman Davies, Litva: The Rise and Fall of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. And 'litvins' is plural from 'litvin', i.e., "litvins" is a group of individuals from the 'litva' tribe. So the "correct" English term would be "Ancient Lithuanians" (akin to Old Prussians, which in Russian are denoted by a single word "пруссы"). --Altenmann >talk 16:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand. At first glance it looked like an attempt of "They weren't (modern) Lithuanians, they were Litvans".

MKW100 (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)