![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
2603:8000:D300:D0F:3000:C19E:8E1:70CB ( talk) 02:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Cukrakalnis @ GizzyCatBella, the whole part about 1st Belarusian Regiment is off-topic, it doesn't have any relation to the Pogoń coat of arms, it's just says that there were some Belarusian units in Lithuania army and that they were dissolved. Also it's misleading because it's suggest that the only reason Belarus was using Pogoń was that there were Belarusian units within Lithuanian army for some time Marcelus ( talk) 12:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Plus some additional badmouthing of Poland - why even mention some alleged desacralization of the flag in this article? It's completely off-topic. Basically, the whole Belarusian part should be rewritten.[1] and
the article is suppose to be about history of coat of arms, not an excuse to spread anti-Polish propaganda.[2]. Unfavourable facts are denigrated as anti-Polish propaganda and off-topic, etc. I highly recommend that you read WP:NOTCENSORED before telling others what to do. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
doesn't belong here? No, you are severely wrong. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 18:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
References
Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. (...) As a result of this historical claim, in 1918 the Belarusian Democratic Republic adopted as its state emblem the state symbol of the Grand Duchy (...)
This is an article on the coat of arms of Lithuania, Belarus historically used a similar one (Pahonia, rejected by the Lukashenko regime in 1995), both symbols have the same history of being the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The section on Belarus should address this, and briefly describe the history of Pahonia's use in Belarus.
At present, however, in my opinion, the section on Belarus is far from that. It unnecessarily repeats information about Belarus that can be found in the relevant articles, overelaborate compared to the rest of the article are the contents about the cooperation of some Belarusian activists with Lithuania in 1919 and the Belarusian military unit formed at its side in Grodno (the disarmament of this detachment by the Polish army is described in strange detail), as well as the 1995 referendum in which Belarusians rejected the Pahonia as the country's emblem. It is not difficult to fend off the impression that the article is written in a rather biased way and tries to convince us of something. First to the fact that Belarusians never had any statehood before 1918, that they owe their traditions to Lithuania, and that they never really wanted the Pahonia as an emblem, which they expressed in the 1995 referendum (a quick read of the 1995 Belarusian referendum article shows that it was a bit more complicated than that).
In my sandbox I wrote an alternative proposal for this chapter. I tried to make it comprehensive, but also short.
As Cukrakalnis rejects the changes I made and does not agree with my opinion, I request the comment from the community. I also ping GizzyCatBella who participated in the discussion. Marcelus ( talk) 18:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Later Pahonia was chosen by the founders in the short-lived Belarusian People's Republic as the state emblem. In the period 1918-1923, it was used by the military units of the Belarusian People's Republic, as well as those formed within the Lithuanian and Polish armies, also I'm not pushing "POV that Belarusians did have statehood before 1918", because in my proposal is stated:
The founders of the Belarusian national movement saw the historical continuity between the principality of Polotsk and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, they considered them to be part of the Belarusian national tradition. How is that POV pushing? Marcelus ( talk) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
written in a rather biased wayis
First to the fact that Belarusians never had any statehood before 1918. That is a fact supported by numerous WP:RS, namely, several articles in Encyclopedia Britannica, Rudling's book The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931, as well as other books too. Cutting out and basically censoring several paragraphs that are directly concerning units and institutions that used the coats of arms on which the whole article is focused on and replacing them with a single sentence which is severely incomprehensive and even impoverished in terms of content, is absolutely shameless behaviour. You don't even mention the chaotic situation in Belarus post-WW1 and the numerous attempts of creating Belarusian statehood between 1918-1923, which is absolutely necessary to just have an inkling of understanding of what was happening there at the time. You don't even mention that the BPR didn't actually have any viable institutions. Just using 'short-lived' is a severe understatement. Also not mentioning that most of these declared Belarusian states (four of six) did not even use the Lithuanian coat of arms is also very incorrect. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
BPR was the first state using the name "Belarus". Portraying the mention of the existence of the first Belarusian state in such a light is dishonest. It is about whether Belarusian statehood existed before 1918. What do Encyclopedia Britannica, Rudling, and many other historians write? That there was no Belarusian state before 1918 and Belarus was ruled by non-Belarusians until then. Ergo, claiming otherwise, or trying to portray the very mentioning of this undeniable historical fact, as somehow
biased, which is what you have done in your proposal, is factually wrong. I must emphasize once more: the deletion of statements referencing Encyclopedia Britannica and many other reliable sources and their replacement with a text which is content-impoverished compared to what was there before is 100% unjustified. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Belarusian historians will claim much longer historical tradition, because not all Belarusian historians will do so. However, the Belarusian historians that you do have in mind, which are the Litvinist ones, are actively distorting historical facts by, e.g., denying that modern Lithuanians are Lithuanians and saying that they are actually Samogitians, among other nonsense.
Some Belarusians even claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is they adopted its symbol - Vytis.
Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, 1st Belarusian Regiment and Grodno Military Commandmaybe they are, maybe they aren't, nonetheless these are Lithuanian institutions, so if the sectios is about Belarusian usage of CoA than it shouldn't be mentioned here. Marcelus ( talk) 17:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
should not be removed as well because it is inextricably related with the Coat of arms of Lithuania and describes how the Polish Army soldiers despised the Lithuanian symbolism (Vytis / Pahonia) in Grodnoare you sure you are advocating WP:NPOV here?
I understand that we have different opinions, but we seek for WP:NPOV, WP:CONS and are WP:Here to build an encyclopedia according to the WP:Five pillars in a collaborative method (WP:COLLABORATE), and does not really address any comments made in the RfC. It does not address my proposal to change the text. It ignores or dismisses any suggestions. Marcelus ( talk) 11:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
the article is suppose to be about history of coat of arms" ( 1), but at the same time you want to completely censor some notable and inextricably connected history about the Coat of arms of Lithuania in Grodno and Belarus. I already described you that Grodno at the time was the third largest city (after Vilnius and Kaunas) where the Lithuanian Armed Forces were active and the Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs (within Government of Lithuania) targeted all Belarusians, so notability is very, very high (certainly too high to completely exclude).
at the moment it is written only from the Lithuanian point of view" ( 1): so you are saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica is a source with Lithuanian point of view? Could you please explain how Lithuania control Encyclopedia Britannica and its authors like Whitney Smith who precisely wrote that "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent" ( 1). I never heard personally that Lithuania control/influence Encyclopedia Britannica, so please clarify with WP:RS.
And the section "After the collapse of USSR" is also written in non-neutral language, as it promotes the thesis that the Belarusians rejected Pahonia and have no connection with it": not true. It also include facts that "However, he still signed decrees to incorporate similar symbol into several reginal flags and coats of arms as in Gomel Region and Vitsebsk Region, and the previous national symbols continued to be used by the Belarusian opposition and gained exceptional popularity among the Belarusians during the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests.[195]", so it describes Lukashenko's and opposition's usage. The 1995 Belarusian referendum is a fact and it does not present Lithuanian point of view in this question as it was performed by the Belarusian authorities and voted by the Belarusians themselves.
personal attacks against my content, yours content doesn't have a personality, so it's impossible to attack it personally. And yes @ GizzyCatBella it's about Pofka forging some random Google results as a source in order to push his own narrative:
Aegidius Kibler used this Lithuanian term Waikymas in 1700 because of that as well, so it proves that this term became widespread as even a German-speaking author used it in his German-language book 69 years after the death of Konstantinas Sirvydas; this alone exclude him as trustworthy editor on this topic.
Probably the final suggestion seeking for a WP:CONS in this RFC: I prepared a condensed version of this section which is centered around Vytis (Pahonia) and includes only very basic related facts for understanding the context. I would agree to adopt such condensed version: User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus (maybe a few more references should be preserved as well). It has nearly twice fewer characters (reduced from 8263 to 4914), but preserves all the main Lithuanian–Belarusian content and WP:RS. If participants of this RFC: @ GizzyCatBella:, @ Piotrus:, @ Marcelus:, @ Cukrakalnis: disagree with this suggestion, then clearly we will move this dispute to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, so your short statements about this condensed version are welcome. I think other subsections in this section "Similar coats of arms" should be of a similar length because images are not enough to describe the history of this symbol. -- Pofka ( talk) 22:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
symbolism and soldiers were publicly humiliated by the Polish soldiers, which is clear violation of WP:NPOV and seems like WP:FRINGE. In general your proposition is clar violation of WP:UNDUE. Also its tiresome that after all the discussion you are proposing that, completely ignoring what was already said. Marcelus ( talk) 23:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Post below: GizzyCatBella 🍁 04:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
This bland statement allegedly by Belarusian nationalists is not supported by the sources cited. From sources follow that Be-nationalists claim that the Belarusian state is a successor, a "heir" of GDL. This must be fixed. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 21:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. According to the nationalists, the elites of the Grand Duchy were primarily Belarusian-speakers, and the Grand Duchy's statues, written in Belarusian, reflect the influence of Slavs on the politics and culture of the government. As a result of this historical claim, in 1918 the Belarusian Democratic Republic adopted as its state emblem the state symbol of the Grand Duchy - a coat of arms depicting a knight on horseback - which also became an official symbol of post-Soviet Lithuania. Lithuanians call the coat of arms "Vytis" (the White Knight), and Belarusians call it "Pahonia" (the Chase), but it is the same.
References
Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. (...) As a result of this historical claim, in 1918 the Belarusian Democratic Republic adopted as its state emblem the state symbol of the Grand Duchy (...)
This is wikipedian's interpretation of what the sources said.is not an argument. It seems that you don't grasp the meaning of the sentence Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 'Claiming an even longer tradition of statehood' means claiming that a certain state in the past was the current state's predecessor. Belarusian nationalists claimed that GDL was a Belarusian state. The quote does say that.
GDL was part of the Belarusian tradition of statehood. It says that
Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Claiming something to be a part of your tradition does not mean that it is. There is a clear difference.
The problem for Belarusian nationalists, as for the would-be Padanians of northern Italy, is that there are no long-standing traditions of independent statehood that can be clearly identified as ancestral to the current Belarusian people and state. There was a short-lived period of quasi-independence in 1918-19, but that scarcely suffices. So to fill an awkward gap, the nationalists have adopted the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania, later part of the commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, as a glorious antecedent and precedent for their modern state. Not unsurprisingly, the modern republic of Lithuania has also adopted this huge state, which once stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea, as its own historical patrimony. The most palpable expression of this potential rivalry is that both states used the same symbol as their national emblem in the 1990s. This consists of an armed medieval knight carrying a shield bearing the device of a cross with two cross-bars, sitting on a horse facing to the left which rears up on its hind legs.What this is saying is that Belarusian nationalists claim that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was an antecedent and precedent for BELARUS. Precedent is defined as 'an earlier occurrence of something similar'. To make it absolutely clear, this WP:RS proves that Belarusian nationalists claim that Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 19:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuaniais a correct interpretation of the sources cited ("antecedent", "ancestral", etc.) an hence may be put into the article as an explanation of the choice of the COA. But this is not the same as "Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state". Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. What the sources do say is that Belarusian nationalists claim that. There is a very clear difference. Also, Belarus is a Belarusian state. Just like Poland is a Polish state. Belarusian nationalists claiming that the GDL is a precedent to Belarus means that the Belarusian nationalists are claiming that GDL was a Belarusian state. The reasoning behind Belarusian nationalists using the coat of arms of Lithuania for themselves is already clear in the sentence
Belarusian nationalists claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is why they adopted its symbol.
Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuaniaand interpreting it as such is a total misreading of the sources. Both sources clearly talk about Belarusian nationalists trying to appropriate the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a Belarusian state, but neither says that the GDL was actually a Belarusian state. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 20:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Belarusian nationalists claim that Belarus is a successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and a minor one: "successor" is often used in an informal sense, i.e., not necessarily legal succession. And I am not at all sure that belnationalists talk about legal succession, because legal succession has a quite broad consequences. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 21:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
20th century at the end of the 20th century, with the birth of national movements in Eastern European countries, some of them took quite radical forms. At that time, a theory developed in neighboring Belarus, the principles of which naturally arouse resentment among Lithuanians: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is a Slavic state, medieval Lithuanians are Belarusians, and modern Lithuania is the result of a falsification of history. Although most of the statements of this theory have no real historical basis, it is successfully gaining popularity in the neighboring country, and its echoes can be seen across the border.[3] However this attests the Pahonia COA in post-Soviet Belarus. One still need sources why it was chosen for Belarus National Republic. Neither the latter article, no its versions in other wikis made me wiser. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
One still need sources why it was chosen for Belarus National Republic.No, because it is already clear why Belarusian nationalists chose the coat of arms of Lithuania for themselves. Furthermore, there is no issue with the sources I cited, so your claim that
not very good sources were sited>is simply not true. It doesn't help that you wrote your objection with grammar mistakes. Regardless, I hope that we have reached an understanding.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
As I see, colleague Cukrakalnis removed my tag, per this talk. Still, the statement must be fixed when the dust settles, because " Litvinism" is a bunch of crazies and not all belnationalists are that ultra. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 21:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
2603:8000:D300:D0F:3000:C19E:8E1:70CB ( talk) 02:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Cukrakalnis @ GizzyCatBella, the whole part about 1st Belarusian Regiment is off-topic, it doesn't have any relation to the Pogoń coat of arms, it's just says that there were some Belarusian units in Lithuania army and that they were dissolved. Also it's misleading because it's suggest that the only reason Belarus was using Pogoń was that there were Belarusian units within Lithuanian army for some time Marcelus ( talk) 12:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Plus some additional badmouthing of Poland - why even mention some alleged desacralization of the flag in this article? It's completely off-topic. Basically, the whole Belarusian part should be rewritten.[1] and
the article is suppose to be about history of coat of arms, not an excuse to spread anti-Polish propaganda.[2]. Unfavourable facts are denigrated as anti-Polish propaganda and off-topic, etc. I highly recommend that you read WP:NOTCENSORED before telling others what to do. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
doesn't belong here? No, you are severely wrong. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 18:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
References
Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. (...) As a result of this historical claim, in 1918 the Belarusian Democratic Republic adopted as its state emblem the state symbol of the Grand Duchy (...)
This is an article on the coat of arms of Lithuania, Belarus historically used a similar one (Pahonia, rejected by the Lukashenko regime in 1995), both symbols have the same history of being the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The section on Belarus should address this, and briefly describe the history of Pahonia's use in Belarus.
At present, however, in my opinion, the section on Belarus is far from that. It unnecessarily repeats information about Belarus that can be found in the relevant articles, overelaborate compared to the rest of the article are the contents about the cooperation of some Belarusian activists with Lithuania in 1919 and the Belarusian military unit formed at its side in Grodno (the disarmament of this detachment by the Polish army is described in strange detail), as well as the 1995 referendum in which Belarusians rejected the Pahonia as the country's emblem. It is not difficult to fend off the impression that the article is written in a rather biased way and tries to convince us of something. First to the fact that Belarusians never had any statehood before 1918, that they owe their traditions to Lithuania, and that they never really wanted the Pahonia as an emblem, which they expressed in the 1995 referendum (a quick read of the 1995 Belarusian referendum article shows that it was a bit more complicated than that).
In my sandbox I wrote an alternative proposal for this chapter. I tried to make it comprehensive, but also short.
As Cukrakalnis rejects the changes I made and does not agree with my opinion, I request the comment from the community. I also ping GizzyCatBella who participated in the discussion. Marcelus ( talk) 18:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Later Pahonia was chosen by the founders in the short-lived Belarusian People's Republic as the state emblem. In the period 1918-1923, it was used by the military units of the Belarusian People's Republic, as well as those formed within the Lithuanian and Polish armies, also I'm not pushing "POV that Belarusians did have statehood before 1918", because in my proposal is stated:
The founders of the Belarusian national movement saw the historical continuity between the principality of Polotsk and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, they considered them to be part of the Belarusian national tradition. How is that POV pushing? Marcelus ( talk) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
written in a rather biased wayis
First to the fact that Belarusians never had any statehood before 1918. That is a fact supported by numerous WP:RS, namely, several articles in Encyclopedia Britannica, Rudling's book The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906-1931, as well as other books too. Cutting out and basically censoring several paragraphs that are directly concerning units and institutions that used the coats of arms on which the whole article is focused on and replacing them with a single sentence which is severely incomprehensive and even impoverished in terms of content, is absolutely shameless behaviour. You don't even mention the chaotic situation in Belarus post-WW1 and the numerous attempts of creating Belarusian statehood between 1918-1923, which is absolutely necessary to just have an inkling of understanding of what was happening there at the time. You don't even mention that the BPR didn't actually have any viable institutions. Just using 'short-lived' is a severe understatement. Also not mentioning that most of these declared Belarusian states (four of six) did not even use the Lithuanian coat of arms is also very incorrect. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
BPR was the first state using the name "Belarus". Portraying the mention of the existence of the first Belarusian state in such a light is dishonest. It is about whether Belarusian statehood existed before 1918. What do Encyclopedia Britannica, Rudling, and many other historians write? That there was no Belarusian state before 1918 and Belarus was ruled by non-Belarusians until then. Ergo, claiming otherwise, or trying to portray the very mentioning of this undeniable historical fact, as somehow
biased, which is what you have done in your proposal, is factually wrong. I must emphasize once more: the deletion of statements referencing Encyclopedia Britannica and many other reliable sources and their replacement with a text which is content-impoverished compared to what was there before is 100% unjustified. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Belarusian historians will claim much longer historical tradition, because not all Belarusian historians will do so. However, the Belarusian historians that you do have in mind, which are the Litvinist ones, are actively distorting historical facts by, e.g., denying that modern Lithuanians are Lithuanians and saying that they are actually Samogitians, among other nonsense.
Some Belarusians even claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is they adopted its symbol - Vytis.
Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, 1st Belarusian Regiment and Grodno Military Commandmaybe they are, maybe they aren't, nonetheless these are Lithuanian institutions, so if the sectios is about Belarusian usage of CoA than it shouldn't be mentioned here. Marcelus ( talk) 17:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
should not be removed as well because it is inextricably related with the Coat of arms of Lithuania and describes how the Polish Army soldiers despised the Lithuanian symbolism (Vytis / Pahonia) in Grodnoare you sure you are advocating WP:NPOV here?
I understand that we have different opinions, but we seek for WP:NPOV, WP:CONS and are WP:Here to build an encyclopedia according to the WP:Five pillars in a collaborative method (WP:COLLABORATE), and does not really address any comments made in the RfC. It does not address my proposal to change the text. It ignores or dismisses any suggestions. Marcelus ( talk) 11:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
the article is suppose to be about history of coat of arms" ( 1), but at the same time you want to completely censor some notable and inextricably connected history about the Coat of arms of Lithuania in Grodno and Belarus. I already described you that Grodno at the time was the third largest city (after Vilnius and Kaunas) where the Lithuanian Armed Forces were active and the Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs (within Government of Lithuania) targeted all Belarusians, so notability is very, very high (certainly too high to completely exclude).
at the moment it is written only from the Lithuanian point of view" ( 1): so you are saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica is a source with Lithuanian point of view? Could you please explain how Lithuania control Encyclopedia Britannica and its authors like Whitney Smith who precisely wrote that "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent" ( 1). I never heard personally that Lithuania control/influence Encyclopedia Britannica, so please clarify with WP:RS.
And the section "After the collapse of USSR" is also written in non-neutral language, as it promotes the thesis that the Belarusians rejected Pahonia and have no connection with it": not true. It also include facts that "However, he still signed decrees to incorporate similar symbol into several reginal flags and coats of arms as in Gomel Region and Vitsebsk Region, and the previous national symbols continued to be used by the Belarusian opposition and gained exceptional popularity among the Belarusians during the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests.[195]", so it describes Lukashenko's and opposition's usage. The 1995 Belarusian referendum is a fact and it does not present Lithuanian point of view in this question as it was performed by the Belarusian authorities and voted by the Belarusians themselves.
personal attacks against my content, yours content doesn't have a personality, so it's impossible to attack it personally. And yes @ GizzyCatBella it's about Pofka forging some random Google results as a source in order to push his own narrative:
Aegidius Kibler used this Lithuanian term Waikymas in 1700 because of that as well, so it proves that this term became widespread as even a German-speaking author used it in his German-language book 69 years after the death of Konstantinas Sirvydas; this alone exclude him as trustworthy editor on this topic.
Probably the final suggestion seeking for a WP:CONS in this RFC: I prepared a condensed version of this section which is centered around Vytis (Pahonia) and includes only very basic related facts for understanding the context. I would agree to adopt such condensed version: User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus (maybe a few more references should be preserved as well). It has nearly twice fewer characters (reduced from 8263 to 4914), but preserves all the main Lithuanian–Belarusian content and WP:RS. If participants of this RFC: @ GizzyCatBella:, @ Piotrus:, @ Marcelus:, @ Cukrakalnis: disagree with this suggestion, then clearly we will move this dispute to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, so your short statements about this condensed version are welcome. I think other subsections in this section "Similar coats of arms" should be of a similar length because images are not enough to describe the history of this symbol. -- Pofka ( talk) 22:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
symbolism and soldiers were publicly humiliated by the Polish soldiers, which is clear violation of WP:NPOV and seems like WP:FRINGE. In general your proposition is clar violation of WP:UNDUE. Also its tiresome that after all the discussion you are proposing that, completely ignoring what was already said. Marcelus ( talk) 23:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Post below: GizzyCatBella 🍁 04:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
This bland statement allegedly by Belarusian nationalists is not supported by the sources cited. From sources follow that Be-nationalists claim that the Belarusian state is a successor, a "heir" of GDL. This must be fixed. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 21:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. According to the nationalists, the elites of the Grand Duchy were primarily Belarusian-speakers, and the Grand Duchy's statues, written in Belarusian, reflect the influence of Slavs on the politics and culture of the government. As a result of this historical claim, in 1918 the Belarusian Democratic Republic adopted as its state emblem the state symbol of the Grand Duchy - a coat of arms depicting a knight on horseback - which also became an official symbol of post-Soviet Lithuania. Lithuanians call the coat of arms "Vytis" (the White Knight), and Belarusians call it "Pahonia" (the Chase), but it is the same.
References
Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. (...) As a result of this historical claim, in 1918 the Belarusian Democratic Republic adopted as its state emblem the state symbol of the Grand Duchy (...)
This is wikipedian's interpretation of what the sources said.is not an argument. It seems that you don't grasp the meaning of the sentence Moreover, Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 'Claiming an even longer tradition of statehood' means claiming that a certain state in the past was the current state's predecessor. Belarusian nationalists claimed that GDL was a Belarusian state. The quote does say that.
GDL was part of the Belarusian tradition of statehood. It says that
Belarusian nationalists claimed an even longer tradition of statehood: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Claiming something to be a part of your tradition does not mean that it is. There is a clear difference.
The problem for Belarusian nationalists, as for the would-be Padanians of northern Italy, is that there are no long-standing traditions of independent statehood that can be clearly identified as ancestral to the current Belarusian people and state. There was a short-lived period of quasi-independence in 1918-19, but that scarcely suffices. So to fill an awkward gap, the nationalists have adopted the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania, later part of the commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, as a glorious antecedent and precedent for their modern state. Not unsurprisingly, the modern republic of Lithuania has also adopted this huge state, which once stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea, as its own historical patrimony. The most palpable expression of this potential rivalry is that both states used the same symbol as their national emblem in the 1990s. This consists of an armed medieval knight carrying a shield bearing the device of a cross with two cross-bars, sitting on a horse facing to the left which rears up on its hind legs.What this is saying is that Belarusian nationalists claim that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was an antecedent and precedent for BELARUS. Precedent is defined as 'an earlier occurrence of something similar'. To make it absolutely clear, this WP:RS proves that Belarusian nationalists claim that Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 19:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuaniais a correct interpretation of the sources cited ("antecedent", "ancestral", etc.) an hence may be put into the article as an explanation of the choice of the COA. But this is not the same as "Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state". Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. What the sources do say is that Belarusian nationalists claim that. There is a very clear difference. Also, Belarus is a Belarusian state. Just like Poland is a Polish state. Belarusian nationalists claiming that the GDL is a precedent to Belarus means that the Belarusian nationalists are claiming that GDL was a Belarusian state. The reasoning behind Belarusian nationalists using the coat of arms of Lithuania for themselves is already clear in the sentence
Belarusian nationalists claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is why they adopted its symbol.
Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuaniaand interpreting it as such is a total misreading of the sources. Both sources clearly talk about Belarusian nationalists trying to appropriate the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a Belarusian state, but neither says that the GDL was actually a Belarusian state. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 20:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Belarusian nationalists claim that Belarus is a successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and a minor one: "successor" is often used in an informal sense, i.e., not necessarily legal succession. And I am not at all sure that belnationalists talk about legal succession, because legal succession has a quite broad consequences. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 21:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
20th century at the end of the 20th century, with the birth of national movements in Eastern European countries, some of them took quite radical forms. At that time, a theory developed in neighboring Belarus, the principles of which naturally arouse resentment among Lithuanians: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is a Slavic state, medieval Lithuanians are Belarusians, and modern Lithuania is the result of a falsification of history. Although most of the statements of this theory have no real historical basis, it is successfully gaining popularity in the neighboring country, and its echoes can be seen across the border.[3] However this attests the Pahonia COA in post-Soviet Belarus. One still need sources why it was chosen for Belarus National Republic. Neither the latter article, no its versions in other wikis made me wiser. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 21:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
One still need sources why it was chosen for Belarus National Republic.No, because it is already clear why Belarusian nationalists chose the coat of arms of Lithuania for themselves. Furthermore, there is no issue with the sources I cited, so your claim that
not very good sources were sited>is simply not true. It doesn't help that you wrote your objection with grammar mistakes. Regardless, I hope that we have reached an understanding.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
As I see, colleague Cukrakalnis removed my tag, per this talk. Still, the statement must be fixed when the dust settles, because " Litvinism" is a bunch of crazies and not all belnationalists are that ultra. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 21:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
References