@Pofka: You mean that the said administrative entities were exactly matching the extention of the current Lithuania? If so, no opposition to delete the category. -- Blackcat09:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– having created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago,
– having based its legal foundations on the Lithuanian Statutes and the Constitutions of the Republic of Lithuania,
– having for centuries staunchly defended its freedom and independence,
– having preserved its spirit, native language, writing, and customs,
– embodying the innate right of the human being and the Nation to live and create freely in the land of their fathers and forefathers—in the independent State of Lithuania,
– fostering national concord in the land of Lithuania,
– striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and State under the rule of law,
by the will of the citizens of the reborn State of Lithuania, adopts and proclaims this Constitution.
@Blackcat and Joshbaumgartner: User Pofka did not mention about the same discussions, where the strong objections were provided. I believe this fact is a bold evidence that the behavior of this user is disruptive. If anyone is interested, I have more evidence about tricky and disruptive behavior of this user. And I believe this user should be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Kazimier Lachnovič and Pofka: If a user is engaging in problematic behavior, COM:ANU is the proper place to raise that and seek resolution, including blocking if warranted. CfD discussions should however stick to the specifics of the categories and proposals under discussion, not the users who may be involved. Thank you. Josh (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was explained many times that various statehood periods of Lithuania is the same Lithuania. Users from Russia/Belarus: Лобачев Владимир, Kazimier Lachnovič, Johnny Moor are aggressive followers of the pseudoscientific Litvinist propaganda which is not recognized internationally. Nationalistic propaganda has no place in Wiki projects and these users are spreading the same lies again and again. There finally should be an end to their disruptive actions. -- Pofka (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CommentЛобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovič, if you want to continue the discussion fine. But the discssion can be reproposed as many times one wants without being in bad faith, and on these pages good faith must always been assumed. Opening several times a CfD on the same topic might seem senseless or frustrating but is legit, and for this reason I hope not to hear once more accusations of bad faith or agenda pushing, hope to have been clear. -- Blackcat23:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have had some experience with COM:ANU and found it to be just a waste of time, cause no one really cares about any evidence. Since opening several the same discussions (a very effective way to waste someone's time) in order to push their POV somehow is considered here as legit, all that I can do is to repeat that I'm strongly against such proposals. There are no reliable sources were provided that modern Lithuania (with own name Lietuva) is an obvious successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or a Kingdom of Lithuania (with own name Litva). On the other hand, Andrew Wilson, a British historian specializing in Eastern Europe, writes in his book Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship (Yale University Press, 2012): The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22). <...> Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33). Moreover, another historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder writes in his book The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (Yale University Press, 2003): During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22). Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49). By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50). <...> The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81) <...> As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281). And such opinion is quite popular among modern scientists, e.g. Swedish-American historian Dr. Prof. Per Anders Rudling, specializing in the areas of nationalism in his The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931 (2015, University of Pittsburgh Press) writes: Lithuania — or Letuva, Litva, Litwa, Lietuva, or Lite, as it was called in the five local languages — was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. Given these definitely reliable SPECIALIZED sources the Category:Former countries in Lithuania can not be removed. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say for other users is read article Litvinism and you will understand what type of nationalistic attitude Kazimier Lachnovič and his friend Лобачев Владимир has. The current Republic of Lithuania is not an ethnic nation-state as 1/3 of its population in capital Vilnius is non-Lithuanian and more than 15% of the country's entire population is non-Lithuanian. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the same Lithuania, created by the same Lithuanian nation, but on a larger scale – Lithuanians from Vilnius ruled large territories of the present-day Belarus and Ukraine (Cambridge scientist Stephen Christopher Rowell describe it simply as the Lithuanian Empire). There are no valid arguments why the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Lithuanian Empire) was "non-Lithuanian". Just because Lithuania lost its previously controlled territories it did not become a different state (Encyclopedia Britannica articles supporting claims that the Lithuanians in the past ruled Belarus and Ukraine: 1, 2). For example, Poland also lost control of the Ukrainian and Belarusian territories and nobody proposes ridiculous ideas that Poland is not Poland. By the way, do not forget that the majority of the population of the British Empire was Indian. I cannot see any other way to finally put an end to these ridiculous battlegrounds than to block Litvinist users who are spreading their pseudoscientific hatred and tries to falsely prove that Lithuania is not Lithuania again and again. Pay attention that categories: Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Symbols of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were created by user Лобачев Владимир and category Columns of Gediminas on seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created by Kazimier Lachnovič. This is not a universally accepted agenda, but a disruptive anti-Lithuanian activity mostly by two nationalistic users from Russia/Belarus (two authoritarian states full of propaganda). Seeing how aggressively these two users are spreading pseudoscientific propaganda about a long-standing European country (with history since at least 1009), it is likely that they work for governmental institutions of Belarus/Russia (e.g. Internet Research Agency, Russian web brigades). @Blackcat: please strongly consider taking serious actions against these two users as there clearly are no chances that they will give up their nationalistic attitude and stop their disruptive anti-Lithuanian activity peacefully. Two years ago Kazimier Lachnovič was calling Lithuanians as rubbish (see: 1, 2, 3) and there clearly isn't any positive change in his attitude towards Lithuania and Lithuanians. I think that respect for other nations and countries is essential. -- Pofka (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: if there will be violations of the pillars and the policies of NPOV I'll take measure, meanwhile please, assume good faith you too, or this discussion is at risk of becoming a brawl. -- Blackcat18:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point of view that the modern Belarusians are the rightful heirs of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania (maybe equally with the modern Lithuanians, which is being discussed when the Belarus become a free country) has nothing to do with either Lukashenko (as the head of the Russian occupation administration of Belarus), or the Russian regime as a whole. What they both really do is en:Russification of Belarus (the more complete article in Belarusian be-tarask:Русіфікацыя Беларусі), and the Belarusian (so call "Litvinist") point of view is based on the dominance of the Belarusian language in the GDL. On the other hand, statements that Belarusians have nothing to do with the GDL (that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is not a historical form of modern statehood of Belarus) are very convenient for Putin's supporters (mentioned before Internet Research Agency, Russian web brigades), as they justify the Russian occupation of Belarus, which is presented as a liberation of "White Russians" (other Russians, who never have their own state in the history according to such chauvinistic point of view) from the "Polish-Lithuanian yoke". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I got the discussion right it is about if the current Lithuania is an direct replacement of the old ones? If this would be the case this category should be deleted because it is not an former county it is just an old name of the current one? I think this discussion about the history is not needed. Other "Former countries" categories containing countries on some parts of area of the current state and direct predecessor states of which some laws from are still in place. So this would have to be discussed for all "Former countries" categories. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It must be understood that the Republic of Lithuania is not a continuation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They have a common name, but not the essence. The territory and language were different. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was part of the Russian Empire for more than a hundred years. It was after the revolution of 1917 that the Republic of Lithuania arose on the territory of Samogitia. And only in 1939, Stalin gave Lithuania the Vilna region, which was mainly inhabited by Belarusians and Poles. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleague @GPSLeo: , as you correctly noted, there is a serious confusion between state entities and their heirs. As you have already correctly noticed, there is a predecessor state, and there is a successor state. The predecessor state can be considered a state whose state institutions have been reformatted or transferred directly or indirectly to the successor state, while the successor state bases its power on those laws and institutions that were given by their predecessor directly, of course, there may be serious changes over time, this is normal. To which States can examples of successor States be given? For example, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, Byzantium was a direct successor of Roman power with continuity of power and the legacy of Roman laws and institutions. At the same time, when Byzantium was captured by the Crusaders during the crusade, when the state was restored, all institutions and laws were completely restored. The example was rather rude, but a newer example can be given: the Republic of Turkey, which is the heir of the Ottoman Empire, which directly transferred its powers to the authorities of the Republic of Turkey, during the reign of Mustafa Kemal, thus becoming a kind of legal successor of the state. These were examples of successor States. In the modern world, there are many examples when a state bears the name of an older country, but at the same time it may have little to do with it. For example, the Republic of Macedonia, now Northern Macedonia, which has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia, due to historical and cultural reasons. The same can be said with Ghana, the Ghana Empire was previously a state located in Africa, but with the passage of time absorbed by stronger players. Modern Ghana got its name based on an earlier predecessor, but it also cannot be called a predecessor, since it is simply not in the same place where ancient Ghana was. As my colleagues have already said, modern Lithuania cannot be the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, since 123 years have passed since the destruction of this state at the end of the 18th century and has no continuity of institutions, no continuity of laws and power or a legitimate heir of the bearer of power. Not to mention the fact that the form of government in one and the other state differed, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania there was a monarchy, while the Republic of Lithuania was created on the basis of republican princelings. Therefore, all the claims on the part of the participant of the Profka, I can only call groundless, and the accusations on his part in terms of "Litvinism" can in turn be called an undisguised manifestation of Lithuanian nationalism and bad faith, which is trying to erase Belarusians and Ukrainians from the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who were and are the same cultural heirs of this state as Lithuania. But, none of these countries can be politically the heir of this state, since state institutions in none of the states have political and legal direct succession from their predecessor. Only culturally, the cultural successors are Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. --Johnny Moor (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. But if we change this here we also would need to clean up the other "Former countries" categories. Many other "Former countries" have states added with the a status same as in this case. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. The constitution of Lithuania is correct in sense that the Lithuanian nation has created the State of Lithuania many centuries ago, but during time the country was less and less Lithuanian (except name, of course). Lithuanian constitution says "reborn State of Lithuania", quite vague words, not necessarily meaning legal successor.
en:Casimir IV Jagiellon (grand duke 1440–1492) was the last grand duke, who spoke Lithuaninan. For centuries Lithuania was governed by grand duke, who understood no Lithuanian at all. What kind of predecessor is such state? I do not know, who is the last grand duke, who spoke Belarussian language. Maybe it is even impossible to say, because Polish and Belarussian language are similar and were even more similar in the past.
en:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth has no legal successors, even Lithuanian SSR is not legal predecessor of Lithuania, but Lithuania has geographical predecessors and the disputed category is needed for collecting geographical predecessors. Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic are totally different countries from each other and from current Lithuania.
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is also not a predecessor of Belarus. Probably Belarus has only one predecessor: Belarussian SSR. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: I guess you should find better arguments for your decision. Thinking in your arguments one may called Estonia is not a succesor of the Estonian state established in 1918, since it became less and less Estonian, had second language Russian and almost 25 percent of its population is Russian. I will not even talks about you weak understanding of the law calling the term in the Constitution of Lithuania "reborn State of Lithuania". The restitution of the Lithuanian state in 16 February 1918 was based on its historical continuity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Independence_of_Lithuania. --- Ke an (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From 1775 to 1917, the Russian Empire was the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Republic of Lithuania was created not on the basis of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but on the basis of a part of the Russian Empire. And political statements do not change this fact. The Belarusian People's Republic also claimed historical rights to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only russofashists can claim that "From 1775 to 1917, the Russian Empire was the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.". Occupation doesn't give legal rights. Lithuania as a hegemon and founder nation of the Lithuanian Kingdom and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the only successor of all its historic forms of the Lithuanian state. Belarussians (that term never existed before 1918) never had a statehood up till 1918 nor was a nation and a subject of history. Its formation is still in the process. -- Ke an (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
09:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep @Joshbaumgartner, Pofka, and Blackcat: Few have seen this discussion. And the category should not be deleted. User:Pofka is misleading. Grand Duchy of Lithuania existed from the 13th century to 1795. The state language was Old Belarusian language (Ruthenian). Then the principality became part of the Russian Empire. In 1918, after the collapse of the Russian Empire, emerged Republic of Lithuania, Belarusian People's Republic and Ukrainian People's Republic. On the territory of Vilna Region arose Middle Lithuania, which later became part of Poland. Thus, it is wrong to assert that the Republic of Lithuania is a direct continuation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Kazimier Lachnovič and Pofka: If a user is engaging in problematic behavior, COM:ANU is the proper place to raise that and seek resolution, including blocking if warranted. CfD discussions should however stick to the specifics of the categories and proposals under discussion, not the users who may be involved. Thank you. Josh (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)