Category talk:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

@Лобачев Владимир: Lithuania was first mentioned in 1009, thus it has more than 1000 years of history (source from the official website of the European Comission). While Belarus and Ukraine are quite modern states. Belarus and Ukraine did not existed as a country and was just a part of Lithuania for some centuries (sources supporting this statement from the Encyclopedia Britannica: History of Belarus, History of Ukraine), so these seals of Lithuania are not Belarusian/Ukrainian and these categories (removed in this edit) should be removed.
@Ke an: , @Cukrakalnis: , @Super Dromaeosaurus: If user Лобачев Владимир will continue causing disruption by edit warring and ignoring Consensus against four users at the same time, I suggest creating a report at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems and providing evidence (diffs) there. I believe that the same approach should be applied to other categories related with history of Lithuania prior to the 20th century. -- Pofka (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Лобачев Владимир, the GDL was not a dual or triple Lithuanian-Belarusian-Ukrainian state, it was Lithuanian, your edits are only supported by a fringe group of historians in Belarus and (as expected) Russia. If we were to add Category:Seals of Ukraine or so to Category:Coats of arms of the Russian Empire, I would be (rightfully) reverted. Why does this change here? Because it disfavors Russia? Drop the propaganda. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand correctly that you do not have any sources about the exclusive right of the Republic of Lithuania to the inheritance of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have sources for showing the sky is blue. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is no reason to delete the Category:Seals of Ukraine, Category:Seals of Belarus. After all, the territory of these countries was also part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. And the state language of the principality was their native language. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Лобачев Владимир: As always, endless propaganda by a troll. Then Russia is not Russia because Russian Federation does not cover lands previously owned by the Russian Empire. Probably Moscow should belong to Mongolia. Show at least one source that Ukraine or Belarus existed before 20th century as countries. If not, then these modern countries are absolutely not related with medieval seals of Lithuania (this category is about that). -- Pofka (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Лобачев Владимир is just one representative of quite many disruptive editors in Wikipedia who belong to a very aggressive chauvinist fringe group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litvinism), which attacks the history of Lithuania, its identity, by skewing historic facts. The most surprising thing is that Wikipedia and Wikipedia admins support this group, allowing them freely pollute information sources, pages and even allowing unimaginable insults towards other editors. The things went so far that they even created a page for Lithuania in one of the forms of Belorussian language - https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0, full of invented historic facts and intentionally used artificial name for Lithuania - "Летува" () which is just a pejorative neologism which should mean that the state of Lithuania has no history. -- Ke an (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Pofka: about the necessity of a report if user Лобачев Владимир continues edit warring repeatedly. Лобачев Владимир has reverted the identical edits of multiple users as many as 9 times! This is clearly against the rules. As for why Category:Seals of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania should only include Category:Seals of Lithuania and not those of Belarus, Ukraine, or any country that was under the Lithuanian state, that is because the conquered ones are not considered successors - no one includes Category:Seals of England as a parent category of Category:Seals of medieval France, even if a major part of France was under English rule during these times. No one includes Category:Seals of Poland as a parent category of Category:Seals of medieval Germany, even if a major part of what is now Poland was under German rule. No one includes Category:Seals of Belgium under Category:Seals of Spain, even if Belgium was part of Spain for some time. There is simply no justification for what Лобачев Владимир is proposing and doing. Him talking about "consensus" in his favour in the edit summaries is nonsense because there was never a discussion about this before now and so there could be no consensus. So far, the consensus is actually four editors vs one, so the consensus is indeed that this category should only be part of Category:Seals of Lithuania.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry for now and focus on recollecting as much evidence as you can. This user broke the three revert tule yesterday when reverting me. Each time they have an interaction with someone, they shoot themselves in the foot. And soon they will have no more feet to walk with. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: Yes, you are correct and your observation is very accurate.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war by Лобачев Владимир

[edit]

Лобачев Владимир has continued edit-warring 1 and 2 against the consensus reached in the above section "This category is exclusively related with Lithuania". I am tagging all users previously involved (in alphabetical order): Ke an, Pofka, Super Dromaeosaurus.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose doing a report. It is ridiculous to try to pass any of these seals as Ukrainian coats of arms. Unfortunately logic seems not to apply sometimes, not unless it is an admin that says it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a report is what I also thought about. Maybe it would be a good idea to start a draft version here and then everyone can add what they wish? Considering that this is not the first time he was directly going against Wikipedia's rules.

I will start:

User:Лобачев Владимир has repeatedly violated and disregarded Wikimedia's policies. He has edit-warred countless times, the latest incident of which was 1 and 2, where he reverted edits that were agreed upon by the consensus of four different users: me, Ke an, Pofka, Super Dromaeosaurus. He has also ... insert here other cases in sentences with minimal, yet sufficient, context.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: , @Cukrakalnis: I fully agree that a report to the administrators noticeboard should be created because clearly an administrators intervention here is a must. I believe we should emphasize this recent case solely as he has aggressively performed 11 reverts against 4 different users. That's truly disruptive as it systematically disrespects rules and other good faith users. I suggest to include links to all these 11 reverts he has made in this category, starting with this one. -- Pofka (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ke an, Pofka, Super Dromaeosaurus We should give some other cases of edit-warring to show that this is not the first time that he is doing this sort of edit-war. I think we should add two more edit-war cases to show that he compulsively engages in edit-warring.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: My latest report about him was this: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_93#Systematic_violation_of_COM:NOTHOST,_copyright,_edit_warring,_WP:HOAX,_WP:OR_and_other_rules_by_user_Лобачев_Владимир. @Super Dromaeosaurus: , did you encounter his edit warring in other places of Wikimedia Commons? -- Pofka (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am lazy to link them all. Read my comment at the newest report where I disapprove of building up evidence for a general report. By the way, the ping failed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus, are you aware about the ongoing report? Your input would be appreciated.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus, nevermind, you just posted it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Justification and reasoning have been provided in the section above, which is the section called This category is exclusively related with Lithuania. To say otherwise, like you are saying, is lying. In addition, there are no documents that Belarus has ANY rights to ANY of the heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. So, your argument has no grounding in reality.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Ukrainian and Polish sources about the name of the state.

Ruth. Великое князство Литовское, Руское, Жомойтское и иныхъ (Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other)

Source 1: Mykhailo Hrushevsky Miscellanea. Примітки до тексту Галицько-Волинської рукописї, с. 7, pdf p. 45 // Записки Наукового товариства імені Шевченка, том VIII, 1895, кн. 4. Львів, 1895. Source 2: Marian Gumowski. Pieczęcie książąt litewskich // Ateneum Wileńskie[pl]. Wilno, 1930. Rok VII. — Zeszyt 3–4. — s. 725

Here is a German source

6.1.1 Cornerstones of Historical Developments.
The first noteworthy period of Belarusian history was in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries – a period that relates to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia. This is also known as the Golden Age of Lithuanian and Old Belarusian culture. The Old Belarusian dialect not only served as the official language of the state, it was also the language of culture and education. Trade relations with the West brought the Lithuanian-Belarusian Grand Duchy into closer contact with the European humanist tradition of education. Following the division of the Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian Republic in 1772–1795, the territory of Belarus fell under the power of the Russian Empire for the next 150 years. During this time, both the Belarusian language and culture (as was the case with Polish and Lithuanian) were prohibited.

The Education Systems of Europe, p. 78
Another source.

In the GDL at the end of the fourteenth century, only one out of nine people was of Lithuanian origin (O'Connor, 2003), i.e., almost all the rest were Ruthenians. At that time the word 'Russian' meant Ruthenian. But, the official language of the GDL was Old Belarusian. Starting from the early fourteenth century, the full name of GDL was The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia, the last a region in northwestern Lithuania.

Evidence for Belarusian-Ukrainian Eastern Slavic Civilization
Source from the Stockholm University:

The name of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia (the full official name) appears in three variants in its most popular abbreviated form - the GDL (known in contemporary Latin, Polish and Ruthenian sources as MDL, W.X.L or ВКЛ)

Source: In the Shadows of Poland and Russia: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Sweden in the European Crisis of the Mid-17th Century, Stockholm University, 2006, p. 4. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if your claims were right, which is not the case, considering that there is nonsense about "Old Belarusian" or "Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian Republic", which existed only in fantasy, the state's name does not mention Belarus or Ukraine. So, what you wrote is irrelevant. In addition, neither Belarus nor Ukraine are considered to be heirs of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while Lithuania is, because it is continuous with it, which means that your claims about history of the Lithuanian State belonging somehow to Belarus and Ukraine are nonsense and pointless.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the sources cited, it is clearly indicated that Samogitia is in third place in importance according to Ruthenia. Ruthenia has nothing to do with the Republic of Lithuania. The statement that the Republic of Lithuania is the heir to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is your personal conviction, which should not be in the project. See Wikipedia:No original research. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, regarding the importance of territories, that is your incorrect interpretation. Finally, even by your false logic, you admit that Lithuania was the most important, meaning that it is a Lithuanian state. Ruthenia did not have any rights in the state, while Samogitia did, meaning that your claims of importance are nonsense. You are portraying the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as something that it was not. You are guilty of Wikipedia:No original research. Your denial that the modern Lithuanian state is the successor of the medieval Lithuanian state is a clear demonstration of your POV. It is precisely your distortion of historical truth that should have no place on the Wiki projects. You yourself should see WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rigthfull heirs of the multilingual and multi-ethnic Grand Dutchy of Lithuania are Belarus (and maybe Ukraine) as well the the modern state with the similar to the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania name. Here are some quotes by Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder from 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).


  • Some quotes from The History of the Belarusan Nation and State, 2005[1] by the following composite authors: Michaś Bič — Doctor of Historical Studies; Natalla Hardzijenka — candidate of Historical Studies; Radzim Harecki — academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, ex-President of the International Public Society Belarusans' World Association Baćkaŭščyna (Homeland); Uładzimir Konan — Doctor of Philosophy; Arsień Lis — Doctor of Philology; Leanid Łojka — candidate of Historical Studies; Adam Maldzis — Doctor of Philology; Uładzimir Marchiel — candidate of Philology; Alena Makoŭskaja — Chairperson of the Council of the IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna; Aleś Pietraškievič — candidate of Historical Studies; Anatol Sabaleŭski — Doctor of Art Criticism; Lidzija Savik — candidate of Philology; Viktar Skorabahataŭ — Honoured Artist of Belarus; Hanna Surmač — ex-Chairperson of the IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna; Barys Stuk — Vice-Chairperson of the Council of the IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna; Halina Siarhiejeva — candidate of Historical Studies; Aleh Trusaŭ — candidate of Historical Studies; Hieorhij Štychaŭ — Doctor of Historical Studies; Jazep Jucho — Doctor of Law.


For more than 500 years of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) existence, a distinctive ethnic community, the Litvins (Lićvins, Lithuanians), formed on the territory of the future Belarus. They numbered the bulk of the Duchy’s population and lived on the main territory of the country from Harodnia to Vilnia, from Połacak, Mścisłaŭ, Homiel to Turaŭ, Pinsk and Bieraście. The name Litvins became the Belarusans’ historical ethnicon. On the periphery of the GDL there were other nations that kept their ethnic distinctness, among them the Baltic peoples (Žamojts (Samogitians) and Aŭkštajts) who were the ancestors of the present nation known as the Lithuanians. (pp. 5—6)


The czarist authorities implemented the Russification policy in Belarus. The very name “Litvins” passed gradually out of use. Being merged in the Empire, our lands acquired a new name, Biełaja Ruś (White Russia, Byelorussia) or Biełaruś (Belarus), that had only been used before regarding the eastern part of our country where the Orthodox population was called the Rusins (Russians). This name was not germane to the present Russia’s lands known under the name of Muscovy at that time. (p. 6)

Thus, the Litvins-Belarusans as if stopped their existence as a separate nation in the Russia’s official life, but in reality they kept preserving their national traditions, culture and language. (p. 6)

However, we shall remember that we are heirs and continuers of the Litvins’ patriotic acts (p. 17)



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).

The Litvin tradition was still dominant in the early nineteenth century, and still capable of developing as a joint national idea for those who eventually chose a different path as Belarusians and Lithuanians. (p. 67)

After the 1863–4 Rebellion, the tsarist authorities were therefore keen to establish the ‘ancient’ Russian identity of what they now called the Severozapadnyi krai (the ‘North-western territory’). As it hadn’t ever really been contemporary ‘Russia’, this meant going back to the old ‘Rus’, ‘Ruthenian’ or parochial east Slavic traditions of the region. <...> The west-Russians wanted to suppress the idea of a country called Litva and a people called the Litvins in fundamental existential conflict with Moscow for the control of Eastern Europe. The west-Russians, rather than the Belarusian nationalists who came later, were therefore responsible for popularising the terms ‘Belarus’ and ‘Belarusian’ as a safer alternative. (p. 71)

One explanation is that: ‘having conquered Belarus, the Muscovites realized that it was not in their favour to call Belarusians the ‘Litsviny’ (i.e. their second original name, along with the ‘Kryvichy’ one) as it would always remind our people about the times when our ancestors happened to constantly fight against Moscow. Therefore, the Muscovites applied the term of ‘Belarusians’ to our people while the name of ‘Litsviny’ was attributed to the Lithuanians; at the same time the propaganda publications tried to propagate the idea that the Grand Duchy of Litwa was [a] Lithuanian state, i.e. it was a foreign country that did not have any close ties with Moscow’ (p. 135)

According to Smalianchuk, ‘the idea of the statehood of historical Litva dominated in the Belarusian movement west of the front line [in the First World War] through to 1917. Only at the start of 1918 were the Belarusians finally forced to reject it’ (p. 80)

And as well as the Poles, the Belarusians faced an extra rival in the Lithuanian national movement, which targeted Vilna (to them, Vilnius), though not quite all of historical Litva. (p. 90)

There is even a Litvin revival movement. In May 2000 it solemnly passed an ‘Act of Proclamation of the Revival of the Litvin Nation’ (see www.litvania.org), which it argues was formed from the union of the Kryvichy and the Baltic Yatvingian tribe with the ‘Liutichi’, who were Polabian Slavs, driven east from their original homeland on the river Elbe by German tribes between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries ad (with, apparently, some splitting off to move south to what is now Bohemia). (p. 126)

Your conclusion is false, because the reverse is true. You are the one pushing the chauvinistic POV, more precisely, the pseudohistorical lies of Litvinism.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that Yale University Press publishes «pseudohistorical lies» is really funny. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims that a minority view is more important than the established view of the majority of the works published on this subject is laughable.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There quite enough SPECIALIZED authors were provided to state that the GDL is related to modern Belarus as wall as to the country, which own name is Lietuva. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is a distortion of reality. There is the possible relation of shared territory, which means practically nothing in terms of succession. To illustrate, there are these examples: an important part of medieval Sweden is now modern Finland, but that does not mean that modern Finland is the successor of medieval Sweden, even if their territory is common. Another is that large parts of medieval Hungary are now in Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine, Slovakia, but none of these countries claims Hungarian history. In an environment without any Litvinist POV, there would be no obstruction to the fact that modern Lithuania inherits what belongs to medieval Lithuania. As has been said before, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Lithuanian state, just as the Kingdom of Lithuania or the Republic of Lithuania.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"There is the possible relation of shared territory, which means practically nothing in terms of succession." — This is your personal point of view, and nothing more. There is not a single legal document stating that the Republic of Lithuania is the legal successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just my personal point of view, but reality. Just because all of modern Albania was ruled over by the Roman Empire for a few hundred years does not mean that the territorial overlap justifies Albanians being the Roman Empire's legitimate successors. As for legal documents, do you think there are any documents stating that the French Republic is the legal successor of the Kingdom of France? Of course not. But no one contests that the history of the Kingdom of France and later the Republic of France are part of the one and same French history. So, it is very incorrect to act differently in a practically identical case. So, if one thinks consistently and without POV, it is logical that the Kingdom of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania are all integral and indivisible parts of Lithuanian history.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ↑ The History of the Belarusan Nation and State = Гістарычны шлях беларускай нацыі і дзяржавы / Second Enlarged Edition; M. Bič, R. Harecki, U. Konan et al. — Minsk: IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna, PE Zmicier Kołas, 2005. — 440 p. ISBN 985-6793-06-2 Invalid ISBN.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Seals_of_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania&oldid=606243040"