Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

descirption = description

2603:8000:D300:D0F:3000:C19E:8E1:70CB (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

1st Belarusian regiment

@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)

Why Belarus was using Pogoń ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it was Belarusian national symbol, since the begining of Belarusian national movement Marcelus (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania#Belarus: Belarusian nationalists claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is why they adopted its symbol.

Unique Belarusian national symbols only appeared in the 20th century, as Belarusians created their first state entity in 1918 and adopted a plain white flag, which referred to their name as White Ruthenians.

Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It is not off-topic, because the following excerpts from it are clearly relevant to an article about the Coat of arms of Lithuania (bolded by me for emphasis):

The Lithuanian yellow–green–red, Belarusian white–red–white flags, and signs with the Lithuanian coat of arms were torn off, with the Polish gendarmes dragging them on the dusty streets for ridicule; instead of them, Polish signs and flags were raised in their place everywhere in the city.

The photo of Officers and soldiers from the Belarusian Battalion of the Lithuanian Armed Forces in Kaunas, 1921 also has the Coat of arms of Lithuania in the background, near the top.

A Belarusian unit named 1st Belarusian Regiment, commanded by Alaksandar Ružancoŭ (Lithuanian: Aleksandras Ružancovas), was formed mainly from Grodno's inhabitants in 1919 within the Lithuanian Armed Forces, which also participated in supporting the Independence of Lithuania during the Lithuanian Wars of Independence, therefore many members of this unit were awarded with the highest state award of Lithuania – Order of the Cross of Vytis. is also relevant because it mentions that the Coat of arms of Lithuania was used for state awards, as well as that Belarusians received those awards.

That said, some parts could be moved to another article, e.g. Belarusian ministers in the Lithuanian government, but absolutely not removed entirely from Wikipedia. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to move them, they always can be rescued from the history, so that's irrelavant. None of the things you mentioned are relevant for the article. Not every event where Lithuanian coat of arms was present is relevant enough to be included in the article. Marcelus (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus what do you think? Maybe RfC this ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Marcelus is literally objecting to including mentions of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and is calling them irrelevant in an article titled Coat of arms of Lithuania. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis take a deep breath and reread what I said. We are a talking about a chapter about the use of Pahonia/Vytis by Belarusian national movement, and currently it's filled with some trivia about Belarusian regiment in Grodno. Which btw wasn't the only Belarusian unit of that time, not even within Lithuanian army. Marcelus (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Marcelus, you are absolutely unknowledgeable about what you are writing about. The 1st Belarusian Regiment was within the Lithuanian Army. Your flagrant disregard for historical facts is disturbing, especially because you're trying to censor entire sections - this is not the first time either that you're trying to remove this section. One needs to only look at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania#What's_the_topic_of_this_article?, which reveals Marcelus' true intentions, which are revealed in his statements 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)

@Cukrakalnis ✋How about not discussing the editor but an issue at hand?👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I was imprecise, sorry. What I meant was that it was not the only Belarusian unit at that time in general, but also not the only one within the Lithuanian army. There were more of them in the Lithuanian army. 1st Belarusian Regiment was within Lithuanian army, but it was loyal to the government of the Belarusian People's Republic. And I don't want to censor anything, but to remove parts that has absolutely zero connection to the topic of the article. Marcelus (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Do you want to RfC this? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella Well I think, it's necessary. Marcelus (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis @GizzyCatBella What do you think about this: User:Marcelus/sandbox5, it's my proposition as a replacement for the entire "Belarus" section before the "After the collapse of USSR" chapter Marcelus (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sceptical of replacing the whole section, but I gladly welcome adding the WW2 paragraph you wrote, because it adds new relevant information to that section. I am against replacing the whole section, because your proposal removes three paragraphs and replaces them with only three sentences, which I consider to go against WP:PURPOSE of making Wikipedia a comprehensive collection of all of the knowledge in the world. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The removed parts belongs rather to the 1st Belarusian Regiment article, or Belarusians in Lithuanian Army, since the topic of Vytis/Pahonia is completely absent there Marcelus (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Folks, please compromise on something before adding to the section. I anticipate someone else arriving here with the opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the contents of the edits? I think it would be easier to see what the section looked after them on User talk:Cukrakalnis.

Most of it was:

1. refining the language in that section;

2. checking through the sources cited and making sure it was proper referencing (there was one where someone accidentally put the quote from a source in the place of its title instead of in the quote section of the references). Also made some references into sfn;

3. moving the location of several photos from the gallery at the very bottom of the section to next to the paragraphs which they are relevant to & replacing one photo with another one, which has a larger Lithuanian coat of arms than the previous one;

4. changing the section to precisely address what Marcelus was apparently complaining about.

My edits were not a move against compromise, it was precisely a move towards it. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Two people are trying explaining to you that detailed information about 1st Belarusian Regiment and in general Belarusians in the Lithuanian army doesn't belong here Marcelus (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You're telling me that mentioning and explaining with context various units, institutions, states that used the Coat of arms of Lithuania, which is precisely what this article is about, doesn't belong here? No, you are severely wrong. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

RfC: content of the section on Belarus

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)

Marcelus' statement is a very distorted explanation, because he seeks to remove the mention of military units (1st Belarusian Regiment of the Lithuanian Army, 1st Lithuanian–Belarusian Division of the Polish Army), institutions (Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs), states (BPR), which all used the Coat of arms of Lithuania, by claiming that they were 'irrelevant'/'off-topic'. Obviously, that is not the case, because this article is precisely about where the Coat of arms of Lithuania was used. The section he wants to remove, which can be seen here, is a well-sourced, detailed explanation. In fact, Marcelus' personal opinion is contradicted by numerous international sources. Marcelus is trying to remove numerous Encyclopedia Britannica references, as well as push the POV that Belarusians did have statehood before 1918, which is absolutely false and denied by numerous sources, which say that the first Belarusian state was only in 1918. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read my proposal? It's literally said in the article: 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)

Yes and yes, you are pushing a POV, because your first example of what you falsely claim to be written in a rather biased way is 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)

Ten artykuł nie dotyczy historii Białorusi w latach 1918-23, te informacje można znaleźć gdzie indziej. This article isn't about history of Belarus in years 1919-23, these information can be found elsewhere. Also while BPR was the first state using the name "Belarus", I don't see how it's relevant here. But that being said let's wait for others to comment Marcelus (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are you writing to me in Polish on English-language Wikipedia? WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. Also, this article is not about the history of Belarus in 1918-1923, but it is about those military units and institutions that used the Lithuanian coat of arms - namely, the BPR, the 1st Belarusian Regiment, the Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, etc. - to clearly understand who was using that coat of arms (about which this article is about) and why, for which context is necessary. And you are precisely trying to remove even the very mention of these, because you don't even mention them by name. To mention that not all Belarusian national projects used this symbol is also rather important. Furthermore, it is not about 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)

How is that relevant if Belarusian state existed before 1918? Belarusian historians will claim much longer historical tradition. What's important here is why Belarusian national movement took Pahonia as their national emblem and this is explained in the first senetence of my proposal.Marcelus (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It is relevant, because then the whole premise of your false accusations of bias falls apart. You are trying to sideline this fact, judging by your previous edits, because it does not suit your opinion. What you are doing is, essentially, WP:CENSORSHIP. It is also false to claim that 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.

It was already explained why Belarusian nationalists took the Lithuanian coat of arms for the BPR in the section you were trying to remove: Some Belarusians even claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is they adopted its symbol - Vytis.

If Marcelus' misguided and content-impoverished (compared to what he wants to remove) proposal is implemented, which I strongly hope will not happen, the net result for Wikipedia would be the impoverishment of its content, as well as being an infraction on WP:RS and WP:NPOV, considering that Marcelus wants to remove references to Encyclopedia Brittanica and other WP:RS due to his personal opinion, which seeks to obscure that the first Belarusian state was only declared in 1918, despite the desires and views of Belarusian nationalists. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Watch your language.Marcelus (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania#Belarus. I concur the section is WP:UNDUEly long. There's a lot of Belarusian history summarized there, for no good reason. I will give a stab and shorten it myself, it will be a major reduction because probably 80-90% content there is off topic. I mean, Polish and Lithuanian sections are just few sentences and Belarus gets a book chapter treatment - which would be ok if it was about the coat of arms, but it isn't. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Who allowed you to unilaterally remove that whole section? Why were all mentions that Belarus' first became a state in 1918 removed? Why were numerous units and institutions that used the Coat of arms of Lithuania removed from its article? Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus The alternative proposal for that chapter is also WP:UNDUEly long. Don’t you think? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I have checked the Marcelus' proposed version. Firstly, it is not much shorter. Secondly, it includes content which I think should belong to other articles like Belarusian nationalism or Flag of Belarus, not Coat of arms of Lithuania (for example, it replaces precise WP:NPOV statements of Encyclopedia Britannica with "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" or expands information about Belarusian flag "The author of the flag was Klavdiy Duzh-Dushevsky, who designed it after the February Revolution in Russia at the request of the Belarusian diaspora in Petrograd, the author explained the colours on the flag as symbols of the sweat, blood and tears of the Belarusian people.", etc.). I strongly disagree that statements like "The founders of the Belarusian national movement" are more related with the Coat of arms of Lithuania than Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, 1st Belarusian Regiment and Grodno Military Command (all of which actually widely used the Coat of arms of Lithuania and were inextricably connected with Lithuania, but Marcelus and Piotrus suggests to completely remove them in this article). -- Pofka (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the article needs to explain why Belarusian national movement is using coat of arms of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, also the flag is mentioned in the current version of the article, and it's related to the CoA because it using the same set of colours as Belarusian Pahonia (white and red).

Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, 1st Belarusian Regiment and Grodno Military Command maybe 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)

@GizzyCatBella I prefer my very short version, yes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus Yes, me too. The long versions (both) are UNDUE. If @Marcelus and @Pofka (?) can compromise on a shorter version could you Piotrus take care of that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella:, @Piotrus:: Piotrus version is too short and Encyclopedia Britannica's explanation should not be censored because it is a reliable source for providing basic information. I think we could move some information about: 1) Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs; 2) 1st Belarusian Regiment; 3) Grodno Military Command; 4) Polish Army's repressions of the Coat of arms of Lithuania in Grodno to a section "Republic of Lithuania in the interwar period" if you truly want to make the "Similar coats of arms" section as short as possible. This would be a compromise between avoiding UNDUE and censorship of important, related information about history of the usage of the Coat of arms of Lithuania. As I already explained, Grodno was the third most important city (after Vilnius and Kaunas) where the Lithuanian Armed Forces actively participated in the interwar period, thus notability of the usage of the Coat of arms of Lithuania in Grodno is very high. -- Pofka (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you provide sources if the content is simply WP:UNDUE here and said soruces don't discuss the coat of arms of Lithuania. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ps. I'll be splitting some content into the 1st Belarusian Regiment, which is likely notable and should have its own article - but it is really not significantly related to the topic here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thank you for you opinion Piotrus, but it is too early to make any changes in this disputed section, especially mass removal as you performed (but you can surely copy content from this section to other articles). The fact that this section about Belarus is more extensive and much more well-referenced than other sections in section "Similar coats of arms" does not mean that it should be nearly completely removed as well. Instead, other sections about Poland, Ukraine, etc. should be expanded. Cukrakalnis already opposed your edit and so do I, therefore we still don't have a clear WP:CONS and this RFC is still not over (closed) yet, thus no modifications should be made to this disputed section. Other users who are willing to participate in this RFC should be able to evaluate what is written in the disputed section. If there will not be a clear WP:CONS what should be done with this section (highly likely), we will seek for other methods to solve this dispute by intervention of the third parties (see: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests).

My evaluation why the majority of this section should be kept:

1) According to Encyclopedia Britannica, it presents short facts that the Belarusians: "Despite the fact that the Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously had a political sovereignty prior to 1991, except during a brief period in 1918." (1) and that "Unique Belarusian national symbols only appeared in the 20th century, as Belarusians created their first state entity in 1918 and adopted a plain white flag, which referred to their name as White Ruthenians." (2). Therefore in the past they used the Coat of arms of Lithuania (and other countries symbolism), but also this section has a sentence that the "Belarusian nationalists claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is why they adopted its symbol." (for the sake of presenting different points of view, but Britannica acts as facilitator to ensure WP:NPOV). Piotrus, even if you wished to make this section as much condensed as possible, then why you entirely removed some of these explanations and one of the Encyclopedia Britannica's references which are an excellent neutral source (one of the most reliable in the world)?

2) Short description of the Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs should not be removed because it used the Coat of arms of Lithuania as its symbol (see: HERE) and was within the Government of Lithuania. Moreover, it is important for understanding the context of this section.

3) Short description of the 1st Belarusian Regiment, Grodno Military Command and related illustrations should not be removed from this article because:

a) This unit (and other Belarusian units within the Lithuanian Armed Forces) used the Coat of arms of Lithuania as its symbol (see: HERE, page 13; HERE, HERE, and HERE - a cockade of the Lithuanian Army from 1919 with Vytis).

b) Some more extensive quotes why the 1st Belarusian Regiment and Grodno Military Command are related with the CoA of Lithuania:

I) "1918 m. gruodžio pabaigoje–1919 m. sausio pradžioje į Gardiną persikėlus gudų politinėms ir karinėms institucijoms, jos savo negausiomis pajėgomis bandė įtvirtinti Lietuvos valdžią šiame mieste ir regione ir iniciatyvą perimti į savo rankas" (English: At the end of December 1918 - January 1919, after the political and military institutions of the Gudai (Lithuanian word for naming Belarusians) moved to Grodno, they tried with their meager forces to consolidate Lithuanian power in this city and region and to take the initiative into their own hands; see: HERE, page 18);

II) "Pirmasis baltgudžių pulkas nuo sausio vidurio pradėjo augti ir palaipsniui įsitvirtinti Gardine" (English: the 1st Belarusian Regiment began to grow and gradually establish itself in Grodno from the middle of January; see: HERE, page 20);

III) "Gardine, nuo 1919 m. vasario 1 d. šalia Pirmojo baltgudžių pėstininkų pulko įkūrus ir komendantūrą, vasario 13 d. Krašto apsaugos ministerijos štabo viršininko sprendimu buvo suformuota Gardino karinė įgula, o jos viršininku paskirtas Pirmojo baltgudžių pėstininkų pulko vadas krn. M. Lavrentjevas" (English: Since 1 February 1919 in Grodno, near the 1st Belarusian Regiment a commandant's office was established on 13 February. According to the decision of the Chief of Staff of the Ministry of National Defense, Grodno's military crew was formed, and the commander of the 1st Belarusian Regiment was appointed as its chief - officer M. Lavrentyev; see: HERE, page 27);

IV) "Vasario 3 d. gudų reikalų ministras J. Varonka kreipėsi į Krašto apsaugos ministeriją su savo pasiūlymais dėl tolesnio gudų karinių dalinių formavimo" (English: On 3 February, Belarusian Affairs Minister J. Varonka addressed the Ministry of National Defense with his proposals regarding the further formation of Belarusian military units; see: HERE, page 27).

V) "Vasario 10 d. pulko vadas, vykdydamas Gudų karinio sekretoriato nurodymą, visiems karininkams ir kareiviams įsakė nešioti prie uniformų pritvirtintus tik Lietuvos kariuomenės ženklus. 1919 m. kovo 7 d. patvirtinta gudų dalinių uniforma: apsiaustas, frenčius ir kelnės buvo tokie pat kaip lietuvių karinių dalinių uniformos, pėstininkų ir artilerijos karių kepurių, antpečių, apykaklių, rankovių ir kelnių apvadai buvo balti, raitelių – raudoni. Visos kitos detalės taip pat turėjo būti pagal patvirtintus Lietuvos kariuomenės uniformos reikalavimus" (English: On February 10, the commander of the 1st Belarusian Regiment, following the instructions of the Belarusian Military Secretariat ordered all officers and soldiers to wear only the insignia of the Lithuanian Army attached to their uniforms. On 7 March 1919, the uniform of the Belarusian units was approved: the cloak, fringes and trousers were the same as the uniforms of the Lithuanian military units, the caps, epaulets, collars, sleeves and trousers of the infantry and artillery soldiers were white, and the borders of the horsemen were red. All other details also had to be in accordance with the approved requirements of the uniform of the Lithuanian Army"; see: HERE, pages 30-31). And there are more related quotes explaining the situation, so read this source carefully instead of trying to completely remove it.

c) Grodno was one of the most important cities of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and if Lithuanians and Belarusians succeeded to keep it within Lithuania – it would have been the third most important city after capital Vilnius and temporary capital Kaunas, so it is an important and related topic.

4) These sentences "The 1st Belarusian Regiment was disbanded by the Poles following Grodno's occupation by the Polish Armed Forces, while the unit's soldiers were disarmed, looted, and publicly humiliated by the Polish soldiers, who even ripped off the Belarusian officers' insignias from their uniforms and trampled these symbols with their feet in public, because this unit refused to carry out the Polish orders and remained loyal to Lithuania.[185] The Lithuanian yellow–green–red, Belarusian white–red–white flags, and signs with the Lithuanian coat of arms were torn off, with the Polish gendarmes dragging them on the dusty streets for ridicule; instead of them, Polish signs and flags were raised in their place everywhere in the city." (version before removal; sources supporting it: HERE, pages 65, 70–71 and HERE) 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 Grodno and repressed soldiers of the 1st Belarusian Regiment. Consequently, removal of such statements raises strong concern about violation of the WP:NOTCENSORED (already described by Cukraklanis here). I disagree that arguments "badmouthing of Poland (...) Basically, the whole Belarusian part should be rewritten" (1) or "the article is suppose to be about history of coat of arms, not an excuse to spread anti-Polish propaganda" (2) is a valid justification to remove/modify content based on WP:RS and raises further concerns about WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV.

Moreover, according to all the provided details and explanations above, I strongly oppose that the majority of the content from this section should be removed because supposedly it is "off-topic" (1, 2, 3). It is clearly not off-topic and is related with the Coat of arms of Lithuania, thus should be kept.

What I might agree to remove: section "After the collapse of USSR" maybe is too extensive for this article because 1990+ history of Belarus certainly is not related with the Coat of arms of Lithuania and Lithuania in general, so probably it is too long and requires trimming. However, once again please refrain from making edits without a proper discussion and a clear WP:CONS.

What I suggest: overall, I support modifications by Cukrakalnis as it added minor details why some of these sentences are related with the Coat of arms of Lithuania because I think that no significant modifications should be made to this section. However, it might require a bit of expansion based on the quotes I provided above.

That being said, I restored this disputed section to a version which was at the start of this RFC and which recently was also restored by GizzyCatBella for the sake of this RFC (1, 2). Piotrus, Marcelus, Cukrakalnis, please refrain from making any changes to this disputed section and follow the Wikipedia's procedures to solve disputes. 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). I would like to remind all participants of this RFC that this article was edit-protected because of disruption in the past (attempts to perform mass-removal of content), thus higher control of edits is applied in this article. -- Pofka (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ad1: read WP:BRITANNICA, "there is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica", what's more it's a WP:TERTIARY source.

Ad2: there are probably hundreds institutions, organisations etc. that used this CoA, need to give a better reason why we should mention this one specificially.

Ad3: There is no reason to duplicate content that says nothing about the use of Pahonia in Belarus, but duplicates content contained in the 1st Belarusian Regiment entry.

Ad4: 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 Grodno are you sure you are advocating WP:NPOV here?

This section should be intended to be about Belarus and the use of Pahonia in Belarus, and at the moment it is written only from the Lithuanian point of view. For example, we learn that Belarus exists only because of "Lithuanian domination," this is not only WP:FRINGE, but also WP:PUFFERY. That the colors of the Belarusian flag are derived from the coat of arms of Lithuania. The part about the short period of formation of Belarusian units in the Lithuanian army takes up half of the section (WP:UNDUE). 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.

Also, Pofka claims 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)

@Marcelus: Reply to your statements:

Ad1: Encyclopedia Britannica is not regarded as unreliable source (per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Encyclopædia Britannica) and there is no consensus about it in Wikipedia. So it should not be censored as it is evaluated as yellow, not red like Encyclopaedia Metallum (which certainly would be unreliable and I would agree to remove it). Overall, it is a reliable encyclopedia and these used articles are not identified as unreliable by other Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We should not do it ourselves here in Wikipedia.

Ad2: We have a gallery of modern Lithuanian institutions which use the Coat of arms of Lithuania (see here: Coat of arms of Lithuania#Blazoning), so it is nothing wrong to describe old institutions as well. I remind you that you recently said that "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).

Ad3: The importance and notability is high, so basic and condensed facts about it should be provided in the article Coat of arms of Lithuania as well. As I already said above, the 1st Belarusian Regiment and Grodno Military Command exclusively used the Coat of arms of Lithuania since February 10 and executed orders of Lithuania. Surely, more extensive information should be provided in dedicated articles, but it is not a valid justification to have the article and condensed facts hidden from other articles within Wikipedia.

Regarding your statement "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.

Regarding your statement "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.

Ad4: Yes I'm advocating WP:NPOV here. For example, you should check article List of war crimes committed during World War II which includes a lot of atrocities committed by various countries and removal of content from it which is based on WP:RS would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. So if according to WP:RS the Polish Army committed atrocities against Lithuanian symbolism and soldiers of the Lithuanian Armed Forces – it should not be censored. Have you read WP:NOTCENSORED where it is clearly stated that "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so."?

It is clear that currently here we have two users (you and Piotrus) who want to nearly completely remove/modify the section and two (me and Cukrakalnis) who oppose your actions and supports only minor changes. So this Polish-Lithuanian dispute will have to be solved by neutral users at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. Often it includes evaluation by administrators according to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, so that's exactly what we need here because we disagree even about the implementation of the basic Wikipedia's policies and guidelines here (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:RS), so we are waaaay too far from a WP:CONS. -- Pofka (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So, in the section that talks about Belarus, you demand that half of the space be taken up by a description of Lithuanian institutions and at the same time you claim that you do not aim to promote the Lithuanian POV?

And no, I'm not claiming that Britannica is controlled by Lithuania, but the selection of sources, choosing from Britannica what corresponds to the Lithuanian POV is already an element of manipulation.

In general, I don't think your voice means as much as other users, because you have a history of forging fake sources and manipulating them, in this very article. Marcelus (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus I think you’re talking about this issue by saying "you have a history of forging fake sources and manipulating them", I got it, but do you mind discussing the topic itself and not editors? Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm recognized as one of the two finest Wikipedia's authors about Lithuania, so refrain from personal attacks against my content. By the way, by constantly removing content according to your personal preferences (1, 2) you repeatedly ignore Wikipedia's procedures for dispute resolution. -- Pofka (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka 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.

He is doing same thing now, he stubbornly defends the version of the text that corresponds to his narrative, creating illogical arguments (such as the one about the size of Grodno) just to prolong the discussion indefinitely. Marcelus (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella @Cukrakalnis @Piotrus @Pofka To be honest, I see that the discussion became pointless after the creation of the 1st Belarusian Regiment entry, which actually solves the problem posed in the RfC. I also see that the discussion is going nowhere. So I plan to close the discussion as unresolved (WP:RFCCLOSE). Content that duplicates the 1st Belarusian Regiment article should be removed, with a mention left that the unit used the symbol. I think this is the only sensible solution. Marcelus (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where we have consensus to restore the content I've removed? This article about CoA of Lithuania, not history of Belarus. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus off topic undue content should be trimmed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Content which is related with the Coat of arms of Lithuania should not be removed from this article: 1) Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs; 2) 1st Belarusian Regiment; 3) Grodno Military Command; 4) Polish Army's repressions of the Coat of arms of Lithuania in Grodno. Moving of content does not prohibit to explain related information in other articles in a condensed style, this way linking readers to the main more extensive articles. The RFC will be closed automatically soon, so there is no need to intervene the automatic process. I'm sorry Piotrus, but since you nearly duplicated Marcelus' actions I cannot see you as a neutral, unrelated user for solving this dispute, so this will be moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests soon. So stay calm and everyone will have the right to raise their opinion there. -- Pofka (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus stay calm - I think Pofka meant be patient Piotrus 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Right. I mean don't make unnecessary modifications to the content without WP:CONS in this RFC or without decision at dispute resolution requests because it simply lead to nowhere. Participants of this RFC or moderators at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests must have the ability to see the unmodified version so that they could understand the dispute and make decisions. -- Pofka (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok👍 ping us please once DR request is filed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting more input will be good. Has this RfC been advertised at WT:BELARUS and WT:LITHUANIA? It should. WT:POLAND is less relevant but shoudl be alerted as well, given the discussion above mentions Poland, I think. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus - I don’t think WT:BELARUS, WT:LITHUANIA and WT:POLAND were notified about this RfC. @Pofka do you mind taking care of that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

Of course it's not acceptable, it's still Lithuania-focused, describes in strange detail Lithuanian institutions (while the section is suppose to be about Belarus) and repeat the part you are clearly obsessed with, 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)

I half agree with you, but really, this article doesn't need any significant discussion of Belarus (or Poland) IMHO. It's about Lithuanian CoA. And of course, it is no place for totally undue and non-neutral attacks on Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: @Piotrus: This will be handled by neutral moderators because I can't see your suggestions and complains as valid according to WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED. If Poland committed atrocities against Lithuanian-Belarusian symbolism and soldiers, then it is nothing wrong to describe them with WP:RS. Peace of Riga also is a fact which resulted in Polonization of Belarus and Western Belarus had no sovereignty or independent symbolism because of that. The article is supposed to be about history of the coat of arms of Lithuania, not Belarus, so it should be centered around Lithuania and we don't need extensive content and theories which belong to Belarusian nationalism. Britannica's content is WP:NPOV. -- Pofka (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, you said that already many times, I don't agree with you. When are you planning to start a dispute resolution request? Marcelus (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: I'm planning to start it tomorrow as it takes some time to fill it up properly. -- Pofka (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope that you will present the matter objectively, although I don't expect that Marcelus (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus While I share your concerns and I'd ask Pofka to submit their statement here so we can discuss if it is neutral or not before it is made public, please remove the second part of your sentence, per WP:REFACTOR and WP:AGF. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that’s okay with me also. I’ll create a separate subsection for @Pofka to submit their statement here before it goes to DS. See below. (Strike the second part of your sentence @Marcelus please.) GizzyCatBella🍁 04:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella @Piotrus, ok, sorry about that Marcelus (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: The dispute was moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Coat of arms of Lithuania because we did not reach a valid WP:CONS ourselves in this RFC. @GizzyCatBella:, @Piotrus:, @Marcelus:, @Cukrakalnis: the DRN procedure allows everyone to explain their arguments and our arguments are too different to reach a collaborative text for the DRN. Everyone equally has 2000 characters to explain the situation and possibly additional statements/questions will go afterwards (wait for statements by moderator who will handle it). I already used DRN to solve disputes in the past and participants arguments are evaluated by unrelated contributors/administrators there and then additional actions are taken to solve it. I do not get additional dispute overview statement rights (same 2000 characters as all of you), thus controlling of what I write in these 2000 characters would not be objective. Use your 2000 characters as your prefer. -- Pofka (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Statement to be submitted to DR

Post below: GizzyCatBella🍁 04:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Bel nationalists say " Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state"

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)

Let's wait for Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania to end Marcelus (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That's why I simply tagged it, not edited. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the cited sources () does say that Belarusian nationalists see the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a Belarusian state. Here is the full quote:

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

There is nothing to be fixed, because Belarusian nationalists do indeed say that. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No they indeed do not say so. This is wikipedian's interpretation of what the sources said. The sources say about the Belarusian influence, but there is no blunt statement that "GDL was a Belarusian state". Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the qoute says only that GDL was part of the Belarusian tradition of statehood, not that it was Belarusian. The difference is small, but these things aren't the same Marcelus (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lokys dar Vienas Saying that 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.

@Marcelus You are misunderstanding or perhaps even distorting what the source says. The quote does not 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 other source at the end of the sentence that Lokys dar Vienas marked as 'dubious' has this to say: 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)

None of the sources explicitly say that "Belarusians claimed that the GDL was a Belarusian state." Can't we just follow the sources literally? Marcelus (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is 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)

"Successor" is also an overinterpretation, it implies legal continuity, for example III Polish Republic is a successor of People's Republic of Poland and prewar II Republic of Poland. Marcelus (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

None of these sources say that 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.

Furthermore, none of the sources say that Belarusians (as a whole) claim that. Only a part of them - the nationalists. Unless you want to characterize all Belarusians as nationalists, which is totally wrong, you cannot equate Belarusians with Belarusian nationalists, although the latter are a part of the former. But a mere part is not the whole.

Finally, I emphasize that none of the sources say that Belarus is the successor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and 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)

I agree with the correction ("...claim that..."), with one notable exception: as I said the correct claim would be something like 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)

OK, but does any of the sources say explcitly that "Belarusian nationalists claim that Belarus is a successor of GDL", do they use term "successor" or not? Marcelus (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

There are such things as synonyms, you know. :-) One can search other sources for closer equivalents, but this, or something close, is the major argument under the selection of the COA. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

...Here you go: "According to academics, “Litvinism” is the ideological position that Belarus is the true heir of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. So in fact wikipedia has a whole big article, "Litvinism" about this. :-) So colleague Cukracalnis may be quite right after all, but only not very good sources were sited> 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. 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)

Only here we are talking about the founders of Belarusian statehood and the national movement, not radicals. This is secondary anyway, let's just use the wording of the sources. Marcelus (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No,, your sources are bad. My sources and my vefrsion of text are good. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That's objectively not the case, because both of my sources fulfil WP:RS. I advise that you get Grammarly or something because bad spelling makes you look bad.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Your sources are bad because they do not say what our article says, as I explained above. My sources (cited in this talk) say exactly what the article says. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:38, 27 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