Talk:Litvin

Polish-Lithuanian identity article

There is a much better article at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Polish-Lithuanian_identity, more in line with the Polish version of this article. Perhaps someone more wiki-savy could merge the two or substitute it for "Litvin" article with its weird population data...

Reverts by Sabbatino

Sabbatino, what is your problems? The section provides references only from Lithuanian authors who is critical about the origin of Litvin. How it is not point of view? The section also states that opinion of Belarusian authors are nationalistic and fringe. Why are they fringe? Where is clear explanation that they are fringe? Because some person of unknown origin states that. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: Most of the sources in that section are from non-Lithuanian authors. So yes, there is no POV. In addition, Belarus has a lot of pseudohistorians (pretty much all historians from Belarus can be called like that) who claim that "Belarus=Lithuania and Lithuanian=Samogitia", which just shows the poor self-determination of the nation (Belarus never had their own state before the 20th century). – Sabbatino (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, please, give me an explanation of pseudo-historian and an example who you consider such. Also when you say "Belarus never had their own state before the 20th century", I would like to ask you whether Lithuania had own state before 20th century? Just because modern Lithuania is called as the medieval Grand Duchy Lithuania, it does not tell anything. For example, the modern Germany during medieval times was called the Holy Roman Empire, while modern France is named after what is believed to be a German tribe of Franks. Romania also is named after the Roman state even though historically was situated on the border of the Roman Empire and Scythia. Please, explain your statement "Belarus never had their own state before the 20th century". Also, I am not placing historical heritage of Lithuania completely in question. I think issues like that are needed to be approached carefully. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, from what I read the term "Litvin" appeared as a "politnonym" (political name) associated with Grand Duchy of Lithuania regardless of ethnic background and purely in association with the Duchy (Belarusian or Litvins. Will we resolve the argument? (Белорусы и литвины. Разрешим ли спор?). 26 January 2012). The reason for it, what it looks like, was a liberal policy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on languages. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, we have now American scholar of Hungarian descent Paul Robert Magocsi who talks about separate Rusyn nationality which is supposedly different from Polish and Hungarian "Rusini". And now it is internationally recognized phenomenon in Slovakia and Serbia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: Pseudohistorians are the likes of Mikola Yermalovich and similar historians who used to make or currently make baseless claims. Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created after one of the Balts' tribes—Lithuanians—consolidated other Balts' tribes into one state, which at first was named Duchy of Lithuania and then expanded by conquering or consolidating the territories of Kievan Rus' where Slavic people used to live. So yes, Belarusians did not have their own state until the 20th century, because the term Belarusian did not exist at that time. Now if you said that the ancestors of Belarusian people lived in a state, which included Balts and Slavs then that is correct, but to say otherwise is nothing more than a fairy tale created by a select group of pseudohistorians.

Ruthenians (ancestors of Belarusians and Ukrainians) are different from Rusnys so do not mix both of these ethnicities.

I am not sure about the source that you have shown. I will have to read it before making any comments about its content. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Demographic map of Austro-Hungary

Sabbatino, demographic maps of Austro-Hungary do not differentiate your "Rusyns" who you also claim to be different from Ruthenians. It is clearly seen on several of them that Subcarpathian territories are populated by Ruthenians, not Rusyns. Those maps were not composed by Ukrainian nationalists. Similar maps also available from the Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences which is also not very sympathetic to Ukrainians. Now, in Polish and Hungarian languages there are words like Rusin and Ruszin as well as similar word in modern Ukrainian as Rusyn for people of the Dnieper Ukraine and Volhynia. Rusyns and Ruthenians are as different as Belarusians and Litvins. Please, on the map provided show me where are your "Rusyns". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, more to it, in 1919 there existed political formation like Litbel which was headed by Lithuanian politician Vincas Mickevičius-Kapsukas. Yet, it looks like you are trying to suppress any mentioning of this phenomenon where mutual association between Lithuanians and Belarusians takes place. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, why the country of Daniel of Galicia is named in the same manner as the modern country centered in Moscow? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, I have relatives who are ethnic "Rusyns" and live in Carpathian region, yet they consider themselves part of Ukrainian nation and derived out of Ruthenians. And you here tell me something about difference between Ruthenians and Rusyns. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, as you said "Belarus never had their own state before the 20th century", I tell you in a totally delirium notion that is common nowadays that Ukraine on the other hand existed in the 19th century and being a pogrom-driven and anti-Semitic nation forced the Austro-Hungarian authorities omit any mentioning of Rusyn nation in their studies imposing total genocide against proud Rusyns. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sabbatino, please, understand that I do not support idea that Litvins are true medieval Lithuanians, but rather a phenomenon that has developed later. There is no evidence that whether Lithuania, Litva, Lietuva or any other derivations are in anyway of Slavic background and are considered part of Baltic people. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: This talk page is about how to improve the page "Litvin" and not discuss the difference/no difference between Ruthenians and Rusyns, Litbel, etc. Please read WP:TALKNO, because you went completely off topic and this is starting to look like a discussion in forum, which is againt Wikipedia policies.

And I am not sure where you got the idea that "Litvin=Lithuanian". I have not said that anywhere in this discussion. In Lithuania, the term "Litvin" is understood as a resident of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which can either be Balts or Slavs. So stop with the defamation, because I did not state the things that you implied. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

this article is biased and in its present form unnecessary

The article completely ignored the fact that even disregarding the origins of the GDL, for the most of its lifetime the GDL was a Slavic state. There is no mention that Litvins was used as an identification name for its Slavic inhabitants. The endik (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Modern usage in Belarus

This section doesn't represent the modern usage of the term "Litvin" in Belarus. And, on this ground, very likely doesn't adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

Let's start with the definition of "Litvin". It's a historical term, which is widely known to pretty much everyone in Belarus and basically means "a resident of the historical GDL or of the non-Polish part of the PLC, without delving into their actual ethnicity". The necessity of having this term in Belarus is obvious, because it's a single word, which replaces a rather longish description. The territory of the modern Belarus was a part of the GDL and many historical figureheads were born or lived on this territory, so there needs to be some way to refer to them. Simply labelling all of them as just ethnic Lithuanians would be misleading, because in addition to the Baltic aspect, the existence of the Slavic aspect of the GDL is undeniable (see the GDL article for more details). The current Litvin article already refers to a Belarusian encyclopedia (the reference #6), which supports what I explained above:

• "Калі тэрмін Л. абазначаў жыхароў ВКЛ у цэлым ці яго частак, сумежных з інш. дзяржавамі, то мог адносіцца як да літоўцаў, так і да беларусаў, што назіраецца з пач. 16 ст. і ператвараецца ў агульную практыку з 17 ст. У такім сэнсе Скарына ў рэестры Кракаўскага ун-та запісаны як Л. (Litphanus)."
• "If the term L. denoted the inhabitants of the GDL as a whole or its regions bordering other states, it could refer both to Lithuanians and Belarusians. This usage is observed starting from the early 16th century and becomes common practice by the 17th century. In this sense, Skaryna is recorded in the registry of the Kraków University as L. (Litphanus)."

There are many other references, such as Acta Albaruthenica #3 2003 [1] and more. Once again, that's how the Belarusians perceive this term and how it is used in the Belarusian publications.

A good example of "Litvin", who fits the Belarusian definition of this term, is Adam Mickiewicz, whose ethnicity is actually somewhat ambiguous and contested, see the Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity section of his article for more details. Please note that the Belarusians generally label Mickiewicz as a Litvin rather than a Belarusian precisely to avoid monopolizing him, whereas some Lithuanians had a track record of trying to appropriate him [2] via forgery and abridged translations of his works.

A modern counterpart of Adam Mickiewicz is probably Svetlana Alexievich, who was born in Ukraine (or in the USSR if you want to spin it this way), is a Belarusian citizen, but published her works in Russian. Unlike Mickiewicz, she is still alive and can be asked for her opinion today. But in 200 years from now, there will be surely a potential of having attempts to appropriate and monopolize her by different nations. In fact, it's already happening even today [3]. One more example is Sasha Filipenko, who also has mixed Belarusian-Ukrainian-Russian roots and publishes his works in Russian. At the same time, Sasha Filipenko is a fluent Belarusian speaker, as evidenced by some of his interviews [4] that can be found on youtube. What I'm trying to say is that the historical concept of "Litvin" is very much understandable to the modern Belarusians, because it resonates with the current situation.

That's all about the Belarusian POV on this matter.

The existing content of this section is also grounded in reality and supported by non-Belarusian sources, but it belongs to a different section with a more fitting name "Modern usage in Lithuania". Because the modern Lithuanian definition of "Litvin" appears to be "a supporter of Litvinism", which radically differs from the perception of this term by the Belarusians. The Lithuanians are indeed seriously concerned that during the 2009 census, 66 people in Belarus identified themselves as Litvins. Which is, by the way, similar to the 47 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina [5], who identified themselves as Klingon. I believe that the Lithuanian POV needs to be fairly represented in the article as well, but in its own section. --Ssvb (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks similar to the term Zhyd, which has a Wikipedia article explaining the situation. Just like the Russians made an effort to redefine the Ukrainian and Belarusian word "Zhyd" to attach negative connotations to it, some Lithuanians seem to be trying to redefine the Belarusian word "Litvin". I believe that it's the Wikipedia's job to clarify and explain what's going on.

@Altenmann, @Pofka, @+JMJ+, do you have any comments? Would you be open to creating a separate section in the article about "Modern usage in Lithuania"? --Ssvb (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

How is that Lithuanians trying to redefine belarusian word? To me it looks like some belarusians are redefinig it. Also, I would rather compare its historical usage from the olden days with the word "tatars", which became to denote the concept of nasty troublemakers in many cultures. The difference being is that "tatars" remained in folklore until now, while the concept of troublemaking 'litvin' invaders was rather local and is not preserved in common folk memory, with some exceptions. For example, my grandmother used to call a noisy/nasty bunch of kids 'litva' (in the meaning of a collective noun, not a country) . --Altenmann >talk 17:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the points raised by Altenmann said and I disagree with what Ssvb is claiming and I find it concerning how the user likens Litvinism's supporters to Klingon, especially on the basis of a 15-year-old census, because the situation in Belarus is not static and ideas (no matter if they're true or not) spread fast in the age of the internet, especially the last few years. No separate section about "Modern usage in Lithuania" is necessary in my opinion, existing status quo seems satisfactory.--+JMJ+ (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@+JMJ+: Your disagreement doesn't matter much unless you can back it by the relevant sources. The statement about the "66 Litvins in Belarus" is present in the current version of the article. It wasn't me, who added it. Are you in favour of removing it?

Are you claiming that the word "Litvin" is unfamiliar to the modern Lithuanians and is never mentioned in their mass media? See my comment to Altenmann, which demonstrates that the Lithuanians know this word and interpret it in their peculiar way. --Ssvb (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann: The biggest problem is that the widely known and commonly accepted Belarusian definition of "Litvin" is not mentioned at all. And the emphasis is made on the marginal version, misrepresenting it as if it were relevant. Did this happen accidentally? Why is the mainstream definition not available? What's the best way to address this?

As for the Lithuanians redefining the word, please check the following article [6] (in Belarusian and in Russian) about the club "Lićviny", registered by the Belarusians in Lithuania. Recently the Lithuanian activists started harassing them because of the name. This is a clear indication, that at least some Lithuanians perceive the word "Litvin" in a radically different way and for some reason link it to Litvinism. This is a very recent Lithuanian phenomenon. If the Belarusians and the Lithuanians perceive the same word differently, then Wikipedia needs to document this here. Please don't tell me that at the end of 2024 the Lithuanians are not aware of the word "Litvin" and it has no modern usage in Lithuania.

Your recent edit asserts the Lithuanian ethnicity of Adam Mickiewicz, but this doesn't agree with Adam Mickiewicz#Ethnicity. Does this need to be corrected?

Not that it can be used in the article as we probably can't source it, but where is your grandmother from? --Ssvb (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

widely known and commonly accepted Belarusian definition of "Litvin" is not mentioned at all - It is mentioned on the very top of the article, but some smartass made an "easter egg" wikilink [ Grand Duchy of Lithuania|Lithiania]; fixed. --Altenmann >talk 21:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The commonly accepted Belarusian definition of the term is not mentioned in the "Modern usage in Belarus" section, but deceptively substituted by a different marginal interpretation. This is less than ideal. --Ssvb (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed Mickiewicz altogether because it is unclear what point this example is making. --Altenmann >talk 21:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess, the point is that Mickiewicz is a very good example of Litvin, and his existence demonstrates why such special term is useful. The documented dishonest Lithuanian efforts [7] to depict him as an ethnic Lithuanian could be also presented, which might explain the bad faith of the Lithuanian editors and their motivation to fight tooth and nail against the term "Litvin", which is broader than just "ethnic Lithuanian". --Ssvb (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This article clearly states, as it has for the past few years, that "Litvin" is for all residents. +JMJ+ (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If the Belarusians and the Lithuanians perceive the same word differently - this is English-language wikipedia (and sloppily written, too). The Polish counterpart has a title "Litwini w znaczeniu historycznym", i.e., "historical meaning of the term "Litwini", which makes a good sense. I do not see similar article in ltwiki. If you have sources about this word in modern Lithiania, you are welcome to add a section. the be-wiki says "Litviny is a politonym for the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th–18th centuries." ru-wiki says something similar --Altenmann >talk 21:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's truly not an English word, then probably the whole article needs to be removed. But if it's a new recently coined English word, then it needs to be explained in a fair an neutral manner. I can find the word "Litvins" in some English books on books.google.com (after filtering out the cases where it is a surname), not sure if this is relevant. --Ssvb (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

We probably can't count on good faith cooperation of the Lithuanian editors, such as @+JMJ+, which is really unfortunate. I can try to fish quotations from the Lithuanian mass media, such as delfi.lt, with their use of the word "Litvin". Do the Lithuanian news sites count as sources for the article? --Ssvb (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssvb What do you mean by We probably can't count on good faith cooperation of the Lithuanian editors? I simply did a few edits that were by any and all measure completely neutral (to reduce clutter) and you immediately cast WP:ASPERSIONS on me? I didn't answer your previous messages because I didn't have the time to be involved in back-and-forth discussion today, but you immediately assumed completely untrue things. +JMJ+ (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@+JMJ+, your edits were not neutral because they muddy waters and try to obscure the fact that the Belarusian word is a strictly historical term with a broader meaning than just an "ethnic Lithuanian". This article exists because there's something special about this term, right? The term means different things in different countries and in different languages, which causes some contention, not unlike the word Zhyd. And you rushed doing these edits instead of responding to me. --Ssvb (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Muddy what waters? I did not change any content and add anything that was not already stated in the article. The thing is that Litvin is not a Belarusian word, but a Slavic one that is used by multiple countries to describe the same. I hope you realise what the meaning of "resident of Lithuania" is. It seems to me like you're misconstruing the situation. +JMJ+ (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Litvin" is a Belarusian word and this can be demonstrated using references to reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia policies. It's indeed used in the other Slavic languages too. --Ssvb (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That said, please no longer write general-purpose texts; unsually nobody reads them ("tl;dr"). Please make specific suggestions what text you want added/removed/changed, preferably in small chunks, so that we can discuss them here. --Altenmann >talk 21:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Altenmann, we have a discussion here as an attempt to reach consensus. Is suggest to rework the "Modern usage in Belarus" section, so that it doesn't look like a one-sided pile of the Lithuanian accusations against the Belarusians, solely based on what some marginal minority of the Belarusians did or do. Such rework can start with adding the actual mainstream Belarusian definition of the word "Litvin", so that the content of the section matches its title. --Ssvb (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

My ancestors are from Belarus and Ukraine and Russia. My cousin's father has "litvin's" surname Turczynowicz born in a village of Gudogaj, which name is telling for Lithuanians. Atsiprašau, neturiu laiko. --Altenmann >talk 22:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I strictly oppose any alters to the Lithuanian nationality according to various nationalistic ideas with pseudoscientific origin. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the Litvins are equal to Lithuanians. The modern Lithuanians ancestors were always called Lithuanians, not anything else. The Google translate provides such translations for English word "Lithuanian": літоўскі / litoŭski (in Belarusian), litwini or litewski (in Polish), литовський / lytovsʹkyy (in Ukrainian), litauisch (in German), Lituanienne (in French). All with the same root "Lit", so same as "Litvin". Yes, some Belarusian nationalists with pseudoscientific arguments say that they are the "real Lithuanians", however scientific point of view fully deny these Belarusian nationalists theories as the Lithuanians in the past annexed modern Belarusian territories (at the time Ruthenian). We should not flood Wikipedia with pseudoscientific and nationalistic theories and present them as "alternative truth". -- Pofka (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How do you imagine the process of altering the Lithuanian nationality? The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mentions neither Litvins nor Lithuanians and can't support your claim. Your personal grudge against the Belarusian nationalists has has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. The Belarusian word "Litvin" is a linguistic reality and needs proper explanations in the article. All of your and my claims need to be supported by the actual sources. --Ssvb (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssvb: Litwini is a Polish word meaning 'Lithuanians' (see: Google translate Polish -> English) and is equivalent to Lithuanian word Lietuviai (see: Google translate Polish -> Lithuanian). In the Polish Wikipedia (see: pl:Litwini) the Litwini are equated to Lietuviai (see also: lt:Lietuviai in the Lithuanian Wikipedia). So 'Lithuanians / Litwini / Lietuviai' are one and the same people. Just because some Belarusian nationalists want to construct a separate national identity based on a slightly modified Polish word explicitly meaning 'Lithuanians' it does not mean that it should be accepted in an encyclopedia due to its pseudoscientific origin. If these Belarusian nationalists want to be Litwini, then at the same time they should want to be Lietuviai. I am not convinced that the Belarusians want to become the vassals of Lithuanian rulers again, but Lithuanization process is the only possibility to become a 'Litwini / Lietuviai' for them. Per scientific point of view a separate national identity of Litwini from Lietuviai do not exist. -- Pofka (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I would distinguish the usages of 'Litvin' in the same way as for 'Lithuania' - in a broader and in a narrow sense.

Lithuania in the broader sense = All territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Lithuania in the narrow sense = Lithuania proper only.

so...

Lithuanians (Litvins) in the broader sense = ALL inhabitants of the former GDL, inlcuding Tatars, Jews, Ruthenians etc...

Lithuanians (Litvins) in the narrow sense = All inhabitants of Lithuania propria, or ethnic Lithuanians.

MKW100 (talk) MKW100 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read the whole discussion MKW100 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@MKW100, yes, it's all about the existence of the narrow sense and the broader sense, which even have different words for them in some languages. Have you read the whole discussion now? --Ssvb (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@MKW100: It does not change the fact that the Litwini / Litvin literally mean 'Lithuanians', so a Lithuanian from the 14th century would be described with the same term as a Lithuanian from the 21st century. Moreover, the Samogitians of the Duchy of Samogitia are also Lithuanians, so not only the inhabitants of Lithuania proper and other eastern parts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania should be considered. Furthermore, while many Ruthenians indeed lived in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania it does not mean that their national identity shifted from 'Ruthenian' to 'Lithuanian'. In simple words: the Ruthenian territories for Lithuanian monarchs were like the British Raj (India) for the British Empire. -- Pofka (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pofka, no, it's not the fact. The Lithuanian Wikipedia doesn't quite agree with you. See the w:lt:Litvinai article, which refers to a Lithuanian encyclopedia as a reliable source. Your comments are merely your personal opinion and hold no weight. --Ssvb (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssvb The commonly accepted definition of the term 'Litvin' in Belarus is already mentioned in the top of the Article, as Altenmann already pointed out. Do you want to add it again in the "Modern usage in Belarus" section?

Maybe we could change all section titles from Modern usage in xxx to Other usages in xxx, in order to clarify what is meant.

MKW100 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@MKW100 The top of the article doesn't put emphasis on the Belarusian term w:be:Літвін (Litvin) being a strictly historical 16th-18th century politonym, not applicable to modern ethnic Lithuanians. And it's obviously not applicable to modern ethnic Belarusians either. In the top of the article, the Belarusian language is lumped together with Polish and other Slavic languages, ignoring or intentionally obscuring the differences between them. And before anyone accuses me of supposedly denying the existence of the Lithuanian ethnicity, there's an entirely different term w:be:Літовец (Litovec) specifically for the ethnic Lithuanians in the Belarusian language.

Even the Lithuanian language itself has different terms w:lt:Litvinai and w:lt:Lietuviai, essentially mirroring the situation in the Belarusian language. Though their historical 16th-18th century politonym is probably much less familiar to the general public. Moreover, the Lithuanian nationalists are likely to downplay or even deny the existence of the historical 16th-18th century politonym altogether to promote their agenda. And we see this bias getting unreasonably entrenched here in Wikipedia.

Altenmann suggested "If you have sources about this word in modern Lithiania, you are welcome to add a section". And also asked to "no longer write general-purpose texts; unsually nobody reads them". It's a high time to start editing the article, doing this in compliance with Wikipedia reliable sources and neutrality policies. --Ssvb (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"The top of the article doesn't put emphasis on the Belarusian term w:be:Літвін (Litvin) being a strictly historical 16th-18th century politonym, not applicable to modern ethnic Lithuanians." This cannot be included in Wikipedia per WP:NPOV because the term 'Litvin' is inextricably related with Lithuania. The term 'Litvin' is equal to a Lithuanian word Lietuviai (the Lithuanian word Lietuviai was also used in the 16th-18th centuries to describe Lithuanians), so nowadays residents of Lithuania are also 'Litvin' (e.g. from a Slavic-speaking Polish perspective). Consequently, post-1795 no Belarusians of Belarus can be described as 'Litvin' because they do not live in Lithuania and are not citizens of Lithuania anymore. I repeat once again: Litvin is a derivative of a Polish word Litwini which literally mean 'Lithuanians' (use Google translate to check). @MKW100: @Altenmann: user Ssvb simply push the point of view of Litvinism that "modern Lithuanians are not real Lithuanians" (this POV is stricly rejected internationally), so please do not assist him to turn Wikipedia into a Litvinist propaganda encyclopedia. We are Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia with WP:RS, not to spread pseudoscientific niche ideas that "scientifically and internationally recognized X nationality is not X nationality". After all, Belarus is an authoritarian dictatorship with no freedom of speech, while Lithuania is a fully democratic country. The Belarus-Lithuania relations are not friendly and Belarus spread lies about Lithuania, thus Wikipedians should be very carefully in such questions. -- Pofka (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The Belarusian language has two distinct terms w:be:Літвін and w:be:Літовец. The Lithuanian language also has two distinct terms w:lt:Litvinai and w:lt:Lietuviai. This is backed by reliable sources, such as the Belarusian and Lithuanian encyclopedias. You refer to Google translate, which is not a reliable source. And you stick to the Polish language as if it were the only authority, effectively dismissing the existence of the Belarusian and Lithuanian languages, which is a linguistic chauvinism. Yes, the Polish language is relevant in Polish Wikipedia and in the "Modern usage in Poland" section of this article, but no more than that.

You are making a false claim by attributing the statement "modern Lithuanians are not real Lithuanians" to me, but these are your words, not mine. Your stubborn denial of existence of distinct terms probably has something to do with this fallacy. And this is exactly why this article is important.

The historical Belarus-Lithuania relations are okay. At least they are much better than Ukraine-Moldova, Armenia-Azerbaijan or Georgia-Ossetia (Russia) relations. We didn't have armed conflicts in 1990s and it wasn't just a pure luck. Soviet OMON assaults on Lithuanian border posts and other major provocations were happening, intended to cause a war, similar to what happened in the other post-Soviet republics. The war didn't happen exactly because there were no hostilities between our nations. Today there's Russian disinformation targeting other countries and artificially seeding conflicts everywhere, Lithuania isn't an exception. Per Lithuanian State Security Department, this new "Litvinism" thing is largely a psychological-information operation organised by states hostile to Lithuania[8] and this makes me wonder about your true motives for promoting hostilities here in Wikipedia. --Ssvb (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You wrote "In the top of the article, the Belarusian language is lumped together with Polish and other Slavic languages, ignoring or intentionally obscuring the differences between them."

The Belarusian meaning of the term (15-18th century polytonym) does not seem to essentially differ from the common Eastern Slavic meaning of the term. So it makes sense to put them together in the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" section. Otherwise, we would had to repeat the same information in the Belarusian, Ukrainian, Russian and even Lithuanian section, since all of them share the same historic 16–18th century polytonym meaning.

Differences can be put in each section, but common information should be put in the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" section. ---- MKW100 (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Modern usage in Poland

@Altenmann, the current text of the section is deceptively formulated, to make the readers believe that the term is only applicable to ethnic Lithuanians, moreover it insists that it's allegedly always been this way: "The Poles still use the words Litwini and Litwa when referring to the Lithuanians and Lithuania respectively."

However there's even the whole Polish Wikipedia article about the additional historical sense of the word: Litwini w znaczeniu historycznym. And https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Litwin#Polish naturally mentions the historical sense as well. I suggest to explicitly acknowledge the existence of the historical sense in the Wikipedia article when describing the modern usage in Poland. --Ssvb (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

To claim that the text is deceptively formulated is absurd. The Polish wikipedia article you are pointing to is flagged with severe WP:NPOV issues, so it definitely should not be translated into the English Wikipedia for self-evident reasons. The historical aspect of the definition is already evident in the first sentence of the article. Litwa has always referred to Lithuania in the Polish language, saying that Litwa does not mean Lithuania is simply going against reality. +JMJ+ (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you claim that the NPOV issues render the whole article invalid, this problem is non-fixable and the historical sense of the word simply doesn't exist? I would be particularly interested in the feedback from the people from Poland. --Ssvb (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you not see a problem with translating an entire article with clear problems from one language to another? +JMJ+ (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"saying that Litwa does not mean Lithuania is simply going against reality" - who is saying that? It's not the first time you resort to Straw man and I'm not amused. --Ssvb (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Has Litwa and Litwini not always referred to Lithuania and Lithuanians respectively in the Polish language? +JMJ+ (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The Poles always referred to Lithuania as Litwa and its inhabitants were and still are Litwini (use Google translate from Polish to English). The Belarusians have their own state 'Belarus' and cannot be described as Lithuanians/Litwini. Furthermore, the Belarusians were titled Ruthenians, now they prefer being titled Belarusians, but still of historically Rus' origin. The Belarusians never were or became more Lithuanian than Ruthenian, despite the circumstances that the modern Belarusian territories in the past were annexed by Lithuanians and that previously Belarusians lived in Lithuanian-created state for centuries. -- Pofka (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)