Talk:Litvin

Removed text

I have moved parts of this edit to talk in case some editor think it's useful and wants to add it to this or other article after proper copyediting.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As an ethnonym referring to the inhabitants of the entire Belarusian ethnolinguistic territory, the term "Belarusian" is of quite recent origin. In fact, before the late 19th century, Belarusians were usually called by their neighbors, and sometimes called themselves "Litviny" (based on their long association with the historical Lithuania, this is not surprising), as well as "rusiny" (particularly those of the Orthodox and Uniate as opposed to Roman Catholic faith). The Old Belarusian/Ruthenian language that functioned as the official chancellery language of the [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]] from the 14th to the 17th centuries was called by its users "prosty ruski jazyk"/"prostaja ruskaja mova" (the simple Rus' language, in contrast to Church Slavonic, the language of the Orthodox church), although 16th-17th century Muscovite sources refer to it as either "litovskii jazyk" or "beloruskij jazyk." Interestingly, a Russian diplomat who visited Vilnius/Vilnia in the early 18th century noted in his memoirs that in the surrounding villages, some peasants spoke a "separate Lithuanian language" (osobyj litovskij jazyk), evidently not Polish or the Belarusian dialects that Russians were accustomed to calling "Lithuanian." Incidentally, as recently as the early 20th century, ethnic Russians and Ukrainians in border regions like Smolensk and west Polesie referred to neighboring Belarusian dialect speakers as "litviny/lytvyny" and their speech as "po-litovski/po-lytovs'komu". Dal's dictionary also has an interesting example of this use of the word "litvin" by Russians to refer to Belarusians: "[[tol'ko mertvyj litvin ne dzeknet]]" ("only a dead Litvin won't say it with dzekan'e" -- dzekan'e: a fairly salient (evidently, at least to Russians) feature of Belarusian pronunciation: the pronunciation of palatalized alveolar affricates in place of palalized dental stops, e.g. Belarusian [dz"ec"i] 'children' vs. Russian [d'et'i]).

The form "Belorusec," alongside "Litvin", also shows up in 17th-century Muscovite documents in reference to the Belarusian merchants and craftsmen (both prisoners of war and voluntary emigres) who were resettled in Moscow's "Meshchanskaja sloboda" in large numbers during and after the 1654-1667 war between Muscovy and Poland-Lithuania. While Belarusian-speaking (and after the mid-17th century, mainly Polish-speaking) elites in the GDL often referred to themselves as "Litviny/Litwini", most Belarusian-speaking peasants simply identified themselves as "tutejshy" (local), and after the abolition of the Uniate Church in 1839, may have added that they were "ruskaj very" (of the Rus' faith) or "pol'skaj very" (of the Polish faith) if they happened to be Roman Catholic. The use of the term "Belarusian" for self-identification by Belarusians appears to have become common only since the early 20th century with the establishment of Belarus as a political entity (the [[Belarusian Democratic Republic]] (1918) and the BSSR (1922)). Significantly, in those parts of the Belarusian ethnolinguistic territory that lie outside the borders of the modern Belarusian state, for example the southern Vilnius region in Lithuania, the western Smolensk and Brjansk regions of Russia, and the Bialystok region of Poland, the percentage of Belarusian dialect speakers of local origin, whether Orthodox or Catholic, who identify themselves as Belarusians is quite small, probably less than 10% in the first two regions, and no more than 20% in the latter.

OR

Current version of "article" is an original research and representing some sort of fringe theory. External links and "sources" like [1][2] etc. not even close to the required criteria of reliable sources and actually is some sort of extreme nationalistic ones, which advocates to rename "State of Belarus" to Lithuania (!). Wikipedia is required that only high quality material should be presented, therefore per WP:RS,OR and WP:FRINGE I converting this "article" to previous disambiguation. M.K. (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like the article in its present form or otherwise does not give you the right to "delete" it by redirecting the page to a disambig page which doesn't link to this article, hence "disappearing" the text. If you don't like the article, edit it. If you think sources are lacking, fact tag it. If you have questions about sources used, bring it up on RS. And discuss your changes. Thanks.radek (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This article and the disambig article

Thinking about it, this article should probably moved to something like Litvin (Historical context) and then linked to from the Litvin (disambiguation) page. Hopefully this would clarify this mess up.radek (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the qualification made on Polish Wikipedia, but is it really not the primary usage? It would be Litvin (historical context)... somehow I don't like this disambig. Maybe we can think of a better solution? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose to move. Please explain which mess you have in mind. - Altenmann >t

Mess = People replacing this article with the disambig article, deleting all the text in the process. Piotrus, if you think this is the primary usage then I think as it is right now it's fine, just the disambig article needs to be clear.radek (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Main problem is that the term is, well, a bit biased, as it is presented now. I mean - it presents modern Belarussian theory, that Lithuanian historians are stealing Belarussian heritage, and that the true Lithuanians, are not the Lithuanians from nowadays Lithuania (in this case in a somewhat a mild form). I have tried to NPOV the lead, although it is just a first step, if we want to keep it.

While every theory has right to exist, it should have NPOV comment, and also be evaluated by international sources (not only by Belarussian, as it is now), to be balanced. I feel, that in current state it does lack this sort of neutrality.--Lokyz (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• But is the problem with the term or the article? I don't think the term itself can be POV and of course the article can be rewritten.radek (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  Usage and explanation of the term is POV, term itself cannot be POV, of course. I've read Polish article on the term, it is more neutral, although it does not reflect international view also, becuse it is not sourced inline (hence is only thoughts of several editors), and also it reflects Polish view, especially on Ukraine and GDL lands, that now are part of Poland.--Lokyz (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a certain theory under the term. And, as usual, various historians have different opinions. You are welcome to add criticism or other points of view (referenced). One thing is undeniable: Belarussians were called litvins in the past, for whatever reason. Since the reason is not clearly documented, there is a room for interpretatrions and speculations. The notable ones of these must be documented in encyclopedic was (heck, we even have full articles even about hoaxes!), and this is nothing against WP:NPOV: the policy is against sneaking in opinions of wikipedians, not of historians and politicians, when they are clearly attributed and referenced. - Altenmann >t 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. Yes, I agree, the Polish article looks much more historically solid, and I agree that it misses inline refs for verification and re-use here. As for its title, please keep in mind that in Polish "Litwin" has the main meaning of "Lithuanian person", hence the title requires disambiguation. This is not so in English language. - Altenmann >t 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is, that not only pre-Belarussians were called Litvins, that's why I did remove the obvious misplaced template earlier. As I've said in my previous comments, Polish article is more neutral, although it has issues. In short, as I see the term - Litvin is a citizen(with citizen rights) loyal to GDL, it means mostly szlachta or Lithuanian nobility particulary. And again - not only Belarus. I have a high suspicion, that the term is derived from Polish language (i.e Litwin), not Belarusian, and it is not used in English publications in this spelling (Litvin). English term is Lithuanian(s) (not necessary denoting ethnicity but citizen-nationality in a pre-national (national meaning - based around one ethnicity state, that is 19th century invention).--Lokyz (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth moving the article to something like Litvin in historical context or Lithuanian in historical context (as the Polish article literally says, the English Litvin is sometimes used as a short term instead of "Lithuanian in historical context"), but with Litvin rather redirecting there and not to the disambig page.

The term Litvin is present in Belarusian language (літвін) as well. Historically the term related not only to szlachta but geogrephically to 1) Inhabitants of the region around Vilnia/Wilno plus today's central and north-western Belarus (including Minsk, Navahrudak, Hrodna, Niasviž etc), where today a significant group of people identifies themselves as Poles 2) Samogitians of modern Lithuania and inhabitants of other lands of modern Belarus (Polesia and White Ruthenia), especially by foreigners as reference to the people coming from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.--Czalex 09:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be rather short this time, since on vacations and my loaned internet conection is rather poor. Several points: as I've said earlier I have a high suspicion that the term is loanword from Polish, and it was transferred into Russian and modern Belarusian. The term is known in Slavic languages, but it is not in English (note the section below). There is an article about it in Russian (a bit messy link, since the FX is not good with Cyrillic) as in English language Litvin is more common as a family name [3], and [4] is given even an ethymology of the words, and several dictionary explanations, most of them refer to Lithuanians. Also in my opinion Lithuanian would be better, as it is most common definition in English usage. Happy reading.--Lokyz (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely no loanword because there are numerous other words in Belarusian that are formed in the same way: hruzin (Georgian), armianin (Armenian), rusin (Ruthenian (sic) ), žmudzin (Samogitian). One should not exclude the possibility that it is a Polish loanword from Belarusian (Ruthenian) language. As I said, moving to Lithuanian in historical context would be a good idea, answering many questions regarding the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in general.--Czalex 00:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann, please take a look at Litvin (disambiguation) and see if you can make it a clear cut disambig page. Before it just pretended that "Litvin" was a Polish or Belarussian term for "Lithuanian" and that there wasn't more to it than that. That's the "mess" I was referring to.radek (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I turned computer on for a couple of minutes, to review the watchlist changes, but ended in spending 3 hours already :-) I will certainly return to this topic later, but now I am logging off. - Altenmann >t 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how it is. Take your time.radek (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

English usage

Nor google books [5] neither google scholar search [6] presents English usage of the current spelling of the article name, although it does present family names in abundance. I hope everyone will agree, that this is English Wikipedia?--Lokyz (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this happens sometimes. But I agree we shall think what to do about this. - Altenmann >t 21:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

English Wikipedia can cover things that have reliable sources in different languages, even if there is no term for a given phenomenon in English language. Here's an example for you: communist crime. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus. Anyway, in my opinion this article should remain under the present title. The problem with it is that the covers the conflict area of Belarusian and Lithuanian nationalisms. The point is how these two ethnic groups are portrayed by international historiography. At the beginning of the GDL Lithuanians are presented as Lithuanians, a mobile and consolidated group even though without written language and Christian traditions, whereas already Christian Belarusians are viewed not as Belarusians but rather as a part of "East Slavs" (or similar) and their language is differently called by different authors. I may quote at least 10 books with this approach. Furthermore Belarusian scholarship is thought not to meet international standards. Thus, it leads to a rather one-sided view on the matter. CityElefant (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional info

To the author of the article: I’d like to offer some substantial corrections + a bunch of historical examples, so as to provide better understanding of who Litvins were. First of all, this denomination never served to identify a Baltic ethnicity ONLY. It always, since the very beginning was used to determine what we now call Lithuanians and Belarusians. It was a super-ethnical term. It is likely, that the term itself is of Slavic origin (mind the ending: -in). It was used to determine the dwellers of the Great Duchy of Lithuania, as of the 13th century, both (modern) Lithuanians and Belarusians. There was no such term as “Belarusian” in the Middle Ages, and all the Belarusian were called “Litvins” from 13th to 19th cent. In the 16th century (at the peak of Grand Dutchy’s might), there’s no any doubt, that ALL, who were called Litvins, spoke the Belarusian language. The Belarusian language (in the process of forming in 13-15 cc.) was the only language ever used by dukes and lords of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, until the end of the 14th century, when Latin added (fulfilling minor tasks of international correspondence). The Belarusian language was always used in all spheres of the governmental activities of GDL, including the laws of the state, where the rights of “Litvins” are stated.

The Second Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 1566 (in the Belarusian language) states:

“Въ томъ панстве Великомъ Князстве Литовскомъ и во всихъ земляхъ ему прислухаючыхъ достойностей духовныхъ и свецкихъ городовъ дворовъ и кгрунтовъ староствъ въ держаньи и пожываньи и вечностей жадных чужоземцомъ и заграничникомъ ани суседомъ таго панства давати не имаемъ; але то все мы и потомки наши Великіе Князи Литовскіе давати будуть повинни только Литве а Руси, родичомъ старожитнымъ и врожонцамъ Великаго Князства Литовского (…..) А хотя бы хто обчого народу за свое заслуги въ той речы посполитой пришолъ ку оселости зъ ласки и данины нашое, албо которымъ иншимъ правомъ; тогды таковые толко оселости оное ужывати мають будучы обывателемъ обецнымъ Великаго Князства и служачы службу земскую томужъ панству. Але на достоенства и всякій врядъ духовный и свецкій не маеть быти обиранъ, ани отъ насъ Господаря ставленъ, толко здавна продковъ своихъ уроженецъ Великого Князства Литовского Л и т в и н ъ и Русинъ».

(“In our state of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in all of its lands, we (the Sovereign) shall grant any ranks and positions … to Litva (i.d. to Litvins) and to Russia (i.d. to Russians) only, who are ancient dwellers and natives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. … To any offices and appointments, only those shall be appointed by us, the Sovereign, who are ancient natives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – L i t v i n and Rusin (Ruthen)”.

During the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1240-1795) all the modern “Belarusians” (the term itself come to a wide usage in tzar Russia, in the 19th century only) were called Litvins. And, by the way, only small part of modern Lithuanians were called “Litvins” in the GDL, as the entire half of them was called “Zhemoit” (Zhemaitia, Zhmudz – Samogitia), which is of common knowledge. And that half of the modern Lithanian folk, called Zhomoit, was not even regarded a native nation of the GDL in the Statutes, as Litvins and Russians were, and Zhomoit itself did not identified themselves with Litvins – which can be illustrated by many drastic examples.

Belarusians were called Litvins also after the times of the GDL, in the 19th century as well, which can be illustrated by the whole Russian 19th century literature. In any Russian book of the first half of the 19th century, a “Litvin” would mean a Belarusian (mind such authors as Pushkin and Turgenev). Ukranians called Belarusians “Litvins” until the 1940-s, which is illustrated by many folklore sayings. Dwellers of Bryansk and Kursk regions of Russia (bordering on Belarus), and of Bialystok region of Poland would call Belarusians “Litvins” all through the 19th century.

The point is, that the original name – which is “Litvin”, testified by so many medieval sources – is not ever-ever used by modern Lithuanians, who call themselves “lietuviai”, I don’t know for which reasons. They seem to give away the name for oblivion. Meanwhile, the name enjoys its revival in Belarus, where many prefer to be named “Litvins” and to identify themselves with the GDL, so more, it is widely known that Belarusians were called Litvins in the times of GDL, and contributed to almost all aspects of its culture. By the way, the surname “Litvin”, and its derivatives (Litvinchuk, Litvinok, Litvinov) are traditionally extremely frequent in Belarus. Meanwhile, there is no such surnames in modern Lithuania at all.

Let’s look at some examples of the historical Litvins. A statement about “Litvins” being a name of a Baltic ethnicity is totally incorrect, as the name embraced both Slavs and Balts at the time.

There is baron named “Luka Litvin” as early as in 1267 at the court of the Lithuanian Duke Dovmont, who was the ruler of Pskov since 1265. (Luka is an orthodox Christian name, popular with Slavs). So, what we see – is a person with an orthodox Christian name and, probably, a surname “Litvin”. (Воскресенская летопись. ПСРЛ, т.7. М., 2001. с.166)

Yes, certainly, there are plenty of person with Baltic names called Litvins in the 13th century, including the very sovereigns of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but there are Slavic person called “Litvins” as well.

Although the modern Lithuanians claim they were called “lietuviai” already at those times, and that even there were no “Litvins” at all (!), that’s incorrect. The first grand duke of the GDL, Mindaug (ruled 1240-1263), called himself “rex L i t w i n o r u m ” (duke of Litwins) in his Latin letters. (РЛА, №122).

Lithuanian grand duke Viten (ruled 1294-1316) was also called “rex Litwinorum” in Latin sources. Peter of Duisburg (ca. 1326) depicted a crusader’s raid onto Litvins near Grodno in 1295: “…five brothers (crusaders) and 150 men from Sambia and Nattangia went on a raid to the castle of Grodno (a city in modern Belarus); and when they c a m e c l o s e, they desired to dismount and to go down the Neman (river) on ships; they devastated a village of L i t v i n s on the riverbank there, killed and captured many people, and moved on”. So, in 1295 a village of Litvins was situated near Grodno, where Slavic population dwelled.

“Vilno martyrs” of 1347 were, no doubt, Slavs. Their names were Kumec, Kruglec and Nezhilo, which are distinct Slavic names, and they were naperers at the court of the Lithuanian grand duke Olgerd in Vilno. The chronicles said that “Kruglec, Kumec and Nezhilo were born of Litva”; “their L i t h u a n i a n names were Kruglec, Kumec, Nezhilo”.

(Darius Baronas. Trys Vilniaus kankiniai: gyvenimas ir istorija. Aidai, Vilnius, 2000)

A Vilno prelate Matej (Matthew), according to a 1422 document, was a born Litvin (“venerabilem virum magistrum Mathiam origine Lytwanum”). However the Lithuanian grand duke Vitovt made a purposeful statement of Matej’s being appropriate for a position of Samogitian (modern Lietuva) bishop in Medniki (modern Varniai), for Matej had “a satisfactory command of the Samogitian dialect” (i.e. of what is now called the Lithuanian language) (“ac de ydiomate Samagitico sufficintissime institutum”). This never occurred with Litvins - bishops in the Belarusian lands (i.e. there are no any statements that they experienced any language troubles in, e.g. Krevo, Navahradak or Lida). This says, that normally Litvins did not have any command of the Samogitian dialect, even on a satisfactory level.

The second cathlic bishop of Vilno was also a Litvin – Jacub (Jan’s son) Plichta ([jakub plihta]), who died on February 2, 1407. The documents testify of him as of a distinct Litvin, from the nation and language of Litva (“Johannis dicti Plychta … viro vicarium Lythuanie, eiusdemque nacionis et lingue”). His name, father’s name and surname are distinctly Slavic.

(Codex epistolaris Vitoldi, pp. 60-61, 103).

By the way, no other documents, than in the Belarusian language are known of the Lithuanian grand duke Vitovt (1392-1430), as well as of Jagailo (1382-1392), Olgerd (1345-1377), Keistut (co-ruled 1345-1382), and other dukes and barons of medieval Lithuania (with the exeption of Latin letters, found in international correspondence).

A Russian chronicle gives a list of “Lithuanian” dukes, who perished in the battle of Vorskla on August 12, 1399: “These are the names of the Lithuanian dukes, who perished: Andrey Olgerdovich of Polock (a Belarusian town), Dmitry Olgerdovich of Bryansk (a Russian town), Ivan Dmitrievich Kindyr, Andrey Dmitrievich, Ivan Evlashkovich, Leon Koriadovich, Michailo Vasylievich, his brother Semen Vasylievich, Michailo Podberezsky, his brother Alexander, Fedor Patrikeevich Rylsky, Andrey of Druck (a Belarusian town), Mont Toluntovich, Ivan Yuryevich Belsky…”. This is one of many examples, where there are so many Slavic names.

(Патриаршая или Никоновская летопись. - ПСРЛ, т. 11. М.: 2000. с. 174).

The enlightener and Roman Pope Aneus Silvius Piccolomini wrote in 1458, that Litvins speak a Slavic language. Such European scientists as Hertman Schedel (in his “World Cronicon”, 1493), Jan Norich (in “Decachyston”, 1511), Jan of Bohemia (in “Omnius Gentes Mores”, 1538) and an Austrian diplomat Sigismund Herberstein (in “History of Moscovia”, 1549) wrote of Litva (Lithuania) as of a Slavic country, and alltogether considered the Lithuanian language a Slavic language.

Herberstein wrote in 1549: “…the bison is called by Litvins in their language “Suber” (“zubr” is the bison in the Belarusian language); “the beast, called by Litvins in their language “Loss”, is called Ellend in German (elk, “los” in Belarusian); “the Sovereign assignes a governor there, whom they (Litvins) in their language call “Starosta”” (a name of an office in Belarusian).

A world known enlightener and cultural icon Francisk Skorina from Polock (who introduced book printing in Belarus and Russia in 1514) registered at the Krakov University as a “Litvin” in 1505.

A famous revolutionary activist and a national hero of the USA – Tadeusz Koscioszko (born near Brest, Belarus) – appealed to his companions: “Am I not your fellow countryman? Am I not a Litvin?..”. In his letter to the Russian tzar Kosciuszko wrote: “I was born a Litvin…”.

A world-famous poet Adam Mickewicz (who was born and dwelled near and in Navahradak – in Grodno region of Belarus) appealed to his native land as “O Litva (Lithuania)! My homeland!”.

The founder of the modern Belarusian dramaturgy and one of the fathers of the modern Belarusian language, Vincent Dunin-Marcinkevicz (1808-1884), considered himself to have been raised “among Litvins” (he was raised near Bobruisk and Minsk, in Belarus). (Дунін-Марцінкевіч В. Збор твораў. Мн., 1958. С.362.)

A famous scientist, a national hero of Chili, Ignat Domeiko (born near Navahradak), wrote of “our Litvins” (in his book “My Travels”), embracing both Belarusian barons and peasantry of his times with the term. Domeiko’s Diploma (at Krakow University, 1887) was granted to “…a noble man Ignat Domeiko, a Litvin…”.

A Russian world-famous 19th century classic writer, Fedor Dostoevsky (whose ancestors came from Dostoevo estate near Pinsk) wrote: “my ancestors come from Lithuanian swamps…”.

---

You might incorporate something of this, which you find interesting, into your article. Regards, 195.50.1.122 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You may incorporate this yourself: wikipedia is an encyclopedia where everyone can edit. However there is an important rule: all information must be supplied with references to serious sources, see wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:CITE rules. As I see, some of your info does have references, but not all. - Altenmann >t 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1) I ain't got skills to edit, so you'd better add what you liked from this information; 2) what references you need? and where, please specify; such statements, as "Litvins in the 16th century spoke Belarusian language" is obvious for everyone, you've probably just never been to Belarus... Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.1.122 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this person not telling the truth:

1. Although the modern Lithuanians claim they were called “lietuviai” already at those times, and that even there were no “Litvins” at all (!), that’s incorrect. The first grand duke of the GDL, Mindaug (ruled 1240-1263), called himself “rex L i t w i n o r u m ” (duke of Litwins) in his Latin letters. (РЛА, №122).

He quote letter, which is officaly acknowledged as fake: "Міндаў, кароль Літовіі, у дакумэнтах і сьведчаньнях = Mindowe, rex Lithowiae, in litteris et testimoniis. Укл. А. Жлутка. Менск, 2005": "Як і варыянт а, лічыцца пазьнейшым фальсыфікатам...".

2.Lithuanian grand duke Viten (ruled 1294-1316) was also called “rex Litwinorum” in Latin sources.

"Cristianar um Eodem anno Vithenus filius rеgis Lethowie cum" " Austechiam terram rеgis Lethowie", " Nee unquam lemporibus suis rex Lethowie" "succumberent Anno domini MCCXCVIII Vithenus rex Lethowinorum ad vocacionem civium Rigеnsium " "Sed rex Lethowie" "Anno domini MCCCXI in carnlsprivio Vithenus rex Lethowie" "Eodem anno in vigilia palmarum Vithenus rex Lethowie putans" "Eodem anno mense Septembri Vithenus rex Lethowinorum " http://books.google.com/books?id=YX8OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA156&dq=terram+regis+Lethowie#v=onepage&q=&f=false

As you can see where is no any "rex Litwinorum".

3. Peter of Duisburg (ca. 1326) depicted a crusader’s raid onto Litvins near Grodno in 1295: “…five brothers (crusaders) and 150 men from Sambia and Nattangia went on a raid to the castle of Grodno (a city in modern Belarus); and when they c a m e c l o s e, they desired to dismount and to go down the Neman (river) on ships; they devastated a village of L i t v i n s on the riverbank there, killed and captured many people, and moved on”. So, in 1295 a village of Litvins was situated near Grodno, where Slavic population dwelled.

"Anno d mini MCCXCV feria YI ante diem pentecostes v fratres et centum quin quaginta viri de Sambia et Nattangia equitaverunl versus castrum Gartham et dum appropinquarent plncuit eis ut remissis equis navigio Memelam descen derent ubi in lilore quadam villa Lеthowinorum occisis et captis pluribus ho minibus deprédala iterum processerunt Sed infideles hoc videntes ármala"

Again you can see form "Lеthowinorum" but no any "Litwin". 195.182.70.130 (talk)kutis —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

A new article

OK, I've made it. Mr. Altenmann, how do you like it?

Mr. Altenmann, please, won't you correct the grammar, if you are a native speaker? Thank you. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Very funny, in the Letter of Kazimir belorussians from Polock and Vitebsk not mentioned as litvins, but here you writting that they "litvins" too.

Also strange, that form "litvin" was never mentioned in belorussian and ukrainian chronicles and letters of 12-14 century. "Litvins" shows only then Jogelo became king of Poland, so it's not belorussian historical form, but linguistic form from polish language.

Even know this form is in polish language.80.240.12.146 (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC) man.

Dwellers of Polock, Vitebsk and Smolensk were mentioned separately not because they were not Litvins, but because those cities were very big and had separate laws and were self-regulating cities-republics (they held their old rights, as they had been capitals of independent duchies until the 13th century), so here the agreement was to make a purposeful statement of their separate status, which was obligatory; sons of Lithuanian grand dukes were normally dukes of Polock and Vitebsk, and those cities obeyed directly to the Grand duke, that's why they were regarded separately, as separate units of the state. You can read duke Gerden's of grand duke Gedimin's agreements: Polock and Vitebsk were also named separately there, as separate unions of the state; Gerden speaks on his own behalf as duke of Polock, even not mentioning the grand duke (whos cousin he was), Gedimin enters into an agreement on behalf of Lithuania, and - separately - of Polock and Vitebsk, althogh Polock and Vitebsk were a part of GDL at those times. Those were separate units of the state, and it was normal to enumerate them like this; even more, it was obligatory, so as to specify their special rights.

The form "Litwin", actually, does occur in our chronicles of 12-14 centuries. If you don't like "litva" from Ukranian 13th cent. chronicle, then there's that baron Luka Litvin of 1267. And there are also Moscovite documents of 14th cent. which I did not mention, and many other... And there's a bunch of western chronicles and documents, which name "Litvins" in the 13th and throughout 14th century. Doesn't it show to you, that the form originated no later than the 13th cent.?? What does this "Poland" and "Jogailo" make up to? Actually, this does sound funny, not what I've written. So, what are you trying to say: that if there's "Litvin" in the Polish language, so it's a Polish invention? So then, if we, Belarusians, name Poles "polaki" (as in the Polish language) - then maybe we, Belarusians, invented the name for Poles?.. Does this sound funny to you?.. You'd better be more attentive and check yourself, cos' you are arguing on no reason. Regards, 195.50.1.122 (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but habitants of Polock and Vitebsk are called as „rusins“, not „litvins“.

Really? Please, give me an example. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Luka Litvin was mentioned in chronicle of the 16 century.

Fact, where is no chronicles (Ipavet, Novgorod chronicles) or letters until union with Poland of 1386 where will be mentioned „litvins“ in rusins chronicles of 10-14 century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.70.130 (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a common knowledge, that any chronicles were later re-written, as most of Russian and any European chronicles were, including the Voskresensky chronicle, where Luka Litvin of 1267 was mentioned. So, do you imply, that it is a lie? And, if we do not have any, e.g. English chronicles about the Kingdom of England prior to the 13th century, and we do have only those re-written after the 13th century - so does that mean, that the Kingdom of England did not exist prior to the 13th century, and started only when those chronicles were re-written? Is this what you're trying to say?

And by the way if we had early Lithuanian chronicles (in the Belarusian language), which were destroyed by crusaders, we wouldn't be playing silly games and we would know everything. I gave you a bunch of examples about Litvins prior to 14th century, but I see that you are just too hostile, and you just do not want to believe that there were Litvins already in the 13th century, though the examples are obvious and abundant. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, regarding mentioning of "Litvins" in Russian sources prior to 1386: an example is already in the article, look it up.  :) 195.50.1.122 (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets talk about real facts, not childish theory about „bad russians“ . Then you find your Luka Litvin in the others chronicles of 13-14, then talk about real person. Your Russian source have one notice: для прочтения и зашифрованных мест во всех четырех дошедших до нас списках послания, из которых два принадлежат XV в., а два — рубежу XV и XVI вв. So, they not real source of 14 century, just later copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.26.210 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there were "bad russians", you'd know it if you were in Belarus: they stole almost all chronicles of GDL. However, there really are sources of 13-14 cent. that name "Litvins", look through the article once again. Those are the "REAL FACTS". If you have something to add, so please do. (And I really do doubt that you have any "facts" on litvins-poles or else litvins-modern lithuanians that you may add...). And I'm not going to be quarelling with you, cos' probably you're my old friend Kutis from istorija.net. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And what they did? Rewrite everywhere „Litovcy“ instead of „litvin“? Very funny.

I don‘t see any source of 13-14 with „litvin“, I see that you mentioned some sources which is fake (letter of Mindaug) and later sources of 15-18 century.

Very interesting thing: In agreement between Jagelo, Kestutis, Liubart with king of Poland Kazimir of the year 1352 you can find this quote: „кнѧзии̇ литовьскыхъ“. So why not „Litvin dukes“? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.70.130 (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Aleksander Brückner

I suggest some quotations from Aleksander Brückner's works should be added to this article. CityElefant (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some examples. Regards, 195.50.1.122 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For Aleksander Brückner Belarusian (białoruski) and Ruthenian (ruski) were interchangeable synonyms ("Ruskopolski rękopis z r. 1510", pp. 1, 10 in: Slavia: časopis pro slovanskou filologii, #7, 1928). Brückner also called Old Belarusian/Ruthenian language Lithuanian (litewski) (I'll provide a quote from his article in Slavia soon) and distinguished it from Ukrainian. "Mikołaj Rej jeżeli później o Rusinach opowiadał, prawili mu po "litewsku" (tj. po białorusku; Litwin u nego zawsze tyle co Białorusin), nigdy po małorusku" (source: Aleksander Brückner. Mikołaj Rej. PWN: Warszawa, 1988, p. 14). Translation: When Mikołaj Rej later described Ruthenians they addressed him in "Lithuanian" (i.e. Belarusian language, for him a Lithuanian [person] is exclusively a Belarusian) but never in Ukrainian (here literally: Little Russian). CityElefant (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OR'ish and POINT'ish

The article is so WP:OR'ish that it is on the verge of deletion. I had ahope it would improve over time, but I've lost the hopes. It is becoming some propaganda vehicle, that does not have anything to do with WP:RS and WP:V. Either you like or not the academic historians, is of no matter, but one should not turn Wikipedia intosome sort of forum, where anyone does interpret sources likely like transcribing Latin Lituania into L itva. Official English nme for Lithuanian is well, Lithuania. --Lokyz (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Since you are an ethnic Lithuanian your intentions may be interpreted as biased approach or one-sided argument. CityElefant (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)a

Where do you see any propaganda, Lokyz? It's all about the historical sources, which I have cited abundantly. I've written not about modern Lithuania, I've written about Litvins, as you may see from the name. And does anybody in the West actually know, who Litvins were? I guess no. So I tried to give an impression. If you disagree, you might cite any historical sources, here in Talk section. And I don't care, that the Latin name is Lithuania, we have "Litvin", and "Litva" (as a collective name) in our own Belarusian language, in which the Statute was written, and I was citing the STATUTE, which reads LITVIN (ЛИТВИН), not any "Lithuanian". The modern "Lithuanian" is no the same as the historical Litvin. And I was writing about historical Litvins, but just not willing to see the truth. Rasool-2 (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

lol. Lokyz, you are silly. Are VMPL, PSRL, MPV, PD, AZR and SRP - not "reliable sources" to you? They all read "LITWINORUM", "LITHUANORUM", "ЛИТВИН". So, what's your problem? Rasool-2 (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA is still an official policy of Wikipedia. And WP:OR will be also. There are other two - please make sure to read them carefully: WP:RS and WP:V, before throwing something like And I don't care, that the Latin name is Lithuania, we have "Litvin", and "Litva"[7], since there is no WP:RS you can provide. I'd suggest you to read WP:ENGLISH and a Wishful thinking. Happy reading. I hope you'll understand the purpose of the Wikipedia policy better soon,--Lokyz (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Lokyz, you just don't get it, do you? The name of the article is not "Lithuanians", it is "Litvin". Don't you really understand that the modern "Lithuanians" are not the same as the historical Litvins? You might try to actually READ the article, to realize that. It is an article about historical Litvins, which are not the same as what you now name Lithuanians. My article is about the historical phenomenon. So stop replacing the word Litvin in my article for the word Lithuanian. If there is an article about historical Franks (who were a German tribe, not a French one) - you won't be swopping "Franks" for modern "French" of France, will you? So, I think, you get it. Rasool-2 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No I cannot, since the same Lithuanians do live on the same land for centuries. And the "Litvin" is an imaginary term, never used in English scientific literature. And this is not your article, it's Wikipedia article, it means collaborative effort, that does include a WP:OR policy, that is heavily violated in this case.

Also if you want create "your article" please create your own webpage or blog. --Lokyz (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really? lol. Please tell me, where did Litvins live, cos' I just don't know, maybe you will show me, cos' you seem to be such an expert about the Litvins and the GDL... lol. The name is LITVIN, and there have never been another name in the GDL. Relating to the English literature - there was no English scientific literature in the English language until the 16th century, and all the English used the LATIN language, which had LITWINI, LITWINORUM, LITHUANI - which all was a direct rendering of ЛИТВИН. Do you like that? lol. I think you've had it now. Take a rest. One thing you have to understand - if a historical source (e.g. Statute) is being cited, you cannot swap "Litvin" from the quote to <"Lithuanian" with a link to modern Lithuanians (Lietuva)>, cos' modern Lithuanians are just a very small part of the historical Lithuania and Litvins. You should else write "Lithuanian" without a link, or write just "Litvin". Because linking to the modern Lithuanians is totally inappropriate. Concerning Wikipedia's rights - please do not lecture me, because I am a Wiki member, as you are, and I do have the same rights to speak on behalf of Wikipedia, as you do. As there's just a confrontation between personally two: me and you, I do not see, why you are more authoratative than me. Moreover - you do not know the history at all, and you're trying to lecture me on who really Litwins were. lol... Take a rest, and stop vandalising the page. Rasool-2 (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

195.182.70.130 (talk)How do you think, Budivid-Afrika and so on, in Latin version of Statute, what term you find? Litvin? Kutis —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

Article is unimportant and unnecessary

“Litvin – is the Slavic name for people living in Lithuania, and means Lithuanian in the Lithuanian (Lietuvis), Polish (Litwin), and Russian (Литвин) languages. It was applied earlier to all people living in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and later the Lithuanian part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As this area was primarily comprised of Lithuanians and Ruthenians, Litvini was the designated term for the inhabitants of this territory, by Slavic speaking peoples.” -------– Litvin is a Slavonic form of Lithuanian. So I can’t understand why we should create different articles. Should I create article about Lituanos, Lietuviai, Litouwers and Litovcy in English Wikipedia? The name became „Litvin“ because Ruthenians didn‘t have diphthong. Thats how Vytautas became Vitovt, Kaunas – Cowno, Lietuvis – Litvin, Jaunutis – Jawnut. As we see, it is enought to apply only one rule and everything became clear.

“In this our state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in all of its lands, we [the Sovereign] shall grant any ranks and positions … to Lithuania and to Russia only, who are ancient dwellers and natives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. … To any offices and appointments, only those shall be appointed by us, the Sovereign, who are ancient natives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, those are – Lithuanian and Ruthenian”[1].What nation was named "Lithuanians" here, is explained by the author of the Statutes of Lithuania, Lew Sapieha, in a corresponding article of the Lithuanian Statute:"...it is not in any foreign language, but in the language of our own, that we have our rights written"[2]. –------ So, as we see difference between Lithuanians and Ruthenians are. And, I cant imagine where do You see explanation of Sapieha about who is Lithuanians. So, this part must be deleted because: 1) Lithuanians and Ruthenians were separated again, 2) There are no explanation of Sapieha.

The Ukranians called Belarusians “Litvins” until the 1940-s, which can be illustrated by still existing folklore sayings. Dwellers of Bryansk and Kursk regions of Russia (bordering on Belarus), and of Bialystok region of Poland would call Belarusians “Litvins” all through the 19th century and even up to nowadays. -----– Possible. For Ukrainians territory of Belarus was territory of Grand Duchy of Lithuania from old times. So they really could use that name. As Lithuanians still use all name of Goths to describe Belorussian. And that name appears in Lithuanian documents of Grand Duchy of Lithuania: “Mes Wladislaus / Ketwirtassis Isch Diewo Malo= nes / Karalius Lenku / Diddisis Kunigaikschtis Lietuwniku / Guddu / Prusu / Mo= suriu / Szemaicziu / Inflantůsa / Smolenska / Czernichowa etc. Priegtam ir Schwe= du / Gothu / bei Wandalu Tewiksztinis Karalius etc.” (We, Wladyslaw, IV, By the Grace of God, King of Poles, Grand Duke of Lithuanians, Gudai(Ruthenians), Prussians, Mosurians, Samogytians, etc, etc”. So as we see Ruthenians are separated from Lithuanians again. ( http://lietuvos.istorija.net/lituanistica/wladislaus1639.htm ). Our folk songs also says “gudai”.

It should be stressed, that the original form of the name is the form “Litwin”, which occurs in all medieval historical sources[6]. No any forms as “lietuva”, “lietuviai”, “litowcy” etc. occur in any medieval source. –------ Lie again. I’ve already posted one example and can add more. http://www.epaveldas.lt/vbspi/biRecord.do?biRecordId=980 – it is Lithuanian book of 1653. And there we can see written “Bažnyčioms Didės Kunigystės Lietuwos išduota“ it means „For the churches of Grand Duchy of Lithuania“. Of course, it is not medieval source, but i want to remind that no one medieval Lithuanian text reached us. (First texts in Lithuanian are of XVI c.)

“Litwins” come to be widely known in sources as of the formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (ca. 1240’s), as a denomination of Lithuanians and part of Belarus. The first Grand Duke of Lithuania Mindaugas himself signed in his Latin letters as “rex Litwinorum”[7] (“duke of Litwins”)Template:Dubiuos.During the 1210’s, a duke Dovgerd (who, after some scholars[8] might have been Mindaugas father) is known, as “one of the most powerful of Lithuanians”[9]. Some scholars made suggestions, that Dovgerd might have his residence in Oshmiany [10] or Vilna[11].In 1267 a baron named Luka Litvin[12] was present at the court of a Lithuanian duke Daumantas, who was the ruler of Pskov since 1265. (Luka is an orthodox Christian name, popular with Slavs). Probably, “Litvin” existed as a surname already in those times.Lithuanian grand duke Vytenis (ruled 1294-1316) was called “rex Lethowinorum” (“duke of Lithuanians”) in Latin sources. Peter of Duisburg (ca. 1326) depicted a crusader’s raid onto Lithuanians near Hrodna in 1295[13]: “…five brothers (crusaders) and 150 men from Sambia and Nattangia went on a raid to the castle of Hrodna; and when they came close, they wished to dismount and go down the Neman on ships; they devastated a village of Lithuanians [Lethowinorum] on the riverbank there, killed and captured many people, and moved on”. (In 1295, a village of Lithuanians was situated near Hrodna). –------ So, as You see, not Litwins, but Litwinorum, Lethowinorum, etc. But it is just names of Lithuanian in other languages.

Vilnius martyrs of 1347 were, no doubt, Slavs.[citation needed] Their names were Kumec, Kruglec and Nezhilo, which are distinct Slavic names, and they were naperers at the court of the Lithuanian grand duke Algirdas in Vilnius. The chronicles said that[14]: “Kruglec, Kumec and Nezhilo were born in Lithuania”; “their Lithuanian names were Kruglec, Kumec, Nezhilo”. –----- What do You want to say with this? Pagan Lithuanian duke with Lithuanian name, killed those ortodox with Slavonic names. So what does it prove?

A Vilnius prelate Matthew, according to a 1422 document, was a born Lithuanian (“venerabilem virum magistrum Mathiam origine Lytwanum”). However the Lithuanian grand duke Vytautas made a purposeful statement on Matthew's being appropriate for a position of the bishop of Samogitia in Medninkai (nowadays Varniai), as Matej had “a satisfactory command of the Samogitian dialect” (“ac de ydiomate Samagitico sufficintissime institutum”[16]). The second catholic bishop of Vilnius was also a Lithuanian – Jacub (Jan’s son) Plichta ([jakub plihta]), who died on February 2, 1407. The documents testify of him as of a distinct Lithuanian, from the nation and language of Lithuania (“Johannis dicti Plychta … viro vicarium Lythuanie, eiusdemque nacionis et lingue”[16]). –----- I can’t understand this again. What do You mean? Maybe its just a manner to make text longer?

A Russian chronicle gives a list of Lithuanian dukes, who perished in the battle of Vorskla on August 12, 1399[17]: “These are the names of the Lithuanian dukes, who perished: Andrey Olgerdovich of Polock, Dmitry Olgerdovich of Bryansk, Ivan Dmitrievich Kindyr, Andrey Dmitrievich, Ivan Evlashkovich, Leon Koriadovich, Michailo Vasylievich, his brother Semen Vasylievich, Michailo Podberezsky, his brother Alexander, Fedor Patrikeevich Rylsky, Andrey of Druck, Mont Toluntovich, Ivan Yuryevich Belsky…”. –------ And what does it mean? Sons of Algirdas really took East Christianity and adopted Slavonic culture when they ruled Ruthenian lands. There must be also said: “And said Andrey Olgerdovich for his brother Dmitry: we are two brothers – Songs of Olgierd, Grandsons of Edimant[Gediminas], and descendants of Skolomend” Thoose names are Baltic.

The enlightener and Roman Pope Aneus Silvius Piccolomini wrote in 1458, that Lithuanians speak a Slavic language[18]. Such European scientists as Hertman Schedel (in his “World Cronicon”, 1493), Jan Norich (in “Decachyston”, 1511[19]), Jan of Bohemia (in “Omnius Gentes Mores”, 1538[20]) and an Austrian diplomat Sigismund Herberstein (in “History of Moscovia”, 1549) wrote of Litva (Lithuania) as of a Slavonic country, and altogether considered the Lithuanian language a Slavic language. ------------– Of course, foreigners could be confused. For example Johannes Boemus Aubanus(not Jan of Bohemia, like you mentioned) just repeated what Piccolomini had written earlier. But the true that Piccolomini never knew Lithuanian language and never has been there. But even there Johannes Boemus Aubanus separate nations: “Aliae Graeco ritu sacra peragunt, vt Bulgari, Rutheni, et ex Lithuanis plerique. Nonnullae ab his diuersae proprias haereses habent, vt Boemi sunt, Moraui et Bosnienses. Hussitarum quaedam obseruant delirium: pars multo maxima Manicheum: quaedam adhuc etiam gentili caecitate tenentur, idola colunt, quemadmodum multi ex Lithuanis”.Sigismund Herberstein, as foreigner, could easily confuse. And of course, even today we have lot of words that came from Slavonic languages. So that’s why we have to use local sources. For example: Michalo Lituanus – Lithuanian humanist, activist, diplomat – writes: “ We take mascovian sciense, that has nothing ancient and can’t wake up virtues, because RUTHENIAN LANGUAGE IS ALIEN FOR US, LITHUANIANS, hoc est Italians, from Italian blood. [Cum idioma Ruthenum alienum sit a nobis Lituanis, hoc est, Italianis, Italico sanguine oriundis]. Then he add Latin words that are similar to Lithuanian. I will write Latin text and I will add Lithuanian translation in brackets. “[…] extinctus est per baptismatis vndam vgnis(Lithuanian word ugnis, as we know Latin “v” could be read as “u”), id est, ignis. Etenim et ignis(ugnis), et vnda(vanduo), aer(oras), sol(saulė), mensis(mėnesis), dies(diena), noctis(naktis), ros(rasa), aurora(aušra), dues(dievas), vir(vyras), deuir, i.e. leuir(dieveris), Nepotis(Nepotis), neptis( anūkė), tu(tu), tuus(tavas), meus(mano), suus(savo), levis(lengvas), tenuis(tėvas), vivus(gyvas), juvenis(jaunas), vetustus,senis(senas), oculus(akis), auris(ausis), nasus(nosis), dentes(dantys), gentes(gentys), sta(stok), sede(sėdėk), verte(versk),inverte(įversk), perverte(perversk), aratum(artų), occatum(akėtų), satum(sėtų), semen(sėmenys), lens(lęšis), linum(linai), canapum(kanapės), avena(aviža), pecus(pėkus), ovis(avis), anguis(angis), ansa(ąsa), corbis(gurbas), axis(ašis), rota(ratas), jugum(jungas), pondus(pundas), culeus(kūlė), callis (kelias), cur(kur), nunc(nūnai), tractus(trauktas), intractus(įtrauktas), pertractus(pertrauktas), extractus(ištrauktas), merctus(merktas), immerctus(įmerktas), sutus(siūtas), insutus(įsiūtas), versus(verstas), inversus(įverstas), perversus(perverstas), primus(pirmas), unus(vienas), duo (du), tres(trys), quatuor(keturi), quinque(penki), sex(šeši), septem(septyni), et pleraque alia, idem significant Lituano sermone quod et Latino(and lot of other words in Lithuanian language mean the same like in Latin." So as we see he was Lithuanian that could feel clear distinction between Lithuanians and Ruthenians, and between Lithuanian language and Ruthenian. Marcin Kromer – Polish historian humanist. Who finished academy of Cracow, studied in Padua and Bologna and later worked as secretary for Sigismund Augustus, and looks like, lived in Vilnius where helped to organise library for King – wrote: thoose lands now are ruled by Livonians, Samogytians, Lithuanians and Prussians. Thoose nations difference by rules, and by the form of government, but use almost the same language, ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT FROM SLAVONIC...“ Alexander Guagnini – Italian, who was born in 1538 in Verona, in 1561 he came to Poland, from here he was sent to army of Lithuania and from 1561-1579 served in garrison of Vitebsk of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, partaken in Livonian wars – in his “Kronika Sarmacyi Europskiej” wrote: “As we have already spoken in the description of Polish kings, until the times of Wladyslaw Jagiello – King of Poles and Grand Duke of Lithuanians – whole people of LITHUANIANS AND SAMOGYTIANS NATION(wszyscy obywatele narodu litewskiego I žmudzkiego) – worshiped lot of Gods….”. Also he wrote: “they worshiped as the god also the thunder, that in them language they call him Perkunos”. I want to remind that Slavic people call him “Pierun”. Maciej Stryjkowski – historian and poet, who came to Lithuania until 1565, served for Lithuanian army, made lot of trips, lived in palaces of Chodkiewicz, later was parson in Jurbarkas, lived in Varniai, Jurbarkas – describing the old religion of Lithuanians, Samogytians and Prussians wrote: “There, to the honor of Perkunas either Prussians, and Samogytians, and Lithuanians for all days and nights fired eternal fire..” and “They worshiped him very much, - every Samogytian, Lithuanian and Prussian kept grass-snake at home…”. Later he describes those Gods of “Lithuanians, Samogytians, Semba, Latvians and Prussians”, and those are: “Okopirmnos, Swajtestix, Auschlavis, Atrimpos, Protrimpos, Gardoajtis, Pergrubius, Pilwitos, Perkunos or Piorunos, Poklus”. Then he describes the most special “gods of Lithuanians and Samogytians”, and they are: Prokorimos, Raguczis, Ziemiennik, Krummie Pradziu Warpu, Lituwanis, Chaurirari, Sotwaros, Seimi Dewos, Upinis Dewos, Bubilos, Dzidzis Lado, Gulbi Dziewos, Goniglis Dziewos, Swieczpunscynis, Kielu Dziewos, Puschajtis. As we see, he already knew how close thoose nations were. Jan Laciscki(~1534-1599) – historian, bibliographer, schoolmaster – who lived in Vilnius during his childhood and from about 1581 until his death wrote: “[..]Samogytia, because it is close to the sea is named “Lowland”, and Lithuania “Highland”; the language of Lithuanians and Samogytians is almost the same, almost the same are, also, dressing and religion.” And really, until today we use those words like Žemaitija and Aukštaitija. While Žemas in Lithuania means “low”, Aukštas means “high”. As we see, only those “scientist” who has never been in Lithuania, didn’t know language, was confused, and those who lived in Lithuania or WERE Lithuanians clearly showed who is who. Grand Duke of Lithuania – Vytautas – in 1420 wrote about Samogytia: “it was always one and the same Lithuania, because there is one language and the same people. But because Samogytia(Samaytarum in the letter) is Lowland, that’s why it is names Samaytarum, because it is a name of Lowland in Lithuania. And Samogytians(Samoyte in the letter) call Lithuania as Auxstote, id est Higher land from the view of Samogytians. Also, the people of Samogytia has never named themselves as Samogytians, but only as Lithuanians, and because of this identity in our letter we don’t write about Samagicia, because everything is the same, one land and the same people”

A known Polish revolutionary activist and a national hero of Poland and the USA – Tadeusz Kosciuszko (born near Brest, Belarus) – appealed to his companions: “Am I not your fellow countryman? Am I not a Litvin?..”. In his letter to the Russian tzar Kosciuszko wrote: “I was born a Litvin…”. –----- So what? If he wrote in Polish he had to use Polish word that means Lithuanians.

A world-famous Polish poet Adam Mickewicz (who was born and dwelled near and in Navahradak – in Grodno region of Belarus) appealed to his native land as “O Litva! My homeland!..”. –----- The same. If he write in Polish he has to use Polish word that means Lithuania. Don’t forget that the same Mickiewicz wrote: “Lithuanian nation, consisting of Lithuanian, Prussian, Latvian tribes…” It is very important, I think. He clearly let to understand that it is different tribe from Slavonic.

So, as we see, we can make few conclusions: 1) The article is full of lie that no one used name of “Lietuva” and other forms of Lithuanians, but just Litvins. 2) The “scientists” whom links are showed are unreliable because they weren’t connected to Lithuanians like those I presented. 3) Litvin is just Slavonic name of Lithuanian and Ruthenians were always excluded. Of course, Ruthenians could name themselves as Lithuanians in the meaning of citizenship. But it is the same situation today. 4) This article is unnecessary, because in this way we can create hundreds of articles about Lithuanians in English wikipedia with just different names.

So. My baggage of examples is still not empty and I’m prepared to discuss more -- User:Egisz , 17:17, 03 September, 2009 (UTC)

Egisz, in these types of debates on WP, one is usually wasting their time, and I speak here from experience. The historical facts are simple. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was established by the pagan Lithuanians, in Lithuania, and expanded eastward. These eastern, vast, and largely uninhabited lands, were subdued and became part of the Duchy. Those Slavic inhabitants who were "incorporated" into this entity called themselves "Lithuanians" (Litvini), in their own languages). Ergo, the rest of this argument is nonsense. It's really pretty simple. Did Lietuvis etymologically stem from Litvin, or was it the other way around. Again, it's that simple. Please understand that often "national histories" are sometimes based on the need to create phantom and fantastic scenarios about their past. I don't think that it is unfair to say that many, many nations, both great and not so great, are guilty of that sin. Just the same, your input and research deserves acknowledgment and kudos. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the historical facts are really simple, and those are the opposite to what you're saying.

1) "The GDL was established by the pagan Lithuanians" - Lies. There's no testimony that Mindaug was pagan. His son Voiszelk was an Orthodox Christian. If you might mean any other "Lithuanians", than we know also dukes, who were called "Litva" or "Litovsky" with Slavic names, who were ancestors of Criwicz dukes, and could not be pagan, but were Christian, for example, "litva" in 1180 - Vselav Mikulich, Andrey Volodshich, Vasilko; in 1213 - Vladimir Mstislavich, "litovsky"

2) "was established in Lithuania" - Yes, for sure it was established in Lithuania, which was the name for western Belarus of those times. Novogradek is Litva during Mindaug's times, as chronicles say. If you really knew the sources, you'd know that Mindaug gave Zhemaitia (western Lietuva) to crusaders as a gift. An the second grand duke Voiszelk conquered the lands of Devoltva and Upita (nowadays eastern Lietuva) with his army in 1264. So, where was the grand duke's proper land - ever fancied that?... lol. Voiszelk came to conquer Devoltva and Upite with an army from Pinsk and Novogradek (the chronicle says, they were "his father soldiers and friends", PSRL, II, 860-863).

3) "and expanded eastward" - Nope. It was expanding northward, from Novogradek onto the lands of nowadays Lietuva, as an example with the grand duke Voiszelk shows.

Now take a rest, you're tired of producing fantasies. Rasool-3 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Egisz, I really am feeling sorry for you, as you're chewing again and again some propaganda fantasies, which were proven a stupid joke long-long ago. We have dozens of people like you on tut.by who just are coming in dozens and asking the same questions, and we show to them that their questions are just another occasion for us to take a good laugh, nothing more:

1) "Litvin is a Slavonic form of Lithuanian" - Yeah, really? I'm really laghing out loudly!... Maybe, you, as my wise adviser, will show me ANY OTHER forms of the name in the overall volume of the official documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, except for "Litvin"?... This is really hilariuos. Maybe you know any other form of the name in all the medieval sources, different from Литвин, Litwin, Lithuani - I'd fancy looking at that. You seem not to know at all, that the main official document of the GDL, the Statute, written in the old Belarusian language, names the duchy citizens - Litvin. And you fancied, why the Statute was NEVER translated to your language (what is nowadays called "Lithuanian")? And there was never another name in the GDL, except for Litvin?... lol. I'm leaving you quarrying in your "baggage" and I switch to another question.

2) "So I can’t understand why we should create different articles." - You might try to actually read the article, and you'll understand, that it's not about modern Lithuanians, but about the historical phenomenon "Litvins", which embraced in the past both part of nowadays Lithuanians and Belarusians.

"The name became „Litvin“ because Ruthenians didn‘t have diphthong." - Yeah, really? You seem to have a prophetic vision, and travelling with a time machine, just like Baranauskas. Could you show me, when it "BECAME"?.. The first mentionings are all of "Litvins". We don't have any lietuviai at all during the Middle ages. First, show me any mentionings of "lietuviai" in medieval sources, then talk of "becoming" from one to the other... By the way, Belarusians do have diphthongs - in all the named words: Vitaut, Kouna, Jaunut - we have diphthongs. By the way, "kounia" means forge shop in Old Belarusian, that's why the town was named so. You really thought it was your name?...

3) "So, as we see difference between Lithuanians and Ruthenians are." - And so? If there's a difference, then Litvins are necessarily nothing but ethnic Balts? Eventhough, the main official document of the state is written in the Belarusian language, of which the Lithuanian chancellor Lew Sapieha says, that the Statute was written "in OUR OWN language"? lol. Moscovites also regarded Litvins (i.e. Belarusians from Mogilev, Minsk) as foreigners in 1654, and regarded their "Lithuanian" (Belarusian language) as a foreign language...

"And, I cant imagine where do You see explanation of Sapieha about who is Lithuanians." - If you can't see this, then you are really stupid. I'll try: the LITHUANIAN chancellor (actually, the second person in the state after the grand duke) is writing in the LITHUANIAN Statute (written in the Belarusian language), that this Statute is being written "not in any foreign language, but in the language OF OUR OWN".

And all that - regarding, there are totally no any documents or even a couple of words in modern Lithuanian in all official documents of the GDL throughout all its 5-century history.

4) "And that name appears in Lithuanian documents of Grand Duchy of Lithuania: “Mes Wladislaus " - I'm already seek and tired of that, we have already repeated that dozens of times: this "document" is not a document by Wladislav, because there's no his personal signature, and his stamp; and ALL the official documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, all the grand duke's decrees were provided with the grand duke's signature and stamp. And this letter is just an unauthorized TRANSLATION, made by noone-know-whom, somewhere in Prussia (beyond the territory of the GDL), and has nothing to do with the official grand duke's chancellor' office at all. It was not even authorized by anyone. Its legal force is null. It's just a piece of paper with words on it. It has the same legal force, as any piece of paper, where some peasant from Prussia or Germany would write his erotic fantasies about the grand duke...

I'm too tired to discuss further. What I've read further is just some kind of delirium. I think, what I've already said is enough. And your "baggage" really needs to be revised. I think that will be enough for you. Good luck. Rasool-3 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all read different sources not only in russian language. You don‘t find any „litvin“ form until the end of 14 century. The form „lethowen“ you can find in source the of 13 century.

And why your Sapieha never mentioned that Statut language is “litvin” language, but “rusin” language, maybe because hi was rusin?

For the rest, I recommend very deeply check his writings I catch him cheating with sources. Kutis

Guys, your lengthy and hostile explanations are quite a read. Rasool's statement..."where some peasant from Prussia or Germany would write his erotic fantasies about the grand duke"...pretty much sums up his rant. I suggest reviewing English scholarly works on the subject (this is after all, English Wikipedia). It might be a better alternative than using Belarusian or Lithuanian ones. It certainly would give a more neutral perspective to the article. Best, Dr. Dan (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. Rasool, thanks for suggesting that I take a rest. I needed one. Since you closed with "I'm too tired to discuss further"..., I will reciprocate your suggestion with the same.

Yeah, really? I'm really laghing out loudly!... Maybe, you, as my wise adviser, will show me ANY OTHER forms of the name in the overall volume of the official documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, except for "Litvin"?... This is really hilariuos. Maybe you know any other form of the name in all the medieval sources, different from Литвин, Litwin, Lithuani - I'd fancy looking at that.

Looks like you are blind or just don’t want to see. I showed you few examples. For example the book that is dedicated for all churches of Grand Duchy of Lithuania(Bažnyčioms Didės Kunigystės Lietuwos išduota). It also fits to the name of Lithuanians who lived in Prussia. So, I don’t understand which forms do You want to hear? Litwin was Slavonic name and that’s all. The fact that it was used without diphthongs in other languages means nothing but only that they took Slavonic version. But even those who used that form without diphthong(because Slavonic language lost diphthongs) they clearly explains that Lithuanians, Samogytians, Prussians are similar nations, with similar language, religion. And such a people like Jan Dlugosz(he wrote: “Prussians had them unique language, that came from Latin language, related and similar to Lithuanian language, worshiped almost the same gods....”), Michal Lituanus(diplomat, politic of GDL), Maciej Strijkowski, Alexander Guagnini, etc, - those scientists, people, warriors who were enough experienced and educated to know, had strong connection with Lithuania(worked as diplomat, served in army or just lived). And not only scientists, but also Lithuanians like Vytautas(In the title of the letter “Magni ducis Lithuaniae”. So the form is also used without diphthong, but in the letter he explains that Lithuanians are “Auxstote(Aukštaitija-Higland)” and “Samoyte(žemaičiai-lowlanders)” and Adam Mickiewicz(“Lithuanian nation, constisting from Lithuanian, Prussian and Letts tribes”). Also there were formes like Lettowen(Lithuania) and Lettower(Lithuanian). So, I and other people here proved that: 1) Litvin was not the only form 2) it doesn’t mean anything.

You seem not to know at all, that the main official document of the GDL, the Statute, written in the old Belarusian language, names the duchy citizens - Litvin.

I really know it. Thanks for Your language that really helped for us at that timeJ Lithuanians really often used old Ruthenian language. Even Augustin Rotundus wrote: “Lithuanians originated of Italians, how we could predict from language of commons, that is similar to Italian language, despite of that both languages are separated by the time and distance. NOBLES, living together with Poles and Ruthenians(actually “RUSSO” in the original text) in COMMON STATE, instead of native language habituated to using of Polish and Ruthenian language”.

You might try to actually read the article, and you'll understand, that it's not about modern Lithuanians, but about the historical phenomenon "Litvins", which embraced in the past both part of nowadays Lithuanians and Belarusians.

Litvin is just Slavonic name of those people.

Yeah, really? You seem to have a prophetic vision, and travelling with a time machine, just like Baranauskas. Could you show me, when it "BECAME"?.. The first mentionings are all of "Litvins". We don't have any lietuviai at all during the Middle ages. First, show me any mentionings of "lietuviai" in medieval sources, then talk of "becoming" from one to the other... By the way, Belarusians do have diphthongs - in all the named words: Vitaut, Kouna, Jaunut - we have diphthongs. By the way, "kounia" means forge shop in Old Belarusian, that's why the town was named so. You really thought it was your name?...

You don’t have any “Lietuviai” because you didn’t have diphtongs when you took that form.. I would like to see proves about “kounia”. Do You know that the West Belarus is full of Lithuanian toponymes? Ashmeny, Lyda, Kiemielishki, Lyntupy and lot of other are ABSOLUTELY LITHUANIAN. The same with the names. We can easily explain names like Vytaut, Gedimine, Kiejstut, Algird, Jaunut and lot of other. The same with most of the surnames of the nobles who got Coat of Arms in Horodle.

You might try to actually read the article, and you'll understand, that it's not about modern Lithuanians, but about the historical phenomenon "Litvins", which embraced in the past both part of nowadays Lithuanians and Belarusians.

If it is not about modern Lithuanians, why those “Litvins”, by normal scientist, Lithuanians(those who called themselves so), or people who lived here for longer time explained very well about similarities between Lithuanians, Samogytians, Prussians?

And so? If there's a difference, then Litvins are necessarily nothing but ethnic Balts? Eventhough, the main official document of the state is written in the Belarusian language, of which the Lithuanian chancellor Lew Sapieha says, that the Statute was written "in OUR OWN language"? lol. Moscovites also regarded Litvins (i.e. Belarusians from Mogilev, Minsk) as foreigners in 1654, and regarded their "Lithuanian" (Belarusian language) as a foreign language...

Of course, there were few meanings of Lithuanians at that time. Gente Lituanus(equivalent to Gente Ruthenus), and natione Lituanus that didn’t have any equivalent. So, Ruthenians were also Lithuanians in the meaning of citizenship. But now, in Republic of Lithuania, You can also call Yourself Lithuanian in that meaning, even being from another Gente. But the fact is that GDL was created mostly by Baltic Lithuanians, who created that civilization together with people of Ruthenian origin, who could be Natione Lituanus too. But then I don’t see need to create ENGLISH article with Belorussian name.

Sapieha didn’t say it was Lithuanian language!! Lithuanians really often used Ruthenian language. But lot of them understood that the true language of this ethnic group, who “came from Italia “ is not the Ruthenian one.(as You can see from my quotes).

If you can't see this, then you are really stupid. I'll try: the LITHUANIAN chancellor (actually, the second person in the state after the grand duke) is writing in the LITHUANIAN Statute (written in the Belarusian language), that this Statute is being written "not in any foreign language, but in the language OF OUR OWN".

Lew Sapieha, of course, was Ruthenian. But I can’t see where he explains “who is Lithuanians”. Don’t be funny, please, brother Lithuanian.

And all that - regarding, there are totally no any documents or even a couple of words in modern Lithuanian in all official documents of the GDL throughout all its 5-century history.

What about Kosciuszko uprising or translation of Constitution of May 3rd ? You should know that language is not the main factor. Look to the Scots who doesn’t speak Scottish, but still feel they are Scots..

Lies. There's no testimony that Mindaug was pagan. His son Voiszelk was an Orthodox Christian. If you might mean any other "Lithuanians", than we know also dukes, who were called "Litva" or "Litovsky" with Slavic names, who were ancestors of Criwicz dukes, and could not be pagan, but were Christian, for example, "litva" in 1180 - Vselav Mikulich, Andrey Volodshich, Vasilko; in 1213 - Vladimir Mstislavich, "litovsky"

So fantastic. Look at the Chronicle of Hipatius. “Mindaugas(Mindog) sent his envoys to pope and took Christianity. His Christianization was false; he secretly sacrificed for his gods: Nunadievis and Teliavelis and Diviriksis, zaejachemoy bogu and Medeinai”. So the Chronicle not only shows that Mindaugas was pagan, but also write the names of Lithuanian gods… Voiszelk was really Orthodox, but later dukes were pagan.. until Jogiello and Vytaut. Show me the sources with those “Litva” and “Litovsky”. English translation will be ok. (But bigger quote that could help me to see context)

Yes, for sure it was established in Lithuania, which was the name for western Belarus of those times. Novogradek is Litva during Mindaug's times, as chronicles say. If you really knew the sources, you'd know that Mindaug gave Zhemaitia (western Lietuva) to crusaders as a gift. An the second grand duke Voiszelk conquered the lands of Devoltva and Upita (nowadays eastern Lietuva) with his army in 1264. So, where was the grand duke's proper land - ever fancied that?... lol. Voiszelk came to conquer Devoltva and Upite with an army from Pinsk and Novogradek (the chronicle says, they were "his father soldiers and friends", PSRL, II, 860-863).

East Lithuania + West Belarus was really very important place. But just have in mind that most of etnonymes of those places in West Belarus are of Lithuanian origin. Wait wait wait, as I understand, at that time, after murdering of Mindaugas it was like interwar there. Voiszelk was supported by dukes of Halych and just took Upita and Deltuva from opponents and those who killed his father. I don’t see any inconsistence. But from this Your text we can see that You are really cheating with the sources, not telling everything. So, this article because of cheating, bad explanation do not have something common with the sciense and must be deleted. If we want to create article about ciizens of GDL we should write that GDL was created by Baltic Lithuanians and later made Natione Lituanus which consisted of Gente Lituanus and Gente Ruthenus(+some other ethnic groups). Even Ruthenian language was important for maybe 200 years, but everyone who were Lithuanians, lived in Lithuania knew that it is Ruthenian and not Lithuanian language. Egisz , 21:44, 06 September, 2009 (UTC) 195.182.70.130 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Afrika-Budivid again forgot that Voishalk became ortodox then he became ruler of Novogorodok, not from birth date.Kutis

"Looks like you are blind or just don’t want to see. I showed you few examples. For example the book that is dedicated for all churches of Grand Duchy of Lithuania(Bažnyčioms Didės Kunigystės Lietuwos išduota). " -- of the year of 1653? lol. I stopped reading on this one... After this you want to discuss, as if it is serious? Take my advice, take a rest. And you'd better read the things, which are based on historical sources, for example, this article, written by me. Regards, Rasool-3 (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So, looks like he don't want more discussions, but he wants just to put his version without arguments. He also don't hear what other people argue. So, his version must be refused. He even take of the warning, that this article is not neutral and full of lies. Egisz , 11:06, 08 September, 2009 (UTC)

Really? Where is a lie? Give me at least one example, if you can. Rasool-3 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote enough to refuse Your article. Its only one Your version, without alternative quotes of Lithuanians and those, who lives there longly. Furthermore, You delete even warnings that this article is still very doubtful, and it is ugly. Egisz 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egisz (talk • contribs)

So, you cannot give an example of a "lie". Squirt. Rasool-3 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You lied about the name, that was "never" mentioned in another type. You lied about the fact that Lithuanian language was Slavonic, but i showed the works of contemporary people that showed contrary. I know You are very depressed right now, but take a rest and everything will be ok. --Egisz (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Policies

Reading list to everyone:

• Wikipedia:Original research -- do not make your own conclusions from primary sources; present only findings from secondary sources (e.g. books/journal articles by recognized historians)
• Wikipedia:Reliability -- use and cite only reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources -- what sources are reliable? (hint: internet forums or websites by fringe groups are not)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- all views should be represented without giving undue weight to any of them
• Wikipedia:NOT#Forum & Wikipedia:NOT#Soapbox -- Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss/come up with new theories, convince someone "I am right, you are wrong".
• Wikipedia:Edit warring -- please don't do that.

Renata (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Renata, you are not totally correct.

a) If you yourself can provide some secondary sources (so called by you, "works by relevant scholars"), which state that those who were called Litvins always were ethnical (modern) Lithuanians, please do. I haven't ever seen such claims, and I doubt I ever will see such a non-sense. So the article should not begin with the claim, that "Litvin" was a denomination of an ethnical (modern) Lithuanian. "Litvin" was NEVER throughout all the history used to describe the (modern) Lithuanian ethnicity ONLY; this is OBVIOUS from all the EXAMPLES, provided by me in the article. So why shall we turn a blind eye on those, and put down something which is predeterminedly wrong? What's the reason of it?

b) about "a term used in Slavic languages" - there was never OTHER name of Litvins in the GDL, except for the name in the Slavic language, exactly, the Belarusian language. If you now any sources which give the name in other languages than Slavic, please kindly let me know, I would be greatly surprised.

In general, the "Litvins" is clearly the name of the Belarusians in the GDL, it is obvious from the first glance, and it is obvious from the Statute. What else do we need? Rasool-3 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not care about any of the above. Please read, understand and follow the policies linked above. Your points may be all very valid, but you have to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. When in Rome, do as Romans do. When in Wikipedia, do as Wikipedians do: follow policies, cite reliable sources, and refrain from original research. If your point is so obvious, there should not be hard to come up with some reliable books and journals, should it? You do not have to convince me you are right by giving providing exampes (which is prime example of original research). You have to show me that historian X in his/her book said that.

PS. I protected the article for a month to avoid an edit-war. I hope it will give you time to cool down, understand Wikipedia policies, gather the books, and re-write the article to meet all Wikipedia requirements. Renata (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. OK, if I could provide citations by relevant Belarusian historians - Ph.D. and Doctors of Arts (History) - about the same that I've written, i.e., that "Litvin" always was the name of Belarusians and part of (modern) Lithuanians, where it would be stated outrightly and clearly in these very words - would that do? Would it be OK for you? I can do that. A month is pretty too much, three days will do. Regards, Rasool-3 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

a) WE DON'T SAY THAT LITVIN WERE ALWAYS ETHNIC LITHUANIANS. As You saw it was written that the word Lithuanian (haha, also "slavonic" yes?) meant not only Baltic Lithuanians. But understanding of Gente Lituanus was always clear. Clear for Vytautas, clear for Mickiewicz, clear for Rotundus, clear for Michal Lituanus. And there were not only Litwin, but also Lietuwa, Lettowiae, lietuwininkai, Letphanorum. It just depends on language of the text. b) I showed You some. But anyway, it doesn't have big importance. Whats the difference if Europe took Slavonic version? The name Litvins is Slavonic name of Lithuanians. At the time of GDL Ruthenians also could name themselves as Lithuanians. - Egisz 15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egisz (talk • contribs) 195.182.70.130 (talk)From the letter of Prussian Grand Master to Livonian 1295: "...quatenus super predictis articulis nobis vestrum maturum consilium rescribatis et, si vobis et vesris videbitur forsitan expedire, quod possitis et velitis adhuc ista b[h]yeme producere exercitum contra hostes Lettowinos videlicet de Sameyten, nos ex nostra parte terram regis Butegeyde eodem tempore invademus. "

Lithuanians from Zemaitija —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.70.130 (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"the word Lithuanian (haha, also "slavonic" yes?)" - The word "Lithuanian" is clearly not a Slavonic word. It is an English word. And the word Литвин/Литовски which is in ALL AND ANY of the documents of the GDL (and there HAVE NEVER BEEN OTHER name) - is certainly a Slavic word. Only stupids can deny that, such as you. You can do your "haha" further on... I'm just feeling sorry for you. What you're having - is some kind of misspeling of 17th century made somewhere in Prussia, outside the GDL and NEVER EVER seen or used by Lithuanian grand dukes and barons who all spoke Belarusian ("Lithuanian") language. It's just hilarious for you to come up with that. And you thought, the word "Litvin" with its clear Slavic ending (-in) - is a Baltic word? lol. "Litva" and "Litvin" originally meant not ethnicity, but a land under the Polock rule. That's why we see both Dovgerd/Stekse and Vseslav/Andrey Volodszicz/Vasilko as "litva" in 1180-1216. And there has been only Belarusian language in Litva and GDL FOR CENTURIES, from 13 to 19 centuries. There had never been your language there, except for some lower peasants, not known to anyone.

"Litvins from Zhemaitija" - ok, what did you want to show, that there were Litvins (Belarusians) in Zhemaitija, as well as they were in Navahradak, Polock, Minsk and Brest? That's no wonder for me. I'm already tired of you, good bye. Rasool-3 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, You are leaving. I know that You are sad now, but history is history. I want to remind that you forgot again. Letter of Vytautas, works of contemporary people living in Lithuania or even being Lithuanians. --Egisz (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 195.182.70.130 (talk) You asked for another name of Lithuanians in the sources, I gave source of the 13 century where "Lithuanians" are mentioned as "Lettowinos", not "Litvin". And you again not happy. —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

Rasool-3, please try to cool down your emotions. You'll get farther with your efforts. Earlier in my WP editing, I too had a tendency to be less courteous to those with whom I disagreed. I've made an effort to correct this. I hope you will too. Regarding your comment..."The word "Lithuanian" is clearly not a Slavonic word. It is an English word." That's true, but this is after all, English Wikipedia. That's why here on English Wikipedia, Lithuania is not called Litva, and Lithuanians are not called Litvin (sing) or Litvini (plur). However if you go to the variously linked Slavic speaking articles of Wikipedia (including Belarusian), like Bulgarian, Czech, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croation, Slovak, Slovenian, Ukrainian (sorry for not including everyone else that applies) you will find that in those respective languages, the English word Lithuania is Litva or Litwa in their languages. Same for Litwin, Litvin, Litoviets, etc. Hopefully that clarifies why the current opening statement of this article explains the distinction. If as Renata mentioned, you are able to reliably source your contentions, go ahead and prepare your edits. It seems that your major desire is to inform everyone that modern day Belarusians are the true Lithuanians, while modern day Lithuanians are not. Isn't that the gist of it? Good luck on your endeavors, and best wishes. As much as I would enjoy doing some work on the article, I believe the protection was a very good idea. The article will still be here after its lifted. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible updates

I suggest adding some facts from the Belarusian (be-x-old) Wiki, as the current English article is a little bit stupid, it's not about the historical phenomenon of Litvins (as the name implies), but about those who nowadays are called Lietuviai, transposed into past (with viewing the "Lithuanian Statute" (in the Belarusian language) as their heritage... and other stupid things...). So I suggest adding something relevant. I'd do it myself, but last time I did it, there was a lot of shouting...

So I suggest that all the participants present here would choose some points and agree before it's added, to prevent quarrelling. Then I'll translate them from Belarusian, and will add them. So here they are:

• 1) A statement from the Statute of 1566, that Samogitians were not considered a political nation in the GDL (only Litvins and Russian were, until 1588). Samogitians are a consistent part of present-day Lietuviai, so it is important.
• 2) An extract from Vilna parliament session in 1554, where Samogitians noblemen asked not to send Litvins as officials to Samogotia. It is very suspicious, once you think that Litvins presumably were "Lietuviai"... This passage can only be understood, if you realize that Litvins were a totally different nation from Samogitians, and Samogitians were afraid of them and totally did not see them as a cognate folk.
• 3) Several testimonies by scholars in the 19th and beg. of 20th century, that even in those times "Litvin" was the name of Belarusians as far as Gomel region (Eastern Belarus). I'm also ready to bring testimonies from scholars, that even by the end of the 19th century, dwellers of central and even Eastern Lietuva called themselves Samogitians.
• 4) Testimonies by chronicles about the Polock duke Vasil (1162), that he was a "Litvin"; about Minsk dukes Vseslav, Andrey and Vasilko in 1180 (who were called "litva"); and about the nobleman Luka Litvin in 1267 in Pskov (Luka is a Russian Christian name).
• 5) Western denominations of Litvins as "litowini, litwini" as early as 1221. Also in the act by duke Mindoug (a.1255) - "Litwinorum". Compared to Russian sources (Литвин) - it is obvious, that the original form of the name was "Litvin", no other.
• 6) Important!: a document from the Papal court (!) of 1257: states that the border between Poles and Litvins (confinio Letwanorum) at those times lied near river Bug, between Łuków and Brest. It is obvious, that Litvins of those times - it were the people who lived immediately near and to north and east of Brest - i.d. Brest region and to the north and east. This is the territory of South-West Belarus, which is more than 200 km far from Lietuva.
• 7) Three Vilna martyrs of 1347, who were (according to chronicles and their vita) "Lithuanians by birth", had obvious Slavic names: Kruglec, Kumec and Niezhilo. By the way, all three of them were officers at Olgerd's court.
• 8) The head of the Orthodox-Christian "Lithuanian" archdiocese (metropolitanate), which existed since around 1317 (since 1300, according to exact sources), named himself in his letters "metropolitan of Lithuania" (of the land, or of the folk) (μητροπολίτης Λιτβων). It is impossible, that he meant some kind of "pagan ethnic Baltic folk", as Litvins of the 14th century are presented now. The Lithuanian metropolitanate embraced territories of Navahradak, Vilna, Polock and Turau in 14th century, i.d. exactly the territory of the present-day Belarus plus Vilna region (i.e. = GDL).
• 9) Chronicles give a range of obvious Slavic names and patronymics, listing "Lithuanian" dukes under the year of 1399. Also numerous dukes with Slavic names are known as "Lithuanian" dukes as early as 14th century.
• 10) Byzantian Emperor John V and Patriarch Theophil were called "Litvins" (литвинъ) by the Russian source of 1378. This was obviously due to their support of the Lithuanian metropolitanate.
• 11) Important!: In 1416, Vitaut's nobleman named Andrey (the Lithuanian chronicle itself says that Andrey was a "LITVIN"), cried to Vitaut: "Nie miri, Vitovte, nie miri" (Don't reconcile, o Vitovt, don't reconcile), as according to the chroncler's narration. Due to this fact, Vitaut gave Andrey the nickname Niemira, and the chronicle says, that the Lithuanian noble family of Niemirovicz were issued of this Andrey Niemira. As we see, Vitaut and Litvin Andrey Niemira had their conversation in the vernacular Belarusian language. There are many examples like this one. And there are never-ever any examples of a Baltic language in the lips of Litvins and Grand Dukes; or even allusions of a fact of such language's existance.
• 12) A big passage is devoted to Litvins in the University of Krakow in 1469—1536. There are many examples of Litvins' names there. They were: Sien'ko Horynsky, duke Andrey Svirski, Maciey Litvin and other Slavic names. And all of them were registered as "Litvins" at Krakow university. A tavern near the Lithuanian hostel in Krakow was kept by Litvins: Mikola Litvin and his wife Agneszka Litvinova. Their names are also clearly Slavic. The last doubts of who were Litvins in those times, and who were not, are dissoluted by the fact, that only one student from Samogitia was enrolled into Krakow University in those times, and he WAS NOT registered as "Litvin". :) While numerous Litvins with Slavic names, as mentioned above, from Vilna, Minsk, Melnik, Svierzhen' and other Belarusian towns were all registered as Litvins. :)
• 13) By the way, someone said here, that Sapiehas were not regarded Litvins, and were Russians. This stereotype is broken by the act of 7 September, 1503 by Grand Duke Alexander, which stated that Ivan Sapeha (Grand Duke's secretary) was a Litvin: «Joanne Sopiha secretario nostro Litvano». By the way, Ivan Sapieha was then also a member of Pany-Rada (Lithuanian parliament - the name of the office is also in Belarusian).
• 14) Francysk Skaryna also enrolled Krakow University in 1505 as "Litvin". We shall note that.
• 15) There are numerous testimonies by Polish, Moscovite and Western scolars in 15-16 centuries, that Litvins are a Slavic folk, and Lithuanian language is a Slavic one. Already Aeneus Sylvius in 1430 wrote that the language of the Lithuanian nation is Slavonic (Lituania... Sermo gentis Sclavonicus est). There are such testimonies by Hertman Schedel (1493), John Noric (1511), John of Bohemia (1538) and Sigismund Herberstein (1549). Herberstein provides examples.
• 16) Important!: The FIRST EVER KNOWN notice of Lithuanian language (1351) - is vernacular Belarusian! Duke Keystut and his Litvins (soldiers from Belarusian towns Berestie, Dorogiczyn, Horodno and Troki) pronounced words, as noted by the chronicler as Lithuanian (!) (lithwanice) language. The Latin translation (provided immediately) gives an almost exact translation of this Belarusian phrase. Almost all modern scholars agree, that this phrase was in Ruthenian (i.e. Old Belarusian). And this language was called Lithuanian (lithwanice) by the contemporary (1351!) source!!! As it is widely known, the Belarusian language was known as "Lithuanian" in GDL, before Jesuits appearance in Vilna in 1569, who started to promote an idea that the "real" Lithuanian language was Samogotian. Still, the Belarusian language continued to be known as "Lithunian" in GDL and in the official sources of neighbouring countries even centuries later. There are many examples of it during 15-19th centuries.
• 17) Grand Duke Yagailo in 1387 called "the language of Lithuanian nation" the language in which chase was named "pogonia" ("pogonia" is chase in Russian, as well as in Belarusian). Vilna bishop Andrey Vasila in 1398 gave examples of Slavic phrases and wrote that this was the language of common Lithuanian folk.
• 18) Moscovites called the language of correspondence with Krakow "the Lithuanian language". This correspondence, as it is very well known, was in Belarusian until the end of 17th century.
• 19) The Lithuanian Statutes (of 1529, 1566, 1588) were written in the Belarussian language, and this very Statute states that it is written "in our own language". And these very Statutes did not regard Samogotians (an essential part of nowadays Lietuviai, at least the half) as the political nation up to 1588! Still this won't keep crazy Lietuviai from beleiving that the Lithuanian Statute was "THEIR" masterpiece of law; and they even have a coin, where a "Lietuvis" (presumably it must be one of the Statute's creators: Lev Sapieha of Martyn Volovicz - both were Belarusians) who is serving up the book of Statute to the Grand Duke! and it even has an inscription of some "lietuvos statutos"! This is crazy shit, man! Mind that the Statutes WERE NEVER translated from Belarusian into Samogitian (nowadays "Lithuanian") language, during GDL times!!! And Samogitians even, as we know, in 1554 were afraid of Litvins' occupying positions in Samogotia, and begged Grand Duke to prohibit Litvins to occupy official positions in Samogitia!
• 20) important: citations by contemporary scholars, that the name "Litvins" (Litviny) STILL EXISTS (1990-s!!) fractionally in Southern Belarus as a self-designation of rural dwellers.
• 21) Also IMPORTANT: statements by scholars. Someone here asked for statements by scholars, instead of citations from original sources. So, I've got something. Citations by Belarusian historians Nasievicz, Czakvin and Hryckiewicz, who in 1990-s claimed, that the nation of Litvins existed in GDL times, and it mostly was a designation of nowadays Belarusians. Citations by Y.Yukho, Dr.Sc., who claimed, that Litvins was the self-designation of the WHOLE Belarusian nation in GDL times (in 16-18 centuries or earlier), and in this very sense it existed in the legal documents, such as Statutes. By the Polish historian A.Brueckner, who claimed that Litvins was a designation of the whole Belarusian nation, already in the beginning of 16th century. And there were no other "Lithuanians" besides those.

So you can see, that such claims are not some "fantasies by Belarusian nationalists", and not some "marginal delirium" - but clear historical facts, supported by many historians from different countries.

So, I suggest you all to choose something relevant from these points (or from whatsoever more), to add something to the article.

Also the article shall become more bulky and become divided into historical periods. And include more pictures, too, as on Belarusian (be-x-old) wiki. Rasool-3 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

15:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)~~And as all „licvins” you show us your incompetence in interpretation of the historical facts.

• 1. Yes, Samogotians was parts of today’s Lithuanians – But they were part not all. You can’t throw out part of nation. So they were included in the term of “Litvins”.
• 2. Nonsense, where were no such session. If was please show exact document or quotation of the document.
• 3. Romantics from the 19 century are not historical facts.
• 4. All these references are taken from the sources of 17-18 century, and can’t be view as historical facts.
• 5. In Russian, polish or even German chronic of the 12-14 century you can’t find any mention of the term “litvin”. The letter of Mindaugas, which you’re quoted, was officially identified as fake.
• 6. It’s not explanation.
• 7. This source is very dispute, because it can be also just a legend, and it was created by Russian monks.
• 8. And why this fact must explain belonging term “litvin” only to belorussians?
• 9. And why this fact must explain belonging term “litvin” only to belorussians?
• 10. And why this fact must explain belonging term “litvin” only to belorussians?
• 11. This quotation was taken from 2 different sources and both they are late 16-17century – just legend.
• 12. They not Slavic, they Christian names, written in polish style.
• 13. And same Sapega in other letter wrote: Proinde petis, ut Johannem Sopega, secretarius Ruthenicus, dilecti filii
• 14. Skorina in own book wrote, that he is rusin: „Особый экзамен по медицине господина магистра Франциска, русина. 1512 [год], во вторник, девятого ноября, в установленном месте епископского дворца в Падуе, экзамен.“ and "Я, Францишек, Скоринин сын с Полоцька, в лекарских науках доктор, повелел есми Псалтырю тиснути рускыми словами, а словенским языком… которыи суть в Псалтыри неразумным простым людем, найдуть е на боцех руским языком, что которое слово знаменуеть… казал есми тиснути книгу святого Иова рускым языком богу ко чти и людем посполитым к научению…"
• 15. Nor Sylvius nor other never been in Lithuania. And this not explain why other historical sources which was in Lithuania (Strikovskij, Mechovskij, Litvin, Gvanini i etc.) shows examples of today‘s Lithuanian language?
• 16. Nobody agreed. Is just premising not fact.
• 17. Yes, the letter which was written by polish. And it’s all known fact that Jagello with poles speaks only in rusin language, so pole just wrote rusin language of Jagello.
• 18. Muscovites just named language of the neighbour country.
• 19. First two Statutes were written by Lithuanians not Belarusian. A. Rotunda (one of the author) even called language of the Statutes language of evil enemy of Lithuania – Muscovite language.
• 20. Romantics are not historical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.26.210 (talk • contribs)

Will repeat what I said before: these kind of "facts" are a prime example of original research. You really need to understand what the concept means before you post further. You need to cite reliable sources (e.g. articles/studies/monographs by academically recognized historians) that argued that "Litvins = Belarusians". Only examples and arguments used in those works are acceptable on Wikipedia. Anything else (including quotes from primary sources) is your own research, unpublished and unsupported by academics. Until you can cite that historian X argued Y in his book Z (on page 123), all of the above has no place on Wikipedia. In other words, you Wikipedia needs to summarize arguments already presented by recognized academics and not invent something new. Also, to maintain neutral point of view, you need to include historians that disagreed with that conclusion. Renata (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Possible Updates

Rasool-3, you need to understand that in the English language, "Lithuanian" refers to the Baltic people who live in Lithuania. In German they are called Litauer, in French Lituaniens, in Italian Lituani, and in the Slavic languages Litwini or some variant of that word. Lietuviai is the Lithuanian word for Lithuanian. It is not the English word for Lithuanian. Litvin is also not the English word for Lithuanians. Please get over that fact. During their early history the Lithuanians conquered vast underpopulated territories which included modern day Belarus as well as other territories that include other modern day countries. Just like the English were able to subdue other areas of the British Isles (with longer lasting effects). That the Ruthenians and other Slavic peoples comprised a significant portion of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (probably a numerical majority) is neither here nor there. If you want to note that many Ruthenians were subjects of Lithuania, and therefore were "Lithuanians" by virtue of that fact, go ahead, knock yourself out. Especially if it makes you feel better. Please keep in mind that Samogitia was also part of Lithuania. Too often these ultra-nationalistic rants are based on "Romanticized" monographs written in the 19th century in order to foster a political agenda. From all sides. It seems more than anything this is a semantical argument. We're on English Wikipedia at the moment. Lithuanian is an English word. Litvin is not. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent change in the intro

The recnt change of the intro is an opinion not supported by references to to reliable sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Litvin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140408124644/http://manarchija.org:80/pazniak to http://www.manarchija.org/pazniak
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120225142226/http://kryuja.org/artykuly/interviju/dziermant_vialikaja_litva.html to http://kryuja.org/artykuly/interviju/dziermant_vialikaja_litva.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian identity article

There is a much better article at https://en.wikipedia.org/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...

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Litvin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65BNNIkIs?url=http://belstat.gov.by/homep/ru/perepic/2009/vihod_tables/5.8-0.pdf to http://belstat.gov.by/homep/ru/perepic/2009/vihod_tables/5.8-0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408124644/http://www.manarchija.org/pazniak to http://www.manarchija.org/pazniak

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Litvin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401195924/http://vn.belinter.net/vkl/36.html to http://vn.belinter.net/vkl/36.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120722125830/http://www.belarusin.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=172:-1000---&catid=31:2009-05-04-11-10-04&Itemid=95%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%BC to http://www.belarusin.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=172%3A-1000---&catid=31%3A2009-05-04-11-10-04&Itemid=95%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%B5%D0%BC

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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)