Talk:Pahonia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

The result if the discussion is - Option A With modifications as per Pofka. - And yes, I read it all, including the DRN and other discussion pages. And yes, threaded discussion receives as much (or as little) weight as all other comments, whether they are after a bullet point or in a subsection. WP:CON, as always.

Now I'm going to say this several times, as it apparently needs to be said -

• Discuss the content, not the contributor
• Discuss the content, not the contributor
• Discuss the content, not the contributor

Ok with that done...

Please feel free to implement this close in a collegial, collaborative, and civil manner.

And please consider this fair warning - If edit warring or other types of disruptive editing starts appearing, please don't be surprised if sanctions (such as blocking) start happening at this point. We are all here to collaboratively produce an encyclopedia.

And with that, I hope you all have a great day. Happy editing. - jc37 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Pahonia article be made into a redirect or a disambiguation page, as described below? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. Make Pahonia a redirect to Coat of arms of Lithuania, and move any information from Pahonia that is not in the coat of arms article into the coat of arms article.

B. Make Pahonia into a disambiguation page with 2 or 3 targets.

C. Leave as is.

• A. (If anyone needs reasons why, see here) --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A C at first glance I felt this article was too large to merge, but I see that some of the information is duplicated, so it wouldn't be so bad. Taking a glance at the other coat of arms listed on Coat of arms of Lithuania I didn't see any that had their own wiki page devoted to it, so I'm wondering if this, by having its own page, gives it undue weight. I say merge. StarHOG (Talk) 12:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind. I agree that the pahonia has been used widely and should not be pidgeon-holed as the Coat of Arms of Lithuania. It has a varied history used by many nationalities, families, and governments. I can almost compare it to an article about pizza being moved under Italy. StarHOG (Talk) 13:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A i.e. merging of Pahonia into Vytis on the following basis:

1. It is fundamentally the same heraldic symbol with the same historic origins and most of its history.
2. There is already a lot of content duplication between the articles and this in itself suggests that there should be a single article. The differences belong to the "Etymology" and "History" sections, rather than entirely separate articles.
3. Sections on the modern use of Pahonia in Belarus belong to National emblem of Belarus.

Also, a general comment: Belarusian use of Pahonia deserves a fair representation (WP:DUE), but not a case of exceptionalism. --Mindaur (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A. Information not related with Coat of arms of Lithuania should be moved to National emblem of Belarus. -- Pofka (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Variation on A: Merge the content into Coat of arms of Lithuania and National emblem of Belarus, as appropriate; redirect Pahonia to the existing disambiguation page Pogonia (which was mentioned on WP:DRN and I have just reformatted to conform to MOS:DAB) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC), summoned by robot[reply]
• Variation on A suggested by OwenBlacker. The Pahonia/Vytis is not an exclusively Belarusian or Lithuanian symbol, but if the article is to be deleted its use in both countries should be acknowledged. Glide08 (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Variation of C and B Keep two articles and remove un-cited mentions to one being a 'variation' of the other, perhaps a third article on their shared origins isn't unwarranted. They are two different things, having a shared history doesn't make two things the same. They are different arms used by different ethnic groups, different countries and in different ways—blindlynx (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A for all of the reasons above, although I think that the Coat of arms of Lithuania page needs to be trimmed down quite a lot. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A but with modifications suggested by Pofka. A hatnote should be added if not already present to the final article directing readers to the Belarus article as well. That said, I am not opposed to B (disambig) if anyone shows sources use this term in the other context too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support C "Pogoń" wasn't only coat of arms of the Lithuanian state, it usage goes way beyond that. It was coat of arms of the ruling family, various ducal families, many provinces and towns. Its abatements were part of many other CoAs for example Royal Prussian. Moreover "Pogoń/Pogonia/Pahonia" are historically accurate names. Marcelus (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A--Ed1974LT (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A, I guess I feel like we have two articles on the same topic at the moment, using different names due to the differences in how they're used in two different countries. I don't know the best way to resolve this, but I do agree all of the information needs to presented neutrally at one article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A. Agree with arguments of those who support making Pahonia a redirect to Coat of Arms of Lithuania. --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support C It is impossible to allow usurpation of the historical coat of arms by only one modern state. This will cause numerous editing wars and reignite chauvinism on Wikipedia. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A With modifications as per Pofka. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support C. The history of National emblem of Belarus can't have main article named Coat of arms of Lithuania defining and showing the emblem of modern Lietuva, that would be complete nonsense. Given the current situation with the struggle of the Belarusian people against the pro-Russian colonial regime of Lukashenko, removing the article about the national emblem of Belarusians (according to the Belarusian non-Lukashenko's academic historiography, as well as heraldry and ethnology) will definitely have certain consequences for the reputation of the English Wikipedia. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At risk of stating the obvious, I think this is a very complex and sensitive issue of nationalism of Russian border states at a time of heightened tensions. From reading reading the discussions and arguments put forward I believe that any decision made would be contentious because it would need to be based on a specific interpretation of the history of the GDL. I would therefore recommend the status quo for now. I would however like to make a couple of comments about the related discussions which I will add below. --Jabbi (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support B Didn't take me long to change my mind :) The question I have formulated and find difficult to answer is, "To what degree is the Pahonia an exclusive symbol to either Lithuania or Belarus?" It seems to me that it simply isn't and therefore a disambiguation is the only correct decision, that is literally what disambiguation pages are for. --Jabbi (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A, considering that information is not related to Coat of arms of Lithuania, but with modifications, as suggested by Pofka.Idealigic (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sections and information from Pahonia about Belarus (e.g. section "Belarusian Democratic Republic" and information related with Belarus from section "1990–present") should be moved to National emblem of Belarus, not Coat of arms of Lithuania. Section Coat of arms of Lithuania#Belarus is enough to describe the brief history of the Belarusian CoA. I don't think that it would make sense to have a section "Belarusian Democratic Republic" in an article about the CoA of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: by initiator of a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Pahonia with relevant information mainly from Encyclopedia Britannica:

Pahonia mainly is just a Belarusian language name (romanized) of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and since 1918 of the National emblem of Belarus, but other names exists (see: Coat of arms of Lithuania#Origins of the word Vytis and other names). Most notably there are equivalents in the Lithuanian language: Vytis, Waikymas and the earliest known written variant of it is in Polish as Pogonia by Marcin Bielski from 1551. English: Chase. This symbol is the official CoA of Lithuania since the 15th century, first adopted by Gediminids.

The early statehood of Lithuania was created by Lithuanians (same as the modern state), who expanded their territory into the Ruthenian territories and ruled them. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times".(ref1)

While Belarus according to Encyclopedia Britannica is: "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918".(ref2). Also: "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent".(ref3) -- Pofka (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a place on Wikipedia for the articles about the coat of arms of Lithuania and about the historical coat of arms called Pahonia/Pogoń. There is no need of merger. Marcelus (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just about two things: Coat of arms of Lithuania since 15th century and since 1918 Coat of arms of Belarus. Nothing else. The Lithuanians ruled Belarusians in the past (confirmed by Britannica) and for some time they somehow decided to adopt the Lithuanian coat of arm. Though, they solved it in 1995 Belarusian referendum when 78.6% of Belarusians said that this symbol does not represent Belarus and Belarusians. So such WP:OR, performed by about 20% of Belarusians, does not represent the real Belarusian POV as well. If this dispute will not be solved in a civilized way here, then it will be moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration which will remove this nationalistic POV article anyway because a Belarusian term is not the "real" one. Support of WP:OR is pointless. The Lithuanians did not created article named Vytis or Waikymas and did not presented it as the "real" name of the alternative Belarusian CoA with a horseman. So the Belarusian-side has no right to do it as well, according to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rule. -- Pofka (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listen you keep repeating the same things over and over but it won't make them more relevant. The survey is irrelevant if we are talking about historical facts. Pogoń/Pahonia is the historical name of the coat of arms used by Lithuanian grand dukes, it was later adopted by Belarusian and Lithuanian national movements. Vytis is the name coined in 19th century by Daukantas. Also from the beginning "Pogoń" was not only the emblem of the the grand dukes, it was also used by other dukes and it was an emblem of state or its provinces, including Belarusian. Marcelus (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanians from the 15th century are the same nation as it is in the 21th century because they are connected with the Lithuanian language, which totally distinguishes them from the Orthodox Ruthenians (East Slavs). Just because some vassal states, cities were forced to adopt Lithuanian coat of arms / Lithuanian ruling dynasty (Gediminids) symbol when these lands were annexed by the Lithuanian state, it does not change anything. Lithuania was created by Lithuanians and was restored by the same nation in the 20th century. Read Britannica again. Statements that Lithuania is not Lithuania aren't any different from statements that Poland is not Poland or that France is not France (pure WP:OR). You are right about name Vytis, but there also is another Lithuanian language name Waikymas (Vaikymas in the modern Lithuanian orthography), which dates to at least early 17th century (Konstantinas Sirvydas dictionary includes it; first volume of his dictionary was published in 1629), so very close to Marcin Bielski's Polish word Pogonia (1551). -- Pofka (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it has to do with anything, I never claimed that Lithuanians aren't Lithuanians or something like that. But GDL wasn't Lithuanian ethno state, Ruthenians were important of it, their language was used to write documents, Ruthenian families were part of the ruling elite and so on. Waikymas isn't a name of the coat of arms, but a Lithuanian translation proposed by Sirvydas of Polish word "pogonia" as an act of pursuing and the person of pursuer, it was never used as the name of the coat of arms. Marcelus (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Factually, it was a Lithuanian Empire (book about it by Stephen Christopher Rowell), which later formed a dual state with Poland: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Lithuanian rulers likely were illiterate (e.g. it is 100% known that Jogaila was illiterate and other people (monks) wrote and read texts for him), so texts dedicated to Ruthenians were written in Old Church Slavonic language, while texts dedicated to the Europeans were written in Latin (or Polish when they were dedicated to Poland). For example, Letters of Gediminas were fully written in Latin. Latin was also used inside of Lithuania as well (examples: 1, 2). Lithuanian noble families (e.g. Gediminids, Radziwiłł family) never spoke Ruthenian languages. They began with the Lithuanian language and some later shifted to Polish and other languages (e.g. Latin, German, French). So when the ruling elite was Lithuanian from the beginning, it doesn't make Grand Duchy of Lithuania's origins non-Lithuanian. As it is written in Britannica, Lithuania was created by the ethnic Lithuanians and later annexed Ruthenian territories.

Moreover, any attempts to prove that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was an Orthodox country at some point is simply ridiculous (some Belarusian nationalists attempts to do that) because the pagan Lithuanians were Christianized only in 1387 (see: Christianization of Lithuania) by Jogaila and Vytautas, who are grandchildren of Gediminas, so if they were Orthodox already, the Christianization would have been impossible because Orthodox are also Christians.^[1] The fact that the Lithuanian rulers (Gediminids) were pagans is also supported by the Encyclopedia Britannica: Gediminas,^[2] Algirdas,^[3] Kęstutis,^[4] and even Władysław II Jagiełło, son of Algirdas, was pagan until he was baptized prior to being crowned as the King of Poland.^[5] Not surprisingly, the Ukrainians (who are also Ruthenians) tractate Lithuania as alien and so, according to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the Belarusians aren't any different from the Ukrainians in this question. It is worth mentioning that Vladimir the Great, ruler of the Kievan Rus' of which the present-day Belarusian territories were part of, accepted the Orthodox Christian faith in 988 and this way Christianized his state,^[6] so the Ruthenians were Christianized nearly half a millennium earlier than the Lithuanians, who were nicknamed as the last pagans of Europe.^[7] A relevant example of the Orthodox religion expansion in Belarus is the Kalozha Church in the city of Grodno (the most western-northern region of the present-day Belarus) which was built in the 12th century (1180s),^[8] so 200 years before the Christianization of Lithuania in 1387 and there is no such architectural heritage in the present-day territory of Lithuania. So the Ruthenians never achieved the highest power in Lithuania, despite the fact that there really were some powerful magnates (e.g. Konstanty Ostrogski).

A similar example of spreading of the Lithuanian symbols in vassal territories is this coin. Following the annexation of Principality of Smolensk, Vytautas the Great minted coins with his dynasty's symbol Columns of Gediminas in order to demonstrate his power and rule there. Does it make it a national symbol of Smolensk? No. It is a foreign oppressor's symbol. So in my opinion, the majority of Belarusians (78.6%) made a right choice in 1995 Belarusian referendum when they rejected a foreign oppressor's symbol/CoA. I am not saying that the current Soviet-themed symbols are the best solution and probably they should search for something else (e.g. in the history of Principality of Polotsk when it was independent before annexation by Lithuania). Why not to adopt this symbol as the CoA of Belarus and finally put an end to attempts in belarusyfing the Lithuanian national symbols by some nationalists? Just because Lithuania has a far grander history than Belarus, it doesn't mean that some of the Belarusian nationalists, who are not satisfied with their own history, should be allowed to rewrite history with WP:OR. They should look at Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia and be satisfied with what they really have.

Also, a proof that the Lithuanian language remained important for the Lithuanians is the fact that the Constitution of 3 May 1791 has a variant in Old Lithuanian Language: picture of it. There are more examples of usage of the Lithuanian language in important texts, see: Lithuanian language#Old Lithuanian. Seeing that the Lithuanian language was used for important texts as well, it is also possible that many texts did not survived due to wars, etc. The event of the Lithuanian press ban was truly devastating and many Lithuanian books, texts were destroyed during it (e.g. in Vilnius University Library). So Polish term Pogonia or Belarusian term Pahonia are not superior over the Lithuanian language counterparts Waikymas and Vytis. Your vote here simply was a support for violation of WP:NPOV as there is no "right" name of this symbol, so it cannot be left as it is. -- Pofka (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I don't like the direction this discussion is going to, it seems like you you have your personal fight with the "Slavic Litva" theory, and not actually trying to talk about the topic in matter. I'm not saying here that "Grand Duchy of Lithuania's origins were non-Lithuanian", they surely were Lithuanian, although the Ruthenian element cannot be downplayed in a historical evolution of the state. But that's not as I said the topic in matter, all I'm doing here is arguing that there is a reason to have a separate articles about the national elblems of Lithuania and Belarus, and the third article about the coat of arms itself - the Pogoń. Just like we have separate articles for Saint George's Cross, Saint George and the Dragon, Vergina Sun, Double-headed eagle and so on and on. All of this symbols have a long history that goes beyond being an emblem of one or the other state. As I said I don't want into the discussion about Lithuanian-Belarus historical controversies and so on, but I need to point some historical errors you made in your post. The expansion into Ruthenian lands was a mix of conquests and absorptions, Gediminids were often invited to take power in smaller duchies and all of the minor dukes who were ruling over Ruthenian duchies adopted Orthodox faith. Skirgaila, who was a regent of Jogaila in GDL was Orthodox for example. Many Lithuanian dukes and nobles was speaking Ruthenians even before Krewo. Certainly Jogaila and Vytautas were speaking it. The first Orthodox churches were built by Algirdas way before baptism. But all of that is irrelevant here, as I said. Marcelus (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lithuanians, including Gediminids (Grand Dukes line), certainly did not spoke Ruthenian language because they weren't Ruthenians. We even have alternative terms with very old roots in the Lithuanian language, used to describe Belarus (Gudija) and Belarusians (Gudai). Recently, there were talks if we should change the primary name of Belarus in the Lithuanian language from Baltarusija (White Russia: balta (white) + rusija (Russia)) to Gudija. Why we didn't? Because term Gudai has such meaning: a person whose language you do not understand, therefore Gudija means a state/region whose language Lithuanians do not understand. So wide usage of such terms would be a diplomatic failure, but, as I said before, they have very old roots among the Lithuanians. I will repeat once again: the Lithuanian CoA was used on cities CoAs and similar because they belonged to Lithuania (e.g. Polish White Eagle is also used on cities CoAs, families symbols) or because some nobles had family ties to the ruling dynasty (e.g. if you married Grand Duke's daughter/son). In the end, your opinion is quite biased and you push WP:OR that the Lithuanians somehow did not had the highest power in their own state and systematically attempt to humiliate the Lithuanian language (in your vote you purposefully excluded the Lithuanian language names of this symbol). Thus ignoring the facts that even in 1783, the Lithuanian primers for kids in the capital Vilnius were printed in the Old Lithuanian language (photo of the title page, which begins with words: "Mokslas Skaityma Raszta Lietuwiszka", which translates like this: Science of reading the Lithuanian language; the text is a bit weird for the nowadays Lithuanians, but being a Lithuanian myself I can fully understand it, though I doubt that the Slavic languages speakers would be able to translate these words). Seeing your quite anti-Lithuanian sentiment, my guess is that you are from Grodno Region. I will not discuss baseless anti-Lithuanian WP:OR. -- Pofka (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Lithuanians and grand dukes were speaking Lithuanian as their first language, but it's obvious that late grand dukes and their elite were also speaking fluent Ruthenian. Good example is the meeting between Vytautas, Władysław Jagiełło and emperor Sigismund in Lutsk in 1429 if I am not mistaken, they talk eachother, but when Vytautas and the king don't want Sigismund to understand them they switch into Lithuanian. What language they were talking before? Most likely Ruthenian or other Slavic tongue. I repeat once again GDL was created by Lithuanians, but it wasn't an ethno-state, members of the Ruthenian elite were allowed to partake in the governance, especially after christianisation. There is nothing anti-Lithuanian about that. Marcelus (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When Vytautas, Jogaila and Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor met together at Congress of Lutsk in 1429, it is particularly unlikely they all spoke Slavic between each other, because Sigismund is known to have spoken only these languages: French, German, Latin, Italian, and Hungarian (first four according to German wiki and the last one according to English wiki). To firmly suggest he spoke Slavic requires sources instead of conjecture. It is far more likely the three of them spoke German. It is very likely Vytautas spoke German, as there are letters from him in spoken German instead of literary, meaning Vytautas dictated them, see last paragraph of this PDF and for Jogaila, it is very unlikely that he would have not known German due to the extensive and unavoidable contact with the Teutonic Order. Sure, there were Ruthenians in the GDL and they did indeed form a part of the elite, but they were inferior in quantity to the elite arising from ethnically Lithuanian lands (after all, they were conquerors), which ruled Lithuania and the lands adjoined to it. The state was a Lithuanian state. To illustrate this, let's look at other cases. For comparison, to be a certain state you need not be an ethnostate, e.g. British Empire. British Empire had a white, British minority that ruled it. Sure, there was a majority of non-British and they formed a part of the elite, namely Gandhi (he studied at a privileged London university, he was surely from the elite), but they do not consider it to be their state. They consider it to be a conqueror's country, i.e. white British people's country. Lithuania was somewhat parallel, as there was a Lithuanian minority elite that was ruling a Lithuanian state, regardless that many people in it were not Lithuanians. Even when the elite was Polonized later on, they still kept their Lithuanian distinctness into the 20th century.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need to say that both you and Pofka are presenting very one-sided view on the history of GDL, I am ok with you having your own opinion but please don't distort historical facts. First of all Sigismund without a doubt was speaking fluently in Slavic language, he was afterall a Czech prince, his father in his own autobiography stated that he speak and write in Czech as fluently "as any other Czech": Idioma quoque Boemicum ex toto oblivioni tradideramus, quod post redidicimus, ita ut loqueremur et intelligeremus ut alter Boemus. Ex divina autem gracia non solum Boemicum, sed Gallicum, Lombardicum, Teutunicum et Latinum ita loqui, scribere et legere scivimus, ut una lingua istarum sicut altera ad scribendum, legendum loquendum et intelligendum nobis erat apta. Moreover Sigismund was send to Poland when he was 13 years old to learn Polish language and customs, because he was suppose to be crowned as king of Poland in the future (both Czech and Polish used at the court were very similiar). Historian Robert Frost is straight-forward: "According to Vytautas—and again there is no reason to doubt him, since Jagiello, the recipient of the letter, must have known it was true— Vytautas then spoke to his cousin in Lithuanian, which Sigismund did not understand—discussions were being conducted in Ruthenian, which he did— suggesting that he consult with the Polish council before giving his assent"^[1]. There is no doubt that Jogaila knew Ruthenian very well, his mother was Ulyana of Tver, and there was many Ruthenians on her court, also Jogails for a short period of times was preparing to adopt Orthodox Christianity, was a catechumen, so he was taking part in Ruthenian service. Vytautas very likely knew German, because he spend a lot of time among Teutonic knights, but for sure the language that three of them were most comfortable with was Ruthenian. It's funny that you insist on Jogaila knowing German "due to his extensive and unavoidable contact with the Teutonic Order", while you ignore hie unavoidable contacts with Ruthenians and Poles which consisted vast majority of his subjects. I agree with you that at this time Ruthenian elite wasn't allowed to take part in central governence, and all the central offices were held by ethnic Lithuanians. But it started to change in mid 15th century (since Švitrigaila). And also Lithuanians were able to speak Ruthenian, at least some of them, Manvydas, Voivode of Vilnius, was directing the Ruthenian part of ducal chancellery. While Latin-German part of the chancellery consisted only Polish notaries (Mikołaj Cebulka, Jan Lutkowic z Brzezia, Mikołaj Sepieński and others), with exception of three Germans (who were dismissed after the battle of Grunwald). Marcelus (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruthenians were discriminated in Lithuania all the way till the reign of Sigismund II Augustus, who finally removed all the limitations of Orthodox (Ruthenians) by releasing a privilege only in 1552. So it is more than clear that all the Grand Dukes from the Gediminids/Jagiellonian dynasty treated the Orthodox Ruthenians as second-class and used them as a resource for wars, especially against the Teutonic and Livonian Orders. By the way, during the reign of Algirdas (surely, before him as well), the Ruthenians were not allowed to live inside of the Vilnius Castle Complex (of course, with a few exceptions like Algirdas's Ruthenian wife) and that's why the Cathedral of the Theotokos, Vilnius was built quite far from it (check using the Google maps). So the Vilnius Castle Complex was an ethnic Lithuanian castle and Jogaila certainly lived in it, while Vytautas, son of Kęstutis (brother of Algirdas), certainly was a frequent visitor with his father because Kęstutis resided in Trakai (very close to Vilnius). So it is not surprising that such authentic letter of Vytautas exists:

I am sure that even the biggest anti-Lithuanian nationalists would not dare to say that the Samogitian dialect is a Ruthenian/Slavic language. According to Vytautas, there was no difference between the lowlanders (Samogitians) and highlanders language because it was the same language — Old Lithuanian language. So knowing that this symbol was adopted by Vytautas not only as the CoA of the Grand Duke (like it was during the reign of Algirdas/Jogaila), but as the CoA of the whole Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and was the most widely showcased during the Battle of Grunwald, there really aren't any reasons to discriminate and humiliate the archaic Old Lithuanian language, which successfully survived as the mother tongue of the Lithuanians despite all the pressures of Slavs through the centuries. Yet you systematically attempt to humiliate the mother tongue of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes and attempt to prove that somehow ethnic Lithuanians preferred Slavic languages. In Jogaila's case, Algirdas certainly was far, far, far superior over his wife and his decisions were the most important, so there are absolutely no basis to claim that Jogaila, living in an ethnic Lithuanian castle of Vilnius with his superior father Algirdas, preferred to speak non-Lithuanian languages. I'm not saying that he did not learned the Polish language when he was crowned as King of Poland because he certainly did, but his childhood years certainly were very, very Lithuanian. Plus the Ruthenian language was alien for Vytautas, who was son of ethnic Lithuanians Kęstutis and Birutė (Birutė likely was from Palanga in Samogitia). By the way, there is an interesting fact that the Lithuanians were very angry when Jogaila, already as King of Poland, entered the Vilnius Castle Complex with the Polish Army. During this visit, the relations of Polish and Lithuanian Armies worsened so much that they nearly began fighting between each other inside of the Vilnius Castle Complex. Knowing this, any Ruthenian superiority or anti-Lithuanian acts would have been immediately liquidated at the Vilnius Castle Complex by Algirdas and the earlier Lithuanian rulers (e.g. see: Anthony, John, and Eustathius). -- Pofka (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus I tried translating the passage you gave me (after a quick search I found it was an excerpt from this, however, I couldn't translate the word 'redidicimus', so I couldn't understand much of it. You should have immediately quoted the historian Robert Frost, because when you wrote 'Most likely', I was immediately very suspicious of that. Now that you have given "sources instead of conjecture", I am very happy to agree that, indeed, the three of them spoke Slavic. I proposed that they spoke German, because I had some background knowledge that Bohemia was very Germanized and it seemed more logical that they would speak in that language. Nothing personal, just business.

Furthermore, I would suggest you include the fact Sigismund spoke Slavic on his Wikipedia page, because that is very relevant. I focused on Jogaila knowing German, because I had not found anything indicating that Sigismund spoke Slavic. I did not ignore that Jogaila had deep Ruthenian ties, I did not mention them because it would have been beside the point while trying to explain that he spoke German.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I understand, the Ruthenian elite played the largest role in lands of modern-day Ukraine, so if they did indeed ascend in importance after Švitrigaila (early 15th century), their importance would be limited as those lands were ceded to Kingdom of Poland in 1569, so they practically had a bit more power for ~150 years, which is not that long when we remember that GDL existed from 1200s to 1795 (practically 600 years). --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add this quote:

This quote perfectly illustrates that Ruthenia and Ruthenians were aliens for the Lithuanians and words "as far as the King of Lithuania's authority seeks [ In Ruthenia ]" says a lot about the Lithuanian-Ruthenian relations. -- Pofka (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is OUT OF CONTROL. A Request for Comment (RfC) is a request for uninvolved editors to come to a page and offer suggestions or to form a consensus on the future of the article. Sometimes those editors offer explanations about their decisions. Because we give input, we often leave these pages on our Watchlist so we can see other editors' decisions and comments and the final outcome of the consensus. This page is becoming a chore and a mess to have on one's watchlist. The "discussion thread" for this RfC has become a place for the instigators of the RfC to continue and to rehash their arguments, often arguing with the editors who have been brought to the RfC and have made their decisions. If I were a wikipedia administrator (I am not) I would BLOCK the instigators of this RfC from making any further comments on the RfC and bring the survey to a close. StarHOG (Talk) 16:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:StarHOG - It appears that it is only the Threaded Discussion section that is contentious, and keeping the hostile discussion separate from the main question is why the RFC is divided into a Survey and Threaded Discussion. The RFC should continue to run 30 days. A few editors will be randomly invited in to comment by a bot.

I will not continue this discussion, but I simply had to reply when Marcelus began spreading anti-Lithuanian WP:OR. Marcelus certainly is not neutral because he purposefully excluded the Lithuanian language names of this symbol and began presenting the Lithuanian language as irrelevant. I fully agree that the discussion should be continued by those who did not participated in it yet. -- Pofka (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My input is clear, there is a historical justification to have a separate article for the Pogoń CoA. I was falsely accused of anti-Lithuanian sentiment and pushing some pseudohistorical theories on Wikipedia by Pofka. All I did is to explain my intentions and correct obvious historical distortions presented by other participants of the discussion Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pahonia is the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In addition, it was the coat of arms of the voivodeships of the principality, and after 1795 also the coat of arms of many cities of the Russian Empire (most of them are located on the territory of modern Belarus, as well as Russia and Poland). The coat of arms is also princely for the descendants of Gediminas. Pahonia was part of the Great Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire. After the 1917 revolution, Pahonia became the coat of arms of the Belarusian and Lithuanian republics. After 1991, the Belarusian and Lithuanian republics returned the old coat of arms (but under Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus returned the Soviet coat of arms). Based on the foregoing, it is completely incomprehensible to me why Pahonia, which is now used in the patrimonial heraldry of the Gediminovich princes, in the coats of arms of cities and regions of Belarus, the Republic of Lithuania, Russia and Poland, as a state or national symbol of Belarus, the Republic of Lithuania, should be considered exclusively the coat of arms of modern Lithuania? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Lithuanian nobles were using the Coat of arms of Lithuania in order to showcase their allegiance to the state after they married the relatives of the Grand Duke (e.g. Gediminids dynasty's members daughters, sons). The CoA was also used on the annexed Ruthenian cities CoAs in order to show that they belong to the Lithuanian state and are ruled by the Lithuanian dynasty which created this CoA (Gediminids). All your mentioned examples doesn't change the fact that the Belarusian term Pahonia does not have any kind of superiority over other names of this CoA (see: Coat of arms of Lithuania#Origins of the word Vytis and other names). For example, this Lithuanian CoA is used by the President of Lithuania (1), Lithuanian parliament Seimas (2), Lithuanian Police Force (3), etc. How do we call it? We still call it Vytis because term Pahonia is alien for the Lithuanians, who since the Middle Ages (and earlier) speak the Lithuanian language. However, the Belarusians definitely use term Pahonia when they see the Lithuanian state's CoA, presidential, parliamentary CoA. While the Poles use word Pogonia or Pogoń. All these other names are either redirect pages or disambiguation pages and only some ultra nationalists like you wants to present the Belarusian term Pahonia as superior. I promised not to participate in this discussion anymore, but user Лобачев Владимир previously performed an enormous amount of edit warring in article Pahonia, therefore I had to reply. -- Pofka (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So much for, "I will not continue this discussion." StarHOG (Talk) 12:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC should provide the reference to the previous and actually the main part of this discussion, where the community didn't agree with the proposal solutions: Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania#Merging the Belarusian Pahonia and Lithuanian Vytis together?. There are provided the main arguments against the proposed solution, and I don't really see any new sound arguments from the initiators, which, in my opinion, is very close to the behavior described in WP:LISTEN. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the results of previous discussion didn't even mentioned, I believe that all its participants should be informed about a new attempt of changing the consensus: @Blindlynx:, @Sennowa:, @Piotrus:, @Vadzim:, @Glide08:, @Лобачев Владимир:, @Hugo.arg:, @Audriusa: --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention that Kazimier Lachnovič was tagged as a disruptive user in Eastern Europe topics by two administrators (Barkeep49, Ymblanter) already, so his arguments are completely biased and unreliable. In the past, the removal was opposed by Belarusians for obvious reasons as it is a Belarusian term, which violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV rules. On the contrary, the Lithuanians did not created article named Vytis or Waikymas and did not presented it as the "real" name of the alternative 1918+ Belarusian CoA with a horseman as well. Neutral (non-Belarusian, non-Lithuanian) users in this discussion and in the previous discussion support that this article should be removed/remade. For example, @Gryffindor: (edit). By the way, Kazimier purposefully ignored to ping users who previously agreed that article Pahonia should be modified, so they should be pinged as well: @Obivan Kenobi:, @Ke an:, @Ed1974LT:, @Ssolbergj:. -- Pofka (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Pofka colleague, when he has no arguments, begins to discuss the participants, which is unacceptable for a constructive dialogue. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also very concerned about Pofka behaviour in this discussion page, he is accusing everyone of being anti-Lithuanian etc. while he himself is clearly pushing his own agenda. I hope modes can reprimend him or something Marcelus (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you was the one who excluded the Lithuanian language names (Waikymas and Vytis) and aggressively attempted to present them as irrelevant, despite the fact that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was founded by the Lithuanians, who obviously spoke the Lithuanian language and first created this CoA in the Middle Ages (ref1). Also, you supported the Belarusian language name's superiority, thus ignoring the fact that the Belarusians created their first state and national CoA only in 1918 (ref2, ref3). So it is not questionable that you are Belarusian-speaker or are from Belarus as well, same as users Лобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovič. The Belarusian term is fairly represented at National emblem of Belarus#Pahonia. Let me remind you that articles in Wikipedia are written according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view rule, therefore all languages are respectable and this CoA has no "right" name in the English Wikipedia. Neutral users opinion in the survey shows that. By the way, this subsection "Reference to the main discussion" was created without the approval of Robert McClenon or any other administrator. Just another example of superiority act. -- Pofka (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's relevant here, but I am from Poland. I didn't exclude Lithuanian names of the CoA, just pointed out that Vytis is 19th century neologism coined by Simonas Daukantas and Waikymas wasn't used as the name of the CoA, but as a translation of Polish word pogonia (meaning pursuit or pursuer) noted by Szyrwidas in his Polihs-Lithuanian dictionary. Pogoń/Pogonia/Pahonia are historically accurate name, because they were used to actually denote the CoA. And please try to be civili and polite, and don't use ad personam arguments. Marcelus (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lithuanians were calling it as Waikymas at least since the early 17th century and your statements are just a baseless WP:OR because the Lithuanians spoke the Lithuanian language and it would be a complete non-sense to use foreign words among the Lithuanian language speakers. By the way, even you mentioned that all three names Pogoń/Pogonia/Pahonia are equally accurate to describe this CoA, but in the survey you support the superiority of the Belarusian term Pahonia. It seems to me that you are lost in your own arguments and for some kind of reasons show your hate towards the Lithuanian language and want to discredit it, despite the fact that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was founded by the Lithuanians, who spoke the Lithuanian language. I strongly recommend you to read about the WP:NPOV rule, which prohibits any kind of superiority. -- Pofka (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pofka - I don't see any conduct issue about changing the structure of the RFC. I don't see what is wrong with adding subsections at a lower level within the Threaded Discussion. Have I missed something, or has someone else missed or hit something?

As has been noted, Neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I will remind all of you that lengthy exchanges have very little effect on the outcome of the RFC even if they make the editor who expends the pixels feel better (or worse). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: User Kazimier Lachnovič, who was tagged as a disruptive user in Eastern Europe topics by two administrators already (Barkeep49, Ymblanter), inserted a new section "Reference to the main discussion" above the main discussion section "Threaded discussion" in an attempt to overshadow arguments presented by other participants there. According to WP:NPOV, I believe new statements by participants should not be placed above the main discussion section "Threaded discussion", therefore I moved it to this section and remade into a subsection. Now I see no violations of WP:NPOV or Wikipedia:Five pillars, but it would be a really messy discussion if every new participant would create a new, exclusive section above the main section "Threaded discussion" and this way present their arguments as superior. -- Pofka (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pofka - No. Before you say that an editor was tagged as a disruptive user, read the exact wording of the template. If it says, "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date", that does not mean that there are any identified issues with their editing. Sometimes a template means exactly what it says. It means that they are being cautioned that special rules can be used if they are disruptive. It doesn't say that they were disruptive, and it says that it doesn't say that they were disruptive. It does mean that, if you think that they are being disruptive, you can report them either at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement, not only at WP:ANI. Read the exact wording of the template. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Trust me, I know what type of user he is. These templates were placed on him exclusively due to his personal POV, WP:OR pushing. If you would check out his edit history, especially since the beginning, you would quickly notice that he was single-handedly removing content he doesn't like and pushing his WP:OR. He is just a Belarusian ultra nationalist with an enormous hate towards the Lithuanians and their modern state (a few examples when he called us as rubbish: 1, 2, 3). It is related with the fact that the Belarusians had no state prior to 1918 and all the time were ruled by foreigners (ref1, ref2), so certain Belarusian individuals show an extraordinary hatred towards their neighbors. -- Pofka (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pofka - That may be. That doesn't change the fact that the template does not say that he is a disruptive user, and that you misstated what the template says and does. If you think that he is being disruptive, you may report him at Arbitration Enforcement with evidence of his disruption. But that does not mean that you can state that those two admins said that he was being disruptive. They notified him of special rules. Do not misstate what the template says, even about a nationalist user. Accuracy is a duty, not a virtue. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka: Though, they solved it in 1995 Belarusian referendum when 78.6% of Belarusians said that this symbol does not represent Belarus and Belarusians.
The 1995 Belarusian referendum is not considered to have been a free or fair referendum. It was a forced referendum pushed by Lukashenko at a time when he has consolidating his power. Simply put, the referendum is meaningless.

Just to illustrate my opening statement and perhaps put a new spin on the antagonistic nationalistic debate about I thought it might be interesting for other editors to see an excerpt from a 1997 article in History Today called Belarus: A real or fictitious nation?. Although the author is Belarusian, I think this is a fairly neutral overview article in a respectable general audience publication at a time when Lukashenko had not yet established his dictator reputation.

From the 1230s to the early fifteenth century Lithuanian dukes gradually took over, as apanage, the principalities of today's Belarus. Contemporary Belarusian historians assert that they were not conquered by the Lithuanians, but that the latter were initially mercenaries at the service of Slavonic princes. Whichever is true, the entry of the Slavs in the new state -- the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) -- was of primary importance for the cultural development of Lithuanians. Monetary systems and common law, official language and diplomatic rites were borrowed by them from their new compatriots. Almost all Lithuanian Grand Dukes from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries were brought up in the spirit of Slavonic culture, married Slavonic princesses and were for at least part of their lives, Orthodox. For centuries, the main centre of Belarusian, as well as Lithuanian, culture was Vilnius (Vilnia) until it was handed over by Stalin to the Lithuanian Republic in 1939. The Grand Duchy (Chaucer's Lettow and Ruce) is, therefore, regarded as a dual state, like Belgium or Canada and is called, ex post facto, Lithuania-Belarus. Radical nationalists, meanwhile, deny any right of Lithuanians to the historical heritage of the GDL and contend that, if not Belarusian by name, this state was essentially Belarusian. Oddly enough, both constituent peoples, known now as Lithuanians and Belarusians, called themselves `Lithuanians' in their native tongues -- lietuviai and litviny, respectively; the native language of the latter, however, was called Russian and the feeling of Russian identity remained quite strong, especially among the lower classes. (Medieval and Early Modern Russia proper was generally known abroad under the name of `Muscovy'). But even in the early twentieth century, the rural population had little sense of belonging except to tutejsyja (`local people').

In short, it is a contested history and you will definitely get different answer depending on who you ask. What seems clear to me is that neither party can make a claim to exclusivity of the term Pahonia and the task before us is to strike a balance. --Jabbi (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: Quote which show that the Belarusian author of your provided quote is biased: "married Slavonic princesses and were for at least part of their lives, Orthodox" because the Lithuanian Grand Dukes never were Orthodox and it is just some nationalists propaganda (if they were, then the Christianization of Lithuania would not make sense). For example, Algirdas, who annexed many Ruthenian territories and married Ruthenian princes (in order to acquire such territories as Principality of Polotsk), massacred Orthodox priests in the capital Vilnius for praying in public (see: Anthony, John, and Eustathius). There were more strict limitations-discriminations for the Ruthenians (Orthodox) in Lithuania at the times of the Grand Duchy, see: Grand Duchy of Lithuania#Religion and culture (this proves that the origin of the Grand Duchy is Lithuanian, not Ruthenian and the Lithuanians do not attempt to falsify anything). The Grand Duchy of Lithuania never was a dual state because the Ruthenians were discriminated in Lithuania and never became its rulers. The Belarusians are as much Lithuanians as Indians are Englishmen because the only Lithuanians are those who speak the Lithuanian language as mother tongue (this language was called as Lithuanian language at the times of the Grand Duchy as well and the Lithuanians used it together with Latin and Polish languages, e.g. see: Letters of Gediminas, Constitution of May 3, 1791 in Lithuanian language). Belarusian sources, statements about history nearly always contradict Lithuanian and international sources (e.g. Britannica) and all those so-called Litvinism theories are ridiculous attempts to falsify history by the Belarusian nationalists. The Belarusians are Ruthenians, same as Ukrainians. It is an enormous propaganda when the Belarusians attempt to claim that they are Lithuanians, while the Ukrainians are proudly saying that they are Ukrainians. Why? Because of Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, Kievan Rus', Cossack Hetmanate, thus they have enough national gems and they do not need to attempt to steal foreign history, national symbols.

Now about the 1995 referendum. Soon after the 1994 Belarusian presidential election, in a 1995 referendum, the Belarusians voted for the introduction of a modified version of the Soviet flag, the introduction of Russian as the second official language, and the government's course on close economic integration with Russia (see: Union State).^[7][8] The referendum was held because many Belarusians had expressed their dissatisfaction with the newly adopted symbolism of Belarus.^[9] During the referendum 75.1% of Belarusians agreed to change the state symbols and according to Mikhail Pastukhov, the former judge of the Constitutional Court of Belarus, there are no grounds to treat the referendum as invalid as there were no serious violations in the course of the vote, however he also noted that the results of the referendum on giving the Russian language the equal status with the Belarusian language are invalid from the legal point of view and should be abolished.^[10] According to Galina Miazhevich, such decision was made as the Belarusians were “one of the most wholehearted bearers of Soviet identity”.^[11] Following the referendum, President Alexander Lukashenko cheerfully announced that "we have returned to you the flag of the country for which you fought. We have returned to you both memory and sense of human pride".^[12]

The Belarusians really loved Alexander Lukashenko and initially elected him democratically. Since then, of course, he has become a tyrant, but it does not change the fact that initially they elected him democratically and removed the horse rider CoA democratically as well (he did not transformed Belarus into an authoritarian state in just 1 year). Those 25% (mostly from the western regions near Poland and Lithuania) do claim that the referendum results were falsified, but it not possible because just 1 year before the presidential election of Lukashenko was 100% democratic. A lot of Belarusian opposition members currently are living in Lithuania and we do support the democratic processes, however the tensions in Belarus does not allow for some nationalists to falsify the Lithuanian history. Consequently, such radical nationalists even raise questions for the Lithuanians if we really should help Belarus and later combat their hoax theories. These pseudoscience theories really are a true slap in the face for the Lithuanians after our strong support for democracy in Belarus. -- Pofka (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • A comment on the above as some of it ended up being erroneously added to the 1995 referendum article by Pofka, I presume as a result of this debate: The claim that "The referendum was held because many Belarusians had expressed their dissatisfaction with the newly adopted symbolism of Belarus" is from a source describing what Belarusian school textbooks say – it is not a statement of fact. Number 57 12:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to tell if the majority of Belarusians support the 1918+ symbols. We have all witnessed what happened in Ukraine when the majority of country's population disagreed with the government's course. -- Pofka (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]