Talk:Litvinism

Belorussian names in the article
The article itself is written in poor English and needs to be heavily edited and by the native English speaker who I am not. First what must be changed - at least two Belorussian names which in this article are presented, for the reason unknown to me, are written in Lithuanian rendition. These are: Pavlas Urbanas - in reality Pavlo Urban Alesis Mikas - Alesj Mikasj Juras Visockis aka Fide Nemini Vilnius, Lithuania 89.117.10.9 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Correction - Paval Urban instead ov Pavlo Urban
 * Juras Visockis Vilnius, Lithuania 89.117.10.9 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2023
I want to supplement this page in the “language” section with documents and works of historians of the 16th-20th centuries, giving links to sources. Purely from a neutral side and for informational purposes.

The theory of Jan Lalevich coincides with the opinion of some historians of the 19th and 20th century.

In the 4th volume of the Biblioteka Warszawska(pl) magazine for 1848, there is information that "...Poles usually call the Belarusian (Krzywicki) language Lithuanian, and Lithuanian - Samogitian" («…Polacy język biało-ruski (krzywicki) powszechnie nazywają litewskim, a litewski żmudzkim»)

Polish literary historian and linguist Alexander Bruckner emphasized - "when [Nikolai Ray] later described the Rusyns, they spoke "Lithuanian" (i.m, Belarusian; Litvin was always only Belarusian for him), never Ukrainianian"

Also in the work of 1578 (Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio, quae regnum Poloniae, Lituaniam, Samogitiam, Russiam, Masouiam, Prussiam, Pomeraniam, Liuoniam, & Moschouiae, Tartariaeque partem complectitur. — Cracovia, 1578. Fol. 25) it was reported that "other Slavs, like Poles, Czechs, Litvins and others who differ from the Russian language, they call the king by a different name, like Krol, others Korol, or Kral..." it can also be noted that the word "King" in the Belarusian language is translated as "Кароль(Karol)". Aŭhust (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Aŭhust Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 23:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This newly added quote (edit): "when [Nikolai Ray] later described the Rusyns, they spoke "Lithuanian" (i.m, Belarusian; Litvin was always only Belarusian for him, never Ukrainian)" has a strange structure and punctuation marks, therefore the literal translation from the source-reference likely should be improved (I cannot do it myself). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Uniform name spelling of Alexander Krautsevich?
Both Kraucevich and Kravtsevich appear multiple times in the article. MKW100 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅: it was changed (see: 1) to an English variant according to Wikidata. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Which treaty?
On 24 October 1991 Vytautas Landsbergis and Stanislav Shushkevich in Vilnius signed a declaration regarding the principles of good neighborly relations between the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Belarus." and "Consequently, the agreement between the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Belarus on good neighborliness and cooperation was signed only on 6 February 1995."

Sorry if i may be wrong, but isnt this referring to one and the same treaty?

Regarding an February treaty, i found reference to the border treaty signed by Luka in another article

Belarus–Lithuania relations "The Belarus–Lithuania border is defined by a February 1995 treaty, with the ground demarcation of the border being completed in 2007. "

MKW100 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your input to this article. Answering to your question: no the declaration is not equal to a treaty in this case. The declaration between Vytautas Landsbergis and Stanislav Shushkevich was signed on 24 October 1991 (see "Spalio 24 d." explanation in the official website of the Seimas), but it was not equal to the later treaty of 6 February 1995 (see: here) which defined borders between Lithuania and Belarus. The 1991 declaration did not define borders between these states. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Wide Use of Unreliable Sources and Inconsistencies
I have gone through the sources cited in the article. It appeared that some of them are questionable, to say the least, and some lack information provided in the wiki article. Below, I put the list of quotes from the article and sources for those quotes that seem to be unreliable or misquoted. The sources are numbered as of 15.11.2023. Additionally, I put on the list inconsistencies and contradictions in the wiki article.

Source #1

The quote above is a conclusion of the source article's author, which is based on his own criticism of Osip Senkovsky's and Ignacy Kołakowski's works. Darius Sutkus is not a professional historian but a journalist contributing to |"delfi.lt" and "Karys" on various topics mostly connected to the military. The source article was published in "Karys", the military magazine of the Ministry of National Defence of Lithuania. As the conclusion in the quote is a personal contribution of Darius Sutkus, who is not a professional historian, and "Karys" magazine does not specialise in history, the quote seems like a personal unprofessional opinion.

Sources #11 and 69

Source #11 does not mention the origin of Mr Lukashenko's quote. Source #69 is an interview with an editor-in-chief of the "Echo of Moscow", Alexei Venediktov. In the interview, Mr Venediktov says the abovementioned quote and states that it belongs to Mr Lukashenko. However, he does not mention any interview with Mr Lukashenko or any other occasion on which Mr Lukashenko said this quote. Google search does not provide any results for the origin of this quote, directing only to the words of Mr Venediktov. Notably, Mr Lukashenko did not give an interview to the "Echo of Moscow" in 2018.

Source #12

The source article mentions delving into the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a way to distinguish Belarus from Russia and put emphasis on their differences. What is "pre-Russian Belarusian culture", which is not mentioned in the source article and is not googleable? If I get the wiki contributor correctly, it would be best to phrase it as "non-russified Belarusian culture" or "to emphasise differences between Belarus and Russia".

Source #30

This is an anonymous article in a Lithuanian internet portal. The article is full of strong claims e.g. saying "according to sociological research, about 40% of Belarus' residents support their [litvinists'] ideas to varying degrees", without giving the reference to the source sociological research or going as far as to state "In essence, Belarusian society is divided between two forms of fascism, Russo-fascism and Litvin fascism." The article refers to statistics, quotes and pieces of news without clarifying original sources, and the information given is unverifiable.

Source #39

Encyclopædia Britannica's article does not mention litvinists or the reasonings for their claims. The Encyclopædia only mentions the influence of the "Russian subjects" (probably meaning Ruthenian) of the GDL on the systems of governance, military, finance, etc. The Encyclopædia states the existence of the influence but does not mention any connection of this influence to the litvinist ideas. Hence, the wiki contributor, the author of the quote, manipulates the original source and draws conclusions of their own.

Source #68

The quote belongs to the Colonel Saulius Guzevicius, who however does not give any examples of the statements saying that Vilnius Region should belong to Belarus. Neither such examples are given in the main text of the source article, nor they are googleable. On the contrary, during 2017 "Zapad" military drilling, press secretary of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Belarus, Colonel Vladimir Makarov, negated any claims on the Vilnius Region (https://charter97.org/ru/news/2017/9/20/263470/).

Inconsistencies Start

The wiki article states "Litvinism is not supported by notable information sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica", while Encyclopædia Britannica says:

According to this wiki article's definition of litvinism, the quote above, in fact, aligns with litvinism:

"The Litvinists underline their closeness to Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrainians (Ruthenians) viewing the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a common heritage of the nations that live on its former territory."

"Litvinists consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as being a joint Baltic and Eastern Slavic state. Litvinists claim this duality due to the significant Russian influence on the state."

Inconsistencies Continue

The very definition of litvinism is ambiguous in the current version of the wiki article, including in one term ideas ranging from "the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a joint Baltic and Slavic state" to "the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Belarusian and has nothing to do with Lithuanians".

Please note that, in the quote above, the phrase "the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (they refer to this state as Вялікае Княства Літоўскае, Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje...)" sounds odd as "Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje" is a valid and only name for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Belarusian language. The phrase sounds equally absurd to "the French refer to Germany as Allemagne".

Conclusion

To improve the article, first and foremost, either one clear definition of litvinism must be chosen and any information going beyond that definition deleted, or it must be stated separately that different definitions exist.

Sources #1, 11, 12, 30, 39, 68 and 69 are either unreliable or misquoted, e.g. do not contain the information mentioned, are created anonymously or by people with no expertise in the field or refer to a non-verifiable quote with no clear origin. Information given by these sources in the wiki article has to be deleted, or other sources need to be found.

Depending on the choice of the final definition of litvinism for this article, the statement that "Litvinism is not supported by notable information sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica" could have to be deleted as Encyclopædia Britannica contains information supporting the idea of multiethnicity of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and importance of the Ruthenian component in forming the structure of the state. Tarsistes (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Your statements are provably false.
 * Karys is a reliable source as it fulfills the criteria outlined in WP:RS, e.g. editorial oversight, is not closely affiliated with the subject, etc., and so the articles within it are also by extension reliable.
 * The quote from Lukashenko definitely exists and the earliest that I can trace it back to is 16 December 2018 :
 * «Мы наследники не Киева, — говорит Лукашенко, — как Москва, мы наследники великого княжества Литовского. Мы наследники Вильно»
 * Translation: And we are not the heirs of Kiev,” says Lukashenko, “like Moscow, but we are the heirs of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. We are the heirs of Vilna.”
 * Multiple other sources attest to the existence of the quote.
 * Lukashenka did have an interview with the Echo of Moscow in 2019, so I see no reason to consider Venediktov as a person misrepresenting Lukashenko's views, as they have personally interacted.
 * The reference to Encyclopædia Britannica is not a "manipulation" of the original source as you claim, because the Encyclopædia clearly states that it was Lithuanian tribes under Mindaugas that created the state, which then conquered "Russian and Tatar territories", and that the Russians were the subjects of Lithuanians. Clearly, this refutes Litvinist views and thus it's mention is valid.
 * Russian disinformation is a thing, and post-Soviet states like Russia and Belarus both like to do things while simultaneously denying that they're doing them. I'm not going to take the words of an official from a country allied to Russia (with a whole article about Belarusian involvement in the Russian invasion of Ukraine) at face value and neither should you.
 * Even the quote you provided from the Encyclopædia that you claim supports Litvinism actually does not, because it makes clear that Lithuanians conquered Slavic populations, whereas Litvinists deny the very existence of non-Slavic Lithuanians during the medieval period.
 * Claims about official languages for pre-modern states does not make sense. Furthermore, in the case of Lithuania, the court of the Grand Duke most certainly used the Lithuanian language until sometime in the latter part of the 16th century (Grand Duchy of Lithuania), so one could very well argue that Lithuanian was the official language of Lithuania.
 * No one contests that many ethnicities lived in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, because just like in all empires, there are many groups inside it. However, what matters are the people at the top, and they were generally ethnically Lithuanian, notwithstanding the exceptions of Ruthenians rising to power. After all, the state religion of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the late 14th century was always Roman Catholicism, the religion of Lithuanians, and not Eastern Orthodoxy, the religion of East Slavs.
 * PS: It is extremely suspicious that your first edit on any Wikipedia includes correctly functioning templates and knowledge of some Wikipedia terminology, which beginners do not know. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The links you have provided yet again refer to the words of Venediktov ([1 ]; [2 ]). I could not find an original interview with the Echo of Moscow, nor it is mentioned anywhere in Belarusian media. Given the specific nature of the Belarusian media, it is highly unlikely that Lukashenka’s one-on-one interview with a journalist would be left unnoticed. Moreover, as you said, Lukashenko gave the interview in 2019. As expected, Belarusian media made a fuss out of it with it being broadcast on the state channels, reposted by the Belarusian Embassy in Russia and published on the official government websites. ([1 ]; [2 ]; [3 ]; [4 ]) However, Venediktov and other sources say that the quote is from the interview dated 2018. Either it is me who cannot find it anywhere, or such an interview does not exist. As you mention later in your reply, Russian disinformation is a thing, and Venediktov cannot be trusted with no proof.
 * As I have pointed out, the current version of the article provides two contrasting definitions of litvinism. Indeed, Encyclopædia Britannica debunks litvinist theories in terms of the non-existence of non-Slavic Lithuanians or the creation of the Grand Duchy by the Slavs. On the other hand, the quote I have provided supports the idea of the joint nature of the state or, at least, common heritage. Reference to the “official language” is taken from Encyclopædia Britannica directly and does not belong to me. Nevertheless, my comment was not aimed at discussing the languages of the Grand Duchy. Instead, it was directed to show that while Encyclopædia Britannica does not contain any confirmation for the ideas of litvinism as per one definition, it does as per another (treating the Grand Duchy as a joint state of the common heritage). As both definitions of litvinism coexist in the current version of the wiki article, it creates an inconsistency. The definition of litvinism in the article has to be unified to exclude mentions of the “joint state and common heritage”. Otherwise, the idea of the “joint state and common heritage” is supported in Encyclopædia Britannica in the quote in my original post.
 * Regarding your last comment, there is a whole wiki article on Ruthenian nobility. Besides, the Privileges of 1434 and 1563 were not adopted for no reason. There was enough Ruthenian nobility, merchants, scholars, etc. Encyclopædia Britannica states that the Grand Duchy was “an international or nonnational formation” and that “by the 15th century the dynasty had become Slavic in culture”. Please, check the reference article in Encyclopædia Britannica from the original post.
 * PS: I am a scientist, and researching some terminology before posting was just a habit. Besides, it's the least I can do to be taken seriously. Fortunately, the guidelines are public. The templates are shamelessly stolen from other wiki talk pages. I take your comment as a compliment, even though it's sligthly rude. Tarsistes (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * All your mentioned sources (e.g. DELFI, Alkas.lt, Karys) qualifies as WP:RS, therefore duplication of Russian/Belarusian sources to support these Lithuanian sources are not necessary. Some additional comments regarding some of your described cases: 1) "Source #30" does describe Litvinism as a form of fascism and Alkas.lt is a popular Lithuanian website about history, politics and the fact that the author did not provide his name and surname in this article is not a valid argument to claim that this source is non-WP:RS (Wikipedia article does not include statistics from this article, but only mentions that Litvinism was described as fascism). 2) "Source #39" is not supported by Encyclopedia Britannica's article (there is a template in the article noting it), but I believe this information was taken from one of the other references (but the relevant template is missing) and is factually correct (Litvinists claims that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania either was a Belarusian state entirely or that it was a Belarusian-Lithuanian state with the domination of Belarusians in it; such ideas are reflected in other parts of this article and other references). 3) "Source #68" see this sentence in the source: "Tai veda prie teritorinių pretenzijų – nuo 2013 metų per kiekvienas „Zapad“ pratybas yra kartojamas naratyvas, vedantis prie to, kad Vilniaus kraštas turi priklausyti Baltarusijai. Tai sakoma pakankamai atvirai įvairiais šaltiniais" (This leads to territorial claims - since 2013, during every "Zapad" exercise, a narrative has been repeated, leading to the fact that the Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus. This is said quite openly in various sources). Lukashenko and other Belarusians quite often state the the Vilnius Region is "Belarusian", therefore such words of Saulius Guzevičius clearly are not dubious. 4) "Inconsistencies Start" the start of this Wiki article is correct because the Encyclopædia Britannica does not support Litvinistic claims that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created by the Slavs/Belarusians and the usage of Slavic languages alongside Baltic Lithuanian language is the "Slavic in culture" aspect (later Lithuanian rulers from the Jagiellonian dynasty were Polonized, but it does not deny their Lithuanian patrilineal origin from Gediminas - Gediminids). "Inconsistencies Continue" - Litvinism has different variants and since it is a pseudoscientific theory there understandably isn't one variant of it. This Wikipedia's article simply describe various Litvinistic theories which deny Lithuaniness of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania/Vilnius and emphasizes its Belarusianness/Russianness - that is the main aspect of Litvinism - to claim that the Lithuanians have absolutely no rights to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or were less important in the creation/development of it than the Belarusians (in Russian propaganda, Belarusians are described simply as yet another "Russians" and the aspects of "Russianness" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are emphasized instead), despite the fact that this state always had "Lithuania" in its name, not Ruthenia/Belarus/Russia. The name of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Belarusian language (Вялікае Княства Літоўскае, Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje) is clearly not described as pseudoscientific anywhere in this article - it is a really valid name of this state and is just included for simpler understanding of terminology in this Wikipedia's article (I see nothing wrong with that). Please keep in mind that many Belarusian language articles from the Radio Svoboda (Радио Свобода) were used in this Wikipedia's article despite the fact that the Radio Svoboda in its disclaimer (at the end of these articles) deny their responsibility for the validity of the content written by these unaffiliated Belarusian authors (not employed by the Radio Svaboda), but these articles are valid examples (evidence) in this Wikipedia's article to illustrate Litvinistic theories raised by Belarusian authors (they would be dubious sources elsewhere in Wikipedia where pseudoscientific theories are not tolerated and we only seek truthful content, e.g. in dedicated articles about histories of countries). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pofka My issue is with the absence of original statements of any Belarusian officials calling for the annexation of Vilnius or the Vilnius region. There is no doubt that Saulius Guzevičius said that “a narrative has been repeated, leading to the fact that the Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus”. However, there is no quote that actually states it that belongs to a Belarusian official. As an example, I can say that "Egyptian officials constantly and repeatedly state that the Vatican must belong to Egypt". However, whatever I say about what Egyptian officials say does not make it more credible than gossip without the source statement. While Lukashenka and others can say something along the lines that Vilnius is Belarusian, these statements do not go beyond admitting the significance of the city to the development of contemporary Belarusian culture (e.g., the presence of Belarusian schools, publishing houses, etc., at the beginning of the XX century). There are no statements that “Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus” as Saulius Guzevičius said and as put in the article. “Vilnius has a great significance in Belarusian culture and history” != “Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus”. Even "Vilnius is Belarusian" != “Vilnius Region must belong to Belarus”.
 * As per my reply to @Cukrakalnis, litvinism is defined too broadly and vague in the article. Indeed, Encyclopædia Britannica does not support any ideas that the Grand Duchy was created by the Slavs or that Belarusians presented a dominant component in the state. However, it does support the idea of the Grand Duchy as a joint state or at least a common heritage. Therefore, it supports such definitions of litvinism mentioned in the article as in the quotes given in my original post:
 * “The Litvinists underline their closeness to Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrainians (Ruthenians) viewing the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a common heritage of the nations that live on its former territory.”
 * “Litvinists consider the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as being a joint Baltic and Eastern Slavic state.”
 * These definitions do not mention any dominance of Belarusians/Ruthenians/Slavs nor question origins of the Grand Duchy. Understandably, there cannot be one definition of a pseudoscientific theory, but there should be a clear cut to avoid contradictions. At the moment, Encyclopædia Britannica does support some statements attributed to litvinists, while the article says it does not.
 * To clarify, the quotes above do not try to assert any Belarusian/Ruthenian/Slavic dominance and do not question the creation of the Grand Duchy by Lithuanians but only state that the Grand Duchy is a common heritage and was a joint Baltic and Slavic state. Should they still be treated as litvinist and pseudoscientific? If so, then what is a non-litvinist view of the role of Slavs in the Grand Duchy and its historical heritage?
 * The way the Belarusian name for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is put in the article sounds like it is used only by Belarusian nationalists:
 * “According to this branch of Belarusian nationalism, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (they refer to this state as Вялікае Княства Літоўскае, Vialikaje Kniastva Litoŭskaje…)"
 * Specifically, the problem arises with “they” after “branch of Belarusian nationalism”. Additionally, there is “refer”. English is not my native language, but for me, “refer to this state as” sounds like it is not a valid name, but the one made up specifically by this branch of Belarusian nationalism. Tarsistes (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Tsepkalo - the language of GDL
"In December 2021, Belarusian politician Valery Tsepkalo, one of the denied candidates of the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, stated online that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created in the current Belarusian territory in the 13th–14th centuries and later expanded, while the spoken language in the state was the Russian language ("Russkiy jazyk"), not the current Lithuanian language"

He mentioned not Russian, but the Ruthenian language, one of the names of which is "Russkiy jazyk", a few seconds later (7:30) he uses more specific words for it - "... называют кто западно-русским, кто старобеларуским" Гусак Звычайны (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, it is not fully clear what Tsepkalo meant with his words and whenever he considers Ruthenian as Western Russian or Old Belarusian language (or even both), so I also included a word "Ruthenian" to the sentence. It is noteworthy that Tsepkalo in this video is speaking in Russian, not Belarusian language, which makes it even more difficult to understand his point of view regarding the historical evaluation of Ruthenian language. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Compliments! :)
Just want to say compliments. I think the article has been massively expanded in a very short time - the length speaks for itself - and in my opinion it reads very cleanly and informatively on the topic, and is above all certainly helpful for people who want a neutral perspective on the topic. As far as I can judge as an amateur Wikipedia user, the article is supported by many good sources and evidence and now surpasses many other articles in this subject area. MKW100 (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Cronicle of Grand Duchy Lithuania found by Byhovec
in cronicle of Grand Duchy Lithuania very clear explained that Grand Duchy was created by Roman colonists. Zhemaytians of modern Letuva had Roman settlers rank lower than Belarussians. Word Lithuania come frome Latin Listubania those Roman's that crossed river Villia to sunrise become Listubanya and those who lived near Baltic Sea were called Zhamoitia but main governor of Romans prince Apollo children crossed Villia river that why modern Belarus or Listubania was land superior to land Zhamoitia.Zhamoitia was under command from Lithuania-Listubania-Belarus that all explained in details in Cronicle. Roman's did not disappear they took surnames of city they had under there rule Belskiy,Ruzhinskiy,Mogilevskiy,Korbut, Golshanskiy and others come from Roman nobels and they live now as ordinary Belarus people.Reason that they not nobels becouse they lost war to Moscovia and lost money,castles,power. https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus/Bychovec/frametext.htm Александр Макович (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bychowiec Chronicle is known to be full of bullshit wrong information. - Altenmann >talk 19:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WE in Belarus thinking that it most important Chronical from all. Александр Макович (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself: you cannot say what all people in BElarus think or know. - Altenmann >talk 16:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Lengthy wall of text by an IP (supposedly Александр Макович) reverted. Wikipedia is not a vehicle of promotion of personal views. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of article improvements basing on information found in reliable sources - Altenmann >talk 16:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

kresy.pl
editr summary: kresy.pl on the Polish Wikipedia is deleted due to and blocked by the filter due to unreliability and falsification of sources
 * Please provide the link to the corresponding discussions in Polish Wikipedia, for review, so that we can discuss it at WP:RSN. - Altenmann >talk 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You have a whole conversation on this topic here [1 ](Polish Wikipedia) AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The conversation accuses kresy.pl to be a shill of Kremlin, but provides no evidence. It is a serious accusation. If proven, it may be blocked in enwiki as well. Do you have anything to add?- Altenmann >talk 19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Polish wikipedia also has a discord on which I am on, where one of the admins, when asked about this page, also said about falsifying sources and downloading from under Russian sources ones. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This an insufficient evidence for en-wiki. - Altenmann >talk 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the article cited, it is heavily non-neutral, signed by a Jan Bury, but there is no evidence he is the Jan Bury; author's expertise is unknown; the text gives no further indications on the source of its wisdom. Herefore I am inclined to remove it from the article. - Altenmann >talk 19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)