User talk:+JMJ+/Archives/2021/September

Nationalist POV pushing
Please cease edits like these, , , that claim that different ethnic groups are really Lithuanians (albeit Polonized, Slavicized, etc.) This is 19th-century Lithuanian nationalist POV not supported by any serious western scholarship. See for example Litwa (newspaper) that attempted to spread these ideas in Polish.

I also remind you that your indefinite block was lifted because you promised to make edits of "neutral nature" and abstain from nationalist POV. Pinging User:El C. Renata•3 00:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Renata It's impossible that Austrian, American, Belarusian, Polish, and Lithuanian sources would all be pushing a coordinated nationalist POV. Such claims are baseless. It is unwikipedian to remove a statement with many reliable sources, each of which had editorial oversight. An example of Renata3 doing this is here. If "This is 19th-century Lithuanian nationalist POV", then why do international sources state the same thing? How could a 1930s Polish source (remember, it's the Interwar! A major conflict between Lithuania and Poland), an Interwar Austrian research-based source and a Belarusian source from nowadays all point to the same thing, if it was not the truth? Are they all involved in a grand-master plan to push a Lithuanian POV? No! That's impossible. It is unwikipedian, at the very least, that claims based on WP:RELIABLE sources be labelled "nationalist" because one disagrees. If these claims are all so wrong, then prove it with WP:RS. After all, we are all here to WP:BUILDWP. Wikipedia is for verifiable material and not for unsourced opinions, which are so far all that has come from you during every single occasion where you "rm nationalist POV". I underline the point that using reliable international (including those from the region concerned) sources is what Wikipedia is for, no matter if what they say is not what you might want to hear. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to realize there is a huge difference between "sourced" information and "neutral" information. There are plenty of biased albeit at face value reliable sources. Plus, interwar and Cold-war sources are much too dated for such claims. There is plenty of modern-day western scholarship which discusses (for example) the idea of "Polonized Lithuanians" as nothing more than a Lithuanian POV that continues to cause tensions with the Polish minority in Lithuania. Here is a couple quick ones from Google books, . As such, the claims of "Polonized Lithuanians" cannot be left as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice and must be properly attributed and explained as reflecting Lithuanian POV. Renata•3 00:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It is unreasonable to suspect that my aforementioned international sources would be pushing a Lithuanian POV and to dismiss non-Lithuanian sources as Lithuanian nationalist POV is absolutely wrong. However, I will nonetheless attribute the claims to the sources, as you wish. After all, we are all here to WP:BUILDWP.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * - I think the problem with this editor is that they too liberally interpret the sources they cite. THe opinion of Lithuanian researchers does make sense, but our colleague Zuckerberg rendered it in an overly generalized hence false form. After reading the cited sources a bit, I fixed it a bit. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Tutejszy
Hi, I respect your desire to improve Wikipedia articles by adding new information. However I strongly suggest you to refresh the knowledhe of our policies "no original research" and WP:SYNTH. You may only summarize what cited sources say, but not make logical conclusions based on them and especially not generalize. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lembit Staan, Thank you for the suggestion, it is always good to read over and expand one's knowledge. Because of your suggestions, I will now go over both of these pages and carefully read them. In WP:GOODFAITH--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration?
Hi, I wonder if you may be interested in some form of collaborating about Lithuanian/Belarusian topics, incl. the Pahonia? We certainly approach them from different and maybe opposing directions, but Wikipedia will only suffer from the war of edits. There must be a way of presenting both visions within the same article. The representation of the Belarusian historiography is oversimplified in many of those articles, no doubt due to this animosity - people just lose the will for research and writing. --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Cooperation has already begun. The fusing of both the Pahonia and Coat of arms of Lithuania was motivated by the fact that both articles concerned the same thing. There is no animosity, only WP:Reliable sources and avoidance of WP:FALSEBALANCE, in addition to following the multitude of other guidelines on Wikipedia.
 * "people just lose the will for research and writing" - if they keep pushing a false narrative, which contradicts what the reality actually was, then maybe that's for the better. Of course, that is not to say that people should not inform themselves - cultivating yourself mentally and physically is beneficial, but in no way is spreading lies. To be clear, I am not accusing anybody of anything, but there are lines that should not be crossed. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As for Belarusian historiography, there is no idea to totally reject it or fight against it. Yet, while some of them make valid points, there is a strong section which distorts history, as is made clear in the Litvinism article, and is evidenced just through a cursory look through the articles on be-tarask.wiki and, a bit rarer, but still nonetheless present, be.wiki.
 * To prove my claims are not imagination, one only needs a quick look through some articles. After a small search, I found e.g. this article, which states that "The formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is connected with the name of Mindaugas, who was crowned in Navahrudak on July 6, 1253." (the claim of coronation in Naugardukas is, at best, doubtful considering how late the first claim concerning it was made, plus Mindaugas was crowned King, not Grand Duke. Something is lacking here, for sure, because why would a King form a Grand Duchy instead of a Kingdom?) or which says "Pahonia" is a historical Belarusian coat of arms, while "Vitis" is a variant of the emblem "Pahonia", the emblem of the Republic of Lithuania. Another disquieting thing is when Belarusian historiography is significantly affected by pseudohistorians like Mikola Yermalovich, at least according to this article on him. And all of this was just scratching the surface, more could be found. With all the best wishes --Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this detailed answer. I think I get your points. I believe there is a major problem with overtly antagonistic editing on both sides. Wikipedia would benefit if it happened less. For example, recent edits refer to Belarusian predecessors as Russians, even though the referenced source gives a better option - Slavs. Avoiding such ahistorical attacks will help us to focus on the real matters and make those articles more useful to readers. We can make clear that many issues we are writing about are debated, there is no one single point of view on most of them yet. It's interesting that you see the Coat of arms of Lithuania article as an opportunity for collaboration. Both the content and name suggest something different, but I take the point that we need to start from somewhere.


 * Please don't get fixated on the be-tarask: in the Belarusian context, it's an important venue for exploring the whole range of issues not welcomed in the heavily policed public discourse. The fact it may be biased about Lithuania is not because of malicious intent per se, but due to a small number of editors. Just as with almost any other examples of bias on Wikipedia. Mikola Yermalovich has been an important catalyst for Belarusians to get interested in and proud of their history. He asked good questions, gave many wrong answers and this is how he is perceived as a historian by other Belarusian historians. We love him, but the Belarusian historiography has never taken his views in completely; we also have started getting better knowledge of Lithuanian historiography recently. Things will only get better as more Belarusians are moving to Lithuania and Poland nowadays. Just Warsaw University has two academic journals dedicated to Belarus already. Vilnius, Kaunas etc. will follow. If be-tarask truly bothers you, collaborative projects are the best way forward I think. Do you know editors speaking both Lithuanian and Belarusian? We need them on board. I know one.


 * Practically speaking, we could try, for example, to introduce chapters or paragraphs like "The Belarusian historiography perceived this as... ". We could use the Talk pages to flash out balanced definitions and terminology. We could use them to talk to editors before appealing to admins - we need more editors on both sides, not fewer. It's clear that Polish editors are missing from this, we need them too. I wonder if a portal on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania could be a catalyst for developing good content and attracting more editors. Who could help with that? Finally, we could work on nominating some articles into the Featured and Good Articles. I think this would make us all more effective. What do you think? --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I would prefer shorter messages so that I could spend more time on actual editing ;) Having stated that, I will reaffirm that if you (or anyone, for that matter) have a point to raise or concern, etc., etc. the talk page is the place to address it. Sometimes it happens that perhaps something was overlooked or misinterpreted, so directly addressing it is to everyone's benefit.
 * As for National_emblem_of_Belarus refering to Belarusian predecessors as Russians, that is unfortunate considering the quote supporting the statement is from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Any perceived distortion of history should be remedied with the use of more reliable sources, explication and statements, and much more. Concerning the Coat of arms of Lithuania, I would underline the fact, that such a name is much more fitting than naming the article either Vytis, Pahonia and Pogon by themselves. The content itself is not in any way suspicious, in fact, it has many international sources backing it.
 * We can make clear that many issues we are writing about are debated, there is no one single point of view on most of them yet. - There are many questions where there is an established and internationally accepted view of things, although adding the Belarusian POV should be all right if one states it as such. I would not agree with "I believe there is a major problem with overtly antagonistic editing on both sides" and would refrain from drawing lines between "us" and "them", although I could see from where such ideas spring from. For example, I checked the talk page of Belarusian nationalism when I was trying to modestly expand the article on Belarusian nationalism, and saw your statement about the article needing a "major revision" and "being used by activist editors throughout Wikipedia to attack the idea of the Belarusian national identity". I definitely agree that the article needs a major revision, although my primary motivation to say that is because many sections on the page that are way too short to cover the topic sufficiently.
 * I would be glad to help in the writing of articles about a variety of topics, although (for now) I do not know Belarusian, Polish and Russian languages sufficiently to read them, so I am working towards improving that.
 * If be-tarask truly bothers you, collaborative projects are the best way forward I think. Well, Wikipedia (especially the English one) is THE collaborative project ;) As for be-tarask, I am confused about its necessity, as there already is the be.wiki. Is be.wiki supervised by Lukashenka's agents? I would like to write on both Belarusian and the one Russian wikipedias, but English Wikipedia is already busy enough. Actually, I spend more time on the English wikipedia than the Lithuanian one, for now. Considering what you said about Mikola Yermalovich, it would be interesting to read more about him in his article, which is currently a meagre stub. As for "Belarusians to get interested in and proud of their history", I have my reservations and am doubtful about this, knowing Litvinism. As for your suggestions about The Belarusian historiography perceived this as... and use of Talk pages to flesh out the articles, it is bizarre you are mentioning this to me :) That is exactly how Wikipedia works. I will note, however, that sometimes these talk pages do not yield high-quality discussion, with everything from ad hominem insults & baseless opinions, although there are sometimes statements based on primary sources and other very good points being raised. we need more editors on both sides, not fewer. - I agree that more editors should be there, provided their activities' end result is beneficial. Unfortunately, I can't affect that, people edit Wikipedia on their private initiative and it's a pretty niche activity, to be frank.
 * Do you know editors speaking both Lithuanian and Belarusian? We need them on board. I know one. Interesting suggestion, but knowledge of the languages is not entirely sufficient, active participation is also key! Regardless, I am interested to hear as to who do you have in mind.
 * It's clear that Polish editors are missing from this, we need them too. I am surprised you wrote this, considering that A LOT of what is written on the English Wikipedia concerning Lithuanians and the Lithuanian state which lasted for centuries is written actually from the modern Polish perspective, with events that merit inclusion of "Lithuanian" into their titles being instead just "Polish": Polish–Swedish War (1600–1629) or Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618), with MANY MANY other examples. I will point out that not everything in the Polish language from the relevant time periods actually supports what is currently being said from the Polish POV. Frankly, WP:POLAND seems to be doing fine, they have more than 170 members, while WP:LITHUANIA has way less - a bit more than 30 active members. WP:BELARUS has just 10. I wonder if a portal on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania could be a catalyst for developing good content and attracting more editors. From all that I have seen, it is very possible that such a portal would rather quickly become inactive and not achieve much. It is much better to actively edit, and, to be honest, I do not use Wikiprojects that much, even if I appreciate the structure they provide. Finally, we could work on nominating some articles into the Featured and Good Articles. Yes, a good suggestion, but that requires a lot of work and time ;) I am not against that, but one develops such articles only if they are putting their time into the articles and not into talk pages (no offence, but I spent a few hours composing this). Still, a discussion is sometimes necessary.
 * "I think this would make us all more effective." Efficiency comes with practice :)
 * I think I have addressed all of your statements, and with that, I wish you good luck.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration?
Thanks for the [|extended reply]. I'll be brief not to drag the conversation endlessly, just to address the key points.

Wikipedia has two Belarusian versions, be & be-tarask, due to the grammar disagreement: the former follows the official grammar taught in schools and mandatory in Belarus-based media, the latter - the unreformed grammar, Taraškievica or classic Belarusian grammar, preserved by the diaspora. Belarusians aren't unique in this sense: Norwegians have two Wikipedias for the same reason too. Both Bearusian Wikipedias are most free of Lushashenko's control. Various appearances of bias are probably stronger and more frequent in be-tarask, but it's due to the small number of editors: once written, the article stays unchanged forever. Many articles, I have noticed, are copied - with the amended grammar - into be.wikipedia and vice versa, so there is one Wikipedia community with two faces/languages. I'd think that people using the classic grammar, are more likely to be more than sympathetic to and interested in everything Lithuanian. Well, it's an interesting laboratory for spilling all kinds of views.

The Litvinism article… my eyes were popping out… I hope such understanding of the Bearusian historiography is as marginal in Lithuania as Litvinism (lićvinstva) is marginal in Belarus. It's never been accepted by Belarusian historians; discussed, but rejected pretty much straight away. No a serious Belarusian historian ever said that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state (in rejection of Lithuanians). Of course, the mainstream Lithuanian discourse of a colonial subjugation of poor Belarusians is rejected too: there is a broad agreement that Belarusians (Rus'ians and Ruthenians) played an active role to shaping the state. I hope Rūstis Kamuntavičius's ''Gudijos istorija. Baltarusijos istorija'' will be noticed in Lithuania. He is a rare scholar who has engaged with the Belarusian school in good spirit. In Belarus, however, we still don't have a history of Lithuania written from the our mainstream historiography's point of view.

Please feel free to tag me whenever you see an opportunity for collaborative editing. --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick and brief response. Also, thanks for sharing the fact that there are two Norwegian wikipedias, I never crossed paths with them. It would be better if such disputes over basics like grammar are avoided because that in no way benefits a culture. As for be-tarask being written by a small number of editors, that explains why it has 75k articles compared to the 208k articles on be.wiki and, as you stated, there is definitely an overlap between the two.
 * As for historiographical views, I won't get into them right now, it's a whole different discussion. It would be interesting to read Rūstis Kamuntavičius' book. However, I looked at a recent interview with him and I was disappointed with many of his statements. At the very least, something can be learnt even from the worst historians (disclaimer, I am not calling him such ;) ).
 * The Litvinism article does state that The Belarusian academia is dominated by a variety of ideas, e.g. ancient historians guided by Soviet guidelines and methodology, although there definitely is a number Litvinist scholars, so that probably means that Lithuanians do not consider all of the Belarusian historiography as Litvinism.
 * When the opportunity for collaborative editing arises, I will be sure to tag you, :) In fact, the Belarusian nationalism article should be improved, in order to remove the "The neutrality of this article is disputed." hatnote, which does not look good at all.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion re the Belarusian nationalism article - I'll give a thought. On the one hand, it's a valid and well researched topic, on the other - the article has already been weaponised. I've noticed there is no article re Lithuanian nationalism, neither in en, nor ru Wikipedias... How comes?
 * Kamuntavičius certainly asks unconventional questions. Well, he is the only Lithuanian historian I am aware of who publicly engages in the dialogue with Belarusian scholars. He is a kind of a bridge already. This has to start somewhere. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no article on Lithuanian nationalism, because it redirects to Lithuanian National Revival.
 * As for Kamuntavičius, I haven't analyzed his work, but my first impressions of him are negative because he has time and time again given verifiably false or sometimes distorted answers in a very simple interview and some articles. As for the questions he raises, I won't comment because, after all, one can't evaluate something one hasn't looked into. As for him being a bridge, that's your opinion. He is a little-known historian in Lithuania and your mention is the first time I have encountered him.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Lyduvėnai
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 15th Military Division (Vichy France) has been accepted
 15th Military Division (Vichy France), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=15th_Military_Division_(Vichy_France) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! SL93 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)