User talk:+JMJ+/Archives/2023/January

Belarus
Why are you expanding controversial part of the Coat of arms of Lithuania if you know that we are discussing the content and you know that I am working on the alternative version in my sandbox? Plus you are only adding more off-topic stuff Marcelus (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you asking a question that I already answered in the edit summary |here? I Edited this section so that its relevance to this article be clearer for the readers. Stop accusing everything you don't like of being off-topic. This section here is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the article Coat of arms of Lithuania:
 * ===Belarus===
 * Flag of Belarus (1918, 1991–1995).svg, which was officially used in 1918, 1990–1995, adopted its colours from the Lithuanian coat of arms ]]
 * Archaeological, anthropological, ethnographical, and linguistic research indicates that Belarusians, as a group, as well as their language, formed during Lithuanian domination, when all territories part of modern-day Belarus belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Despite a distinct ethnic identity and language, Belarusians were never politically sovereign prior to 1991, except very briefly in 1918, when Belarusians created their first state entity. Initially, the first Belarusian state's flag was all white due to its name. This flag was soon modified by adding a red horizontal stripe to it, derived from the Lithuanian coat of arms used in Belarus during Lithuanian rule and thus the white–red–white flag was created. Some Belarusians even claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is they adopted its symbol - Vytis.  In fact, neither of the signs taken up by Belarusians were unique to them, because Latvian riflemen already used a white–red–flag, which Latvians considered as theirs,  while Lithuanians were using the Vytis as their coat of arms since the 13th century.
 * ==== Belarusian statehood and its use of the Lithuanian coat of arms ====
 * Герб БНР 1918.svg
 * During the chaotic aftermath of World War I in Eastern Europe, there were at least six declarations of the creation of Belarusian statehood. Despite lack of popular support, a group of Belarusian nationalist intellectuals declared the formation of the Belarusian People's Republic on 25 March 1918. However, this state remained internationally unrecognized and no capable institutions were formed after the declaration. Less than a year later, on 1 January 1919, the Bolsheviks declared the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic on roughly the same lands that the BPR claimed. In turn, the BSSR was soon replaced by the Socialist Soviet Republic of Lithuania and Belorussia, or LitBel in short, on February 27. LitBel ceased to exist due to Polish occupation of Minsk on August 8 during the Polish–Soviet War. So, the BSSR was declared in Smolensk later that year. During the Red Army's offensive against Poland in the summer of 1920, which nearly reached Warsaw, the Soviet Belarusian state was restored on 31 July 1920. This was the fifth declaration of Belarusian statehood. During the negotiations leading up to the Peace of Riga, Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz made the sixth declaration of Belarusian statehood on 12 November 1920. Out of the six declared Belarusian states, only BPR and Bułak-Bałachowicz's used the Lithuanian coat of arms. Жаўнеры Беларускага асобнага батальёна са сцягам.jpg
 * When the Peace of Riga was signed in 1921, Poland and the Soviet Union partitioned Belarus in two, with the west belonging to the former and the east to the latter. In western Belarus, where the Polish government engaged in a policy of Polonization, Belarusians were engaged in partisan warfare, partly sponsored by Lithuania, which ceased only in mid-1926. Lithuania was very supportive of Belarusians, partly because of the Polish–Lithuanian War, part of the Lithuanian Wars of Independence, and gave substantial financial aid to the Belarusian Rada, various Belarusian parties, as well as forming Belarusian military units within the Lithuanian Army.
 * [[File:Grodno Military Command, decorated with three flags of Lithuania, Belarus, and with Vytis (Pogonia), 1919.jpg|thumb|[[Grodno]] Military Command, which was loyal to Lithuania, decorated with three flags of Lithuania, Belarus, and with Vytis (Pahonia), January 1919]]
 * For example, the Lithuanian Army's 1st Belarusian Regiment, which was formed mainly in Grodno in 1919, used the Lithuanian coat of arms. The regiment was disbanded by the Poles following Grodno's occupation by the Polish Army, while its soldiers were disarmed, looted, and publicly humiliated by Polish soldiers, who even publicly ripped off the Belarusian officers' insignias, which had Vytis on them, from their uniforms and trampled these symbols with their feet, because this unit remained loyal to Lithuania and refused to carry out the Polish orders. Throughout the city, the Lithuanian yellow–green–red, Belarusian white–red–white flags, and signs with the Lithuanian coat of arms were torn off, with the Polish gendarmes dragging them on the dusty streets for ridicule, while Polish signs and flags were raised instead of them. This was done despited certain units of the Polish Army, for example, the 1st Lithuanian–Belarusian Division, having the Lithuanian coat of arms in its insignia. The Belarusian regiment's soldiers and Catholic officers were offered to join the Polish Army and those refusing were arrested and put into concentration camps or deported from their native land by the Poles. Part of the Belarusian regiment's soldiers and officers escaped to Kaunas to continue serving Lithuania in the Belarusian Battalion, which also used the Lithuanian coat of arms in its insignia. As many as 51 Belarusians were awarded with Lithuania's highest state award – Order of the Cross of Vytis.
 * Ministry_of_Belarusian_Affairs_of_Lithuania_(Gudų_reikalų_ministerija).jpg
 * Moreover, the Government of Lithuania established a Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, led by the Belarusian ministers Jazep Varonka, Dominik Semashko, which used the Lithuanian coat of arms when it functioned in 1918–1924. Ethnic Belarusians were also included in the Council of Lithuania. Belarusian political leaders initially requested for the Belarusian lands' political autonomy with Belarusian as their official language within the restored Lithuanian state before losing all control over Belarusian territories to the Poles and Soviets. The Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs was kept in force, because, according to Antanas Smetona, the first President of Lithuania, following a successful recapture of the Lithuanian capital Vilnius from Poland, the Lithuanians planned further expansion into Belarusian territories (the former lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) and considered granting autonomy to them, as requested by Belarusians, as Smetona noted in 1924 that there was a lot of pro-Lithuanian sentiment among Belarusians.
 * ==== During World War II ====
 * During the German occupation of Byelorussia during World War II, the Lithuanian coat of arms was used by the Belarusian Central Council, as well as by its military units, for example, the Byelorussian Home Defence.
 * Sources
 * [unfortunately some sources are not transcluded here, but they would shown normally if this section was restituted to the article where it belongs]
 * -- Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * [unfortunately some sources are not transcluded here, but they would shown normally if this section was restituted to the article where it belongs]
 * -- Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * [unfortunately some sources are not transcluded here, but they would shown normally if this section was restituted to the article where it belongs]
 * -- Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * [unfortunately some sources are not transcluded here, but they would shown normally if this section was restituted to the article where it belongs]
 * -- Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to log in?
Did you forget to log in or the IP copy-pasted your previous edit summary? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The IP copy-pasted my previous edit summary. My reply to you here on my talk page is my first Wikipedia edit on 12 January 2023. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

ZZ
Just provide most source, nothing relating to Poles and singed by Zinkevicius alone can stand on Wiki. This guy was highly biased and anti-Polish. Marcelus (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You are literally blinded by your hate of him. You openly admitted here that you want to smear him. You are very wrong if you consider yourself to be superior in the sphere of linguistics to the leading Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to smear him, he is smeared by his own actions and views. I just describe it. Marcelus (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are a liar. You do want to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist and you are smearing him. Why do you lie so audaciously? Why do you say you did not do something, and then justify your actions? That's extremely dishonest of you. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, now you are personally attacking me (WP:NOPA), do it again and I will report you. This is the first and final warning. You need to be more specific what I wrote is not true and give the source. Marcelus (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cukrakalnis strike these parts please 🙏 You are a liar. You do want to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist and you are smearing him. Why do you lie so audaciously ?  GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding content and removing all the eventual problems with neutrality! Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus
I propose you turn to the more general Administrators' noticeboard instead (referring both to the Zigmas Zinkevičius article discussion and the other report) to have the said user blocked from editing the article. He made his intentions very clear from the beginning and his activities clearly go beyond just original research. We tried resolving it constructively. Turaids (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, I will do so soon. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Cherrypicking accusation
HI, you accused me here of cherrypicking. My edit was based on the source you provided which says:

Nusistovėjus žodžiui sukilimas, prireikė šį istorinį įvykį įvardyti konkrečiau, su rūšiniu dėmeniu, kad būtų galima atskirti nuo kitų sukilimų. Lietuvoje įprasčiausias pavadinimas – pagal metus: 1863 metų sukilimas, rečiau nurodomi abeji metai: 1863–1864 metų sukilimas. Kai kurių išeivijos istorikų jis vadintas Lietuvos sukilimu, pavyzdžiui, istoriko Kosto R. Jurgėlos knyga „Lietuvos sukilimas, 1862–1864 metais“ (Bostonas, 1970). Pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais paplito iš lenkų perimtas įvardijimas pagal mėnesį. Lenkijoje sukilimas prasidėjo sausio mėnesį, todėl lenkai jį vadina Powstanie styczniowe – Sausio sukilimas. Lietuvos sukilimui toks pavadinimas netinka, nes Lietuvoje jis prasidėjo vėliau – kovo mėnesį, bet jei kalbama bendrai apie Lenkijos ir Lietuvos sukilimą, šis pavadinimas jau vartojamas kai kurių dabartinių Lietuvos istorikų tekstuose, o tuo labiau lenkų ir kitų šalių istorikų knygų ir straipsnių lietuviškuose vertimuose., which I believe translates as:

"As the word "uprising" became established, it became necessary to name this historical event more specifically, with a generic label to distinguish it from other uprisings. In Lithuania, the most common name is by year: the uprising of 1863, and less often both years: the uprising of 1863-1864. It has been called the Lithuanian Uprising by some Diaspora historians, e.g. historian Kostas R. Jurgėla's book The Lithuanian Uprising, 1862-1864 (Boston, 1970). In recent decades, the designation by month, adopted from the Poles, has become common. In Poland, the uprising started in January, so the Poles call it Powstanie styczniowe - January Uprising. This is not a suitable name for the Lithuanian uprising, which began later in Lithuania, in March, but if we are talking about the Polish-Lithuanian uprising as a whole, it is already used in the texts of some contemporary Lithuanian historians, and even more so in the Lithuanian translations of books and articles by Polish and other historians."

As I understand it correctly it clearly says that names "the uprising of 1863" and "the uprising of 1863-1864" were used by older historiography and diaspora, but the modern Lithuania historiography uses "January Uprising" name. So your claim that name "January Uprising" in relation to Lithuania is wrong name, is false, and not confirmed by this source.

Also we are on English Wikipedia, and the name "January Uprising" is predominantely used in English-speaking sources. Moreover, using a different name for the uprising in Lithuania creates the impression that we are talking about a completely different event, which is incorrect. Because it was one and the same armed conflict. I hope you understand. Marcelus (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Lietuvoje įprasčiausias pavadinimas – pagal metus: 1863 metų sukilimas, rečiau nurodomi abeji metai: 1863–1864 metų sukilimas.
 * "In Lithuania, the most common name - is by the year: the uprising of the year 1863, less often both years are given: uprising of the years 1863–1864."
 * You are absolutely wrong in your interpretation and you pushing Polish terminology onto non-Polish articles is clearly WP:POVPUSHing. You pushing a Polish POV is also indicated by you repeatedly removing the quote "The Lithuanian nation is hardworking, honest, religious, so it is worth my life. I am waiting freedom of my people as it was retribution" from Antanas Mackevičius. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * bet jei kalbama bendrai apie Lenkijos ir Lietuvos sukilimą, šis pavadinimas jau vartojamas kai kurių dabartinių Lietuvos istorikų tekstuose, o tuo labiau lenkų ir kitų šalių istorikų knygų ir straipsnių lietuviškuose vertimuose - but if we talk about the uprising of Poland and Lithuania in general, this name is already used in the texts of some current Lithuanian historians, and even more so in the Lithuanian translations of books and articles by historians of Poland and other countries.
 * Your source clearly says that modern Lithuanian historiography is using the name "January Uprising".
 * But what really matters is the terminology used in English-speaking literature, which is also "January Uprising". Marcelus (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Lietuvoje įprasčiausias pavadinimas – pagal metus: 1863 metų sukilimas, rečiau nurodomi abeji metai: 1863–1864 metų sukilimas.
 * "In Lithuania, the most common name - is by the year: the uprising of the year 1863, less often both years are given: uprising of the years 1863–1864."
 * What's so hard for you to understand about this phrase? You keep ignoring things are obviously stated to push a Polish POV and use Polish terms where they are unapplicable.
 * Your source clearly says that modern Lithuanian historiography is using the name "January Uprising". That's not what it says - that name is only used sometimes, and even then when referring to the uprising in BOTH Lithuania and Poland. When the focus is on the uprising in Lithuania, the Uprising of 1863 is the established name, which is almost exclusively used. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's agree to disagree. However, you must remember that we are creating an English-language Wikipedia and we should use terminology accepted in English literature. And here the name of the anti-Russian uprising of 1863-64 is "January Uprising", which can be seen from the main article: January Uprising.
 * (By the way, it would be worth adding there a few paragraphs devoted to the naming of the uprising in Lithuania, this article was very interesting). Marcelus (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's agree to disagree.
 * You literally twisted the words of a source and when proven to have twisted them, you then pretend that you did nothing wrong. Basically the same like what already happened (well, is still happening) on the article Zigmas Zinkevičius. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't twist words of a source. It clearly says that modern Lithuanian histriography uses "January Uprising", so you original claim that "The name "January Uprising", however, is inaccurate when talking about Lithuania" was your own idea, not something that was stated in the source.
 * By "let's agree to disagree" I mean that let's not waste time on this, because this is irrelevant discussion. Because it's not Lithuanian Wikipedia, but English Wikipedia, and we use English terminology. Marcelus (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * not something that was stated in the source. You are distorting the source.
 * It says, as clear as can be:
 * "Lenkijoje sukilimas prasidėjo sausio mėnesį, todėl lenkai jį vadina Powstanie styczniowe – Sausio sukilimas. Lietuvos sukilimui toks pavadinimas netinka, nes Lietuvoje jis prasidėjo vėliau – kovo mėnesį..."
 * (translated: "In Poland, the uprising started in January, so the Poles call it Powstanie styczniowe - January Uprising. This name is not suitable for the Lithuanian uprising, because it started in Lithuania later - in March...".)
 * You are making an unfounded generalization based on a few outliers that the source mentions precisely as unusual - "...bet jei kalbama bendrai apie Lenkijos ir Lietuvos sukilimą, šis pavadinimas jau vartojamas kai kurių dabartinių Lietuvos istorikų tekstuose, o tuo labiau lenkų ir kitų šalių istorikų knygų ir straipsnių lietuviškuose vertimuose"
 * (translated: "...but if we talk about the uprising of Poland and Lithuania in general, this name is already used in the texts of some current Lithuanian historians, and even more so in Lithuanian translations of books and articles by historians of Poland and other countries.")
 * you original claim that "The name "January Uprising", however, is inaccurate when talking about Lithuania" was your own idea, not something that was stated in the source. Your statement is wrong, because the source EXPLICITLY states that. You are lying - marked by or containing untrue statements - as defined by Merriam Webster.
 * By "let's agree to disagree" I mean that let's not waste time on this, because this is irrelevant discussion.
 * This is a relevant discussion, because it is just one of many cases where you are Polish WP:POVPUSHing, this time by using the terminology of Polish historians where it is not the standard.
 * Because it's not Lithuanian Wikipedia, but English Wikipedia, and we use English terminology.
 * English terminology for the uprising also includes "Uprising of 1863", so that means that using either is absolutely fine. What you are doing is absolutely not fine because you are doing this with a clear intention of replacing non-Polonocentric terms with clearly Polonocentric ones. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The name of the uprising is established in English-language literature as "January Uprising", you may see it as Polonocentric, but it doesn't change the fact it's an established name Marcelus (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You twisted the words of a source and now pretend like you did nothing wrong. Shameful behaviour. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You twisted the words of a source and now pretend like you did nothing wrong. Shameful behaviour. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)