Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pahonia (disambiguation)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Valid disambiguation page per WP:DAB. The RfC, which established the primary redirect of Pahonia to coat of arms of Lithuania, did not prevent creating a disambiguation page, which serves a different purpose to provide clarity/navigation for users when there are articles with potentially ambiguous terms. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Pahonia (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Word Pahonia is one of the historical names of the Coat of arms of Lithuania, thus such page as Pahonia (disambiguation) should not exist as such solution was rejected by the RFC at Talk:Pahonia (RFC closing statement and decision confirmation by an administrator). The decision was suggestion A, not suggestion B. Despite that, some users also implemented suggestion B. The main problem with existence of a separate page for Pahonia is that it gives a Belarusian/Ruthenian language name of the Lithuanian coat of arms a supremacy over other names (e.g. Lithuanian language counterparts Vytis, Waikymas). Points of this disambiguation page (e.g. "Pahonia (newspaper, 1992)" or "Pahonia (newspaper, 1920)") previously redirected to articles in the Belarusian Wikipedia (old version of this page). Identical articles in the Lithuanian Wikipedia would be called "Vytis (laikraštis, 1992)" (laikraštis = newspaper in Lithuanian) because the Lithuanians do not use this Belarusian/Ruthenian word. One of the examples from the Lithuanian Wikipedia: Vytis (laikraštis). The equivalent of Pahonia / Vytis in the English language would be Chase. That's why the decision of this red-hot dispute at the RFC was that the "right" name of this symbol, which would satisfy WP:NPOV, does not exist. I request to delete this page in order to ensure WP:NPOV and WP:CONS of RFC. User GB fan (1) wrongfully interpreted RFC as it clearly did not select disambiguation page as a solution of this dispute. The solution was to make a redirect page. Please delete page Pahonia (disambiguation) and ensure WP:LISTEN, WP:CONS. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The deletion reason above is a misreading of the RFC. The RFC discussed what should be done with the title Pahonia.  There were three options: A - Convert to a redirect; B - Convert to a DAB page; C - Leave as is.  The consensus of the RFC was to change Pahonia to a redirect.  This consensus was implemented.  The RFC never addressed the creation of a disambiguation page with the disambiguator, (disambiguation).  It only addressed the option of changing Pahonia into a disambiguation page and that was rejected.   (who was not involved in the RFC or made any comments on the talk page created a new disambiguation page. This DAB page is a helpful page to find other articles that could be called Pahonia.  ~ GB fan 12:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If the decision at RFC would have been solution B, then Pahonia would have been replaced with Pahonia (disambiguation). But it was not selected as a solution. Articles named Pahonia can be called Vytis as well because one "right" name of this coat of arms does not exist. That's the main dispute of the RFC regarding article Pahonia and the main reason why it was remade into a redirect page. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If the decision at the RFC was B then Pahonia would have been converted to a disambiguation page and Pahonia (disambiguation) would now be redirect to Pahonia. The RFC did not discuss Pahonia {disambiguation) at all.  No one brought up whether or not this page should be created.  ~ GB fan 12:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Creator of page Pahonia (disambiguation) user Czalex participated in revert warring following RFC decision, thus he was well aware of the situation and chose to disrespect RFC's decision by arbitrarily creating page (his revert at article Pahonia). Consequently, it is incorrect to say that Czalex absolutely did not participate in this dispute. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted, did not look at the article itself, just looked at the talk page. I did not say they did not know of the RFC, just that they did not participate in it.  ~ GB fan 12:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. From the close of the RfC (and a very quick glance at the discussion), I see that the decision there was for the article Pahonia to be turned into a redirect, with the implied assumption that the redirect target is the primary topic for the term (otherwise, Pahonia would have been turned into a disambiguation page). Now, even if there is one primary topic, there are three other topics with the name, and as along as we have content about them we need to provide navigation to those topics. Deletion of this dab page would be possible only if this navigation is provided instead by a hatnote at the primary title (with three entries, that would be too much), or if all existing content about those other topics is deleted from the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking from the Lithuanian language perspective, all these three entries would be called Vytis or Waikymas (WP:NPOV?). It depends on creator's nationality. I believe currently both suggestions: A and B were implemented. That's illogical. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pofka, what you believe is illogical. It is impossible for Options A & B to have been implemented.  To do that Pahonia would have to be both a Redirect and a Disambiguation page at the same time.  That is impossible.  Only Option A was implemented, Pahonia is a redirect.  A brand new page, Pahonia (disambiguation), that was not discussed in the RFC was created as a disambiguation page.  You need to give up on using an RFC that did not discuss Pahonia (disambiguation) as a rationale for deleting it.  ~ GB fan 14:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggestion B would have remade article Pahonia into a Pahonia (disambiguation) with 2-3 points (or more). That's exactly what happened now. RFC rejected such solution and selected solution A in order to avoid choosing the "right" name (which does not exist) of the primarily Lithuanian coat of arms. There is no chance that there would have been two articles: Pahonia (with disambiguation page structure) and page Pahonia (disambiguation) (also with identical disambiguation page structure). Template prohibits to duplicate content. Since you are British, imagine your coat of arms being written in Indian (due to the British Empire). Would you support to have a disambiguation page for a British CoA under an Indian language term? Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Lithuanian Empire: Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe (book by a British author). --  Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Option B would have made Pahonia into a page that looks similar to what Pahonia (disambiguation) looks like now, then Pahonia (disambiguation) would have redirected to Pahonia. That wasn't what happened.  Options A was implemented and it is a redirect as the RFC decided. Then in a seperate action, a disambiguation page was created that did not effect the content of Pahonia.  I am not British.  Great Britian is not the only thing with the initials GB.  I would support a disambiguation page for any title that has multiple pages that could be known by the same term.  Disambiguation pages are pages to help navigate people to what they are actually looking for when a term is ambiguous.  ~ GB fan 16:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete unless more entries are added to the disambiguation. I deleted two of them, as the coat of arms of the GDL and that of the Belarusian DR can hardly be considered different topics when Pahonia redirects to Coat of arms of Lithuania in Wikipedia. Also, is the poem notable? It isn't listed as an entry in any of the other Wikipedias in which there's a disambiguation of Pahonia. We thus only have right now the Coat of arms of Lithuania and the song as entries, and we could just use a template in the former to include the latter.  Super   Ψ   Dro  12:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The standard for inclusion in a dab page is not notability, it's a lower bar (though still somewhat higher than noteworthiness), see for example WP:DABMENTION. – Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have restored the entries. They are all valid entries for a disambiguation page. ~ GB fan 13:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There were also references to Belarusian newspapers and organisations of the same name. When those articles are created, the disambiguation page will become even more relevant.--Czalex 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid dab page. The arguments for deletion appears to be that Lithuanians don't like this name.  Well, that comes under WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  As long as the name is used at the target article, the dab entry is justified.  Even if the Lithuanian coat of arms entry was removed there would still be a case for the existence of a dab page since there are three other entries. SpinningSpark 22:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We can speak about Belarusian national symbols only since 1918, thus "Pahonia, a prominent poem by Maksim Bahdanovič" is as much Pahonia as Vytis/Waikymas (author died in 1917). "Pahonia, historical name of the Coat of arms of Lithuania since the 15th century" is equal to Pahonia (redirect) and "Pahonia, coat of arms of the Belarusian Democratic Republic and the Republic of Belarus, see National emblem of Belarus" is equal to National emblem of Belarus. So we have two links (not articles) and one article with a questionable name. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does any of that make this an invalid disambiguation page? That is the only issue here which would lead to deletion.  The fact that two of the meanings are related does not really matter.  We have four pages that discuss different (but perhaps related) meanings.  The purpose of a dab page is to help the reader find the page that is most relevant to them.  Dab page entries don't have to have the topic in their title, they just have to point to an article that discusses that topic. SpinningSpark 16:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The name of the poem is obviously Pahonia in accordance with the Belarusian Latin alphabet, because this name stands for the coat of arms since much earlier than 1918, regardless of the discussion about since when it became a national symbol of Belarus--Czalex 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously, as the original article was also referring to names of several Belarusian newspapers and organisations with that name, for which the articles will be created. User:Pofka and User:Cukrakalnis create an impression of an organised group of users (or the same user with two accounts) actively engaged in nationalistic POV vandalism of articles about Belarus (manipulating or cherry picking what sources say for content to promote or spread a certain national or historical narrative, et al.) --Czalex 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What is truly nationalistic and absolutely does not comply with WP:NPOV is Беларуская (тарашкевіца) (be-tarask.wikipedia.org) wikiproject. I will probably soon report it and request for sanctions as a result of anti-Lithuanian national hatred, propaganda in it. Most of Беларуская (тарашкевіца) wikiproject's content is anti-Lithuanian hatred, thus it may result in closure of such nationalistic project. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Lithianian editors' success in deleting the Pahonia article has been noticed by the Belarusian media, it has created a lot of negative publicity for Wikipedia. The pro-government media kept quiet of course: this coinsided with Lukashenko's desires - what an irony! A challenge to a Belarusian Wikipedia will surely be met with a request for mediation. Both sides will have to start talking calmly to each other at last. -- Nieszczarda2 (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Learn one lesson: nationalism is not patriotism. By humiliating other nations (e.g. Lithuanians) you will not achieve any positive change in your country. Pahonia was rightfully integrated following WP:CONS because it is one of the historical names of the Lithuanian coat of arms and Lithuania's identity is indivisible even if some aggressive nationalists want to do that. Litvinism ideology is a complete waste of time because it was already rejected scientifically and it will never be recognized internationally. The sooner the Belarusians will accept the scientific truth that their cultured flourished as being PART of Lithuania (not as FOUNDING of Lithuania), the better will be for them. And if nationalism which humiliates Lithuanians will continue, be sure that the Lithuanians will stand to defend their identity. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What Litvinism has to do with me? What the idea of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a home for Lithuanians and Belarusians (and Ukrainians to some extent) has to do with humiliating your Lithuanian countrymen? Presenting Belarusians as hopeless vassals to ethnic Lithuanians creates a parody of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania you and I love. This is not an either/or game for Belarusian editors here. We are trying to convey the reality that the Belarusian history, culture, language - everything! - are deeply rooted in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. And not because of the Lithuanian oppression of my people - being vassals would would never bring that about. It was a pluralist multicultural country when this was an unbelievable novelty for the rest of the world. Why not to celebrate that? Why to fight for the idea of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a backward-looking, boring colonial power? It deserves so much more. Peace. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Litvinism statements attempts to make it too romantic to be true. Initially, the Lithuanians were vassals of the Kievan Rus, which was later destroyed by the Mongols. This allowed the Lithuanians to gather power and expand their country. What are the chances that somebody would voluntarily join country of your former vassal? This is an absolute scientific non-sense, created by Litvinism. The truth is that only in 1563 Grand Duke Sigismund II Augustus issued a privilege which equalized the rights of Orthodox and Catholics in Lithuania and abolished all previous restrictions on Orthodox. This is another fact which simply crushes any statements about Lithuanian-Belarusian state because the Gediminids actively discriminated Ruthenians. Formation of GDL is far from the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Unlike Litvinists, the Lithuanians do not attempt to humiliate Belarusians, but we must respect the scientific truth. If living in Lithuania was the best period for the Belarusians history, we will surely appreciate that (and we are one of the most active supporters of democracy in Belarus), but do not attempt to distort our identity and national symbols with pseudoscientific theories that Lithuania is not Lithuania. The Lithuanian ethnos is currently quite small due to exceptionally strong anti-tsarist, anti-Soviet attitude which resulted in executions of many, many Lithuanians and Lithuanian press ban, Soviet deportations from Lithuania. Content of be-tarask.wikipedia.org project resembles tsarists/Soviets attitude towards the Lithuanians, not some kind of patriotism. With all due respect, but without Lithuanians and Poles lead the Belarusian ethnos most likely would have ended in the same way as Principality of Smolensk. So widespread humiliation of Lithuanians (calling them as zmudzs, etc.) in the be-tarask.wikipedia.org project is an absurd because the Lithuanians aren't enemies. We are not responsible for nearly extinct Belarusian language and events like Kurapaty. --  Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We certainly disagree about the meaning of Lithuanian in the Grand Duchy (no, I don't think it meant Belarusian then, it just did not have an ethnic meaning in the same way we see it now). But let us leave it for articles. I wonder if you/we could contemplate a differnt approach to developing Wikipedia, e.g. letting alternative concepts to be critically explained. In Belarusian historiography, there are many competing concepts (and the same - in Lithuanian, of course), so obviously there will be differences between Belarusian and Lithuanian schools of thought too. In the 1990s, there was a cool attempt to bring Belarusian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Polish historians together for discovering commonalities. It stopped when Lukashenko came to power. Then, in more recent years, an university in Kaunas hosted huge Belarus-focused conferences for the scholars whose research wasn't welcome in Belarus. So there are examples how to talk slowly and friendly, rather than attacking each other. I totally agree that the content of the Belarusian Wikipedias lacks the Lithuanian perspective, but someone has to offer it in a comprehensible manner. I suspect the same is true about the Lithuanian Wikipedia. The English one has huge limitations too. So, practically speaking: we at least could stop removing each other's content without alerting other editors about it. We could use Talk pages to negotiate and/or collaborate. Maybe we could do even more, e.g. start the GDL-themed project, suggest topics for writing, invite each other - Lithuanian and Belarusian editors - to contribute to the articles of mutual interest. Please give a thought. Fighting here and trying to stay alert constantly is so wasteful. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are historic documents in which Gediminas himself drew a line between Lithuanians and Ruthenians and between Lithuania and Ruthenia (pay attention that GDL of Gediminas mostly consisted of the present-day Lithuania and Belarus). For example, see this book by Rowell, pages 380-385 (you can use Google translate for the Lithuanian version in p. 383-385 because Old German version is untranslatable by Google translate). As descendants of Gediminas and old Lithuanians, we respect his words because he is like a saint for us. The Belarusians should appreciate their distinct Ruthenian heritage instead of trying to become Lithuanians because such pseudoscientific approach simply lead nowhere. The Ukrainians are successfully cherishing their distinct Ruthenian heritage and do not attempt to become Lithuanians. I cannot see any other way of success for the Belarusians than to follow the footsteps of the Ukrainians. However, by examining key articles in be-tarask.wikipedia.org project, I made a conclusion that the Belarusian nationalists who edit it want to wipe out Lithuania and Lithuanians, steal our capital Vilnius, etc. This really raised concerns for me about the anti-Lukashenko forces in Belarus and such content is a true negative hit for the reputation of the anti-Lukashenko opposition. The Lithuanians were risking their national security by organizing a new version of Baltic Way in support for the Belarusians, warmly welcomed Tsikhanouskaya, Pratasevič, and other members of the opposition. Currently, we are supporting economic sanctions for Lukashenko's regime which will result in the loss of hundreds of millions of euros for Lithuania. We certainly haven't done it all for the editors of be-tarask.wikipedia.org project and impressively long Belarusian national flag in Vilnius certainly did not meant that we will give up our capital (photos of the flag). I have strong doubts if these 50,000 Lithuanians would be motivated to help Belarus after reading content of be-tarask.wikipedia.org project. Scientific point of view must be respected. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pointless to go into a childish discussion trying to convince a radical nationalist but just a few scientific facts that you might want to study deeper: 1) The Grand Duchy of Lithuania (full name during most of its existence – Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia) was not a nation state but a multicultural medieval monarchy. 2) The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was created under the domination of Eastern Slavic culture, language and statehood traditions (the name "Duchy" itself, "княства", is a direct analogy of the name of the earlier Duchies (also "княствы") of Kyiv, Polatsk, etc). The early Lithuanian dukes intermarried with Eastern Slavs and were often Orthodox themselves. There is virtually not a single state document of the GDL written in a Baltic language, let alone in modern Lithuanian - all early documents are in Old Belarusian, later in Latin or Polish. At some point, the vast majority of the Eastern Slavic nobility in the GDL converted to Catholicism and was never subject to any discrimination. There are now two million Catholics in Belarus (almost as many as in the Republic of Lithuania). 3) The very heartland of historical Lithuania, which is now the border region between Belarus and the Lithuanian Republic, including the city of Vilnius/Vilnia/Wilno, is today inhabited by Belarusian speaking Catholics who identify as Poles but not [modern] Lithuanians, and are in fact assimilated Balts, not migrants from Poland. This demonstrates how far the Slavic assimilation of Balts has come and, more importantly, how complex the history and the nation building processes of this region are. Not all descendants of medieval Lithuanians are modern Lithuanians. Like not all descendants of ancient Romans are modern Romanians or Italians. In the late 19th century, the local Polish speakers had a regional identity as Litviny/Litwini ("Lithuanians") but did not identify themselves with who we call Lithuanians now - they even fought a successful war against the Republic of Lithuania under Jozef Pilsudski (himself a Litwin). 4) The modern nations of Belarusians and Lithuanians are both 19th-century products. Belarusians are also to a notable degree descendants of assimilated Baltic tribes. History is a complicated thing and not black-and-white like some immature people try to paint it here. Trying to prove that your nation is better than some other using manipulation with sources and historical facts is not scientific and should not have a place on Wikipedia (same as nationalistic historical romanticism like "[Duke this and this] is like a saint for us", or calls for redrawing borders, or derogatory statements about other nations, etc). The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is a common heritage of modern Lithuanians, Belarusians, regional Poles, to some extent of Ukrainians and western Russians too - this is the upcoming consensus among historians now. It is pointless, childish and destructive to keep playing the privatisation game around the medieval GDL, modern historical science is far beyond that. --Czalex 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense: most of the Belarusian classical Wikipedia doesn't even focus on topics related to Lithuania – neither the modern nation state, nor the historical feudal Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Funnily enough, the small Lithuanian Wikipedia seems to be far more objective and scientific when dealing with common Belarusian-Lithuanian history than what Lithuanian nationalistic vandalism creates here in the English Wikipedia.--Czalex 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Systematic removal of the Pahonia and Belarusian heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from English Wikipedia is creating an increasingly widespread anomaly: everything slightly related to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is being conflated with Lithuanian in its modern ethnic sense. It is an actualised and reductionist reading of history. It should be reversed as it makes Wikipedia less reliable and less relevant. Removing this DAB page will prevent users from discovering the content not represented in the Coat of arms of Lithuania page which is heavily policed by a group of activist editors. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is important for users to be able to discover all aspects of the Pahonia’s history and present day use. None of the current articles provided that. SuuriMara (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Pahonia is a common heritage of all nations which comprised the Grand Duchy (we all fought in Grunwald). It cannot be privatised by one constituent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spadar Sozhau (talk • contribs) 21:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.