Talk:Litvin

Removed text

I have moved parts of this edit to talk in case some editor think it's useful and wants to add it to this or other article after proper copyediting.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As an ethnonym referring to the inhabitants of the entire Belarusian ethnolinguistic territory, the term "Belarusian" is of quite recent origin. In fact, before the late 19th century, Belarusians were usually called by their neighbors, and sometimes called themselves "Litviny" (based on their long association with the historical Lithuania, this is not surprising), as well as "rusiny" (particularly those of the Orthodox and Uniate as opposed to Roman Catholic faith). The Old Belarusian/Ruthenian language that functioned as the official chancellery language of the [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]] from the 14th to the 17th centuries was called by its users "prosty ruski jazyk"/"prostaja ruskaja mova" (the simple Rus' language, in contrast to Church Slavonic, the language of the Orthodox church), although 16th-17th century Muscovite sources refer to it as either "litovskii jazyk" or "beloruskij jazyk." Interestingly, a Russian diplomat who visited Vilnius/Vilnia in the early 18th century noted in his memoirs that in the surrounding villages, some peasants spoke a "separate Lithuanian language" (osobyj litovskij jazyk), evidently not Polish or the Belarusian dialects that Russians were accustomed to calling "Lithuanian." Incidentally, as recently as the early 20th century, ethnic Russians and Ukrainians in border regions like Smolensk and west Polesie referred to neighboring Belarusian dialect speakers as "litviny/lytvyny" and their speech as "po-litovski/po-lytovs'komu". Dal's dictionary also has an interesting example of this use of the word "litvin" by Russians to refer to Belarusians: "[[tol'ko mertvyj litvin ne dzeknet]]" ("only a dead Litvin won't say it with dzekan'e" -- dzekan'e: a fairly salient (evidently, at least to Russians) feature of Belarusian pronunciation: the pronunciation of palatalized alveolar affricates in place of palalized dental stops, e.g. Belarusian [dz"ec"i] 'children' vs. Russian [d'et'i]).

The form "Belorusec," alongside "Litvin", also shows up in 17th-century Muscovite documents in reference to the Belarusian merchants and craftsmen (both prisoners of war and voluntary emigres) who were resettled in Moscow's "Meshchanskaja sloboda" in large numbers during and after the 1654-1667 war between Muscovy and Poland-Lithuania. While Belarusian-speaking (and after the mid-17th century, mainly Polish-speaking) elites in the GDL often referred to themselves as "Litviny/Litwini", most Belarusian-speaking peasants simply identified themselves as "tutejshy" (local), and after the abolition of the Uniate Church in 1839, may have added that they were "ruskaj very" (of the Rus' faith) or "pol'skaj very" (of the Polish faith) if they happened to be Roman Catholic. The use of the term "Belarusian" for self-identification by Belarusians appears to have become common only since the early 20th century with the establishment of Belarus as a political entity (the [[Belarusian Democratic Republic]] (1918) and the BSSR (1922)). Significantly, in those parts of the Belarusian ethnolinguistic territory that lie outside the borders of the modern Belarusian state, for example the southern Vilnius region in Lithuania, the western Smolensk and Brjansk regions of Russia, and the Bialystok region of Poland, the percentage of Belarusian dialect speakers of local origin, whether Orthodox or Catholic, who identify themselves as Belarusians is quite small, probably less than 10% in the first two regions, and no more than 20% in the latter.

OR

Current version of "article" is an original research and representing some sort of fringe theory. External links and "sources" like [1][2] etc. not even close to the required criteria of reliable sources and actually is some sort of extreme nationalistic ones, which advocates to rename "State of Belarus" to Lithuania (!). Wikipedia is required that only high quality material should be presented, therefore per WP:RS,OR and WP:FRINGE I converting this "article" to previous disambiguation. M.K. (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like the article in its present form or otherwise does not give you the right to "delete" it by redirecting the page to a disambig page which doesn't link to this article, hence "disappearing" the text. If you don't like the article, edit it. If you think sources are lacking, fact tag it. If you have questions about sources used, bring it up on RS. And discuss your changes. Thanks.radek (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This article and the disambig article

Thinking about it, this article should probably moved to something like Litvin (Historical context) and then linked to from the Litvin (disambiguation) page. Hopefully this would clarify this mess up.radek (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the qualification made on Polish Wikipedia, but is it really not the primary usage? It would be Litvin (historical context)... somehow I don't like this disambig. Maybe we can think of a better solution? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose to move. Please explain which mess you have in mind. - Altenmann >t

Mess = People replacing this article with the disambig article, deleting all the text in the process. Piotrus, if you think this is the primary usage then I think as it is right now it's fine, just the disambig article needs to be clear.radek (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Main problem is that the term is, well, a bit biased, as it is presented now. I mean - it presents modern Belarussian theory, that Lithuanian historians are stealing Belarussian heritage, and that the true Lithuanians, are not the Lithuanians from nowadays Lithuania (in this case in a somewhat a mild form). I have tried to NPOV the lead, although it is just a first step, if we want to keep it.

While every theory has right to exist, it should have NPOV comment, and also be evaluated by international sources (not only by Belarussian, as it is now), to be balanced. I feel, that in current state it does lack this sort of neutrality.--Lokyz (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• But is the problem with the term or the article? I don't think the term itself can be POV and of course the article can be rewritten.radek (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  Usage and explanation of the term is POV, term itself cannot be POV, of course. I've read Polish article on the term, it is more neutral, although it does not reflect international view also, becuse it is not sourced inline (hence is only thoughts of several editors), and also it reflects Polish view, especially on Ukraine and GDL lands, that now are part of Poland.--Lokyz (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a certain theory under the term. And, as usual, various historians have different opinions. You are welcome to add criticism or other points of view (referenced). One thing is undeniable: Belarussians were called litvins in the past, for whatever reason. Since the reason is not clearly documented, there is a room for interpretatrions and speculations. The notable ones of these must be documented in encyclopedic was (heck, we even have full articles even about hoaxes!), and this is nothing against WP:NPOV: the policy is against sneaking in opinions of wikipedians, not of historians and politicians, when they are clearly attributed and referenced. - Altenmann >t 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. Yes, I agree, the Polish article looks much more historically solid, and I agree that it misses inline refs for verification and re-use here. As for its title, please keep in mind that in Polish "Litwin" has the main meaning of "Lithuanian person", hence the title requires disambiguation. This is not so in English language. - Altenmann >t 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is, that not only pre-Belarussians were called Litvins, that's why I did remove the obvious misplaced template earlier. As I've said in my previous comments, Polish article is more neutral, although it has issues. In short, as I see the term - Litvin is a citizen(with citizen rights) loyal to GDL, it means mostly szlachta or Lithuanian nobility particulary. And again - not only Belarus. I have a high suspicion, that the term is derived from Polish language (i.e Litwin), not Belarusian, and it is not used in English publications in this spelling (Litvin). English term is Lithuanian(s) (not necessary denoting ethnicity but citizen-nationality in a pre-national (national meaning - based around one ethnicity state, that is 19th century invention).--Lokyz (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth moving the article to something like Litvin in historical context or Lithuanian in historical context (as the Polish article literally says, the English Litvin is sometimes used as a short term instead of "Lithuanian in historical context"), but with Litvin rather redirecting there and not to the disambig page.

The term Litvin is present in Belarusian language (літвін) as well. Historically the term related not only to szlachta but geogrephically to 1) Inhabitants of the region around Vilnia/Wilno plus today's central and north-western Belarus (including Minsk, Navahrudak, Hrodna, Niasviž etc), where today a significant group of people identifies themselves as Poles 2) Samogitians of modern Lithuania and inhabitants of other lands of modern Belarus (Polesia and White Ruthenia), especially by foreigners as reference to the people coming from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.--Czalex 09:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be rather short this time, since on vacations and my loaned internet conection is rather poor. Several points: as I've said earlier I have a high suspicion that the term is loanword from Polish, and it was transferred into Russian and modern Belarusian. The term is known in Slavic languages, but it is not in English (note the section below). There is an article about it in Russian (a bit messy link, since the FX is not good with Cyrillic) as in English language Litvin is more common as a family name [3], and [4] is given even an ethymology of the words, and several dictionary explanations, most of them refer to Lithuanians. Also in my opinion Lithuanian would be better, as it is most common definition in English usage. Happy reading.--Lokyz (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely no loanword because there are numerous other words in Belarusian that are formed in the same way: hruzin (Georgian), armianin (Armenian), rusin (Ruthenian (sic) ), žmudzin (Samogitian). One should not exclude the possibility that it is a Polish loanword from Belarusian (Ruthenian) language. As I said, moving to Lithuanian in historical context would be a good idea, answering many questions regarding the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in general.--Czalex 00:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann, please take a look at Litvin (disambiguation) and see if you can make it a clear cut disambig page. Before it just pretended that "Litvin" was a Polish or Belarussian term for "Lithuanian" and that there wasn't more to it than that. That's the "mess" I was referring to.radek (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I turned computer on for a couple of minutes, to review the watchlist changes, but ended in spending 3 hours already :-) I will certainly return to this topic later, but now I am logging off. - Altenmann >t 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how it is. Take your time.radek (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

English usage

Nor google books [5] neither google scholar search [6] presents English usage of the current spelling of the article name, although it does present family names in abundance. I hope everyone will agree, that this is English Wikipedia?--Lokyz (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this happens sometimes. But I agree we shall think what to do about this. - Altenmann >t 21:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

English Wikipedia can cover things that have reliable sources in different languages, even if there is no term for a given phenomenon in English language. Here's an example for you: communist crime. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus. Anyway, in my opinion this article should remain under the present title. The problem with it is that the covers the conflict area of Belarusian and Lithuanian nationalisms. The point is how these two ethnic groups are portrayed by international historiography. At the beginning of the GDL Lithuanians are presented as Lithuanians, a mobile and consolidated group even though without written language and Christian traditions, whereas already Christian Belarusians are viewed not as Belarusians but rather as a part of "East Slavs" (or similar) and their language is differently called by different authors. I may quote at least 10 books with this approach. Furthermore Belarusian scholarship is thought not to meet international standards. Thus, it leads to a rather one-sided view on the matter. CityElefant (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional info

To the author of the article: I’d like to offer some substantial corrections + a bunch of historical examples, so as to provide better understanding of who Litvins were. First of all, this denomination never served to identify a Baltic ethnicity ONLY. It always, since the very beginning was used to determine what we now call Lithuanians and Belarusians. It was a super-ethnical term. It is likely, that the term itself is of Slavic origin (mind the ending: -in). It was used to determine the dwellers of the Great Duchy of Lithuania, as of the 13th century, both (modern) Lithuanians and Belarusians. There was no such term as “Belarusian” in the Middle Ages, and all the Belarusian were called “Litvins” from 13th to 19th cent. In the 16th century (at the peak of Grand Dutchy’s might), there’s no any doubt, that ALL, who were called Litvins, spoke the Belarusian language. The Belarusian language (in the process of forming in 13-15 cc.) was the only language ever used by dukes and lords of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, until the end of the 14th century, when Latin added (fulfilling minor tasks of international correspondence). The Belarusian language was always used in all spheres of the governmental activities of GDL, including the laws of the state, where the rights of “Litvins” are stated.

The Second Statute of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 1566 (in the Belarusian language) states:

“Въ томъ панстве Великомъ Князстве Литовскомъ и во всихъ земляхъ ему прислухаючыхъ достойностей духовныхъ и свецкихъ городовъ дворовъ и кгрунтовъ староствъ въ держаньи и пожываньи и вечностей жадных чужоземцомъ и заграничникомъ ани суседомъ таго панства давати не имаемъ; але то все мы и потомки наши Великіе Князи Литовскіе давати будуть повинни только Литве а Руси, родичомъ старожитнымъ и врожонцамъ Великаго Князства Литовского (…..) А хотя бы хто обчого народу за свое заслуги въ той речы посполитой пришолъ ку оселости зъ ласки и данины нашое, албо которымъ иншимъ правомъ; тогды таковые толко оселости оное ужывати мають будучы обывателемъ обецнымъ Великаго Князства и служачы службу земскую томужъ панству. Але на достоенства и всякій врядъ духовный и свецкій не маеть быти обиранъ, ани отъ насъ Господаря ставленъ, толко здавна продковъ своихъ уроженецъ Великого Князства Литовского Л и т в и н ъ и Русинъ».

(“In our state of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in all of its lands, we (the Sovereign) shall grant any ranks and positions … to Litva (i.d. to Litvins) and to Russia (i.d. to Russians) only, who are ancient dwellers and natives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. … To any offices and appointments, only those shall be appointed by us, the Sovereign, who are ancient natives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – L i t v i n and Rusin (Ruthen)”.

During the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1240-1795) all the modern “Belarusians” (the term itself come to a wide usage in tzar Russia, in the 19th century only) were called Litvins. And, by the way, only small part of modern Lithuanians were called “Litvins” in the GDL, as the entire half of them was called “Zhemoit” (Zhemaitia, Zhmudz – Samogitia), which is of common knowledge. And that half of the modern Lithanian folk, called Zhomoit, was not even regarded a native nation of the GDL in the Statutes, as Litvins and Russians were, and Zhomoit itself did not identified themselves with Litvins – which can be illustrated by many drastic examples.

Belarusians were called Litvins also after the times of the GDL, in the 19th century as well, which can be illustrated by the whole Russian 19th century literature. In any Russian book of the first half of the 19th century, a “Litvin” would mean a Belarusian (mind such authors as Pushkin and Turgenev). Ukranians called Belarusians “Litvins” until the 1940-s, which is illustrated by many folklore sayings. Dwellers of Bryansk and Kursk regions of Russia (bordering on Belarus), and of Bialystok region of Poland would call Belarusians “Litvins” all through the 19th century.

The point is, that the original name – which is “Litvin”, testified by so many medieval sources – is not ever-ever used by modern Lithuanians, who call themselves “lietuviai”, I don’t know for which reasons. They seem to give away the name for oblivion. Meanwhile, the name enjoys its revival in Belarus, where many prefer to be named “Litvins” and to identify themselves with the GDL, so more, it is widely known that Belarusians were called Litvins in the times of GDL, and contributed to almost all aspects of its culture. By the way, the surname “Litvin”, and its derivatives (Litvinchuk, Litvinok, Litvinov) are traditionally extremely frequent in Belarus. Meanwhile, there is no such surnames in modern Lithuania at all.

Let’s look at some examples of the historical Litvins. A statement about “Litvins” being a name of a Baltic ethnicity is totally incorrect, as the name embraced both Slavs and Balts at the time.

There is baron named “Luka Litvin” as early as in 1267 at the court of the Lithuanian Duke Dovmont, who was the ruler of Pskov since 1265. (Luka is an orthodox Christian name, popular with Slavs). So, what we see – is a person with an orthodox Christian name and, probably, a surname “Litvin”. (Воскресенская летопись. ПСРЛ, т.7. М., 2001. с.166)

Yes, certainly, there are plenty of person with Baltic names called Litvins in the 13th century, including the very sovereigns of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but there are Slavic person called “Litvins” as well.

Although the modern Lithuanians claim they were called “lietuviai” already at those times, and that even there were no “Litvins” at all (!), that’s incorrect. The first grand duke of the GDL, Mindaug (ruled 1240-1263), called himself “rex L i t w i n o r u m ” (duke of Litwins) in his Latin letters. (РЛА, №122).

Lithuanian grand duke Viten (ruled 1294-1316) was also called “rex Litwinorum” in Latin sources. Peter of Duisburg (ca. 1326) depicted a crusader’s raid onto Litvins near Grodno in 1295: “…five brothers (crusaders) and 150 men from Sambia and Nattangia went on a raid to the castle of Grodno (a city in modern Belarus); and when they c a m e c l o s e, they desired to dismount and to go down the Neman (river) on ships; they devastated a village of L i t v i n s on the riverbank there, killed and captured many people, and moved on”. So, in 1295 a village of Litvins was situated near Grodno, where Slavic population dwelled.

“Vilno martyrs” of 1347 were, no doubt, Slavs. Their names were Kumec, Kruglec and Nezhilo, which are distinct Slavic names, and they were naperers at the court of the Lithuanian grand duke Olgerd in Vilno. The chronicles said that “Kruglec, Kumec and Nezhilo were born of Litva”; “their L i t h u a n i a n names were Kruglec, Kumec, Nezhilo”.

(Darius Baronas. Trys Vilniaus kankiniai: gyvenimas ir istorija. Aidai, Vilnius, 2000)

A Vilno prelate Matej (Matthew), according to a 1422 document, was a born Litvin (“venerabilem virum magistrum Mathiam origine Lytwanum”). However the Lithuanian grand duke Vitovt made a purposeful statement of Matej’s being appropriate for a position of Samogitian (modern Lietuva) bishop in Medniki (modern Varniai), for Matej had “a satisfactory command of the Samogitian dialect” (i.e. of what is now called the Lithuanian language) (“ac de ydiomate Samagitico sufficintissime institutum”). This never occurred with Litvins - bishops in the Belarusian lands (i.e. there are no any statements that they experienced any language troubles in, e.g. Krevo, Navahradak or Lida). This says, that normally Litvins did not have any command of the Samogitian dialect, even on a satisfactory level.

The second cathlic bishop of Vilno was also a Litvin – Jacub (Jan’s son) Plichta ([jakub plihta]), who died on February 2, 1407. The documents testify of him as of a distinct Litvin, from the nation and language of Litva (“Johannis dicti Plychta … viro vicarium Lythuanie, eiusdemque nacionis et lingue”). His name, father’s name and surname are distinctly Slavic.

(Codex epistolaris Vitoldi, pp. 60-61, 103).

By the way, no other documents, than in the Belarusian language are known of the Lithuanian grand duke Vitovt (1392-1430), as well as of Jagailo (1382-1392), Olgerd (1345-1377), Keistut (co-ruled 1345-1382), and other dukes and barons of medieval Lithuania (with the exeption of Latin letters, found in international correspondence).

A Russian chronicle gives a list of “Lithuanian” dukes, who perished in the battle of Vorskla on August 12, 1399: “These are the names of the Lithuanian dukes, who perished: Andrey Olgerdovich of Polock (a Belarusian town), Dmitry Olgerdovich of Bryansk (a Russian town), Ivan Dmitrievich Kindyr, Andrey Dmitrievich, Ivan Evlashkovich, Leon Koriadovich, Michailo Vasylievich, his brother Semen Vasylievich, Michailo Podberezsky, his brother Alexander, Fedor Patrikeevich Rylsky, Andrey of Druck (a Belarusian town), Mont Toluntovich, Ivan Yuryevich Belsky…”. This is one of many examples, where there are so many Slavic names.

(Патриаршая или Никоновская летопись. - ПСРЛ, т. 11. М.: 2000. с. 174).

The enlightener and Roman Pope Aneus Silvius Piccolomini wrote in 1458, that Litvins speak a Slavic language. Such European scientists as Hertman Schedel (in his “World Cronicon”, 1493), Jan Norich (in “Decachyston”, 1511), Jan of Bohemia (in “Omnius Gentes Mores”, 1538) and an Austrian diplomat Sigismund Herberstein (in “History of Moscovia”, 1549) wrote of Litva (Lithuania) as of a Slavic country, and alltogether considered the Lithuanian language a Slavic language.

Herberstein wrote in 1549: “…the bison is called by Litvins in their language “Suber” (“zubr” is the bison in the Belarusian language); “the beast, called by Litvins in their language “Loss”, is called Ellend in German (elk, “los” in Belarusian); “the Sovereign assignes a governor there, whom they (Litvins) in their language call “Starosta”” (a name of an office in Belarusian).

A world known enlightener and cultural icon Francisk Skorina from Polock (who introduced book printing in Belarus and Russia in 1514) registered at the Krakov University as a “Litvin” in 1505.

A famous revolutionary activist and a national hero of the USA – Tadeusz Koscioszko (born near Brest, Belarus) – appealed to his companions: “Am I not your fellow countryman? Am I not a Litvin?..”. In his letter to the Russian tzar Kosciuszko wrote: “I was born a Litvin…”.

A world-famous poet Adam Mickewicz (who was born and dwelled near and in Navahradak – in Grodno region of Belarus) appealed to his native land as “O Litva (Lithuania)! My homeland!”.

The founder of the modern Belarusian dramaturgy and one of the fathers of the modern Belarusian language, Vincent Dunin-Marcinkevicz (1808-1884), considered himself to have been raised “among Litvins” (he was raised near Bobruisk and Minsk, in Belarus). (Дунін-Марцінкевіч В. Збор твораў. Мн., 1958. С.362.)

A famous scientist, a national hero of Chili, Ignat Domeiko (born near Navahradak), wrote of “our Litvins” (in his book “My Travels”), embracing both Belarusian barons and peasantry of his times with the term. Domeiko’s Diploma (at Krakow University, 1887) was granted to “…a noble man Ignat Domeiko, a Litvin…”.

A Russian world-famous 19th century classic writer, Fedor Dostoevsky (whose ancestors came from Dostoevo estate near Pinsk) wrote: “my ancestors come from Lithuanian swamps…”.

---

You might incorporate something of this, which you find interesting, into your article. Regards, 195.50.1.122 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You may incorporate this yourself: wikipedia is an encyclopedia where everyone can edit. However there is an important rule: all information must be supplied with references to serious sources, see wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:CITE rules. As I see, some of your info does have references, but not all. - Altenmann >t 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1) I ain't got skills to edit, so you'd better add what you liked from this information; 2) what references you need? and where, please specify; such statements, as "Litvins in the 16th century spoke Belarusian language" is obvious for everyone, you've probably just never been to Belarus... Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.1.122 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this person not telling the truth:

1. Although the modern Lithuanians claim they were called “lietuviai” already at those times, and that even there were no “Litvins” at all (!), that’s incorrect. The first grand duke of the GDL, Mindaug (ruled 1240-1263), called himself “rex L i t w i n o r u m ” (duke of Litwins) in his Latin letters. (РЛА, №122).

He quote letter, which is officaly acknowledged as fake: "Міндаў, кароль Літовіі, у дакумэнтах і сьведчаньнях = Mindowe, rex Lithowiae, in litteris et testimoniis. Укл. А. Жлутка. Менск, 2005": "Як і варыянт а, лічыцца пазьнейшым фальсыфікатам...".

2.Lithuanian grand duke Viten (ruled 1294-1316) was also called “rex Litwinorum” in Latin sources.

"Cristianar um Eodem anno Vithenus filius rеgis Lethowie cum" " Austechiam terram rеgis Lethowie", " Nee unquam lemporibus suis rex Lethowie" "succumberent Anno domini MCCXCVIII Vithenus rex Lethowinorum ad vocacionem civium Rigеnsium " "Sed rex Lethowie" "Anno domini MCCCXI in carnlsprivio Vithenus rex Lethowie" "Eodem anno in vigilia palmarum Vithenus rex Lethowie putans" "Eodem anno mense Septembri Vithenus rex Lethowinorum " http://books.google.com/books?id=YX8OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA156&dq=terram+regis+Lethowie#v=onepage&q=&f=false

As you can see where is no any "rex Litwinorum".

3. Peter of Duisburg (ca. 1326) depicted a crusader’s raid onto Litvins near Grodno in 1295: “…five brothers (crusaders) and 150 men from Sambia and Nattangia went on a raid to the castle of Grodno (a city in modern Belarus); and when they c a m e c l o s e, they desired to dismount and to go down the Neman (river) on ships; they devastated a village of L i t v i n s on the riverbank there, killed and captured many people, and moved on”. So, in 1295 a village of Litvins was situated near Grodno, where Slavic population dwelled.

"Anno d mini MCCXCV feria YI ante diem pentecostes v fratres et centum quin quaginta viri de Sambia et Nattangia equitaverunl versus castrum Gartham et dum appropinquarent plncuit eis ut remissis equis navigio Memelam descen derent ubi in lilore quadam villa Lеthowinorum occisis et captis pluribus ho minibus deprédala iterum processerunt Sed infideles hoc videntes ármala"

Again you can see form "Lеthowinorum" but no any "Litwin". 195.182.70.130 (talk)kutis —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC).

A new article

OK, I've made it. Mr. Altenmann, how do you like it?

Mr. Altenmann, please, won't you correct the grammar, if you are a native speaker? Thank you. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Very funny, in the Letter of Kazimir belorussians from Polock and Vitebsk not mentioned as litvins, but here you writting that they "litvins" too.

Also strange, that form "litvin" was never mentioned in belorussian and ukrainian chronicles and letters of 12-14 century. "Litvins" shows only then Jogelo became king of Poland, so it's not belorussian historical form, but linguistic form from polish language.

Even know this form is in polish language.80.240.12.146 (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC) man.

Dwellers of Polock, Vitebsk and Smolensk were mentioned separately not because they were not Litvins, but because those cities were very big and had separate laws and were self-regulating cities-republics (they held their old rights, as they had been capitals of independent duchies until the 13th century), so here the agreement was to make a purposeful statement of their separate status, which was obligatory; sons of Lithuanian grand dukes were normally dukes of Polock and Vitebsk, and those cities obeyed directly to the Grand duke, that's why they were regarded separately, as separate units of the state. You can read duke Gerden's of grand duke Gedimin's agreements: Polock and Vitebsk were also named separately there, as separate unions of the state; Gerden speaks on his own behalf as duke of Polock, even not mentioning the grand duke (whos cousin he was), Gedimin enters into an agreement on behalf of Lithuania, and - separately - of Polock and Vitebsk, althogh Polock and Vitebsk were a part of GDL at those times. Those were separate units of the state, and it was normal to enumerate them like this; even more, it was obligatory, so as to specify their special rights.

The form "Litwin", actually, does occur in our chronicles of 12-14 centuries. If you don't like "litva" from Ukranian 13th cent. chronicle, then there's that baron Luka Litvin of 1267. And there are also Moscovite documents of 14th cent. which I did not mention, and many other... And there's a bunch of western chronicles and documents, which name "Litvins" in the 13th and throughout 14th century. Doesn't it show to you, that the form originated no later than the 13th cent.?? What does this "Poland" and "Jogailo" make up to? Actually, this does sound funny, not what I've written. So, what are you trying to say: that if there's "Litvin" in the Polish language, so it's a Polish invention? So then, if we, Belarusians, name Poles "polaki" (as in the Polish language) - then maybe we, Belarusians, invented the name for Poles?.. Does this sound funny to you?.. You'd better be more attentive and check yourself, cos' you are arguing on no reason. Regards, 195.50.1.122 (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but habitants of Polock and Vitebsk are called as „rusins“, not „litvins“.

Really? Please, give me an example. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Luka Litvin was mentioned in chronicle of the 16 century.

Fact, where is no chronicles (Ipavet, Novgorod chronicles) or letters until union with Poland of 1386 where will be mentioned „litvins“ in rusins chronicles of 10-14 century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.70.130 (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a common knowledge, that any chronicles were later re-written, as most of Russian and any European chronicles were, including the Voskresensky chronicle, where Luka Litvin of 1267 was mentioned. So, do you imply, that it is a lie? And, if we do not have any, e.g. English chronicles about the Kingdom of England prior to the 13th century, and we do have only those re-written after the 13th century - so does that mean, that the Kingdom of England did not exist prior to the 13th century, and started only when those chronicles were re-written? Is this what you're trying to say?

And by the way if we had early Lithuanian chronicles (in the Belarusian language), which were destroyed by crusaders, we wouldn't be playing silly games and we would know everything. I gave you a bunch of examples about Litvins prior to 14th century, but I see that you are just too hostile, and you just do not want to believe that there were Litvins already in the 13th century, though the examples are obvious and abundant. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, regarding mentioning of "Litvins" in Russian sources prior to 1386: an example is already in the article, look it up.  :) 195.50.1.122 (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets talk about real facts, not childish theory about „bad russians“ . Then you find your Luka Litvin in the others chronicles of 13-14, then talk about real person. Your Russian source have one notice: для прочтения и зашифрованных мест во всех четырех дошедших до нас списках послания, из которых два принадлежат XV в., а два — рубежу XV и XVI вв. So, they not real source of 14 century, just later copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.26.210 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there were "bad russians", you'd know it if you were in Belarus: they stole almost all chronicles of GDL. However, there really are sources of 13-14 cent. that name "Litvins", look through the article once again. Those are the "REAL FACTS". If you have something to add, so please do. (And I really do doubt that you have any "facts" on litvins-poles or else litvins-modern lithuanians that you may add...). And I'm not going to be quarelling with you, cos' probably you're my old friend Kutis from istorija.net. 195.50.1.122 (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And what they did? Rewrite everywhere „Litovcy“ instead of „litvin“? Very funny.

I don‘t see any source of 13-14 with „litvin“, I see that you mentioned some sources which is fake (letter of Mindaug) and later sources of 15-18 century.

Very interesting thing: In agreement between Jagelo, Kestutis, Liubart with king of Poland Kazimir of the year 1352 you can find this quote: „кнѧзии̇ литовьскыхъ“. So why not „Litvin dukes“? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.70.130 (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Aleksander Brückner

I suggest some quotations from Aleksander Brückner's works should be added to this article. CityElefant (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some examples. Regards, 195.50.1.122 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For Aleksander Brückner Belarusian (białoruski) and Ruthenian (ruski) were interchangeable synonyms ("Ruskopolski rękopis z r. 1510", pp. 1, 10 in: Slavia: časopis pro slovanskou filologii, #7, 1928). Brückner also called Old Belarusian/Ruthenian language Lithuanian (litewski) (I'll provide a quote from his article in Slavia soon) and distinguished it from Ukrainian. "Mikołaj Rej jeżeli później o Rusinach opowiadał, prawili mu po "litewsku" (tj. po białorusku; Litwin u nego zawsze tyle co Białorusin), nigdy po małorusku" (source: Aleksander Brückner. Mikołaj Rej. PWN: Warszawa, 1988, p. 14). Translation: When Mikołaj Rej later described Ruthenians they addressed him in "Lithuanian" (i.e. Belarusian language, for him a Lithuanian [person] is exclusively a Belarusian) but never in Ukrainian (here literally: Little Russian). CityElefant (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OR'ish and POINT'ish

The article is so WP:OR'ish that it is on the verge of deletion. I had ahope it would improve over time, but I've lost the hopes. It is becoming some propaganda vehicle, that does not have anything to do with WP:RS and WP:V. Either you like or not the academic historians, is of no matter, but one should not turn Wikipedia intosome sort of forum, where anyone does interpret sources likely like transcribing Latin Lituania into L itva. Official English nme for Lithuanian is well, Lithuania. --Lokyz (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Since you are an ethnic Lithuanian your intentions may be interpreted as biased approach or one-sided argument. CityElefant (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)a

Where do you see any propaganda, Lokyz? It's all about the historical sources, which I have cited abundantly. I've written not about modern Lithuania, I've written about Litvins, as you may see from the name. And does anybody in the West actually know, who Litvins were? I guess no. So I tried to give an impression. If you disagree, you might cite any historical sources, here in Talk section. And I don't care, that the Latin name is Lithuania, we have "Litvin", and "Litva" (as a collective name) in our own Belarusian language, in which the Statute was written, and I was citing the STATUTE, which reads LITVIN (ЛИТВИН), not any "Lithuanian". The modern "Lithuanian" is no the same as the historical Litvin. And I was writing about historical Litvins, but just not willing to see the truth. Rasool-2 (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

lol. Lokyz, you are silly. Are VMPL, PSRL, MPV, PD, AZR and SRP - not "reliable sources" to you? They all read "LITWINORUM", "LITHUANORUM", "ЛИТВИН". So, what's your problem? Rasool-2 (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA is still an official policy of Wikipedia. And WP:OR will be also. There are other two - please make sure to read them carefully: WP:RS and WP:V, before throwing something like And I don't care, that the Latin name is Lithuania, we have "Litvin", and "Litva"[7], since there is no WP:RS you can provide. I'd suggest you to read WP:ENGLISH and a Wishful thinking. Happy reading. I hope you'll understand the purpose of the Wikipedia policy better soon,--Lokyz (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Lokyz, you just don't get it, do you? The name of the article is not "Lithuanians", it is "Litvin". Don't you really understand that the modern "Lithuanians" are not the same as the historical Litvins? You might try to actually READ the article, to realize that. It is an article about historical Litvins, which are not the same as what you now name Lithuanians. My article is about the historical phenomenon. So stop replacing the word Litvin in my article for the word Lithuanian. If there is an article about historical Franks (who were a German tribe, not a French one) - you won't be swopping "Franks" for modern "French" of France, will you? So, I think, you get it. Rasool-2 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)