text:
Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania

In 1380 a Lithuanian army allied with Russian forces to defeat the Golden Horde in the Battle of Kulikovo
What was the exact way of it? Not to attack forces of Moscow before they are defeated by Mamai? A typical ally behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.26.74 (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The battle of Kulikovo never took place, there is no archaeological evidence of that event ever taking place. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ruthenians - sourced but removed
http://www.iesw.lublin.pl/projekty/pliki/IESW-121-02-07.pdf Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Lithuanian mythology/paganism
The link provided in the infobox with regards to paganism is to Lithuanian mythology, with an opening setence stating it is specifically a branch of Baltic mythology: "Lithuanian mythology is a type of Baltic mythology, developed by Lithuanians throughout the centuries."

Baltic mythology/paganism is what was practiced, as the Poles, Ruthenians (Ukranians/Belarusians), Germans and Rus of Novgorod were all Christianized. The Estonians were still pagan, but they worshipped non-Indo-European Finnic paganism, and were not part of the Grand Duchy in any case. 174.119.80.219 (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You fail to understand that it links to the same article. And the Estonian argument is totally out of place. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lithuania in the map of Pietro Vesconte, 1321.png
 * Lithuanian primer for kids, published in Vilnius, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, 1790 edition.jpg

Belarusian, Lithuanian or General history?
I think, that GDL is Lithuanian - Belarusian state, but there are some people, that think it was only Lithuanian state. What do YOU think? Signevian DS (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * GDL is Belarusian-Lithuanian state. The state language is Slavic, 90% of the territory and population are Slavic.--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Kingdom, later Grand Duchy, of LITHUANIA was founded by Lithuanians according to Encyclopedia Brittanica, this research project, this research article and multitudes of other sources. A state can be of a certain ethnicity even if the state is multi-ethnic. e.g. Apartheid South Africa. The white minority was ruling over the black majority (Zulu people, Xhosa people, etc.). Does having a majority black population make South Africa a black state? No - the state belonged to the whites, not to the blacks. So, South Africa was founded and maintained by the white Afrikaners - it was a white state. What about GDL? Where there Slavs in it? Yes. Even if they were a majority, which is uncertain due to lack of statistical data and Polonization affecting many Lithuanians, that in no way makes GDL a Slavic State. GDL was founded by Lithuanians, maintained by a Lithuanian elite and is thus a LITHUANIAN STATE. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * GDL was founded by Belarusians, maintained by Belarusians and it was Belarusian State. I think you will be surprised, but all main documents, like Statutes in the GDL were written in Belarusian language. 178.122.221.246 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Easy question. Let's read some articles from Encyclopedia Britannica (the most reliable encyclopedia in the world). The early statehood of Lithuania was created by Lithuanians (same as the modern state), who expanded their territory into the Ruthenian territories and ruled them. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times".(ref1) While Belarus according to Encyclopedia Britannica is: "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918".(ref2). Also: "The Slavic peoples of what is now Belarus were in the past ruled by Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Consequently no distinctive national symbols were developed until the 20th century, when for the first time Belarus became independent".(ref3). By the way:

Before that the Lithuanians used Lithuanian and Latin languages (e.g. Letters of Gediminas). The Ruthenian language was used so that the Ruthenians would also understand the texts of the state. The fact that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania never was an Orthodox state perfectly illustrate that the Ruthenians never gained the highest power in this state. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You use only sources from the Encyclopædia Britannica. Moreover, articles about the modern Lithuanian state and Belarus appeared after the collapse of the USSR. Susjaj (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Royal banner of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.svg
Pofka, could you provide a reliable source showing that a flag existed that looked the same this image, not a coat of arms? Coats of arms are not the same as flags throughout history, they are separate things and if this was historically never a flag then this user created graphic is a work of fiction. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is just a revenge because I nominated for deletion three illustrations at Wikimedia Commons which were inaccurate or with fake colors (see these nominations:, , ). The only accurate, legitimate flags and coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are those which include the Double Cross of the Jagiellonian dynasty (with blue background) or the Columns of Gediminas as these are the symbols of the rulers of the state. Seeing that this flag include the Double Cross of the Jagiellonian dynasty (in blue background), it is historically accurate:

In the article it is clearly written that it is: "Supposed appearance of the royal (military) banner with design derived from a 16th century coat of arms" based on an authentic illustration with authentic coloring. If you have an image of a flag with authentic coloring, based on Lithuanian sources, then go on and upload it, but your fake illustrations, based on non-Lithuanian sources, will certainly not be accepted here. It was rejected before already (1, 2). Knowing that user Лобачев Владимир systematically attack the Lithuanian identity (and other countries identity), based on Russian/Belarusian sources, and spread his hatred for other countries and nations (e.g. 1, 2, 3), I will not reply to his propaganda because he does not seek for the WP:NPOV and simply want to consolidate his WP:OP on a daily basis in Wikipedia. For his disruptive editing in Wikipedia, he is under the discretionary sanctions (warning by an admin in his talk page). He performed similar attack in article Moldavia (see two discussions initiated by him there; all his arguments were proved to be a propaganda and were rejected by other editors). Ping relevant users who might be interested in this:, , as I believe this question was discussed before already. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, user Лобачев Владимир perform identical attack at the Italian Wikipedia (1, 2; rejected by an Italian editor: 3) and French Wikipedia (1, 2, 3) articles about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Etymology
Hi!

I wanted to expand this section later, but it looks like all my edits were removed. Sources I had added so far include both fact of name use and confirmation on how to write them. In case editors don't mind I can for now transfer Russian and Ukrainian-backed sources from corresponding language Wiki's to confirm name use and it's official declaration in Statutes of Lithuania until we find English ones. I don't see any rule against that in Reliable sources, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding "removing this source because it makes dubious claims - it mentions a "Western Russian Lithuania" in the preceding sentence":

That is correct. Due to the fact that official language, most of it's population, cultural influence were Ruthenian and it's competition with Moscow to reunite all Ruthenian lands, many historians and sources view and name it as Lithuanian-Russian (Ruthenian) or Western Russian (Ruthenian) state (1, 2, 3).

Korwinski (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi!
 * I am the one who removed your edits for reasons I stated in the edit sources. It is nice to see that you are presenting better sources, compared to those you gave previously. If it is OK with you, I would suggest that you first create/write the thing you want to include in your sandbox, so that it can be prepared in such a manner that it isn't later erased.

 * As for the second part. There was no official language back in the Middle Ages, and no single language was officially above another in those times. The writers, administration, nobles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania wrote in many languages, including Latin and German, so there is no ground to elevate one of them to the official status. As for the population, an example would be that the Roman Empire definitely had a small Roman citizen population compared to the rest of the Empire's inhabitants, but no one states that the Roman Empire was a Gallo-Roman state, or anything similar. There definitely was Ruthenian influence, but that doesn't make a certain state Ruthenian. Just as Austria-Hungary was influenced by Ruthenians because of many Ruthenians in it, no one claims the state as even remotely Ruthenian. As for the reunification of Ruthenian lands, the Lithuanian rulers like Algirdas were not motivated by the idea of East Slavic unity, but instead Expansion of Lithuania. This "competition" should be better portrayed as Muscovite attempts to seize Slavic lands under Lithuanian rule, and Lithuanians, although frequently warring with Muscovy, did not take upon themselves the mantle of unifier of Ruthenian lands. I will also point out that in the sources you gave, most historians and sources that take the view of "Lithuanian-Russian"/"Western Russian"/etc./etc. are views of early-20th century Russians and Ukrainians, Belarusian nationalists like Ignatovskii / Ihnatouski. Finally, an Ukrainian encyclopedia. In conclusion, all of the people saying "Lithuanian-Russian"/"Western Russian"/etc. are Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian. So, they should be qualified as such.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 * That's not my opinion, but one of most if not all sources I've seen to this day. I'm well aware of Latin and Polish languages use, but Lithuanian one from what I saw was quiet limited in terms of official use. In any case language is not relevant in this discussion. So is a view of different historians on influence on Grand Duchy. Because in such case we would need to eliminate sources with just Lithuanian view on the subject as well. Also I don't see how their views on nature of/dominance in Grand Duchy can change/influence dates, original full name or the fact that Samogitia became part of Grand Duchy.
 * That said, lets go back to the topic of discussion. I was able to find text from that original Statute of Lithuania from 1529. It is in original Ruthenian, unfortunately no English translation. My rough translation of the introduction:
 * "Written rights of an Old Statute and given to grand duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other [lands] by illustrious highness Sigismund, by the grace of God the king of Poland, the grand duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Samogitia, Mazovia, and other [lands]"
 * After that short and full versions were used there simultaneously. Also I was able to find few sources in English that mention not only use, but that fact that there was a full official title as well:
 * "it's proper title was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus' and Samogitia"

 * "It was also included in the full name of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia)"

 * "The proper title of Lithuania was in fact the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia and its rulers styled themselves Lethewindorum et Ruthenorum rex ('King of the Lithuanians and Ruthenians')."

 * "The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia (the full official name of the state, further the GDL)"

 * "the official name of which was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus' and Samogitia."
 * Korwinski (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No one said that there was a need to eliminate sources from certain countries, instead, it was said to qualify them, which means writing "These people said this, while these said this", for example. This is normal practice on Wikipedia and there are many sentences like "According to..., this is ...", or "Certain groups views this so" and many other variations. I found that someone indeed confirms your translation (the person is a Russian historian who speaks Lithuanian), which I included it in this edit. Also, I invite you to insert those sources you provided.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I won't for now as I see objects translation of Rus as Russia.
 * In my personal preference, I would prefer Ruthenia. Most of the sources I stated above translate it as Rus', but in case you look it up both names come up. Like in one of my initial sources with translation of legislation acts from time of rule of Alexander Jagiellon. Also that latter source disproves Sabbatino's "the name was used in the 1st statute only" statement as he ruled more than 2 decades before first Statute was compiled.
 * And I want to point out that Russia is also a valid translation, hence the footnote I added in my original edit:
 * Lithuania-Russia 1 2, Lithuanian-Russian State 1, 2, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russia, Zhmudz Korwinski (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Stop causing edit warring. Just because some modern authors made inaccurate statements, it does not mean that such name of a country really existed. The Grand Dukes of Lithuania actually held titles of Samogitia and of various Ruthenian duchies (e.g. Smolensk, Kyiv, etc.), however it does not mean that the state was called other than Grand Duchy of Lithuania or simply Lithuania. Provide at least one source from the GDL (e.g. Statute of Lithuania) which uses name Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia. Otherwise, these modern authors books doesn't mean a thing because such reliable source as Encyclopedia Britannica does not include such original research about triple name.

This quote you provided from a Statute of Lithuania: "Written rights of an Old Statute and given to grand duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other [lands] by illustrious highness Sigismund, by the grace of God the king of Poland, the grand duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Samogitia, Mazovia, and other [lands]" Illustrates exactly the same thing: these are ROYAL TITLES, NOT NAME OF A COUNTRY. So if you want to describe TITLES held by the Grand Duke of Lithuania at the time (like with Gediminas's case) - I have no arguments against that, however original research about STATE NAME will not be accepted. Some modern authors messed up by mixing these two things into one and that's completely false as there is a difference between a RULER (Grand Duke) and a STATE (Grand Duchy). According to your edits, this state should be called Grand Duchy of Lithuania-Ruthenia-Prussia-Samogitia-Mazovia (and more). Why you include Ruthenia and Samogitia, but exclude Prussia and Mazovia in the name you propose? As I already said before, the Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth was only proposed, but never actually existed, so do not attempt to rewrite history with original research. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * a), please drop that nonsense with accusations. None of my actions suggest I'm doing that. While Edit warring says and I quote: "It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page or seek help at appropriate venues." Instead of discussion you went ahead and started to make implications, accusations and edits of the page itself. So if you're looking for someone seeking edit wars, do consider yourself.
 * b) You went from "Such state never existed and was only proposed later" to "according to text of a statute, not false interpretations" and then "Just because some modern authors made inaccurate statements,". Before making accusations don't you think you should get your facts straight? I do understand why it would be easy for pro-Lithuanian camp to accuse any Eastern Slavic authors with that. But if you check, I left our only one of them. And it won't be hard to replace that source as well. Feel free to select any of the ones I already found above. So unless you provide any sources that confirm your statements, "false" accusation part can be ignored. I don't mind putting full translation of our own, but as I was looking for sources I was unable to find such. Also should I remind you of No original research?
 * c) "it does not mean that such name of a country really existed. The Grand Dukes of Lithuania actually held titles of Samogitia and of various Ruthenian duchies (e.g. Smolensk, Kyiv, etc.), however it does not mean that the state was called other than Grand Duchy of Lithuania or simply Lithuania. Provide at least one source from the GDL (e.g. Statute of Lithuania) which uses name Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia."
 * Did that already above. Including First statute and Privilege of rights and freedoms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Do read our prior discussion and check sources.
 * d) "Titles of Stanisław August Poniatowski, but it does not mean that a state which included all these titles in its name existed."
 * I said that it remained only as a part of the title. I didn't say that it was used anymore as a name of the state after Union of Lublin.
 * e)"these are ROYAL TITLES, NOT NAME OF A COUNTRY"
 * Which part of the "given to grand duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other [lands] by" you did not understand? And again, I had sources above selected specifically to confirm that was the name of the state because prior editor did not accept just name usage.
 * d) The rest I'm just going to ignore for now. These are not arguments, but accusations and nonsense without single source. Korwinski (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I just checked your edit and I have few questions:
 * 1. "The 1529 edition". Alexander Jagiellon died in 1506, which is 23 years before first statute. May I know why you ignored this source?
 * 2. "We need link to an authentic version of a Statute of Lithuania, not 1854 book" Should we change all references in this article to include only original versions of documents? I don't mind adding/changing it, but I do want to hear on what grounds did you decide that this source cannot be valid? Can you find more recent publication with full text included?
 * 3. On what grounds did you remove this source?
 * 4. "When southern and western Ruthenian lands were transferred to the Crown after the Union of Lublin, the titles of the Grand Duke of Lithuania were transferred to the titles" May I have a source that they were transferred only after Union of Lublin and not before that? Korwinski (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * a) Your edits for proposition of a false name was rejected by 1-2 other editors (so including me a total of 3), but you still want to insert that false information.
 * b) If they write about a state which never existed, all of them are false and should be removed. Once again: THESE ARE ROYAL TITLES, NOT NAME OF A STATE. Read quote from the Statute you provided again. There is no such country as Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Samogitia, Mazovia. Only Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Kingdom of Poland existed as states and they had various vassal states (duchies like Prussia, Livonia, Smolensk, Kyiv, etc.).
 * c) You provided a quote which rejected your own arguments. Let's read that again: "Written rights of an Old Statute and given to grand duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other [lands] by illustrious highness Sigismund, by the grace of God the king of Poland, the grand duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Samogitia, Mazovia, and other [lands]". THESE ARE ROYAL TITLES. NOT A STATE NAME.
 * d) "grand duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other [lands]", so it was Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia, Prussia, Mazovia according to your logic. A complete non-sense. Plus it is not a reference from a Statute itself but some kind of book from the 1850s, thus it is not a reliable source to identify the real text, especially knowing the Russification topic. Here is authentic coin from period before the Union of Lublin: PICTURE which uses only one name: LITVA. You will not find text Ruthenia/Samogitia on any coin of the GDL/Commonwealth.
 * Here is Ukrainian Encyclopedia which provides a reliable Ukrainian point of view of the name of the state: Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Велике князівство литовське; Velyke kniazivstvo lytovske). I only have time to analyze reliable, authentic sources, not various interpretations by unknown modern authors. Modern authors are okay if there is no dispute, but in this case: all modern authors and their interpretations does not mean a thing. I can also quote many, many authors which will use only one name: Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so it is not helpful for this discussion. You can scroll through this list yourself HERE in Google books. Here is book (page 374) which provides an authentic quote which describes Samogitia, Ruthenia, Prussia as separate entities from Poland and Lithuania (but King Sigismund the Old is the ruler of all of them).
 * These are royal titles and it should stay described as it is. Let's save each others time. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * a) "Your edits for proposition of a false name was rejected by 1-2 other editors (so including me a total of 3), but you still want to insert that false information.”
 * 1) That is a lie. Cukrakalnis did not object me adding sources after I was able to provide sources that say that name was actual full name. He stated that himself above. Sabbatino did provide any arguments, sources etc. And he himself refrained from discussion and I quote "I don't have time to argue", in no way can that be considered as “objection”.
 * 2) You did not provide any sources that in any way object sources I provided above. So no, it’s no a “false information”, but your own opion and original research.
 * b and c) This source actually includes excerpt from First Lithuanian Statute. And just for you it says explicitly “Laws Given to the State, the Grand Principality of Lithuania, Rus' Samogitia and Other [Lands].”. Now original text (that you consider “falsified”) does not include that “to the state” part. But anyone who knows English (or any of the Eastern Slavic languages and can read original) can confirm that in no way my word by word translation can be summarised as just “title”. Also I just had to scroll to the second page to see "lands of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other [lands]" without any mention of the king/duke. Anyhow, since you don’t want to consider that close to original text from 19th century, this one should do. On top of that there’re 5 sources above that say explicitly that full name is Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus' and Samogitia. So yet again, these arguments are nothing but your own opinion and original research. As for title reference, you forget that starting from Casimir IV Jagiellon all grand dukes were also kings of Poland. Their title was obviously a combination of the two. Translation of "other [lands]" as Mazovia etc. is nothing else but your original research that had confirmed below.
 * d) "so it was Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia, Prussia, Mazovia according to your logic. A complete non-sense. Plus it is not a reference from a Statute itself but some kind of book from the 1850s, thus it is not a reliable source to identify the real text"
 * Unlike you I don't use my own opinion, but sources. I actually found English translation of the statute. And it does have commentary about that "other lands" part. Of course nothing about Mazovia, Prussia and other nonsense you stated above:
 * "The 'other lands' mentioned in the heading of the statute as well as in the introduction to the section one are those territories and independent prinicpalities which, joined to the Grand Principality of Lithuania in its narrow sense (the lands of Vilna and Troki), comprised the political federation of the Grand Principality of Lithunia. [...] Politically, the state comprised three parts: 'Lithuania' i.e. Vilna and Troki, 'Samogitia' and 'Rus''."
 * You do understand that link to Internet encyclopedia of Ukraine is a shortcut there? Article itself is called Lithuanian-Ruthenian state. But I will note that you confirmed it as a reliable source.
 * In conclusion and regarding “all modern authors and their interpretations does not mean a thing”: That is again original research. Its standard practice for historians to give historiography name and yes, it is allowed and not considered as “falsification”. Countries like Weimar Republic, Byzantine Empire, Novgorod Republic or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were never called that during their existence. You can open Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth and see for yourself official name changes and that surprise, since 17th century it was often referred to only by its short name - Poland. Does it mean that there wasn’t a full one that included Lithuania or that full name is a “falsification”? Of course not. Same goes for Grand Duchy. In this case it's not a historiography term, but actual full one. For which I presented numerous sources and at the same time excluded Eastern Slavic historians/publications as much as possible in order to avoid any possible accusation. And I even found original legislative acts that state that. As for your links, they are pointless in this case. I checked and they don't cover name this topic. Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the most common name? Yes, no doubt about that. I'm not changing name of the article or renaming it in any other section. Grand Duchy underwent few major territorial and political changes which also reflected in its full name, coat of arms etc. And so far I see no objective reason for them not to be included in the article. Korwinski (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So now it is a Lithuanian-Ruthenian state? But... You said that the "correct" name is Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia. So where is Samogitia? Plus Grand Duchy of Lithuania links to Lithuania, not the article you provided (THIS) and even the article you provided (THIS) does not include name "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia". It is evident that you are trying to prove that white is black instead of admitting that white is white, so I will not continue repeating the same thing again and again. I already told you that: 1) according to your logic the name of the state should be Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia, Prussia, Mazovia (that's completely false), but you completely ignore the fact that these are royal titles; 2) Your provided source is a Imperial Russian source from the 1850s, so it has nothing to do with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania itself which ceased to exist in 1795; 3) You did not provided ANY source (e.g. book, coin, document) published before 1795 which includes name of the state as Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia. On the contrary, I provided two sources which were published before 1795 to support my valid statements (1, 2). So provide at least one authentic source published before 1795 to support your statements about a different name of this state or there is nothing else to discuss. Name of a state is the most basic thing, so it shouldn't be hard if you are correct. I will be forced to notify the administrators if baseless edit warring will continue in this article with made up interpretations. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "So now it is a Lithuanian-Ruthenian state? But... You said that the "correct" name is Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia. So where is Samogitia? Plus Grand Duchy of Lithuania links to Lithuania, not the article you provided (THIS) and even the article you provided (THIS) does not include name "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia". It is evident that you are trying to prove that white is black instead of admitting that white is white, so I will not continue repeating the same thing again and again."
 * a) Are you done twisting my words? I don't mind adding modern historiography name, but then again its YOUR SOURCE and its YOUR WORDS that state that this source is valid.
 * b) It does link to Lithuania article. MODERN Lithuania, not historical one. But in any case check its history part to see how it names Grand Duchy.
 * c) Samogitia part was added when it joined Grand duchy in XVth century. I mentioned that in my initial edit. At the moment I didn't add yet as I wanted to exclude all Eastern slavic sources for reason mentioned above.
 * 1) "I already told you that: 1) according to your logic the name of the state should be Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia, Prussia, Mazovia (that's completely false), but you completely ignore the fact that these are royal titles;"
 * I request any admin that can read basic English. This is just preposterous.
 * 2) "Your provided source is a Imperial Russian source from the 1850s, so it has nothing to do with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania itself which ceased to exist in 1795;"
 * a) Any rule on Wikipedia that we can't use it? Any source that confirms that it "falsified" in any way? Should we remove all post 1795 sources?
 * b) This source that includes introduction of the statute was published in 2016 and one was published in 1976 and includes full translation. In no way they are affiliated with Russian empire, russification etc.
 * 3) "You did not provided ANY source (e.g. book, coin, document) published before 1795 which includes name of the state as Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia. On the contrary, I provided two sources which were published before 1795 to support my valid statements (1, 2). So provide at least one authentic source published before 1795 to support your statements about a different name of this state or there is nothing else to discuss. Name of a state is the most basic thing, so it shouldn't be hard if you are correct. I will be forced to notify the administrators if baseless edit warring will continue in this article with made up interpretations."
 * a) Lets start with I don't have to. It's a made up rule and a violation of Reliable_sources: Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. I don't need to have sources from Ancient Greece (another historiography term. No country existed under that name. It wasn't even a country) written in Ancient Greek to write about it.
 * b) Full name was dropped back in mid 16th century. Shouldn't I look for sources from before 1566 in such case? You do understand how that sounds?
 * c) That last part is a violation of Harassment. You can start you request to administrators with that and the fact that you falsely accuse me of edit warring, while you're the one who ignored discussion and made new edits. Korwinski (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okey, no sources provided before 1795, so this will not be included into article as part of the WP:NPOV as it is not supported by any authentic sources from before 1795, Lithuanian sources or such top-class sources as Encyclopedia Britannica. By the way, there is no such thing as old and modern Lithuania as it is the same country created by the same nation (European Comission), so if you want to try to prove that Lithuania is not Lithuania - I warn you that it was rejected many times here already. Save your and others time. I have every right to report users who attempt to rewrite Wikipedia with false information/interpretations. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which part of the that is self made rule and a violation of Reliable_sources you don't get?
 * As for the rest, you can leave your demagogy to yourself. Switching subjects won't help you. I'm waiting for you to submit request to Dispute resolution noticeboard. Otherwise I will just have to revert your changes for reasons stated above.
 * P.S. In the mean time do learn some English. In case you don't understand what "Modern Lithuania" means, giving sources that state that it has "Modern history" is not a good idea, don't you think? Korwinski (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You stepped a red line by threatening to wage a revert warring, so I will not continue to discuss without intervention of third-parties. There is Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 210. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not what final decision was. I remind you again that either you start it again as per their and my request, or I will have full right to return info back to the article. Thats not my decision but one stated by admins in resolution to your inquiry. Also ignoring of noticeboard resolutions as well as prior discussions and consensus in this and other article is a one way street to being blocked. Don't try it again just because I'm not that often on English wiki. That is not a "threat", but a Wikipedia rule to prevent disruptive editing. Korwinski (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the admins supported your insertion of propaganda. So stop spreading propaganda or you will certainly be blocked. Please help to deal with this user if he will continue to wage this edit war. Pay attention that he even suggested to delete this article completely (see your discussion with him below), despite the fact that this country existed long before the Union of Lublin in 1569. This is a truly malicious activity, attempting to spread propaganda. --  Po  fk  a  (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was your request. And discussion was about your request. And resolution was about your request. And final decision was about your request and they did not support it, but requested that you open up another discussion. Which you decline to do. Korwinski (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats not what final decision was. I remind you again that either you start it again as per their and my request, or I will have full right to return info back to the article. Thats not my decision but one stated by admins in resolution to your inquiry. Also ignoring of noticeboard resolutions as well as prior discussions and consensus in this and other article is a one way street to being blocked. Don't try it again just because I'm not that often on English wiki. That is not a "threat", but a Wikipedia rule to prevent disruptive editing. Korwinski (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the admins supported your insertion of propaganda. So stop spreading propaganda or you will certainly be blocked. Please help to deal with this user if he will continue to wage this edit war. Pay attention that he even suggested to delete this article completely (see your discussion with him below), despite the fact that this country existed long before the Union of Lublin in 1569. This is a truly malicious activity, attempting to spread propaganda. --  Po  fk  a  (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was your request. And discussion was about your request. And resolution was about your request. And final decision was about your request and they did not support it, but requested that you open up another discussion. Which you decline to do. Korwinski (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"The full name of the state is the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia." Source: Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Encyclopedia in two volumes. Volume 1. - Minsk, 2007 - Page 5. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Ruth. Великое князство Литовское, Руское, Жомойтское и иныхъ" Source 1: Mykhailo Hrushevsky Miscellanea. Примітки до тексту Галицько-Волинської рукописї, с. 7, pdf p. 45 // Записки Наукового товариства імені Шевченка, том VIII, 1895, кн. 4. Львів, 1895. Source 2: Marian Gumowski. Pieczęcie książąt litewskich // Ateneum Wileńskie[pl]. Wilno, 1930. Rok VII. — Zeszyt 3–4. — s. 725 --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources with quotes. "The ancient Belarusian-Lithuanian state, the full name of which was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia. — Source: Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Encyclopedia in two volumes. Volume 1. - Minsk, 2007 - Page 5"

"Ruth. Великое князство Литовское, Руское, Жомойтское и иныхъ (Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other) — Source 1: Mykhailo Hrushevsky Miscellanea. Примітки до тексту Галицько-Волинської рукописї, с. 7, pdf p. 45 // Записки Наукового товариства імені Шевченка, том VIII, 1895, кн. 4. Львів, 1895. Source 2: Marian Gumowski. Pieczęcie książąt litewskich // Ateneum Wileńskie[pl]. Wilno, 1930. Rok VII. — Zeszyt 3–4. — s. 725"

"6.1.1 Cornerstones of Historical Developments. The first noteworthy period of Belarusian history was in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries – a period that relates to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia. This is also known as the Golden Age of Lithuanian and Old Belarusian culture. The Old Belarusian dialect not only served as the official language of the state, it was also the language of culture and education. Trade relations with the West brought the Lithuanian-Belarusian Grand Duchy into closer contact with the European humanist tradition of education. Following the division of the Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian Republic in 1772–1795, the territory of Belarus fell under the power of the Russian Empire for the next 150 years. During this time, both the Belarusian language and culture (as was the case with Polish and Lithuanian) were prohibited. — Source: The Education Systems of Europe, p. 78"

"In the GDL at the end of the fourteenth century, only one out of nine people was of Lithuanian origin (O'Connor, 2003), i.e., almost all the rest were Ruthenians. At that time the word 'Russian' meant Ruthenian. But, the official language of the GDL was Old Belarusian. Starting from the early fourteenth century, the full name of GDL was The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia, the last a region in northwestern Lithuania. — Source:  https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1970&context=ccr Evidence for Belarusian-Ukrainian Eastern Slavic Civilization]"

"The name of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia (the full official name) appears in three variants in its most popular abbreviated form - the GDL (known in contemporary Latin, Polish and Ruthenian sources as MDL, W.X.L or ВКЛ) — Source: In the Shadows of Poland and Russia: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Sweden in the European Crisis of the Mid-17th Century, Stockholm University, 2006, p. 4." --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * False interpretations. Top-class sources like Encyclopedia Britannica would include if it it was true. These are royal titles, not name of a state.

 * "Written Laws Given to the State, the Grand Principality of Lithuania, Rus', Samogitia and Other [ Lands ] by Enlightened Lord Sigismund, by the Grace of God King of Poland, Grand Prince of Lithuania, Rus', Prussia, Samogitia, Mazovia and Other [ Lands ]" (LINK; PHOTO). It says that Lord Sigismund (whose royal titles are: King of Poland, Grand Prince of Lithuania, Rus', Prussia, Samogitia, Mazovia and Other [ Lands ]) gives written laws to the: 1) Grand Principality of Lithuania; 2) Rus' (region) (he ruled large part of Ruthenia); 3) Samogitia; 4) and Other [ Lands ]. There are no names of a country which are named in such a way "Grand Principality of Lithuania, Rus', Samogitia and Other [ Lands ]" (pay attention to the highlighted part)? It completely clear that this text describes not a name of state but names of places to which the ruler gives these laws (Statute of Lithuania).
 * Quote (from a Privilege of Rights and Freedoms): "In the first place to the above mentioned prelates, princes, lords, nobles and burghers the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia we gave, awarded..." (LINK; PHOTO) means exactly the same thing as the previous quote I decoded. It lists the LANDS in which the rights and freedoms are awarded by their ruler Alexander Jagiellon: 1) Grand Duchy of Lithuania; 2) Ruthenia; 3) Samogitia. Pay attention that Alexander Jagiellon royal titles in that document are: 1) Duke of Lithuania (Lithuania proper); 2) (Duke of) Samogitia (Duchy of Samogitia); 3) Lord and heir of the lands of Ruthenia (e.g. lands of Principality of Smolensk, Principality of Kiev). HE IS NOT: Duke of Ruthenia. HE IS: Lord and heir of Ruthenia. It is clear that the Duke of Lithuania and Lord and heir of Ruthenia are separate titles of separate lands/regions (to which he gives the freedoms and rights via the said Privilege). This Privilege does not include Prussia (Duchy of Prussia) because Alexander Jagiellon did not ruled it, unlike the later ruler Sigismund I the Old who had the title Duke of Prussia (mentioned in the Statute's quote above). However, pay attention that: the royal titles of Sigismund I the Old (dating to 1529) also includes word LANDS, so same as the royal titles of Alexander. LANDS is not equal to STATE. If it really was a state name, then the Encyclopedia Britannica would undoubtedly mention such important fact in its article.
 * What is the difference between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (royal title: Grand Duke of Lithuania) and Lithuania proper (royal title: Duke of Lithuania)? The Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the time of Alexander Jagiellon (reigned in 1492 – 1506) consists of: Lithuania proper and the already annexed Ruthenian principalities (e.g. Principality of Polotsk since 1307 or 1397, Principality of Minsk since 1413, Principality of Turov since the early 14th century). Other Ruthenian principalities which were annexed later to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were ruled via the royal title of "Lord and heir of Ruthenia" (e.g. Principality of Smolensk and Principality of Vitebsk were annexed in 1508, Principality of Slutsk was annexed only in 1791). It is important to note that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania competed with the Grand Duchy of Moscow which of them will have more vassal Ruthenian principalities and were later annexing them (e.g. the Muscovites annexed the Principality of Yaroslavl in 1463/1471).
 * So the royal titles of Alexander Jagiellon and Sigismund I the Old (provided above) includes more than one state as the non-annexed Ruthenian principalities are regarded as separate states (vassal states of the Grand Duke of Lithuania), same as the Duchy of Prussia (annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia only in 1701; it was never annexed by Lithuania or Poland and was ruled only via a separate royal title). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the 10th time. Its not our opion. Its what secondary sources say. You can check them above. Your "analysis" is nothing else but original research in this case. Instead of doing that, you need to submit your request to Reliable sources/Noticeboard as you were notified upon closure of a prior request on Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should I remind you that so far you provided zero sources confirming you "false information" or "misinformation" claims?
 * As for "lands". You do remember that before you ignored First Statute that said explicitly "state" before the full name of Grand Duchy?
 * As for Encyclopedia Britannica. You do understand that like any other encyclopedia it is not meant to be explicit? Only short overview of the topic? It doesn't mention full name from before Union of Lublin? Yes, it doesn't. It doesn't mention Union of Horodło either. Or Union of Grodno (1432) as well Lithuanian Civil War (1381–1384), Treaty of Melno and Glinski rebellion. No mention in Encyclopedia Britannica, so we can presume that did not happen? Korwinski (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole discussion is nonsensical. There was no such as "established name of the state" as we understand it today. Various names were used depending on the context. What's important for us are the name used by modern English historiography, which is without a doubt "Grand Duchy of Lithuania". Marcelus (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * True. Just because someone doesn't like facts, doesn't mean that he/she can get rid of them by simply claiming them "falsified" or "misinterpreted".
 * As for the rest, with such attitude we can just get rid of this article altogether and fit it into few paragraphs of this one. There's no such rule preventing us from adding section explaining evolution of the name of the state. United Kingdom has it, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth has it, so I don't see any reason why GDL article shouldn't. Korwinski (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Korwinski - I’m not convinced that getting rid of this article is a reasonable approach. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @GizzyCatBella I didn't say that it was. But so is removing information on false pretences. Numerous researchers state that GDL had full name, I found two translations with original use of it. And then editor starts to remove them with "falsification "claims. No sources to confirm that, of course. It's basically now down to statement of American professor of history Paul Robert Magocsi vs "analysis" of Wikipedia editor Pofka. Korwinski (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you going to submit that request or should I proceed with adding info to the article? Korwinski (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong information
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was not founded by Lithuanians but was founded by modern Belarusians. The proof is the language of all the documents existed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - those important state documents were in old Belarusian language. Please, consider correcting the information. 2604:CB00:2706:A900:B5FE:3DB1:6D14:3DF4 (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Grand Duchy of Lithiania,Rus and Zhmont was founded by Romans that written in Chronicale of Lithuania.
 * I first built dynasty
 * 50508 The Prince of Palem, a relative of the Roman Caesar Nero, took 500 families on a ship, went to the Baltic Sea and settled on the Niman River. There were 4 main houses: Dauspungus coat of arms Kythauras, Prosperce Caesarine coat of arms Columni or Primus, Korsin coat of arms Ulian, Hector coat of arms Rosi. The first dynasty was the prince of Palem, it ended with Vaytselk, who was killed in the monastery. 1 Polema-2 Kunos-3 Gimbrut-4 Montville-5 Radzivil (Erdvil)-6 Mihailo-7 Skirmont-8 Troinut-9 Algimont-10 Ringholt-11 Mendog-12 Voyselk-transition from dynasty to Dauspung Coat of arms of Kitauras 1 Zhivibund -2 Kunavit-3 Utsenes-4 Svintarog 5 Hermont-6 Altimin-7 Ranut-8 Narimont-9 Troyden-10 Ginville- transferred to the monastery, the dynasty changed to the coat of arms of Columni(Primus) 1 Witten- 2 HEDEMIN(KGEDEMIN). ) -3 Eunut removed 4 Kestut +Starstva both -5 Skirgaila-6 Jagaila -7 Vytolt (Vytaut)-8 Svidrigail (deposed and handed over to rule the Russian lands in Kiev)-9 Sigismund-10 Casimir-11 Alexander (rejected as king of Poland) )-12 Sigismund-Augustus (offered to become the king of Poland)-13 Sigismund (old son of Sigismund) Poland united the principalities of Lithuania, Russia and Zhmontau, but the principality had a separate army, money and constitution CONFEDERATION

Александр Макович (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This Wikipedia pages is written by modern Lithuanian nationalists, until in the future the democratic Belarusian state officially takes up solving these problems, the information will continue to be falsified. Susjaj (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Rather than rant, bring forward Reliable Sources to improve the article - if you can find any such. Nationalist diatribes would not qualify - you'll need scholarly sources from accredited historians. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 * This article will never be rewritten according to the pseudoscientific Litvinism fairytales. Pseudoscience will not become a scientific history no matter how many times somebody will repeat these pseudoscientific theories. You don't need to read the Lithuanian language sources if you don't like them or don't know this language. Go on and read articles in the Encyclopædia Britannica (an excellent example of WP:RS) which clearly state that the Lithuanian tribes united in the middle of the 13th century and created a country ruled by Mindaugas and subsequently the Lithuanians expanded into the modern Belarusian and Ukrainian territories (WP:VERIFY yourself here: article of the Encyclopædia Britannica). Consequently, the Belarusian territories in the past were under Lithuanian rule (WP:VERIFY yourself here: article of the Encyclopædia Britannica). The Ukrainian territories were also under Lithuanian rule in the past (WP:VERIFY yourself here: article of the Encyclopædia Britannica). Furthermore, Arnold J. Toynbee's book A Study Of History Vol-ii and Stephen Christopher Rowell's book Lithuania Ascending – A Pagan Empire Within East-Central Europe, 1295-1345 that describes the Lithuanian expansionism in the Middle Ages are also excellent WP:RS to learn from about the formation and the development of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in a scientific way. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Images
I think this article's images might need some cleanup as they might be excessive/crufty. What images should we keep, and what should we remove? -- Shadow  of the  Starlit Sky  14:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Quotes and additional explanation about the 1580 ceremony of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Stephen Báthory
Here are additional explanation and sourcing about the 1580 Lithuanian ceremony of Grand Duke Stephen Báthory. During the inauguration/elevation ceremony of the Grand Duke Stephen Báthory (29 May 1580) a blessed sword and hat (both were sanctified by Pope Gregory XIII himself) was used in the Vilnius Cathedral and the ceremony likely did not feature the usual Gediminas' Cap at all (it certainly wasn't placed on Báthory's head). Nevertheless, multiple WP:RS describe the ceremony of 29 May 1580 as elevation/enthronement ceremony of the new Grand Duke of Lithuania (Stephen Báthory) and this clearly was an ignoration of the stipulations of the Union of Lublin. Supporting sources: "1. 'Iš pradžių, regis, buvo mėginama didžiajam kunigaikščiui rengti atskirą ceremoniją. 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. Vilniaus katedroje įvykęs popiežiaus kalavijo ir karūnos perdavimo aktas amžininkų akimis ir buvo Stepono Batoro, kaip didžiojo kunigaikščio, intronizavimas' (At first, it seems, there was an attempt to hold a separate ceremony for the Grand Duke. In the eyes of contemporaries, the act of handing over the papal sword and crown that took place in the Vilnius Cathedral on 1580 May 29 was the enthronement of Stephen Báthory as the Grand Duke). Source: publication by Lithuanian Institute of History, p. 9." "2. Maciej Stryjkowski's Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiéj Rusi Macieja Stryjkowskiego. T. 2. Warsaw, 1846, p. 432. This source is provided as a backing source in the publication by Lithuanian Institute of History (mentioned above)." "3. 'Vienas iš tokių, Lietuvos valstybingumą tvirtinančių valdovo gestų buvo jo pakėlimo į Lietuvos sostą ceremonija. 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. valdovas priešais Vilniaus katedros didįjį altorių iš žemaičių vyskupo Merkelio Giedraičio rankų priėmė popiežiaus Grigaliaus XIII atsiųstą kalaviją ir Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio kepurę kartu su apaštališkuoju palaiminimu. Toks ritualas turėjo sąsajų su ankstesnių valdovų pakėlimo į Lietuvos dk sostą ceremonialu, nors sudarius Liublino sąjungą, jis neturėjo būti praktikuojamas.' (One of such gestures of the ruler confirming Lithuania's statehood was the ceremony of his elevation to the throne of Lithuania. On 29 May 1580 in front of the high altar of the Vilnius Cathedral, the ruler accepted the sword sent by Pope Gregory XIII and the hat of the Grand Duke of Lithuania together with the apostolic blessing from the hands of the Samogitian Bishop Merkelis Giedraitis. Such a ritual had connections with the ceremonial elevation of previous rulers to the throne of Lithuania, although it was not supposed to be practiced after the union of Lublin). Source: publication by Vilnius University, p. 67 (title page claims that there also is a translation to the Hungarian language by BEATRIX TÖLGYESI)." "4. 'Vienas įdomiausių su Lietuva susijusių Naujosios Karalystės iždinės eksponatų – iš pirmo žvilgsnio neišvaizdi kalavijo geležtė. Iš tikrųjų – tai 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. priešais Vilniaus katedros didįjį altorių Lenkijos ir Lietuvos valdovui Steponui Batorui (1576–1586) įteiktas popiežiaus Grigaliaus XIII pašventintas kalavijas, per amžius praradęs savo puošnią rankeną. Kalaviją ir perlais puoštą popiežiaus pašventintą kepurę valdovui įteikė žemaičių vyskupas Merkelis Giedraitis. Lietuvoje ši ceremonija traktuota kaip Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio pakėlimo iškilmės, kurias rengiant buvo ignoruojama Liublino unija ir manifestuojamas Lietuvos savarankiškumas.' (One of the most interesting exhibits of the treasury of the New Kingdom related to Lithuania is an unsightly sword blade at first glance. In fact, on 29 May 1580 in front of the high altar of the Vilnius Cathedral, the sword consecrated by Pope Gregory XIII was presented to the ruler of Poland and Lithuania, Stephen Báthory (1576-1586), having lost its ornate handle over the centuries. Merkelis Giedraitis, bishop of Samogitia, presented the ruler with a sword and a hat decorated with pearls consecrated by the Pope. In Lithuania, this ceremony was treated as the celebration of the elevation of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, during which the Union of Lublin was ignored and Lithuania's sovereignty was manifested). Source: article published by the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania." "5. Identical paragraph like in the 4th point (above) was (likely) later republished by the official website of the Lithuanian National Radio and Television (HERE) and a very popular Lithuanian news website 15min.lt (HERE)." By the way, the 1569 Union of Lublin was not accepted in the first try because of the Lithuanian nobles strong objection to it and its conditions. However, the Principality of Moscow was waging a successful war against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which lost important territories like Polotsk) and the Kingdom of Poland was not much willing to help the Lithuanians until a chunk of territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was transferred to the Kingdom of Poland and eventually they accepted the Union of Lublin. This led to successful reconquests by joint Polish-Lithuanian military forces (e.g. Polotsk, etc.). Moreover, this ceremony of Stephen Báthory is not the first example when the Lithuanian nobles violated previous agreements with the Poles (e.g. Casimir IV Jagiellon was separately proclaimed the Grand Duke of Lithuania by the Lithuanians and a ceremony inaugurating him as the Grand Duke of Lithuania was held in 1440, this way violating the Union of Grodno (1432) and terminating the Polish–Lithuanian union (first source, second source, p. 8). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 * First of all it's rather weird that you are making this statements here not on Talk:Stephen Báthory where are raised this issue. Secondly why are you starting this discussion on multiple pages?
 * First of all, there is a difference between the statement that "there was a separate enthronement as Grand Duke" and "in the eyes of contemporaries it looked like an enthronement." Moreover, Stryjkowski does not even confirm the latter at all. Polish orignal says: ''
 * As you can see Stryjkowski doesn't say anything about the enthronement/elevation of the grand duke.
 * Jerzy Besala in his biography of Batory says about this event (p. 295-296):
 * I found the article about blessed swords received by Polish kings (, p. 356):
 * Kiaupa Zigmantas, Kiaupienė Jūratė, Kuncevičius Albinas The History of Lithuania Before 1795 doesn't mention anything about this supposed "elevation". Likewise (which is the only scholary article about the elevation of Lithuanian rulers) clearly says that the elevation of the Sigismund II Augustus was the last one.
 * Also we need to ask ourselves other questions. Why Paweł Uchański at that time Polish envoy to the Holy See, would he organise separate elevation in Vilnius? Also why the sword used to elevate Grand Duke would be deposited in the Crown Treasury in Kraków? Also why Lithuanian lords would organise separate elevation of the already crowned king and grand duke? They were defending their separatness, but never organised such ceremony after Lublin. Marcelus (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of the supposed 1580 enthronment also in the:
 * Daniel Stone, The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386–1795.
 * Stephen Christopher Rowell, Reda Griškaitė, Gediminas Rudis, A History of Lithuania
 * Zigmantas Kiaupa, Jūratė Kiaupienė, Andrzej Rachuba, Historia Litwy. Dwugłos polsko - litewski [Lithuanian History. A Polish-Lithuanian double voice]
 * Marcelus (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like a very minor event. Maybe of footnote relevance to Batory's bio, seems to niche to mention here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it should be mentioned first and foremost that this was the handing over from the pope of the blessed sword and cap with the title of knight of the Church; alternatively, we can add that some modern Lithuanian historians interpret this as an elevation to grand duke; but this is the maximum. Marcelus (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Marcelus (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like a very minor event. Maybe of footnote relevance to Batory's bio, seems to niche to mention here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it should be mentioned first and foremost that this was the handing over from the pope of the blessed sword and cap with the title of knight of the Church; alternatively, we can add that some modern Lithuanian historians interpret this as an elevation to grand duke; but this is the maximum. Marcelus (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Are you saying that the elevation/enthronement ceremony of the Grand Duke of Lithuania is a "very minor event" for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? Moreover, ignoring the recently adopted Union of Lublin (1569) because the Lithuanian nobles (e.g. Mikołaj "the Red" Radziwiłł, Eustachy Wołłowicz, Jan Karol Chodkiewicz, Konstanty Ostrogski) sought for a separate ceremony of the Grand Duke of Lithuania (see: Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia's article)? It can be your personal opinion (WP:OR), but this is obviously not true because elevation/enthronement ceremonies were one of the most important events in the country, so this event's significance is clearly not to be questioned. By the way, it is not the most important thing from where the sword and the hat were received as in this case we mostly care about the elevation/enthronement ceremony of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, not the items used in it (they could have even been wooden, but if they were used in the elevation/enthronement ceremony of the ruler - then it changes nothing). The content, meaning and significance of this 1580 ceremony is clearly described in the official website of the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania (quoted above), so whenever it is a WP:RS in this case is obviously not to be questioned by Wikipedians as well (Piotrus, what solid arguments you have against this website?). Otherwise, for example, we would have to remove all information from Wikipedia backed on the official website of the Wawel Castle which clearly would be an absurd as it is an equally WP:RS to the official website of the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania. Moreover, this 1580 ceremony is also described by non-Lithuanian authors (quoted above): Almut Bues (German scientist; publication by Lithuanian Institute of History, p. 9) and Noémi Erzsébet Bulla (Hungarian scientist; publication by Vilnius University, p. 67). By the way, both quotes by Almut Bues and Noémi Erzsébet Bulla are in publications which currently are hosted in the official websites of the Vilnius University and Lithuanian Institute of History, so there also are no grounds to treat them as non-WP:RS. That being said, I think no changes regarding this Báthory's 1580 ceremony should be made in this article because obviously it is: 1) a very historically notable event (ceremony) for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; 2) supported by multiple WP:RS (official website of the Palace of the GDL is clearly not to be questioned in Wikipedia); 3) it is described in a short style (just one sentence) and does not include insignificant, unrelated, too-long details. I've seen that you,, expressed your opinion about this 1580 ceremony, so maybe you want to share your opinion here as well? I've noticed that you regularly patrol in this article and reject wrong content based on Wikipedia rules and guidelines, so maybe you can also share your thoughts here to avoid possible reverts in this article in the future? --  Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pofka has presented convincing arguments and I fully agree about the inclusion of the enthronement, especially given its significance for the country - after all, enthronements of the ruler don't happen daily. There seems to be a different view on this matter by Polish historians, but considering that undeniably reliable English-language sources are mentioning the enthronement of Stephen Bathory in precisely these terms, then the inclusion is certainly warranted on Wikipedia, especially given the importance of the event. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * undeniably reliable English-language sources, which ones? Marcelus (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Moreover, this 1580 ceremony is also described by non-Lithuanian authors (quoted above): Almut Bues (German scientist; publication by Lithuanian Institute of History, p. 9) and Noémi Erzsébet Bulla (Hungarian scientist; publication by Vilnius University, p. 67). By the way, both quotes by Almut Bues and Noémi Erzsébet Bulla are in publications which currently are hosted in the official websites of the Vilnius University and Lithuanian Institute of History, so there also are no grounds to treat them as non-WP:RS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these sources is English-language Marcelus (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that this does not seem like a very WP:DUE detail given how most sources do not talk about this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes
@Cukrakalnis, @Piotrus; I have a proposal that I think is a reasonable compromise. It can be found here: User:Marcelus/sandbox. I added a little more context for the Grodno convention, it did not take place before the election (which was in 1575), but a few days before Batory's coronation. As for the 1580 ceremony, I think it's important to add that Batory was given a blessed sword and hat for his battles against the infidels. On the other hand, it should also be added that this ceremony was interpreted in Lithuania as an elevation of the Grand Duke. The sentence: In Lithuania, this ceremony was treated as the celebration of the elevation of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, during which Lithuania's sovereignty was manifested, is very close to what is written on the Vilnius Palace website. Moreover, it is important to emphasize that Batory did not officially become the ruler of Lithuania until 1580, since he was already recognized by the Lithuanian delegation on May 5, 1576. This is important so as not to give the reader such an erroneous impression. I think this is a good proposition, but I am open to suggestions.Marcelus (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [sidenote: I just realised Pofka has one way iban with me, I totally forgot about that, sorry for adressing them directly, I will try now to limit my participation in this discussion to minimum] Marcelus (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Your proposal seems like a reasonable midway, what do the others think?
 * I would personally add the last sentence of the current version to be your proposed version's second last sentence. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the current version is too detailed for the article I think, also it's about union of Lublin so if anywhere it should be at the start of the section, not here. But the bigger problem is that it's not really supported by the source, which doesn't mention 1580 ceremony, and does not say anything about the coincidency between the two events. Marcelus (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So we have a consensus here? I am fine with the proposed solution too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus, @Cukrakalnis I think we have. Can someone replace the text with the proposition? Marcelus (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the current description version of 1580 Stephen Báthory ceremony in this article and oppose all modifications suggested by Marcelus because the quoted article from the website of the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania describe it as ignoration of the Union of Lublin to manifestate the sovereignty of Lithuania and the mentioning of such noteworthy aim of this ceremony should be kept in this article. The content published in the website of the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania is written by professionals and is fully trustworthy.--Ed1974LT (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you ignoring all other sources and give preference to text from a website that is not even signed by any author? Marcelus (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if there are no better sources we should be careful. Seems like a fringe theory or more likely an error. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The sentence about the 1580 ceremony does not contain original research per WP:RS
Thanks for your opinion. By the way, it is important to note here that the 1580 ceremony had three important aspects for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: 1) Stephen Báthory was elevated/enthroned as the Grand Duke of Lithuania; 2) a separate ceremony manifested Lithuania's sovereignty; 3) a separate ceremony was held by ignoring/violating the Union of Lublin (because it stipulated that a joint Polish-Lithuanian monarch will be elected in the Election sejm and crowned at the same time). A separate ceremony of 1580 clearly was the will of Lithuanian nobles to ignore the Union of Lublin because they demanded a separate ceremony before the Union and then organized it with Báthory. All these three aspects are clearly stressed in the article of the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania (quoted above), so until solid arguments are provided (Piotrus?) why the official website of the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania is not a WP:RS and where it is stipulated in Wikipedia (e.g. it is not included to Deprecated sources) – no information in it is dubious and there absolutely are no violations of the WP:OR rule in this article describing the 1580 ceremony. The ignoration of the Union of Lublin is clearly expressed in the article of the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania: "... rengiant buvo ignoruojama Liublino unija ir manifestuojamas Lietuvos savarankiškumas" ("... during which the Union of Lublin was ignored and Lithuania's sovereignty was manifested"). So all these three aspects are important and the sentence "On 29 May 1580, a ceremony was held in the Vilnius Cathedral during which bishop Merkelis Giedraitis presented Stephen Báthory (King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania since 1 May 1576) a luxuriously decorated sword and a hat adorned with pearls (both were sanctified by Pope Gregory XIII himself), while this ceremony manifested the sovereignty of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and had the meaning of elevation of the new Grand Duke of Lithuania, this way ignoring the stipulations of the Union of Lublin" is just a condensed variant of facts provided in the article of the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania. Cukrakalnis, do you have a different opinion about any of these three points? -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024
Grand Duchy of Lithuania was founded Roman's that come on ships from city Aquillea that written in Cronicle of Bychovec https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus/Bychovec/frametext.htm Александр Макович (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 20:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Foundation of Grand duchy of Lithuania
Cronicale of Byhovec tell us ,that Grand Duchy Lithuania was founded by Roman empire nobel Apollo "Dovspunk Kitovras""a prince named Apollo, who also climbed into that place with And there were with him five hundred people of Roman nobles , and between them on the island were four families of Roman nobles: from the coat of arms Kitovras Dovsprunk, from the coat of arms Kolumnov Prespor Caesarin, and from the coat of arms Urseinov Julian, and from the coat of arms Rosa Torogo. And went by sea between the earth , and took with him one astronomer, which astronomer understood by the stars, and went on ships by sea to the north, and bypassed France and England, and entered the up the river Neman, up to the sea called Little 10, which is called the Neman Sea, and for that reason that sea is called the Neman Sea, because the Neman flows into that sea by twelve mouths, and each [of them] is called by a special name, and of those twelve mouths one mouth was called by the name of Gilia. And they went up that estuary and reached the whole Neman, where it was already flowing in one channel. And, going up the Neman, they reached the river Dubissa 11, and, entering that river Dubissa, they found above it high mountains /2/ and on those mountains large plains and luxurious oak forests, abounding in all kinds of animals, that is, first of all, aurochs, bison, elks, deer, chamois, lynxes, martens, foxes, squirrels, ermine and other various species, and here in the rivers a mass of unusual fish. And these were only such fish as were found in those rivers, but there were also a lot of different amazing fish from the sea, because the mouth of the Neman was not far away, where the Neman flows into the sea. Above these rivers, above the Dubissa and above the Neman and above the Jura, they settled there and began to increase ther population. at the time [36] when Kernus dominated in the Zavilean side, those people settled behind Vilija and played on oak pipes 28, and called that Kernus the coast in his Italian language in Latin, Litus, where people multiply, and the pipes on which they played - tuba, and called those people in his own way, in Latin, connecting the coast with the pipe - Listubanya. And simple people did not know how to speak Latin and began to be called simply Lithuania, and from that time the state began to be called Lithuanian and to increase from the side of Zhemaitia. And then prince great Kernus and Gimbut, wishing to expand the fatherland, have collected forces the Lithuanian and Zhemaitian and have gone on Russia to Braslav and to Polotsk, and much harm to Russian have made and their land have ruined, and set of people have taken away in captivity. ORIGIN: https://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus/Bychovec/frametext.htm Александр Макович (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 * And is this accepted by modern historians? Bychowiec Chronicle seems like 16th century fringe theory. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Modern historians must maker there vew not based on political situation based on chronicals. Russian historian professor responded to me that I am wrong becouse battle near Mogilno where Lithuanian and Zhemoytian armies destroy army of 3 Rus Dukes and 1 mongol-tatarian. He "modern historian" tald me that Grait Russians cronicals do not know that battle. Reason becouse Duchy of Moskovia was part of Mongolian-tatar hord and send there armies with them. They do not have chronicals at all they have stollen from Lithuania and Zhemaitia and re-whritten to bend vews.I dont care wha others say I am modern historian.Anybody now can be all information on internet available. Александр Макович (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The chronicle was discovered by the teacher of the Vilno gymnasium Hippolyte Klimashevsky in the library of the landowner Bykhovets (the estate of Mogilevtsy Volkovys district of Grodno province). In 1830 Klimashevsky printed a small fragment of the found chronicle (which he named Lithuanian), giving parallel translation into Polish and providing it with brief notes . Thus the existence of the chronicle became known to the reading public. He took part in the rebellion of 1830-1831. Klimashevsky was captured, imprisoned, fled abroad and ended his life, apparently in exile; in any case, his name in the future has nothing to do with the chronicle.
 * In 1834. Bykhovets sent the chronicle to the famous historian of Lithuania Theodor Narbuth to his estate Shavra of the Lid district of Grodno, and since 1843. Vilna Governorate 3. Narbut, who at that time worked on his capital work «Ancient Lithuanian people», widely used a new source for its research, and in 1846 he published a chronicle in full. The same Narbut gave the name of the chronicle - named after its owner - the Chronicle of Bykhovets.
 * People can listen chronical on youtube in English put search youtube: Why distraction of important ancient Roman city Aquilea become cause of birth biggest Europian state. Александр Макович (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Common languages: Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Polish, Latin, German, Yiddish, Tatar, Karaim (see § Languages)
Why are you mentioning "Ruthenian" instead of Belarusian language? There were no any other language of Ruthenian group more popular than Belarusian (it had a dominant majority across all Duchy's territory). So German, Tatar and Karaim worth separate mentioning but no the Belarusian, what? 79.191.134.189 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 * 1. It's literal translation of name of the language used back then.
 * 2. It wasn't modern Belorussian language. In Belorussian historiography it's referred to as Old Belorussian.
 * 2. Apart from the lands of the Grand Duchy that later became part of Belarus, there were also lands of the Grand Duchy that became part of Ukraine. Both countries use "Old Belorussian" and "Old Ukrainian" language terminology. Wouldn't be neutral to set a preference. Korwinski (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Lithuanian-Russian Duchy?!?
In The Vladimir Putin Interview, Putin claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called "…the Lithuanian-Russian Duchy, because Russians were a significant part of its population." . I have been totally unable to find any reference to anything called “Lithuanian-Russian Duchy” anywhere. Can anyone else help me with this? If this is an outright lie, can anyone help me find historians saying as much? Victor Grigas (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 * "Russian", "Rus" and "Ruthenian" are sometimes used interchangeably. "Lithuania-Russia" seems to be just another name for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, putting more weight on the Slavic part of the state. The translator could also have used "Lithuania-Ruthenia" or "Lithuanian Rus" aswell.

 * The term "Lithuanian Rus" is also used for the Slavic territories under Lithuanian rule.(Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%8C )

 * It is also important to note that "Rus" refers to "Rus'_people", such as the Kievan Rus' (which is often simply called Rus')

 * Terms like Muscovite Rus', Lithuanian Rus' seek to distinguish two different kinds of Rus' states from another;

 * The term "Russia" claims to be an unification of Rus' people. When the Principality of Moscow (Moscovite Rus') changed its name to "Russia", it indirectly claimed all of Rus' peoples territory, which let to protests from Poland and Lithuania (who also possessed Rus' territory at the time).

 * Today, Putin is using the same tactic to lay claim on Belarus and Ukraine.

 * MKW100 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Lithuanian-Ruthenian or Lithuanian-Russian state (, Литовско-Русское государство) is a common way in Ukrainian and Russian historiographies name for the Grand Duchy. It was used by Hrushevsky, Antonovych etc. and it's one of the names specified in Encyclopedia of History of Ukraine's article about it. Korwinski (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

== My apology, but in this article you provide historically incorrect data not saying that the Grand Duchy first capital was Navahrudak (Novogrudok) and it was founded in Belarusian territories, confusing readers. Please consider correcting your article and rewriting it according to the Historical evidence, all Lithuanian and Belarusian citizens know, thanks ==

My apology, but in this article you provide historically incorrect data not saying that the Grand Duchy first capital was Novogrudok and it was founded in Belarussian territories, confusing readers. Please consider correcting your article and rewriting it according to the Historical evidence, all Lithuanian and Belarusian citizens know, thanks 188.77.31.128 (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania


text:
Eastern High School

Eastern High School may refer to:

United States

 * Eastern High School (Pekin, Indiana), Pekin, Indiana
 * Eastern High School (Louisville, Kentucky), Middletown, Kentucky
 * Eastern High School (Maryland), Baltimore, Maryland
 * Eastern High School (Michigan), Lansing, Michigan
 * Eastern High School (Beaver, Ohio), Beaver, Ohio
 * Eastern High School (Reedsville, Ohio), Reedsville, Ohio
 * Eastern High School (Winchester, Ohio), Winchester, Ohio
 * Eastern High School (Washington, D.C.), Washington, D.C.

Other places

 * Eastern High School, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Eastern High School


text:
User:Joystik

I'm interesting in things such as philosophy (works of greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, works of eastern philosophers such as Confucius), im also interested in computer related topics (especially network security).

title: User:Joystik


text:
Thomas Cook Airlines

Thomas Cook Airlines Limited was a British charter and scheduled airline headquartered in Manchester, England. It was founded in 2007 from the merger of Thomas Cook Group and MyTravel Group, and was part of the Thomas Cook Group Airlines. It served leisure destinations worldwide from its main bases at Manchester Airport and Gatwick Airport on a scheduled and charter basis. It also operated services from eight other bases around the United Kingdom. Thomas Cook Group and all UK entities including Thomas Cook Airlines entered compulsory liquidation on 23 September 2019.

History
The airline was created on 1 September 1999 as JMC Air Limited through the merger of Flying Colours Airlines and Caledonian Airways. following the purchase of Thomas Cook & Son by the Carlson Leisure Group. It started operations on 27 March 2000, operating flights from 6 bases in the UK, offering seat-only bookings and bookings via Thomas Cook Tour Operations. In 2001, the airline became the first UK operator of the stretched Boeing 757-300. In April 2003, Thomas Cook AG rebranded its airlines under the Thomas Cook name brand.

In June 2007, following the merger between Thomas Cook AG and MyTravel Group to form Thomas Cook Group, on 30 March 2008, MyTravel Airways was merged with Thomas Cook Airlines.

In 2013, Thomas Cook Airlines, Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium, Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia and Condor merged into a single operating segment of a group named the Thomas Cook Group Airlines. Thomas Cook Airlines carried around 6.4 million passengers during 2015, a six per cent increase compared with 2014.

Collapse
The airline fell into liquidation on 23 September 2019. Airlines around the world took part in ferrying stranded passengers back to the UK, using their aircraft. The repatriation effort covered 165,000 passengers, the largest in UK history, and 65,000 more passengers than the collapse of Monarch Airlines in 2017. The last flight to depart was MT2643, Registration G-MLJL (Airbus A330-243) from Orlando to Manchester. The airline's AOC was revoked on 7 November 2019.

Overview
Thomas Cook Airlines was part of the airline division of the Thomas Cook Group, which consisted of three more sister airlines, all of which had a joint fleet management: Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia, German-based Condor and Thomas Cook Airlines Balearics. The airline held a United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Type A Operating Licence, permitting it to carry passengers, cargo and mail on aircraft with 20 or more seats.

Final active fleet
At the time of closure, the Thomas Cook Airlines fleet consisted of the following aircraft:

Historical fleet
As JMC Air, the airline has previously operated the following aircraft:

Callsigns
The airline has used a number of callsigns:

Long haul
Premium economy

Thomas Cook offered 'Premium Class' on most long-haul flights on board their Airbus A330 aircraft. The cabin offered extra legroom, wider seats with more recline, personal entertainment, complimentary hot meal and drinks.

Economy Thomas Cook's long-haul 'Economy Class' was offered on all Airbus A330 aircraft. It offered a standard 31-inch of seat-pitch, seat-back entertainment, and complimentary hot meal. Drinks and additional snacks were available to purchase.

Short and medium haul
Economy Thomas Cook's short and medium-haul economy cabin on their fleet of A321 aircraft offered a standard seat-pitch of between 28-30-inch at 6-abreast. Drinks and snacks were available to purchase on board or to pre-order and inflight entertainment was available.

In 2017, the company introduced Economy PLUS, an upgraded economy class package on short and medium-haul flights. This package included a priority security lane and check-in, an additional 4 kg of hand luggage, inflight drinks and food, access to in-flight entertainment and an option to reserve their seat.

title: Thomas Cook Airlines


text:
Ramesses I

Menpehtyre Ramesses I (or Ramses) was the founding pharaoh of ancient Egypt's 19th Dynasty. The dates for his short reign are not completely known but the timeline of late 1292–1290 BC is frequently cited as well as 1295–1294 BC. While Ramesses I was the founder of the 19th Dynasty, his brief reign mainly serves to mark the transition between the reign of Horemheb, who had stabilized Egypt in the late 18th Dynasty, and the rule of the powerful pharaohs of his own dynasty, in particular his son Seti I, and grandson Ramesses II.

Origins
Originally called Pa-ra-mes-su, Ramesses I was of non-royal birth, being born into a noble military family from the Nile Delta region, perhaps near the former Hyksos capital of Avaris. He was a son of a troop commander called Seti. His uncle Khaemwaset, an army officer, married Tamwadjesy, the matron of Tutankhamun's Harem of Amun, who was a relative of Huy, the viceroy of Kush, an important state post. This shows the high status of Ramesses' family. Ramesses I found favor with Horemheb, the last pharaoh of the tumultuous Eighteenth Dynasty, who appointed the former as his vizier. Ramesses also served as the High Priest of Set —as such, he would have played an important role in the restoration of the old religion following the Amarna heresy of a generation earlier, under Akhenaten.

Horemheb himself had been a nobleman from outside the immediate royal family, who rose through the ranks of the Egyptian army to serve as the royal advisor to Tutankhamun and Ay and, ultimately, pharaoh. Since Horemheb had no surviving children, he ultimately chose Ramesses to be his heir in the final years of his reign presumably because Ramesses I was both an able administrator and had a son (Seti I) and a grandson (the future Ramesses II) to succeed him and thus avoid any succession difficulties.

Upon his accession, Ramesses assumed a prenomen, or royal name. When transliterated, the name is mn-pḥty-rʿ, which is usually interpreted as Menpehtyre, meaning "Established by the strength of Ra". However, he is better known by his nomen, or personal name. This is transliterated as rʿ-ms-sw, and is usually realised as Ramessu or Ramesses, meaning 'Ra bore him'. Already an old man when he was crowned, Ramesses appointed his son, the later pharaoh Seti I, to serve as the Crown Prince and chosen successor. Seti was charged with undertaking several military operations during this time—in particular, an attempt to recoup some of Egypt's lost possessions in Syria. Ramesses appears to have taken charge of domestic matters: most memorably, he completed the second pylon at Karnak Temple, begun under Horemheb.

Reign length
Ramesses I enjoyed a brief reign, as evidenced by the general paucity of contemporary monuments mentioning him: the king had little time to build any major buildings in his reign and was hurriedly buried in a small and hastily finished tomb. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, in his book Contra Apionem which translated Manetho's Aegyptiaca, Manetho assigns this king a reign of 16 months, but this pharaoh certainly ruled Egypt for a minimum of 17 months based on his highest-known date which is a Year 2 II Peret day 20 (Louvre C57) stela which ordered the provision of new endowments of food and priests for the temple of Ptah within the Egyptian fortress of Buhen. In contrast, Ramesses I's son and successor, Seti I, assumed the throne five months later after the erection of this stela on III Shemu day 24 which means that Ramesses I had a minimum reign of 17 months (or one year and five months). However, based on a papyrus document published by Robert J. Demarée in a 2023 publication, Demarée argues that Ramesses I's predecessor, Horemheb, died on III Shemu 22 based on evidence in Papyrus Turin Cat. 1898 + Cat. 1937 + Cat. 2094/244, which is a journal diary. If confirmed, this would mean that Ramesses I actually had a reign of approximately two full years since he would have ascended to the throne around III Shemu 23 soon after Horemheb's death on III Shemu 22 and died about two years later around the very same day since Ramesses I's son, Seti I, succeeded his father on III Shemu 24.

Ramesses I's only known action was to order the provision of endowments for the aforementioned Nubian temple at Buhen and "the construction of a chapel and a temple (which was to be finished by his son) at Abydos." The aged Ramesses was buried in the Valley of the Kings. His tomb, discovered by Giovanni Belzoni in 1817 and designated KV16, is small in size and gives the impression of having been completed with haste. Joyce Tyldesley states that Ramesses I's tomb consisted of a single corridor and one unfinished room whose walls, after a hurried coat of plaster, were painted to show the king with his gods, with Osiris allowed a prominent position. The red granite sarcophagus too was painted rather than carved with inscriptions which, due to their hasty preparation, included a number of unfortunate errors.

Seti I, his son and successor, later built a small chapel with fine reliefs in memory of his deceased father Ramesses I at Abydos. In 1911, John Pierpont Morgan donated several exquisite reliefs from this chapel to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Rediscovery and repatriation

A mummy currently believed to be that of Ramesses I was displayed in a private Canadian museum for many years before being repatriated. The mummy's identity cannot be conclusively determined, but is most likely to be that of Ramesses I based on CT scans, X-rays, skull measurements and radio-carbon dating tests by researchers at Emory University, as well as aesthetic interpretations of family resemblance. Moreover, the mummy's arms were found crossed high across his chest which was a position reserved solely for Egyptian royalty until 600 BC.

The mummy had been stolen from the Royal Cache in Deir el-Bahari by the Abu-Rassul family of grave robbers and sold by Turkish vice-consular agent Mustapha Aga Ayat at Luxor to Dr. James Douglas who brought it to North America around 1860. Douglas used to purchase Egyptian antiquities for his friend Sydney Barnett who then placed it in the Niagara Falls Museum. At the time, the identity of the mummified man was unknown. The mummy remained in the museum through moves to Niagara Falls, New York and Niagara Falls, Ontario next to other curiosities for more than 130 years. The mummy was displayed as a "A Prince of Egypt" but despite occasional speculation from visitors that he might be exactly that nothing further was done.

When the owner of the museum decided to sell his property, Canadian businessman William Jamieson purchased the contents of the museum and, with the help of Canadian egyptologist Gayle Gibson, identified their great value. In 1999, Jamieson sold the Egyptian artifacts in the collection, including the various mummies, to the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia for US$2 million. The mummy was returned to Egypt on October 24, 2003, with full official honors and is on display at the Luxor Museum.

Portrayals in fiction

 * In the film The Ten Commandments, he was played by Ian Keith, as the Pharaoh of the Oppression.
 * In the miniseries In the Beginning, he was portrayed by Christopher Lee, as the Pharaoh encountered by Joseph. Lee had previously played Ramses' grandson Ramesses II in the miniseries Moses.

title: Ramesses I


text:
Ankle jerk reflex

The ankle jerk reflex, also known as the Achilles reflex, occurs when the Achilles tendon is tapped while the foot is dorsiflexed. It is a type of stretch reflex that tests the function of the gastrocnemius muscle and the nerve that supplies it. A positive result would be the jerking of the foot towards its plantar surface. Being a deep tendon reflex, it is monosynaptic. It is also a stretch reflex. These are monosynaptic spinal segmental reflexes. When they are intact, integrity of the following is confirmed: cutaneous innervation, motor supply, and cortical input to the corresponding spinal segment.

Root value
This reflex is mediated by the S1 spinal segment of the spinal cord.

Procedure and components
Ankle of the patient is relaxed. It is helpful to support the ball of the foot at least somewhat to put some tension in the Achilles tendon, but don’t completely dorsiflex the ankle. A small strike is given on the Achilles tendon using a rubber hammer to elicit the response. If the practitioner is not able to elicit a response, a Jendrassik maneuver can be tried by having the patient cup their fingers on each hand and try to pull the hands apart. A positive response is marked by a brisk plantarflexion of the foot. The response is also graded into Grade 0-4 according to the reflex grading system.

Absent ankle jerk
The Achilles reflex checks if the S1 and S2 nerve roots are intact and could be indicative of sciatic nerve pathology. It is classically delayed in hypothyroidism. This reflex is usually absent in disk herniations at the L5—S1 level. A reduction in the ankle jerk reflex may also be indicative of peripheral neuropathy.

Common causes

 * Lumbar herniated disk syndrome
 * Lumbar spinal stenosis
 * Endocrine disorders
 * Hypothyroidism
 * Sciatic neuropathy
 * Lumbosacral plexus disorder
 * Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
 * Cauda equina syndrome
 * Lumbar radiculopathy
 * Holmes-Adie syndrome
 * Idiopathic
 * Trauma
 * Concussion, spinal cord
 * Hypothermia
 * Infectious diseases
 * Tabes dorsalis
 * Poliomyelitis, acute
 * Lumbar disk infection/pyogenic
 * Arachnoiditis lumbosacral
 * Neoplastic disorders
 * Primary
 * Secondary
 * Allergic, collagen, autoimmune diseases
 * Diabetic neuropathy

Rarer causes

 * Abetalipoproteinemia
 * Electrolyte abnormalities
 * Hypokalemia
 * Deficiency disorders
 * Vitamin E deficiency
 * Congenital developmental disorders
 * Spina bifida
 * Genetic disorders
 * Hypokalemic periodic paralysis
 * Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease
 * Spinal muscular atrophy
 * Friedreich's ataxia
 * Drugs
 * Tubocurarine
 * Pyridoxine excess/megadose
 * Chronic alcoholism

Ankle clonus
Grade 4 ankle hyperreflexia is called ankle clonus. There is repetitive ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion on passive dorsiflexion of the foot by the examiner till the force applied by the examiner is withdrawn.

Causes
Any spinal cord lesions, be it traumatic, neoplastic, pyogenic, vascular above the level of S1 can cause clonus. This is because of the spasticity caused by the UMN type of injury causing hyperreflexia and clonus. Some other causes of clonus are
 * Meningitis
 * Tetanus
 * CJD
 * Cerebral palsy
 * Multiple sclerosis
 * Syringomyelia
 * Pre-eclampsia

title: Ankle jerk reflex