A fact from Poles in Lithuania appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 January 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Polish minority in Lithuania is the country's largest non-Lithuanian ethnic group? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/January.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lithuania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column. Poland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It would seem logical to make some mention of the Russian minority, which is almost as large as the Polish.

Why are all the external links to Polish sites, and none to Lithuanian sites? Sca 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Certainly Russian minority in Lithuania is an important article waiting to be written, I'll add a note of that to the article. You will note that numbers in that article come from official Lithuanian statistical site; as for the lack of lt-language sites - well, I don't speak Lithuanian and Lithuanian editors have not contributed to that article yet.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

10-4 and Djiękuję/aciu! Sca 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Please provide translation of the relevant parts of the reference that makes such claims as well as discuss the reliablility of the source that published it. Thank you, --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Ambasadoriaus J. Widackio nuomone, abu lenkų mažumos veikėjai savo veiklą pradėjo sovietmečiu, abu prieš dešimtmetį pergyveno metamorfozę, pereidami į kraštutines dešiniųjų ir tautinių pažiūrų pozicijas, ir į abu juos lietuviai žiūri kaip į lenkų nacionalistus, priešiškus Lietuvos valstybei, apsunkinančius dalykišką diskusiją ir lenkų mažumos problemų sprendimą.

Translation: According to ambasador J. Widacky (spelling?), activists of both [organizations of] Polish minority started their activities during the Soviet period, undergoing a metamorphosis, shifting to far-right and nationalistic positions, and both of them are viewed by Lithuanians as anti-Lithuania, complicating productive discussions and solution of problems faced by Polish minority in Lithuania.

Author: Baltic News Service, one of the major news agencies in Lithuania. Renata 19:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you, that sounds much more neutral. Now, what are the 'two organizations' that he refers to? pl:Jan Widacki, btw.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm confused by this statement: "25 percent of the children born to monoethnic Polish families attended Polish schools. Fifty percent of them chose Russian schools, and only 10 per cent Lithuanian schools". 25%+50%+10%=85%, what happened to the rest ? Did 15% of Polish children in Vilnius not attend school at all ? -- Lysy ^talk 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

There were mixed schools, maybe attended those?-- Lokyz 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Do we know what made these Poles send their children to Russian schools ? Historically Poles tended to strongly oppose any Russification. What happened in Lithuania ? -- Lysy ^talk 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

In fact almost half of lithuanian poles were concentrated in Vilnius (~25% of city population), where (as of 1980) only 4-5% chose Polish education language at schools. So in Vilnius ~ 20% of poles chose Polish at school. Why? In fact they were mostly using Russian at work and very often at home (like other slavonic non-russian minorities: Ukranians, Belorussians). Rural part of Polish community chose Polish ~60-70%. But even in towns with Polish domination share of Polish education language at schools was less then poles percentage. One of the important reasons to choose Russian was absence of Polish language college and university education in former USSR. Poles had no possibility get college/university education in Poland. First Polish Bialystok university small branch was opened in Vilnius in 2007 only. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 15:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to remove the sentence "The same regional leaders later voiced support for Soviet coup attempt of 1991 in Moscow." Coup in Moscow is not relevant to the article about Polish minority in Lithuania. The only purpose of this sentence is to present the political views of then leaders of Polish party (was it a party?) in negative light. I may not sympathise with their views, but this is not the place to discuss political views on international events of Polish or Lithuanian politicians. It would be relevant if the sentence was about the view on the situation of Polish minority in Lithuania, not about the coup in Moscow. -- Lysy ^talk 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Their views explain a lot about history of tension between Polish political parties and Lithuanian society.-- Lokyz 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Then it would be interesting to explain why they chose to support the Soviets. Polish minority in Latvia did not. What happened in Lithuania to make Poles support Soviets then ? -- Lysy ^talk 08:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I do not have any research ion the topic on hand, although it seems thet majority of Poles in Lithuania were throughly Sovietised and scared by communist leaders (most of them turned to be nowadays Polish minority leaders). This could explain rather high Polish attendance of Russian schools and in the pro-Soviet Yedinstvo organization, that was quite active in 1991 coup.-- Lokyz 08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, but there were Polish minorities in different parts of Soviet Union, and they never supported Soviets, only in Lithuania. It might be that the Soviets treated Poles differently in Lithuania and e.g. Latvia ? -- Lysy ^talk 09:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Lysy, why did you restore obviuosly dead lnks?-- Lokyz 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I thought I restored a journal reference, did not notice it had a link in it. I will restore it without the link then. -- Lysy ^talk 08:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Done. No dead link anymore there. -- Lysy ^talk 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

There is a chance that those links will be restored by the MSZ, which is why I don't think we need to remove them. At the very least, please add removed link to talk so we can occasionally click on them and check if they have been unprotected.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Just a note that link rot does not mean we should remove the reference. First, the link may unrot, second, the links to MSZ bulleting were to online version of their print bulletin, so even if online source rots, an interested reader can go to original articles in either the bulletin or original journals (which were at least partially quoted in the reference description).--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that it's important to include some reference to the fact that some of the Poles in Lithuania are actually Polonized Lithuanians. Many of these Polish speaking Lithuanians do acknowledge that they in fact come from Lithuanian ancestry but speak Polish. There is reference to this in the Wikipedia Article "Ethnic History of the Region of Vilnius". This is the case with my grandparents who were both from Vilnius, spoke only Polish but in actuality my grandfather was Belarussian and my grandmother was Lithuanian. Sometime around the mid 1800's their families began speaking Polish over Lithuanian or Belarussian. I know many "Polish" families from Lithuania with the same history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ma46323 ( talk • contribs).

This is already described in the 'History' section, which mentions the cultural assimilation processes of Polonization and Lithuanization.-- _{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  10:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I did see the 'History' section regarding Polonization and Lithuanians, however, this section only mentions "interwar Lithuania" and the "official description". There is really no clear connection to the ethnic consciousness of the Poles in Lithuania today. I think there should be something included under the section "Current Situation" which tells about the significant and growing minority of Polish speakers in the Vilnius region today who consider themselves to be ethnic Lithuanians who merely speak Polish. Not doing so, implies that all Polish speakers in Vilnius are ethnic Poles.

Although, there is a small note about Lithuanian and Belarussian language influence on the dialect of Polish spoken in the region, this is more of a linguistic statement rather than a question of ethnic background. The article, as written, conveys the understanding that ALL Polish speakers in Lithuania are ethnic Poles and although I am sure the majority of Polish speaker in Vilnius do consider themselves to be Poles, there are very many who consider themselves to be Lithuanians who lost their language and culture and I think there should be at least some mention of this fact.

For example, in my family we spoke Polish, went to Polish church and even had Polish friends. But it was a language issue. We never had a Polish flag in our house, we never attended Polish cultural events or the Polish parade. We considered ourselves to be Lithuanians. And this is the case with a lot of Polish speakers from Lithuania. I think that at least one or two sentences should be dedicated to the fact that there are families in Vilnius today who speak Polish only but consider themselves to be ethnic Lithuanians. Just as Mexicans speak Spanish but do not consider themselves to be Spaniards.

I am not sure how to quite phrase it but there should be a sentence under "Current Situation" like "although most Polish speakers in Lithuania today consider themselves as ethnic Poles, there are also many who acknowledge their Lithuanian background" or something to that effect. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ma46323 ( talk • contribs).

Could you provide some refs for that? You are certainly right that speaking a given language does not make one a full member of a given minority. I am sure we can incorporate this into the article, although you should be aware this is a touchy issue, as some (see Vilnija) are trying to score some political agenda points with related arguments.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

A minority isn't only a political issue, but a cultural one too. Many Polish Tatars are Polish nationalists distinguished with Virtuti Military, but still Tatars. If the article concentrates on political matters, it should be corrected, eg. by insiders. Xx236 10:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

This article doesn't inform about religious life. Xx236 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Reference 5 is in ref. 7. Xx236 12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

http://www.forumvilnius.lt/print.php?news.36 Xx236 07:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Interesting. Polish CBOS often runs studies on Polish attitude towards other nations (here is the 2006 study). I wonder if there are equivalent Lithuanian surveys?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  16:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

PS. For those interested, Polish attitude to Lithuanian is relatively neutral (as many like them as dislike). Interestingly, it's the highest score from all Polish 'east' neighbours (all others are more disliked, including Baltic countries). This score (~35 in favor) has been relatively stable in 2000s, but has risen from 20-30 in the 1990s. The dislike score has also improved (dropped from 30-40 in 1990s to ~25 in 2000s). --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Despite my WP:AGF User:Piotrus altered the text to the point of unrecognizible. Therefore I did revert stating rhis edit as a disruptive one, and suggest to discuss article before editing it further.-- Lokyz 23:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Before you accuse me of vandalism again, please explain what is it that you find problematic with my edit.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with Lokyz points, plaese stop distorting referenced text with you own POV. M.K. 10:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Disruption of logic of events, removal of information regarding Polish atrocities towards Lithuanan organization, adding words to the citation it does not have, removal of link to Polonization, using reference, that supported the fact you removed, to support some strange claims of your about fifth column - the book does not have such accusations. You're disrupting wikipedia at large, therefore restoring the text as original.-- Lokyz 07:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I am rewritng your poor grammar/style text into something that is useful for this project. Please work on getting your English better, and don't revert copy editing changes. Fifth column is a perfectly acceptable term in this context. Do you have any specific problems with my edit?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

"Fifth column" is an extremely loaded expression, which must be found in the source. The statement "Please work on getting your English better" speaks for itself. Were references removed during this edit? Novickas 00:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

All right, go and replace fifth column with some better description. I thought it sounded better - and explained more - than "After these actions Polish people were met with high level of suspicion.", but if you like the other variant better, I certainly don't intend to argue much over such a minor issue. But please, avoid monstrosities like [[Sejny Uprising#Aftermath|plundered Lithuanian organizations there]].--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure, I'll work on my English - but removal of referenced information and disruption of the cited text will not be tolerated. The book does not use terms, that are not contemporary - like fifth column, and the massive outrage in Lithuania did happen because of the plundering of the Lithuanian organizations in Sejny.

You managed to break the citation completely. It was put here to support "massive outrage", that was caused by plundering Lithuanian organizations

And please explain how (and why) does it happen, that after rewriting of my supposedly poor grammar referenced facts tend to disapear from articles? And would you please care to explain, where did Polish Military Organization disapear from the article, and why was link to Sejny Uprising destroyed?-- Lokyz 06:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Let's compare (I'll remove the reference text for better readability):

My text: Situation of Polish speaking population in Lithuania worsened, as Polish Military Organization staged Sejny Uprising and plundered Lithuanian organizations there.<ref name=KA> Furthermore image of Poles deteriorated because of the uncovered plot to overthrow sovereign Lithuanian government by Polish Military Organization, that was supported by local Polish minority. Further blows were Polish-Lithuanian War and fake Żeligowski's Mutiny. After these actions Polish people were met with high level of suspicion.

Your text:From 1918 to 1921 several conflicts - such as Sejny uprising, attempted Polish coup of Lithuanian government, the Polish-Lithuanian War and Żeligowski's Mutiny contributing to constant worsening of Polish-Lithuanian relations; increasingly Polish people were seen as " fifth column" in Lithuania.<ref name=KA>

Can you feel the difference? Or another question - can you read Lithuanian? If no so where did this fifth column appear from? You're trying to convince readers, that this book does use the term, while it does not. And where did link to Polonization go?-- Lokyz 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I removed the link to fifth column and readded the link to PMO. I believe my version keeps all your facts, is more neutral and has better style and grammar. I asked Renata to opine on that.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Needs exact citations from this source [1] as provided pages are not displayed in Google print. M.K. 10:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)p.s. also of these claims original and translation. M.K. 10:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You should be able to obtain the copy of the English book or access it via Google Print. Here are the requested quotations of Polish text, I will provide translations when I have more time - but I know there are other editors watching this page who can do it as well.

1. "Najważniejsze problemy mniejszości polskiej na Litwie wiążą się z traktowaniem przez władze Republiki Litewskiej oświaty polskiej. To jest ten poważny problem: niedofinansowanie i ewidentny brak preferencji dla polskojęzycznego szkolnictwa. Z tym się wiąże brak podręczników i przyjęcie takiej strategii rozwoju oświaty polskiej, która nie była uzgodniona z polską społecznością na Litwie."
2. Doradca premiera poinformował, że na Litwie jest obecnie 120 szkół polskojęzycznych, w których uczy się ponad 18 tys. dzieci. Wiele z nich jest niedoinwestowanych i wymaga generalnego remontu. Jak zaznaczył, w miejscowościach, zamieszkanych głównie przez Polaków powstają nowoczesne szkoły litewskie. "W ostatnich latach powstało ponad 30 szkół litewskich i jedna polska, finansowana przez Senat RP"..."Jak stwierdził doradca premiera, podręczniki w szkołach polskojęzycznych - tłumaczone z języka litewskiego na polski - były znacznie droższe niż litewskie. Ich nakład był niewielki. "

--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You have been asked to provide citations and their translations, as this is English encyclopedia, you also have been asked to provide citations from quoted English source, as pointed in the article specific Google print pages are not accessible. You failed to do so. M.K. 11:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You have demonstrated here that you are able to translate from Polish to English, so I don't see why you cannot do it yourself. Google Print links seem to work well ( [2]).--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It is completely irrelevant in which language I can variate as WP is run not only by me, other editors may have more questions, refusal to follow the request meets neglect towards WP:POINT. And no, I cant see Google print 148-149 pages, which are used in article, so if you have access to them it would not be big deal to provide specific requested citations. Still waiting, M.K. 08:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC) reply

"This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text." May? Xx236 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

It's a simplification or not true. Quite many of the Poles are of Eastern Slavic background, -icz names. Xx236 ( talk) 10:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The map “% of Poles by municipalities “shows different data than wrong map “Grey: Areas with majority Polish population in modern Lithuania. Red: pre-WWII Polish-Lithuanian border”. The second map has to be corrected. (Vytautus, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.25.150 ( talk) 11:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have attempted in good faith to keep the article encyclopedic by shortening the lead. I have not removed any information that is presented later in the article. We now have an awkward situation where duplicate information follows itself. Why? Dr. Dan ( talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Read WP:LEAD.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I have read WP:LEAD, and I have read plenty of reference works in my time. If you think that the format of this article and the redundacy of the information is appropriate in the first two paragraphs of the article, be happy with your edits. It's hardly the only poorly written article in the project that needs attention. Hopefully a language barrier is the reason that my concerns are not acceptable. Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't enjoy the repetition. The answer however is not to gut the lead, but the expand and rewrite the article so that the repetition is less visible - while the lead is as informative as possible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I also didn't appreciate the redundancy, and therefore made the changes. The answer is not to gut the lead. The answer is not to gut the lead. The answer is not to gut the lead, but perhaps to remove the redundancy, and make the article more encyclopedic. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dan ( talk • contribs)

How many of them - one hundred, 100 000? Many centuries - how many is many? Xx236 ( talk) 08:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps the entire sentence should be removed, since it's impossible to answer your question with any true degree of certainty. Dr. Dan ( talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The article states that there are approximately 234,989 Poles currently living in Lithuania. It also claims that 187,918 of these inhabitants claim that Polish is their mother tongue. What do the other 47,071 Poles claim as their mother tongue? Dr. Dan ( talk) 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

22 439 Russian

17 233 Lithuanian

1 040 Belarusian

44 Ukrainian

19 Roma

8 Latvian

1 German

8 Other languages

6 279 Not indicated

This is official Census 2001 data [3]. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 08:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Atlas of Lithuania 1981 data

Absolute numbers with Polish language education at Lithuanian schools
( Raions rural schools):

• Raion name Lithu. Russian Polish
• Vilnius ------ 1250 ---- 4150 -- 6400
• Salcininkai -- 500 ---- 2050 -- 3200
• Sviencienis- 1350 ----- 600 --- 100
• Trakai ------- 2900 ------ 50 --- 950
• Varena ------ 6000 ------- 0 ----- 50
• Sirvintos ---- 2400 ----- 100 -- 100

"Атлас Литовской ССР" 1981 ^[1]

-- Poeticbent talk 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Germans were expelled but Poles allowed to leave. POV. Xx236 ( talk) 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply

In which Lithuania? Ethnic or historical? Xx236 ( talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I think we still need articles on ethnic Lithuania and historical Lithuania.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I have no intention of edit warring over this small picture, but I think it would be useful: the article is skimpy on graphics, and such a cartoon looks like a good illustration of attitudes to Poles in interwar Lithuania. If any alternate picture can be suggested, we can consider it, but until then - what's wrong with this one? It shouldn't be very offensive, I hope (perhaps sb could translate it, though)? PS. Since it was asked "would there be a room for Dubingiai event picture in this article?" - which I assume is a comparison to this discussion, I think that the difference is both one of scope (this is a more specialized article) and of importance - while Dubingai massacre was a rare exception, a tragic historical footnote, anti-Polish attitudes (and presumably cartoons) in interwar Lithuania were a common occurrence - one perhaps not worth mentioning in general History of Lithuania, but relevant here. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you also think that those Danish cartoons look like a good illustration of attitudes to Muslims in Denmark? Would you support inclusion of such cartoons in the Muslims of Denmark article? -- Doopdoop ( talk) 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If we had a source that stated that there are widespread anti-Muslim feelings in Denmark, yes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

There are plenty of Arabic sources stating that. -- Doopdoop ( talk) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Islam_in_Denmark has even got a paragraph about those cartoons. Why don't you add an illustration? -- Doopdoop ( talk) 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not interested in that article to invest my time there. If you don't want to discuss this one, I will restore the images as you have failed to present arguments for the removal.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I discussed your proposal above by making a [Reductio ad absurdum] argument. -- Doopdoop ( talk) 10:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Since we seem to be unable to reach consensus, I've asked for a third opinion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to repeat main points: this picture is irrelevant (it probably relates to the whole Polish nation, not to the minority in Lithuania), it is also inflammatory and including it would promote ethnic hatred. -- Doopdoop ( talk) 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to repeat my main point: the attitudes towards the minority were highly related to the attitudes towards Poles in general, hence it is relevant (until we find an even more specific picture), being historical it is hardly inflammatory and I don't see how it could promote any kind of hatred today (I also again repeat my request for a translation). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it is an appropriate picture to include in the history section, as long as it was given the appropriate historical context and explanations. I note it's already used in the article Lithuanization. The argument about it being inflamatory I think is irrelevant - the picture is relevant to the history of Polish-Lithuanian relations and hence to the polish minority in Lithuania AndrewRT( Talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

While this picture has some very minor relevance to the history of Polish-Lithuanian relations, it is irrelevant to the Polish minority article because during the period when it published there was no significant Polish minority in Lithuania as Vilnius district belonged to Poland at that time. Also there is no translation into English, so it is not possible to discuss the issue fairly.

Re "I don't see how it could promote any kind of hatred today" - just look at the heated relations between Piotrus and some Lithuanian editors ( [4]) -- Doopdoop ( talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC) reply

As this article shows, there was still a Polish minority in interwar Lithuania. And how is my discussion with another Lithuanian editor relevant to this cartoon, I have no idea. After all, not a single Lithuanian editor has so far commented on this issue? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This cartoon is PD, which means that this text can be put on the native Wikisource project, and a free translation created on the English Wikisource project. In that way, an accurate translation can be developed in a collaborative manner independently of the issue of its inclusion on this Wikipedia article. I would recommend putting this discussion on hold until it has been translated into English, so that 1) its inclusion can be accurately assessed by people who are giving a true third opinion, and 2) so that if it is included on the article, readers can understand what the cartoon is actually about. John Vandenberg ( talk) 03:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm stopping by to fill the third opinion request. It seems like there are a few questions here. Does this image add visual interest, improving the article? I'd say yes. Is it relevant to the section involved? Assuming that the description and dating are correct, yes. Should we be worried that this will incite hate against Poles? Neither the subject matter nor the illustration seem to merit that kind of worry. Is this comparable to the Danish situation with the cartoons of Mohammad? That seems implausible to me. Overall, should the image be in the article? With what I understand, I'd say yes, although if the translated text were something particularly egregious, I'd be inclined to find something else. I hope that helps! William Pietri ( talk) 04:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Soviet sources are hardly reliable for controversial issues. Can we have some more reliable sources on the subjet, discussing whether Poles in Lithuania were polonized locals or immigrants? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The controversy of this issue has nothing to do with soviets, but maybe somebody can find newer publications by the same authors that wrote the article in 1986 encyclopedia. -- Doopdoop ( talk) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Ah, another case of WP:IDONTLIKE. As a hint, I'd suggest to find any RS, that would explain how did such numbers of Poles emerged in Lithuanian rural areas some other way than per Polonization in 19th century.-- Lokyz ( talk) 20:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, one does wonder, but it seems many people don't like it - so maybe a statement to that effect, with a cite request, would be in order. Even tho it will lead to arguments about Garsva as a reliable source, and onwards... hopefully we can take it slowly. Personal disclosure here, Novickas is my father's surname. Whether we are "actually Poles" (i.e. Nowickis) or not has been the subject of civilized debate among family and friends for several generations. See Czesław Miłosz for an analogous attitude. So maybe I should recuse myself here - possibly more neutral, or possibly I have internalized that ambiguity to the point of uselessness. Novickas ( talk) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Polonization or Lithuanization are the processes divided in epoches: polonization was but lithuanization is. So correct approach would be: present state of Lithuanian Poles is the result of former Polonization and Poles immigration (?, but not immigration - migration in Rzeczpospolita, Russian Empire, Poland 1918-1939), then Stalin's repressions and Poles repatriation to Poland, next in migration of Belorussian Poles and Lithuanization of Lithuanian Poles.

So it is not correct to clame only one possible origin of Lithuanian Poles.

Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 06:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

An edit was made yesterday or today adding this statement: In late May 2008, Association of Poles in Lithuania issued a letter, addressed to the government of Lithuania, complaining about anti-minority (primarily, anti-Polish) rhetoric in media, citing upcoming parliamentary elections as a motive, and asking for better treatment of the ethnic minorities. The Association has also filed a complain with the Lithuanian prosecutor, asking for investigation of the issue.

Well...people issue letters to their governments all the time. Could we wait and see what the prosecutor's reaction is, what international reaction is, etc. Otherwise this is just passing news. Novickas ( talk) 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I was thinking exact same thing. It's a case of recentism. Unless something comes out of the letter, I don't think it should be mentioned. As it says, elections are coming up and I don't see how this is any different from a standard campaign trick. Renata ( talk) 02:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Association of Poles is not standing up in elections, and as a complain of the representation of the largest minority organization in Lithuania, it should probably be noted in more articles than just in here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "ZPL" :
  • {{pl icon}} [http://encyklopedia.interia.pl/haslo?hid=114890 ZWIĄZEK POLAKÓW NA LITWIE]. [[Encyklopedia Interia]]. Last accessed 20 January 2007.
  • {{pl icon}} [http://encyklopedia.interia.pl/haslo?hid=216646 AKCJA WYBORCZA POLAKÓW NA LITWIE]. [[Encyklopedia Interia]]. Last accessed 20 January 2007.

DumZiBoT ( talk) 16:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

MISTAKES IN MAP It is the same map as "the areas of Lithuania with Polish majority as of 2006" so the same applies to this map too. The map data showing "the areas of Lithuania with Polish majority as of 2006" is wrong. Please correct it. Polish as majority are only in Salcininkai region and Vilnius region, without Vilnius city and Vilnius city municipality. In the drawn picture about 40% of Trakai region are marked as "Polish majority" while where lives 19798 Lithuanians, 12403 Polish, 3188 Russians(2005.11.22 http://www.stat.gov.lt/lt/pages/view/?id=357). Secondly, Vilnius city and Vilnius municipality contours/borders seems good, but the size of it is obviously too small compared with official map. In order to drawn it correctly, I suggest to use a map with regions borders. In newly, correctly drawn map we should see Vilnius city municipality surrounded not from all sides by "polish majority", but as having "a corridor in the west-south direction".

If you can please provide, in the talk page, Lentvaris, Trakai, Senieji Trakai, Paluknis little regions stats. (Vytautus) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.25.150 ( talk) 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Anon wrote: Lithuanian law stipulates that everyone who has citizenship and resides within the country has to forcibly Lithuanianise their name, hence why most of the above list of Poles have listed Lithuanian equivalents. No-one has any right to spell their name the way they see fit.. Can this be referenced? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

In Lithuanian the special linguistic rule of spelling Polish names really exists. So, every Polish name has equivalent in Lithuanian, but Lithuanian is the only official (this can be referenced) and all official documents are issued in Lithuanian. So the special spelling rule has to be referenced, I guess. Bogomolov.PL ( talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It is simple anon IP's addition constitutes OR, M.K. ( talk) 13:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Rewritten and referenced. It seems that Lithuania is the only country in EU which refues to allow its citizens to spell their names as they wish; note that any person, in Poland and elsewhere, can require their name to be spelled in Lithuanian alphabet and that request will be granted. But if a Lithuanian citizen requests that his own country spells his name in a different alphabet, he will be refused.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Xx236 ( talk) 10:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Renata, could you summarize the info that was removed and why? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Almost the same text is repeated. Xx236 ( talk) 09:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

That was a question posed to me by User:Kotniski yesterday in an edit summary of his. Let me give Kotniski the rationale regarding my opposition to this tendency, and to anyone else concerned. Why is it so difficult to understand that this is English Wikipedia. Most encyclopedias do not need to give a translation of the foreign language title of an article in its lead. Whereas I do think it's appropriate to give the translation of a geographical toponym, e.g., Warsaw: "Warszawa", Rome: "Roma", Munich: "München", in their native languages it is not appropriate to take the name of an article, like Poles in Lithuania and add "( Polish: Polacy na Litwie)", which btw is actually an incorrect translation of the title, The Polish Minority in Lithuania, that it follows. Especially in the lead of an article on English Wikipedia. Furthermore the argument that the article is about Poles and that it therefore justifies such an edit, is nonsensical. If for example the article regarding the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth told us that they are known in Lithuanian as "Abiejų Tautų Respublikos padalijimai" or in Polish as "Rozbiory Polski", I would find that to be unnecessary overkill as well. As for the other geographical entities in this article, its the same old story. The capital of Lithuania is Vilnius, the fact that it is called "Wilno" in Polish is as important as telling us that the former capital of the Lithuania-Polish Commonwealth, Cracow is known as "Cracovie" in French. Dr. Dan ( talk) 17:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Agree about the first part (we don't need "Polacy na Litwie" or the translations of such phrases as "Partitions of..."), but not the second. Polish names for Lithuanian places have, for obvious historical reasons, much more significance than French names for Polish places. And particularly in an article about the Polish minority in that country, readers are likely to be as interested in the Polish names for the places they inhabit as in the Lithuanian one. In any case it doesn't improve the article to remove such relevant information from it. (The same would of course apply to German names for places in Poland, etc. etc., in the relevant articles.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Glad that we agree on some aspects of the debate. This concept (and I mean that loosely) "for obvious historical reasons" can be a very thorny and contentious one, as is may be different in the eye of each beholder. For example, Jogaila was Lithuanian, Henry III was French, and Stephen Bathory was Hungarian, yet they were all Kings of Poland. This argument for "obvious historical reasons" becomes murky and allows for too much nationalistic POV pushing. It's much simpler to stick to using English and not worry about whether "our readers are likely to be interested in the Polish names for the places they inhabit". Poles inhabit " Nowy Jork" too. Dr. Dan ( talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Only that New York was never part of any Polish State nor it had anything to do with Poland. Btw you have used this "it's teh nationalistic POV pushing" argument more than enough, time to get some new idea.  Dr. Loosmark  19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately Loosmark, "new ideas" concerning that argument are not likely to come from you [5]. I also noticed that you've never contributed to this article, or this talk page before, either with your earlier moniker, or after you received your recent doctorate. But I know you enjoy interacting with me, following me around. Since your comments are usually all very pleasant, it's always nice to hear from you just the same. Sorry you plan to retire soon [6] Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately Loosmark, "new ideas" concerning that argument are not likely to come from you. True, but since it's you who are trying to axe out the Polish names I am afraid that the burden of proving a convincing argument for doing so is on you. The Nowy Jork thing was a decent try but you fell a bit short with it I am afraid. "But I know you enjoy interacting with me, following me around." Follow you around? Dan please WP:AGF, I am just trying to improve the project.  Dr. Loosmark  02:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

(OD) Loosmark, I always try to assume good faith. You say, "I am just trying to improve the project". Of course you are, and your participation and interaction in the project speaks for itself in that regard. As for my remark, "Unfortunately Loosmark, "new ideas" concerning that argument are not likely to come from you." You say that's true. So we're in agreement there too. As for "axing out" Polish names or anything else that is POV pushing, incorrect, or irrelevant, when did that become unfashionable or questionable? Here it just happens to be Polish names. Elsewhere, my endeavors to try to improve the project deal with other matters. Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Please understand that Polish names in this article are not POV pushing, incorrect (unless they are) or irrelevant. They are highly relevant and likely to be of interest to readers. In the past I've seen you gratuitously removing Polish names from articles on places in Lithuania - this is damaging to the encyclopedia (just as removing Lithuanian names from articles on places in Poland would be). We must preserve good information. (Not necessarily in the leads of articles, but if you remove something from the lead, then at least incorporate it in another natural place in the article.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

You bring up some interesting points. However saying that placing the Polish variants here is "highly relevant" and "likely to be of interest to readers" may not be the case. Please remember the topic heading, "How are Polish names irrelevant to an article about Poles?" The Polish diaspora, often referred to as Polonia, exists in many countries. In some places the minority is significant, in others not particularly so. If I'm not mistaken Curitiba has the third largest Polish colony (after Chicago) in the world. Informing our readers on English Wikipedia that the Polish version of that city is "Kurytyba" is not really all that necessary. Over a million people of Polish descent live in France, 10 million or so in North America, and on and on. Fortunately we have a Polish Wikipedia where lots of information about Polish toponyms are available. Pretty easy to find. Regarding my "gratuitously removing Polish names from articles on places in Lithuania", that stemmed from the fact that many editors (mostly Polish ones) decided that virtually every city, town, village, hamlet, and finally, "neighborhood" in Lithuania was fair game and "needed" the Polish variant to be included in the lead of the respective article. I found that a coordinated agenda was being implemented to this end. As for my removing lots of this undue nonsense being "damaging to the encyclopedia," I find that the gratuitous placing of this "information" to be more damaging. Kotniski, it got so bad that even the neighborhoods of Vilnius, had to have their Polish variant in the lead. Žvėrynas and most of the suburbs of Vilnius became battlegrounds of nationalistic POV pushing (sorry, but that was what it was). It became so bizarre that even pictures of Lithuanian neighborhoods, etc. had to have their Polish variant placed into their captions. [7] It took the EEML case to quiet all of that down, when many of the parties involved were banned and placed off limits on the subjects. Another incident involved the article on Kėdainiai where some 700 people of Polish ancestry live in a city with a population exceeding 30,000 people. That too "needed" the Polish geographical "variant" on English Wikipedia in the lead. Presumably, that entry was to inform our readers on English Wikipedia of this "highly relevant information and likely to be of interest to them." Since we seem to have a disagreement here, perhaps others can weigh in on this. Dr. Dan ( talk) 18:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The Poles in Lithuania are not Polonia and neither are they diaspora or a "Polish colony". Those people live in those lands for many, many centuries. Also those territories were at various times in history part of a Polish state. So please Dan stop mixing apples and pears in Randy in Boise style.  Dr. Loosmark  18:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

O.K., I've been called a few choice things in the past. A "sword-wielding skeleton", is a new one. Got a good laugh out of it. Thanks, getting a laugh around here can be quite a good thing. So tell us just what the "Polish minority in Lithuania" is. Please don't tell us again how long they've lived in Lithuania or that those territories were part of the Polish State (somewhat debatable in itself). Of course the concept is clear as far as the words go in English, but explain why they are not part of Polonia. While you're at it Loosmark, just so I'm not comparing apples to oranges and staying closer to Poland itself, how do you view the Polish minorities in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia? Certainly Poles have lived there for centuries. At various times some of these territories belonged to the Polish State. Jurij Bogdanowicz Otrepiew probably thought Moscow did. Always wondered if the anecdote that he was shot out of a cannon in a westerly direction was true. Dr. Dan ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Would it be possible for you two to stop making personal remarks and address the issue? It doesn't really matter much whether the Polish minority is Polonia or not; the point is that this article is about that minority, so however few of them there might be or however they came to be there, the names they use for the places they inhabit are obviously relevant. As to the other place articles, adding information to the encyclopedia is not "POV pushing" - there's no point of view involved in saying that something is the Polish name for something (unless you claim that it is not the Polish name) - that's helping to build the encyclopedia. Whether it belongs in the lead or not is a question that can be addressed (I'd have thought that given Lithuania's history, in most cases the Polish names would belong in the lead according to WP's usual standards, just as German names belong in the lead of articles about places in now-Polish Silesia and Pomerania and so on), but it certainly belongs somewhere in the article, so just removing it is destructive.-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Dan seems that the difference between economic emigration, forced resettlement and minority originating from border shifts is unknown to you. Please do some research and then we can resume the debate.  Dr. Loosmark  22:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Over time I've heard many reasons as to why a Polish translation or explanation "needs" to be added to an article on English Wikipedia concerning Lithuania. Some are unusually outlandish but this one is especially humorous, "oh no, please don't start this again - this informatino (sic) is perfectly likely to be of interest to readers of this article" [8]. Although I'm sure there are many people who might be interested in all kinds of information, this article, as was recently pointed out, is not a dictionary. Any reader looking for this "informatino" simply needs to click here to this article and get all the information they need about "Wileńszczyzna" etc. This is part of the beauty of Wikipedia. "Seek and Ye shall find". In the mean time it strikes me as inappropriate and unnecessary. Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

And yet, "Bund der Vertriebenen (BdV)", which I believe is not English is right there in bold in the lead of Federation of Expellees (as it should be). And... whoa! "Deutsche Minderhei", which I also suspect is not English, is right there in the article on German Minority (political party) (as it should be). Crazily enough the article on Chinese American has this in it: "華裔美國人 or 美籍華人" (as it should) even though 美籍華人 is probably not English. And that's despite the fact that "any reader looking for this "information" simply needs to click here to this article (sic) and get all the information they need about 華裔美國人 etc.". Actually, I think the beauty of Wikipedia is that all that information IS present in ALL THOSE OTHER articles. But somehow it's just not allowed in articles on Lithuania. Remind me which policy exactly allows for this kind of exception? Oh. Wait. That kind of removal of useful information is ... AGAINST, Wikipedia guidelines [9] [10]. radek ( talk) 01:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

And yet, the argument at hand isn't about "Wikipedia guidelines" nor about "Bund der Vertriebenen" but the argument that I take issue with is that "this informatino (sic) is perfectly likely to be of interest to readers of this article". What kind of an argument is that? If the reader of the article about chamberpots is interested in its relationship to Poland or the Polish language all they have to do is go to this Polish article and have their interest satisfied without having to have "Nocnik" included in the English Wikipedia article. Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

That's because chamberpots have no particular connection with Poland or the Polish language. Poles in Lithuania clearly do, as you are perfectly intelligent enough to see. This sort of information is all over Wikipedia, as you must surely have noticed, and it just seems to be an anti-Polish campaign to remove specifically Polish-language information from specifically Lithuania-related articles (just as bad as the Polish editors who try to remove German-language information from Poland-related articles). Removing the information serves no purpose and harms the encyclopedia; moving it to a separate section of the article might be a help.-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Kotniski, it's not that chamberpots have any particular relation to Poland, I could have used giraffe (żyrafa) as the example. This article aside, the concept of placing information into an article on the basis that it is "likely to be of interest to readers of an article" strikes me as quite nonsensical. Especially peppering English Wikipedia with foreign terms and even going so far as removing long established English terminology and replacing it with some foreign language variant. That's been a problem, IMO. Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Don't know what point you're making now. I know chamberpots have no particular relation to Poland, that was my point. But this article obviously does have a particular relation to Poland (or at least, the Polish people, speaking the Polish language), so it is quite clear that the Polish names for the places referred to will be of interest to the reader - at least as much interest as the Lithuanian names. In articles about Lithuanians/Germans/etc. in Poland or anywhere else, the same ought to apply. And I can't see how you can possibly find "likely to be of interest..." to be a nonsensical reason for including information in an article (imprecise, possibly) - what other criterion would we possibly apply?-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

(OD) Konitski, a couple of things. First, my main point was neither about chamber pots nor giraffes. It was that the inclusion of foreign toponyms in a Wikipedia article "because it might be of interest to some readers" opens up a can of worms. Who determines what "might" be of interest to whom, and for what reasons. It's really not a good argument. The other matter that I'd like to make an observation about is your other assertion, "or at least, the Polish people, speaking the Polish language". The Polish people, speaking the the Polish language, can read about it on Polish Wikipedia, not on English Wikipedia. I don't know if dual citizenship is permitted between the two countries (I suspect that it is not), but I think you mean Lithuanians who have some ties to Poland, and when it is convenient take advantage of that fact, and when it it not convenient to so, do not. While studying in Wroclaw, I had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of many Polish-Lithuanians who belonged to a rather large "towarzystwo" (society or club). As a matter of fact when I spent a summer in Lithuania I had some addresses and contacts from members of this organization. Let me tell you in all honesty, that having added to my ability to speak Polish as a consequence of an academic year spent at the Jagiellonian University, these Lithuanian "Poles" definitely didn't speak Polish. At times it was like listening to something akin to Kaszubian. I'm especially referring to the older "Polish-Lithuanians" who left the Vilnius region after the Second World War and went to Poland. Their children and grandchildren spoke Polish well, but they did not. But you know what? They spoke Lithuanian very well. On the other side of the border, i.e., "na Litwie" (in Lithuania), once again the argument about "Polish" speakers seemed very weak to me, and there the young seemed to speak better English than Polish. Of course they could speak the Language of the country they were living in. They spoke Lithuanian very well. Just like the Polish citizens in Puńsk do. Unfortunately many people in the United States of Polish heritage cannot speak Polish and have no concept of their ancestral history or culture. But there are also a few "American-Polish" tourists who come to Poland believing that they can speak Polish. I heard a few of them speaking Polish and I found it to be rather humorous. Then again it reminded me a little bit of the language spoken by "Polacy na Litwie" (Poles in Lithuania). I still think including Polish toponyms here on the basis of "it might be of interest to some readers" is a pretty weak tiresome argument. Dr. Dan ( talk) 23:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

If someone's interested in reading about Poles in Lithuania, they're quite likely to be interested in knowing what the Polish names for the places mentioned are. Same with Germans in Poland, Asians in Britain, any other ethnicity anywhere else. I don't mean of interest to the subject people themselves, but of anyone else who might be reading about them. Wouldn't you want to know such things if you were reading this type of article? I can't understand why you think that supplying readers with the information they might be interested in is "tiresome" or "nonsensical" - surely it's the whole point of Wikipedia's existence?-- Kotniski ( talk) 13:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Kotniski, regarding "If someone's interested in reading about Poles in Lithuania, they're quite likely to be interested in knowing what the Polish names for the places mentioned are." It's an interesting opinion, but just an opinion. It's quite possible that they are not as interested as you think they might be. Just the same it's your opinion and as far as I can tell not part of any Wikipedia policy. It's certainly not something that most encyclopedias employ in their content space.

So I doubt that we're going to agree on that one. As for "it just seems to be an anti-Polish campaign", Kotniski, I think more highly of your contributions to the project and your intelligence. Usually you don't subscribe to such absurd remarks like that. I hope you don't see the removal of Polish toponyms in Lithuanian geographical and biographical articles on English Wikipedia to be part of an anti-Polish campaign. You see, actually the problem is a relentless desire by some to continually place the Polish language into articles concerning Lithuania on English Wikipedia. Sometimes the argument is that Lithuania was part of Poland (very debatable). Sometimes the argument is that Polish was the "official" language of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (an entity that ceased to exist in the 18th century). Sometimes the argument is "it does no harm". And there have been a few other doozies. The latest is "If someone's interested in reading about Poles in Lithuania, they're quite likely to be interested in knowing what the Polish names for the places mentioned are". As I said before there's a great article with lot's of information about the subject (replete with a revisionist map), with the Polish toponyms. As for the claim that the typical non-Polish, English speaking person reading this article, who stumbles across the Vilnius Region, is asking "Gee, I wonder what the Polish people living in Lithuania call it in Polish." I think that's quite a stretch. Btw, have you ever been to Lithuania? Dr. Dan ( talk) 16:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, though not recently. Anyway, Wikipedia doesn't suffer the space limitations that other encyclopedias do, so can provide all the information it wants. Most times that includes relevant alternative foreign-language names for the places and institutions it mentions. Not just Polish in Lithuania, but other similar combinations all over the world. It is something readers are likely to be interested in, even if you personally are not. -- Kotniski ( talk) 18:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I understand the fact that space limitations are not totally a factor here, although, from time to time, the "powers that be" do suggest trimming plenty of articles from being too lengthy. I won't pretend to think that I know what the readers might want, or what they might be interested in. I prefer simple straightforward information based on reliable sources without an agenda behind all of it. I find that the fantasy (especially in this case) that the motivations for my disagreement here are based on anti-Polonism troubling to say the least. Since you haven't been to Lithuania recently, and if your visit was during the existence of the travesty called the LSSR, your experiences were probably limited (unless you were a highly connected member of the PZPR) in having contact with "Polacy na Litwie". My digression regarding their language skills was merely to point out how poorly these "Poles" spoke Polish from my personal experience. Back in Poland, I hate to say it, but regarding many of these "Polacy z Litwie w Polsce" (Poles from Lithuania living in Poland), too many that I met were motivated by self-interest rather than nationality. Better to live in the PRL than the USSR, regardless of their true origins. Do think about it. Dr. Dan ( talk) 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

All very interesting, but the fact that you bring up these sociopolitical issues in a discussion about whether to mention particular names in an article doesn't exactly help persuade me that you're not acting from political motivations. (I've recently been arguing in favour of including temporary Nazi-invented names in articles on places now in Poland - while we all abhor Naziism, Wikipedia is here to give the full facts, not to exclude certain facts because they remind us of things we don't like.)-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

(OD) Kotniski, again you're missing the point of my concern with your reasoning. If you feel that the inclusion of Polish toponyms in this article is important, at least come up with an argument worthy of consideration. This one, "If someone's interested in reading about Poles in Lithuania, they're quite likely to be interested in knowing what the Polish names for the places mentioned are," is nonsensical. Whether or not you've recently been on a campaign arguing in favor of including Nazi-invented names in articles about places in Poland is your business, not mine. Don't care for the idea (personally removed Hans Frank from the Polish ruler's category some time ago), but it's a project anyone can edit. Let's forget about what you call the "sociopolitical" dynamic for the moment (these anecdotes rarely do anything but explain how someone developed their world view), and look at your argument neutrally. This is English Wikipedia. It's not a French, Polish, or Spanish dictionary. What "interests" a reader in your opinion is not a policy. If a reader is interested in what a frying pan is in French they go here, if they want to know what it is in Polish they go here, if they're interested to know what it is in Spanish they go here. They do not go here for that information. Nor should anyone have to argue about including the Finnish version (it interested me) in the English Wikipedia article on that basis. Dr. Dan ( talk) 22:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You seem to be going back to irrelevancies. Same response as when it was giraffes or chamberpots. -- Kotniski ( talk) 07:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC) reply

To the contrary, Kotniski, you continually seem to ignore the point of this discussion, namely "If someone's interested in reading about Poles in Lithuania, they're quite likely to be interested in knowing what the Polish names for the places mentioned are ". For some reason you seem to be fixated on chamberpots (the giraffes were merely to take you off of that fixation and off of them). We simply cannot attempt to interpret what might interest readers as a reason to include irrelevancies into articles because that's what we are interested in. I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend that. Dr. Dan ( talk) 23:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

We can use common sense as to what readers might be interested in - relevant foreign names are generally considered to fall within that category, all over Wikipedia. You really do write utter nonsense - I'm fixated on chamberpots?!? That just seems to be calculated to start a fight.-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I'm not interested in any fights. Only that you focus on your contention that the inclusion of certain foreign toponyms in a Wikipedia article "because it might be of interest to some readers" is nonsensical. Again, who determines what "might" be of interest to whom, and for what reasons. It's really not a good argument. And once more, the other matter that I'd like to make an observation about is your other assertion, "or at least, the Polish people, speaking the Polish language" (presumably are interested). That is the heart of the matter, that is what our disagreement is about. The Polish people, speaking the the Polish language, can read about it on Polish Wikipedia, not on English Wikipedia. And once again if a reader is interested in what a giraffe is in Spanish they need to go here instead of here. On Spanish Wikipedia they will find "La jirafa". No matter how much they're interested in reading about it on English Wikipedia, it would make little sense, let alone be using common sense, to include it on English Wikipedia based on your argument. Same goes for the English Wikipedia article about Poles in Lithuania. A reader can satiate their interest about "Soleczniki" at this article. That would be using "common sense". Dr. Dan ( talk) 15:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

They might not even know the Polish name is different, so won't know to look; but even if they do know, it's still likely (I think) that they would want to know what it is; sufficiently likely that it's worth mildly distracting other readers by including the name in brackets. This is normal practice - I don't believe you really can't see the difference between this and giraffes, but just to spell it out: Wikipedia articles include relevant foreign names for things (not all foreign names in existence), and while it's clear that the Polish language is relevant to the topic of Poles in Lithuania, the Polish or Spanish language is not particularly relevant to the topic of giraffes.-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

PS, oh and as I thought I'd already explained, I didn't mean "the Polish people speaking the Polish language are interested"; I meant that "people who are reading about the Polish people speaking the Polish language are interested" (i.e. the people reading about those Polish people will be interested in what those Polish people call the places they inhabit). I think you really do understand all this.-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Despite my view above about including Polish place-names in the article, I really don't see any justification for this continuous insertion of the phrase "Polacy na Litwie" at the top - not only is it not even equivalent to what goes before it, but it's just a phrase in the Polish language that has no significance (or if it does have some special significance, that would need to be properly explained). Can everyone see the difference between this and actual names?-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe that any article about an ethnicity should inform, how the people call themselves. "Polacy na Litwie" is, as far as I understand, such a name. Not "Polonia litewska" or "Polacy w Litwie". Lithuanian minority in Poland does not containe such name, Xx236 ( talk) 12:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I still don't think it's a name; it's just the obvious Polish translation of "Poles in Lithuania". By including it we're implying that this phrase has some special significance for people of that ethnicity, which as far as I know it doesn't (or if it does, we need a source and an explanation of the significance).-- Kotniski ( talk) 08:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply

We have plenty of sources - see the names of organizations in Lithuania. Xx236 ( talk) 10:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Vilnius Region informs about pre-WWII period mostly, so the link isn't correct, rather Vilnius district municipality and Šalčininkai district municipality. . Xx236 ( talk) 13:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Whenever an etnic Pole and an ethnic Lithuanian or Russian meet, which language do they usually speak is it Lithuanian, Russian, English or some other language? Aaker ( talk) 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75478,11677174,Przeciez_jestem_Snarski__a_nie_Snarskis.html Xx236 ( talk) 13:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

He is perhaps the most prominent POLISH figure from Litwa, isn't he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.101.50 ( talk) 05:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC) reply

@ 83.4.101.50 MICKIEWICZ did not hail from or was born on the territory of modern Lithuania. -- YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII ( talk) 07:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC) reply

The infobox says:

[[Catholic Church]], [[Judaism]], [[Orthodox Christianity]] (98.6%).<ref name="Lithuania Census 2011"/>

I am very curious how the census made ethnic Poles into Judaism. Can anyone provide a more explanatory info? Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Poles in Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029195422/http://www.efhr.eu/2012/04/26/the-european-parliament-considers-the-rights-of-the-polish-minority-in-lithuania-to-be-a-very-important-matter-below-is-mr-tomasz-snarskis-account-of-the-committee-on-petitions-mee/?lang=en to http://www.efhr.eu/2012/04/26/the-european-parliament-considers-the-rights-of-the-polish-minority-in-lithuania-to-be-a-very-important-matter-below-is-mr-tomasz-snarskis-account-of-the-committee-on-petitions-mee/?lang=en
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719065520/http://fakty.interia.pl/swiat/news/litwa-polacy-zwracaja-sie-do-wladz-o-pomoc,1114321 to http://fakty.interia.pl/swiat/news/litwa-polacy-zwracaja-sie-do-wladz-o-pomoc,1114321

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Poles in Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927205013/http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html to http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927205013/http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html to http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Poles in Lithuania.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cukrakalnis: Enough of that, let's get things straight here.

• There is absolutely no room for the statement that Poles in Lithuania are simply "Slavicized Lithuanians", this is untrue and hurtful. The fact that the ancestors of some of them used Lithuanian as their first language does not make them "Slavicized Lithuanians". If you insist on this I will report it to WP:FTN.
• Polish minority was persecuted by Lithuanian collaborators, whether you like it or not
• Polonisation affected not only Lithuanian peasants, but also Belarusians

Marcelus ( talk) 10:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

There is absolutely no room for the statement that Poles in Lithuania are simply "Slavicized Lithuanians", this is untrue and hurtful. The fact that the ancestors of some of them used Lithuanian as their first language does not make them "Slavicized Lithuanians". If you insist on this I will report it to WP:FTN. Multiple sources say it's true. It's your opinion and feelings vs. WP:RS of specialists like professors, linguists and historians. Wiki guidelines definitely support the latter. Reporting it to WP:FTN is just a way of you forcing your WP:POV on others, which is clearly pro-Polish, as you keep removing any mention that these Polonized Lithuanians maintained an identity separate from Poles by pretending that such things are "irrelevant". You might as well call anything coming from Lithuanians as fringe, because obviously a country with c. 37 million people will have a numerical superiority in scholars compared to the one with 3 million. Moreover, you yourself were accused of putting forth an non-notable conspiracy theory in [11] by an administrator.

Polish minority was persecuted by Lithuanian collaborators, whether you like it or not There were collaborators of other ethnicities too - Russians, Jews, and Tutejszy. WP:RS all prove that. Saying 'local' collaborators is more accurate and WP:NPOV than "Lithuanian collaborators". Sure, they were a majority in these, but you are portraying them as the only ones, which is highly POV.

Polonisation affected not only Lithuanian peasants, but also Belarusians Polonization did affect them also, but we are not talking about Poles in Belarus. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 11:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Ok, so I will report it, it's the same thing you were pushing in Belarusians. Belarusian-speaking peasants were living in the territory of Lithuania. None of these sources claim that Poles in today's Lithuania are "Slavicized Lithuanians", they only claim that their ancestors were of Lithuanian descent. These are two different things. You are simply misrepresenting sources. Polish minority was persecuted by Lithuanian collaborative unit,not Russian. Marcelus ( talk) 11:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Belarusian-speaking peasants were living in the territory of Lithuania - those were Slavicized Lithuanians, as many WP:RS on the subject would tell you. Furthermore, just because they spoke a language does not allow us to say their identity. Remember, language is not the only basis for a person's identity, e.g. Oscar Milosz. Many people in the region were multilingual.

  None of these sources claim that Poles in today's Lithuania are "Slavicized Lithuanians" You are verifiably wrong. Furthermore, if you were right, you should have argued that immediately here, on the talk page, from the getgo. Because you said none, one source from among them will suffice:

  Juos vadiname įvairiai: tiesiog lenkais, Lietuvos lenkais, etniniais lenkais, Vilnijos autochtonais ir dar kitaip. Iš tikrųjų tai yra lenkiškai kalbantys lietuviai. Tokiais jie tapo čia pat, Lietuvoje. - Zinkevičius, 2014. Translation: We call them variously: just Poles, Lithuanian Poles, ethnic Poles, Vilnius Region autochthons and more. In fact, these are Polish-speaking Lithuanians. They became like this right here in Lithuania.

  You are simply misrepresenting sources. If I was, why didn't you show that I was misrepresenting them instead of telling that only after an edit-war? After all, it is you who initiates close to all of these edit-wars between us anyways.

  These are two different things. So why were you wholesale removing sourced statements? You should added words to it like "they are descended from" or "they originate from", etc. Instead you just removed it, which is against Wiki guidelines.

  Polish minority was persecuted by Lithuanian collaborative unit,not Russian. You were also talking about the Soviet occupation in that sentence. If you were referring primarily to the Nazi occupation, then why didn't you specify it? Cukrakalnis ( talk) 11:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  We are talking about the Polish minority in Lithuania, a group that defines itself as "Poles." This is an undeniable fact. Zinkevičius is right that the ancestors of the majority of them spoke Lithuanian, but this does not mean that they are "Slavicized Lithuanians", even he does not call them as such, he only speaks of "Polish speaking Lithuanians". This does not play a role, especially since it is an opinion expressed in a newspaper column (read WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Zinkevičius should be excluded as a reliable source in the context of Poles in Lithuania, because he was an active politician, involved in fighting Polishness in the Lithuanian state ( WP:BIASED). His theories are based on his radical nationalist views. It does not surprise me that you propagate them.

  The theory of the "Polonized Lithuanians" was widely propagated in the Lithuanian media at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s and was borrowed from the interwar ideology and later propagated, among others, by Zigmas Zinkevičius. He propagated the view that there were "no Poles" in Lithuania - only "polonized Lithuanians", who should be facilitated to return to the bosom of the nation, he was calling for of "relithuanisation" of Poles. Another his theory you are propagating here is the so-called "wicz", which boiled down to the claim that the "tutejszy" residents living in the Vilnius area, whose surnames end in "vicz" and who speak a Polish-Belarusian dialect, are ethnic Lithuanians.

  Fortunately, modern Lithuania is moving away from these chauvinistic theories. And it is rather obvious that they have no place on Wikipedia. Marcelus ( talk) 12:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Your edits reflect a heavily Polish POV, e.g. removing sourced statements about the Polonized Lithuanians in Lithuania maintaining a separate identity from Poles even while Polonized, among other things. Especially removing ALL of my changes and the sources supporting them altogether: [12], [13], [14]. That's WP:VANDALISM, and not the first time that it has happened either.

  Furthermore, Professor Zigmas Zinkevičius is a reliable source. If you knew WP:SOURCEDEF, the creator of the work counts as a source, and as he is a widely-cited professor, it's good to cite him. Nowhere in WP:RSCONTEXT is it forbidden to cite an interview with a professor. If you actually read WP:BIASED, it is written: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Even if your accusations of bias were true (which they aren't, but you still claim that he is "biased" because you don't like what he writes), following WP:BIASED, they are still valid and includable in the article.

  His theories are based on his radical nationalist views. Source? That is just your POV opinion — hence, discarded as irrelevant and untrue.

  The theory of the "Polonized Lithuanians" was widely propagated... It's not a theory, you yourself know its true because you wrote about it yourself in the article. Polonized Lithuanians even distinguished themselves from Poles from ethnographic Poland, i.e. the Crown. Look at Lucjan Żeligowski. You're holding two contradictory ideas: on the one hand writing about Polonization in clearly Lithuanian lands and then claiming these are not Polonized Lithuanians. It's you who is obviously wrong.

  Another his theory you are propagating here... It's not a theory, it's research by an internationally respected Professor. Your baseless opinion is irrelevant and you should give sources that disprove it if it is indeed wrong.

  "chauvinistic theories" — they're not theories, they're historical truth, and you have a problematic view of considering everything that you remotely dislike as "chauvinistic" or "theory" and thus dismissing it. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 13:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Quote - Your edits reflect a heavily Polish POV.. and ...That's WP:VANDALISM for Christ's sake Cukrakalnis please don't make the same errors as Pofka. The discussion you both have been very interesting but discuss content only. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 13:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I want to avoid these kinds of disputes or however one would call them and end up like Pofka, but what I am saying is true though — I am only saying this after 10 (!) major removals/reverts by Marcelus. I want to heed your advice GizzyCatBella, but the same thing keeps repeating itself, which forms a clear pattern — this is not the first time someone has called Marcelus something of the sort, and something has to change if this is to change. A suggestion would be for me or Marcelus to go immediately to the talk page after the first revert of an edit by another person, whoever that is, and not after the tenth one. I must point out that I refrain from using Christ's name in such a manner, as it contradicts the Third Divine Commandment, and thus recommend others do so too (nothing personal, just saying). Finally, I cannot fathom how removal of many sentences with at least one WP:RS and a sentence with six sources, does not seem counter Wiki guidelines, from a totally objective NPOV. If they are irrelevant, then explain why in the edit summary (if possible to explain immediately in such a short space) instead of just stating "irrelevant". Cukrakalnis ( talk) 14:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Your dialogue is very interesting and educational. Keep it going please, but debate content only. And remain peaceful folks, eventually, the agreement will materialize. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for the kind words, it really means a lot to me. In this edit, I tried formulating a more neutral, inclusive phrasing and I also added the relevant quotes from the sources, in case anyone has doubts. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 14:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Cukrakalnis: On Zinkevičius, I have answered you in a separate section. For any discussion to be meaningful, we need to establish something. It is a historical fact that the process of Polonization in Lithuania occurred on a mass scale only in the 19th century, when multitudes of peasants adopted the Polish language and culture, which is a fact and I myself described it in the article Polonization. It is also a fact that a large part, probably the majority of the Polish minority in Lithuania are descendants of people who several generations back spoke the Lithuanian language in their everyday life. The third fact is that members of the Polish minority consider themselves to be Poles or Lithuanian Poles, because if this were not the case, we could not speak of a national minority. Putting these facts together one must conclude that the statement that Poles in Lithuania are, as you put it, "Slavicized Lithuanians" is false. If you do not agree with this, then unfortunately I do not see any room for agreement. Because the opposing view assumes the existence of some "biological community of blood and land" that defines "Lithuanianness". This has nothing to do with knowledge and science, and very much to do with racist nationalism.

  @ Marcelus: Mass polonization also happened in the 20th century and it was not just an "adoption". There were Church services held in Polish against the will of the local Lithuanians, surnames Polonized disregarding the person's will, in Lithuania's secondary schools, students were simply forbidden to speak Lithuanian and Samogitian, the Lithuanian language was ridiculed, and students who spoke Lithuanian were punished. Does this sound like willing "adoption" to you? It is also a fact that a large part, probably the majority of the Polish minority in Lithuania are descendants of people who several generations back spoke the Lithuanian language in their everyday life. So why did you remove the neutral phrasing of They are either mostly descended from or are themselves Slavicized Lithuanians, ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [a]} and the American political scientist Walter Clemens mentions a Belarusian origin. ^[6]? This phrase is NPOV, takes into account what is said by various WP:RS. The third fact is that members of the Polish minority consider themselves to be Poles or Lithuanian Poles, because if this were not the case, we could not speak of a national minority. Sure, but removing mention of their origin in the first few sentences is illogical. Inclusion of such information is normal and even necessary, e.g. Russians in Estonia or Baster.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 19:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• The whole next paragraph is about the development of the Polish minority in Lithuania. The sentence: They are either mostly descended from or are themselves Slavicized Lithuanians is false, because they aren't Slavicized Lithuanians, these article is about Polish people in Lithuanian, not about Slavicizied Lithuanians (whatever it is). Marcelus ( talk) 19:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

No, it's not false. You yourself prove that by what is written in the article. I must revert your latest change, because you keep removing sourced statements, especially those which add nuance to the situation. In addition, you keep talking about being short in the top of the article, but you keep unnecessarily expanding one sentence into two (you make the succint phrase Post-World War II, the borders were changed, territorial disputes were suppressed as the Soviet Union exercised power over both countries and a significant part of the Polish population, especially the best-educated, was forcefully transferred from the Lithuanian SSR to the Polish People's Republic. into After the border changes as a result of World War II, a significant part of the Polish population, mainly the best-educated strata, was forced to leave the territory of the Lithuanian SSR. The disputes became politically moot after the Soviet Union exercised power over both countries after World War II.). There is an unnecessary repetition of After Lithuania regained independence, Poles are the largest national minority, concentrated mainly in the Vilnius district municipality., while that is mentioned just a few sentences below with Currently, the Polish population is grouped in the Vilnius region, primarily the Vilnius and Šalčininkai districts.. These are just a few of the issues, in addition to your implicit denial of forceful Polonization and also that Polonization happened in the 20th century. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 20:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• It's false because it's racist nationalism. I already explained it to you couple times. The population transfer happened right after the war, that's why it's a separate sentence. You keep removing mention about Lithuanians collborators and Lithuanian collaborationism. Marcelus ( talk) 20:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  So anything that does not suit your POV is just wrong, anti-Polish, theories, nasty, racist, nationalist, etc., etc. even if different WP:RS from different times all point to the same. The population transfer happened right after the war, that's why it's a separate sentence. - That's what Post-World War II means. It should be one sentence. You keep removing mention about Lithuanians collborators and Lithuanian collaborationism. There was Russian, Jewish, etc. collaborators in Lithuania during Soviet occupation, an occupation which is mentioned in the sentence. The way you wrote it is a clear portrayal of Lithuanians as primary aggressors, from the moment that Lithuanian National Revival starts. That's clear WP:POV. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 20:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I didn't portray Lithuanians as agressor, what I said is that the tensions started after Lithuanian national revival. "Lithuanian collaborators" refers to the German occupation, not the Soviet one Marcelus ( talk) 13:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  The phrase The rise of the Lithuanian national movement led to conflicts between both groups. and specific singling out of Lithuanian collaborators when other ethnicities were involved too comes across as a portrayal of Lithuanians as aggressors against the community discussed here. There needs to be more context, especially as the Lithuanian National Revival happened mostly as a reaction against Polonization, while the collaborators in the Soviet occupation in 1940-41 were ethnically diverse. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  I think the phrase The rise of the Lithuanian national movement led to conflicts between both groups. is neutral, what would you say about "The awakening of national consiusness in the late 19-th century let to the conflitcs between Lithuanian and Polish groups" or something like that? Lithuanian collaborators aren't signaled out, groups like Saugumas, Ypatingasis būrys or LTDF were actively persecutig Polish people in Lithuania, I don't know of any organised Jewish or Russian collaborators who were persecuting Poles in Lithuania, sorry but I don't think this pharsing is wrong Marcelus ( talk) 17:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Cukrakalnis: Zigmas Zinkevičius cannot be considered a reliable source in matters concerning the Polish language and Poles in Lithuania. Since he was a Lithuanian nationalist politician, the Minister of Education, known for his attempts to Lithuanianise the Polish minority, his views are characterised by a strong anti-Polish bias.

• An excerpt from a review of the ZZ book "The history of the Lithuanian Language" written by Robert Boroch:

  Zinkevićius' book also deals with the sensitive issue of Polish-Lithuanian contacts and the "intentional Polonisation" of Lithuania (...) Zinkevićius completely excludes the credibility of Polish sources and studies (Zinkevicius uses the term "occupation activity" in relation to Polish activities on Lithuanian territory"). He believes that the polonisation that took place in Lithuania during the "Polish occupation" was also reflected in scientific literature (...) The influence of the Polish language on the Lithuanian language, according to Zinkevićius, was significant, however, he comments as follows: "From the very beginning, the Polish language in Lithuania formed independently. A specific variety of the language was formed (Poles called it Lithuanian Polish), which is still used in oral form. And it is from this language, and not from the language used in Poland, that the Polish borrowings in the Lithuanian language originate". (s. 245). Researcher divides the Polish language into the language used in Lithuania and the language used in Poland. He does not explain the criteria of such a division, allowing one to think that Vilnius Polish cannot be regarded as an integral part of Polish, which, of course, is wrong, as differences in pronunciation cannot constitute a distinctive feature sufficient to distinguish a given language. Zinkevićius' position is justified only from a propaganda point of view. The division into Vilnius Polish and Polish as separate and independently functioning linguistic systems makes it possible to place Polish in Lithuania in the position of a secondary and dying language, which does not have its own grammar, and any scientific and literary activity is not recorded by this language. Zinkevićius, I believe, intentionally does not mention the Polish press currently published in Lithuania (...) From a philological point of view, Zinkevićius' book is a valuable voice in the scientific research on the Baltic languages, all the more so because the work has been presented to a wide range of readers - due to the language of the lecture, which is English. However, it seems to me that the weakness of the work is its lack of objectivity, mixing ideology and scientific facts.

• Excerpt from Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska's article The Ethnolinguistic Essence of Lithuanian Nationalism and the Anti-Polonism of Lithuanians in the late 1980s and early 1990s:

  Speaking about the anti-Polonism of the late 20th century, one cannot ignore the theory, widely propagated in the media at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, of "polonised Lithuanians. The theory of "polonised Lithuanians" widely propagated in the Lithuanian media at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s cannot be ignored. This was a thesis taken from the interwar ideology, which was later propagated, among others, by a contemporary leading Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius. In 1996-1998 he held the office of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania in the government of Gediminas Vagnorius' government, contributing to the intensification of the policy of Lithuanianisation policy of the so-called South-Eastern Lithuania. In the early 1990s Zinkevičius propagated the view that there are "no Poles" in Lithuania - there are only "polonised Lithuanians" who should be facilitated to return to the bosom of the nation. There were voices raised on the necessity to "relithuanise" Poles, who had been "forcibly" polonised in their time, to which Lithuanian Poles reacted very negatively. The above-mentioned linguist belonged to the group of promoters of the thesis of "tutejszy" and "po prostu". He was one of a group of scholars who proved the theory of the so-called "wicz", which boiled down to the claim that the so-called local residents living in the Vilnius region, whose surnames end in "vich" and who speak a Polish-Belarusian dialect, are ethnic Lithuanians. He wrote: "In this part of the country are very popular all kinds of myths - nonsense spread by polonophiles. [...] The local language of Poles, which we have to deal with north of Vilnius and more or less up to Vilnius [...], is Belarusian. However, try explaining this to those who don't want to hear it. They will start proving to you that it is a local Polish dialect. Is this not a myth? And abroad in Lithuania the same language, which does not differ in anything, is called Belarusian". (...) Later, this theory was developed by another Lithuanian historian, Alvydas Butkus, who calls the language of the Polish minority in Lithuania "relative language". In his opinion, this variety of language came to Vilnius at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Therefore, it cannot be any of the dialects of the Polish language. (...) In 1988 nationalist organisation Vilnija (Vilnius region) was established, which is still active today. Its main aim was the fastest possible Lithuanianisation of the so-called South-Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region) (...) From the very beginning of its existence it had a mainly anti-Polish character and as a "public benefit" organisation, which aims to promote the Lithuanian language and culture in the so-called Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region), it was subsidised from the state budget. The most prominent activists of Vilnius during the period in question were, among others, the above-mentioned scientists - Zigmas Zinkevičius and Alvydas Butkus, but also other members of the Sąjūdis initiative group (Romualdas Ozolas and Professor Arnoldas Piročkinas). The chairman of the association - Kazimieras Garšva - for 20 years held the position of a "social advisor" at the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Lithuania, and the members of Vilnius have held high official, advisory and scientific positions since the establishment of the organisation.

As you can see, we are dealing with a person who preaches nasty anti-Polish theories. He may be an expert on the Lithuanian language, but his views on the Polish language in Lithuania are tainted with hateful nationalism. This @ GizzyCatBella: may be of interest to you Marcelus ( talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Zinkevičius gets his ideas about the Polish language in Lithuania from the Polish linguist Halina Turska. Go read her article (here ^[1] Turska, Halina (1930). "Język polski na Wileńsczyzne". Wilno i Ziemia Wilenska (in Polish). Vol. I.) and you will see where Zinkevičius got his ideas from about "Lithuanian Polish", "Polish borrowings in the Lithuanian language" and etc. Turska herself calls it a dying language on the border of extinction. After looking at who the referenced people are, neither are researchers whose words should be taken without a grain of salt and one of them can be said to "have a dog in the fight": Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska (of the University of Łódź) was actually born in Eišiškės source is this book review. In this book review, it is noted that she did not use the work of Lithuanian historians regarding the subject of Lithuania's Poles in the Soviet times, even if she speaks Lithuanian and the topic was about attempts to establish Polish autonomy in Lithuania (p212). As for Robert Boroch (of the University of Warsaw), he is a "Military anthropologist". Hard to see why his comments should be relevant. Nothing what you said are nasty anti-Polish theories, and what is written is agreed on by many scholars and is in fact proven by what is written in this article. That "po prostu" is not Polish but mostly Belarusian, how it arose, that there indeed was forceful Polonization, Tutejszy did come about through Polonization, etc., etc. I don't understand - this Professor says what is confirmed by multiple sources and is the historical truth, and here you are insulting him and denigrating him as "nasty" and "anti-Polish" for what Poles themselves have said.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 18:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Do you even read Polish? Nowhere in this article does Turska write that Lithuanian Polish is dying out or that it is a separate language that has nothing in common with standard Polish. Either you don't read Polish or you are deliberately misleading. The existence of a northeastern dialect of Polish or "Lithuanian Polish" is in no way controversial. I do not know what matters where Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska was born, the important thing is that Zinkevičius is a fierce anti-Pole and his opinions about Poles in Lithuania have no value. Boroch is an anthropologist, his person is not important anyway, what is important is the nonsense that ZZ writes. You say that his nonsense is confirmed by many scholars, can you name them? Is it someone from outside his circle? I don't think so. Certainly Turska is not among them. Marcelus ( talk) 19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Wyrazem nieprzychylnego stanowiska społeczeństwa względem polszczyzny wileńskiej jest tępienie i pozbywanie się jej własciwości. Pomocną jest tu z jednej strony szkoła, z drugiej - wojsko. Napozór grozi polszczyzńie wileńskiej zagłada. Jakie będą jej dalsze losy, pokaze przyszłość. - page 225 of Turska's article. This sentence is pretty much "Lithuanian Polish is dying out". Either you don't read Polish or you are deliberately misleading. The answer to this is that you yourself are simply wrong, because what I said was in the article I referenced. Plus, no one called it a separate language, I have no clue where you got that from. the important thing is that Zinkevičius is a fierce anti-Pole and his opinions about Poles in Lithuania have no value Except you are wrong here once more (literally nothing he said is anti-Polish, as it is reaffirmed even by Polish, not to mention other sources) and you are unfairly singling him out. Missing out on certain language sources is not a proof that the person harbours negative views, as Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska, a historian who you mentioned, did so herself, and no one is accusing her of being anti-Lithuanian. What "nonsense" do you mean? List them one by one, so that I can clearly answer what you are asking of me. Zinkevičius frequently referenced Halina Turska in his own work, so, whatever you are saying, it makes no sense and is self-contradictory. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 20:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

This sentence is pretty much "Lithuanian Polish is dying out" The sentence isn't about "Lithuanian Polish", but about its variety spoken by the common people. The main ZZ claim is that Polish spoken in Lithuania has and had nothing to do with standard Polish. ZZ views are obviously anti-Polish, he doesn't see them as actual national Polish minority, but a some kind of "ethnographic material" that needs to be relithuanised. The nonesense of ZZ views was listed by Boroch. Marcelus ( talk) 13:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The main ZZ claim is that Polish spoken in Lithuania has and had nothing to do with standard Polish. What Zinkevičius said perfectly aligns with what is already in the article: Most of Poles who live southwards of Vilnius speak a form of Belarusian vernacular called there "simple speech", that contains many substratical relics from Lithuanian and Polish. You are misportraying him as something he is not. As for Boroch, he is not an authority on the topic, and he himself is biased with a Polish POV, which denies that Polonization also happened forcefully (he puts intentional Polonization in ""). What Boroch claims is false is not so - the things he thinks are false are actually proven by other researchers, like the ones who are the WP:RS for the quote from this article. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Quotes from ZZ book "History of Lithuanian Language", p. 245: Right from the start the imported Polish language in Lithuania began acquiring its own unique traits. The so-called Lithuanian Polish language was forming (the Poles call it "polszczyzna litewska") and is still spoken in these regions today. It was from this language, and not from the Polish spoken in Poland, that Polonism began flowing into Lithuanian- it's about 16/17th century, he already claims that there was no Polish language in Lithuania, only specific, separate language "Lithuanian Polish". He isn't talking here about the "simple speech".

He is straight-up lying on pages 316-317: approx. 200,000 people were repatriated from Lithuania, mostly from the former Vilnius territory. Among them there were many Lithuanians who identified themselves as Poles in to order to escapre Stalin's terror - that's simply insane, Poles were equally if not more persecuted by Stalin; the countryside was filled with immigrants from the neighboring Byelorussian districts, who inundated the Vilnius territory and becamse "Poles" (...) The Stalinist Polonization of the Vilnius territory had begun and was more brutal that that of the Poles during their occupation - Stalin expelled Lithuanians pretending to be Poles in order to bring in Belarusians pretending to be Poles in order to polonise Lithuania. It's pretty clear that his only goals is to "prove" that there was never any "real" Polish person on Lithuanian soil. That's simply pathetic.

Zinkevicius claims that there was "deliberate Polonisation" from the beginning of the union. This is, of course, nonsense. The worst part is how instrumentally and dishonestly he treats Turska's research. He omits passages that do not suit him. In her book she writes about why old people do not want to speak Lithuanian although they know the language (On the emergence of Polish language areas in the Vilnius region, p. 15): There were also cases when an informer, having quoted to me on one day a number of Lithuanian words, phrases or even songs, the next day - probably after a longer reflection or after having been teased by neighbors - completely denied any knowledge of the language: "what do you want to do Lithuania here?" he would answer me angrily (Nemenčinė parish). And here are the words of an 90 years old lady, a few days after our first conversation, when I came to complete the Lithuanian words she had mention: "there were no Lithuanians here, I from Nemenčinė parish, here's Poland and that's it, I was baptised here, born here, I don't know else and that's it". The blame for this distrust lies not with any contemporary Lithuanian agitation, which does not exist in these Polish territories and cannot exist in view of the ardent Polish patriotism, but with the position of Lithuanian priests at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. They demanded, for example, that the Lithuanians, who had already been polonised at that time, should be able to recite prayers or at least cross themselves in Lithuanian. Otherwise, according to the landowners, they did not want to hear confessions, or even marry and baptise children of reluctant parents: "they pressed us to say the prayers in Lithuanian, they did not take us to confession, so we learned to say the prayers in Lithuanian a little", or: when the priest said: "If you don't know how to say the prayer in Lithuanian, there will be no confession" I encourage you to read what Turska writes, because it is fascinating, rather than relying on what others write about her (I can send you a pdf, she published her book in a trilingual version, including Lithuanian, unfortunately I only have scans of the Polish part). She divides the Polish language in Lithuania, as I mentioned above, into three varieties: the language of the educated strata, the language of the common people in two variants: closer to Lithuanian and closer to Belarusian. "Simple speech" is completely apart from it, it is neither Belarusian nor Polish (although closer to the former), but a kind of interdialect. Marcelus ( talk) 18:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Marcelus - He was a linguist-historian, (passes in 2018) professor at Vilnius University. I don’t think we can undermine his views so lightly. Is he a RS or not? That has to be established first. I personally believe he is a RS, perhaps needs attribution. I would like to hear neutral views besides you two. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ GizzyCatBella I don't think he is reliable, at least in matter concering Poland. In my opinion he should be excluded as a reliable source in this field. I can go to W:RSN with this. These are examples of false claims from his book Восточная Литва в прошлом и настоящем, (according to review by Jan Jerzy Milewski):

• Vilnius region under Polish rule became backward and served as a springboard for expansion into neighbouring countries
• Lithuanians had it worse than under Tsarism, they had no press and could not defend themselves in court
• Lithuanians were prosecuted for distributing newspapers, national education of children, listening to Kaunas radio
• After the occupation of Vilnius in 1920 by Zeligowski there were pogroms against Lithuanians
• In 20 years only 20 Lithuanians graduated from the university (in fact only in 1929 there were 42 Lithuanians)
• During the interwar period there was an almost complete denationalization of Lithuanians (in fact, Lithuanians were particularly resistant to attempts at Polonization)
• The Home Army was a colonial army, rearmed by the Germans
• During the war, Polish priests promised 40 days of indulgence for every Lithuanian killed
• Stalin settled 200,000 newcomers from Belarus in order to polonise Lithuania
• Zinkevičius was an eminent expert in the Lithuanian language, but he was also a nationalist politician, minister of education, and his texts about Poles are steeped in prejudice. Marcelus ( talk) 20:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I see.. We need a more comprehensive community input then. Do you like to broadcast something on the proper panel? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Some of these claims, false according to Milewski and Marcelus, are actually true though. I have read articles by other researchers proving at least some of the statements. Naturally, I won't write an entire Wiki article with references here, but I definitely have read, about, for example, the Home Army in Lithuania being armed by Germans and both tacitly working together in 1944, at least in the territory of the Vilnius Region. This is a link to a cycle of Lithuanian-language articles about the Home Army in the Vilnius Region.

Frankly, Polonization in Lithuania could be its own article, just like Russification of Belarus and Russification of Finland. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Cukrakalnis: Individual units cooperated on the basis of obtaining weapons to fight Soviet partisans, but full-scale collaboration never took place. I will keep deleting your narrative about "Slavicized Lithuanians", because it's simply not true (not all Poles in Lithuania are descendants of the Lithuanian-speaking population, you don't know the exact number) and you cannot reduce the whole community to this term. Poles in Lithuania define themselves as people of Polish culture and identity, this is how they should be described. The article already describes well how the Polish minority in Lithuania came into being, both in the main body and in the introduction. You can expand it. An important reason for this is that it is a narrative promoted by the Lithuanian racial theory of the nation, to which any person who has Baltic origins should be re-lituanised. There can be no place for such a thing. Incidentally, I find it pathetic that you make one or two small edits after making this change so that I cannot simply rewert your change. Marcelus ( talk) 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The phrase They are mostly descended from Slavicized Lithuanians is not a narrative though. The statement is WP:NPOV and proven by what is written in the article, even if you want to ignore Zinkevičius. You removing it is WP:POV. There was never writing that they are all descended from the once Lithuanian-speaking populations of the area. There is a difference between all and mostly.

You can expand it. You say one thing, and yet you removed my sourced additions in the introduction repeatedly. Only after numerous reverts did you decide to leave some parts of it.

Incidentally, I find it pathetic that you make one or two small edits after making this change so that I cannot simply rewert your change. Sometimes there is little bits and bobs that need to be changed. There were misplaced "}}" signs, and I moved them to the correct place with this . You assume wrong things about me on a near continual basis, like you did here. There needs to be a change in attitude. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Of course it is still the same narrative, that is one thing. Two it is still a racial category. Three even your sources don't confirm it. According to Zinkevicius, Stalin displaced 200,000 Lithuanians pretending to be Poles and settled 200,000 Belarusians pretending to be Poles. So, according to this "expert" the sentence should be: "They are largely Belarusians pretending to be Poles (who probably are just Lithuanians pretending to be Belarusians, who in turn are Scythians pretending to be Balts, who in turn are the tribe of Japhet in disguise)". Stop this obsession with people's racial origins. Marcelus ( talk) 22:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

You are overcomplicating simple things: First of all, there was mass Polonization of Lithuanians in Lithuania. Second, these Lithuanians were Polonized Lithuanians. Third, the Polonized Lithuanians had children. Fourth, that is how most of the Poles in Lithuania came into existence. Ergo, They are mostly descended from Slavicized Lithuanians is factually true. You denying that tells more about you than it does about the veracity of this sentence. Furthermore, no one brought the terminology and concept of race into this except you - I recommend that you check out WP:LABEL. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 22:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

your sources don't confirm it Yes they do and there are even quotes from them clearly showing that they support the statement.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 22:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Cukrakalnis and Marcelus - I think this --> [15] needs attribution (According to...) if here to stay. Yeah... a polemical statement undoubtedly should not be in the lede of the article. (I'm talking about this, in particular, --> They are mostly descended from Slavicized Lithuanians.) - GizzyCatBella 🍁 03:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Cukrakalnis First of all your sources are not unbiased, besides Zigmas Zinkevičius, you quote Committee for a Free Lithuania, a political advocacy group. Besides, it was not me who introduced the racial category, but your sources. Adolf Šapoka writes Lastly, the language alone does not determine nationality. It is determined by ways of life, customs, folklore and other elements of national culture, and finally - racial peculiarities. Algirdas Martynas Budreckis: Etnografinė Lietuva apima tuos plotus, kurių gyventojai tarpusavyje susiję bendrais kilmės - rasės, tautybės ir kultūros ryšiais, which translates to: Ethnographic Lithuania comprises those areas whose inhabitants are linked to each other by common ties of origin - race, nationality and culture. I am not the one introducing racial categories, but Lithuanian historians who are obsessed with them. Moreover, your sources are factually incorrect, e.g. they equate the borders between Catholicism and Orthodoxy circa 1920 with the border of the so-called "ethnographic Lithuania" and the extent of the "Lithuanian race". This is erroneous because they omit the mass Catholicization of the Belarusian population after the liquidation of the Uniate Church. (Unless we assume that the entire population up to Pripyat and Volga is the "Lithuanian race").

@ GizzyCatBella I agree that if such statements should appear anywhere then certainly not in the lead. Besides, the process of the creation of the Polish minority in Lithuania is described quite exhaustively both in the introduction and in the main part of the article. Marcelus ( talk) 08:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Marcelus and Cukrakalnis - I think if this [16] is rephrased to something like:

...some are of Lithuanian descent...

it would meet WP:NPOV and could be used somewhere in the article. What do you folks think? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 13:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ GizzyCatBella The text already says that: During the Polish–Lithuanian union, there was an influx of Poles into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the gradual Polonization of its elite and upper classes. At the end of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795, almost all of Lithuania's nobility, clergy, and townspeople spoke Polish and adopted Polish culture, while still maintaining a Lithuanian identity.[3] In the 19th century, the processes of Polonisation also affected the Lithuanian and Belarusian peasantry and led to the formation of a long strip of land with a predominantly Polish population, stretching to Daugavpils and including Vilnius. Marcelus ( talk) 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ledes like those of Basters or Russians in Estonia have a sentence about their origin. It is unreasonable to forgo that on Poles in Lithuania. Marcelus is adamant about removing this sentence about their origin because he has made it clear that he considers it motivated by POV, when it simply is not and instead is a fact asserted by many researchers. I would be all for such mid-way compromises if they would be warranted, but throughout this whole ordeal, I am the one who tries to reconcile and refine the phrasing for it to be more acceptable to Marcelus, but Marcelus will have none of it and simply removes it over and over again.

The larger issue at play is that Marcelus seems to be on a emotionally-invested and obssessed crusade against what he perceives as Lithuanian overreach, e.g. in the talk page of Cultural regions of Belarus on 30 March, when he asked me Why Lithuanian names in the article about Belarus?, when there was not a single Lithuanian name, or with the Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army, which he accused me on my talk page in December as you describes as some kind of "Lithuanian army" when there was no thought of that (the category instead contains the sentence Units of the Royal Prussian Army that were officially titled "Lithuanian" at some point during their existence.) and had a problem with giving Lithuanian-language names for locations in Lithuania Minor. This cannot go on indefinitely, yet there is no end in sight with the WP:EDITWARs that Marcelus initiates. These confrontations deeply sadden me, because I want to edit the articles instead of wasteful friction in articles and talk pages. But Wiki-life has not been the same when Marcelus initiated all of this already more than a half-year ago. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 14:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Information about the origin of the Polish minority is already in the lead. I myself added an extensive excerpt from the article about how the Polish community in Lithuania came into being. I'm also working on an article Polonization where I describe this phenomenon in much more detail. So your accusations are unfounded. Actually I was wrong about Cultural regions of Belarus, sorry about that. However Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army is built against the rules. Because it suggests the existence of Lithuanian units in the Prussian army (under Lithuanian command, using Lithuanian symbols etc). Which is obviously not true. Of course I have a problem with Lithuanian names being used in reference to Prussian and later German cities that were never part of Lithuania. This is nonsensical, there is no justification for calling Königsberg in Lithuanian. If you don't want to waste your time in discussions with me, you don't have to take part in them Marcelus ( talk) 14:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Information about the origin of the Polish minority is already in the lead. Yeah, we both worked together on it. The contested phrase is indeed on the origin of the Polish minority, but you keep removing it.

I myself added an extensive excerpt... Do you realise that the WP:LEAD should be more of a WP:SUMMARY? That the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points? Ergo, the current paragraph should be more concentrated, more concise, more focused. So your accusations are unfounded. What I said was right: Ledes like those of Basters or Russians in Estonia have a sentence about their origin. I said a sentence, not many sentences, or etc. You seem to misread when I write.

Actually I was wrong about Cultural regions of Belarus, sorry about that. I know you were wrong, but it serves to illustrate that you are on a emotionally-invested and obssessed crusade against what he perceives as Lithuanian overreach, as I said.

However Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army is built against the rules. What rules? I looked through WP:CATEGORIZATION, and what is written there, fully justifies that category. Because it suggests the existence of Lithuanian units in the Prussian army (under Lithuanian command, using Lithuanian symbols etc) Only in your fantasies - where is that written in the articles? Which is obviously not true. I agree that there was no unit in the Prussian Army under Lithuanian command or that used Lithuanian symbols. Your issues and claims are unjustified and imagined.

Of course I have a problem with Lithuanian names being used in reference to Prussian and later German cities that were never part of Lithuania. If so, then why don't you have an issue with the Yiddish name Vilna in the article Lithuanian Jews when Lithuania was never part of Israel? Or Polish names in History of Poles in Königsberg, when Königsberg was never part of Poland?

This is nonsensical, there is no justification for calling Königsberg in Lithuanian. Yes there is. When speaking about Lithuania-related articles and mentioning Königsberg, it would be justified to mention the Lithuanian-language names, even in brackets, just like Polish-language names are used in History of Poles in Königsberg.

If you don't want to waste your time in discussions with me, you don't have to take part in them That's not an option on Wikipedia. Ignoring what others say is not a solution. I am here to WP:BUILDWP but you keep introducing previously non-existent friction in many articles and this friction needs to be adressed. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 15:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not on a crusade. Sentence 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment was a Lithuanian dragoon regiment in service of the Kingdom of Prussia clearly suggest it was a German unit, as the name of category. I don't think "Królewiec" name should be used in the article, but the city was part of Poland since 1454(66) to 1658. There is no reason to use Lithuanian place names for towns outside of Lithuania in English Wikipedia. Marcelus ( talk) 13:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Marcelus and Cukrakalnis - Try this --> [17] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 13:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not on a crusade. Yes you are. Actions speak louder than words.

I don't think "Królewiec" name should be used in the article So why didn't you remove them like you removed the Lithuanian Karaliaučius from units recruited in Lithuanian-speaking areas? Clear double-standard.

city was part of Poland since 1454(66) to 1658 False - being a vassal does not mean you are part of the country. Teutonic Order was not part of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, just like the Polish People's Republic was not part of the USSR, even though there was a clear dependance.

The 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment, as written in the article, was recruited almost exclusively from volunteers from its immediate homeland, i.e. Lithuania Minor (and there's a source for that too, but obviously you have a tendency to ignore WP:RS that don't suit you, so why bother). Those locations were part of Lithuania Minor, ergo Lithuanian-language names are undoubtedly relevant there. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 14:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Having said that, I think it would be beneficial for all of us (that means me and User:Marcelus) to just take a step back and relax from all of these more arguments or however one wishes to call it, as User:GizzyCatBella suggested.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 14:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I didn't know the History of Poles in Königsberg article existed about a week ago, and I didn't read it either so I didn't notice the use of the name "Królewiec", but of course it should be removed. Königsberg was obviously a part of Poland, given as a fief to the Order and then to the Hohenzollern duke. You can't give as a fief something you don't own. Anyway, the Toruñ Peace is clear: the monastic state together with its subjects was supposed to be a part of the Polish Crown, creating together "unum et individuum corpus, una gens, unus populus in amicicia, federe et unione". So the use of the Polish name of the city would be justified, but for the sake of consistency it should be replaced by Königsberg. There is no justification for using the Lithuanian name. Besides, communist Poland was not a fief of the Soviet Union, because there was no fief law in force then. The fact that a unit consisted largely of an ethnic group of Prussian Lithuanians does not automatically make it a Lithuanian unit, it was a Prussian and then a German unit. Many units of the Russian army consisted of Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, but they are not automatically units of these ethnic groups (this happened in the final phase of WWI when such units began to transform into national units) Marcelus ( talk) 14:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Following WP:SIZERULE, this article should Almost certainly should be divided, as it is ~100 kB. I suggest creating the following articles:

• Poles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (just like there is Poles in the Soviet Union; this article has the added benefit that it can be pointed to in Poles in Belarus)
• Polonization of Lithuania (just like there are the articles Russification of Finland or Russification of Belarus.)

I must note that there is the article Demographic history of the Vilnius region, which overlaps very significantly with this article.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think that this article is too long for now. There is also an article Polonization which covers a similar topic as the one proposed by you. Marcelus ( talk) 19:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I second that Marcelus. The article is getting too long in my opinion. I tagged it. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 12:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ User:GizzyCatBella This is what I would do. I'm still not sure if that polemical claim (backed by no research) should be in the lede. I'm bending towards that it's not. (see the talk page for prior discussion ( link to the edit). The phrase Numerous of them have Lithuanian ancestry. is by no means (backed by no research), because multiple WP:RS next to the statement emphasize that there were once Lithuanian-speaking Lithuanians in those areas and there was no massive migration of Polish people into there, but instead Polonization (that's what is described in the section 19th century). Even User:Marcelus has to agree with me on that - he wrote it in the article.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

And that's already in the article~, both main body and the introduction. Marcelus ( talk) 13:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Such a fact of important relevance deserves to be made clear to the readers, instead of assuming that they will realise it themselves. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 13:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

It's clear already Marcelus ( talk) 13:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Cukrakalnis and Marcelus - take a break from editing this article folks. Come back in a few days. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

GizzyCatBella I don't edit because I don't have time lately, but I watch with horror the activity of Cukrakalnis, who not only obstinately tries to define Lithuanian Poles as polonised Lithuanians at the very top, but also starts to propagate the Zinkevicius pseudo-theory that all Poles with surnames ending in -wicz are Lithuanians by origin. Marcelus ( talk) 15:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

As I said previously, Marcelus is on a emotionally-invested and obssessed crusade against what he perceives as Lithuanian overreach, regardless of whether what is written is WP:RS or following any other Wikipedia rule. If he doesn't like it, it has to go, and that's it, regardless of the justification. Simply impossible to reach an agreement when that's the attitude. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 15:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply

The article is getting too long to read comfortably. I tagged it [18] for now but will try to trim later also. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 15:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

That is what I wrote about in the talk page section Proposal to divide this article, just above. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 11:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

off this topic but Cukrakalnis..you are edit warring [19] against 2 editors who don't agree with you. Take a look at this [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] I'll remind you again about your unblock pledge (you were editing under Itzhak Rosenberg) --> [29] it reads "I will cease engaging in ethno-nationalist ... and will dedicate myself purely to editing military and neutral history..." Please keep this in mind moving forward. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 12:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I promised that I will cease engaging in ethno-nationalist and homophobic provocations on Wikipedia and will dedicate myself purely to editing military and neutral history. I have kept that promise. Problematically, the aforementioned military and neutral history is not neutral anymore thanks to Marcelus. Just look at the page histories of Lithuanian military persons: Romualdas Giedraitis, Tomas Kušleika and Boleslovas Kolyška. Marcelus even found the category of Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army objectionable in December 2021 on my talk page, regardless of it following WP:CATEGORIZATION.

Marcelus is the one who begins conflicts with multiple people, but others (e.g. Pofka, editor for already eleven years) suffer the consequences instead of him. I am open to working together with others, but Marcelus' WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is a never-ending problem.

The statement with six WP:RS is not provocation by any definition. Neither is it ethno-nationalist, unless talking at all about nations, ethnicities, their origins or ancestry is nationalist, so... I guess all diaspora articles (like this one) are nationalist by that definition. Even using mostly Lithuanian sources would not be a problem, because just as Marcelus uses mostly Polish sources, so others frequently using Lithuanian sources is perfectly reasonable - we use the sources we can, by default. I don't understand why WP:EDITWAR is brought up against me, I am just reacting against the total removal of well-sourced information just because someone dislikes it for some reason, going so far as contradicting Wiki guidelines. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 15:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

If I can I always use English sources first and foremost. Also Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army name is misleading. Romualdas Giedraitis, Tomas Kušleika and Boleslovas Kolyška articles should all be renamed to the actual names these people used, and I will soon make request for that. As for this articles you keep pushing nationalist pseudohistorical theory that Polish people in Lithuania are just "Slavicized Lithuanians". Marcelus ( talk) 19:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

First off, you proved what I said: the aforementioned military and neutral history is not neutral anymore thanks to Marcelus. The category name is not misleading, you are fantasizing - the category in question follows WP:CATEGORIZATION. Wikipedia guidelines > preferences & personal impressions. As for the last claim, it's pointless to talk to you about it - just straight up ignoring WP:RS and repeatedly calling things you dislike WP:RACIST, nationalist, pseudohistorical, etc., etc. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I want repeat myself over and over. But I think it would be fair to all concerned if you stopped pretending that you don't know what it's all about. I would appreciate it if you would stop blaming everything on me. I don't start conflicts, I just remove untruths and historical nonsense and agenda pushing. If that triggers your objection then that is your fault, not mine Marcelus ( talk) 07:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay folks. Please try to find a middle ground here. @ Marcelus perhaps try to work with Lithuanian POV in mind .. IDK maybe imagine you have a beautiful Lithuanian wife from Vilnius 😀. Cukrakalnis same to you, think about Kraków a little more - GizzyCatBella 🍁 13:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

GizzyCatBella There is Lithuanian POV, which I don't ignore, and I read and reference Lithuanian historians all the time. And there are falsehoods and misleadings, like calling units of Prussian army "Lithuanian". Marcelus ( talk) 14:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC) reply

you would stop blaming everything on me It is absolutely true that these things on talk pages only started directly as a result of Marcelus' actions. Marcelus was the initiator and so is responsible. This is a matter-of-fact statement. If I am lying or false, prove it.

I don't start conflicts, I just remove untruths and historical nonsense and agenda pushing. First comes denial, then comes the justification for doing the thing denied. In addition, neither claim is true or accurate, it is just a highly subjective, self-contradicting opinion that does not stand up to scrutiny. Removing WP:RS because a person dislikes them is not remove untruths and historical nonsense and agenda pushing. If anything, adding MORE RS is the solution. That does not mean removing the ones that a person dislikes and replacing them with the ones they like. From a purely practical standpoint, Marcelus' conduct, like frequently wholesale removing clearly WP:RS material in various articles could be viewed as uncooperative behaviour. Just because a person finds something personally objectionable, thus untrue in their view, does not mean that that is really the case.

And there are falsehoods and misleadings, like calling units of Prussian army "Lithuanian". To call units how they were called is neither falsehood, nor misleading. Does the Litthauisches in Dragoner-Regiment „Prinz Albrecht von Preußen“ (Litthauisches) Nr. 1 translate to something other than Lithuanian? Obviously not. So just stop. Marcelus' standpoint is baseless and false by any measure.

In general, all of this resembles WP:BATTLEGROUND simply too much, where Marcelus' self-admitted deep mistrust of me and pretty much all that I do on Wiki (self-admitted here on GizzyCatBella's talk page more than four months ago: Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor.) is clearly a grudge, which falls within WP:BATTLEGROUND. This has been going for close to ¾ of a year. What to do? I am willing to cooperate (as I have made clear rather frequently, e.g. [30] or my proposals, etc.). I do not have a personal grudge, I could really just forget it all, but Marcelus keeps removing sourced material. And allowing bad behaviour is in itself a bad behaviour, which I will not permit for the sake of the noble goal of Wikipedia. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not denying anything. I don't trust your edits and I think most of them even if not biased are usually pretty low quality. I also don't deny that I take up controversial topics and try to remove historical absurdities (such as pushing Lithuanian names for Polish speakers), moreover I don't intend to stop.

Does the Litthauisches in Dragoner-Regiment "Prinz Albrecht von Preußen" (Litthauisches) Nr. 1 translate to something other than Lithuanian? I don't know if out of ignorance or intentionally but you are confusing the unit nickname with its affiliation. The Litovskiy leyb-gvardii polk [ ru was called "Lithuanian" but it was a Russian military unit. Same goes for Polskiy ulanskiy polk [ ru or Litovskiy otdelnyy korpus [ ru, they were neither Polish nor Lithuanian, but Russian. Although unlike Prussian units they used Polish-Lithuanian signs and Polish uniforms. Poles and Lithuanians served in them. However, these were Russian units, which took part in suppressing the November Uprising. Do you see my point now? Marcelus ( talk) 07:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Marcelus said I don't start conflicts on April 18 (obviously false after looking through edit histories and otherwise). That's denial right there, and thus Marcelus replying with I'm not denying anything on April 20 is a lie.

I also don't deny that I take up controversial topics Marcelus made them controversial. Before Marcelus, there was no controversy in the area of Lithuanian military history to begin with. Marcelus began the conflict, exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and actions (e.g. I don't trust your edits) and disrespects other Wikipedians (I think most of them even if not biased are usually pretty low quality). Considering he is the only one who has ever said that and that I have created from scratch numerous B-class articles (or raising them from start level) ( Samogitian Regiment (Soviet Russia), Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702), Schutzmannschaft Battalion 258, Schutzmannschaft Battalion 259, and others), Marcelus' accusation is ungrounded and another proof of his personal prejudice against me. When he says try to remove historical absurdities (such as pushing Lithuanian names for Polish speakers), he is obfuscating the situation, because in the process of removing what he falsely calls historical absurdities, Marcelus frequently engages in mass removal of sourced material, in a manner that is against Wiki rules. Moreover, bilingualism was widespread in the region, so e.g. Antanas Mackevičius, Jonas Basanavičius and many other clearly Lithuanian figures were Polish-language speakers. Not to mention, that in different languages, different names were used. And, in the case of Antanas Mackevičius, Marcelus exhibits duplicity, because on pl.wiki he reverted my where I corrected it from "Polish Catholic priest" to "Lithuanian Catholic priest". If one were to follow WP:RS, then my edit would have been kept. Instead, Marcelus ignores WP:RS as that suits him.

I don't know if out of ignorance or intentionally but you are confusing the unit nickname with its affiliation. You are the one doing the mistake of confusing the unit nickname with its affiliation. Did you not see in 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment that it is written Country Kingdom of Prussia in the infobox? The same in other articles. You are projecting onto me accusations that only exist in your imagination. The affiliation was always made clear - the Royal Prussian Army. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 13:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't start conflicts for the sake of conflicts, I just take on difficult topics, that I feel are misrepresented. Don't accuse me of disrespecting other people, I respect you and every other user, I just think your edits are usually not very good. Too often your main source is articles from the internet or old google books. You rarely use sources in English when they are readily available.

In an article about the 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment you wrote that it was a Lithuanian dragoon regiment in service of the Kingdom of Prussia, which is clearly not true. It wasn't a Lithuanian unit. You are deliberately spreading historical nonsense. Marcelus ( talk) 14:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Deliberately? Come on Marcelus, how do you know it was deliberate? Perhaps it was a simple mistake. But let’s discuss content from this point on, okay folks? Please. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 15:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

At this point it is deliberate, because I myself explained it to him dozens of times Marcelus ( talk) 18:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

No one said that you started conflicts ...for the sake of conflicts. To avoid misunderstanding what others are writing, I can only recommend to read more carefully and attentively what others have written, for the benefit of all.

Don't accuse me of disrespecting other people, I respect you and every other user, I just think your edits are usually not very good. The English Cambridge Dictionary defines respect here: admiration felt or shown for someone or something that you believe has good ideas or qualities. Obviously, saying I just think your edits are usually not very good is the opposite of respect, i.e. disrespect (disrespect is defined here: lack of respect). In conclusion, Marcelus is disrespecting me.

Too often your main source is articles from the internet or old google books. It fits WP:RS, and that's what matters. What matters on Wikipedia is NOT anyone's personal preferences, what matters is Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

As for the 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment, it was recruited in Lithuania Minor from Prussian Lithuanians. Ergo, what I wrote in the article. Accusing me of spreading historical nonsense when what I am saying is backed by WP:RS is simply against Wikipedia rules. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 12:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Apologies GizzyCatBella 🍁 for addressing some things beyond content, but if they aren't at the very least acknowledged and answered now, they will only resurface and cause more problems later on.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 12:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

All of that said, I am nonetheless willing to cooperate and find middle grounds. The best example of one that was already found between me and Marcelus would be the Proposed solution in Talk:Principality of Alšėnai. Regardless of Marcelus' suspicion of me, I think there is enough goodwill on both sides to work together, at least partially.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 21:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, content only from now on, please. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 15:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Cukrakalnis If you want to think that I disrespect you, that your call, but that's not what I feel. I simply consider your edits as being of rather low quality, end of story. And of course the dragoon regiment wasn't a Lithuanian unit and calling it that is spreading of false history. Marcelus ( talk) 15:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

...that's not what I feel Rebuking someone's work as rather low quality is disrespectful (especially without any proof or a given reason), and refusing to see that as such reveals a problem in attitude.

The 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment was a Lithuanian unit by virtue of its composition. Just as the 1st Light Cavalry Lancers Regiment of the Imperial Guard (Polish) is considered to be a Polish unit, not because it was part of a Polish army, but because of its composition. Unless you want to call that false history also. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 15:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Regiment of Polish lancier was a Polish was an unit formed in Warsaw as a bodyguard of the Emperor, later it was incorporated into the Imperial Guard as a foreign unit. It had Polish command, commanders, uniforms and symbols. A completely different story than the German unit, in which Lithuanian-speaking subjects of the Prussian king served. Marcelus ( talk) 20:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay, so this edit restored unsourced info introduced by the IP.

• None of the sources present in the article say: - townspeople spoke Polish to some extent and adopted some Polish culture. To some extent and some is unsourced.
• None of the sources article say: with a newly formed Polish identity. This is also unsourced
• None of the sources article say: an ethnographic mosaic along a strip. This is unsourced
• None of the sources in the article say: was voluntary-forcefully. This is unsourced
• The source next to the sentence does not talk about Yedinstvo but it was also re-introduced - pro-Soviet separatism of a fraction of Lithuanian Poles

We have an issue here. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 15:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't really think there is an issue, and we as far as I remeber were talking about it sometime ago. Yednistvo is mentioned in later part of the article, it doesn't have to be included in the lead, it was after all very short episode in the history of Poles in Lithuania. The rest of the points as you showed are unsourced statements, that wants to change neutral narrative to the one representing particular POV. Nonetheless all of these is described in detail in the appropriate part of the article.

BTW I don't understand why sentence "During the Polish–Lithuanian union, there was an influx of Poles" is tagged as original research, since it's well explained with references in the article. I'm removing that tag. Marcelus ( talk) 15:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Possibly another socked: 90.131.45.3 ( ), related to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/78.56.247.147/Archive, @ GizzyCatBella and ToBeFree Marcelus ( talk) 22:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).