Talk:Polish autonomy in the Vilnius Region

[Untitled]

You are kidding - such region never existed truly, it was just plan of few minor antilithuanian organisations.--86.100.205.18 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Few minutes ago I've stumbled upon a serious factual error in the text, -- actually the rulers of the so-called Polish NTR, as well as many of the region's population who will never wanted to become citizens of Lithuania, considered him an integral part of the Soviet Union, not the Republic of Lithuania. Simply put, this misunderstanding must be eliminated as soon as possible. Gugutis (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Separatist or autonomist

The proposal was for autonomy within Lithuanian SSR. Hence objectively it cannot be described as "separatist". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I do not see reference that all proponents were from Edinstvo. Yes, Edinstvo supported the authonomy, according to the "party line" set by Shenin. If you find the reference, you are welcome to reinstall the statement in the lede. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Gorbachev qoute

@Pofka what's the purpose of this standalone qoute? Marcelus (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

To demonstrate his support? But is that covered in the article? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It is, there is an entire section about Kremlin stance. I just see no reason for such out of context qoutes. Especially if it's Pofka's own translation of Lithuanian translation of what he really said in Russian (WP:OR) Marcelus (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka do we really need that quote? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Yes this quote is necessary because it was said by Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the Kremlin and Communist Party, during his visit to Vilnius at the same time of these events (so high notability and this section is about that). Moreover, this section already include information which describe such Kremlin officials declarations "Also, the Kremlin did not support the autonomous movement directly, apart from general declarations of support for the autonomous movements in the union republics of the USSR or instrumental attempts to put pressure on the Lithuanian authorities". I see nothing wrong to include leader's quote with such notable declaration per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
@Marcelus: Refrain from WP:PERSONAL about my translation from Lithuanian to English by falsely labeling it as WP:OR. The official website of the Lithuanian National Radio and Television do not publish false information or inaccurate translations. If you do not believe in my translation, then go on and translate these sentences yourself: "Kai 1990 m. sausį Gorbačiovas, norėdamas atvėsinti karštas nepriklausomybės siekiančių lietuvių galvas, atvyko į Lietuvą, jo buvo paklausta apie lenkų autonomiją. „Sveikinčiau ta linkme nukreiptus siekius" (source). The used quote is in the last five words (underlined). Otherwise, this discussion led to nowhere and we will not remove (censor) this related quote (not standalone) with WP:RS just because you personally want to. I remind you that a few days ago you have been sanctioned (1, 2) for the third time already for causing disruption in topics related with Poland and Lithuania, but continue trying to remove appropriate text in Eastern European topics. I also see that GizzyCatBella was involved in it and warned, thus both of your statements with just 4 minutes difference raises concern. -- Pofka (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Pofka don't misuse WP:PERSONAL; pointing out that your translation from the Lithuanian translation of Gorbachev's original speech may be your original own contribution is not a personal attack. If you think I'm breaking any rules report me to WP:AI or WP:AE, you don't need to remind me of my history (you, by the way, have a similar if not worse one), I'm aware of it.

Can you try to get to Gorbachev's original statement in Russian and quote it in the text rather than in a separate block? Marcelus (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: I already pointed out to you that the official website of the Lithuanian National Radio and Television is a WP:RS and Gorbachev said that while being in Lithuania, thus to the Lithuanian media. Consequently, your request to provide a Russian source is baseless and you haven't proven that my translation from Lithuanian to English is wrong. We use Template:Quote box to include notable quotes to articles: "This is useful in articles that are short on images and need some graphic-like element, or where an important or interesting quote wants to be presented in a way that sets it off from the surrounding text". This article has zero illustrations and this is a notable quote by a state leader, thus this quotation template in this article fully satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Pofka (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka to be honest, I don’t think we need that quote in a quote box, you know... it looks strange. Maybe paraphrase that instead and incorporate it into the Kremlin section? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing else to add here. I already proven that this quote is not my own WP:OR and justified that this quote and template was added according to the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and guidelines of Template:Quote box. -- Pofka (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella I don't think Gorbachev said it in Lithuanian. In general, the use of quote boxes is discouraged (WP:QUOTEFARM), also "quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text". I suggest adding a sentence in the text: Michail Gorbachev spoke favorably but non-committally about Polish autonomy in Vilnius in January 1990 and remove the separate qoute box. Marcelus (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m fine with that. Are you okay with that also Pofka? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are no additional objections I’ll make that change in a day or two Marcelus, okay? GizzyCatBella🍁 10:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I disagree with such requests and modifications because of previously described reasons here. We will keep the actual quote to avoid false interpretations and WP:OR like "favorably but non-committally". The quote box do not violate Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and guidelines of Template:Quote box. Direct quote also simplify WP:VERIFY in a Lithuanian language source. -- Pofka (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes we can add footnote to Bobryk 2006, p. 160, because he describes Gorbachev words in that fashion, direct qoute: Równiez przychylnie (ale nie zobowiązująco) na ten temat wypowiadał się w styczniu 1990 r. w Wilnie Michaił Gorbaczow Marcelus (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Offline source suddenly describe something in the way you want to modify? :) Nevertheless, even if you WP:VERIFY that Bobryk 2006 source (by uploading page 160 to a popular images hosting website), it would not change the fact that this quote box does not violate Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and guidelines of Template:Quote box. So we will keep the quote box in this article as your requests here are baseless. -- Pofka (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Offline source suddenly describe something in the way you want to modify? :); that's another example of your Wikipedia:Casting aspersions in this discussion alone. Sources always support ways I want to things be modified, because I always base my edits on sources.

MOS:PMC: Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced, since the qoute is your own translation of Lithuanian translation of the original, this qoute doesn't meet the requirement. Also MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE: Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear with a translation into English, preferably a modern one. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Wikipedia), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context).

MOS:BQ: Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides, you are using block quotation for a very short sentence.

MOS:PQ: Pull quotes do not belong in Wikipedia articles. These are the news and magazine style of "pulling" material already in the article to reuse it in attention-grabbing decorative quotations. This unencyclopedic approach is a form of editorializing, produces out-of-context and undue emphasis, and may lead the reader to conclusions not supported in the material, your are using Gorbachev words exactly as a pull quote. That alone is reason enough to remove this quote

Also even Template:Quote box is very clear: This template can be used for block quotations (long quotes set off from the main text). However, this use is not advised in articles. Marcelus (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

All I can say is: read what I wrote previously again. You will find all necessary explanations there. -- Pofka (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Everything you said is invalidated by the guidelines and policies I qouted. That basically concludes the discussion Marcelus (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable source

@Cukrakalnis Jonas Rudokas seems to be a technology engineer without and credential as historian. Plus the article you linked was posted at nationalist site "Pro Patria", linked to National Alliance. This is not WP:RS

Moreover, it is not true that in 1950-55 Lithuanian schools were being closed and Polish ones opened. The number of Polish schools closed during the occupation period immediately after the war rose to 225 in 1947, but they commenced closing them and in 1950 there were only 156. In 1950-55 there was indeed an increase to 312 schools, but even then Polish schools were attended by 6.49% of all pupils, and Poles accounted for 8.5% of Lithuania's population. After 1955 there was a gradual decline, to about 50 in the 1980s.

In addition, there is no convincing data on a large influx of Poles or a large population from Belarus in general. Besides, this is a rather artificial division, since before 1939 this region was not divided by the Lithuanian-Belarusian border. Nevertheless, you would have to point to WP:RS, which speaks of a large influx of Belarusian (or Polish-Belarusian) people. Marcelus (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This might have to go to WP:RSNB - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I hope @Cukrakalnis will accept that it's not WP:RS, in the past he dissmissed source like that. Marcelus (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll address this as soon as possible, for now I will just ask you to not move this to any noticeboard for the next few days. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem, can you please revert your changes for a time being then? Marcelus (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No longer busy, so now I can answer you fully.

The actual article is from Kultūros barai. Pro Patria only re-published it, so it's political associations are actually irrelevant here. (Btw, AFAIK, WP:Biased sources are still alowed on Wikipedia either way, unless they are WP:Deprecated, which is on a case by case analysis. Correct me if I'm wrong though.) Still, it's better to link it to the original instead of 'proxies', so I'll fix that immediately.

Jonas Rudokas is called a historian ([1]) in the fact-checker website 15min.lt (fact-checker according to credibilitycoalition.org [2]) and in the vle.lt ([3]). These certainly WP:RS call him an historian, so I see no reason to doubt him. In addition, one does not necessarily have to be an historian to write about history - like Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist). Sociology and history are very much different, just like electrical engineering and history.

Basically, unlike what you were saying, this article and its author are WP:RS.

As for all of your other claims. Could you please provide the source(s) for what you are saying (if they are online)? It interests me very much. Are you certain that Lithuanian schools were not closed down? My sources say otherwise. The Lithuanian historian Vitalija Stravinskienė has certainly written about migration from the USSR (including Poles from Belarus) into precisely this area - [4], pp. 90-91. You yourself stated that there was an increase in Polish schools during that time period that Rudokas said there was such an increase, so there's definitely an overlap between what he and you are saying.

Besides, this is a rather artificial division, since before 1939 this region was not divided by the Lithuanian-Belarusian border. No it's not, because the situation for Poles in the Lithuanian SSR was different from the one for Poles in Byelorussian SSR. The borders mattered already then. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that Rudokas is WP:RS. I don't understand the comparison with Piotrowski, because sociology is a related science to history, while engineering is a completely different field. Besides, I am not at all of the opinion that Piotrowski's book is a good source, because it is quite outdated. But that's a different topic.

Vitalija Stravinskienė seems to be a much better source, so it seems that we should give up Rudokas, who is not a specialist in the subject. Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Rudokas is certainly a historian (several WP:RS state that) and his work is valuable and worthy - that article was published, went through the editorial process and was published in a reputable Lithuanian academic journal, so there's no reason to suspect him as unreliable. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Rudokas doesn't have a degree nor any other recognition by academia. He can be described as historical publicist, amateur, but that's all. And Kultūros barai isn't academic journal, but a magazine about culture and art. If you aren't convinced we can ask for WP:3O. Marcelus (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia (i.e. Lithuanian academia) recognized Jonas Rudokas as a historian - [5]. Kultūros barai is certainly academic/scholarly (thousands of its articles show up on Google Scholar). Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it peer reviewed? Marcelus (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The journal’s European profile and the level of its intellectual contents attracted the attention of Eurozine – the association and network of European cultural journals. Kultūros barai journal was invited to join this pan-European organization and became an official partner of the Eurozine network on January 10th, 2003, after rigorous, peer-review expertise. - p. 222, [6] Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing evidence, I'm ok with the source Marcelus (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

@Cukrakalnis, with this edit you changed the phrasing of the sentence: This project never gained full support from the Lithuanian authorities, nor was implemented unilaterally by Poles to This project was opposed by the Lithuanian state and was never implemented to its full extent; that's not what Bobryk 2019, p. 102 is saying.

The Lithuanian government sent signals that some form of autonomy was possible, so "never gained full support" is better than "was opposed"; secondly, Bobryk explicitly says that autonomy was never declared unilaterally, at the most heated moment there were draft resolutions sent to Vilnius for enactment. This is relevant.

Please change this sentence to its previous wording. Marcelus (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't misrepresenting any source because there was no source immediately after the sentence you're referring to.

Still, I will restate the sentence with a specific attribution to the author and the source immediately after it. Also, there were declarations of 'Polish national municipalities', etc., so I would interpret is unilateral declarations of autonomy. AFAIK Lithuanian authorities were opposed to the autonomy, which is why I changed the sentence the way I did. I will read what WP:RS say about this, just to make sure. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I sometimes use one source for couple sentences that precede it; you are of course right that in general Lithuanian authorities opposed autonomy, but they often were showing willingness for some concesions (cultural autonomy on some territory for example). Mainly after January 1991: the Suprieme Counciil put forward a proposal to the government to start work on drafting a separate status for the Vilnius district (combining the current Vilnius and Šalčininkai districts), it was a real deal. Marcelus (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I sometimes use one source for couple sentences that precede it

I know that it's allowed on Wikipedia, but it's precisely to avoid cases like this that I make sure there's a reference directly supporting each sentence when I write, otherwise a given reader might form the wrong impression of there being no source for that specific sentence, OR, etc., despite that not being the case. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Antanavičius not RS + misrepresentation of source

Ugnius Antanavičius is a journalist without any academic background. He cannot be used as RS.

1. Sentence: On 6 and 15 September 1989, the Šalčininkai and Vilnius municipalities, respectively, declared themselves to be self-governing national territorial districts within the Lithuanian SSR, where Russian, Polish and Lithuanian languages had equal status, Bobryk 2006, p. 158 says that only the Vilnius district enacted equal rights for the Lithuanian, Polish and Russian languages, while the Šalčininkai only enacted "equal rights for the native language"; there is also nothing about self-governing; both declared that the districts were to continue to be part of the LSRR.

2. Sentence: The attempt to create a Polish autonomy collapsed together with the failed 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, because its main supporters, the hard-line Soviet Communists, were defeated, even Antanavičius is saying:

In Lithuania, these putschists were supported by "platformers" - representatives of the part of the Communist Party of Lithuania that separated from the Communist Party of the CPSU and wanted Lithuania to remain a part of the USSR. Among the most active members of the Polish autonomous movement in Lithuania were a number of "platformers".

According to M. Ėmužis, after the coup failed, the Lithuanian authorities felt more courageous. First of all, because the autonomists, after the defeat of their supporters in Moscow, basically had nothing left to lean on.

Boris Yeltsin and the Russian government were quite favorable to Lithuania, and the then head of Belarus, which borders Vilnius region, Stanislaus Šuškevičius, was also favorable to Lithuania. Vilnius region had no border with Poland, and besides, the leaders of "Solidarum" who maintained good relations with Sąjūdius were also in no hurry to support the autonomists.

Therefore, the Supreme Council of Lithuania dissolved the councils of Šalčininkai, Vilnius districts and Sniečkas (present-day Visaginas, - last ed.) and introduced direct management.

There is no mention of the fact that the main allies were "hard-line communists," and the emphasis is on the fact that Lithuania gained more freedom as a result of the changes and was able to suppress the autonomous movement. This is a serious distortion of what the source says. Marcelus (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You're the one misrepresenting the article [7] - it is mostly a discussion with the historian Marius Ėmužis. Plus the website is a fact-checker. Ergo, it's WP:RS. Bobryk (sociologist) and other Poles are not the only persons who's writing matters on this topic, because by now it seems like you're just targetting each Lithuanian source you can find on this article.

The fact that the main allies were hard-line Communists/platformers is clearly mentioned: First of all, because the autonomists, after the defeat of their supporters in Moscow, basically had nothing left to lean on. What I wrote is faithful to the source. Stop accusing me of misrepresenting something every few days. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a discussion, but an article that qoutes Ėmužis. "Fact-checker wesbistes" aren't automatically assumed as RS. I'm not targetting each Lithuanian source, in fact I myself used Lithuanian sources writing the article. I'm targetting sources not written by proffesional researchers.

Antanavičius does not claim that the autonomous movement collapsed because the coup in Moscow failed. He says outright that it collapsed because the Lithuanian authorities felt more powerful. And they felt stronger first of all because the putsch in Moscow failed. He also does not call the hardline communists the "main supporters" of the movement, but simply "supporters." Marcelus (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It was literally a conversation, i.e. discussion, between the journalist Antanavičius and the historian Ėmužis. That's from where the historian's quotes are taken - from a direct conversation, even if we don't see any of the journalist's questions.

"Fact-checker wesbistes" aren't automatically assumed as RS. Yes, they are. You're just trying to bend the rules as you wish. Peer-review and fact-checking are functionally the same - they are supposed to make sure that no nonsense passes through.

I'm targetting sources not written by proffesional researchers. Nowhere in WP:RS does it say that only the writings of "proffesional (sic) researchers" matters, which seems to be your view of it, so, you're imposing rules on others that exist nowhere in Wikipedia. You're also extensively citing a sociologist for historical works, so it seems like you yourself are not following that yourself either. Sociologists are not professional researchers when it comes to history. Historians are. And even then, some of them do a shoddy job.

The source clearly says that once the Moscow putsch failed, the "movement" no longer had any basis/support. iš esmės means essentially. If someone loses their essential supporter, that means they lost their main supporter.

It really seems that you're just grasping at straws here. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are. You're just trying to bend the rules as you wish, you can link any policy or guidelines that is saying that? And definitely fact checking sites aren't the same as peer reviewed academic journals. Adam Bobryk committed large part of his entire academic career to reaserching and decribing Polish minority situation in Lithuania. He is undoubtely RS.

Please read WP:NEWSORG: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics, contrary to your claim 15min seems to be regular news website. Marcelus (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I was saying that non-academic sources are allowed on Wikipedia. Your view seems to be that they should practically not be allowed, which contradicts what's allowed on Wikipedia. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If they contradict academic sources, then it's rather obvious which one shuold get the upper hand Marcelus (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)