Talk:Sejny

Two questions

Two questions:

What is Seinai District
What is the number of Lithuanians there and what is the source for such a claim?

--Halibu tt 13:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.lietuva.lt/index.php?Lang=5&ItemId=29641 - one of sources. http://home.online.no/~sveilund/polen/litauen.htm - another one. It should be Sejny district, mentioned in the first source. DeirYassin 13:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does somebody disputes that there is 30% of Lithuanians? It is true that there are Lithuanians in northeast Poland, otherwise Lithuanian schools, newspaper and cultural facilities would not be functioning. So therefore I guess "according to some sources" is unneeded. Could you get somewhere online or such maybe results of latest census of the powiat? Also there is Lithuanian consulate in Seinai (which if not minority would not be there as it is a small town), "Lietuvių Namai" (Lithuanian house) organisation, "Seina" foundaton of Lithuanians, in the gymnasium (school) of Seinai there are Lithuanian classes which also has Lithuanian newspaper, etc. Not sure what there is to dispute. DeirYassin 15:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, of course I don't dispute that there are Lithuanians there. Especially that Sejny is the centre of Lithuaian cultural life in Poland (school, cultural associations, even a monthly magazine). However, the 30% quota seems of low credibility, especially that it is supported mostly by sources written before the first census in 80 years in which there was a question about nationality. And in the census of 2001 there were roughly 5,800 Lithuanians in all Poland, all parts of it included (in addition to roughly 75.000 "born in Lithuania", that is people born in what is now Lithuania, since the GUS office used the current borders for easier decision of where one was born; large majority of them is between 50 and 80 years old now).

I'm currently looking for some more detailed results of the latest census either for the town of Sejny itself or for the Powiat of Sejny. Also, there was a "Polacy-Litwini" survey taken by the same office in, AFAIR, 1999, which could also be of some use here. Halibu tt 20:36, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the biggest Lithuanian organisation in Poland, the Stowarzyszenie Litwinów w Polsce has circa 2500 members. Halibu tt 21:06, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

footnote

I was asked for a suggestion on how to handle the long quotation in the footnote--which is a little obtrusive and siproportionate. My advice is to abbreviate it to the essential part, giving it both in the original and in (perhaps somewhat more idiomatic) English. The details of how many people are in each school, etc. are not critical. for example: " Repressions affected various persons – teachers, public persons, pupils.... bishop A. Karosas was put under house arrest, later he was forced to go into exile to independent Lithuania. ...most Lithuanian professors and academics were imprisoned...or exiled. Poles devastated Lithuanian institutions, closed organizations and schools, ... It was also prohibited to speak Lithuanian in public places also. ... Lithuanian books in the schools were burnt. " It would be acceptable to put a fuller quote on the talk page, but I don't see why it would be necessary.DGG (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, who invited you regarding long quotation? Second WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English strictly says that relevant quote should be presented in original and translation, there is no words about modified translations, which you suggesting to implement . M.K. 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have suggested in my edit summaries, a proper way for such a quote is not in the mainbody. It should be brought at talk for discussion but we don't commonly quite other text (which are not under free licences). There is also an entire project dedicated to quotes (Wikiquote). Further, the article links to Sejny Uprising, where the quote can be (after being rewriten) incorporated more fully into the article. I strongly suggest moving the quote to Talk:Sejny Uprising and eliminating it from this article (also, WP:UNDUE comes to mind).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus asked me, as you would find from my talk page. I suggested, as usual, a compromise. Translations should be into grammatical English. Full quotations of documents do not belong in WP, and omissions are properly shown by the ellipses: ... I add the following additional suggestion,

There are other possibilities: the abridged translation could go in the text, and the full original in a footnote. I do not see the point in using it in both--for the more general article I'd just use a sentence, such as "The victorious Poles suppressed Lithuanian cultural institutions" and just the reference.

and: It might be a good idea to use the template for WP:SS, {{main|Sejny uprising}}

The point is to find a way to present and document the material and still have a good article. this is a general encyclopedia, and does not get documented in the detail that a research monograph would. In using such quotes, it is more effective to keep them concise. It highlights the material. I'm trying to suggest how to use it effectively--I am not suggesting hiding it or eliminating it. anyway, its my suggestion, and you will do here as the consensus on the page thinks best-- as long as you discuss it, and avoid reverting each other. DGG (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification regarding Piotrus request. Indeed this contributor likes to travel to your page [1]. However as you may see this quote was removed once more, while WP:V says it should be. As I understand you suggesting to leave only English variant (translation) of quote in footnote? M.K. 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help is still needed here! M.K. 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hi. :) I am reviewing the article's history and the conversation above and will replace this note with something more potentially useful when I have finished. --Moonriddengirl 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moonriddengirl, thank you for your involvement. M.K. 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The internet swallowed my first response. :) I will reconstruct it. You are quite right that WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English specifies that "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation". I wonder, though, if you're interpreting that too strictly. Is there reason to believe that "citation" there means anything different than it does at Wp:citation#Full_citations, where "Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional. For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers. Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online." Unless there is an expansion on that guideline somewhere stating that you need to transcribe the original and provide your translation in article, I would presume that all it's really asking for is that you scrupulously document your source. Please let me know if you think I've missed something or if I am misinterpreting the nature of your conversation above. --Moonriddengirl 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for response. I feel I need to clarify some points. I quoted non English researcher's facts in article, so as I understand per policy using non-English source as a quote I should present clear citation of the foreign-language original, as I understand it, the same quote which I translated in EN and placed in WP, only in original format, because other people which have some doubts not only could find the book itself but also and the particular quote. M.K. 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're attempting to scrupulously abide by policy, and I understand that you want to be sure that the original is available for verification. :) It's possible that I am misinterpreting the policy myself, but I read "clear citation of the foreign-language original" as simply asking for a full citation, as at Wp:citation#Full_citations. If it said "clear quotation of the foreign-language original" then you would certainly need to annotate it. It's not so very different in my opinion that using as a source a print book in the English language. You give as much information as you possibly can to allow other editors to find and verify your information, but you do not need to type out the relevant sections of the text. --Moonriddengirl 18:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right regarding this conjunction, however there is possibility that we are misinterpreting the policy itself. Maybe the main policy, WP:RSUE, should be made more clearer in order to avoid further confusions? What do you thing is it worth to do so? M.K. 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the editors who monitor WP:V at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Question_regarding_foreign-language_sources. If anybody would know what's intended, they would. :) Perhaps the language of the policy should be clarified. If they don't come over on their own, I'll report back on any follow-up. --Moonriddengirl 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Sometimes translations and quotations are useful for clarification, but I do agree their place is on talk - not in the article. This holds particularly true for controversial statements, some of which may fail WP:NPOV/UNDUE/WEASEL and similar policies. What our policies certainly don't support is trying to circumvent those policies by including statements which would not be acceptable in article as "quotes" or "translations".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's another dimension to this debate beyond the use of foreign language sources and the meaning of the policy above, I've probably missed it. :) If I've failed to address something fully, please feel free to explain. --Moonriddengirl 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe the quote introduces details which are 1) controversial, possibly fringe (not supported by any other source, despite us having insignificantly expanded Sejny uprising 2) of undue weight to this article, which should simply not go into such tiny details of the uprising 3) non-neutral as it is pushing certain POV "bad Poles". It's opposite would be, for example, an addition of a fact Lithuanians shot Polish wounded fighters during the fighting in the town - which I am not planning to add here, either as a quote or to main body, because it would be fringe, undue and POVed. Hence I believe that addition of the quote about Polish atrocities to this article violates WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV - it states facts that would never make it into the main article because of those policies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like if the original language expanded quote and translation are not included, this will not be an issue. Is that correct? --Moonriddengirl 19:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. I certainly have no problem with including the information (which can be confirmed by several sources from both sides) that there were repressions against the Lithuanian population in Sejny in the aftermath of the uprising. Going into excessive details of a historical event, not supported by majority of sources, is another issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not agree with you on excessive citation. The facts, you have recently removed, speak for themselves and explain why Lithuanians found this region important, and what Polish government actions changed the ethnic situation. Ban on Lithuanian language is quite harsh Polonization policy, don't you think? Lesčius supports it with a reference.--Lokyz 10:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it is relevant to this article. Or do you think we should add information about Lithuanian shooting down wounded Polish fighters here, too? PS. Or a better example: should we add detailed information / quotations on Ponary massacre to Panerai, quotations on how Vilnians (Polish, Jewish) suffered from various armies after WWI; a lenghty quotation from Kaunas pogrom to Kaunas...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Village Pump

Two respondents at the Village Pump are of the opinion that while an extensive quote of a foreign language text (and translation) in the footnote is not necessary per guidelines, it's also not harmful and in some circumstances may be a very good thing to do. It seems that the editor who restored it on this article is among those who feel that in this case it's a very good thing to do. I wonder if Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus has a point, though, about the necessity of quoting it all here, since it's already quoted I see at Sejny Uprising. Could the full translation be replaced with text reading something like "For a transcription of the relevant text and translation, please see footnote at [[Sejny_Uprising#_ref-LKA_0|Sejny Uprising]]", to address the concerns raised above about WP:WEIGHT? The text in the article seems fine to me; the citation is obviously a must to support it. But I don't know if the translation needs to be given in both articles. :) It seems like using it one article with a wikilink might work just as well and potentially alleviate some of the concerns. --Moonriddengirl 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no harm linking to the article with the quote. It's a shame the proposal for reference space never got realized; it would be so much easier for cases like this. PS. For any doubts about the balance, just look at the reference section in the article...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. proposal "For a transcription of the relevant text and translation, please see footnote at (...)" - discouraged per WP:SELF: every page in the encyclopedia should be stand-alone (and should, for instance, be printable separately, with its own references, independent from other pages, including talk pages).

My general reasoning is this:

It doesn't appear to be a generally recognised "fact" that the repression described by Lesčius (et al.?) really took place. Which might not be too surprising, Polish history books would probably hardly (if at all) mention it. See also next section #Les.C4.8Dius_as_WP:RS;
For this reason, and in compliance with, for instance, WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, the contention is presented as a fact about an opinion (by Lesčius). That the repression took place is not presented as a fact itself.
In that case readers of the encyclopedia, on a page-by-page basis, should be able to form their own opinion (see also WP:NPOV policy).
In which case these readers should be given the appropriate material on which to base their opinion (per WP:NPOV, WP:V etc.).

Of course, if more sources could be found (in Polish, in English...) maybe there might come a consensus that the repression described by Lesčius can be represented as a "fact" directly in Wikipedia. So I invite all editors (including the pro-Polish ones) to find such additional sources. If found, the name of Lesčius could maybe be removed from the body of the article, the extensive quote replaced by a shorter reference to an English-language source etc...

Whether currently the Wikipedia article on Sejny gives too much attention to the alleged repression topic: I don't think so. That's my opinion, taking sides neither for Polish nor Lithuanian perspective (I couldn't be associated with either). Of course other editors are entitled to their own opinion in the matter. In this context, it might be useful to have a look at the remedies proposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Remedies too. --Francis Schonken 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I was not familiar with WP:Self. --Moonriddengirl 11:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for additional comments. I have to agree with Francis Schonken, that article should have its own references and explanations rather then links to other places. Regarding Lesčius development presentation, as already said by other contributor (see below), book itself is capital one (probably newest and most comprehensive up to date regarding these developments); author's credentials and peer review panel proves that source meets necessary criteria per WP:RS. As Francis Schonken asked for additional sources which could concur Lesčius' ones, it is not a problem as presented facts by Lesčius is well established at least in Lithuanian historiography:

a) Bronius Makauskas in his article written in Warsaw and reprinted in article Pietinės Sūduvos lietuviai už šiaudinės administracinės linijos ir geležinės sienos (1920–1991 m.)/Voruta, 1999 ISSN 1392-0677, No.27-30. Notes almost the same facts as Lesčius, particularly - ban of Lithuanian schools and organization (same statistics as in Lesčius book), ban of Lithuanian language in public, repressions towards certain people, confiscation of property etc., He also goes further and describes repressions in Punsk and other areas. Author of his article was born in Sejny , is historian, has doctoral degree, delivers lectures in Warsaw University working with prominent Polish researches, wrote set of history books. In my view meets basic criteria RS as well.
b) In Bronius Kvirlys book Mūsų Lietuva Vol.3,1991 in p. 457 (720 pages in total), describing particular events in Seinai notes: ban of Lithuanian language in public, burning books, closing all Lithuanian press , 9 organizations with 1300 persons, schools (same statistic as per Lesčius), confiscation of property etc. These events he describe as terror and repressions.
c) even gymnasium which was effected by these repressions in its web page (restarted its activities in Sejny now, from 1919 operated in exile) notes the same numbers (75 and 223) of pupils as Lesčius, Makauskas etc.

Conclusion. Events described by Lesčius can be easily references and double referenced with various other sources, so its is not any fringe theory, which some contributors describes [2], but the facts which are met in various academic publications. M.K. 12:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding Francis Schonken's suggestion correctly, then it seems that the extensive translation is not necessary as the additional sources can be added to substantiate that this is fact, rather than relying solely on the single text which might be interpreted as opinion. Is that how you read it, M.K.? :) --Moonriddengirl 12:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it in this fashion :) M.K. 12:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking more at the comment above, which says "If found, the name of Lesčius could maybe be removed from the body of the article, the extensive quote replaced by a shorter reference to an English-language source etc..." :) I realize none of the sources you bring up are English, but I would imagine the number of them would lend itself to credence. --Moonriddengirl 13:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A, to this one, well none of these sources are in English, so we back again to WP:RSUE. M.K. 13:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true, but the contributors at Village Pump have opined that the extensive quoting is not required by WP:RSUE. While they've felt that in some cases it may be helpful, I wonder if this continues to be one of those cases now that you're talking about multiple foreign language sources. If you've located other reputable sources that set forth the same claims made by Lesčius, it seems to be no longer necessary to introduce that material by saying, "Lithuanian historian Vytautas Lesčius claims that...." You should be able to start the sentence "After Poles acquired the town and its surroundings..." and source the claim with multiple sources, right? As I understand it, this is no longer a question of defending Lesčius's opinion, if there is consensus among multiple sources. --Moonriddengirl 13:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this is the case then it may be helpful :) , especially knowing that Polish readers probably not know such facts. Lets see that Francis Schonken have to add. I agree that attribution Lithuanian historian... is not necessary now, M.K. 14:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the translation is not helpful - it is not neutral and of undue weight to the article. The inhabitants suffered heavily under many regimes - Russian Empire, Soviet, Nazi - why are those not described in detail? And the "Lithuanian historian" attribution is important. Those claims are not confirmed by Polish or English historiography; hence they need to be attributed to Lithuanian historiography.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support giving full scope of information when relevant to the article. The repressions should and are mentioned. The provided long citation is redundant here not only for technical reasons (gigantic, unproportional length) but also because of its inflammatory context. - Darwinek 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bronius Makauskas' article, mentioned above by M. K. under "a)" in Polish? Since he's a Polish historian (or isn't he?), this seems to contradict directly what Piotrus contends above: "Those claims are not confirmed by Polish (...) historiography"...

Re. other details about other opressions: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

Anyway, the Sejny article could do with more references, in order to improve its compliance to WP:V in general. OK, all the other content of the article might be in Polish and English historiography - how come I see so little references to notable reference works of this historiography? --Francis Schonken 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bronius Makauskas is Lithuanian, not Polish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask whether he "is" Polish, I asked whether the piece he wrote was (written, published) not only in Poland (what M.K. contends), but also in Polish (the language). If so, this is part of "Polish historiography". Or do you mean Polish historiography is reserved to ethnic Poles? --Francis Schonken 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of this article being published in Polish. Would be interesting in reading it in Polish or English.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, re. "Bronius Makauskas is Lithuanian" - does anyone have a source that confirms this contention? Seems like (irrelevant) name-calling to me, and probably OR. Isn't he rather an "international" historian associated both with Poland and Lithuania?

I mean, neither do I have an idea whether Bronius Makauskas was born in Sejny, whether he teaches in Warsaw, etc. - lacking third-party reliable sources (that is: other than wikipedians making contentions about this) that confirm these data, it is below threshold to include contentions about the Polishness or Lithuanianness of all authors on the subject in the encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken 07:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is Lithuanian; not Polish (although he does seem to have some ties to Warsaw University and Lithuanian minority in Poland); likely as a visiting scholar. The information in the relevant part are described uniquely in Lithuanian historiography, and certainly was published in Lithuanian press and language, not Polish, not English, by Lithuanian historians (not Polish, not Western).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, references for your contentions, please...

Even if "true", if no references compliant to WP:V (and WP:RS, etc.) are given, this part of the information is below the threshold of "notability" for what can be included in Wikipedia's main namespace. --Francis Schonken 14:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Attribution is an obvious part of WP:V, particulary with controversial information. The sentence is referenced to several Lithuanian historians, hence it should be noted that "Lithuanian historians state"... (or Lithuanian historiography, scholarship, whatever fits the style better). For the record, the refs are: 1) Bronius Makauskas (Lithuanian name) article Pietinės Sūduvos lietuviai už šiaudinės administracinės linijos ir geležinės sienos (1920–1991 m.) (Lithuanian language) in Voruta, a Lithuanian m monthly weekly historical newspaper 2) Vytautas Lesčius (Lithuanian name), Lietuvos kariuomenė nepriklausomybės kovose 1918-1920 (Lithuanian language) book, published by Lithuanian publishers Vilnius University and Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija and 3) Vytautas Lesčius again, Lithuanian language article in Karo archyvas XVIII published by Lithuanian publisher Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija. Hence I see nothing wrong with attribution of the claims in this para to Lithuanian scholars. PS. It would be great if somebody would fill the red links here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. I'll give another example:

Alain de Botton has a French name;
Alain de Botton publishes in French Comment Proust Peut Changer Votre Vie
...with a French publisher: "domaine étranger" or "Denoël" [3]

Yet Alain de Botton is not a French author.

There is only one way to include the information that Bronius Makauskas is a Lithuanian historian in Wikipedia's main namespace: that is: find a source compliant with Wikipedia's content policies that states that he's a Lithuanian historian. --Francis Schonken 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found some info on Makauskas biography, will translate: B. Makauskas, historian, researcher, educationalist. Born and grow up in Senai (Sejny), Poland. Attended gymnasium in Punsk, Poland. Specialty of historian received in Gdansk University. Continued his studies in Warsaw University, Polish Science Academy's Institute of History. Here he received Ph.D. Works in this Institute in 19-20 cent. theme. In Warsaw University lectures history of Baltic States between 1918 and 1990, delivering research papers on this field as well. Interest theme: history of Baltic States, Lithuanian-Polish relationships, ethical minorities position in Eastern Europe. Internship made in Lithuania, Italy, United States. I hope this info helps a bit. Francis Schonken, could you tell - what is the reason not to include exact numbers of organizations, members? Why reader should be left in dark regarding these well referenced numbers? I ask this same question and Moonriddengirl. M.K. 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Looks like Makauskas is professor now.[reply]

Just google for his name, Francis. You will get for example [4]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an important question: would you call Makauskas Lithuanian or not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@M.K.:

Could you tell where you got the biographical info on Makauskas? Anyway, thanks for the translation - but please mention where you got it.
Re. details on numbers: if I have any thoughts on this issue I'd mention them in the 2nd section after this one. I'm not decided yet, but seem most inclined to Moonriddengirl's final advise: have the details in the "Sejny uprise" article, we don't need that much detail in the general article. I'd only mention these numbers in the footnote quotes-with-translations literally as they were written down, if we need these quotes-with-translations. And then we only need these quotes if some editors continue casting doubt on the work of historians like Makauskas and Lesčius (as if their ethnic affiliation would have influenced their work as historian), according to the reasoning I described above.

@Piotrus:

No, in my opinion indicating Makauskas as a Lithuanian historian would be too narrow: "international historian", as I suggested above, would be more correct probably (if the bio details given by M.K. are correct), despite the link you gave above. It's something similar with Alain de Botton: calling him an "English" author would not be completely correct either (although he lives in the UK, and mostly writes in English) - he lived in the German-speaking part of Switzerland before going to the UK for his studies (and then there's still his Spanish ancestry, and his parents living in Egypt for some time, his Jewish roots etc...). He's an academic with a degree in philosophy, and his ethnicity does not matter all that much for what he writes as an academic/philosopher. At best his roots are "international". Also I don't get the impression that Polish historians (like e.g. Piotr Łossowski) "mistrust" Makauskas' work as a historian. I am inclined to doubt that Polish historians question Makauskas' integrity as historian. And you haven't given a single source that would back up such allegation. --Francis Schonken 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to add, [5] bio from publishing house, + professor title in [6] announcement that in Poland will be television broadcasting regarding Lithuania. Also found his books published in Poland like this [7] in Herder Istitue some more works [8]. Hope this helps, M.K. 11:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again: when we write a bio of him, should we call him a Polish or a Lithuanian historian? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I couldn't find a full bio of Makauskas in Polish (or English), I found that he is an important activist of the Lithuanian minority in Poland and changed his name from Polish to its Lithuanian equivalent few years ago. I do wonder if he would call himself Polish or Lithuanian; but I do think that the earlier variant - with "Lithuanian historiography" instead of "Lithuanian historians" may be more correct. I don't doubt that he is a reliable historian, but it is a fact that details of the repressions are not discussed in Polish language sources, only Lithuanian ones. Whether it is because Poles prefer not to think about it or whether they don't find the evidence reliable enough, I don't presume to speculate, but it is an important fact that neither Polish nor English works go into those details; in other words only Lithuanian works - Lithuanian historiography - does. This does indicate per WP:NPOV that it is not universally accepted - or known - fact, and hence it should be presented with attribution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "I found that he is an important activist of the Lithuanian minority in Poland and changed his name from Polish to its Lithuanian equivalent few years ago." Where did you find that? Again, why do I always have to come back to this same point: say where you got it, cite your sources (WP:CITE), please.
Well I hear something different now: you say Polish (& English) sources don't discuss details of the repressions. OK, maybe they don't discuss the details, but they mention something about the repressions don't they? Here, again, the same question: what exactly do they say (even if it's only half a word)? Again, same question, give the reference (only if it's only a single source) to support your contention. --Francis Schonken 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Polish historiography" vs "Lithuanian historiography" doesn't solve a thing: for example "Dutch historiography" could apply as well to Belgian historiography written in Dutch (language), as to history of the Netherlands written in English, as to historiography by Dutch people written in the native language of e.g. some of their former colonies. You don't solve the country/ethnicity/language ambiguity when exchanging "historians" by "historiography" after a word that could as well indicate a country as a language as an ethnicity. --Francis Schonken 23:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is called a Lithuanian. Here he is noted as the "vicepresident of Association of Lithuanians in Poland" (Wspólnota Litwinów w Polsce). Here his name change is mentioned.

Still no reference for "he is an important activist of the Lithuanian minority in Poland". --Francis Schonken 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that a vicepresident of a big Lithuanian minority organization is an important activist for that minority?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think it - I say you interpret what the reference says beyond what is allowable by WP:NOR. --Francis Schonken 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lossowski (see Sejny Uprising for full citation details) mentions that both side repressed members of other side minorities (he notes arrests of people only because they declared themselves Poles/Lithuanians and gives a few names) and exaggerated claims to gain internal and external support. I don't recall any Polish/English language source that discusses repressions in more details.

Tx, anyway I add at least one Polish and one English source to the page now, inserted before details of the repressions start. Languages of the cited works (if not English) only mentioned in footnotes.

May I suggest you read the stuff before you add it? Lossowski writers about repressions in the region; this article is about a town.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, is Lossowski's addition to the fact that in the town Lithuanians were repressed by Poles of any relevance to this article? - No problem, we can remove the sentence: But Lossowski confirms the statement that in the town the (Lithuanian) minority was repressed by the other side? --Francis Schonken 02:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As was discussed elsewhere, the historians discuss the Sejny region in general, and make very few claims applicable only to the town. As far as I am concerned, we should state something similar to Buchowski: Several times Seinai changed hands. During these battles both sides used repressive measures. and discuss the details in Sejny Uprising. The city suffered much more heavily during The Deluge (when it was "burned and destroyed" - ref), Soviet occupation in 1920 (when during the fights of 9 and 10 September it was "ruined" ref), or Soviet and Nazis occupations during WWII (when during Soviet liberation, for example, town and county officials were executed - ref) - yet this is ignored and undue weight given to events of 1919.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think other content for which you have reliable sources should get more prominence in the article, as I suggested you before: {{sofixit}} --Francis Schonken 02:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Lithuanian historiography is not the same as Historiography of Lithuania. The first one is written by Lithuanian historians and published in Lithuanian outlets, it can discuss Lithuania but also other countries as seen from Lithuania; the latter doesn't concern itself who published it but limits itself to works about Lithuania. The two overlap to some regard but are not the same thing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "Lithuanian historiography is (...) the same as Historiography of Lithuania" - don't twist my words. I only said that in English Lithuanian historiography can as well mean (in certain contexts) historiography by Lithuanians (in whatever language, regarding whatever country), as it can mean (in other contexts) historiography in Lithuanian language (by whatever people, on whatever country) as also (again in other contexts) historiography of Lithuania (in whatever language, by whatever people). Sorry, it's the word "Lithuanian" that is ambiguous (Lithuanian is in Wikipedia a disambiguation page). Maybe in Polish a similar ambiguity does not exist, in English it does. --Francis Schonken 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I suggest reading more on the definitions of historiography. I explained the difference between the term here; we are not talking about English language common misinterpretations but scholarly definitions of relevant terms. One day we will have articles on Lithuanian historiography and Historiography of Lithuania and readers and editors will be able to follow them to see what's the difference.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the definition of historiography, it's about the definition of "Lithuanian" (or: "Polish"), which are ambiguous terms. Again you're making your contentions about "scholarly definitions", whithout giving any sources for these interpretations. --Francis Schonken 02:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see you use any sources to back up your claims. As far as I see it, your 'English usage claim' no less 'common sense' based than my description of BM as Lithuanian activist - and certainly much more problematic with regards to academic definitions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, Lithuanian is a disambig page in Wikipedia, but I can refer you to any English dictionary you might have available, including wiktionary. It is in Webster's too, if you want I give you the page number. --Francis Schonken 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesčius as WP:RS

It's not dubious - this book is written by Ph.D., published by Vilnius University and Jono Žemaičio War Accademy. Besides it has full scientific apparatus including over 700 references and was peer reviewed by two other renowned scholars and was recommended for print by Vilnius University History Departament. I think this makes this book credible enough.--Lokyz 10:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reliable sources which we are not adding here. Plus, a single foreign language book is problematic with regards to WP:REDFLAG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. See comments above. M.K. 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEASEL language instead of facts

There is initiative group, which insists to add WP:WEASEL language [9][10] instead of facts. And facts are: ban of all Lithuanian press, closing all Lithuanian schools with ~300 pupils, closing 9 organizations with 1300 members, and not some. All this information are referenced with academic publications. Besides why there are so many attempts to remove fact that Poles burned Lithuanian books as well? M.K. 08:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per n-th time, this is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE detail. We don't list details of what this town has suffered under Soviet or Nazi's occupation, we don't describe minute details of Swedish looting and burning in 17th century or the ravages of the 18th century fire. And for the same reason, we don't add details or extensive quotations from publications on Ponary massacre to Panerai or on Kanuas pogrom to Kaunas. The right place to describe the repressions is in Sejny Uprising, where your quotation/translation are not challenged. Stop pushing them to off-topic articles (it doesn't belong in Polish-Lithuanian relations or repression articles, neither).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's your POV - see above for response from WP:Village Pump. Ah, and btw, WP:WEASEL is an official guideline of Wikipedia.--Lokyz 19:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look above and I certainly don't see any consensus for keeping this monstrosity of a POVed quote in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we add similar chapters on expelled and/or persecuted Poles to history of each and every town in modern Lithuania? Would that be equally ok to you M.K.? I bet we could find sources for that, in every God forgotten village in Lithuania there must've been some Polish noble or someone of that kind... //Halibu tt 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that this conversation has moved well beyond the scope of a simple interpretation of WP:RSUE#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English, as it seems at this point to be far more a matter of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I wonder if an WP:RFC would actually serve you both. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's your opinion? Should this quote be left in the article, or is it too detailed/undue/fringe/non-neutral? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By a simple reading of WP:RSUE, I don't believe the whole quote is necessary. I think the citation of sources is sufficient to sustain the statement stating "After Poles acquired the town and its surroundings the Lithuanian population of the region was subject to various repressions, including Lithuanian language ban in public, confiscations, Lithuanian organizations (with 1300 members), schools (with approx. 300 pupils) and press closure, confiscation of property and burning of Lithuanian books". Pending location of other sources, I would also support a statement stating "According to Lithuanian historians, after Poles acquired the town and its surroundings the Lithuanian population of the region was subject to various repressions, including Lithuanian language ban in public, confiscations, Lithuanian organizations (with 1300 members), schools (with approx. 300 pupils) and press closure, confiscation of property and burning of Lithuanian books". Neither of these sentences seems to me undue weight. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this shortened version is certainly better than the large one, I still have reservations about whether we need any details of the repressions. And if we mention them, I think we don't need numbers - and the 'book burning' is quite dubious. Usually when you read over 'history of a town' article, you will find notices that it was damaged/population suffered but only in subarticles you go into the details. Consider the level of detail in Dresden#Dresden_in_modern_Europe vs bombing of Dresden; Paneriai vs Ponary massacre, London#Rise_of_modern_London, Canterbury#Post_1900, etc. - and note that the scope of those events is much, much larger that in this case. Perhaps an even better example is history of most European towns - they suffered heavily during WWII, but how many go into those details in their main articles? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset indent>As a single sentence, it doesn't seem like undue weight to me. And the burning of books does seem to have been alleged by Lithuanian historians, which makes its inclusion appropriate, at the least, to the second rendering. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think I might not have pointed one important thing out: the discussed quote mentions events that are relevant as the aftermath of the Sejny Uprising, but not necessarily happened in the town of Sejny. For example, when talking about affected organizations and schools, note that both of them had a range (membership) outside Sejny. So for example the organization(s) with 1300 members that was closed afterwards was based in but also outside Sejny and the 1300 number certainly includes people from outside Sejny, likely from the entire Suwałki region. Hence, we should be careful to make sure that information irrelevant to the town (but relevant to the Sejny Uprising and mentioned there) is not unduly pushed here - it is little more relevant that information on the casualties of November Uprising in the article on November. Sejny Uprising, despite being named for the town, had the effects beyond it, and so did the repressions that took place later (note, for example, that we don't mention the casualties of both sides that occured during those hostilities; are they any less relevant than the number of members of an organization closed afterwards?). Lastly, consider this: Łossowski, for exmaple, mentions that in the aftermath of the uprising, both sides arrested many innocent civilians and persecuted them. This is not relevant here, although most certainly some inhabitants of Sejny were affected by it. Did the book burning occur in Sejny? Or somewhere else in the aftermath of the uprising? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:OR such as certainly includes people from outside Sejny, if you have an academic source which states that during Polish repressions closed Lithuanian organizations included 1300 members and from other areas cite it and please find alternative source to concur such statements. Currently opponents presented not single one source. And yes authors notes that these developments occurred in town including books burning. M.K. 08:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC) P.s. thats why exact citation presentation would be helpful - it will eliminate and further WP:OR[reply]

<reset indent> I believe you may have a point. While the translated quote may not be required by WP:RSUE, it seems that the material may be contentious enough that the fuller presentation could be helpful. Going back to a comment on the 12th, the material is challenged because:

Controversial, possibly fringe. The location of additional sources seems to address the question of whether or not this is fringe. As for controversial, the only controversy in regards to what Lithuanian historians say that I can see is in the nature of repressions described (and, now, the location), and the quote may be helpful to settle that controversy. But
Undue weight. While I don't believe the single sentence & citations are undue weight, I do see that the use of the full quotation may be. The problem is that without the full quotation, it seems that the veracity of the sentence is being challenged in spite of the citation.
Non-neutral in its portrayal of Poles. That really is, again, the undue weight question. It's not inherently non-neutral, though failure to contextualize it might be. The way to address this is not, in my opinion, to remove the single sourced sentence, but to balance it with additional sourced material.

At this point it seems to me to come down to a simple question, as far as the quotation is concerned: will the sentence be permitted to stand with the simple citation of sources, or is the translation of the primary source necessary to support the inclusion of the sentence? :) Would it help if the sentence were revised, something like "The repression of Lithuanian populations in and around the town after the Poles acquired control has been described by Lithuanian historians as including a ban on the use of Lithuanian language in public; closures of Lithuanian organizations, schools and press; confiscations of property and burning of Lithuanian books"? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moonriddengirl, could you explain why exact number of baned and devastated Lithuanian organizations its members should not be mentioned in article. Readers should receive precise info, don't you think so? M.K. 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost missed this new question, buried up here. :) Readers can find precise info, I believe, if they follow the link to the daughter article at Sejny Uprising, where quite rightly specifics are detailed. As Wikipedia:Summary style indicates, "The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects". The exact number of organizations involved isn't necessary in my opinion in general summary that repression is documented. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite acceptable, with the exception of book burning - this seems to be supported by only one ref, and is a rather minor and undue claim.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Piotrus actions

Piotrus has reverted using this rationale: (Francis is not Village Pump :)) my restoring of this edit [11] can anyone with neutral point of view comment on this?--Lokyz 10:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have been for some time been having a neutral discussion and evidently reached consensus for that language in the section immediately above this one. Consensus can change, but I think Piotrus is within policy to restore what we had agreed upon until further conversation may refine consensus to remove or alter that information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lokyz, please stop posting threads with names of other users. It is a bad habit ([12]). This is a violation of WP:NPA. Discuss edits, not editors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of NPA does it violate? Care to cite?--Lokyz 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above I already linked to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Remedies. I'll quote the first remedy:

There is a general amnesty for most editors who have been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined; this amnesty is combined with the expectation that all future editing will conform with Wikipedia policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area. Passed 7-0 at 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (my bolding)

I expect all participants in this debate to keep closely to Wikipedia's policies. Further, the second (and last) of the remedies of that ArbCom case:

All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately. Passed 8-0 at 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (again, my bolding)

Piotrus, please don't quote my name in edit summaries.[13][14] If you want to quote my name, do so on a talk page. If needs, post a thread with my name in the section title, I don't mind (and don't see a NPA infringement there). If you feel personally attacked: "Do not respond on a talk page of an article" per WP:NPA#Initial options. --Francis Schonken 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Francis, it appears that some of other editors behavior rubbed off on me. You are certainly right that some editors here are not editing 'cooperatively'. And thank you remind me of 'no responce' option, together with WP:DFTT it is too often forgotten. I will not use your name in edit summaries if you find such edit summaries unsettling. I wish certain editors would stop using my or Halibutt's name in edit summaries, threads, or link our images from irrelevant discussions - so I can certainly sympathize with your request. Apologies, again. Take care, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent developments [15] with "covering" and possibly provocative afteredit. Very productive indeed. Like this warning on one of the abused editors talk page. I did love the "we do it" and "there is no cabal" unison.--Lokyz 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue details

I reverted Lokyz's last edit in which s/he asked to reference to an already well referenced sentence and at the same time add an unreferenced piece of information. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, removing refenced information? Ok you've asked for it - the phrase "Piotr Łossowski asserted that both sides have exaggerated repressions they suffered to elicit internal and external support" is quite similiar to the soviet historigraphy cliche - "situation of proletariat at the time was bad" at any given time. I mean, sure as the war is going on there is no duobt that both sides treat each other bad, but could you provide any referenced text about Lithunaians prohibiting Polonia to thrive in these lands, or robbing homeless children shelter? Such servitute phrases, used to remove strongness of previous fact are an obvious WP:WEASEL manifestation. And facts about burning Lithuanian books and closing homeless shelter is much more than notable - it does exactly explain demographic situation in the region now. People tend to get scared by state terrorism you know...--Lokyz 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, cite your sources about the shelter/books. Second, as noted by many, many editors in this thread over the past few weeks, those allegations are simply of undue weight here. The article on Warsaw doesn't mention the Wola massacre; the article on Vilnius doesn't mention the Ponary massacre, and the article on Sejny should not mention colorful if rather irrelevant and unencyclopedic details of the Sejny uprising aftermath. PS. Also, as Halibutt pointed out, this article should not be turned into a list of grudges.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from 2 books are present. And sure, the Ponary massacre has nothing to do with Lithuanian-Polish relations in the 1919 year, since it was initiated by Nazi authority. Piotrus, can you grasp the context, or are you trying to blindly whitewash any actions of any Pole? Sejny atrocities, that were made by "Polish uprisings" "heroes" is an examplary situation of Polonization and state supported terror on the civil population.--Lokyz 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This not the article about Polish-Lithuanian relations. This is an article about a town. Please explain to me why minuscule details of repressions (burning of books, robbing a child shelter) that occurred in this town are notable enough to be mentioned here, but a genocide of 100,000 people in Vilna's district of Ponary/Panerai does not need to be mentioned in the Vilnius history section?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<reset indent>I'm not personally really comfortable with the inclusion of "even from Lithuanian homeless children shelter", which seems iffy in regards to WP:NPOV to me and unnecessary, given that this is the parent article and that there is an article about the specific events in which such information can be included. While mentioning that repressions are documented as having occurred seems reasonable in the parent article, since it is arguably an important part of recent history, the level of detail does figure in on weight & tone. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the fact you do not like, is it that it was done by Poles you do not like, or is it reference that you do not like. Just wondering, since the books were burned and the homeless shelter was robbed. Just for a single reason - thjat Lithuanian speaking children were there. Tell me, what's wrong with glorious Polish "Uprisers" to rob innocent childrens?--Lokyz 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the inclusion in this article that I don't like. That level of detail belongs in the article specifically about the uprising and its aftermath. In this article, it feels like undue weight. As regards to your question about the morality of the behavior, that's immaterial to a Wikipedia article. We're striving for neutrality here. Personally, I have no emotional investment in the history of Sejny. I can agree with you that abusing little children is wrong, by whoever abuses them, but still not think it fits here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I have been wondering for a bit if restructuring that section might help reach permanent consensus, so we can all move on. :) If the whole of recent history were not squashed into one section, we could more easily give a stronger pointer to the main article so that it would not be lost as just one of many wikilinks. Is that an approach that might help, or a bad idea all around? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ask you again. Please define NPOV policy - fact referenced by two publications that does not suit someone's gusts is deemed to be deleted? It is well referenced by peeer reviewed sources. Or WP:NPOV has reched the level of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do know that it seems to be emotional loaded. Just - what if it did happen exactly that way? What has the WP:NPOV to say in this case?--Lokyz 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the specific section of WP:NPOV, that policy says, "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". I agree with you that a mention in the parent article that repressions are documented to have occurred is appropriate, but as you go into greater detail, this is tipping the balance of weight, which is problematic with regards to NPOV. (The language is also non-neutral—"even from" is innately exclamatory.) There is already an article on the Sejny Uprising. As Wikipedia:Summary style states, "To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the main article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary article". Later, it specifies that "The top or survey article should have general summary information." This material doesn't need to be in both articles. If it is to be included (preferably with neutral text), it makes more sense to put it in the specific "daughter" article. It isn't "general" detail, but highly specific detail. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems we're dealing with feel the right thing case, a bit subjective IMO, but acceptable. Thanks for explanation.--Lokyz 08:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a bit subjective. If it weren't, there'd be no need for consensus. The interpretation of policy would be obvious and not open to debate. :) As I mentioned above, I have been wondering if a restructure of the section would settle this ongoing debate. Specifically, I have been thinking about the subdivision of Sejny#20th_century with the insertion at the appropriate point of {{Main|Sejny Uprising}} or {{see also|Sejny Uprising}}. So, again, is that an approach that might help, or a bad idea all around? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sejny Uprising is linked in the article, and it has a subarticle. I don't see the need to further expand on in the text; sure - it was a big event - but not more so than Warsaw Uprising for Warsaw, or Ponary massacre for Vilnius.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. WP:UNDUE which is a part of NPOV policy deals exactly with that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to some sources

Which ones?Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sejny. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]