Talk:Antanas Mackevičius

New Provocation?

I would like to give User:Marekchelsea and User:Romuald Wróblewski the "benefit of the doubt" by kindly explaining their recent edits concerning the article on this talk page. That might prevent edit warring and further disruption of this article. And do consider that this is English Wikipedia and please at least try to get your geography correct. For starters you've also not only got his place of death wrong, but his place of birth wrong too. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Such "edits" without proper edit summary and rationale on talk, hardly can be call constructive ones. Restored previous version + expansion. M.K. (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MarekChelsea, you changed the article title to Antoni Mackiewicz today [1] If you are convinced that this article's title is wrong, you have several venues of protest. Merely changing it without discussion, tho, is considered bad form here - that should only be done with completely uncontroversial article name changes. The primary venue for article name changes is WP:Requested moves. If you find that hard to use, you can post a message at Wikipedia:Help desk. Novickas (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Kimodin, an edit summary "don't hurry" is not an explanation for your recent two edits [2] [3]. If you are suggesting that you need time to explain your edits, I suggest that you take the time to organize your thoughts and rationale first, and then make the edits, not the other way around. If you need to consult with someone first for some reasons, do that, then make your edit. At this point I think it would be more helpful to discuss it here instead. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Name

A review of sources suggests, tentatively, that Lithuanian name is more widespread than Polish in English language sources, although the difference is slight. I see no particular need to move the article. It would be useful to find a source discussing the name he used himself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

Article in Lithuanian Wikipedia states death date as 28 December, while English Wikipedia states death date as 16 December. I have checked one of the sources (no. 2 in the article, in Lithuanian) and it also states 28 December. So I guess there's a mistake in current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phx798 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Antanas Mackevičius. 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/20100617033027/http://www.samogit.lt:80/KULTURA/A_Mackevicius_Paberze.htm to http://www.samogit.lt/KULTURA/A_Mackevicius_Paberze.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021012003715/http://www.kaunodiena.lt:80/lt/?id=6&aid=606 to http://www.kaunodiena.lt/lt/?id=6&aid=606
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090809163839/http://www.kedainiumuziejus.lt:80/Pub/default.aspx?Page=MuseumDepartment05 to http://www.kedainiumuziejus.lt/Pub/default.aspx?Page=MuseumDepartment05

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: 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) 05:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian identity

@Marcelus and Cukrakalnis, I have trouble sourcing him being %100 Polish-Lithuanian, he commanded his troops in Lithuanian tongue. Can we chat about it, get the issue resolved here? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Resolution is an unlikely solution, because Marcelus showed his true intentions here, by changing Antanas Mackevičius pl.wiki article's first line Lithuanian Roman Catholic priest to Polish Roman Catholic priest. Actions speak louder than words, in all of the various senses which such a statement applies, especially to trying to name Lithuanians that were engaged in many military actions at the head of Lithuanian rebels in the Uprising of 1863 in the Polish language, which Marcelus wants. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m sure he has his reasons, and his edits are in good faith. Let’s gather some sources. What do we have so far? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Antoni Mackiewicz first language was Polish, he gave testimony to the Russian authorities in Polish. They were published in Antanas Mackevičius: laiškai ir parodymai, Vilnius 1988. I think that qualifies him as Polish-Lithuanian. Marcelus (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus Can we get a page number, quote etc. to the above? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus - Which one? Is this the same book? GizzyCatBella🍁 07:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBell Yes that's the book, I made screenshots of relevant pages: [4] Marcelus (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus, thanks. True, that’s Polish. You might mention that in the article and reference it. So we know he spoke both, Lithuanian and Polish. How do we know that Polish was his mother tongue and not Lithuanian? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Because he made his testimony in Polish, not in Lithuanian. Marcelus (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that is most likely the case but that might also be our WP:OR, I’m not sure if we can assume that ourselves, you know? Perhaps we should ask for comments from others. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus why is he here Polish and here Polish-Lithuanian? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

But you are correct Marcelus, I believe now that he could be referred to as Polish-Lithuanian considering him being bi-lingual and coming from the Commonwealth. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis What do you think? Is that okay? If you disagree we could ask for input form other users.- GizzyCatBella🍁 10:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It's just a letter to a singular Russian officer, I don't understand how that would be relevant to determining the language he would have considered his own. Polish was most likely chosen for this letter, because Mackevičius might have known that colonel Bozherianov knew Polish but no Lithuanian. Besides, drawing conclusions from first-hand material (conclusions for which I have seen no second-hand WP:RS) is textbook-definition WP:OR. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis and @Marcelus - folks lets RfC that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus and @Cukrakalnis folks seriously, stop foolish reverts. We aren't going to get anywhere this way. The last thing we want is some administrator seeing it (administrators close your eyes or even better, go away! We’ll handle it 😀) Folks, please compose an RfC. @Marcelus do you want to do it since it is you initiating the change? GizzyCatBella🍁 21:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Why we need RfC for something that obvious? Mackiewicz clearly had Polish-Lithuanian identity, he is exemplary of this self-identification Marcelus (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella🍁, I am going to stop myself (at least temporarily) from reverting Marcelus' latest edit [5], but not because it's in any way justified, but because a 24-hour block (or even worse, longer...) for edit-warring is very unappealing. The biggest problem here is not Marcelus' opinion, but that he is breaking Wiki rules of WP:Verifiability - not a single source out of the five say that Mackevičius was Polish-Lithuanian, all of them say he was Lithuanian. What Marcelus is doing here, is 100% against Wiki rules, which is the reason for my reverts. Furthermore, January Uprising is a misnomer in the context of Lithuania, because there was no uprising in Lithuania in January 1863, only later.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you need a source for something that obvious, which is also well described in the rest of the article. Also "January Uprising" is the name of the uprising, I doesn't mean that all the fighting occured in January Marcelus (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

But folks, how it is this going to be resolved otherwise? We need an input from the community. You're both entrenched on opposite sides with a temporary ceasefire? Come on folks. Do the RfC. (If I don’t see it happening in a few days, I’ll do it myself) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it will get much attention, there is very few people interested in this topic that are active on Wiki Marcelus (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd support calling him Polish-Lithuanian. Seems like a good compromise and fair description for that time and place. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Just go with what WP:RS say, that's the solution, there's no need for RfC or any alternatives, we just need to follow Wikipedia rules. Nothing more, nothing less, arguing between Wikipedians about something that sources already tell us is not something they should be really doing.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis All those sources we have right now are from modern Lithuania. Can you find an English language source by non-Lithuanian author? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis I reverted you here. Read my edit summary. Can you give the users (you are going alone against 3 users right now) the quote and page number from the publication you have found? @Marcelus and @Piotrus please consider it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Unlike the previous insurrection, this time the peasants, many of whom were roused by the fiery Lithuanian rebel priest Antanas Mackevičius (1828-63), joined in.

In 1863 there was another rebellion, which was crushed by the forces of the Russian governor-general, Count Mikhail Muravyov, who earned the nickname 'The Hangman' for ordering the public execution of over 100 participants, including the two most prominent Lithuanian leaders, the army captain Zigmantas Sierakauskas and the priest Antanas Mackevičius.

It's absurd that following WP:RS is somehow 'going against other users'. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Cukrakalnis

@Marcelus and @Piotrus the source provided above says Lithuanian not Polish-Lithuanian. Please respond. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella what exactly we are suppose to give? Mackiewicz was Polish-Lithuanian, the article says it all really, and it's really well sourced. Marcelus (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Well @Cukrakalnis you need to ask for input from other editors in an RfC. You have 2 editors against you plus myself to a lesser degree. Please run RfC. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Mackiewicz was Polish-Lithuanian No he wasn't. the article says it all really Where? Nowhere does it give much ground for what you are saying. it's really well sourced The article is well sourced, and yet not a single source for him being Polish-Lithuanian. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis Look at this source --> quote:

In Kaunas, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Culture and National Heritage prof. Piotr Gliński, together with the Lithuanian Deputy Minister of Culture - Albinas Vilčinskas, laid flowers at the monument to Fr. Antoni Mackiewicz - one of the leaders of the uprising in Żmudź.

and continue

"Antoni Mackiewicz (Antanas Mackevičius) was born in 1826 or 1828 in Cytowiany in Żmudź, died on December 28 or 16, 1863 in Kaunas. He was a Polish and Lithuanian Catholic clergyman."

What’s your answer to that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

However at the same time we have this source that says:

On the one hand, there were texts recalling brotherhood-in-arms during the January uprising, as represented by such analyses as that by Kazimierz Okulicz discussing the lives of a Pole - Zygmunt Sierakowski, a Lithuanian - the priest Antoni Mackiewicz and a Byelorussian - Konstany Kalinowski. (page 289)

So? RfC? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the source [6] is clearly a political Polish-POV article, as it says Powstanie styczniowe, czyli największy w XIX w. polski zryw narodowy, rozpoczęło się 22 stycznia 1863 r. Objęło ponad tysiąc starć, a w siłach polskich uczestniczyło w sumie ok. 200 tys. osób. Only Polish, Polish, Polish, without any inclusiveness. In fact, his narrative, if it can be called such, makes little sense, as it leaves no space for the other ethnicities living on the lands of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. After all, the PLC was not the >90% or even apparently 98% ethnic Poles that modern Poland is. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

How about this one:

Antoni Mackiewicz , pastor of the local parish, was executed in Kołdyczów , together with other Poles

page 190 - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis I truly believe you need to RfC that for your preferred version to succeed. I don’t see any other way. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The full sentence from that source is Antoni Mackiewicz, pastor of the local parish, was executed in Kołdyczów, together with other Poles, for helping Jews. This is about another person altogether. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis Yes, you are correct. My bad. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"Polish" in that time period doesn't mean of Polish ethinicity, or "race"; it was an umbrella term for all Commonwealth things. Mikalojus Akelaitis/Mikołaj Akielewicz published during the uprising newspaper in Lithuanian Żinia apej Lenku wajna su Maskolejs (News about the Polish War with the Muscovites), I think it says all. Marcelus (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This Polish/Lithuanian thing is starting to be tiresome you know? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be solved somehow. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Also Lithuanian historia Darius Staliunas: Taigi šioje tyrimų fazėje būtume linkę manyti, kad Mackevičius prisijungė prie sukilimo vedamas socialinių-ekonominių bei religinių motyvų, o galima politinė išvaduoto krašto sandara, t. y. pirmiausia santykiai su Lenkija, buvo antrinis dalykas, bet aišku, kad sukilimo sėkmės atveju Lietuva ir Lenkija buvo įsivaizduojamos viename politiniame darinyje. ("Thus, at this stage of our research, we would be inclined to assume that Mackevičius joined the uprising for socio-economic and religious reasons, and that the possible political structure of the liberated land, i.e. primarily its relations with Poland, was a secondary consideration, but it is clear that the in the event of the success of the revolt, Lithuania and Poland were imagined as a single political entity.") here Marcelus (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It's half this half that. Norman Davies talks about him using Polish, not Lithuanian, name. Occasionally even Lithuanian authors "slip" and use his Polish name in English works: here. I remain convinced virtually everyone from that period was P-L, not just L. Although the Lithuanian National Revival was a thing around that time, too. There's no perfect answer. Do we have any evidence of what he called himself, and how he signed his name? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: He called hismelf "Antoni Mackiewicz" and his father "Tadeusz". I think we should start rename request for the article Marcelus (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, his testimonies in front of Russian investigators, already linked them Marcelus (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

True - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If we don't have sources to show he called himself in Lithuanian, I'd support renaming the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

read - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Tak więc wypada zwrócić uwagę na spis nazwisk, w tym spośród bojowników litewskich, jaki zamieszczony został w Wiązance z dziejów powstania styczniowego. Temata do odczytu z roku 1928, w którym znajdujemy nazwiska nie tylko tak znanych jak Zygmunt Sierakowski czy Ludwik Narbutt, ale i Adama Bitisa, chłopskiego dowódcy oddziału, Bolesława Kołyszko, Klety Korewa (naczelnika powiatu trockiego) czy wreszcie ks. Antoniego Mackiewicza ze Żmudzi. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You do understand that Lithuania, as in Mickiewicz "Lithuania, My Fatherland", can refer not to the modern independent state of Lithuania, but to the GDL, or GDL understood as part of the Polish-Lithuanian state, or even as a province of Poland? In this case, the "Lithuanian fighters" term does not necessarily mean "fighters for the independent modern Lithuania" but "fighters from the Lithuanian region of former Polish-Lithuanian state"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Even when cases of the Polish-language version name of Antanas Mackevičius in English-language sources are found, they still don't say he's Polish or even Polish-Lithuanian. Regardless, they are numerically inferior to the use of the Lithuanian-language name. In addition, Mackevičius is far more important in Lithuanian history than in the Polish one, where he is frankly peripheral and thus pretty much insignificant in the wider scheme of things. This focus on Polish, Polish, Polish in the history of Lithuania and Lithuanians is misplaced and misdirecting attention and time from the many Wiki articles that require content improvement.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody tries to erase him from Lithuanian history, but it seems you are trying to do in regard to the Polish heritage Marcelus (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You didn't even address a single thing I said in your "reply". Furthermore, regarding the accusation ofit seems you are trying to do in regard to the Polish heritage - what Polish heritage am I erasing? Neither Tomas Kušleika, nor Mamertas Gedgaudas, nor Feliksas Kolyška, even have a Polish wikipedia article at the current moment, while Boleslovas Kolyška didn't have one at the time of the article's creation on en.wiki (Marcelus created the pl.wiki article on 27 November 2021, a month later than when I created the en.wiki article on 20 October 2021). For clarity, heritage is defined as the art, buildings, traditions, and beliefs that a society considers important to its history and culture (Macmillan Dictionary [7]). None of the people I mentioned are important to Polish history (at most, they are marginal individuals in a peripheral land from the Polish POV), let alone Polish society, as evidenced by the clear lack of attention paid to them on Polish wikipedia. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Since when Polish Wikipedia is decisive measure of what is or isn't Polish history? First mention of Antoni Mackiewicz in Polish I am able to find is from 1863 and there are numerous texts about him. Denying him Polishness is ridiculous. Marcelus (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Since when Polish Wikipedia is decisive measure of what is or isn't Polish history? It's not a decisive measure, but it gives a fair indication of where attention in Polish history is directed to. Clearly not Lithuania, for self-explanatory reasons.

First mention of Antoni Mackiewicz in Polish I am able to find is from 1863 Those sources will inevitably be chauvinistic, e.g. in this source from 1865 the Lithuanian Adomas Bitė is pretty much made into a Pole, with various chauvinistic phrases like Nieodrodny syn ten ludu wiejskiego najlepszym jest dowodem o ile postąpiła Polska na drodze odrodzenia. Using such sources to determine a person's real name and identity is very unreasonable, considering the chauvinism within those texts that demonstrates their undeniable Polish nationalism. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Everything that is different than your narrow worldview you call "chauvinistic"? Marcelus (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand what you are saying? You're implying that calling Lithuanians (e.g. Adomas Bitė) simply Poles is not chauvinistic. According to you, acknowledging that Lithuanians and Poles were and still are indeed somehow different constitutes a narrow worldview. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You are obsessed. First of all Bitis is not called "Pole" in this qoute, secondly you can be both Polish and Lithuanian Marcelus (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all Bitis is not called "Pole" in this qoute - He is essentially called such, the translation of the quote is The indestructible son of this country [rural] people is the best proof of how much Poland has progressed on the path of rebirth. And the word for 'people' is not naród (nation), but lud (folk / people like in the sense of Polish People's Republic and not separate ethnicity/nation - in this context referring to peasants overall). The remaining article only makes it clearer that the author is essentially stating that Bitė is a Pole.

Then, your statement secondly you can be both Polish and Lithuanian is an irrelevant sidestep and an insufficient reply to calling another person as having a "narrow worldview" because that person states the obvious that Lithuanians =/= Poles, both now but also in the past, even if many Polish sources from the past fail to make such a distinction (just like Russian sources viewed (and some still do) Ukrainians as Russians). Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

He isn't called Polish in this sentence, but calling him that wouldn't be wrong or "chauvinistic", Bitis learned Polish and live among Polish emigrees in Paris, so adopted Polish identity, becoming Polish-Lithuanian. Lithuanian and Polish aren't the same, but you can be both at the same time. That's rather simple thing to understand Marcelus (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Adomas Bitė (of course, mentioned in Polish sources by his Polonized name - Adam Bitis) is pretty much called Polish in that article, with his depiction as necessarily being Polish, which is highly misleading. Not a single, explicit mention of Lithuanians as a nation/ethnicity exists in that article, only mentions of Lithuanian language and Lithuanian writing, but a clear, exclusive focus on Polska.

There are faults in your reasoning when you write: Bitis learned Polish and live among Polish emigrees in Paris, so adopted Polish identity - Adomas Bitė learned French, married a French woman Lucille Le Prieur and lived in France from 1864 to 1884, spending 20 years in that country. None of that make Adomas Bitė into a French person, so neither does being active in the Veteran's Association and learning Polish make him Polish, and thus Polish-Lithuanian. Unless you want to call him French-Polish-Lithuanian, which would be nonsensical. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This thing goes back years I can see - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

All things you mentioned makes him French also Marcelus (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

False, knowing how to speak another language, living in another country and marrying a local do not make the person in question become part of that nation. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so? Marcelus (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, not because I say so, but because that's the reality I've seen.

Just because someone marries a person of another ethnicity, does not mean that the person becomes himself a part of that ethnicity. Just because a person lives someplace for a large part of their life does not mean that the person necessarily belongs to the nation that's dominant in that place. I hardly understand why such basic things need to be explained. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How many RS there are that describe him "Lithuanian", how many there are that describe him "Polish-Lithuanian", how many simply "Polish"? Make a readable sources list for each claim here on the talk page, and then it can be properly evaluated. Also not all sources are equal in quality or neutrality.--Staberinde (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Staberinde The problem with counting is that many sources simply things incorrectly. At a larger level, we have the problem that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is often called "Poland", with adjective Polish applied to it, instead of Polish-Lithuanian. This creates cascading problems for simple counts, usually unduly favoring "Poland/Polish". With Lithuania, the problem is that the term can refer to the modern independent country, or the historical province of PLC aka Poland (or the GDL before it became a province). Which is why the general consensus is to use this: adjective Polish-Lithuanian. See that article for more background. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This is about late 19th century, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was already gone for several generations. A Lithuania distinct from Poland was always a possibility, e.g. Union of Kėdainiai in 1655, or the innumerable cases where individuals from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania fought tooth-and-nail for their rights and privileges. Lithuanian separatism, as the Poles called it, was a constant phenomenon.

Which is why the general consensus is to use this: adjective Polish-Lithuanian. First time hearing of such a "consensus".

Regardless, this is a totally different discussion. Following WP:Verifiability, the article must clearly say Antanas Mackevičius was Lithuanian, not anything else. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: While caution can be needed then dealing with sources, the ultimate outcome also needs to have backing of some RS and not merely "wikipedia experts" knowing best based on their own arbitrary criteria. I also wonder what "general consensus" are you talking about? I clicked on some biographies linked at Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) and that consensus wasn't really visible. It is actually quite amusing how that article has prominent picture of Adam Mickiewicz, who in his biography's lead is unambiguously stated as "Polish", even though scrolling down one can find whole separate "Ethnicity" section covering different viewpoints. Anyway, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR need to be followed, and it is not really up to negotiation.--Staberinde (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Thomas Snyder does call him a "proto-Lithuanian nationalist", I guess we can call him Lithuanian. But the question of his name still remains. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Relevant quote

Bishop Valančius worked to preserve the Catholic faith in the Lithuanian, not in the Polish, idiom. Politically, he did not consider a separate Lithuanian existence apart from Russia yet possible, but at the same time, he did not advocate a union with Poland. Some of his contemporaries went further. Rev. Antanas Mackevičius, a Lithuanian leader in the revolt of 1863, insisted, on the one hand, that many of his clerical colleagues hated everything Polish and loathed the gentry because of their socially oppressive behavior. On the other hand, he said, they were willing to sacrifice everything for Lithuania. - [8]. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

About removal of zw.lt

The article of zw.lt about Piotr Gliński commemorating the 159th anniversary of the January Uprising in Kaunas is unsuitable for justifiying the claim that Antanas Mackevičius was Polish, because the zw.lt article says Na podst. MKiDN at the very end, which means "Based on the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage", but MKiDN has not released any article stating that Antanas Mackevičius was Polish - no articles report that when talking about the visit, like the one published by the Polish government or dzieje.pl. Thus, it is an invention by zw.lt. Furthermore, WP:Newsorg says:

News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. and thus the zw.lt, as a barely-known news outlet being the only, standalone source for a historical statement fails WP:RS, justifying its removal following WP:Verifiability. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Explanation

It's not removal of sourced information if the sourced information is put in a note. It belongs there as a clearly minority view.

Furthermore, your statement of stop spreading some OR false theories like January Uprising name doesn't apply to Lithuania [9] is inaccurate, because, as VLKK says here:

Lenkijoje sukilimas prasidėjo sausio mėnesį, todėl lenkai jį vadina Powstanie styczniowe – Sausio sukilimas. Lietuvos sukilimui toks pavadinimas netinka, nes Lietuvoje jis prasidėjo vėliau – kovo mėnesį, bet jei kalbama bendrai apie Lenkijos ir Lietuvos sukilimą, šis pavadinimas jau vartojamas kai kurių dabartinių Lietuvos istorikų tekstuose, o tuo labiau lenkų ir kitų šalių istorikų knygų ir straipsnių lietuviškuose vertimuose.

Translation: "In Poland, the uprising started in January, so the Poles call it Powstanie styczniowe - January Uprising. This name is unsuitable for the Lithuanian uprising, because it started later in Lithuania - in March, but if we are talking about the Polish and Lithuanian uprising in general, this name is already used in the texts of some current Lithuanian historians, and even more so in the Lithuanian translations of books and articles by historians of Poland and other countries." Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the same uprising, and it's an WP:COMMONAME in English Marcelus (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Calling Mackiewicz\Mackevičius Polish is not controversial

He is a figure venerated in Poland and Lithuania, he was a one of a leaders of Polish-Lithuanian uprising, even his unit used banner with motto "God, Save Poland", Polish was his first language. Attempts to wipe out his Polish ties are distrubing Marcelus (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Considering Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and that all academic sources (which you removed in this edit) call him Lithuanian and none of them call him Polish, your statement demonstrates your Polish POV-pushing. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate about Polish POV pushing? Also half of your edits are based on Lithuanian media, so I don't know why here you suddenly demand strictly academic sources. As I said you attempts to wipe out Polish identity of Mackiewicz are distrubing to say the least Marcelus (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

half of your edits are based on Lithuanian media A verifiably false statement on your part.

As for asking for strictly academic sources regarding statements that have caused controversy, that is only following Wiki guidelines, more precisely WP:SOURCETYPES: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

Some examples of you engaging in Polish POV-pushing are:

• considering historical information in Coat of arms of Lithuania as Plus some additional badmouthing of Poland - why even mention some alleged desacralization of the flag in this article? [10] and then proceeding to remove that information in an edit under the pretense of unrelated based on primary sources [11], despite the passage being based on a secondary source released in the 21st century and the content directly mentioning Lithuanian coat of arms and having a picture accompanying it from that time and that place which does have that CoA.
• Refusal to admit Polish occupation of Vilnius on your talk page despite numerous international WP:RS stating that. Furthermore, you said that any source disagreeing with your POV is NPOV by definition (so every source who claims that isn't W:NPOV per definition) in this edit.
• Edits like these: [12]
• Naming individuals such as Antanas Chodakauskas as Polish-Lithuanian without any sources [13]
• Removing well-sourced information you disagree with in Poles in Lithuania and also insultingly dehumanizing the Lithuanian professor Zigmas Zinkevičius as a "chauvinistic pig" because you disagree with his statements. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Why you keep repeating the same false accusations? Marcelus (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  What false accusations? The diffs are clear and everything I said is proveable. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerning moving some content to Paberžė Regiment

@Marcelus, how is the following information relevant to Mackevičius' biography (biography defined as the life story of a person written by someone else by Cambridge Dictionary here)?

The unit was mainly made up of local peasants, but there were also representatives of the gentry, mainly the poor, urban youth and students. Germans, Prussian Lithuanians and volunteers from Mazovia also joined the unit. The officers were mainly fugitives from the Russian army, as well as cadets from the Polish military school in Cuneo. Unit was soon joined by Bolesław Kołyszko as a military instructor. His unit used a banner sewn from two parts: the top navy blue and the bottom crimson. It depicted on the main side the White Eagle wearing a crown and the inscription in Polish: PUŁK PODBRZEŹSKI (the Podbrzezie Regiment), and motto in Polish: BOŻE ZBAW POLSKĘ (God, Save Poland). On the other side was an oil painted image of the Virgin Mary and St. Elisabeth. The insurgents wore gray knee-length sukmanas girdled with a leather belt, and the officers wore czamaras. On their heads, they wore rogatywka-style hats trimmed with sheep fur (so called krakuska).

Clearly it is not relevant to his life story or biography, but it is necessary information for the military unit that Mackevičius' led, i.e. Paberžė Regiment. It seems as though your primary concern, as evidenced from this edit, is about information that indicated his ties to Polishness, i.e. you are preoccupied with proving how Polish Mackevičius was.

References

Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Mackiewicz was a commander of this regiment Marcelus (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski was the Commander-in-Chief of Poland for some time, but his article has no information on the uniforms, flag, composition of the Polish Army. Neither does Stalin's have any about those respective things about the Red Army. This material does not belong in this article about Mackevičius, but in the article about his regiment. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's bad comparison, and only your opinion. Don't remove text added by me. This is vandalism. <---(altered by GizzyCatBella🍁 17:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC) a proper way of deleting mistake after comment has been already answered to avoid confusion) Marcelus (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's bad comparison Comparing military commanders is not a bad comparison.

Moving text from one Wikipedia article to another one where it is more suitable does not fulfill Wikipedia's definition of WP:VANDALISM. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this is not vandalism, I am deleting this statement. Comparing Pilsudski with Mackiewicz makes no sense, since the latter commanded only one unit, while Piłsudski commanded an entire army. Of course you will not describe the army in an article about Piłsudski. But in the case of Mackiewicz, the story of his unit is the story of Mackiewicz's life, in fact, the only thing we know for sure about Mackiewicz is the story of his partisan struggle. And of course, the fact that Mackiewicz fought under such and not another banner is an important fact of his life and says a lot about his views. Removing such information impoverishes the article. Marcelus (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I am grateful that you admitted a mistake, and so likewise I will grant that I might have been too quick to judge in comparing them all. However, detailing that much about the unit in the article of its commander is not how Wikipedia articles should be and even generally are. Considering that, and also that there is now a duplication of identical information in this article and the article Paberžė Regiment, I am still sceptical of leaving all of that material in the article Antanas Mackevičius.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Rather, this article about the regiment duplicates the information found in Mackiewicz's biography. Because you copied and pasted them into the article about the regiment. Marcelus (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis and Marcelus:

I keep thinking about how to assist in resolving those disagreements as to what spelling to use for Polish-Lithuanian figures.

How about instead of using a standard :

Antanas Mackevičius (Polish: Antoni Mackiewicz) ...

We use :

Antanas Mackevičius (in Lithuanian) or Antoni Mackiewicz (in Polish) ....

Both versions bolded letters. At least a little air from a balloon will be let go... a small step but at least something.

Tell me what you think and if you like it, begin utilizing it (this exchange will be our consensus) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping Piotrus to the above - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but should be applied to more than just this article, presumably? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus and GizzyCatBella: I don't think we are talking about the name issue right now. We can talk about this but let's stay on topic here Marcelus (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If the topic is the quote mentioned above, I am ambivalent as long as it is not deleted. It does seem like something that is more relevant to the regiment, and could be summarized here. As in, we can briefly describe the regiment here, but detailed info on their banner or such seems UNDUE here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point, but imo I think it's a case of WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:CONTENTFORKING; I don't see any new content that can be included in an article about the regiment that would not already be in an article about Mackiewicz. The regiment was formed by him and disbanded with his death. (This is true of most insurgent units of 1863). Marcelus (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus - Yes, that would apply to more than this article. I just made a change here. @Cukrakalnis and @Marcelus let’s try elsewhere and see if that will work. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I edited Sierakowski/Sierakauskas as well - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella I don't agree with you edit on Sierakowski page, Sierakowski wasn't Lithuanian and didn't use the Lithuanian version of the name, it was forged by modern Lithuanian scholars. Please revert this change. We aren't discussing here the issue of how to name the article Marcelus (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, done. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella In keeping with Wikipedia policies of WP:Verifiability, I cannot agree with this edit you made, purely because of what the majority of WP:RS say concerning that, so I kindly request that you revert that edit. And I fully agree with Marcelus that I don't think we are talking about the name issue right now in the case of Antanas Mackevičius' article.

However, in unclear and perhaps even obscure cases, the approach of including names in both languages in bold in the article about that individual would be reasonable.

@Marcelus Information concerning a regiment's

i) composition

ii) flag

iii) uniform

is more appropriate in an encyclopedic article about the regiment instead of its commander. As Piotrus said, it is UNDUE in Mackevičius' article. Otherwise, every single commander that led units in the Uprisings of 1831 and 1863 would have their units thoroughly described in their biographies, which is not the case at the moment, nor should it be. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let’s try something else. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You can revert me please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Qoute on AM article

Hi, Mackevičius motivations and political views are already explained in detail in: Antanas Mackevičius#Political views, I don't really see how this separate qoute enriches article in any way. But you can try to insert it into the text, nonetheless I think that the best place for such things is WikiQoutes Marcelus (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Direct quotes provides lively experience for the readers, unlike texts that A did B on year C and achieved D and there are dedicated quotation templates for a reason. High quality articles includes direct quotes of people in quatatation templates (e.g. Bob Marley#1979–1981: Later years or Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz#Early life - both of these articles are recognized as high quality, one of them is a GA, the other is a nominee). In high quality articles direct quotes are always distinguished using quotation templates and not integrated as other ordinary biographical content (like you suggest here). So there is no justification to remove this quote as it is related, short and is a direct quote without other authors interpretations. We are here to Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, so we must follow the footsteps of GA/FA articles. -- Pofka (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't really need "lively experience" in encyclopedia. As I said his motivations are a complex issue, that is already handled in detail in a proper section, you cannot sum them up with one short qoute. Also even in the articles you gave as an examples qouted are secondary sources, which provide better context and substantial knowledge. Putting a qoute as some kind of a motto doesn't make the article better. Marcelus (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

(WP:QUOTE is a good read) Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: The quote was added because it is related with the article and section. It is not a motto, so please do not interpret yourself content I added. This addition provides a direct quote of a person, not a speculation by other authors. For complex issues direct quotes are a perfect way to illustrate, so since you mentioned controversy in this article – then it is even much more required. Per WP:QUOTE "Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words". Direct quote of a person illustrating for what he fought is a suitable antidote against controversy. Let the man speak himself as this is a true WP:NPOV. What is the problem that a Lithuanian fought for his home country – Lithuania and fellow Lithuanians (according to his own words)? You are free to add any reliable and necessary context (the provided source has necessary context as well and is not just a quote). -- Pofka (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the "Political views" section of the article, and you will see that this is not such a simple issue. First of all, Mackevičius himself presents his motivations differently in his testimonies. Once he gave one motivation, the other time another. One cherrypicked quote does not faithfully reflect his thoughts. And secondly, researchers (Staliūnas and Šenavičienė) believe that the testimony on death row is unreliable. Šenavičienė indicates that closer to Mackevičius are the motivations contained in his aide's manuscript "Priest Mackiewicz as a historical figure. Biographical sketch". So, as you can see, a direct quote here does not facilitate anything and does not make the article more understandable. In my opinion, the section "Political views" comprehensively describes the issue.

And please avoid provocative questions like: What is the problem that a Lithuanian fought for his home country - Lithuania and fellow Lithuanians (according to his own words)?. Marcelus (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: I see that there is a statement "Mackevičius' main goal is the rebirth of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which is explicitly referred to as "Poland" and its inhabitants, without distinction of ethnic origins, as "Poles", but in the discussed quote Mackevičius himself clearly indicate that he is waiting for freedom of Lithuanian nation (his people). There is a difference between "Lithuanian nation" and "Poles without distinction of ethnic origins", isn't it?

Moreover, there is a sentence "Šenavičienė claims that the account faithfully reflects the thoughts of Mackevičius himself, more than his testimonies written after his imprisonment, facing the death penalty". Are you saying that his imprisonment made his letter in which he himself wrote that he want freedom for Lithuanian nation (his people) unreliable? So Mackevičius at the time in prison couldn't write that he wanted the rebirth of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and instead wrote that he wanted freedom for Lithuanian nation (his people)? This does not seem likely. He is still speaking about his aims as a rebel and does not renounce his combative rhetoric.

So why you prioritize secondary sources in which it is mentioned that his goal was the rebirth of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (a multi-national state), but initially wanted to completely remove a quote (your edit) in which Mackevičius himself wrote that he want freedom for his people – Lithuanian nation (so one nation)?

The question I asked is not provocative. Please answer. After all, you was the one who initiated this removal of a quote and discussion in my talk page, so why avoid answering to questions? So once again: is there a problem that a Lithuanian fought for Lithuanian nation (his people) instead of a rebirth of the multi-national Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and that's why this quote should be removed from an article (you did that yourself)? I'm reminding you that these words about Lithuanian nation were written by Mackevičius himself, thus they illustrate his own point of view and are not an interpretation by secondary authors (e.g. Šenavičienė) which might be right or wrong. -- Pofka (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't claim anything, researchers who examined his testimony say so. Your personal interpretation of these testimonies (WP:USEPRIMARY) can be different, and that's ok, I see your point, but it's still only your own interpretation, so WP:OR.

Just to give you something to think about, Mackevičius at some point says in the testimony, that the goal of the uprising was "to cede Lithuania to Poland as one of its parts". Asking the same way you asked me, maybe we should use this qoute? What is the problem that a Lithuanian fought for the ceding of Lithuania to Poland as one of its parts?

Do you understand me now better? Determining his views and motivations is more complicated than you think, so let's let academics do the talking. Marcelus (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Its only your own interpretation that this quote should be removed. There is no rule which prohibits to insert direct quotes of people to their respective biographical articles related sections. The quote is about the uprising and the best explanation why he participated in it is by the person himself (Antanas Mackevičius own words).

Claims that "I don't really see how this separate qoute enriches article" (1), "We don't really need" (2 - by the way, you wrote it yourself alone, so it should have been "I don't need"), "In my opinion, the section "Political views" comprehensively describes the issue."(3). Is not a valid justification and is only your own opinion which is not supported by any Wikipedia's rules.

And for "I don't claim anything, researchers who examined his testimony say so."(4) the authors you quote do not say that Mackevičius' words should be censored. I'm not censoring the context you presumably inserted yourself to this article and anyone will be able to make their own conclusions.

As I already said above, we insert quotes with quotation templates, therefore the addition of this quote does not violate any rules and it should stay in the same way as in this article: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz#Early life. Consequently, your actions (1, 2) is a personal opinion not based on any valid justification and cannot be accepted (by the way other editor also opposed your actions - 1, but you keep provoking revert warring).

Another quote he told/wrote somewhere is not a valid justification to remove this quote I added as it is referenced and related. You are free to add other quote if you will provide reliable reference to support it (online one, so we could check). The article is long enough to have two quotes. -- Pofka (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote is about the uprising and the best explanation why he participated in it is by the person himself (Antanas Mackevičius own words). I just explained it to you, why it's not the best explanation, you cannot simply ignore it Marcelus (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Also your qoute is violating rules such rules as (WP:QUOTE):

• Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (you took from some random website in LIthuanian, AM testimonies were in Russian and Polish)
• Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation
• Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source.
• Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhand method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles

Marcelus (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote does not violate any points you mentioned. Xxiamzius.lt is a well-known and reliable Lithuanian Catholic newspaper and website. You can check excerpts of this newspaper's content from 2018 and earlier online (see: HERE, for other years use menu in the right-side). The quote was published in this newspaper's article in 2008 and the article is now accessible online (see my provided reference once again). -- Pofka (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Pages 239-241 of Ieva Šenavičienė's book (WP:VERIFY required)

@Marcelus: Since you claim that "the book is real" (your edit) and continue to modify text in sentences based on this source (your edit) it means that you have this Lithuanian language book yourself in a printed or scanned form. The previous sentence starts with "Šenavičienė claims...", so it is unclear if the next sentence is Ieva Šenavičienė's evaluation that "Mackevičius' main goal is the rebirth of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" or Mackevičius actually himself wrote in the manuscript about such a main goal (as you claim with your edit). Consequently, if you really have this book and base your contributions to Wikipedia on it can you upload screenshots/photographies of this book's pages 239-241 to a popular online non-wiki images hosting website to ensure (per WP:VERIFY) that you are not creating a WP:OR WP:HOAX or perform WP:SYNTH in this case (especially page 240 of the book which would support your addition of "In the manuscript" in your edit)? -- Pofka (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I used the book in the library. If you live in Lithuania you can certainly find it there too.

Read the paragraph carefully. The manuscript was not written by Mackiewicz, but by a close member of his unit named Rutkowski. Marcelus (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: I requested you (diff) to provide screenshots/photographies of pages 239-241 of the book (especially page 240) just 19 minutes after your edit in which you inserted claim "In the manuscript" (your edit) and soon after reverting my insertion of WP:RS and quote based on it (1, 2), so you had this Ieva Šenavičienė's book by your side when you made this edit, right? Otherwise how do you know that it is actually written "In the manuscript Mackevičius' main goal is the rebirth of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" and that it is not Ieva Šenavičienė's interpretation of Antanas Mackevičius' main goal?
You have been editing Wikipedia before making edits in this article (these your edits: 1, 2 were made 10-11 minutes before you came to this article and made this edit), so the time span to check Šenavičienė's book is really short. You replied to my request in this article's talk page (your edit) after 16 minutes, so you are saying that in less than ~20 minutes you used the book, made the edit and left the library and replied to me that you cannot fulfil my request to WP:VERIFY content? By the way, finding of this source (in which I do not find any such Šenavičienė's statements) should have taken additional time, so you should have performed everything in much less than ~20 minutes. Are you surely that fast? This seem like a clear lie, so not a Wikipedia:Assume good faith editing and this edit you made will have to be reverted (if you will not provide photography of page 240 of the book soon where it is allegedly written like that) because you clearly did not checked the book when you made it. According to this evidence about your style of editing, most probably the entire content based on Ieva Šenavičienė's book is a WP:OR WP:HOAX or WP:SYNTH and you never actually seen the scanned/printed version of this book.
So based on WP:OR WP:HOAX or WP:SYNTH content you are persistently provoking revert warring with me by removing my added content which is based on an online WP:RS source which anyone can check and WP:VERIFY (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)? Paying attention to the fact that you have already been blocked for edit warring in this article (last summer) and that another recent article ban in Lithuanian topic is still active to you (Marcelus' block history) you don't seem to behave in a better way according to the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. -- Pofka (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I do not remove this cherrypicked quote based on what Šenavičienė wrote, but on the fact that it contributes nothing, it is just cherrypicked by you to present AM's political views in a way that suits you. When, on the other hand, the situation is more complicated, as I tried to describe (because I am the main author) in the "Political views" section. And explain to you in a long conversation on your talk page. I will not repeat myself now.

Secondly, your investigation is as much fascinating as it is unnecessary, because I simply added two words, just to make the sentence more understandable. I didn't need to check the book for that. In general, your accusation is strange considering that you edited the paragraph yourself, adding "Šenavičienė claims that", even though, as you yourself stated, you don't believe in the existence of the book, so no doubt you didn't have it in your hand :) How do you explain this? How did you know what Šenavičienė claims or not claims? Marcelus (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: It explains that he fought for the Lithuanian nation, not the "the rebirth of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" (a federative Poland-Lithuania state) because he was "the most prominent example of Lithuanian separatism during the uprising of 1863" (as described in this section). And Poland-Lithuania never was "explicitly referred to as "Poland" (Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations), especially by a separatist leader like Antanas Mackevičius. So you clearly WP:POVPUSH your WP:OR WP:HOAX and refuse to WP:VERIFY the content you added just 16 minutes later for obvious reasons. And yes per WP:VERIFY you must verify dubious content for other editors.

"I didn't need to check the book for that" (your diff). Thank you for admitting that you use WP:OR WP:HOAX without being able to check the offline source when contributing to Wikipedia. It perfectly illustrates how you edit "Lithuania" and "Poland" topics.

So you will not WP:VERIFY content you added? Are you sure that provoking and cultivating WP:BATTLEGROUND based on your personal WP:OR WP:HOAX and six times removing content you personally don't like (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) in an article you have quite recently received a WP:ABAN is according to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia? -- Pofka (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I will ignore your last two paragraphs, because I have already addressed them, at this point it is just an unfounded attack.

As for the first paragraph of your statement: the entire section describes in detail AM's political views based on the works of four historians (mainly two: Šenavičienė and Staliūnas), his attitude to Russia, social issues, relations between Poland and Lithuania. It also covers questions of the source value of AM's pre-death testimonies. According to Šenavičienė, valuable for learning about AM's views is his biographical sketch written by a member of his unit. In this manuscript, "Mackevičius' main goal is the rebirth of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which is explicitly referred to as "Poland" and its inhabitants, without distinction of ethnic origins, as "Poles." Just that. I hope everything is clear now and I won't have to explain it a second time. Because I won't. Marcelus (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)