Talk:Lithuania/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Lithuania. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Lock this article!!!!
Almost all country articles are locked and people keep vandalizing this article!! Is it really that hard to lock it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plienas26 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Lithuania: parliamentary system?
I read the source given which indicated Lithuania as a parliamentary republic, but the link which contained the text of title "On the Programme of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" is referred as being semi-presidential, with its powers being compared to France, Poland and (of pre-2000 Constitution) Finland. And considering that the President of Lithuania usually attends the European Council summits, it would be sensate changing the description of the form of government to semi-presidential republic. — B.Lameira (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Additionally, see also: Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns -- B.Lameira (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is a primary source and also seems to be original research, as it does not make citations. --B.Lameira (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Dainius Zubrus Sport section
The use of the phrase "stellar NHL player" seems to be questionable from a tonal perspective to me but I am not an expert on the descriptors generally applied to NHL players so I didn't want to just go ahead and edit. Perhaps people who know more about the sport could weigh in on this? Inlaid (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Economy
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131019182532/http://www.shortsea.lt/index.php/pagrindinis_meniu/naujienos/klaipedos_ir_kitu_baltijos_juros_rytines_pakrantes_uostu_krovos_apzvalga__m_sausiogruodzio_men_/1201 to http://www.shortsea.lt/index.php/pagrindinis_meniu/naujienos/klaipedos_ir_kitu_baltijos_juros_rytines_pakrantes_uostu_krovos_apzvalga__m_sausiogruodzio_men_/1201
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Kasperavicuite.2004.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511053329/http://www.tspmi.vu.lt/files/mprojektai/finallithsecpapergalutinis.pdf to http://www.tspmi.vu.lt/files/mprojektai/finallithsecpapergalutinis.pdf
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.stat.gov.lt/en/pages/view/?id=1731&PHPSESSID=a2cc98ebfc3a13b8297889cb6f68d571
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://devdata.worldbank.org/ict/ltu_ict.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131020022534/http://www.lrkt.lt/dokumentai/1998/n8a0110a.htm to http://www.lrkt.lt/dokumentai/1998/n8a0110a.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Alternative pronunciation
Someone seems to be hysterically afraid of the idea that there is another pronunciation and keeps removing it. Knock it off! Kostaki mou (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- English is the international language and Wikipedia is not oriented to the US population. Therefore, there's no need for two pronunciations. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. You can't exclude us. I find your snobbery extremely offensive. Kostaki mou (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- You should again read what I wrote. Moreover, you should also get familiar with Wikipedia policies. Finally, you didn't give any argument on why the US variant should be included. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- For your information, there are innumerable articles in Wikipedia that give US variants. (See "moustache" and "axe," for example.) I assure you that there is no prohibition of such inclusions (except, perhaps, in your own imagination). You don't give any argument on why the US variant shouldn't be included. Kostaki mou (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1. I gave my argument on why the US spelling shouldn't be included. Read again what I wrote earlier. 2. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the reason to include something. 3. Axe and moustache are different from countries. So that is also not the reason to include it. 4. Show sources that use this kind of spelling. 5. Please get familiar with WP:CIVIL, WP:VERIFY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT policies before writing more hostile messages. 6. This and every single Lithuanian–English or English–Lithuanian dictionaries use the article's version of spelling. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1.Your argument is false. Wikipedia is not oriented to any particular population. It contains articles in different brands of English. (Typically, articles dealing with American subjects use American spelling and those dealing with specifically British subjects use British spelling. Other articles are neutral. 2 and 3. Why should articles on countries have different rules than those on other subjects? Frankly, I see no reason for your hysterical insistence on excluding an alternative (and extremely common) pronunciation except that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is, you are interpreting the rules in a manner that suits your prejudices. Kostaki mou (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing more to discuss, because you failed to show sources for this pronunciation, which is NOT COMMON. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- For your information, it is EXTREMELY common. It is the usual one in the U.S. If I need a source for saying this, I need a source for saying that the sky is blue. However, obviously neither of us is going to budge an inch, so I'm not going to waste any more time on this. Kostaki mou (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Take a look at this link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Lithuania Kostaki mou (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Kostaki mou, It's /ˌlɪθuːˈeɪniə/ both inside and outside of the US and we have several sources cited to support this. li-thə-ˈwā-nē-ə is NOT common and is only used in a select few regions of the US; to use it on this article would simply be incorrect. This article is not about the US and its information should neither be about nor from the perspective of America. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think that li-thə-ˈwā-nē-ə is just a different interpretation of the same pronunciation. (Not much difference.) Actually, I have heard /ˌlɪθjuːˈeɪniə/, mostly, but not exclusively from Brits. (This is the pronunciation that Sabbatino was so adamant about. I think both should be recognized.) Kostaki mou (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Kostaki mou, /ˌlɪθuːˈeɪniə/ is pronounced "lith-u-A-ni-ja" while li-thə-ˈwā-nē-ə is pronounced "litha-wA-ni-ja" - it's not the same pronunciation and the latter is exclusive to the southern dialect of American English while the former is simply the correct international pronunciation. It's not mostly exclusive to the Brits; that pronunciation is also used in most parts of America. As a side note, please refrain from using wording such as "Sabbatino was so adamant about" as to say that redirects the attention of your statement away from the arguments and towards the editors themselves. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- As I said, there's not much difference. (Try saying them one after another.) As for the pronunciation that I said was mostly (but not exclusively) used by Brits, that's "Lith-yoo-ay-nee-a." That certainly should be recognized as a variant. Kostaki mou (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Kostaki mou, /ˌlɪθuːˈeɪniə/ is pronounced "lith-u-A-ni-ja" while li-thə-ˈwā-nē-ə is pronounced "litha-wA-ni-ja" - it's not the same pronunciation and the latter is exclusive to the southern dialect of American English while the former is simply the correct international pronunciation. It's not mostly exclusive to the Brits; that pronunciation is also used in most parts of America. As a side note, please refrain from using wording such as "Sabbatino was so adamant about" as to say that redirects the attention of your statement away from the arguments and towards the editors themselves. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think that li-thə-ˈwā-nē-ə is just a different interpretation of the same pronunciation. (Not much difference.) Actually, I have heard /ˌlɪθjuːˈeɪniə/, mostly, but not exclusively from Brits. (This is the pronunciation that Sabbatino was so adamant about. I think both should be recognized.) Kostaki mou (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Kostaki mou, It's /ˌlɪθuːˈeɪniə/ both inside and outside of the US and we have several sources cited to support this. li-thə-ˈwā-nē-ə is NOT common and is only used in a select few regions of the US; to use it on this article would simply be incorrect. This article is not about the US and its information should neither be about nor from the perspective of America. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Take a look at this link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Lithuania Kostaki mou (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- For your information, it is EXTREMELY common. It is the usual one in the U.S. If I need a source for saying this, I need a source for saying that the sky is blue. However, obviously neither of us is going to budge an inch, so I'm not going to waste any more time on this. Kostaki mou (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing more to discuss, because you failed to show sources for this pronunciation, which is NOT COMMON. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1.Your argument is false. Wikipedia is not oriented to any particular population. It contains articles in different brands of English. (Typically, articles dealing with American subjects use American spelling and those dealing with specifically British subjects use British spelling. Other articles are neutral. 2 and 3. Why should articles on countries have different rules than those on other subjects? Frankly, I see no reason for your hysterical insistence on excluding an alternative (and extremely common) pronunciation except that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact is, you are interpreting the rules in a manner that suits your prejudices. Kostaki mou (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- 1. I gave my argument on why the US spelling shouldn't be included. Read again what I wrote earlier. 2. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the reason to include something. 3. Axe and moustache are different from countries. So that is also not the reason to include it. 4. Show sources that use this kind of spelling. 5. Please get familiar with WP:CIVIL, WP:VERIFY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT policies before writing more hostile messages. 6. This and every single Lithuanian–English or English–Lithuanian dictionaries use the article's version of spelling. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- For your information, there are innumerable articles in Wikipedia that give US variants. (See "moustache" and "axe," for example.) I assure you that there is no prohibition of such inclusions (except, perhaps, in your own imagination). You don't give any argument on why the US variant shouldn't be included. Kostaki mou (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- You should again read what I wrote. Moreover, you should also get familiar with Wikipedia policies. Finally, you didn't give any argument on why the US variant should be included. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. You can't exclude us. I find your snobbery extremely offensive. Kostaki mou (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Lithuania in the USSR debate.
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
For the subjects under discussion, the data on the field of birthplace on Template:Infobox person shall be changed to "Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union".
- Rationale--Arguments without any point toback their choice or from an nationalistic view has been discounted.Winged Blades Godric 04:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Because there are an number of articles shown people born in the Lithuanian SSR, they weren't. Lithuania was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940 and 1944. Should the birthplace on Template:Infobox person be changed to "Lithuanian SSR, Soviet Union" if you disagree or "Lithuania" if you agree? Supreme Dragon (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Survey
- Agree. We should list every person's birth place as Lithuania, who were born from 1918 onwards. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree. I like the fiction of the continuity of the Lithuanian state as much as any Lithuanian, but the facts on the ground were that these people were born in Soviet Union. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- But my friend, Lithuania was not a de jure Soviet republic at all. According to the US government, they never recognised the annexation and forcible incorporation of Lithuania into the Soviet Union. Other countries, including Canada, recognised them as de facto SSRs. By international law, Lithuania was still an de jure independent country during the Soviet occupation. See this article here. Supreme Dragon (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- You don't need to convince me with legal arguments, I've heard them all before and full understand them. However, why "de jure" should take precedence over "de facto" is beyond me. Northern takeover over South Vietnam was also not in accordance with international law, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should list everyone born in Saigon as being born in South Vietnam. The world is littered with "de jure" places that will likely never exist again. "De jure" is also very much a POV, since not all countries share the same view of what is and is not in accordance with international law. That said, if the consensus will be to list it as "Lithuania", I will walk the line. No longer a penguin (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- But my friend, Lithuania was not a de jure Soviet republic at all. According to the US government, they never recognised the annexation and forcible incorporation of Lithuania into the Soviet Union. Other countries, including Canada, recognised them as de facto SSRs. By international law, Lithuania was still an de jure independent country during the Soviet occupation. See this article here. Supreme Dragon (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. After being deeply conflicted on the topic, I checked my passport. It says: place of birth - Lithuania, not Lithuanian SSR. Renata (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Does it matter what the Lithuanian passport says, though? My father's says "Tomsk, Russia", no one is seriously questioning that Tomsk was part of USSR, right? No longer a penguin (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree as per No longer a penguin (brought here by bot) DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. It should be kept Lthuania. I do understand that the reality is that Lituanians were under Soviet rule even though many would not inwardly accept this travesty. But the reality is that nationalism is a potent force in the modern world. And you will have Lithuanian nationalists fight tooth and nail to keep the template Lithuania. Why spend time in needless edit warring and disputes, when the effort should be on improving the main text of the article? If you take the time to put your foot in Lithuanian shoes, you will see the wisdom of keeping the template the way it is.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Desmay, is that to say that we should not represent reality most accurately because nationalists closely related with the subject would prefer the idealized version? As much as I firmly oppose the Soviet occupation and personally support self-determination, this is simply not a matter of opinion. It isn't going against anyone to state that they were born in Soviet Lithuania, it's simply providing encyclopedic fact. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree Lithuania was incorporated into the Soviet Union, the legalities of such are irrelevant. It HAPPENED. It would be spreading falsehoods to state otherwise.--Khajidha (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree but mention that it is present-day Lithuania. It's simply being historically accurate to mention that Lithuania was (at the time) under an SSR government; de jure may be the standard of the international community, but Wikipedia is a place for objective fact. We should first prioritize de facto information as it most accurately represents the reality of the situation, but place asterisks wherever needed. As Khajidha said, legalities are irrelevant when acknowledging that the Lithuanian SSR happened. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
- I am well aware of the previous discussions, and I know that Estonians have some kind of understanding regarding this matter. As for Lithuanians (Latvians also), my reversions were made, because there is no such understanding among Lithuanians or Latvians. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
References
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150401052625/http://www.meteo.lt/klim_ekstr_reisk.php to http://www.meteo.lt/klim_ekstr_reisk.php
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://speedtest.net/global.php
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://events.le.lt/uploads/File/20060126/Electricity%20markets%20in%20BalticStates_Jank.ppt
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423155352/http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/ignalina_shut_down to http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/ignalina_shut_down
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://images.katalogas.lt/maleidykla/act41/A-01.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.visaginas.lt/town/inhabit?lang=en
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430163128/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://anthology.lms.lt/
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) 06:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510074436/http://tvirtove.kaunas.lt/ to http://tvirtove.kaunas.lt/
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.travel-earth.com/lithuania/ - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511095119/http://db1.stat.gov.lt/statbank/selectvarval/saveselections.asp?MainTable=M3020102&PLanguage=0&TableStyle=&Buttons=&PXSId=6282&IQY=&TC=&ST=ST&rvar0=&rvar1=&rvar2=&rvar3=&rvar4=&rvar5=&rvar6=&rvar7=&rvar8=&rvar9=&rvar10=&rvar11=&rvar12=&rvar13=&rvar14=.Lithuanian to http://db1.stat.gov.lt/statbank/selectvarval/saveselections.asp?MainTable=M3020102&PLanguage=0&TableStyle=&Buttons=&PXSId=6282&IQY=&TC=&ST=ST&rvar0=&rvar1=&rvar2=&rvar3=&rvar4=&rvar5=&rvar6=&rvar7=&rvar8=&rvar9=&rvar10=&rvar11=&rvar12=&rvar13=&rvar14=.Lithuanian
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510013109/http://www.ldm.lt/LDM/History_LAM_en.htm to http://www.ldm.lt/LDM/History_LAM_en.htm
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) 16:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Position in Europe
Sabbatino has now reverted edits from three different editors, including me and Kostaki mou, that stated that Lithuania is a Northeastern European country, labeling Kostaki mou a vandal in the process and telling me there are no sources that list Lithuania as a northeastern European country.
Apart from the fact that Lithuania IS in Northeastern Europe, there are some respectable sources that list is as such (1, 2). Encyclopædia Britannica lists Lithuania as Northeastern Europe, for crying out loud, it should not really be a controversial edit. At the end of the day, it should be taken for what it is: a compromise acknowledging the many sources that list Lithuania as Northern Europe, as well as the many (more, one could argue) sources that list is as Eastern Europe. Right now, the article completely closes its eyes on the latter ones, presenting Lithuania's location in Northern Europe as a fact, not as one of significant viewpoints on the subject, thus violating the NPOV. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- @No longer a penguin: But the United Nations and various other international organizations list Lithuania as a Northern European country. There is no such designation as "Northeastern Europe" country. And as for Kostaki mou – he is holding a grudge toward me for no reason, and reverting with a comment as "Yep" looks like vandalism as he did not give any reason. Listing Lithuania as a country in "Northeastern Europe" violates NPOV and not the other way around. Even the term "Northeastern Europe" redirects to Baltic region page. Latvia's and Estonia's pages deal with this thing in the best way, which is "is a country in the Baltic region of Northern Europe", and I think the same should be applied to Lithuania's page. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looking back at your interactions with Kostaki mou, I am not sure the grudge is for "no reason". Also, the comment in question was a direct response to your equally insightful comment ("Nope"). However, all of that is besides the point, you have failed entirely to address the POV issue I raised above. The point is that the current text entirely fails to acknowledge that there is a ton load of sources and authors that place Lithuania in Eastern Europe. NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be addressed and given their due weight. The fact that some international organizations, like the UN, put Lithuania in Northern Europe for statistical purposes is of no consequence, since no organization has central authority over points of view. In fact, this article listed Lithuania in the North even before the UN changed its designation. The result is simple - to avoid taking a POV, the article needs to state that Lithuania is in "Northern or Eastern Europe", explaining it in more detail in the geography section. To avoid such unwieldy constructs, however, Britannica adopted "Northeastern" designation, which I proposed as an acceptable compromise. So the question is: what do other users prefer: "Northern or Eastern Europe" or "Northeastern Europe"? No longer a penguin (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please comment on the content and not about something that you do not know. Moving on to the subject in question, I already suggested what should be done, which was the example of the same situation in Latvia's and Estonia's pages, which perfectly deal with the exact same situation. It does not remove Northern, Eastern or Northeastern Europe designations and does not violate NPOV (according to your opinion). – Sabbatino (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please explain to me how omitting a widely-held POV that Lithuania (as well as other Baltic States) is in Eastern Europe and leaving only one POV (that Lithuania is in Northern Europe) is somehow NPOV? No longer a penguin (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Did you even bother reading? Nothing is omitted from the current wording, which I implemented. Geographically – Northern Europe, politically – Eastern Europe. Stop confusing these things as they are both represented in the lede of the page. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I hope we can keep it polite and assume good faith. I have trouble seeing what you're talking about - there is only a single mention of Eastern Europe in the article, it is not in the lede and not in the geography section. Are you implying that the wording "is a country in the Baltic region of Northern Europe" somehow presents both points of view? No longer a penguin (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- And that mention about Eastern Europe is in the "Demographics" section, which quite clearly states that "A 2004 analysis of MtDNA in the Lithuanian population revealed that Lithuanians are close to the Slavic and Finno-Ugric speaking populations of Northern and Eastern Europe.", which should be clear to you or anyone else. And yes, the "is a country in the Baltic region of Northern Europe" wording is good and clear, because "Northeastern Europe" redirects to "Baltic region" page, and the lede is about the geographical location of Lithuania (Northern Europe) and not about the political alignment (call it whatever you like it). – Sabbatino (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- That does not make any sense, the quote says that Lithuanians are genetically related to people of Northern and Eastern Europe. It does not say anything about geographical or geopolitical location of Lithuania itself. Furthermore, you state that the geographical location of Lithuania is in Northern Europe as if it is a fact. It is not - it's a point of view, since there is no objective definition of geographical Northern Europe that everyone would subscribe to. In fact, if the Lithuanian claim of having the centre of Europe in Lithuania is true, then Lithuania is in Central Europe geographically. As it is, however, most sources do not distinguish between geographical and geopolitical locations, simply stating that Lithuania is either in Northern Europe (e.g., the UN statistical division, as you mentioned) or Eastern Europe (e.g., CIA World Factbook) and that is what the article, including the lede needs to reflect. I'm not necessarily suggesting that it should be worded as Northeastern Europe (although I prefer it, as a compromise), but it has to be reflected somehow. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- I showed you that quote, because you complained that "Eastern Europe" is mentioned only once in the article. And I will repeat again – there is no such designation as Northeastern Europe. It is either Northern or Eastern. Any other designation is original research. And looks like I clearly wrote that Northeastern Europe redirects to Baltic region, did not I? Even the Eastern Europe page is clear on this. It clearly says that most organisations include Lithuania in the Northern Europe designation. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your fixation with Northeastern Europe is interesting. I already said that it does not have to be Northeastern Europe, so let's not go there, at least for now. However, it has to be said in the article (and the lede) that Lithuania is in "Northern or Eastern Europe" instead of "Northern Europe", perhaps with a footnote explaining it (which organizations use one designation or another). Is there a problem with that?
- Oh, and I added citation needed tag to the claim of "most sources" in the Eastern Europe article. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @No longer a penguin: A footnote would be good, however, after further investigation I think that Germany's example is not bad either and Lithuania's page then would look like "is a country in the Baltic region of northern-eastern Europe". Then we could either include the mentioned footnote or leave it alone. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- That is actually a very good idea, it reflects both points of view and has a much better flow that "Northern or Eastern Europe". I think the footnote about how different sources list it could be included but is a better fit for the geography section. It can always be moved to the lead at a later date if there continue to be mini edit-wars about it. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- @No longer a penguin: A footnote would be good, however, after further investigation I think that Germany's example is not bad either and Lithuania's page then would look like "is a country in the Baltic region of northern-eastern Europe". Then we could either include the mentioned footnote or leave it alone. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- I showed you that quote, because you complained that "Eastern Europe" is mentioned only once in the article. And I will repeat again – there is no such designation as Northeastern Europe. It is either Northern or Eastern. Any other designation is original research. And looks like I clearly wrote that Northeastern Europe redirects to Baltic region, did not I? Even the Eastern Europe page is clear on this. It clearly says that most organisations include Lithuania in the Northern Europe designation. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- That does not make any sense, the quote says that Lithuanians are genetically related to people of Northern and Eastern Europe. It does not say anything about geographical or geopolitical location of Lithuania itself. Furthermore, you state that the geographical location of Lithuania is in Northern Europe as if it is a fact. It is not - it's a point of view, since there is no objective definition of geographical Northern Europe that everyone would subscribe to. In fact, if the Lithuanian claim of having the centre of Europe in Lithuania is true, then Lithuania is in Central Europe geographically. As it is, however, most sources do not distinguish between geographical and geopolitical locations, simply stating that Lithuania is either in Northern Europe (e.g., the UN statistical division, as you mentioned) or Eastern Europe (e.g., CIA World Factbook) and that is what the article, including the lede needs to reflect. I'm not necessarily suggesting that it should be worded as Northeastern Europe (although I prefer it, as a compromise), but it has to be reflected somehow. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- And that mention about Eastern Europe is in the "Demographics" section, which quite clearly states that "A 2004 analysis of MtDNA in the Lithuanian population revealed that Lithuanians are close to the Slavic and Finno-Ugric speaking populations of Northern and Eastern Europe.", which should be clear to you or anyone else. And yes, the "is a country in the Baltic region of Northern Europe" wording is good and clear, because "Northeastern Europe" redirects to "Baltic region" page, and the lede is about the geographical location of Lithuania (Northern Europe) and not about the political alignment (call it whatever you like it). – Sabbatino (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- I hope we can keep it polite and assume good faith. I have trouble seeing what you're talking about - there is only a single mention of Eastern Europe in the article, it is not in the lede and not in the geography section. Are you implying that the wording "is a country in the Baltic region of Northern Europe" somehow presents both points of view? No longer a penguin (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Did you even bother reading? Nothing is omitted from the current wording, which I implemented. Geographically – Northern Europe, politically – Eastern Europe. Stop confusing these things as they are both represented in the lede of the page. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please explain to me how omitting a widely-held POV that Lithuania (as well as other Baltic States) is in Eastern Europe and leaving only one POV (that Lithuania is in Northern Europe) is somehow NPOV? No longer a penguin (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please comment on the content and not about something that you do not know. Moving on to the subject in question, I already suggested what should be done, which was the example of the same situation in Latvia's and Estonia's pages, which perfectly deal with the exact same situation. It does not remove Northern, Eastern or Northeastern Europe designations and does not violate NPOV (according to your opinion). – Sabbatino (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looking back at your interactions with Kostaki mou, I am not sure the grudge is for "no reason". Also, the comment in question was a direct response to your equally insightful comment ("Nope"). However, all of that is besides the point, you have failed entirely to address the POV issue I raised above. The point is that the current text entirely fails to acknowledge that there is a ton load of sources and authors that place Lithuania in Eastern Europe. NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be addressed and given their due weight. The fact that some international organizations, like the UN, put Lithuania in Northern Europe for statistical purposes is of no consequence, since no organization has central authority over points of view. In fact, this article listed Lithuania in the North even before the UN changed its designation. The result is simple - to avoid taking a POV, the article needs to state that Lithuania is in "Northern or Eastern Europe", explaining it in more detail in the geography section. To avoid such unwieldy constructs, however, Britannica adopted "Northeastern" designation, which I proposed as an acceptable compromise. So the question is: what do other users prefer: "Northern or Eastern Europe" or "Northeastern Europe"? No longer a penguin (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601052806/http://www.voruta.lt/lietuvos-karalystei-%E2%80%93-750/ to http://www.voruta.lt/lietuvos-karalystei-%E2%80%93-750/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928033447/http://www.kruoniohae.lt/lt/main/activity to http://www.kruoniohae.lt/lt/main/activity
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517005924/http://uzlietuva.lt/video/NXBB48O5XWAM/Essential-Lithuania-2010 to http://uzlietuva.lt/video/NXBB48O5XWAM/Essential-Lithuania-2010
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) 12:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thousands of Lithuanian families risking their lives also protected Jews from the Holocaust ?
English summary of the referenced text says 2300, so perhaps 2300 rather than 'thousands'? Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Area edit request
https://www.britannica.com/summary/Lithuania According to Britannica's information on Lithuania, it states that it covers 65,286 km2 (25,207 sq mi) and not 65,300 km2 (25,200 sq mi). Can you please fix this please? Locked Empire (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Demographics is nationalist nonsense
Poorly sourced at that. The Lithuanian people have been undisturbed since the neolithic period?
Lithuanian is indo European. The indo Europeans do not come from the baltics. 82.47.158.100 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
.svg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Topicon?
I noticed that although this page is semiprotected there is no gray lock topicon. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 06:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I added the missing topicon. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 19:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)