Talk:Poles in Lithuania/Archive 1

Archive 1

Russian minority

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

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

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

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

far-right and nationalist

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

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

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

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

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

Voluntary sovietisation

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

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

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

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

The same regional leaders later voiced support for Soviet coup attempt of 1991 in Moscow.

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

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

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

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

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

Restoration of dead links by Lysy

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

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

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

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

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

Some Could Be Polonized Lithuanians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion

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

The same phrase

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

Lithuanian stereotypes

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

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

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

Piotrus edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current situation

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

for many centuries.

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

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

Redundant?

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

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

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

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

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

People of Polish ethnicity have lived on the territory of modern Lithuania for many centuries

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

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

Mother Tongue

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

22 439 Russian

17 233 Lithuanian

1 040 Belarusian

44 Ukrainian

19 Roma

8 Latvian

1 German

8 Other languages

6 279 Not indicated

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

Atlas of Lithuania 1981 data

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

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

"Атлас Литовской ССР" 1981

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

Soviet Union allowed to leave

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

In 19th century peasants of Polish nationality started to appear in Lithuania, mostly by Polonization of Lithuanian peasants.

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

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

Controversial picture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins of Poles in Lithuania

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re recent events addition

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

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

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

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

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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

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

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

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

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

Lithuanization of names

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

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

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

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

Current situation - ref error

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

Removal of info

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

A report by the Council of Europe

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

How are Polish names irrelevant to an article about Poles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Reason?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Polacy na Litwie"

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

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

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

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

Poles are concentrated in the Vilnius Region

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

Lingua franca?

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

Tomasz Snarski

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

ONLY THREE PROMINENT POLES FROM LITWA? HOW ABOUT MICKIEWICZ?

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

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

Judaism among Poles in Lithuania

The infobox says:

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 22:20, 20 September 2017 (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:

• Flag of Poles in Lithuania.svg

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

Issues with introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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