Talk:Poles in Lithuania

(Un)reliability of Zigmas Zinkevičius

@Cukrakalnis: Zigmas Zinkevičius cannot be considered a reliable source in matters concerning the Polish language and Poles in Lithuania. Since he was a Lithuanian nationalist politician, the Minister of Education, known for his attempts to Lithuanianise the Polish minority, his views are characterised by a strong anti-Polish bias.

• An excerpt from a review of the ZZ book "The history of the Lithuanian Language" written by Robert Boroch:

  Zinkevićius' book also deals with the sensitive issue of Polish-Lithuanian contacts and the "intentional Polonisation" of Lithuania (...) Zinkevićius completely excludes the credibility of Polish sources and studies (Zinkevicius uses the term "occupation activity" in relation to Polish activities on Lithuanian territory"). He believes that the polonisation that took place in Lithuania during the "Polish occupation" was also reflected in scientific literature (...) The influence of the Polish language on the Lithuanian language, according to Zinkevićius, was significant, however, he comments as follows: "From the very beginning, the Polish language in Lithuania formed independently. A specific variety of the language was formed (Poles called it Lithuanian Polish), which is still used in oral form. And it is from this language, and not from the language used in Poland, that the Polish borrowings in the Lithuanian language originate". (s. 245). Researcher divides the Polish language into the language used in Lithuania and the language used in Poland. He does not explain the criteria of such a division, allowing one to think that Vilnius Polish cannot be regarded as an integral part of Polish, which, of course, is wrong, as differences in pronunciation cannot constitute a distinctive feature sufficient to distinguish a given language. Zinkevićius' position is justified only from a propaganda point of view. The division into Vilnius Polish and Polish as separate and independently functioning linguistic systems makes it possible to place Polish in Lithuania in the position of a secondary and dying language, which does not have its own grammar, and any scientific and literary activity is not recorded by this language. Zinkevićius, I believe, intentionally does not mention the Polish press currently published in Lithuania (...) From a philological point of view, Zinkevićius' book is a valuable voice in the scientific research on the Baltic languages, all the more so because the work has been presented to a wide range of readers - due to the language of the lecture, which is English. However, it seems to me that the weakness of the work is its lack of objectivity, mixing ideology and scientific facts.

• Excerpt from Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska's article The Ethnolinguistic Essence of Lithuanian Nationalism and the Anti-Polonism of Lithuanians in the late 1980s and early 1990s:

  Speaking about the anti-Polonism of the late 20th century, one cannot ignore the theory, widely propagated in the media at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, of "polonised Lithuanians. The theory of "polonised Lithuanians" widely propagated in the Lithuanian media at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s cannot be ignored. This was a thesis taken from the interwar ideology, which was later propagated, among others, by a contemporary leading Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius. In 1996-1998 he held the office of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania in the government of Gediminas Vagnorius' government, contributing to the intensification of the policy of Lithuanianisation policy of the so-called South-Eastern Lithuania. In the early 1990s Zinkevičius propagated the view that there are "no Poles" in Lithuania - there are only "polonised Lithuanians" who should be facilitated to return to the bosom of the nation. There were voices raised on the necessity to "relithuanise" Poles, who had been "forcibly" polonised in their time, to which Lithuanian Poles reacted very negatively. The above-mentioned linguist belonged to the group of promoters of the thesis of "tutejszy" and "po prostu". He was one of a group of scholars who proved the theory of the so-called "wicz", which boiled down to the claim that the so-called local residents living in the Vilnius region, whose surnames end in "vich" and who speak a Polish-Belarusian dialect, are ethnic Lithuanians. He wrote: "In this part of the country are very popular all kinds of myths - nonsense spread by polonophiles. [...] The local language of Poles, which we have to deal with north of Vilnius and more or less up to Vilnius [...], is Belarusian. However, try explaining this to those who don't want to hear it. They will start proving to you that it is a local Polish dialect. Is this not a myth? And abroad in Lithuania the same language, which does not differ in anything, is called Belarusian". (...) Later, this theory was developed by another Lithuanian historian, Alvydas Butkus, who calls the language of the Polish minority in Lithuania "relative language". In his opinion, this variety of language came to Vilnius at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Therefore, it cannot be any of the dialects of the Polish language. (...) In 1988 nationalist organisation Vilnija (Vilnius region) was established, which is still active today. Its main aim was the fastest possible Lithuanianisation of the so-called South-Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region) (...) From the very beginning of its existence it had a mainly anti-Polish character and as a "public benefit" organisation, which aims to promote the Lithuanian language and culture in the so-called Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region), it was subsidised from the state budget. The most prominent activists of Vilnius during the period in question were, among others, the above-mentioned scientists - Zigmas Zinkevičius and Alvydas Butkus, but also other members of the Sąjūdis initiative group (Romualdas Ozolas and Professor Arnoldas Piročkinas). The chairman of the association - Kazimieras Garšva - for 20 years held the position of a "social advisor" at the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Lithuania, and the members of Vilnius have held high official, advisory and scientific positions since the establishment of the organisation.

As you can see, we are dealing with a person who preaches nasty anti-Polish theories. He may be an expert on the Lithuanian language, but his views on the Polish language in Lithuania are tainted with hateful nationalism. This @GizzyCatBella: may be of interest to you Marcelus (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Zinkevičius gets his ideas about the Polish language in Lithuania from the Polish linguist Halina Turska. Go read her article (here Turska, Halina (1930). "Język polski na Wileńsczyzne". Wilno i Ziemia Wilenska (in Polish). Vol. I.) and you will see where Zinkevičius got his ideas from about "Lithuanian Polish", "Polish borrowings in the Lithuanian language" and etc. Turska herself calls it a dying language on the border of extinction. After looking at who the referenced people are, neither are researchers whose words should be taken without a grain of salt and one of them can be said to "have a dog in the fight": Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska (of the University of Łódź) was actually born in Eišiškės source is this book review. In this book review, it is noted that she did not use the work of Lithuanian historians regarding the subject of Lithuania's Poles in the Soviet times, even if she speaks Lithuanian and the topic was about attempts to establish Polish autonomy in Lithuania (p212). As for Robert Boroch (of the University of Warsaw), he is a "Military anthropologist". Hard to see why his comments should be relevant. Nothing what you said are nasty anti-Polish theories, and what is written is agreed on by many scholars and is in fact proven by what is written in this article. That "po prostu" is not Polish but mostly Belarusian, how it arose, that there indeed was forceful Polonization, Tutejszy did come about through Polonization, etc., etc. I don't understand - this Professor says what is confirmed by multiple sources and is the historical truth, and here you are insulting him and denigrating him as "nasty" and "anti-Polish" for what Poles themselves have said.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you even read Polish? Nowhere in this article does Turska write that Lithuanian Polish is dying out or that it is a separate language that has nothing in common with standard Polish. Either you don't read Polish or you are deliberately misleading. The existence of a northeastern dialect of Polish or "Lithuanian Polish" is in no way controversial. I do not know what matters where Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska was born, the important thing is that Zinkevičius is a fierce anti-Pole and his opinions about Poles in Lithuania have no value. Boroch is an anthropologist, his person is not important anyway, what is important is the nonsense that ZZ writes. You say that his nonsense is confirmed by many scholars, can you name them? Is it someone from outside his circle? I don't think so. Certainly Turska is not among them.Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wyrazem nieprzychylnego stanowiska społeczeństwa względem polszczyzny wileńskiej jest tępienie i pozbywanie się jej własciwości. Pomocną jest tu z jednej strony szkoła, z drugiej - wojsko. Napozór grozi polszczyzńie wileńskiej zagłada. Jakie będą jej dalsze losy, pokaze przyszłość. - page 225 of Turska's article. This sentence is pretty much "Lithuanian Polish is dying out". Either you don't read Polish or you are deliberately misleading. The answer to this is that you yourself are simply wrong, because what I said was in the article I referenced. Plus, no one called it a separate language, I have no clue where you got that from. the important thing is that Zinkevičius is a fierce anti-Pole and his opinions about Poles in Lithuania have no value Except you are wrong here once more (literally nothing he said is anti-Polish, as it is reaffirmed even by Polish, not to mention other sources) and you are unfairly singling him out. Missing out on certain language sources is not a proof that the person harbours negative views, as Barbara Jundo-Kaliszewska, a historian who you mentioned, did so herself, and no one is accusing her of being anti-Lithuanian. What "nonsense" do you mean? List them one by one, so that I can clearly answer what you are asking of me. Zinkevičius frequently referenced Halina Turska in his own work, so, whatever you are saying, it makes no sense and is self-contradictory. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This sentence is pretty much "Lithuanian Polish is dying out" The sentence isn't about "Lithuanian Polish", but about its variety spoken by the common people. The main ZZ claim is that Polish spoken in Lithuania has and had nothing to do with standard Polish. ZZ views are obviously anti-Polish, he doesn't see them as actual national Polish minority, but a some kind of "ethnographic material" that needs to be relithuanised. The nonesense of ZZ views was listed by Boroch. Marcelus (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The main ZZ claim is that Polish spoken in Lithuania has and had nothing to do with standard Polish. What Zinkevičius said perfectly aligns with what is already in the article: Most of Poles who live southwards of Vilnius speak a form of Belarusian vernacular called there "simple speech", that contains many substratical relics from Lithuanian and Polish. You are misportraying him as something he is not. As for Boroch, he is not an authority on the topic, and he himself is biased with a Polish POV, which denies that Polonization also happened forcefully (he puts intentional Polonization in ""). What Boroch claims is false is not so - the things he thinks are false are actually proven by other researchers, like the ones who are the WP:RS for the quote from this article. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Quotes from ZZ book "History of Lithuanian Language", p. 245: Right from the start the imported Polish language in Lithuania began acquiring its own unique traits. The so-called Lithuanian Polish language was forming (the Poles call it "polszczyzna litewska") and is still spoken in these regions today. It was from this language, and not from the Polish spoken in Poland, that Polonism began flowing into Lithuanian- it's about 16/17th century, he already claims that there was no Polish language in Lithuania, only specific, separate language "Lithuanian Polish". He isn't talking here about the "simple speech".

He is straight-up lying on pages 316-317: approx. 200,000 people were repatriated from Lithuania, mostly from the former Vilnius territory. Among them there were many Lithuanians who identified themselves as Poles in to order to escapre Stalin's terror - that's simply insane, Poles were equally if not more persecuted by Stalin; the countryside was filled with immigrants from the neighboring Byelorussian districts, who inundated the Vilnius territory and becamse "Poles" (...) The Stalinist Polonization of the Vilnius territory had begun and was more brutal that that of the Poles during their occupation - Stalin expelled Lithuanians pretending to be Poles in order to bring in Belarusians pretending to be Poles in order to polonise Lithuania. It's pretty clear that his only goals is to "prove" that there was never any "real" Polish person on Lithuanian soil. That's simply pathetic.

Zinkevicius claims that there was "deliberate Polonisation" from the beginning of the union. This is, of course, nonsense. The worst part is how instrumentally and dishonestly he treats Turska's research. He omits passages that do not suit him. In her book she writes about why old people do not want to speak Lithuanian although they know the language (On the emergence of Polish language areas in the Vilnius region, p. 15): There were also cases when an informer, having quoted to me on one day a number of Lithuanian words, phrases or even songs, the next day - probably after a longer reflection or after having been teased by neighbors - completely denied any knowledge of the language: "what do you want to do Lithuania here?" he would answer me angrily (Nemenčinė parish). And here are the words of an 90 years old lady, a few days after our first conversation, when I came to complete the Lithuanian words she had mention: "there were no Lithuanians here, I from Nemenčinė parish, here's Poland and that's it, I was baptised here, born here, I don't know else and that's it". The blame for this distrust lies not with any contemporary Lithuanian agitation, which does not exist in these Polish territories and cannot exist in view of the ardent Polish patriotism, but with the position of Lithuanian priests at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. They demanded, for example, that the Lithuanians, who had already been polonised at that time, should be able to recite prayers or at least cross themselves in Lithuanian. Otherwise, according to the landowners, they did not want to hear confessions, or even marry and baptise children of reluctant parents: "they pressed us to say the prayers in Lithuanian, they did not take us to confession, so we learned to say the prayers in Lithuanian a little", or: when the priest said: "If you don't know how to say the prayer in Lithuanian, there will be no confession" I encourage you to read what Turska writes, because it is fascinating, rather than relying on what others write about her (I can send you a pdf, she published her book in a trilingual version, including Lithuanian, unfortunately I only have scans of the Polish part). She divides the Polish language in Lithuania, as I mentioned above, into three varieties: the language of the educated strata, the language of the common people in two variants: closer to Lithuanian and closer to Belarusian. "Simple speech" is completely apart from it, it is neither Belarusian nor Polish (although closer to the former), but a kind of interdialect. Marcelus (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus - He was a linguist-historian, (passes in 2018) professor at Vilnius University. I don’t think we can undermine his views so lightly. Is he a RS or not? That has to be established first. I personally believe he is a RS, perhaps needs attribution. I would like to hear neutral views besides you two. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella I don't think he is reliable, at least in matter concering Poland. In my opinion he should be excluded as a reliable source in this field. I can go to W:RSN with this. These are examples of false claims from his book Восточная Литва в прошлом и настоящем, (according to review by Jan Jerzy Milewski):

• Vilnius region under Polish rule became backward and served as a springboard for expansion into neighbouring countries
• Lithuanians had it worse than under Tsarism, they had no press and could not defend themselves in court
• Lithuanians were prosecuted for distributing newspapers, national education of children, listening to Kaunas radio
• After the occupation of Vilnius in 1920 by Zeligowski there were pogroms against Lithuanians
• In 20 years only 20 Lithuanians graduated from the university (in fact only in 1929 there were 42 Lithuanians)
• During the interwar period there was an almost complete denationalization of Lithuanians (in fact, Lithuanians were particularly resistant to attempts at Polonization)
• The Home Army was a colonial army, rearmed by the Germans
• During the war, Polish priests promised 40 days of indulgence for every Lithuanian killed
• Stalin settled 200,000 newcomers from Belarus in order to polonise Lithuania
• Zinkevičius was an eminent expert in the Lithuanian language, but he was also a nationalist politician, minister of education, and his texts about Poles are steeped in prejudice. Marcelus (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I see.. We need a more comprehensive community input then. Do you like to broadcast something on the proper panel? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Some of these claims, false according to Milewski and Marcelus, are actually true though. I have read articles by other researchers proving at least some of the statements. Naturally, I won't write an entire Wiki article with references here, but I definitely have read, about, for example, the Home Army in Lithuania being armed by Germans and both tacitly working together in 1944, at least in the territory of the Vilnius Region. This is a link to a cycle of Lithuanian-language articles about the Home Army in the Vilnius Region.

Frankly, Polonization in Lithuania could be its own article, just like Russification of Belarus and Russification of Finland. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis: Individual units cooperated on the basis of obtaining weapons to fight Soviet partisans, but full-scale collaboration never took place. I will keep deleting your narrative about "Slavicized Lithuanians", because it's simply not true (not all Poles in Lithuania are descendants of the Lithuanian-speaking population, you don't know the exact number) and you cannot reduce the whole community to this term. Poles in Lithuania define themselves as people of Polish culture and identity, this is how they should be described. The article already describes well how the Polish minority in Lithuania came into being, both in the main body and in the introduction. You can expand it. An important reason for this is that it is a narrative promoted by the Lithuanian racial theory of the nation, to which any person who has Baltic origins should be re-lituanised. There can be no place for such a thing. Incidentally, I find it pathetic that you make one or two small edits after making this change so that I cannot simply rewert your change. Marcelus (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The phrase They are mostly descended from Slavicized Lithuanians is not a narrative though. The statement is WP:NPOV and proven by what is written in the article, even if you want to ignore Zinkevičius. You removing it is WP:POV. There was never writing that they are all descended from the once Lithuanian-speaking populations of the area. There is a difference between all and mostly.

You can expand it. You say one thing, and yet you removed my sourced additions in the introduction repeatedly. Only after numerous reverts did you decide to leave some parts of it.

Incidentally, I find it pathetic that you make one or two small edits after making this change so that I cannot simply rewert your change. Sometimes there is little bits and bobs that need to be changed. There were misplaced "}}" signs, and I moved them to the correct place with this edit. You assume wrong things about me on a near continual basis, like you did here. There needs to be a change in attitude. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is still the same narrative, that is one thing. Two it is still a racial category. Three even your sources don't confirm it. According to Zinkevicius, Stalin displaced 200,000 Lithuanians pretending to be Poles and settled 200,000 Belarusians pretending to be Poles. So, according to this "expert" the sentence should be: "They are largely Belarusians pretending to be Poles (who probably are just Lithuanians pretending to be Belarusians, who in turn are Scythians pretending to be Balts, who in turn are the tribe of Japhet in disguise)". Stop this obsession with people's racial origins.Marcelus (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You are overcomplicating simple things: First of all, there was mass Polonization of Lithuanians in Lithuania. Second, these Lithuanians were Polonized Lithuanians. Third, the Polonized Lithuanians had children. Fourth, that is how most of the Poles in Lithuania came into existence. Ergo, They are mostly descended from Slavicized Lithuanians is factually true. You denying that tells more about you than it does about the veracity of this sentence. Furthermore, no one brought the terminology and concept of race into this except you - I recommend that you check out WP:LABEL. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

your sources don't confirm it Yes they do and there are even quotes from them clearly showing that they support the statement.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis and Marcelus - I think this -->[1] needs attribution (According to...) if here to stay. Yeah... a polemical statement undoubtedly should not be in the lede of the article. (I'm talking about this, in particular, --> They are mostly descended from Slavicized Lithuanians.) - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis First of all your sources are not unbiased, besides Zigmas Zinkevičius, you quote Committee for a Free Lithuania, a political advocacy group. Besides, it was not me who introduced the racial category, but your sources. Adolf Šapoka writes Lastly, the language alone does not determine nationality. It is determined by ways of life, customs, folklore and other elements of national culture, and finally - racial peculiarities. Algirdas Martynas Budreckis: Etnografinė Lietuva apima tuos plotus, kurių gyventojai tarpusavyje susiję bendrais kilmės - rasės, tautybės ir kultūros ryšiais, which translates to: Ethnographic Lithuania comprises those areas whose inhabitants are linked to each other by common ties of origin - race, nationality and culture. I am not the one introducing racial categories, but Lithuanian historians who are obsessed with them. Moreover, your sources are factually incorrect, e.g. they equate the borders between Catholicism and Orthodoxy circa 1920 with the border of the so-called "ethnographic Lithuania" and the extent of the "Lithuanian race". This is erroneous because they omit the mass Catholicization of the Belarusian population after the liquidation of the Uniate Church. (Unless we assume that the entire population up to Pripyat and Volga is the "Lithuanian race").

@GizzyCatBella I agree that if such statements should appear anywhere then certainly not in the lead. Besides, the process of the creation of the Polish minority in Lithuania is described quite exhaustively both in the introduction and in the main part of the article.Marcelus (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus and Cukrakalnis - I think if this [2] is rephrased to something like:

...some are of Lithuanian descent...

it would meet WP:NPOV and could be used somewhere in the article. What do you folks think? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella The text already says that: During the Polish–Lithuanian union, there was an influx of Poles into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the gradual Polonization of its elite and upper classes. At the end of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795, almost all of Lithuania's nobility, clergy, and townspeople spoke Polish and adopted Polish culture, while still maintaining a Lithuanian identity.[3] In the 19th century, the processes of Polonisation also affected the Lithuanian and Belarusian peasantry and led to the formation of a long strip of land with a predominantly Polish population, stretching to Daugavpils and including Vilnius.Marcelus (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Ledes like those of Basters or Russians in Estonia have a sentence about their origin. It is unreasonable to forgo that on Poles in Lithuania. Marcelus is adamant about removing this sentence about their origin because he has made it clear that he considers it motivated by POV, when it simply is not and instead is a fact asserted by many researchers. I would be all for such mid-way compromises if they would be warranted, but throughout this whole ordeal, I am the one who tries to reconcile and refine the phrasing for it to be more acceptable to Marcelus, but Marcelus will have none of it and simply removes it over and over again.

The larger issue at play is that Marcelus seems to be on a emotionally-invested and obssessed crusade against what he perceives as Lithuanian overreach, e.g. in the talk page of Cultural regions of Belarus on 30 March, when he asked me Why Lithuanian names in the article about Belarus?, when there was not a single Lithuanian name, or with the Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army, which he accused me on my talk page in December as you describes as some kind of "Lithuanian army" when there was no thought of that (the category instead contains the sentence Units of the Royal Prussian Army that were officially titled "Lithuanian" at some point during their existence.) and had a problem with giving Lithuanian-language names for locations in Lithuania Minor. This cannot go on indefinitely, yet there is no end in sight with the WP:EDITWARs that Marcelus initiates. These confrontations deeply sadden me, because I want to edit the articles instead of wasteful friction in articles and talk pages. But Wiki-life has not been the same when Marcelus initiated all of this already more than a half-year ago. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Information about the origin of the Polish minority is already in the lead. I myself added an extensive excerpt from the article about how the Polish community in Lithuania came into being. I'm also working on an article Polonization where I describe this phenomenon in much more detail. So your accusations are unfounded. Actually I was wrong about Cultural regions of Belarus, sorry about that. However Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army is built against the rules. Because it suggests the existence of Lithuanian units in the Prussian army (under Lithuanian command, using Lithuanian symbols etc). Which is obviously not true. Of course I have a problem with Lithuanian names being used in reference to Prussian and later German cities that were never part of Lithuania. This is nonsensical, there is no justification for calling Königsberg in Lithuanian. If you don't want to waste your time in discussions with me, you don't have to take part in themMarcelus (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Information about the origin of the Polish minority is already in the lead. Yeah, we both worked together on it. The contested phrase is indeed on the origin of the Polish minority, but you keep removing it.

I myself added an extensive excerpt... Do you realise that the WP:LEAD should be more of a WP:SUMMARY? That the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points? Ergo, the current paragraph should be more concentrated, more concise, more focused. So your accusations are unfounded. What I said was right: Ledes like those of Basters or Russians in Estonia have a sentence about their origin. I said a sentence, not many sentences, or etc. You seem to misread when I write.

Actually I was wrong about Cultural regions of Belarus, sorry about that. I know you were wrong, but it serves to illustrate that you are on a emotionally-invested and obssessed crusade against what he perceives as Lithuanian overreach, as I said.

However Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army is built against the rules. What rules? I looked through WP:CATEGORIZATION, and what is written there, fully justifies that category. Because it suggests the existence of Lithuanian units in the Prussian army (under Lithuanian command, using Lithuanian symbols etc) Only in your fantasies - where is that written in the articles? Which is obviously not true. I agree that there was no unit in the Prussian Army under Lithuanian command or that used Lithuanian symbols. Your issues and claims are unjustified and imagined.

Of course I have a problem with Lithuanian names being used in reference to Prussian and later German cities that were never part of Lithuania. If so, then why don't you have an issue with the Yiddish name Vilna in the article Lithuanian Jews when Lithuania was never part of Israel? Or Polish names in History of Poles in Königsberg, when Königsberg was never part of Poland?

This is nonsensical, there is no justification for calling Königsberg in Lithuanian. Yes there is. When speaking about Lithuania-related articles and mentioning Königsberg, it would be justified to mention the Lithuanian-language names, even in brackets, just like Polish-language names are used in History of Poles in Königsberg.

If you don't want to waste your time in discussions with me, you don't have to take part in them That's not an option on Wikipedia. Ignoring what others say is not a solution. I am here to WP:BUILDWP but you keep introducing previously non-existent friction in many articles and this friction needs to be adressed. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not on a crusade. Sentence 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment was a Lithuanian dragoon regiment in service of the Kingdom of Prussia clearly suggest it was a German unit, as the name of category. I don't think "Królewiec" name should be used in the article, but the city was part of Poland since 1454(66) to 1658. There is no reason to use Lithuanian place names for towns outside of Lithuania in English Wikipedia.Marcelus (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus and Cukrakalnis - Try this --> [3] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not on a crusade. Yes you are. Actions speak louder than words.

I don't think "Królewiec" name should be used in the article So why didn't you remove them like you removed the Lithuanian Karaliaučius from units recruited in Lithuanian-speaking areas? Clear double-standard.

city was part of Poland since 1454(66) to 1658 False - being a vassal does not mean you are part of the country. Teutonic Order was not part of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, just like the Polish People's Republic was not part of the USSR, even though there was a clear dependance.

The 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment, as written in the article, was recruited almost exclusively from volunteers from its immediate homeland, i.e. Lithuania Minor (and there's a source for that too, but obviously you have a tendency to ignore WP:RS that don't suit you, so why bother). Those locations were part of Lithuania Minor, ergo Lithuanian-language names are undoubtedly relevant there. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, I think it would be beneficial for all of us (that means me and User:Marcelus) to just take a step back and relax from all of these more arguments or however one wishes to call it, as User:GizzyCatBella suggested.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know the History of Poles in Königsberg article existed about a week ago, and I didn't read it either so I didn't notice the use of the name "Królewiec", but of course it should be removed. Königsberg was obviously a part of Poland, given as a fief to the Order and then to the Hohenzollern duke. You can't give as a fief something you don't own. Anyway, the Toruñ Peace is clear: the monastic state together with its subjects was supposed to be a part of the Polish Crown, creating together "unum et individuum corpus, una gens, unus populus in amicicia, federe et unione". So the use of the Polish name of the city would be justified, but for the sake of consistency it should be replaced by Königsberg. There is no justification for using the Lithuanian name. Besides, communist Poland was not a fief of the Soviet Union, because there was no fief law in force then. The fact that a unit consisted largely of an ethnic group of Prussian Lithuanians does not automatically make it a Lithuanian unit, it was a Prussian and then a German unit. Many units of the Russian army consisted of Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, but they are not automatically units of these ethnic groups (this happened in the final phase of WWI when such units began to transform into national units)Marcelus (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposal to divide this article

Following WP:SIZERULE, this article should Almost certainly should be divided, as it is ~100 kB. I suggest creating the following articles:

• Poles in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (just like there is Poles in the Soviet Union; this article has the added benefit that it can be pointed to in Poles in Belarus)
• Polonization of Lithuania (just like there are the articles Russification of Finland or Russification of Belarus.)

I must note that there is the article Demographic history of the Vilnius region, which overlaps very significantly with this article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that this article is too long for now. There is also an article Polonization which covers a similar topic as the one proposed by you. Marcelus (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I second that Marcelus. The article is getting too long in my opinion. I tagged it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the introduction

@User:GizzyCatBella This is what I would do. I'm still not sure if that polemical claim (backed by no research) should be in the lede. I'm bending towards that it's not. (see the talk page for prior discussion (link to the edit). The phrase Numerous of them have Lithuanian ancestry. is by no means (backed by no research), because multiple WP:RS next to the statement emphasize that there were once Lithuanian-speaking Lithuanians in those areas and there was no massive migration of Polish people into there, but instead Polonization (that's what is described in the section 19th century). Even User:Marcelus has to agree with me on that - he wrote it in the article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

And that's already in the article~, both main body and the introduction. Marcelus (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Such a fact of important relevance deserves to be made clear to the readers, instead of assuming that they will realise it themselves. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It's clear already Marcelus (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Cukrakalnis and Marcelus - take a break from editing this article folks. Come back in a few days. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella I don't edit because I don't have time lately, but I watch with horror the activity of Cukrakalnis, who not only obstinately tries to define Lithuanian Poles as polonised Lithuanians at the very top, but also starts to propagate the Zinkevicius pseudo-theory that all Poles with surnames ending in -wicz are Lithuanians by origin.Marcelus (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said previously, Marcelus is on a emotionally-invested and obssessed crusade against what he perceives as Lithuanian overreach, regardless of whether what is written is WP:RS or following any other Wikipedia rule. If he doesn't like it, it has to go, and that's it, regardless of the justification. Simply impossible to reach an agreement when that's the attitude. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Too long

The article is getting too long to read comfortably. I tagged it [4] for now but will try to trim later also. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That is what I wrote about in the talk page section Proposal to divide this article, just above. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

off this topic but Cukrakalnis..you are edit warring [5] against 2 editors who don't agree with you. Take a look at this [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] I'll remind you again about your unblock pledge (you were editing under Itzhak Rosenberg) --> [15] it reads "I will cease engaging in ethno-nationalist ... and will dedicate myself purely to editing military and neutral history..." Please keep this in mind moving forward. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I promised that I will cease engaging in ethno-nationalist and homophobic provocations on Wikipedia and will dedicate myself purely to editing military and neutral history. I have kept that promise. Problematically, the aforementioned military and neutral history is not neutral anymore thanks to Marcelus. Just look at the page histories of Lithuanian military persons: Romualdas Giedraitis, Tomas Kušleika and Boleslovas Kolyška. Marcelus even found the category of Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army objectionable in December 2021 on my talk page, regardless of it following WP:CATEGORIZATION.

Marcelus is the one who begins conflicts with multiple people, but others (e.g. Pofka, editor for already eleven years) suffer the consequences instead of him. I am open to working together with others, but Marcelus' WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is a never-ending problem.

The statement with six WP:RS is not provocation by any definition. Neither is it ethno-nationalist, unless talking at all about nations, ethnicities, their origins or ancestry is nationalist, so... I guess all diaspora articles (like this one) are nationalist by that definition. Even using mostly Lithuanian sources would not be a problem, because just as Marcelus uses mostly Polish sources, so others frequently using Lithuanian sources is perfectly reasonable - we use the sources we can, by default. I don't understand why WP:EDITWAR is brought up against me, I am just reacting against the total removal of well-sourced information just because someone dislikes it for some reason, going so far as contradicting Wiki guidelines. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If I can I always use English sources first and foremost. Also Category:Lithuanian units of the Royal Prussian Army name is misleading. Romualdas Giedraitis, Tomas Kušleika and Boleslovas Kolyška articles should all be renamed to the actual names these people used, and I will soon make request for that. As for this articles you keep pushing nationalist pseudohistorical theory that Polish people in Lithuania are just "Slavicized Lithuanians". Marcelus (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

First off, you proved what I said: the aforementioned military and neutral history is not neutral anymore thanks to Marcelus. The category name is not misleading, you are fantasizing - the category in question follows WP:CATEGORIZATION. Wikipedia guidelines > preferences & personal impressions. As for the last claim, it's pointless to talk to you about it - just straight up ignoring WP:RS and repeatedly calling things you dislike WP:RACIST, nationalist, pseudohistorical, etc., etc. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I want repeat myself over and over. But I think it would be fair to all concerned if you stopped pretending that you don't know what it's all about. I would appreciate it if you would stop blaming everything on me. I don't start conflicts, I just remove untruths and historical nonsense and agenda pushing. If that triggers your objection then that is your fault, not mine Marcelus (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay folks. Please try to find a middle ground here. @Marcelus perhaps try to work with Lithuanian POV in mind .. IDK maybe imagine you have a beautiful Lithuanian wife from Vilnius 😀. Cukrakalnis same to you, think about Kraków a little more - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella There is Lithuanian POV, which I don't ignore, and I read and reference Lithuanian historians all the time. And there are falsehoods and misleadings, like calling units of Prussian army "Lithuanian". Marcelus (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

you would stop blaming everything on me It is absolutely true that these things on talk pages only started directly as a result of Marcelus' actions. Marcelus was the initiator and so is responsible. This is a matter-of-fact statement. If I am lying or false, prove it.

I don't start conflicts, I just remove untruths and historical nonsense and agenda pushing. First comes denial, then comes the justification for doing the thing denied. In addition, neither claim is true or accurate, it is just a highly subjective, self-contradicting opinion that does not stand up to scrutiny. Removing WP:RS because a person dislikes them is not remove untruths and historical nonsense and agenda pushing. If anything, adding MORE RS is the solution. That does not mean removing the ones that a person dislikes and replacing them with the ones they like. From a purely practical standpoint, Marcelus' conduct, like frequently wholesale removing clearly WP:RS material in various articles could be viewed as uncooperative behaviour. Just because a person finds something personally objectionable, thus untrue in their view, does not mean that that is really the case.

And there are falsehoods and misleadings, like calling units of Prussian army "Lithuanian". To call units how they were called is neither falsehood, nor misleading. Does the Litthauisches in Dragoner-Regiment „Prinz Albrecht von Preußen“ (Litthauisches) Nr. 1 translate to something other than Lithuanian? Obviously not. So just stop. Marcelus' standpoint is baseless and false by any measure.

In general, all of this resembles WP:BATTLEGROUND simply too much, where Marcelus' self-admitted deep mistrust of me and pretty much all that I do on Wiki (self-admitted here on GizzyCatBella's talk page more than four months ago: Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor.) is clearly a grudge, which falls within WP:BATTLEGROUND. This has been going for close to ¾ of a year. What to do? I am willing to cooperate (as I have made clear rather frequently, e.g. [16] or my proposals, etc.). I do not have a personal grudge, I could really just forget it all, but Marcelus keeps removing sourced material. And allowing bad behaviour is in itself a bad behaviour, which I will not permit for the sake of the noble goal of Wikipedia. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything. I don't trust your edits and I think most of them even if not biased are usually pretty low quality. I also don't deny that I take up controversial topics and try to remove historical absurdities (such as pushing Lithuanian names for Polish speakers), moreover I don't intend to stop.

Does the Litthauisches in Dragoner-Regiment "Prinz Albrecht von Preußen" (Litthauisches) Nr. 1 translate to something other than Lithuanian? I don't know if out of ignorance or intentionally but you are confusing the unit nickname with its affiliation. The Litovskiy leyb-gvardii polk was called "Lithuanian" but it was a Russian military unit. Same goes for Polskiy ulanskiy polk or Litovskiy otdelnyy korpus, they were neither Polish nor Lithuanian, but Russian. Although unlike Prussian units they used Polish-Lithuanian signs and Polish uniforms. Poles and Lithuanians served in them. However, these were Russian units, which took part in suppressing the November Uprising. Do you see my point now?Marcelus (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Marcelus said I don't start conflicts on April 18 (obviously false after looking through edit histories and otherwise). That's denial right there, and thus Marcelus replying with I'm not denying anything on April 20 is a lie.

I also don't deny that I take up controversial topics Marcelus made them controversial. Before Marcelus, there was no controversy in the area of Lithuanian military history to begin with. Marcelus began the conflict, exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and actions (e.g. I don't trust your edits) and disrespects other Wikipedians (I think most of them even if not biased are usually pretty low quality). Considering he is the only one who has ever said that and that I have created from scratch numerous B-class articles (or raising them from start level) (Samogitian Regiment (Soviet Russia), Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702), Schutzmannschaft Battalion 258, Schutzmannschaft Battalion 259, and others), Marcelus' accusation is ungrounded and another proof of his personal prejudice against me. When he says try to remove historical absurdities (such as pushing Lithuanian names for Polish speakers), he is obfuscating the situation, because in the process of removing what he falsely calls historical absurdities, Marcelus frequently engages in mass removal of sourced material, in a manner that is against Wiki rules. Moreover, bilingualism was widespread in the region, so e.g. Antanas Mackevičius, Jonas Basanavičius and many other clearly Lithuanian figures were Polish-language speakers. Not to mention, that in different languages, different names were used. And, in the case of Antanas Mackevičius, Marcelus exhibits duplicity, because on pl.wiki he reverted my edit where I corrected it from "Polish Catholic priest" to "Lithuanian Catholic priest". If one were to follow WP:RS, then my edit would have been kept. Instead, Marcelus ignores WP:RS as that suits him.

I don't know if out of ignorance or intentionally but you are confusing the unit nickname with its affiliation. You are the one doing the mistake of confusing the unit nickname with its affiliation. Did you not see in 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment that it is written Country Kingdom of Prussia in the infobox? The same in other articles. You are projecting onto me accusations that only exist in your imagination. The affiliation was always made clear - the Royal Prussian Army. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't start conflicts for the sake of conflicts, I just take on difficult topics, that I feel are misrepresented. Don't accuse me of disrespecting other people, I respect you and every other user, I just think your edits are usually not very good. Too often your main source is articles from the internet or old google books. You rarely use sources in English when they are readily available.

In an article about the 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment you wrote that it was a Lithuanian dragoon regiment in service of the Kingdom of Prussia, which is clearly not true. It wasn't a Lithuanian unit. You are deliberately spreading historical nonsense.Marcelus (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Deliberately? Come on Marcelus, how do you know it was deliberate? Perhaps it was a simple mistake. But let’s discuss content from this point on, okay folks? Please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

At this point it is deliberate, because I myself explained it to him dozens of times Marcelus (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No one said that you started conflicts ...for the sake of conflicts. To avoid misunderstanding what others are writing, I can only recommend to read more carefully and attentively what others have written, for the benefit of all.

Don't accuse me of disrespecting other people, I respect you and every other user, I just think your edits are usually not very good. The English Cambridge Dictionary defines respect here: admiration felt or shown for someone or something that you believe has good ideas or qualities. Obviously, saying I just think your edits are usually not very good is the opposite of respect, i.e. disrespect (disrespect is defined here: lack of respect). In conclusion, Marcelus is disrespecting me.

Too often your main source is articles from the internet or old google books. It fits WP:RS, and that's what matters. What matters on Wikipedia is NOT anyone's personal preferences, what matters is Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

As for the 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment, it was recruited in Lithuania Minor from Prussian Lithuanians. Ergo, what I wrote in the article. Accusing me of spreading historical nonsense when what I am saying is backed by WP:RS is simply against Wikipedia rules. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies GizzyCatBella🍁 for addressing some things beyond content, but if they aren't at the very least acknowledged and answered now, they will only resurface and cause more problems later on.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

All of that said, I am nonetheless willing to cooperate and find middle grounds. The best example of one that was already found between me and Marcelus would be the Proposed solution in Talk:Principality of Alšėnai. Regardless of Marcelus' suspicion of me, I think there is enough goodwill on both sides to work together, at least partially.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, content only from now on, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Cukrakalnis If you want to think that I disrespect you, that your call, but that's not what I feel. I simply consider your edits as being of rather low quality, end of story. And of course the dragoon regiment wasn't a Lithuanian unit and calling it that is spreading of false history.Marcelus (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

...that's not what I feel Rebuking someone's work as rather low quality is disrespectful (especially without any proof or a given reason), and refusing to see that as such reveals a problem in attitude.

The 1st Lithuanian Dragoon Regiment was a Lithuanian unit by virtue of its composition. Just as the 1st Light Cavalry Lancers Regiment of the Imperial Guard (Polish) is considered to be a Polish unit, not because it was part of a Polish army, but because of its composition. Unless you want to call that false history also. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Regiment of Polish lancier was a Polish was an unit formed in Warsaw as a bodyguard of the Emperor, later it was incorporated into the Imperial Guard as a foreign unit. It had Polish command, commanders, uniforms and symbols. A completely different story than the German unit, in which Lithuanian-speaking subjects of the Prussian king served. Marcelus (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced restored

Okay, so this edit restored unsourced info introduced by the IP.

• None of the sources present in the article say: - townspeople spoke Polish to some extent and adopted some Polish culture. To some extent and some is unsourced.
• None of the sources article say: with a newly formed Polish identity. This is also unsourced
• None of the sources article say: an ethnographic mosaic along a strip. This is unsourced
• None of the sources in the article say: was voluntary-forcefully. This is unsourced
• The source next to the sentence does not talk about Yedinstvo but it was also re-introduced - pro-Soviet separatism of a fraction of Lithuanian Poles

We have an issue here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really think there is an issue, and we as far as I remeber were talking about it sometime ago. Yednistvo is mentioned in later part of the article, it doesn't have to be included in the lead, it was after all very short episode in the history of Poles in Lithuania. The rest of the points as you showed are unsourced statements, that wants to change neutral narrative to the one representing particular POV. Nonetheless all of these is described in detail in the appropriate part of the article.

BTW I don't understand why sentence "During the Polish–Lithuanian union, there was an influx of Poles" is tagged as original research, since it's well explained with references in the article. I'm removing that tag. Marcelus (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Possibly another socked: 90.131.45.3 (edit), related to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/78.56.247.147/Archive, @GizzyCatBella and ToBeFree Marcelus (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)