Talk:Sejny Uprising

Piłsudski's involvement

The text states: "From the documents stolen in POW headquoters safe in Vilnius and given to Prime Minister of Lithuania Augustinas Voldemaras it is clear, that this plot was directed by Józef Piłsudski himself", with the reference being pesumably Vytautas Lesčius (2004). Lietuvos kariuomenė nepriklausomybės kovose 1918-1920. Vilnius: Vilnius University, Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija , p.259-278. However Polish historian Tadeusz Mańczuk in his article ([1]) states: Meanwhile in Warsaw the Miedzymorze federation plan of Pilsudski was being discussed. Plans for a coup in Lithuania, which would remove the anti-Polish government of Slezevicius, and bring a more pro-Polish factions, were advanced. In June 1919 informed about the tensions in Suwałki region Piłsudski opposed any conflicts, even aganst Germans. He was aware that it can can lead to Polish-Lithuanian conflicts. He recommended that the local POW awaits further instructions. Those however never came." As such it is hardly clear that the uprising was directed by Piłsudski himself. Likely, he supported the coup, but not the uprisings which would lead to ethnic fighting; as such, I also find it dubious that that - per previous Lithuanian source - "The coup was to be accompanied by a series of uprisings in the whole Lithuania scheduled on August 1919", as Mańczuk argues that the uprising was not part of the plot, but the action of local independent POW activists, and that the local tensions which led to the uprising damaged Piłsudski plan of Miedzymorze (which was his main goal). PS. I am looking for more refs; but I'd not be suprised to find endecja faction encouraging the uprising - it fits their goals, and damages Międzymorze they were opposed to.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lokyz, please consider replying here instead of removing referenced info, restoring dubious claims in irrelevant places and replacing my copyediting with weasel statements.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

.wirtualnapolonia notability

It seems that page cited by Piotrus is nothing less as another Antisemitic source, provided as reliable. I do not have time and do not want to stick my hands into his racial slur, provided as a reliable source.--Lokyz 09:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

However, we are not using that source for any antisemitic claims, are we? In any case, you are right that is is substandard, and I will see soon about replacing it with a more reliable source. However I don't see it as urgent, as I don't believe any dubious claims or POVed statements are referenced by the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah - antisemitic source is good unless it does not cite antisemitic part? Nope, this does not go that way - antisemitic source is biased at all. As for disrupting accademic sources and replacing them with antisemitic ones it's up to understanding of WP:V. De gustibus no est disputandum. It will take time and some effort, but these "patriotic tygodniks" antisemitic "refs" will vaporise outta here.--Lokyz 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not urgent? Well, I understand that Lokyz would not want to translate it - the punctuation says a lot, as does a quick search on Marian Kaluski - see [2] - English translation in second section. Please just take it out now. Novickas 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC) The plot thickens - in 2005 Tygodnik Powszechny strongly dissociated itself from Marian Kaluski, calling it a deliberate attempt to mislead by Russian agents when one of his articles was copied, without authorization, to the Tygodnik website - see [3]. Novickas 02:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside Lokyz's personal attacks, which don't deserve a reply, thank you, Novickas, for this additional information. The activity of Russian internet brigades is mentioned in the relevant article, and while there is no proof that the the two Marian Kałuski are one and the same, I indeed agree - as I said above - that the source should be eliminated. I have done so. If only you'd act in similar way when we raise concerns about unreliable Vilnija publications... PS. Despite your claims, it was not me who added this reference to the article. I am sorry for assuming good faith and not double checking every reference used by other editors... sigh. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Could you be more specific? Remember, as you said once, occusing on personal attaks is PA itself.--Lokyz 11:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, which particular unreliable Vilnija publications you speaking? Remembering your ArbCom case, you manage to bring only Bolshevist source. Answering to your remark, that not you added this reference to the article, but it is you who populated it more then once in this article [4]. M.K. 09:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for the tone or the guy. The guy explains the Foch line in details (geographic, not ideologic) and that's the only thing I used that rightist mumbo-jumbo for. If the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia states that 2 and 2 make 4, it doesn't mean we can't use it as a backup. Facts is one thing, their interpretation is another. Does anyone question the line as explained in Kałuski's article? If not we can safely remove the reference altogether. //Halibutt 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I found a more reliable source that we should use instead: Piotr Łossowski, Konflikt polsko-litewski 1918-1920, Książka i Wiedza, 1995, ISBN 8305127699, p.51; see [5]; [6].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Lossowski , who else:)--Lokyz 11:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Usage of anti-Semitic source

I personally think that anti-Semitic source, which was initially added by user:Halibutt on 2007-09-27 [7], should not be ignored. The source itself was removed only after public criticism expressed by number of contributors. What is the most shameful that this “source” was further populated by two administrators, namely user:Piotrus and user: DGG. Future contributors should be informed about this source and if met in other places removed at sight.

“ Sadly after 1989 we are still in short of patriotic historians, who would be able to un-lie the history. Polish

historians according to political correctness preffer to write about Polish Jews instead of Polish history. After 1989 at least couple hundreds of books and studies about Polish Jews were published! This fact is confirmed by bibliography of study "Jews in Poland. The Lexicon" published in Warsaw in 2001. One might have an impression that a history of Poland is exclusevly a history of Polish Jews! On 29th of August ceremony of comemoration of the 60th anniversary of liquidation of ghetto in Łodz was held. Who of the Poles wasn't there? Even prime minister Belka was and gave a speach there. It wouldn't be anything wrong with it if our leaders and our commrades in suffering - Jews, would remember about our sufferings during WWII. Sadly that is not the case. Lately we were celebrating 60th anniversary of Warsaw Uprising. Jewish newspapers Maariv and Haaretz haven't mentioned in their internet editions this anniversary of this Polish tragedy and suffering from the hands of THE SAME torturer! All this despite the fact that United States Secretary of State, Chancellor of Germany, and vice-prime minister of Great Britain participated in commemoration. So why are we are bowing so low to the Jews and celebrate ALL anniversaries of their suffering?

”

Original [8]. Author Marian Kałuski//Wirtualna Polonia, 2004-08-31

Sadly, initial contributor who populated this source, Halibutt, finds nothing wrong using such “source”. M.K. 11:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Halibutt that there is nothing wrong to use such a source to reference geographic facts. Do you find anything biased or controversial in the source detailed description of the Foch line? If no, then until you find a better reference for that, please stop your attacks on editors for expanding this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There did you see your attacks on editors for expanding this article, I stated facts and only. Future contributors should be inform about this "source" (actually it should be blacklisted) and not to make same mistakes. So point there are as you say attacks or redraw these claims. M.K. 10:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing new I'd say. So far I've seen wiki talk pages, wiki talk pages misunderstood badly used as a source, so why not anti-Semitic rants from internet? Anything goes as WP:RS goes down the drain. M0RD00R 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Foch Line was anti-Semitic... //Halibutt 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference issues

Note # 6, used as a reference three times, is from a forum. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples "Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are not regarded as reliable."

Note # 3 - There are 10 references to a piece published by a gymnasium in Sejny. Per Reliable sources articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source. If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people. Novickas 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref 6 is not from a forum; the site is an NGO that includes the word forum in its title; the author ([9]) is quite reliable. For note 3, the article was written by a local history teacher, Stanisław Buchowski, who seems rather reliable. But you are right about 'exceptional claims' - I certainly find that claims of widespread Polish repressions need more references (particulary from Western academics); current references for that are hardly "multiple high quality reliable sources".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please reprint and translate the relevant passages in Pisarcy's piece? Re sources: I will refrain from citing US or Lithuanian high school teachers in history articles, and hopefully you will refrain as well. Novickas 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I will see about translation if I have some time, but as you can see in a section above there are other users who can carry out the translations. As for reliability of Buchowski, I'd think that professionals like teachers of history are relatively reliable sources - but if you disagree, why not ask at WP:RSN? PS. Per the short bio note here, he has a university education in history and has published several books on history; here he is clearly called a historian.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Maps

If anybody has issues with maps, please discuss them on the discussion pages of respective maps. We don't give map sources in captions, but if you think a map is dubious, you can always nominate it for deletion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just in case, I noticed the lietuva.lt site is down. I'll check if I have their map (which was the basis of the Lithuanian part of my map) somewhere on my hard disk. I probably won't be able to upload it (copyright issues), but I could mail it to those interested. //Halibutt 17:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, image captions are non separable part or article, therefore it is also the subject to the rulers of articles and maintenance tags and templates. Second there are numerical articles in WP, which images captions are with cited refs. Third, image rationale well as information provided by DeirYassin sounds like OR. So provided citation which is asked, as the caption Map showing the Lithuanian claims on Poland and Germany, as well as the areas disputed between Poland and Germany the aftermath of World War I. used in article. M.K. 09:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

After some thought, I agree that both maps (Image:Rzeczpospolita 1920 claims names.png, Image:Border-Lithuania-Poland-1919-1939.svg) are poorly referenced, and may contain errors. I think that {{dubious}} is more applicable then {{fact}}, and that they are useful (informative) - and should stay in article (with tag notifying of possible issues) unless errors can be shown.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Missed my point, I pointed to improper picture caption text (Map showing the Lithuanian claims on Poland and Germany, as well as the areas disputed between Poland and Germany the aftermath of World War I.) which is ORish and POV; not surprisingly that there were no sources to back it. Now I changed it to more neutral formulation. M.K. 11:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why this map at all? Its description reads "Take note that the claimed areas do not have anything in common with either actual control over the area nor with ethnic or cultural pattern in these areas. The map should be therefore treated as a historical curiosity only". Why should a map whose value is "historical curiosity" be in a controversial article? I think it should go, and be replaced with any simple map showing current Lithuanian-Polish borders, with the cities mentioned in this article highlighted - the reader will get the picture. Novickas 16:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's info - questions have been posted about these maps at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#How_to_reference_maps - where User:Jossi has given an opinion - and at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_maps, no comments yet. Novickas 12:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find where the talk and/or dispute about map #1 is located. Please point this out. Novickas 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Schools

See abstract by Krzysztof Buchowski. Renata 03:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. He notes that schools were closed and clergy evicted. But the current source goes further: ban on Lithuanian language, confiscation of property, book burning, "wave of terror" (see citation). There is a slight difference here, I am afraid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Same information, regarding statistics, Language ban as well as terror note, is also provided in another solid book Editors: dr. Gintautas Surgailis; habil. dr. prof. Algirdas Ažubalis; habil. dr. prof. Grzegosz Blaszyk; dr. doc. Pranas Jankauskas; dr. Eriks Jekabsons; habil. dr. prof. Waldemar Rezmer and others (2003). Karo archyvas XVIII. Vilnius: Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija. Burning books, closing schools, suppressing language etc., is indeed terror. M.K. 09:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Any Western sources collaborating those claims?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The attack with scythes reference

I removed this again. Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, and a single reference from a Polish gymnasium teacher does not qualify. Novickas 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, its a reliable source - and in any case, I just verified both quotes with Lossowski's book. Your long quote about Polish wave of terror (book burning, etc.) is just as dubious.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not dubious - this book is written by Ph.D., published by Vilnius University and Jono Žemaičio War Accademy. Besides it has full scientific apparatus including over 700 references and was peer reviewed by two other renowned scholars and was recommended for print by Vilnius University History Departament. I think this makes this book credible enough.--Lokyz 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For this publication (Editors: dr. Gintautas Surgailis; habil. dr. prof. Algirdas Ažubalis; habil. dr. prof. Grzegosz Blaszyk; dr. doc. Pranas Jankauskas; dr. Eriks Jekabsons; habil. dr. prof. Waldemar Rezmer and others (2003). Karo archyvas XVIII. Vilnius: Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija, pp.188-189. ISSN 1392-6489. ), since it has many authors who presumably wrote different chapters, could you indicate who is the author of the cited pages? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments re use of "claim" and "note"

Per the Wikipedia guidance on Words to avoid, the words "claim" and "note" are undesirable. These words were used several times in this article, and they have been replaced with more neutral usages. Novickas 13:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your version is helpful, thank you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Not that I agreed with the word claim being wrong in this context. //Halibutt 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1919 and PMO

Please see my comment at Talk:Polish Military Organisation#1918 for why Polish intelligence may be a better ilink than PMO, at least for some cases.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Some other references indicate that it was still around at that time ([10], [11], [12]. But I don't really want to spend any more time on it. Novickas 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, while others don't. This should be clarified.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The operations of a secret military organization are by definition hard to document. Work on its clarification could certainly go into its own article. However, if the term "POW" was used in the Lithuanian trial proceedings, and other sources imply or state that, in this incarnation, it was active at the time of the uprising, there's no reason why it shouldn't be used here.

If, after clarifying its status, you wish to add a note to the effect that some sources think it had been incorporated into some other intelligence service at that time, no objection from here. Novickas 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Title

Judging from the description from within the article, it more looks like a mutiny rather than uprising. I would like to see the term uprising shown to be established in English language literature. --Irpen 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Since no sources were brought about to confirm the term, I am replacing the uprising by the mutiny. If we don't have an established English term, we use the descriptive title. Per dictionary, this is the mutiny rather than the uprising. --Irpen 02:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is OR. Title in Polish (and Lithuanian) works use the word uprising. Unless you can show there is an English usage for mutiny, the uprising should stay.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Provide exact citation there Lithuanian works called it an uprising, please do not be confused with so called "uprising" . Next on which basis this article name is built, as English works do not use so called Sejny Uprising and why name Sejny is used instead of Seinai? M.K. 16:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How else s it called in Lithuanian literature, then? And the town was and is called Sejny. Although you are free to WP:RM it to Seinai, and if you succeeded, we can do it here, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked specific thing, however no answer was delivered. So I explaining - Lithuanian sources not call it as this article does, more specifically Lesčius in his book's chapter dedicated to this event call it Kovos dėl Seinių translated Fights over Seinai. Regarding town name, town was under Lithuanian control so by authorities it was called Seinai + notable Lithuanian population.M.K. 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Katarzyna Pisarska

Since when student paper's are regarded as a notable source? Some referat with only 3 references for 9 pages of text (is that ok in Polish high scools?), badly misspeled people's names and does not give an impression of an expert of the subject.--Lokyz 07:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not dated, either. Novickas 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When a student becomes a notable historian ([13]). Feel free to raise the issue at WP:RSN.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

When a student becomes a notable historian, his work as a notable historian is OK to use. But not his student work at any rate. At the time he was not qualified to produce sources on which the encyclopedias should be relied upon unless he repeated these claim in the capacity of the notable historian. --Irpen 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed not as good as a normal academic paper, but nonetheless the author and the website are reliable. If any particular claims from that work seem extraordinary, I'll be happy to look for more refs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Tadeusz Mańczuk

Could the person/s who inserted this reference assert his notability, and that the historical magazine in which the article appears has some academic or other recognition? Its WP description is currently "popular". The last time I was at the Barnes & Noble, its history newsmagazine section included about 30 different titles. They all looked interesting, but when push comes to shove in a hotly-contested area of history, I doubt they would be considered reliable sources for controversial statements. Novickas 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you doubt that, please do raise at at WP:RSN. The Mówią Wieki journal is cited in academic works, including English - for example in Journal of the History of Ideas or International Migration Review; it is also cited by printed sources, too ([14]). Mańczak is a historian, director of State Archives branch in Ełk.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability noted; not quite as academic as the LT sources, but ok with me. But his controversial statements should be attributed rather than stated as fact. Reliable Sources Noticeboard was a good idea, but it's swamped with questions from a lot of different areas, should probably be broken out by subject matter. Novickas 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Which statement of his do you find controversial? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification request

Re the sentence "but retreated the same day, because they had received a (erroneous) report that a large force of Polish regular cavalry was operating in their rear; later next day, in the afternoon of August 26, the PMO forces in Sejny were joined by 41st Regiment". So - what was the error in the report? That the 41st regiment wasn't cavalry, or that it wasn't large? The size of the 41st regiment would be helpful. Novickas 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. The 41st Regiment was approaching from 'in front' (or the Polish side). The Lithuanians got a report about Polish regular cavalry behind them (on the Lithuanian side). There was no such unit; but there were irregular PMO partisans there, and likely one of their groups were mistaken for the regular army cavalry; Mańczuk even mentions which group was most likely. I hope that clarifies the matter.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Lithuanians know better, what information they did receive - according to document found by Lesčius in archives, information was about cavalry unit approaching from Suvalkai, and therefore speculations of Manczuk are wrong. It would be nice if he did support them with some references to documents, but despite being archivarian he failed to do so.--Lokyz 08:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then it needs rewriting along the lines of "According to Lescius, who had access to Lithuanian army documents, the LTs received a report during the day that a Polish cavalry unit was approaching from Suwalki, and they retreated. According to Manczuk, the retreat was based on an erroneous report that a Polish cavalry unit was approaching from behind, on the Lithuanian side of the border. The 41st regiment arrived (from Suwalki?) on the next day, August..." The reader can then judge, altho I'm somewhat inclined to also mention that Manczuk cites no documents. Is that true of all his work that is mentioned in here? Novickas 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the current version which presents both sides and shows how they differ. Łossowski, unfortunately, doesn't mention this indecent at all, his military description of the Sejny Uprising is very brief. PS. Mańczuk does note that Lithuanians received a report on regular Polish forces approaching the city; but those forces was the Infantry 41st Regiment from Suwałki. The key word here is infantry. He notes that there was an irregular calvary unit of PMO operating behind Lithuanian lines. He doesn't know which of the reports influenced the Lithuanians to retreat. If Lesčius has a proof that it was the Suwałki troops, it's great - but those troops were infantry, not cavalry. In other words, according to Mańczuk there was regular Polish infantry approaching from Suwałki, and irregular Polish cavalry behind Lithuanian lines. All Polish sources including Łossowski's note that the 41st Infantry Regiment was the only significant Polish regular unit involved in the region.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no doubt it's improving. However, the $20 word historiography doesn't belong here: it's several levels of abstraction above details disputed by three contemporary historians. Read the article. Novickas 00:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename

As in English (as well in Lithuanian historiography) such invention as Sejny Uprising not present, and is met (?) exclusively in Polish one, I am considering to rename this POV name to more neutral, something like Fights over Seinai. I only not decided which name Seinai or Sejny to use. And ideas on theses issues are welcome. M.K. 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this is English, not Lithuanian Wikipedia, Sejny seems to fit WP:NCGN. I see no reason why we should invent a new English name instead of using a translation of a popular term from Polish historiography (per WP:OR).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My thought is "Sejny border conflict (1919)". Border conflict because it's a frequently-used neutral wording and an exact description; Sejny because that is its current name, and in the spirit of the Sejny Borderlands Project. There don't seem to be precedents for using a direct translation of whoever's historiography in the absence of English usage - that would lead to articles entitled, for example, "Heroes of the Sejny Uprising" (as an external link at the Sejny page describes them), or "The Glorious Liberation of Fredonia", or any number of possible historiography-based descriptions that are not found in EN-language sources. Novickas 13:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting suggestion. However I still question usage of Sejny in title, my arguments:

a) city was under Lithuanian authority

b) It had major Lithuanian population

c) per Google books Seinai 574 hints and enjoy support among English literature, while Sejny has only 664, it is small number knowing that city was under Polish control for decades.

d) Polish language in the region is imported one. Any additional comments over this? M.K. 15:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

City was under German authority; the uprising begun after their withdrawal - there was little more Lithuanian authority than Polish authority; the Lithuanians disputed the Foch line; Poles tried to enforce it.

Fact? Łussowski states the town was in an area with majority Polish population (on the Polish side of the Foch line). It would be very useful to see Russian or German census results; I am afraid Lithuanian and Polish claims may be less neutral and accurate.

A very interesting argument on why we should select the less popular name. Since America was under Native American control for a long period, should we use one of their tribals names instead for it? :)

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

there was little more Lithuanian authority than Polish authority; - Interesting "argument", probably Poles "arose" against Polish authority then. A very interesting argument on why we should select the less popular name. Reread you first statment I see no reason why we should invent a new English name it is already "invented" and very popular actually. We have nnumerical precedents then less popular name like so called "Wilno" is used.M.K. 10:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a WP:RM procedure.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest talking first. --Irpen 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, Piotrus we're not doing it part of your hatred speech with another prominency of PIE just got another evidence "Since America was under Native American control for a long period, should we use one of their tribals names instead for it?. This is an invaluable INSULT to Poland. Do you really think of Lithunian nation, that has succeded to establish a state, and gave a dynasty to rule, well, Poles amongst others. I think you should appoligize here, if you don't want to feel to insult your coutry suggesting to be a nation preserved by some Indians. I do just love the idea US of America being ruled by Sitting Bull dynasty. Gosh, you made may day.--Lokyz 22:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Same old business again

Currently there is no consensus to remove title dispute tag (quite contrary see discussion above), nor the presented quotes. Therefore this edit does not represent any consensus among editors. M.K. (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:QUOTE - part of WP:MOS - large quotations don't belong in the article. This quote is further non-neutral, and it attempts to smuggle non-neutral text that would never made it to article space as a quote/note. This violates WP:NPOV. As such, this quote has no place on Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First you cited essay, this means You may heed it or not, at your discretion. Second knowing complexity of this particular issue surrounding particular citation, which was discussed at Sejny article, there was a understanding that it should be moved to general article about so called "uprising", even more you personally agreed that this is the place for it. And last somehow you failed to mention why title dispute was removed... M.K. (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)ps. Therefore I see no other way only to tag this article

Fine, if you are not happy with the essay, let's ask the wider community for input. It's good the quote is no longer blowing up article about Sejny, but it seems out of place (too lenghty, too non-neutral) even here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So suddenly changed opinion, I made an impression that you was quite happy with having this quote in this article. Especially knowing that per WP:V (WP:NONENG) readers should have an opportunity to check that is written and how it is translated as sources in not EN. M.K. (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for being a bit busy - only now I got around to fixing this article. WP:V does not require quotations except for exceptional cases. You provided it to reinforce your previously dubious claim, that's all good, and hence the sentence it is referencing is not challenged, but the quote itself now belongs on talk of the article, not in it - particularly when it is a very long quote in two languages, and written in a non-encyclopedic, non-neutral tone.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Remind me why did you removed title dispute tag as I cant to see rationale even now...M.K. (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC) P.s. contributors are prohibited to judge WP:RS sources by personal impressions on "tone", "writings" etc. contributors jobs is to present Wp:RS material in the shape which they are

Actually it is you - the editor who wants to tag the article - who has to explain what is disputed or non-neutral. Could you do so? My only grievance was - as I explained above ad nausea - that the quote was too lengthy and too unencyclopedic, not adding anything to the article but instead subtracting from it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you instead of waging routine revert war, read what was written some time ago [15](the whole thread (the second one!) dedicated to it just above) would noted dispute of this "upraising" article's name. Curious enough during revert campaign there was no single word (not speaking about proper rationale) about {{POV-title}} tag removal [16][17] (and no it was not explained on talk as the last edit summary implies). M.K. (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WP Quote policy clearly states that it's sometimes better to use a quote in difficult situations. And gives an example. This situation is analogous, since the source uses "teroro banga" - wave of terror - strong language, but if the ref is worthwhile, its original language is worthwhile too. The quote was in notes and did not interrupt the text. To shorten it, we can move the LT original here and leave the EN in notes - I hereby vouch for the accuracy of the translation. Will wait for more opinions. Novickas (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And terror is one of the "words to avoid" on Wikipedia, when possible. This all started when some editor wanted to add the word "terror" to the article main body in Sejny, and when he couldn't find a consensus, he tried to smuggle it via the quotation. Let's not restart this issue: the facts are not disputed, ref is valid for them, but terror interpretation does not belong in the mainspace - including not as a quote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Per [18], WP guidance on the use of "terrorism": "Naturally, if a verifiable and reliable source explicitly uses one of these terms, then that term should be used in direct quotes or "X said Y" phrases, properly cited." Does not say never use anywhere in mainspace.Novickas (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that there is no word "terrorism" in presented quotes, Words to Avoid speaks about "Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter". M.K. (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing that was said, I still fail to see any support that edits should not be supported by consensus as implied here. At this moment I see only personal wikipedian belief that presented reliable source's tone is not right, well this is classical example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Knowing pas consensus building attempt at Sejny article, there involved parties (including current wikipedian who disputes the same quotes) encourage having these same quotes in this general article and taking into consideration the fact that without the quotes information in the article will be constantly disputed (as it have unpleasing facts), I see no reason why to remove them. Said all this I believe readers should judge information themselves and should have such opportunity per WP:NONENG. M.K. (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the WP:NONENG policy, thanks. Does Piotrus dispute adding any of the details in this quote to the article? Apart from the use of the words terror and devastated? If not, we can shorten the quote to those sentences that contain those words (the original and the translated). Looking ahead - it's clear from the policies that if highly-charged words are used in a reliable source, and the WP article directly and accurately attributes those words, they can be used.

For the benefit of newcomers, so you won't need to sift thru article history, here is the (currently deleted) quote, strong language highlighted:

Lesčius, Vytautas (2004). Lietuvos kariuomenė nepriklausomybės kovose 1918-1920. Vilnius: Vilnius University, Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija, p.278. ISBN 9955423234. “Translation: Repressions affected various persons – teachers, public persons, pupils. Seiniai diocese bishop A. Karosas was implemented house arrest, later he was forced to go into exile to independent Lithuania. In 1919-09-02 Polish army units and police surrounded Seiniai priest seminary, majority Lithuanian professors and academics were imprisoned, some expelled to Lithuania. Poles devastated Lithuanian institutions, closed organizations and schools, like "Žiburys" fellowship (with 500 members), "Pavasaris" cell (215), "Blaivybė" fellowship (300), St. Zita fellowship (93), art fellowship "Lyra" (30), Lithuanian women catholic union (20), "Artojas" cooperative (120) – overall 9 fellowships, whish had 1300 members. Poles also closed Lithuanian boys and girls gymnasiums (with 223 pupils), grammar-school (with 75 pupils), all newspapers offices, press, reading-room. Property of Lithuanian children shelter was confiscated and transferred to Polish one. It was prohibited to speak Lithuanian in public places also. In 1919 September Lithuanian books of school's and hostel bookshops' were burnt. Terror wave affected all Seiny surroundings..

Original: Represijos palietė daug asmenų –mokytojus, visuomenės veikėjus, mokinius. Net ir Seinių diecezijos vysk. A.Karosui buvo paskirtas namų areštas, o vėliau jis buvo priverstas pasitraukti į nepriklausomą Lietuvą. 1919 rugsėjo 2d. lenkų kariuomenės dalys ir policija apsupo Seinių kunigų seminariją, dauguma Lietuvių profesorių bei dėstytojų buvo įkalinti, kai kurie išvaryti į Lietuvą. Lenkai niokojo lietuviškas įstaigas, uždarinėjo lietuviškas organizacijas ir mokyklas, kaip antai „Žiburio“ draugija (500 narių), „Pavasario“ kuopą (215), Blaivybės draugiją (300), šv. Zitos draugiją (93), dailės draugija „Lyrą“ (30), Lietuvių katalikių moterų sąjungą (20), „Artojo“ kooperatyvą (120) – iš viso 9 draugijas, apimančias 1300 narių. Jie taip pat uždarė lietuvių berniukų ir mergaičių gimnazijas (223 mokiniai), pradžios mokyklą (75 vaikai), visas laikraščių redakcijas, spaustuvę, skaityklą, iš lietuvių vaikų prieglaudos atėmė turtą ir perdavė lenkiškai prieglaudai, uždraudė lietuviškai kalbėti gatvėse. 1919 rugsėjo mėn. sudegino lietuvių mokyklų ir bendrabučių knygynėlių knygas. Teroro banga palietė visas Seinių apskrities vietoves.” Novickas (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Differing estimates

It is a bit amusing that Lesčius first states that"There were only 10 Lithuanian guards and 20 clerical staff in the town itself." and than "Over 100 Lithuanians were imprisoned in Sejny when their commander Bardauskas sided with the Poles". Btw, do we know anything more about Bardauskas? Did he switched sides or just surrendered? Neither Mańczuk nor Bukowski mention anything unusual about taking the town on the 23rd, although Mańczuk confirms 100 prisoners. Both have also more details on fighting in the area, mention other smaller actions and settlements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The day it begun

"The first Polish assault of about 300 PMO members on August 22 was repelled". But both Mańczuk ([19]) and Buchowski ([20]) are very clear that the uprising begun on August 23 (0300). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lescius, p 274: On August 22, Polish partisans (about 300 people armed with 2 machine guns) gathered in Šumava village (4-5 km southwest of Sejny), attacked Sejny, but were repelled. [...] After recovering from the first unsuccesful attack, so-called Polish partisans attacked again on August 23 at 4am. Renata (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We should mention that this is contradicted by Polish historians, who don't mention this event and state that the first actions occurred on the 23rd. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanations

• Mańczuk and Buchowski notes that the Polish insurgents estimated the Lithuanian forces at 1200 infantry (Mańczuk also adds an estimate of 120 cavalry), including a 400-strong garrison in Sejny.
  • Please differiante between entire Suwalki Region & Sejny. Also differentiate timeframes: on August 20, Lithuanians had not received any reinforcements from Marijampole. Lithuanian forces possibly reached 1200 only when they attacked from Lazdijai.
• They based their retreat on an erroneus report about a "large Polish cavalry unit" operating on their rear; in fact only small groups of Polish partisans operated there.
  • Who cares whether the Polish forces were infantry or calvary, operating in rear or front. Fact was Poland received reinforcements and Lithuanians retreated before it got to them. Just leave general abstraction rather than get into very unhelpful "Polish say this, Lithuanians say that".

Renata (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "when they attacked from Lazdijai" - and when was that? M and B seem to be clear that they cite the numbers "before" the uprising begun. And I see nothing wrong with a little more detail on the retreat. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

B-class review

I think this article is B-class. I'll fix the minor referencing issues and ask MILHIST for a new review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Importance of Sejny seminary

I cannot find a ref for the following claim. Feel free to restore it with a ref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Lithuanians also valued the town because of the Sejny Priest Seminary and its role in the Lithuanian National Revival.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sejny Uprising/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 13:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• will review this article. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

review

• Link checker shows three dead links, two are completely dead and one just goes to a general front page with rotating content.

• Fixed one, archive.org is down right now so I'll try to deal with the remaining two later.

• lede

• "uprising in the ethnically-mixed area surrounding Sejny" - how about this: "in the ethnically-mixed area surrouding the Polish town of Sejny"? - or was it a Polish town then? Lithuranian, I guess, reading further.
  • I did some tweaking.

• (its unbelievably hard for readers like me to understand Eastern European history because we were never taught it.)

• It's pretty hard for us here, too :)

• Entent - I'd never heard of this word before your articles - maybe rather than piping it, use the link Allies of World War I?
  • Hmmm, I think it is useful. The WWI has ended, the term Entente seems slightly better, as it implies the alliance. I'd prefer to keep it.

• Is there a map similar to this one to show the situation?

  

• Hmmm. What do you think of File:Rzeczpospolita Lithuania claims.png? Or perhaps File:PBW December 1919.png?

(will continue) MathewTownsend (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not clear that the Allied Powers were involved in some of these conferences/negotiations.

• Not clear how?

• "volunteers numbered some 900[1] or 1,200 men" - the "or" seems strange here - not clear what's happening.

• Added (sources vary).

• "The most notable incident occurred on October 12 when Polish troops planned to attack Kapčiamiestis." - they only planned or did they attack?

• I am sorry, it's a Lithuanian book ([ttp://www.lka.lt/EasyAdmin/sys/files/LIETUVOS_KARIUOMENE_1.pdf]), I cannot read it. I can only remove it if it is not clear :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've made some minor edits but you are free to change.[21]

• Will place on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

replies

• Re "the most notable incident occurred ... Polish troops planned to attack" - the thing is, was the fact that they planned to attack that notable? (maybe, but what would be the significance of just planning?) On the other hand, if the did attack what was the outcome? With more information, I don't see how it's notable.
• Re map - I'm not all that sure where Lithuania is without a map that names Lithuania, and preferably Poland also.
• But these are both rather small issues. No sweat. I can find out where Lithuania is other ways! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the confusing sentence. Is there anything else I can do? Unfortunately, I do not have the skills needed to create a new map.

• What about the dead links? (although I've heard that dead links are not a reason to hold up promotion) MathewTownsend (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sooo ... since this is an interesting, well written article, it passes!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   There are some dead links, but on the Good article talk pages, it seems that dead links are not a reason to withhold promotion from an otherwise good article.

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sejny Uprising. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mowiawieki.pl/artykul.html?id_artykul=860

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} 05:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Mistake?

"In the closing days of World War I, the Conference of Ambassadors drew the first demarcation line between Poland and Lithuania on June 18, 1919." June 18, 1919 can hardly be said to be the closing days of World War I.--Dirgela (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Demarcation lines

The map showing the borders has 5 colours: light green - first line; dark green - Foch line; orange - Suwałki Agreement; red - final line; purple - modern borders. The text below the map mentions only the two green lines - so readers have no idea what the other lines are unless they click on the map, then on 'More details'. This is unhelpful. A better way may be to include a small legend box that shows the 5 lines plus the railway line symbol. I have included three examples: in the first two the legend is in the lower RH corner (the usual position for a legend), while in the third the box is positioned in a relatively bare area in the upper part. (The box in the second illustration id squarer than in the first.)

Demarcation lines - legend

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I have also added the modern country names in the large map (what I've shown are extracts only for the purpose of illustrating the legend box).

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)