# Talk:Suwałki Agreement

I have assessed this article as Start under the milhist criteria. I have failed it under the grammar criteria: At the end of September, 1920 in parallel to ongoing hostilities between Lithuanians and Poles in the Suvalkai region, diplomatic struggle intensified as well. On the September 22th Polish Foreign Minister, Eustachy Sapieha, deliver diplomatic note to Lithuanians and threatened that Poland decided to take severe actions against Lithuania with full freedom of actions. Lithuanian representative to London, count Alfredas Tiškevičius informed the secretariat of League of Nations, that Sapieha's telegram should be regarded as declaration of war, he also asked that League of Nations to take immediate intervention in order to stop new Polish aggressive acts. is a good example. I will copyedit it if you remind me. It also needs to expand on the context under which this agreement came into being. Explain the conflict, who it was between, why it was there and the disagreements that led to the agreement but it covers it well enough for B. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the incorrect claims the treaty gave Vilnius to Lithuania. Łossowski states clearly that the treaty did not address Vilnius issue. It was under Lithuanian control when the negotiations started and remained under it when it ended, but the treaty did not legitimize this control for the Polish side, as the city was not discussed at all. The demarcation line and ceasefire were limited to Sudovia and did not extend to Vilnius. Lithunian government later claimed that this was not true and it seems that the point is repeated in several sources - but it is directly contradicted by the treaty itself; thanks to Novickas we can see the text of the treaty here. In particular, pay attention to:

Article 1: A line of demarcation, which in no way prejudices the territorial claims of the two Contracting Parties
Article 2: As regards the cessation of hostilities and the establishment of a line of demarcation between the Lithuanian and Polish troops in the region to the east of the meridian of the station of Bastuny, these questions shall be settled by a special agreement when the Soviet troops have been withdrawn from that region.
Note that Vilnius region frontline was east of Bastuny, so the demarcation line and ceasefire did not affect it.
As David Stone mentions [1],and Łossowski's explains in detail, the demarcation line, if extended from its present form (or as the Lithuanian delegation wanted it to be extended on October 3), would indeed leave Vilnius on the Lithuanian side. But the demarcation line was not extended, and the claims that Vilnius was Lithuanian are based simply on the erroneus assumption that the line would be extended and that Poland was not challenging Lithuanians possession of it. In any case, the treat as quoted above makes it clear that - in Article 1 - Poland did not recognize any Lithuanian claims (and vice versa), and in Article 2, that Vilnius was left out of it. If you disagree, please quote from the treaty the part which indicates that Poland recognized Lithuania's control over Vilnius. Simple request, I think.
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for provided personal opinion. While nobody prohibits to use Lossowski (I still hope that he did not forget Lithuanian language), but he is not universal truth. Other scholarly opinion exist and it is prevailing one. Multiply English (!) sources clearly states that Vilnius was left to Lithuanians, like Diplomacy in the Former Soviet Republics p. 123; Diplomacy in the Former Soviet Republics p.89, Redrawing Nations: Ethnic Cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948 p.137 etc. etc. even close to contemporary sources states the same The Contemporary Review  p.736; The Living Age p.490, etc, etc. and only single non English (!) source , according to you, states contrarily. Giving such support for single source is neglect towards WP:UNDUE. So removing English academic sources, like [2][3] is neglect towards WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. Even more as article written only relining on Lossowski's interpretation, it is  not to meet worldwide view. And let me remind you that goal here is not the truth, and editors are prohibited to carry out their interpretation of treaty, especially then this interpretation is very well documented in English scholarly works.  Summarizing :  for removing other - western academic view, promoting only single Polish one is not NPOV, therefore I tanging this article.M.K. (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a selection of international opinion from Google books, all of which use phrases such as  violation of the Suwalki Treaty, breach of the Treaty of Suwalki, ceded Vilnius to Lithuania, recognized Lithuania's claim to Vilnius (the German source), etc. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Novickas (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the sources - which briefly mention the treaty in one-two sentences - state that. The prelevance of such an opinion is probably worth mentioning in the article. Nonetheless Lossowski in his detailed study explains (he dedicates several pages to the treaty) why they are mistaken, and such mistake can be easily seen from a cursory reading of the 4-page long treaty - which never makes a single claim about Vilnius. And I asked you above, show us what parts of the treaty have the Poles violated if you want to make your case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There are academic works which don't repeat the error you cite above. Herbert Wright, Poland and the Crimea Conference, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1945), pp. 300-30, JSTOR: "In 1920 Vilna was occupied by Bolshevik forces and on July 12, 1920, the Treaty of Moscow was signed between Russia and Lithuania, by which Vilna and parts of Suwalki and Grodno were assigned to Lithuania. On October 7, 1920, Poland and Lithuania signed an armistice in Siwalki accepting as a provisional boundary a revised "Curzon line", which still left Vilna to Lithuania." This is a good correct formulation: Suwalki treaty did not address Vilna issue by not changing anything related to it. I will try to make it clear in the text that as of October 7 Vilnius remained under Lithuanian control.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source which clearly states "Polska zaproponowała Litwie negocjacje w Suwałkach, które zakończono 7 października 1920 ustaleniem linii demarkacyjnej...nie dochodzącej do Wilna, aby nie utrudniać porozumienia, choć Polska się tego miasta nie wyrzekła". This is an article by Polish historian and professor Marek Sobczyński[13]; Procesy integracyjne i dezintegracyjne na ziemiach litewskich w toku dziejów published in translation in English as Integration and Disintegration Processes on Lithuania's Lands During History in Role of the Borderlands in United Europe, vol. 2, Historical, Ethnic and Geopolitical Problems of Borderlands, „Region and Regionalism”, nr 7, Łódź-Opole, 2005. this is also referenced to another Polish historian, Jerzy Ochmański (1982), Historia Litwy, Ossolineum, Wrocław - see English review of his work here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, Polish historian defending Polish interests. A form of diplomacy, I suppose? Attributing.--Lokyz (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the requested citation. First, the text of this short treaty in English is linked at the bottom of the article, and anybody can easily verify that indeed it makes no claims about Vilnius - hence as noted above, claims to the contrary can be noted in the article as common, but erroneous (akin to claims of moon being made of green cheese). Łossowski elaborates on this:

p.174: "According to Polish negotiatiors... it was a minor agreement... about partial cease-fire... not addressing the issue of Vilnius."
p.175: "International law treats such [ceasefire] agreements not as international treaties but as technical, military agreement, with no political repercussions". "On the other hand, Lithuanian side claimed this agreement as a treaty of highest importance. Lithuanian diplomacy, searching for arguments in their conflict with Poland, and lacking any others, started to use this treaty as their trump card. The treaty was to prove that Polish government first recognized Lithuanian right to Wilno, than took over the city through illegal and violent means. For years Lithuanians repeated - calling this agreement a "treaty" - that it granted Wilno to Lithuania, despite obvious discrepancy between [such statement] and Article I of the treaty.
PS. Regarding Article I, from [14], and per Łossowski on p.172: "a line of demarcation, which in no way prejudices the territorial claims of the two contracting parties". Hence any claims that the treaty "ceded Vilnius" are pure propaganda, contrary to facts.
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, these are interpretation of someone's words, not the "fact" that there was not a mention. So even the double attribution would be in place. Like "Lossowski, interpreting words of Polish Foreign Ministery... evaluates" and "Lossowski thinks, that it was pure progaganda". This article is already too much based on one source, and attribution would help sort some things out.--Lokyz (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
And I do especially like the 174 page - "negotiators knew, that Zeligowski's action was prepared", and did not gave much importance to the treaty. Really diplomatic actions indeed. And page 175 - the signing of the treaty, "was a Polish mistake", signed because "Poland was pressured hard by League of Nations". So, maybe the opinion on the treaty really differed in Polish interpretation and the League of Nations interpretation (hence the internationally NOT supported Polish view).--Lokyz (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no place for WP:WEASELs you try to introduce. The simple fact is that the treaty made no reference to Vilnius and did not discuss the ownership of any territory. Łossowski explains the misconception in the general literature as post-mortem success of interwar Lithuanian propaganda. Łossowski's is an expert on the subject and he devotes many pages to the issue; his statements trump a sentence in some publication barely mentioning the treaty. Unless you can show any work discussing the treaty in such details as he does, and disagreeing with him, this is the end of story.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to propagate someone's WP:POV, and the attribution is a solely way to avoid this. Please reread WP:WEASEL and and cite the appropriate point you think os relevant in your accusations. I'm attributing the opinions according to WP:CITE - let me cite Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text. There is further policies on the same page.--Lokyz (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Attributing, does note mena one's own evaluation of provided references in thearticle's mainspace or conducting WP:SYN--Lokyz (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
And I assume its just an accident that you attribute only opinions of Polish historians (who claim, argue, assume, hypothesize), while Lithuanian historians research, if attributed, is well documented and so on? I have one word for you: bias.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Should I perceive this remark as an personal attack? Just for the record - I do consider this recent turn of "discussion" absolutely offtopic and an example of red herring usage. While I'll react this only time. I do have a question - what do you find in particularly biased in attributing Polish authors advocating Polish agenda, as Polish. Are they not Polish? If not, please correct me. Furthermore, I do fail to find any connection between this topic and Ypatingasis būrys article, and in particulary Arūnas Bubnys, whose research is evaluated and peer rewieved by The International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation regimes in Lithuania. If you'd see participants of the commission list, you'd be avare what I'm talking abaout. Just wondering - has the imaginary relation something to do with one's biases? You may not feel obliged to answer.
Returning to the topic, I'm still waiting for explanation of the accusation of weaselisation that I've supposedly done. The recent so called de-weaselisation turned out to be an actual usage of WP:WEASEL words like some  and hasty WP:SYN. Feel free to familiarise yourself with those policies.--Lokyz (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit is not a removal of information like in this case, that does also include removal of referenced material. --Lokyz (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So called mutiny is directly related with this agreement, no see the point why it is being removed, otherwise only as IDONTLIKEIT. M.K. (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem in briefly mentioning Żeligowski, RoCL and so on, as the aftermath. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Drawing such distinctions as "in a chapter dedicated to the agreement" is pure original research. I would think that the differences in historiography (now its own section) are clearly presented. I see no reason to push judgment as to which side is more correct, justified, or qualified. As Senn wrote, probably both are wrong, but let the reader decide that. Renata (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

An article which is presented neutrally always allow the reader to draw their own conclusions concerning the matter. Propaganda's purpose, on the other hand, is to sway the reader in the direction of it's author's intentions and purpose. Kudos to R3 for catching this latest attempt at OR. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not OR, it is a simple attribution and clarification of sources. Reader should not be misled that scholars who studied that issue support pre-war Lithuanian diplomacy propaganda claims. Only one scholarly work has that discusses the agreement in detail has been presented in the article and it is quite clear; trying to balance it with several texts that mention the agreement in a passing sentence is POVed weaseling. Please see discussion on ORN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This is silly. Backing up pre-war Polish diplomacy propaganda claims by one Polish scholar is somehow more important than clear consensus (even if in passing) among international scholars. Renata (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I deleted the whole bit. It was just a repetition of historiography section anyway. I would think that the current version balances equally both viewpoints. Renata (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I think that Łossowski's opinion should be restored; he is an expert on the subject and the only critique of hm I hear above is that he is Polish. I don't think that the remaining part was much helpful, as the "claims in passing" by scholars who have not researched the issue served only to weasel Łossowski's argument. Considering that the text of the treaty is uncontroversial and anybody can easily verify (as it stated by several sources, not only Łossowski) that it does not mention Wilno/Vilnius, trying to argue to the contrary only proves that we should not trust blindly what non-experts (even if they are reliable academics otherwise) write in passing about something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you do think one opinion is more valid and deserves better representation. Please see neutral point of view. Renata (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Who else has written so much on the subject? Read up on due weight. An opinion of a scholar who has dedicated a book chapter to the subject should be given more weight then an opinion of a scholar who has dedicated a sentence to it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
A couple of things, P.K. aka P.P., your remark ..."the only critique of hm (sic) I hear above is that he is Polish", is absurd and offensive. Who made such a critique? When was it made? Why do you always have to bring this element of nationality into these discussions? Your advice about reading up on due weight is a little humorous, not because you probably meant WP:Undue, but because you should take your own advice. Lastly although I don't consider Łossowski to be a propagandist per se, I think even you would agree that a paragraph of B.S. should never outweigh a sentence of fact. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone has restored a shortened version of an earlier argument that Lossowki's POV deserves extra weight due to its length. The clause at the time was "Lossowski, who devotes an entire chapter to the issue...". This clause was discussed at the OR noticeboard [15] and rejected. Yesterday's edit restored it in a shorter form, describing the opinions of those who disagree with Lossowksi - that includes EB - as "cursory".  I'm removing cursory clause. Those who disagree could bring it up at the noticeboard, or some other wider venue, again. Novickas (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My recent edit..."Two days after signing the ceasefire agreement Poland reneged on it and proceeded with further military actions that had been planned in advance..." [16]  has now been reverted twice. This information is factual, and appropriate for the lead per its guidelines. Perhaps the heretofore improperly removed information and objections to its inclusion can be elucidated upon at this discussion page. The information can be easily sourced and its my understanding that the proper procedure on WP is to request a citation if the information appears to be controversial or disputable, not to simply revert it. I'm not the greatest fan of seeing an article peppered with citations, as it begins to affect the appearance of an article in an un-encyclopedic fashion, e.g., "Paris is the capital of France and the country's most populated city" . Concerning that Poland's actions following its signing of the treaty are further explained in greater detail later in the article should not be a reason to objecting to its notability in the lead. I intend to restore it again (with a citation if need be), but will listen to other viewpoints if any are forthcoming before doing so. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was reverted for a very simple reason: the lead already mentions this, and in more detail. "Before the agreement took effect at noon on October 10, Polish general Lucjan Żeligowski, acting under secret orders from the Polish Chief of State, Józef Piłsudski, pretended to mutiny against Polish military authority..." and so on. Feel free to expand that second para, although keep in mind the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not the aftermath. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The lead does not mention that Poland reneged on, or broke the treaty within two days. That's important information. Żeligowski's actions by pretending to mutiny are too vague, and require extrapolating the more direct and simple explanation of what Poland's actions following the signing of the agreement were. In fact it may even be too much detailed information for the lead per your own understanding of such matters [17]. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Prokonsul Piotrus, ..."Before the agreement took effect at noon on October 10, Polish general Lucjan Żeligowski, acting under secret orders from the Polish Chief of State, Józef Piłsudski, pretended to mutiny against Polish military authority..." and so on... does not confirm the fact that POLAND reneged or broke the treaty within 48 hours of signing it. In fact the perfidious actions of Żeligowski were deliberately "staged" so that Poland could claim that it did not break the terms of the treaty. Hopefully 87 years later in the 21st century, further attempts to obfuscate basic relevant information from the lead should not be tolerated. As for your statement..."although keep in mind the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not the aftermath..." seems not to be advice followed or a policy practiced in a multitude of leads of articles on WP, including this one..."As a result of Żeligowski's Mutiny, the Vilnius region became part of the Second Polish Republic until 1939." Dr. Dan (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Polish side view is that they didn't break the treaty, because regular Polish forces did not go through the ceasefire line. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you serious? Dr. Dan (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(OD) Maybe the Prokonsul or someone more fluent than I could translate this for the benefit of all..."Ponieważ polskie poczynania na pograniczu z Litwą napotykały na brak zrozumienia międzynarodowego, Polska dokonała manewru taktycznego, polegającego na tym, że polecono gen. Ludwikowi Żeligowskimu zbuntować się wobec naczelnego dowództwa, " odrzucić ustalenia traktatu polsko-litewskiego z Suwałk  i samowolnie dokonać na czele jego oddziału aneksji Wileńszczyny" (Bauza 2004; Łossowski 1996, s. 179). Please translate it. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Suwałki Agreement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
I've done a decent copyedit for dropped articles and verb tenses, but it wouldn't be hurt by a further copyedit or three if the plans are for it to go to FAC. I've noted below a few spots where it is unclear and needs some clarification
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
A few spots need citations
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Specific concerns

Overall - I'm noticing a huge number of articles (a, an, the) being dropped. I've fixed the ones in "Background" but you should be aware this is a problem with your prose. Leaving them out makes the prose choppy. Also a number of verb tenses were in present tense, when it is much more normal to use past tense in historical writing in English. Again, I've fixed when I could, but just be aware.
Thank you for the copyedit. Yes, I am aware of my lack of articles. There is no such thing in my native language and I still don't get the concept. To me they are just useless time waisters :) Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Lead -
Doesn't necessarily have to be done, but a bit more information in the lead might not be bad. The lead feels a bit skimpy to me. Perhaps a sentence on the fact that the war itself sprang out of the undefined borders?
Fleshed out. Hope it's better. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Background -
".... signed in July 1920 between Lithuania and the Soviet Russia..." was it the USSR yet? the "the" before Soviet is awkward, but I'm not sure it's correct to remove it, perhaps a reword to leave off the Soviet or to put in USSR (or whatever the name was at that point..)
Soviet Union was established in 1922. Technically it was Russian SFSR -- so changed accordingly. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Pressure -
"The Lithuanian government accepted the resolution. Sapieha replied that Poland could honor the Lithuanian neutrality or the demarcation line as Lithuania was actively collaborating with the Soviets. The Poles reserved the right of full freedom of action." I'm confused by these sentences, especially the second one. I can't figure out what it's trying to say that the poles could have done and why.
it was missing "not" in "could not honor". does that fix? Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Negotiations -
"The Polish leader, Józef Piłsudski, feared that the Entente..." what's the Entente? It's not been discussed previously, and it's not linked, so it's a complete unknown to the reader.
Linked. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Need a cite for "The Lithuanians hoped to avoid new Polish attacks and, with help of the League, to settle the disputes."
Added. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Provisions -
Okay, I'm confused here. It says "...it was to have taken effect..." which implies the agreement never went into effect. If it did take effect, it should say "...it took effect on..."
Hm. Good point. It was violated de facto before it could take effect, but wonder if that stopped de jure effectiveness. Probably way too academic and split between the Polish and Lithuanian lines. Anyway, sources do not discuss, so I don't know. Removed that bit. It's repeated elsewhere. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sources do discuss it - it was a referenced claim, and one that is rather important in this context (discussion elsewhere is simply a summary of the agreement provisions). I think it is important to note that Żeligowski's "mutiny" occurred before the agreement came into effect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Aftermath -
"Even in the 21st century, the Suwałki Region remains home to the Lithuanian minority in Poland." is it the ONLY home of lituanians in Poland or is it one of several spots of lithuanians? If the latter, it should read "Even in the 21st century, the Suwałki Region remains home to a Lithuanian minority." or "Even in the 21st century, the Suwałki Region remains home to one of the concentrations of Lithuanians in Poland." or something similar. the current wording implies that it is the only spot of lithuanians in poland. Should have a citation also.
More or less the only spot (5,097 out of 5,639 Lithuanians in Poland live in Suwalki Region). Ref added. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Same deal with "In the 21st century, the Vilnius Region is the home to the Polish minority in Lithuania."
Reworded & ref added. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The last three sentences of the second paragraph of Aftermath need a citation (the "puppet republic" is an opinion on the status of the mutineer's republic and should be attributed to someone.
Ref added & puppet removed -- not a place to elaborate what the republic was or was not. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Evaluations -
"These differences of opinion continue to modern historiography." is uncited and definitely needs some sort of elaboration. Is it split on Lithuanian/Polish lines?
Yeah, I did not like it either. Deleted. And, yes it's split -- far more so in Wikipedia than anywhere else :~( Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that's all, unless you see something I missed. Thanks for the review again. Oh and look, it's still Saturday my time... :) Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ealdgyth. I'd like to second the request for more time. You can see that the LT editors have not been very active for whatever reasons. Clearly you would be completely justified in saying that as long as they remain inactive this article could be considered stable and uncontested. 
As you can imagine, this topic is difficult, it's the capital of a country. I don't see it as completely neutral. One point at issue has been how to present the historic interpretations of the treaty. As currently written it looks as tho the did-this-treaty-include-Vilnius issue is unsettled and that historians still ponder both sides of the question. My research on the other hand indicates that only P. Lossowski argues for the Polish side. At some point there were a lot of other historians' takes ref'd in this article. A partial list:  
The question of whether the treaty was meant to include Vilnius is not split between PL-LT lines; it's split, by my research, between LT-Encyclopedia Britannica-multiple other historians and Polish lines. My question to you is - how would you weight the conglomeration of EB's "The League of Nations arranged a partial armistice (Oct. 7, 1920) that put Vilnius under Lithuanian control and called for negotiations to settle all the border disputes." [18] and those of all the others I've found against Lossowki's? No, EB doesn't directly say "most historians see it this way" - you'd think tho that it's implicit. I brought this point up during the course of a discussion in August at the OR noticeboard [19], August 2009, but not surprisingly no further involvement here. It would maybe be ugly to include the umpteen book cites on the treaty-left-Vilnius-to LT side - I feel tho that Piotrus has had enough time to gather other international historians' opinions supporting Lossowski's. Novickas (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. State briefly (without reams of footnotes, etc) what the problem is, etc. If the article is bound up in the whole EE mailing list problem, I'll be bringing in help to sort the whole thing out. But I'm not sure what exactly is being disputed here. My understanding, from the article, was that whether or not the agreement included Vilnius was not really up for debate, but that the exact significance of the agreement in history WAS up for debate. Correct me if I'm wrong? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ugh... The only reference that actually compares historiography is focussed on whether it was an "international treaty" or just "military agreement of limited scope". The debate about Vilnius is more Wikipedia made up than anything else. Explicitly the agreement said absolutely nothing about Vilnius (that's what Lossowski stresses). Implicitly it was left where it was -- in Lithuanian hands (that's what Encyclopedia Britannica & all other references below say). Rather simple. Renata (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a good summary, so if you want to boldly put that in the article... No, my objection isn't related to the mailing list issue. We've been discussing/editing this article for a long time. The body of the article is in good shape, just that the lead and summation/historiography could IMO use some more discussion. The GA review is time-sensitive, so if I'm not here later, never mind. Novickas (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that some scholars who apparently didn't bother to read the treaty (or don't pay attention to details of wording) and who try to summarize the treaty on 1-2 sentences (thus likely didn't research the matter of little importance to them, and copy the error from one another) often tend to write that the treaty left Vilnius in Lithuania (which is incorrect, because as Renata pointed out, the treaty didn't address that issue - it's like saying that the treaty left New York with the United States...). Some editors however try to argue that if enough scholars make an error the error is the truth and should be presented as such in the article :( The issue is somewhat compounded by the fact that the only detailed study of the treaty cited (book chapter by Łossowski) is in Polish (and English literature on the subject consists of the mentioned 1-2 sentence summaries). So we have the treaty text (linked but obviously ORish) and a detailed study in Polish versus a series of erroneous summary descriptions in English. Bottom line is that the treaty was about Suwałki Region, not Vilnius Region. It said nothing about Vilnius, and speculations about implicitility are not encyclopedic (to say the least). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Folks, the edit warring on the lead information is not helping with the GAN status here. If the issue doesn't resolve itself soon, I'm going to have to conclude the article isn't stable and fail it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the slow moving edit warring that was taking place the last few days, I'm going to keep this article on hold in order to see how it shakes out. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the new lead written by Renata, discarding all sentences previously subject to disruption, is helpful and hopefully will prove to be stable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


### How to describe the overall issue of what the agreement meant in terms of Vilnius
IMO we haven't directly addressed the problem of how to present the point that a lot of of historians, along with EB, by my research hence the reflist below, see the agreement as leaving Vilnius on the LT side. Sorry, I don't think WP articles can reflect Piotrus' assertion that they were all repeating errors. 
Policy is a little contradictory. Some guidance in WP:Weasel: When contrasting a minority opinion with a more widely held one—for example, "Although Brahms's work is part of the classical music canon, Benjamin Britten has questioned its value". Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact; it's not necessary to source the majority opinion when describing the minority one.") On the other hand WP:Reliable sources goes "For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue." So maybe we should kick this up to some noticeboard. Or noticebard. Novickas (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

At the talk page, Dr. Dan has posted some sentences from a page published by a geographer/ historian at the University of Lodz, Marek SOBCZYŃSKI. [20], along with a request for translation. "Ponieważ polskie poczynania na pograniczu z Litwą napotykały na brak zrozumienia międzynarodowego, Polska dokonała manewru taktycznego, polegającego na tym, że polecono gen. Ludwikowi Żeligowskimu zbuntować się wobec naczelnego dowództwa, odrzucić ustalenia traktatu polsko-litewskiego z Suwałk i samowolnie dokonać na czele jego oddziału aneksji Wileńszczyny" (Bauza 2004; Łossowski 1996, s. 179)." If what I see from Google translate is correct, M.S. shares the general view of Vilnius's status wrt  the agreement. That makes Lossowksi's viewpoint even more marginal. Novickas (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The agreement did not mention Vilnius. Why such a simple sentence is so difficult to understand? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are the simple sentences concerning the matter of Vilnius below, in the provided reference section, so difficult to understand? Poland agreed to meet in Suwałki in order to establish a modus vivendi, yet in reality were perfidiously pretending to negotiate, while in the process of implementing a false flag operation. Perhaps it would be simpler to state that Poland approached the agreement with treacherous intentions concerning Vilnius? Or didn't it?  Dr. Dan (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Poland is not a side here. The diplomatic team was negotiating in good faith, duped by Piłsudski, who was using it as a cover for how own plans (and who was unhappy that the team gave in so much in Suwałki anyway). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the Polish diplomats (mostly military men), who were in contact with and consulted with Piłsudski during these negotiations were clueless about the impending false flag operation? That's interesting. And they conceded more than Piłsudski wished, or as you put it, "gave in so much"? How did they give in so much? What did they give in so much? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


### Reference section
### Stability
Still having edit warring issues, especially over names and basic information. I suggest that the editors get together and figure out all these issues and get them settled before bringing the article back to GAN. I'm failing the nomination because the article is not stable at this time. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding today's edit [21] - this issue was discussed on the WP:OR (original research) noticeboard in August 2009. [22] My interpretation of the discussion there was that it was resolved in favor of not giving extra weight to Lossowksi on the grounds that he discussed it in more detail than e.g. Britannica does. Piotrus, you see it differently? If so, please re-post at that noticeboard and pls post thread link here. Novickas (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This was a wrong noticeboard to start with; it is not about OR, it is about NPOV. I have asked for comments at the NPOV noticeboard.. PS. How about a compromise: I've restored my wording but tagged the section with {{undue}}. We will see which version the editors at NPOVN support, and either restore your version or remove the tag based on their consensus. How does that sound? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine, except I worry that we'll disagree about consensus. But for now it's progress. Novickas (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Since the discussions at two noticeboards, Wikipedia:Original research [23] and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view [24], have not seen opposition from parties other than Piotrus to this phrasing - "While many historians have interpreted the treaty as having assigned Vilnius to Lithuania, and Poland's subsequent annexation of the city as a violation thereof,[20][21][22][23][24] historian Piotr Lossowski disputes this interpretation.[9]" - I'm restoring the sentence. 
Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - "It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view." EB states "The League of Nations arranged a partial armistice (Oct. 7, 1920) that put Vilnius under Lithuanian control and called for negotiations to settle all the border disputes." [25] I believe EB qualifies as a prominent representative. 
The sentence conforms to - and with its refs goes beyond - Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words - "When contrasting a minority opinion with a more widely held one—for example, "Although Brahms's work is part of the classical music canon, Benjamin Britten has questioned its value." Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact. It's not necessary to source the majority opinion when describing the minority one." 
User:Martynas Patasius expressed, at the NPOV noticeboard entry, an interest in rephrasing the sentence in a more nuanced way. I'll ping him. While I think an additional, more nuanced sentence to this effect would be valuable, I still see the ref'd and quoted opinions of reputable historians - British, American, Polish are currently cited - as important supplements to the more nuanced version. Novickas (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While I am still not convinced, I do not intend to revert your mainspace changes; particularly as the tag still remains. As the latest noticeboard attracted only one comment (and yes, please ping Martynas), would you have any objections to trying one more time to attract a substantive number of neutral editors comments, this time via an article RfC? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No objection to RFC. Martynas pinged. [26] Novickas (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I am starting an RfC below. Feel free to add your comments, IF you think mine are non-neutral or do not explain the situation fully or clearly enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


### RfC
The question regards application of WP:NPOV (UNDUE), and possibly WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. There are multiple sources discussing the context of the Suwałki Agreement briefly - in a sentence, few sentences, or a paragraph. They state X. There is one source that discusses it in a dedicated book chapter, that states Y. Which of the following is a better form of presenting information:

many authors state X, author Z states Y
many authors in their cursory summaries of the agreement state X, author Z in a book chapter dedicated to the subject states Y
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a question of how better to add information, but rather why original research should be tolerated at main space, as information  from reliable sources described as "cursory summaries" is share editorial invention, as no academic sources describe those sources in such fashion. Moreover such "formulation" express user's POV, rather then sourced info. Both OR and not sourced information is not desirable at WP pages, and should be removed. M.K. (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
OK... I guess it would be best to choose neither version (although the version without "cursory summaries" and "book chapter" might be better of those two) and to write a longer text. The sentence in question could be given like "Most historians, for example, [a list with references] tend to summarise the issue by saying that the treaty  assigned Vilnius to Lithuania and Poland violated it. However, Piotr Lossowski argues that such summaries are inadequate and misleading." (of course, it's hard for me to say what Lossowski is actually arguing, as I haven't read his book)... But there has to be some text preceding this sentence... What could that be..?
Maybe we could try structuring the section approximately like this:

The disputed questions:
The importance of the agreement:
"Lithuanian" view: treaty.
"Polish" view: minor temporary military agreement, superseded by a later agreement.
View by Alfred Erich Senn ([27]): not a real treaty, as it was not to be ratified, not a minor military agreement, as it was negotiated in presence of civilian politicians.
The relationship with Vilnius/Wilno:
"Lithuanian" view: the treaty left Vilnius/Wilno to Lithuania.
"Polish" view: the agreement did not concern Vilnius/Wilno.
View by Alfred Erich Senn ([28]): no explicit mention in the text, the city was implicitly left to Lithuania.
Did Poland violate the agreement?
"Lithuanian" view: Poland violated the agreement by attacking and taking Vilnius.
"Polish" view: Poland did not violate the agreement as the Polish troops attacked to the east of the demarcation line.
League of Nations view: Poland violated the agreement and the resolution of the League of Nations Council by starting the hostilities.
View by Alfred Erich Senn ([29]): the view that the agreement hasn't been violated doesn't seem reasonable. Pilsudski himself did not seem to share that view, as evidenced by trying to pretend that the attacking forces were "rebels".
In such case the sentence in question would probably go to the end of the section...
Would something like that work? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your insight is interesting, I will evaluate and produce comments after few days. M.K. (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, please try to implement your suggestions into main space. Will see how it looks then. M.K. (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's see ([30])... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Britannica isn't exactly "historians" and Marek Sobczyński is misquoted (I use the Polish language version of his paper).Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to correct it, or remove it completely. While I sort-of wrote that paragraph ("In most cases historians tend to summarise the issue by saying that the agreement assigned Vilnius to Lithuania and Polish attack violated it. However, Piotr Łossowski argued that such summaries are inadequate and misleading." - well, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it has been written before and I tried to adapt it to the new plan of the section), I don't think it is as important, as the rest of the text. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has been stable for over a year, I think it is time to revisit the GAN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Suwałki Agreement/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

review
There are three dead links (marked by link checker tool).
(will continue when those are fixed or removed)
MathewTownsend (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed all yesterday. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
reply
ok, everything seems to be in order. I performed a few copy edits that you're free to revert.[31]
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
PASS!

Congratulations!  MathewTownsend (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see my recent post about this article titled "Suwalki Gap article(s) in relation to surrounding countries" located under:  "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography".  
Perhaps I should have posted those comments here, instead.  
Thanks,
Paul Pdalton (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@+JMJ+ can you justify your recent changes to the article? I'm not talking about changing ref to sfn, but about removing sourced information or adding biased information without proper sourcing:
1. change:

From: Shortly after the agreement was signed, but before it came into force, the Poles carried out a military operation to secure the Vilnius region on the Polish side of the demarcation line
To: Shortly after the agreement was signed, the clauses calling for territorial negotiation and an end to military actions were unilaterally broken by Poland
Why did you remove relevant information about the agreement not being in force when the Mutiny started? Also what are those clauses you mention?
2. change:

From: The most contentious issue was Vilnius (Wilno), historical capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in which Poles constituted 54% of the population and Jews 41% according to the German census
To: The most contentious issue was Vilnius, the historical capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with a population, according to the 1916 German census, divided about evenly between Jews and Poles
Why did you removed detailed information about the exact percentage of Jews and Poles, instead replacing it with more ambigous, but fundamentally misleading information that the number of Jews and Poles in the city was basically the same? You did so even though the source you use (Brensztejn) gives detailed numbers.
3. change:

From: Although Vilnius or its region were not mentioned by name in the Suwałki Agreement, Lithuanian historians tend to summarise the issue by saying that the agreement assigned Vilnius to Lithuania and Polish attack violated it. However, Piotr Łossowski argued that such summaries are inadequate and misleading.
To: In most cases, historians summarise the issue by saying that the agreement assigned Vilnius to Lithuania and the Polish attack violated it. However, Piotr Łossowski argued that such summaries are inadequate and misleading.
Why did you remove here information that agreements didn't mention Vilnius? Also why did you replaced "Lithuanian historians" with general "historians". Do you have any sources that would say so? Sobczyński 2006 certainly doesn't agree with this interpretation. Why do you cite Ambramowicz books about Jews in Eastern Europe as source here? Or Abdela books about post-Soviet states economies? Or Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe by Price? These aren't proper sources for this topic. Even Brittanica article about Vilnius dispute by Ray, doesn't say that "agreement assigned Vilnius to Lithuania", but only that it "put Vilnius under Lithuanian control". That's a big difference.
Marcelus (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

My justification is that I reverted to the stable version of the article before Utryss' edits in March and April 2024 as most statements added by that user were without sources. Overall, the article has been roughly stable since at least 2012 ([32]) and Utryss introduced major changes to an article that was stable for more than a decade by now without explanation or providing any sources. That was the reason I reverted his changes. Hopefully, better sources can be found and don't put the blame on me that they're here - I was just reformatting them into a more accessible format. I didn't add any new major statements, the way I would describe my changes is that I just brought the article back to its established state and made the references more editable and take up less space in terms of bytes.--+JMJ+ (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)