Talk:Sejny Uprising

message: 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 () 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Piłsudski's involvement

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  - English translation in second section. Please just take it out now. Novickas 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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 . M.K. 09:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, but I found a more reliable source that we should use instead: Piotr Łossowski, Konflikt polsko-litewski 1918-1920, Książka i Wiedza, 1995, , p.51; see ; .-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lossowski , who else:)--Lokyz 11:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .wirtualnapolonia notability

message: I personally think that anti-Semitic source, which was initially added by user:Halibutt on 2007-09-27 , 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.
 
 Original . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Ref 6 is not from a forum; the site is an NGO that includes the word forum in its title; the author () 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reference issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Maps

message: See abstract by Krzysztof Buchowski. Renata 03:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Any Western sources collaborating those claims?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schools

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The attack with scythes reference

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that your version is helpful, thank you.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Not that I agreed with the word claim being wrong in this context. //Halibutt 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments re use of "claim" and "note"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Title

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

text: When a student becomes a notable historian (). Feel free to raise the issue at WP:RSN.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Katarzyna Pisarska

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (). Mańczak is a historian, director of State Archives branch in Ełk.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Which statement of his do you find controversial? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability of Tadeusz Mańczuk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Clarification request

message: 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)
thread_title: Differing estimates

message: "The first Polish assault of about 300 PMO members on August 22 was repelled". But both Mańczuk () and Buchowski () are very clear that the uprising begun on August 23 (0300). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The day it begun

message: *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)
replies: text: *"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)
thread_title: Explanations

message: 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)
thread_title: B-class review

message: 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)
thread_title:  Importance of Sejny seminary 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Mistake?