Talk:Suwałki Agreement

message: 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)
thread_title: Assessment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Misrepresenting edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title: Sentence vs chapter

message: 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..."   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . Dr. Dan (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are you serious? Dr. Dan (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Regarding today's edit  - this issue was discussed on the WP:OR (original research) noticeboard in August 2009.  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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: No objection to RFC. Martynas pinged.  Novickas (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Your insight is interesting, I will evaluate and produce comments after few days. M.K. (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Let's see ()... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: OR in description of Lossowski's and other historians' viewpoints, revisited

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Your insight is interesting, I will evaluate and produce comments after few days. M.K. (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Let's see ()... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In most cases historians tend to summarise 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Basic Details about Suwalki Gap 

message: @+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)
replies: text: 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 () 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)
thread_title:  +JMJ+ recent changes