Talk:Sejny

message: Hi. :) I am reviewing the article's history and the conversation above and will replace this note with something more potentially useful when I have finished. --Moonriddengirl 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Moonriddengirl, thank you for your involvement. M.K. 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The internet swallowed my first response. :) I will reconstruct it. You are quite right that WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English specifies that "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation". I wonder, though, if you're interpreting that too strictly. Is there reason to believe that "citation" there means anything different than it does at Wp:citation#Full_citations, where "Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional. For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers. Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online." Unless there is an expansion on that guideline somewhere stating that you need to transcribe the original and provide your translation in article, I would presume that all it's really asking for is that you scrupulously document your source. Please let me know if you think I've missed something or if I am misinterpreting the nature of your conversation above. --Moonriddengirl 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks for response. I feel I need to clarify some points. I quoted  non English researcher's facts in article, so as I understand per policy using non-English source as a quote I should present  clear citation of the foreign-language original, as I understand it, the same quote which I translated in EN and placed in WP, only in original format, because other people which have some doubts not only could find the book itself but also and the particular quote. M.K. 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that you're attempting to scrupulously abide by policy, and I understand that you want to be sure that the original is available for verification. :) It's possible that I am misinterpreting the policy myself, but I read "clear citation of the foreign-language original" as simply asking for a full citation, as at Wp:citation#Full_citations. If it said "clear quotation of the foreign-language original" then you would certainly need to annotate it. It's not so very different in my opinion that using as a source a print book in the English language. You give as much information as you possibly can to allow other editors to find and verify your information, but you do not need to type out the relevant sections of the text. --Moonriddengirl 18:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may be right regarding this conjunction, however there is possibility that we are misinterpreting the policy itself. Maybe the main policy, WP:RSUE, should be made more clearer in order to avoid further confusions? What do you thing is it  worth to do so? M.K. 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked the editors who monitor WP:V at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Question_regarding_foreign-language_sources. If anybody would know what's intended, they would. :) Perhaps the language of the policy should be clarified. If they don't come over on their own, I'll report back on any follow-up. --Moonriddengirl 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for the reply. Sometimes translations and quotations are useful for clarification, but I do agree their place is on talk - not in the article. This holds particularly true for controversial statements, some of which may fail WP:NPOV/UNDUE/WEASEL and similar policies. What our policies certainly don't support is trying to circumvent those policies by including statements which would not be acceptable in article as "quotes" or "translations".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there's another dimension to this debate beyond the use of foreign language sources and the meaning of the policy above, I've probably missed it. :) If I've failed to address something fully, please feel free to explain. --Moonriddengirl 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I believe the quote introduces details which are 1) controversial, possibly fringe (not supported by any other source, despite us having insignificantly expanded Sejny uprising 2) of undue weight to this article, which should simply not go into such tiny details of the uprising 3) non-neutral as it is pushing certain POV "bad Poles". It's opposite would be, for example, an addition of a fact Lithuanians shot Polish wounded fighters during the fighting in the town - which I am not planning to add here, either as a quote or to main body, because it would be fringe, undue and POVed. Hence I believe that addition of the quote about Polish atrocities to this article violates WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV - it states facts that would never make it into the main article because of those policies.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems like if the original language expanded quote and translation are not included, this will not be an issue. Is that correct? --Moonriddengirl 19:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More or less. I certainly have no problem with including the information (which can be confirmed by several sources from both sides) that there were repressions against the Lithuanian population in Sejny in the aftermath of the uprising. Going into excessive details of a historical event, not supported by majority of sources, is another issue.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do not agree with you on excessive citation. The facts, you have recently removed, speak for themselves and explain why Lithuanians found this region important, and what Polish government actions changed the ethnic situation. Ban on Lithuanian language is quite harsh Polonization policy, don't you think? Lesčius supports it with a reference.--Lokyz 10:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean it is relevant to this article. Or do you think we should add information about Lithuanian shooting down wounded Polish fighters here, too? PS. Or a better example: should we add detailed information / quotations on Ponary massacre to Panerai, quotations on how Vilnians (Polish, Jewish) suffered from various armies after WWI; a lenghty quotation from Kaunas pogrom to Kaunas...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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 10:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many reliable sources which we are not adding here. Plus, a single foreign language book is problematic with regards to WP:REDFLAG.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong. See comments above. M.K. 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lesčius as [[WP:RS]]

message: There is initiative group, which insists to add WP:WEASEL language  instead  of facts. And facts are: ban of all Lithuanian press, closing all Lithuanian schools with ~300 pupils, closing 9 organizations with 1300 members, and not some. All this information are referenced with academic publications. Besides why there are so many attempts to remove fact that Poles burned Lithuanian books as well? M.K. 08:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per n-th time, this is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE detail. We don't list details of what this town has suffered under Soviet or Nazi's occupation, we don't describe minute details of Swedish looting and burning in 17th century or the ravages of the 18th century fire. And for the same reason, we don't add details or extensive quotations from publications on Ponary massacre to Panerai or on Kanuas pogrom to Kaunas. The right place to describe the repressions is in Sejny Uprising, where your quotation/translation are not challenged. Stop pushing them to off-topic articles (it doesn't belong in Polish-Lithuanian relations or repression articles, neither).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's your POV - see above  for response from WP:Village Pump. Ah, and btw, WP:WEASEL is an official guideline of Wikipedia.--Lokyz 19:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I look above and I certainly don't see any consensus for keeping this monstrosity of a POVed quote in the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't we add similar chapters on expelled and/or persecuted Poles to history of each and every town in modern Lithuania? Would that be equally ok to you M.K.? I bet we could find sources for that, in every God forgotten village in Lithuania there must've been some Polish noble or someone of that kind... //Halibutt 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to think that this conversation has moved well beyond the scope of a simple interpretation of WP:RSUE#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English, as it seems at this point to be far more a matter of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I wonder if an WP:RFC would actually serve you both. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what's your opinion? Should this quote be left in the article, or is it too detailed/undue/fringe/non-neutral? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By a simple reading of WP:RSUE, I don't believe the whole quote is necessary. I think the citation of sources is sufficient to sustain the statement stating "After Poles acquired the town and its surroundings the Lithuanian population of the region was subject to various repressions, including Lithuanian language ban in public, confiscations, Lithuanian organizations (with 1300 members), schools (with approx. 300 pupils) and press closure, confiscation of property and burning of Lithuanian books". Pending location of other sources, I would also support a statement stating "According to Lithuanian historians, after Poles acquired the town and its surroundings the Lithuanian population of the region was subject to various repressions, including Lithuanian language ban in public, confiscations, Lithuanian organizations (with 1300 members), schools (with approx. 300 pupils) and press closure, confiscation of property and burning of Lithuanian books". Neither of these sentences seems to me undue weight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this shortened version is certainly better than the large one, I still have reservations about whether we need any details of the repressions. And if we mention them, I think we don't need numbers - and the 'book burning' is quite dubious. Usually when you read over 'history of a town' article, you will find notices that it was damaged/population suffered but only in subarticles you go into the details. Consider the level of detail in Dresden#Dresden_in_modern_Europe vs bombing of Dresden; Paneriai vs Ponary massacre, London#Rise_of_modern_London, Canterbury#Post_1900, etc. - and note that the scope of those events is much, much larger that in this case. Perhaps an even better example is history of most European towns - they suffered heavily during WWII, but how many go into those details in their main articles? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I think I might not have pointed one important thing out: the discussed quote mentions events that are relevant as the aftermath of the Sejny Uprising, but not necessarily happened in the town of Sejny. For example, when talking about affected organizations and schools, note that both of them had a range (membership) outside Sejny. So for example the organization(s) with 1300 members that was closed afterwards was based in but also outside Sejny and the 1300 number certainly includes people from outside Sejny, likely from the entire Suwałki region. Hence, we should be careful to make sure that information irrelevant to the town (but relevant to the Sejny Uprising and mentioned there) is not unduly pushed here - it is little more relevant that information on the casualties of November Uprising in the article on November. Sejny Uprising, despite being named for the town, had the effects beyond it, and so did the repressions that took place later (note, for example, that we don't mention the casualties of both sides that occured during those hostilities; are they any less relevant than the number of members of an organization closed afterwards?). Lastly, consider this: Łossowski, for exmaple, mentions that in the aftermath of the uprising, both sides arrested many innocent civilians and persecuted them. This is not relevant here, although most certainly some inhabitants of Sejny were affected by it. Did the book burning occur in Sejny? Or somewhere else in the aftermath of the uprising? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop WP:OR such as  certainly includes people from outside Sejny, if you have an academic source which states that during Polish repressions closed Lithuanian organizations included  1300 members and from other areas cite it and please find alternative source to concur such statements. Currently opponents presented not single one source. And yes authors notes that these developments occurred in town including books burning. M.K. 08:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Moonriddengirl, could you explain why exact number of baned and devastated Lithuanian organizations its members should not be mentioned in article. Readers should receive precise info, don't you think so? M.K. 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost missed this new question, buried up here. :) Readers can find precise info, I believe, if they follow the link to the daughter article at Sejny Uprising, where quite rightly specifics are detailed. As Wikipedia:Summary style indicates, "The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects". The exact number of organizations involved isn't necessary in my opinion in general summary that repression is documented. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I find it quite acceptable, with the exception of book burning - this seems to be supported by only one ref, and is a rather minor and undue claim.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:WEASEL]] language instead of facts

message: Piotrus has reverted using this rationale: (Francis is not Village Pump :)) my restoring of this edit  can anyone with neutral point of view comment on this?--Lokyz 10:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been for some time been having a neutral discussion and evidently reached consensus for that language in the section immediately above this one. Consensus can change, but I think Piotrus is within policy to restore what we had agreed upon until further conversation may refine consensus to remove or alter that information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Lokyz, please stop posting threads with names of other users. It is a bad habit (). This is a violation of WP:NPA. Discuss edits, not editors.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of NPA does it violate? Care to cite?--Lokyz 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sorry Francis, it appears that some of other editors behavior rubbed off on me. You are certainly right that some editors here are not editing 'cooperatively'. And thank you remind me of 'no responce' option, together with WP:DFTT it is too often forgotten. I will not use your name in edit summaries if you find such edit summaries unsettling. I wish certain editors would stop using my or Halibutt's name in edit summaries, threads, or link our images from irrelevant discussions - so I can certainly sympathize with your request. Apologies, again. Take care, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Piotrus actions

message: I reverted Lokyz's last edit in which s/he asked to reference to an already well referenced sentence and at the same time add an unreferenced piece of information. — Kpalion(talk) 15:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, removing refenced information? Ok you've asked for it - the phrase "Piotr Łossowski asserted that both sides have exaggerated repressions they suffered to elicit internal and external support" is quite similiar to the soviet historigraphy cliche - "situation of proletariat at the time was bad" at any given time. I mean, sure as the war is going on there is no duobt that both sides treat each other bad, but could you provide any referenced text about Lithunaians prohibiting Polonia to thrive in these lands, or robbing homeless children shelter?  Such servitute phrases, used to remove strongness of previous fact are an obvious WP:WEASEL manifestation. And facts about burning Lithuanian books and closing homeless shelter is much more than notable - it does exactly explain demographic situation in the region now. People tend to get scared by state terrorism you know...--Lokyz 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, cite your sources about the shelter/books. Second, as noted by many, many editors in this thread over the past few weeks, those allegations are simply of undue weight here. The article on Warsaw doesn't mention the Wola massacre; the article on Vilnius doesn't mention the Ponary massacre, and the article on Sejny should not mention colorful if rather irrelevant and unencyclopedic details of the Sejny uprising aftermath. PS. Also, as Halibutt pointed out, this article should not be turned into a list of grudges.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation from 2 books are present. And sure, the Ponary massacre has nothing to do with Lithuanian-Polish relations in the 1919 year, since it was initiated by  Nazi authority. Piotrus, can you grasp the context, or are you trying to blindly whitewash any actions of any Pole? Sejny atrocities, that were made by "Polish uprisings" "heroes" is an examplary situation of Polonization and state supported terror on the civil population.--Lokyz 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This not the article about Polish-Lithuanian relations. This is an article about a town. Please explain to me why minuscule details of repressions (burning of books, robbing a child shelter) that occurred in this town are notable enough to be mentioned here, but a genocide of 100,000 people in Vilna's district of Ponary/Panerai does not need to be mentioned in the Vilnius history section?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it the fact you do not like, is it that it was done by Poles you do not like, or is it reference that you do not like. Just wondering, since the books were burned and the homeless shelter was robbed. Just for a single reason - thjat Lithuanian speaking children were there. Tell me, what's wrong with glorious Polish "Uprisers" to rob innocent childrens?--Lokyz 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the inclusion in this article that I don't like. That level of detail belongs in the article specifically about the uprising and its aftermath. In this article, it feels like undue weight. As regards to your question about the morality of the behavior, that's immaterial to a Wikipedia article. We're striving for neutrality here. Personally, I have no emotional investment in the history of Sejny. I can agree with you that abusing little children is wrong, by whoever abuses them, but still not think it fits here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Adding: I have been wondering for a bit if restructuring that section might help reach permanent consensus, so we can all move on. :) If the whole of recent history were not squashed into one section, we could more easily give a stronger pointer to the main article so that it would not be lost as just one of many wikilinks. Is that an approach that might help, or a bad idea all around? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to ask you again. Please define NPOV policy - fact referenced by two publications that does not suit someone's gusts is deemed to be deleted? It is well referenced by peeer reviewed sources. Or WP:NPOV has reched the level of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do know that it seems to be emotional loaded. Just - what if it did happen exactly that way? What has the WP:NPOV to say in this case?--Lokyz 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the specific section of WP:NPOV, that policy says, "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". I agree with you that a mention in the parent article that repressions are documented to have occurred is appropriate, but as you go into greater detail, this is tipping the balance of weight, which is problematic with regards to NPOV. (The language is also non-neutral—"even from" is innately exclamatory.) There is already an article on the Sejny Uprising. As Wikipedia:Summary style states, "To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the main article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary article". Later, it specifies that "The top or survey article should have general summary information." This material doesn't need to be in both articles. If it is to be included (preferably with neutral text), it makes more sense to put it in the specific "daughter" article. It isn't "general" detail, but highly specific detail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems we're dealing with feel the right thing case, a bit subjective IMO, but acceptable. Thanks for explanation.--Lokyz 08:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all a bit subjective. If it weren't, there'd be no need for consensus. The interpretation of policy would be obvious and not open to debate. :) As I mentioned above, I have been wondering if a restructure of the section would settle this ongoing debate. Specifically, I have been thinking about the subdivision of Sejny#20th_century with the insertion at the appropriate point of  or . So, again, is that an approach that might help, or a bad idea all around?  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sejny Uprising is linked in the article, and it has a subarticle. I don't see the need to further expand on in the text; sure - it was a big event - but not more so than Warsaw Uprising for Warsaw, or Ponary massacre for Vilnius.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. WP:UNDUE which is a part of NPOV policy deals exactly with that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue details

message: Which ones?Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to some sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sejny. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927015825/http://www.lkma.lt/annuals/23annual_en.html to http://www.lkma.lt/annuals/23annual_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014114914/http://miasto.sejny.pl/ to http://www.miasto.sejny.pl/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313081358/http://www.sejny.home.pl/sejny/sejny_en/se_en.htm to http://www.sejny.home.pl/sejny/sejny_en/se_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041103202547/http://www.pilot.pl/index.php3?Z_CITY_NAME=sejny&form_t=1&lang=pl to http://www.pilot.pl/index.php3?Z_CITY_NAME=sejny&form_t=1&lang=pl
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified