Talk:Polish minority in Lithuania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact from Polish minority in Lithuania appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 25, 2007.

	Polish minority in Lithuania is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Comments	Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Poland Portal

Polish minority in Lithuania is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Russian minority

It would seem logical to make some mention of the Russian minority, which is almost as large as the Polish.

Why are all the external links to Polish sites, and none to Lithuanian sites? Sca 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Russian minority in Lithuania is an important article waiting to be written, I'll add a note of that to the article. You will note that numbers in that article come from official Lithuanian statistical site; as for the lack of lt-language sites - well, I don't speak Lithuanian and Lithuanian editors have not contributed to that article yet.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

10-4 and Djiękuję/aciu! Sca 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] far-right and nationalist

Please provide translation of the relevant parts of the reference that makes such claims as well as discuss the reliablility of the source that published it. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ambasadoriaus J. Widackio nuomone, abu lenkų mažumos veikėjai savo veiklą pradėjo sovietmečiu, abu prieš dešimtmetį pergyveno metamorfozę, pereidami į kraštutines dešiniųjų ir tautinių pažiūrų pozicijas, ir į abu juos lietuviai žiūri kaip į lenkų nacionalistus, priešiškus Lietuvos valstybei, apsunkinančius dalykišką diskusiją ir lenkų mažumos problemų sprendimą.

Translation: According to ambasador J. Widacky (spelling?), activists of both [organizations of] Polish minority started their activities during the Soviet period, undergoing a metamorphosis, shifting to far-right and nationalistic positions, and both of them are viewed by Lithuanians as anti-Lithuania, complicating productive discussions and solution of problems faced by Polish minority in Lithuania.

Author: Baltic News Service, one of the major news agencies in Lithuania. Renata 19:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds much more neutral. Now, what are the 'two organizations' that he refers to? pl:Jan Widacki, btw.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voluntary sovietisation

I'm confused by this statement: "25 percent of the children born to monoethnic Polish families attended Polish schools. Fifty percent of them chose Russian schools, and only 10 per cent Lithuanian schools". 25%+50%+10%=85%, what happened to the rest ? Did 15% of Polish children in Vilnius not attend school at all ? --Lysy^talk 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There were mixed schools, maybe attended those?--Lokyz 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we know what made these Poles send their children to Russian schools ? Historically Poles tended to strongly oppose any Russification. What happened in Lithuania ? --Lysy^talk 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact almost half of lithuanian poles were concentrated in Vilnius (~25% of city population), where (as of 1980) only 4-5% chose Polish education language at schools. So in Vilnius ~ 20% of poles chose Polish at school. Why? In fact they were mostly using Russian at work and very often at home (like other slavonic non-russian minorities: Ukranians, Belorussians). Rural part of Polish community chose Polish ~60-70%. But even in towns with Polish domination share of Polish education language at schools was less then poles percentage. One of the important reasons to choose Russian was absence of Polish language college and university education in former USSR. Poles had no possibility get college/university education in Poland. First Polish Bialystok university small branch was opened in Vilnius in 2007 only.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The same regional leaders later voiced support for Soviet coup attempt of 1991 in Moscow.

I'd like to remove the sentence "The same regional leaders later voiced support for Soviet coup attempt of 1991 in Moscow." Coup in Moscow is not relevant to the article about Polish minority in Lithuania. The only purpose of this sentence is to present the political views of then leaders of Polish party (was it a party?) in negative light. I may not sympathise with their views, but this is not the place to discuss political views on international events of Polish or Lithuanian politicians. It would be relevant if the sentence was about the view on the situation of Polish minority in Lithuania, not about the coup in Moscow. --Lysy^talk 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Their views explain a lot about history of tension between Polish political parties and Lithuanian society.--Lokyz 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it would be interesting to explain why they chose to support the Soviets. Polish minority in Latvia did not. What happened in Lithuania to make Poles support Soviets then ? --Lysy^talk 08:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any research ion the topic on hand, although it seems thet majority of Poles in Lithuania were throughly Sovietised and scared by communist leaders (most of them turned to be nowadays Polish minority leaders). This could explain rather high Polish attendance of Russian schools and in the pro-Soviet Yedinstvo organization, that was quite active in 1991 coup.--Lokyz 08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there were Polish minorities in different parts of Soviet Union, and they never supported Soviets, only in Lithuania. It might be that the Soviets treated Poles differently in Lithuania and e.g. Latvia ? --Lysy^talk 09:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration of dead links by Lysy

Lysy, why did you restore obviuosly dead lnks?--Lokyz 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I restored a journal reference, did not notice it had a link in it. I will restore it without the link then. --Lysy^talk 08:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. No dead link anymore there. --Lysy^talk 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a chance that those links will be restored by the MSZ, which is why I don't think we need to remove them. At the very least, please add removed link to talk so we can occasionally click on them and check if they have been unprotected.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that link rot does not mean we should remove the reference. First, the link may unrot, second, the links to MSZ bulleting were to online version of their print bulletin, so even if online source rots, an interested reader can go to original articles in either the bulletin or original journals (which were at least partially quoted in the reference description).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Could Be Polonized Lithuanians

I think that it's important to include some reference to the fact that some of the Poles in Lithuania are actually Polonized Lithuanians. Many of these Polish speaking Lithuanians do acknowledge that they in fact come from Lithuanian ancestry but speak Polish. There is reference to this in the Wikipedia Article "Ethnic History of the Region of Vilnius". This is the case with my grandparents who were both from Vilnius, spoke only Polish but in actuality my grandfather was Belarussian and my grandmother was Lithuanian. Sometime around the mid 1800's their families began speaking Polish over Lithuanian or Belarussian. I know many "Polish" families from Lithuania with the same history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ma46323 (talk • contribs).

This is already described in the 'History' section, which mentions the cultural assimilation processes of Polonization and Lithuanization.--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 10:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did see the 'History' section regarding Polonization and Lithuanians, however, this section only mentions "interwar Lithuania" and the "official description". There is really no clear connection to the ethnic consciousness of the Poles in Lithuania today. I think there should be something included under the section "Current Situation" which tells about the significant and growing minority of Polish speakers in the Vilnius region today who consider themselves to be ethnic Lithuanians who merely speak Polish. Not doing so, implies that all Polish speakers in Vilnius are ethnic Poles.

Although, there is a small note about Lithuanian and Belarussian language influence on the dialect of Polish spoken in the region, this is more of a linguistic statement rather than a question of ethnic background. The article, as written, conveys the understanding that ALL Polish speakers in Lithuania are ethnic Poles and although I am sure the majority of Polish speaker in Vilnius do consider themselves to be Poles, there are very many who consider themselves to be Lithuanians who lost their language and culture and I think there should be at least some mention of this fact.

For example, in my family we spoke Polish, went to Polish church and even had Polish friends. But it was a language issue. We never had a Polish flag in our house, we never attended Polish cultural events or the Polish parade. We considered ourselves to be Lithuanians. And this is the case with a lot of Polish speakers from Lithuania. I think that at least one or two sentences should be dedicated to the fact that there are families in Vilnius today who speak Polish only but consider themselves to be ethnic Lithuanians. Just as Mexicans speak Spanish but do not consider themselves to be Spaniards.

I am not sure how to quite phrase it but there should be a sentence under "Current Situation" like "although most Polish speakers in Lithuania today consider themselves as ethnic Poles, there are also many who acknowledge their Lithuanian background" or something to that effect. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ma46323 (talk • contribs).

Could you provide some refs for that? You are certainly right that speaking a given language does not make one a full member of a given minority. I am sure we can incorporate this into the article, although you should be aware this is a touchy issue, as some (see Vilnija) are trying to score some political agenda points with related arguments.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A minority isn't only a political issue, but a cultural one too. Many Polish Tatars are Polish nationalists distinguished with Virtuti Military, but still Tatars. If the article concentrates on political matters, it should be corrected, eg. by insiders.Xx236 10:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

This article doesn't inform about religious life.Xx236 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The same phrase

Reference 5 is in ref. 7.Xx236 12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuanian stereotypes

http://www.forumvilnius.lt/print.php?news.36 Xx236 07:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Polish CBOS often runs studies on Polish attitude towards other nations (here is the 2006 study). I wonder if there are equivalent Lithuanian surveys?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. For those interested, Polish attitude to Lithuanian is relatively neutral (as many like them as dislike). Interestingly, it's the highest score from all Polish 'east' neighbours (all others are more disliked, including Baltic countries). This score (~35 in favor) has been relatively stable in 2000s, but has risen from 20-30 in the 1990s. The dislike score has also improved (dropped from 30-40 in 1990s to ~25 in 2000s). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piotrus edits

Despite my WP:AGF User:Piotrus altered the text to the point of unrecognizible. Therefore I did revert stating rhis edit as a disruptive one, and suggest to discuss article before editing it further.--Lokyz 23:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of vandalism again, please explain what is it that you find problematic with my edit.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lokyz points, plaese stop distorting referenced text with you own POV. M.K. 10:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of logic of events, removal of information regarding Polish atrocities towards Lithuanan organization, adding words to the citation it does not have, removal of link to Polonization, using reference, that supported the fact you removed, to support some strange claims of your about fifth column - the book does not have such accusations. You're disrupting wikipedia at large, therefore restoring the text as original.--Lokyz 07:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am rewritng your poor grammar/style text into something that is useful for this project. Please work on getting your English better, and don't revert copy editing changes. Fifth column is a perfectly acceptable term in this context. Do you have any specific problems with my edit?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fifth column" is an extremely loaded expression, which must be found in the source. The statement "Please work on getting your English better" speaks for itself. Were references removed during this edit? Novickas 00:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, go and replace fifth column with some better description. I thought it sounded better - and explained more - than "After these actions Polish people were met with high level of suspicion.", but if you like the other variant better, I certainly don't intend to argue much over such a minor issue. But please, avoid monstrosities like [[Sejny Uprising#Aftermath|plundered Lithuanian organizations there]].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll work on my English - but removal of referenced information and disruption of the cited text will not be tolerated. The book does not use terms, that are not contemporary - like fifth column, and the massive outrage in Lithuania did happen because of the plundering of the Lithuanian organizations in Sejny.

You managed to break the citation completely. It was put here to support "massive outrage", that was caused by plundering Lithuanian organizations

And please explain how (and why) does it happen, that after rewriting of my supposedly poor grammar referenced facts tend to disapear from articles? And would you please care to explain, where did Polish Military Organization disapear from the article, and why was link to Sejny Uprising destroyed?--Lokyz 06:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare (I'll remove the reference text for better readability):

My text: Situation of Polish speaking population in Lithuania worsened, as Polish Military Organization staged Sejny Uprising and plundered Lithuanian organizations there.<ref name=KA> Furthermore image of Poles deteriorated because of the uncovered plot to overthrow sovereign Lithuanian government by Polish Military Organization, that was supported by local Polish minority. Further blows were Polish-Lithuanian War and fake Żeligowski's Mutiny. After these actions Polish people were met with high level of suspicion.

Your text:From 1918 to 1921 several conflicts - such as Sejny uprising, attempted Polish coup of Lithuanian government, the Polish-Lithuanian War and Żeligowski's Mutiny contributing to constant worsening of Polish-Lithuanian relations; increasingly Polish people were seen as "fifth column" in Lithuania.<ref name=KA>

Can you feel the difference? Or another question - can you read Lithuanian? If no so where did this fifth column appear from? You're trying to convince readers, that this book does use the term, while it does not. And where did link to Polonization go?--Lokyz 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to fifth column and readded the link to PMO. I believe my version keeps all your facts, is more neutral and has better style and grammar. I asked Renata to opine on that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations request

Needs exact citations from this source [1] as provided pages are not displayed in Google print. M.K. 10:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)p.s. also of these claims original and translation.M.K. 10:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to obtain the copy of the English book or access it via Google Print. Here are the requested quotations of Polish text, I will provide translations when I have more time - but I know there are other editors watching this page who can do it as well.

"Najważniejsze problemy mniejszości polskiej na Litwie wiążą się z traktowaniem przez władze Republiki Litewskiej oświaty polskiej. To jest ten poważny problem: niedofinansowanie i ewidentny brak preferencji dla polskojęzycznego szkolnictwa. Z tym się wiąże brak podręczników i przyjęcie takiej strategii rozwoju oświaty polskiej, która nie była uzgodniona z polską społecznością na Litwie."
Doradca premiera poinformował, że na Litwie jest obecnie 120 szkół polskojęzycznych, w których uczy się ponad 18 tys. dzieci. Wiele z nich jest niedoinwestowanych i wymaga generalnego remontu. Jak zaznaczył, w miejscowościach, zamieszkanych głównie przez Polaków powstają nowoczesne szkoły litewskie. "W ostatnich latach powstało ponad 30 szkół litewskich i jedna polska, finansowana przez Senat RP"..."Jak stwierdził doradca premiera, podręczniki w szkołach polskojęzycznych - tłumaczone z języka litewskiego na polski - były znacznie droższe niż litewskie. Ich nakład był niewielki. "

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked to provide citations and their translations, as this is English encyclopedia, you also have been asked to provide citations from quoted English source, as pointed in the article specific Google print pages are not accessible. You failed to do so. M.K. 11:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You have demonstrated here that you are able to translate from Polish to English, so I don't see why you cannot do it yourself. Google Print links seem to work well ([2]).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant in which language I can variate as WP is run not only by me, other editors may have more questions, refusal to follow the request meets neglect towards WP:POINT. And no, I cant see Google print 148-149 pages, which are used in article, so if you have access to them it would not be big deal to provide specific requested citations. Still waiting, M.K. 08:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current situation

"This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text." May? Xx236 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] for many centuries.

It's a simplification or not true. Quite many of the Poles are of Eastern Slavic background, -icz names.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant?

I have attempted in good faith to keep the article encyclopedic by shortening the lead. I have not removed any information that is presented later in the article. We now have an awkward situation where duplicate information follows itself. Why? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:LEAD.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read WP:LEAD, and I have read plenty of reference works in my time. If you think that the format of this article and the redundacy of the information is appropriate in the first two paragraphs of the article, be happy with your edits. It's hardly the only poorly written article in the project that needs attention. Hopefully a language barrier is the reason that my concerns are not acceptable. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't enjoy the repetition. The answer however is not to gut the lead, but the expand and rewrite the article so that the repetition is less visible - while the lead is as informative as possible.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I also didn't appreciate the redundancy, and therefore made the changes. The answer is not to gut the lead. The answer is not to gut the lead. The answer is not to gut the lead, but perhaps to remove the redundancy, and make the article more encyclopedic. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dan (talk • contribs)

[edit] People of Polish ethnicity have lived on the territory of modern Lithuania for many centuries

How many of them - one hundred, 100 000? Many centuries - how many is many? Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the entire sentence should be removed, since it's impossible to answer your question with any true degree of certainty. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Tongue

The article states that there are approximately 234,989 Poles currently living in Lithuania. It also claims that 187,918 of these inhabitants claim that Polish is their mother tongue. What do the other 47,071 Poles claim as their mother tongue? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

22 439 Russian

17 233 Lithuanian

1 040 Belarusian

44 Ukrainian

19 Roma

8 Latvian

1 German

8 Other languages

6 279 Not indicated

This is official Census 2001 data [3]. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atlas of Lithuania 1981 data

Absolute numbers with Polish language education at Lithuanian schools
(Raions rural schools):

Raion name Lithu. Russian Polish
Vilnius ------ 1250 ---- 4150 -- 6400
Salcininkai -- 500 ---- 2050 -- 3200
Sviencienis- 1350 ----- 600 --- 100
Trakai ------- 2900 ------ 50 --- 950
Varena ------ 6000 ------- 0 ----- 50
Sirvintos ---- 2400 ----- 100 -- 100

"Атлас Литовской ССР" 1981 ^[1]

^ "Государственный плановый комитет Литовской ССР. Министерство высшего и среднего специального образования Литовской ССР. АТЛАС ЛИТОВСКОЙ ССР. Главное управление геодезии и картографии при Совете Министров СССР. Москва 1981"

--Poeticbent talk 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union allowed to leave

Germans were expelled but Poles allowed to leave. POV.Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In 19th century peasants of Polish nationality started to appear in Lithuania, mostly by Polonization of Lithuanian peasants.

In which Lithuania? Ethnic or historical? Xx236 (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we still need articles on ethnic Lithuania and historical Lithuania.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial picture?

I have no intention of edit warring over this small picture, but I think it would be useful: the article is skimpy on graphics, and such a cartoon looks like a good illustration of attitudes to Poles in interwar Lithuania. If any alternate picture can be suggested, we can consider it, but until then - what's wrong with this one? It shouldn't be very offensive, I hope (perhaps sb could translate it, though)? PS. Since it was asked "would there be a room for Dubingiai event picture in this article?" - which I assume is a comparison to this discussion, I think that the difference is both one of scope (this is a more specialized article) and of importance - while Dubingai massacre was a rare exception, a tragic historical footnote, anti-Polish attitudes (and presumably cartoons) in interwar Lithuania were a common occurrence - one perhaps not worth mentioning in general History of Lithuania, but relevant here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you also think that those Danish cartoons look like a good illustration of attitudes to Muslims in Denmark? Would you support inclusion of such cartoons in the Muslims of Denmark article? --Doopdoop (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If we had a source that stated that there are widespread anti-Muslim feelings in Denmark, yes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of Arabic sources stating that. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam_in_Denmark has even got a paragraph about those cartoons. Why don't you add an illustration? --Doopdoop (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in that article to invest my time there. If you don't want to discuss this one, I will restore the images as you have failed to present arguments for the removal.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I discussed your proposal above by making a [Reductio ad absurdum] argument. --Doopdoop (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we seem to be unable to reach consensus, I've asked for a third opinion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to repeat main points: this picture is irrelevant (it probably relates to the whole Polish nation, not to the minority in Lithuania), it is also inflammatory and including it would promote ethnic hatred. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to repeat my main point: the attitudes towards the minority were highly related to the attitudes towards Poles in general, hence it is relevant (until we find an even more specific picture), being historical it is hardly inflammatory and I don't see how it could promote any kind of hatred today (I also again repeat my request for a translation). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an appropriate picture to include in the history section, as long as it was given the appropriate historical context and explanations. I note it's already used in the article Lithuanization. The argument about it being inflamatory I think is irrelevant - the picture is relevant to the history of Polish-Lithuanian relations and hence to the polish minority in Lithuania AndrewRT(Talk) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

While this picture has some very minor relevance to the history of Polish-Lithuanian relations, it is irrelevant to the Polish minority article because during the period when it published there was no significant Polish minority in Lithuania as Vilnius district belonged to Poland at that time. Also there is no translation into English, so it is not possible to discuss the issue fairly.

Re "I don't see how it could promote any kind of hatred today" - just look at the heated relations between Piotrus and some Lithuanian editors ([4]) --Doopdoop (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As this article shows, there was still a Polish minority in interwar Lithuania. And how is my discussion with another Lithuanian editor relevant to this cartoon, I have no idea. After all, not a single Lithuanian editor has so far commented on this issue? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This cartoon is PD, which means that this text can be put on the native Wikisource project, and a free translation created on the English Wikisource project. In that way, an accurate translation can be developed in a collaborative manner independently of the issue of its inclusion on this Wikipedia article. I would recommend putting this discussion on hold until it has been translated into English, so that 1) its inclusion can be accurately assessed by people who are giving a true third opinion, and 2) so that if it is included on the article, readers can understand what the cartoon is actually about. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm stopping by to fill the third opinion request. It seems like there are a few questions here. Does this image add visual interest, improving the article? I'd say yes. Is it relevant to the section involved? Assuming that the description and dating are correct, yes. Should we be worried that this will incite hate against Poles? Neither the subject matter nor the illustration seem to merit that kind of worry. Is this comparable to the Danish situation with the cartoons of Mohammad? That seems implausible to me. Overall, should the image be in the article? With what I understand, I'd say yes, although if the translated text were something particularly egregious, I'd be inclined to find something else. I hope that helps! William Pietri (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of Poles in Lithuania

Soviet sources are hardly reliable for controversial issues. Can we have some more reliable sources on the subjet, discussing whether Poles in Lithuania were polonized locals or immigrants? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The controversy of this issue has nothing to do with soviets, but maybe somebody can find newer publications by the same authors that wrote the article in 1986 encyclopedia. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, another case of WP:IDONTLIKE. As a hint, I'd suggest to find any RS, that would explain how did such numbers of Poles emerged in Lithuanian rural areas some other way than per Polonization in 19th century.--Lokyz (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one does wonder, but it seems many people don't like it - so maybe a statement to that effect, with a cite request, would be in order. Even tho it will lead to arguments about Garsva as a reliable source, and onwards... hopefully we can take it slowly. Personal disclosure here, Novickas is my father's surname. Whether we are "actually Poles" (i.e. Nowickis) or not has been the subject of civilized debate among family and friends for several generations. See Czesław Miłosz for an analogous attitude. So maybe I should recuse myself here - possibly more neutral, or possibly I have internalized that ambiguity to the point of uselessness. Novickas (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Polonization or Lithuanization are the processes divided in epoches: polonization was but lithuanization is. So correct approach would be: present state of Lithuanian Poles is the result of former Polonization and Poles immigration (?, but not immigration - migration in Rzeczpospolita, Russian Empire, Poland 1918-1939), then Stalin's repressions and Poles repatriation to Poland, next in migration of Belorussian Poles and Lithuanization of Lithuanian Poles.

So it is not correct to clame only one possible origin of Lithuanian Poles.

Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re recent events addition

An edit was made yesterday or today adding this statement: In late May 2008, Association of Poles in Lithuania issued a letter, addressed to the government of Lithuania, complaining about anti-minority (primarily, anti-Polish) rhetoric in media, citing upcoming parliamentary elections as a motive, and asking for better treatment of the ethnic minorities. The Association has also filed a complain with the Lithuanian prosecutor, asking for investigation of the issue.

Well...people issue letters to their governments all the time. Could we wait and see what the prosecutor's reaction is, what international reaction is, etc. Otherwise this is just passing news. Novickas (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking exact same thing. It's a case of recentism. Unless something comes out of the letter, I don't think it should be mentioned. As it says, elections are coming up and I don't see how this is any different from a standard campaign trick. Renata (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Association of Poles is not standing up in elections, and as a complain of the representation of the largest minority organization in Lithuania, it should probably be noted in more articles than just in here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.