This is an archive of past discussions about Lithuania. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I would support pruning it, to copy Canada - which is still a WP:Featured article - and use the ones there: (Canada#International_rankings): State of World Liberty Index, United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Index, World Bank Ease of Doing Business, The Economist The World in 2005 – Worldwide quality-of-life index, Yale University/Columbia University Environmental Sustainability Index, Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, Institute for Economics & Peace Global Peace Index, Fund for Peace Failed States Index, World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, The Economist Democracy Index. Since all the rankings here are referenced though, maybe we could prosify/then move them to sections inside this article? For example 'the World Economic Forum ranks its Networked Readiness Index as 35...' in the infrastructure section. Any objections? Novickas (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The soundfile actually gives the usual American pronunciation (/lɪθuːˈeɪniə/, "lithooaynia," not the otherwise more usual /ˌlɪθjuːˈeɪniə/ ("lithyooaynia")). Kostaki mou (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
It is rife with English punctuation mistakes/omissions, factual errors, and it reads like a promotional brochure. If someone knows anything about this country, please clean up this page.
Agreed - this page reads like Goebbels' propaganda - wishful thinking replaces facts that are judged as unfit to the "editors" delusional vision of history of lands only very recently under Lithuanian occupation (e.g. Wilna region) ond only by implicit permission of the previous occupants - Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.113.137 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
A suggestion on the climate section
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Did Lithuania really lost 400 000 people in last 10 years? Its more than 10%, is this due to migration, low birth rates or different methodology of Census? Seems too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.149.169 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this phrase in the source explains the problem: "Tai sudaro apie 94 procentus pagal Gyventojų registro duomenis ir Statistikos departamento metodiką įvertinto Lietuvos gyventojų skaičiaus, kuris kovo 1 d. sudarė 3234,9 tūkst." Roughly it seems to say that the 3.054 million figure is 94% of the total in another department which uses a different methodology to arrive at a 3.234 million figure. I believe we'd be better going with the 3.234 million figure as it sounds more realistic compared to the 2001 figures. Valenciano (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
"Did ... lost" isn't valid English. It should read "Did ... lose".
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
At the moment it says "...the official language, Lithuanian, is only related to the other Baltic language, Latvian." Firstly Lithuanian is an Indo-European language so it's related to English and every other language in that family, and secondly that sentence implies Latvian is the only other Baltic language, forgetting Estonian. Fugyoo (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It needs rewording yes. The editor who added that no doubt meant that Lithuanian and Latvian are the only two surviving languages in the Baltic branch of the indo-European language family. Estonian isn't an indo-European language. Valenciano (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Must have meant from the Baltic branch of Indo-European. If so, then yes that is correct regarding official langauges which exist. Estonia is a Baltic state but its language doesn't fall into the common Baltic category precisely for not being Indo-European. The Big Hoof! (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Content Blanking in Intro, Possible SOCK
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've been surfing Wiki extensively since it was founded, long before IE offered Compatibility View. To date, in the many thousands of pages I've been to, this is the first time Compatibility View jumped into action the very nanosecond an article began loading in my browser. In fact, it has never jumped into action ever before here on wiki. Compatibility View isn't enough it seems, as after a short while of being locked up, I got hit with a confirmation dialog box telling me a script on this page is causing IE to run slowly, do I want to stop running the script or continue?
Reloaded the page, same thing. Visited several other similar pages, no problem. Came back here...still locking up. I had a quick look but can't spot the problem. Thought it might be the anthem, removed the template, previewed the change but the problem persisted so I left it alone. Just thought someone might like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.21.172 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Independence from USSR (bad wording)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Lithuania became the first Soviet republic to declare the restoration of independent State of Lithuania" is mis-worded.
Lithuania is likely the ONLY Soviet republic to declare itself the "State of Lithuania".
Other Soviet republics declared independence later but each declared itself by a different name. How best to re-word this?
(I was math, not English, major; I can see the problem but can't find a good solution.)
198.144.192.45 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)
Molotov Ribbentrob agreement
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
July 6, 1253 is currently mentioned in at least three places in the article as the date on which Mindaugas was crowned / Lithuania was established as a state. No qualifiers or notes are included with the date to reflect that the date is by no means certain and is challenged by other experts on Lithuanian history. In fact, the reference used for the date is an article criticising the validity of this very date, which is a bit ridiculous.
If there are no objections, my suggestion is to leave July 6, 1253 in the infobox but add a note briefly explaining ambiguity. Other instances in text should be changed to just 1253 which is something that everyone more or less agrees on. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lithuania. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Not done. There is no instance of two consecutive open parentheses or of two consecutive closed parentheses in this article. CityOfSilver18:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Unable to verify a statement in the article - Proposing its removal and also the addition of relevant information
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Lithuania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section "History", subsection "20th and 21st centuries", 7th paragraph I seem to be unable to verify the statement: "A peace treaty signed between Lithuania and Poland on 7 October 1920, in Suwałki, recognized Vilnius as the capital of Lithuania". Neither the provided source (http://vilnews.com/2012-02-11551) along with its 4 main hyperlinks, nor the relevant Wikipedia page (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Suwa%C5%82ki_Agreement), nor the original document (Suwałki Agreement) support said statement. I would thus like to propose first and foremost the removal of said sentence, and secondly the addition of a more comprehensive description of the Polish-Lithuanian war in general. It is absent while being an important event, as even the same paragraph states that "Notwithstanding, Vilnius remained to be part of Poland becoming the cornerstone of Lithuania’s foreign policy.".GLowMat (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Lithuania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Pls, edit Lithuania's geographical location form "northen-eastern europe" to "northen europe" as the other two baltic countries are. 91.198.17.200 (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done This has been discussed in 2017 and it was decided that the "norhtern-eastern Europe" formation is the best solution, because some organizations place Lithuania in northern Europe, while others – in eastern Europe. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is too long
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
To ensure that people using slow connections, old equipment, or mobile devices can still access the article (among other reasons), our guideline Wikipedia:Article size calls for articles to be no more than circa 10,000 words and 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose. Once articles are over this limit, they are typically split and sub-articles created: see WP:SUBARTICLE. Lithuania is 13,236 words, with 84 kB readable prose. Re-adding content from sub-articles into the main article is a bad idea, as it's already too big even without these additions. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Article of the United States is named as a Good Article and its size is 402 034 bites. Article of France size is 299 585 bites and it is not yet a GA/FA (only B-class), which means when it will reach such quality it will also be around 400 000 bites. Article of Italy size is 230 235 bites and it is also only a B-class article, which means it requires further expansion and inevitably it will cause rise of its size. Poland - 271 712 bites. It is clear that articles of countries have different standards (especially in the United States case when such a long article is named as a GA) because it requires comprehensive information about various fields. Creating a comprehensive and high quality article about country which is about 100 000 bites is impossible (according to Wikipedia:Article size articles bigger than 100 000 bites should be split). It is difficult to realize how it is possible to cover all sections like in other countries articles with so little amount of memory. -- Pofka (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Template:Infobox country – current content invisible
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why are event and date 14 not visible in the article? They are in the sourcecode/sourcetext, but do not appear in the article.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Pofka: You removed cleanup tags (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&oldid=833064602) explaining that the article is shorter than e.g. article on US. Cleanup is not about length, but importance. Article on Lithuania is full of petty details, which cannot be said about USA. History in the article on Lithuania should contain historic events that are somehow relevant today. The rest should be moved to History of Lithuania. Here are some of many examples of the petty details with explanation in the brackets.
1) On 22 September 1236, the Battle of Saulė between Samogitians and the Livonian Brothers of the Sword took place close to Šiauliai. The Livonian Brothers were smashed during it and their further conquest of the Balts lands were stopped. The battle inspired rebellions among the Curonians, Semigallians, Selonians, Oeselians, tribes previously conquered by the Sword-Brothers. Some thirty years' worth of conquests on the left bank of Daugava were lost.[33] In 2000, the Lithuanian and Latvian parliaments declared 22 September to be the Day of Baltic Unity. (Battle of Saule is tiny and not even its exact location is known. Losing small territory on the left bank of a river 1000 years ago is hardly relevant today. Besides, Day of Baltic Unity is not celebrated and not even printed in most calendars. There are days for everything, from Vitamin C Day to Lemon Chiffon Cake Day)
2) A new constitution adopted in 1928, which consolidated presidential powers. Gradually the opposition parties were banned, the censorship was tightened, and the rights of national minorities were narrowed. (stricter censorship 100 years ago is hardly relevant for modern day Lithuania. It very well should belong on History of Lithuania, but it's a petty detail for article on Lithuania)
3) In 1935, farmers began strikes in Suvalkija and Dzūkija. In addition to economic ones, political demands were made. (Again, petty detail. USA has had 100s of strikes since 1900 (List of strikes but you won't find them on the article about USA))
4) The next step made by the USSR was accusations of the abduction of the Red Army soldiers in Lithuania. Although the Lithuanian government denied such allegations, the tensions became heightened on both sides.[91] On 14 June 1940, the USSR issued an ultimatum to Lithuania, demanding to replace the government and allow Red Army's units to enter the territory of Lithuania without any prior agreements, which would mean the occupation of the country.[92] On 14 June 1940 just before midnight, the last meeting of the Lithuanian Government was held in the Presidential Palace, in Kaunas. During it, the Soviet's ultimatum was debated.[93] President Antanas Smetona categorically declined to accept most of the ultimatum demands, argued for military resistance and was supported by Kazys Musteikis, Konstantinas Šakenis (lt), Kazimieras Jokantas (lt), however the Commander of the Armed Forces Vincas Vitkauskas, Divisional general Stasys Raštikis, Kazys Bizauskas, Antanas Merkys and most of the Lithuanian Government members decided that it would be impossible, especially due to the previously stationed Soviet soldiers, and accepted the ultimatum.[94] On that night, the Soviet forces executed Lithuanian border guard Aleksandras Barauskas (lt) near the Belarus border.[95] ... (Again, way too detailed and irrelevant. Otherwise, we could copy-paste a lot of details of every battle, conflict and event and make this article 20x longer. Or better not...)
Gradually, the economic relations had been restored. But the tension had peaked again in January 1991. At that time, attempts were made to carry out a coup using the Soviet Armed Forces, the Internal Army of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the USSR Committee for State Security (KGB). Because of the bad economic situation in Lithuania, the forces in Moscow thought the coup d’état will receive a strong public support. But the situation was the opposite. (way too detailed for an article on a completely different topic)
Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Detektyw z Wilna: I have bolded why these are very historically important in your post in order not to copy paste this wall of text.
1) This is a very, very important victory and that's why the Baltic parliaments recognised this battle. Without Samogitians victory all the Lithuanian lands would have been conquered by the Sword Brothers and there could have been no Kingdom of Lithuania or Grand Duchy of Lithuania (result: maybe no modern Lithuanians as well, like Old Prussians). This is possibly the first notable Lithuanians/Samogitians/Balts battle, which is internationaly famous. It must be mentioned. It's like an early, smaller Battle of Grunwald, which is one of the main moments in Lithuania's history.
2) It is very important because after adopting this constitution Lithuania wasn't a democratic country anymore, but a authoritarian regime/state ruled mostly by one person - Antanas Smetona, who was supported by the Lithuanian Army. You think this is not important? Imagine if Trump would be eternal president without elections. This is what Smetona was according to that constitution.
3) This is important by knowing the context. These farmers were early communists who demanded to remove Antanas Smetona and he surpressed them. I don't remember the whole history very well about this, however these sentenced to death might have been the first communists who received such penalty. This is important fact, keeping in mind that reds destroyed Lithuania just after a few years and shows that the situation started becoming hot.
4) Everything here is very important as it shortly describes how the current country was destroyed. Aleksandras Barauskas is important because he could have been the first victim of the Lithuania-Soviet Union war and the beginning of this war if the Lithuanian Government would have decided to fight this huge beast with their armed forces. I am sure that the United States article would have not less than this amount of information in its main page if the Soviet Union would have occupied it.
Let's continue discussing questionable lines here instead of making any edit wars in the main article. Speaking about the article's size and length, the United States article's history section has 9,229 words and 84,648 characters, while the Lithuanian one has 8,776 words and 78,789 characters, so such size is tolerated in Wikipedia because it is named Good Article. -- Pofka (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Battle of Saulė was a decisive one - after it Livonian Order was not able to recover from it's loses and ceased to exist, and was incorporated into Teutonic Order. No doubt about the importance of it. -- Ke an (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Lithuania - Lithuanian pagan mythology
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for a nice chapter about mythology. :) I just think we should prefer more genuine manifestations of pagan believe - Raganų kalnas and Morė are examples of degradation of former religion into village customs or tales. - my 2cnt. -- Ke an (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: Well, maybe Raganų kalnas is too artistic to fit with the old beliefs, however morė is an old thing. Slavic nations also has this and it is related to a mythological goddess Marzanna. I think it is important to show what has remained from the old traditions by evolving and this one certainly is possibly the best popular example. Keep in mind that despite evolving, Užgavėnės is a festival during which people are burning a woman on a bonfire. Doesn't that sound archaic? If I remember correctly, there were signs shown from the European institutions that this is a violation of the human rights/gender equality and should be prohibited. -- Pofka (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Lithuania - Legal page
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I think reader should be warned about the low quality of this chapter.
95 percent of it devoted for Crime and Corruption. Few percent are for history.
And 1-2 sentences about legal system.
So far I think it is the worst chapter, Science and Technology - second :)
I would suggest to put Law under Politics as it is in Germany, France, Estonia, Latvia
and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to act on your tip, but after looking into it, I concluded that it would be a waste of time. I do not see any problem with the paragraph. Chapter on law and crime has three sub-chapters – legal system, corruption, crime. "Corruption" and "crime" are clearly separated and the content seems accurate, referenced and worthy of Wikipedia. 185.31.158.191 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
MOVING THIS HERE...@Detektyw z Wilna:@Ke an: I also doubt if these sections "Corruption" and "Crime" are really necessary because none other country has them. It is a very narrow section, especially the "Corruption" one which covers just a few articles from the Criminal Codex. We don't have individual sections about burglars, killers, rapists, do we? I think this section should be immediately deleted or integrated to "Crime" if we are keeping this one, which is also doubtful because none other country currently has it (but I consider it suitable if it has no extensive discussions about individual crimes). As a comparison, take a look at the especially short Germany#Law section and then at our "Law and crime" section. United_States#Law_enforcement_and_crime has individual crimes (f. e. homicides) integrated into this section. -- Pofka (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: Could you please move or reference your comment about Legal to Lithuania - Legal page theme? I think we are discussing more general issues here. The problem highlighted in your comment also falls to the issue called frame an issue or https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Spin_(propaganda). It looks like many are vigilant against advertising tactics, but little done regarding the Black propaganda. -- Ke an (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Detektyw z Wilna:@Ke an: Reworked the problemic "Law and crime" section according to United States#Law enforcement and crime and Germany#Law, who are GA/FA articles. Whole section about a few articles in the Criminal Codex (Corruption) is too minor in a country-level article and was integrated into description about the most frequent crimes in Lithuania. I think this problem is finally solved. -- Pofka (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka:@Detektyw z Wilna: It looks much better now, but there is quite low abstraction level used in headers is not good enough IMHO. It would look the same as if we choose 1 abstract concept + 2 more detailed concept - for example "Demographics and Immigration" or "Economy and Poverty". US example looks quite poor now - maybe due to edit wars, but it's structure look quite mangled. -- Ke an (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have noticed quite many statements are supported by contextual statements in the source or statements lacking direct source support are being used - especially those with Delfi sources.
The fact, that many sources are taken from Lithuanian media doubles the problem, since foreign reader cannot verify the source.
I also think Delfi source should be taken with the grain of salt, since during past 5 years it was introducing many Clickbait articles. You can find almost any indirect support of your statement if your will search through it. Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources -- Ke an (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Please identify at least 2-3 concrete claims which you allege to be "lacking direct support". I doubt that the claim is accurate, but if it is – let's fix it. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Edit wars
Latest comment: 6 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion
@Ke an, Detektyw z Wilna, and Pofka: I advise all of you to stop these edit wars and discuss the matters on the talk page per WP:BRD. Otherwise you all will be reported for edit warring. One more thing – do not discuss the matters in Lithuanian anywhere in English Wikipedia (article's or users' talk pages). – Sabbatino (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Thank you for interviening. Just would like to pay attention that actions which could be qualified as edit wars started already in 19 March 2018 if not earlier. -- Ke an (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: I was trying to do the exact same thing and move these edit wars here. So two Lithuanians have to write in English by discussing quite private topics in their own talk pages? Ridiculous. Is this rule written anywhere? I have never used Lithuanian language in articles talk pages which are meant for the vast audience, but the private talk pages restriction sounds totally ridiculous. -- Pofka (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I know when these edit wars started, but 10 days is already too much and got fed up with it so I brought it here since nobody of you were willing to start the discussion. As for users' talk pages – no, they are not private. Private messages, which do not exist here, are private, users' talk pages – not. The only thing that users own is their nickname until they change it. So you all should be discussing here, but remember to avoid personal attacks, keep it civil and try to seek a consensus. And as for languages – everything here is written in English (pages, talk pages, rules/policies/guidelines) since it is the English chapter of Wikipedia (German Wikipedia uses German, Lithuanian Wikipedia – Lithuanian), and users would not understand it if someone started writing in French and someone else in German. You are entitled to use foreign sources or languages in the references, but everything must still be in English when writing the information in the text. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino and Pofka: Usage of English in Talks in English Wikipedia sounds quite reasonable to me. At least I didn't know rules for using English for private talks. Maybe it should be a recommendation rule if is not yet. As for edit wars, so they started much earlier, around 19 March 2018, and I would really encourage to report this situation to Wikipedia authority. I even could do it myself it you would recommend the proper way. Texts with references to reliable sources like OECD, windeurope.org and other were removed multiple times(2-3) with pejorative and insufficient arguments "dubiuos", "flat out wrong", etc. thus violating BOLD in BRD maliciously. Thus makes collecting facts difficult if they deleted instantly. Regarding the fake news - we should put this activity on high alert. Example: The problem I see with the the heavily defended line "Corruption is prevalent in Lithuania and current situation is unsafe for investments and honest competition, according to independent experts.[172]" The source is http://web.archive.org/web/20180329111311/http://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/lietuvoje/2/185041/bausmes-uz-korupcija-vieni-istatymai-neveikia-kitu-nera One sentence was taken out of the context. And this media in Lithuanian, meaning the foreign reader will have no clue, what is stated here. The sentence in the media has no source provided, referred to anonymous "Tarptautiniai ekspertai". And this 1 sentence was elevated to the Wikipedia as a general conclusion. I see it as classical fake news case. If we look at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fake_news, this method falls into category Definition 3. misleading content ("misleading use of information to frame an issue or an individual") more about frame an issue in https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Spin_(propaganda), technique defined as cherry picking. I would not like to mention censorship or black PR aka Black propaganda activity here.. In short I encourage report - it is really time to solve it now. -- Ke an (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino and Pofka: I just would like to complement, that I tried to solve the issue on Detektyw z Wilna talk page, citate: "Please provide arguments before deletion - even better discuss first. For example the case with installed wind capacity and usage - you have deleted the statement about LT installed wind capacity, claiming it contradicts to EU LT wind usage statistics. I might have a capacity installed, but I can use it partially - so usage and installed capacity statements are not mutually exclusive.(revision 832650135) Removal of OECD data with education data (revision 832650350) is more than unacceptable. Please be more carefull removing data with reliable sources in the future." But no answer followed, no arguments, and behaviour remained the same. -- Ke an (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino and Pofka: Another complement - the attempt of 82.221.111.11 discuss the issue with Detektyw z Wilna ended up with non-cooperative answer. Troll-like behaviour simply disrupts the work. -- Ke an (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Corruption is prevalent in Lithuania and current situation is unsafe for investments and honest competition, according to independent experts.[172]
According to a European Union Anti-Corruption Report, Lithuania had the highest proportion of citizens who paid bribes in the preceding 12 months of any EU country, with 95% of citizens considering corruption to be widespread and a major problem.[173]
Around half of Lithuanians believe that corruption is prevalent in the judicial system.[174]
National surveys have revealed that around half of Lithuanians would neglect to report corruption due to beliefs that corrupt individuals would not be punished.[175][176]
In surveys of Lithuanian business people, corruption is highlighted as the primary issue prohibiting economic development and international competitiveness.[177]
A 2016 corruption survey by STT found that majority of Lithuanian population perceives that corruption levels have increased in the past 1 year and past 5 year periods.[178]
According to local branch of Transparency International, corruption levels have been decreasing over the past decade.[179]
@Detektyw z Wilna: In my opinion, 7th is completely wrong because the most negative answer "labai padidėjo" (greatly increased) was decreasing every year from 2008 and answers like "nepakito" (did not changed) doubled over these years. Any other answer than greatly increased is a positive sign and shows that the situation did improved (at least it does not rise that quickly, according to the respondents). -- Pofka (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I am assuming you mean sentence number 6. It is not wrong. However, if there is another phrasing which is more accurate or appropriate, feel free to change. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Detektyw z Wilna: Please do not discuss only last few cases here. Here we are solving more general problems - how to make a consensus and avoid edit wars. I think there a more places to talk about the particular content. I would highly recommend intervention of Wikipedia arbiters as situation is critical. -- Ke an (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Detektyw z Wilna: This section problem was already solved, based on GA/FA class articles. Corruption covers three articles in the Lithuanian Criminal Codex: 225, 226, 227 (http://www.infolex.lt/portal/start_ta.asp?act=doc&fr=pop&doc=66150) out of 330 articles. So you want to create about 100 sections covering every crime genre? This is WAY too detailed for a country-level page. If you want such comprehensive analysis, you may create Crime in Lithuania article and describe every crime in detail. -- Pofka (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino and Pofka: Do we need still believe it's edit wars and not some troll named Detektyw z Wilna hijacking the page, not discussing the issues with anyone, just executing main tasks which are delete/revert/put criminal cronicles and keep them.. -- Ke an (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an:@Pofka: My only issue here is the censorship. Removing a relevant, accurate and well–sourced paragraph for no good reason is the definition of censorship. Calling me names does not do any good, does it? For the record, let's look at a post by Ke an from 20:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC). He directly asks not to discuss the issue, but rather involve external parties to settle the dispute. I have asked for external input. Please refer to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Lithuania#Corruption Just a note, we would solve the issue faster with well reasoned arguments rather than namecalling Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Incident noticeboard report
@Sabbatino and Pofka: Just FYI - I reported Detektyw z Wilna to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and also asked for protection for Corruption in Lithuania due to high level of IP vandalising, abundant Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations and Black propaganda using contextual sentences(chery picking) from third party sources. Edit waring.
@Sabbatino, Pofka, and Ke an: Ke an, wouldn't it be honest to at least ping me when you are blindly accusing me of various things? A report is not conviction. Let's see what your attempts to do character assassination of me will result in. As for factual discussion or problem-solving, I am and have always been trying my best to cooperate. Regardless, let's wait for a decision from the noticeboard, shall we? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino, Pofka, and Detektyw z Wilna: Nothing personal and definitely no "character assassination" :). I just reported disruptive behaviour with the diffs of edits and links to relevant pages. I referred to relevant Wikipedia rules too. I have added subst:ANI-notice to your talk page as required. -- Ke an (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: Unsubstantiated accusations, e.g. "that I work for Russian troll factory" is probably textbook definition of "character assassination". Your examples of "disruptive behaviour" do not stand, so there seems to be nothing there. Regardless, let's wait for an outcome from the incident noticeboard. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino:@Pofka: Interesting :) I think it is called sockpuppeting Wikipedia:Sock puppetry in Wikipedia and is illegal. Could you please add you findings to Detektyw z Wilna case or report as a new one. I have applied for page protection, but it seems they don't allow comments here. -- Ke an (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: Already added this. Don't waste your precious time anymore by discussing with him. He is a paid red proxy troll from the most corrupted state in Europe (world?). -- Pofka (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Changes to corruption paragraph
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
"Around half of Lithuanians believe that corruption is prevalent in the judicial system" – this is now removed. Was there any objective reason to remove this sentence?
National surveys have revealed that around half of Lithuanians would neglect to report corruption due to beliefs that corrupt individuals would not be punished – this is now removed. Was there any objective reason to remove this sentence?
A 2016 corruption survey by STT found that majority of Lithuanian population perceives that corruption levels have increased in the past 1 year and past 5 year periods.[189] According to local branch of Transparency International, corruption levels have been decreasing over the past decade – the part about increased corruption is now removed, but the part about decrease is in the text. The removed claim has a more reliable source. Was there any objective reason to remove this sentence?
In surveys of Lithuanian business people, corruption is highlighted as the primary issue prohibiting economic development and international competitiveness. – this is now removed. I would argue that the claim is very relevant as it is identified as THE issue when it comes to economic growth. Was there any objective reason to remove this sentence?
You allege "propaganda" where I see "censoring". Your response to my honest attempt to solve the problem is to ignore me. Does that mean that you have no legitimate arguments to support your position? Furthermore, you claim to have "caught" me. Isn't it strange that I don't understand that you mean? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka and Ke an: Would you be willing to discuss possible re-introduction of the 4 censored sentences? If not now, under what conditions would you be willing to discuss? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Science & Technology
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
The more good content there is under Science & Technology the better. But how exactly is mentioning random companies and people without widespread prominence following the notability guidelines? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@SørenKierkegaard: I absolutely do not agree about two lines removed by you: "Softneta developed the medical equipment MedDream that is used by almost 40 countries hospitals in 5 continents." and "Lithuanian "Šviesos konversija" has developed a femtosecond laser system that has 80% marketshare worldwide, and is used in DNA research, ophthalmological surgeries, nanotech industry and science.". Please read them carefully and think if words "used by almost 40 countries hospitals in 5 continents" and "femtosecond laser system that has 80% marketshare worldwide" really sounds random companies and people without widespread prominence. As I already mentioned previously, articles of countries does include private companies of great importance: Germany (BMW, Mercedes-Benz), Estonia (Skype). -- Pofka (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
You would need other sources for those claims besides Delfi. "Used by 40 hospitals" claim does not make a company notable enough to be included on a country's main wikipedia article. This would mean that the "Finland" article in wikipedia should list thousands of companies. Please see notability guidelines, as it will make your future goals in wikipedia easier and without conflict. Notability requires trusted (academic, governmental, or written by a notable publication), several (not one), third-party (not the company's own website) sources. If I am to use your current approach, I can start a website and claim that company X is the largest shipping company in Northern Europe. I will then buy a promoted article in DELFI which confirms what my site is saying. Notability guidelines are meant to avoid these situations. Your current approach would also allow Russian propaganda to be listed on the LT page. Nothing easier than creating a website and buying some promoted articles. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: out of all the editors you usually are very strict on WP guidelines on other countries' articles, your input would be welcome here. That section has only gotten worse as the day has progressed. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@SørenKierkegaard: DELFI does not sell promoted articles. If it writes something about Lithuania, then it is undoubtedly true (same with Estonia and Latvia). If it writes "Used by 40 hospitals", then it is "Used by 40 hospitals" because they got this information from completely reliable sources (government officer may also be the source of this). Ask any Lithuanian/Latvian/Estonian about DELFI reliability. Any publication with propaganda/lie in DELFI would immediately result in a shocking scandal and is impossible (Russian hackers only once were able to hack it and published a few propaganda articles in early 2000s, which resulted in a huge scandal). Fun fact that I know: Vilnius University allows to use DELFI articles in thesis, so it is almost completely equal to books (the whole thesis cannot be based on DELFI, however some information can be freely used from it, so if I had to write about these two disputed companies in it then I am sure there would be no problem in such references). -- Pofka (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Problem with "Science and technology" paragraph is that it very little describes wider situation and trends and mostly just lists notable examples. Of whom some may not be notable enough for this article and some (Hermann Minkowski, Aaron Klug) can hardly be called representatives of Lithuanian science. There are also other problems, for example not all listed Noble prize winners are scientists; instead of ambitious "country has the most affordable internet access in the EU and the fastest Wi-Fi in the world" it should say who, when and based on what said so. And Delfi is fine source, but not so amazingly correct as you describe it. Wrong information does not have to be propaganda or lie, it can just be a mistake. --Minnekon (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Minnekon:Hermann Minkowski is very related to Lithuania. He was born and spent his childhood in Kaunas, and left present-day Lithuania with his family simply due to the Russian persecution. I did a small research about him and found information that already being a prominent scientist he returned to present-day Lithuania at least once where he was warmly greet by the society. Why should he return to a place which means nothing to him? Well, it seems he was very related to his homeland and that is Kaunas, Lithuania. Aaron Klug's situation is even simpler as he was born in Lithuania when it was already a completely sovereign and independent state. He is Litvak (Lithuanian Jew). All the mentioned people are the most famous scientists of Lithuania and they really represent the Lithuanian science. I tried to include only the main invention that makes them special and did not included any comprehensive details. Refugees (e.g., Marija Gimbutas and Birutė Galdikas) always considered themselves Lithuanians and visited Lithuania many times. I don't think that it is a reason to omit them simply because they were not able to reach their scientific achievements in their homeland due to the occupants. If the structure of the section is not ideal - feel free to improve it. -- Pofka (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. I think science of Lithuania is foremost science done in Lithuania. People who did their work somewhere else and just happened to born in Lithuania are not really part of Lithuanian science scene. Their connection to Lithuania is not science related. Minkowski's connection is even weaker because Lithuania didn't even exist yet when he lived. Taking Galdikas example, we should write about real history of science, not about hypothetical alternate history where she would have worked and lived in Lithuania. Ok, maybe it's fair to mention shortly some of those Lithuanian-born scientists, but I feel it's unfair if they are treated equally or even favourablely compared to scientists who have actually lived and done their work in Lithuania. --Minnekon (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Science is a quite complicated thing - since middle ages scientists travel to the best universities or where they are better paid. So we should definitely include Lithuanian scientists in exile like Gimbutas, Greimas, Avižienis, Galdikas. They retained connections with lithuanians abroad and even with the scientists in occupied Lithuania like Greimas did. We should not care much if it will overshadow scientist who worked in Lithuania entire life - those exile scientists are integral part of our culture and science history now. BTW - I added mathematician Jonas Kubilius who lived entire life in Lithuania, but he was removed also in a witch hunt on names. From 20's and 30's we could mention Graičiūnas, Sezemanas, Eretas. -- Ke an (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Now when almost all names a cleaned, some randomly left - Gimbutas picture and Straižys. I think it is fair to remove names like Minkowski, who was not part of Lithuanians science community or random Nobel prize winners selected from a very mediocre clickbait article by Ulevičius. But we cannot mention science achievements or contributions without the names. And we should definitely include Lithuanian scientists in exile like Greimas, Gimbutas, Avižienis. Jonas Kubilius is/was well known for creating Vilnius probability theory school, there is even mathematical model named after him. We should clearly distinguish between "Lithuania related" and "Lithuanian scientist". I would suggest to avoid mentioning "Lithuania related" names for now, but include "Lithuanian scientist" names along with their contributions. In short I think name removal did some harm too. Ke an (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: What about Ignas Domeika - he was born in Lithuanian nobleman family, and considered himself a Lithuanian(as a citizen of GDL). But he is named polish in many places :). -- Ke an (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Companies
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Pofka and Ke an: Adding largest companies by revenue was a very good idea. I would suggest to make two changes – (1) express the revenue in million of Euros (thousands don't matter much in this context and make the text cluttered) (2) remove annual profit from the chart as it fluctuates a lot and is far less relevant than other measures e.g. EBITA. What do you think? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Remarks about galleries and images
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion
Just some thoughts about the galleries:
Religion section. It looks really harmonious - except the different format of the pictures. Should we crop them to the same size? Done -- Ke an (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Architecture section. It looks really great. Except the image with Vilnius cathedral - I think we should move it into the text aerea or swap current drawing with the photo. Done. -- Ke an (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Lithuanian pagan mythology. It looks like there are too much of images - it is difficult to distinguish the most important ones. And they are not very informative - some depicting essentially the same subject. Some are not genuine. I think less photos, but with more genuine objects would be better.
Cuisine.Photo of cepelinai is really bad. The photo with midus(industrial package doesn't add much value) as well. Done. It is still not perfect, but more interesting, definitely. -- Ke an (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Image overload. I think there are way too much images. They distract attention from each other. Less but of higher quality would make better effect. -- Ke an (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: Lurid borscht.jpg is really unprofessional; the light - flash(!), shot somewhere in a cellar with pseudoauthentic dishes. The arrangement and serving the dish(with paper napkin) is very low class. -- Ke an (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: I think captions should follow one style (i.e. left alignement). Centered captions create chaotic impression and are more difficult to read. Especially when there is a mix of different alignements on the same page. Good examples - Germany, France, England, etc.. It's even difficult to find a page with centered captions. -- Ke an (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Lithuania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: besides the fact such a change would violate WP:NPOV, it doesn't seem correct. Russia's murder rate is double that of Lithuania and Russians drink far more spirits than Lithuanians. You'd also need to provide a reliable source for such changes. Valenciano (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Lithuania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There's a grammatical error in Health section, 2nd paragraph.
Main article: Health in Lithuania
This line:
According to experts, this number was largely influenced by the Soviets authority because mostly Christian country's inhabitants previously considered it as a severe sin and were afraid to took their lives.
Should instead be this:
According to experts, this number was largely influenced by the Soviets' authority because mostly Christian country's inhabitants previously considered it as a severe sin and were afraid to take their lives. IronMaggie (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Lithuania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
some errors in style such as "Lithuania, after breaking the Soviet Union had difficult crime situation" need adressing. Dawbeachjack (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- Danetalk03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The above problem has been taken care of and the sentence is relatively good-style now, but to further improve it, I suggest writing: "During the first years after Lithuania’s breaking away from the USSR, the crime situation was problematic, but it has improved since then, making Lithuania a reasonably safe country now."
For reference the version I see now: "Lithuania, after breaking away from the Soviet Union had a difficult crime situation, however the Lithuanian law enforcement agencies eliminated many criminals over the years, making Lithuania a reasonably safe country."--Geke (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Lithuania - Etymology
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Now Etymology of Lithuania takes too much space in my opinion. There are many very hypothetical facts with little scientific value. I think this paragraph is way too big for a country page. I would suggest to leave the most credible hypothesis of the name Lithuania only. Ke an (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Another issue with the etymology: The last sentence is unclear/bad English: "Term leiši (plural of leitis), as a synonym to the Lithuanians ethnonym (beside the newer lietuvietis), to this day maintained Latvians who are speaking with a very closely related Latvian language."
Can anyone understand this and rephrase it? Or say it in a different language, so I/we have a chance to translate it ourselves? --Geke (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Geke: Yes, the sentence is a mess. Let me try: "Term leiši (plural of leitis)" along with a more recent synonym lietuvietis is being used to this day by Latvians to name Lithuanians." More about the context: lietuvietis, Leičiai. -- Ke an (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Under the section "Health", there is the following sentence:
"According to experts, this number was largely influenced by the Soviets' authority because mostly Christian country's inhabitants previously considered it as a severe sin and were afraid to took their lives."
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
I think that the article improved significantly to compare just how it was 1 year before. Could we define the areas which still need more attention? Maybe it will reach GA one day. :) - Ke an (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
References are not perfect. There are "citation needed" templates and some paragraphs are without any references to confirm the information. -- Pofka (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I see another problem - image overload. Too many images compete with each other, hamper readability, and distracting attention with marginal context - e.g. Consitution of 3 May - do we really need an image with a crowd of people? how does it illustrate the Consitution of 3 May? (there a tons of similar images on the Internet) Imaginary image of Emilia Plater. Poststamp with Jurgis Bielinis - poststamps usually used as a last resort when no other images available. The picture with cheerful Soviet military leaders made by Soviet propaganda - was it really a happy day? Soviet memorial in Kaunas to illustrate the losses of Lithuania during the II War. Really? We continue the Soviet propaganda? -- Ke an (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: Images are like short summaries/hooks everywhere. They grab the attention and then you may find out more about it in the text. Most of the readers would simply skip the bare text. Good illustrations are also required for a GA/FA nomination and I believe all these fits here. My thoughts about the individual pictures: 1) It is the moment of passing the 3rd of May Constitution in 1791, so it is one of the most important moments of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and in the world as well as it is the second oldest constitution. Poland has this one in their history section as well; 2) France has illustration of Joan of Arc, so I thought that such a brave Lithuanian women would also fit, especially when it was still mostly "men's times" back then and it is a great addition to the uprisings section; 3) Poststamp with Jurgis Bielinis - previously I used picture of Jurgis Bielienis, however this poststamp is much more valuable because it also illustrates vargo mokykla (there is no image of this work of art and even if there would be one, usage of two images there would be problematic, so this poststamp solves the problem perfectly by illustrating them both at once); 4) Picture with cheerful Soviet military leaders - I actually like this image and find it historically valuable. Take a closer look at the People's Seimas member (with black suit), who is some kind of alcoholic without teeth, so I think it is a GREAT illustration how much "intellectuals" they were (just compare him with the picture of Antanas Smetona and you will see that it is not much of a propaganda). Word "glorious" in the quote also is ironic because everyone knows how many war crimes the Red Army has committed and its Wikipedia article has it described. Moreover, Lithuanian soldiers clearly does not look very happy there and only two of them have fake smiles. 4) Soviet memorial in Kaunas - yes, it was built during the soviet times, however it was designed by Lithuanian Alfonsas Vincentas Ambraziūnas and I think it is really impressive (http://www.bernardinai.lt/straipsnis/2013-05-18-simona-staputiene-kauno-ix-forto-monumento-autorius-svencia-astuoniasdesimtmeti/101225). Ambraziūnas is really patriotic and later designed monuments for deportations/partisans (http://www.alfonsasambraziunas.lt/sort/paminklai/). But do you have a better monument to offer? We should also keep in mind that pictures of the modern monuments may be problematic to license because Lithuania does not have Freedom of Panorama. -- Pofka (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: I see images a complementary to the text. 1) 3rd of May Constitution in 1791 - yes, formally and due to some historians, creating hype around it is being considered as one of the first modern constitutions, while in fact is is not - the nation was still only bajorai, the serfdom was legal - serfs were not considered the nation and barely humans, etc. It just a constitution of a slightly reformed monarchy. Lithuania and Lithuanian nation disapears in this Constitution. Only narod polski is a subject in this document. Maybe that is important to the history of Lithuania? 1791 M. GEGUŽĖS 3-IOSIOS KONSTITUCIJA IR LIETUVOS KONSTITUCINGUMO TRADICIJA 3) Still I think original document is better than a replica. 3) - same 4) Its only you and some others, knowing the context will notice the subtle irony. Without broader knowledge of Lithuanian history, many will take it literaly as Soviet propaganda expected - people are happy to loose the state. 5) My suggestion is - the basement of the former KGB house in Vilnius with the names of the partisans. There is a photo on Wikipedia, but we need a better one. Former KGB HQ, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2008
@Ke an: 1) 3rd of May Constitution was rehabilitated later. I don't exactly remember articles/books where it was written, however the exclusion of the Lithuania's name did not meant its statehood complete destruction because as I remember other parts of it still made clear that there were two separate states and not only narod polski (e.g., budget/iždas were separate if I'm correct and so on). Doesn't matter if it was effective or not because it is still a very famous achievement known worldwide. 2) 3) "3) Still I think original document is better than a replica. 3) - same" - did not fully understood??? Painting of Emilia Plater is from 19th century and it is about the 1831 uprising, so it is from that time. There was no photography back then and other articles also includes works of art. / Before omitting this poststamp we firstly need vargo mokykla picture because it is much more valuable than one of the book smugglers picture sitting near a table. 4) Well, text beside it easily lets everyone to grab the true meaning how destructive and brutal these communists were. They were smiling when killing children. Plus I think it is a perfect illustration of the Lithuanian Army destruction, which is described beside it in the text. Though, I removed the word "glorious" because it may really be hard to understand for some far foreigners. 5) Well we already have two illustrations of partisans there. I think it would be too much and this sculptor does not seem to be a red parasite. We could use picture of the KGB building execution room? But this picture isn't perfect... Execution room -- Pofka (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: 1) Famous? Only in Poland and Lithuania. I would suggest to display the image with Lithuanian translation of the constitution in XVIIIc. - it would be closer to the context 2) 3) There are authentic portraits of her. Regarding the uprising - yes it was heroic and picturesque, but still people were fighting for a Polish province called Lithuania. The achievements? The ban of the Lithuanian literature. Bishop Motiejus Valančius alone did more than thousands of scythemen. 4) I still have doubts about it. There is a very simple rule - do not distribute the propaganda of the enemy without a good reason. It is a very contextual picture. Most likely those soldiers are Russians, just dressed for a photo in LPA uniforms. 5) I think the best possible choice is Tuskulėnai memorial. There really good photos on the net, we need to get some with Wikipedia licence.: Tuskulėnai -- Ke an (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: 1) There is no doubt that it is famous at least in Europe. Lithuanian nobles also participated in its adoption so that painting is related to Lithuania as well. We only have this picture of the damaged Lithuanian version: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Constitution_of_May_3_in_Lithuanian_language.jpg, so I believe that the painting looks much more impressive. We need a further discussion about this with more people because currently its 50/50 for me. 2) 3) Well that is strange statement. Most of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania nobles did not considered themselves Poles or worse in any case than them despite using the Polish language, so saying that Emilia Plater from such a powerful Plater family was fighting for a Polish province sounds unlikely for me. Motiejus Valančius was great I agree, however such Lithuanian female heroism looks much better for me in this article that is mostly dedicated to the foreigners. 4) It is most likely real Lithuanian Army soldiers. This picture depicts Lithuanian People's Army soldiers (they still formally were Lithuanian soldiers before it was reorganized to the 29th Rifle Corps of the Soviet Union). That's why they still have Vytis on their hats. So these are very last days when they were still allowed to wear him and that's why I think it is a very historically valuable and rare image because most of the later ones are full of the soviet insignia. I doubt if such picture would not be censored in the 50-60s because all the symbols from the inter-war state were strictly banned. I saw another photo somewhere that shows Lithuanian soldiers signing for the soviet army (still wearing the inter-war uniforms), so it has much more propaganda in it than this one. 5) Okey, I finally agree with this one. There is one picture of the entrance to the columbarium. Just replaced with it. -- Pofka (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: 1) Do you have any facts? I even think it's importance for Poland and Lithuania is greatly overestimated. Yes, it has a name Constitution, but in fact it is really logically weak document - full of logical flaws. It is weak also in terms of legal thought. It was created as a quick patch to fix all chaos of a crumbling state and was used for 1 year only. Just compare it with clarity of thought and structure of the French Constitution, 1791. Huge difference, isn't ? There also good points here: Gegužės 3-ios Konstitucija – karalius nuogas 2) 3) This is simple to prove - bus Lenkaj ir gana 4) This photo is nice in the article about LPA, but it is not enough in the article about Lithuania to generalize the anihilation of the Lithuanian army. 5) Thank you - i think it fits very well as a symbol and and as meaningful place. -- Ke an (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: 1) Simply check the length of the Constitution of 3 May 1791 article and the number of sources, further reading list. Nobody would analize some kind of junk that much. Recent Lithuanian source noting that it is important: https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/l-linkevicius-lenkijai-ir-lietuvai-geguzes-3-ioji-turi-ypatinga-reiksme.d?id=71137556 2) 3) Well, for me Emilia Plater is a worth mentioning hero. This discussion is going nowhere between us, I guess. This painting is more valuable for me than her portrait because it not only illustrates her, but also the uprising. Portraits should mostly remain in the person's individual articles. 4) This picture is indeed used to illustrate the LPA here too. It accompanies the "After the occupation, the Soviets had immediately taken brutal actions against the high-ranking officials of the state..." paragraph. This way 3/5 paragraphs has their own illustrations. Not all moments from the history are pleasant and we should not be like reds who constantly hided black pages from their history. This really is a sad moment, however it was like that in reality. I think we two won't reach an agreement here and we simply repeat the same individual thoughts, so a larger discussion with more editors is needed if you truly believe that this picture should be removed. -- Pofka (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: 1) The length is not a proof of importance. My view still is that is a very poor legal and logical document if compare it with the French and American Constitutions. A sketchy patch. Linkevičius is a diplomat.. You shouldn't give few lines of his diplomatic letter as an historic argument ;) 2) - 3) - 4) - 5) - 6) I just would like to add that maybe it is better to have a photo of Valančius instead of the poststamp, as the figure of Valančius symbolizes the Lithuanian book printing and very effective resistance to rusification. -- Ke an (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: 1) I think it would have been improved and developed later, however these three partitions destroyed everything. 6) I think vargo mokykla should be our primary target because this work of art is a perfect touching illustration. Book smugglers or Valančius isn't the most important in book smuggling for me. Without parents who were illegally teaching their children from these banned books book smugglers work would have been worthless. -- Pofka (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: P.S.: just a few cents - please take a look how Constitution of 3 May is interpreted on GDL page:"This federation was terminated by the passing of the Constitution of 3 May 1791, and since then there was supposed to be a single country – Respublica Poloniae – under one monarch and one parliament. Shortly after, the unitary character of the state was confirmed by adopting the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations." -- Ke an (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: Terms of the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations still indicates that there are two different countries: Poland and Lithuania because they choose some officials simply based on the citizenship. There would be no quotas for Lithuanians if Lithuania ceased to exist. I think this document is the one about which I was previously writing. -- Pofka (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: No, there are no statements about different countries. In fact, this May 3 Consitution is a big mess, very clearly representing the chaos of the Polish liberum veto and it's rotten legislation. In the Constitution itself - everywhere narod polski, ziemi polskiej and Polish nobility is mentioned. Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations issued later, logically would be a contradiction to the Constitution, since it mentioned federation, but in fact it defined only technicall representation(quotas) of the GDL in the government. It is not a sign of sovereignity. GDL has no influence anymore in the King elections(there are none), it has no anymore it's Seim. What it has formally - quotas and tax collection rights. That's all. Like a big savivaldybė. Please take a look at the original documents.
What is important in Lithuanian history (1941-1944)?
Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion
Ok, let's clarify latest edits. You want to delete photo about Kaunas pogrom and keep photo of former Lithuanian Army Commander Stasys Raštikis, who allegedly tried to unsuccessfully protect Jews. You claim that action of Raštikis is "MUCH MORE" (using your words and caps) important than Kaunas mass murders. Reason you seem to give is that "Jews also participated by brutally torturing and executing Lithuanian intellectuals in the forest. Both sides had monsters..." and pogrom was ordered by Germany and carried out by drunk persons(?).
Kaunas pogrom is fact, but do we have reliable evidence that Raštikis did what is claimed in article?
Is it really your sincere position that killing hundreds or thousands of people is "MUCH LESS" important than futile attempt to protect Jews?
Even if it is true that some Jews killed during Kaunas pogrom or Holocaust had tortured Lithuanian intellectuals, how it makes Kaunas pogrom and Holocaust less important? Also, what being drunk has to do with anything?
We do not need photos for every massacre in history, but we are currently discussing which photo better illustrates German occupation period and mass killings of Jews stands out there.
Photo of Kaunas pogrom is not only about this particular event, but also represents fate of other Jews during occupation.
Now most important - it does not matter much what you and me consider important. Wikipedia is about what reliable sources consider imortant. Do historians writing about German occupation in Lithuania (1941-1944) first and foremost mention Holocaust (and Kaunas pogrom) or attempts to protect Jews (and Stasys Raštikis)?
Quote from you: "I will report your activity if you will continue to replace positive and important facts with less important negative facts because it qualifies as propaganda." It is propaganda if it is done in sake of being negative (or positive). I don't appriciate attributing some secret agenda to me just because I think mass murder is very important. But I surely encourage you to report about my activity to wider audience, because we need more people to participate here to get more balanced article. --Minnekon (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Minnekon: Great. Because there already were enough edit wars recently about various parts of the article.
Multiple sources and witnesses recordings from the 1941 uprising confirms Provisional Government will to protect Jews (yes, some rebels with white ties later became monsters and participated in the Holocaust when the Nazis took control, but it was just a small part of rebels and the Provisional Government NEVER supported Holocaust and disbanded itself when it lost all of its power after the Nazi occupation). PG/LAF main task was to protect people from the soviet terror and to revenge for the cruel deportations to Siberia. Only Soviet/Russian propaganda calls this anti-soviet / anti-russian Lithuanian Government Nazis because they want to portray the inter-war independent state and Lithuanians later attempts to restore it in a negative way. Even famous local Jews from that time (e.g., Philip Friedman, Henry A. Zeiger) testify that Lithuanians did not wished to collaborate with Nazis killing Jews. You can read more about it in Lithuanian Activist Front#Controversy with quotes (this organization was initially controlled by the Provisional Government and Raštikis was its Minister of National Defence). I just copied reference from Raštikis' book where he writes about his trip to the Nazi general, however other sources also confirms it (LAF article has whole quote from Raštikis' book). Ironic moment is that the Russian/Soviet propaganda calls the 1941 uprising organizer Kazys Škirpa a horrible Nazi, however he was arrested by Nazis in Germany when the uprising started (why they should do it if he was a Nazi? Dumb propaganda at its finest).
During The Holocaust in Lithuania about 190,000–195,000 Jews were killed in various massacres (e.g., Ponary massacre is a much more cruel massacre where up to 100,000 people of various nationalities were killed, when in Kaunas pogrom there were up to 5,000 victims). I don't say that it wasn't important, however it is absolutely not the most notable moment from the period to highlight it because many other massacres also took place. Furthermore, Kaunas pogrom to this day is still used as a propaganda tool to show how cruel the Lithuanians are, however authentic Nazi documents indicates that it was planned by Nazi Germans and not by Lithuanians (quote from the LAF article which has references about it: "Nazi Germany authorities also actively tried to present publicly that the local population was attacking Jews. These tactics are well disclosed in the Schutzstaffel General Brigadeführer and Security Police Chief of the Occupied Eastern Territories Franz Walter Stahlecker 1941 X.15 report to the Reich Minister Heinrich Himmler. In his report to Heinrich Himmler about his tasks (the extermination of Jews in the Baltic states) execution, Franz Walter Stahlecker states that the extermination of Jews in the Wehrmacht occupied territories should be performed in a way that the Nazis would remain "clean" in front of the history and that there would be no sign of Nazis actual inspiration, organization or conducting, and it should look like that the local population and its institutions in their own initiative performed the execution of the Jewish population"). It was more like a Nazi propaganda event to encourage the killing of Jews, however much more Lithuanians later tried to protect/hide Jews from Nazis and its collaborators than to kill. During the war time President and the Commander of the Army are the most important people in the state. Later Lithuanian Army Commander, who replaced Raštikis, most likely was a soviet collaborator (Vincas Vitkauskas who later received Order of Lenin) and President Antanas Smetona left the state, so during the 1941 uprising former President Kazys Grinius and Stasys Raštikis were people with the highest ranks from the inter-war state there that were still loyal to its old state. Their actions during it are very important to indicate the true will of Lithuanians that were not influenced by soviets/nazis propaganda/control. As I already wrote, Kaunas pogrom perpetors were controlled by Nazis and this event was (and still is) used by soviets/russian propaganda to form an anti-Lithuanian attitude.
It shows that no matter what nationality the person is - all nations have monsters among them and we cannot blame only one side and highlight only its monsters/crimes. Just like not all Germans were Nazis as well. As I remember, the French Police actively participated in deportations of local Jews to the Auschwitz concentration camp, but nobody condemns France for the Holocaust. It is documented that Nazis largely forced/hired local drunkards and other trashes from the society to kill Jews and used these monsters as a propaganda tool to encourage other Lithuanians to participate in the Holocaust, but as I already said before - much more Lithuanians tried to secure/hide Jews than to kill and among these most of them were Lithuanian intellectuals. Holocaust was a Nazi horror, not Lithuanian, so blaming Lithuanians/Provisional Government for it is not right. Lithuanians and Jews lived peacefully in Lithuania for hundreds of years before Nazis and the inter-war Lithuanian Army even had Jewish battalions (that was commanded by Raštikis for years, so he remained loyal to the Lithuanian Jews as well), so the Kaunas pogrom is a propaganda event that tries to deny the truth and to depict all Lithuanians as monsters.
I think none illustration from the massacres is needed here, because Tuskulenai columbarium.jpg already indicates that 1 million Lithuanians (including Jews) were killed during the war. Jews are Lithuanians as well. From the line: "Just after the beginning of the World War II, on September 2, 1939, Lithuanian Consulate was opened in Vilnius. The consulate was the first in the world to grant Visas For Life for the Jews and also saved many Polish war refugees. By doing so, Lithuania continued to actively protect its Jewish citizens from the Holocaust. Back in 1934 it sent an official note to Nazi Germany warning not to take action against the Jews who resided in the country that were citizens of Lithuania" you can see how equally they were treated by the inter-war state.
As I already said, Kaunas pogrom is a propaganda event first used by Nazis and now/later by soviets/russians, so it is not suitable because it distorts the truth and wrongly depicts that Lithuanians alone attacked Jews.
They are equally important. As I already said, Holocaust is a Nazi horror. Absolute majority Lithuanians never supported the Holocaust and Raštikis actions (as one of the most important Lithuanian from the time) illustrates not only him but all these Lithuanian intellectuals who protected Jews and not some drunkards/trashes used by the Nazis. I think the Lithuanian Jews victims should be simply included in that 1 million Lithuanians who died because I am sure that the soviets killed/deported Lithuanian Jews who were loyal to the inter-war state as well. But I would further discuss the inclusion of Ponary massacre illustration because it fairly illustrates that the Holocaust was conducted by Nazis and some Lithuanian trashes only were used as tools for their dirty work as well.
My previous writing in this post indicates why I was strictly against the inclusion of the Kaunas pogrom illustration in Lithuania's main page and I hope that now you understand why I called your persistent defence of this illustration as a propaganda. As I already wrote previously, Kaunas pogrom depicts Lithuanians alone killing Jews which is absolutely wrong and definitely is a propaganda that is very useful for the present day Russia to hide all the Soviet Union crimes and to darken one of the NATO member state history. I think it is normal for a foreigner to not know all the details and I did not meant to insult you. Glad that we did not continued the edit war there and moved to discussion here. -- Pofka (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, some Lithuanians were against treatment of Jews, but my question was about particular statement made in article and by you that Stasys Raštikis tried to protect Jews. It seems to be based on Raštikis' own claim, which is not "reliable evidence" and needs verification. If such statement is used anywhere in Wikipedia, it should at least be made clear it's Raštikis' own claim.
You did not answer my question which was about your position that alleged Raštikis opposition to killings was MUCH MORE important that killings themselves. But let's stop this discussion, because our personal views on historical events doesn't matter in Wikipedia anyway and it's waste of time.
The Kaunas photo (and it's description) you deleted did not "blame Lithuanians/Provisional Government" or "blame only one side and highlight only its monsters/crimes". It even did not mention them and did not blame anyone.
The photo of columbarium you referenced is memorial for victims of Soviet regime, not about Jews during German occupation. By the way, description of columbarium photo is badly worded, right not it can be read as all those 1 million were victims of Soviet repressions.
"...it is not suitable because it distorts the truth and wrongly depicts that Lithuanians alone attacked Jews." Neither the photo nor Kaunas pogrom article says "Lithuanians alone attacked Jews" or anything similar. If there really are mistakes in Kaunas pogrom article, fix those, instead of trying to remove mentions of that event from here.
Sorry, I don't believe you if you claim that reliable sources consider Holocaust and attempts to protect Jews equally important. Google search of writings about Lithuanian history clearly shows that acts of killings are viewed more notable than some people's dissatisfaction with that. Example of short overview of Lithuanian history mentions killing of Jews, but nothing about attempts to protect then. Example of longer history book talks about killing of Jews on 4 pages, with less than half of 1 page about locals helping Jews and even more about locals hostile to Jews. The same history book happens to have a photo to illustrate this era and guess what it is about? Yes, Kaunas pogrom - the same photo you deleted from here! So in conclusion, Kaunas pogrom photo must be preferred to photo of Raštikis because: a) it represents more important event than the other; b) it captures the event itself, while other photo was taken in different time and has no direct connection to event; c) Kaunas pogrom is a fact, but what Raštikis actually did is not so sure.
Now about your proposition to replace photo of Kaunas pogrom with photo of Ponary massacre, because latter represents ethnic(?) proportions of perpetrators more correctly (as I understood your point). I think there is not much difference, but I oppose it for few reasons: * every event is unique and we don't have a photo of an "average massacre". Ponary probably represents ethnic proportions of victims and other stuff wrongly. Both are part of Holocaust; * It doesn't matter anyway, because neither photo nor their descriptions say anything about proportions of Lithuanians or make incorrect generalizations like you repeatedly claim; * Kaunas photo is more clear, it's harder to understand what's going on on Ponary thumbnail photo. --Minnekon (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Minnekon:, @Pofka: @Minnekon - it's a bit difficult to understand your aim to "trade" photo of Raštikis to a photo of Kaunas pogrom.. They are not playing cards. And there is no contradiction between them except artificial contradiction you are trying to create. You say "Yes, some Lithuanians were against treatment of Jews".. According to historians 2500-4000 Jews were saved in Lithuanian families, it is estimated that about 25000 Lithuanians participated in saving them from the Holocaust. 891 Lithuanians named as Righteous Among the Nations. They risked their lives and the lives of their family members. "Some"? 6th country by the RAN - and compare now with the population of countries above Lithuania..
The photo of Kaunas pogrom is considered a montage by expert photograpers - it has quite many unanswered questions to this day. [1]
You cite EB and say "short overview of Lithuanian history mentions killing of Jews, but nothing about attempts to protect them". I would like to mention, that EB says nothing about participation of Lithuanians in both actions. Should we correct Wikiepdia article accordingly?
Regarding the photo of the colombarium and it's wording - nothing wrong with it. During the Nazi-German occupation lithuania lost about 250 000 citizens. During the Soviet-Russian occupation about 300 000 were deported to Siberia, 500 000 perished in forced emigration, fleeing from Soviet-Russian terror, 25 000 were killed by NKVD or Red Army in resistance against Soviet -Russian occupation during the 1944-1953 years. Biggest losses came from Soviet-Russian occupation.
The section looks quite balanced. I just would add numbers of Lithuanians who saved the Jews from Holocaust to have a more balanced view. What is lacking also - Nazi attempts to provoke pogroms and their propaganda methods. -- Ke an (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
1. Other witnesses also mentioned Raštikis visit to the Nazis. This event is a fact. Moreover, there absolutely are no reasons not to believe in his words because he never was a Nazi and always was a protector of Lithuanian citizens, including Lithuanian Jews (who, as I already mentioned, had batallions in Raštikis' led Lithuanian Army). Raštikis was a patriotic Lithuanian hero and only the soviets always tried to darken his glorious reputation. They kidnapped his children, forced them to write letter to the USA where they begged his father to come back to Lithuania after the soviet occupation. Guess what they had in mind upon his return to the occupied Lithuania? Obviously, it was a bullet to his head to silence him. But he did not returned and always shouted loudly about the soviets crimes. So we have to remain very, very critical to sources that have connections with USSR/Russia when we speak about Raštikis. Many of these do desperately call him a nazi because almost every soviet/russian enemy is a nazi/fascist still to this day (or American and their allies), however no reliable Western sources call Raštikis as a nazi and there was no Raštikis' trial in the USA like other nazies. If you raise doubts about Raštikis' words reliability about his totally positive view towards Jews - please provide reliable sources why he was a nazi or participated in the Holocaust.
3. As I already said, Kaunas pogrom was a propaganda event organized by nazis. If you think this picture is objective, please show me in it any soldiers with the SS/nazi/gestapo uniforms. It only depicts civilian looking people near killed Jews, however most of these "civilians" were nazis that were not subordinate to the Provisional Government/LAF (quote from Kaunas pogrom: "According to Stahlecker's report of October 15, local Lithuanians were not enthusiastic about the pogrom and so he had to use Algirdas Klimaitis and his men.[4] Klimaitis controlled a paramilitary unit of roughly 600 men that was organized in Tilsit by SD and was not subordinated to the LAF"). If Klimaitis and his 600 nazi monsters are notable to you, why the only legitimate Commander of the Lithuanian Army (as a PG Minister of Defence) Raštikis is not? Raštikis and PG saved thousands of Lithuanians from further soviet executions and the PG had no chance to combat the Nazi Germany because even the huge beast USSR alone would have probably been trounced by nazis without the Western allies support, so nobody can blame PG for their later surrender to nazis.
4. Lithuanian Jews are equal to other Lithuanians, Lithuanian Poles and so on. Columbarium picture annotation sums up all these casualties together. There is not enough space to add illustrations of massacres in the main page because now it is perfectly balanced and we need to keep these in the History of Lithuania.
5. Already wrote about this in the 3rd point. It does not depict nazi/SS/gestapo soldiers near the killed Jews and because of this event propagandic task it might easily confuse readers in a way that Lithuanians/LAF/PG organized this event themselves.
6. Ke an already perfectly answered to this point. Depiction of 600 nazi monsters work over 25000 Lithuanians who saved Jews is not right. Raštikis illustrates all these 25000 who protected Jews from the Holocaust and not him alone. If 600 Klimaitis' nazis are more important than 25000 Lithuanians to you then you are really into the anti-Lithuanian propaganda. @Ke an Could you provide source from where you got these numbers? We could expand Raštikis' illustration annotation by adding that 25000 Lithuanians actively protected Jews from the Holocaust. It would be clearer then why this illustration is important. -- Pofka (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: It is mentioned in Wikipedia LT page Lietuvos žydų gelbėtojai, historian Genius Procuta - the number of people who participated - so it is not only the most active people, but also those who helped them - maybe including family members as well. I think we need other sources to compare that number. This number was calculated using Martin Gilbert's formula. More - here [2]. This article Viktorija Sakaitė. Žydų gelbėjimas besides other interesting facts mentioned 2300 families (data compiled by Vilna Gaon State Jewish Museum (Vilnius)), which saved the Jews. -- Ke an (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: Martin Gilbert's calculation might not be totally reliable because the same person might have helped to save more than one Jew, so I added information about the Lithuanian families who protected Jews from the Holocaust by citing the genocid.lt article because it should be absolutely reliable. -- Pofka (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pofka: Yes, I think it is correct way. Just I would add information from genocid.lt to the text itself rather than to annotation of the photo. -- Ke an (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an:@Pofka:@Minnekon: Israel has recognized 893 Lithuanians as Righteous Among the Nations for risking their lives to save Jews. Approximately 13,000 men served in the Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions that were involved in the mass murder of Jews. -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
It was just a reaction to what @Pofka wrote: "Depiction of 600 nazi monsters work over 25000 Lithuanians who saved Jews is not right." Anyway, I fully agree with @Minnekon, the pictures from the Kaunas pogrom also represent the fate of other Jews during the Nazi occupation. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tobby72:,@Pofka: So you deny the statement of Pofka or agree with him? Your statement is inprecise. 10 of 26 Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions participated in mass killings. So not 13 000. Other 16 batalions were used for guarding of airports or other tasks. Regarding the photo of pogrom - pogroms in Lithuania were very rare. Most of the Jews were killed in Paenriai and Kaunas gheto. Like in the neighbouring Poland - Jedwabne pogrom,Szczuczyn pogrom, Tykocin pogrom were executed by the local Polish population, but the majority of the Jewish population was executed in concentration camps, where locals also served as kappos and guards. -- Ke an (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Most of the Jews in Lithuania were murdered, mostly by Nazi German units, and it doesn't matter how it was done, whether by shooting, gassing, starving or beating to death. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tobby72: Why then you so stick to a photo of Kaunas pogrom? By the way many of your sentences had references, but the references had no facts, which were stated in the sentences. Many factual information is mixed - Police units attributed the facts of Special Squad. Looks like you just adding some random mishmash without checking the facts and the original sources. -- Ke an (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tobby72:@Ke an: Just a bit of context that really fits here from the Vichy France article: "French police were ordered to round up Jews and other "undesirables" such as communists and political refugees.", "Only four senior Vichy officials were tried for crimes against humanity, although many more had participated in the deportation of Jews for extermination in Nazi concentration camps, abuses of prisoners, and severe acts against members of the Resistance". France before the Nazi invasion did not experienced such horror as Lithuanians deportations and mass executions organized by the Soviets. Still, there were many, many French monsters who supported Nazis when their true state was occupied. In Lithuania, Nazis were at first seen as liberators from the immense soviets horror. So there is no surprise that there were collaborators. Yes, 13,000 is a quite big number, but it is just about 0,52% of Lithuanians (in 1940 there were 2,5-2,6 inhabitants in Lithuania). Plus, as Ke an already mentioned, not all of these battalions participated in these killings, so true Jews killers made up just about 0,2% of all Lithuanians. Israel did not awarded all those who protected Jews by various ways. There were much more of them. If we blame Lithuania/Lithuanians for the Holocaust, then we should attack France for it much more. However, I do not see any massacres illustrations or any links to the French Nazis horror in France article. But some uncomfortable facts are also presented in the Vichy France article: "Along with many French police officials, André Tulard was present on the day of the inauguration of Drancy internment camp in 1941, which was used largely by French police as the central transit camp for detainees captured in France. All Jews and others "undesirables" passed through Drancy before heading to Auschwitz and other camps". Consequently, I will not tolerate double standards and attacks on my Homeland using propaganda methods. -- Pofka (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tobby72:@Pofka: Yes, there is a tendence among Polish and Russian nationalists to use the events of Second World war instrumentally for anti-Lithuanian propaganda or as an attempts to deligitimate the statehood of the Lithuania. Therefore we should be carefull in balancing the texts. EB is a good example. -- Ke an (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tobby72: As already discussed before - Kaunas pogrom is a propaganda event with many, many doubtful facts. Such unclear event cannot be placed on the front page of a country's article. Moreover, I see no place for any massacre on the main article. France does not have any illustration about the Vichy France, Poland's article does not have illustration of the Auschwitz concentration camp. And... Guess what? Even Germany has not Holocaust illustrations, except for a clean Hitler's portrait. So why Lithuania should have illustration of a Nazi propaganda event Kaunas pogrom on its main article? :) -- Pofka (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
It's true only for Hungary. Could you contribute to historic truth on these pages as well as France and Germany? Or you just being selective? -- Ke an (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tobby72: Kaunas pogrom does not depict Nazis/Germany input, but, as you have also said, "Nazi terror should never be forgotten". Replaced it with a illustration from the Ponary massacre because it is a much more objective event and shows German Nazis/Germany direct input. It is also much bigger event because up to 100,000 people were executed there (of them about 70,000 were Jews). -- Pofka (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Latest cuts
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
@Renata3: While I agree with removing excesive images and especially those images which are not from Lithuania, I think there are cases when baby was thrown out with the water. e.g. decisive battles of Algirdas. -- Ke an (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
More trimming and cutting is to come. This is supposed to be a very high level overview article. Any specific details really should be moved to the various sub-articles. As far as Algirdas, Battle of Blue Waters still has 3 whole sentences devoted to it. Renata (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Renata3:@Ke an: I think we need to further discuss the deletion of "Pagan mythology" section because I believe the mythology was much more than a religion. It affected all areas of the lifestyle in Lithuania and I think it fits perfectly in the culture section. A few sentences about Romuva in the Religion section does not cover this deletion because it is only a contemporary interpretation. E.g., it does not cover folk tales such as Eglė the Queen of Serpents, various tales about laumės and so on. Knowing how many centuries paganism flourished in Lithuania and how many casualties it resulted, I think we should mention it much more because it is probably an essential part of the Lithuanian culture that makes it unique. In my opinion, we should keep this section to pay respect to the old culture. By doing it, I would agree that this section should be only cleaned from the Romuva related topics that should remain only in religion section (as it is now). Also, why did you removed illustrations from the "Public holidays and festivals" section (about Joninės/fern flower, Kaziuko mugė and Apuolė 854)? I think they really fit there and complement the section. Now it looks empty. -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Renata3:@Ke an: I agree, I think it should left as 'Traditional culture and mythology' or by other better name. We could revork it a bit more - maybe using Greimas and others research. It was a bit too detailed to some very minuscule deities I think. But, yes, I think it should left. -- Ke an (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it should not. Wikipedia is not about "paying respect" to anything or cherry-picking the "unique" moments, but about providing encyclopedic, balanced introduction to Lithuania. Paganism belongs in the history section -- it has not played a role in Lithuania's history for the past 600 years. Catholicism had a much greater role in the past 200 years, yet it is barely mentioned. Renata (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Renata3: I propose 'Traditional culture and mythology' section, not paganism. Each country has it's own unique moments, which should be covered in encyclopedia. Lithuanian mythology and folk singing traditions were and are important and are relatively well preserved, so they deserve a coverage. -- Ke an (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Bumping paganism into spotlight is very much WP:UNDUE. Plus, there is no reliable data about it. There are only a few reliable mentions in early sources, but those are not sufficient to reconstruct the religion. Later historical written sources are of extremely dubious reliability. I have not seen a decent academic study on surviving elements in folk culture. Most info available on paganism are romantic legends, someone's personal interpretations, and neo-pagan revivals. I have been looking for something objective and reliable to write/improve the Lithuanian mythology and List of Lithuanian gods since 2007, but so far had no real luck. What could work -- a general section on "Traditional folk culture" which would cover music, songs, folklore (including what survives from pagan beliefs), clothing, crafts, architecture, etc. Renata (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
So I think we bot agree on some point - you propose "Traditional folk culture", I - "Traditional culture and mythology". Regarding the sources about pagan religion - they are scarce: bits in folk songs and fairy tales, bits in historians writings, chronicles, etc. Yes, we don't have the whole picture, because it it's continuation was disrupted. Regarding mythology and research - I don't think it was so hopeless - Greimas, Vėlius, Dundulienė, Gimbutas insights are valuable and would be difficult to name them as "romantic". Some authors like Matthäus Prätorius attested facts of his time. Back them there were some remaining bits of pagan religion. Sources about mythology are most often not reliable as it is an oral tradition. For example, just look at he sources of Greek mythology - poets: http://www.thehellenictimes.com/sources.html -- Ke an (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Renata3: You also removed pictures from the "Military" section about Vilkas and Panzerhaubitze, however these are the most powerful weapons of the Lithuanian Army and it is encyclopedic. Other countries do include such weapons (e.g., France#Military). Both of these pictures featured Lithuanian Army versions (not some foreign). Eurofighter picture was taken in Lithuania as well. -- Pofka (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Too many pictures. If you want to replace a pick of soldiers with a pic of equipment, go ahead. But this should not become a gallery of equipment of Lithuanian armed forces. Renata (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Polish minority and Lech Wałęsa
Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
Lech Wałęsa, Poland's first freely elected President, is the world-renowned Nobel Peace Prize laureate and human rights activist. His words are of great importance.
No it is not. See Argument_from_authority. It is quite primitive error - "Attribution to authority" in arguing. So authority doesn't help here. Unless he felt discriminated and the article is about Lech Wałęsa, which is not the case. -- Ke an (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
No, Polish minority is not facing discrimination by the Lithuanian government. It has even Polish schools funded by the Lithuanian state, which is unheard off in Europe. Usually minorities finance their schools themselves. Several citates from low grade politicians living on waging scandals is not a proof of discrimination. This is an encyclopedia, not a tourist brochure or tabloid newspaper - I agree. Therefore opinions in tabloid press is not a proof. Maybe you have some discrimination facts, instead of providing some media links with opinions? Some links to a more serious research for your help: http://www.gencat.cat/llengua/noves/noves/hm04tardor/docs/kallonen.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/585915/IPOL_STU(2017)585915_EN.pdf -- Ke an (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Lithuania was invaded by the Soviet Red Army in 1940, not by the "Russian army". This is an encyclopedia, not a tourist brochure or tabloid newspaper. We should be accurate.
Per WP:TALKO: "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the Talk quotation or Talkquote templates to quote others' posts." (see diff)
Poland's state-owned Polskie Radio: Politicians representing the Polish minority in Lithuania have appealed to the Equal Rights Ombudsmen in Vilnius to repeal education legislation which they claim is discriminatory towards those from a Polish background in the Baltic state.[3]
European Foundation of Human Rights: Tomasz Snarski, lawyer and Doctor of juridical science, author of petition no358/2011 on language rights of Poles living in Lithuania, once again has shown matter of Polish minority discrimination in area of language and education rights. He made an appeal to European Parliament to take legal and political steps aiming to solve the problem by European cooperation and with respect to fundamental rights of citizens of EU.[4]
Reuters: Lithuania has long experienced tensions with its vocal and politically-united Polish minority, which makes up around 7 percent of its population. Ethnic Poles protested in 2014 when they were told to remove street signs in their language because of the same law.[5]
Polskie Radio: Polish ethnic minority schools launched an open-ended strike in Lithuania on Wednesday in protest against blanket reforms on the teaching of the Lithuanian language.[6]
Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania – Christian Families Alliance, the party representing the Polish minority in Lithuania: After Lithuanian accession to the European Union in 2004, the situation of national minorities in Lithuania, including Polish, paradoxically got much worse. It is not only about anti-Polish attitude noticeable in the Lithuanian media or statements of some politicians, but it also concerns legislative restrictions of the rights of national minorities.[7] -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yet again you are adding some one-sided media (Polish mostly) coverage (wikipedia is not for media coverage) claims, but not facts of discrimination. Shouting about discrimination is not a discrimination fact. Are you able to give NPOV discrimination facts - preferably from solid International organisations (not coverage of tabloids or right wing Polish polititians)? Have you looked what the term Discrimination means? https://www.britannica.com/topic/discrimination-society -- Ke an (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
Reverted materials were clearly biased - Poland-related materials on Lithuania page, "discrimination" was sourced with cleary biased "opinion" references. Unability of editor to ground his/her claims on talk page - flooding addtional low quality links instead. An the reverted sentences were added 2-3 times without properly argumenting them. So it is more like a vandalism. It is not being reverted. -- Ke an (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion quality - could you please formulate your sentences, statements instead adding the bunch of the links? Links are to source, support the statement. -- Ke an (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the Polish minority in Lithuania is discriminated against is quite obvious and is supported by multiple reliable sources you've been ignoring. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it is not obvious. Your multiple sources have no discrimination facts. They have claims (1 link) about discrimination and all belong to politicians. You have put many links, and even the only one which has word "discrimination" says "which they claim is discriminatory towards those from a Polish background". Propaganda or opionions are not facts. None of the international organization or the court detected discrimination of minorities in Lithuania. Polish right-wing politians and their propaganda is not a reliable source. -- Ke an (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The Polish minority minority which has radio, newspapers, internet portals, state funded schools in Lithuania is being discriminated? In which way? -- Ke an (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The Polish minority in Lithuania is not discriminated. Just because they ask for "special status" that does not mean that they are discriminated. Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and other minorities do not ask for "special status" and follow the law. I should remind that law is equal to everyone, and just because someone thinks they are "special" does not mean discrimination. And as for Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania – Christian Families Alliance, it is a well known fact that most of their members do not really care for Polish minority rights, and just try to make a fuss when there is none. In addition, most of those members are openly supporting the pro-Russian political stance and accuse the Polish government in the same way they accuse the Lithuanian government. Even the politicians from Poland laugh at that party for their silly accusations, and one of AWPL's members have been asked to come to prosecutor's office in Poland for wasting Polish government funds on other things than Polish minority's needs in Lithuania. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Lithuania has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add info about EU accession to the summary, as well as Council of Europe, Schengen, OECD, etc. (making it the same as the other Eu countries summaries). AndyPT (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion
According to all sources and organization, lithuania and the baltic region is in northern europe. For some reason latvia and estonia are defined as so while lithuania isn’t.
The only source which does say “east” is the CIA factbook, which is out of date because it is dated back to the iron curtain era. When lithuania was mostly not recognized.
Therefore, this should be changed immediately.
There is no doubt among organization nor researchers. The correct and fair solution is: “BALTIC REGION OF NORTHERN EUROPE “ Jonathan311 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
If you are claiming that Lithuania is in "Northern Europe by all sources and organizations" then you must give examples. You should also understand that Baltic region and Lithuania are two different things. You might be confusing it with the Baltic states, which is a completely different term from Baltic region. The current designation was determined in a discussion in July 2017 and that is why it is written as "northern-eastern Europe" (there are two links in this formation). In addition, a quick search on Google gives 70,500 results for "Lithuania Eastern Europe" and 9,950 results for "Lithuania Northern Europe", while there are 2,480 results for "Lithuania Central Europe", which shows that the majority of sources still list it in Eastern Europe, which is again why the current formation is used. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Using Google search as an argument is definitely a flaw. Fo example a search for "united kingdom eastern europe" gives 1 260 000 000 results, while the search "united kingdom western europe" - only 872 000 000. Should we now reedit United Kindom page, since majority of the sources "list it" as an Eastern Europe?
@Jonathan311:@Sabbatino: Eastern Europe location is determined by the separation of Europe during the Cold War and has the same outdated value as "post Soviet". Event the Germany had it's Eastern part. This division is clearly outdated and not correct anymore. Lithuania historically and culturally was always (except occupations) considered a Northern country - just look at the map Carta marina of Northern lands in 1539. Lithuanians themselves considered Lithuania as nothern in terms of climate, character and ethnography. I don't see any reason not to use UN classification. Especially so, that UN itself changed classification of Baltic states from Eastern Europe to Nothern. -- Ke an (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ke an: I am not using Google search as an argument as it is just an example. And your example about the United Kingdom is just a poor effort in order to show something. Using Carta marina as an "argument" is just silly, because that map is about a completely different formation. Please read what is written there and stop confusing Nordic countries with Northern Europe. And you need to show proof for the "Lithuania historically and culturally was always (except occupations) considered a Northern country" claim. In addition, Encyclopædia Britannica, which is one of the best sources about most things, lists Lithuania as being in northeastern Europe, but we certainly do not need to write like that because Northeastern Europe redirects to Baltic region. Meanwhile, Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija says that "Lietuva yra Europos geografiniame viduryje, pietrytinėje Baltijos jūros pakrantėje." or "Gamtinės geografijos požiūriu, Lietuva yra vidutinių platumų šalis Rytų Europos lygumos vakarinėje dalyje, pereinamojo (iš jūrinio į žemyninį) klimato, Rytų Europos mišriųjų miškų geografinėje zonoje." It is evident that both of you want to list the political division instead of the geographical division, which should be listed. For example, Germany's page says that "is a country in Central and Western Europe, lying between the Baltic and North seas to the north, and the Alps to the south." and omits any mention of the political division. Additionally, from the political POV, Lithuania can even be considered as a Central European country because of its historical ties to Poland or Eastern European country due to its occupations by the Russian Empire and Soviet Union. Geographically, it was and will always be in Northern and Eastern Europe, because half of Lithuania is in Eastern and the other half is in Northern Europe. From the geographic POV, Žemaitija should even be in other time zone, which would be UTC+01:00 and not UTC+02:00 as it is now applied to whole country, because the climate and geographical position of Žemaitija is a bit different than what we have in Suvalkija, Aukštaitija and Dzūkija. And that is why Lithuania's position is listed as "is a country in the Baltic region of northern-eastern Europe", because all possible geographical positions should be mentioned and any political division should be omitted. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: With the UK and Google search example I just demonstrated how silly your argument (or example) was. I'm glad you have started to use proper argumentation. I haven't confused Nordic countries with Northern Europe anywhere. Nordic (a prosperous Scandinavian country) concept didn't even exist at the times of Carta Marina. If you have some little knowledge about it please read supplementary texts of Carta Marina which describe Lithuanians as a northern nation. But the point is - should the term be used as a geocultural one or as purely geographic. From my prospective term Nothern Europe grasps both. And, being Central Europe has nothing to do with relationships with Poland, Central European, Central Europe is mostly about German cultural influence - it's not a political POV at all as your write.
@Ke an: For starters, you should not insult me as you did in the first part of your reply. Secondly, you must give examples about ...Carta Marina which describe Lithuanians as a northern nation, because it is you who is trying to make the change and it is your duty to support the claim. What Carta Marina texts do you have in mind and where can they be found? At the moment it is looking more like a personal synthesis of a map with no sources to back up the claim you are making. Even its Wikipedia page clearly says that "The map covers the Nordic lands of "Svecia" (Svealand), "Gothia" (Götaland), "Norvegia" (Norway), Dania (Denmark), Islandia (Iceland), Finlandia (Finland), and Livonia (Estonia and Latvia)." I do not see any mention about Lithuania. In addition, POV can be political, geographical, cultural, etc. Therefore, Central Europe does not mean that it is only related to Germany , because it can include countries that were part of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, various Austrian and Hungarian states, and various German states. Moving on to the "geocultural or geographic" point, it should be geographical, because that is how countries are usually defined. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
As you can see @Sabbatino: most people agree that the correct for is baltic region of northern europe.
Please make an effort of changing it once and for all. Jonathan311 (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jonathan311: There is no "correct" formation, because you did not give any good arguments nor you showed any examples on changing it. Please read my reply above to get a better understanding on what is and should be listed. In Lithuania's sense, this "Northern Europe" phenomena is a political formation to show that we are no longer a post Soviet state, which is true to some degree, but the geographical position triumphs and should triumph any political division. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino i have no idea how to link you so i will just write it and hope you’ll see. You wanted arguements and here they are:
The respected organizations that claim lithuania to be Northern Europe are- UNESCO, EuroVoc, National Geographic Society, committee for international cooperation in national research in demography.
All of these against the factbook from the post soviet era. I didn’t link these cause i don’t know how.
Please take a look Jonathan311 (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jonathan311: You are once again not giving any good arguments and just repeat what is written and/or what you have written before. When you have something more than just repeat the same thing in every message then we can discuss it further. I will now breakdown all the organizations that you listed: UNESCO, National Geographic Society and CICRED do not say anything about where Lithuania's location; Eurovoc claims that Lithuania is in Northern Europe. So out of all three organizations that you listed only one says that Lithuania is in Northern Europe, while all others do not say anything about it. So you not only did not provide any verifiable sources, but you also did not provide any arguments for or against. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino. Do me a favour and teach ne how to link you. And...There are no possible argument. You just won’t find them. Both for or against. That is because you can’t prove geographic areas. It makes no sense. What you can prove is that from the beginning of time. Lithuania was and still is influenced by the northern states.
It’s entire history is tied with these states since the vikings once terrorized its shores. The connection of the lithuanian people with slavs and eastern europeans is a period lasting no longer than 200 years combined, against thousands of years under geraman and north germanic rule.
Even the lithuanian language and people if you’d check, are originated in juttlan- Which is today denmark. All of the above are nothing compared to the recent 100 years soviet occupation and the 200 year polish influence.
Also, the organizations i recalled before do identify lithuania as northern in their offices location Jonathan311 (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan311 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but the last comment is a history fiction. Lithuania was not under German rule for thousands of years (are you mixing it with Latvia and Estonia?), even more so the Lithuanian language didn't originate in Jutland :) -- Ke an (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jonathan311: Not sure where you got your fringe theories from, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Lithuania has been associated with Slavs for at least 630 years if not more. Even the Lithuanian language belongs to the Balto-Slavic branch of the Indo-European languages. In addition, not giving any arguments from your side means that there is nothing more to discuss with you if you cannot show any sources for your claims. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino i agree that I’m not giving exaples as i should and i want you to know that I’m not here for fighting. You as an elder editor must do your best to claim me wrong and give your own arguements. I would like to see you cheking more about this subject and truely explaim your (sorry but) false claim.
Do what’s right to wikipedia, not your name!!
Jonathan311 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jonathan311: I already wrote my arguments above. Just because I did not direct my replies at you does not mean that you should not read them. Consider reading them before you try to write more fringe theories and accusations. Additionally, please read WP:BRD, because it is your duty to try and convince other editors to make the change and not theirs. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sabbatino i believe i did my job and it’s your arrogance speaking. Not quite you..
deapite all that i do respect that and i want you to know that i have read every one of your reply’s and i still don’t find them enough because there is no true reason in them only tons of words. I don’t believe we will make any progress like that and i start to believe that this is what you want.
Therefore i think there is no point in this conversation.
I wish i could “talk to your manager” or something but sadly it isn’t the case :( Jonathan311 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jonathan311: This is not the place to insult or accuse other editors. If you have trouble accepting or do not want to accept facts, which were written black on white, then it is your problem, and failure to defend your claims falls on your shoulders and not others. Trying to show certain policies is not arrogance. And sadly, but I do not have a manager nor do I wish to have one since I am perfectly fine in managing myself. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jonathan311: Sadly, quite interesting discussion turned into trolling, I would suggest you to concentrate on the facts, not on emotions or fictions. -- Ke an (talk)
Since sources differ on the current location, may I suggest a further compromise in just saying Europe. The exact location is described in subsequent sentences, so we can leave it to readers to decide whether they consider that location to be northern, eastern or north-eastern. Dbfirs22:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not a compromise, rather escaping the problem. Why not planet Earth then? Europe is quite big so location should be defined. -- Ke an (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The location is defined, as Baltic region. There's also a map in the infobox which shows exactly where it is, so it's hard to see how anyone could be confused. Valenciano (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: That is one of the possible solutions. In addition, he same formation should then be applied at Lithuania#Geography and Geography of Lithuania. But what about the page's categories regarding Northern and Eastern Europe? Should they be removed? This compromise might most likely be a never-ending edit war since some editors could come and keep changing it and ignoring this discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No, because it's possible for a place to be in both northern and eastern Europe, so there's no need to change the categories. Valenciano (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we need to be consistent, so I've changed Northern to Baltic in both places, leaving the note about some sources claiming Northern and some Eastern Europe. Is this OK? Dbfirs08:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This section is written from a biased POV. For example: "Siege of Pilėnai is noted for the Lithuanians' heroic defense", "The Livonian Brothers were smashed", a great victory over the Teutonic Knights" and " battle destroyed a military alliance". Instead of neutral terms such as defeated, victory or ended there is the use of language which valorises Lithuanian forces. The following claim "ruling elite practised religious tolerance" has no supporting citation. Overall the section is written as a heroic account of history. Angrynative (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Angrynative: Have you spotted any false facts or some important facts missing, claiming the whole section is POV? What would you suggest to correct except heroic wording? -- Ke an (talk)
@Angrynative: "Religious tolerance" is referenced very well below the Grand Duchy of Lithuania map changes image. The ldkistorija.lt website is an official website about the history of the state and I believe it is moderated by the Vilnius University scientists. I do not agree that these words are biased POV because if you simply write everywhere "win", "defeat" the style of the text will remind the first-classes kids essays. These words illustrates how these battles ended and it is true that these were crushing victories for Lithuanians, so a simple "win" does not give the same information. The "battle destroyed a military alliance" tells important historic fact, which of course is pleasant for Lithuanians, but it is simply a fact. The truelithuania.com website is reliable as well because it is one of the primary information sources for the foreign tourists in English language. The partizanai.org website always uses references from books to back-up their articles, so it is completely reliable as well - you can see 4 Polish books references at the end of the article there. -- Pofka (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Words like "heroic" do indeed fail WP:NPOV. It does not matter if the text "will remind the first-classes kids essays" if certain words are omitted, because there are policies/guidelines that should be followed. In addition, there is a WP:TONE policy, which clearly states that formal language should be used. There is also the MOS:WTW policy, which describes what should or should not be used. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Images
Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
This article needs to be cleaned up again as per WP:SANDWICH and WP:GALLERY. Will wait for a reply before removing image spam again. Its disappointing to see zero effort to fix the problem...just reverts. Sure your doing right by our readers making the article hard to read?--Moxy (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Because your approach to solving the problem is not the best one - axing images from everywhere you don't like them to be is not a solution. Are you sure you are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater? -- Ke an (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I dont think so as the images removed from the religion section are not mentioned in the article at all.....just there to show architecture of builds. Not sure how showing a few churches help explain any thing about the religion of the country....All it seems to do is cause accessibility problems. Wikipedia:GALLERY is pretty clear on this type of random images not related to the content of the section.--Moxy (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ke an:@Moxy: Take a look at Turkey article. It is named as a Good article and not only has "Religion" section, but also 4 other subsections about each religion present in the country with descriptions and illustrations of EACH religion church. Lithuania has very similar situation, so illustrating each large religion church is required. I removed Pažaislis illustration because it is a Christian monastery, so the same religion as the St. Peter and St. Paul Church. -- Pofka (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok I tried again to fix the accessibility problems. Thank you for pointing out the problems over at the Turkey will ask that project to take a look at all the image sandwiching.--Moxy (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: There already was a discussion about this section. The decision was to keep it like it is now. Religion is indeed one of the most important sections for Lithuania and after reading its history you will easily understand why it is important to display these images of different churches. -- Pofka (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Forgot this was already brought up here..not sure why this article is not following WP:Gallery - WP:WEIGHT - MOS:ACCIM. Still not sure how buildings represents religion or why this one section that causes the whole article to need side scrolling is balanced in anyway....but ok ...sources are much more of a problem that needs dealing with here. Ever go for a GA run let us know at the County project we can help with most problems. --Moxy🍁16:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: Many countries articles includes multiple religions churches. This is especially important for Lithuania because its history and the current state has a very mixed religious beliefs. Just one church illustration and especially omitting the Hill of Crosses (a world-class religious landmark) is not suitable in this case. Moreover, making it vertical messes up completely desktop version, so it is not a solution as well. I do not have any problems with this article on the mobile version. Here is how it looks like for me using the android mobile: https://pasteboard.co/IB9v7ux.jpg. -- Pofka (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Rename Lithuania to Lietuva (correct name of country)
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The historical name LITUA, LITWA, LITVANIE, is belong to Grand Duchy of Litvane
The country on this official page is officially Lietuva, not have any relation to Grand Duchy of Litvanie,
but historically until 1917 was Samogotia. In 1918 after Rossian Empire falls, the people of Samogotia declare new name
Lietuvia, since the name was similar to Grand Duchy of Litwa, western country start calls them as heard before.
One more thins, that Vilna (current Vilnius) was gifted to Lietuvia (Samogotia) only in 1940 by Stalin against access territory of soviets troops, and before was never being part of them.
Important point that in Grand Duchy of Litvanie you will not find any official original documents of preset Lietuva language (Samogotia).
"Wikipedia is not the place for fairy tales and Litvinist propoganda. – Sabbatino"
Mr.Sabbatino, before claim about propaganda, check the history well and original documents of Grand Duchy of Litva
and will find all country documents on WesternRus language include main law Constitution, but you will not find Samagotian language documents (its current Letvua),
Samogotia (current Letuva) people always mentioned separately include original antique maps,
also you can check auction of original money and coins of 16th where you can see the name LITVA, and not any Samogotia or Letuva.
the name Letuva was create by Samogotian people for their new country in 1918, and they defiantly doesn't have any relation to history of Grand Duchy of LITVA (on Latin Litvanie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofisrom (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No. What you're proposing is a textbook example of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Read that link and come back to us. Lithuania is the WP:COMMONNAME so there is zero chance that will be changed on the basis of a fringe theory. This also applies to your arguments over at Talk:Russia for renaming that country as well. Valenciano (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Lithuania - meaning of the term - disambiguation
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'ld like we to enrich this article with additional info. The article looks a little bit biased now which contradicts Wikipedia principle of neutrality.
Please check out the book page photo below.
Source: Belarus The Epoch Of The Grand Duchy Of Lithuania. Uladzimir Arlou, Zmicier Hierasimovic. 2018. ISBN: 978-985-458-294-8 Yaryla89 (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Looks like there's some vandalism, or maybe sloppy editing, in the opening section. Countless repetitions of "Lithuania is in the Baltic region. Lithuania is a Baltic state. Lithuanians are Balts. Lithuanian is a Baltic language." Even if there is a difference between these facts, they should be condensed, or only the most all-encompassing fact (I'd say that Lithuania is a Baltic state) should be included in the paragraph. It seems like someone is trying to make a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Actually, If you go at the History of Lithuania page, see the previous revision of the page and go to the 1918-1940 part, you will see an infobox, added by me, earlier! We can use that one!
There is no problem if it is the same republic! For example, take a look at the Afghanistan 1996-2001 page! It's the same emirate as the current one, and there it not seems to be a problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.122.234 (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Strong oppose ' no need for lead infobox from other article jammed in the middle of the article.--Moxy-13:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Strong oppose Yeah, Moxy is right, there shouldn't be a lead infobox in the middle of an article, I have changed my mind over time.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: It is the same republic as per the state continuity; it was not fundamentally different country in its nature; not accepted in the historiography to distinguish into "first" and "second" republic; no well reasoned justification for a separate infobox offered. Mindaur (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
POV
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not only the domestic industry, but also the population started feeling the lack of fuel, essential goods, and even hot water. Although the blockade lasted for 74 days, Lithuania did not renounce the declaration of independence.
Unsourced. Fwiw, Lithuanian Parliament did not renounce the declaration (indeed) but passed a bill to freeze it, as demanded by USSR to be brought to the negotiating tables. Graham Smith writes,
Faced with enormous economic difficulties, including the cutting-off of its energy supplies, Lithuania had little option but to agree to a moratorium on its independence declaration in return for Moscow lifting the blockade.
To this day, Russia refuses to extradite the criminals against humanity that are responsible.
Huh?
People from all over Lithuania flooded to Vilnius to defend their legitimately elected.
Exaggerative and needless.
At that time, attempts were made to carry out a coup using the Soviet Armed Forces, the Internal Army of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the USSR Committee for State Security (KGB).
Most of secondary scholarship-in English language-disagree.
All in all, sure - no POV. I see that this is a delisted GA with much of the content unsourced. Negligible use of secondary scholarship. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Info Box's "Formation" section jumps from "Independence Declared" in 1918 to "Independence Restored" in 1990. I assume a "Soviet Occupation" section should lie somewhere in between? Or is it implied by a lack of "Independence Achieved" or "Independence Established" following "Independence Declared"? I think the Soviet occupation was significant enough to deserve its own line. Even when considering the Soviet Union as the successor to the Russian Empire and thus implicitly included in the "Partition" of 1795, I would still argue for the "Soviet Occupation" to be a distinct event from said "Partition." However, I would not be so bold as to unilaterally edit the section, since others may feel differently and perhaps have more solid justifications for not including a "Soviet Occupation" section.
I would also suggest including a line for the "Nazi Occupation" perhaps between lines for separate periods of "Soviet Occupation." I can see this becoming an example of "mission creep" and becoming overly detailed for a section intended for a general overview with broad strokes. However, I still can't see the justification for omitting the "Soviet Occupation" entirely. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
66.91.36.8 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Link to Holocaust in Lithuania article
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There has been controversy in the past about how to describe the Holocaust in Lithuania in this article but the current description seems unsatisfactory, with the death of 10-15% of Lithuanians compressed into three short and non specific paragraphs. I see there is a specialist article on the subject already (the Holocaust in Lithuania article). Would it make more sense to include a link to that? Monounsaturated (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done. There is no instance of two consecutive open parentheses or of two consecutive closed parentheses in this article. CityOfSilver 18:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
.JPG)
13:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Литва́ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Литва́ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)