Talk:Lithuanian minority in Poland

Both governments treated their respective minorities harshly

I'd suggest that instead of removing a good reference for part of the statement, we should look for a complementary one, supporting that Polish government mistreated Lithuanian minority as well. --Lysy^talk 07:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not good reference for such a statement, because it does create an eye for an eye impression, and this was not exactly so, trust me. The fights between have began in 19th century, and maybe one day, when I'll have more time I'll expand this article with referenced information.

Yes there was land nationalization (mostly of Polish officers serving in Poland's army (there was a war going on, remember?), then it was a land reform of 1922 (same was happening in Poland begining July 7th, 1919 as a limit of 150 ha was imposed for a single landowner), there was martial law imposed in 1919-1926 and 1926-19?? and so on.

Reference I did remove is bad also because it does not explain nor "times of nationalism", neither "both governments". Because of a placement and logic of narrative it seems that Lithuanians mistreated Poles and then Poles mistreated Lithuanians. And furthermore this is an article about Lithuanians in Poland, not Poles in Lithuania.--Lokyz 09:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its important to note that both governments mistreated their ethnic minorities, but indeed, details belong to the Polish minority in Lithuania article. Nonetheless I think that we should not let small periods of conflict overshadow much longer periods of mutual cooperation, and the relevant article(s) seem to unduly concentrate on blacker parts of our mutual history.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why then, P.P., have most of your recent contributions regarding Lithuania and Poland unduly delved into the "blacker parts" of Poland's and Lithuania's mutual history? Dr. Dan 03:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to present a list of those 'black contributions'? Balanced, of course, against my other contributions regarding Poland and Lithuania, so that we could all see that most of them, are, indeed, 'black'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vilnija, Ypatingasis burys, Ponary massacre, Saugumas, Wilno, Wilno, Wilno and of course this gem of yours are some examples of your work that do not bring Lithuanian and Polish contributors together in mutual cooperation. Your efforts on these article's talk pages are worth having a look at too. You are using the term 'black contributions', I'm not. Are you denying that these are examples of the "blacker parts" of Lithuanian and Polish mutual history? And these examples (and talk) show more recent contributions of yours to Poland's and Lithuania's mutual history on WP? Dr. Dan 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Only one of those articles was created and mostly written by me (Ponary massacre, February). Considering I (much more recently) wrote and expanded articles like Polish-Lithuanian relations, Lithuanian minority in Poland or LITPOLBAT, I am still waiting for any evidence that "most of [my] recent contributions delve" into those "blacker parts".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, P.P. , it's not only about the "creation" of the aforementioned articles, but your "contributions" to them as well. In any case, your contributions to these articles speak for themselves. It's nice that you wrote about the other issues recently. They are in sad shape grammatically, and in dire need of a good copy-edit. If you don't succeed in getting me removed from the Wikipedia project (as your efforts seemed to be geared to at your ArbCom recently), I promise to give them a good copy-edit, soon. Best. Dr. Dan 05:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Polish census 1931

Piotrus I do find your provided statistics quite dubious - somehow I do not find 1939 book reliable - note, it was issued at the height of anti-Lithuanian actions, after school closures and such. Can you find some research on the subject with evaluations on these numbers?--Lokyz 20:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. thes data ar argued even in Ethnic_composition_of_Central_Lithuania#Polish census of 1931 "The numbers listed in the tables on the right give the overview of the language criterion. Because of that, it is sometimes argued that the "language question" was introduced to diminish the number of Jews, who were in large part Polonized and spoke Polish language rather than Yiddish or Hebrew. At the same time, Lithuanian authorities often argued that the large majority of Polish-speaking people were in fact Polonized Lithuanians."--Lokyz 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add that note to the article. I certainly would agree that the '39 Polish book is not the most reliable source on the subject of minorities in Poland; it is however the only number I could find, and it offers the reader at least some approximation for the number of Lithuanians in Poland (which I expect was in fact higher). If you can find a better source - by all means, please add it. The 1939 source is just a placeholder until we can replace it with something better.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Communist era

Regarding this sentence: "Under the eye of the Soviet Union, the various ethnic groups in the Eastern Bloc were to cooperate peacefully, and that policy, coupled with the population migrations limiting the size of both minorities in respective regions, resulted in lessening of tensions between Poles and Lithuanians.", I think it's disputable what resulted in lessening of tensions. The Soviets in Lithuania skilfully applied the divide and conquer approach for Poles and Lithuanians. One of its results was Polish minority supporting Soviet Union when Lithuania strived for independence. On the other hand Lithuanian minority in Poland officially did not exist in communist times. --Lysy^talk 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this needs expansion, and I agree with both of your more detailed statements: on the other hand, we have to admit that there were no excesses or complains about mistreatments of minorities in that era - of course, to some extent because complaining about such things under Soviet regime was not good for one's health - but one way or another, it represented some improvement from the turbulent interwar times and outright violent IIWW times.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for Poles in Lithuanian SSR certainly not in the territories now belonging to Belarus and I'm not sure about Lithuanians in Poland. As for official Polish-Lithuanian international relationships, there were virtually none so I would also not be sure if we could say that this limited tensions. --Lysy^talk 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking more in terms of Lithuanian minority in Poland, Polish minority in Soviet Union is indeed a different issue. Btw, pl:Stosunki polsko-litewskie talks about diaspora relations, but for both countries its mostly a footnote in the history...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the Lithuanian minority in Poland, about 200 of Lithuanians were deported to Western Poland in 1949. Are we aware of any Lithuanian schools or media in Communist Poland ? Maybe the tensions were simply suppressed but did not necessarily lessen ? --Lysy^talk 06:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the Polish minority in Soviet Union for what I know, its situation had been different in Lithuanian SSR, where it was recognised, and in all other republics, where it was persecuted. --Lysy^talk 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I heard about the latter. As for the LmiP during communist time... its an interesting question. I found an interesting article here: [1]. From a cursory glance ("Pierwszą organizacją litewską o charakterze narodowym było Litewskie Towarzystwo Społeczno-Kulturalne powstałe na zjeździe założycielskim w Puńsku w dniach 30-31 marca 1957" [...] "w latach 1957-1967 działalność amatorska była najbardziej ożywiona. We wsiach litewskich, mimo braku jakiejkolwiek bazy materialnej, działało kilkanaście zespołów teatralnych, śpiewaczych i tanecznych" [...] Środki finansowe na działalność Towarzystwa również były asygnowane przez Ministerstwo Spraw Wewnętrznych. Nie były one zbyt duże, ale wystarczały na działalność obwarowaną statutem. Taki stan organizacyjny społeczności litewskiej trwał do roku 1989) it would appear that Polish communist government acknowledged or at least did nothing to hinder Lithuanian minority projects (btw, I wonder if the 1957 date is relevant to the Polish October and end of stalinist period, I wouldn't be suprised if that was the case). Btw, some more interesting reading: [2], [3].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

by mutual enmity

This article is biased. It doesn't say anything about Lithuanian revionism, refusal to end the war. mutual enmity Xx236 11:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnotable local news reports

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. We don't report local news, unless they have wide-ranging repercussion and create notable event. What one bishop (who?) allegedly said during one mass and what was reported in a single article is not notable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not the single auricle as you say, this event was very broadly displaied in sources will provide more if you want. This development is a major one. M.K. 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then surely you can show some English sources discussing it. And remember that Wikipedia is not a news service. Not everything that makes it into news is notable, only incidents that are repeated over many weeks, go beyong news reporting and gain wider-then-regional coverage are notable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rally? Do you provide all English sources to this article too, referencing all claims. It is allow to use non English sources too, or you not familiar with this? I fail to understand why you insisting on "news service" "argument", because I used LRT source? M.K. 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:N#Notability_is_not_temporary. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

With last post you prove that info which I inserted perfectly fits to this context. Some additional sources from PL itselfmain LRT page[4], (this one is also interesting) have a nice reading. M.K. 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the policies I linked above. A story may be published in several newspapers, it does not mean it is notable. This article discusses the Lithuanian minority in Poland. That minority is the subject - or related to - dozens, if not hundreds, of various articles every year. We don't list them here, because those events are not important enough. If you disagree, feel free to create a separate article on the subject, and link it from here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So am I correct this is you and your friend who decide which info should be, which not? I strongly recommend to read WP:POINT and WP:OWN. M.K. 20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you translate the relevant parts of this article, that you used to source the claim that Lithunian ithuanian culture preservation in Sejny region is facing serious trouble? I am very interested in learning what is causing this serious trouble and what this serious trouble is.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I will expand about Poland's refusal to finance Lithuanian schools soon. M.K. 11:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Piotruś doesn't aim to push some POV or make anti-Lithuanian edits by removing your latest input. It just really doesn't belong here, per WP policies mentioned above. P.S. I hope I am also a friend of yours, MK. ;) - Darwinek 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

New friend, like it? :P M.K. 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It can be. :) - Darwinek 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lithuanian Schools

Again. "However Lithuanian gymnasium in Sejny does not receive assured by Polish law funds."[5] - it's not a fact notable enough for this article. But I have a suggestion: create an article on this gymnasium (schools are notable), and there it can be mentioned. Sounds fair? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Same problems continuing several years, which resulted diplomatic intervention is very seriuos and notable (much more notable then "argument" below "be serious"). M.K. 11:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Most schools in Poland do not receive funds assured by Polish law, whether they are Polish, Lithuanian or German. Please, be serious Tymek 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps if the issue is so widespread it can be mentioned then in education in Poland. Bit it is irrelevant here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia is not the place for contributors' impressions.M.K. 11:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So, Piotrus now objects to non-English newspapers' articles being used as Wikipedia sources. I will note this sudden change of heart and I hope it is won't be temporary or article-specific. --Irpen 04:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue is important: that's why there is a European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Novickas 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is good that request was made, I hope we will receive some more comments. I just stunned with motives to remove this information about Lithuanian minority schools. I also would like to add some info about school it self. This school regarded as the newest and biggest (actually it is sometimes called Lithuanian center)in the region and was opened with pomp by Lithuanian and Polish presidents (somehow Polish vandals manage to broke its windows), and it is notable that this school is the first Lithuanian school in the region which was opened after 85 years of absence. After Poland refused to finance it diplomats intervene, however unsuccessfully, Lithuanian President himself disused this issue. However back then Lithuanian Education Ministry had to do this. There was even public action in Lithuania to support it. And I completely agree that minority schools problems are notable enough to write about them in minority article as well, as contributor Novicakas noted that's why there is it in a European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. M.K. 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it was not Lithuanian vandals? Lithuanian language schools existed in Poland since as early as 1950s (after the WWII).([6], there are man refs for that). A gimnasium in Sejny existed since at least 1918[7]. And your edit summary accusations (rv covering secret plans of Polonization, huh?) are nothing but bad faith.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if you'd read Sejny article, you'd soon find, that Poles closed downand looted the school in 1919, and burned Lithuanian books (Nazi Germany anyone?) so your speculations are out of place.--Lokyz 19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What my edit summaries?? I strongly suggest you to rethink your behavior. M.K. 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)p.s. very good that gymnasium in Seiniai existed in 1918 does it denounce the fact of 85 years of absence?

FYI, "you", in English, does not always mean "you". I was referring to your colleague Lokyz, who seems quite happy to help you with reverts.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because, that user Lokyz was one of this article initial contributors [8] contrary to Darwinek and Tymek. i also strongly suggest you yo read WP:AGF. M.K.

As a member of another historical ethnic minority I am very sensitive to such issues. I see several points in this "conflict".

1. Fact is that Polish ministry of Education don't give sufficient funds to many schools, in vast majority Polish. This is not an anti-Lithuanian or Polonizational issue. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle, as always.
2. Instead of fighting about this issue I propose expanding article about Lithuanian minority, it is poorly short as for now. Then I am in favour of creating article about this poor school in Seinai which doesn't receive funds and reflecting that issue in that article. I don't believe all Lithuanian schools in Poland are neglected in such manner.
3. Look, we have here on EN WP articles about hundreds of mediocre and non notable American schools. I strongly propose creating article about mentioned Lithuanian one. It is far more notable.
4. I am sad to conclude with this, but I have impression that some users just use this article to pursue their nationalist edit wars during such boring and bad weathered days as this.

-- Darwinek 16:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In this context we speak about Lithuanian minority school position but not about general Polish school positions. M.K. 16:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then try not just to pursue edit wars but create separate section about education and expand it will full scope of information, not just the negative info in the position of "bad Poles, poor Lithuanians". Sure, there are negative issues but there are also many neutral and positive. This article could be even GA but it has looong way to go. - Darwinek 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as I said before: one of seventeen Lithuanian schools being underfunded is not notable for the article about Lithuanian minority. But I completely support creating an article on that school, and describing the problem there - as I suggested above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know more Lithuanian gymnasium in Sejny region which was closed for 85 years and which was reopened with both Presidents and which matters were disused by diplomats? List them below please. M.K. 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)P.S. Piotrus, trying to find more additional support?

How is this relevant to this article? Once again, create the article on this school and write all about it there, not here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Very relevant as it is now the main Lithuanian minority educational center. M.K. 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

According to whom? Lithuanian embassy in Poland mentions two gymnasium in Sejny, none is claimed as 'main' ([9]). On the other hand, the embassy notes that the most important educational center for L. minority in Poland is a lyceum in Puńsk.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Would like to see a quote there embassy notes that the most important educational center for L. minority in Poland is a lyceum in Puńsk. BTW, now I think you have a ground to rethink your stance about 80-years of absence . M.K. 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Dla Litwinów w Polsce szczególnie ważne jest liceum 11.Marca w Puńsku."-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Translate this please. M.K. 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"For Lithuanians in Poland extremely important is the Liceum 11. Marca in Puńsk". It is the only school discussed in more detail on the pages of Lithuanian embassy. Now, can I ask you to provide quotations and translations behind your recent additions to the article?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, but your personal version is different from the source one, particularly a) source not claim any "the most" thing b) source discuss in more detail and about other school, like one was reopened after more then 80 years. I would like to ask you to be more precise then claiming about one or another info biasing on source. Regarding my provided info - if you provide additional info about another gymnasium under Lithuanian educational center roof, I will change my initial post to - one of the main. M.K. 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have found more articles clarifying the issue, but I don't believe any of that should be discussed in this article. But (based on [10], [11], [12], [13]) the school was rushed into service after Polish budget for the first year was allocated, hence the Lithuanian government agreed to finance it. The school (actually, a kindergarden, primary and gimnasium) is attened by 67 students. The school is receiving basic funding, but not the funding for some extracurricular activities (217,000 zloties - ~70,000$, or over $1000 per student were requested). Recent report of the Polish government indicates that the school is somewhat underfunded (receives only 75% of promised money from Polish government), and notes that there are problems on the local self-government level (the central government gave all the money to the local self-government, but it had not distributed it all; central government questions the efficiency of the local-self government, which in turn blames the Lithuanian school directorship for not submitting relevant forms / data needed for the rest of funding). Thus it appears that the school is receiving at least 75% of promised funding from pl gov, and only extra funding for extracurricural activities was not given. There is also some additional data which seems notable enough for this article: the Lithuanian minority (5,000-15,000 people) received 1.344.912 zloties (~450,000$) from Polish government in 2006 (22 out of 27 requests were approved). Polish minority in Lithuania (235,000), in the same year, received 40,000 litas (~15,000$). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, but I'm going to do so in the context of my work on school articles. There's no question that this school would be notable, and that an article would add to the encyclopedia. Controversies about financing are often discussed in school articles and are entirely in place. To put them in context, it would be a good idea to clarify what the usual state of affairs in the country involved is--people here unfortunately do not know the non-Engish speaking part of the world very well, & it is wise to enlighten them to avoid misinterpretations. Obviously, all of this should be sourced and discussed objectively. English sources always preferred if available, but non-English are also perfectly in order if key parts are quoted in translation or added to the footnote. DGG (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. The question remains, however, is any of that relevant in this article? I'd think that it is not; the details of school in particular should be discussed in an article on it (to be created), and the financing of schools in Poland should go to education in Poland.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting idea to write article about minorities but avoid to write about minorities schools, and their problems. M.K. 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen to get involved into disuptes like this. But some maters do concern me. Like for example - Piotrus would you please care to be more specific about the money each country spend on minorities. These numbers without any supporting reference seems to be nothing less than POV pushing. Either provide some source or remove dubious claims. I hope this will be not some another patriotic tygodnik. As for DGG comments, with all due respect, he seems to quite often happen to land into LT-PL matter. May we wait for some another comment?--Lokyz 19:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are now mentioned and referenced in relevant articles. Numbers for money recived by Lithuanian minority in Poland from Polish gov. come from Polish gov. pages. Numbers for money received by Polish minority in Lithuania from L. gov. come from a regional newspaper - feel free to expand and correct them from more official sources. But please, keep your jibes about "patriotic tygodniks" to yourself, particularly as all grievances in this article are linked to a Lithuanian website (portal) - [14] (Delfi links to an article on a chess engine). Perhaps you would be so kind and create an article on this, if it is a notable and reliable source?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chess engine? Look at this. [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novickas (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It was your invention to present news sources as a reliable ones, Delfi.lt has it's own page and it is an established news source in Lithuania. And presenting mixed information form government page and source indirectly called by Polish ambassador as a biased and nationalistic one in the same sentence just proves your inability to solve disputed issues. You're good at bureaucracy but you're bad at hiding your bias. And I'm still awaiting for comments form uninterested party and reliable source.--Lokyz 20:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to be fair, and because educational language issues are an internationally recognized issue, I inserted text related to school/textbook funding into Polish minority in Lithuania - that material has not been contested. As far as funding, we need more sources than were provided by the PL newspapers; those sorts of numbers are quite fuzzy. What exactly does "minority funding" mean? BTW here is a website from Mercator Education that discusses the situation of LT schools in PL [16]. Another area to be discussed is secondary school exit exams - I'm pretty sure that has been an issue in LT, where an exit exam in Lithuanian is required. Secondary-school proficency in a nation's official language is totally taken for granted in the US (where "official language" has not been defined at the federal level); I don't know its current status in Canada, the UK, etc. But it's a very lively issue all over the world - you can't say it's unimportant. Novickas 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell who posted this at RFC without a fair amount of effort - it's not listed in the edit summaries for this talk page. However, Piotrus has recently added similar educational issues to Polish minority in Lithuania, with the edit summary "expand a little, based on similar expansion of the Lithuanian minority in Poland", thereby acknowleging its importance; maybe he should remove it from the RFC list; its entry there proposed that language education issues were not notable. Novickas 20:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Novickas, I never said that education of minorities should not be mentioned in articles on them. What I disputed, and still do, is whether details on one school (of many) are relevant in those articles. Per WP:UNDUE, I don't believe they are.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If we agree that it's important, than how about agreeing on these points: a rough parity, by word count, on coverage of school funding for both minorities; removal of the RFC for a week or so, giving it time to settle out here - everyone is busy; mutual respect for newspaper sources, unless any of them can be shown to have a truly tiny circulation; and agreement that it's too early in the evolution of these articles to bring up undue weight. 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Novickas

Thank you for that reasonable proposal. Speaking for myself, I find it acceptable with few minor modifications: 1) RFC = input of outside parties - is always useful, I see no need to remove it 2) our policies, like undue weight, apply at all times. Please note that users who want to add detailed information on individual schools are more than welcome to create articles on them. I don't think that word count parity is needed; instead we should make sure both articles avoid any 'undue weight' claims.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't seem to be in any real agreement here. My objection to the RFC stems from fear of burnout among editors not from this region, given the recent Arbcom, but hey, let it be. Could you explain why you object to a parity of coverage? Is "undue weight" based on the numerical presence of the minorities involved? Your objection to delfi.lt as a news source has been addressed above. Novickas 02:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If an article has useful material (i.e. not of an undue weight), it would be a shame to shorten it do have some 'parity' with another article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Lithuanians in Suwalki Speak Only Polish

It's important to note that not all Lithuanians in Suwalki can speak Lithuanian. In fact, even in Vilnius, a large number of Lithuanians speak only Polish. When the Polish government states there are 5,639 Lithuanians in Poland, they are grossly undercounting the number of people of Lithuanian ancestry. Perhaps they are only counting the Lithuanians who can speak Lithuanian. I couldn't even begin to make an estimate. However, just to put it into context, my family is from Suwalki, my mother lives there now. We are of Lithuanian blood. But neither my mother nor my grandparents spoke Lithuanian. Only my great grandparents spoke Lithuanian but they were taught by the occupying Polish government to be ashamed of their language. I am learning Lithuanian for the first time and I am 40 years old. Most of the Lithuanian people that I know from Suwalki speak only Polish. Many Lithuanians I know from Vilnius only speak Polish, although there are also Poles in Vilnius. Recently, I participated in DNA testing to prove that my blood is Lithuanian and not Polish. Since then I have told my friends about DNA testing and many of them have gotten tested as well showing Lithuanian ancestry. Remember, most Irish people in Ireland do not speak Irish, they speak English but they are not of English blood. The same situations as Lithuanians who speak Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm2850 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern Lithuanian minority in Poland is composed of 5,639 people according to the Polish census of 2002 - means that the Statistical Authority counted how many people declared to be Lithuanian. You don't have any proves that the number has any connection with Lithuanian language. My goodness - DNA testing. Adolf Hitler would be proud of you.Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest to immediately cease such shameful personal attacks. M.K. (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest removing racist texts from this Wikipedia. It's a shame. Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

on phone until in the fall of communism in 1990

What do you mean by prohibition to speak Lithuanian (...) on phone until in the fall of communism in 1990? Did the Communist control any phone connection till 1990? It's absurd.13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote form reputable source, which is presented in article:In the Punsk (Punskas), Sejny (seinai)....it was firbidden to speak Lithuanian in public until 1950 (and on telephone until 1990), and it was only in the 1950s that teaching of Lithuanian was introduced as a subject in schools.. Of course, synthesis of the fall of communism was added by another individual, who started a reverts to keep this "the fall of communism" [17][18]. M.K. (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why in 1990? It was in 1982, and not against the Lithuanian language but against many languages. Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Google print link is here: [19]. The author does not offer any explanations. Novickas (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of Lithuanians in Poland. You can phone the Lithuanian community in Puńsk and ask them, if they confirm such story. Does any Lithuanina language source confirm it? As I have written - many people in the West believe that polar bears are common animals in Poland/Lithuania. Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC) If the quoted text is neutral and academic, then I'm a camel. Xx236 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

two Lithuanian gymnasiums in Sejny

Reference 16 says about a kindergarden, elementary school and gimnazjum. I'm not able to read the Lithuanian reference.Xx236 (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of a source

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_the_Languages_of_Europe_-_Lithuanian.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

expansion needed post-WWII

There is very little info about what happened to Lithuanians in Poland right after WWII. Did the Poles and Soviets expel them like they did the Germans and Ukrainians? Or did they institute measures to homogenize them like they did Masurians and Waterpoles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.215.41 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lithuanian minority in Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927205013/http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html to http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221235509/http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/LUD_raport_z_wynikow_NSP2011.pdf to http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/LUD_raport_z_wynikow_NSP2011.pdf

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)