Jump to content

Talk:Zigmas Zinkevičius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

30 monographs

[edit]

Any sources, that ALL his published academic books were monographs?81.7.89.225 (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


dieve duok jam bent 100 metu sulaukti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.225.143 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Member of Vilnija?

[edit]

Was he a member of Vilnija? Some sources indicate he shares their views (for example, he has written a positive review (intro?) to a book published by Vilnija: [1], [2]), but I am having trouble finding reliable sources for him being a member of that organization. Perhaps somebody could do a search in Lithuanian language to check this claim? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnija in this case means this, and no that book was published by Petro ofsetas. Stop making OR involving BLP? M.K. (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable and Lithuanian scholar, Algis Kasperavičius, has noted (pdf above) that Šimelionis is a "known activist of the Vilnija organization". In any case, I am asking if there are any reliable Lithuanian sources linking Zinkevicius to Vilnija, as a member or supporter? A google search for Zinkevičius+Vilnija produces quite a few hits, if mostly in Lithuanian language. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far you failed to provided source for the book published by Vilnija etc. and I am not interested in Šimelionis in this page. I already explained that Vilnija is common Lithuanian word, plus it used as synonym for the Vilnius region; so no, google hits Z+V, so far gives, exactly this, rather then so called "organization". M.K. (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zigmas Zinkevičius. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section of "Anti-Polonism"

[edit]

This section was obviously written without caring about WP:NPOV. Marcelus wants to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist of recent times due to Marcelus disliking parts of his work. Marcelus has a grudge against this dead man already for quite some time, considering that Marcelus said Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't on 11 August 2022 [3]. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources Marcelus (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You openly admit that you want to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist. This automatically invalidates any edits you might make about him and the topics he wrote about, because you are literally blinded by your hate of him. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, I don't like him because of the things he did and wrote. Are you able to provide other sources or not? Marcelus (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You answered with Of course I have to This section was obviously written without caring about WP:NPOV. Marcelus wants to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist of recent times due to Marcelus disliking parts of his work. Marcelus has a grudge against this dead man already for quite some time, considering that Marcelus said Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't on 11 August 2022 [3]. WP:NPOV is a core content policy of Wikipedia. You openly stated that you are going against it and you are justifying going against Wikipedia's core content policies. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now read this: WP:NOOBJECTIVITY, the NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. You need to be more specific where is the issue with NPOV. I have conviction that I described his views in neutral way. My personal opinon about him didn't affect it, it's only the reason why I decided it should be described. There is nothing wrong to write articles about persons whose actions we don't like personally. As a matter of fact is the reason why we should describe them Marcelus (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your conviction appears to be heavily clouded by your personal opinion of the subject of this article. Even for a third party bystander like me, there are two problems in the first sentence alone: presenting one person's opinion ("it seems to me...") as fact ("Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work") and reinterpreting Boroch's criticism of Zinkevičius' "lack of objectivity, mixing ideology and scientific facts" as "anti-Polonism". How many of the other sources actually explicitly call Zinkevičius views and actions "anti-Polish" and how much of that is your own personal intepretation and WP:SYNTH? Since you don't seem to be able to tell the difference it would be a good idea for you to provide quotes from the other sources as well. –Turaids (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turaids hi, I reworded the section also added opinion of Theodore R. Weeks, he is main anglosaxon expert on Lithuanian history. Marcelus (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he is main anglosaxon expert on Lithuanian history. That is absolutely not the case - nobody calls him that. Furthermore, his work revolves more around Poland than Lithuania [4], [5]. He is also apparently called Tadeusz in Poland and his email is literally tadeusz@siu.edu. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I called him that, but whatever, he is still expert on Lithuanian history Marcelus (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources that call Zinkevičius anti-Polish or anti-Polonist, etc., so the section "Anti-Polonism" and the category "anti-Polish" has to go, because it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That still sounds like a more general criticism of Zinkevičius's work, most of which, including the exact points made by the very same Boroch and Jundo-Kaliszewska, is already in the Reception and legacy section. How about a simple Criticism subsection under the Reception and legacy? The second and third sentences, which are now the first and second sentences respectively, have several problems as well. Zinkevičius being a member of Vilnija has been previously disputed by other editors due to what seems to be a lack of reliable sources, which is why I asked for the quotes to make sure the source actually says that and it's not just more synthesis of published material. And of all the numerous organizations Zinkevičius has been a part of I still don't see the point of listing his "collaborators" from Vilnija specifically. There's an article for that: Vilnija (organization), which, by the way, calls Zinkevičius a supporter of the organization, not a member. –Turaids (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Including the exact points made by the very same Boroch and Jundo-Kaliszewska, is already in the Reception and legacy section, well they are but only because @Cukrakalnis was trying to bury them, so he moved it to the main part deleting things that were uncomfortable for him. His membership was disputed before Jundo-Kaliszewska's publications, she clearly calls him "the most prominent activist". I do not insist, but I think that the mention of other nationalists with whom he collaborated shows his environment, so it says a lot about himself. Marcelus (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bury them? By including them in the article? Come on. I wasn't deleting them because they were uncomfortable for him, but because your additions broke several of Wikipedia's policies and were definitely guided by your hatred of him (I checked the definition of hatred and your attitude is exactly that).
If Jundo-Kaliszewska calls him the "the most prominent activist", then she is 100% wrong. The Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia's article (in Lithuanian) about the Vilnija organization does not even name him amongst their "Prominent members of the society" (at the very bottom, [6]), although it lists less notable people like "J. Aukštaitis, N. Balčiūnienė, K. Garšva, P. Gaučas, A. Petruškevičius, G. Ručinskienė, J. Tonkūnas, V. Žilius." If Zinkevičius was a member, he would have been 1000% mentioned, but he is not. And there are no other sources mentioning that Zinkevičius was a member. Ergo, she is wrong. I checked the article [7] which was supposed to prove that Zinkevičius was their supporter and you know what's there actually? Only the mention that he was presenting his scientific research to them, not any statements that he was their supporter. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ULE list of members is far from being complete. Jundo-Kaliszewska calls hims "the most prominent activist", it's a reliable source so this discussion is pointless. Marcelus (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible that Kazimieras Garšva, the organization's leader, would forget to mention Lithuania's foremost linguist of recent times when writing about his organization in an encyclopedia entry.
She is not a reliable source, because what she writes is contradicted by actually reliable sources. She claims that Vytautas Landsbergis is an extreme nationalist, that simple speech doesn't exist, and that forced polonization never happened. All of which are absolutely incorrect statements. She is definitely an unreliable source and your claims are preposterous. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis You either don't understand what she is saying, or deliberately misrepresenting her words. Marcelus (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Putting things within a sentence into "" is a clear show that the person writing it disagrees with it. E.g. if somebody writes Polish "occupation" of Vilnius, that means that they deny the Polish occupation of Vilnius or if they write they talked about "re-lithuanization" of the Poles, that means they deny that such a thing as re-lithuanization exists.
Clearly then, she denies forced polonization because she writes '...who in their time were "forcibly" Polonized' (...którzy w swoim czasie zostali „przymusowo” spolonizowani... p.234). As for her other claims:
'Extreme nationalists such as Čepaitis and Landsbergis held the highest state positions' (Skrajni nacjonaliści, tacy jak Čepaitis czy Landsbergis, zajmowali najwyższe stanowiska państwowe. - p.236)
'The aforementioned linguist belonged to the group of promoters of the thesis “local” and “simply”.' (Wspomniany językoznawca należał do grona propagatorów tezy „tutejszy” i „po prostu”. - p.234)
'This "evidence", accusing Poles from the Lithuanian-Belarusian borderland of using the Belarusian language on a daily basis, could be used by the movement of Belarusian nationalists. Lithuanian linguists get lost in their theories, in which they endlessly analyze the issues of "Polonized Lithuanians" speaking "Belarusian" and undermine the right of Poles in Lithuania to be called indigenous.' („Dowód” ów, zarzucający Polakom z pogranicza litewsko-białoruskiego posługiwanie się na co dzień językiem białoruskim, mógłby być wykorzystany przez ruch białoruskich narodowców. Litewscy językoznawcy gubią się w swoich teoriach, w których bez końca analizują kwestie „spolszczonych Litwinów” mówiących „po białorusku” i podważają prawa Polaków na Litwie do nazywania się ludnością autochtoniczną. - p.234)
I understand what she is saying and I am not misrepresenting her words. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jundo-Kaliszewska does not comment at all on the history, the origin of Poles in Lithuania. She refers negatively, first of all, not to the theory itself propagated by Zinkevičius, among others, which claimed that all Poles in Lithuania are in fact forcibly Polonized Lithuanians whose language has nothing to do with Polish, but to how it was used by Lithuanian nationalists. Using this theory, they claimed to know better who the Poles in Lithuania are, i.e. that they are not Poles, but Lithuanians, so therefore they have no right to a Polish school, Polish names, Polish culture, etc. I don't need to explain why this is an example of extreme, ethnocentric nationalism. Marcelus (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jundo-Kaliszewska does not comment at all on the history, the origin of Poles in Lithuania. Yes she does. If she didn't, she would not have put the "" around the term "forced" polonization („przymusowo” spolonizowani), "polonized Lithuanians"(„spolszczonych Litwinów”).
She refers negatively, first of all, not to the theory itself propagated by Zinkevičius, among others, which claimed that all Poles in Lithuania are in fact forcibly Polonized Lithuanians whose language has nothing to do with Polish, but to how it was used by Lithuanian nationalists. She is very obviously negatively referring to all of that, because she uses the term "extreme nationalists" to describe these people?
Using this theory, they claimed to know better who the Poles in Lithuania are, i.e. that they are not Poles, but Lithuanians, so therefore they have no right to a Polish school, Polish names, Polish culture, etc. Jundo-Kaliszewska does not mention this anywhere. This your unjustified WP:OR.
I don't need to explain why this is an example of extreme, ethnocentric nationalism. Jundo-Kaliszewska does not mention any the things of 'no right to a Polish school, etc.' yet you proceed to claim that these people, including the first and foremost Lithuanian linguist of recent times, is an extreme ethno-centric nationalist despite NOT A SINGLE SOURCE SAYING THAT. Your writing has an obvious problem with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as well as WP:POVPUSHing, among other things.
I did not address your message immediately on 20 January because I realized, like Turaids did, that talking to you is like talking to a wall, so I initially decided to not even bother responding to you, but it seems for you that no response is an affirmitive response and I had to dispell your incorrect view. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is very obviously negatively referring to all of that, because she uses the term "extreme nationalists" to describe these people?, well yes, that's the subject of a article. It's about Lithuanian ethnolinguistic nationalism and anti-polonism in Lithuania in 1980-90s. One of her conclusions is that these groups used the theories created by Zinkevičius as a political tool to Lithuanianize Poles living in Lithuania. Moreover, when I said that he does not refer negatively directly to Zinkevičius' theory, I meant that he does not claim that everything he says is nonsense. He refers to them negatively in the sense that he shows them to be ideologized and nationalistically inspired.
If she didn't, she would not have put the "" around the term "forced" polonization („przymusowo” spolonizowani), "polonized Lithuanians"(„spolszczonych Litwinów”). Sorry, but that's literally your interpretation. "" are called quotation marks. In this way, she signals to the reader that she is using the wording that Zinkevičius used.
Jundo-Kaliszewska does not mention this anywhere. This your unjustified; she literally says: Speaking of late 20th-century anti-Polonism, one cannot ignore the theory of "polonized Lithuanians" widely propagated in the Lithuanian media in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was a thesis, drawn from interwar ideology, subsequently propounded by, among others, Lithuania's leading contemporary Lithuanian linguist and lituanist, Zigmas Zinkevičius. In 1996-1998, he served as Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania in the government of Gediminas Vagnorius, helping to intensify the policy of Lithuanianization of so-called Southeast Lithuania. In the early 1990s, Zinkevičius promoted the view that there are "no Poles" in Lithuania - there are only "Polonized Lithuanians" who should be facilitated to return to the bosom of the nation. Voices began to be raised about the necessity of "relithuanianization " of Poles, who in their time had been "forcibly" Polonized, to which Lithuanian Poles reacted very negatively
very negatively. (p. 235-236); I didn't use exactly the same words as her, but that's what she is talking about. Don't be so nitpicking really.
yet you proceed to claim that these people, including the first and foremost Lithuanian linguist of recent times, is an extreme ethno-centric nationalist; did you actually read the "Anti-Polonism" section? It only says that he was a member of a nationalist organization, and that he pursued a policy of Lithuanianization. All with reference to sources. Marcelus (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could reply to all of your 'answers', but that would get us nowhere because this would just continue without end, especially considering your self-contradictions between your statements on different days (one day you say that she was not negatively referring to all that (your message on 22:26, January 20, 2023), and another one you say that she is negatively referring to all that (your message on 21:31, 22 January 2023.)
A quick reminder WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.. NOT A SINGLE SOURCE CALLS ZIGMAS ZINKEVIČIUS ANTI-POLISH OR NATIONALIST. Ergo, you're implying conclusions not stated by any source, which justifies the entire removal of that section, especially considering your grudge against this man, as well as your dehumanizing and hate-filled attitude towards him (you repeatedly called him "chauvinistic pig" and stood by these words all the times they were brought up). Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, cherrypicking it with the intention of "proving" his anti-Polonism is still WP:SYNTH. As is "the mention of other nationalists" to show "his environment" and that "it says a lot about himself". There's even a scientific term for it: the association fallacy (and that's assuming Vilnija and the members selected by you are indeed anti-Polonic). A reliable source will have to make that connection, not you. –Turaids (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turaids I'm not making any connections myself, he was a member of Vilnija and the other guys also were. Marcelus (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is putting it in a section titled Anti-Polonism if not you making a connection between his membership/support/whetever, some members of the organization and Zinkevičius' anti-Polonism? –Turaids (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turaids the connection is clear, Vilnija was an antipolish organisation, and they all were members of it. I thought it's pretty clear from the text Marcelus (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you the one connecting these things and not reliable sources? As I said in the very beginning, "Your conviction appears to be heavily clouded by your personal opinion of the subject of this article. " –Turaids (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turaids I'm not connecting any things myself, all what I wrote in the article is based on reliable sources. Your opinion about isn't based on anything substantial Marcelus (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're incapable of distinguishing between someone's opinion and Wikipedia guidelines or where the sources end and your own fantasies begin, then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. –Turaids (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turaids it's not up to you to decide if it's place for me or not. Everything in the section is based on reliable sources and confirmed by them. Marcelus (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you do as you please, regardless of what the others say, which is why Cukrakalnis made a report about you on the noticeboard. –Turaids (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turaids that's not true, I corrected the article according to your notices, included one opinion more etc. But you are now demanding to remove entire section that's based on reliable sources, because you don't like the content. I cannot agree to that. Marcelus (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only after it turned out you had manipulated the text by attributing a claim to a source that clearly didn't make it. –Turaids (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turaids you need to be more specific, I don't know what you are talking about Marcelus (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment: please remember that WP:NOTAFORUM. It's best to discuss the article, not the subject and certainly not one another. As for the article, I am open to hearing from folks what is a problem with the article. I've read the section, and while it is a big long, I don't see it as being non-neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section Relations with the Polish minority in Lithuania needs to be trimmed, it has an WP:UNDUE weight (as of Jan. 27, 2023) - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed it a bit, but as for now I don't see anything that can be removed without losing some substantial content Marcelus (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus Maybe trim more and replace it with only particulars such as this one?
Quote from source - As late as December 1996 though, Lithuanian minister of education, Zigmas Zinkevicius, had to be disavowed by his prime minister for threatening to close all non Lithuanian schools and for declaring that only Lithuanian speakers were state citizens.
Here is the source - page 100
However, there was still some sensitivity over language policy with respect to the Polish minority in Lithuania (7 percent of the total population). In January Polish organizations in Lithuania protested Education Minister Zigmas Zinkevicius's statements to journalists the previous month, in which he suggested that Polish-language schools should be closed down. page 123 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus If you state just facts, it should do it. The section should be short, a few sentences (in my opinion), that’s it. @Cukrakalnis perhaps you can help in trimming that section down? GizzyCatBella🍁 16:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would already preemtively caution against presenting the wording had to be disavowed as a fact since the author doesn't seem to clearly state who or what forced the prime minister to do so (though one can certainly speculate). –Turaids (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnija activity

[edit]

Qoute from Jundo-Kaliszewska.

In Polish:

Uaktywniła się nacjonalistyczna, działająca do dziś, organizacja Vilnija (Wileńszczyzna), która za swój główny cel uznała jak najszybszą lituanizację tzw. Litwy Południowo-Wschodniej (Wileńszczyzny). Charakterystyczne, że powstała ona w 1988 r. Od samego początku istnienia miała głównie antypolski charakter i jako organizacja „pożytku publicznego”, której celem jest krzewienie języka i kultury litewskiej na tak zwanej Litwie Wschodniej (Wileńszczyźnie), była dofinansowywana z budżetu państwa. Najwybitniejszymi działaczami Vilnii w omawianym okresie byli m.in. wspomniani wyżej naukowcy – Zigmas Zinkevičius i Alvydas Butkus, ale także inni członkowie grupy inicjatywnej Sąjūdisu (Romualdas Ozolas czy prof. Arnoldas Piročkinas). Prezes stowarzyszenia – Kazimieras Garšva – przez 20 lat sprawował funkcję „doradcy społecznego” przy Ministerstwie Oświaty Republiki Litewskiej, a członkowie Vilnii od początku istnienia organizacji zajmowali wysokie stanowiska urzędnicze, doradcze i naukowe.

In English:

The nationalist organisation Vilnija (Vilnius Region), which is still active today, became active and considered as its main objective the fastest possible Lithuanianisation of the so-called South-Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius). Characteristically, it was established in 1988. From the very beginning, it had a predominantly anti-Polish character and, as a 'public benefit' organisation aiming to promote the Lithuanian language and culture in the so-called Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius Region), it was subsidised from the state budget. The most prominent Vilnius activists of the period in question included the above-mentioned scientists - Zigmas Zinkevičius and Alvydas Butkus, but also other members of the Sąjūdis initiative group (Romualdas Ozolas or Prof. Arnoldas Piročkinas). The President of the association - Kazimieras Garšva - held the position of "social advisor" to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Lithuania for 20 years, and the members of the Vilnija have held senior official, advisory and scientific positions since the organisation's inception. Marcelus (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

[edit]

@Marcelus, please revert your 4th revert. You hating Zinkevičius (you dehumanized him several times) is no reason for removing anything positive that Theodore R. Weeks said about Zinkevičius' work, especially after I provided direct quotations to the source which clearly proves Weeks' words. Also, you did not make it clear how the mere mention that somebody is behind any alleged theories, like what Jundo-Kaliszewska said about Zinkevičius (despite Zinkevičius never talking about a 'wicz' ethnicity), counts as 'criticism'. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This part: American historian Theodore R. Weeks writes that what Zigmas Zinkevičius wrote in his book Eastern Lithuania in the Past and Now (published in 1993) is "more or less true", for example, concerning that Lithuanian culture was almost completely "wiped out" in the late 19th century due to Russification and Polonization, as well as that it was official Polish policy during the interwar to hinder Lithuanian education, culture and press is manipulation, because 1) Weeks isn't talking here about Eastern Lithuania in the Past and Now but about Zinkevičius introduction to the exhibition at the National Museum about Vilnius in 1904-39 years; 2) saying that historical work is "more or less" true is critic not positive reception. You moved it into improper section just to water down critic section, so it will look minimal and coming from only one person.
Also, you did not make it clear how the mere mention that somebody is behind any alleged theories, like what Jundo-Kaliszewska said about Zinkevičius (despite Zinkevičius never talking about a 'wicz' ethnicity), counts as 'criticism'., it's not a reason to remove it, but to expand Marcelus (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you write this only after I warned you? In none of the edit summaries did you explain yourself, instead saying Massive removal of sourced content, restored well sourced content, Distruptive changes. In the one edit where you accuse me of manipulation weeks never said that about Zinkevicius book Eastern Lithuania, why didn't you mention that it was instead an pamphlet for an exhibition? I now realise and admit that I made an honest mistake, but instead of removing the whole block, you should have edited within the part of the text which was inaccurate.
historical work is "more or less" true is critic not positive reception It's positive reception, because Weeks said that what Zinkevičius wrote is true. Boroch, who is actually criticizing Zinkevičius, said that one part of what Zinkevičius wrote was wrong. Obviously, you shouldn't put both of these in the same category, which is precisely what you are doing.
it's not a reason to remove it, but to expand Zinkevičius does not even mention any 'vičiai' ethnicity in his work, I have no clue on what basis Jundo-Kaliszewska and possibly others are claiming this. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you write this only after I warned you?, seriously? I was writing you a response when you send this warning. And why didn't give me enough time to answer you, I'm not chained to my computer. You literally send me this warning after 30 min. I stopped believing in your good intentions some time ago, but I didn't expect such dishonest actions.
I now realise and admit that I made an honest mistake, but instead of removing the whole block, you should have edited within the part of the text which was inaccurate., you misqouted the source completely, probably on purpose, I removed it because of that.
It's positive reception, because Weeks said that what Zinkevičius wrote is true. Boroch, who is actually criticizing Zinkevičius, said that one part of what Zinkevičius wrote was wrong. Obviously, you shouldn't put both of these in the same category, which is precisely what you are doing., saying that work of historian is "more or less true" is not a positive reception; and I don't know where you see the contradiction between Weeks and Boroch, both are talking about different things. Boroch is criticising ZZ thesis that Polish language spoken in Lithuania has nothing in common with the standard Polish.
Zinkevičius does not even mention any 'vičiai' ethnicity in his work, I have no clue on what basis Jundo-Kaliszewska and possibly others are claiming this., well you aren't RS, Jundo-Kaliszewska is, that's the difference.
I think that solves the issue, and shows why your editing was distruptive. And why you can be trusted as a fellow Wikipedian. Cheers Marcelus (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And why didn't give me enough time to answer you I asked you nicely twice to revert your fourth revert: at 20:57 and at 21:19. Half an hour is more than sufficient, especially considering that you were definitely online at these moments.
It is undeniable by now that you have no WP:GOODFAITH towards me.
Jundo-Kaliszewska makes outlandish claims in her work about a sphere beyond her competence and criticizes Zigmas Zinkevičius in his sphere of expertize. She is definitely not WP:RS, especially not regarding linguistics.
shows why your editing was distruptive You were the one who literally re-introduced the problems and the notice pointing them out. Your editing was the WP:DISRUPTIVE one because you were initially removing any of my attempts at further contextualization and summarization of the sources and what was said in them [8]. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you just admited that you misqouted sources. Why would I revert distruptive editing? I have enough talking with you for today. (If you want to report me somewhere again, give me half an hour heads up) :D Marcelus (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accidental and honest mistake. If you would have made it clear in the edit summary, then we could have actually collaborated, instead of accusing each other. It's frankly unbelievable how many times we have talked with each other on many talk pages. Good night :D Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zigmas_Zinkevičius&oldid=1209284398"