Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution

Naming of towns

The beginning of this section moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania.

I have a question and a request of you. Please note that Augustów notes Augustavas, Sejny notes Sejny, . Szczecin will note German Settin, Cieszyn will note German Teschen and Czech Těšín, Białystok will note Belarusian Беласток (Biełastok), Lithuanian Balstogė, and even Yiddish ביאַליסטאָק. All Polish cities follow the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which allows the use in lead of other well known and popular names, and there are no conflicts if sb want's to add a (used, popular, historical) name. And non only Polish cities follow that rule: Latvian Daugavpils has Russian and Lithuanian, Jelgava has German, Lithuanian, Russian and Polish spellings, Salaspils notes Polish Kircholm, Belarusian Hrodna notes both Polish Grodno and Lithuanian Gardinas, Niasviž lists Russian, Lithuanian and Polish too, Russian Klushino has Polish Kłuszyn.... This is even followed outside of our little part of the world: Strasbourg (French) has German Straßburg. Therefore one would reasonably expect that if a city was called with a Polish name for several centuries (as most Lithuanian cities were in the times of the PLC) and that name would be relativly popular in English publication (Google Print search) we would note that in the article; same with German or Belarusian or Russian or other applicable names. Yet in vain one can look for a mention of Wilno in Vilnius, Troki in Trakai, or Kowno in Kaunas, Kłajpeda in Klaipėda, even through the Polish names are commonly used in English texts about history of that region ([1], and especially compare [2] vs [3]). I understand capitals are a special case, and the reference to Names of European cities in different languages is good style, I ask for nothing more in this case. But please tell me (this is my question) why are Polish, Belarusian, German and other names often removed from articles about Lithuanian cities ([4], [5], [6]). No edit summaries, no explanation - just removal from the article any mention that it used to have a Polish (or other names). A cursory Google Print search will show that often those names are very popular, thus they should be used if for no other reason that to avoid confusion when a person unfamiliar with geography and history of Europe types, let's say, Troki, into our search engines and finds himself at Trakai with no explanation for name change... Therefore my request is to think if having foreign names is really so irritiating, and if you could yourself restore relevant names to articles that are now missing them. And please note I am not asking for anything exceptional, but rather for what is normal on Wiki - and note that the glaring difference between the Wiki customs and practice in Lithuanian cities simply looks strange and raises some eyebrows. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My oppinion is presented in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution and it is thought to be clear for everybody. I support attempts to remove alternative names from the lead (except some specific cases) in general. This way, i support the same action when it's done by, say , Dr. Dan. I also see the bad sides of the remowing, especially when alternative information isn't inserted in exchange. Just one thing may be seen to be strange here: The same Dr. Dan has evidently different reasons, removing the names, than the mine. His reasons seem to concern a keeping of equality between Poland and Lithuania or something similar. Looking formally every reason to participate in the Wikipedia is welcomed but not every action. Looking however more deeply the reasons, that are far from the goals of Wikipedia, often raise something like barriers in our work. It's impossible to segregate users, but we can see some results of such "pollution". The whole month we discuss complexes of the opponent more and more, not taking in account many things that are important here in Wikipedia. By the way, our complexes are personal not collective, especially when not everybody in our teams is a Lithuanian / a Pole. Linas Lituanus 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I support moving this discussion to some other place. Linas Lituanus

Well, let's move it away, because it seems this gonna take some time to discuss this matter, and it is gonna simply disturb normal work rythm of a project talk page.--Lokyz 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As I believe it is not releated to the conflict issue (this is an enyclopedic content issue), I don't think it should be moved; this is an important issue that should be debated by the members of the Lithuanian WikiProject (as it was some of their members who have been most active removing the alternative names and thus creating an exception to the Wiki customs).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

at least mine answer you will find in different location (sooner or later), I also urge other editors answer there also. M.K. 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I on the other hand would support having the alternative (including foreign, where applicable) names mentioned in the lead. I think it is informative and does no harm. It would be of course different if someone tried to rename the article from say Vilnius to Wilno. I, too, would be interested to learn why the foreign names are removed from the articles of Lithuanian towns. --Lysy^talk 17:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, take a better look in Vilnius article lead. M.K. 17:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sincerely, I would like to know the answer to the question posed. Better understanding could result in easier co-operation. Maybe you need to ask the question yourself ? Sadly, no answer is an answer as well. --Lysy^talk 18:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lysy!!!!!!! Take a look here and also here . About answer as I said I will deliver it, do not doubt about it. M.K. 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see why you're asking me to "take a better look in Vilnius article lead" or to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lithuania/Conflict_resolution, I would probably understand you better if you were more straightforward. --Lysy^talk 19:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

M.K., please note that I wrote that Vilnius solution, as capitals are usually an exception, is satisfactory; I am more interested in reasons you removed those names from other cities.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider, I would like to say that I agree with Lysy and Piotrus. I find alternate names particularly interesting and disapprove of their removal. Olessi 01:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Olessi, forget the "insider" and "outsider" labels. I often agree with Lysy and P.P.(Prokonsul Piotrus), just not here. Big deal, right! Due to my involvement of intensive activity at work (the psychiatric ward, ha), I've been derelict in doing my Wikipedia duty. I am also very active in trying to change U.S. policy regarding our absurd involvement in Iraq. That's taking up a lot of my time, and money too. Always do a job well, I say! As a chief proponent of not having these various names in the leads of the geographical toponyms in question, please bear with me. I intend to address this in intense detail to all of you, very soon. And here, is as good as any place. Dr. Dan 01:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dan, could you do me a favour and remind me where is it that we often agree?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry P.P., I must have made a mistake. You are right, and I apologize. Dr. Dan 00:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, now you are not being constructive, and this will not resolve the conflict. Juraune 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think this is not constructive, but let us stay focused. It's not about a conflict but an attempt to explain/understand the background of certain edit behaviour. Of course I have my own explanation, but I would really like to hear what the Lithuanian editors think about why do they remove the alternative place names from the articles' leads. So far this behaviour seems rather hostile and not constructive. I think explaining (and hopefully understanding) is a better way to move forward than revert-warring. --Lysy^talk 10:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Off topic again: If somebody is interested in ongoing Days of Lithuania in Poland, here is the programme: http://www.dnilitwy2006.lt/en/index2.php

I think it's important, when one person claims neutrality, to verify this claim, if it can be disputed - and as recently I cannot recall where Dr.Dan agreed with me on anything (other then some generalities) I would like him to show me some other examples. Perhaps it may came as a suprise to one of us and help us clarify our relation. Although i agree this is OT and the main question at hand, currently ignored, is at the top.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You brought it up again P.P., so I'll apologize again, for my error. Dr. Dan 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Never seen Dr. Dan claiming that he is neutral, nobody discussing here is neutral, the neutral ones do not care, if it is one way or another. Piotrus, please do not try to solve the conflict by personally attacking people that you might not like recently. There is too much political propaganda against certain nationalities or countries, be it small or large, and too little common sense. Keeping the lists of names in foreign languages bring too much revert wars and dissatisfied parties, who should be mentioned first, who should not be mentioned at all. It happened in the past, it will happen in the future when the new editors will join. Well, solve this - which name, Russian or Polish should be mentioned first? If Russian name is mentioned, shouldn't Belarusian name be mentioned instead in Eastern Lithuania? Why should Russian or Polish names be mentioned, while the Jewish name is left out, and the majority of Lithuanian cities population were Jewish in 19-20 century. How about Karaite names, why should we mention names in the languages of the biggest countries of Europe only? If we mention Russian, Polish, why not Swedish, Danish or German? In Samogitian part of Lithuania Samogitian names should have priority over Polish, or should Jewish name take the precedence over all of them? Don't you see the problems your desire to have Lithuanian city names written in your native tong everywhere, where Poland (PLC) once was, creates? I would be for mentioning and writting Polish names of the cities that have significant Polish population or for keeping the list of the names in all other relevant languages someplace else. Juraune 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the arguments but ... the really important part of the question, as I understood it, was why something that works for Poland, France or other countries cannot work for Lithuania ? I'm not trying to pretend I'm being naive or trolling here and as I said I believe I know at least part of the answer but I would not like to suggest anything and would rather appreciate hearing the statement of the problem from Lithuanian editors. I hope it would be helpful, and maybe also an eye-opener for editors, who, like me, insist on mentioning the other (Polish, German, Belarusian as applicable) names as well. --Lysy^talk 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, since you are not trying to pretend to be naive or trolling here, I suggest you put the Polish names for the cities' leads in the articles for Kiev and Moscow, and report back to us. Dr. Dan 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, see my explanation below, since you've chosen to ask the same question twice. --Lysy^talk 06:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my point - most of them are not really Polish or Russian name, it is phonetic transcription. if we would denote them as such, I'd have no problems for using them. There are few exceptions, of course - like Klaipėda (Memel). As a sidenote to Halibut, everywhere where it is possible I do use proper names, not Lithuanised - be it Schumacher, Kubica or Wałęsa (sorry, diacritics even with modern publishing software in most cases still is a problem). Although I am still convinced that Radziwiłł should be called Radvila or Giedroyć - Giedraitis (at least until PLC).

And yes, Lysy i think I know, what you do assume: it is really unpleasant for most of Lithuanians to be reminded of Polish suppression of Lithuanian language and domination of Polish language. Another one of main points is that using older spellings of the city name simply stops usage of proper Lithuanian name and encourages people to use them, instead of "modern Lithuanian nationalistic interpretation". This later one formula, used by Halibutt (ok, ok, I do put words in his mouth, although I think it's quite obvious) was the main reason why I did remove Troki from Trakai article. After dispute erupted, I'm ready for compromise and strict rules to be established - especially if formulas like "modern", "now-" would be avoided.

And some more: This would be a long linguistic and phonologic discussion and I do not think anyone (including myself) have proper qualifications. Another sidenote for Halibutt - your arguments in Laurynas Gucevičius article are entering a supplemental Historical discipline called diplomatics territory. This discipline studies what form of language, what terms and what case are most used in documents of certain periods.

Even after hearing course in University on this, I feel not qualified enough to state anything on this matter, and you still insist you're right. A professor you simply called "some guy" is one of most prominent in this field in Lithuania and even in Poland, that (hopefully) is rethinking endecja heritage.

--Lokyz 16:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Lokyz (for the sake of simplicity, I'll try to stick to town names so excuse my ignoring Radziwiłł and Gucevičius for now). Certainly, wording like "Troki, now Trakai" is unacceptable. One of the reasons why I insist on having the Polish names mentioned is that, putting aside all political connotations, it is part of our common history and culture and we should not pretend otherwise. And it's not only that Poland played important role in Lithuanian culture, but obviously also the other way round. So it happened that Polish language dominated (at least in writing). So what ? My feeling is that because of the recent history (what happened between the wars, then Soviet occupation and then the behaviour of Polish minority in Lithuania in 1990s) and particularly because political propaganda and education (of the Soviet system but not only) almost anything "Polish" had certain negative connotations in Lithuania. This is changing recently, but slowly of course. So, if someone mentions a Polish name of a Lithuanian town, a Lithuanian will immediately hear the message like "it should be Polish", or "it was Polish" even if the person using the Polish name had no such intentions. I can relate to this, as a somewhat similar situation was in Poland, where until 1990s many people (again because of our education system) did not really know or care that Poznań was Posen etc. I think this is really wrong and we should respect the past. I think we managed to do this on wikipedia at least to some extent. Of course I am annoyed when some German POV pushers tend to change every occurrence of Olsztyn to Allenstein, but I think that in the article's lead the German (and other, where appropriate) names should be mentioned. Take a look at Bydgoszcz or Toruń and you will see that nobody minds having German names in the leads there, even if the oppression that Poles suffered from Germany is not comparable to anything Poles ever did in Lithuania. So, again, by mentioning Polish name in the lead I'm not trying to signify that the Lithuanian town was or "should be" Polish (perhaps it never was). But the name may be important to the culture or history of one or both of our nations. Personally, I don't see why this Polish form of the name should be ever repeated in the article's body (although the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says otherwise). I wonder what way of putting this would be more acceptable. How about "Trakai (Polish form: Troki)" or simply "Trakai (Template:Lang-pl)" ? --Lysy^talk 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Trakai (Polish form: Troki)" would be acceptable although (Polish transcribtion: Troki) would be more desirable. By this truce would be set for long, and I think most of the Lithuanian editors would accept this. Anyway this is worth further discussions.--Lokyz 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "transcription" would be disputable and in my opinion incorrect. This would mean that both Polish and Lithuanian names are pronounced the same way, but only written down differently. I would be glad to accept "Polish form", but we need to wait a bit to gain wider support of both Lithuanian and Polish editors, and, once agreed, we would have all to stand firmly for that and defend against any violations from either "side". Let's hear what the others think. --Lysy^talk 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. I still intend to try working on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) but I'm sure it will take time. It's a miracle that everyone involved accepts the guidelines there, but that also means that it got complicated and nobody is really 100% happy with it. --Lysy^talk 19:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a linguist, but we have a common way on Wiki to deal with: templates like {{lang-pl}} or {{lang-lt}} direct readers to articles on Polish language or Lithuanian language, respectively, so the form we should be used would be Trakai (Template:Lang-pl). As for all 'cultural' arguments, I still fail to see why the above would not be acceptable if Suwałki (Template:Lang-lt) or Gdańsk (Template:Lang-de) are perfectly agreeable by all. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in fact I did not mind "Lublinas" and "Gdanskas" which someone added to Lublin and Gdańsk, even if it seemed remotely relevant. I think that "Polish form" instead of "Polish" would signify that the original name was Lithuanian (which may not be always obvious). It seems to be somehow important for Lithuanians to stress that. My understanding is that this is important for Lithuanian national identity, otherwise it might seem that all Lithuanian culture had Polish roots (while in reality it was only Polish language and the cultural heritage was mixed, as e.g. the Gucevičius case proves). --Lysy^talk 21:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, Lysy - you are rigt at the least. It is - even as Lithuanian nation has diminished, even as there are are some assumptions that we ceaseed to exist, some of us still carry tolerance and Pride being what we are. (even without stalking others with rightfully deserved COA)--Lokyz 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, I have no doubt that Lithuanians are a proud nation. Take Polish patriotism, multiply it by 2 and you will have a Lithuanian ;-) However, until second half of 19th century people did not think in the categories of national (ethnic) pride, as we know it today (and therefore, if you asked Gucevičius if he was Polish or Lithuanian he would had probably understood the question differently than we do now, over two centuries later). --Lysy^talk 04:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, the problem is that Lithuanians felt historically dominated by Polish language (or sometimes by Poland, in fact). There are many reasons for it, but this is deeper and more complicated than most Poles imagine. This, historically justified feeling has been strengthened by Lithuanian (and previously Soviet) education system but also by the Poles (influenced by Polish education system) not understanding the Lithuanian point of view. Sorry for drifting off-topic but I have a number of Lithuanian friends and my observation is that in general Poles from Poland tend to have much friendlier attitude to unknown Lithuanians (whom they consider to be "brothers") than many Lithuanians have towards Poles (whom they consider kind of "oppressors"). This lack of symmetry often leads to misunderstandings. Now, I think that if we would like to avoid wasting time on revert wars over names, we should not ignore this delicate matter. I believe some Lithuanian editors would easier accept Template:Lang-es than Template:Lang-pl in the article. That is why I would like to look for some compromise solution which would address these concerns. --Lysy^talk 04:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well Lysy, the problem is also the adverse propaganda against Lithuanians that is working on the minds of ordinary Polish people in Poland and in Vilnius region, that is comming from Warsaw journalists that live far away and think that Lithuanians are small bad gnomes or trolls probably. I am talking in general terms here, not having anyone in mind. When I last time was in Rasos Cemetery with my foreign guests, the Polish man considering us to be foreigners started explaining in English a very interesting story of Polish heroic struggle with advancing Soviet army, but when I said few words in Lithuanian, he suddenly changed his attitude and jumped a bus to go home. And please do not pretend that Lithuania is not a democratic country and that Polish people are persecuted there and put to prison for their free speach, so he was afraid of "Saugumas" (I sometimes read Home army article discussions, so I think all Polish editors participating here know what "Saugumas" means). I, as a woman, do not feel secure in this crazy atmosphere of secrets, hatred and revenges for the past war crimes that I couldn't possibly commit for I wasn't simply there. Juraune 14:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Jaurane, I agree that most Poles are influenced by certain Polish POV, this is natural, people believe to some extent in things and ideas they were told when they were kids. However I don't think that "Warsaw journalists ... think that Lithuanians are small bad gnomes". On the contrary, my feeling is that all Polish media are *very* positive towards Lithuania and Lithuanians. Where did you get the idea of anti-Lithuanian propaganda in Poland from ? Frankly, I do not remember reading anything bad about Lithuania in Polish media. OK, maybe the only thing was the concern that Poles in Lithuania were not allowed to officially use Polish forms of their names, this seems a bit strange. Other than that all information about Lithuania is only positive. Of course there is freedom of speech and you can always find a marginal magazine with some weird nationalistic ideas, but that's really borderline. Your experience may be different, because you probably know mostly Poles from Lithuania, not from Poland. Their attitude may be different, like the man that you met in Rasos. One of my Lithuanian friends told me that when he entered a shop in Šalčininkai and started speaking Lithuanian, nobody seemed to understand him. I'm sorry that Polish community in Lithuania voted for communists, I wish they did like the Poles in Latvia, who supported country's independence. --Lysy^talk 16:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So I have a bit additional time to spend on talks, so mine view of this issue as I promised. I am very pleased with Lysy, who do not hiding behind other editors or accusing other editors for “crimes”, contrary to Piotrus. Arguments provided by Lokyz and Lysy are interesting and discussion is much welcome, but I want to make some notable remarks. First – this is not case related only to Lithuanian vs Polish, this is related to brooder sense. And such statement as why something that works for Poland, France or other countries cannot work for Lithuania? is generally untrue. Because the same issue is present in Russian, Polish, Byelorussian etc. cases. And the system is not work so well as despite as it is was tried to present contrary in this discussion. If you are really determined to find this endorsement, dig in articles histories (don’t forget Polish too) and you will find it. Lets a bit analyze naming convention lead: Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if popular and important enough that they are valuable to readers, should be avoided in titles unless no English version exists and should be used in articles with caution. Does anybody fell difference between can be used and should be used? Another very important issue, that some Polish editors (particularly two) is pretending that such names as Vilnius is a modern. Of course this is pathetic approach. Lets analyze this too: would reasonably expect that if a city was called with a Polish name for several centuries . Who said this? How the research was conducted, which lead to his conclusion? And similar questions. This particular statement probably directed to Vilnius case. I can assure you all, that at least in contemporary Lithuanian writing this city is not called as Wilno, plus different population called it differently.

Which arguments were provided to hold different names in the lead? Lets quickly summarize. First (the “true” and “unchallenged” ) “argument” is that cities were in PLC. But thousands of them were in PLC. Another arguments – “informative”, and other editor noted as ”interesting”. How these “informative” and “interesting” was measured? Ok lets take an example, random one – Warsaw, I am seeking these “informative” and “interesting” , but hey! I cant find any of these, even the article do not poses this treasure chest, which if reasonable thinking should be, because it holds a bit of these “informative” and “interesting” by lining up more then 20 names.. So there is a sense of “informative” and “interesting” in this case? Ok lets go to different case, and lets use Piotrus` methodics. Lets pretend that I am the “a person unfamiliar with geography and history of Europe types, let's say, Liublinas, into our search engines and finds himself at Lublin with no explanation for name change...” So there is a good will here? It was a part of PLC, it likely met a “informative” and “interesting” criteria . Is it no need to change a situation? Nor I nor I did monitor that any Lithuanian editor tried to push this Lithuanian name as hard as sometimes Polish do in Lithuanian towns. There was presented some case as Kaunas, Klaipėda etc to hold a Polish names, they do not have notable Polish minority nor it have notable support from “beauty contest” (as one editor said) googling (particular is unfounded is Kłajpeda), small tows have the same issue. So to me the provided Piotrus refernces is unsounded arguments. But discusion should continue to see all positions and to seek better understanding of this case M.K. 11:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

M.K, first thank you for bringing to our attention the existing policy which says Historical names or names in other languages can be used in lead if popular and important enough that they are valuable to readers. Second, if you seek reassurance that cities in PLC were usually called by their Polish names, consider the fact that Polish was an official language of the PLC, while Lithuanian was not. Thus for example a researcher looking through historical documents is much more likely to find Polish spellings then Lithuanian, thus the Polish names are very informative in this case. Further, as for informative and interesting part, the solution - and the method of analysis - is very obvious. If a search through a database like Google Print or Scholar shows that a significant proportion of publications use other then modern variants, thus in accordance with the above policy, the name should be mentioned. Now, there is very little reason to think that anybody outside Lithuania would type 'Liublinas' into a search engine, as the Lithuanian name of Lublin is not used in a single English source. However, as I have shown above, Troki, Kłajpeda or Kowno are often mentioned in English publications and as such, just as Memel, should be noted in the lead. PS. Feel free to add the link to Names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages to Warsaw, I am sure nobody will object to it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you liked mine answer, but the fact that Polish was an official language of the PLC think again. M.K. 16:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I will have to reread some of my sources, but for now, here (see also next page for perhaps a more clearly put statement) is a source that states Lithuanian was not an official language even in the GDL, and if you are disputing that Polish was (one of) the official languages of PLC, please state so clearly. Btw, if you can provide any source that Lithuanian was an official language in the PLC, please do so.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I cant see your links (just synopsis). And when you reread some of your sources pick up some, which talk about official language term too and timeline of it. M.K. 17:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Google Print is accessible to all, and you can easily verify it. The above refs discusses 15th and 16th centuries. This while not speaking of official status, notes that Lithuanian nobility preffered Polish language and speaks of 'complete supremacy of Polish language'. This speaks of Poland as the 'ruling' language of PLC. Here is another source for Polish being the dominant language in PLC. Finally, this ends the story by saying that Ruthenian (East Slavic) language was replaces in 16th and 17th century by Polish as the official language of GDL. The picture is quite clear. Again, if you have any reference that L. language became official later (i.e. before 20th century), please share it with us; otherwise we have a ton of references for Polish official, Lithuanian not, and I am getting tired of discussing stuff with somebody who nevers provides any references.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What I see from your link is only this. Actually, I am already tired to discussing stuff with somebody who "writes" encyclopedia, but is incapable to determine basic definition. M.K. 20:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is in your interest to fix this technical problem. And I don't have time to help somebody who violates WP:NPA and insults me with every second post. Try WP:VP(T).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all I did not ask any help of yours in this case, so you can relax. Second, when accusing somebody read the guidelines by yourself, read them again before answering, lets say, in cabal case, which involves you directly. M.K. 16:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

M.K. are you saying that the problem is that the reason why you don't like foreign names in Lithuanian town articles is that don't see them in articles about the towns in other countries (including Poland) ? Otherwise you would not mind having e.g. Polish names mentioned for Lithuanian towns or villages ? I don't think so ... --Lysy^talk 16:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No M.K. 16:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the question was why are the foreign names removed from Lithuanian towns ? --Lysy^talk 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to answer, it is in mine message above, but for more clearness, question could sound like – why foreign names were added in such cases as 1, 2 (this particular case PL) and much more..? Now here, was introduced even new proposal about Klaipėda, as it was ridiculed already so no need to stop in this case. Another moment when name placed by only pushing POV, it is the best environment for rv. wars – say that Trakai have common with BE name of it?? M.K. 16:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Piotrus, have we answered your question, and what from it? Linas Lituanus 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, no. Various people cite various arguments, ignore others, and I don't see a clear answer. Perhaps some who want could write a short summarized sentence 'Articles about Lithuanian cities need no names in other languages because...'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Lokyz gave the most sincere answer: it is really unpleasant for most of Lithuanians to be reminded of Polish suppression of Lithuanian language and domination of Polish language and I can sympathise with this explanation. That is, I expected this, and I think it should be respected, therefore my attempt to find a compromise solution ("Polish form"), although I have not much hope that many editors would accept it. This said, I find it sad that many Lithuanians do not think of common PLC culture as a good thing but rather something bad, only because of Polish language. Of course there were many bad things in history but there were also many that both Lithuanians and Poles can be proud of. Many of the virtues of both nations were common and it was mostly the 20th century that did most harm to mutual relationship. But does it matter that Mickiewicz used Polish, when he wrote "Litwo, ojczyzno moja" ? --Lysy^talk 21:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

When I was just starting my wiki career, I was also annoyed by seeing other languages insert in 'Polish' cities. After a few months when I realized that this site is not here to ponder to Polish (or any other) national pride or hurt feelings, I left that annoyance behind, and now I look at all such inserts as useful for majority of our readers, as I explained above. Perhaps our new Lithuanian users need simply time to come to the same conclusion - that having a Polish name in the lead of a Lithuanian city is not some assault on their culture, but simply a logical piece of information to be found in an English encyclopedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope so, too. I share the same experience, having removed foreign names inserted in the articles about Polish towns in the past. --Lysy^talk 07:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not very good, when an unanimous solution can be seen in, but i always intended to write one thing during this discussion. Namely, that i've spoken for myself and that we haven't made any conspiracy here to remove the names. As i see from the answers the other users from the Lithuanian side behaved this way too. That's why we just couldn't give a single answer. So it's right up to You, to make a conclusion. It's just a question if that conclusion can change our current status quo here. But it depends on You too. Linas Lituanus 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And again, kudos to Lysy for expressing what I could have said - yet didn't. If that really is the reason why Russian or German names are ok while Polish are not, then we have no option but to respect that. Provided of course that we also respect the other side, to whom it might be unpleasant to see the Lithuanian suppression of our common past. That said, this answer does not lead us anywhere as I also agree with what Piotrus wrote above: we're not here to satisfy anyone's need to feel better. We're here to write encyclopaedia, with as much relevant info as it gets.

As to "Polish form" it might be true in some cases as some toponyms are clearly little more than local variations of a name coined in another language (Gdanskas, Liublinas or Naugardukas also fall into that category, BTW). However, many more were not and it's really hard to argue that Szyłokarczma and Heidekrug are forms of Šilutė. //Halibutt 16:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

ŠiloKarčema (that can be translated as pinewood korczma) is easy recognizable Lithuanian name, and I suppose Šilutė is a short form of it, anyway it is truly not the best example here, because it was part of Prussia, not GDL.

As for Gardinas and Naugardukas, they ar net derivateves from slavic "grod" (town) and are rather a Lithuanian forma of "gardas" - i.e. "cot". These were Baltic teritories sometime, so toponymics looks to be Baltic, although i am not absoulute sure on this. And yes, you're right - Liublinas is Lithuanisation of Polish word.--Lokyz 16:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in most cases, especially for the old Lithuanian settlements we can safely assume that the original name was Lithuanian, although the Polish form was certainly in use later as well (otherwise there would be no Polish form). For newer towns and villages, established in PLC times, it seems reasonable to assume that the original name could have been Polish, but again Lithuanian form was obviously in use among the Lithuanian speaking population. My suggestion is that using "Polish form" would be a good compromise, even if we are aware that there may be some cases where it could have been in fact the original form. Would this be acceptable ? --Lysy^talk 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lysy's and Piotrus' observations from a few posts before. I edit locality articles in numerous countries, but the Lithuanian ones seem to be the only exception to the Local Name (Other language: Alternate Name) format. I am concerned with consistency between locality articles on WP, not with local sensitivities. I can understand the reluctance not to include "new" names like "Kłajpeda", but historical names should be included somewhere in the article (if not the lead) instead of being outright removed. Having a separate discussion for Lithuanian localities seems a fork from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Olessi 19:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Common culture/language ?

The problem I do see, that Poles still think it was not common culture, it was only Polish. And this ridiculous add "modern" before city name simply suggests it was Polish all the time, without any regards to Lithuanian roots of it's name and founders/people who were living there. It's based on few myths, and projection of 19th century romantic literature into 16th or even 17th century without any reflection or need to find a what a true situation was. That is what I do speaking about attitude - it can be clearly seen from edit summaries like "Poland Poland everywhere", and also like google books search like "Lithuanian nationalism", to support dubious teories about official language. Please show me at least one contemorary document, that does state something about "official language" in 16th century? At the time, when only 2 to 5 percent othe people could read, not to mention writing. It's another one projection of nowadays realities into the past, because term "official language" was coined with emergence of nationalism, and that was at the begining of 19th century and was supported by mass education. Although I do have little hope to be heard, because some books like to cite books like "The Polish-Lithuanian state, 1386-1795" to support this idea: and in my opinion the name of the book already clearly shows ignorance of the matter by the author (or at least sources, he wrote his book from).--Lokyz 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I share the view that, unfortunately, many Poles tend to think of it as Polish only, and not common culture. I'm afraid this is partially the result of Polish traditional education which, for reasons that I think are obvious, used to be very patriotic, and stress whatever was Polish, as opposed to Russian or German. Unfortunately this got extrapolated to countries like Lithuania or Ukraine as well. I think that you will know what I'm talking about as I believe the Lithuanian education shares a similar (somehow nationalistic) flaw, and for similar reasons: protecting national identity against oppressive neighbours. --Lysy^talk 07:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a simple conclusion that because Polish language was the dominant one among elites in PLC and Poles were more numerous then Lithuanians (or any other minority), many tend to abbreviate PLC as Poland, and use the adjective Polish, when in fact they mean PLC. This further led to another misinterpretation that PLC=Poland of today, which is obviously not true. I have long and often stated that the culture of PLC was the mixture of various cultures: Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Jewish, German, Oriental (Ottoman), to name just a few (as often, Kaczmarski was just right), as well as changed links from Poland/Polish to PLC on Wikipedia where appopriate. Nonetheless I think it could be safe to argue that because of above factors, and others (placement of the capital, etc.) Polish culture both pre-PLC and post-PLC had and has the most common with the PLC culture (hence, polonization) - but again, nobody is denying it was signifcantly influenced by others, cultural diffusion was strong going both ways, and Lithuanians contributed much to the PLC. Nobody is also denying that Lithuanian culture (or state) existed before the PLC and that modern Lihuanian culture traces its roots far into the past. Further, Lokyz you are correct that the idea of an 'official language' can be controversial, but going back to square one: 1) most of contemporary publications in PLC were in Latin and/or Polish (although many peasants spoke R. or L., they couldn't read, and certainly didn't write anything). 2) Most of English publication use Polish names. Hence having Polish names for the historicial locations or people is more appopriate then not. Of course I fully support usage of Lithuanian names for titles of articles about places, in text related to modern contexts (i.e. 19th century forward), as well as pre-polonization ones, but I cannot see much reason in arguing that during PLC times Lithuanian names were more popular then Polish (which adjective, btw, I use in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth context, not modern Polish). Taking those things into consideration, please understand nobody is devaluing Lithuanian culture, but Polish names should be used in lead of articles about places that are now in Lithuania, but in the past were in PLC (and yes, before that, in GDL).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what you write, Piotrus. One remark, however. You write that you "cannot see much reason in arguing that during PLC times Lithuanian names were more popular then Polish". It seems to me that both Polish and Lithuanian names were in use, just by different groups. While szlachta would use a Polish name, the peasants would use Lithuanian to call the same place. Now, which is "more popular" ? We cannot really prove how widespread was the use of Lithuanian names, because most of the documents would use Polish. But we can reasonably assume that the peasants were more numerous than Polonized szlachta. The question would be of course how many of the peasants got Polonized as well. But do we need to answer it and speculate further ? Isn't it obvious to assume that both Polish and Lithuanian names were in use and none of the was "better" (more "official" or more "original") than the other ? --Lysy^talk 07:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did mention Latin, as it was called a true and not spoiled "Lithuanian" language. This tradition comes form 16th century mythology created by literate Lithuanian szlachta and magnates (and partially by Strijkowski). I know, that this is quote controversial statement, although modern Lithuanian research tend to use this argument and does find many documents supporting it (note, Latin, not Ruthenian). I do not deny fact of Polonization, although it was a fact a bit later than assumed - in reality it did happen in 18th century.--Lokyz 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, no

And one simple question - Piotrus, what bachelor degree did you receive. I'm just curios. If you do not want to answer, it's up to you. I still feel, that you do not have a clue in humanitarian/social sciences. I know, that you have a right to ban me for this question. Although I've already stated my qualification and limits of it. Can you do it also? --Lokyz 21:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lokyz. I find it disappointing to see that instead of discussing the content problem you prefer to violate WP:NPA. But your behaviour is your choice. My qualifications are described on my userpage, which (as my every signature) contains also my real name. I will not speak about your qualifications, which I cannot read about on your userpage, nor could I verify based on your choice to remain anonimous.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, guys, this is not going to lead us nowhere. --Lysy^talk 04:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I can see, I'm one of a few that do try to find some resolution of this kickstand, without hiding head into the sand or pointing to the rules that lead to a deeper conflict.

As for WP:NPA - it was a simple question, that you didn't want to answer. It was your choice, so no need to overreact - i did not intend to insult or otherwise harm your reputation, I was simply curious.

As for my anonimity - I have very good reasons to do so. As for verifabliity - user page helps not much:) Anyway Dr. Dan s right - this will lead nowhere, so I withdraw my question and apologize.--Lokyz 07:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Note that there is a difference between asking a question (which I did answer, btw, pointing you to the place the information is given), and speculating about the answer in such a way as you did above. Perhaps it was not intended, but anyway this is behind us. Out of curiosity, and without any relation to our discussions here or elsewhere, I wonder what could be a 'very good reasons' for being anonimous? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's because of my job and my boss atitude. User pages tend to have a nasty habit to appear on the first page of search engine. --Lokyz 15:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

True, although I think it is beneficial. I am proud of my Wiki contributions, and visibility of my userpage and verifiability of my name have already helped me to find things like stypends and jobs. In the world of academia attitutes are changing and increasing numbers of academics are begining to see Wikipedia as something they should openly endorse. Hopefully you will benefit from those trends soon, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

Some more Lithuanian eyes are needed on the Glitiškės article. Of course it is one of the most difficult articles, together with Dubingiai. There are two problems there: 1. one of the users insist on including a controversial statement on Dubingiai in Glitiškės article. IMHO this is already difficult enough in Dubingiai (where this information belongs) and I reverted it as it seems to be kind of ruthless POV pushing. 2. Could someone take a look at http://www.xxiamzius.lt/numeriai/2004/08/18/zvil_01.html and verify if this is a reliable, neutral source that adequately supports the sentence in question ? I think a discussion is missing at Glitiškės. --Lysy^talk 11:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, few month ago Legionas/Sigitas noted himself that XXIAmzius is "XXI amzius has weakest journalists and I will avoid using its publications when possible".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Let's simplify matters by having these same Polish editors clammering for more inclusive toponyms in Wikipedia, add the Polish names for Kiev and Moscow in the leads of those articles (I know I metioned this above, but was fearful it might have gotten lost in the confusion). Dr. Dan 01:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And the aim would be..? //Halibutt 06:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dan, please note that those two examples are capitals, and as such we seem to have unwritten rule that capitals don't list other names. In case of Kiev this was further extensivly debated on the history page. Personaly, I don't think capitals should be an exception, but since Warsaw/Warszawa is much less complicated then some spellings of Kiev (especially), I think we can have those exceptions (including Vilnius). Nonetheless please note that cities like Navahradak or others I mentioned above will often mention names in different languages, if they are relevant to other countries history. As relativly little Russian territotry was disputed between Poland and Russia, there were little if any Polish speaking minorities in those cities, and English publications usually don't use Polish names for them, I see no reason to insist that they display Polish names (honestly, the only case I can think of is Smoleńsk, and n vs ń is such a minor issue that I think it's fine either way). Ukraine is different, and thus you will find more cities giving different spellings (Bratslav, Kozelets, etc.) depending on which are more useful (Polish in the west, Russian in the West...). Belarus is also similar, with notably many of its northern cities giving Lithuanian spelling. So, Dan, your suggestion is rather unecessary - as with the exception of capitals, it is already an unwritten naming convention on wiki.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you have a different position previously, P.P., or has this been your position all along regarding Kiev, for example)? Dr. Dan 19:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this, in a nutshell, has been my policy for the most of my wiki editing days. Note, please, that in regard to capitals I don't think that capitals should be a special case and completly agree with Olessi, but for the sake of Wiki-peace I am willing to pander to some editors and would not oppose making capitals an exception, if they agree for a compromise and allow the use of names in all non-capitals. I.e. I do think that Kiev should mention 'Kijów', and Vilnius 'Wilno' - but I have better things to do at Wiki then fight with those who think mentioning those names threatens the existence of their nations or something like this. But I draw the line below capitals: those names are useful and should be used in most articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what was the aim but this have been tried in pre-Dan wikitime. Several users coordinated at PL board attacked the leads of Kiev and Minsk. See Kiev revert war and the Minsk one. The discussion ensued here and a non-Ukrainian, non-Russian, non-Polish American editor user:Nohat who stated there that "Having the Polish name for Kiev as the third piece of information in the article is ridiculous" found himself for that later in now famous Black Book who some here remember very well. This was a great time of us all younger and more naive. Did anything change? --Irpen 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe, so maybe we should also include Lithuanian name of Kiev - because it was part of Grand Duchy before PLC and polonisation:>--Lokyz 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see why not. Would it do any harm, Irpen ? --Lysy^talk 09:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, I don't need to ask why Russian editors object to having anything Polish mentioned in articles about towns that they consider Russian. What I asked was why is it a problem for Lithuanians and as I stated, I thought I knew the answer, but felt it needed to be verified (this is why I excused for apparent trolling, Dr. Dan, if you reread my statement above; no need to twist my words). Lokyz was kind enough to answer it, and as you may have noticed, I proposed to seek a compromise that would allow to have the names mentioned without irritating Lithuanian editors. I think Lokyz and myself were inclined to work towards a solution, but apparently other editors are more hardcore and prefer editwarring instead. --Lysy^talk 06:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that my examples of Moskow and Kiev, and a newer one Crimea do not have their Polish names in the leads is not only telling, but very important. First, it demonstates that their is no argument in telling us that it has been done in other articles. It has been done in some articles and not in other articles. So what? I'm sure you know the famous Slavic expression Where's Rome and where is the Crimea (it's one of my favorites). In the states we say What does that have to do with the price of soap in North Dakota? Putting the Polish name in the article about Alytus was done because of notability? Or P.P.'s argument that the names of Lithuanian toponyms were once Polish (the official language)in the PLC almost 500 years ago, is laughable and not true. They were the Polish language name for the localities, and that's what they are now. Again, so what? Please recall that I do not object to the Polish names of geographical toponyms when they have a coresponding Polish article and a link to them. It's great to have that information available when needed. It's the Lead, that is when the problem arises. Just let it go and quit making waves. If the Russian, Bearusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian editors have a problem with it (or Americans or anybody else), respect that desire. Take that to heart if you truly want to improve relations and work in tandem. Dr. Dan 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[Chernihiv]], Homyel etc were in PLC, but I don't see many efforts from Polish side to include Polish spelling of those cities. Maybe for same reasons Polish editors in Wiki are so harsh on Lithuanian government, that does not allow to write Polish surnames with Polish diacritics in Lithuania. Nevermind USA, Germany, Sweden, UK, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and so on where Poles don't have this right, this is not such a big deal, but Lithuania is all different matter, Lithuania simply MUST do it.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not about diacritics only. I never heard of US regulations forcing Kowalski to use Kowalskas name instead. --Lysy^talk 09:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case I have a pleasant surprise for you - no one is forced to write his name as Kovalskis in Lithuania, you can be Kovalski if you want (but with no diacritics and letters that are not in Lithuanian alphabet). But never the less it does not change a fact that Lithuanian goverment is vile and nationalistic? How dare they to apply same policies as USA, Germany, Sweden and UK without a permission from some neighbours.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's indeed relaxing. Does Lithuanian minority in Poland enjoy the pleasure of having their names with Lithuanian diacritics recognized ? I've never heard of policies of USA, Germany, Sweden and UK explicitly forbidding using diacritics, have you ? Anyway, where did I say that Lithuanian government is vile and nationalistic ? --Lysy^talk 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair I don't know if you can have US or UK passport with Á á Ć ć É é Í í Ĺ ĺ Ń ń Ó ó Ŕ ŕ Ś ś Ú ú Ý ý Ź ź À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù Â â Ĉ ĉ Ê ê Ĝ ĝ Ĥ ĥ Î î Ĵ ĵ Ô ô Ŝ ŝ Û û Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü Ÿ ÿ ß Ã ã Ẽ ẽ Ĩ ĩ Ñ ñ Õ õ Ũ ũ Ỹ ỹ Ç ç Ģ ģ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ů. But I doubt that. Like it or not, but in Lithuanian constitution it is written that state language in Lithuania is Lithuanian. And sadly there is no Á á Ć ć É é Í í Ĺ ĺ Ń ń Ó ó Ŕ ŕ Ś ś Ú ú Ý ý Ź ź À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù Â â Ĉ ĉ Ê ê Ĝ ĝ Ĥ ĥ Î î Ĵ ĵ Ô ô Ŝ ŝ Û û Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü Ÿ ÿ ß Ã ã Ẽ ẽ Ĩ ĩ Ñ ñ Õ õ Ũ ũ Ỹ ỹ Ç ç Ģ ģ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ů in Lithuanian grammar. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention W. Although, once again I suggest to stop it right here. ŠThis is OT and non Wikipedia related, so no need to ignite another flame war.--Lokyz 09:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I suggest you to stop here. We do not gave any means to change position of Lithuanian government and another one insitution, namely [7] that dictates most of language related things. Poles are trully happy not having one like this, trust me. Because it dictates things at such level, that sometimes I feel like living in a plastic language museum and there are only approved words to he used. IMO it's overcompensating for long years of oppresion, but it's just another OT here.--Lokyz 09:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO, VLKK is evil and is sowing the seed of Satan in form of "vertiklis" (formerly known as modemas), "vaizduoklis" etc  :) Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Poles don't intend to use the alternative names in the lead for self-advertizing. Perhaps analysis by Dr. Dan, that's above, is a coincidence only. However the problem exist, that the rule, allowing to put alternative names without any restriction (1) limits possibility of other users to control self-advertizing, allowing alternative names without any reasoning (when we can found a suspect insertion anywhere in an article just from that it hasn't reason to be in that place ) and (2) doesn't correlate with guidelines, that talk about self-advertizing in Wikipedia. And your arguments about customs in Wikipedia, that allow alternative names, are valid till the alternative name has some evident reason or a background. Piotrus did mention Kłajpeda above as a possible alternative name. But the fact is, that this name was used in Polish after 1923 only. So it isn't any historical name, that may be interesting as such. Now do we have some warranty, that other names, that are put as historical by Polish users, aren't put there only because they were found in the internet? It's very easy to transliterate a word in Lithuanian to a word in Polish and to add a Polish inflexion (like hypothetical Vilkijiškiai -> Wilkiiszki), and one gets a name, that he wants to be treated as historical. No sources, no reasoning, just an alternative name.

Now, what do true alternative names mean? They mean that i can write the alternative name instead of the main to any less official document, that's in English (e.g. to one's personal application or to a petition to a government), not speaking about a mail adressing. Did many alternative names of towns, that were put to a lead pass this requirement? But if they don't pass, this limitation should be mentioned necessary. Was it actually mentioned anywhere? Linas Lituanus 16:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Linas. I believe that the details should be worked out at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), but I am certainly not suggest we invent names where none exist, and in the cases of Kłajpeda, for example, where it seems that the Polish spelling is used in less then 4,1% of the cases (186 vs 2290) I'd agree it is not necessary. But in Troki (4470) vs Trakai (422), or Kowno (7200) vs Kaunas (11000), where the percantages are much higher, I believe the case is loud and clear. Now, if you want to discuss specific percentage (10%? 25%?) and method (Google Print? Encyclopedias?), the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) would be the best. Just please remember that we should not favour any other party - so if Kłajpeda is disared because if 4,1%, then is it that different from Suvalkai (116), which compared to Suwałki (2630) gives us a similar % of 4,4%? Or will you make case that for some reasons despite the local names being as unpopular in English sources, there is a good reason to keep Suvalkai but not to mention Kłajpeda? And please keep in mind that we are building an English encyclopedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, we still speak in different languages. You suggest, that any rational solution and even the decision, that the problem exists, should be taken in talk pages of the guidelines. Did your intention to know , why Lithuanian side removed the alternative names, was no more than formality (in the sense perhaps they haven't an answer)? If it's so, my idea was essentially different from the situation then. I thought, that the both sides can take a joint decision after a discussion, and the both teams would be able to change the guidelines working hand of hand.

Now, we can't move from the point we stand. And we'll not be able till the percentual approach will be the only. I say, that Kłajpeda isn't a historical name, You answer with percents ("People may want to know how the word Klaipėda is in Polish and how it is in many other languages, that don't retain original spelling of Latin-based alphabets"). That seems to be the all, but we have known it just from the beginning of our discussion. It's almost evident, that a guideline or a wiki-customs has a sense, while it's used in concordance with other existing guidelines. Well, when you use a rule, forgetting other rules, it's very strange then to appeal to the rule. No self-advertizing either commercial or politicaly-based should be in the Wikipedia. You know it, and this rule is more essential than many others, by the way. You, the Polish side, caused this way the result youselves. I understand, that you actually can't control what single users insert to articles. So we as a team can't control what single users delete. This process depends not on a team as it is, but more on mentality of a team, more on some common sense. And the common sense of yours says that all is right, and the Wikipedia is a some place of a contest, where the truest information is defined as the information by the most powerful sources. And Suvalkai becames equal to Kłajpeda in this sense and many other things became equal or different than some weak minorities would like to see. And the current situation here won't be changed till this "common sense" this common mentality not takes some changes. That's why I don't welcome the experiments with Lublin by Dr. Dan, although the experiment were very interesting as well as the short resumee of their results here above, - the result was almost known long before the experiment had been started, but the processing of the experiment worked more for war than for solution. I, however, agree with user:Olessi, when he says historical names should be included somewhere in the article (if not the lead) instead of being outright removed, and i welcome all initiatives of this kind (my own idea is to include a reason, why the name is used, but it evidently can't be done in the lead. Perhaps these initiatives can change something. But the change of mentality takes hundreds of years, and we may expect just to fasten the process but not to see a results. Linas Lituanus 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Linas, this matter was explained very well by you. And to clarify my position once again, any relevant information should be included in the article where it is pertinent. No unnecessary foreign alternative names of Lithuanian geography need be placed in the lead of the article. All articles about the subject are welcome in any language, and links should be provided. "Mental" possession of territories lost by former occupiers need not be propagandized on Wikipedia, and obsfuscated with "parliamentary" procedures that are implemented when convenient, and discarded when they are not. And as P.P. reminded us, we are writing an English encyclopedia. Dr. Dan 23:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you contribute to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) instead of discussing it here ? The guideline was proposed as a joint effort of many editors, including Polish, German, Ukrainian and Lithuanian, too. Why don't you join the effort instead of reinventing the wheel here ? --Lysy^talk 00:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I perfer to think that I'm actually fixing a flat tire, here. Dr. Dan 01:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Dan. To use your comparison, you're expressing your support to some of those who do and try to discourage others from fixing it. Yet you're not fixing it yourself, I'm afraid. //Halibutt 01:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And you are really trying to, I presume? Neither your edits concerning Lithuania, or your tone when you do, shows any attempt to reach any kind of modus vivendi (to use a phrase you claimed you wanted to create). Balcer, Lysy, Piotrus, have shown much more flexibility and desire to resolve the conflict than you have. Some have actually changed previously held beliefs after being educated about things that were unknown to them. So has the other side. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated a chauvinistic intransigence, that has caused your imput in these matters to be strongly scrutinized and challenged. Dr. Dan 13:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

For once, I have to agree with Dr. Dan (except for last sentence). Could not have said better myself. Renata 14:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dan, please refrain from personal attacks. Halibutt has shown as much will to reach a consensus as have I, Lysy or Balcer, fully agreeing to use Polish-Lithuanian instead of just Polish when it comes to nationality, nor disagreeing that Polish cities with Lithuanian past should have Lithuanian names. It is you and some other editors who staunchly oppose to make the slighest concession, and who prevent us from moving forward. That said, I will certainly agree there are some other editors from the 'Lithuanian side' who show much good will and are trying to negotiate in a civil way, without any violations of WP:CIV. You should take example from them, Dan.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear P.P., please refrain from constantly seeing "personal attacks" where there are none. I would agree that my characterization of his behavior is described in strong terms, but not any more than you or others have done, when you feel strongly about a matter and have responded to it. And try to be a little less biased in your refereeing, will you. People have also remarked that you rarely if ever chided user:Molobo for some real doozies. You've missed quite a few opportunities to warn Halibutt as well. Dr. Dan 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dan. I will not split hairs and try to differentiate from personal attack and strong terms, I hope you will try to refrain from either; if you think I have been guilty of personal behaviour please point it out to me so I can look at it and see if I should apologize to sb specific. As for my warning people: I do so when I think it is appopriate, I did caution Halibutt in few places but I don't see my main role on Wiki as a policeman, I am a content creator and I prefer to use my mop'n'bucket to build new things, or clean them, instead of breaking them on others head. Plus I don't see his behaviour as overly disruptive, instead, I see him as being provoked and under near constant uncivil barrage of attacks by several other editors who are more of a cause of a problem than he is. Of course, this is my POV view, and I never claimed I am neutral - although I think you are trying to be seen as neutral, and it is my POV again that you are not. I believe we need more neutral people to help us mediate this - so far the only person that I'd judge as truly neutral in this entire debate was User:Olessi (btw, my definition of neutral is 'somebody who has not engaged in editing contested pages, nor has been involved in any major conflict with one of the parties here now or in the past').-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Dan (and perhaps Renata) would be much more happy if I left this page. Fine with me, let Dan rejoice then. //Halibutt 09:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A saddening case of Catch 22: Halibut is not here, let's fault him for this. Halibutt is here, let's fault him for this. Conclusion: whatever Halibutt does or doesn't do, it's his fault. This is why I said we need a truly neutral mediatiors, as apparently at least one side completly forgets about WP:AGF :(-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions (geographic names)

Instead of "fixing a flat tire", as Dan put it, I invite you to contribute to the proposed to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Frankly, please do consider this. It is not a "Polish chauvinistic" proposal, and great care had been taken to have editors with different POVs and from different countries reach a mutually acceptable guideline there. It has been very difficult and required a lot of care to have the many contributors there (that normally more often fought each other on the articles' POVs) identify themselves with the proposal. I know working on the guideline with a set objective is more demanding than our free chat here, but once again, I do strongly suggest to take a look there, and maybe you'd be able to improve it. Better do it now, while it's in proposal phase and not a policy yet. Some of the ideas raised here, have already filtered it out to the proposal discussion. However, I think only one Lithuanian editor, Dirgela, has so far looked at it. More input and positive contribution would be helpful. --Lysy^talk 15:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)