Talk:Bernardine Cemetery

Undue Information

It would be helpful if the anonymous editor using the IPs of 203.56.87.254, 131.170.90.2 and 124.190.116.230 would desist from attempting to add unimportant and undue information [1] into this article on English Wikipedia. It would also be helpful if the "anon" would not include personal attacks [2] in their edit summaries. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling you out on your Anti-Polonism is hardly a personal attack. Methinks you are just trolling (or baiting, looking for an excuse to block this user), as looking through the edit history, this has happened before with another Lithuanian nationalist user. Almost 20% of the population of Wilno is Polish, this is hardly "undue". 203.56.87.254 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edit history concerning Lithuanian related articles speaks for itself. So do your edit summaries [3]. Removing undue information is not "Anti-Polonism". The city is in Lithuania. The cemetery is in Lithuania. Minorities aside, the information is unnecessary on English Wikipedia. This is only another instance of people with an agenda placing Polish language entries into articles concerning Lithuania. Cities, towns, villages, hamlets, "neighborhoods" of cities, rivers, lakes and of course any Lithuanian personage that they can get away with. Conversely many of the same people take issue with any attempt to use a non-Polish name (as they interpret the matter) when faced with such a situation. Btw, regarding "Almost 20% of the population of Wilno is Polish"... What's Wilno? Dr. Dan (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Usual trio Dr.Dan, MK, Lykoz removing Polish names form every article related to the Polish-Lithuanian heritage edit warring (see history) sadly...nothing changed in this department... more examples to follow....--Jacurek (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dyslexic people are amusing. Not only they do not know how to spell names, also they forget to check their EEML fellows contributions and also accuse people, who did just simply ceased editing, on their own misdeeds. Fotr the record - I do consider the continuing misspelling of my name as mocking and demand an apology.--Lokyz (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, no, dyslexic people are not amusing. They are just dyslexic. And hey, they can (and in fact on average are) be smarter than non-dyslexic people. What this has to do with anything related to this article I have no idea.radek (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's about spelling. And about someone who does sing the old song again - the three vile Lithuanians, blah blah blah, and does not even take into consideration the absurdity of such accusations, especially after reaching some common ground how to include foreign names of the cities and towns in a way, that allows avoid unnecessary flaming, and especially after I've ceased editing Wikipedia at all for a month, until someone provoked calling me Lykoz again (actually User:Jacurek never did spell it correctly, maybe someone should give him guidance how to write it? Just to create more productive and friendly atmosphere here.--Lokyz (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on specific article controversy

The sad thing is that the entrance to this cemetery has a sign which is written ... in both Lithuanian AND Polish. And the funding for this bilingual sign was provided by ... the Lithuanian government. Apparently the Lithuanian government did not feel that including the Polish name of this cemetery, where a lot of famous Poles are buried, was "UNDUE" [4]. They were cool with it and even gave money so that such a sign could be erected. More power to them. But on Wikipedia it's a different story. Wikipedia Lithuanian editors feel that the actions of the Lithuanian government are "undue"... because?

It's a pretty good illustration of the "will the real Wikipedia nationalists please stand up" phenomenon.radek (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's editors have two only two questions to ask themselves: First one is it English Wikipedia or WikiDictionary? Second one is - how would casual reader benefit from knowing the name of particular cemetery in several languages (let's not forget, that besides Lithuanian and Polish, German and Latin could be easily added to the list).

It is Wikipedia thing really, not nationalistic or municipality's.--Lokyz (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, anyone wanting to know what the Polish name for this cemetery is can link up to the Polish Wikipedia article. Although the cemetery is in Lithuania you won't find the Lithuanian name for it at the Polish article. And actually it's not necessary to put it there either, because a reader there can easily find the information at other proper venues. Sorry, but this is just another part of an unfortunate agenda being implemented by the same people of placing Polish toponyms into Lithuanian related articles. This example was particularly humorous [5]. I think that's a better illustration of "will the real Wikipedia nationalists please stand up" phenomenon. Certainly you can find something else better to do. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sad to see this pathetic war still being waged - I thought we had found a solution (put the information in the article, but not in the lead). No particular reason for it not to be in the lead except that Lithuanian editors seem to be excessively sensitive about non-Lithuanian names for their places (maybe one day they'll realize it doesn't do the image of their country any harm at all to acknowledge that its places have alternative names, just like those in other countries of this and any other region), but as long as the information is reasonably accessible within the article, we can accommodate those sensitivities. --Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Kotnitski, sad indeed. I too thought that this "solution" was the solution. But rather than focus on the "so-called" Lithuanian editors with the "excessive sensitivity", perhaps you can address this [6] edit. How would you categorize it? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Er, that edit is more than a year old. A bit younger than the five-year-old edit you presented me with last time you were trying to convince me that Wikipedia was under attack by rabid Poles trying to force Polish names in everywhere, but still hardly relevant to this discussion. (And even if your theory is true, which it no doubt is to some extent, that doesn't justify siding with the equally agenda-driven editors who want to take Polish names out everywhere - we ought to be cooperating to reach a sensible middle ground.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Er, the agenda I'm referring to is more than a year old as well. I could provide you with many more examples, but I'm sure you are aware of root of the problem. And it's not about rabies or rabid Poles. At least you seem to agree with me somewhat, "And even if your theory is true, which it no doubt is to some extent...". I believe there are definitely places where information concerning Polish-Lithuanian history should be brought forth at English Wikipedia. This example [7] was not one of them. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what is your problem now? That edit was one of mine, perfectly reasonable, treating alternative names in the perfectly normal way they are treated on Wikipedia everywhere except for Lithuania. Since then we've agreed on a different solution for Lithuania to protect the sensitivities we all know about - can you stop bringing up old edits for no apparent reason except to promote disharmony? (There are of course dozens of your own edits that could be brought up if anyone doubts your own past involvement in this sad affair.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Kotnitski, my problem now, is you pop-up at this discussion trying to "find sensible middle ground", throwing in "that I tried to convince you that rabid Poles (that was promoting harmony?), are trying to force Polish names everywhere". Your perfectly reasonable [8] edit was nothing of the sort. Seredžius, a small town of less than a thousand people, not near the Polish border, totally devoid of any meaningful relationship with Poland, was not appropriate, nor reasonable. Just another example of "the agenda", and another editor pushing it. The same agenda being employed here. The Polish name for this cemetery in this article's lead is not necessary on English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

All of Lithuania has very meaningful historic relationships with Poland, hence the fact that such tiny villages have Polish names. But I know you, you'll deny obvious facts and bring up irrelevancies as you've done in these discussions time and time again (and it doesn't matter to you whether the place in question has relationships with Poland - as I pointed out on your talk page, you do the same robot-like removal of information even when the place has very clear relationships with Poland). Very very sad - I thought at least you were a fairly reasonable person, but it now appears that you're still waging this war - possibly even as its most enthusiastic pursuer - long after the matter was satisfactorily settled. --Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Poland has very meaningful relationships with many places in the world (like Curitiba), and many of these places have Polish names (not used in these places). I'm not into denying obvious facts, just keeping the encyclopedia relevant, and agenda free. I'm beginning to see through this argument of yours, which has many guises, but has little to do with the political reality of the 21st century. Obviously it comforts you to see these Polish toponyms inserted into Lithuanian related articles in English Wikipedia. It's unnecessary. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject an outside view here: editors on both sides of this debate seem to be caught in the common error of regarding the mentioning or non-mentioning of foreign equivalents as a symbolic "badge of recognition" of a nation's historical claims to a place. This is wrong and quite irrational, and as long as editors think in these terms, these recurring debates will never be solved. Foreign name variants should be provided if they are useful to the English reader. That is the only relevant criterion. In this instance, the phrases in question are not even names, linguistically speaking. They are descriptive phrases, and all three are simply literal translations of each other, and as such, utterly predictable, utterly transparent, and utterly trivial. If you are a speaker of Polish, you already know that the Polish equivalent of "Bernardine cemetery" is "Cmentarz Bernardyński". If you are not a speaker of Polish, there is no reason you would want to know. It's just a fact about the Polish language, not a fact about this cemetery. So, what reader gets a benefit from mentioning it? – For the same reason, by the way, one might question the mentioning of the Lithuanian translation too, but here at least there's the factor that an English reader might come across the Lithuanian term in a local map or tourist guide or street sign or something, so there might be some factor of usefulness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names in the lead

I still don’t see any reason why Lithuania related article should be written in a different way just to accommodate somebody's personal feelings. ALL Wikipedia articles are written THE SAME WAY. Alternative names are in the lead. --Jacurek (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I’m writing up about this issue and will soon post it on the proper board. All of you are invited to join that discussion.--Jacurek (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by proper board? Isn't this the article discussion page? Why did you just not provide your views and argumentation here? --Lokyz (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Lokyz but we have discussed this issue on various talk pages many many, many, many times already. The problem is that there are 3-4 the same editors who continuously and without any logical reason keep removing Polish names from EVERY article that is related to the Polish Lithuanian heritage. I have collected 100’s of examples such as this one form the birthplace of the Polish Marshal J. Pilsudski [[9]] and will present them at the time of filing. In my opinion all discussions we have tried before lead to nothing. How can you explain that obsessive like behaviour of removing EVERYTHING, I repeat, EVERYTHING what is even slightly connected to Poland and Polish language from EVERY article related to the Polish Lithuanian heritage? Why it is O.K. to have Lithuanian name in the lead of the article about Augustów in Poland for example [[10]] but it is not O.K. to have Polish name in the lead of the article about Seredžius in Lithuania[[11]]. ....and not only in the lead but also in the article itself [[12]].. I don’t even expect any logical explanation on this talk page why this is happening. I will let you know once I finish my analyses and post it on the appropriate board. I hope that you, Dan and MK who are the main force behind the removal of Polish names from articles related to the Polish Lithuanian heritage will join the discussion. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, actually you can spell my name correctly. I'm pleasantly surprised. I hope this will stop the mockery, that does not lead anywhere, except unwanted hostilities.

Actually I do not get, how does count is due and undue. Lithuania related articles are written exactly the same way, as all the others. Lithuanian name in Polish cities articles, befeore deletion, might easily migrate to the name section. This section is created to unload lead from secondary information, that is unnecessary for casual reader, who does look for quick overview of the topic, not dictionary entries. And I do think that Seredžius article case is like Kielce - is it really important for someone to know that in Lithuanian language it is spelled as Kelcai? I do have a high suspicion, that if I did add Kelcai there it would disapear really soon. That's why there is no all articles thing, as you're trying to impose. And,one more thing - there is no anti-Polish conspiracy amongst Lithuanian editors, you have to trust me on this. Because the tensions come from not trusting the other side judgement - be it Pilsudski, Mickiewicz, Zalavas, Smetona or Kelcai. Have a good day.--Lokyz (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Lokyz, let him take it anywhere he wants to. Actually, I'd like him to explain the agenda he's pushing at any forum. Maybe we'll finally get an answer about what he was trying to accomplish at a article about a neighborhood in the capital of Lithuanian with this edit [13]. So far there hasn't been one forthcoming. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's mind-blowing that YOU can accuse OTHERS of pushing an agenda. Not last year, but just yesterday you were removing a Polish name from an article where it was 100% obvious that it was relevant - and when it was mentioned at your talk page (where I thought you'd apologize for it as an oversight) you still seemed to consider it an appropriate thing to be doing. This really has to stop - I have no wish to push for Poland over Lithuania, and am equally opposed to people who remove German or Lithuanian names from articles about places in Poland - but we can't have people going around removing information from Wikipedia (which is intended as an information source) just because it pleases some nationalistic biases they may have. I don't mind the information being in a "names" section rather than the lead - it's a bit silly doing it differently for one country just because it happens to have a sensitive set of editors, but I can live with that if it helps preserve the information - but PLEASE DON'T REMOVE THE INFORMATION ALTOGETHER.--Kotniski (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)