Talk:Suwałki Region
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article was nominated fordeletion on 18 April 2008. The result ofthe discussion wasno consensus. |
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Some points:
1. Typical numbers given for Lithuanian minority in Poland are 20 - 25 thousands. Representatives of the minority may sometimes give larger numbers, but still no more than 30 thousands. Of those about 10 000 live in northernmost part of Suwalki land, the rest is scattered all over Poland, mostly in bigger cities. Punskas/Punsk is a tiny town of about 2000 people - and that's the only town with Lithuanian majority, not "an example". Lithuanian-Polish lingusitic border in the area settled about the end of 18th century less or more where it is now, so with Suwalki and Augustow definetly on Polish side.
2. Final incorporation of the region into Poland had nothing to do with the Vilnius issue - it was incorporatrd immediately as Lithuanian troops were pushed out of it (for the second time)in the summer of 1920. It obviously wasn't part ofCentral Lithuania, as it is in completely different area. Polish-Lithuanian border in the area was drawn according to the initial proposals of Western Powers ("Foch line") and - contrary to Zeligowski's seizing of Vilnius - was easily accepted by international community.
3. The overall usefulness of this article - rather badly written and full of weasel terms - is doubtful. Already existing articles onSuwalki,Sudovia andSuwalki Voivodship might have their history parts extended.Polish-Lithuanian War could tell more about fights in the area. There is really no purpose of entries about paper provinces.
"According to Lithuanians, it consisted of few apskritys:" - Does it mean, that existence of territorial units is a matter of opinion? Actually Lithuanian troops occupied the discussed area twice for a few weeks each time, on both ocassions having to face local resistance. Maybe it would be better to write on what they REALLY managed to organise during those short periods?
" Augustavo Apskritis, Suvalkų Apskritis, Seinų Apskritis" - these are all red links - does it mean there will be more of this stuff?
"despite of Lithuanian minority" - maybe "because Lithuanians are a minority there" would be more logical?
Edited part about Vilnius region - it meant that both were occupied about the same time, not that they were joined together or such. Region around Punkas has Lithuanian majority too as far as I understand (80%-84% of Lithuanians applies to Punk district), although those villages are even smaller. It would be interesting if it would be possible to get any unbiased interwar sources on number of Lithuanians in area, but probably that is impossble. I assume the percentages lowered since the interwar because of migration to cities and also moving people e.g. to newly built factories or such, so for examle Seiny/ai where Lithuanians makes 30%-40% now could also have had Lithuanian majority by then and such. But these are speculations, I am not claiming it did nor I written it in article. To neutralise it I however moved the reference to numbers to the interwa, not why it is now not claimed; and left just the fact that it is not claimed by Lithuania now. I think the article is ndeed useful however: this territory was claimed by Lithuania for whole interwar, and IMO all disputed territories especially when they were disputed for like 20 years are worth an article. Maybe as I understand in Poland this is less mentioned or important, but wikipedia is international. Existance of territorial units is a matter of opinion in disputed territories, e.g. Pakistan diviodes whole Kashmir to Northern Territories and Azad Kashmir (major part of which is occupied by India), while India considers it all, including Pakistani-annexed parts, to be part of Jammu and Kashmir state. If you know how (into which administrational units) the area was divided by Poland, please add that to article. The articles about apskritys might be written once, if I will have time to write articles about all the interwar divisions of Lithuania, same as it is e.g. done for historical voivodships of Poland.DeirYassin 07:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes. There are wikipedia articles about historical territorial units. THE HISTORICAL TERRITORIAL UNITS WHICH ACTUALLY EXISTED, not some propaganda inventions, which - worse - were described here as if they existed. If I remember correctly, Lithuanian units NEVER reachedAugustow, so "Augustavo Apskritis" was pure fantasy. No offence intended, but in the same manner we could write article onKowno voivodship - some political forces in inter-war Poland advocated finishing "Lithuanian problem" by annexation of the whole republic and creating such a unit.
Numbers and distribution of Lithuanian population in the area in the interwar period were roughly similar to what is now - there is quite a lot of things on the subject written by actual members of the minority, most notably a historian Bronisław Makowski/Bronius Makauskas. I think some of his work could be available in Lithuania.
If you kindly look at some map, you'll see that the Punsk nad Sejny region - the area in which the Lithuanian villages can be found - is itself a very small, northernmost part of the whole territory discussed here.
I still believe, that Lithuanian-Polish conflict in Suwalki land should be described in wider context of the area's history and not in small and one sided articles like this one.
Anyway - made some changes to the article and removed disputed territories cat. - as you mention yourself "it is no longer claimed". I suppose it would be generally advisable for you to show more caution when using terms like 'occupied' or 'disputed' when describing current European affaires.
It was a real territorial claim, not propaganda invention. And I think it would be ok to create article onKowno Voivodship too, as an idea by some Polish politicians of the time and comment reasons, etc. there. There is similar article aboutRepublic of New Africa for example, which never was real but some black nationalists wants to carve it out of parts of USA where black concentration is the highest. And official claims are even more notable, as one of Wikipedia policies says, wikipedia is not paper so it can contain way more articles. Besides,Seinų Apskritis was real for sure, part of it was in territory of Lithuania-proper and so it functioned, which it's capital "temporary" located atLazdijai. Parts of other two Apskritis were controlled too most likely at some time, even if capital Augustavas was not. As for one-sideness of artcile, it can be edited. I added a bit more info to the article too now, after you edited I guess it can be considered NPOV so removing that. And I dont know, but couldnt disuputed territories category be used for territories, which were disputed in past, too?DeirYassin 12:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was a real territorial claim, not propaganda invention - there is no contradiction here - governements normally usepropaganda to back their perfectly real claims. Publishing maps containing non-existent borders and non-functioning territorial units IS by definition a case of propaganda , whether one agrees with particular claims or not. In social science propaganda is a neutral therm and should be used as such.
couldnt disuputed territories category be used for territories, which were disputed in past - don't know if it couldn't, but it looks currently it's not. In addition the list would quickly became huge and unusable, if one really tried to enumerate everything ever disputed.
As for the article - I believe it is acceptable now.
As I said many times, the map is inaccurate, it does not shows real Lithuanian claims, but includes lots more territories to the south than Lithuania really claimed. Furthermore, it doesnt shows where exactly is Suwalki region either. If you want maybe I'll be able to scan a map of real claims and such and e-mail it to you (if my online e-mail will allow me to send atatchment of that size). Also, the territory is Suvalkai region because, as I said, it wasnt anyhow defined by Poles, and therefore the name has meaning only if it is used as a name for the claimed area; and this claimed area used the Lithuanian name for the town. Usage of Suwalki area in same article might seem that it is some different administrative or territorial unit of the time, not that it is the same as Suvalkai region as the article is called.DeirYassin10:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I meant claimed territory in general (bothVilnius region andSuvalkai region). Matter is settled, as I said current borders are imposed on historical maps so it would seem that "real Lithuania" is supposedly just in these borders, while supposedly the claims were just claims not real Lithuania. Also frequently Soviet propaganda is repeated that supposedly Lithuania regained Vilnius region in 1939 as if that would be whole Vilnius region. I found the map similar tio the one you linked to, that seem sto be map of Oberost zone of Germans, except Courland. E-mailed maps to halibutt@o2.pl .DeirYassin13:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said Oberost excludingCourland. Didnt knew bout these fortresses though.DeirYassin14:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fully falsificated rubbish, made of course by marazmatic Hello-but.Zivinbudas15:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article still disputed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk20:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I forgot about this one - hence the tag stayed so long. Anyway, as this article is about a fictional/proposed region, why not merge it with some other article on the topic and have one better article instead of two? I was thinking ofSuwałki County, as both areas are more or less equal - and this history section would perfectly fit there. What do you think?//Halibutt06:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeM.K.
If Vilnius region then Suwałki region.Xx23616:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This orphaned, unreferenced article, without equivalent on Lithuanian wiki, should be merged intoSudovia. Both articles are about the same subject, no need to have a fork.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For ther record, there is a larger discussion and vote atTalk:Sudovia#Merger.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the references none as far as I see speak anything about "Lithuanian majority", they only speak about Lithuanians living there, and make no claim about them being majority or minority. The Lithuanian one I can't read.Does anybody have Polish census data ?--Molobo (talk)17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the sentence ?--Molobo (talk)18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[2][3]--Molobo (talk)18:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Practically all of the article repeats the facts from the history of general region (Sudovia=Suwalszczyzna=Suwałki Region). Refs are needed to 1) make clear that Suvalkai Region is different and 2) show that Suvalkai Region is the word used in context of various issues discussed in the article; otherwise, instances of "Suvalkai Region" should be changed to "Sudovia" (and the article merged, as discussed above).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This line: "The Suvalkai Region, despite many years of Polonization,..." reeks of propaganda, any chance for a re-write?203.56.87.254 (talk)10:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
