Talk:Dionizas Poška

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as a foreign language article that exists on another Wikimedia project, because... (your reason here) --Žemėpatis (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as this article does not violates any copyrights or is a copy of any other material.

Stop adding "Polish" when most sources say he is not

@Marcelus, The absolute majority of WP:RS write that Dionizas Poška was a Lithuanian. Some specify it even further - that he was a Samogitian:

• Błaszczyk, Grzegorz; Hasiuk, Michał (2000). History, Culture and Language of Lithuania: Proceedings of the International Lithuanian Conference, Poznań, 17-19 September 1998. UAM. p. 66. ISBN 978-6094470974. Educated Lithuanians understood that their mother tongue was an important spiritual value and the basis for the existence of the nation. Therefore the 19th century was a century of prestige for the Lithuanian language. It was honoured by Ksaveras Bogušas, Antanas Strazdas, Dionizas Poška, Simonas Stanevičius and Simonas Daukantas - at the beginning of the century - and by Silvestras Gimžauskas, Andrius Vištelis, Jonas Basanavičius, Vincas Kudirka and (...)
• Eriksonas, Linas (2004). National Heroes and National Identities: Scotland, Norway, and Lithuania. Peter Lang. p. 269. ISBN 978-9052012001. The key names in the Lithuanian patriotic movement such as Dionizas Poška (Dionyz Paszkewicz) , Simonas Stanevičius (Szymon Staniewicz) (...)
• Fishman, Joshua; Garcia, Ofelia (2011-04-21). Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: The Success-Failure Continuum in Language and Ethnic Identity Efforts. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press. p. 447. ISBN 978-0-19-983799-1. In about 1828–1829, Pabrėža was considering a trip to meet another famous Lithuanian Lowlander, Dionizas Poška.
• Butrimas, A. (2015). The Lithuanian Millenium: History, Art and Culture. Vilnius Academy of Arts Press. p. 355. ISBN 978-6094470974. Although Lithuanian identity in large part was still grounded in historical and ethno-political arguments, from the times of Bohusz and Dionizas Poška, and Simonas Daukantas and Motiejus Valančius, the understanding that the nation was a product of both the language and the spiritual tradition became increasingly relevant.
• Plakans, Andrejs (2011-02-24). A Concise History of the Baltic States. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83372-1. Dionizas Poška (1757–1830), for example, coming from a family of Žemaitijan lesser nobles, tried his hand at several occupations but finally settled on being a court clerk and a notary public for most of his life.
• Trojanowska, Tamara; Niżyńska, Joanna; Czapliński, Przemysław (2018-01-01). Being Poland: A New History of Polish Literature and Culture since 1918. University of Toronto Press. p. 276. ISBN 978-1-4426-5018-3. - second paragraph of the page is about Lithuanian writers and Dionizas Poška is given as an example of a person who wrote both in Lithuanian and Polish.
• Sužiedėlis, Saulius A. (2011-02-07). Historical Dictionary of Lithuania. Scarecrow Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-8108-7536-4. The foremost of the Samogitian literati were Dionizas Poška (1757—1830), who dreamed of introducing the Lithuanian language into public life, and Simonas Stanevičius (1799—1848), whose work displayed a national consciousness separate from that of the Poles.
• Fouse, Gary C. (2000). The Languages of the Former Soviet Republics: Their History and Development. University Press of America. p. 153. ISBN 978-0761816072. Another Samogitian noble with similar interests was Dr. Dionizas Poška (1757-1830).

The absolute preponderance of English-language WP:RS (WP:RSUE: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance.") stating that Dionizas Poška was a Lithuanian, or even more specifically, Samogitian, impells me to revert your edit, which was based on a single, outdated Polish-language source from 1934 (WP:AGEMATTERS), published in Vilnius. Such a source will inevitably be biased when concerning a Lithuanian like Dionizas Poška due to the Polish-Lithuanian conflict/tensions at the time over that city at the time. If you proceed to re-add a statement that he was somehow Polish in spite of all the contemporary English-language academic sources that say he was not, such an edit will surely go against Wikipedia's policies. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Non of your sources says, that Poszka wasn't Polish writers, as I said it's not mutually exclusive Marcelus (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Following your logic, none of the sources say that Poška was not an American, as being American and Lithuanian is not exclusive (Lithuanian Americans), so he might as well be called that, following your deeply flawed logic. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says Poszka was American writer? If so then add it, if not don't do that Marcelus (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You have sidestepped and left unaddressed essentially everything I wrote: WP:RSUE, WP:AGEMATTERS, etc. You didn't challenge any of the points, let alone answer them. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The source is reliable and non-English sources are allowed, I see no issue here really Marcelus (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Your actions of ignoring an overwhelming number of contemporary WP:RS that call him only Lithuanian and then proceeding to describe Dionizas Poška as 'Polish-Lithuanian' seems like WP:POVPUSH on your part to make Poška Polish. Brzenstejn's book as a source about claiming that a Lithuanian is actually Polish is unreliable because of its context (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) - it was published in Polish-occupied Vilnius (a statement supported by numerous RS as shown here) in 1934. You seem to have also misunderstood WP:RSUE:

"Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance."

I know that non-English sources are allowed, but not ones that are subpar and not for statements where they are overwhelmingly challenged, like Brzenstejn's book claiming Poška as Polish, because Brzenstejn's book is not of equal quality to contemporary RS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Poland never occupied Vilnius Marcelus (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Poland did occupy Vilnius, as these WP:RS state:

Arriving on April 18, the Poles occupied Vilnius, effecting the call to occupy the city and unify it with Poland that the Sejm passed on April 4. (p. 291, International Conflicts, 1816-2010: Militarized Interstate Dispute Narratives · Volume 1)

Having occupied Vilnius, the Poles issued appeals for federation addressed in Pilsudski's words to "the inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania," promising them "the possibility of resolving internal, national and religious problems on their own without any kind of coercion or pressure from Poland." (p. 54, Stalin and the Struggle for Supremacy in Eurasia)

When the Polish Army occupied the Vilnius region, the German authorities discontinued the repatriation of Lithuanian POWs, worrying they would likely be recruited into the Polish Army to be used against the retreating Germans. (Fragmentation in East Central Europe: Poland and the Baltics, 1915-1929)

1st Legion Div and Zaniemensk Cav Grp stormed Lida on 17 Apr, and Belina Cav Grp occupied Vilnius on the 21st. (p. 17, Armies of the Russo-Polish War 1919-21)

...Poles occupied the Vilnius area in April... (p53, Civil War in Central Europe, 1918-1921: The Reconstruction of Poland)

Polish troops seize Vilnius on 9 October and it will remain under Polish occupation until autumn 1939. (p. 13, Baltic Cities) Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It was explained to you by me and other users multiple times; I don't really want to waste time on that anymore. Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobody wants to waste time, yet too many of your actions are clear contradictions of Wikipedia policy. To stop wasting time, as you yourself said, I recommend that you stop denying or trying to circumvent what is written within WP:RS, e.g. that Poland occupied Vilnius, that Dionizas Poška was Lithuanian, etc. Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop pushing your nationalist agenda. "Occupation of Vilnius" is Lithuanian nationalist point of view, and as far I can understand it and sympathise with it, it can be only found in sources that are written from clearly Lithuanian POV, and has no place in reliable encyclopedia. It was explained to you more than once, and there is really no need for a discussion like this. Marcelus (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You are ludicrously claiming that these WP:RS, written by Douglas M. Gibler, Alfred J. Rieber, Klaus Richter, Nigel Thomas, Jochen Böhler, and Neil Taylor, are all somehow pushing a Lithuanian nationalist point of view. Which one of the sources I quoted above were written from a clearly Lithuanian POV? That's right, none of them are. You claiming that numerous Lithuanians were actually Polish, denying that Poland wanted to occupy all of Lithuania and that Poland occupied Vilnius are all clear indications that you're engaging in a WP:POVPUSH from a Polish nationalist view. And you're doing all of that in spite of the given evidence in the form of many reliable sources. I see how it is, you deny/circumvent ALL reliable sources that disagree with you, and then proceed to lecture others on how they have no place in reliable encyclopedia.

Your duplicity here is striking as well. How dare you claim that saying that Lithuanian independence defended against Poland and its puppet state Central Lithuania is a nationalist stance? How dare you claim that saying that Lithuania–Poland border mostly following Foch Line from 1920 to 1939 is a nationalist stance? Your edits, which emphasize a Polish victory (when there was none!) and Polish control of certain regions are obviously nationalistic compared to my edits and are proof of WP:POVPUSH. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Using Foch Line as description of the new border is simply a worse option, because it requires the knowledge of what Foch line was; as for "Lithuania independence" it was never really in danger, at least there is no consensu it was. The war clearly ended with Polish victory; even Lithuanian authors admit that - Tomas Balkelis said: Unfortunately for the Lithuanians, this war ended with their loss of Vilnius and the Suwałki region. (War, Revolution, and Nation-Making in Lithuania, 1914–1923, p. 137), Gediminas Vitkus: Lithuania partly lost the war with Poland. The Lithuanian army managed to resist the Polish devices to annex Lithuania to the composition of its state, yet during the battles it lost about a third of its territory and its capitl, the city of Vilnius. That was a pinful defeat (Wars of Lithuania: a systemic quantitative analysis of Lithuania’s wars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, p. 213). Marcelus (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

People come to Wikipedia for knowledge, not because they already know it.

Lithuania–Poland border mostly following Foch Line from 1920 to 1939 (9 words + 2 years in the sentence) is superior to Establishment of the border between Lithuania and Poland, with Vilnius and Suwałki region on the Polish side (17 words in the sentence) by virtue of the former's brevity and succinctness. The shorter, the better. Just by moving your cursor over the link 'Foch Line' you see a map and the reader immediately understands its contours. In contrast, neither the links of Vilnius and Suwałki region show a clear map with borders about what is meant by them. Clearly, Foch Line is much better option because it is clearer.

Balkelis' book writes Yet the open-ended finale of the Polish–Lithuanian War also ensured that many of the military structures and mobilization strategies that had been used during the war remained in place for decades after the actual violence has ended. (p. 137, War, Revolution, and Nation-Making in Lithuania, 1914–1923). No defeat was ever an 'open-ended finale', that clearly means a stalemate.

Furthermore, Vitkus' statement only reinforces calling it a stalemate, as he elaborates in the sentences before the one you quoted:

The war for Lithuania’s independence was essentially won by Lithuania, because it survived as a re-established independent state. (...) Lithuania partly lost the war with Poland. The Lithuanian army managed to resist the Polish devices to annex Lithuania to the composition of its state, yet during the battles it lost about a third of its territory and its capital, the city of Vilnius. That was a painful defeat. (p. 213, Wars of Lithuania: a systemic quantitative analysis of Lithuania’s wars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries) The "That" in the last sentence refers to losing these territories. As well as showing that, contrary to your claims, it is a consensus that Lithuanian independence was truly in danger.

If you deny that Lithuanian independence (which you try to demean by putting into inverted commas) was in danger (as you have already done), then you are clearly denying factual history. The destruction of Lithuanian independence were precisely the goals of 1919 Polish coup d'état attempt in Lithuania and Central Lithuanian Offensive on Kaunas. Stop denying the truth.

The war clearly ended with Polish victory That's a statement guided by a Polish POV that ignores that Poland did not achieve its goals of occupying and controlling all of Lithuania. These goals definitely existed, just look at the repeated attempts of trying to achieve it and then failing it. If Poland failed to achieve it's goals, as it clearly and undeniably did fail, then Poland did not win, because it did not succeed in doing what it wanted to. Ergo, no victory. However, some Polish goals were achieved, just like some Lithuanian goals were achieved. Ergo, stalemate. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No defeat was ever an 'open-ended finale', that clearly means a stalemate; find me a war then that didn't end in a stalemate. Did Polish-Soviet war was concluded in a definitive way? World War I? Any of the Lithuanian-Moscovite war? Very few wars, if any, in the history of mankind ended with a definitive conclusion. Nobody here is suggesting that all the conflicts and issues between Poland and Lithuania ended on the very last day of the war, but the war itself ended with Poland as the prevailing party.

The war for Lithuania’s independence was essentially won by Lithuania, because it survived as a re-established independent state, Vitkus has in mind here 1919-1920 Lithuanian War of Liberation, as he calls it, it combines all the conflicts Lithuania waged in those years for its independence. As well as showing that, contrary to your claims, it is a consensus that Lithuanian independence was truly in danger, it doesn't show a consesu but only Vitkus interpretation.

The goal of the Kaunas coup was to establish a less nationalist government in Kaunas that would be willing to enter into talks on a Polish-Lithuanian federation. Pilsudski was convinced that Lithuania was ruled by an anti-Polish minority that did not represent the majority of the population. He later found out that he was wrong. The offensive undertaken by Zeligowski was not directed toward Kaunas, but to the north; he wanted to reach the Demakra line. Some studies make such speculations, but they are not based on source material.

Seeking a compromise, I propose a change to "partial Polish victory". Marcelus (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There are many wars that ended with crushing finales - the Napoleonic Wars, World War II, Gulf War, etc.

The Polish–Lithuanian War is an undeniable part of the war for Lithuania’s independence (aka. Lithuanian Wars of Independence) , which resulted in the Lithuanian victory of re-establishing independence. The Polish–Lithuanian war is clearly part of all the conflicts Lithuania waged in those years for its independence.

I completely disagree on your interpretations. The Polish Military Organisation's command justified the necessity for the Polish coup d'état attempt, as listed on page 262 of Vytautas Lesčius' monograph "Lietuvos Kariuomenė Nepriklausomybės Kovose", with these statements [translated by me]:

1. Lithuanians don't have enough intelligentsia, so Lithuania cannot be independent, it can only be ruled by one of its neighbours.

2. Lithuania is not resistant to Germanization.

3. Poles have the most important political role in Lithuania's political life, so the right to rule Lithuania belongs to Poland.

4. Russians are trying to restore their rule in Lithuania, Germany as well, ergo it is a great danger to Poland.

It was clearly aimed against Lithuanian independence and to make Lithuania part of Poland. The only question for Polish politicians was on how much autonomy to give Lithuanians and Lithuania, which would have only been reduced to a region in Poland, not an equal member of a federation or something of the sort. It would be unimaginable that there could be an equal federation between < 2,5 million and 26 million people. It was clear which way it was going to be.

Your statement of Some studies make such speculations, but they are not based on source material. is totally false. On page 394 of the aforementioned book, Lesčius writes:

On November 17, the Polish Col. M. Butkiewicz's cavalry brigade marched north from the surroundings of Paberžė. The Polish military command gave several orders to this brigade. First, after being very sure, that the infantry forces would not meet strong Lithuanian resistance and would quickly reach Kaunas, the cavalry units had to disorganize the Lithuanian army's rear and politically affect the country's society."

Polish cavalry had nearly reached Kėdainiai on November 21-22 but were forced back by Lithuanians. Clearly, Żeligowski's offensive was directed to Kaunas. I presume that by Demakra line you mean the demarcation line, but then I don't understand which one you are refering to, because Żeligowski had already broken literally all the demarcation lines that were ever set in that region.

In addition, as Lesčius writes on page 374:

When the question of disarming Żeligowski "mutineers" arose in the League of Nations, it became clear that the Poles had another plan. In order to avoid disarmament, general L. Żeligowski was to march on Kaunas. Then, two Polish divisions would have come from both sides in order to ostensibly disarm him. Once Żeligowski reached Kaunas, he would overthrow the Lithuanian government, while the Polish divisions sent to suppress him would join him. In such a way, all of Lithuania would be hijacked and its independence liquidated.

For now, I am sceptical of your proposed compromise. That said, I will focus more on other articles for the time being and the coming days, perhaps weeks, in order to give myself more time to read about this subject and think it through. Also, I must point out to you that we are discussing matters of the Polish–Lithuanian War not on Talk:Polish–Lithuanian War, but Talk:Dionizas Poška. If you will respond to this, please respond on the proper talk page. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Quick response: Lesčius source is his own book (reference no 92), so it seems he do not base it on any source, and considering that many Lithuanians were part of the plit (Żukaskas, Gabrys etc.) I doubt his claims. Butkiewicz had 700 uhlans under him, it wasn't force strong enough to capture Kaunas. Infantry was attacking Giedrojcie, so they weren't targeting Kaunas which was in other direction, but Giedrojcie were on the Polish side of the demacration line before July 1920. Butkiewicz destroyed railroad and telegraph and went back. They marched 350km in 7 days. Marcelus (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Lesčius is referencing another book - Lietuvos kariuomenė 1918–1920 m. (1998) - which he himself wrote 6 years before releasing the one where he is quoting it. So, he's not quoting that same book which we are looking at (if that's what you're saying) - Lietuvos Kariuomenė Nepriklausomybės Kovose 1918–1920 (2004). I'll try and find the other book and see what it quotes or references there.

I suppose that Butkiewicz had far more uhlans than 700, because Butkiewicz's cavalry brigade consisted of 11 squadrons, as written on page 394 of Lesčius' 2004 book. Also, I mentioned their attack on Kėdainiai because it was part of the wider attempt of disorganizing the Lithuanian rear, while the infantry would march on Kaunas, as was written in the Polish military command's orders to Butkiewicz's cavalry brigade (described one of the quotes I gave from Lesčius' 2004 book). Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you need RfC here to move forward. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)