Talk:Saldutiškis

Relevance
Once again the same group is insisting on inserting the Polish language geographical toponym into every Lithuanian city, town, village, hamlet, and even "neighborhood", because "they can". Due to a long ban incurred by these people the "sleeping dog" did indeed lie low and slept. Now that they are back, it's starting up again. Despite its usual irrelevancy or based on the flimsiest pretext. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like to address the problem of "irrelevancy" of the Polish names for places DIRECTLY connected to the Polish history and constatant removal of that information by you and two of your bodies on the appropriate forum yourself or you want me to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacurek (talk • contribs) 13:47, March 3, 2011


 * Please do that. Last time I checked I only had one body, and please sign off after editing. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Check WP:NCGN for relevancy (The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses...Relevant foreign language names... ones... used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted). Due to the prominent connection with the Polish Jałowiecki faimily, and the birth place of at least one of their notable members, pl:Mieczysław Jałowiecki, (and as far as I can tell, the only notable person born in this village), I think the Polish name is relevant. Note that all works discussing this person use Polish, not Lithuanian, name of his birthplace ( vs . Granted, the sources are in Polish language, but I don't see any detailed works about him in English. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. Check your facts - the person who inserted the Polish name into the article was a... Lithuanian administrator . A saying about "more holy then the Pope" comes to mind... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What does the Pope have to do with it? You say that the Jalowiecki family (Jaloveckis) is Polish just like you've claimed that the Pilsudski family is Polish. Based on what? Their polonized last name? Or historical reality? Wasn't General Jaloveckis a Russian general? Regardless of their disputable ethnicity, or whether or not they lived in their manor there, that would not be grounds for placing undue information in the article's lead. Even if done by a Lithuanian administrator. As for the "name" argument, two names come to mind at the moment Jagna Marczułajtis and Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. Supposedly the first person is Polish and the second was German. Right? You say ..."Granted, the sources are in (the) Polish language, but I don't see any detailed works about him in English..." maybe it's simply undue information for English Wikipedia.   Dr. Dan (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I fail to see the relevance of any of your points to the issue we are discussing, other than your last sentence. The language of sources is relevant because English Wikipedia covers subjects that may be discussed primarily or only in non-English languages. Existence of English language sources is not a necessary requirement for notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted, the existence of English language sources is not a necessary requirement for notability. Of course you may have thought it a relevant point to bring up a Lithuanian administrator's edit and the Pope regarding the issue we were discussing. Perhaps you think that information was note-worthy and relevant because you brought it up. But back to the issue. The issue was whether a family that lived in a Lithuanian village (pop. 79), seventy-five years or more ago, a family with a most definitely disputable ethnicity, would render the necessity of placing an undue non-English toponym in the lead of a English Wikipedia article. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Please kindly check WP:NCGN for explanation. Should you have any further concerns please address them on the appropriate forum. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)--Jacurek (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(OD) No, you can check out WP:NCGN yourself because "that dog won't hunt" while you try to twist the meaning of the pertinent clause ..."Relevant foreign language names... ones... used by a group of people which used to inhabit a geographical place are permitted"...Relevant? Relevant how? The Jaloveckis family like the Pilsudski family were Lithuanians. Some of them could speak Russian and German. Some could speak English and Polish and Lithuanian. So what? Twisting the meaning of WP:NCGN regarding "relevance" and use of "foreign" language by a group of people in a village of 79 people is actually kind of funny, but so is the Meta article about all of it too. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked P. family article, the refs were either for Polish or Polonized Lithuanian, not just Lithuanian. "Jaloveckis family" does not exist; "Jalowiecki family" gives 1 hit. Regarding Boleslaw, hmmm: "Bolesław Jalowiecki (grandson of a general in the Russian army who for siding with the 1830-31 insurgents was sentenced to death...". Mieczyslaw worked for the Polish, not Lithuanian government, and while he spoke many languages, including Lithuanian, he published his written works in Polish. Could his family be another "Polonized Lithuanian nobility"? Perhaps, I wouldn't be surprised. Would his grandfather called himself Polish or Lithuanian? I will not speculate. But for now, per WP:DUCK, Mieczyslaw looks like a Polish person, hence, the family looks Polish. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please show them - but I'd really like to see any evidence that would explain why a person writing in Polish and working for the Polish government was in fact Lithuanian... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that it depends how one looks at the "duck". You seem to think that any "duck" in Lithuania that can speak Polish was or is Polish. Whereas I don't think Mieczyslaw was English, even though he spoke it very well, any more than I think Pilsudski was Russian (he spoke it quite well), is a good yardstick in this case. The article, Lithuanian nobility, might be helpful to better understand the matter. I believe you've worked on it yourself. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's another article that should help, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice article. Amazingly, although you aren't even certain where he was born, you need to inform us that the Lithuanian village is called "Syłgudyszki" in the lead (since rearranged) in the Polish language on English Wikipedia. Really now? I would suggest that you put "Paryż" into the lead of the article about Paris. Your WP:NCGN argument would work rather nicely if anyone objected. After all Chopin lived there longer than Kornel Makuszyński lived two years in Burbiskis. Wasn't that some kind of rationale to explain why the Polish geographical toponym for that Lithuanian village (pop. 7) needs to be in English Wikipedia? It's nice to have you back editing after your sabbatical. It must have been an unpleasant experience. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Please kindly check WP:NCGN for explanation. --Jacurek (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Have checked out WP:NCGN in order to understand your interpretation of it. Would you agree that the article about Paris in relation to Chopin's residing there would warrant the inclusion of the Polish toponym "Paryż" in the lead of that article? If not, why not? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please kindly check WP:NCGN again for explanation. “Paryż” unlike “Syłgudyszki” never belonged to the Polish state. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I included the Polish variant in the lead is for a very simple reason- this small town is usually mentioned under its Polish variant name of "Syłgudyszki" in literature about the train station here was designed in the Zakopane Style architecture- its biggest claim to fame--Orestek (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC).
 * And to think that all this time I thought the "kolkhozy" of the 1950's were it's biggest claim to fame. As for the other claim that the village "belonged to the Polish State", when did that happen? Certainly not when Poland belonged to the Third Reich. Don't be ridiculous, please. Regarding "literature" concerning the train station in the village and the Polish variant of "Syłgudyszki" in relation to it, would that be literature in the English language? Btw, DYK that the creator of the synthesis called "Zakopane Style architecture" was born in Samogitia? I was surprised to learn that myself. Just the other day in fact. What tipped me of was that Stanisław Witkiewicz's son, Stanley, occasionally signed his name "Vitkacius" opening another "can of worms" to ponder about and why all of these talented artists and political leaders came from the Kresy instead of Katowice. Hmmm? Dr. Dan (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More relevant is the fact that Paryż is probably not used in many (if any) English-language sources). Anyway, I am content with Novickas solution, so how about we stop this discussion, which seems to be digressing more and more from the original point anyway? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think we should use an exception from WP:NCGN policy to please three editors. Alternative names should be in the lead unless there is a clear note that Lithuania is excluded from WP:NCGN rule. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)