Talk:Suwałki Agreement/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Specific concerns
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I've done a decent copyedit for dropped articles and verb tenses, but it wouldn't be hurt by a further copyedit or three if the plans are for it to go to FAC. I've noted below a few spots where it is unclear and needs some clarification
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A few spots need citations
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall - I'm noticing a huge number of articles (a, an, the) being dropped. I've fixed the ones in "Background" but you should be aware this is a problem with your prose. Leaving them out makes the prose choppy. Also a number of verb tenses were in present tense, when it is much more normal to use past tense in historical writing in English. Again, I've fixed when I could, but just be aware.
 * Thank you for the copyedit. Yes, I am aware of my lack of articles. There is no such thing in my native language and I still don't get the concept. To me they are just useless time waisters :) Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead -
 * Doesn't necessarily have to be done, but a bit more information in the lead might not be bad. The lead feels a bit skimpy to me. Perhaps a sentence on the fact that the war itself sprang out of the undefined borders?
 * Fleshed out. Hope it's better. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Background -
 * ".... signed in July 1920 between Lithuania and the Soviet Russia..." was it the USSR yet? the "the" before Soviet is awkward, but I'm not sure it's correct to remove it, perhaps a reword to leave off the Soviet or to put in USSR (or whatever the name was at that point..)
 * Soviet Union was established in 1922. Technically it was Russian SFSR -- so changed accordingly. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pressure -
 * "The Lithuanian government accepted the resolution. Sapieha replied that Poland could honor the Lithuanian neutrality or the demarcation line as Lithuania was actively collaborating with the Soviets. The Poles reserved the right of full freedom of action." I'm confused by these sentences, especially the second one. I can't figure out what it's trying to say that the poles could have done and why.
 * it was missing "not" in "could not honor". does that fix? Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Negotiations -
 * "The Polish leader, Józef Piłsudski, feared that the Entente..." what's the Entente? It's not been discussed previously, and it's not linked, so it's a complete unknown to the reader.
 * Linked. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Need a cite for "The Lithuanians hoped to avoid new Polish attacks and, with help of the League, to settle the disputes."
 * Added. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Provisions -
 * Okay, I'm confused here. It says "...it was to have taken effect..." which implies the agreement never went into effect. If it did take effect, it should say "...it took effect on..."
 * Hm. Good point. It was violated de facto before it could take effect, but wonder if that stopped de jure effectiveness. Probably way too academic and split between the Polish and Lithuanian lines. Anyway, sources do not discuss, so I don't know. Removed that bit. It's repeated elsewhere. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources do discuss it - it was a referenced claim, and one that is rather important in this context (discussion elsewhere is simply a summary of the agreement provisions). I think it is important to note that Żeligowski's "mutiny" occurred before the agreement came into effect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aftermath -
 * "Even in the 21st century, the Suwałki Region remains home to the Lithuanian minority in Poland." is it the ONLY home of lituanians in Poland or is it one of several spots of lithuanians? If the latter, it should read "Even in the 21st century, the Suwałki Region remains home to a Lithuanian minority." or "Even in the 21st century, the Suwałki Region remains home to one of the concentrations of Lithuanians in Poland." or something similar. the current wording implies that it is the only spot of lithuanians in poland. Should have a citation also.
 * More or less the only spot (5,097 out of 5,639 Lithuanians in Poland live in Suwalki Region). Ref added. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Same deal with "In the 21st century, the Vilnius Region is the home to the Polish minority in Lithuania."
 * Reworded & ref added. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The last three sentences of the second paragraph of Aftermath need a citation (the "puppet republic" is an opinion on the status of the mutineer's republic and should be attributed to someone.
 * Ref added & puppet removed -- not a place to elaborate what the republic was or was not. Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Evaluations -
 * "These differences of opinion continue to modern historiography." is uncited and definitely needs some sort of elaboration. Is it split on Lithuanian/Polish lines?
 * Yeah, I did not like it either. Deleted. And, yes it's split -- far more so in Wikipedia than anywhere else :~( Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's all, unless you see something I missed. Thanks for the review again. Oh and look, it's still Saturday my time... :) Renata (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ealdgyth. I'd like to second the request for more time. You can see that the LT editors have not been very active for whatever reasons. Clearly you would be completely justified in saying that as long as they remain inactive this article could be considered stable and uncontested.

As you can imagine, this topic is difficult, it's the capital of a country. I don't see it as completely neutral. One point at issue has been how to present the historic interpretations of the treaty. As currently written it looks as tho the did-this-treaty-include-Vilnius issue is unsettled and that historians still ponder both sides of the question. My research on the other hand indicates that only P. Lossowski argues for the Polish side. At some point there were a lot of other historians' takes ref'd in this article. A partial list:

The question of whether the treaty was meant to include Vilnius is not split between PL-LT lines; it's split, by my research, between LT-Encyclopedia Britannica-multiple other historians and Polish lines. My question to you is - how would you weight the conglomeration of EB's "The League of Nations arranged a partial armistice (Oct. 7, 1920) that put Vilnius under Lithuanian control and called for negotiations to settle all the border disputes." and those of all the others I've found against Lossowki's? No, EB doesn't directly say "most historians see it this way" - you'd think tho that it's implicit. I brought this point up during the course of a discussion in August at the OR noticeboard, August 2009, but not surprisingly no further involvement here. It would maybe be ugly to include the umpteen book cites on the treaty-left-Vilnius-to LT side - I feel tho that Piotrus has had enough time to gather other international historians' opinions supporting Lossowski's. Novickas (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. State briefly (without reams of footnotes, etc) what the problem is, etc. If the article is bound up in the whole EE mailing list problem, I'll be bringing in help to sort the whole thing out. But I'm not sure what exactly is being disputed here. My understanding, from the article, was that whether or not the agreement included Vilnius was not really up for debate, but that the exact significance of the agreement in history WAS up for debate. Correct me if I'm wrong? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh... The only reference that actually compares historiography is focussed on whether it was an "international treaty" or just "military agreement of limited scope". The debate about Vilnius is more Wikipedia made up than anything else. Explicitly the agreement said absolutely nothing about Vilnius (that's what Lossowski stresses). Implicitly it was left where it was -- in Lithuanian hands (that's what Encyclopedia Britannica & all other references below say). Rather simple. Renata (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good summary, so if you want to boldly put that in the article... No, my objection isn't related to the mailing list issue. We've been discussing/editing this article for a long time. The body of the article is in good shape, just that the lead and summation/historiography could IMO use some more discussion. The GA review is time-sensitive, so if I'm not here later, never mind. Novickas (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that some scholars who apparently didn't bother to read the treaty (or don't pay attention to details of wording) and who try to summarize the treaty on 1-2 sentences (thus likely didn't research the matter of little importance to them, and copy the error from one another) often tend to write that the treaty left Vilnius in Lithuania (which is incorrect, because as Renata pointed out, the treaty didn't address that issue - it's like saying that the treaty left New York with the United States...). Some editors however try to argue that if enough scholars make an error the error is the truth and should be presented as such in the article :( The issue is somewhat compounded by the fact that the only detailed study of the treaty cited (book chapter by Łossowski) is in Polish (and English literature on the subject consists of the mentioned 1-2 sentence summaries). So we have the treaty text (linked but obviously ORish) and a detailed study in Polish versus a series of erroneous summary descriptions in English. Bottom line is that the treaty was about Suwałki Region, not Vilnius Region. It said nothing about Vilnius, and speculations about implicitility are not encyclopedic (to say the least). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, the edit warring on the lead information is not helping with the GAN status here. If the issue doesn't resolve itself soon, I'm going to have to conclude the article isn't stable and fail it. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the slow moving edit warring that was taking place the last few days, I'm going to keep this article on hold in order to see how it shakes out. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the new lead written by Renata, discarding all sentences previously subject to disruption, is helpful and hopefully will prove to be stable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How to describe the overall issue of what the agreement meant in terms of Vilnius
IMO we haven't directly addressed the problem of how to present the point that a lot of of historians, along with EB, by my research hence the reflist below, see the agreement as leaving Vilnius on the LT side. Sorry, I don't think WP articles can reflect Piotrus' assertion that they were all repeating errors.

Policy is a little contradictory. Some guidance in WP:Weasel: When contrasting a minority opinion with a more widely held one—for example, "Although Brahms's work is part of the classical music canon, Benjamin Britten has questioned its value". Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact; it's not necessary to source the majority opinion when describing the minority one.") On the other hand WP:Reliable sources goes "For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue." So maybe we should kick this up to some noticeboard. Or noticebard. Novickas (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At the talk page, Dr. Dan has posted some sentences from a page published by a geographer/ historian at the University of Lodz, Marek SOBCZYŃSKI., along with a request for translation. "Ponieważ polskie poczynania na pograniczu z Litwą napotykały na brak zrozumienia międzynarodowego, Polska dokonała manewru taktycznego, polegającego na tym, że polecono gen. Ludwikowi Żeligowskimu zbuntować się wobec naczelnego dowództwa, odrzucić ustalenia traktatu polsko-litewskiego z Suwałk i samowolnie dokonać na czele jego oddziału aneksji Wileńszczyny" (Bauza 2004; Łossowski 1996, s. 179)." If what I see from Google translate is correct, M.S. shares the general view of Vilnius's status wrt the agreement. That makes Lossowksi's viewpoint even more marginal. Novickas (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The agreement did not mention Vilnius. Why such a simple sentence is so difficult to understand? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are the simple sentences concerning the matter of Vilnius below, in the provided reference section, so difficult to understand? Poland agreed to meet in Suwałki in order to establish a modus vivendi, yet in reality were perfidiously pretending to negotiate, while in the process of implementing a false flag operation. Perhaps it would be simpler to state that Poland approached the agreement with treacherous intentions concerning Vilnius? Or didn't it? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Poland is not a side here. The diplomatic team was negotiating in good faith, duped by Piłsudski, who was using it as a cover for how own plans (and who was unhappy that the team gave in so much in Suwałki anyway). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the Polish diplomats (mostly military men), who were in contact with and consulted with Piłsudski during these negotiations were clueless about the impending false flag operation? That's interesting. And they conceded more than Piłsudski wished, or as you put it, "gave in so much"? How did they give in so much? What did they give in so much? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stability
Still having edit warring issues, especially over names and basic information. I suggest that the editors get together and figure out all these issues and get them settled before bringing the article back to GAN. I'm failing the nomination because the article is not stable at this time. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)