Talk:Act of Independence of Lithuania

Fate of Signatories

This part is a bit sharp in article, maybe some contributors will share their thoughts how to improve it? M.K. 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some improvements to this part review and comments are welcome. M.K. 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

House of Signatories

This article puts the house at 30 Didžioji Street, but the House article says Pilies Street. Novickas 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

30 Didzioji St. in 1918. Pilies in 2006. Street names changed :) Renata 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Was the Lithuanian "Didžioji" the official name of the street in 1918 ? --Lysy^talk 06:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Or is it the Lithuanian translation of the street name ? --Lysy^talk 09:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Didžioji Street would be translated as "main street," while Pilies Street (Gatve in Lith.) is Castle Street. (I've walked down Pilies Gatve many times.) The interesting thing is, Pilies Gatve turns into Didžioj Gatve at a square, the name of which isn't on any of my maps. Near this square, the fomer Chodevičiai mansion houses the Vilnius Art Gallery. (Pardon my meddling in matters Lithuanian.) Sca 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

American English

Why is this article in American English? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.0.120.227 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not?

BTW, a more usual title in (American!) English would be "Lithuanian Independence Act." Sca 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Seimas, in its publications using title Act of Independence of Lithuania, M.K. 10:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre Featured Article Review discussion

Hello editors. As we all know, the standards of Featured Articles change over time, and this is a periodic review based on the suggestion that I conduct periodic reviews of historical articles inside areas where I have at least a basic comprehension of the primary historical issues. This article was selected as the first Central and Eastern European historical article in the list at Wikipedia:Featured_articles. There are a number of sourcing problems with this article which could be readily addressed.

Featured Article Reviewers have recently changed their policy, requiring the raising of issues on an article's talk page, to assist article editors to rectify problems in a collegial atmosphere. (Editors should not be overly concerned, FAR's purpose is to improve articles and retain them as featured articles).

The key sourcing issue is reliance on articles from Encyclopedia Lituanica. EL is a TERTIARY source, which presents immediate problems. In particular, encyclopedia entries status as High Quality reliable sources for wikipedia purposes is judged on three merits:

• The quality of the encyclopedia as a scholarly rather than a general encyclopedia
• The quality of individual article authors as scholars of note in the field
• The quality of the articles themselves, as conforming to scholarly standards

Editors could help with this issue by discussing the standard of EL, and by changing the sourcing on the article to indicate individual article authors, and the page span (separate to the page referenced) in the bibliography and notes. For example:

Simas Sužiedėlis, ed (1970–1978). "Council of Lithuania". Encyclopedia Lituanica. I. Boston, Massachusetts: Juozas Kapočius. pp. 581–585. LCCN 74-114275

does not list the individual author of the article, though the citation (6 pages) indicates that the article probably addresses in length the issue of the Council of Lithuania.

Another sourcing issue is the lack of place of publication for some works. This assists in reliability checking works. For example:

Vardys, Vytas Stanley; Judith B. Sedaitis (1997). Lithuania: The Rebel Nation. Westview Series on the Post-Soviet Republics. WestviewPress. pp. 22–23. ISBN 0-8133-1839-4.

lacks a publication location.

Web sources such as:

"Resolution". Medieval Lithuania. 2005. http://viduramziu.istorija.net/etno/vasario16-en.htm. Retrieved 2007-01-27.

require fuller citations, including authors and containing works.

I'm not inclined to engage in detailed reliability checking with the fullness of citations in the current status (with the exception of EL which is almost ready for reliability checking).

There are no POV issues to my mind. The only possibility of non-coverage might be anti-Act positions by Lithuanian pro-revolutionary workers or non-ethnic Lithuanians in the period. Does someone with the specific knowledge know if this occurred and/or was significant?

Lets improve this already great article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I improved a bunch of citations (locations, issn's, etc). Encyclopedia Lituanica is a very good and reliable source, written by some of the most respected intellectuals. I see no problem with it whatsoever. You can visit the link to istorija.net (maintained by Tomas Baranauskas) and see what else could be added. Re anti-act: I no no sources that would talk about it. My guess is that all the area was under German control and they suppressed any kind of political movements/protests. Communists appeared in Lithuanian only in late summer 1918. Poles must have been unhappy, but I found nothing about it. Renata (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• The opposition issue was discussed at the FAR, rejected as being out of scope. But I'm thinking a short paragraph would be OK; using this source [1], for one. Events of this magnitude never occur without some internal opposition and non-inclusion makes the article seem...unrealistic. (Problem is, once you start down that road, it gets hard to stop, I hope the reviewers will help keep it focused if that happens). Also, since it does mention Lithuanian Wars of Independence in the lead, we might want to put a couple sentences about that in the aftermath section. Novickas (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The scope of the article is one-page document and surrounding events of late 1917/early 1918 (i.e. declaration of independence). The actual independence (or beginnings of it) did not come until late fall 1918. Only then opposition (Communists, Poles, etc) presented themselves. In my mind all of that belongs somewhere else (i.e. establishment of independence). Renata (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • • After poking around, I haven't found anything, so agree with Renata. As the article states, several other countries had their own plans for LT, but it didn't become an issue till after the war was over. There was internal dissension, members resigning in protest, and this is covered. The Krajowcy were more of a club than an organization. Novickas (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm very pleased with this discussion and feel firmly article editors have scope issues under control through normal article process; Particularly if reactions were to independence rather than the document. I'll consider sourcing reliability and citations in full detail in a little while to allow any edits in that area to finalise before butting in. Featured Article Review editors are still experimenting with the change in method that lead to this (on page discussion) process. At this point in time: it seems the process is working by clearing minor issues which shouldn't lead and article to FAR up in clean collegial ways. If article editors wish to comment on this as a process (during or afterwards), the editors at FAR would be interested to see if their process has improved. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Copyvio concerns seem to have contributed to that discussion - FWIW, when I copyedit a GA or FA candidate, I paste about every second or third sentence into Google and Gbooks and skim the reliable-looking results. Not checking for copyvio per se, just my way of fact-checking and of feeling confident that I understand the material, but I'm pretty sure it would catch copying. I've worked with the copyvio people [2]. So if you're looking for an FA reviewer copyvio pledge, this is it. Novickas (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Act of Independence of Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517184241/http://www.lnm.lt/ekspoziciniai-padaliniai/signataru-namai/lietuvos-nepriklausomybes-akto-signatarai/129.html?task=view to http://www.lnm.lt/ekspoziciniai-padaliniai/signataru-namai/lietuvos-nepriklausomybes-akto-signatarai/129.html?task=view
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lrs.lt/sventes/980216/vas16mod.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Act of Independence of Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927183000/http://ausis.gf.vu.lt/mg/nr/2001/12/12v.html to http://ausis.gf.vu.lt/mg/nr/2001/12/12v.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My restoration of MDY date format

I restored mdy date format, which was consistently used everywhere in the original 2007 text up to March 2, 2018, when it was arbitrarily changed to dmy format. The mdy format also matches the date format in native Lithuanian documents (eg. vasario 16 d. 1918 m -> February 16, 1918); I would guess that's why the original text adopted the MDY format in the first place. (user:M.K: is my guess correct?)

If someone insists that changing the original MDY format to DMY was correct, please state serious reasons. AFAIK the AE/BE style rule dictates sticking to the style of the original text, unless the subject is of British or American tradition.

I also also fixed typos in dates noticed during this edit. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)