Talk:Biržai

Names

Lysy, polonising all the names before PLC was created is a little bit too much, don't you think?--Lokyz 14:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just cut short the wikilinks, but took care that both Polish and Lithuanian names are mentioned so that the reader is not confused. I don't mind putting the Lithuanian form first if you'd prefer that. --Lysy^talk 14:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. To answer your question, I don't think that Polinising the names before PLC is wrong, as Lithuania was under heavy Polish language influence before PLC as well. Anyway, I've changed the order so that the Lithuanian version is more prominent than Polish. --Lysy^talk 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I know about Polonisation, although IMO, it's another one place where influence of written language is a bit overestimated (like in the case of Ruthenian). In short - many of "Polonised" nobiles used three or more languages - one for writing, one for eveyday life and so on, so polonisation was rather partial. An amongst them Lithuanian as not the last (it did finally lost positions aproximately in the middle of 17-th century). Only proof there, that's missing is Lithuanian written language. That's what I know from my sudies - you might have another impression, based on your readings.--Lokyz 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we don't really know what it was like and we can only hypothetise about how deep and when this process of Polonisation was. Of course one can find more or less extreme theories and it's probably possible to find some arguments supporting either of them in a more or less reasonable way. It's a pity that historic research has been used to support political agenda of the 20th century countries. My hope is that now we will be at least able to understand how relative all this is and that the fact that Polish language influenced Lithuanian past does not mean that Poles were better or worse, only that much of the history was common. And probably in this common history there are more things that both countries can be proud of instead of being ashamed. --Lysy^talk 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

relevant wiki policy on alternative names

[1]. It states: other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out,.

For Birzai/Birze we have: 362 Google Books hits for "Birze Lithuania" (I include "Lithuania" to exclude hits of individuals named Birze) 167 Google Books hits for "Birzai" (without any qualifications)

So in fact "Birze" is used in more modern sources (and please note that the overwhelming majority of these are English, not Polish ones, whereas quite a few of the "Birzai" ones are Lithuanian or German) than Birzai. Hence "Birze" is very much "encyclopedic information", since it is used in more than half of all sources (68% to be exact, as opposed to the 10% that the guideline asks for). Of course no one is proposing that this article's name be changed to "Birze", or even that "Birze" be bolded in the first sentence so as it stands out - the proposal is merely to add "Birze" in parentheses and italics.radek (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Biržai" only gets one hit, [2]. In a German source.radek (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, policy wonkery. For a start - including alternate names in the lead should reflect consensus (Wikipedia:Lede#Usage_in_first_sentence). It's also addressed in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) The 2nd part of the clause there, stating "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted", is useless and is clearly not observed in practice. I don't think Birze meets the first clause on regular Google hits on EN sources; pls provide evidence that it does. I get 126,000 English pages for Birzai -wikipedia [3]; 7,760 English pages for Birze -wikipedia -"Roberts Birze" [4]. We could discuss the group-of-people-clause till kingdom come.

Oh policy wonkery - well, if I don't offer a policy then I'll be accused of of something not following policy ;). Damned if you do and damned if you don't apparently. Anyway, I'm not sure why you say the second part of that sentence is useless and is not observed - at any rate, I don't know what the relevance is, since it's a "or" and not an "and". But thanks for pointing out that the second part of the clause also applies. As for your google hits - a lot of those 126000 are Lithuanian, not English, a lot of them are English language weather reports and the like. And your second link actually has 45,100 hits not 7760 though most of these are people named Birze. This is why Google Books is a much better judge here of English source, (academic, reliable), usage.radek (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Radek has presented Google book results for support - with the diacritic- rather than vanilla Google hits. Interesting, because this issue of print sources v. regular Google hits has come up at the Macedonia arbcom case. On the other hand, if the Birze proponents could present and cite some reliable sources using Birze, with some context, in the body of the article, I'd have no objection. Or if they could create a referenced subsection with multiple names and their etymology, that would be good too. Then there is no need to include alternate names in the lead, I believe. Novickas (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue (as usual) is WP: Lead, we are on English WP, and enough has been argued about this perennial conundrum. There is a link to the Polish Wikipedia that should satisfy anyone needing to know what the Polish name of this city is. Some editors need to re-read the policy pertaining to WP: Undue again, and one more time if the first time is insufficient. This advice applies to many other geographical toponymns other than Biržai. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with WP:LEDE - alternate names should reflect consensus. This means those who wish to include an alternate name should make an effort to convince those who don't. Other opinions could be solicited, preferably uninvolved parties. There are too many results to analyze thoroly, but Radek, you could do a 1 out of each 10 starter. Novickas (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

While consensus is important, Wikipedia is also not subject to filibusters. A couple of intransigent users cannot hold an edit, that is in accordance with policy, hostage. The guideline asks for 10% of English source in order for the alternative name to be included - the Google Books search clearly shows that in fact in English language books, "Birze" is in fact used more frequently than "Birzai". It's harder to make sense out of the regular search due to the presence of many non-English language pages which are hard to filter out but a cursory look at the actual searches shows that 10% is an easy threshold to pass here. This is even leaving aside the second part of the policy which states "or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place" - which it clearly was. Your demand for me to analyze 1 out of 126000+45100=171100 webpages, which amounts to demand that I analyze more than 17000 pages is obviously unrealistic. It appears to be designed to create a time sink that no one in their right mind would attempt or to set the bar so high that it can never be reached. It's hard to see that as a good faithed request. Especially since Google Books evidence is pretty compelling and a quick search through regular Google should be enough to convince anyone open minded that the criteria is easily met.radek (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The second part of the clause "used by a group of people who used to live here" is not widely observed on WP, and is probably why consensus is required. You could demonstrate your sincere dedication to that clause by introducing and defending Krakau in the lead of Krakow. Re the first, 10% of EN sources, I don't find the book hits or regular Google hits compelling; Birze is a very popular Latvian surname and a term of Scottish dialect. A Gbook search for birze -"Miervaldis Birze" -"A.Birze" -"M. Birze" -"Ilga Birze" -"Billy Birze" -"Roberts Birze" -"Viktors Birze" gets 7 hits on the first page - very few afterwards. That's not true of a Gbook search on Birzai. If it is compelling, uninvolved parties will agree, so maybe 3rd opinion is a way to go. Novickas (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And yes, a search for "Birze" alone does turn up a few people - but also a lot more hits, 832 to be exact. So even if only 3 out of each ten 10 hits per page are for the town that's still 3*80=240 hits for the town which means the name is used roughly 60% of the time. And 60% is still much greater than 10%. Also, this is the exact reason why I did my search for "Birze Lithuania". As you well know.radek (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you basing your claim that the clause "is not widely observed on WP" on? And the "probably"? And "is required"? These are all un-backed assertions. I also see that you are following the time honored tradition of trying to divert the discussion from the present topic to Krakow. If you want to put "Krakau" into Krakow I for one won't remove it nor argue against it.

As for the searches; while it's obviously impossible to tell with the regular Google search - and I hope you realize now that your request for me to analyze 17000 pages was silly - in Google books it's pretty immediately clear that the overwhelming majority of these sources refer to the town. Note also that in order for it to actually fail the guideline, you would have to reduce those 367 "Birze" hits to less than 16 hits - in other words, you're arguing that 351 of those hits are for people named "Birze", not the town. While I can't analyze 17000 webpages, it's pretty easily seen that out of the first ten google books hits, 8 are definitely for the town, 1 is for a person and 1 is ambiguous. On the second ten, all ten are for town. On the third, 9 are town, 1 is person. On the fourth, again, all ten seem to be for the town. Applying some inferential statistics here we have about 36 pages of ten hits each, with on average 1 hit per page (being generous). That's 36 Birze-people, and about 325 Birze-towns, which is still more than 50%. And way, way, way more than 10%.radek (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm posting this at 3rd opinion; new section follows.

Thanks. I would've done it but just been super busy in RL.radek (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

The issue is the inclusion of the Polish name of the town in the lead. Per WP:LEDE, alternate names in the lead should reflect consensus. Other guidance is located at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). Since there are many Google hits and Google Book hits on both names, the results are difficult to analyze. On whom does the responsibility of convincing the opposition - which could be done in this case by carefully analyzing the results - fall? On those who wish to include it, or those who wish to exclude? Novickas (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the inclusion of the Polish and historical name ("Birze") of the town, in parentheses in the lead. Per [5]. other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out,. and per [6] Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted Please note that:

• Both conditions are satisfied - the name "Birze" is used by more than 10% of sources if not the majority (>50%) of sources (this is definitely true for Google Books and is probably true for a general Google Books search). The name "Birze" was also used historically by various groups of people which used to inhabit this geographical place. Only ONE of the two conditions is necessary to be satisfied but in fact here, BOTH are. Inclusion is a no-brainer.
• Consensus is important but stubborn dissent by a intransigent editor or even a group of editors cannot hold the consensus building process hostage. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. It is not even the same as the relative numbers of editors on two sides of the argument. And consensus on a particular article is trumped by a Wikipedia wide consensus on policies and guidelines. Hence, adhering to the policies stated above IS following consensus.
• Asking someone to analyze 17000+ web pages to prove that at least 10% use the term about the town (rather than people with the name "Birze") is an obvious attempt to set the standard of evidence so high so as to be unattainable. This is especially true since an examination of Google Books shows that the name is in fact used by the majority of sources.
• A request was made for an analysis of Google Books sources and I have done this for the first four pages. It's obvious that all but one or two of the hits are for the geographic place, not persons named "Birze". In fact, the overwhelming numbers of sources which use "Birze" is so great that more than 95% of the hits at Google Books would have to be about people rather than the town for this to matter. Number wise, this would have to mean that only 15 of the 367 hits from Google Books are about people and not the place. On the first four pages of the search, 37 or 38 out of the 40 sources are for the town. This already double passes the 10% mark.
• Hence I've already done the analysis that was requested - though I am not about to analyze 17000 web pages and do not consider that a good faith request. The fact that now Novickas is ignoring that I did what he asked and is engaging in vague talk about "the results are difficult to analyze" (no, for Google Books they're not difficult to analyze) indicates the kind of stubbornness in the face of facts and evidence that I described in my second point.
• There's plenty of precedent for this. The articles on the Polish cities of Wrocław, Szczecin, Kołobrzeg, Bydgoszcz, Bytom and many, many, many others all include an alternative name in German according to the above policies. Lithuanian alternative names are included in the articles on Polish cities of Białystok, Suwałki, as well as for numerous Belarussian cities and towns. Personally I support the inclusion of the alternative names in all of these cases. Consistency requires that the same be true on this article.
• At the end of the day, this is simply adding encyclopedic information to the article.

radek (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here to offer a third opinion. It strikes me that Novickas has already conceded the relevant point; there are so many hits on both names. If there are so many hits then it is clearly a notable name. It would be unfortunate if a reader familiar with the disputed version came looking for an article only to have to read beyond the lead to work out if it's the same place they were looking for. I think making things easier for people is better than obscuring common information - even when that information is disputed. I'm sure a section discussing the naming issue would be a better way to deal with this matter rather than exclusion from the lead. I hope that's of some help. Cheers, 114.75.99.99 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry my login dropped out so only my IP appeared. Blippy (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi back, formerly anonymous user, now User:Blippy. The Polish language has a large variety of geographical toponyms that deviate from standard English. Nowy Jork (New York), Rzym (Rome), Monachium (Munich), Kraków (Cracow), and the list goes on and on. Some editors take great pleasure in seeing these names entered into the WP:Lede of articles on English WP, whenever they can get away with it (or in the case of Cracow, actually renaming it to a non-English variant). It is true that due to a preponderance of materials going back to the last several centuries that many publications concerning Lithuania during the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth citing Russian sources, use Russian geographical toponyms to describe various cities and towns in LT. Likewise, Polish oriented historians add their own special interpretations to the mix, and pull out "maps", newspaper articles, and bonefide publications as well, that use their "names" for these entities. That a Polish or any other language toponym needs to be put into the lead of an article concerning that entity on English WP remains the issue. The sole issue. One can dance around this issue with "Google Hits". One can dance around this issue with "it's in the lead of the Wroclaw article". One can dance around with it using relevant wiki policy on alternative names. But the fact remains that this is English WP, and what the Polish or Hungarian toponym for Paryż is, need not be included in the lead for that article. Especially since the article on Paris has a link to both the Polish and Hungarian languages. Oh, I almost forgot, then there is the "historical association" argument that comes into play whenever the "Google Hits" don't make the grade. I'd like to see an attempt to place Budapeszt into the lead of the Budapest article on the basis of Stephen Batory having been king of Poland, or better yet, because of the endeavors of Joseph Bem. Evidently we haven't reached that degree of imbecility yet. Hopefully, we never will. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

hi Dr Dan. Motivations are always difficult to discern, but are fortunately irrelevant here. If a search for Paris brings up so many hits for both Paris and Paryz that it's difficult to analyse, then I think you would have a strong case that the toponym should be included as well in the appropriate article. Cheers,Blippy (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fortunately" how, Blippy? If motivations and general behavior were of no concern, WP: AE and WP: ArbComs, would not be necessary. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi DD. Fortunate in the sense that it isn't necessary to know what motivations are at play here to be able to make a reasonable judgement on the issue at hand. From my perspective the issue comes down to the notability of the alternative placename, which even those opposing it's inclusion have ackowledged is significant. That is not a statement of support for one side or the other, just an observation that both sides acknowledge notability, therefore it warrants inclusion. The fact that there is dispute suggests that it may be appropriate to include a section on within the article. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. And perhaps enough said. I have never been against the inclusion of "pertinent" or "relevant" information on English WP, or in my paltry entries on non-English WP. Personally, I'm very much against the trivializing of WP and violating basic common sense concerning WP: Undue. It's probably my greatest objection, otherwise I'd be pushing for more news on the death of Michael Jackson on the main page (happily it's not necessary). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Blippy: The issue, which is sensitive, comes up often in this region. Unfortunately, it tends to be decided case-by-case. This reflects WP's dislike of what it calls instruction creep, which I prefer to think of as a body of law.

Above, we have discussed three policy points. 1) From WP:LEDE, that inclusion of alternate names should reflect consensus; 2) from WP:Naming conventions (geographic names), that alternate names in the lead can be used if some group of people who used to live there used them; 3) also from WP:Naming conventions (geographic names), "used by at least 10% of sources in the English language."

re 1) Consensus has not been met. Since it may take a long time to get there, maybe you could round up some other uninvolved opinions about whether inclusion of an altenate name is acceptable before a consensus.

re 2) Please take a few moments to consider the implications of that clause, and to survey its application. I see you're from Australia; but despite the presence of a 19th century Chinatown, Sydney and the WP article statement that at the 2006 census 39.4% of Sydney residents declared themselves to have been born overseas Demographics of Sydney, that article doesn't contain any alternate names in the lead. Nor does it discuss Chinese-languages etymologies. My interpretation is that WP is inconsistent.

re 3) The 10% in reliable EN sources rule offers much firmer guidance, and is the topic of a discussion above. But it would require analysis. Radek's position is that analysis is unnecessary, because a reasonable observer would easily conclude the 10%. I disagree. Please look at the first page of Google book hits for Birze. [7] A number of Latvian surnames and a Scots dialect term appear immediately. That's why I made a start at analyses excluding these in Gbooks. [8] That search's exclusions reached a Gbook search term limit. Also, Gbooks doesn't exclude non-EN results. Radek has described my requests for analyses as unreasonable, given the number of results. I think some sort of analysis is possible. So here we are. Novickas (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with a compromise you offered below, but just to be clear, re 3) NO, my position is not that "analysis is unnecessary" - my position is that I've already done the analysis to the extent that it's practical and any request for additional analysis - like the request to analyze 17,000 web pages - are unreasonable, stubborn and not good faithed. Furthermore I addressed the issue of Latvian surnames above. If the search is for "Birze Lithuania" it yields 367 hits and it appears that on each page about 9 out of 10 hits refer to the town rather than for surnames. If the search is for "Birze" alone then we get 850+ hits and roughly 3 or 4 out of each page refer to the town, rather than persons. Either way, we get a lot more hits for "Birze" then we get for "Birzai".radek (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Hi Novickas. I think the sensitivity of the issue adds weight to the importance of providing notable alternatives to the official name. Consensus, of course, is not unanimity - but as far as the notability of the alternate name is concerned, I would suggest that there is both consensus AND unanimity in this instance. Additional opinions, as ever, would be welcome - so it may be worth reposting on WP:3O given mine hasn't helped matters terribly much. As for Sydney, I'm slightly surprised so few declared overseas birth, but that aside, there have not been the territorial disputes in Australia that Europe has suffered. That's not to say the Indigenous peoples of Australia haven't suffered terribly, but once the name of Botany Bay became that, the rest, as they say, was history. In Australia there are some attempts to use Indigenous names as alternatives e.g. Ayers Rock has largely reverted to Uluru, but the Grampians are rarely referred to as the Gariwerds. Anyway, I would expect both these names to appear in the relevant pages on WP. For what it's worth I offer the following numbers;

Birzai Lithuania 1,100,000 Birze Lithuania 45,200 Birz Lithuania 44,400 Birzh Lithuania 416 Birzhe Lithuania 34

These are the hits from Google searches on the two words. Based on these kinds of numbers alone I think Birze and Birz would warrant inclusion while Birzh and Birzhe would not. When a place name is occurring on tens of thousands of pages I think it confirms sufficient notability to appear in the lead, whereas tens or a few hundred of hits seems far less notable - although probably worthy of inclusion in a section discussing alternative names. I might add that the following numbers are interesting;

Birzai Birz 32,100 Birzai Birze 1,380 Birzai Birzh 51 Birzai Birzhe 5

It seems that while nearly as many sites mention Birzai and Birz together as mention Birz (32,100 vs 44,400) there is a marked discrepancy in those that mention both Birzai and Birze as Birze (1,380 vs 44,400). I propose that this reflects the very dispute we are witnessing here. There are two distinct groups who only refer to the city as either Birze or Birzai, but not both. Although Birzai is overwhelmingly the more prevalent name (again, just based on my bit of dodgy research above), Birze and Birz both seem to be alternatives worth of mention. If you wanted to include a section on alternative names to include Birzh and Birzhe then it may not be necessary to have Birze and Birz in the lead. Sorry if I've just made things worse! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blippy, no you didn't make things worse. You made an effort, I appreciate that. Also thanks for outdenting. Found a source that lists multiple names; I'll put that in a section under the lead, we'll see how that flies. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with this as a compromise. Two things though; first I think "Birze" is also used in Yiddish, not just Polish (this maybe a case of different spellings in the same language, sort of like American vs. British English) - but this is nit picking, so not that important. Second, now that this dispute has been resolved can we please try and work on resolving the broader issue of alternative names for these two countries?radek (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps following the method applied at the WP Warsaw article, i.e., see wiktionary:Warsaw for the name in other languages, might resolve the broader issue, now that this compromise seems to be agreed upon. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work for a lot of places in LT. I see the guidance says "we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names", which is pretty much always true. (Polish, Yiddish, Russian...). Novickas (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If by this you mean that in the Name or the Etymology section we include a link to wiktionary, that's fine. But please note that, for example (and I see you've picked a singularly Polish city, whose' alternative names are never under dispute - is that really the best example here) other language names of Warsaw still appear in the article. So the alternative names (and note that in this case, these aren't just "names in other languages" but also historical names) should stay in the article (if not in parentheses in the lede) and this shouldn't be used as an excuse for removing them. Would you also care to make this proposal over at Frombork, Kolobrzeg and Torun?radek (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One also needs to be careful with the semantics being used in these matters as well, as the definition of "alternative" should not be confused with a foreign language variant of any particular toponym. Paryż is not an alternative name for Paris, nor is Rzym for Rome, just as Варшава is not for Warsaw. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Earliest history

That's a rely to Novickas inquiry on user:Lokyz talk. In short: a mess!

Version A. The earliest date is 1415. According to Mūsų Lietuva by Bronius Kviklys, in 1415 Jogaila visited Lithuania and briefly stopped in Biržai, where a wooden castle stood. However, according to Lietuviškoji enciklopedija, this information comes from Michał Baliński and is unreliable.

Version B. According to Encyclopedia Lituanica, Grand Duke Casimir IV Jagiellon granted his properties in Biržai to his secretary Gregory Fedko (Grigorijus/Grigas Fetkonis) (no year specified). According to Lietuviškoji enciklopedija, Fedko died in 1492. After his death the property passed on to his wife Anna Radziwiłł, who then passed it along to her brother Jerzy Radziwiłł and to his son Mikołaj "the Red" Radziwiłł. The same information is repeated in Mūsų Lietuva.

Version C. According to Kelionių vadovas po Lietuvą, on April 14, 1455 Casimir IV Jagiellon granted Radvila Astikas a privilege to settle six families in Biržai. The possession was developed by Astikas' son Mikalojus Radvila the Old and then his son Jerzy Radziwiłł.

Version D. According to Bižai municipality website, the city was mentioned in 1450 when Mikalojus Radvila the Old gifted a piece of forest to Biržai resident Nemelis. However, very detailed study Lietuvos diduomenė XIV a. pabaigoje – XV a. by Rimvydas Petrauskas mentions that Mikalojus apperas in written sources only in 1463.

Dunno even what to think... None of the versions fit facts known from elsewhere. Renata (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading some of the sources, I'd stick with Petrauskas version.--Lokyz (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - dear User:Renata3 in the future could you please refer to the proper diff in this case exactly this one, not my userpage as awhole? Thank you in advance.--Lokyz (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask you guys to put in a few sentences about the early history? Using Petrauskas? I don't have access to it...Novickas (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

uh, is this really necessary?

"has different names in non-Lithuanian foreign languages" - presumably our readers are intelligent enough to realize that German, Polish and Yiddish are "non-Lithuanian" languages. Also remember that this is written with the view of benefiting the readers, hence "foreign" depends on the nationality of the person reading the article, not any particular editor who edits the article and as such doesn't belong in there - how about just "other languages"?radek (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--Lokyz (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!radek (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biržai. 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/20070823013003/http://www.ziemgala.lt/z/2002_02_11.html to http://www.ziemgala.lt/z/2002_02_11.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biržai. 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/20121024001751/http://ec.europa.eu/youth/evs/aod/hei_form_en.cfm?EID=46000151101 to http://ec.europa.eu/youth/evs/aod/hei_form_en.cfm?EID=46000151101

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)