`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.     ==`