Talk:Vilnius/Archive 1

I _will_ change this page. ANy Lithuanians here? I don't like "Poles started to take over many aspects of Lithuanian life" sentence. This is shameless lie.

I would also add that Poles were almost 70% of middle Lithuania population before WWII, and majority o the rest wer Jews and Belarussians. szopen]]

O.K. I have forgot to write down some facts about Armia Krajowa conducted genocide of Lithuanians, where many of Lithuanian families were murdered, including infants and elders, after the occupation of Vilnius Region. Of course, i understand, that Armija Krajova has shown courage against nazi occupants in Poland, so they are heroes for many people, but people have forgeten their shameful doings in Lithuania. If you need facts about polonization, i can give you - newspapers and books in Lithuanian were banned, and many people were forced to change their surnames to sound like Polish, to pretect themselves from discrimination - now we have some funny surnames in Vilnius Region and strange family geneology trees with dual surnames, where the ancestors have one family name, and the others have another, with the same family name root. Many Lithuanians were forced to move from Vilnius before WWII. Where do you live yourself to judge the history of Vilnius, szopen? And I think, this discussion is useless and even harmful - as it encourages tension between the nations. I still remember, that I was not able to ask time on street a few years ago at Polish people, if I would ask them in Lithuanian - things have got much better now, we have learned to live in peace. So, changing history in favour of _any_ nation is very bad practice, you know. So, please, be wise, and do not forge history facts, despite they are not nice in the context of great Polish history. //Darius Mazeika]]

Again, every frigging article about former German citry has a information that Germans were once majority and German name is also mentioned. Why Vilnius has no mentioning that before WWII and EVEN in times of WWI Vilnius has Polish majority, and Lithuanians were less than few percents in the city?

Again, The "facts" about AK are not so sure. First, a lot of documentation was fabricated by Soviets (the most famous is fabrication of collaboration between AK and Nazis, which was "redivcovered" again some time ago). Second, a lot of Poles were murdered by Lithuanians during WWII (eg. Zimanas together with other nationality partisans wiped out whole Polish vilalge of Koniuchy). Third, AK throughout the WWII fought with German units lus soviet, who had orders to disarm AK soldiers or shoot them on spot, and with Lithuanian "partisans" such as Plechavitius, collaborating with Germans and persecuting Polish population. Fourth, The fact is that population of the region voted in the referendum after the Zeligowski putsch (boycotted by Lithuanians) and joined Poland. In 1920 about 70% population of whole region was Polish, and Vilnius much more. szopen

Apologising to wikipedia users. Just can't stand discussions with Nico etc who constantly is accusing as about Polish nationalism whenever we refuse to change the name of Polish city into German version, while former Polish cities have no mentioning about Poles being majority there. This maybe also related to fact, that half of my family was expelled after WWII from what today is Belarus. szopen

Listen guys, we won't get far with this kind of discussion. Instead, we should simply try to make something together. The present note indeed lacks some info on the mixture of cultures inhabitating it. As far as I remember from my discussions with fellow Lithuanians, the only census they accept (prior to 1993) is the 1916 one (which, AFAIR, does not look biased at all). I know there used to be a polish website with it, but I can't find it. Do you have the percentages at home? That would ease the things, don't you think? Halibutt 22:21, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No census is reliable. Russians were trying to count as little Poles as possible. Also, before 1914 many people have double identity as Poles-Lithuanians, or no national identity at all ("tutejsi"). It's generally acknowledged that in XIX century majority of population of countryside was either polonised or whiteruthenised and was then counted as either Russian, Whiterussian, Polish or Lithuanian depending on who was doing the census.

But the fact is, that in plebiscite (boycotted by Lithuanians) in which participated 60% of population, overhleming majority voted for joining VIlnius into Poland. The fact is also that the Vilnius city (without countrysides) has majority of Polish population.

1931 census for VIlnius and neighbourhood (Swiecienskie and Wilenskie): Poles 377 400 (69,1%) Jews 68 800 (12,6%) Lithuanians 61 700 (11,3%) Byelorussians 15 300 (2,8%) Russians 10 000 (1,8%) different 12 900 (2,4%) total - 546 100 (100,0%)

2002: Population of Vilnius by nationality Total 542287 Lithuaniais 313424 Poles 101526 Russians 75850 Belorussians 21484 Ukrainians 7012 Jews 2769

See also article which IMHO is the best describing processes which were in Lithuania. In short, cities were Polish or with double Polish-Lithuanian identity, countryside was first Lithuanian, and then either polonised or white-ruthenised.szopen


 * The article is nice indeed, but I'm looking specifically for the 1916 census.

Cheers - Halibutt 13:59, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's ridiculous to quarrel about who was worst. Too often Lithuanians and Polish forget that the two nations used to share their common state through centuries. It was the wish of both parts. Even at 1830 and 1863 uprisings Polish and Lithuanian speaking people fought together. Lithuanians too often forget that the former Lithuania was not their ethnic state. Former Lithuania was multiethnic country. Official language of the state was not neither Lithuanian nor Polish but White Ruthenian. Talking about people living in Grand Duchy of Lithuania, or even later in present ethnic or national terms is ridiculous. Thousands and thousands Polish speaking people regarded themselves as Lithuanians. In many homes it was obvious to speak Polish, Lithuanian and White Ruthenian. There were ridiculous situations in the first decades of XX centrury, when people had to define themselves in ethnic sense. For example of three brothers one defined himself as the Polish, the second one Lithuanian, and the third one as White Rutenian. I am not joking. The Polish speaking people (not necessarily the Polish in the ethinc sense) in Lithuania did not fall from the moon or settled there by force. But they were overwhelming majority in central Lithuania in 1918. It is the fact. But Zeligowski's action was just stupid. Finally destroyed relations between Polish and Lithuanian speaking communities in Lithuania. It was possible to solve it in another way. SF
 * While I agree with you in general, it's hard to decide whether there was "other" possibility. The case of Vilnius was redirected to League of Nation, which most probably would (as in case on Cieszyn) refuse to make plebiscite and just, providing it past activities, just attach Vilnius to Lithuania. Pilsudski was born in Vilnius area IIRC, to remind you. Just as Zeligowski and great part of his "revolted" soldiers.

Anyway, correction: Polish side made election to Sejm, not plebiscite. Nethertheless 60-70% of population voted for Polish party which then unanimously attached Vilnius area to Poland. Lithuanians boycotted elections. szopen


 * SF, apart from the whole Zeligowski case (in which I'm not sure, simply), I couldn't agree more. I added a 'culture' tab in the Central Lithuania article. Hope to get some support from you.

Halibutt 07:53, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk compromise names and Vilnius/Wilno/Vilnia
I see that poles have started this page. Thank you guys, but Lithuanians can take care of themselves. Especially when you suddenly rename the city in the middle of the article from Vilnius to Wilno or Vilna, when you rename Au&#353;ros Vartai to Austros Vartai and mention it's Lithuanian name only as a side note. What do you think you're doing? How would you feel if I renamed Warsaw to Var&#353;uva? If you are so lazy to do a simple search to find the correct spelling, then it would be much better if you just stayed out of the topic. And it doesn't matter that it was annexed by Poland for 40 years. The name of the city is VILNIUS and with God's help it will always be. --Faustas 02:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a problem of naming conventions negotiated on other pages, not of Polish POV. If you do not like it, please talk about that to English and American users. I am sure they will be happy to explain you what is going on. Regards.Yeti 00:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with those conventions and would be happy to leave Vilnius throught the article, but they were settled as a compromise to avoid edit wars in other articles. All your changes will be reverted as long as other users will support you and the convention will be modified.
 * Besides note, that the commonly accepted English name of Vilnius is Vilna and this name should be used in English Wikipedia. You can always start Lithuanian Wikipedia and use solely Lithuanian names there. Bye.Yeti 00:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that Vilna is more accepted name than official one - Vilnius. I believe that if you'd try to ask several random native english speakers, most of them will only recognize name Vilnius. Knutux 08:37, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)


 * I am not a native English speaker. So this is not my opinion, but I pass opinions of native English speakers I used to talk to. You can also check the name of the city in the English language maps issued before 1991. On very few the name of the city will be Vilnius. On majority of them it is marked Vilna or Wilno. However, this is not the point. According to me if there is no undisputable accepted English name of a city (for example Warsaw), a present oficial name shoud be used instead with other names native to the city (or used in the past) marked at the heading.Yeti 20:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * See: Talk:Lithuania Halibutt 03:12, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * To Yeti. There is nothing to compromise. You're distorting the facts. Since we gained our independece in 1991, English maps have been updated to reflect the official names of the cities. 13 years have passed by and you still don't treat Lithuanian names with the respect that they deserve. Vilnius will remain "Vilnius" in all English content. If you'd like to call Vilnius "Wilno", please do so in the Polish pages. --Faustas 22:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * We are talking about two different things. Vilnius is PRESENT English name of the city, Vilna used to be the English name of the city. It is just a fact and I have nothing to do with that. Neither you do. You can be sure that treat Lithuanian names with respect. I always use Lithuanian names in English language articles about Lithuania as far as present times are concerned (if sometimes I put Wilno instead of Vilnius it is not intentional).Yeti 23:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * And as far as naming compromise is concerned I do not agree with that but IT IS a compromise. It is why I remove all modifications of Vilnius naming in 1920-1939 period even if I'd prefer to leave Vilnius consequently throughout the article.Yeti 23:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) and Halibutt

German name of the city
To: Irredenta This is an English Wikipedia, not German. German language was not so important for the city that we need to include German name in the heading. On the same basis there is no Swahili name, or Russian names in articles about German cities, even if they were occupied by Russians. Please, do not start edit war. Yeti 14:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You did start this edit war, user:Yeti! The German name for this city is more important that the Polish name is. Please, stop your annoying vandalism, as it leads to nothing. --Irredenta 15:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Please, Irredenta, it makes no sense to quarrel about who started an edit war. The fact remains that you are putting the German name of the city and others (namely me and Yeti) find this name irrelevant. Here's the conflict and I'd like to see it resolved, without having to revert to an edit war. This article hasn't seen any yet and I'd rather we left it that way.


 * You claim that the German name is more important than the Polish one. Could you elaborate a bit? What makes you think that way and why? Also, why is the German name relevant in an article about a city that was occupied by Germany for exactly as long as Warsaw, Kopenhagen, Brussels or any other capital seized by the Nazis? Also, why don't you add the German name to Paris or Rome? Halibutt 16:11, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * The German name of the town has nothing to do with the Nazis and/or with the military occupation of the city during Second World War. The German name of the town was not invented by the Nazis, it is very much older. As the town, in the old days, was an important place for trading, it had a Polish and also a German minority. Therefore, it also has a Polish and a German name. But remember, this is nothing but history. Today the town is a Lithuanian city. Today there are around 100 million people in Europe using the German language as nativ language, but only around 40 million people with the Polish language as nativ language. So today it is more important to mention the German name of the city as to mention the Polish name. I know that some Polish nationalists use to take the existence of a Polish name for a city as a claim for that town to be Polish. But I am not a Pole. I do not connect the existance and/or the use of German names with any claim, in both ways. There are German towns without a German name, for example Saarlois. But to me, is does not have to has a German name to be a German town. On the other hand, the existance and the use of the German names for towns like Warsaw, Lisbon, Milan or Geneva does not mean, in any way, that I consider these towns to be German. Almost all important German towns have got extra names in foreign languages. The existance of a foreign name is, to me, just a sign of the importance of that town. I know that you both consider to take everything, realy everything connected with Germany to be "unimportant". But I do not share your opinion that Poland was a globe. Vilnius has got a German name, and that German name is not less important than the Polish name. Beside this, the German name for Paris is "Paris". I will not add this to wikipedia, as it would be of no sence. The German name for Copenhagen is "Kopenhagen", that is just a spelling version of the English name for København. And why shall I remove the German name "Mailand" from the article Milan? I find it very annoying that you can't talk about Germany or the German language without talking about the Nazis again and again. This is the side about the Lithuanian capitol, but user:Halibutt can't resist to talk about Nazis, war and time of occupation. Is that realy everthing you do know about history? --Irredenta 17:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Irredenta. You do not understand or pretend not to understand or ignore the rules of the Wikipedia. The problem is not the number of Germans, or Poles, but the fact of relevance of the name in a language in the city's history. Vilnius always was a multiethnic city for centuries. But it does not mean that there should be names in German, Yidish, Tatar, Karaim in the heading. Why? Because this is an encyclopedia, not an elaborate about names of Wilno. You can always make a link to an article about the names of Wilno in different languages. So why there is a Polish name, not German? Because Polish was as important for Wilno as German for Wroclaw (Breslau). Basically, because it was an official language of the area for more than 100 years (1697-1795, 1919-1939) and because Poles constituted huge majority of the population of the city (almost 70% in 1939). It does not mean that Poles claim the city. In the fact the resentments of Poles to territories that constituted a part of Poland before 1939 are much, much weaker (even amongst Polish expelles) than Germans to Wroclaw or Szczecin.German names are relevant to articles about such towns and cities like Riga, Tallin, Prague, Poznan, Wroclaw, even Lviv, because German used to be official language in the cities in some periods. But this does not apply to Vilnius. In this case the only acceptable names in the heading (beside Lithuanian of course) are Belorusian, Polish and Russian. I hope that we can cooperate like civilised people in creating Wikipedia without not necessary wars. Regards.Yeti 20:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand that the city used to be an important trade centre for merchants comming from many countries. Also, I understand that there used to be some German minority there (probably mostly in the Middle Ages, but still there might've been some Germans living there in the 19th century and 20th century. However, you should not confuse the articles about cities with the List of European cities with alternative names. It is a commonly accepted policy to add the names of the town in various periods of its' history in the header and all the rest in that article. Other than that we'd have 30KB-long headers for most of European cities. After all there were other, much influential merchants in a plethora of cities - the French, the Byzantines, the Brits, the Flemish, the Spaniards, Scots, Czechs, Poles, Muscovites... all of these nations were famous for their trade and - following your logic - should be mentioned in the header of almost any city in Europe. London was a big seaport and the capital of a huge empire, so we should also add the names in all major languages of the former British empire, from French (Canada) to Hindi and from Greek (Cyprus) to Arabic (Egypt)...


 * That's why I was referring to the short period in history when the official name of the city ('though probably never used by its' inhabitants) was in German. And Nazis have nothing to do with it, if Vilnius would be occupied by Germany 20 years ago for 3 years the situation would be practically the same. Capisci? Also, there are some 300 million of people worldwide who use Spanish as their mother tongue. Does it mean that we should mention the Spanish name in the header (if it existed)? If so, then what about Hindi, Swaheli, Chinese (both dialects, obviously), Japanese or Korean?


 * That's what I think and that has nothing to do with my attitude towards Germany or Germans. Similarily, I have nothing against the Swiss or Austrians. Not even against my ex girlfriend who was half-German (and born in West Germany). But why am I writing this? Why won't we just stick to the common sense and factual debate rather than pro personam arguments? How many names would we have to include in the header if we followed your logic? 20, I guess. Why not just list them all under List of European cities with alternative names and leave here only the names in the official languages used in various periods of the city's history? Halibutt 22:51, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems like this edit war should be stopped right now or it will never end. And the saddest thing is that German name does nothing wrong, nwither it is needed, so both sides are making this conflict for no reason. So now we all wait while some side will give up the figth, I hope it will be soon. Knutux 09:03, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)

Hey, what about Vilna, the former English name of the city? That should be in there ahead of the German name, which one is highly unlikely to find in an English language source. john k 12:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If Vilna for sure is the English name, we should move the article there. And if the name Vilna is mentioned, there is no need for an extra metion of Wilna, as it is almost the same. --Irredenta 03:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that Vilna is rather the former English name of the city. It is worth mentioning, but not in the title. Google is the key here:

--Halibutt 14:32, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Vilnius - 969 000
 * Vilna - 51 200
 * Wilno - 11 300

Yes, Vilna is the former English name. The city is now called "Vilnius" in English. But for the period up to, say, 1945, it is much more common to use "Vilna" in English. The older name should be mentioned prominently, since Vilna redirects to Vilnius and many people reading historical accounts that mention the city would likely come across the old name. I'm also glad to see that Irredenta agrees that "Wilna" should not be put in if "Vilna" is, so hopefully we can come to a consensus on this... john k 21:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Great! Halibutt

English name is Vilnius
I am aware of the fact that the name of Wilno is very dear to Polish people, and the name of Vilna (?) is dear to the Belarussians, but the English name seems to be Vilnius, and only this should be used in the English articles. I think it's a good idea to mention all other names in the headline, but only in the headline. We should use modern English, and any former English name seems to be very weird idea. PolishPoliticians 16:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with that, just a small correction: "the name of Vilnia is dear to _some_ Belarusans."


 * I agree, but only if you manage to convince the rest of the wikipedians at Talk:Gdansk to use this policy for Polish cities as well. Halibutt 07:25, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with you, Halibutt - I think Gdansk is just another story and we do not have to convince anyone. Every city's name has unique history, so is with Vilnius. Gdansk was officially renamed (even if some people called it by old name), but not Vilnius - it was never renamed. So let's discuss it separately in this talk page to find a solution which is most suitable for the article. So, I guess we'd like to hear those who are arguing on non official name usage. Knutux 09:06, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)


 * The situation is exactly the same: the Germans always called the city Danzig and the Polec called it Gdansk. The Lithuanians always called the city Vilnius (well, apart from the fact that the majority of Lithuanians might've called it Vilnia at one point) and Poles called it Wilno. At certain point in time the cities changed hands and their names were changed accordingly (at least all the road signs were changed). So the situation is the same. I suppose that a good idea would be to establish an all-wikipedian rule on how to treat the names of cities. Halibutt 13:29, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I do not understand your argument about road signs. Road signs show only local official name(s), but that does not make city name different in other languages. And let me ask you one question - would you call Vilnius as 'Vilnius' when refering to current days city in Polich wikipedia instead of using the Polish name Wilno? And if not, why should we use different names in English? Is English any different just because it is more widelly used? I don't want to start any edit wars or stay on my opinion forever, ut I do not find any real argument why current rules are better. Knutux 17:07, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Let's remember that we are discussing the English names, not the local names. As far as I am aware, the English name of the city of which this is a talk page was Vilna until 1945 or so. Thereafter it has gradually become Vilnius. It's fine with me if the city is just called "Vilnius" throughout the article. However, clearly the name Vilna (as well as the Polish name Wilno) should be mentioned in the headline. And the former English name, which one still encounters in contemporary historical accounts, as well as older works (1911 Britannica, for instance), should be mentioned more prominently than names used in other languages. john k 22:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just remember that John is a Nazi German chauvinist, and we he have tom make a common Lithuanian-Polish front agaist the German bandits. User_talk:Fuch the Nazis 22:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to discuss Gdansk at the Vilnius page. Let's talk about Vilnius. I agree that John is a German chauvinist bandit, so let's just ignore his propaganda talks Dave87 04:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I wasn't even disagreeing with you this time, for God's sake. And that's really nice pretending to be two different people.  Very clever. john k 19:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against former name mentioned. Polish name mentioning is also fair as it was local name some time. But I'm sure Vilnius should be used throughout the article. Knutux


 * Current English name should be used throughout the article also in the cases of Gdansk, Szczecin, L'viv, Kaunas, Hrodna etc. Also every time the reference of the city is used. I don't buy that every city has a different history and should be treated differently. I understand the need for treating Koenigsberg and Constantinople differently, but as far as majority, they all should be treated the same. Space Cadet 14:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On this we obviously disagree - but this is irrelevant to the subject of this talk page, on which we both agree that using Vilnius throughout is acceptable. I wouldn't mind using Vilna for the periods when the city is better known as that, either, but I don't really feel like it's worth fighting over. At any rate, I'm getting pretty disgusted with User:Caius2ga/User:Gdansk/User:Szczecin/User:PolishPoliticians/User:Fuch the Nazis/User:Dave87/Whateverother names he's going by. I'm also starting to get pissed off by the fact that those who are on his side of the argument never tell him off for this kind of crap like accusing me of being a "German chauvinist bandit" or a "Nazi German chauvinist". This is ridiculous, and it behooves anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion of these questions to disavow this trolling asshole. john k 19:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Lets just remove offensive statements of this discussion and ignore they were there. I don't think I heard opinion of anyone who is against using Vilnius throughout the article and mentioning Vilna/Wilno in the header. It would be niec to see if anyone is ready to fight for other side. If not, I guess we can change article without invoking edit wars? Knutux 04:44, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)
 * I'm the first one, who's ready to fight for consistency, if we don't use the same convention for Gdansk, Szczecin, L'viv, Kaunas, Torun, Elblag, Hrodna etc. Space Cadet 13:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Couldn't support more. Halibutt 17:25, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, of course. So, If we accept this convention for Vilnius, we have to revise Gdansk and other cities as well.Yeti 20:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course we don't have to do that. Don't be ridiculous. If you want to set a general policy, go to a policy page and argue for a general policy. But the fact that there's consensus that it has been agreed that one article about a particular city should be done one way certainly does not mean that you have the right to change about other articles as you please. We have not accepted a convention for Vilnius - we have decided to call the city Vilnius throughout the Vilnius article. We have not decided to do this at Gdansk. If you want to propose that we call all cities the same name throughout their article, go ahead and suggest that somewhere, but don't pretend that agreement on one article forces your favored versions onto other articles. If there is general consensus that city articles should be dealt with as you want to do, I'm happy to go along with that. An agreement on this particular article does not, however, indicate such consensus. And I reserve the right to demand that Gdansk/Danzig be referred to by the latter name for the 1454-1793 period if you insist on dragging this back up again.... john k 22:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is not fair. This is identical situation. I remember that in discussion about about naming of Gdansk you obliged to defend this convention in articles about formerly Polish cities. I can use all YOUR arguments from Gdansk discussion to defend using Wilno in the article. Vilnius is entirely new name in English and WAS NOT used in English before 1920. Please, do not be hypocrite and defend your opinion in all cases or give it up. Bye.Yeti 00:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but Wilno was also not used in English before 1920. Or after 1920 for that matter.  Wilno was never the principle name of the city in English.  The city was called Vilna, a name not locally used (but similary to the German name Wilna) in English before some time after World War II, and was called Vilnius afterwards.  I have no idea at exactly what point it can be said to have changed, but it is unrelated to the fact that the local name of the city changed from Wilno to Vilnius after World War II.  john k 15:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So, according your arguments Vilnius should be consequently called Vilna for the beriod before 1920 as it was ENGLISH name and by the way is almost identical with the name in the official language of the country for most of the time from 14th century, Old Ruthenian. I insist, do not be a hypocrite.Yeti 16:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm still confused about being a hippy. I'm perfectly happy to argue that it should be called Vilna for the period before 1920, although I don't think the situations are analogous - it is awkward to move from calling it by an English name to calling it by the local name, don't you think?  At any rate, I wasn't arguing for that because, as I said, I don't think the case is as strong in this instance as it is in Gdansk/Danzig, and I didn't really feel like getting into another stupid fight about this.  I'm not sure why you're arguing that I need to disagree with you on this issue because I disagree with you about something else.  So, my position in short: I'm not sure what the right thing to do for Vilnius is, so I'm willing to go along with the majority, and with the status quo.  I'd note that in all of this discussion, nobody was actually proposing changing usages of Vilnius to something else, as far as I am aware.  When I came, all I did was add a mention of the former English name Vilna at the top.  Nothing new has happened which has exposed me as a hypocrite - this article has always called the city Vilnius throughout, and I have never done anything about it.  So I suppose you can say I've always been a hypocrite, but this is not a new condition.  The dispute which initially brought my attention to this article had nothing to do with this issue, but with whether or not the German name "Wilna" should be mentioned in the article.  john k 19:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Please, do not be suprised. We warned you YOU and other persons refusing consequent using the name of Gdansk will face such situation. I suppose that we should solve this problem anyway. I would like to leave Vilnius throught the article but I can not accept different conventions in Gdansk and Vilnius articles because the situation is almost identical. So, do you have a proposal how to finish it and keep everybody happy?Yeti 19:50, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Huh, you warned that this would be a problem. But it's only a problem because you're making it a problem by suggesting that I should disagree with you about this page.  This is completely ridiculous.  At any rate, I'd be happy to have this page call the city "Vilna" for earlier discussion, but I imagine you wouldn't like that.  At any rate, I suggest we not do anything about it piecemeal - this should be discussed in the context of creating a general policy.  In fact, why don't we start a policy page to try to iron out a general policy for this issue?  This would seem to be better than fruitless arguing over individual pages.  Once a reasonable policy that is minimally acceptable to everyone is come to, then we can go back and change the individual pages. john k 20:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All we are saying (is give peace a chance) is that we either use the convention for other cities that concern us, or we're not buying it for Vilnius only. You're misinterpreting again. And don't give us your "not again". The solution for Gdansk was supposed to be temporary anyway. Myself, I was just waiting patiently, until somebody from the other side of Polish border gets struck with the absurdity of calling the same city by different name in the same article for the sake of God knows what. And you can have your right to demand whatever you want! Space Cadet 23:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's fine with me if you don't buy it for Vilnius. But the name used for earlier discussion should clearly be "Vilna", the English name, and not "Wilno", which was never widely used in English.  If you'd like to do that, that's fine with me.  I imagine you would not. john k 15:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's good old John Kenney we all know and love... Halibutt 02:03, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that consistency is very important and asme rule should be followed everythere. But don't make this article hostage by saying that if good rule is not followed in other articles, this cannot follow it either. I think that it is nice that no one argues that the rule is right in this article and we can apply it. And then, this consensus can be shown in other discussions as an argument. Knutux 06:36, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)


 * Knutux, I was wondering, if you could do us all a favor and join the discussion about Gdansk and Szczecin. I don't want to hold any article hostage, but I just would like to know your honest opinion about the naming convention for the cities mentioned above. Please take your time to read and analyze all the arguments ant discussions. I don't want you to feel pushed into any opinion. Thank you for your cooperation. SC


 * And yet again it happens that Polish-Lithuanian related discussions can be kept civilized and constructive while the Polish-German relations are constantly trolled by some close-minded bunch of people... Good going, gentlemen! Halibutt 14:18, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose in such situation it would be fine to make a short discussion with

THE Wikipedia naming convention
The Polish page for Vilnius is called Wilno (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilno). It uses the Polish name (Wilno) 19 times in the article for all historical periods. The Lithuanian/English name of Vilnius is mentioned only once in the header.

The German page for Vilnius is called Wilna (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilna). It uses the German name (Wilna) 25 times in the article for all historical periods. The Lituanian/English, Polish and Yiidish names are mentioned each once in the header.

The Lithuanian page is called Vilnius (http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnius). It uses various Viln* names 20 times for all historical periods. Other versions are not nontioned.

I don't see why we should not use this good convention also in the English Wikipedia. Polish convention is Wilno, German convention is Wilna, Lithuanian convention is Vilnius, The English name of the city is Vilnius and this should be the English convention. '''In this English language article the city should be called Vilnius in all historical and modern references. Other names could be mentioned in the header. Once only.'''. I think this is THE Wikipedia naming convention and should be used in all English language articles. PolishPoliticians 23:52, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sigh....do you just copy and paste this garbage? Plus, it doesn't even support your argument - the Lithuanian article actually uses the name Vilniaus for historical discussion. At any rate, the basic fact is that English essentially treats city names differently from other languages. If it were like other languages, the city would still be called "Vilna", and we wouldn't have a problem. But the English language seems to have a strong tendency of late to use the local names of cities. Germans and Poles, apparently, aren't concerned with offending Lithuanians by using their own languages' name for the Lithuanian capital. English-speakers, however, have abandoned their own language's name for the city in favor of the local name. What does this mean for earlier periods? Should we just use the present day name "Vilnius", even though it was not used in English before 1945, and was not the name by which the city was known to its inhabitants? This is awkward, I think. But the other alternatives are awkward - it would be awkward to use Wilno, which has never been in English usage. But it would also be awkward to use Vilna, and then switch halfway through to Vilnius, because there was no clear name change from Vilna to Vilnius - Vilna was a name only used in a language not spoken in the city. It's as though English speakers always called the German city Mainz by the French name "Mayence" and then Mainz suddenly came to be inhabited by Spaniards who renamed it Mayenza, and then at some later date English-speakers started using Mayenza instead of Mayence. So, while one could, I suppose, make arguments for various different ways of doing it, I was just going along with the seeming consensus at just keeping it at Vilnius (a consensus which was expressed by every Polish participant here). It was only after I agreed with this that you guys suddenly come on with your "well, now Danzig has to be changed now, too." The situation with Danzig is simpler, though, and makes use of two different names over the course of historical discussion less awkward. Danzig is both the former local name (like Wilno) and the former English name (like Vilna). As such, it is sensible to use Danzig for earlier discussion, and Gdansk later on. At any rate, that's my view of the difference. Does this make any sense at all? john k 15:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many insults you produce against people you disgaree, it will not change the fact that the English name of the city is Vilnius. Thank you for you attention. PolishPoliticians 20:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the city has no name in English, having never been important enough to English-speakers for them to be anything but a loanword from another language; hence, the fluidity with which the name changes when the city's occupants change. On the other hand, were Rome to be occupied by Poles, English-speakers would probably go right on calling it Rome without bothering whether the locals called it Roma or Rzym. Shimmin 03:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This is nothing. What about Kaunas (Kovno), Hrodna (Grodno - even today almost solely used in English, Google check) etc.?


 * Gosh, even John K. can keep civilized... It's been ages since I agreed with both what he says and how he says that.. I'm astonished, really.


 * As I said, John is basically right. And what he wrote points us to certain disadvantages of both methods. On one hand there is a risk of using wrong names for wrong periods of time in the history section. On the other hand, however, consistent usage of present names might lead to really funny and misleading situations. Has anyone heard of Battle of Volgograd? If certain facilities in Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna/whatever were started several hundred years ago but still have their continuation (Vilnius University for instance), then there is no problem. However, many things are not continued in the city after it changed hands. What should we do with the Wilno School of Biology? Renaming it to Vilnius School of Biology would be an anachronism. What should we do with it? Halibutt 03:02, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Halibutt, I don't know why you are trying to confuse anyone with non-city names, but names which includes city name. Those names should be used consistently, but that does not mean that city name included in the name should be current. For example, I would use Volgograd in all the references and in article, but Battle of Staliningrad is the name of the battle, it does not depend on current name. And I think that the oposite usage is very confucing - like in Vilnius University which is called University of Wilno/Stefan Batory University/Stephen Bathory University/Wilno University/Kapsukas University and that does not make articles more clear. Knutux 04:19, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

Thanks Halibutt - I'm glad we can sometimes agree on things. At any rate, Knutux, I think very few people would agree with you in cases like Volgograd, where the name was actively changed to something different. To say that St. Petersburg was besieged by the Germans from 1941 to 1944, or that Kaliningrad was the citadel of the Teutonic Order, is just weird. Cities like Gdansk and Vilnius are clearly in a somewhat different category, since the name changes are as much different ways of transliteration/translation as they are different names. john k 08:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand that city renaming is a different story, but relate. Renaming should absolutely be mentioned in history and former name may be used in some context, but it should always be written in the way that any reader can follow the article. And there are different cases of renaming - when some name was temporary used and when it was renamed permanently. Your example with Kaliningrad is the case with permanent renaming and there is no way start city history with a name Kaliningrad as this name is very young. But in other cases it is different. For example, if Marijampol&#279; was renamed to Kapsukas after WW2 and changed back to Marijampol&#279; after Lithuania regained independence, there is not much cases then Kapsukas makes any sense - you can say 'Sugar factory was built in Marijampol&#279;'. Of course, there are exceptions and in some cases former name is needed. Knutux 09:46, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I suppose that there's not much point in using particularly short-lived names. For instance, I don't think the Gdynia article should call the city "Gotenhafen" when discussing it during World War II, just because that name was of such short duration, even though most World War II literature does call it that. "Petrograd" is a similarly ephemeral name, and it makes sense not to use it in the body - at any rate, I agree with you that essentially what is needed is making judgment calls - "What is the best way to do things in this particular article?" rather than hard and fast rules which, given the differing circumstances of different cities, can be hard to work out. Although some kind of general guidelines are needed on this, I think, because we keep on getting into arguments about this. john k 15:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Strange, I fully agree with what you say - again. However, please take note that such a policy would be seen by many as trying to force some double standarts. Just try to look at the problem from other perspective: former German names have a right to be called with German names in the history section while former Polish names are treated differently. While your proposal is sensible (just as any other, to be sincere), it might cause troubles. That's why I believe that we should have one, fixed wikipedia policy on cities' names, their usage in the history section and the header. Halibutt 18:28, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Halibutt, I know it's not really fair between German and Polish names, but I think the fault lies mostly with the English language, which for a long time normally called cities in Central/Eastern Europe by German names, and has never really used Polish names. At any rate, I fully agree that a policy needs to be determined for how to deal with these questions. I'd prefer a relatively flexible policy, but I'd be willing to agree with whatever is agreed to, assuming that there is significant participation from people who haven't been involved in these arguments heretofore so that we have a genuine consensus of editors, rather than a consensus of those of us who've been mouthing off about this stuff for the last year or so. At any rate, I'm not sure what the best location for a page to discuss this policy would be. Any ideas? john k 18:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * We could create some new discussion under Naming Conventions to list all the problems, make everybody agree with them and then discuss about solutions which may solve all the problems identified. This discussion would involve only non-renamed cities which do not have a common name in English (Gdansk, Vilnius, Kaunas, etc). Any ideas about this idea?? Knutux 10:08, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

Well, there's Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) - but I always thought the naming conventions series was on naming articles, not naming cities. At any rate, that's probably as good a place as any. Now, the idea about "non-renamed cities" i have some questions about, because I don't think this is at all clear. Was St. Petersburg>Petrograd not a renaming because it was a translation? There's all kinds of permutations. I think we should keep the purview as broad as possible so that we can come up with different ways of dealing with different contingencies. john k 10:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) is the place to go.

That sounds fine with me. john k 17:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've started discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). john k 22:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VARIA
Perhaps Vilnians is not English? Linas 21:01, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, but it would perfectly fit the scheme of Varsavians (not Warsavians nor Warsovians) and other similar names. Also, it is a way to evade splitting the list onto "inhabitants of Vilnius", "inhabitants of Wilno", "inhabitants of Vilna" and so on. Halibutt 04:40, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

About were replaced with Lithuanians: I don't have statistical data right with me here, but facts are approximately following: 100 – 200 thousands of population directly after WWII. 600 – 700 thousands inhabitants presently. I think, now more Poles (in absolute, not relative numbers) live in Vilnius city than in 1944 – 1948 years. But anyone may calculate it himself. So, the statement about replacing is misleading. I have ratiocinated other considerations, why it's better to avoid such sentence, but this statistical one is quite eloquent and neutral. Linas 19:04, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)


 * According to the Lithuanian 1939 census for the "Vilnius Country", or the Polish areas annexed by Lithuania in 1939, there were 321 700 Poles in the area. In addition, until December of that year there were approximately 36 000 reffugees from other parts of Poland, mostly in the city of Wilno itself (source: Red Cross report). During the first wave of the post-war depatriation, the registration of Poles wanting to go to Poland lasted from December 28, 1944 to March 11, 1945. Despite numerous "irregularities", until March 10 there were 102 348 people registered in the city itself.


 * Until November 1, 1946, when the depatriation was officially ended, there were 111 341 people registered in the city of Wilno. Out of that number 90 630 left the area for Poland while approximately 20 711 stayed.


 * So, now you have the statistical data. Unless stated otherwise, it comes from the joint Polish-Lithuanian Commission report of 1946, which was published in both Lithuanian SSR and in Poland. The Polish title is Dwustronnie uzgodnione dane statystyczne pod&#322;ug rejonów ewakuacyjnych o przebiegu repatriacji z terytorium Litewskiej SRR do Polski and the document can be found in the Archiwum Akt Nowych under GPRRW, sygn. 167. Perhaps the population of 20 000 grew after the war and perhaps even the number is higher than before the war. However, the expulsion and resettlement of almost the entire population of the city needs mentioning. Halibutt 06:21, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Surely. But I meant only form of the sentence, not the fact itself. The form was hardly acceptable because of its possible interpretations by an ignorant reader. Thus I have revised the next paragraph (the one about consequences), while the first one (about the events), I think, is good. It may be supplemented only, e. g. with statistical data, including ones posted by you. Linas 12:54, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)


 * As a sidenote: I'm working on the Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania article, which - some day - should list all the censae organised there between 19th century and now. I thought of that article as an enhancement of the article on Central Lithuania, but perhaps the info posted there could be useful in this article as well.


 * So far the article is placed in my namespace (and far from being ready), but feel free to add to it. Halibutt 14:11, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Latest changes by Halibutt
I made some minor glitches to the text recently. For instance: --Halibutt 10:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed the Famous inhabitants of Vilnius into Famous Vilnians. The reason for that is that the majority of those listed never used (or perhaps never even heard) the Lithuanian name for that city. And this way we could avoid that problem.
 * Changed the names in the History section to the contemporary names, as per the good ol' Gdansk/Danzig rules. Regardless of the city's present name we should avoid anachronisms.
 * I commented out the ethnic composition as per the latest census of 2001. The percentages used in this text are different from the sources I found - check the Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania for details
 * Added the Vilna name. I have no idea why, but the city is called that way by many English speakers - even nowadays
 * Inserted back the .ogg file erased by an anon
 * I also added back the list of famous Vilnians, deleted by the same anon


 * Hi Halibutt :-), what is there left to be discussed about the 2001 census numbers ?
 * Lysy 10:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Lysy, Long time no see... It's that this report, for instance, gives some completely different numbers. Halibutt 11:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, no, they seem exactly the same. What am I missing ?
 * Lysy 14:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Bah, I must've got confused by the anon user, who meddled with those numbers quite a lot and changed them frequently. Sorry for that. Halibutt 15:28, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

to stupid polish nazi halibutt
You are stupid polish slavic monkey. Now I always erase your stupid falsifications. And remember to all times that there was exist ONLY Vilnius.

Your homeland is in Lower Dniepr, stupid slave. 1/3 of the present "poland" is occupied Baltic Land. Go and scrape to your slavic web, but don't pollute others.

Vilnietis


 * Hey! Let's keep this civil. The above is a strong violation of No Personal Attacks, not to mention Wikiquette and Wikilove. If you have problems with Halibutt's edits then you should both discuss them in a civil manner. After all attacking someone personally will only make them the victim, and make other less sympathetic to your side. I strongly suggest you refrain from attacking people personally in the future. If not it will only result in action being taken against you. -JCarriker 13:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was severely offended, but I'm still ready to discuss any issues that anon user finds controvercial or in need of attention. However, I' mot sure if what that user wrote about me is all he/she has to say... Halibutt 07:09, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good. It's nice to see that you are still willing to create a dialogue despite the anon's personal attacks. In regards to whatever they have to say about you, or Lysy, or anyone else he/she had better keep it polite. As Piotrus says below-- we will be watching. -JCarriker 11:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations to Wikipedia
Congratulations to Wikipedia which employes the polish fascistes! I gratulate you with the best polish fascist propaganda in internet! Long live the rubbish Wikipedia!

The real, not falsificated History of Lithuania and its capital Vilnius
The real, not falsificated by polish chauvinistes (nazis) History of Lithuania and its capital Vilnius you can find on: www.Lietuva.lt -> history, www.istorija.net

Arturas


 * Dear anonymous, please try to discuss what troubles you here instead of insulting people. You will not win much support this way. Thank you. Lysy 19:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lysy, I never discuss with the open falsificators and with nazis, such most of slaves are. Arturas from Vilnius

Are there any ops here? I believe constant vandalism and calling people nazis is not what Wikipedia needs... Halibutt 05:18, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Here. I can protect the page if you feel it is necessary. I can ban him, but he is using range 85.206.x.x. so it is difficult to stop him without cutting many innocent users. I am open for suggestions - and of course, as all Wiki admins, we are on your side. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, polish slavic monkeys
You slavic monkeys can wright here all the shit what you want. But all world knews what realy you are - the trashy mutantes from Lower Dniepr. Your "poland" has no rights to exist - it is only band of slavic trampes.

Vilnietis


 * Hmmm... Very constructive, indeed. What was the purpose of that post (apart from getting yourself banned)? Halibutt 13:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * "85.206.194.155" has been blocked. For 24h. And moving his junk to one section, so it doesn't clutter the talk forums too much. Your friendly neighbourhood admin :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to Petjka Chuje&#269;ny - Propizdonsul
Why didn't you "block" me, stupid slave? As all trashy slaves, you can only bla bla bla.

Antislav


 * I'm afraid this sick person leaves us little choice: either to block two entire IP ranges or simply ignore him and wait until the doctors come and take care of him. Halibutt 15:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

And the property of citizens of occupied Danzig, Breslau and Kolberg was given to communist Poles.

Antislav

Very short and very clear
Slaves - to gas chambers.

I suggest blanking vandal entries or at least moving them to an archive. Wiki is no place for vandal graffiti. Any objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to polish chauvinistes
Have to be: The famous inhabitants of Vilnius.

Your filled list of "vilnians" is false. "vilnians" - what is it? All of them (exept Gaon of Vilnius) were not real Vilniuses - they were not born in Vilnius. Famous? Are they famous to who? I think they are famous only to polish chauvinistes.

Arturas from Vilnius


 * Wow, that at least is something... serious? I already explained why I prefer the term vilnians. It's 100% correct and could describe both the inhabitants of Wilno, Vilna, Vilnius and whatever the name that city had in the past. The other option would be to have three separate lists of names. Not a good choice IMO.


 * As to the people listed - indeed, most of them were not born in Vilnius. However, most of them were born in Wilno and all of them were among the most notable people who lived and worked in/for that city. Just write which name should not be listed and we could start discussing it. Halibutt 05:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

to polish chauvinist - falsificator halibut
Dear child,

I don't have any wish to discuss with you. You and your friends are only immature polish chauvinistes. As most of slaves, you are the open falsificator (despite your young age).

And remember to all the times - Vilnius like a settlement exists from the mesolith times, and like the medieval city - from 9th century. It was the Balts' settlement and after Lithuanians' settlement, city and capital. And from this time it has ONE name - VILNIUS. The various foreighners couldn't spell it correctly and called - ruthenians Viljnja, poles Vilno, jews Vilna. Like they called LIETUVA - Litua, Lituania, Lithuania, Litva, Litauen.

Our people are laughing from your polluting here. They don't have a time to play with you childish games.

Historian from Vilnius


 * Dear anonymous user, I seriously doubt you are a historian. Calling people names and trying to promote one view over others is not what people are taught in history faculties - be it in Poland, Lithuania or Morocco. However, there is some hope. I believe that wikipedia would only benefit from your lack of time to edit it.


 * If you don't have time to discuss your controvercial views on history, do not be dissappointed if you see your changes reverted and your address blocked. Halibutt 07:18, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

History: post-war demographics
Vilna is one of Jewish spellings, and, naturally, is popular in Western sources. - I'd like to return to the problem of postwar changes (demography). The true development was this: The graetest majority of Vilnians left the city during "repatriation" (for better understanding I should add one thing here. Majority of these people had right to acquire Lithuanian citizenship after 1939.10. I don't know how many of them embraced this possibility, but it isn't essential for us here. So they were potential citizens of Lithuania, and my compatriots. I don't make essential difference among emigration of Lithuanian intelectuals in 1944 and this repatriation. This caused some solution of Polish - Lithuanian disagreements in area of earlier Lithuanian state, but it was the worse solution of possible ones.) Later, many people migrated into the city. Inhabitants of Lithuania did (Lithuanians, from all Lithuania, and Poles, mostly from Vilnius region, including the Belarusian part), and people from other Soviet Union, mostly Russians (later they all were called, not always justly, Russian-speaking folks). - Now, we have new revisions in the text, which make things unclear if not distort true facts. I mean unclear here "Russian rural inhabitants" etc.

It all needs a routine revision, but I have tired, especially after the latest revising history. :) Linas 09:48, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)


 * Obviously, this text is kept short and thus some simplification cannot be avoided (BTW: how about a separate article on History of Vilnius ?). Currently the fragment reads:
 * These events, coupled with the immigration of Russian and Lithuanian rural population into the city during post-war years had critical influence on the demographic situation.
 * AFAIK the population of Vilnius after the war (1947) consituted something like 20% of the pre-war population (1939). In other words, the city was virtually empty. This vacuum had to be filled by someone, mostly Lithuanians from rural areas of Lithuania and Russians from Russia. Is this not correct ?
 * How about this:
 * These events, coupled with the immigration of Lithuanians from rural areas of the country and Russians from other Soviet republics during post-war years had critical influence on the demographic situation of the city.
 * Is this what you had in mind ?
 * Lysy 11:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I see, You understood well the ambiguity of the phrase “Russian and Lithuanian rural population”. For Russians shouldn't be connected with any definition either urban or rural. Other situation is when we speak about Lithuanians and (and it should be emphasized in our situation) Poles (many of Poles, that presently live in the city, also have migrated from around Vilnius). But it isn't very exact, when we define them as rural population too. The process wasn't such simple, that rural people would have migrated to Vilnius. Migration was from villages to towns, from towns to cities and from towns and other cities to Vilnius. Naturally, there were also direct currents from villages to cities, incl. Vilnius. I included a sentence earlier, that demographic situation in Vilnius was changed significantly by later migrations, caused by decreasing  number of rural population,even more than by these post-war events. But it doesn't mean in any case, that only rural people migrated to Vilnius. So, I think it's better to avoid such definition as rural in this sentence.


 * I think it could be stressed that much of the urban culture has been lost with the migrations. Maybe "rural" is too misleading here. I've changed it hopefully to better reflect the situation, but still it's far from perfect. Lysy
 * I've checked it and found no sources to support that Poles were migrating to Vilnius after the war. On the contrary, most of Poles stayed in rural areas surrounding the town, with the ones from Vilnius itself being "repatriated", which made the hole in the centre of the Polish ethnic area. So I'm backing these changes off until there's some more evidence in favour of these claims. Lysy 08:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have however problem with the following sentence, mentioning "growth of cities in Lithuania during this period". What period is meant here ? Lysy 22:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Other thing, and it has been discussed, that someone had written, that Lithuanians and Russians replaced Poles. If we imagined this process like replacement (I doubt, if it's possible, but let it be), the picture will be like this. Directly after (or during) “repatriation” Russians (see the earlier note about what we call Russians) and Poles (ones from around the city) migrated to Vilnius. It's perhaps hardly believable, but Lithuanians almost didn't take part in it. Perhaps its cause was stalinist terror in the country. The main current of Lithuanians should be dated from 1955 – 1960 year, and this migration, being comparable with migrations to other cities at this time,  wasn't  directly connected with earlier events. Migration was caused mostly by economic motives and not by nationalistic.
 * Linas 19:47, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)


 * So most of Vilnius was empty until 1955-1960 ? Are you sure about this ? I don't have the source at hand but I thought there was substantial Russian immigration after 1947. Also, after the "repatriation" action thousands of Lithuanians and Poles were either sent to gulags initially for the period of 10 years, then (I think after 1949, but I may be wrong) for indefinite periods. Many of them were immediately murdered, before leaving Lithuania. Thousands of families were also deported to remote destinations of Soviet Union. Again, significant fraction of these deported were citizens of Vilnius and their property was confiscated (which probably means given to Russians or Lithuanians). I'm quite aware that the above is oversimplification, and that each single case was much more complicated to be described in a concise encyclopedic article.
 * Lysy 20:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)