Talk:Vilnius/Archive 4

Archiving
I have archived large parts of the old talk pages. I have left the table with the various census up as it might become useful for the page - I really think it should go in there. teh talk relate dto it should then go into /Archive 2. The "Lithuanian Version" should after resolution of current ongoing debate go at the top of /Archive 3 Refdoc 15:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) /Early discussions
 * 2) /Archive 2
 * 3) /Archive 3

Census Data

 * Maybe this will help you (data about nationalities exist only for several years). :

basic Lithuanian version
I think disputes never have been resolved if falsificated polish version will be as a basic. I think Lithuanian version have to be the basic.

Main reasons:

1) Center of Ethnic Lithuania
Vilnius for centuries was the geografical center of Ethnic Lithuania. Lithuania Propria or Ethnic Lithuania is the former Vilnius Vojvodship, Trakai Vojvodship, Samogitian County (Žemai&#269;i&#371; Seni&#363;nija Lithuanian) (adminitrative division of Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 1566, Lithuania Minor (Mažoji Lietuva Lithuanian) and northern part of Palenkė (Polexia)(untill river Naura (Narev). In 18th century Vileika and Dysna districts of Vilnius Vojvodship and the northern part of Palenkė were Lithuanian - Ruthenian mixed;

Very important point - Vilnius was center of Ethnic Lithuania, not of GDL -> see historical maps. Živinbudas


 * Fine with me. However, we'd have to describe that it changed with time. Halibutt 16:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Of course. But I have to warn that those results weren't friendly to poles until polish occupation of Eastern Lithuania (1920 - 1939). Živinbudas


 * Were there any censae organised there before 1897? Feel free to add them. I know there was a city census (or rather the list of hoseholds) organised in 1657, but I thought that the results were lost during WWII. Do you have them? Halibutt 19:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Introduced into the article geographic centre of settled area. Refdoc 22:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you know that: "Until the end of the 19th century it also formed the geographic centre of the Lithianian settled areas". Where did you find this information ? Lysy 22:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deduced this from above. Halibutt appeared to accept this. Refdoc 22:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I wonder what exactly was "Lithuanian settled areas" in 19th century. I think Halibutt firstly expressed that it changed with time and then was surprised at data as of before 1897. If this was centre of a Lithuanian settled area in 19th century then where did the Belarusians go ? It may be right, but some explanations to support it would be helpful before it enters the article. No, I'm not trying to be difficult here, just cautious. Lysy 23:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll change "Until the end of the 19th century" into a bit weaker "Initially" until futher confirmed. Lysy 06:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2) 2001 census
Regarding 2001 census in Vilnius live 57,8 percent of Lithuanians;


 * The census as such is included. Please provide evidence for (slightly) higher result of Lithuanians than currently in article (57 vs 56%). Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see Lithuanian Wikipedia Vilnius. Živinbudas


 * According to the official census data (available from the website of Lithuanian Statistic Office) there were 542.287 inhabitants of the city of Vilnius the day the census was organised. Of them, 313.424 reported Lithuanian nationality, which gives roughly 57,7967% of the total population of the municipality. So, our insulting friend is right on this one. The data is available here. Halibutt 16:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

But I was informed that you are insulted (?). Its strange. Živinbudas


 * According to a different source, (table 5.8 thereof) the total population in 2001 was 553904 including 318510 Lithuanian. Why are these numbers different ? I must be missing or misinterpreting something. Help ! Lysy 17:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is the author of the second source? The first one has some implicit reliability I would say. Refdoc 17:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's Lithuanian Statistic Office again. Lysy


 * The difference is whether you count the city of Vilnius or Vilnius municipality. Check the numbers here (at the bottom of the page). The percentage should be almost the same for both areas. Halibutt 17:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this explains the minor difference in percentages. What's the differenence between Vilnius and Vilnius municipality anyway, and which one should be considered here ? Lysy 18:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Judging by the number of inhabitants, the difference must be very small. Halibutt 19:47, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * data for city rather than municipality introduced. The old data actually divided the citys ethnic numbers by the municipalitys total number.. Refdoc 22:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, I think you're producing false data this way. Maybe rvt to municipality, where at least all numbers and percentages were correct (and coherent) ? Lysy 22:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3) Vilnius and Voruta
Vilnius is known as a settlement from Mesolith times, later it was the Balts' setlement and from 9th century it was medieval city (archeological findings). It was the main Lithuanian city when Lithuanian State was established in 12th century. Mindaugas didn't have the permanent capital (as all monarches of that time), but Vilnius was his main city. He built the first church of Lithuania - Cathedral of Vilnius - here and probably was crowned as a King here. Gediminas made Vilnius permanent capital of Lithuania in the early 14th century (first mentioned in writing sources as already capital city in 1323, The Letters of Gediminas). Vilnius all the time of its existence was in Balts' and Lithuanians' ethnic teritory. First foreigners (mainly Germans, Ruthenians and Jews settled in the city after invitation of them by Gediminas after 1323. Until late 19th century Lithuanians always were the biggest community of the city;


 * Everything related to main city and crowning of Mindaugas here are sort of "probably maybe". There were foreigners in Vilnius before Gediminas invited Germans. Dirgela 16:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Large parts of this are included. The cathedral and crowning bit should be added The exact population counts/percentages are a matter of dispute and should be treated as such. I propose a section on census and population shift history with inclusion of all relevant disputes etcRefdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many points are very important. 1) Gediminas didn't "establish" Vilnius "as a village" (very funny), Vilnius was medieval city from 9th century (archeological findings). It couldn't obtain Magdeburg rights earlier because Lithuania wasn't christian country; 2) very important stresses are that Vilnius was main city of Mindaugas and became a permanent capital of Lithuania under Gediminas in early 14th century; 3) Letters of Gediminas to Hansa towns in 1323, not letter; 4) Foreighners as larger groups settled in Vilnius only after 1323 (invitation by Gediminas in Letters); 5) Lithuanians (not only Lithuanian speakers) always were the largest community in Vilnius until 19th century. &


 * As to Voruta being identified with Vilnius - it's quite arguable and even Lithuanian historians dispute it. Others identify the place with Kernave or simply say it was a misinterpretation of the Lithuanian word for capital. As to the Lithuanian speakers being the majority in the city prior to 19th century, we'd have to find some proof for that. Halibutt 16:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is disputed thing. But larger arguments for Vilnius are: 1) it was larger settlement (city) in Lithuania then, and 2) Mindaugas built Cathedral and probably began to build Vilnius Lower Castle here. &


 * I think it's enough to agree here that this is being disputed. We don't need to decide which version is more probable here. Even if only for the sake of brevity. Do you agree ? Lysy 18:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * We could include the disputed part in the article, simply saying it is dispputed: 'There is also a disputed (or yet unconifmed) theory that...' or sth along this line. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. In fact that how it reads already: "Some historians identify the city with Voruta, a forgotten capital of King Mindaugas". I think it's pretty neutral already. Lysy 14:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Guys, please remember that article is about Vilnius, not about history of Vilnius, so there is no need nor sense to include all possible ideas about history of Vilnius here. Let's save it for History of Vilnius article. Dirgela 16:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4) Lithuanian names
Because the pages are on Lithuania and Vilnius topics (not on "Poland") we should use the Lithuanian names of official State positions and Lithuanian names of rulers of Lithuania. In Lithuania after 1392 the rulers were Grand Dukes. There was Supreme Duke of Lithuania Jogaila (since 1386) (not "Wladislaus II of Poland"), Grand Duke of Lithuania Žygimantas Senasis (not "Sigismund II of Poland"), Grand Duke of Lithuania Steponas Batoras (not "Stefan I of Poland");


 * I largely agree - i.e. I agree with regard to positions. "Grand Duke" shoudl take preference for "King of Poland" . I have some doubts with regard to the names as these are names known in English speaking countries. Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we speak about Lithuania we should use Lithuanian dignities. I agree, we could use Latin names (as in documents) (as usualy is in English Historiography, but should added Lithuanian names - no use of polish names and dignities in Lithuanian topics. Živinbudas


 * As these people were all in personal union "Grand Duke of Lithuania" and "King of Poland" it is only helpful to the reader to make this clear. Also we should use the name as established in English. In the relevant personal page we can then put teh various national names. This is good practice across Wikipedia Refdoc 16:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But I never saw that in English textes about Poland they use Lithuanian dignities and names. Its strange. Živinbudas


 * Note that the Kings/Grand Dukes are referred to by their English names here, not by their Polish names. Compare the List of Polish rulers with its Polish version. Halibutt 16:57, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

To be precise - Latin names. See my commentary above. Živinbudas

Well, it is an English encyclopedia. There is a Latin one too. Refdoc 17:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not article about Lithuania or about Poland but about Vilnius. Nobody denies that Vilnius is Lithuanian town, but please also respect its history, even if it was not 100% Lithuanian history. It's also neither Polish nor Lithuanian version of wikipedia, but English. Therefore we should not be using Polish or Lithuanian names but English. Lysy 18:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, a Lithuanian name will be mentioned a first time each such name is used. And Polish one too, since it is customary to give the most important regional variants. But the English name should be used in the next occurrences. See Naming. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5) Neris
Lithuanians always called main river of Vilnius Neris, never Vilija;


 * I think both names are currently included Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In earlier version there is false statement, that Lithuanians use "Vilija" as well. Živinbudas


 * "Vilija" is Belarusian for Neris AFAIK. Belarusian was an official language in Lithuania for centuries. We should be refering to the river as Neris today, because it's an official Lithuanian name and I don't think there exist any alternative English name (?) Lysy 18:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6) Ras&#371; Cemetery
When were established and later there were Rasų cemetery (from rasa Lithuanian - dew English) and Medininkų Gate (from castle and settlement Medininkai);


 * All these buildings etc are mentioned or should be mentioned Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polish names in text about Lithuania are not correct. There isn't Lithuanian Rasų cemetery at all in previous version. Živinbudas


 * Note that what is now the Rasu Cemetery was established 1769 by Bazyli Miller, a Polish-German mayor of the city, in what was then the Rossa suburb (from Polish Rosa - dew). It wasn't until the 1801 expansion that the place started to be called Cmentarz na Rossie - Rossa Cemetery in English - which was the official name for that place until 1939. The Ras&#371; kapin&#279; name is a tad later. And usage of modern names when mentioning foundation seems quite strange to me.


 * Anyway, both places should be mentioned in the article (especially that I started both these articles ;) )Halibutt 17:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you started. Now many goes clearier. You mean Lithuanian-German (Litwin-German) mayor of the city? Živinbudas


 * "Bazyli Miller, the mayor of Wilno" (without mentioning his nationality, which seems irrelevant here). OK ? Lysy 18:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Basileus Müller? A German? Mayor?? This must be mentioned otherwise I go into a revert war!!! ;-) Refdoc 18:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oops, I hoped you wouldn't notice ;-) Lysy

7) Third partition
There was Third Partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795, not Poland (see explanation on Talk: Lithuania);


 * This is changed and is an appropriate change.Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is very important. &


 * Although it is quite disputable whether the PLC existed after the May Constitution. Halibutt 17:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

No any doubts. See Talk: Lithuania. &


 * While remarkable as a document, I guess the May constitution is really only an expression of a dying state, torn apart by its neighbours. And the death is not the death of Poland but that of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. So to call it the partition of the PLC appears to me rather more correct than anything else. This is quite irrespective of the legacy, foundational myth and inspiration provided by the May constitution to future Polish aspirations. tThe four remaining years under a differnt name do not really count IMHO Refdoc 17:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know, 4 years is the hell lot of time. Consider what happened to Vilnius between 1918 and 1922. If we pretend that four years do not really count, than Vilnius magically became Polish after the end of WWI. Lysy 19:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In some ways you are obviously right. In other ways, despite the terrible to's and fro's of e.g. 1917-1921 of Soviet October revolution are slowly getting subsumed into revolution + revolutionary wars. So i woudl say 4 years in the 18th century are somehow "less" time, than 4 years in teh 20th century - particularly as the 4 years of new constitution had litte or no consequence wrt Polish/Lithuanian relationship or did they? Refdoc 19:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW for those 4 years what was the name of the country? Refdoc 19:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In English books on history you would usually find "Partitions of Poland" not "Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", even ig we know that it might not be correct, but let's remember that it is English wikipedia and not a forum to express our ambitions that Lithuanian is sometimes not mentioned in English texts in all cases together with Poland. So I find it unimportant. Dirgela 17:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

8) Taryba
The Restoration of Independence of Lithuania was proclaimed by Lithuanian Taryba on February 16, 1918 in Vilnius. Germany recognized The Independent Lithuanian State on March 23, 1918 (as a first state in the world) in borders of Grand Duchy of Lithuania until the Third Partition of Commonwealth in 1795 with capital Vilnius. Taryba started to establish the state institutions. The first Cabinet of Ministers was established on November 11, 1918 in Vilnius. The first Prime Minister became Augustinas Voldemaras. On November 23, 1918 the Lithuanian Army was officialy established in Vilnius and formation of first Regiment of Gediminas started. This work was delayed because of Bolsheviks' invasion from the east in late December, 1918. Then armed formations of local poles showed in the city. It were slight forces and there weren't conflictes with Lithuanian forces. Lithuanian government decided temporary to leave the capital, because of Reds' invasion, and retreated to Kaunas. Lithuanian Tricolor Flag waved on Gediminas Tower until the entering of Reds. Vilnius was occupied by Bolsheviks on January 5, 1919. Lokal polish "forces" didn't play any important role in Lithuania's context and could be easily neutralised by Lithuanian Army. On June 30, 1918 in Berlin was reached an agreement between Lithuanian and Polish authorities in which Poles obligated to recognize The Independent Lithuania with capital Vilnius and support her. However the things went to other side;


 * In the Act of Restoration of Independence of Lithuania Lithuanian Taryba declares that it restores Lithuanian state in "ethnographic boundaries", and there is anything about boundaries of Lithuanian Grand Duchy until Third Partition. Remarks on Lithuanian ativities in Vilnius in 1918-1919 are relevant as they were not included in the version of the page at least when I first saw it. Dirgela 18:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Large parts of this are included. Some are not so much part of the history of the town and as of the history of Lithuania. Th e role and significance of Polish troups is then obviously something you intend to dispute. This is your right, but you shoudl bring some evidence. Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This text is extremely important, because poles would like to veil organizing of Lithuanian state in 1918 in Vilnius . Facts about marginal character of lokal polish forces is widely known in historiography. &


 * Interestingly, we are touching German POV again. Taryba was closely collaborating with Germans occupying the city at that time. In June 1918 Taryba elected German prince Wilhelm Herzog von Urach, Graf von Württemberg as king elect (under the name of Mendog II). Lithuania in 1918 was a German puppet state and Germany initially refused the right to elect Lithuanian State Council. However this not last long. Germany were losing WWI and in December Lithuanians created a new communistic government of V. Kapsukas and obviously broke all earlier alliances with Germany. Also in December 1918 Lenin recognised Lithuania as being under Soviet jurisdiction. Later Lithuania, while claiming neutrality, allowed Soviet troops to pass through its territory into Poland. Just my 3 cents on the background. Any comments ? :-) Lysy 19:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * To call Lithuania a puppet state of Germany in 1918 is not correct. First until november 1918 it was not functioning as a state and the role of Tarybas was very limited. Lithuania was under German occupation and Germany tried to play with Taryba and issued its recognition only to have formal support of Lithuania in Brest-Litovsk talks, later Germany largely ignored Taryba. "Lithuanians" in context of the communist government should be used with caution. Only a part of Lithuanians supported communists and mainly there were Red army had its shoe. Lenin did not recognize Lithuania as being under his jurisdiction, he recognized Lithuanian Soviet Republic as independent state. Lithuanian Soviet Republic never claimed neutrality and Lithuanian Republic was fighting with Red army at the same time when Poles did it. So if you want to know my opinion Lysy you are writing such a nonsense that I suspect you do this on purpose. Which is not funny btw. as there is enough obstruction here without you. Dirgela 18:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * All right. Anyway, this topic is hardly related to Vilnius article but rather to History of Lithuania. Lysy 19:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think collaborating is one way of expressing it but POV, Taryba would have described himself as allied with Germany... Where is the line of continueity - Taryba or Kapsukas? Refdoc 19:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the chain of traditions and continuity, I guess that post-WWI Lithuania was a continuation of Taryba rather than Kapsukas' clique, especially that it had rather rightist governments afterwards.


 * As to the original set of remarks by our anon: this matter is extremely complex and I believe it is bugged both in Polish and Lithuanian history books. If we mention the Lithuanian authorities and military formations formed in the city by name, then we should also mention the Polish ones. Perhaps they are not important to our anon friend, but they were IRL. The forces of local "self-defence" and Polska Organizacja Wojskowa might've been small, but certainly were not smaller than the abovementioned Lithuanian regiment. And after all it was them and not the Lithuanian unit who tried to defend the city against the Bolsheviks. If we fail to mention both sides of the story, then we might end up with a map of mighty Lithuania looking like this: . :) Halibutt 20:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * It could be mentioned that Taryba was quite nationalistic, and that most of national minorities in Lithuania at that time (Polish included) did not recognize it as any legal representation. But as Halibutt wrote, this is very complex and there are no easy answers. I'm not sure if these issues need to be deeply discussed in an article about Vilnius. Maybe just mention that it's highly controversial ? Lysy 21:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only Polish minority did not recognize Taryba, germans, belorussians and jews had their members in it. Dirgela 18:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * We deal with really and still different point of view here. For example, if Lithuania already were independent state, its politics might be turned to collaborate with any state including Germany or not to collaborate with any state, including Poland (I hint almost directly here). Taryba intended to found the independent state and Germans were our allies. The problem was, that Lithuanian Poles appreciated all this as perfidy. Lithuanians saw this collaborating with Germans as an optimal and quite incredible chance to restore Lithuania as state. But it all yet more alienated Poles from the idea of Lithuanian independence.


 * What concerns question of a puppet state, I myself don't understand what question is here, if not some ambitions. Taryba not only was restricted as central power institution in Lithuania by Germans, but almost not allowed to act in this role (till German revolution). De facto, we can say, the state of Lithuania even not existed then. De jure, Lithuania had been recognized by Germany as quasi independent state, but the recognition was being fulfilled very slowly.


 * On other hand, when stressing this dependence of Lithuania from Germany, some Lithuanians perhaps accept it as allusions to Polish then accusations, that Lithuanians helped Germans to separate one part of historical Poland from the new Poland. Later development showed, that Antante states start to foster Lithuania after the German capitulation and Lithuania remained independent state, taking off reality of these accusations.


 * What concerns the succession of then Lithuanian ruling, Lithuanian bolsheviks didn't intended to create an independent state. Kapsukas was asked by Lenin to create “independent Soviet republic” as temporary state for tactic purposes. Kapsukas didn't want do it himself before asked. Taryba not only proclaimed the independence, tried to implement it collaborating with Germans, but also ruled (already more real as a state than earlier) Lithuania after German capitulation under, as I've said, fostering of Antante till the elections of the Constituent Assambley (Constituent Seimas). So this question is out of a doubt.


 * I should add here that no state or nation before becoming independent wasn't dependent, puppet state, semi-independent or something like it. So, I don't understand the significance of rising this question here at all. Perhaps, to avoid all disagreements, we should stress that  Lithuania became really independent in few years, was recognized by nations of the world and became a member of the League of Nations? (perhaps only it doesn't concern question of Vilnius directly)
 * Linas lituanus 14:01, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

9) Lithuanian-Soviet Treaty
On July 12, 1920 in Moscow was signed the Treaty of Peace between Lithuania and Soviet Russia where Soviet Russia recognized The Independent Republic of Lithuania with capital Vilnius and Brėslauja (Braslav), Ašmena (Ošmjany), Lyda (Lida) and Gardinas (Grodno). This treatment is in force until now and was confirmed in 1926 Treatment of nonaggression and in 1934 Prolongation of Treatment of nonaggression. On the base of this treatmaent capital and teritories were returned to the Republic of Lithuania on July, 1920;


 * The first half is included. The reconfirmation of the contract in 1926 and 1934 is only of significance if it includes a Soviet acceptance fo Vilnius as the lIthuanian capital. Please provide evidence for this. If true than this would be an interesting addition - it would to some degree explain why Vilnius was added back to Lithuania and not left with Poland or given to Belarus by Stalin. Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that Soviets had plans to create a Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania, and those plans were made obsolete by the Polish victory at Warsaw. Only then did the Soviet decide to transfer Vilno to the Republic of Lithuania, as a better alternative (for the Soviets) then having Vilno fall directly to advancing Polish armies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, on the very day of signing the treaty, Soviet backed Lithuanian Communistic Party called Lithuanian proletariat to establish Soviet rule in the country. Later in August Lenin asked Kapsukas to postpone the communistic revolution in Lithuania as he considered the moment to be inappropriate in face of Soviet defeat at Warsaw (Lenin's telegram to Kapuskas of August 20). I believe this explains Soviet interest in Vilnius. Lysy 20:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This part is extremely important because of showing, that country which captured Lithuania for 120 years before, after always recognized its Independence with capital Vilnius. Pact of nonagression of 1926 and Prolongation of Pact of nonagression of 1934 where was confirmed Treaty of Peace (which include treaty of borders with capital Vilnius and Eastern Lithuania) of July 12, 1920 is widely known in Historiography. Živinbudas


 * Are you aware of Moscow specifically endorsing Vilnius as capital of Lithuania in the interbellum after the Conference of Ambassadors accepted the Polish annexation? I would be very surprised if Stalin allowed a small country like Lithuania to tie him down in such matters. Could you provide a link to the ENglish translation of the treaties of 1926 and 1934 or at leats Lithuanian, Russian or Polish versions so that someone here could confirm this? If confirmed than this would be a valuable addition. Otehrwise I would suggest we keep it on file until you are able to bring the text from the treaties to all our attention. This is not to single you out, but it is the standard procedure if controversial material is introduced. Refdoc 16:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is undeniable factes. And very good known in historical circles. To provide what you ask need a time. Živinbudas


 * That is fine. Once you have provided this we will include it. The text grows slowly and can gradually be improved. No problem if this particular bit is included today or in three weeks. Refdoc 17:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

10) Elections in "central Lithuania"
Polish army after the staged mutinity, broking all international treaties and obligations craftily occupied Vilnius  on October 9, 1920. Then puppet militaries proclaimed "separate state" of "Central Lithuania" (Litwa Srodkowa Polish). Liga of Nations protested. They rejected all proposals of Liga of Nations to organise FREE PLEBISCITE after the withdrawal of occupation polish forces from these areas . There were organised falsificated "elections" to "parliament" of "Central Lithuania" under Polish occupation army. Liga of Nations never recognized those "elections" as legal. Then "parliament" of "Central Lithuania" "affiliated" "Central Lithuania" to Poland in 1922. Liga of Nations again didn't recognize that "incorporation". However Conference of Ambasadors (not Liga of Nations itself) fixed status quo after the rejecting of Lithuania and Poland of Project of Hymans ;


 * All this has now been included, marking teh points of dispute. Relevant sections have been NPOVed.Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with the elections? How was the Vilno/Central Lithuania parliament elected? Were ballot box switched or false voting cards dumped? Were strong arm tactics used to discourage voters? Something else? I'd like to see a source on this. The difference between LoN and CoA must be explained in text (or at least interlinked). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say it is right to say that the election is not recognised by the relevant Lithuanian government. If we want to include further parties in the dispute e.g League of Nations we would need some evidence. If we want to say specifics re why teh election is considered not fair we would require further evidence of excat accusations. Having said this, teh presence of Polish troups an dteh demand by Lithuania for a plebiscite in absence of Polish troups is probably sufficient evidence to suggest that the Lithuanian government was worried about faked and strongarmed elections. Refdoc 11:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What troops would you like to see there to consider the elections free ? And was anyone denied the right to vote ? or forced to vote ? I understand that any elections could be faked. Were these ? Lysy 15:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding a plebiscite, Poland demanded it and Lithuania refused, as Lithuania would obviously loose it, considering that Lithuanian population was minimal in these areas. Lysy 15:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence Lysy, then please. Please remind youself I have little or no clue of Eastern European history - as the normal reader of Wikipedia. At the moment I think we can only say that the elctions were not recognised as fair and free by the Lithuanian government. Everything beyond this should be backed by further evidence - who demanded a plebiscite etc etc. who accused whom. Refdoc 18:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was League of Nations who proposed the plebiscite, but each of the opposing sides would only agree for a plebiscite on its own conditions, which were inacceptable to the other party. Obviously a free plebiscite would be lost by Lithuania because of the demographic situation of the area. As to the parliamentary elections, it's fair to say that they were not recognised by Lithuanian government but in any way this does not imply that these elections were not free or fair. One needs some evidence to support such claims. I do not see why Poles would want to fake the elections when they were sure if the positive result anyway ? Any idea ? Lysy 20:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And claiming that Lithuanian aothorities demanded plebiscite in Vilnius after the parliament was elected does not seem to reflect the facts. Correct me if I'm wrong. Lysy 21:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

11) Polish ultimatum 1938
Lithuania NEVER recognized the occupation of capital and Eastern Lithuania (see explanations in Talk: Lithuania). All diplomatic relations between the countries were broken (until 1938 polish ultimatum);


 * part of the article.Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See explanations on Talk: Lithuania. Warning: in 1938 Lithuania didn't recognize occupation of Vilnius, it ONLY CREATED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH POLAND after polish ultimatum. Poles false try to show, that Lithuania resigned of Vilnius in 1938. &


 * By establishing the diplomatic relations with Poland Lithuania de facto recognized Vilnius to Poland, but as this was under threat of force in the international law of that time it was void since the beginning, compare here occupation of Sudetenland by Germany or Memelgebiet by Germans in 1938-9. TO say that Lithuania established the diplomatic ties with Poland just to forget all its disagreements which the states had in the past is naive. Simply Germany at that time was occupaying Austria and to keep Poland out of that business allowed Poland's aggressive behavior regarding Lithuania. Without seeing support from Germany Lithuanian was forced to accept Polish ultimatum. Dirgela 18:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * However I doubt that Poland had any real intention to invade or occupy Lithuania. The sole purpose of the ultimatum was to force Lithuanian government to re-establish diplomatic relationships with Poland. Until 1938 The border between Poland and Lithuania was closed which made live quite difficult for the people living on both sides, esp. Polish and Lithuanian minorities in each of the countries. In fact earlier, in 1927, Poland forced Lithuania to cease the state of war with Poland. Lysy 19:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is then a matter of dispute I would say and shoudl be highlighted as such. International treaties are often a matter of posthumous dispute... Refdoc 16:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is undeniable factes. &


 * No, it is personal view. Halibutt 17:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, it is stated in all official documents of The Republic of Lithuania and in all history books on this topic. &


 * Fine, provide a link to an article by the government or a reputable history site. I must warn you though : Even with good evidence the dispute will remain as obviously Poland appears to have made opposing claims. Our place here in Wikipedia is not to solve teh problem, but to document the dispute:


 *  In 1938 Poland and Lithuania re-establishe diplomatic relations. The contemporary Lithuanian historian Arturas &#381;ivinbudas claims that this was the result of a Polish ultimatum and did not signify an acceptance of the Polish annexation of Vilnius. Several Polish Historians (notably Halibutt) deny this, referring to paragraph X of the contract [Link to text of contract] and assert that Poland was not in a position to make any credible ultimatum  This is obviously only an example but shows how a dispute could be written up. Refdoc 18:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May be this help -> Lithuanian Government site -> State -> History (pick English language). &
 * I can not get this site to work. It crashes with an internal 500 error whenever I want to enter the Vilnius pages. Refdoc 18:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The Polish side often treated the re-establishing of diplomatic relations as implied recognition of Vilnius status. However, the treatment didn't contain a direct recognition. Is this sufficient for editing peace? Linas 15:33, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

One thing which I think should be added: the present text about 1920 seizure of Vilnius by Polish troops puts Poles unjustly in bad light because it does't mention that Poles were majority in the Vilnius [region]. IMO this should be corrected by adding data from the 1916 German census(at least 50% Poles in both the city itself and in the region according to the non-Polish 1916 census).

It should be also noted that the Lithuanian accusations of fraud in elections in 1922 were most likely baseless political attack, because obviously Poles did't need to falsify anything, with majority of Polish population there. SereneShark

12) Developments between 1922 and 1939
Occupied capital was totaly squalid by Poles and suffered vegetation during all time of captivity from 1920 to 1939. The standard of life in occupied Vilnius and Eastern Lithuania was several times lower than in Free Republic of Lithuania . Only few biger buildings were built in the city in that time. University of Stefan Batory became the polonization nest for occupied teritories.


 * Please bring some evidence. I have put in some of ity, indicating dispute, but mroe evdience would be useful. Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are many numbers in statistic sources on that, showing very low standard of life in the city and teritory. They built only few larger buildings in Vilnius - you can see it in Vilnius yourself - Welcome! Živinbudas


 * And may I come too? :) But seriously, we were trying to find some comparable evidence for that: ie statistical data and comparison of the city with other towns and cities in Poland. Could you provide such comparison? Halibutt 17:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think is should be noted that Wilna was an informal capital of Yiddish at that time (very interesting description of Jewish situation in the 1920s can be found in "Reise in Polen" by Alfred Döblin). Museum of Jewish culture was founded there in 1919; YIVO (Institute for Research of Jewish Language and Culture) in 1924. There were many Jewish theatres, newspapers and magazines, museums and schools, Jewish PEN-Club. This should not be totally neglected in the description of situation in the town before II World War. Lysy 16:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

13) Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact
Lithuania never participated in Pact of Ribentropp-Molotov - it was itself the victim of this pact. Vilnius was returned to Lithuania by the Soviets on the basis of the Treaty of Peace between Lithuania and Soviet Russia of July 12, 1920. Treaty of October 10, 1939 was signed following mentioned treaty. Soviets never seriously considered to transfer Vilnius to Soviet Bielorussia and used these intimidations to force Lithuania to let the Soviet military bases to Lithuanian teritory;


 * Evidence for Soviet intentions might be hard to get by, so unless you have this readily available, the bare facts without the interpretation shoudl be here Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Soviet intention to transfer Vilnius to Belorussia should be proved not otherwise. Soviet were still legal binded by 1920 treaty which recognized Vilnius as Lithuanian capital city.

It is fixed in documents and pro-memorias of negotiations in Moscow in October, 1939. Soviets always stressed that they recognize Vilnius as Lithuanian capital (it is seen in all pre-war Soviet maps as well). &


 * It would be good if you could show us - the non Lithuanian and non Poles - this by simply linking to such maps or scanning a map or documents and uploading it. Refdoc 16:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ribentropp Molotov pact was between Soviet and Germans. It had a secret protokols with maps, where Easter Europe was divided in influence zones of Soviets and Germans. What other maps do you need? I could not find the original Ribentropp-Molotov map in google but I am sure it should be somewhere on the internet as it is related to history of the whole Eastern Europe. Dirgela 18:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dirgela, this is a misunderstanding - the question is not the Hitler-Stalin Pact and its implications on "dividing" Europe, but that Vilnius was intended by Stalin to be Lithuanian capital. Refdoc 18:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly, Ribbentrop-Molotov pact assumed that after division of Poland, Vilnius would fall into German sphere of influence, not Soviet. Lysy 20:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You aren't very precise in this case. The first protocols contained a sentence, that said, that the both sides will respect interests of Lithuania in Vilnius question (the translation is approximate). In the later treatments Lithuania was “re-given” to the USSR, but this thing wasn't changed. Linas 15:42, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)


 * Let me quote first article of the secret protocol of the pact (translated of course):
 * Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.
 * I think "northern boundary of Luthuania" means that Lithuania together with Vilnius falls to German sphere ... Lysy 17:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

14) Paneriai
In Paneriai perished mostly Jews, but there were Soviet collaborators, Soviet soldiers and polish underground characters too;


 * I think teh list is there Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think our text is more correct. We should use Lithuanian name of Vilnius' outskirts. Živinbudas

Former I guess might be a matter of dispute, latter I think depends largely on which name was in use at the time. Also sometimes certain events are (in)famous in the English language with a specific name attached to them. Refdoc 16:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that time was used only Paneriai because it was in Lithuanian administrative teritory - "General District of Lithuania". Živinbudas

The Wikipedia article uses the Lithuanian name. This is probably settled. Refdoc 17:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup. The article on Paneriai uses the correct, current name. However, as to the massacre site - I'm not so sure. However, if you say that Reichskommissariat Ostland was an independent state, then we should use the German name Ponaren, as this was the name on the road signs at that time. Halibutt 17:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with "Ponaren". Similarly as we use "Auschwitz" and not "O&" in relation to the mass murder site. Lysy 20:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

15) Criminal organisation
Vilnius' occupation by the Soviets in July, 1944 was not "liberation", but second Soviet occupation of Lithuania. Armija krajova (not those which operated in Poland) is considered in Lithuania as a criminal organization, because of ethnic cleanings in our teritory. Those bandits' groups tryed to enter Vilnius a few days before Soviets ("operation Ostra Brama") but were parried by Germans;


 * Laregely incorporated Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Our text is extremely important, because AK in Lithuania is considered as a criminal organization because of ethnic cleanings of Lithuanian population. They never took city themselve. Occupation of city by Soviets wasn't to Lithuania "liberation" but second Soviet occupation. &


 * Quite interesting. Could you provide more info on the Home Army organising ethnic cleansing? Halibutt 17:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * And proof that it is considered a criminal organisation? Perhaps a note on the resistance movements that were dominant in the Wilno area (and their legality status now ;p) may be useful as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * History of ethnic cleansing in Vilnius district during WWII is rather rich. However (and it is recognized by Lithuanian historians) that acts of burning villages, killing and terrorising civilians were carried out by Home Army and Lithuanian troops of self defense. To establish "who started first" is rather unimportant. However these issues are far outside the scope of the article in discussion. Dirgela 18:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think both Lithuanians and Poles can only be ashamed of this, and there's no point pretending that any side was better than the other. The only "good" thing is that the scale of these atrocities was relatively small compared to other things that happened at that time in Europe. BTW: Do you happen to know any figures, like the number of murdered Lithuanian and Polish civilians ? Lysy 20:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

16) Famous Vilniuses
Who are the famous inhabitants of Vilnius - which were born in Vilnius or not, famous to Lithuania or to entire World? About "vilnians" see explanation in Talk: Vilnius;


 * I think anyone born and brought up in Vilnius of whatever nationality can claim to be a Vilnian. SO it is not right to shorten the list. Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It isn't correct. Word "vilnian" don't exist in English language and other languages, exept polish. Should be Famous inhabitants of Vilnius. Provided in earlier version list is false because except Vilnius Gaon all those persons weren't born in Vilnius. Some of them are famous to Lithuania (Katkevčius, Platerytė, Vivulskis) but most are "famous" only to Poland. Word "vilnian" is very offensive to Lithuanians because associates with polish occupation of Vilnius. Živinbudas


 * "Vilnian" - I have no comment. I do not know whether this is offensive of not. Other Lithuanians please comment!
 * "Famous" is not dependent on nationality. if someone form Vilnius is famous in Poland he/she is famous enough to be mentioned here. If someone was not born in Vilnius but had other strong personal ties than these should/could be highlighted. Refdoc 16:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the people being born there or not - most of those listed were. However, it was not the most important argument when I chose the names for that list. The most important arguments were whether they were famous and whether they lived in the city for most of their lives or at least are commonly associated with it. Similarily, I would have nothing against listing Pope John Paul II as a famous inhabitant of Vatican or Lech Wa&#322;&#281;sa as a famous inhabitant of Gdansk, eventhough both were born in other places.


 * Michał Andriolli - I don't know where was he born, but until 1870's he was working mostly in the city and became famous for his sketches of the city and its area
 * Teodor Bujnicki - born, lived and killed in Wilno, famous for his part in the Zagary artistic movement (together with Czeslaw Milosz he was one of its creators).
 * Icchak Cukierman - born in Wilno
 * Elijah ben Solomon Gaon mi Vilna - born in Wilno
 * Antoni Gorecki - born and educated in Wilno. After all that's where he met Mickiewicz.
 * Stanisław Jasiukiewicz - Born in Wilno. And so was his accent, which added much to his popularity.
 * Mieczysław Karłowicz - born not far from the city and educated there.
 * Czesław Miłosz - quite self-explanatory, I guess. Although you're right, he was not born in the city of Wilno itself. But he got his Noberl Prize, among other things, for his poems describing his Lithuania.
 * Maurycy Orgelbrand (1826-1904) and Samuel Orgelbrand (1810-1868) - too bad you don't know them, after all they started their career in Vilna. And later they published the first modern encyclopedia in the lands of former PLC. And, AFAIR, both are buried in Rossa.
 * Jerzy Passendorfer - born in Wilno
 * Artūras Paulauskas - born in Vilnius
 * Emilia Plater - born in Wilno
 * Kazimierz Plater - born there
 * Ada Rusowicz - born there
 * Bolesław Bohusz-Siestrzeńcewicz - born some 20 km from the city centre, lived there for large part of his life, died there and buried there
 * Piotr Skarga - not born there, but quite famous and very important for the city's history.
 * Irena Sławińska - born there
 * Jędrzej Śniadecki - was working at the Main School of the Grand Duchy (later renamed to Wilno Academy, currently Vilnius University) for most of his life. Died there.
 * Józef Świętorzecki - born there
 * Władysław Syrokomla - for most of his life lived some 15 km from the city centre and there he published most of his works. Also, he is buried there.
 * Zygmunt Vogel - born and died there, most of his famous works are landscapes of the city
 * Antoni Wiwulski - lived there for most of his life and two out of three of the most famous of his buildings are located in Wilno (Church of Three Crosses, I don't know the Lithuanian name, and the Holy Jesus' Heart Church). He also died there.
 * Tomasz Zan - I'm not sure where was he born, but he was famous for his activity in the city (including friendship with Mickiewicz) and is buried there.


 * Now then, we could of course argue whether all of them should be included in the article. Perhaps some of them were more famous than others and perhaps some of them are famous only among specialists of certain topic, but deleting the list just because seems a move in the wrong direction. Halibutt 18:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not know any of them which probably just proves my ignorance.... As a basic suggestion I would think if someone is important enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia he should be mentioned here. If on the other hand no article is there and unlikely ever to develop red links are rather ugly... Refdoc 18:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If that's the criterion, then I could prepare at least stubs on each one of them to give some more general info on the person and why is she/he important. After all almost all of them already have their articles in some wikipedias. Halibutt 18:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

This becomes a bit circular doesn't it? But by all means. I would say that anyone mentioned here should have a stub at least, making very clear a) why famous and b) why Vilnius. Refdoc 19:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I already started :) Halibutt 20:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we can all agree to add Jascha Heifetz as a famous inhabitant. I'm not sure how long he lived there, but he was most certainly born there. Smedley Hirkum 07:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

17) External links
The reference to polish revanchistes' web is unconscionable. Antituteišas


 * I assume you mean the last website. As such a website - even if controversial - might be a useful addition. But I have not found anything Ewnglish in it making it rather useless. So I suggest deletion - albeit for different reasons than you Refdoc 12:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should be deleated. Živinbudas

18) city names
And finally about Vilnius name. There is only Vilnius in English. Vilna is from Jewish (and in Jewish from earlier Russian Vilna. Jews somethimes use Vilna in context of Jewish issues as Kovna as well (Vilna ghetto, Kovna ghetto etcr). There is Vilnius in German now too. It is funy to mention all international names of the city (ie Warszawa, Warsaw, Warshau, Varsovia, Varšuva). I think it is enaugh to wright Vilnius - see Riga, Tallinn and other capitals in Wikipedia. Živinbudas


 * Like it or not, the city used to be referred to in English with many names - Vilna included. Halibutt 18:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason for mentioning the name in Polish and Yiddish is that the city played and important role in the history of both Poles and Jews. The same for Belarusian name. This is quite customary, harmless and can be considered as a useful piece of information. Compare with other cities with rich multinational history, e.g. Gdansk or Poznan. Lysy 21:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before World War II, Vilna was the principal name used in English. See, e.g. the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, or the Catholic Encyclopedia, from around the same time. It also is frequently used today when referring to the city in the past. john k 15:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solution
Our persistent troll, quite impervious to any compromise and such, feeds on quite a few Lithuania related articles. Either we protect them all for weeks hoping he gets bored and goes away, or we use a range block on his entire ISP. As long as such a block only prevents anons from editing Wiki, I feel it is a small price to pay. Whatever little positive contribution (if any...) other anons from his IP range have, we can surely see with our own eyes that it is outweighted by the time of many good Wikipedians wasted on reverting troll changes and pointlessly arguing with him. Who supports the range ban and who opposes? Anon votes will be ignored. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a solution. A range ban is not a contructive way of dealing with the situation. Certainly not without an Arbcom ruling. Refdoc 11:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I know that you don't seem to like the idea of range block. Can you spare some time and explain why it's not a good solution. I claim there's been no single edit from these addresses other than those by our anonymous friend here, and they certainly are not constructive. How high is the risk of any collateral damage then ? (compared to the waste of time we're all experiencing here). Lysy 11:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you go over his 17 points, ignore the racist garbage and the general invective you will find that there are a number of valid points. If you look at the current version a lot has changed - IMHO - to the positive by incorporating these. I think the man has a serious conduct problem, he does not contribute constructively, he is largely a pain, but his POV - translated via myself - was not without positive influence on the total quality of the article. So to block him out will not allow him to impove his current behaviour and it will cut us off the potential of future contributions from his POV.


 * I doubt if it's valuable enough to keeping other registered users from improving the article. The cost we are all paying for his education is much higher than the dubious benefits. Similarly one could argue, that open proxies allow for certain amount of positive input, yet they are being blocked. Lysy 14:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further the range appears to be that of a major ISP and this alone should make us loath a range block. BTW would someone who is logged in with a username be affected by a range block? Refdoc 12:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know. "Major ISP" is just a name, you need to look closer and evaluate the potential negative consequences, which seem to be negligible here. It's quite irrelevant whether you call an ISP major or minor if there's only a single wikipedia user there. It would be good to convince our anonymous here to register though (and I hope he'll soon understand this too).


 * The first paragraph of Blocking_policy explains why this would be a legitimate block under these circumstances, and Blocking_policy explains why a range block would be appropriate here. Do you see any other effective alternative (other than more people wasting their time, including ArbCom ?) Lysy 14:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * We could try with the ArbCom, but I'm afraid it would take several weeks more to finish the case. Halibutt 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

If everyone tries to avoid winding each other up and avoids to rise to bait all of this might be unnecessary. If on teh other side everything does break down agai, there will be more than adequate material of attempted conflict resolution to justify going to arbcomm. Also I think that ArbComm has recently become a lot more pro-active and does issue injuctions before full decisions are made. Refdoc 16:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Refdoc
Listen to me very carefully now. SOLUTION will be then, when every of 17 points from basic Lithuanian version will be placed beside polish false statements  without any change in new text. And the same in Lithuania text (explanations in Talk: Lithuania. It is my last offer. Živinbudas


 * I'm afraid your ultimatum won't work. Halibutt 11:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

And you could added: Lithuanian POV, polish POV. But I very good know, it isn't in your interests. Darknesses always fear the light. This fear shows that you are weak, very weak. Its reality. Živinbudas


 * Please have a look at 17 points you have made. I put my comments to it. as said before, large parts already are incorporated in teh current version if you look carefully. Some bits require additional evidence from your side. Please provide this and we can proceed with incorporating your suggestions. Please desist from personal attacks or threats against anyone. Refdoc 12:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eventualy something positive. I will wright my comments. But I would like, that all textes would be provided without changes because of their diametralic contrary to earlier statements. Živinbudas


 * "Without changes" is obviously not something anyone would consider. Teh article is teh product of many people's contribution and your contribution is ne among many. I think you must learn that Wikipedia's aim is not to make judgements which version is teh "right" one but to provide information, unbiased and witha  neutral point of view. If there is dispute than not one version will be chosen, but the dispute documented. "Historian A feels this, Historian B says that"  Refdoc 13:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ready. Please see. Živinbudas


 * Good. I am grateful that something like a debate is now happening. I would prefer if others would now contribute too. I would also like to stress that this is always going to be a contributory article, not a "true" or "national" version. Teh final version will have to reflect both Lithuanian, GHerman, Russian, Polish, ehatever views if these are relevant to the matter. If I could get a guarantee that you will continue to discuss in the manner you are doing now, will stop doing reverts and will stop calling people offensive names I think we could unprotect the page and edit jointly again. Refdoc 15:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what will steps be next? I understand too why you placed this chart on the top of Talk: Vilnius. But I very like that statistic and very good know her (I have many sources). I will entusiasticly comment those numbers soon. And will provide statistic of 19th century as well. Živinbudas


 * The next step? If you confirm that you will not anymore revert, nor call people names I will unprotect the page allowing all of us to continue editing. Refdoc 16:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what about the new text? Is it not actual already? Živinbudas

The text was once already updated this morning - a lot of what you raised in the 17 points had been incorporated when you again started to revert. SO the text was again protected by another admin. If you confirm that you will not anymore revert or call people "fascist" or "liers" I will unprotect the page. Refdoc 16:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want that falsificated polish version would be unprotected. If I begin to place my statements (from 17 points) and erase false earlier statements, I again will be accused of vandalism and page will be protected. Is it? So what is solution? Živinbudas

I think the first step is to acknowledge there is no "falsificated Polish version" which must be erased. Each individual sentence can be individually edited and changed. Your complete reverts erasing other people's contribution were what create dthe problem initally. My suggestion is that I will unprotect, and will gradually introduce each agreed point. You will edit small points, wikify, add small bits of information etc, but will not revert or erase large chunks. Better still you bring things up here onn the talk page and wait for agreement. As you aready see the list of agreed points is growing all the time. If you agree and undertake not to call people "liers" or "fascists" I will unprotect. Refdoc 17:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nu? Refdoc 18:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting and Registering
I am very glad for the major improvement of the tone on this page. I will not yet unprotect as I would like to be quite clear that this is not going to lead immediately back into teh old behaviour. I really must insist that you make an undertaking not to revert war again or to insult otehr people again. I also would like to suggest you that you get registered. This has many advantages, the first one obviously is that people find it esier to deal with you. Another advantage for yourself is that that you gain a lot of facilities which make your own editing easier - e.g a watchlist where you can see how articles you care about change shape. If you require any advice how to do this, just put a note onto my talk page. I also must warn you that Wikipedia can be able to defend itself if really required - i.e. user who are permanently offensive and disruptive can be banned in rather effective ways I think a number of other users are very upset with your past comments so any further commenst might well trigger serious complaints. Refdoc 20:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Refdoc, if you will really succeed in transforming this...person...into a productive member of Wikipedia community, you are truly great. Wish you luck. You may want to append your proposition with a note that this should apply to all of our dear anon contributions, not only this page, though, to avoid any confusion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not been involved in any other pages and I think the debate is really only abvout this page's protection status. Refdoc 10:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Summing up
I think it is time to draw together some of the conclusions of the discussions above and produce a summarised version. I will do this later tonight in form of another /subpage. Once we have some sort of agreement and once our anonymous contributor has made his commitment as explained above we can reopen the page and archive this mess here... :-) Refdoc 19:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I second Dirgela, that the history section should be much abbreviated here. It's much too long for an article about a city. Only the basic facts should be mentioned, and not the deeper discussions. Lysy 21:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but let sort this here as the material is now here. Once we have a generally accepted history it is a lot easier to decide which bits stay and which get moved on. Refdoc 21:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Allright. Later, when things settle down a bit I'd suggest first removing all references to general history, not specifically relating to the city itself. Lysy 22:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm about to move the contents of the /subpage into the main article in order not to end up with two different versions. Lysy 16:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shortening "History" section
I'd like to remove the less important paragraphs (like the legend etc.) from the "History" section as they rather belong to the History of Vilnius article, and this section here seems unnecessarily long already. Lysy 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

www.wilno.pl
I would like to remove this link. I have not found any English texts in this site - maybe I did not look hard enough, but without a good reason (and explanation) a foreign language site should really not be here. I understand that our anonymous contributor had other reasons for having it removed but i think really teh language issue is perfectly adequate to have it gone (unless there is a very valid reason and this reason is given) Refdoc 21:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I looked at it and it seems it's a collection of Polish sites about Vilnius. Interesting, but could not find anything in English there. Lysy 04:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you then be upset if we delete it? Alternatively it should get a caption "Polish sites regarding Vilnius" or something like this. i would prefer deletion though. Refdoc 11:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it can be deleted and that's what I've just done. I'm sure that if there's any good reason to have it here, someone will explain this. In fact I'm not sure about some other ext links either. Lysy 13:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The edit war
Zivibundas and Wiktacy, what's up with your edit war on this article? I suggest you discuss the changes on this page before changing the article so dramatically. A consensus is needed for this article, and there's not going to be one if you just revert each other's changes. For example, my personal opinion is that shortening the list of Vilnans to just two or removing big parts of the history section isn't appropriate. Please discuss and try to reach a consensus on the content, thanks. Solver 13:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Why there is so much anti - Polish bullshit in the article?
Where did you find that poor and lonely nationalistic Zivibrudas?

Why there is so much anti - Lithuanian bullshit in the article?
Where did you find that poor and lonely nationalistic Wojšudyl?

As an English speaker, and as a newspaper editor, I find it bizarre that the present entry begins talking about Vilnius, then suddenly shifts to calling it Wilno ("After the Third Partition of Poland in 1795, Wilno was annexed by Russia..."), then shifts again to calling it Wilna ("During the World War I Wilna was occupied by Germany ...") -- without ever explaining why the different forms of the name are being used. To a casual English-speaking reader who has no background in the history of the city and region, this makes no sense whatever.

Speaking as the husband of a native of Vilnius, I find the proportion of Vilnius residents listed as Polish in 2001 surprisingly high. I will ask someone IN VILNIUS to check on this for me.

Sca 19:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, the proportions given for Poles and Russians in Vilnius are correct. Apparently I was thinking of the breakdown for Lithuania as a whole, which I'm informed is Lithuanians 83.5 percent, Poles 6.7 percent, Russians 6,3 percent.

Sca 18:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of exact census data posted on top of this page :) Halibutt 19:34, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hooray for that. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  04:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See: http://www.vilnius.lt/new/en/investicijos.php?open=32&root=3&sub_cat=77
 * "Vilnius is known as a multicultural city. Residents of nationalities other than Lithuanian, constitute almost half of the city’s population. Since 1989, the Vilnius population by national descent has changed slightly. In 1996, Lithuanians constituted 53.5 per cent of Vilnius’ population, Russians – 18.9 %, Poles – 19.1%, Byelorussians – 4.7 %, Jews – 0.7%, others – 3.1 %."--Witkacy 23:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Here vandalising polish nationalistes. See now. Zivinbudas 20:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

In Vilnius live 57,8% of Lithuanians (2001) - now more than 60%. Vilnius is "multicultural" only thanks to polish (1920 - 1939) and soviet (1940 - 1990) occupations. But in Independent Lithuania things are changing very fast to good. We need only the time. Zivinbudas 04:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What's your point? Would you prefer that the demographics figures stated that this may be subject to change in the future? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  04:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This has gone far enough
There's been enough of this nonsense. Feel free, of course, to hash it out here on the talk page, that's what it's for. But in the meantime, I've protected the article from editing. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  23:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. Zivinbudas is back from holidays and vandalising again. And here we go again... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It is very sad that on Lithuanian pages of Wikipedia - Lithuania, Vilnius, Lithuanians, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and others are operating polish "administrators" which without any comments erase all discuted changes and revert to previous versions. Users from various countries see all that. Continue to compromite Wikipedia and yourself. Zivinbudas 05:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Me? Polish? Nope, I'm a Canadian kid. Poland is very nice, as is Lithuania. I just would like to see things settle down. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  05:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Many your collegues. And you very good know that. It is very sad that Wikipedia is using for dirty nationalistic games. Zivinbudas 05:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know, isn't it a little childish to namecall, when the other people might think they are as correct as you are? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  06:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

And sorry Friend, why did you protect falsificated polish text with huge amount of false statements, but not fully discused (see Talk:Vilnius -> above) last version? Zivinbudas 06:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I simply kept it protected at the most recent version. I'm not neccesarily saying either version is correct. We need to work on a compromise here. User:Piotrus, do you have anything to add? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  09:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Most recent version wasn't this. You simply lying. 85.206.192.32 09:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How's that? The most recent version was User:Witkacy's reversion of User:Zivinbudas's edits. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  09:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't play naiv games. What about "protected" Lithuania page? What version was last? Reverted by the same polish "administrator" and "protected". I am very happy that users from various countries see what is doing here. 85.206.193.33 09:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with that. I'm not Polish, so don't be blaming me. Like I said previously, I'm from Canada. Let us not be concerned with the Lithuania page right now, only with Vilnius. Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy)  10:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Friend, Canadians usualy don't wright 'Zivinbudas's'. Isn't it? But its OK. 85.206.193.33 10:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Fowler's Modern English Usage states that the possessive forms of proper nouns ending with a vocalised "s" require an apostrophe followed by another "s". Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  10:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for hot information. It is very different to what I learned. 85.206.193.33 10:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Always a pleasure. Now then, If I stay any longer I'm going to be late for school, so feel free to write further comments here, on my talk page, or to edit planned versions of the page at Vilnius/Temp1. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  10:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to eat your flaki at school at break. Wishing only good grades. 85.206.195.99 12:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I ate a sandwich at school today. I'm surprised you didn't add anything. How am I supposed to know what you want for the page, if nobody provides any examples? I'm assuming you wish for the Vilnius page to eventually be restored, please help in doing so. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  04:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice
If anyone wishes to complain about the current version of this page, now is the time. If nobody brings forth any grievances against this page in 24 hours' time, I shall assume, that this version is correct, and that the current parties who previously argued against it, have decided it is correct. As always, I can be contacted on my talk page. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  10:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You can see all discussions in Talk:Vilnius -> above, and compare with "protected" false text. 85.206.194.121 12:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Speak your specific grievances, show me what your completed version would look like. I want to see what your rewrite of the article would contain. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  04:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See last version (of Zivinbudas) before reverting by Witkacy (which you protected) -> History of the article. 85.206.192.246 05:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Few immature polish "historians" are not the 'world'. May be are you Napoleon IV? 85.206.194.121 12:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Again with the name-calling. Shame on you! Can we not deal with this simply and directly? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  04:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your attempt at mediation, however as you will soon see (or can see going through talk above and archieves) it is basically the single user crusade against the world, with no respect for 3RR or any other policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am moving my comment 'I appreciate...' here, since the anon is moving it around making it sound like I am complementing him, which of course is not the case. Anyway, his attempt to falsifly the discussion is just one more reason why I advocate range ban as the only feasible solution here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  12:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Piotr-Piotrus, you are simply liar because you moved my statement first. I only returned it - all can see it in -> Talk history. You did this not first time - I see falsifications are your bread. I suggest you don't it in future. 85.206.194.34 13:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic! User Piotr you are simply provocateur. Zivinbudas 14:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion
On reading through the history and talk pages, and reviewing findings with independent sources, I've found that the state of the article (as reverted by User:Witkacy is vastly preferable. Most of the differences in Zivinbudas's version seem to involve the POV removal of information, and the occasional entry of poorly-worded POV entries. The only discrepancies I seem to find might involve its ties to Mindaugas; I can't tell how valid those claims might be. Also, is there any reason for the removal of the 1912 Vilnius picture found in Zivinbudas's version, but not in Witkacy's?

There are, certainly, many details that need to work themselves out; I believe a collaboration system would work best, as it seemed to previously. More work should probably be done between Vilnius and History of Vilnius, but I think we may be well on our way.

I'd appreciate any comments by any involved parties, either here, or on my talk page. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  11:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Provocateur
All users, please see history of Talk:Vilnius -> change by Piotr 13:04, May 4, 2005. After he blame other user for returning his statement to earlier place, blame him for falsification and demand range blocking. And of course polish "administrator" agree with provocateur. I fully persuaded that this is usual practic of polish falsificators. Continue this and compromite yourself in eyes of users from all world. Zivinbudas 14:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I simply corrected your action of insterting your comments above mine without a margin, instead of below. Whether it was on purpose or by accident, it created the impression that I relied to you instead of Rhymless. Learn wiki-etiquette - and netiquette as well would help you as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

numbers
Question: If after WWII "the Soviet government decided to expel the Polish population from Lithuania," as the entry says, how is it that Vilnius today is still 18.7 percent Polish? Perhaps the entry should say "expel much of the Polish population"? (Just being an editor here.)

Sca 17:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the many polish falsifications in this fully falsificated text. See Zivinbudas' version which was here before reverting and "protection" -> history of the article. 85.206.195.244 18:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, thats a Polish falsification... good to know it! my family was expelled from Wilno... :)--Witkacy 19:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sca, if you need backup, just take a look at the archives (most notably Talk:Vilnius/Early_discussions and the following discussion). The info on the number of expelled is easily available (even on the net) and is not disputed neither by Poland nor Lithuania, especially that it was supervised by a joint commission and its final report was issued both in Poland and Lithuanian SSR. Halibutt 23:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Voluntary, my, my. I must inform my grandmother that she left her house in Grodno area voluntarily. She may be surprised. Szopen 07:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be funny Hello-but. That polish and czech communist-fashistes deported (expelled) Germans from occupied lands and made ethnic cleansings. There was voluntary repatriation of poles (mostly tuteishians) from occupied Lithuania to Polish People Republic. Another cheap polish falsification. Zivinbudas 04:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Polish "administrators" what about your countryman Szopen -> above and netiquette? Zivinbudas 08:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) Link retargetted to userpage. Graham 87 10:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Zivinbudas, if you state that the deportation of Poles from Lithuania after 1945 was voluntary, then you must agree that deportation of Lithuanians to Soviet Gulags in 1940 and after 1945 was voluntary as well. Halibutt 08:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Don't be funny Hello-but. Could you explane me why in Lithuania still live 200,000 of poles (more correctly tuteishians) in country with population of 3,500,000? May be did they return from polish "paradise"? Zivinbudas 09:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple and I've explained that in this discussion already (check the archives at Talk:Vilnius/Early_discussions). Not all Poles were deported (or repatriated, as the official authorities named the action). Especially in the countryside, where the Lithuanian authorities prevented many people from signing to the lists and argued that they were polonised Lithuanians and not Poles. Also, there was almost no repatriation of Poles from the areas of pre-1939 Lithuania; most of them were declared Lithuanians by Lithuanian pre-war authorities and as such were treated as Soviet citizens by the Soviets, which made leaving the Soviet paradise impossible for a large majority of them.


 * If you read Polish (and I believe you do), then you might be interested in a detailed account of the expatriation between 1944 and 1947 published by the University of Wroc&#322;aw. It's available here. Halibutt 12:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Its only your bla-bla-bla. Most of tuteishians declare that they are polish and everyone could repatriate, but didn't. "Poles" from other parts of Lithuania could repatriate the same as "poles" from Eastern Lithuania and who wanted those repatriated. As to tuteishians (I plan to start an article on tuteishians) it whould be better that they repatriate all, because we don't need such slobs and drunkers in our country. Zivinbudas 15:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoever tuteishans are, you are wrong and you should definitely read more on the matter. Also, there is a similar article on tutejszy. Is it the article you plan to write? Halibutt 19:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt & others:

My point was was not about how many Poles were expelled or asked to leave "voluntarily." You Poles and Lithuanians can argue about that until the cows come home. (One must question any "voluntary" expulsion from one's homeland under the aegis of Soviet power.) My point was about a contradiction in the text.

This part – "the Soviet government decided to expel the Polish population from Lithuania" – says or implies that ALL Poles were to be expelled. Evidently, this either was not the Soviet intention, or it did not happen (maybe because Stalin died before it was completed?) – otherwise there would be NO Poles in Lithuania (including Vilnius) today. How about explaining why Vilnius is still 18% Polish, if that's the case? Are they like some Upper Silesians, who were either German or Polish depending on which side was in ascendancy? Perhaps the entry should deal with what the Soviets did, rather than with what they "decided to do."

What might make sense would be to represent more than one point of view in the entry. This is what is done in many news story in the U.S. media.

As an aside, I think it's unacceptable on this site for users to make offensive personal comments based on ethnicity to anyone for any reason. It seems doubly offensive when it comes from someone whose user name is a number. We can joke, but let's not call each other names. That's dehumanization.

Aciu. Dziekuje.

Sca 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The guy has been calling people names for some month now - to no effect. We all hope he'll grow up some day... Halibutt 19:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sca, you don't understand this issue, sorry. Nobody asked them to leave Lithuania and nobody expelled. They themselves wanted to go from soviet occupied teritory to Poland (formaly independent) - they didn't want to remain in Soviet Union with terrible regime and repressions . Repatriated about 200,000 persons - about 100,000 polish colonistes which arrived to occupied Eastern Lithuania in 1920 - 1939 and about 100,000 tuteishians (and between them many real Lithuanians which wanted to escape from the soviets). But not all wanted to go and remained in occupied Lithuania. Today in Lithuania live about 200,000 "poles" (in reality tuteishians). This is an answer to your question. Did you understand? Zivinbudas 22:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not that simple, really (you didn't expect the Central European history to be simple, did you :) ). Regardless of who "tuteishans" and "poles" are (I don't really know), the matter was a tad more complex. It is not clear whether all Poles were to be expelled or not, mostly because the depatriation was never finished and because it was slightly different in different parts of the Soviet Union. For instance, in Lithuania the soviet authorities feared that depopulation of the rural areas outside of Wilno would seriously harass the economical situation, especially in the war-damaged and starving area of the Baltics and Belarus. That might be one of the reasons why the Lithuanian SSR authorities were allowed not to expell all of the - almost entirely Polish - population of former Central Lithuania.


 * Similarily, there were many other rural areas of the USSR where the Poles were in fact discouraged and even prevented from leaving the Soviet Union - and the example of Poles living in pre-war Lithuania is quite good here. On the other hand, almost entire urban population of the major cities which were notable centres of Polish culture were either directly or indirectly forced to emmigrate. Before the joint commission was formed, there were lots of cases of the so-called wild depatriation. These were more or less the same as expatriation of Poles under Nazi regime: the people were gathered in a town hall or some similar place, they were told to pack their things (usually not more than 20 kg of luggage per person) and were transported to the nearest train station, where they were hurried into cargo trains (usually marked with "We return home" signs and Polish flags) and transported to new Poland. After the commission was formed such wild transport were stopped, but the expropriation and depatriation continued.


 * It's hard to describe the exact plans of Uncle Soso and his men since the archives are still closed, but I guess that there was no plan to expel every single person of Polish ethnicity from USSR. Especially that it would also mean repatriation of Poles resettled to Siberia, Kazakhstan and other not-so-pleasant places in the workers' paradise. Halibutt 01:32, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Hello-but. I am not interested in what happened in U.S.S.R, I am interested in what happened in occupied Lithuania. In Lithuania never were such ethnic cleansings (except the bandit actions of Armia Krajowa) like were in occupied by poles and czechs German teritories. And please don't use the term "central Lithuania" - it was unrecognized by nobody puppet "state" made by puppet polish militaries. Zivinbudas 06:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Z ivinbudas, I urge you not to make mistakes in my name as it is considered offensive. And take note that I had no intention to address my comments to you, I was merely trying to reply to Sca's questions. As to the rest of your commens - I think I need a drink. Halibutt 13:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to leave stereotypes. You will need a drink many times in future as well. Cheers! Zivinbudas 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So, now you claim that the expulsion of almost the entire population of the area of Vilna was not ethnic cleansing? Or perhaps you suggest that it never happened? I feel I'm really wasting my time on you.


 * As to the term Central Lithuania it was indeed unrecognized by any state except for the Entente and the later League of Nations. That is except for most of the states in the world. Note that it was Lithuania who always disputed the LoN's decision to grant Central Lithuania to Poland, not the other way around. And if my memory srves me well, the very term Central Lithuania was used by the French diplomats who signed the documents... Halibutt 06:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your "information" is completely false. Puppet "state" of "central Lithuania" (made by puppet "government" of gen. Zeligowski) was unrecognized by any state and even more by Legue of Nations. And about other issue - do you know, that in 1950 - 1951 Stalin closed all Lithuanian schools which were opened in Eastern Lithuania in 1939 - 1944 and opened in their place polish schools? And do you know that Lithuanian language was practicaly baned in Eastern Lithuania until 1989? And think why? Zivinbudas 07:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether a puppet state or not is a matter of dispute. The fact is that it was a part of international treaties with Poland and as such was also a part of the League of Nations' recognition of the unification of both states. Also, during the Polish-Lithuanian talks of 1920 about the future of the area carried out in Paris, all sides used the term Central Lithuania. What's even more important is that when Poland demanded that the diplomats of the Central Lithuania be sent to Paris as well, the Lithuanian diplomats opposed. And on the Lithuanian documents the name of Central Lithuania is mentioned - more than once. The documents of the conference in Paris survived the war and I bet you can get all the documents you need from the State Archive in Vilnius.


 * As to the schools - I didn't know that the state of Central Lithuania survived well into the 1950's and that Stalin was one of its officials. But you learn new things every day here... Anyway, the state of Central Lithuania really existed, whether a puppet or not. And why exactly not to use the name? Halibutt 14:09, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Eastern Lithuania as he names it is not central Lithuania, but in this case as I understand Eastern Vilnius region, because that closure of all Lithuanian schools happened there. There was supposed polonization of Western Vilnius region too, we talked about that, but most of you rebuffed my claims.

No, my mentioned closure of all Lithuanian schools happened (in 1950 - 1951) in part of Eastern Lithuania which was united to Lithuania in 1939 - 1940. In Eastern Vilnius region - unliberated part of Lithuania - happened the same, but in place of Lithuanian schools soviets opened bielorussian schools. Zivinbudas 05:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I know Lithuanian archives much better than you. I repeat that puppet "state" of "central Lithuania" wasn't recognized by any state and even more by League of Nations. And using of that is incorrect. I didn't understand what you mean that Stalin was an official of "central Lithuania". I am very sorry, but are you really drunk? Zivinbudas 15:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not being officially recognised does not preclude its place in history. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  00:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we go too far here. Was the Central Lithuania unrecognized, or not, it doesn't make difference in this case. Any term, entity or event, in a case it was real, may be mentioned in an encyclopedia, and it doesn't need any prior recognition. Any term needs relevant definition and article too, of course.


 * What concerns "repatriation", it was planned by the soviet officials and main versions of this article mentioned it. Local communist officials in Poland and in Lithuania were only instruments in more powerful hands. Even the most drastic Lithuanian nationalists never planned any such repatriation. Perhaps some Lithuanians could want "re-lituanize" Poles in Vilnius, but the idea to expel them   never was raised. Looking from the side of justice, many of the later "repatriated" persons were local inhabitants and their forefathers hadn't come from another place, including territory of the modern Poland. Even more, many of them had got citizenship of Lithuania after 1939 and thus were citizens not only of some "ideal" Lithuania but of real Republic of Lithuania too. Any state should defend its citizens in a case of offending their rights, and if Lithuania declares continuity of the prewar Republic, i don't think we should discern emigrating of Lithuanians in the 1944 as forced and this "repatriation" as voluntary. In both Lithuania lost its citizens, and in the both cases  then Soviet regime was responsible for it.   Linas Lituanus16:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Ethnic compositions in Eastern Lithuania in XIXth and XXth centuries
Notice: all data provading here are provided in polish book: Bronislaw Makowski. Litwini w Polsce 1920 - 1939. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Warszawa, 1986.

Ethnic composition of population of Vilnius Gubernia in early XIXth century (in thousands):

Lithuanians      780 Polish           100 Bielorussians     50 Russians          80 Jews             180 Total:          1200

Data from: S. H. P. (Plater). Geografia wschodniej czesci Europy czyli opis krajow przez wielorakie narody Slowianskie zamieszkanych. Wroclaw, 1825.

Ethnic composition of population of Vilnius Gubernia in 1860:

Lithuanians           418,826 Polish                154,386 Total population:     819,518

Data from: Stolpianskij N. Deviatj gubernij Zapadnorusskovo kraja. Sankt-Petersburg, 1866.

Ethnic composition of populiation of Vilnius Gubernia in 1897 (in percent):

Lithuanians      17.59 Polish            8.19 Bielorussians    56.05 Russians          4.94 Ukrainians        0.06 Germans           0.24 Jews             12.72 Others            0.23 Total:          100.00

And now about these data. As you see number of Lithuanians drasticaly decreased in XIXth century. They didn't emigrate somewhere - they (part of them) simply changed language. They began to speak Simple Language (po prostu) - sort of mixture of Lithuanian, Bielorussian and Polish languages. It happened because of Tzarist Russia's policy in Lithuania (the ban of Lithuanian writing language in Latin alphabet, persecutions after uprisings, russification etcr.) and the resistention to that by polonised Lithuanian nobility. This situation very good shows the First Census of Russian empire from 1897. People were written in that Census not by nationality, but by language, and it is why number of Bielorussians is that high. This Census is the last reliable census until Census of 1942. All between them were falsificied by poles.

And now about ethnic compositions in Vilnius city. Data of 1897 Census is provided here by Lysy in Talk:Vilnius -> see above. I would like to comment them. Yes, percentage of Lithuanians in this Census in Vilnius city is 2%. But as I expressed above it only shows Lithuanian-speakers . The very good example is Ireland - there are only 2% of Irish language speakers in Ireland, but English-speakers Irish are Irish not British. All Lithuanian cities were very low Lithuanian-speaking in that time. I provide here data of Kaunas city of 1897 Census (in percent):

Lithuanians       6.6 Russians         25.8 Ukrainians        0.3 Polish           22.7 Jews             35.2 Bielorussians     1.4 Germans           4.7 Others            3.3 Total:          100.00

And here data of Kaunas of Census of 1923 (in percent):

Lithuanians      59.0 Russians          3.2 Ukrainians         - Polish            4.5 Jews             27.1 Bielorussians     0.2 Germans           3.5 Others            2.5 Total:          100.00

Where did disappeare polish from Kaunas and from where such number of Lithuanians after only 5 years of Independence? The answer is: polonized Lithuanians began again to speak Lithuanian in Independent Lithuania. This would be the same in Vilnius and all Eastern Lithuania if not polish occupation.


 * The very best wishes from Vilnius, Lithuania, especially to Halibutt which will need the strong drink again. Zivinbudas 10:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh my, oh my... I admit I'm not the best person to be asked about the censae prior to the first all-national census in Russia (1897). However, one thing to add to what Zivinbudas failed to mention, is that the repressions after the uprisings were aimed at Poles as well. Polish language was equally banned from the office, Polish schools were equally closed (were there any Lithuanian-speaking colleges or universities before that?) or converted to Russian-only universities, Polish press and books were equally banned. So, stating that repressions against Polish language and culture were as a matter of fact a means to strengthen them is a complete nonsense. As to the Russian census of 1897 itself - it is widely critisized for the huge inaccuracies. Among other things, in most areas the number of eastern Slavs (most notably Russians and "White Russians", but also "Small Russians" in the south) was made several times higher than it should be. Nevertheless, it's strange that you use the census of 1897 as a support for your claims (what are your claims anyway?), especially that it's equally disputed by Polish and Lithuanian historians. As far as I know the only census that is not disputed by Poles and Lithuanians is the 1916 German census, which you failed to mention. Or perhaps the Poles falsified that one as well?


 * Anyway, what are you trying to prove? Even if the huge majority of Poles there were actually Lithuanians and were forced to vote for the Polish parties that supported unification with Poland (which was not the case) - what does it change in this article? What is it that you're trying to prove? If your claim is that there were no Poles expelled from the area and that actually the USSR forged the expulsions (that is created papers and expelled only a small number of agents that were told to speak loudly about the thousands of Poles expelled, whereas the actual number of those who left the area was incredibly low), then we have nothing to speak about. Your claim that the oppressed bi-lingual Lithuanians were forced to speak Polish, but after USSR took the area they miraculously converted back to the language of their ancestors, makes me think you have a serious problem. However, I believe I can't help you. Sorry. Or perhaps I simply got you wrong and your claims are different? Please correct me then. Halibutt 14:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * One more thing that would be probably OT and feel free to remove it if you feel a need to do so: I cannot accept your visions for yet another reason: it leaves no place for my own family. My mother's maiden name is Ka&#378;mirkiewicz. That would probably be Kazmirkievicius in Lithuanian, or something along that line. My ancestors were first Lithuanised Ruthenians living in the area east of Wilno. Then they got polonised some time in 17th century, were admitted to one of Polish noble clans and were always loyal servants of The Republic. After the January uprising they were forced out of their properties in what is now Lithuanian-Belarusian borderland and, after returning from Siberia, settled in what NE Poland. You suggest that if the dreams of Lithuanian politicians came true and the reborn Lithuania included all the claimed areas, then my family would miraculously learn Lithuanian... right...


 * I believe that the nationality is a matter of choice and once you declare yourself a Zulu - you become a Zulu. Parts of my family declared themselves Polish and I see no way they would change their nationality. And I guess that was the case with most of the hundreds of thousands of Poles expelled from their lands, regardless of the language or culture of their ancestors. Whether ethnic Poles, Polinized Ruthenians, Lithuanians, Brits, Scots, Flemmish, whomever. Halibutt 15:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I only explain statistic provided by Lysy (see Talk: Vilnius). Why did you become such nervous? Your information that Lithuanians recognize Census of 1916 is completely false. Lithuanians don't recognize all censuses between Census of 1897 and Census of 1942 like falsificied by poles. Don't worry, be happy! Zivinbudas 15:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Halibutt. My ancestors from Mother's side were Kondracki - Lithuanian Nobleman (Coat of Arms Ostoja) (like your Halibutt). They were loyal servants of Grand Duchy of Lithuania as one of two States which consisted Confederation of the Republic of Both Nations . When time came, they went together with own nation and became loyal citizens of the Republic of Lithuania. So adventure continues. Zivinbudas 16:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "Dear Halibutt. My ancestors from Mother's side were Kondracki - Lithuanian Nobleman"
 * our dear Zivinbudas is a Lithuanized Pole... ;)--Witkacy 01:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So, you still fail to explain what is it that you're trying to prove here. Anyway, from your post I understood that the Poles falsified the Lithuanian census of 1923 and the German census of 1916. Poles also falsified the census organised by Lithuanian authorities in 1939, after they were given the area of Wilno. Quite influential those Poles were... Sorry, Zivinbudas, it seems to me you either don't know the topic well enough or believe in some strange conspiracy theory. Poles everywhere, beware of the angry Pole, he's right behind you. He'll catch you and falsify your census...


 * As a sidenote, I'm not from the Ostoja clan, my coat of arms is Nieczuja (as stated on my user page). Over and out. Halibutt 22:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Witkacy, my ancestors weren't koroniarze (this term means poles). Dear Halibutt, there wasn't any official census organized by Lithuanian authorities in liberated part of Eastern Lithuania in 1939. I wrote about censuses which concern Eastern Lithuania - Census of 1923 didn't include occupied teritories. Zivinbudas 06:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But you forgot to add that 1942 census was made with using of Lithuanian clerks who were forcing Poles to declare Lithuanian nationality, changing their declaration etc, etc. 1942 census is considered to be falsified By Poles. 1923 census is disputed as well (for similar reasons: Poles were considered tutejsi and in fact Lithuanians, so they were often forced to declare other nationality, their declaration were falsified etc). It seems you after all have not read the article Halibutt suggested. Szopen 08:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the 1939 census - I wonder why haven't you heard of it. Halibutt 09:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but the casual English user doesn't care about all the minutiae. What is appropriate is the BROAD outlines of how the city changed ethnically in the 19th century, 1919-39, and after WWII -- without MORALISING comments about how nasty this or that change was. Again, where the facts are contested, it would make sense to include brief summaries of opposing views.

Encyclopedia entries are supposed to be written for people who know little or nothing about a topic. If someone wants to do serious research on this complex history, he should consult other sources. I would love to read a detailed history of this fascinating city in book form, written by a fair-minded historian (which in this case probably would mean neither a Pole nor a Lithuanian) who has done the research. But I don't expect to find it here.

The Wikipedia idea is premised on the assumption that contributors are going to be reasonable human beings, whatever their point of view. Idealogues and ultranationalists should field their own websites, on which they can wave their respective flags all they wish.

Sca 19:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ten times Vilnius
Regardless of the disputes we have here, there is one serious question: how many histories of the area we need? So far, the history of Vilnius is mentioned in the following articles, each written from a similar perspective:
 * Vilnius
 * History of Vilnius
 * History of Lithuania
 * Vilniaus Apskritis
 * Central Lithuania
 * Wilno Voivodship
 * Temporary capital
 * Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union
 * Disputed territories of Baltic States
 * Eastern Vilnius region
 * perhaps some more...

So, how about preparing one single, extensive article on the history of Vilnius and simply pointing all interested readers to it, instead of repeating it in every single article directly or indirectlky related to the region? Halibutt 13:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I would concentrate on improving the article on History of Vilnius and refer from the other pages to this main article. Lysy 17:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One more artile about one historical period to your list - Vilnius region. We sure need one article covering all the history, but parts of history needs to be mentioned in those articles, but not as detailed as this single one. Knutux 10:23, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Protected again
Zivinbudas as far as I can tell there was no support for your edits last time. Please discuss changes here.--nixie 05:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see all information above -> Talk:Vilnius. You can protect all Lithuanian articles which you want (fully falsificated by polish nationalists), but you can't "protect" historical truth. Zivinbudas 05:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention
Is it reasonable to apply the result of Talk:Gdansk/Vote (was this a valid voting procedure anyway ?) to other articles, including Vilnius ? In my opinion it is quite bad to call Vilnius other names (Wilno, Vilna etc.) within the body of the article. Of course it's worth to mention the other names and explain the context in which they were/are used but using them then in the article seems harmful. Here's why I think so: Can we do something about this ? --Lysy (talk) 4 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
 * 1) It annoys Lithuanian wikipedians as it seems to hurt their feelings. This is not needed.
 * 2) It shows no respect for the official name.
 * 3) It's ridiculous (not to say pathetic) and can be quite misleading if the town is referred to by different names within the same article.
 * 4) It does not bring any added value to the article, just confusion.


 * I totaly agree on that, if the context of relevant alternative town names is preserved & explained within the article. DariusMazeika 4 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)


 * But on the other hand:
 * It avoids anachronisms (calling mediaeval towns with names invented in 20th century, for instance)
 * It avoids confusion (as long as all names used are mentioned in the header)
 * It shows respect to historical truth
 * It is consistent with other articles on towns and cities
 * Also, while I understand the case of Lithuanian nationalism, national pride, self-counciousness and simply feelings, I don't believe we should sacrifice historical truth just to make someone happier here. Halibutt 06:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

One, present name for the whole historical period, with exception of "towns with names invented in 20th century". Space Cadet 16:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Some "anachronisms" are unavoidable, like for instance we won't ddescribe medieval times using medieval English.
 * 2) More confusion is introduced by different names in different paragraphs.
 * 3) Mentioning the name once shows respect to "the historical truth" already.
 * 4) "One name" is consistent with other articles.


 * But otherwise we'd have Siege of Petersburg of 1941 and Kaliningrad bombed by the Allies in 1944, not to mention Lviv being annexed from Poland to Austria and New York settled by Dutch. It's a minor problem as long as all articles follow the same rules, but they do not currently (some of them due to wiki voting)
 * Well, if a place was inhabitated by Poles, belonged to Poland and was called by Brits with its Polish name, then one would wonder why it's called with a, let's say, Zulu name. Of course, this argument is somehow two-bladed, but still...
 * Perhaps
 * Nope. It's not (check the articles on the majority of Polish cities, not to browse too far...)
 * Halibutt 18:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Space Cadet 23:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) There will be exceptions of course, like Königsberg and other cities that had their names changed, but Vilnius and Gdansk were always Vilnius and Gdansk.
 * 2) It's never a clear line between usages, and "inconsistent naming just causes endless disputes and revert wars.
 * OK
 * 1) ONLY Polish cities with some German or Prussian past and that needs to be changed!

Protection
How long has this page been protected?? The 9th of June? Since Zivinbudas is banned, do we need it to remain as such? (P.S.: sorry for me having to drop out of the discussions here a few months ago, I lost my internet connection) Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn. June 9th?! --Revolución (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. And, next time, please list it at WP:RfPP, where I've redirected your pages (Requests for unprotection and Requests for page unprotection). The requests for protect/unprotection are so small that they can fit into one page, though in the future those pages may be necessary. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was the one that originally protected it. I was just making sure verybody agreed that it was okay to unprotect. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Good examples
The Warsaw and Krakow articles are good examples for cities' alternative names. Both Warsaw and Krakow has many alternative names in different languages. It is not necessary to mention them all. There is only link to Names of European cities in different languages in these articles. I think Vilnius article isn't somehow different. I think we have to follow good examples. So I do that. Bf-109 06:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding mark
I decided to add this mark, because article is fully falsificated and represents only Polish POV. Bf-109 14:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Vilna in English?
Vilnius (Vilna in English...

I've never heard it referred to as "vilna" in english, I've always heard it referred to as "Vilnius". And if Vilna was the official English version, why isn't this article titled "Vilna"? --Revolución (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it's been removed now. Thanks, DeirYassin. --Revolución (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Though it might seem strange to you, the name of Vilna was once commonly used in English, contrary to the current Lithuanian name. It can be found on a plethora of old maps and in books. Even now it is a common synonym, though the current name is much more popular (compare with  and ). Anyway, it definitely deserves a mention in the header, much like the Polish name. Halibutt 16:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

As for Juzeris edits
Please note that German name for the city is Wilna, Wilno is the Polish name, therefore changing from Wilna to Wilno when talking about time when it was occupied by Germans is not correct. Also, there is no such thing as "River Vilnius", the river is known as Vilnia (and not Vilnelė either, which is more like a pet name).
 * I have corrected myself. --Jūzeris | Talk 16:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And isn't it Neris in Lithuanian? Well, AAMoF the confusion is the same in more than one language. Vilnia River (Polish Wilenka) joins Neris (Polish Wilejka) in the city itself. So, both rivers pass through the city. Halibutt 13:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ethnographic region
It is quite amusing to see that Vilnius is a part of some ethnographic region. Could the editor provide any academic references that prove such a statement?

As far as I known Vilnius does not belong to any ethnographic region.