Talk:Lithuania/Archive 3

Independence

Independence from the Soviet Union

- 	Declared	March 11, 1990 
- 	Recognized	6 September 1991 

why doesn't it mention 1918 ?

My grandmother was in Lithuania during the German invasion. Her father was shot and killed in front of her. Her mother, and twin sister were takin to camps. Her sister died in the camp and she was later freed along with her mother. Her mother was insane from all the touture trough medical experiments preformed on her. And later died. These are the bits and pieces I have gotten over the yrs. She will not talk to me about it she says its just to painfull. I wish she would open up to me about it ... I just have this deep need to know what happend to her and that part of my family. Its part of my history. In a way its hard to understand were I came from. I don't even know if she is Jewish or just a Lithuanian caught in the middle of everything at that time. --Jenlynn1977 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

History

In the third division only a very small part of Lithuania till the Memel came under Prussian controll and for only few years

Not mentioned is the frensh occupation of Klaipeda Memelland a mixed populated area. The frensh onesidet handet over this part to Lithuania 1923, the Lithuanians gave the area a sort of semicultural autonomy

Johann

GA Nominee

I haven't looked at this article in detail, but right off the bat I would say that this article doesn't have enough in-line references. There are several references at the end, but some more inline ones would be great.--Esprit15d 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ok we will try to do something ASAP M.K. 12:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

These are indeed improvesments. However, the sections that give me the most pause are the ones with statistics. Have you heard the expression "62.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot?" So they need to be substantiated so (1) they are credible and (2) they can be put in a chronological frame of reference, since even accurate statistics change often. It is cumbersome to put a citation after each one, but it would be sufficiant to just say somewhere in the paragraph (like near the beginning) "According to the 1998 World Almanac..." or "Statistics published from The World Health Organization 2004 report say..." Either that, or put one or two inline references at the end of paragraph to indicate that this whole paragraph is based on this source. The "Economy" section is done well, while the "Demographics" and "Geography" sections are of concern.--Esprit15d 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ok we will try to solve these issues M.K. 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

I've promoted the article, since there is now sufficient citation. I would recommend that every fact have an inline citation to confirm it, would encourage continued addition of such referencing. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Motto

Does anyone have a reference for the motto Vienybė težydi? I found that it is the last line of the national anthem, but nothing else. Pruneau^talk 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not very popular or widely known. The grat coat of arms of the president of Lithuania have this motto written down. See Image:Coat of arms Lithuania Grand.png. However, this COA is not yet confirmed as official. Renata 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Small correction, if mine memory not fails me, this coat of arms belongs to Seimas, while president has quite similar, only without crown and motto CoA. M.K. 09:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the motto of Lithuania is "Tautos jėga vienybėje". As far as I know, Lithuania does not have an official slogan, thus it is incorrect to regard "Tautos jėga vienybėje" as a motto of the state. The fact that this wording appeared on interwar 10 litas coins does not make it a national motto, though. Moreover, this slogan has never appeared in public after restoration of independence, therefore I say that it needs either to be removed or substantiated with credible source. --timmulis (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

South African Jews

Perhaps Lithuanian Jews have made a significant contribution toward South African Jewry, as well as American, British and Canadian Jewry. But the lack of sources and the wording of the sentence suggesting that many Jews left Lithuania in pursuit of South African gold and diamonds is erroneous. Jews were as likely to leave Eastern Europe in pursuit of bread and freedom as for "gold and diamonds." LarG (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation"

The entering of Soviet forces cannot be described as "occupation", there has not been war between the USSR and Lithuania. See Military occupation for further explanation of the problem. 212.116.151.110 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhuh, entering after ultimatum - it is. Acceptance of ultimatum is considered as a military defeat. And this is the case: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." --Lokyz 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lokyz. The "occupation" word would be controversial if there existed an alternative point of view, e.g if the Soviets maintained they "liberated" Lithuania, but since nobody claimed this, the word can stay. Also I'd suggest to try to keep the history section of the article rather brief, and expand the History of Lithuania with all the exciting details instead. --Lysy^talk 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite some source of international law, affirming that the acceptance of an ultimatum is equal to military defeat? It is incorrect that USSR enters and annexes Lithuania in accordance with Ribentrop-Molotov. In the treaty Lithuania is determined to be in the Soviet sphera, but there's nothing about it being annexed. The annexation is the direct cause of the alliance pact and the ultimatum.

Molotov-Ribbentrop specifically included language saying that if something should happen in this area, then Stalin gets X and Hitler gets Y. Considering Hitler's sphere of influence could only extend itself through occupation, it does not take rocket science to discern Stalin's means for extending his sphere of influence. (And recall Stalin pre-emptively invaded Poland up to the line of demarkation as set by the amended protocol of the pact in order to insure Hitler stayed on his side of the line.) Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact official Soviet propaganda claims exactly that the USSR liberated the Lithuanian people from the White dictatorship. It's no matter of political controversy here, it's a matter of legal accuracy.

Also, you removed some facts, like the one with the USSR granting the district of Wilno to Lithuania without any explanation. Could you please provide some arguments for it? 212.116.151.110 13:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

District of Vilnius was granted according to 1920 peace treaty.

Ultimatum stated - nevertheles whether Lithuanian government would accept or would not accept ultimatum, USSR army will march into Lithuanian teritory. And there's evidence, that some Soviet units did not get information about that ulitmatum was accepted. They shot few people in uniform (Lithuanian border policemen) - this is what exactly can be called a war.

Don't you think, that this supposedly "liberating" act only proves, that Soviet army did gain control over territory? Was it Soviet territory to be "liberated" or "eternal Russian lands" that briefly escaped and formed Lithuanian national state? And what do you call whites? There was no White army in Lithuania, only national Lithuanian Armed Forces (btw, considerably smaller than occupying forces). So please tell me, what is this liberation in your oppinion?

Situation seems to be exact like in one of occupation definitions :"42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

As for legal considerations - I'm not a laywer, so cannot provide a law to prove this.

And all the "elections" were forged because: 1. there was only one party "to be elected", 2. All people who went to "vote" had their passports stamped 3. Soviet army was everywhere 4. "Government", that did organize elections was controlled by soviet agents Vladimir Dekanozov and Antanas Sniečkus.

You seem to read Soviet books, find some never literature. Good luck.--Lokyz 14:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not the right place to promote Nazi or Soviet propaganda concepts. --Lysy^talk 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be deeply affected by the political background of the period, I suppose you are Lithuanian. I never argued that elections were not forged or that the post-15 July government was not a puppet one. The only thing I oppose is the term "occupation". Shooting several policemen on the border is not a war in legal terms, it is called "a military incident". A "war" means full-scale armed confrontation. And an "occupation" occurs after a war has been fought.

I did not promote any propaganda concepts. I just cited what Soviet propaganda said about the annexation of Lithuania and the other Baltic states. 212.116.151.110 07:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider registering, because discussions with anon users are not very popular in Wikipedia.--Lokyz 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here I am. Now do you have something to the point or should we change the article? DamianOFF 10:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Change what? If you're insisting to push an opinion, that Lithuania was not occupied please tell me what term would you use for a fact that foreign army enters a state, remove it's constitutional government and this army imprisons several high ranking state officers (like internal affairs Minsiter, head of State Security Deparatament)? --Lokyz 11:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There could be put all the consequent facts - the German-Soviet pact, the alliance pact, the accusation from Moscow for breaching the latter, the entering of the Red Army, the staging of forged elections and the final annexation by the USSR. I would not deny that I am pushing an opinion - the one of the creators of international law. According to which, an "occupation" is preceded by a "war". DamianOFF 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Molotov-Ribbentrov pact was secret and had no legal ground in the first place. In fact this pact alone could be considered as an act of a joint occupation, or at least a preparation for occupation. Notice there was no Lithuanian (or other legal) party in Molotov-Ribbentrov pact, and the agreement was a forced military invasion. Granted that the fact of occupation is blurred in time and place, but it does not change the intentions and actions of the participating parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.195.72 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "occupation" is widely accepted. It used in internatinal politics, in foreign relations, in newspapers, scientific journals, academic research, textbooks, history books, movies, shows. You are in no position to change that. Renata 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Popular" and "correct" have different meaning. DamianOFF 12:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And who are you (or me, or Lokyz) to determine what's correct? I think, it's way out of our abilities and capabilities. Therefore we need to go with the widely accepted term. Renata 13:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many popular terms and facts that are not scientifically correct. For example, Bulgarian national revolutionary Vasil Levski was hanged on 2 February(new style 18th), but today's Bulgaria mourns him on the 19th. Every year. DamianOFF 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Damian, occupation is not a scientific fact. It's a matter of judgement and interpretations. Since you (or me) are in no position to judge and interpret, we gotta go with what the world thinks and says. And it (except for Russia and other Soviet countries) thinks it was occupation. Renata 12:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

DamianOFF, no, I am not Lithuanian and I believe you are not Russian. Does it matter ? Are you trying to say that when armed forces occupy another country without declaring a war first, then it is not a real occupation ? What is it then ? A friendly help ? I suggest you go to Museum of Occupation in Riga to confront your theories with reality. --Lysy^talk 17:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not Russian and I think I am not biased, concerning this article. Once again, I'll try to point out the general difference between political and scientific definition. If a foreign military force enters a country, and the people of this country hates it, you can call it an "occupation" on commemorative meetings, you can build up monuments of people who died "fighting against the foreign occupation", you can name museums in this country "museums of occupation", but you cannot call it an "occupation" in a scientific text, unless a war has been fought against the foreign force.

A war does not have to be fought for a country to be "scientifically" and legally occupied. This has nothing to do with "hating" the Soviet Union. It is sufficient that there indeed be an occupation army and that the sovereign government of that territory can no longer function. There does not need to be a declaration of war, a military occupation commission, etc. etc. etc. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you still wouldn't be convinced by what I say, I suggest we put an inquiry on the Wikipedia:Village pump concerning the usage of the term "occupation".DamianOFF 07:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing erroneous sources endlessly (or repeating erroneous statements endlessly) does not make them any more true, unfortunately, though some would try to make "fact" versus "fiction" a popularity contest. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't argue with Wikipedia, argue with:

• Britannica: On June 15, 1940, the U.S.S.R. confronted Lithuania with an ultimatum demanding the immediate formation of a "friendly" government and the admission of unlimited numbers of Soviet troops to its territory. The same day, the country was occupied.
• Encarta: In the summer of 1944 the Soviets reoccupied most of Lithuania... [1]
• Dick Chaney: The United States never recognized the legitimacy of that occupation,... [2]
• George Bush: But I recognize that in the West, the end of the second world war meant peace, but in the Baltics, it brought occupation and communist oppression. [3]
• U.S. Congress: the Government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement of admission and condemnation of the illegal occupation and annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania . [4]
• New York Times: The referendum also demands that Lithuania be compensated for damages resulting from the Soviet occupation and annexation in 1940. [5]
• Can come up with more. Just gotta go. Renata 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Mr. Damian would be appeased by an entry in the references that reads something like "Disputation regarding the term "occupation" as applied to Lithuania". But then it must link to some reasonably reputable source - not blogs or other personal websites.

The circumstances of the Lithuanian occupation are virtually identical to that of the Latvian, where the application of "occupation" to the full term of the Soviet presence has been dealt with in the discussion page for the Occupation of Latvia article. (The same people have posted here indicating Lithuania was "not occupied.") There is no reason to "appease" anyone's "opinion" that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were "not occupied." Next we will be proposing to appease people who insist the moon is made of cheese. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we are truly "feeding trolls" here. White dictatorship, is this serious enough of an edit, to even bother responding to, at this point? Dr. Dan 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is very serious. If Russia finally accepts the fact of occupation, then next, Russia will have to pay compensations for all repressions during the occupation, which is something Russia is trying to avoid by all means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.195.72 (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing the officials of the military agressor and occupant state (Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc?) is indeed a very valuable argument. Murmillo 10:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now this sounds like a Russian TV populism. You don't need to continue, we've heard it all.

Referencing to US as a big daddy looks to me as a parasitic attitude. Most of people are able to make decision on the facts themselves and reference only to facts, not estimations of G. Bush or some other John Doe.

Just let me ask you, whether citing military agressor and occupant as a valuable source (1920 Armenia, 1921 Georgia, 1922 Azerbaijan, 1939 Poland, 1940 Moldova (Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to be exact), 1940 Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, 1956 Hungary, 1968 Czechoslovakia, 1979 Afghanistan) is valuable argument? If it's not enough, we might continue with Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and so on:)--Lokyz 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer is evident - No. Only facts that can be proved make sense. Murmillo 11:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Welt, this is the only one source, that doubts whether there was occupation:)--Lokyz 12:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I have not seen any new arguments I once again ask everybody to put this on the village pump and really see what the community has to say on the matter. DamianOFF 08:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I still say - let us link to something on the other side - it could even be a blog. The truth will prevail in the long run, and it doesn't need to fear challenges. Novickas 12:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, if "truth" really has nothing to fear about being challenged, it should be put up as a thesis on the village pump. Or there's someone fearing what the Community has to say? DamianOFF 12:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a international legal organization, so it really does not matter what it has to say. If you have any problems with term "occupation" you might go to Hague Tribunal and ask for clarification of a pure and shiny reputation of Stalin and Hitler. Because for now there are more than enough evidences from politicians and declarations of high ranking officials of many states, that Baltic states were occupied, and somehow I do not find objections by "lawyers" form KGB high schools neither reasonable nor objective.--Lokyz 13:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Village pump request made. Novickas 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the Baltics were "occupied" is not a popularity contest

(I've been asked to pull all this together, so here goes...) Whether the Baltics were, or were not, officially legally indisputably "occupied" is not a matter of conjecture. I see some well-meaning and thoughtful individuals have been drawn into the we can agree to disagree/we won't settle it here camp ("It's a matter of judgement and interpretations. Since you (or me) are in no position to judge and interpret, we gotta go with what the world thinks and says."--Renata). Or, more directly, just put it to a vote ("I suggest we put an inquiry on the Wikipedia:Village pump concerning the usage of the term 'occupation'."--DamianOFF).

Neither of these approaches does justice to the historical facts, to the memory of those who had to flee their homeland--most of them never to see it free again, or especially to those ripped from their homes (while Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were still sovereign nations even by the account of the Soviet Union) and sent to the Soviet gulags, most of them to die there.

What follows is somewhat from the perspective of Latvia, since I'm most familiar with the details. However, the validity extends to all three Baltic republics, as all were forced into "mutual assistance pacts;" all were invaded under the same false pretenses as part of the same campaign, Lithuania being the first; and the governments of all three took specific steps to insure their continuity regardless of territorial events.

A nation cannot be occupied without a "war"

The earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that “a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” This has been quoted by both sides in the "occupation debate":

• "yes" = Soviet army invaded, took control of all communications, etc., Soviet administration was set up...;
• "no" = Soviet army entered in legal accordance with the terms of the mutual assistance pact, the Soviet army did not actually administer the Latvian (Lithuanian, Estonian) territory....

The Hague Convention "version" is the earliest legal definition of occupation. However, it was defined in the context of a time when war itself was still considered a legal means for settling arguments.

Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states: “The Convention [...] shall apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.” This definition and subsequent legal interpretation focus on de facto control of a territory: "...the occupying power must be in a position to substitute its own authority for that of the occupied authorities, which must have been rendered incapable of functioning publicly".

Additionally, it is a severe breach of the Geneva Convention to deport citizens from the occupied territory to the territory of the occupier. As well, it is a severe breach to import citizens of the occupier into occupied territory. So, the deportation of Baltic citizens to the Soviet Union (including while even the Soviet Union took pains to insist the Baltics were "sovereign") and the subsequent campaign of Russification are all gross violations of international law.

As the occupied authorities (Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian) lost control to Soviet authority, including the immediate take-over of all communications facilities upon invasion (government-run phone and telegraph, radio...), that is wholly sufficient legal basis to categorize the Soviet presence an "occupation." Moreover, whether or not the Soviet army invaded legally or illegally (next, below) under the terms of the "mutual assistance pacts," the end result is still an occupation.

SOVIET OCCUPATION OF LITHUANIA

Lithuania was occupied by the red army indeed as it happened for Latvia and Estonia, for Besssarabia and Northern Bucovina.. The same was done by Germany with Denmark and by Italy with Albania. No doubt about.--Deguef (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

But the Soviet troops were invited in! And the Latvian (Lithuanian, Estonian) parliament(s) voted to ask to join the Soviet Union!

Pravda (November 26, 1939), in an [article] describing the Finnish Prime Minister Aimo Cajanderas a "buffoon" for not agreeing to a pact of mutual assistance, characterizes the pacts as: "...Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have concluded with the Soviet government treaties which secure them independence, peace and quiet work." Four days later, on November 30, the Soviet Union invaded Finland, proving Stalin's threats were not made idly.

This source is printed by Russian communists (see Центрального Комитета и МК ВКП(б)) what do you expect to be printed there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.195.72 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Soviets were invited in"

The mutual assistance pacts are often cited as basis for the "legality" of the Soviet presence. The intent behind its presence was certainly not benign, as the Soviet Union had already printed up "name-your-Baltic-republic" S.S.R. maps in 1939. More to the point, General Ivan Serov, Deputy People's Commissar of Public Security of the Soviet Union, had already on October 11, 1939—less than a week after the signing of the mutual assistance pacts—issued and signed Order № 001223, "regarding the Procedure for carrying out the Deportation of Anti-Soviet Elements from Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia." Stalin (in Moscow) told Latvian Prime Minister Vilhelms Munters that as far as he was concerned, he could "invade tomorrow." (As already noted, this was no idle threat, as the Soviet invasion of Finland soon proved.) Nevertheless, the initial stationing of Soviet troops on Baltic soil was legal. According to Article 5 (Latvian pact), "the carrying into effect of the present pact must in no way affect the sovereign rights of the contracting parties, in particular, their political structure, their economic and social system, and their military measures." For the time being, not an occupation. The pacts, however, do not automatically impart legality to all subsequent Soviet actions using the pacts as their basis.

"The Soviets (later) entered legally under the terms of the mutual assistance pact."

This, more than anything else, is a microcosm of Soviet "truth" in action, which is: stage events, execute events, and subsequently interpret events in a wholly consistent cause-and-effect manner so as to (a) present an illusion of veracity, and (b) present that "veracity" going forward as a valid representation of historical occurrences, thereby (c) defining the "Soviet position" to be (d) used in the promulgation of further "veracities" in the Soviet interest. This is the very definition of Stalinism in action. (Too much for discussion here, but Stalin was particularly insistent on this sort of consistency, that is, always making sure he had a "solid lie" to stand on.)

The Soviet position is that they were "forced" to invade under the terms of the mutual assistance pact(s) in order to preserve their security. Not their fault, therefore neither an invasion nor an occupation. The lack of armed resistance is further cited as an indication this was not an invasion. Non-resistance was merely good sense (recall what happened to Finland)—the Baltics were strictly neutral in the war, were desperate to avoid its devastation, and would have been crushed by a Soviet onslaught.

The excuses under which the Soviets were "compelled" to invade, here using the Soviet ultimatum of June 16, 1940 to Latvia, but applicable to all three states (from Švābe's Story of Latvia):

• Its continued Military Alliance with Estonia, signed on November 1st, 1923, a defensive alliance registered with the League of Nations—and to which the USSR had not previously objected;
• Estonia's and Latvia's extension of that alliance to Lithuania, thus implicating all three Baltic states in an anti-Soviet plot—this was a total fabrication;
• Holding "secret conferences" in December, 1939 and March, 1940, ostensibly for the triple alliance to plot against the USSR—these were, in fact, regularly scheduled conferences of the Baltic ministers, in accordance with the Treaty of Collaboration of the Baltic States, signed in 1934 and, again, registered with the League of Nations, hardly secret;
• The enhancement of military relations between the Baltic states in hiding from the Soviets—again, total fabrication, and recall that tens of thousands of Soviet troops were already station in all three Baltic states—hardly the circumstances to be plotting the overthrow of the Soviet Union; and finally,
• The creation of a military Baltic Entente, the Revue Baltique—again a total fabrication; though the Revue Baltique did exist, it was actually the tri-lingual press organization of the Societies of Friendship of the Baltic Peoples.

There was additional provocation (alleged kidnapping of border guards, et al.) to set the stage. In the case of Latvia, after the first ultimatum was delivered to Lithuania, but before an ultimatum was delivered to Latvia, the Soviet Union attacked three Latvian border posts in the east of Latvia, killing three border guards and two civilians, as well as taking 10 border guards and 27 civilians as hostages to the Soviet Union. An act of war.

It may be a "consistent" cause and effect for Soviet propaganda, but, in verifiable fact, Soviet entry into the Baltics was a completely unprovoked military invasion based totally on lies. That makes everything from this point forward an occupation, so-called "petitions" to "voluntarily" join the Soviet Union notwithstanding (next, below).

Most telling, after the invasion of the Baltics, during which time they were purportedly still "sovereign," Vyacheslav Molotov stated the following to the Lithuanian foreign minister, Vincas Kreve-Misckevicius, on June 30: “You must take a good look at reality and understand that in the future small nations will have to disappear. Your Lithuania along with the other Baltic nations, including Finland, will have to join the glorious family of the Soviet Union. Therefore you should begin now to initiate your people into the Soviet system, which in the future shall reign everywhere, throughout all Europe; put into practice earlier in some places, as in the Baltic nations, later in others.” Puppet governments were elected two weeks later in all three republics.

Finally, in the case of Latvia, in sending Andrei Vishinsky as an official representative to take control of power and form a new government in Latvia, the Soviet Union violated the terms of the mutual assistance pacts, which as noted above, explicitly stated the pact must have no effect on sovereignty.

"Latvia (Lithuania, Estonia) joined the Soviet Union voluntarily."

This is the most persistent and perhaps most pernicious of all the Soviet lies, and a position that Russia continues to repeatedly espouse, branding anything else an anti-"anti-fascist", i.e., Nazi, lie. One of the most blatant promulgations of this lie by Russia was the passage of the following resolution by the Russian Duma in November, 1999, as reported by Itar-Tass: "The State Duma considers it its duty to 'remind deputies of the Latvian Saima that Latvia's being a part of the Soviet Union was grounded by fact and by law from the international juridical point of view...'"

This is, in fact, a lie that is doubly false—if such a thing is possible.

First, the governments "elected" were fraudulent. Beyond only "approved" Soviet candidates being on the ballot, the election results were announced in Moscow hours before the polls closed, and Soviet documents verify that the results were completely fabricated. So, the "election" was a fraud and any actions subsequently taken by the "elected" government were equally fraudulent.

There are those who, nevertheless, insist that an election is an election and therefore the incorporation of Latvia (Lithuania, Estonia) into the USSR is still "technically legal." This is the second falsehood. For example, in the case of Latvia, any change to its borders/territorial sovereignty/etc. had to, according to the Latvian constitution, be ratified by a two-thirds majority plebiscite of all eligible voters. Paradoxically, Soviet (now Russian) insistence that the joining of the Baltics to the Soviet Union was undertaken at the initiative of the parliaments of the respective sovereign nations (thus making it "technically" legal) confirms that the joinings were completely illegal as, in the case of Latvia, the joining was a direct violation of the terms of the constitution.

The sovereign Baltic States did not, therefore, join the Soviet Union; furthermore, they continued to exist de jure (next, below).

"Latvia (Lithuania, Estonia) did not exist after WWII and therefore were not occupied."

This is also "doubly" false.

First is the falsehood which is the continuation of the "voluntary" joining to the Soviet Union: in doing so, the Baltic states stopped existing as sovereign nations. The corollary is that the current Baltic States are not "continuances" of the respective territorial and governmental entities which were sovereign prior to WWII (the official Russian position). As the joining was both fraudulent and illegal (based on both outright fraud and on constitutional violation), there is no basis to any legal termination of sovereignty.

Second, the Baltic governments all took individual action to insure continuity of the exercise of their sovereignty regardless of territorial situations. Power of state was vested in these individuals/organs by the respective sovereign governments and was exercised by them until transfer of power of state by them back to the re-established sovereign governments. Using Latvia as an example, power of state was vested in Kārlis Zariņš, head of the Latvian legation to Great Britain, with Alfreds Bīlmanis, his counterpart in the United States, as his substitute should he fail to be able to execute his duties. After the death of Kārlis Zariņš in 1963, Latvia's diplomatic and consular services were overseen by the chargés d'affaires in the United States until the reestablishment of independence.

Most importantly, the Baltic states are legally continuous to their initial independence, remaining in existence in exile during the Soviet presence. This is the official position of all three governments; all three governments can point to officially documented and de jure transfers of power which fully support their position in this regard. The Soviet Union and now Russia has only lies and propaganda to support the dissenting "viewpoint."

"Russia liberated a now ungrateful Latvia (Lithuania, Estonia) from Hitler."

The above sections conclude the review of the facts, which incontrovertibly establish that:

• The Baltics were illegally invaded by the Soviet Union (regardless of the initial legal stationing of Soviet troops on Baltic soil under the terms of "mutual assistance" pacts);
• The Baltics neither voluntarily nor legally joined the Soviet Union;
• The sovereign powers of state of the Baltic governments continued to exist and to be exercised in exile during the entire Soviet tenure in the Baltic territories, and the current Baltic states are to be considered legally continuous with their predecessors;
• The Soviet presence in the Baltic territories is to be legally considered an occupation for its entire tenure.

That said, there is one last topic to be briefly dealt with, as it is the final piece of the puzzle where the current official Russian position is concerned. For example, Pravda (October, 2004), in an article complaining that Latvia does not celebrate May 9th as the Soviet defeat of Nazism, notes: "One of the leaders of Latvian Veterans Association Alexander Komarovsky wrote in Chas Russian-language Latvian newspaper that 154,000 Soviet soldiers died when fighting for Latvia's liberation."

Let us be completely clear. During the first occupation alone, the Soviet Union deported over 150,000 Baltic citizens. The notion that Baltic citizens gleefully welcomed the Russian "liberation" after that experience is a pure manufacture of Soviet propaganda. (Sadly, even today's Latvian Russians have been reported in the Russian press as bemoaning, "Soviet soldiers were greeted with flowers and songs. If it weren't for the Soviets, then the Nazis would be here.") The Soviet monument to the liberators of Latvia (across the Daugava from the main part of Riga) stands taller than the Statue of Liberty—but a lie, no matter how imposing a monument is erected to it, is still a lie. (It's rather unfortunate that under the terms of the Soviet departure an agreement was put in place to respect the war memorials left on occupied territory.)

Stalin did not liberate the Baltics. The Freedom Monument in Riga, Latvia was not built to thank Stalin (its three stars alleged to be the three Baltic states), a fiction repeated by a British tourism brochure a decade after Baltic independence—such is the hold of a lie told repeatedly for so long that it takes on the mantle of truth. The lie that the Baltics were not occupied is another such lie, plain and simple. Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • The same non-sense as up here is repeated by certain Soviet nostalgic editors here: Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945. Advocatus diaboli 14:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources on German-Soviet pact

Could the one who included the sources about the Ribentrop-Molotov pact please cite the exact phrase that claims that there's a text in the secret ammendment to the pact, that directly envisages the entering of Soviet troops in Lithuania? DamianOFF 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? M.K.

Here is a useful site: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/03-30-46.htm, the March 30, 1946 proceedings of the Nuremburg trial. There is a reference to the occupation of Lithunia. A direct quote: "DR. HORN: Is it correct that on 15 June 1940, after the delivery of an ultimatum, the Russians occupied the whole of Lithuania, including the part which was still German, without notifying the Reich government? VON RIBBENTROP: There was no special agreement concerning this, but it is well known that these areas were actually occupied." Here is another reference, http://www.lituanus.org/1989/89_1_03.htm, which states that "Valentin Falin, then head of TASS, reiterated at a Moscow press conference that no original of the secret protocol has ever been found". Many other references are listed in this latter article. Novickas 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The original terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact put Estonia and Latvia in the Soviet sphere of influence and Lithuania in the German sphere (and certainly, Hitler's "call home" was to insure Germans not find themselves under Soviet occupation): "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."

The subsequent amendment to the pact (and remember, all of it was "secret") was a proposal by Stalin to Hitler to "solve the Baltic (Lithuania) problem" where Lithuania was added to what Stalin "got" in return for Hitler "getting" a part of Poland he didn't have under the original terms. Most of my reference books are in boxes, so I don't have that text handy. Soviet occupation of the Baltics was envisaged regardless, as the Soviet Union had already printed up maps of the Baltic republics with the suffix "S.S.R." indicated as early as August 1939—prior to the initial stationing of Soviet troops in the Baltic under the terms of the mutual assistance pacts. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation requested by Lysy

Added the reference that was requested. Novickas 14:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC) This source, The US State Dept, is not perfect - it uses the expression "other sources" - but it carries weight in the English-speaking world.

Thank you! I believe that's actually the place where the sentence came from. You know, in early days most stuff on countries was adopted from U.S. gov sources: CIA factbook, country studies, etc. Renata 16:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

(RfC request appears here)

Would the editors here summarize this debate? Durova 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanians (and others of Baltic heritage) and pretty much the entire rest of the planet say Lithuania (along with the other Baltic States) was "occupied" according to international Conventions, and that said occupation was illegal under international law. (Mainly) Russia and Russophiles maintain:

• it was not an occupation, and/or
• it was at least a legal occupation (according to the terms of the mutual assistance pacts), and/or
• there was no occupation because Lithuania ceased to exist as a sovereign entity, and/or
• the Soviet presence in Lithuania, while an occupation to begin with / during the war, ceased to be an occupation at some indeterminate point when Lithuania had been under Soviet rule for so long that "occupation" became irrelevent, and/or
• the establishment of Soviet sovereignty over Lithuanian territory in accordance with the petition by the Lithuanian parliament to join the Soviet Union made the incorporation of Lithuania into the Soviet Union legal according to international law, ergo no occupation.

A motion has been made to essentially "vote" on whether Wikipedians are to view the Soviet presence in Lithuania as an occupation for the entire term (this also means recognizing today's Lithuania as continuous with the first republic), or whether for whatever number of reasons, including:

• failure to present a persuasive argument, and/or
• lack of consensus in the international community (Russia et al. "it was not an occupation" viewpoint), and/or
• failure to persuade all Wikipedians of the "truth" of the "occupation,"

it is to be held that some people are merely of the opinion that Lithuania was occupied, i.e., it's the "so-called 'occupation' of Lithuania". --"Visiting" Latvia-related articles editor... Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That was about what I thought I'd see, although the editors here understand this in far more detail than I do. Wikipedia's mission is not to settle controversies but to describe them. I recommend putting the debate into the article under a neutral heading - perhaps "Soviet era" - and welcoming each side to present references for the matter. Per Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, editors don't have to agree on an issue to collaborate toward a good article. Best wishes, Durova 20:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To the Lithuanians there is less than zero controversy. Accordingly, I would like to see it called an occupation with a notation that Russia dissents. We don't put the belief that the earth is flat on the same footing as the belief that the earth is round simply because there are some people who (perhaps even stridently) insist the earth is flat. --Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does have a Flat Earth entry. It has a section describing modern-day believers, and a link to their websites. A Soviet Empire page would keep these authors occupied (pun intended). In this case there are quite a lot of believers - see [6]. 40% of the population felt that Stalin was a great leader; that's millions of people. Of course the rest of the world recoils in horror, but it's important to know your adversary's point of view. A lot of us would be interested in their justifications. Novickas 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There you go! A new article dedicated to presenting the Soviet "view", notes that a significant number of people still believe it (e.g., Stalin liberated the Baltics), and explore the reasons why. Additionally, enumerate instances of Soviet/Russian policy at odds with the Baltics (or other nations) and explore the validity of the basis of the Soviet/Russian position/policy. I haven't seen one good argument from the "it wasn't an occupation" camp yet. Really, we don't need to argue over the Hague Convention from the 19th century. What it really boils down to is this:

• the official Russian position and policy, as stated by its ministers, its president, and its parliament, is that the Baltics joined the Soviet Union legally under international law and therefore were not "occupied."

Well, let's see the evidence, then. Not just, "Russia says so, that's good enough for me,... The Duma says so, it ought to be good enough for you,... Putin said it, that's proof enough,... Russia doesn't have to prove anything,... и так далее, и так далее, и так далее, и так далее,..." --Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. A real article would be a lot more informative and a lot more interesting than just-a-bunch-of-folks simply insisting there was no occupation. I'll eventually get to the Stalin is buried but not dead topic to some degree in the History of Russians in Latvia but not any time soon. --Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for our point–counter-point to materialize... —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You see it is quite clear situation, only one editor had some different thoughts. M.K. 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we can wait a few more days and if no one presents a properly substantiated case, then we're settled on calling the Soviet presence throughout its tenure in the Baltics an "occupation." I have no issue with also noting that "Russia continues to vehemently deny..." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What happens when the clock runs out? Do you know of any other issues in Wikipedia that have been in this situation? Novickas 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(N.B. re-indented the above two) As I understand it, all parties have to come to agreement for it to be stricken from RfC. I haven't been through a RfC before, perhaps someone with experience in this can comment. We might be stuck here for a while even though DamianOFF appears to have abandoned his position. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is time to close this. Position is clear. M.K. 10:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume there's something more formal than merely deleting the request on the RfC page. Guidance, anyone, based on past experience/knowledge of the RfC process? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

An interesting note - at this site [7] (warning: this document mentions the use of nuclear weapons against Lithuania) the author states, in re reparations payments to Lithuania: "Any negotiations on this matter would require Moscow to recognize the fact of occupation, which is absolutely out of question for a number of reasons." He does not go on to discuss the reasons. The article's author, Arkady Moshes, has written over 90 academic papers according to his curriculum vitae at [8]. Among the venues that have published his work are Harvard University Press, and he is listed as being Senior Researcher, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Head, Russia and EU Programme. Novickas 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Art

Am planning to add a section on Lithuanian art. Comments, additions, even flaming welcome. Many of us probably have photos of public sculpture in Lietuva, that could be uploaded. Novickas 15:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't run across traditional (weaving, ceramics, carving, jewelry... more modern like folk symbols interpreted in stained glass) for either Latvia or Lithuania. Might be out there somewhere... maybe not. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of Lithuanian weaving and ceramics out there; our family owns quite a few examples. Also the Balzekas Museum in Chicago has an extensive selection, but will have to find out if they'll let me take pictures or donate their images to Wikimedia.

This project will clearly go slowly, since images are so jealously guarded. Also I can see now that issues will arise with regard to the ethnic provenance -Polish vs Lithuanian - of some major artists and architects.

Maybe it would be better to have a page on Baltic Arts (I looked for it, didn't find it, but if you know of one pls let me know) since we seem to do well at collaborating under the Baltic rubric. What do you think? Novickas 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion

The Religion section says Lithuania was the only majority Catholic soviet republic. Isn't Poland majority Catholic too? - Schrandit 15:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Poland was not formally a "Soviet Socialist Republic" - see Soviet Union. Not to disparage the effects of the Soviet Union on Poland. Novickas 16:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this one :-)) --Lysy^talk 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Me Too! Dr. Dan 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Lithuania's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Lithuania deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state, and is now spamming this message on every talk page. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Suicide rates

Here is a list of the top ten, sorted by rate. Note that all except Sri Lanka were either Soviet SSRs or under Soviet domination. Kazakhstan is not an Eastern European country. Slovenia and Hungary are central European.

• LITHUANIA 91.70
• RUSSIAN FEDERATION 82.50
• BELARUS 73.10
• LATVIA 68.50
• UKRAINE 62.10
• SRI LANKA 61.40
• SLOVENIA 60.70
• HUNGARY 60.10
• ESTONIA 57.70
• KAZAKHSTAN 55.00

Source: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Novickas 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In light of these statistics, and of the fact that the user is anonymously logged in to an account that has had many problems, I'm going to revert. Novickas 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

According to a link provided in the Health section of the main page (#49), suicide rate in Lithuania in 2007 was 30.4, not 38.6 like the article said, so I took the liberty and edited it.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/lith.pdf

--Gytaz (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that this rate dropped more recently, ant ref?

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:27 (UTC)

Lithuania entered into the annals of European history when it was first mentioned in a medieval German manuscript, the Quedlinburg Chronicle, on February 14, 1009. The Lithuanian lands were united by Mindaugas in 1236, and neighboring countries referred to it as "the state of Lithuania". The official coronation of Mindaugas as King of Lithuania, on July 6, 1253, marked its recognition by Christendom, and the official recognition of Lithuanian statehood as the Kingdom of Lithuania.[2]

This history part is totally misleading and incorrect. Compare it to this: http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lietuva while not everyting there is close to total true it is at least less misleading.

Dialect of English

This article appears to vary between different dialects of English. This is a problem per WP:MOS. Assuming my spell-checker and I are correct, I would have to change four words to make this British English, five words to make it American English, and three words to make it Canadian and Austrialian English. I do not know which is would be preferred. However, Lithuania and Great Britain are both European. If no one responds, I am going to make it British English. Three in the morning 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics: long drafting?

Drafting the constitution was a long and complicated process

Was it long? In 1990 the previous temporary constitution was enacted. Years 1990 - 1991 were so intensive, that the parlament has no time to draft a new constitution, even if they might think about it in general. Nor a public discussion on new constitution took place then. So we have 09/1991 - 09/1992. At this time discussion had started not in the Supreme Council only, but in wider society. But the public discusion didn't increase much, because the drafting of constitution had already been finished. So it was a year long discussion in the parlament and a few months long public discussion. Was it long as for constitution? Linas Lituanus 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Caption

In the image in Culture, what is the caption supposed to mean? It describes Image:Vilnius Uzupio Respublica.jpg as "A sculpture of angel — a symbol of tongue-in-cheek Republic at Užupis, Vilnius." Could this be rephrased to be much clearer? Why would an angel be "tongue-in-cheek"? Alekjds ^talk 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was coming to ask the exact same thing! --Grey Knight ⊖ 16:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Renata3 clarified things for me, and I have attempted to make the caption more clear. --Grey Knight ⊖ 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone vandalized this article

After reading an article in the New York Times I came to this one. The last line in the general discussion states: "Lithuania is between Scotland and Mongolia and was founded by Weird Al Jankovic" or something like that.

I doubt that was the author's intention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ox41234 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pagan Romuva Religion

In the religions section, shouldnt Romuva be mentioned as it is still practiced by some indeginous Lithuanians. The religion is pretty unique to the area and really should be mentioned.

216.66.105.128 18:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's oppressed and intentionally marginalized to downplay the actual number of pagans in Lithuania, I doubt it will be. The religious powers that be in Lithuania try to brush pagans aside and deny them any kind of voice. A step up from killing them as was the case back in the old days, but do you really think the same religious institution that conducted the church sanctioned murders and ethnic cleansing of pagans simply for being pagan a few centuries ago is going to suddenly turn around and recognize them as a legitimate religion? It's an uphill battle to even get the atrocities against the Pagan peoples of europe mentioned in secular nations.

Besides, it's been a long time since you posted this. If it wasn't clear to you then it should be by now with me being the only one to answer you. No one cares about pagans. Everyone's happy pretending they don't exist, and that's the way the Catholics and Protestants in Lithuania, nigh in the entire freaking world, want it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.247.134 (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of term Aryan

Not sure a complete revert of Scotia1297's change is completely the right solution. May be worth addressing in Lithuanian people, per the New Human Interest Library encyclopedia. Just a thought. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lithuanian crime wave into Scandinavia should be mentioned, as it is quite comprehensive. I hope wikipedia is not going to be a site for tourist interest and political correctness. Our country is full of Lithuanians already. This is heavily documented.

The world will know sooner or later, and then the Pro-Lithuanian censors can sit there with their Soviet tendencies and feel clever, as we throw these criminals home.

Collusion

I notice this page stays well away from any kind of accusation of collusion with the Nazis. Only Germans can be so evil, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.51.91 (talk) 23:33, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

You think communists were smoother? No way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.100.66.70 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Location map

new style map featuring Germany

Maybe it is worth to change current location map to the new style one, like Germany? M.K. 20:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Most recent independence

I realise that former Eastern Bloc countries tend to have competing versions of history, so I'll try to be careful. I mean no offence.

The article's information bar describes the years between the the end of the Second World War and the collapse of the Soviet Union as "Soviet occupation." I'm not disputing the legality (or illegality) of the USSR's invasion and annexation of Lithuania, but the fact is that it happened. Lithuania was thus henceforth part of the Soviet Union and cannot be considered to have been under occupation. Again, I'm not saying that the annexation was right, just that it happened and that the article should reflect that.

If there's something I'm missing I'd appreciate clarification.

Thank you, Soviet Canuckistan (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Forcible annexation and integration into Soviet civil structures does not mean that occupation ends. Occupation is defined as the sovereign rightful authority prevented from exercising its authority by another authority--a situation which continued from the first Soviet invasion and occupation, interrupted by the Nazi invasion and occupation, to Lithuania's redeclaration of independence. Russia insists post-Soviet Lithuania is not pre-WWII Lithuania (supporting no occupation). However, enough bilateral international obligations have been restarted right where they left off in 1939 that the overwhelming international position is that today's Lithuania is indeed the one declared independent in 1918, confirming 50 years of occupation. Lithuania's own position is that it is continuous with the state declared independent in 1918.

   So the article is indeed correct. Hope this helps. This topic has been covered in painful detail in some of the talk archives of all three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, indeed, the Baltic state/western version of history is quite different from the Soviet "version" of history, that's the correct term to use (they are not competing interpretations of identical facts). —PētersV (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In the article it is mentioned that independence in 1918 was regained from the Russian empire which is false. Independence was regained from Germany that occupied Lithuania in 1915. Please correct this one. Mantas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.108.2 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Missed this one, independence is from the prior sovereign entity, not from the prior occupying entity. —PētersV (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove Lithuania from the GA list

I personally removed this article from the GA list. If anyone object this, please write down your reasons or opinions so that I can put these to assessment (i.e. GAR) ASAP for review in order to reach a new consensus. Coloane (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you follow Good article reassessment/guidelines? What were the reasons you removed this article from the GA list? Doopdoop (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As the remover (Coloane), don't you have some editorial obligation to share with editors what the deficiencies are that require being addressed which prompted your action? We're not psychic, here, list please so we can strike through as they are addressed by the editorial community. Otherwise you've just effectively tagged the article as "insufficient" with no further information. —PētersV (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

please kindly refer to: Good Article's talk page. I think you will find out the reason why I removed the article from the list. Someone explained over there already, I guess. If you have any question and would like to put this article back on the GA list, please take this article to the GA reassessment and get a new consensus. Coloane (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WWII victims

Don't have the bandwidth right now, but there needs to be a bit of cleanup, especially with the latest edit which duplicated the Holocaust victims totals again which already appear several lines before. —PētersV (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Should probably note Lithuania's inter-war Jewish population was around 150,000--Hitler's and Stalin's deal incorporating Vilnius in October 1939 added another 100,000 just in time for Hitler to exterminate them. −PētersV (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or do you want to say that incorporation of Vilna somehow moved 100,000 Jews from safety to extermination? And, if you insist on splitting hairs, locals played unusually prominent part in extermination of Lithuanian Jews. And it seems from accounts that Lithuanians were busier bees than Vilna Poles, although this can be somehow explained by Nazi's distrust to Slavs in general, Balts were viewed as somewhat more loyal. Proved to be more loyal too (if you compare number of Polish Waffen SS and rear guard units to Baltic ones).

Yes that is true - especially since the number in question (number of Polish Waffen SS and rear guard units) was 0. The Germans could trust the Poles fine – trust that the Poles would kill them whenever and however they could (even when for every killed German they executed 150 civilians caught randomly on the streets). Poland was the first country to say no to Hitler even when that meant war. And war there was - first the Nazis then the Soviets attacked polant in September 1939. Poles resisted one month and then fought on all fronts of the WWII in their own divisions (including battles : Battle for England, Normandy, Monte Casino, Arnheim, etc.) and had the strongest resistance (as in some parts of ex-Yugoslavia). That was paid dearly - Poland has lost one citizen in 5 (1 in 3 in the capital that was destroyed in 90%) during WWII – the highest loses of all countries in WWII in % and second (after the Soviet Union) in absolute numbers (way more than all western allies countries put together including the USA). The Polish flag together with the Soviet one were the only flags on the conquered Reichstag as the Russians and the Poles took Berlin and thus finally ended the war. The loses continued after the war as Poland was “given” to the Soviets who falsified the first elections by 70%. So, I know that ridiculous does not kill, but try not to mention the Poles in the same breath as the Nazi collaborating Baltic countries – if you can.

And, to prevent usual "Balts had previous experience" mantra, Eastern Poles did too. But they fought both Nazis and Reds... RJ CG (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At least for Latvia it's been documented that Nazi reports extolling the natives' lust for killing Jews was in fact false--it was the Nazi command attempting to portray how well the locals were accepting Nazi rule. What I infer as a statement regarding general Baltic "loyalty" to Nazism is not supported by the best scholarship on the subject. But a subject for another place and time.

   What I was attempting to say was that it would be appropriate to note that with regard to Lithuania's independence between WWI and WWII, the 100,000 victims in the annexed territory including Vilnius would be more accurately described as victims in Polish territory (with a similar footnote regarding Poland). They were not within Lithuania's internationally recognized border and should not be statistically counted as part of Lithuania's pre-WWII Jewish population, which is what the figures in the current article imply. They were part of pre-WWII Poland's population. Minimally, where the article states numbers and percentages relative to Lithuanian population, assuming those numbers stay, it needs to specifically indicated that they include the Vilnius territory which the Soviets had seized from pre-WWII Poland, which was not part of WWI-WWII Lithuania.

   Nor am I here to argue over whether Vilnius/Vilna/Wilno is Polish or Lithuanian. I'm simply stating that for accuracy, one must differentiate between pre-WWII Lithuania proper and Lithuania as reshaped by post-Soviet invasion action. —PētersV (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Piece we discuss is based solely on US State Department's article, so please argue with it's editors, if you feel that Jews of Vilnius should be considered "Polish", rather than "Lithuanian". On the side note, this tongue slip confirms that West indeed considered Soviet annexation of Baltics "kosher" for all intents and purposes when they were not obsessed with "showing it" to the Cold War adversary. And if you feel offended so deeply about "Vilno" instead of "Vilnius", please accept my apologies. I just barbaric-latinized name most widely used in Russophone books dealing with Jewish history and Holocaust in this part of Europe ("Вильна" or "Вильно"). RJ CG (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Minorities

their organizations - is it about Roma or about all minorities?Xx236 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

Use Eastern Europe or rewrite it.Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why omit/disinform?

Lithuania has a problem with suicide, why should this be covered up? Also, Lithuania is not part of Northern Europe, as it is on the mainland European continent. It is completely false to claim Lithuania as part of North Europe. It is Eastern/Central Europe. Please do not omit facts and disinform in the future, as it will weaken wikipedia's reputation.

Is this page being maintained by the Lithuanian government or something similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.110.229 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't Lithuania Central European? Can anyone comment on this? Montessquieu (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

An estimated 120,000 to 300,000[14] were killed by Soviets

The paragraph suggests that the 120,000 to 300,000 were Jewish.Xx236 (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning suicide rate

http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/article.php?id=19074546

According to this, Lithuania isn't number 1 in suicide rate anymore (read the last paragraph).

IP edits

Recently there is an increase activity by IP editor, his edits don't meet basic NPOV, or NOR requirements. Perhaps it is time to lock this article? M.K. (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nearly all changes are just factual and thus they do not represent a point of view (biased or neutral). As far as NOR is concerned those changes correct existing inaccurate statements so an alternative is to remove the incorrect statements altogether.

On the other hand if you like only your own point of view which dislikes facts maybe you should create your own wikipedia and lock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.94.26 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Judging these edits it is obvious that prime purpose is to pursue non neutral point of view, therefore contradiction of WP:NPOV; particularly:

• Trying to present that in Battle of Žalgiris (Tannenber g) that only „ the army of Poland achieved a great victory” is simple POV pushing and contradiction to mainstream academic materials such as The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: .v. 17‎ -p. 545, which victory calls “that was a major Polish-Lithuanian victory over the Knights" ; Rick Fawn “Ideology and National Identity in Post-communist Foreign Policies‎ - p. 186” calls it “the great Polish- Lithuanian victory at Grunwald in 1410” ; A. T. Lane “Lithuania: Stepping Westward p. XXI” calls “historic Lithuanian-Polish victory”; German-Canadian yearbook: DeutschKanadisches Jahrbuch‎ - p. 4 calls “a Lithuanian-Polish victory of Tannenberg”. I could continue without the end to cite academic western material, which calls victory as joint one, rather the Polish only, as IP trying to prove. Besides details of battle not belong in the general article.
• Attempts to present that : 1791 Lituania was incorporated into Poland “ another POV, as contradicted by Bumblauskas “Senosios Lietuvos istorija 1009-1795” etc.
• Removing links to Lithuanian Jews constitutes same as above, as even tourist guide has this basic info [9]
• And finally about the new material, it is your, an editor who is introducing new material, duty to prove that this material is relevant and find a consensus on talk about its inclusion - not way round. Judging from article’s history you failed to do so. M.K. (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I am afraid that you (and seemingly not you alone in Lithuania) are still a bit "misinformed".

• The Battle of Grunwald you mention (and please use English as this is English wiki and not a Lithuanian one) was indeed a Significant Polish, Lithuanian, Russian and Tartar victory – but not thanks to “close collaboration of Polish and Lithuanian armies” as the Lithuanians fled in the thickest of the battle (some as far as their capital to announce the "defeat") and that no person in his right mind could describe as close collaboration resulting in victory.

• The Constitution of May 3, 1791 abolished the union of Poland and Lithuania in favor of a unitary state - Poland.

• Concerning the Jews all the sources agree that the vast part of them was from the Vilna region and as such they were not "Lithuanian" at that time. Remembering that loss is very valid but one should also remember that Lithuanians participated zealously and officially in their extermination - the involvement of the local population and institutions, in relatively high numbers, in the destruction of Lithuanian Jewry became a defining factor of the Holocaust in Lithuania - see for instance Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania

--85.5.94.26 (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Modern research is not so eager to support the "escape" theory, and even suggest tat it was was a tactical retreat, and reorganised GDL army returned to the battle field and delt a heavy blov to the flank of Order army. I may reccomend you: Sven Ekdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen. Bd. 1: Einführung und Quellenlage. ISBN 3-428-05243-9 and Sven Ekdahl Die "Banderia Prutenorum" des Jan Długosz: Eine Quelle zur Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410 : Unters. zu Aufbau, Entstehung u. Quellenwert d. Hs. : mit e. ... Klasse ; Folge 3, Nr. 104). ISBN 3-525-82382-7. This is rather neutral non-Lithuanian and non-Polish POV.

• Zaręczenie Wzajemne Obojga Narodów - did not speak about the unitary state.

• There is a Litvak term, that is translated into English as Lithuanian Jew. The term has nothing to do with national borders in 20th century, and is rather defined by religious coustims and traditions, mostly bound with Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

• Holocaust is one of the most dreadfull moments int the European history. And many European nations share the burden, although there is no list of any single unit that has any relation with the occupying forces on the nations pages highligted, as IP is trying to do. Please, prove me wrong.--Lokyz (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

There seems to be a lot of reverting, and not much discussion here. I could semi the article, or perhaps block User:85.5.94.26, but I'd like to see a coherent analysis of *why* the edits should be reverted William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi would at least stabilize the situation that was before IP allegations, and disencourage the other IP's to engage edit warring. It may even encourage discussion. Because this situation is not productive, the least to say. --Lokyz (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly encourage our anon editor to register and respect WP:3RR.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If one has a closer look quasi all reverting is suppressing all of the new edits (facts and references) to return to a version that is incomplete (e.g. the shared responsability for the extermination of Jews and other nationalities - is completelly omitted and makes it look like some unavoidable fatality that just happened in Lithuania) or makes no sense ("close cooperation giving victory" being fleeing from the field of battle, etc.)

I was under impression (false?) that there is no obligation to register in order to contribute... --85.5.94.26 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To our Swiss friend, sorry, but the extermination of Jews was planned ahead of time, organized, and run by the Nazis. That the Baltic nations were gleefully slaughtering their Jewish neighbors in anticipation of the Nazi arrival, et al. is carefully orchestrated Nazi fiction designed to create the "Germanless" Holocaust. That does not excuse those who collaborated, but it was not Lithuanian-originated or Lithuanian-run. PetersV       TALK 05:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

REPLY - of course the Holocaust is a German Nazi phenomenon. It is important though to note that only some countries organized active participation in it and only in few countries the population so actively and zealously contributed as well:

• “The involvement of the local population and institutions, in relatively high numbers, in the destruction of Lithuanian Jewry became a defining factor of the Holocaust in Lithuania”, “Overall, the nationalistic Lithuanian administration was interested in the liquidation of the Jews as a perceived enemy and potential rivals of ethnic Lithuanians and thus not only did not oppose Nazi Holocaust policy but in effect adopted it as their own”, also “significant factor was the large extent to which the Nazis' design drew upon the physical organization, preparation and execution of the murders by local Lithuanian auxiliaries of the Nazi occupation regime” – quotations from Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania.
• ‘Lithuanian Activist Front ‘a controversial organization because of its anti-Semitic and anti-Polish views and overall collaboration with the Nazi Germany. When the June uprising begun, in Polish-dominated Vilnius Region LAF committed many atrocities (rapes, murders, pillage); even the Germans referred to their "allies" as "organized robbers"’ – see Lithuanian Activist Front
• Ypatingasis Būrys (operating in the Vilna region and composed of Lithuanian volunteers) “killed tens of thousands people, mostly Jews” – see Ypatingasis Būrys
• Lithuanian Security Police (Lietuvos saugumo policija) “would be involved in various actions against the Jews and other enemies of the Nazi regime. Nazi commanders filed reports purporting the "zeal" of the Lithuanian police battalions surpassed their own. “ – see Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania.
• “Tautinio Darbo Apsaugos Batalionas units were immediately assigned to their mission of rounding up, transporting, guarding, and finally shooting Jews” – see Tautinio Darbo Apsaugos Batalionas.

We are not responsible for crimes of previous generations but learning from past errors is only possible if the past is known and now to thanks to wikipedia and its undoers it seems to me that there is a very long way to go in contemporary Lithuania--85.5.94.26 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and on the battle of Grunwald, there are documented accounts that the retreat was feigned in order to draw out the Teutonic forces, as evidenced in a letter written at the time. So jury is out on that one. This article is not Allegations of Lithuanian cowardice and crimes against humanity. PetersV       TALK 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

REPLY – we are among adults and no longer in the Middle Ages (by the way how many sources by historians and not from the tourist office (sources claimed on this page ;-) have you consulted on the subject?). The Lithuanian and Tatar army fleeing is not a theory - it is a fact confirmed by all sources including eyewitnesses. The theory of a feint retreat transforming itself into a real fleeing army is on the other hand just an unsubstantiated theory. For instance if there was such a maneuver ordered by the Lithuanian commander:

• neither the Polish army knew about it (stayed alone on the field of battle)
• nor the Lithuanian army knew about it (some fled as far as the Lithuanian capital announcing enormous “defeat”)
• and as you mention substantial amount of Lithuanians did return but not in a Tartar maneuver enveloping the charging enemy forces. They returned together with auxiliary Polish units being late for battle and thus going in the opposite direction and only when the TK pursuing them were withdrawn to deal with the Poles that the main TK forces could not overcome.

Of course some German histographers would like to find an “excuse” for that defeat, but in the middle ages the battles were won by those present on the field of battle (and even in modern organized armies with all their means of communication and command have examples of organized withdrawals transforming themselves into disasters not the other way round – Dunkirk being a rare exception but there it was Hitler who stopped his panzer divisions as well giving the allies time to reorganize). ‘

Real panic or organized retreat that transformed itself into panic – in all cases it cannot be stated that the “battle was won thanks to the close collaboration of the Polish and Lithuanian armies “– this is an antithesis – it was won in spite of the lack of collaboration. Therefore we should omit this “explanation” – no explanation is better than a false explanation - I initially inserted an explanation (undue detail at this level in my opinion) because there was one already present and a very weak one. --85.5.94.26 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be really interested to red the book youre citing. Could you tell me the author and the name of the book?--Lokyz (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary historian Ioannes Dlugossius who authored one of the most valuable European medieval chronicles “Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae” in (Lib. X out of XII) describes the Lithuanians as "showing their back and running all along towards Lithuania" from the battlefield at Grunwald. In another work “Banderia Prutenorum” he described in detail all the banners captured at Grunwald. Also he was charged by the Polish king with the education of the kings’ children.--85.5.94.26 (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's great to have this anon editor bring in Godwin's law (Dunkirk et. al) clarify his opinions. Please let everyone know where you obtained your information, and btw if "defeat" was between quotation marks or if that's your own contribution to the opinion you're espousing. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your sense of humor but in this particular case it is not eminently useful... The last book I have read on the subject was "A History of Poland" ISBN 088029-858-8. Other books such as "The Polish Way" ISBN 0-7818-0200-8 focus on a subject much more interesting than the battle itself - that is why Poland did not gained much from that victory (not even recovered the lost territories contrarily to Lithuania) no matter that the order was militarily on its knees. Apparently the survival of the order could have been important for the king were the union to be dissolved (hint - the TK were very good propagandists [yes, precursors of Paul Joseph Goebbels - had to mention him in order not to disappoint you and give you something useful to discuss] and were not far from annulling the Polish kings’ marriage in papal courts an reverting him back to just a Lithuanian prince and thus ending the union).

BTW - to be exact not all the Lithuanian, Russ and Tatar forces have fled but only committing the reserves brought stabilization to the center of the line where the Smolensk and Vilna forces fought.

P.S. The "defeat" was in double quotes as at least we all seem to be able to agree that Grunwald in reality was not a defeat for anyone involved except for the TK side - not all is lost in the mist of history yet. --85.5.94.26 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

85.5's edits

This user continues to remove references that have been added in response to his/her complaints. The last revert [10] removed refs to [11], an Encarta ref about emigration, and a ref to The Black Book of Communism. (This last one I'm not so crazy about - could easily be replaced with US Dept of State ref)

85.5's talk contributions here are not productive - stating that Goebbels was introduced to "give you something useful to discuss". Could William Connelly talk to this user about: 1) addressing one point per edit, after 2) reaching consensus per each point; 3) not removing references; 4) using references; 5) the use of informative edit summaries; 6) civil discourse.

I would like to see this returned to the stable version - then each point could be addressed individually. As things stand, the edit wars involve the removal/restoration of ever-increasing amounts of material. Novickas (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

After his block, IP did not reduced his desire for a revert warring, but opposite:

• 2009-02-12T22:47:42
• 2009-02-13T14:08:33
• 2009-02-13T22:13:43
• 2009-02-14T04:52:40
• 2009-02-14T22:23:34
• 2009-02-14T22:25:51

Besides there are no consensus to support IP's version. M.K. (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems that the undone edits adding maybe one short thing were also removing accidentally ALL on my edits in ALL sections. That is very civil indeed. And this goes on from the very beginning of my contributions. Only now thanks to my persistence there is something that starts to resemble a discussion (and even facts start to matter as opposed to wishful thinking that was the main theme of this page before) and the persons who undo become more sophisticated and try to mask the undo (always ALL my edits in ALL sections) by a small insert of their own. Not being beginers as I am you must know that you can add something vwithout removing all my edits - you do know it righ? I hope for the improvement to become more pronounced in time as otherwise without any need of blocking me I will live you to your virtual pages on virtual reality and put my time to better use elsewhere.--85.5.94.26 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Unfortunately it seems that the undone edits adding maybe one short thing were also removing accidentally ALL on my edits in ALL sections. That is very civil indeed. And this goes on from the very beginning of my contributions. Only now thanks to my persistence there is something that starts to resemble a discussion (and even facts start to matter as opposed to wishful thinking that was the main theme of this page before) and the persons who undo become more sophisticated and try to mask the undo (always ALL my edits in ALL sections) by a small insert of their own. I hope for the improvement to become more pronounced in time as otherwise without any need of blocking me I will live you to your virtual pages on virtual reality and put my time to better use elsewhere. P.S. My edits were introduced gradually one by one over time but they were always all completely undone “en masse” without any explanation nor comment (with the exception of “Vandalism” or “reverting to a stable version”). In time I had to undo the undoers, or start again from 0, or abandon (that is apparently the goal of mass undoers). --85.5.94.26 (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

'Unfortunately' is quite an appropriate description of the goings on here. After a rather lengthy and contentious Arb Com recently, it was my hope that some spirit of cooperation regarding certain subjects concering PL-LT might evolve out of it. I suspect that will not be the case. When the anon editor 85 inserted his POV written in poor grammar, improper spelling, (since rewritten) poor taste, and with an obvious desire to inflame an issue couched in a pseudo "I'm following WP guidelines on English WP" (don't think so), in which he mish-mashed his understanding of what happened at the Battle of Grunwald with more attempts to tarnish Lithuanians concerning the occupation of LT by the Germans in WWII, the die was cast once more. Incidently when this round of reverting began I noticed an "undo" made by anon editor 12.194.8.73. on February 12, who obviously didn't bother to read the edit because the grammar and misspelling were left as they were originally written. Wonder why. Hmm? Perhaps it would be best to allow the anon editor's desire to refute any cooperation between Lithuanians and Poles during any period in history, if in fact there hasn't been any. Certainly hasn't been much on English WP. I very much doubt that he would be inclined to acknowledge anything that might be disparaging to his strong POV. Such as the "King of Poland" who commanded the Polish armies who saved the day at Grunwald was Lithuanian, any more than he would accept that the commander at the "Miracle at the Vistula" was Lithuanian. p.s. Kindly reinstate, in full, my comments that you had no right or business to remove from these talk pages prior to your response. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to spend time on this diatribe and personal attack (still you cannot rival the maturity and sophistication of your “undoing” camarade Lokyz who calls me a Nazi) – just to mention that as far as tarnishing Lithuanian reputation during WWII I decline any credit, according to historians they did all alone to themselves. P.S.If you really comprehend my comments on this page you should be able to infer that I do know that the Polish king in question was initially a Lithuanian prince and did not want to revert back to that position. As far as the marshal is concerned without entering the existing debate among historians it is sufficient that he considered himself to be Polish and as far as I know was behind the stratagem that allowed the population of Vilna region to that once self-determine their national status.Another thing is that anyone who likes history and the present of the region and does not like the treatment you dispense at the Lithuania page is not necessarily Polish (no matter that this look like a compliment to me).--85.5.94.26 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, kindly reinstate, in full, my comments that you had no right or business to remove from these talk pages prior to your response. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me how to do it and I will do it if it is so important for you - if my memory is right your 'comment' removed was a just a cut & paste of my own text you were replying to (started to be confusing - repeated twice) - I did not remove your text. --85.5.94.26 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have warned User:85.5.94.26 to stop editing and removing other editors' comments on this talk page. If he/she does it again please request that they be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Enough is enough. --KP Botany (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

see 5 lines above. It seems that some people just look for a pretext to block me. It would be more interesting discussing the facts. Ff anyone is indeed interested in discussing facts instead of just deleting them (the beginnings are not augurious) --85.5.94.26 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"see 5 lines above" is not an acceptable explanation. Kindly reinstate, in full, my comments that you had no right or business to remove from these talk pages prior to your response. You ask me to tell you how to do it. Your "memory is right" (sic). COPY and PASTE would be a fine method to employ. I'm sure you'll manage somehow. In the future you would be well advised not to manipulate other people's edits on the talk pages. Also, please do not associate me with any other editors comments that you happen to dislike. Try being a little more civil, if you can. It might be helpful. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So I deleted my own text because after your copy if appeared twice. Did not know that it was a "faux pas" – learning as I go. Unfortunately my memory does not extend to remembering the exact position of the text you copied. Is there an undo feature for the discussions? If not since it is so important for you let me know where exactly you copied my text and I will copy it back there. BTW I see that you wonder about the expression “somebody’s memory is right” – it means that somebody recalls correctly. As far as being civil it seems that most people involved in hijacking this page can start with themselves (e.g. after trying to get the WWII Lithuanian collaboration account and participation in holocaust straight I have been called a Nazi)--85.5.94.26 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The correct English expression would be "if my memory serves me right". If you are going to edit the English WP, I suggest brushing up on your grammar and spelling, especially if you are going to delve into provocative and inflamatory edits and remove sourced material and replace it with "contemporary" historical (and largely discounted) POV. Spell check would be a good place to start with. Please do not inform me of other editor's remarks that you are having issues with as they are not mine and I'm perfectly cabable of reading them myself. I have had plenty of experience with this type of behavior and I strongly dissaprove of it. Earlier in my own editing, I was prone to do the same. That's no longer my MO, as it's a waste of time and doesn't help the WP project at all. When KP Botany told you "enough is enough", it was not because he needed a "pretext" to block you. It was your violations of the various rules and regulations of WP that has given you fair warning. Yes, enough is enough. I would like you to re-add my edits, and I am not going to give you instructions on how to do that. If necessary take the time, painstakingly if you have to, and re-copy ever word by word and insert it where it belongs. It's very sad that your anti- Lithuanian bias has created this recent fracas. Wikipedia does not need this kind of editing. After looking over your recent "contribution" history (not only here) it appears that you have an agenda that needs some administrators or recent ArbCom members to review. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you perceive facts as being anti-Lithuanian. The reputation of Lithuania in WWII being as it is, I cannot blame you. Anyway for a factual discussion (if indeed you are interested in establishing some facts) please go to the appropriate section where I exposed my arguments again yesterday (not much discussion there - 0). I am glad that you have overcome your past propensity to offense people – insulting usually means that the insulting side is left with no arguments to use (like it the case I mentioned - anyway it is oxymoronic to be called a Nazi by a Lithuanian editor while defending the memory of the Jews killed by Lithuanians). If there is any fracas then I suggest you consider the remote possibility that maybe one of the potential causes could be that many sections of this page are more in touch with wishful thinking than with the reality. While I welcome a discussion on facts, I am not going to discuss your false allegations on my account (by the way I also welcome any kind of impartial review – the habits of the editors of this page are anything but impartial so that would be a nice change).--85.5.94.26 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S.It is spectacular that the thought control can take such proportions – I decide how to express myself not you for me and if I chose to state “if my memory is right” then there is nothing you can or should do about it – after all it is not even a very inventive expression commonly used in the US (and anyway if it was, the neologisms help languages evolve). Some people travel on the bitten path and some do not – in a given language there is usually more than one way to express the same abstraction. Have you ever been to an English speaking country yourself?--85.5.94.26 (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protection request

I've asked that this page be edit-protected until editors stop edit warring. If there are particular problem editors editing against consensus, instruct them on Wikipedia policies on their user pages. As usual, with edit-warring, no one outside of the edit war has any idea what is going on. Find consensus, then edit. --KP Botany (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've protected the page for two weeks. Please do discuss disputed changes here during this time and hopefully you can reach some sort of agreement. Otherwise, perhaps you should pursue Dispute resolution. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is overkill and I've unprotected. One IP on an edit-warring rampage is no reason to protect a high traffic article like this for such a long period. This is ignoring the fact that the unstable but protected version contained a bunch of spelling and grammatical errors. This is potentially pretty embarrassing given that this is linked on the main page today. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's bad in my opinion to have protected pages on the main page. However, editors have had plenty of time to correct the grammar and spelling errors and apparently chose to edit war instead. Protection for a short period of time will give editors time to cool off. If the IP alone is the problem, then it should have been warned, reported, and blocked. If you chose, instead, to argue the issues with the IP you've given some validity to their arguments, meaning protection for all parties is warranted. Your choice, the IP is making legit contributions and edits that simply require more discussion, as appears to be the case to someone who just came to read the article, or the IP is here merely to disrupt Wikipedia. The two are dealt with in different ways, and you dealt with the issue as if it were the former, so don't complain of it actually being the latter after the fact. --KP Botany (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking into consideration, that this page is on the main page of Wiki, and that IP most likely would not stop edit warring, semi-protect would be good solution. M.K. (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing other editors' comments

Okay, now it's time to start simply reverting editors who edit other editors' comments. If you want to reply to an editor's post, post your reply, indented, after the last line of the post you are replying to. Do not insert it in between, do not edit or modify the post you are replying to. It's impossible even to know who said what here. No wonder nothing can be discussed. --KP Botany (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I restored older lead of article, as the new one had eliminated a lot of summary of Lithuania's history; in principle lead should summarize remaining article and i think older one did better this then new one. M.K. (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry not only the lead but you simply reverted to undoig it all

I reverted it back. As you know nothing prevents you from changing the lead without undoing all of the article. --85.5.94.26 (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits as well, primarily as there is no consensus on talk for your version, as I see you failed to convince anybody that your additions are necessary and essential to this article. You attempt to cite Dlugosz (known for his anti-Lithuanian bias), but this account has been discredited by scholars, including Polish ones like Stefan Kuczynski. Wielka Wojna z zakone Krzyżackim w latach 1409-1411. (not even counting Stanisław Kujot, Rok 1410th Wojna. Wojna. work).It is you who tried to portrayed that the Battle of Grunwald was a "Polish victory", and now you are trying to minimize the Lithuanian's importance and role in that battle; while such leading scholars on the subject like Sven Ekdah who put it simply: on 15 July 1410, by a joint Polish and Lithuanian army.The turning point in the battle was achieved by the Lithuanians, admittedly not through the use of heavy cavalry, but by the old tactic of simulated retreat. This was not known to the mercenaries and crusaders of the Teutonic Order, who in an undisciplined way left their battle formations to take up the pursuit, thereby exposing their flank so that strong Polish fighting units could penetrate the Order's army from the side[12]. In any case in this is not a article regarding the Dlugosz interpretation of battle of Grunwald, it is general one, no need for more details about battle. There has been a presented source that Lithuania was not incorporated into Poland as you claim. yet you still continue to revert it just the same. This is not an article about every aspect of the Holocaust. In the article Poland there is no mention of any Polish collaboration with the Nazis ( like Blue Police or AK calibration), yet you trying to expand this section and make it undue weight coopered to others. You have been asked to give a rationale for your reverts of sourced material, yet you have failed to do so. Instead you are still revert warring, and as I see you have received another warning. So, first find a consensus of your version on talk, as it is you who are adding the new material M.K. (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You surely understand what bad faith means, or “avoir deux poids et deux measures”, “tener doble vara de medir”. In other words how many of the multiple edits (BTW that editorial fury - what a splendid coincidence with the full lock removal justification) from yesterday (including over 20 yours) obtained consensus or were even discussed on talk ? None. Have you undone them as well? No. So much for your “justification” of your undoing of my work. In order to have a productive discusion good faith is required.

If you are referring to these, I do not see the need to discuss this at the moment, as these edits were not reverted by multiple editors, unlike your constant solo reverting, which were reverted by dozen of different editors.M.K. (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless now to your allegations :

• Dlugosz is biased (and potentially, according to you,all others who do not share the brilliant maneuver (re)vision of history of this battle) : most of the scholars prefer to refer to direct contemporary sources instead of theorizing what could or could not happen and most of the scholars are for either the escape or faked escape transforming itself into a real one. So this is at best controversial. My version “Lituania participated” is neutral and fits the known facts and even the most extravagant theories and gives no details whatsoever. The “thanks to close collaboration” contradicts most of the views of that battle and tries to promote only one biased point of view. Otherwise to extreme it could be argued that the Lithuanians just went for a drink because they have learnt from Poles that drinking is good for you :-). If you want to know more do not read works that "put it simply", read the ones with at least a whole chapter on the battle itself.
• It was proved that Lithuania did not become part of the "Republic of Poland": The 3rd May constitution centralized the state: one government, one army, one treasury. The amendment mentioned "zareczyny" dealt at the request of Lithuanians with the percentages of deputies etc. in different bodies (and the spilt was not equal in all bodies). Even that document called the new centralized state the “Republic of Poland”.
• “This is not an article about all aspects of Holocaust, in comparison such general articles as Poland even not mention any Polish collaboration with Nazis ( like Blue Police or AK calibration)”:
  • this is because Poland in WWII contrarily to Lithuania was not a Nazi collaborator state (never any collaborationist government, Polish authorities, etc).
  • Could you give examples of AK organization collaborating with the Nazis? If not that answers your question why the Polish page does not mention something that did not exist. There can be individuals - every nation (potentially even Lithuania) and organization can have traitors but AK dealt with them swiftly – a trail in absentia and an execution. On the contrary AK helped the Jews (they were humans and Poles) many times (including smuggling arms – that they themselves did not have many - to the Warsaw Ghetto to enable its upraising). AK contribution to the allied victory was invaluable.
  • The blue police was the pre-war police that Germans did not dissolve, dealing with traffic, burglaries, and normal police work and they continued that work. Some helped people some the contrary (war brings the best or the worst in individuals) but they were not burning villages and executing people like the Lithuanian police battalions (that should be called extermination battalions). So the difference is maybe still subtle to some in Lithuania but most people elsewhere can get it.
  • Also the “stable version “of the Lithuanian page mentions “groups of Lithuanian men” serving Nazis – a total understatement for so many Lithuanians serving Nazis in so many ways including tens of thousands who took an active part in the killings of innocent civilians (but the civilians were Jews and/or not Lithuanian – so maybe that does not count here and should be conveniently forgotten).

As a conclusion – either everybody contributes freely (including those who happen not to share some particular point of view and its associated historical depth) or give the page a free start in all controversial areas and all should justify their contributions and obtain consensus. And try some good faith - it helps.--85.5.94.26 (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your claim that, My version Lithuania participated is neutral, to the contrary it is an attempt to denigrate any significance of Lithuania. Regarding the Battle of Grunwald, a few Czechs and others "participated", even though their contribution is not equal to that of the Lithuanians. If “thanks to close cooperation” doesn't suit your fancy I easily can change it to “Lithuania played a crucial role in the battle” with references from respected academic sources supporting it, such as Sven Ekdahl :[13] ; Bumblauskas. Senosios Lietuvos istorija, 1009 – 1795 ISBN 986-830-89-3 p.150; Gudavičius. Lietuvos istorija. T. 1: p. 217.
• Regarding your statement, 1791 Lituania was incorporated into Poland (p.s. Lithuania has an "H" in it in English) some weeks have passed without your providing an academic source with proper citation to support this claim. To the contrary here's one for you, “therefore in the Constitution re-introduced the dualistic nature of the State. [1791]” Bumblauskas. Senosios Lietuvos istorija, 1009 – 1795 ISBN 986-830-89-3 p. 412. Furthermore, the “Constitution” was never implemented fully, and was abolished in 1793. And finally, you failed to provide any rationale that this minor “event” (if it happened) is relevant to this general article.
• Regarding this is because Poland in WWII contrarily to Lithuania was not a Nazi collaborator state . Are we speaking about the same Poland, which Rubinstein, Cohn-Sherbok, J. Edelheit, D. Rubinstein described as "quasi-fascist corporate state"? Rest is well know myth: Lets see - Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4:
  • Myths about united Polish resistance were already well established during the occupation. Poles deemed themselves the most uncompromising foes and the most important victims of German expansionism. Pointing to the involvement of Poles in the Nazi occupiers' anti-Jewish crimes proved powerless against such self-perceptions, and at the end of the war, Poles prided themselves, according to journalist Karol Malcuzyfiski, as "the most purely moral among all nations that had to live under [Nazi] occupation."
  • Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators vary from seven thousand to about one million Up to one million Polish collaborators! And no single hint in Polish article about them, impressive indeed.
  • March 1940, more than eighty thousand mostly rural workers from the generalgouvernement even volunteered for work in the Reich.
  • Despite the fact that radical right-wing conceptions and anti-Jewish attitudes spread enormously in the late 1930s, Polish historical research has widely neglected the fact that even before the war many Poles shared with the Nazis a concept of the enemy as communist and Jewish. I could write much more about Polish collaboration but this is not the time or place for it.
• Regarding Could you give examples of AK organization collaborating with the Nazis? Plenty, even though I have a lack of time to discuss off-topic subjects at this talk page. You can start reading some examples:
  • However, while resisting Soviet pressure, the AK High Command and its local representatives went to extremes: They cooperated with the Nazis. The first contacts began to be established in the summer and fall of 1943, after the breakdown of relations with the USSR. In December 1943 and February 1944, Captain Adolf Pilch (pseudonym “Gora”), commander of one of the AK detachments, met with SD [Security Service] and Wehrmacht officers in Stolbtsy, requesting urgent assistance. He received 18,000 units of ammunition, food, and uniforms. During the eight months of its existence (September 1943-August 1944), the “Gora” Detachment did not engage in a single battle with the Germans, whereas it waged 32 battles against Belorussian partisans. Andziej Kucner (“Maly”) [“Small”]) followed his example until he was transferred to Ashmyany Rayon by order of the AK District Headquarters. The Nazis' attitude toward cooperation with “Akovtsy” [AK members] can be judged from German trophy documents. In February 1944, SS Obersturmbanfuhrer Strauch reported: “Cooperation with White Polish bandits is continuing. The 300-strong detachment in Rakov and Ivenets proved to be very useful. Negotiations with Ragner's (Stefan Zajaczkiewicz) 1,000-strong band have been concluded. Ragner's band is suppressing the territory between the Neman and the Volkovysk-Molodechno Railroad and between Mosty and Iv'ye. Contacts with other Polish bands have been established
  • Some sub-units of Armia Krajowa displayed great cruelty toward the civilian population suspected of sympathizing with the partisans. The legionnaires burned down their homes, drove away their livestock, and robbed and killed the families of partisans. In January 1944, they shot the wife and child of partisan N. Filipovich, killed six members of D. Velichko's family in Ivenets Rayon, and burned their remains. In March 1944, AK members burned 28 farmsteads and the village of Bol'shiye Berezovtsy in Vasilishki Rayon, executing 30 peasants. In Zaslavl' and Dzherzhinsk (Koydanovo) rayons, they set fire to 11 Belorussian villages and killed 200 civilians. Along with Belorussian peasants who assisted partisans, AK legionnaires persecuted Jews. [14] This is off topic, but it demonstrates that you haven't taken the time to explore the subject matter or choose not to if it is contrary to your POV on the subject. I have no intention to go further on this. AK contribution to the allied victory was invaluable. ( Interesting original research.)
• Regarding, the Blue Police but they were not burning villages and executing people, more interesting original research, which is contradicted and refuted by these scholarly sources (Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4; Marian M. Drozdowski, "Refleksje o stosunkach polsko-zydowskich w czasie drugiej wojny gwiatowej," Kwartalnik Historyczny9 7, nos. 3 - 4 (1990): 182):
  • The dark blue police, part of whose functionaries were in touch with the Home Army (A.K.), in many cases behaved shamefully towards Jews by actively participating in their liquidation.
  • Carrying out the occupiers' ordinances, they intervened against the black market, which had become, given the difficult living conditions, an important source of income for many Poles. Later they took part in fighting partisans. Polish policemen were also esteemed by German superiors for their usefulness in anti-Jewish operations.
  • others patrolled the walls around the Jewish quarter, and during the Jewish uprising in 1943 they helped seal it.
  • Polish police tracked down Jewish refugees and enriched themselves by extortion and bribery.
  • In any case, Polish policemen were active in the expulsion and deportation of Jews, for example as a part of "ad hoc armies of ghetto-clearers" in the Lublin region; in Czestochowa, where fifty thousand people were crammed into a small Jewish quarter, Polish policemen guarded entrances and formed about a quarter of the thousand perpetrators in a vast, murderous anti-Jewish operation in June 1942.
  • According to a scientist hiding in the south of Poland, Polish policemen were notorious for "dreadfully beating [Jews] who had been packed into loading docks, and for dragging them from attics, tracking them into cellars and sheds and bringing them to the Germans."73 Bohdan Skaradzinski has described the policemen's "sinister role" in the martyrdom of Polish Jews as a "shameful spot on the occupation period," for having provided "a sycophantic, a hangman's assistance."
• Regarding, civilians were Jews and/or not Lithuanians – so maybe that does not count here and should be conveniently forgotten. This is general article, so it is not the place to name all of victims of the Holocaust. The main and the most important thing is present – destruction of Lithuanian Jewry, supported by sources (which you were so keen to remove).M.K. (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits where haste affected the quality

I ask the autor M.K. to remove himself those of his edits that are not based on reality (e.g. "During the 14th century, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe"). --85.5.94.26 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And rationale supporting your claims is...? M.K. (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For instance: Norman Davies (Prof. of history - reasonably respected) « Europe a history » ISBN 0-19-520912-5 or even the Wikipedia itself (not that this can be always considered as fully reliable)--85.5.94.26 (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What Davies? Care to cite it? M.K. (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the original quotation of Davies from the Europe a history, which should supposedly support your assertions. M.K. (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry usually I do not have time to login multiple times per day so a bit of patience. See page 348 and if you have no access to the book and wonder which country is the largest know that it is the Khanate of the Golden Horde that is more than twice the size of Lithuania in 1300 (and this considering only the European part – up to the Urals). You can also have a look at the situation in 1389 to see that the proportion had only slightly improved at the end of the century - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Golden_Horde_1389.svg--85.5.94.26 (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

At this moment I dont have this Davies' book, as you have, please cite Davies own words (provide an original citation) on this issue. M.K. (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Davies' own words (unless he has a ghostwriter) page 384 "Map 14. Europe, C.1300"--85.5.94.26 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So there Davies claims that Lithuania was not the largest European state? M.K. (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) BTW, which page correct one 384 or 348 ? (you wrote two times and two times different)

That is right, claims Lithuania wasn't (not even the second). Sorry about the page number typo - it is page 384.--85.5.94.26 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am lost, so there he claim this (claims Lithuania wasn't ), m? Your provided citation Map 14. Europe, C.1300" have no such claim at all. M.K. (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No kidding - it is a MAP, his map, and that is what it shows (Lithuania being smaller than 50% of the largest country in Europe), a century latter it is still quite smaller (see the link for the other map)--85.5.94.26 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How did you made a conclusion Lithuania being smaller than 50% of the largest country in Europe? Did you measured map by yourself? M.K. (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - but just for you - the diffrence is so striking that it was a complete waste of time - the other country is nearly 3 times as big. You can do your own measurements on the map from 1389.--85.5.94.26 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I see that your initial reaction was very fast (3 minutes) – I assume there is a possibility to be warned about a given page (or maybe even section) change?--85.5.94.26 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? M.K. (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You replied at 13:36 to my remark coming out of the blue ayt 13:33 - I am asking how do you do that...--85.5.94.26 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Same as now, M.K. (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Question remains how - you just check manually at such frequency?--85.5.94.26 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know for a fact that M.K. is not an "autor" and probably not an author either. As long as you are in an requesting mode of another editor, I will make a final request, once again, kindly reinstate, in full, my comments that you had no right or business to remove from these talk pages prior to your response to me. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not monopolize all the threads with your request that I reinsert my own text you copied to appear twice. You already had my reply (tell me where it was if you want me to copy and paste it, if you do not want to thell me then you have the permission to copy that text of mine again yourself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.94.26 (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not feed the trolls

Enough said. Renata (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias. This requires a judgment of the personal motivation for another's action. Such a judgment can never be made with anything approaching certainty. This fact should always be kept in mind when one is tempted to label someone a troll."

Yes enough said unless you have something constrictive to contribute.--85.5.94.26 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Have been to a few English speaking countries, in fact was born in one. (first indents by Dr. Dan second ones by --85.5.94.26 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Good for you - so you know that neither you nor I need to worry too much considering the skills of the population at large. Which country was it – I would guess (ex) British Commonwealth – e.g. some Indians speak better Queens' English than the Brits (no offence to the Brits – the standard English does not evolve and the language in use does and also there is the identifier token - being part of a given socioeconomic class, school, etc).

If you need some copy-edit work or other help with the English language feel free to contact me. Perhaps this is partially a communication issue because I often have to guess at what you are trying to say. You can even write to me in Polish if it is easier for you.

Thank you, but until proven otherwise this does not seem to be the main problem to me (for example the brain usually compensates for a typo – one missing letter – so there is no need to delve, especially since the writer could be just tired). If the semantics are not clear do not hesitate to ask for clarification and you will always be welcome. As far as the Polish is concerned I congratulate you on mastering that interesting language (but true mastering seems hard). I am interested in languages myself but speak mainly French, Italian and some Spanish as well (and English if mine counts by your standards).

Now let me try to be "constructive." Let's take the WP article Poland for example. It's a fine article which gives the reader ample information with many fine links to other pertinent information concerning Poland. That's the way these articles should be.

Having had a look at it now, I must agree that its quality is much better than the Lithuanian one. It also seems much more mature and with an appropriate scope. I know reasonably much about the history of Poland as well, but as a beginner editor I do not think I would venture into editing that page first - hard to add value and there is also the lack of motivation – the page seems to be mostly informative, impartial and accurate.

It would be overkill to include extra paragraphs on subjects like the Pinsk massacre, or the Jedwabne massacre, or the Kielce pogrom within the history section. They all have their own articles in the encyclopedia and that is the proper place to adjust them as needed.

I agree with you as the important part is to keep balanced and not distorted proportions (I find the latter on the Lithuanian page) and globally Poland was example of sacrifice and resistance during WWII and that earns a lot of my respect.

If someone could find a biased source that claimed that during the September campaign the Polish cavalry dropped their lances and made a cowardly retreat back to their capital to annouce a great "defeat" after seeing the first German panzers, the motives for such an edit would be questionable.

I agree again but you miss the point. Most of the sources are for the fleeing theory or the withdrawal transforming itself into real fleeing at the battle of Grunwald. Also this happened not at the view of the TK lances but after an hour of a intensive combat and if finally the Lithuanians could not stand the might of TK heavy armor that are the aleas of a battle, this is why a good commander has reserves. Anyway my version is quite neutral (“participated in victory” instead of “won thanks to close collaboration”) since if the fleeing took place as most of the sources (that I know of) affirm then mentioning close collaboration being at the origin of the victory is inappropriate. Also after the battle the collaboration does not seem in full good faith.

And whether it was true or not true, I would hope the information would be placed in a more proper section of the encyclopedia, and there debated. And I dare say entering such information would definitely be contentious and start quite a ruckus. Maybe even a revert war. Hmm?

Maybe, because of the human nature, but for that the “contestable” elements needed to be present on the page in the first place for this to occur (“thanks to close collaboration” potential euphemism for fleeing).

Another example would be to insert the crimes of the Polish collaborationist Blue police in the history section of the Poland article. Don't you think that would be a case of WP:UNDUE?

Here you lack objectivity in your comparison. The Blue Police was the pre-war one and they were to report back under the threat of execution. Hardly volunteers… Many were killed by the Germans on the spot for refusing orders (no matter that they knew what the price was) , over 50% were informants or helpers of the resistance. Some villains and some heroes.

Also again the “contestable” elements needed to be present on the page in the first place for this to occur (just some selected units named (misleading the reader into the "selfdefense" track as opposed to extermination), “ groups of Lithuanian men ” serving pro-Nazi – in reality just in the extermination dozens of thousands participated, etc. etc.). Were I to have a clean go at the subject I woud just write that “The involvement of the local Lithuanian population and institutions, in relatively high numbers, in the destruction of Jewish and/or non-Lithuanian populations became a defining factor of the Holocaust in Lithuania”.

Don't you think the motives of such an edit would be suspect and questioned? I hope this gives you some food for thought.

I cannot talk for others - my objective is to get rid of false pretenses (or at least counterbalance them) and do not close eyes on something, just because that something is inconvenient (even if it is for most):

• if it is past - learn from it and prevent it from reoccuring
• if it is present (such as the unfavorable score of Lithuania dealing with minorities as compared to other countries in EU - even Poland that you like to compare with so much – where for instance the German minority (probably not a great favorite and there never was a Polish German commonwealth rather 1000 years of wars till the end of WWII) has guaranteed seats in the parliament and where citizens do not have to alter their last names to make them look Polish) - do something about it (that is what I try to do too).

Here's hoping you can become a productive editor in the future with a little more humility and less bias.

I do not know. Being called a Nazi induces bias and does not help humility. I have not decided yet if I like the "ambience" created by bad faith acts of various Wikipedia contributors after all (disguising complete undos as edits, try to administratively block dissent under varied pretences instead of discussing and promoting discussion, etc).

The anonymity aspect of your edits also should be considered as there has been a lot of sock-puppeteering, and other games played in these neck of the woods. You've commented that you don't believe registering is necessary. That's true, but you could take User: Piotrus' advice and do so just the same.

I do not switch IP so I am not anonymous. I do not go into details because that is how i deal with internet (with exception of friends and family). The advice you mention was not from editing pages (contrarily to your previous assertions I only edited pages related to Lithuania) but from my talk comment where I advocated the concept that neither a German nor a Pole should be the sole arbiter of the fully locked page on "Polish recovered territories".

p.s.I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are truly not a troll. Please don't prove me wrong. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to his/her/its opinion. I do prefer discussion over flame wars or undo battles but maybe they were necessay impulse for a real discussion to start (and accoriding to the page rating I am not the only one finding the Lithuanian page substandard for the moment).--85.5.94.26 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Established in 1990/1991"

As I have indicated for Latvia, all three Baltic States took steps to transfer and preserve their sovereignty regardless of territorial events; all three document a clear path of succession of power until sovereignty is passed back to the entities resumed as independent states within their respective territories. Indicating the Baltic States were established twice incorrectly indicates that the current Baltic States are not continuous with their original counterparts. However, their position and that of all other countries that resumed bilateral relations and observation of treaties existing prior to WWII is that they are continuous. Only Russia maintains that the Baltic States are not continuous. I hope this clears up the confusion. I'd rather the editor adding the category remove it, I'm not here to edit war. PetersV       TALK 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

the paragraph on 'History' ....

....beginning with the sentence (I)'As a result of the growing centralised power of the Grand Principality of Moscow'(I/),with the first mention of Russia and later - as the Soviet connection appears - is very biased, openly anti-Soviet, jingo-patriotic, completely lacks neutrality in virtually every sentence, and uses mistaken/ignorant terminology(such as 'Red Army' when discussing the 1990s). The entire paragraph on 'History' is in dire need of an in-depth academic re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igxi (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Language for inter-ethnic communication Lithuanian

Well, As much as Lithuanian officials and the national organ controlling the language purity everywhere (even on your company website if it's in lithuanian) would like it to be true it isn't. At least not in places where different ethnic groups meet like the capital city - Vilnius. According to www.tmid.lt in Vilnius there is 57,8 % Lithuanians, 18,7 % Poles; 14 % Russians, 4 % Belarussians, 0,5 % Jews, 5 % Others. Despite the soviet era to be over the lingua franca is still russian. In multi-national (lt-ru-pl) kindergartens like my daughter's all mutual matters are in russian. In shops if you don't speak lithuanian you simply speak russian, russian is everywhere despite russian population to be actually smaller than the polish one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.186.37 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be oposing, I will allow myself to modify this entry in a week from now - around 13th of June. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.221.253 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "no one seems to be oposing" to what? I'm afraid that it is not very clear what modifications you are proposing... If you want to write that everyone in Lithuania knows Russian, then it's definitely wrong. It might be better to write that a relatively big part of inhabitants of Lithuania know Russian language, but it is not specific enough (is "relatively big part" 50%? 60% 90%? 99.99%?). And if you want to remove the field "Language for inter-ethnic communication" from the infobox (added in edit [15], then modified in [16]), then I have nothing against that (I am not sure that "Language for inter-ethnic communication" is a very meaningful concept in this case). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Very true. Let'e just remove the whole thing then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.195.74 (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania Minor

Why did you revert? Do you really mean that a foreign region (Prussian Lithuania, called Lituania Minor in Lithuania) which belonged to German East-Prussia and has always been outside of the Lithuanian border is belonging to Lithuania??? -- Kaubri (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself what "etnographic regions" means for Lithuania. It has nothing to do with political history or actual administrative boundaries. It has to do with cultural history -- traditions, heritage, etc of Lithuanian people living in those regions. Renata (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

O I know about Lithuanian history, feelings and point of view. But this German region is mentioned in the paragraph "Geography". Geography of Lithuania? Or Geography of Lithuania and Germany? And there is written "Lithuania consists of the following historical and cultural regions". Prussian-Lithuania didn´t belong to the historical Lithuania. And it was also no cultural region of Lithuania. It was a cultural region of Germany which was highly characterized by Lithuanian culture. In this described point of view you should also add USA and Canada and Russia and Poland into the paragraph Geography. I would like to see a precise article about Lithuania. -- Kaubri (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good point: in most of the other parts of the article the word "Lithuania" denotes the state, while in this sentence it also denotes "the territory that was more or less populated by Lithuanians"... So, how should we reword that to make the difference of definition more explicit? And would it also be better to move this part into the section "Culture" (on a somewhat less related note, should we move "State division" into section "Politics", leaving "Geography" to concern mostly physical geography?)? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one can do an under-paragraph: cultural characerized regions outside of Lithuania. -- Kaubri (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

LGBT section

I understand the argument that LGBT sections are not standard on country pages, but I wonder whether that means they may not be included here. I'm not clear whether we are using a standard template for such pages or if there is an element of discretion? It seems reasonable to me to cover the issue if we're going to cover other minority interests such as religion and sport. As an example, the topics of cuisine, health and military are found on the country article for Sweden but are not found under Lithuania - this can hardly suggest a standard template. Denmark has a heading of "Happiness". I could go on listing the discrepancies I fear.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't object incorporating the (shortened) text somewhere (some law- or society-related section), but a separate section is WP:UNDUE. It's clear that this article is not the best there is and could use expansion in many places, including military and health care. Renata (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, in a spirit of compromise I'll trim back and add it under the demographics section (for lack of anywhere better), which allows the issue to remain flagged in principle while the bulk of text is in a separate article. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"fastest growing in EU"

I think that the part that Lithuania had one of the fastest growing economies in EU is important and I think the general expectation among economists is that once the present mess sorts itself out (cross fingers, throw salt over shoulder, spit on the ground) that high economic growth is likely to resume - so no need to ditch the whole thing. Also I wasn't sure about the proper way to characterize the period so I used "post-Soviet" - if some other wording is more appropriate, please change to.radek (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Geopolitical situation between the west and the east" should be changed to Lithuania's geopolitical situation between the west and the east" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.249.85.193 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian language

Since more than 80% of Lithuanian can speak fluent Russian, can it be considered a vehicular language of Lithuania ?Mitch1981 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

   No,it can't.This must an old statistic,the generation born in interdependent Lithuania can hardly speak Russian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.247.64.143 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 

I don't think it was mentioned that our lithuanian mentality is as old as the soviet union. Which sucks. A lot...Guess we gotta wait about 50 years till the "soviet generations" die out. Hopefully our mentality will be a little similar to the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.105.253 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)