Jump to content

Talk:Vilnius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"German Occupation" versus "In Poland" and "In Russia"

[edit]

Is this some kind of political correctness? The Lithuanian wikipedia calls both these periods occupations. The Russian empire took hold of Lithuania by force and propaganda and after the battle of Warsaw in 1920 Poland did exactly the same thing. So why the light terms? These where occupations, nothing less! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.150.7 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually Slavic chauvinism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.247.50 (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would speak of Lithuanian occupation. Remember that Lithuanians constituted 2 (TWO) % of the city population. The city was predominantly Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.183.158 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can leave my flat to my guests for several years, and there will be 0 (zero) % of me and my family there. But it is still MY flat, not that of some Pilsudski type nazi strangers, even tho they stayed there for decades. Is that crystal clear? Good, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.41.4 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is totaly formed by Slavic (Polish) chauvinists. In 1837 Mykolas Balinskis indicated such nationalities in Vilnius: Lithuanians, Jews, Russians and Germans. AND NO ONE Pole. In time of polish occupation (1920 - 1939) there was huge colonisation of the city: according to data of July 1, 1940 there were 88,130 polish collonists in the city and next 11,084 in the province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.98.30 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I see those Lithuanians up there, I want to laugh. Before you start calling my country "Nazi", you should add to Wikipedia something about "Ypatingasis būrys". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.228.212.255 (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further article development

[edit]

It is time to improve this article. M.K. 23:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For progress and active participation see Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/General sandbox (talk also)


I suppose the content ouline could be something like this:

  • History → already there, just maybe shortern & refine, add citations.
  • Geography and climate
  • Demographics
  • Law and goverment → explain municipality, sister cities, institutions of central gov located in Vilnius, etc.
  • Economy and infrastructure
    • Economy
    • Transportation (public, rails, airports, streets, highways)
    • Media
    • Health
    • Utilities (optional)
  • Education
  • Culture
    • Parks and museums
    • Architecture and arts → include art festivals
    • Religion
    • Tourism and sites of interest
    • Nightlife
    • Sport
  • Footnotes, references, see also, etc.

Objections? I used Boston, Belgrade and Vancouver for inspiration. Renata 23:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Media? V. Tower; LRT other stations what else? BTW, I think we need an image of Vilnius in infobox as Paris, Berlin M.K. 10:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the articles on featured cities at WP:FA#Geography and places and see what they have that is missing here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some sort of pattern for further development of the article. M.K. 13:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better already :) Am having some sort of weird writer's block that will hopefully go away soon. When it does, would like to separate religion into sub-sections: Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Orthodox, Islamic, and other - there must be Buddhists and pagans too. Religious tolerance is a strong point of the city so IMO deserves extra treatment. Novickas 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will recover soon. Some Šližikai could help or šimtas gramų :) Btw, good suggestion to split religion into separate sections. M.K. 16:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the Šližikai, they might make her sleep, the šimtas gramų might be better. Dr. Dan 18:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dose calibration has been performed by Lithuanian relatives, with the determination that 50 grams makes the Lithuanian language flow more freely, 100 grams induces nesamone. No analagous data with regard to English-language production. Novickas 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Lol, I must have spent too much time in the East under communism, because 50 grams would only "prime the pump". Dr. Dan 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renata, is this infobox, which is present in article, can have additional images? M.K. 16:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment. It's easy to fix, just that where to put the map and COA? You know, to avoid image clutter. Renata 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just made some sketch much info needed also some more lined to. M.K. 23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no :) It mixes two different things: municipality with Vilnius. Vilnius as such has no political power. Zuokas is mayor of municipality, not Vilnius. Vilnius also has no area defined: only municipality. I guess I need to write a nice section on the whole city/city municipality mess... Renata 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes it is just a sketch :) I had to fill lines with something to avoid empty spaces, plus I was never good in municipality affairs. M.K. 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)P.S. some numbers are wrong in infobox too.[reply]

The new infobox is very nice, I'd like to see it in the article ASAP.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think we should add an "famous people from..." section to this article. Many famous people have their roots and strong ties with Vilnius. For ex. French writer Romain Gary. --Karolis-lt (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images which will be used

[edit]
  • for infobox?
    for infobox?
  • Synagogue
    Synagogue

they seem not as good as other alternatives, especially in the terms of colour reproduction (see Vilnius Old Town, Šnipiškės, Antakalnis, Žirmūnai etc.) Iulius 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yup, your images are the best, please produce more! M.K. 12:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so there they are Iulius 12:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Superb castle hill shot!!!!! BTW, do you participating in miestai.net? M.K. 12:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. More than that :D Iulius 13:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So this means your are one of masterminds of miestai.net :) M.K. 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not related to it in any way.Iulius 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A, I see. M.K. 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image of downtown Vilnius at [1] would IMO be a good candidate for infobox, except that it's low-res. Maybe someone could try to reproduce that shot? Novickas 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We have winter now in Vilnius, besides it is raining... Having in mind the impressive focal length such image requires, the task seems too impossible. Iulius 10:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of good info sites

[edit]

A list of sites for this article (Novickas 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Yup M.K. 17:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Vilnius vs Vilnius city municipality

[edit]

This comes up so often... And it needs to be addressed now. For a long time I have insisted that city and city municipality articles would be two different things. However, I start doubting it's usefulness because of the confusion and the fact that in reality those two are not that different. I don't really know how to properly explain the difference... So, what do ya think? Should Abc city municipality simply redirect to Abc? LT Wikipedia did just that. Renata 10:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal, at least with regard to Vilnius; if the only difference between the two is the town of Grigiškės, population 11,000 (about 2% of the total), and "a few rural areas", this discrepancy could be noted in the Geography section. Novickas 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I really do not know that is better in this situation. I also thinking, maybe we need some sort of General sandbox in WP:LITH, there we can discuss and have a article sketch instead experimenting on real article? The same general sandbox we can use for other articles when big contributor team is involved. M.K. 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox sounds like a good idea. But don't know enough about them to create it. Novickas 17:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
My problem with it, is that it's too close to the lead. The importance of Vilnius being the historical and present capital of Lithuania is paramount. Its other functions can be explained in detail, lower down in the article. Or if it's not too much trouble to do so, in seperate articles. In any case, it's much better now than it was previously. Dr. Dan 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/General sandbox our experiments with this article should go here. M.K. 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Names

[edit]

Shouldn't the historical names of the city be in the article itself?--Hhielscher 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should. It's a masterpiece of propaganda to use the historical name Wilno as a Polish name for Vilnius, introduced only in 1920. Xx236 14:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it was discussed in the archives and several users who are activly maintaining the article find names in other languages apparently offending.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems to have stabilized in the Kaunas entry, shall we copy that? Novickas 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable - see also WP:NCGN which supports such solution.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that any historical article should inform about the changes of the names or institutions, because it's a part of history. I have added the Latin name of the Vilnius University. The name Vilnius didn't dominate during hundreds years, so the article misinforms. The history of Wrocław by Davies and Moorhouse includes many names of the city, how can the truth be offending? Xx236 07:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another good example is Lviv: the article exhibits, besides the current Ukrainian name, its historical names in German, Polish and Russian, Tsf 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those Polish editors insisting upon this "academic necessity" can lead the lead the way by adding all the non-Polish toponyms to Polish cities and towns on English WP. Dr. Dan 13:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already did it years ago, back in the times where there were only two Lithuanians in our wiki community (AFAIK only Linas and Linas Lituanus, I might be wrong on this one though). Check Talk:Gdansk archives to see the details. //Halibutt 13:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. According to the convention in force (WP:NCGN), this article should have a separate Names section briefly discussing (or at least listing) "relevant foreign language names:, that is the names "used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". I think this solution would be much better than the present state, when the article simply refers to a generic table in another article. However, I know that this issue turned out to be somewhat sensitive in the past, so I am asking here whether there is anyone objecting inclusion of such a paragraph. It would be nice if you could also explain your reasons. Tankred 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the inclusion of selective name made reverts dues to several reasons among other and "this should go first", this "should be included also despite that it is not used in en". Besides there was argument about this and the contributors made clear that such link to alternative names is good solution [2]Sadly they already forgot this. Besides you should look to Warsawa and Cracow articles, they do not have even this link... M.K. 10:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tankred's rationale and have created a Names section in accordance with NCGN. If knowledgeable editors could expand upon the section to explain the etymology of "Vilnius", that would be appreciated. The reason why the Warsaw and Kraków articles do not have such sections yet is because no one has made them yet; be bold! I have no qualms about making such such sections in the future, but others are welcome to as well. Olessi 23:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And bet you a case of wiki-beer you will not see a revert war over such sections, nor mega-long discussions about why they are bad :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name Wilno isn't foreign, because there exists a big Polish minority in the city. Xx236 07:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not foreign" language is official language in that country or region. AFAIK Polish isn't official language in Vilnius or Lithuania, so yeah, it IS foreign. 213.226.167.200 23:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you buy the Wikipedia you will define basic words. At the moment standard definitions and standard logic are obligatory. My guess is that the best name for nonofficial is nonofficial, not foreign. Xx236 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The establishment of Vilnius University by the King Stephen Bathory in 1579

[edit]

The statement is false - Bathory didn't establish any Vilnius University but Almae Academia et Universitas Vilnensis Societatis Jesu. And he was a king in the Kingdom and a prince in the Duchy, as written in Vilnius University. Xx236 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be edited in the workshop until it is ready for release.

[edit]

There are two articles and two discussions. What is the idea of this double-job?Xx236 12:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in non-main space is very bad for two reasons. First, very few editors will know about it and I have seen many such projects stalled and forgotten for years in various non-mainspaces, wasting whatever effort the originators put into it. Second, if such a project goes on, it will either waste efforts of most editors who happily edit the mainspace article, not knowing about the project, or at the very least will require a merger.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOW MANY SISTER CITIES HAS VILNIUS?

[edit]

In article is writen: "Vilnius has 14 sister city". Then, below, there are 17 cities in list with flags. Then I went to VILNIUS CITY MUNICIPALITY official city guide www.vilnius.lt/new/en/gidas.lt and found only 13 sister cities. How many are there?

Ethnic Lithunians were being forced to leave the city and the use Lithuanian language was banned in public

[edit]
  1. Source please.
  2. Many educated Lithuanians left the city to take posts in Lithuania. Strange lack of knowledge.Xx236 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of ethnic Lithuanians

[edit]

Which city has more ethnic Lithuanians - Vilnius or Kaunas?Xx236 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic composition ca 1920

[edit]

I removed the highly questionable:

Poles alleged that ethnic Lithuanians constituted only a small minority, and that Polish speaking Lithuanians and Lithuanian Jews still made up a majority of the population of the city.

The definition of ethnicity of the population was then - and apparently still is, at least here - a matter of a controversy. Poland claimed tho Polish-speakers to simply be Poles, Lithuania claimed them to be Lithuanians who temporarily lost their original language. The latter, quite controversial thesis was apparently repeated in the text above. Contrary to the underlying suggestion were the Lithuanian Jews (Litvaks) using Lithuanian - it was rather Yiddish, Russian or Polish. My proposition is to use more neutral terms "polish (or Yiddish) speakers" without trying the highly controversial definition of the underlying ethnicity. --Arts2 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read or reread Unton Sinclair's The Jungle for a better understanding of the issue. Even though the work is "fiction", you'll get a feel of how wrong you are about ethnicities and linguistics within the first chapter. Please remember that these people were not Szlachta either. Dr. Dan 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic composition now

[edit]

Poles - 18.7% Vilnius or 19.4% Vilnius city municipality? Xx236 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This place is for discussion

[edit]

Xx236 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former Soviet NKVD school

[edit]

It used to be a militsia school. The comment, if true, would be useful rasther in the article about the university or in a historical one.Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilno being the name of Vilnius in Polish

[edit]

The phrase says that some foreigners came to the city called Vilnius and imposed their exotic name Wilno. Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really did happen exactly this way. Since 14th century there are known Russian and German quarters in the Lituanian city, and no mention of Polish quarter. Furthermore - Lithuanian speaking territory was not only around Vilnius city, but also a big part of modern Western Belarus. The situation changed abruptly in 19th century, during forced Russification and Polonization. Or would you imply that Gediminas was living in city Wilno? --Lokyz (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim that Gediminas was living in the city Vilnius, would you please quote a source (probably in Latin or in some Eastern Slavic?)? No English language site gives such a source or at least I haven't found one. The article contains a link to a Lituanian site [3] where VILNA is written.

The situation changed during a long period when Ruthenian became replaced by Polish as a language of GD.

Who exactly committed the forced Polonization in Russia? The tsars during a brake between executions and deportations to Siberia? What was the most popular language in the city before the Polonization? Name an academic source it was Lithuanian. It's interesting that Polonization of Lithuanians in Sejny failed. Were Sejny Lithuaninans better than the Wilno ones?

The sentence Wilno being the name of Vilnius in Polish refers to 1922. The name Wilno was used hundreds years before 1922, so this sentence misinforms a reader. Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happend beetween 1910 and 1930 in the Vilnius Area? Some ethnic maps show a clear frontier of lituanian to belarus people, others mainly AFTER 1920 show a polish people barrier beetween lit and bel... polish statistics of ethnic composition of 1910 showing ONLY Wilno with a polish majority... the surounding area till Grodno with only a small polish minority an a lit/bel majority. Was all faked after the polish occupation to have a ligitimation? 141.64.67.11 (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here regarding place names. The most appropriate solution for Baltic States articles is to also reflect English usage names readers will run across in English language scholarship. Often those historical names, based on alternate names in non-native language, continue to be used into the twentieth century—after independence—in scholarly sources. I don't believe that creating a place name smorgasbord in the article lead is the appropriate editorial solution. There is already a section discussing place names in other languages. Thank you. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disputed matter. We can't erase the whole hertage of a place because it offends current feelings. The Wilno you mentioned is athe name in Plish, as well as Vilno/Vilna is in Russia/Belarusian. The reader must be informed in the history of the place, as it is done in many other East-European cities. Therefore, it is needed to present Polisn, Russian and Yiddish name in leading.--Mikej007 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no special rights here for any group in this Wikipedia. All cities with big minorities and big population transfers should be described in the same way, see Wrocław. Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

I understand the population of Vilnius has declined, due mainly to out-migration, since independence. Perhaps a Lithuanian editor could supply statistics on this? Sca (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to add a new section on population to make it easier for navigation. It could also free up the introduction by having less numbers at the start. Thank you in advance for all valuable feedback.--Pimlokto (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanians moved from all Lithuanian provinces to Vilnius -

[edit]

According to http://www.delfi.lt/ 60% of Vilnius inhabitants are ethnic Lithuanians. It's allegedly the highest result in the history of the city.Xx236 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? Since establishment or since complete Polonization in 19th century? --Lokyz (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You read Lithuanian, don't you? Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ?--Lokyz (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead to check my statement, you change the subject. This place is to discuss the article, not me.Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Lithuanians moved from all Lithuanian provinces to Vilnius

Copyvio ?

[edit]

Is it a copyright violation, the legend part or is it considered as DP ? 'cause it's exactly the same thing as the ref. Zil (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the old draft mess

[edit]

Time to merge the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/General sandbox fork here. Please see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lithuania/General sandbox#Time to merge this mess. But I will say this: the draft infobox looks prettier :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 78.60.103.71

[edit]

Please be aware that you're way way way past violating 3RR [4].radek (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in the beginning of 20th century

[edit]

By now it's pretty obvious that Vilnius became a multi-cultural city, particularly after the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Nonsense like "During the early 20th century, the Lithuanian-speaking population of Vilnius constituted only a small minority, with Polish, Yiddish, and Belarusian speakers comprising the majority of the city's population", referenced or not, it is pure blather and nonsense. Is this to say that the Polish speakers in Vilnius could not speak Russian? Or that the Yiddish speakers in Vilnius could not speak Polish or Lithuanian? Somehow this myth bordering on the Big Lie, seems to give great comfort to those who would like to believe it, maybe believe it, but down deep inside, know it to only be wishful thinking. Once again, I'll reiterate the fact that when the Polish Army occupied Vilnius, in April 1919, the head of the Polish army, Józef Piłsudski (himself of Lithuanian ethnicity), issued a proclamation bilingually in Polish and Lithuanian to the inhabitants of the city. Perhaps he was addressing the Yiddish speaking population, who had lived there for centuries, and possibly were more proficient in Russian than Polish, and more fluent in Lithuanian than in Polish. We are told that many German speaking inhabitants, in Silesia were in fact Polish. Many of the same editors are unable to concede that many Polish speaking inhabitants, in Vilnius, were in fact Lithuanian and bilingual or trilingual. That's too bad. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would any RS confirm the theory that the Polish, Yiddish, and Belarusian speakers did not constitute the majority of the town's population in the early 20th century (until WW2 of course) ? --Lysytalk 08:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell. However, I certainly hope no one tries to palm off Sunday morning newspaper articles also known as tygodniks (in Polish) as such, as is too often the case. And btw, I'm glad that Lysy refers to this nonsense as a "theory." Dr. Dan (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Dan, whatever you are writing are speculations, good for a biased, pro-Lithuanian blog. All speculations and questions without answers. On a personal note, my late uncle was born in Moscow, and together with his mother, he settled in Wilno some time in the early 1920s, when he was a child. In the 1930s, he attended a high school there, and as he told me, he never heard Lithuanian language in Wilno, until 1939, when the city was handed over to the Lithuanians by the Soviets and Lithuanian army occupied it. Tymek (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tymek, for your very nice story, but I still don't understand why Pilsudski decided to issue his proclamation in Vilnius bilingually, in 1919. Since no one could speak or understand Lithuanian in Vilnius it seems like a waste of ink and time. Of course since Pilsudski was Lithuanian, it may have simply been nationalistic bias on his part. Too bad your uncle has passed away, so it's impossible to ask him if as a high school student, he would recognize Lithuanian from Finnish, Hungarian, or Estonian. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since as you say, you do not understand why Piłsudski issued his proclamation in Vilnius bilingually, please do not speculate or attempt to draw conclusions, as they could be false, and certainly an OR. --Lysytalk 08:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Lysy, but I think I'm entitled to draw conclusions, as they could be true. Especially when instead of getting an answer, I get anecdotes about people's late uncles and their high school experiences. If no one could speak or understand Lithuanian in Vilnius, issuing the proclamation there bilingually in 1919 seems rather ludricous. But what I really think is even more ludricrous is the assertion is that no one could speak or understand Lithuanian in Vilnius until 1939. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly entitled to draw conclusions and speculate, but you are NOT entitled to have these speculations or "conclusions" reproduced in Wikipedia articles, unless you can find reliable sources which say the same thing.radek (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) That's precisely my point, Radeksz. I am entitled to draw these conclusions here and comment on them at the talk pages. Perhaps it might stimulate others that disagree with either of us to improve the project with their "opinions" and knowledge (backed by reliable sources of course). Unlike some people who place their conclusions into the articles, after "sourcing" them from tygodniks, I don't. Btw, maybe you can tell us why Pilsudski issued his proclamation bilingually in a city whose inhabitants were neither Lithuanian nor could speak or understand that language. It seems very strange. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He published the proclamation in Lithuanian too because it was a political matter between Poland and Lithuania that both calimed the city and the area. The Lithuanians calimed that they have the right to start multi-ethnical state as well as the Polish and by that calims made the illusion that there Wilno is a bi-lingual city. In fact, the city and the region itself had only small Lithuanian minority, while Poles spoke Polish, Belarusians spoke Belarusian/Russian/Polish and Jews Yiddish/Russian/Polish but almost never Lithuanian. I say this from personal knowledge and research, because I am descendamt of Wilno Jewish family, and I know that my granparents and all their relatives and other members of the community spoke Yiddish and mostly Polish, thou many of them could speak Russian too (mainly the ones who came from the southern part of the region (today's West Belarus). Saying that Wilno was a Lithanian city is reverting history and Lithuanian nationalism. Btw, in 1939, the Soviets intended to make Wilno the new capital of Belarus claiming that it is part of the Polish/Jewish/Belarusian West Belarus and the composition of its inhabitants is very similar to Hrodna, Navharadak or Maladziechna regions. It was transferred to Lithuania only after a month for political reasons (a step towarts annexation to the Soviet Union).--Mikej007 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment Lithuanians calimed that they have the right to start is a rather dubious statement, as is I say this from personal knowledge and research that is outright WP:OR by the letter.--Lokyz (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lokyz, this is the talk page. And in fact it's less OR than Dan's "speculations".radek (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you an advice given by Lysy I advise to discuss the article and not other editors. Thank you for understanding.--Lokyz (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lokyz, for Lithuanians claimed that they have the right to start I address you to [5] and to Central Lithuania. For the OR, this IS the talk page and again if Dan can claim that someone in Wilno can't tell Lithuanian from Estonian (laughable - everyone in that region can do that easily), I can claim my personal experience too as an addition to the discussion here. In fact, it is written and proven many times that ethnic Lithuanians constituting a small fraction of the total population in Central Lithuania and Wilno and my OR is only an addition to that.--Mikej007 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you address me I to have my suggestions. Hereby I do add my suggestions - read Pilsudsky's diary, or Mykolas Riomeris diary. They're published. Makes some things too obvious. Happy reading.--Lokyz (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am sure I'll enjoy reading, especially Michał Römer. I think we went too far with personal disputes. I think we should minimize personal bias as much as we can and try to ger as close to facts and the facts are that Wilno in 1920 had only a small fraction of Lithuanian speakers. The Pilsudski proclamation was written in Lithuanian too, because he wanted it to be read by pro-Lithuania community and by the Lithuanian authorities which de-jure ruled the city. It doesn't mean anything about the spoken languages in the city in 1920.--Mikej007 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is a Lithuanian? One who believes in God, and has a trust in Statute. It's the memo before partitions Also, I can promise - after reading Mykolas Riomeris you'll be surprised.--Lokyz (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Statutes were written in Ruthenian and referred do the whole Duchy, then a Lithuanian is an inhabitant of the Duchy - Pole/Lithuanian/Belarusian/Jew/Tatar/Russian and all others. But what does it mean about language? Nothing. I can equally present the opinion that the Poles of Wilno were Polonized Belarusians or that Lithuanian=Belarusain and Samogitian=Lithuanian - you'll find movement in Belarus for renaming the country to Lithuania. But this is not the case here. It's not a dispute about history, it's about reality in 1920 and I think that is clear.--Mikej007 (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikej007, I was very busy with work and couldn't get back to you earlier. I wanted to thank you for your nice story, too. Just as I thanked Tymek for his. As for your explanation as to why Pilsudski issued the Proclamation bilingually.... "He published the proclamation in Lithuanian too because it was a political matter between Poland and Lithuania that both calimed the city and the area..." That at least makes an attempt to explain it. But does it? As for your personal family story, thanks..." I say this from personal knowledge and research, because I am descendamt of Wilno Jewish family, and I know that my granparents and all their relatives and other members of the community spoke Yiddish and mostly Polish, thou many of them could speak Russian too..." That should settle the question? I'm curious if either of your grandparents were university educated, and when they left Vilnius. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr., thanks for your answer. My grandfather had a degree in economics from the Stefan Batory University taught exclusively in Polish. After graduation, he returned in his native city of Smarhon, until 1941 and then came back there in 1945. He and my grandmother, who is a Wilno native both remembered the Soviet invasion, the Belarus-Lithuania dispute in September-October 1939 and the Lithuanization measures. Actually, my grandfather's degree saved him from deportation to Kazakhstan, because he was considered a "needed professional". Of course, that doesn't prove nothing and we can't base on this Wiki articles, but it can be an argument about the common languages of the city in 1920-1939.--Mikej007 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Mike, thanks for responding. You're right that your story, like Tymek's, proves nothing. Which is why I didn't bother to mention the story of a very famous furrier, who lived in Vilnius and had a well known business during the Polish occupation of the city, and was a patient of my father's (in the U.S.A.). A Litvak, he was a polyglot and spoke Lithuanian fluently, as did his wife. I suppose one could say that it would be helpful, for purposes of business, to speak as many languages as possible in a multi-cultural city (even a phantom language that no one could speak or understand). A frequent guest at our dinner table, the conversation was held in Lithuanian, even though all of the older people present could speak, Russian, Polish, and English. A nice story? I think so, but it's meaningless to the point under discussion. Just the same, I do prefer hearing stories more than telling them. Regrettably it appears that your grandfather is no longer living (your use of the past tense). I'm curious, since he was a University student, if he ever discussed the Ghetto benches or ONR with you? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm "sure" he did:).... but I'm not sure what the Ghetto Benches have to do with the above discussion. Is this a sneaky attempt to change the subject and move to the more "comfortable" area such as "terrible" Polish pre war anti-Semitism? :)--Jacurek (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Ghetto benches were never introduced in Stefan Batory University. As for ONR, never heard of it, till now. Anyway, your story is not better than mine. I don't deny that the Lithuanian language was spoken in Wilno region as a 2nd or 3rd language, but it rather was a native language of a small minority of the population. We can't deny that native Lithuanian speakers were outnumbered by Polish, Yiddish and Belarusian native speakers.--Mikej007 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Mike, first, I'm less in disagreement with many of the premises you're espousing than you might think. Much of the problem that I have to deal with on these talk pages are remarks like the borderline PA just made by Jacurek. You'll note that Jacurek has made no prior contributions on this talk page. He has made no attempts to explain the bi-lingual nature of Pilsudski's Proclamation. He has made no attempts to curb what might be considered OT remarks by any other editors. None! Zilch! Yet he mysteriously appears to do what? Inflame the discussion? Sneaky how, Jacurek? Sneaky like Zeligowski? Maybe you consider "the subject of pre-war Polish anti-Semitism to be a more "comfortable" area". I don't. Maybe you're placing parentheses around "terrible" to be sarcastic. I'm not sure. I'm also not sure if you are stalking me, but your appearance here out of nowhere seems odd to say the least. Sorry for the digression, Mike, one of the benefits of Wikipedia is providing information on subjects less covered in many other venues. The ONR or the Pinsk massacre are only two examples of subjects that I had never heard of either, prior to my involvement with WP. Speaking of Pinsk, and your family's experience with Smarhon and Vilnius, I would very much like to explore the related subject of the anti-Semitic excesses perpetrated during the Vilna offensive with you. Maybe you are familiar with them. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dan. I've never heard of the Vilna offensive anti-semitic deeds. Maybe it because my grandparents were babies at the time. Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with the subject we're talking about now, or with the fact that even mentioning Polish names in Lithuania-related articles is considered almost a crime. Btw, I don't think that Lithuanian antisemitism was "better" than Polish, but it's just my opinion--Mikej007 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Dr.Dan..shall we go back to the original subject of this discussion or we are already switched the subject to the Polish anti-Semitism, Vilnius offensive, Pinks massacre and my "mysterious" appearance on this talk page?--Jacurek (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Jacurek, let's go back to the original subject. I'd love to hear your spin on why the Lithuanian dictator of Poland decided to issue the bi-lingual Proclamation to the inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Lithuanian, in a city where only a tiny minority could speak or understand the language. Any stories from grandparents and uncles are also welcome. And Mike, you don't need to get all of your information from your grandparents either. Thanks to the computer age, you're only a few clicks away from what happened in Vilnius in April 1919. That incident, like the Pinsk massacre, was a crime, not ..."the fact that even mentioning Polish names in Lithuania-related articles is considered almost a crime". Dr. Dan (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps, before we go back to the original subject, we could mention Lithuanian Security Police, a unit of Lithuanian murderers, which was very active in the city of Wilno. Another click, and we can find information about other crimes, such as Kaunas pogrom. Any comments Dr Dan, since you introduced antisemitism to the discussion? Tymek (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tymek, getting back to the original subject seems to be rather difficult. Either Pilsudski was an idiot (if only 1% or 2% of Vilnius' population could speak Lithuanian) or there were enough Lithuanian speakers in Vilnius to make it worthwhile to issue his proclamation bilingually. Regarding anti-Semitism, I agree with Mikej007, ..." I don't think that Lithuanian antisemitism was "better" than Polish, but it's just my opinion...", it simply was greater and more wide spread in Poland. And please remember that after Mike described his grandfather's and family's situation (especially as a university student), I was curious if the Ghetto benches affected him. Also what knowledge might have been conveyed to him regarding the other matters. Btw, I still haven't heard an opinion from you or Jacurek on the Pilsudski proclamation. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I, or anybody else, obliged to present to you my opinion on the proclamation? If you are so curious about it, check answers.com, perhaps they will help you. Or perhaps spend a few dollars and buy a book. I have been feeding a troll for long enough, and I hope other users will share my opinion and end this hopeless exchange. Tymek (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tymek even if you could, you are not obliged to present anything to anyone. You are obliged, however, not to engage in in violation of the WP:PA policy on these talk pages. And once again thanks for sharing your story about your uncle emigrating from Moscow to Vilnius and never hearing Lithuanian spoken when he was in high school. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...Dan, Dan...just let it go...I don't even read your post in full anymore because it is the same thing over and over and over...Look, ALL cities have their alternative names in other languages in their leads. This is already a rule and standard on Wikipiedia. Lithuanian cities can't be exception because you, Lokyz and MK don't like it. I don't want to hear about Lithuania being independent for only 50 years, Pilsudski, his declaration, him being and idiot, Poles, Jews, Chinese...I'm tired of hearing that and I'm tired of this endless conversation on the subject. Let's retire and switch our attention to something else. Shall we?--Jacurek (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't help it, can you? :):):)--Jacurek (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently neither can you. Btw, I hardly consider Pilsudski and (sic) idiot. Quite the contrary. Nor do I consider Jogaila and the other Jagiellons to be ones either. Beck and Rydz-Smigly, and Poniatowski can be further discussed on this point, if you care to do so, at their appropriate venues. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, anybody who doubts about population check this (in Russian): http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Население_Вильнюса Should the data from 1897 population census be added to the article? It states Lithuanians were 2 % of the Vilna population. Also there is very nice dynamics showing quick Lithuanian population growth from 1945 on up to 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.136.110 (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEASEL

[edit]

I'ask to explain which one of "The war has irrevocably altered the town" is over the verge of the WP:WEASEL. Besides it was unreferenced.--Lokyz (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The population was practically completely replaced. --Lysytalk 11:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question was about wording: "irrevocably altering" does not say a word about population, it supposes something like total annihilation.--Lokyz (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should explain it clearly that what was before WWII a major Polish-Jewish cultural metropolis became, after the war, a newly Lithuanizied town with very little Polish and even less Jewish presense (I wonder of we can talk of a Lithuanian colony...? In the same sense that Regained Territories can be seen as a Polish colony, of course :>). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strange enough, sources of the middle 19th century say that majority of the population in the region was Lithuanian. And speaking about colonization, one should not forget 200 thousand Polish colonists brought in to the Vilnius region during Polish occupation in 20th century.--Lokyz (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
200,000 Poles? Where did you get it from? Interbellum Poland was a desperately poor country, and it simply could not afford such a transfer of people. According to the official estimates, in Volhynia there were about 13,000 osadniks, in the area of Wilno there were perhaps no more than 5,000. Tymek (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th century sources define ethnicity in a different way. According to a 1916 German (not Polish) poll, the city consisted of 53% Poles, 41% Jews and only 2% Lithuanians. In 1931 there were 65% Poles in the city. Wilno, or Vilnius, is a Lithuanian colony just like Breslau, or Wrocław is a Polish one. There is nothing to discuss. Stop with the goddamn nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.86.99 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compelled to relocate

[edit]

No other population transfer is described this way in this Wikipedia. POV.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parity principle

[edit]

Hey user:Mikej007 could you fix that also? --Lokyz (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parity principle? If the Yiddish name is accoding the WP:Place policy, you are welcomed to fix that? It's not WP:POINT.--Mikej007 (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, explain what did you mean, I cannot understand your message. I did just try to ask for your help to provide alternative names to the cities in Poland, according to the WP:Place policy, that is the same for all cities around the world. And if it does not work in Poland, why should it work in Lithuania?--Lokyz (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should work for everywhere as [6] and [7].--Mikej007 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you'll add alternative names to the cities of Poland soon. Am I correct?--Lokyz (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcomed to do that for any city, anywhere, as long as in according to WP:Place policy. If I see such a thing - I'll do that for Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus and Ukraine and I hope you'll contribute to that too.--Mikej007 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" You are welcome(ed) to do that for any city, anywhere... blah, blah....I'll do that for Poland." Sounds very nice, Mike, what happened here [8]? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can keep this conversation all in one place. :-) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Guidelines

[edit]

Per WP:Lead

  • Separate section usage

Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; other names exist)". Dr. Dan (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to what you wrote, Wilno and Vilne belong to the lead. Add to that 10%+minority rule and we get the alternative names in the lead. Another thing - there is a mediation going on the issue. Please do not change the lead until it is resolved. That laead eas acepted and stable for more than a month and if you'll keep reverting, I'll have to ask for protection for this article too.--Mikej007 (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was stable for year or so before you introduce changes without any discussion and consensus. M.K. (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean that it's right and according to WP:PLACE and WP:LEAD guidelines. In this case both 10% and minority rules are enforced.--Mikej007 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the guideline again, specifically pertaining to the lead (it's right above), not ones that you prefer to implement. And Mike, please note that the guideline clearly states..."Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line." It seems to work very nicely at Kiev. Thanks Dr. Dan (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CIA Secret Prison in Antavilis

[edit]

ABC News uncovered the details of a secret prison outside of Vilnius in Antavilis. I'm not sure if Antavilis is geopolitically part of Vilnius, so I'm just posting it on the talk page in case other editors think it is noteworthy. Satellite View here? Other reports state "President Grybauskaite has insisted that the claims be properly investigated." Jeff Carr (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Redirect to Wilno, Ontario

[edit]

A redirect to the village in Ontario here would be comparable to redirecting Paris, Illinois to Paris, or Warsaw, Illinois to Warsaw. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gdansk Danzig vote requirement

[edit]

Page should be corrected to reflect Gdansk Danzig vote requirement. [[9]] (include original name Wilno under Polish rule.--Kitsblenz (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory set is to keep the city name in the language of the country to which the city belonged at the time. Gdansk vote established this rule[[10]]. The rule should be observed also here.--Kitsblenz (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That vote was limited in scope to the Gdansk/Danzig area. No similar vote was taken, or WP:Consensus reached, on the Vilnius naming issue. The most recent extended discussion involved its name as used in Battle of Vilnius (1655). If you look at its talk page [11], a name change was proposed there, but an admin closed it as no consensus, since editors showed that reliable historians use both Vilnius and Wilno, also Vilna, during the PL-LT Commonwealth era. (Altho I think you would not meet much resistance to calling it Wilno during the interwar period).
If you feel strongly about this, you could pursue it by filing a Wikipedia:Request for comment. An RFC brings in a wider set of editors. Novickas (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice but unfortunately you are wrong, vote was not limited in scope to the Gdansk/Danzig area. All articles such as about Szczecin[[12]], Wroclaw[[13]], Jelenia Gora[[14]] and so on also comply with this rule and I think that this article was simply overlooked. If not, I see no reason why this principle should be respected everywhere except here. Behaviour of the Lithuanian editor MK who keeps erasing my amendments without any comments, which I think is very inappropriate and abnormal, makes me wonder why this rule is not respected here. Cheers.--Kitsblenz (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template at Talk:Gdansk/Vote reads "This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes: "For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names..." It's quite specific. Geographic naming disputes on WP are widespread and have ended up at Arbcom several times - they are done case-by-case. If you feel the Gdansk vote established a broad principle that should apply here you'd have to launch some sort of similar initiative. Novickas (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this principle should apply to the whole region and not only to the history of the territories that once belonged to Germany or Poland. I don't think that further vote is required, I'll address this problem in the appropriate forum within a few days. Similar principle should be followed when it comes to the former Polish territories in the east, or the rule should be scrapped. Thoughts?--Kitsblenz (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is to find this depressing when the article could be improved in so many other ways. But that's just my thought. More broadly, that if you post about this topic elsewhere on WP, it would be good practice to post any and all such links here - thereby keeping the people editing/watching this page notified. Novickas (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest in a Teapot?

[edit]

Concerning Vilnius, "also known by several other names" is applicable to hundreds, if not more, of cities with articles on Wikipedia. Are we splitting hairs here, or this there some unique purpose to your edit? Thought I'd ask you on your talk page rather than simply reverting your edit back to mine. Thanks, Dr. Dan (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that it is known by other names to English speakers. No need to change that.--Mikej007 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you view the comparable entry at the Warsaw article in relation to the matter? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about it. Change it and deal with the people that do care about it. The things aren't connected and I won't fall again to meaningless debates and questions. as for Vilnius, it is known by several other names to English readers.--Mikej007 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't really care about it. Change it and deal with the people that do care about it." That's what I've done. Perhaps the third time will be a charm. And Mike, since you don't "really" care about it, let those others you say care about it make their case. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dan. stop those useless debates. I don't care about Warsaw, I care what's written here and that's why I insist on the right expression. The city is knpwn to English speakers by othr names, this is it.--Mikej007 (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a native speaker of English and I have certainly never heard native speakers use any name other than Vilnius. However, as this is Wikipedia, it doesn't matter what we know: it matters what the WP:RS say. Mike, if you have some sources saying that English speakers use names other than Vilnius, let's see those. Otherwise we simply can not include the statement. Varsovian (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German

[edit]

I'm under the impression that Vilnius is currently the commonly used name for the city by Germans in the German language. As in the case of Russian, an earlier version of the name was used, "Вильна", but Вильнюс/Vilnius is now used. The antiquated German name Wilna has been replaced with Vilnius. Like the current English name Vilnius. So then in response to user: Halibutt's edit [15], I would like to know if Poland has adhered to the "conventions" he referred to? ..."Dan, train companies and airports use international names, there's a convention for that". Do the train stations and airport schedules in Poland use Vilnius? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt, thank you for the trouble of explaining [16] the position of the Polish railway system vis a vis Vilnius with this link. The link worked, btw. Getting back to the commonly used name for the city of Vilnius in the German language, I do believe it is now Vilnius, and no longer Wilna. They use "Vilnius", not Wilna and "Tallinn", not Reval. Or do you believe that like Cracow, (now Kraków, in English), antiquated versions need not be employed for the sake of consistency? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some German Wikipedians or others familiar with the German language can help out with the question as to whether Wilna or Vilnius is the current name used for the city in German. Dr. Dan (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So on Deutsche Bahn's website, inputting Wilna as a destination is recognised but then converted to Vilnius in the results. This might indicate that Vilnius is now more common - but unfortunately it does the same with Prag, converting it to Praha which is certainly not common usage in German. ÖBB's planner works similarly. Lufthansa fly to Prag but to Vilnius on their German-language site, as do Austrian Airlines (who strangely fly to Poznan, Katowice, Wroclaw, Krakau and Warschau - so I have no idea what criteria they are using regarding exonyms.) I think de.wiki represents German usage quite accurately, and they use Prag but Vilnius. Overall, I think there's fair evidence for a preference for Vilnius now - but Wilna is still used often enough that it is included in current-day transport databases for recognition purposes. Knepflerle (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(PS and Wilna is indeed often enough used that de.wiki has had the occasional discussion or twenty as to which to use) Knepflerle (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Several links are dead, which makes the article less reliable than it used to be.Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Exterminated"

[edit]

... most of the predominantly Polish and Jewish population was either exterminated during the German occupation, or deported to Siberia during the first Soviet occupation.

According to what I've read, it was the Jewish residents of Vilnius (and Lithuania) — numbering 200,000 or more — who were "exterminated" during the Nazi German occupation. (And why don't we just say "murdered"?) Someone more knowledgeable than I could supply more detail as to what happened to the Polish residents of the city, who were drastically reduced in number after the Soviet reconquest in 1944, but I don't believe "exterminated." Ethnic Poles remain a significant minority in Vilnius to this day.

Sca (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In various places I've read that quite a few Poles were more or less forcibly transferred by the Soviets from Vilnius and southeastern Lithuania to Warmia, Masuria and Gdąnsk, i.e. present-day northeastern Poland, acquired from Germany in 1945.

The entry Population transfer in the Soviet Union indicates about 2.1 million Poles were transferred by the Soviets from the parts of eastern Poland annexed by Stalin in 1939 to post-1945 Poland.

Sca (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The exact number of ethnic Poles murdered at Ponary is unknown, (noone cared to study the problem academically) - probably several thousands. Only very recently Lithuanian authorities started to discuss the Ponary crime. "Ethnic Poles remain a significant minority" around Vilnius rather than inside. Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius incorporated to Belarusian SSR

[edit]

The article misleads the reader and should be corrected. Vilnius was never incorporated, part of Belarussian SSR. As early as 19 September, negotiations between Lithuania and USSR, began. The treaty of 1920 between Lithuania and Russia was valid. Vilnius as part of Belarussian SSR is just a dream of Belarussian communists at the fall of Communism and of today's litvinists. Žemėpatis (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that part of the article is pretty sketchy. Even if some of the information is factually correct it seems to violate WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek 04:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather late, but: while it indeed never happened, it was a little bit more than a dream, and not just in the late 1980s and early 1990s. See Timothy Snyder's The Reconstruction of Nations, pp. 80ff.:
The next paragraph identifies Anton Łuckievič as one who was so convinced. And then Stalin decided that it would not be so:
(The numbers represent Snyder's sources and are original to his work.) In fact, given the city's historical importance to the Belarusian national movement, I believe a WP:BELARUS WikiProject tag should be added to the talk header as well. And maybe a sentence should be added to the article about this, maybe something like "While the Soviets initially showed signs of planning to include Vilnius into the Belarusian SSR, Stalin apparently decided in late September 1939 that the city should be granted to Lithuania", before segueing into the sentence already present about the Soviet–Lithuanian Mutual Assistance Treaty. (Snyder also discusses the dreams of the 1980s and 1990s on p. 247 and p. 266; since those never even started progressing beyond being dreams, I guess they do not need to be mentioned in the article.) Double sharp (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Vilnius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vilnius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Vilnius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very poor addition, which doesn't mean anything says Sabbatino

[edit]
These letters contain the first unambiguous reference to Vilnius as the capital; - there is no word Vilnius in the text, only Vilna, Wilno, Vilne [E. Bojtár, Foreword To The Past, A Cultural History of the Baltic People, p. 265, Central European University Press, 1999] .
Similar statements:
Klaipėda The first time the city was mentioned as Caloypede in the letter of Vytautas
Kaunas doesn't contain old names, but lt:Kauno istorija says Kauen, Cawen, Kauwenpille
Šiauliai The city was first mentioned in written sources as Soule
Gdańsk The name of a settlement was recorded after St. Adalbert's death in AD 997 as urbs Gyddanyzc
Wrocław The city's name was first recorded as "Wrotizlava" in the chronicle of German chronicler Thietmar of Merseburg
Paris Lutetia Parisiorum Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop edit warring and stick to Polish Wikipedia as a fellow Polish editor suggested to you on your talk page, because you can hardly communicate in English and create conflicts with other editors. You also keep misplacing citations and your interpretations in every single article and then accuse other editors of censorship among other things, which could be considered as personal attacks. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect that this page is for discussions about Vilnius. This page has existed since 2001 and noone was able to find the first written name. Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It happens that a big part of Polish history is Soviet history and you helped to ban me. Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What letters, please? can you tell me aggtdda (at jeemeymeyll) what got deleted that you were referring to? Names at naissance are .... important.
The cityname's IPA pronunciation ("Lithuanian" is reasonable if you read it aloud, but is completely depalatalised and therefore not reflected at all in the ogg.file, so shall we make a comment on the file itself.... hmmm... 216.200.155.35 (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suwałki Agreement - only Lithuanian POV here

[edit]

From Suwałki Agreement: However, Piotr Łossowski argued that such summaries are inadequate and misleading.[1] Xx236 (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Łossowski, Piotr (1995). Konflikt polsko-litewski 1918–1920 (in Polish). Warsaw: Książka i Wiedza. pp. 166–175. ISBN 83-05-12769-9.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on Vilnius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Genocide Victims is now Museum of Occupations and Freedom Fights

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Occupations_and_Freedom_Fights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.81.78 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious lines in "Housing" section

[edit]

@Žemėpatis: Let's talk because edit war will led nowhere and administrators will have to step in.

Your noted dubious lines:
1) "More distant neighbourhoods (e.g., Lazdynai, Karoliniškės, Viršuliškės, Šeškinė, Justiniškės, Pašilaičiai, Fabijoniškės, Naujininkai) are offering significantly cheaper flats and are mostly inhabited by lower income". It is a known fact for every Vilnian. You can buy 3-4 rooms large flats in these districts when you can buy only ~2 rooms flat for the same price in Antakalnis, Žvėrynas, etc., so it is indeed chosen by lower income inhabitants (of course, exceptions are possible, but the majority is like that).
2) "Their biggest disadvantages together with a more difficult communication with the city centre are less greenery" I am not sure about all the districts, but such districts as Karoliniškės really has less greenery than Antakalnis, Žvėrynas. If you have a source which measures greenery area in all districts - it would be very useful, however I would prefer Antakalnis or Žvėrynas for walks instead of Justiniškės or Karoliniškės.
3) "they acted noisily and the townspeople did not want them around, though the area[which?]" Šnipiškės area.
4) "still remained poor[specify]" many houses does not have toilets inside even today and are in a very poor condition. References provided also notes this.
5) "Everything has started to change rapidly in the early 2000s[dubious – discuss] when the new Vilnius city municipality building was built there in 2004 and the area was named[dubious – discuss] as the new city centre with skyscrapers and expensive commercial offices being built constantly in the area since then." Reference notes that everything started to change with it being named as the new city centre.

Prices will not change because more distant neighbourhoods filled with Soviet architecture will always be less valuable than Žvėrynas, Antakalnis and Žirmūnai, which connects with the city centre just like the previous two elderships. And even if they will manage to change someshow - edits are always welcome, however now the situation is clear. -- Pofka (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka:

1) "It's a known fact" is not a well sourced proof, but anecdotal evidence. Feel free to present any statistical information about "lower income inhabitants" of these districts. 2) Well, Karoliniškės elderate is packed between Karoliniškių kraštovaizdžio draustinis and Sudervė river valley, right in the middle between forests. How is it "less green"? The same situation in Lazdynai (surrounded by forests from all sides, 3/4 of the elderly is greenery), Šeškinė (situated between Karoliniškės draustinis in the South and Ozo draustinis in the East, more than a half of the elderly is greenery), etc. "I would prefer" - is an anecdotal evidence, but not sourced by any actual data on greenery (percent of a territory, covered by parks and forests). 4) What does in mean "many houses"? Could you provide any specific data with all the figures given? Šnipiškės cover large area with only some 20-30 wooden huts, while there are around 30 000 inhabitants in Šnipiškės. E.g. there are ~10 times more inhabitants in 3-4-storey brick houses in Lvovo and Kalvarijų streets (so called Piromontas between the Green bridge and Lvovo street) than all the inhabitants of all the wooden huts combined. Small territory with wooden huts is hugely exaggerated and is also based on anecdotal evidences, but not on actual data. 5) This territory was named "New city center" in the 1960s, not in the 2000s, to begin with. Also, large scale construction works started there in the 1960s as well. The sentence is misleading, giving the impression, that the district was developed only after the year 2000. --Žemėpatis (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Žemėpatis:

1) I believe you are living in one of these neighbourhoods and it sounds personal. As I already said, try comparing flats prices in these more distant neighbourhoods with Antakalnis, Žvėrynas and you will see 2-3 times higher prices for identical quality flats. Perkūnkiemis (a part of Fabijoniškės) would be a great starting point. 2) Feel free to edit the "greenery" parts of the section, but with valid references. I already said that in my previous post. However, a few parks not always make a neighbourhood green because they are often situated in one side of the neighbourhood and the other part of it is flooded with the soviet-era apartments or such junk as Perkūnkiemis apartments. Some neighbourhoods look like a grey hell in Vilnius with that architecture and I am sure you know that. But once more, you can add all the information about greenery of these neighbourhoods because it is a valuable information (I'm not a naturalist, so there is no need to show anger towards me). 4) Šnipiškės is very related with Žirmūnai and at times its difficult to distinguish them, however the central wooden part of Šnipiškės is a trash for years (I added a reliable reference about that by the way). As you are Lithuanian, then read these lines (I used this ref as an argument to call it poor): "Šnipiškės. Nuo skurdaus priemiesčio iki patogaus centro", "Šiandien Šnipiškės iš priemiesčio virto jau kone centrine miesto dalimi, tačiau vargano gyvenimo esama dar nemažai." and so on (url: https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/vilniaus-zinios/snipiskes-nuo-skurdaus-priemiescio-iki-patogaus-centro-793-1106084). 5) Any reliable edits are welcome. Before 2000s the area had only two skyscrapers/high-rises: yellow monolith and hotel Lietuva, so it wasn't so luxurious as nowadays. If you can provide references that supports your statements that it was called as a new city centre in the 1960s - add it. -- Pofka (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka:

1) One may life in "one of these neighborhoods" or "on the Moon'. It doesn't matter. Please, stick to the facts, but not opinions. One may quote the 2011 census or any other source with an actual data, but not use bald statements or unreliable sources as a "proof". Also, "lower income" compared to what? Median income within Vilnius, the most wealthy residents (what percent of the most wealthy?) of Vilnius, Lithuania or something else? Around half of the population live in those districts. Does it mean half of Vilnius inhabitants are lower income? Is it a fact? The sentence is vague and needs to be rewritten according to the rules of Encyclopedia. 2) Feel free to quote the exact numbers of greenery per area in every of those "less green" neighborhoods, showing how these are "less green" (ha, % of territory, etc., but not bald and unsourced statements). Again, remember, this article is not about how Perkūnkiemis look to you or is it up to your liking or not. These are anecdotal evidences, but not actual facts. "Junk" is not a good word for an encyclopedia article. These are not about logical fallacies, but about Reliable sources and factual data.

4) No, it is not related to Žirmūnai. Šnipiškės are clearly distinguished from Žirmūnai. You are not local Vilnian, probably from Kaunas or some other city. This article is not a reliable source, but newspaper "evidence", based on Sensationalism, but not on an actual data (actual figures like those of the housing censuses, e.g. from 1989, 2001 or 2011).

5) There are lots of mentions of the New City Center in various Soviet encyclopedias (articles Naujasis Miesto Centras, et. al.) or more specific literature like "Statyba ir Architektūra" (journal for professional architects). --Žemėpatis (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Žemėpatis:

1) This line can be replaced with "offers lower price apartments" instead of "lower income residents" (this was my main statement and it is 100% valid by analyzing such sources as https://www.aruodas.lt/kainu-statistika/). If you want to prove differently - provide sources instead of bald text. You are speaking about reliable sources and factual data in your posts, but did not provided ANY sources or data references. If you will not provide any sources again in your posts - this discussion is simply a anecdotal discussion.

2) Funny. First you attacked me with statements that Karoliniškės/Lazdynai/Šeškinė are more green than some other neighbourhoods (presumably, Žvėrynas, Antakalnis, which I mentioned in my edits), but yet again DID NOT PROVIDED any sources. When I agreed to remove the "greenery" part and offered you to edit incorrect text by providing reliable references you said that I should provide references. This is ridiculous. If you challenge somebody edits as incorrect - it is your duty to provide sources and to prove that you are right.

4) Haha, firstly you say that it does not matter in which eldership you live, but then you say that I am from Kaunas. Why it matters then? Wooden huts covers almost half of the Šnipiškės territory, starting from Konstitucijos Avenue and continuing all the way till the Žalgirio St. (only very small part of this territory has Soviet-era apartments which are identical to Žirmūnai buildings and a few modern buildings). Yes, the other part of Šnipiškės (beginning in Žalgirio St. and ending in Ozo St. / Kareivių St.) is a typical Soviet-era buildings area (of which a lot of them are former dormitories with cheap 1 room apartments and possibly public toilet/shower; these are mostly located in the Ozo St. corner of Šnipiškės and previously were used by a nearby Soviet-era factory workers). You should visit Šnipiškės more frequently or at least read some articles (one I provided included) to realize the situation.

5) Exact book(s) with page(s) / website(s) url(s) or these statements are useless in Wikipedia. As I previously mentioned, you speak about "Reliable sources and factual data.", but all you provide are such statements as "There are lots of mentions (...) in various Soviet encyclopedias". You contradict your own claims. -- Pofka (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka:

1) Agree here, your previous statements were anecdotal, as well as funny newest statements. After changing the subject, what is Equivocation argumentation fallacy, one states something about presenting sources, when it were your bald statements about "lower income inhabitants" and it is you, who must provide the sources or rewrite the strange part (which would mean the majority of Vilnius inhabitants are of "lower income" non-sense) in a factual manner. The changed statements do sound somehow a little bit better now. Think about the reader, how one could interpret the text, then try to formulate it in a manner, that would be the most understandable for any reader, with the least variants of interpretations. Good luck. :-)

2) Please, provide any factual data on lack of greenery. Ones anger could not solve this issue. Since it was you, who compiled the part of the text about "lack of greenery in Karoliniškės", completely ignoring 162 ha Karoliniškių kraštovaizdžio draustinis, Pasakų parkas, Sudervėlės slėnis with forest and other green areas, which surround Karaoliniškės from all sides and are no more than 3 minutes by foot from any part of Karoliniškės, hence it is you, who must provide clear sources about such non-sense as "lack of greenery" (what is simply not true) or admit, that this part must be re-written or simply deleted.

4) Anecdotal evidences. Please provide any sources, where clear numbers are presented, not non-factual thoughts. P.S. From what you write, I clearly understand, that your "knowledge" on Šnipiškės is based on stereotypes, anecdotes and up to some 5 minutes in google street view. I doubt you were ever to Šnipiškės. I assure you, your stereotypes are all wrong. :-) Firstly, Piromontas is brick district (solid houses), there are no wooden huts at all. Secondly, up to half of Šnipiškės is the part with soviet brick villas (expensive homes in a good place), built in the 1950s and early 1960s, situated to the north of Žalgiris street. There are no wooden huts there. Also, there are parts of Šnipiškės with 5-9-storey block houses and recently demolished factories, where new housing is being built. Next time, when visiting Vilnius, I recommend you to pay a visit to Šnipiškės and walk all of the eldership.

5) You mistake wikipedia article for a kindergarten. Please, stop acting as a resentful kid. Wikipedia is about facts and data, not about someone's essays, creative writing, where every word must be defended and the author must win at any cost (where even the most non-sense statements must stay), no matter, what. Do I understand it correctly, that for you actual facts are less important, than to defend an erroneous position? Just admit, that you knew very little about a topic. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Nobody was born with a knowledge of everything and people are learning something every day. Just stop stubbornly oppose the facts and learn the topic (do some research). Stop being childish and read some "Architektai Algimantas ir Vytautas Nasvyčiai" by Algimantas Mačiulis, there are tens of pages about the topic or any other book, scientific journal or an article. :-) Žemėpatis (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Žemėpatis:

I will not start/continue discussions with a person who calls somebody "resentful kid" and tries to humiliate somebody with his words. It shows your lack of education and a disability to communicate politely, which is essential in such teamwork projects as Wikipedia.

I will not (and nobody else will) read any material sources without mentioned pages, which by the way are not accessible online legally, provided by you. If you mention facts from any books - it is your duty to add references to such sources. You're not a babysitter in a kindergarten and other Wikipedians are not kids that can be commanded.

The section was adjusted by as much as you were able to concentrate and discuss smartly. Your outbursts of anger are ridiculous and I will not waste my precious time in that. -- Pofka (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka:

Exactly, the last message clearly illustrates what was previously written. Isn't it childish behavior? We are here not to pretend to be resentful kids or to compete, but to present facts, thinking not about ourselves in egoistic manner, but about the reader, who may know nothing about the city at all. Because of this, article must be very precise and factually good written, understandable. By the way, criticism of a form of discussion is just another case of logical fallacy – Tone policing, a form of Ad hominem attack with a clear argumentum ad cellarium pretense. Anyway, refusal to discuss erroneous statements in the article, attack of a tone and anger, things that do look like childish behavior (e.g. when a young person may say "I am not gonna talk to, specifically – you, ever again"), doesn't make those parts in the text into facts, so these parts must be rewritten some day anyway. It will be done by you, me or someone else. Žemėpatis (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Nationalism and the Vilnius Question, 1883−1940

[edit]

Needs to be mantioned in the article. The book is Lithuanian Nationalism and the Vilnius Question, 1883−1940 by Dangiras Mačiulis and Darius Staliūnas, a review in a RS is here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polish military failure before Soviet arrival

[edit]

@Marcelus: regarding this. Prior to the Soviet invasion of Vilnius and its surroundings, Operation Ostra Brama is clearly a Polish military failure, as I wrote in the Vilnius article. As clearly written in the article Operation Ostra Brama: Failure of the operation, The main reason for the operation was for propaganda purposes – to claim full rights to Vilnius by retaking it before the Soviet Red Army arrived. The operation did not achieve its objectives.. Furthermore,The Polish attack on the morning of 7 July stalled almost immediately under heavy fire from German positions.

After looking through the pl.wiki article, the military failure and even incompetence becomes even clearer: Koncentracja oddziałów AK odbywała się w atmosferze chaosu i pełnej improwizacji. Bardzo źle działała łączność między jednostkami partyzanckimi. Dla oddziałów nowogródzkich nie przygotowano znających teren przewodników. Partyzanci często nawet nie wiedzieli, co jest celem ich marszu. Uderzano na ślepo, nie mając pojęcia, jakie siły nieprzyjaciela znajdują się na kierunku natarcia. Całością operacji nie dowodził nikt, gdyż dowódca operacji podpułkownik Poleszczuk nie dotarł do Wilna, a podpułkownik Krzyżanowski znajdował się w sąsiedztwie jednego ze szturmujących batalionów partyzanckich, zaraz za przednią linią ataku. (last paragraph of the section Działania bojowe). In the section Samodzielne walki oddziałów Armii Krajowej (Independent fighting of the Home Army units):

Nacierające oddziały nie miały dokładnego rozpoznania niemieckiego systemu obrony. 1 i 6 batalion zdobyły pierwszą linię umocnień na skraju Lipówki i przekroczyły linię kolejową Wilno – Podbrodzie. Kontratak wojsk niemieckich odrzucił jednak partyzantów na pozycje wyjściowe. 9 Brygada zaległa przed betonowymi schronami bojowymi na skraju Hrybiszek[c]. Partyzanci 3 i 5 batalionu 77 pp po ciężkich walkach zdobyli Góry, ale w wyniku morderczego ostrzału nie mogli nacierać dalej.

Działania 8 i 3 Brygady skutecznie blokował pociąg pancerny w rejonie stacji Kolonia Wileńska. 8 Brygada zaległa w kotlinie naprzeciwko betonowego bunkra. 3 Brygada odniosła największe sukcesy. Po przekroczeniu Wileńki dotarła do Belmontu, a następnie do skraju Zarzecza i Traktu Batorego. Jeden z plutonów przekroczył trakt i walczył na Antokolu. Na pozycjach trwała do 8 lipca i podjęła współdziałanie bojowe z oddziałami sowieckimi. Natarcie oddziałów AK załamało się, oddziały doznały dużych strat. Nieprzyjaciel prowadził ogień artylerii i moździerzy oraz ataki lotnicze z powietrza. Ponowienie uderzenie w dzień narażało na dalsze straty. Zapadła decyzja wycofania się do rejonu Szwajcar.

Clearly, the added phrase Polish military failure was historically accurate and should be kept in the article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of the operation was to liberate Vilnius, and AK succeded in that. The fact that operation was ill-prepared doesn't mean it was a military failure. You are confusing two simple things. Marcelus (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The operation was a military failure. AK did not achieve what they wanted to achieve - i.e. taking over Vilnius before the Soviets. Operation Ostra Brama was a failure for its initiators, while the Battle of Vilnius (1944) that the Soviet Union fought was a Soviet victory, not a Polish one.
You are confusing two simple things. You are confusing that the phrase military failure was about Polish attempts before Soviet arrival. Such a statement is historically accurate, no matter how you put it. Removing it is unjustified. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of the operation was to liberate the city, preferably before the Soviets arrived and to demonstrate Polishness of the city. Out of those three goals only one wasn't achieved. The battle for Vilnius was a joint Polish and Soviet victory, especially since the diversion within the city was crucial Marcelus (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page 55, The Warsaw Uprising of 1944 by Włodzimierz Borodziej (2006):
Operation Ostra Brama, however, turned out to be a failure.
Page 56 of the same book:
The AK attack on Vilnius began on July 7 after midnight and was stalled almost immediately by the barrage from the defenders. After a few hours the partisans withdrew to their morning starting positions.
Both clearly substantiate keeping and Polish military failure in In early June, Operation Ostra Brama was attempted by the AK to take the city from the Wehrmacht before the approaching Red Army, however, the speed of the Soviet Vilnius offensive and Polish military failure led to a joint Polish-Soviet effort to seize Vilnius. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see your point here, operation wasn't a failure, it just didn't achieve one of its goals, a politcal one to be exact Marcelus (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Population figures

[edit]

Can someone fix the ridiculous first paragraph? It is not necessary to provide three different population figures in the first three sentences about the city. 2603:7001:9640:1:C07F:CCC8:AB53:5448 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to add a a new section called population, but due to my limited knowledge in Lithuanian popuation statistics, I humbly request everyone to help me out. Pimlokto (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to add a a new section called population, but due to my limited knowledge in Lithuanian popuation statistics, I humbly request everyone to help me out. Pimlokto (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the population information with the same exact data under the demographic section. But the citation shows different population number from the number shown in the page. Would appreciate it if someone checked the citation. But for now, I am deleting the part in the introduction. The citations and the data will be preserved under the demographic section and as citations 14-17.

LAF dissolved

[edit]

Apparently there is a point of contention over whether the LAF disbanded itself or was disbanded. Just pointing out the question: this article says self-disbanded: This government quickly self-disbanded.[1] Right now I am as far as this article is concerned, doing a simple copy-edit and do not have an opinion on which is correct. I have also just seen a source for the Germans dissolving it. A point source as far as this article is concerned. Will come back to this. (somewhat later) Here is another source for the Germans dissolving it The predecessor of the Lithuanian Front and organizer of the anti-Soviet June Uprising, the LAF, was banned on 26 September 1941 by the order of Adrian von Renteln, the General Commissioner of German-occupied Lithuania.[2][3]

Sources

References

  1. ^ Misiunas, Romuald J.; Taagepera, Rein (1993). The Baltic States: Years of Dependence 1940–1990 (expanded ed.). University of California Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-520-08228-1.
  2. ^ Bubnys 2018.
  3. ^ Bubnys 1991, p. 32.

Elinruby (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)o @Marcelus: since you asked about this the other day. I am on the wrong device to run machine translation but offhand am inclined to believe the more detailed Bubnys cite. Elinruby (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: The Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia (abbr. as VLE in Lithuanian) says in two articles (https://www.vle.lt/straipsnis/lietuviu-frontas/ and https://www.vle.lt/straipsnis/lietuviu-aktyvistu-frontas/) that the LAF was dissolved by the Germans and banned on 26 September 1941.
The Provisional Government of Lithuania disbanded after the Germans told it must stop functioning (https://www.vle.lt/straipsnis/lietuvos-laikinoji-vyriausybe-1/) on August 5, 1941. In this academic article (https://www.lkma.lt/site/archive/metrastis/XXVI/lkma-metrastis_t26_p511-527_Jegelevicius.pdf) it says that: "due to Nazi pressure the Government was forced to disband." The picture that emerges in my view is that the ProGov disbanded itself "against the will of itself and the nation" (as it said in its last statement) after German pressure.
Overall, considering what the sources say, LAF was clearly disbanded by the Germans with force, while the Provisional Government disbanded after German pressure against its will. It seems disingenuous to me to call it self-disbanding if someone else told them to do it, but maybe that does not matter for using that word. +JMJ+ (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have clear consensus: the provisional government and the LAF were disbanded by the Germans Marcelus (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academic research about Wilno/Vilnius dispute

[edit]

And it is about Wikipedia, so this very article (and related). In German, but https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110376357-011/html but OA, with downloadable PDF that machine translation tools should be able to translate without too much trouble... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vilnius&oldid=1240789839"