Talk:Vilna offensive

An entry from Vilna offensive appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 November, 2006.

Wikipedia

Name

Shouldn't this be under battle of Wilno (1919)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are you asking this question to, Piotrus? didn't you create the article and the title? Dr. Dan 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The name Wilno is not historically correct. Not in 1919, anyway. Perhaps Lysy can get Piotrus (the author), or Halibutt the referee on "historical" names to change this. Dr. Dan 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is the historically correct name then ? --Lysy^talk 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking me personally, or rhetorically, I thought Halibutt is the final say on these matters, isn't he? Dr. Dan 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You challenged it, you might want to explain yourself now. --Lysy^talk 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

O.K., in 1919, the name used for Paris in the English language was not Paryż, nor was the historical capital of Lithuania called Wilno. Dr. Dan 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do go on - I wonder after how many proddings you will answer your own 'rethorical' question... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Knowing something is incorrect, doesn't require knowing the correct answer, if one is looking for the correct answer. How about Wilnius? Now back to my questions. I'll try again. Is the title of this article, original research? And what is the basis for using the Polish name for this historically Lithuanian city during this time period on English Wikipedia? The Polish annexation took place in 1922. Dr. Dan 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And the Lithuanian annexation took place in 1991. So..?//Halibutt 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Annexation in 1991, huh?--Lokyz 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there some militarily historic verification of this article's title, namely Operation Wilno? Is there some evidence that this action as portrayed in this article, was under a military code name, that equates to the title "Operation Wilno," created by the Polish military? It has an original research "ring" to it. Dr. Dan 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Another try. Did the Polish military have a plan called "Operation Wilno", that was implemented, as presented in this article. What is the basis for using the Polish geographical toponym in this time period in the English encyclopedia? Dr. Dan 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the source for Operation Wilno, there are plenty, just google for operacja wileńska and you're there. If you want some specific source, check some serious publications, like for instance the preface to: Marek Tarczyński (1998): Bitwa niemeńska 29 VIII - 18 X 1920: dokumenty operacyjne. Warsaw: RYTM. ISBN 83867893056. Or Grzegorz Łukowski (1994): Walka Rzeczpospolitej o kresy północno-wschodnie, 1918-1920. Polityka i dzialania militarne. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Universytetu Adama Mickiewicza. ISBN 83-232-0614-7. //Halibutt 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did the Polish military have a plan called Operacja Wilenska, in 1918-1919, or is this name extracted from some serious publications written in 1994 and 1998? And again, what is basis of using Wilno, on English Wikipedia, in the time period, between 1918-1922. Dr. Dan 15:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Halibutt gave you serious publications above, so stop repeating yourself. As for the basis for Wilno, this is how the city was called by the most of it's population and the army which was involved in this operation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop this! Contributor asked you and your friend question in which nor you nor your friend did not answered at all. Regarding serious publications, I also presenting publications check them: V.Lescius. Lietuvos kariuomene nepriklausomybes kovose 1918-1920. 2004. J. Vaicenonis. Lietuvos kariuomene valstybes politinio gyvenimo verpetuose 1927-1940. M.K. 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please behave, M.K. And give ISBN and publishing house info, thank you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You easily can redirect your first part of remark to your "comment" above. As follows - 9955423234; 9955601043. As name is questionable - this result tagging. M.K. 11:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a very popular book, either one of them. When giving sources, please give all the relavant information next time, like this: Vytautas Lesčius, Lietuvos kariuomenė nepriklausomybės kovose : 1918 - 1920, Vilnius, 2004, Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos Karo Akademija and Jonas Vaičenonis, Lietuvos Kariuomenė valstybės politinio gyvenimo verpetuose : 1927-1940, Vilnius, 2003, Versus Aureus. So, what are those sources of yours claiming?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

After finally getting a reply of sorts, some thoughts. First, it appears that no respectable historical English source has ever referred to the surrounding events in this article as "Operation Wilno". Second, no one has provided any historical Polish military designation of an "operation" given the name in the article (this is the unanswered question that I kept repeating). As to what the city was called by most of it's population, and that being "Wilno"; that is an unencyclopedic personal opinion. Most importantly what the Polish army or any army "called" the city is not a reason to use a historically incorrect Polish toponym on English Wikipedia. Making it simpler, if the Germans called Cracow, Krakau, during the Second World War, it's not any kind of a reason to use the German name on EN-WP. Further, if there was a actually (there wasn't) a "Fall Krakau" instituted by the German military, one would still expect that one would refer to the Polish city as Cracow rather than Krakau on English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the title can be either descriptive or based on the established usage. If there is an established usage in the English language literature to call the subject of the article "Operation Wilno", that settles is. If there is no single established name, we need to use the descriptive name. It would be some noun (maybe "operation", maybe "offensive", maybe "invasion" (right?) or maybe "expedition") followed by the name of the city (last time I checked it was Vilnius) and followed by the year. --00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you (please sign in next time, Irpen). If you read the history of the article and who authored it and gave it its title, and then read the very first entry on this talk page on November 4, 2006 (and the author of that question), maybe you'd be confused too. Dr. Dan 15:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just followed the red link from the battlebox, IIRC. Halibutt noted above that the Polish term is operacja wileńska. English historiography doesn't seem to have any term for it. So do we use 'operation' translating Polish term, or go with battle? As for Wilno/Vilnius the historical context favours Wilno (this is not the modern Lithuanian city but the 2% Lithuanian historical one we are talking about). Recall also Wilno Uprising and Battle of Vilnius (1944).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Two totally different time periods, two totally different events, although the uprising and the battle are certainly more entitled to some merging or commingling. Dr. Dan 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No. See my reply below with quotes from WERS, where Davies uses Wilno.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this current article, and poorly named article and the Battle of Vilnius 1944, are still two different time periods and two totally different events. Perhaps the Battle of Vilnius, or Vilne, 1919, might be an acceptable alternative? Dr. Dan 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Issue

This incorrect POV regarding the Lithuanian Jewish population throughout these "articles", is really too much. It demonstrates a total lack of objectivity and an immense bias. It thwarts reaching any kind of compromise and consensus. Anyone having any idea about history and geography knows that Vilnius is historically a Lithuanian city, in what is the historical territory of Lithuania. Whether it has been occupied by various other states doesn't make it any less Lithuanian, than Paris is any less French, because it too has been occupied. This constant referring to Vilnius as 2% Lithuanian, needs to be addressed with the question: Why was Pilsudski bothering to issue his proclamations bi-lingually in both Polish and Lithuanian to the inhabitants of Vilnius? Doesn't this strike anyone else as unusual? I mean why bother for a measley 2% of "illiterate" Lithuanians? Could it be that this "Polish speaking majority" was bi-lingual, or that their national consciuosness had to be addressed (or the Naczelnik's own conscience was bothering him). As to my major issue, my objection to the earlier claim that the Jewish inhabitants of Vilnius were Polish Jews, the reality is that for the most part the identity or the "nationality" of Jews, other than their Jewish heritage, would be residency. Isn't that the reality of what constitutes a Danish Jew or a French Jew? Or a Polish Jew, or a Lithuanian Jew? The real issue with this Polish POV, is denying that Vilnius is Lithuanian, or implying that Lithuania is simply a province of one occupier or another. Dr. Dan 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish issue is simple and explained in the footnote with references including the Oxford published one. Wilno's Jews included those fitting the definition of Lithuanian Jews, Polish Jews and even Russian Jews. If you want to have only one term, then Polish is more accurate then Lithuanian (just read apporpiate articles), as Polish Jews refers to all the Jews that lived in former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, while Lithuanian Jews refers only to Ashkenazi Jews. As for Piłsudski's reasons for the bi-lingual proclamation, please provide some academic references instead of your speculations. Finally, as to 2% of Lithuanians, this number is referenced; I'd also like to point out some interesting quotes from WERS: "The Polish citizens of Wilno... were delighted... Even the Jewish population, which was the only other sizable community in Wilno, welcomed... [the Polish capture of Wilno] ...thwarted the ambitions of the Lithuanian nationalists governement in Kaunas. Although very few Lithuanians lived in the city at that time, Wilno, or Vilnius as they called it, was the historic capital of Lithuania; the nationalists could not resign themselves to its loss." This also shows why it should be Operation Wilno, not Vilnius.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The provided source do not give such formulation which is presented in "referencing part", as well as suggestions to read wikipedia, this means personal interpretation of source in other words - Original research. Second in my presented sources also noted support to Lithuanians from Jews; taking into consideration that Jews, Belorussians etc boycotted staged elections during later evens, draws some light too. M.K. 10:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Lithuanian Jews are Ashkenazi Jews, and what, Polish Jews are not? Let it be noted that your original edit here called the Jewish inhabitants of Vilnius Polish Jews, and now that you are confronted with the reality that it is a position which is not tenable or possible to defend realistically, they are no longer Polish Jews, but Jews. Or anything but possibly Lithuanian Jews? If if can't be the Polish version, O.K., but certainly not the Lithuanian version. Hello, people! What's going on here? The article title has no basis to be presented as it is on English Wikipedia, yet it's here. The author of the article and it's title asks on the top of this talk page, if the title shouldn't be something else. Then this same person calls the Jews of Vilnius, Polish Jews, and upon being called on this "fact", now retracts this false edit, but refuses to acknowledge Lithuania's Jewish inhabitants, due to what? Lastly, my questioning Pilsudski's bi-lingual proclamations do not require citations. The talk pages are a forum where such a question can be asked. And a damned good question it remains. Perhaps someone else can tell us why Dziadek thought the "2%" of the Lithuanian population of Vilnius deserved proclamations in both Polish and Lithuanian. Dr. Dan 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is far outside my realm of expertise, but I'll comment anyways... My understanding is that Kovno, unlike Wilno, was, in Jewish spheres, long considered to be Poylish, rather than Litvish—Wilno being only ever considered Litvish. That said, there is a history that's being ignored in this entire discussion...namely, that the liberties of Jews in the PLC were inherited from the policies of the Polish Crown, not from Lithuanian policies prior to the period of the Commonwealth. From that perspective, any exorbitantly successful Jewish community could reasonably, even from a historical perspective, be considered more "Polish" than "Lithuanian", regardless of the locale in which the community found itself. Cheers, Tomer^talk 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting sidenote - I'd have thought that Kowno (Kaunas) would be much more Lithuanian then a more polonized Wilno (Vilnius) which became part of SPR during the interwar period. Would you have any refs to support the 'Litvishness' of Wilno when compared to Kowno?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To Tomer: thanks for you input. Since this is far outside your realm of expertise, I'll let that comment speak for itself. And Btw, the "liberties" of Lithuanian Jews in the PLC is not the issue being discussed, nor is any exorbitantly succesful Jewish community the issue here either. Your "regardless of the locale" remark is quite telling, and absolutely makes very little sense in the context of the discussion at hand. To the party commenting with Interesting sidenote, your knowledge of the subject matter is best exemplified with your belief that the uniqueness of Lithuanian Jews is that they are Ashkenazi Jews. Leading us to the conclusion that Polish Jews are Sephardic Jews. Right? Rather humorous, isn't it? Putting bluntly it seems you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. Dr. Dan 18:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you do? I see no reason to discuss the matter with you further until you show us your knowledge by contributing something useful to the articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Damned right I know what I'm talking about! Go up all the way to the the top of this talk page and read your first entry as a reminder of just what this article and your imput is all about. You are the author of its name after all, right? Dr. Dan 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So What's Wrong With this Picture?

First and foremost the title is bogus. There is no historical basis for the title "Operation Wilno". The Polish military itself had no such designation for the events described in this article. Nor would referencing a few Polish magazine articles calling it "Operation Wilno" justify this article's current title. What legitimate scholarly historical work calls this event "Operation Wilno"? Then we have the Polish geographical toponym "Wilno" interjected into English Wikipedia, and are told that since the Polish soldiers involved in this event, called it "Wilno", we should call it Wilno too. As far as any kind of balance is concerned, I suspect the reason that the "Soviet" aspect in the "Battle Box" is so barren is because this victory took place, against a virtually militarily undefended city. Just how many "Soviets" were manning the "garrison" that was conquered. I haven't checked out Davies yet, hopefully he tells us. One thing we do know is that the German occupying forces were there as late as January. The article needs more work and more objectivity. Dr. Dan 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, operacja wileńska exists although it seems to be more often used in relation to the 1944 Operation Ostra Brama (on the other hand, the 1944 uprising is more known that 1919 battle). The 1919 event is reffered to as operacja wileńska for example in WIEM Encyklopedia[1]. That said, this term is also used by at least one book for a battle during the November Uprising in 1831, too. Per my above comments, I would support renaming this to Battle of Wilno (1919). And it's Wilno per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (just as it is the battle of Stalingrad, not the battle of Volgograd. PS. And Davies uses Wilno, too, see my citations above...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I would support renaming this to Battle of Vilnius (1919). As it was capital of Lithuania also with 1918 issue too, while Vilnius was never part of Poland before its occupation. M.K. 10:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the naming is such a problem, I would support the Battle of Vilna (1919), as both in Russian and English the name of the town at the time was Vilna. The fact that the locals knew it as Wilno or the fact that one of the governments claiming the area referred to it as Wilnius is rather of secondary importance. Does it sound acceptable? //Halibutt 11:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

governments claiming the area referred to it as Wilnius?? Government called it Wilnius?? M.K.

M.K., I should hope by now you would have noticed that he has a great inability to spell Vilnius correctly, consistently, or in an un-biased historical context. However that's not the case for similar editing by him regarding Kraków, Cracow, or Krakau. Just read the history of his various edits. Dr. Dan 14:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Btw, M.K., you'll notice that Pilsudski's proclamation to the "2%" of Lithuanians living in Vilnius and the rest of the inhabitants of the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" spells Vilnius correctly. Pilsudski got it right, but then again he was dealing with reality. Dr. Dan 04:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least the correct name of the city is mentioned here in the first line. It's already a huge favor you are all getting. As of now, another battle article does not even mention what city this is all about. --Irpen 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Halibutt: tri-lingual? 2 to 5 % spoke Lithuanian, the rest spoke either Polish or Russian...

Now we are told that the majority of Vilnius' city dwellers did not exist. According to this edit summary, none of the 52 percent of the city's inhabitants consisting of Lithuanian Jews living there spoke either Hebrew or Yiddish - only Polish and Russian.--Lokyz 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lokyz, this comment not only is a blatant ad-hominen violating WP:NPA, but jokes about one's ethnicity are extremly offensive. Please apologize to Halibutt.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not joking. I was deadly serious, although, sadly, I do have to admit, I was wrong this time. The edit summary did mislead me.--Lokyz 10:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After some reconsideration, accept my apology Halibutt, I was wrong, and should have held my temper (and more closely read the edit).--Lokyz 10:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Now on to your question: I consider the statement that was introduced into the article a perfect example of weasel term. Józef Piłsudski, a native of Vilnius, decided that regaining control over the city - whose population was mostly composed of Lithuanians, many who were tri-lingual and spoke Lithuanian , Polish and Russian and Jews is a complete nonsense. Sure, if we adopt the broadest possible definition of who a Lithuanian is, the Lithuanian nation would have some 30 millions of people back then: all Belarusians, most Poles living in what used to be GDL, all Jews living there, many Ukrainians, Russians and so on. However, the fact remains that people considering themselves [[Lithuania]]ns were but a slight minority there. Judging by the results of the elections even the [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania|Lithuanians]] (such as krajowcy) were a minority. On the other hand we have something tangible: the effects of all censuses held there around that time clearly show that the above statement is plainly wrong: neither there were Lithuanians there nor there were "many" tri-lingual people. Most spoke Polish or Yiddish, with Hebrew, Lithuanian or Georgian being but minority languages. Besides, judging from the post-1920 censuses, the major part of tri-lingual people (some 2% of the local population altogether) spoke Polish, Russian and Yiddish. Lithuanian was not among those.

All in all I decided that the statement I introduced is simply more correct as it is perfectly supportable by facts: most of the locals spoke Polish or Jewish. Full stop. Why hide it beneath some fancy terms that suggest something completely different? Besides, contrary to your original statement here I did not pretend the Jews were not there. To the contrary, I left only the two major nationalities in the list, being Polish and Jewish. //Halibutt 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And the evidence that these Lithuanian Jews (which most Jewish scholars consider to be "Lithuanian") mostly spoke Polish and Yiddish, but not Russian would be what? Dr. Dan 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody suggests that they didn't speak Russian - only that they didn't speak Lithuanian. What's your evidence for 'most scholars considering them to be Lithuanian'? Anyway, to expand on the issue of language of Wilno's Jews in particular and Lithuanian Jews in general: there is no doubt that some Lithuanian Jews spoke Lithuanian ([2], . However that does not mean that Wilno was inhabited by Lithuanian Jews who spoke Lithuanian. First, remember that only about 2% of Lithuanians lived there - so Jews would have little reason to Lithuanize. Here are some quotes: [Jews in Wilno]: 1) "majority spoke Yddish, minority spoke Russian and very few spoke Polish" [3] 2) in the paragraph about Wilno Ghetto, note that the author discusses pros of knowing Polish language and sais nothing about Lithuanian [4] 3) "Most middle class Jews in Wilno in 1938 spoke Polish" [5] 4) "Jews used to communicate with others in Polish and Russian had weak grasp of Lithuanian " (after Lithuania regained independence) p.135 - scroll up 5) "Poles outnumbered Jews in Wilno. Older Jews spoke Russian rather then Polish." Scroll-down for "majority of Wilnians self-identified as Polish".[6] 6) "The ethnic Lithuanians speaking Lithuanuian dominated countryside. Cities spoke Yddish, Russian (Jews) and Polish (Poles)."[7] 7) "Lithuanian Jews spoke Russian (more frequently than Polish)" [8] And so on. As you can see, Lithuanian Jews did not speak Lithuanian more prominently than they spoke Yddish and Russian, they apparently spoke Polish at least as much as Lithuanian, and whether it was Polish or Lithuanian Jews who inhabited Wilno (or both), that group most certainly spoke more Yddish, Russian and Polish than Lithuanian.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you're going all over the place. What do you want to straighten out first, your confusion about Lithuanian Jews in Vilnius, or whether the title of the article should be Operation Wilno, 1919? As for your reference to what Jews in "Wilno" spoke in 1938, are you trying out for an audition for a comedy act, or are you trying to be serious? What would that remotely have to do with this debate? And I add "remotely" in all seriousness. Dr. Dan 04:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As usually, nobody knows that, Dan. It was you to ask for evidence, so we thought that you might know how is that related. However, now that you got the evidence you tell us that both your question and the evidence presented is unrelated... //Halibutt 07:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should feel "honoured" that you would deign to respond to me, unfortunately you must have tried to do so late at night, or without the benefit of your electronic translator or other help. I'm sorry, but I don't even understand the gist of what you are trying to say in your above remarks. Dr. Dan 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to Square One?

Why are we being given the "treat" of the Polish toponym "Wilno" on English Wikipedia to descibe Vilnius, instead of it's accepted English name? Why are we told by an "administrator" that this is proper because the Polish solidiers involved in this misnamed article called it Wilno? Fortunately we are not being asked to call Rome, "Rzym" because that's what John Paul II called it. For the record, this article is not disputed only for an incorrect title of this short skirmish. It currently is an unbalanced propaganda piece, full of misinformation and weasel words, formulated to create a one-sided picture of the events in question. Dr. Dan 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And square two

And why are we seeing the editor war with certain users fiercely warring to remove the word "occupation" even from the text (not even the title)? Was the town militarily occupied by Polish troops or not? Or do some here consider "Occupation a non-neutral term? That would be a huge step forward. Too good to be true but if this is the case, I congratulate my opponent with their progress towards the sense of neutrality and we can proceed with this new understanding to other articles and rid them from the POV terms. Or, perhaps ridding articles is too much, let's just rid the titles first. Objections? Or am I misunderstanding something here on why those same editors who invasion, massacre and occupy article's titles liberally, suddenly get so sensitive about the in-text usage. --Irpen 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, "capture" in the context of the events portrayed here, just doesn't cut it in English. It's awkward and it has nothing to do with "neutrality", just semantics. Of course the city was occupied. In fact it was occupied for most of WWI and in 1919, and again by the Soviets in 1920. And between 1922-1939 as well. Just as Warsaw and Cracow were occupied in 1939-1945. It doesn't really matter if one "likes it or not". Those are the realities and facts of the case. More troubling is this absurd title, concocted out of some magazine article. Btw, do you know of any source that might have some information about the Soviet forces that were miraculously defeated by another stunning military victory? You know, strength, commanders, etc., just to balance out this one sided article. Dr. Dan 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, the reason is quite simple. We opposed the usage of the word liberation and we oppose the usage of the word occupation in all but most explicit cases. Such words are inherently POVed and their usage depends on our beliefs and not on facts. Capture is more neutral. I guess that's the very same reason why Russian wikipedians opposed to various Russian and Soviet occupations of Poland and preferred to call it with some less-loaded terms. //Halibutt 11:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point Halibutt and would have applauded your position if it was not selective thus expressing double standards. Where were you when I was crying out loud about various "invasions"- and "occupation"-titled article when the "inherently POVed words" where used followed by "of Poland" in the article titles? But it is not too late to correct. I've posted the list of those invasion, occupation and massacre titles to the Polish board several times. I can dig it out if you are going to help me to do something about changing their titles to more neutral ones. --Irpen 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, Irpen, only in Soviet propaganda Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) is called liberation. Sometimes invasion is invasion, liberation is liberation, occupation is occupation. Sometimes it is POV pushing. Fortunatly, Wikipedia community is quite good at determining which is which.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another straw man, Piotrus. Please show me where and when I tried to call the 1939 operation "liberation". I think the rule you imply is that or invasion occupation is by Poland (be it Vilnius, Tesin, Kiev, Lviv, etc.), calling it by name is POV-pushing. If it is an occupation or invasion of Poland, the occupation is an occupation. Did I get your view correctly? --Irpen 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Close. Let's use an example to help you grasp it. If Poland takes over a city with 2% or less population which speaks Polish, than its occupation. If Poland takes over a city where most population speaks Polish, considers itself Polish and welcome Polish troops, it is liberation. If somebody who is not Polish takes over a city where most of the population speaks Polish and has Polish citizenship, it is occupation of Poland. Better, now?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then in which respect the invasion of Russia in the 17th century or two invasions of Ukraine in the twentieth century are not "invasions"? --Irpen 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen while you are waiting for your response. I'd like to ask him if he thinks Breslau is a Polish city, using his statistical information regarding language and "nationality". And whether it's been "liberated", "recovered", "occupied", or whatever else he thinks he can get away with describing it in the context of our discussion. Dr. Dan 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you ask me where was I. Let me tell you then where was I - I was trying to convince you and Ghirlandajo that the Soviet view on the history of the world is not the only one. Remember your campaign of "liberation" in the context of 1920, 1939 and 1945? That's exactly it. And I admitted back then (just like I do now) that in some cases - very clear - I accept such words. For instance setting people free from concentration camp is liberation. However, in the context of the glorious march of the Red Army the matter is too complex (to put it mildly) to use such words. What to you was a liberation of Poles, to the Poles was yet another occupation. That's why there's plenty of neutral terms to use. I also pointed out back then (more than a year ago, if memory serves me) that the word "invasion" is much easier to use since it's technical: any entry of a foreign force on another state's territory is an invasion. Of course, there are problems as well. Take the Polish-Ukrainian offensive of May 1920. Technically it could be described as any of the following (depending on one's POV):

• Liberation of Ukraine
• Occupation of Ukraine
• Polish invasion of Ukraine (but not of Russia since no Polish soldier entered Russia)
• Ukrainian invasion of Ukraine (sic!)
• perhaps even a dozen more

That's precisely why it's much better to use neutral wording, without judging who was right or wrong. The term "offensive" is completely neutral, the term "liberation" is not. We don't have an article on the Polish liberation of Vilna or Lithuanian occupation of Vilna for a reason. Get the idea? //Halibutt 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Halibutt, for this explanation, although I have a feeling it may be wasted on some. For the others, I will stress that we are not using 'Polish occupation/liberation of Vilna (Wilno, Vilnius, whatever) of 1919/1920' for the same reason we are not talking about 'Lithuanian occupation/liberation of V/W of 1939'. Anybody who insists on using occupation/liberation in such POVed context is doing nothing but 'fanning the flames', and I don't intend to engage in such pointless discussions. What needed to be said was said, and unfortunatly more, too. If somebody wants to move the article, WP:RM is there. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First an "administrator" tells me in his edit summary on March 24, 2007, that he might change the terminology in the article's lead to "liberate" instead of "occupy" if I insist. Hello! Then his "landsman" throws in his two groszy with the same threat on March 26, 2007 in his edit summary ...liberation..., "if I insist".... The only thing that I do insist upon, is a rational title be given for this article that is not based on original research. I further insist that that the repeated childish vandalism of changing the accepted English geographical toponym of Vilnius, to the Polish version of Wilno, also cease, as there is no basis for it. Quit playing games with history and propagandizing a Polish nationalistic skewed interpretation of these events in the article, and thereby cheapening the WP project. Dr. Dan 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of feeding Piotrus and Halibutt's silly games here. They know they're being hypocritival. I will not loose my night's sleep over continued selective usage of the terms: of Poland=Occupation, Invasion, Massacre. By Poland=Offensive, Operation, Capture.

I was thinking for a while about writing a dedicated article about "Liberation of Tesin". I will perhaps call it such as these terms may make some here feel so great. Hell with accuracy, the Polish nationalist POV makes a fun reading. --Irpen 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Teschen, you have to read Winston Churchill's comments in his book, The Gathering Storm, regarding Poland's actions vis a vis the hapless population of this territory for another perspective, other than that of our friends. I think I included it in the talk pages of the article last year (February 15, 2006). As a result of all of this propaganda and weaseling, I'm giving serious thought to placing Churchill's comments in the article itself. You might have a laugh re-reading the talk page of the article (you participated in the discussion), for more "fun reading". The silence regarding Breslau is almost deafening , BTW. Dr. Dan 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Operation Wilno → Battle of Wilno (1919) — I created the article few months back under the title 'Operation Wilno', which with a hindsight is rather problematic. As there are no sources supporting the use of this term in English, and Polish term 'operacja wileńska' usually refers to Operation Ostra Brama/Wilno Uprising (ex. [9]), I'd like for this article to be moved to Battle of Wilno (1919) and Operation Wilno redirected to Wilno Uprising. Bottom line is that while there is still disagreement on whether it was Wilno/Vilna/Vilnius, nobody currently supports the 'Operation' part and 'Battle' should be rather uncontroversial.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (nominator)
2. Per references in Discussion below. Appleseed (Talk) 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, though I'd rather have this article at Battle of Vilna (1919). But the proposed name has its pros as well. //Halibutt 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support this title for the article. It seems straightforward, communicative and reasonably NPOV, given the realities of the time. Cross-references could be provided for variants of the title that include other versions of the city's name. logologist|Talk 07:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And how would using the linguistically incorrect toponym of "Wilno", be NPOV? This is not the Polish Wikipedia. The accepted English spelling of the city is Vilnius. Dr. Dan 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose, Changing one wrong name for another wrong name makes the situation worse as it creates the wrong impression that the problems are being addressed. Both names are equally unacceptable. --Irpen 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   The name Operation Wilno clearly relates to the 1944 event, how can you object to the freeing up of that name?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   To start with, I object to Wilno. To continue, I object to the pervasion of "Battles" for every skirmish or a simple takeover when the troops just roll in the city unopposed. Here is what an article itself says about the event: "On 18 April Col. Belina decided to use the element of surprise and move into Wilno without waiting for the slower infantry units. On 19 April the cavalry charged into the suburbs, spread panic among the confused garrison, seized the train and sent it down the line to collect infantry. By the evening of 19 April half of Wilno was in Polish control. With support of the city's predominantly Polish population, by 21 April the city was in Polish hands. Piłsudski himself reached Wilno that day." Where is the "Battle" in this? --Irpen 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   From battle: 1) battles may last a day or less 2) may be small scale, only involving a handful of individuals, perhaps two squads. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Find references that qualify this event as such rather than argue semantics. --Irpen 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Why? You argue semantics all the time - I have yet to find you citing some sources here that would call this 'not a battle'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Because demanding to cite an absence of something is a logical fallacy. You have to cite the existence to prove something and not cite non-existence to prove the lack of it. Non-existence cannot be cited particularly because it does not exist. --Irpen 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Volodarka again? //Halibutt

2. As I said new suggested name is not good at all, and indeed Changing one wrong name for another wrong name makes the situation worse. M.K. 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Futile move, as creating article about battle that did never happen is quite an embarrasment.--Lokyz 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Your denial of reality is amazing. The 1000+ Poles and Russians had a three day picnic in the city, right?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Before any vote on the newly suggested "title" takes place, especially since the last one was not agreed to be appropriate by its own author, we need to have the entire circumstances of this "battle" reviewed. Did the Polish army really fight the Red Army to gain control of the city? Was there in fact a battle? What was the Red Army's strength during the battle? Its commanders? Its strategy? Its casualties? Did the Polish Army stay in Vilnius? Were they thrown out by the Red Army in 1920, when the Red army retook control of the city? Or did the Reds enter and occupy a virtually undefended city as did (I suspect), the Polish Army in 1919? These are somewhat rhetorical questions, but questions that might enable us to come to an agreement as to what in fact was going on in these months in question. A one-sided picture is not what the WP project needs or wants here, or anywhere. Dr. Dan 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested name for move is also unacceptable, particularly "Wilno" part. M.K. 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the article will stay under 'Operation Wilno'. I think you'll be even less happy with that name than I am.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not even Salvador Dali could have made a more surrealistic assertion than that. First you create the title, then you question your own creation and suggest it should be something else. Finally, because your second "suggestion" is shown to also be bogus and without any real basis, we're told we'll just have to live with your "original" creation. Nice. But if there was no battle, we can't add "Polish Victory" in the battle box, and that simply would be unnacceptable. Right? And although with or without a battle, Pilsudski, HIMSELF, could have entered Vilnius on April 21, but without a battle, the Victory Parade, would be more like Commodus entering the Colosseum dressed as Hercules. Right, again? Dr. Dan 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you expect Piotrus to create a perfect article with his first edit? Wikipedia is an ongoing project with ongoing improvements. Please stop with the straw man attacks. Your digressions and bizarre analogies aren't helping either. Appleseed (Talk) 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfection? Hardly, however I do notice that you haven't added anything at all to the article to "improve" it yourself. Nor until you made these pithy remarks, have you added anything to the talk pages, other than now speaking for someone else. BTW, I was hoping to at least get some thanks from you yesterday, for providing the link that you asked for regarding the definition of "Pogrom", at the talk page of the Krakow pogrom, of what a progrom is. Best Dr. Dan 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. The article has been in existence for five months.

This request has reached the backlog at WP:RM, so I'm checking in, and I find the above discussion puzzling. What is this battle/operation called in the sources? I'd check myself, but most of it seems to come from a print source that I couldn't access until tomorrow at the earliest, and then it would take me a few hours. I see that people are disagreeing with the current name and the suggested name, but I don't see any suggestions for a better option. Why not suggest a few and allow another week for people to comment on various suggestions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The curent name should redirect to Wilno Uprising without any doubt, so as long as it stays under current name we have a problem. Unfortunatly nobody can find any better name, it appears - that is, referenced and with more support. Personally I think battle, the most commonly used word for this kind of event, is best - there was also some referenced support provided earlier (above) for that name.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What do the sources from which this article was written call the event? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I created this article based on Davies' White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War. Unfortunatly, I don't own an (English) copy, and it's not on Google Print. I guess I will go down to the library and look up his specific wording... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative name

This event is to obscure to have an established name, so the descriptive name should be used. I suggest Polish occupation of Vilnius (1919) as this name certainly describes the event and does not invoke Battles and Operations for the event which was none of this sort. What happened was that the Polish army rolled in and occupied the undefended city. Any objections? --Irpen 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey! Forgot that we have a tradition that "occupation", "invasion", etc can only be used if this is of Poland but never when by Poland. So, I guess, I should change my proposal to Polish takeover of Vilnius (1919). Or should it be only liberation? --Irpen 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I still see no reason why we cannot use shorter, common 'battle'. And for this period, Wilno or Vilna is more appopriate then Vilnius.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Because there was no "Battle". Otherwise, sources would call it such. Similarly, there were no Battles at many other places where Wikipedia calls them such, (Wolodarka anyone?). --Irpen 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I admire your denial of reality. Yes, I am sure the Soviets gave up on Wilno just like that, without a battle. It's just Poles incompetence which prevented them from taking this undefended city in less than three days, right? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, did it ever occur to you that sometimes troops retreat giving up the city without the battle. The was no Battle of Kiev (1920). Reds just left and Poles rolled in. Same was here. --Irpen 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: explain, please, why did it take Poles three days to take over a city Reds simply left? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they were waiting for Pilsudski, himself. I'm trying to find the Davies book, myself, (unfortunately, it's not all that readily available), but you've read it. What does Davies say about the "Soviet" defense of the city and their efforts to prevent its "capture" for three days of presumably heavy fighting. Dr. Dan 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that my or anyone's version of why they "waited" would be ORish. Bottomline is that no one calls (or "Wolodarka" for that matter) "a battle" except of Wikipedia. If you disagree just quote a mainstream source contrary to my asserion. --Irpen 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody calls it Polish takeover of Vilnius (1919), neither. So why do you advocate violating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)? 'Battle' is shorter than 'Polish takeover'. Thus we should use battle.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Polish takeover of Vilnius (1919) is a descriptive name for an event which, due to its obscurity, does not have any dedicated works deovted to it. This descriptive name correctly relfects the order of events because this is what it was, Polish military rolled in and took over the control of the city. I would have called it occupation but because the naming convention of some here allows only the "..of Poland" events to be called "occupations" I propsed a takeover. The Battle does not apply simply because there were no fighting to an extent as to call this a Battle. Was there any fighting btw? If we go with "occupation" we could be most precise as occupation is a usable term no matter whether fighting to place or not. This would allow to put the semantics aside but for this we need to change the rule that Poland cannot occupy any territory, it can only get occupied. The old song... --Irpen 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Presented name Polish takeover of Vilnius (1919) is quite balanced one, I would support it.M.K. 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This letter to Rzeczpospolita provides an interesting citation from collection of Polish military comminiques, 1919-1921, "O niepodległą i granice", Wyższa Szkoła Humanistyczna, Pułtusk, 1999. "Formation of our cavalry under col. Belina took Wilno 19.04 at 0500. [...] Enemy had resisted with extreme strenght. For two nights fights with bayonetes took place around the city. [...] Assault battalion of cpt. Komierowski and battalion of col. Wileński, using their bayonetes, first, spreading panic through enemies, entered the city." It doesn't look to me like the Soviets just retreated; a three day combat described by one side as 'extremely heavy' is no takeover, it's a battle. Here's another piece of info from Urbankowski's book (see Piłsudski's article from full citation), p.296: 'Belina's cavalry bypassed the city and attacked from behind, taking train station on the night of 18/19 April. From the front Śmigły's infantry prepared to attack. With the aid of local railwayman major Zaruski's unit moves a cargo train for Polish advancing infantry. Cavalryman acting as infantryman begin to fight for control of Śródmieście, take plac Katedralny, but their forces are too small compared to enemys. Belina sends a message asking for immediate reinforcements; around 2000 the train send in the morning returns. Poles resume the attack. On the morning on the first day of Easter Wilno is free." As we can see from Davies (per my old refs), Belina had 800 men and some light artillery. He couldn't take the city by himself. A force that could stop 800-strong assault and fight the supporting division for 2-3 days would not be small, and again this is most certainly a battle.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Do be patient, we are all trying to put this mess into some kind of unbiased encyclopedic article. In the meantime, your above reference (This letter to Rzeczpospolita), regarding your belief that there was a battle, also comments on "two pogroms" (one in Pinsk on 05.04.1919, and the other in Vilnius on 19.04.1919), that resulted in the Polish military executing Jews. As it makes the sweeping generality that the "Jews" supported the bolsheviks (shades of Zydokomuna again), the citation contradicts the assertion in "Operation Wilno", that the Jews of Vilnius welcomed the Polish government. And do try to translate your references into English when you use them on English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan 00:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Davies wrote that majority of the Jews welcomed Poles. The new ref notes that a minority of Jews, the 'bolshevik faction', fought them. The sources nicely confirm each another. I am looking forward to the day you will present a single reference of your own, instead of criticizing efforts of others.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you're saying the "bolshevik" Jews fought the "majority of Jews" who welcomed Poles? I know that you consider Davies the alpha and the omega, and the final arbiter of all such questions concerning Polish history in English, but I don't think he states this anywhere. I don't think your "new" source states this either. So where did you get that idea? Dr. Dan 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. It's directly referenced. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I read it. Where are "bolshevik Jews" engaged in a fight with the "Jews who welcomed the Poles", in the article? Can't find it. Dr. Dan 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Another battle account, from Przybylski's translation ([10]). It has a map and note the translation calls the event 'Vilnius Operation' (hence the Polish original was likely 'operacja wileńska'). "At dawn on 19 April the Polish squadrons arrived at the city, still with the benefit of surprise. In one swoop they took the station and a large section of the town, spreading panic and complete disorder in the garrison. However, little by little the enemy succeeded in holding itself in the north and west of the town, and began to put up a stubborn and coordinated defence. Sometimes they even attacked. The cavalry, not very numerous, dispersed throughout the streets of the large town and not used to fighting in such conditions, found itself in a difficult situation. But during the night help arrived in the form of the first infantrymen, transported in a train seized at Vilnius and sent to meet them. Still, it was only on 21 April that the issue was finally decided, with the arrival of General Rydz-Smigly and the rest of the infantry, allowing the Poles to attack decisively those parts of the town still held by Russian troops. During the afternoon of that day the entire town fell to the Poles" Again, we can see that the battle lasted for three days, and it was not an easy one (if you disagree, go ahead and particpate in a city fight lasting three days...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it's telling that your Przybylski translation refers to Wilno as Vilnius (which remains its proper description on English Wikipedia). Take a hint. Dr. Dan 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, amateur translations like that are likely indeed not to pay much attention to correct historical usage, indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes? Why are you using and then "treating" us to amateur references in that case? Dr. Dan 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amateur translations are better than none, I am afraid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've told you, and told you, and told you, "Be not afraid!" And if you insist on using "amateur" sources, references, translations, etc., try not to pick and choose the pieces here and there that you like, and "dissing" the parts that you don't like. Your source calls the city Vilnius, it's proper name and the proper translation of Wilno from Polish into English. How much time and effort are you going to waste denying that fact? Quit whistling Dixie! Dr. Dan 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)