Talk:Vilnius

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

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)

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

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)

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.

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)

Further article development

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

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)

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)

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)

---

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Just made some sketch much info needed also some more lined to. M.K. 23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

---

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)

Images which will be used

• 
• 
  for infobox?
• 
• 
  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)

yup, your images are the best, please produce more! M.K. 12:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

so there they are Iulius 12:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Superb castle hill shot!!!!! BTW, do you participating in miestai.net? M.K. 12:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No. More than that :D Iulius 13:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So this means your are one of masterminds of miestai.net :) M.K. 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No I am not related to it in any way.Iulius 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A, I see. M.K. 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

List of good info sites

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

• Lots of great stuff

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

• http://www.inyourpocket.com/lithuania/vilnius/en/ Could the In Your Pocket guide go into External links? I don't have any affiliation, just found the guide very useful and it's also free to access on the web. Seaweasel

Question: Vilnius vs Vilnius city municipality

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)

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)

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)

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

Historical Names

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

HOW MANY SISTER CITIES HAS VILNIUS?

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

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)

The number of ethnic Lithuanians

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

Ethnic composition ca 1920

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)

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)

Ethnic composition now

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

This place is for discussion

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

the former Soviet NKVD school

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)

Wilno being the name of Vilnius in Polish

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Population

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)

Lithuanians moved from all Lithuanian provinces to Vilnius -

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)

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

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

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

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)

Lithuanians moved from all Lithuanian provinces to Vilnius

Copyvio ?

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)

Cleaning up the old draft mess

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)

Anon 78.60.103.71

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

Languages in the beginning of 20th century

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)

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) ? --Lysy^talk 08:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Lysy^talk 08:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Chinese? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't help it, can you? :):):)--Jacurek (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

WP:WEASEL

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)

The population was practically completely replaced. --Lysy^talk 11:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Compelled to relocate

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

Parity principle

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

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)

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)

It should work for everywhere as [6] and [7].--Mikej007 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you'll add alternative names to the cities of Poland soon. Am I correct?--Lokyz (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

" 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)

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

Wikipedia Guidelines

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CIA Secret Prison in Antavilis

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)

On Redirect to Wilno, Ontario

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)

Gdansk Danzig vote requirement

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tempest in a Teapot?

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

German

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

Several links are dead

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

"Exterminated"

... 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)

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)

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)