Talk:Vilnius/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Polish painter

Is this really necessary to have all these Polish actor, Polish singer etc. in the Famous Vilnians section ? It the fact of their nationality important for the article about Vilnius ? I don't like it and I think it's enough if the nationality is explained in articles about specific people. Sometimes the nationality can be not that clear and controversial in fact. --Lysy ^(talk) 14:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago, shortly after expanding this article (and the list itself) I had a quarrel with someone and decided to remove the nationality of most people not to hurt the national feelings of our Lithuanian friends. I believe it should stay this way - though the distinction should be made for poets and militarymen. Halibutt 07:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Good, I have removed them then. I hope this is what you meant as well. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is that in the case of painters, musicians or scientists, they are famous for their work and not for their nationality, which is at best a secondary information. On the contrary, Polish generals are famous for commanding the Polish Army and not just any army at all. Same IMO goes for writers, who are primarily associated with the language they use. As such, the adjective Polish used in their description is quite important. IMO, in all other cases we could drop the nationality - if that indeed is the will of our fellow Lithuanians here. Is it? Halibutt 13:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is that this could be discussed and hopefully explained in an article about the person, but not necessarity the Vilnius article. What do you think ? --Lysy ^(talk) 19:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Lithuanians usually perceive, for instance, Antanas Vivulskis, Juozapas Montvila, Pranciškus Smuglevičius to be "lithuanians", while Polish people perceive them as "polish", which causes confusions or anger to some readers/editors here. So again, not getting into their biographies here, leave it as it is, except for cases were no controversaries can appear, smth like metioned by halibutt. --UmR 17:36:49, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Hm, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Chodkievičius was a Lithuanian general, too. Is this correct ? --Lysy ^(talk) 19:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

All three of us have different views on that matter, but apparently we all agree that it's better to leave the nationality out. Great, another problem solved :) Halibutt 21:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Lysy, I am not questioning the nationality, just presenting the fact on perception. To be more exact, usually when you hear someone talking about, for instance, Vivulskis, a form "lietuvos architektas" is used, which means smth like "lithuania's architect". I don't know much about his biography, but I guess that polish books would state he's polish and lithuanian books - that he's lithuanian :) both being a bit true. The question of setting nationality for anyone originating/connected to PLC is controversal anyway. I'm sure there are a lot of guys in lithuania who would get crazy by reading that Radvila Rudasis was polish. In Radvila's case, first known members of the family were definitely more lithuanian that polish, and the last ones - more polish than lithuanian. The bottom line for me personally is that they were nobles of PLC. Smth similar stands for most of famous people/nobles. --UmR 06:02:40, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --Lysy ^(talk) 07:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

While we all seem to agree that it should not be mentioned in Vilnius article, it would be good to evenetually work out an acceptable convention to be used for naming in biographies and then defend it agains nationalistic edits. This is still far ahead, though. --Lysy ^(talk) 07:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Shimon Peres was born in Wieniawa, then Poland (now Vishniev in Belarus) and not in Vilnius. Tsferreira

Expatriation

The chapter about post-WWII history caught my eye recently. Currently it contains the following words: This way many old inhabitants left Vilnius, in what is still seen by many people as a misfortune, especially due to its negative effect on the city's community and its traditions.. Perhaps exact numbers would be better, as this seems to be a huge weasel term and seems to be a way to evade an exact description of what actually happened. It was not just "many old locals forced out" and it was not just a "negative effect on the city's community". In fact it was a huge majority of the city's inhabitants and it was a murder of the whole city's traditions as most of the inhabitants were replaced with people of different background, culture, language and traditions. I know the matter is a tad touchy, but isn't there a way to explain that more precisely and with less inaccuracies? Halibutt 21:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

How about:

1. Shortening the weasel sentence in this article, and
2. Expanding the topic within History of Vilnius article ?

--Lysy ^(talk) 21:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure this should be shortened as it was one of the milestones in the city's history, but this matter should indeed be taken care of and I would rather avoid changing it myself, without consultation with other wikipedians. Reason is obvious, I guess. Halibutt 22:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Make a suggestion, maybe ? --Lysy ^(talk) 07:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Shortening "history" section

I'm about to gradually shorten the history section, as the main article covering this topic is History of Vilnius. We don't need that extensive history section here in Vilnius article with much of the information repeated. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll check on later to correct some minor details (like Gediminas not Gedimin tower). Renata3 02:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I am going to continue where you left off. The 20th century is way too long. I hope to have time to seriously work on the article. The first signs - I shifted things around so they make more sense now. Renata 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Noting that Chechen Aslan Maskhadov was responsible for the attack on the civilians at the TV tower is of signifigance.

Why is it signifant ? Also, he was not Chechen colonel but Soviet colonel then. --_Lysy^talk 07:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Kilimandzaras 03:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)I'm OK with the fact that you should not put extensive history rubric here, but at least one very important fact has to be mentioned in the very beginning - that Vilnius from 1323 was a capital of Lithuania (Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the time). Current version as it stands now omits this fact regretably.

Geographical naming policy

I'd like to invite you to take part in bashing the rules for geographical naming in Central/Eastern Europe. Take a look here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

New infobox

Do you like it? 'cause I plan to put it on the other 102 cities in Lithuania. So speak now before it's too late :) Renata3 19:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Very nice. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

1939/1940 Lithuanization

There was a period of Lithuanization of Wilno, not mentioned here. Xx236 13:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Find reliable sources and put that in! It is Wiki, you can edit it. Renata3 15:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

VILNO

This page should be renamed to “Vilno” without any references to “Vilnius” - to keep it consistent. 55 famous Vilnians and only one with Lithuanian surname can fit only polish POV.

Well, that might be because Lithuanians made only a marginal fraction of the city's population until WW2. Why does it upset you ? --_Lysy^talk 07:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently this article is pure polish POV. List of famous Vilnians proves that most explicitly. You won’t find many articles about cities with famous people list. Such list has only one purpose – to prove that the city should be a part of Poland. I am not denying historical facts about the city. I disagree with one sided POV. It's offensive.

Come on. Nobody thinks that Vilnius should be part of Poland. Wake up, we are in 21st century, not in 1920. Lithuania and Poland are not enemies but friendly neighbours now. --_Lysy^talk 17:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have to strongly disagree with that, some Polish lithuanians still think it should be returned to Poland. Many do not and proud of their polish and Lithuanian heritage. The situation is not necessarily difficult to discuss though as there is little chance of that happening. The nationality of people in this part of the world is pretty hard to prove/decide. For example my friend's grandparents were Finnish, a Polish native of Vilnius, Belorussian and Russian, her parents both grew up in Lithuania, she is a native russian speaker so she is called Russian by most Lithuanians. She gets strange looks when she says stuff like 'our country', 'our traditions'? She has been told to go back to Russia, a country she has only visited. Her surname is Jewish sounding but is in fact Finnish. If we have children our children will have my surname which is an anglified Irish name? If they're famous will they get on the list in future? Clearly peoples surnames, nationalities are only of concern to bigots and generally tell one quarter of the story from two generations before. We are all a beautiful mix, consider that the viking empire stretched from Greenland to the baltic.

Prove your friendship , show some balance. Keeping only famous polish people ( and some other with polonized surnames) list is an example of not so friendly opinion from a neigbour.

I think the list is good in that it shows that Vilnius was not just some small town, but an important city rich in multicultural history. The fact that most of the people mentioned were Polish or Jewish is only because majority of the population of the city was Polish and Jewish, nothing more. The fact that population of a city was of some other ethnicity does not mean that the city should belong to Poland or Israel :-). A similar example might be Gdanskas, where most of the population for many years was German, yet the city was historically Polish. I undestand why this might be disturbing to see the list of all these Polish names. I'd be happy to see more famous Lithuanian people from Vilnius mentioned. Do you have any ideas of how to do it ? --_Lysy^talk 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. See the earlier discussion at #Polish painter above. --_Lysy^talk 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember it was me to post the first list of the famous people born there. Eventhough it would perfectly fit any encyclopedia, we decided not to harass anyone's national feelings and avoided adding their nationality in all cases except for poets and writers, where their language is indeed notable. If that is not balanced - then what is your proposal? Halibutt 16:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Famous people

The reasons above are completely... I don't even know the word, but I completely disagree with them. But I would support deleting the list. I never liked it. Reasons:

1. Most of the links are red.
2. The list does not add to the article. I don't see too much of the connection between those people. Ok, they lived at some point in the city, but what does it say about the city? It has residents, that's all. Another case is when a university lists famous alumni. You can attribute that their fame was influenced by the education they received there. Now a city is not that important in someone's life.
3. It's a list. It needs more prose. It looks ugly.

In either case, I hope you agree it needs trimming down and verifying that people listed there are actually from Vilnius. For the record, I don't like the "Subdivisions" list either, but at least it is based on objective facts. Renata 03:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, deleting the list ? It follow the same convention as many other towns, e.g. Kaunas#Famous_people_of_Kaunas or Warsaw#Famous_people. It would be good to eliminate the red links by creating the respective articles, not by removing the names. --_Lysy^talk 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked featured articles about a city. None of them has such a list. A couple have a separate article "List of famous..." So, looking to the bigger picture, it looks like such lists do not belong in the article. Renata 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm not a deletionist anyway :-) --_Lysy^talk 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Done, unless someone reverts :) Renata 22:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I know someone who will. --_Lysy^talk 22:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lysy in that expanding the list by elimination of red links would be a far better idea than to delete it. On the other hand, I see no reason to delete the list (cause you did not copy it anywhere, did you) other than some strange version of nationalism (sorry). I consider my articles to be my children. If I see a poor, hungry child I try to feed it - you prefer to smite it and throw it out of the window. Why not move it to a separate article if its existence here is so problematic to some? Halibutt 12:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to create another article, go ahead. It is just that it looked absolutely ugly and added minimally to the article. And who should be included? Only ones who were born? Lived? For how long? What is the inclusion criteria? And as you see regularly it causes some problems - someone wants to add Polish/Lithuanian, someone corrects all spellings to Polish/Lithuanian. I personally don't care about any of that. I threw it away 'cause it causes too much headaches and is of minimum value (sorry, that's my pov). Be my guest to resurrect it someplace else, just please improve it before that. Renata 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I already did, I merely mentioned it here just in case some future problems arose with your actions like this. As to specific issues:

1. Contrary to what you say, most of the links were not red. If that was the most important criterion then we should delete the list of subdivisions rather than this one
2. As to the importance of such lists in articles on towns, I understand your opinion, though I disagree. Perhaps it's just me, but such lists (especially when properly linked) give a pretty decent overview of the city's history not from the point of view of those who wrote the article on history of ..., but from a more human-centred perspective, if you know what I mean. Sort of human touch, as opposed to purely historical overviews that usually list lots of trivial informations which in the real life had little influence on how the people lived or felt.
3. As to lists being lists... well, you can't accuse lists of being what they are :) Though on the other hand I could think of turning that list into a separate para, with people sorted topically and with prose rather than a pure list. What do you say? Halibutt 20:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Be my guests, really. I was thinking of putting a similar thing under culture (it's just that I know almost nothing about them). It would be muuuuch more useful when you explain what that person did in/for Vilnius than just listing some random names. There should be a bunch of people related to Vilnius University, right? Another bunch to Jewish heritage, some random artists, and then modern Lithuania (which is very underrepresented, btw :D). Am I getting the right impression? Renata 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And what we have now - article about Vilnius, without persons... Look I am lithuanian, and we lithuanians must admit, that Vilnius became famous in the world of its polish and jewish heritage. We must like or not, but the fact - majority famous people of Vilnius were not lithuanians. If someone wants to rewrite history, so go on... But I don't want another propaganda.--Tarakonas 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Public transport

I think I've read that the first regular bus and trolleybus lines were established in 1920s, not in 1945, but I'll need to check the sources for this. --_Lysy^talk 07:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Checked it: first regular buses in 1926. --_Lysy^talk 11:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, I wanted to say that the last year the bus company celebrated its 60th anniversary. It considers itself launched in 1945. Renata 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. I don't know what to do about this. Is it important that a company celebrated its 60th anniversary ? Is there only one bus company in Vilnius ? Or the oldest existing one celebrated 60th annicersary of operations ? Any suggestions ? --_Lysy^talk 17:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's not important. It's just that I was looking at the bus company website and it had this flashy banner, oh, look, we'are 60 year old! :) There is a number of private bus companies, but they were established after the independence and are quite small. This one is owned by the Vilnius city municipality and forms the backbone of the public transport system. There is only one municipal bus company. (Well, there is TOKS which runs buses between cities). I hope it's clear now. Renata 17:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange thing, though quite understandable. On the other hand in Poland, in formerly German towns, such city authorities usually celebrate the anniversaries of "tramways in XXX" rather than "Polish tramways in XXX". But perhaps it's just a matter of different levels of "touchiness" in Poland and Lithuania... Halibutt 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Vilnius won't be the same without the ol' Soviet-era trollybuses, crammed to the walls with Lithuanian strap-hangers! Sca 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

City government

There should be a section on city (municipal) government.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Vilna redirects to Vilnius.....but shoulnd't

Vilna redirects to this page, but Vilna also refers to a town in the province of Alberta, Canada. can somebody fix that redirect or provide a link to the town somewhere on the page? Thanks . --MyLegAlta 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

have repatriated

No, the majority run away and/or was expelled. Xx236 09:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Repatriation in this context is a weasel term, even though well-established. How can you re-patriate someone by expelling him from his homeland? Technically speaking it was rather a depatriation... //Halibutt 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In July 1944 Vilnius was retaken by the Soviet Army.

Wit the help of the Home Army. Xx236 09:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

...that got guns form Germans [1] shot on occasion few Lithuanians, and peacefully surendered to Red Army after what was disarmed and interned.--Lokyz 10:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Birth place of Archbishop Blessed Jurgis Matulaitis-Matulevicius, M.I.C.

Absurd. Xx236 09:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Trivia is for random facts that make you go "Wow, that's interesting (stange, funny, weird and so on), I've could never thought of that." Not for "Yeah... so what???" facts. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sentence

Maed, your new sentence has big stylistic errors (at least I think so):

Municipal rights were granted to Vilnius by Jagello, the then King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, the ruler of the area (Władysław II Jagiełło, Lithuanian: Jogaila; Polish: Jagiełło, Belarusian: Jahajlo) in 1387.

Why you are not linking Jagello with main article?

Is - the- then sounds to you correctly?

Why you placed the ruler of the area? This is unnecessary part of sentence.

Why name lineup (Władysław II Jagiełło, Lithuanian: Jogaila; Polish: Jagiełło, Belarusian: Jahajlo) is made in this place? In this way, lineup is misleading the readers; because it looks like Jagello and (Władysław II Jagiełło etc.) are different persons. Make this lineup directly after mentioning Jagello name.

I could try to edit this, but I do not understand the goal of your new edit, you could explain it on my talk or by mail, maybe we could find even the better solution after your explanations. Until then I will leave the old sentence. M.K.

Calgacus, made a day! Good job! M.K. 08:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bravo Mikkalai

Thank you for moving the lead into the 21st century. Dr. Dan 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Irrelevant Nonsense

The See also: section was full of irrelevant trivia, with an almost intentional provocative quality. Am I supposed to want know the ethnic composition of Wroclaw or Szczecin or Jelenia Góra in 1928. Should the football teams of German Silesia prior to WW II be added to every article of every currently Polish held city? I think not! Dr. Dan 02:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy pasting

I don't think we need it here: "Bialystok, 20 parishes and stations, 101,761 souls; Bielsk, 20 parishes, 66,125 souls; Brest, 3 parishes, 14212 souls; Dzisna, 15 parishes, 66,536 souls; Giedrojce, 13 parishes, 58,813 souls; Grodno, 20 parishes, 58,116 souls; Kobryn, 2 parishes, 7925 souls; Lida, 14 parishes, 65,100 souls; Merecz, 20 parishes, 82,948 souls; Nadwilejski, 8 parishes; 41,053 souls; Oszmiana, 11 parishes, 61,032 souls; Prwjany, 7 parishes, 11,648 souls; Radun, 15 parishes, 83,451 souls; Slonim, 7 parishes; 30,337 souls; Sokolka, 14 parishes, 75,709 souls; Swienciang, 19 parishes, 93,716 souls; Swir, 11 parishes, 48,266 souls; Troki, 20 parishes, 88,856 souls; Vilna (city), 30 churches and chapels, 141,104 souls; Vilna (district), 9 parishes, 52,690 souls; Wilejka, 10 parishes, 35,783 souls; Wisniew, 15 parishes, 83,900 souls" I do not think it should be in Wiki at all. Copy pasting 100 year old article into modern Wiki compromises quality a lot. But if you can't live without it it was moved to Archidiocese of Vilnius. Good luck editing this mess. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 07:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Vilnius"

When I lived in Vilnius, I used to pronounce the name "Vil-nee-us", but was quickly corrected and told to pronounce it "Vil-noos" (like "Vil" + "noose"). This isn't entirely accurate, as the "l" is soft, and English-speakers have difficulty with this. However, I do feel this is far more accurate than "Vil-news". I've consulted with my Lithuanian girlfriend, and she agrees with me.

"Vil-news" is probably quite similar to "Vil-noos" to US English speakers, but to a British English speaker (and most Europeans who speak English endeavour to speak UK English), "Vil-news" would be interpreted as "Vil-nyooz", which is definitely wrong IMO.

Of course, this is all open to interpretation. What we really need is some more Lithuanian opinion. What do other people think?

One thing is for sure that it is not NOOS, News is more close because N is pronounced softer, but is not perfect either. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

indeed -noos- is wrong, plus Lithuanians speak on different dialects; so girlfriend could have not common Lithuanian, so I will revert this edit to older one until the solution will be found (if it still necessary) M.K. 11:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Use IPA. All the -news and -noos look really unprofessionally. Renata 12:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

indeed it is very unprofessionall, btw do it realy necessary to have this "remark" in Trivia? M.K. 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It should go. Hollywood is not very good at pronounciation of foreign names. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To clear all this up, then, it'd be useful if someone could put the correct pronunciation of Vilnius in IPA at the top of the page. I know there is an audio file, but not everyone is able to listen to audio on their computer, and some of us are deaf.

My wife, who grew up in Vilnius, and whose family still lives there (in Žvėrynas), pronounces it vil' nis, not vil' noos or vil' news. Sca 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, is the English pronunciation the same as Lithuanian ? You know, Paris in French sounds different than English Paris. --Lysy^talk 17:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, my wife speaks fluent Lithuanian (and Russian — and English, but she has a slight accent on her English). Sca 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

POV and inaccuracies

The USSR did not "occupy" Lithuania, because "occupation" in terms of international law is something to be preceded by a war, which did not occur between the Soviet Union and Lithuania. Also, the USSR granted the city and the surrounding territory to Lithuania by means of an alliance pact, not by means of an ultimatum. 212.116.151.110 09:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Putin also does not recognize occupation in 1939 (I've seen this on TV). We've heard all this before.

BTW take a look what you're talking about - Lithuania was occupied 1940, not 1939 as Vilnius was returned. And please, register. Anon POV pushing is distasteful.--Lokyz 10:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some more sophisticated arguments before reverting - not political, but scientific arguments, please. In fact, Lithuania was never occupied in legal terms, but if you're talking about the entering of Soviet forces, there were first some 25 000 troops just after the alliance pact in 1939 and some more 75 000 shortly before the annexation. DamianOFF 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so how would you call a situation that after ultimatum into sovereign state enters unlimited amount of army from another state, that overthrows constitutional government and begins to act as it pleases? I know only one definition for such situation - it's occupation [2].--Lokyz 11:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The source you give here refers to any act of beggining a military presence in a foreign country as "occupation". You may try this one for a correct legal definition. DamianOFF 12:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok - here you go: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." It's from your link, and there is not even a mention about armed conflict or war.

Was Lithuania placed under authority of hostile (ultimatum anyone) army? Yes it was. Did it have authority. Yes it had, even removed constitutional government. Did it enter by a treaty? No, it entered because of ultimatum. Any questions left?--Lokyz 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we have a great misunderstanding of terms here. A "hostile" army is not one, belonging to a nation that is in a situation of diplomatic tension with your nation, but one, belonging to a nation, that is in a state of full-scale war("hostilities") with your nation. I'll provide a separate source for this claim, if you like. DamianOFF 12:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Damianoff, but your definition of occupation is not better than Lokyz' because it has Yale or Hague as the source. And sorry, but the Baltic States were occupied and illegally annexed by the Soviet Union, regardless of any semantical technicalities you wish to play around with. Have a nice day. Dr. Dan 12:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't find your irony acceptable. There's nothing, but sourceless and unprovable statements in your reply. DamianOFF 12:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's too bad. Ironic? Yes, ironic that after the cataclysms of the 20th century caused by bolshevism and fascism, there are people that do not consider that these ideologies and their actions were criminal, or try to excuse and justify their criminality by the most absurd arguments. Dr. Dan 01:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you must be experienced enough to know that Wikipedia is not a soapbox(WP:NOT), where one can advertise his or her political ideas. If you would like to contribute something to the point, please do so. But don't start fierce political discussions in an aggressive manner. DamianOFF 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose you are intelligent enough to know that I didn't start this fierce political discussion. But thank you for pointing out my agressive manner, while at the same time pointing out the benign and brotherly actions of the USSR vis a vis the Baltic States. And BTW, I'm also thankful that neither I nor my family will be dragged off into the night, by Father Stalin, too. Dr. Dan 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did. I try to discuss the matter in a level-headed and scientific manner, and you insist on implying your political views. 212.116.151.110 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

DamianOFF, once again: English Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting Nazi, Soviet or any other totalitarian ideology. Please consider using some different media for this. --Lysy^talk 08:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not promote any ideology, the only thing I step up for is accuracy and NPOV. And "occupation" is a politically affected term, a POV, as long as the case of the Baltic states is concerned

You claim you do not, but still you do. Similarly Nazis would claim they did not occupy Poland in 1939, but "liberated" their oppressed fellow Germans. Yet, we do not support the POV of criminal totalitarian regimes on Wikipedia. --Lysy^talk 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, ultimatum announcing war and shooting border Policemen cannot be regarded as a friendly actions, are they?--Lokyz 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear colleague, I really urge you to understand the difference between the moral and the legal meaning of a deed. If a people considers a foreign force on its territory hostile and feels at war with it, this is a moral issuse, but when it's about determining whether this force was occupational or not, it is a legal issue. Shooting at Lithuanian border policemen without them fighting back is really reprehensible but it could not be called a "war" in legal terms. DamianOFF 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your rhetoric won't help here. It was occupation, nevermind what your TV says to you:) And the fact, that you cannot name the actions taken by soviets after ultimatum only proves that. So please, do not try to advertise your political ides, because only one country in the world that does not accept the fact of occupation is Russia. Al others agree that it was occupation. This case is closed. Have a good day.--Lokyz 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would kindly remind you that an expression like "this case is closed" is against the principles of Wikipedia. Once again - "popular" and "correct" are not the same thing. The only thing I am promoting is legal accuracy. Provide some arguments to the point, please. The Soviet forces are allied to the Lithuanian government at that time, so they enter the country as the troops of an ally of Lithuania. 212.116.151.110 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

About an "ally" is only showing that, dear Damian, are not familiar with contemporary docs and protocols, memoirs , plus forgot to add armed resistance during occupation and its legal status and status during present day State of Lithuania. Add more but have no time for this M.K. 13:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Try telling that one to the family of President Antanas Smetona, or the thousands deported to Siberia from Lithuania and the other neighboring countries. Dr. Dan 13:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This argument is really besides the point. It does not matter how many people suffered for this to be called an occupation or not. Many more Russians were deported to Siberia and died there. Perhaps Russia was occupied as well? Errabee 04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course you cannot occupy a country with its own forces. This did not stop Soviets from "liberating" Berlin in 1945, however. --Lysy^talk 05:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion clearly shows the community consensus. Only a single editor seems to have a different POV that he attempts to impose. Do we need to continue this or can we consider this case closed ? --Lysy^talk 13:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, I hope this person is not a troll. We can try to give him a chance, but if all else fails "don't feed the troll". Dr. Dan 00:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I do support that wikipedia should present different, often conflicting POVs but I don't think this should go as far as promoting Nazi or Soviet POVs. What next ? Are we going to claim that there is a theory according to which Jews are subhuman because Nazi propaganda claimed so ? I'm sorry but I do feel strongly about this. However I'm afraid that even if DamianOFF leaves here, he will find another article to promote his Soviet ideology (while claiming he does not of course). --Lysy^talk 06:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See the contributions of 212.116.151.110 to the Occupation of Latvia discussion. As I pointed out there, there was no state of war between Germany and Denmark, but there is an article on the occupation of Denmark. There was no state of war between Czechoslovakia and Germany, yet there is an article on the occupation of Czechoslovakia. We can cover the Nazi or Soviet POV, sure -- as Nazi or Soviet POV. The constant intrusions (or "edits") by persons who wish to deny historical fact, and wish to pretend that doing so is somehow NPOV, are dragging these categories into the inane. They might better use their time editing articles on mass murderers with material on how murder is salvation, or sumfin'. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The major difference between these cases of occupation and the Lithuanian one is that there has not been an alliance pact between Nazi Germany and Denmark/Czechoslovakia. In the Danish case, there was mass armed resistance by the Danish military which is a de facto war and in the Czech case there was an official capitulation of the Czechoslovak army which is a de facto military defeat. Lithuanian army did not give resistance to the first entering units of the Red Army - in fact, it cooperated with them. The Lithuanian army did not capitulate with the entrance of the Soviets - in fact, it was alive 'n' kickin' - it entered the Wilno district after the signing of the alliance pact. DamianOFF 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And once again you're mixing different periods - 1939, as a limited garrison of red army entered, and 1940, as a unlimited force entered aofter ultimatum, and did overthrow consitutional government - consider reading some facts before arguing.--Lokyz 10:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1940, 75 000 Soviet soldiers and not even a single gun more entered Lithuania. This in response to your "unlimited force". The Red Army did not overthrow the the Lithuanian government, it was overthrown with the backup of the Soviet union, but by Lithuanian Communists. The government installed after the entrance of the Red Army was Lithuanian, not an occupation commission. Maybe you read some more than two and a half books before teaching me what to do. DamianOFF 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You make me laugh:) Of course occupation commission is an inevitable part, without it there is no occupation - like in cases of occupation of Poland, France, Denmark, Belgium, Ukraine and Russia by Germans.

As for "Lithuanian government" - well, if you want to call a governmend coined in USSR embassy as Lithuanian, you have your right to, even if you'd call it Zulu government. Although let me remind you, that it was never recognised as legal by any contemporary state. And the only legal head of the state - i.e. President Smetona left country few hours before Red Army overtook control of the border. Without his signature no legal Cabinet could be established.--Lokyz 11:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with extensively on the Talk:Lithuania page, where it was suggested this issue be entered into the Village Pump. Lithuanian communists overthrowing the bourgeoisie Lithuanian elite and returning Soviet sovereignty to Lithuanian soil? Can you say The Great Encyclopedia of Soviet Propaganda?(SEE NOTE IMMEDIATELY BELOW) The Soviets installed people with the correct ethnic names to propagate the lie that it was all a popular uprising. (There was a particular name for the Latvian version of this widespread practice which escapes me right now.) And 75 000 being a paltry number of troops? Proportionally to the local population that would be like stationing 7 500 000 troops (yes, that's 7.5 million) in the United States today. (And that's using Lithuanian population numbers prior to the decimation of WW II.) The Soviet Union is dead. It's time to buy a new encyclopedia. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(NOTE ON THE ABOVE) I should mention I'm not using that as a figure of speech. I have various Soviet era encyclopedias in Latvian and that is exactly how the Soviet occupation is portrayed: a return of Soviet authority to Latvia in full continuity with the October Revolution and the Soviets which had been established in Latvian territory, overthrowing the bourgeousie who had (temporarily) seized power. So, according to Soviet propaganda, the first Latvian republic was an occupation of Soviet Latvia by the bourgeoisie. Well, there is the problem that Soviet Russia did recognize "bourgeoisie" Latvia as a legal entity, concluded economic and peace treaties with it, etc., etc. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Lysy's revert of Hundred's edits.

I wanted to explain this edit of mine. [3] started changing the sentence:

After the uprising all civil liberties were withdrawn, and the Lithuanian and Polish languages were banned.

into:

After the uprising all civil liberties were withdrawn, and the Lithuanian was banned.

Since he did not explain his edit, nor did he engage in any discussion, after a couple of reverts, I've decided to doublecheck the sources. The book (by Lithuanian historians) that I have at hand stated that Muravyov actually banned Polish language and that Lithuanian was banned only in writing (and only in Latin alphabet). Hence my edit. I think this may need to be expanded but probably in History of Vilnius or History of Lithuania rather than this article. --Lysy^talk 11:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind digging up more info on that? How local was the ban? How long did it last? Was Belarussian also banned (as sentence previously indicated)? Renata 12:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Belarusian. Here's what I found in the book by Aleksandravičius and Kulakauskas (my rough translation): In spring 1864, Muravyov and Kornilov prepared a program of radical changes in the Northwestern Country (Krai), called the program of "return to Russian roots". It was accepted by the Western Committee and then by tsar Alexander II. The western country (including the ethnic Lithuanian territories) was described as "iskonno" [eternally ? historically ?] Russian land. The program assumed:

1. Complete removal of Polish language from public life
2. Assuming any public posts was banned for people of "Polish origin" (thus practically including Lithuanians as well)
3. All management positions were to be taken by Russians brought from central Russia
4. Control and discrimination of Catholic Church
5. Promoting Russian Orthodox Church
6. Establishing elementary schools with Russian teachers
7. Promoting Russian colonisation of the country
8. Change of Latin ("Polish") alphabet into Russian. This also resulted in ban on publishing in Lithuanian in Latin alphabet.

Later, since 1872, using blackletter was also forbidden, thus practically eliminating Lithuanian from print, though it was not officially banned. Of course there were also many economic (like excessive taxes for "Polish" people) and political measures of Russification not mentioned in the above program. The restrictions were relaxed only in 1905/1906. --Lysy^talk 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Lithuanian writing was issued by interior minister and approved by Tsar, ban was formally issued by interior minister`s edict. I will add ref later. M.K. 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, as for the source that I mentioned, it says that Polish was completely banned (in print but also public use etc.) while Lithuanian was only banned in print unless it used Cyrillic alphabet. So, according to it, it was Latin (and later Blackletter) that was banned, not Lithuanian language, while Polish was banned altogether. I'm not sure if this discussion belongs to this article, probably to History of Lithuania instead. --Lysy^talk 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Lithuanian writing M.K. 13:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to restore "and Lithuanian" to the article while you're looking for sources to support it. I would however be also thankful for some support of Lithuanian editors against the pushy edits of User:Hundred. I feel rather uncomfortable being the one reverting his edits, as this puts me in "Polish vs Lithuanian" role, which I do neither appreciate nor enjoy. --Lysy^talk 13:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find some additional and specific works of Aleksandravičius and Kulakauskas, I find some of them which Lysy (btw, do you read in LT?) presented to as, but only in different publication. There are references of Lithuanian writing ban, forced use of Cyrillic, about edict etc. So I wondering do we need to expand a bit part of it adding this specific info of writhing ban instead of general language ban, but in another hand he listed the key moments of rusification policy which effected Polish “or more exactly Polish-Lithuanians self determination movement..”; also noting usage of languages in church ? M.K. 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand you right, but I'd suggest we use this information to expand the History of Lithuania article rather than Vilnius (where we should keep the "history" section rather small and concise). I do not read Lithuanian, I can only understand individual words. I have a Polish translation of the book, but I referred to the original title in Lithuanian so that it's easier for you to find the book and maybe verify it. This is also why I was not able to refer to exact page numbers. --Lysy^talk 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your ref, I believe you should add the original ref from which you quoted or used material M.K. 20:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I think you are right, although I believe the Lithuanian original would be better if anyone has access to it. --Lysy^talk 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you got my support, just not always have time to revert. If he edits again without any explanations, I am thinking of a block. Renata 10:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 3 hours. Renata 11:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it was catholics, not Polish orgin people.--Lokyz 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to the book that I cite, the program mentioned "Polish origin", which in practice meant "all the Catholics", which eventually translated to "ethnic Lithuanians too". This at least is how the authors put it. --Lysy^talk 13:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Vilnius (not) in the BSSR

Here is a good reference that explains how Vilnius avoided becoming part of the Belarusian SSR: [4].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Vilna

Vilna redirects here yet nothing is said directly about it. From the bits I presume it is an older name, perhaps in one of the non-Lithuanian languages. More reference to Vilna would enhance this article. A-giau 06:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Shshsh... Don't you know the Wikipedia etiquette? People should pump Polish, Estonian, Finnish, Chinese (!) etc names into leads of articles about Russian towns (such as Pskov), but don't you dare mention a Russian spelling in the article about a city which has been part of Imperial Russia for centuries! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)