Jump to content

Talk:Vilnius/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

numbers

Question: If after WWII "the Soviet government decided to expel the Polish population from Lithuania," as the entry says, how is it that Vilnius today is still 18.7 percent Polish? Perhaps the entry should say "expel much of the Polish population"? (Just being an editor here.)

Sca 17:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the many polish falsifications in this fully falsificated text. See Zivinbudas' version which was here before reverting and "protection" -> history of the article. 85.206.195.244 18:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thats a Polish falsification... good to know it! my family was expelled from Wilno... :)--Witkacy 19:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Sca, if you need backup, just take a look at the archives (most notably Talk:Vilnius/Early_discussions#VARIA and the following discussion). The info on the number of expelled is easily available (even on the net) and is not disputed neither by Poland nor Lithuania, especially that it was supervised by a joint commission and its final report was issued both in Poland and Lithuanian SSR. Halibutt 23:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Voluntary, my, my. I must inform my grandmother that she left her house in Grodno area voluntarily. She may be surprised. Szopen 07:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be funny Hello-but. That polish and czech communist-fashistes deported (expelled) Germans from occupied lands and made ethnic cleansings. There was voluntary repatriation of poles (mostly tuteishians) from occupied Lithuania to Polish People Republic. Another cheap polish falsification. Zivinbudas 04:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Polish "administrators" what about your countryman Szopen -> above and netiquette? Zivinbudas 08:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC) Link retargetted to userpage. Graham87 10:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Zivinbudas, if you state that the deportation of Poles from Lithuania after 1945 was voluntary, then you must agree that deportation of Lithuanians to Soviet Gulags in 1940 and after 1945 was voluntary as well. Halibutt 08:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Don't be funny Hello-but. Could you explane me why in Lithuania still live 200,000 of poles (more correctly tuteishians) in country with population of 3,500,000? May be did they return from polish "paradise"? Zivinbudas 09:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

It's quite simple and I've explained that in this discussion already (check the archives at Talk:Vilnius/Early_discussions#VARIA). Not all Poles were deported (or repatriated, as the official authorities named the action). Especially in the countryside, where the Lithuanian authorities prevented many people from signing to the lists and argued that they were polonised Lithuanians and not Poles. Also, there was almost no repatriation of Poles from the areas of pre-1939 Lithuania; most of them were declared Lithuanians by Lithuanian pre-war authorities and as such were treated as Soviet citizens by the Soviets, which made leaving the Soviet paradise impossible for a large majority of them.
If you read Polish (and I believe you do), then you might be interested in a detailed account of the expatriation between 1944 and 1947 published by the University of Wrocław. It's available here. Halibutt 12:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Its only your bla-bla-bla. Most of tuteishians declare that they are polish and everyone could repatriate, but didn't. "Poles" from other parts of Lithuania could repatriate the same as "poles" from Eastern Lithuania and who wanted those repatriated. As to tuteishians (I plan to start an article on tuteishians) it whould be better that they repatriate all, because we don't need such slobs and drunkers in our country. Zivinbudas 15:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoever tuteishans are, you are wrong and you should definitely read more on the matter. Also, there is a similar article on tutejszy. Is it the article you plan to write? Halibutt 19:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt & others:

My point was was not about how many Poles were expelled or asked to leave "voluntarily." You Poles and Lithuanians can argue about that until the cows come home. (One must question any "voluntary" expulsion from one's homeland under the aegis of Soviet power.) My point was about a contradiction in the text.

This part – "the Soviet government decided to expel the Polish population from Lithuania" – says or implies that ALL Poles were to be expelled. Evidently, this either was not the Soviet intention, or it did not happen (maybe because Stalin died before it was completed?) – otherwise there would be NO Poles in Lithuania (including Vilnius) today. How about explaining why Vilnius is still 18% Polish, if that's the case? Are they like some Upper Silesians, who were either German or Polish depending on which side was in ascendancy? Perhaps the entry should deal with what the Soviets did, rather than with what they "decided to do."

What might make sense would be to represent more than one point of view in the entry. This is what is done in many news story in the U.S. media.

As an aside, I think it's unacceptable on this site for users to make offensive personal comments based on ethnicity to anyone for any reason. It seems doubly offensive when it comes from someone whose user name is a number. We can joke, but let's not call each other names. That's dehumanization.

Aciu. Dziekuje.

Sca 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The guy has been calling people names for some month now - to no effect. We all hope he'll grow up some day... Halibutt 19:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sca, you don't understand this issue, sorry. Nobody asked them to leave Lithuania and nobody expelled. They themselves wanted to go from soviet occupied teritory to Poland (formaly independent) - they didn't want to remain in Soviet Union with terrible regime and repressions . Repatriated about 200,000 persons - about 100,000 polish colonistes which arrived to occupied Eastern Lithuania in 1920 - 1939 and about 100,000 tuteishians (and between them many real Lithuanians which wanted to escape from the soviets). But not all wanted to go and remained in occupied Lithuania. Today in Lithuania live about 200,000 "poles" (in reality tuteishians). This is an answer to your question. Did you understand? Zivinbudas 22:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Not that simple, really (you didn't expect the Central European history to be simple, did you :) ). Regardless of who "tuteishans" and "poles" are (I don't really know), the matter was a tad more complex. It is not clear whether all Poles were to be expelled or not, mostly because the depatriation was never finished and because it was slightly different in different parts of the Soviet Union. For instance, in Lithuania the soviet authorities feared that depopulation of the rural areas outside of Wilno would seriously harass the economical situation, especially in the war-damaged and starving area of the Baltics and Belarus. That might be one of the reasons why the Lithuanian SSR authorities were allowed not to expell all of the - almost entirely Polish - population of former Central Lithuania.
Similarily, there were many other rural areas of the USSR where the Poles were in fact discouraged and even prevented from leaving the Soviet Union - and the example of Poles living in pre-war Lithuania is quite good here. On the other hand, almost entire urban population of the major cities which were notable centres of Polish culture were either directly or indirectly forced to emmigrate. Before the joint commission was formed, there were lots of cases of the so-called wild depatriation. These were more or less the same as expatriation of Poles under Nazi regime: the people were gathered in a town hall or some similar place, they were told to pack their things (usually not more than 20 kg of luggage per person) and were transported to the nearest train station, where they were hurried into cargo trains (usually marked with "We return home" signs and Polish flags) and transported to new Poland. After the commission was formed such wild transport were stopped, but the expropriation and depatriation continued.
It's hard to describe the exact plans of Uncle Soso and his men since the archives are still closed, but I guess that there was no plan to expel every single person of Polish ethnicity from USSR. Especially that it would also mean repatriation of Poles resettled to Siberia, Kazakhstan and other not-so-pleasant places in the workers' paradise. Halibutt 01:32, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Hello-but. I am not interested in what happened in U.S.S.R, I am interested in what happened in occupied Lithuania. In Lithuania never were such ethnic cleansings (except the bandit actions of Armia Krajowa) like were in occupied by poles and czechs German teritories. And please don't use the term "central Lithuania" - it was unrecognized by nobody puppet "state" made by puppet polish militaries. Zivinbudas 06:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Zivinbudas, I urge you not to make mistakes in my name as it is considered offensive. And take note that I had no intention to address my comments to you, I was merely trying to reply to Sca's questions. As to the rest of your commens - I think I need a drink. Halibutt 13:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to leave stereotypes. You will need a drink many times in future as well. Cheers! Zivinbudas 13:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

So, now you claim that the expulsion of almost the entire population of the area of Vilna was not ethnic cleansing? Or perhaps you suggest that it never happened? I feel I'm really wasting my time on you.
As to the term Central Lithuania it was indeed unrecognized by any state except for the Entente and the later League of Nations. That is except for most of the states in the world. Note that it was Lithuania who always disputed the LoN's decision to grant Central Lithuania to Poland, not the other way around. And if my memory srves me well, the very term Central Lithuania was used by the French diplomats who signed the documents... Halibutt 06:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your "information" is completely false. Puppet "state" of "central Lithuania" (made by puppet "government" of gen. Zeligowski) was unrecognized by any state and even more by Legue of Nations. And about other issue - do you know, that in 1950 - 1951 Stalin closed all Lithuanian schools which were opened in Eastern Lithuania in 1939 - 1944 and opened in their place polish schools? And do you know that Lithuanian language was practicaly baned in Eastern Lithuania until 1989? And think why? Zivinbudas 07:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether a puppet state or not is a matter of dispute. The fact is that it was a part of international treaties with Poland and as such was also a part of the League of Nations' recognition of the unification of both states. Also, during the Polish-Lithuanian talks of 1920 about the future of the area carried out in Paris, all sides used the term Central Lithuania. What's even more important is that when Poland demanded that the diplomats of the Central Lithuania be sent to Paris as well, the Lithuanian diplomats opposed. And on the Lithuanian documents the name of Central Lithuania is mentioned - more than once. The documents of the conference in Paris survived the war and I bet you can get all the documents you need from the State Archive in Vilnius.
As to the schools - I didn't know that the state of Central Lithuania survived well into the 1950's and that Stalin was one of its officials. But you learn new things every day here... Anyway, the state of Central Lithuania really existed, whether a puppet or not. And why exactly not to use the name? Halibutt 14:09, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Eastern Lithuania as he names it is not central Lithuania, but in this case as I understand Eastern Vilnius region, because that closure of all Lithuanian schools happened there. There was supposed polonization of Western Vilnius region too, we talked about that, but most of you rebuffed my claims.

No, my mentioned closure of all Lithuanian schools happened (in 1950 - 1951) in part of Eastern Lithuania which was united to Lithuania in 1939 - 1940. In Eastern Vilnius region - unliberated part of Lithuania - happened the same, but in place of Lithuanian schools soviets opened bielorussian schools. Zivinbudas 05:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I know Lithuanian archives much better than you. I repeat that puppet "state" of "central Lithuania" wasn't recognized by any state and even more by League of Nations. And using of that is incorrect. I didn't understand what you mean that Stalin was an official of "central Lithuania". I am very sorry, but are you really drunk? Zivinbudas 15:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Not being officially recognised does not preclude its place in history. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, we go too far here. Was the Central Lithuania unrecognized, or not, it doesn't make difference in this case. Any term, entity or event, in a case it was real, may be mentioned in an encyclopedia, and it doesn't need any prior recognition. Any term needs relevant definition and article too, of course.
What concerns "repatriation", it was planned by the soviet officials and main versions of this article mentioned it. Local communist officials in Poland and in Lithuania were only instruments in more powerful hands. Even the most drastic Lithuanian nationalists never planned any such repatriation. Perhaps some Lithuanians could want "re-lituanize" Poles in Vilnius, but the idea to expel them never was raised. Looking from the side of justice, many of the later "repatriated" persons were local inhabitants and their forefathers hadn't come from another place, including territory of the modern Poland. Even more, many of them had got citizenship of Lithuania after 1939 and thus were citizens not only of some "ideal" Lithuania but of real Republic of Lithuania too. Any state should defend its citizens in a case of offending their rights, and if Lithuania declares continuity of the prewar Republic, i don't think we should discern emigrating of Lithuanians in the 1944 as forced and this "repatriation" as voluntary. In both Lithuania lost its citizens, and in the both cases then Soviet regime was responsible for it. Linas Lituanus16:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Ethnic compositions in Eastern Lithuania in XIXth and XXth centuries

Notice: all data provading here are provided in polish book: Bronislaw Makowski. Litwini w Polsce 1920 - 1939. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Warszawa, 1986.

Ethnic composition of population of Vilnius Gubernia in early XIXth century (in thousands): 

Lithuanians       780
Polish            100
Bielorussians      50
Russians           80
Jews              180
Total:           1200

Data from: S. H. P. (Plater). Geografia wschodniej czesci Europy czyli opis krajow przez wielorakie narody Slowianskie zamieszkanych. Wroclaw, 1825.

Ethnic composition of population of Vilnius Gubernia in 1860: 

Lithuanians            418,826
Polish                 154,386
Total population:      819,518

Data from: Stolpianskij N. Deviatj gubernij Zapadnorusskovo kraja. Sankt-Petersburg, 1866.

Ethnic composition of populiation of Vilnius Gubernia in 1897 (in percent): 

Lithuanians       17.59
Polish             8.19
Bielorussians     56.05
Russians           4.94
Ukrainians         0.06
Germans            0.24
Jews              12.72
Others             0.23
Total:           100.00

And now about these data. As you see number of Lithuanians drasticaly decreased in XIXth century. They didn't emigrate somewhere - they (part of them) simply changed language. They began to speak Simple Language (po prostu) - sort of mixture of Lithuanian, Bielorussian and Polish languages. It happened because of Tzarist Russia's policy in Lithuania (the ban of Lithuanian writing language in Latin alphabet, persecutions after uprisings, russification etcr.) and the resistention to that by polonised Lithuanian nobility. This situation very good shows the First Census of Russian empire from 1897. People were written in that Census not by nationality, but by language, and it is why number of Bielorussians is that high. This Census is the last reliable census until Census of 1942. All between them were falsificied by poles.

And now about ethnic compositions in Vilnius city. Data of 1897 Census is provided here by Lysy in Talk:Vilnius -> see above. I would like to comment them. Yes, percentage of Lithuanians in this Census in Vilnius city is 2%. But as I expressed above it only shows Lithuanian-speakers . The very good example is Ireland - there are only 2% of Irish language speakers in Ireland, but English-speakers Irish are Irish not British. All Lithuanian cities were very low Lithuanian-speaking in that time. I provide here data of Kaunas city of 1897 Census (in percent): 

Lithuanians        6.6
Russians          25.8
Ukrainians         0.3
Polish            22.7
Jews              35.2
Bielorussians      1.4
Germans            4.7
Others             3.3
Total:           100.00

And here data of Kaunas of Census of 1923 (in percent): 

Lithuanians       59.0
Russians           3.2
Ukrainians          -
Polish             4.5
Jews              27.1
Bielorussians      0.2
Germans            3.5
Others             2.5
Total:           100.00

Where did disappeare polish from Kaunas and from where such number of Lithuanians after only 5 years of Independence? The answer is: polonized Lithuanians began again to speak Lithuanian in Independent Lithuania. This would be the same in Vilnius and all Eastern Lithuania if not polish occupation.

Oh my, oh my... I admit I'm not the best person to be asked about the censae prior to the first all-national census in Russia (1897). However, one thing to add to what Zivinbudas failed to mention, is that the repressions after the uprisings were aimed at Poles as well. Polish language was equally banned from the office, Polish schools were equally closed (were there any Lithuanian-speaking colleges or universities before that?) or converted to Russian-only universities, Polish press and books were equally banned. So, stating that repressions against Polish language and culture were as a matter of fact a means to strengthen them is a complete nonsense. As to the Russian census of 1897 itself - it is widely critisized for the huge inaccuracies. Among other things, in most areas the number of eastern Slavs (most notably Russians and "White Russians", but also "Small Russians" in the south) was made several times higher than it should be. Nevertheless, it's strange that you use the census of 1897 as a support for your claims (what are your claims anyway?), especially that it's equally disputed by Polish and Lithuanian historians. As far as I know the only census that is not disputed by Poles and Lithuanians is the 1916 German census, which you failed to mention. Or perhaps the Poles falsified that one as well?
Anyway, what are you trying to prove? Even if the huge majority of Poles there were actually Lithuanians and were forced to vote for the Polish parties that supported unification with Poland (which was not the case) - what does it change in this article? What is it that you're trying to prove? If your claim is that there were no Poles expelled from the area and that actually the USSR forged the expulsions (that is created papers and expelled only a small number of agents that were told to speak loudly about the thousands of Poles expelled, whereas the actual number of those who left the area was incredibly low), then we have nothing to speak about. Your claim that the oppressed bi-lingual Lithuanians were forced to speak Polish, but after USSR took the area they miraculously converted back to the language of their ancestors, makes me think you have a serious problem. However, I believe I can't help you. Sorry. Or perhaps I simply got you wrong and your claims are different? Please correct me then. Halibutt 14:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


One more thing that would be probably OT and feel free to remove it if you feel a need to do so: I cannot accept your visions for yet another reason: it leaves no place for my own family. My mother's maiden name is Kaźmirkiewicz. That would probably be Kazmirkievicius in Lithuanian, or something along that line. My ancestors were first Lithuanised Ruthenians living in the area east of Wilno. Then they got polonised some time in 17th century, were admitted to one of Polish noble clans and were always loyal servants of The Republic. After the January uprising they were forced out of their properties in what is now Lithuanian-Belarusian borderland and, after returning from Siberia, settled in what NE Poland. You suggest that if the dreams of Lithuanian politicians came true and the reborn Lithuania included all the claimed areas, then my family would miraculously learn Lithuanian... right...
I believe that the nationality is a matter of choice and once you declare yourself a Zulu - you become a Zulu. Parts of my family declared themselves Polish and I see no way they would change their nationality. And I guess that was the case with most of the hundreds of thousands of Poles expelled from their lands, regardless of the language or culture of their ancestors. Whether ethnic Poles, Polinized Ruthenians, Lithuanians, Brits, Scots, Flemmish, whomever. Halibutt 15:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I only explain statistic provided by Lysy (see Talk: Vilnius). Why did you become such nervous? Your information that Lithuanians recognize Census of 1916 is completely false. Lithuanians don't recognize all censuses between Census of 1897 and Census of 1942 like falsificied by poles. Don't worry, be happy! Zivinbudas 15:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Halibutt. My ancestors from Mother's side were Kondracki - Lithuanian Nobleman (Coat of Arms Ostoja) (like your Halibutt). They were loyal servants of Grand Duchy of Lithuania as one of two States which consisted Confederation of the Republic of Both Nations . When time came, they went together with own nation and became loyal citizens of the Republic of Lithuania. So adventure continues. Zivinbudas 16:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"Dear Halibutt. My ancestors from Mother's side were Kondracki - Lithuanian Nobleman"
our dear Zivinbudas is a Lithuanized Pole... ;)--Witkacy 01:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
So, you still fail to explain what is it that you're trying to prove here. Anyway, from your post I understood that the Poles falsified the Lithuanian census of 1923 and the German census of 1916. Poles also falsified the census organised by Lithuanian authorities in 1939, after they were given the area of Wilno. Quite influential those Poles were... Sorry, Zivinbudas, it seems to me you either don't know the topic well enough or believe in some strange conspiracy theory. Poles everywhere, beware of the angry Pole, he's right behind you. He'll catch you and falsify your census...
As a sidenote, I'm not from the Ostoja clan, my coat of arms is Nieczuja (as stated on my user page). Over and out. Halibutt 22:56, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Witkacy, my ancestors weren't koroniarze (this term means poles). Dear Halibutt, there wasn't any official census organized by Lithuanian authorities in liberated part of Eastern Lithuania in 1939. I wrote about censuses which concern Eastern Lithuania - Census of 1923 didn't include occupied teritories. Zivinbudas 06:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

But you forgot to add that 1942 census was made with using of Lithuanian clerks who were forcing Poles to declare Lithuanian nationality, changing their declaration etc, etc. 1942 census is considered to be falsified By Poles. 1923 census is disputed as well (for similar reasons: Poles were considered tutejsi and in fact Lithuanians, so they were often forced to declare other nationality, their declaration were falsified etc). It seems you after all have not read the article Halibutt suggested. Szopen 08:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
As to the 1939 census - I wonder why haven't you heard of it. Halibutt 09:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but the casual English user doesn't care about all the minutiae. What is appropriate is the BROAD outlines of how the city changed ethnically in the 19th century, 1919-39, and after WWII -- without MORALISING comments about how nasty this or that change was. Again, where the facts are contested, it would make sense to include brief summaries of opposing views.

Encyclopedia entries are supposed to be written for people who know little or nothing about a topic. If someone wants to do serious research on this complex history, he should consult other sources. I would love to read a detailed history of this fascinating city in book form, written by a fair-minded historian (which in this case probably would mean neither a Pole nor a Lithuanian) who has done the research. But I don't expect to find it here.

The Wikipedia idea is premised on the assumption that contributors are going to be reasonable human beings, whatever their point of view. Idealogues and ultranationalists should field their own websites, on which they can wave their respective flags all they wish.

Sca 19:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ten times Vilnius

Regardless of the disputes we have here, there is one serious question: how many histories of the area we need? So far, the history of Vilnius is mentioned in the following articles, each written from a similar perspective:

So, how about preparing one single, extensive article on the history of Vilnius and simply pointing all interested readers to it, instead of repeating it in every single article directly or indirectlky related to the region? Halibutt 13:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I would concentrate on improving the article on History of Vilnius and refer from the other pages to this main article. Lysy 17:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
One more artile about one historical period to your list - Vilnius region. We sure need one article covering all the history, but parts of history needs to be mentioned in those articles, but not as detailed as this single one. Knutux 10:23, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Protected again=

Zivinbudas as far as I can tell there was no support for your edits last time. Please discuss changes here.--nixie 05:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see all information above -> Talk:Vilnius. You can protect all Lithuanian articles which you want (fully falsificated by polish nationalists), but you can't "protect" historical truth. Zivinbudas 05:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention

Is it reasonable to apply the result of Talk:Gdansk/Vote (was this a valid voting procedure anyway ?) to other articles, including Vilnius ? In my opinion it is quite bad to call Vilnius other names (Wilno, Vilna etc.) within the body of the article. Of course it's worth to mention the other names and explain the context in which they were/are used but using them then in the article seems harmful. Here's why I think so:

  1. It annoys Lithuanian wikipedians as it seems to hurt their feelings. This is not needed.
  2. It shows no respect for the official name.
  3. It's ridiculous (not to say pathetic) and can be quite misleading if the town is referred to by different names within the same article.
  4. It does not bring any added value to the article, just confusion.

Can we do something about this ? --Lysy (talk) 4 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

I totaly agree on that, if the context of relevant alternative town names is preserved & explained within the article. DariusMazeika 4 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)
But on the other hand:
  1. It avoids anachronisms (calling mediaeval towns with names invented in 20th century, for instance)
  2. It avoids confusion (as long as all names used are mentioned in the header)
  3. It shows respect to historical truth
  4. It is consistent with other articles on towns and cities
Also, while I understand the case of Lithuanian nationalism, national pride, self-counciousness and simply feelings, I don't believe we should sacrifice historical truth just to make someone happier here. Halibutt 06:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

One, present name for the whole historical period, with exception of "towns with names invented in 20th century".

  1. Some "anachronisms" are unavoidable, like for instance we won't ddescribe medieval times using medieval English.
  2. More confusion is introduced by different names in different paragraphs.
  3. Mentioning the name once shows respect to "the historical truth" already.
  4. "One name" is consistent with other articles.

Space Cadet 16:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. But otherwise we'd have Siege of Petersburg of 1941 and Kaliningrad bombed by the Allies in 1944, not to mention Lviv being annexed from Poland to Austria and New York settled by Dutch. It's a minor problem as long as all articles follow the same rules, but they do not currently (some of them due to wiki voting)
  2. Well, if a place was inhabitated by Poles, belonged to Poland and was called by Brits with its Polish name, then one would wonder why it's called with a, let's say, Zulu name. Of course, this argument is somehow two-bladed, but still...
  3. Perhaps
  4. Nope. It's not (check the articles on the majority of Polish cities, not to browse too far...)
Halibutt 18:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  1. There will be exceptions of course, like Königsberg and other cities that had their names changed, but Vilnius and Gdansk were always Vilnius and Gdansk.
  2. It's never a clear line between usages, and "inconsistent naming just causes endless disputes and revert wars.
  3. OK
  4. ONLY Polish cities with some German or Prussian past and that needs to be changed!

Space Cadet 23:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection

How long has this page been protected?? The 9th of June? Since Zivinbudas is banned, do we need it to remain as such? (P.S.: sorry for me having to drop out of the discussions here a few months ago, I lost my internet connection) Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. And, next time, please list it at WP:RfPP, where I've redirected your pages (Wikipedia:Requests for unprotection and Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection). The requests for protect/unprotection are so small that they can fit into one page, though in the future those pages may be necessary. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I was the one that originally protected it. I was just making sure verybody agreed that it was okay to unprotect. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Good examples

The Warsaw and Krakow articles are good examples for cities' alternative names. Both Warsaw and Krakow has many alternative names in different languages. It is not necessary to mention them all. There is only link to Names of European cities in different languages in these articles. I think Vilnius article isn't somehow different. I think we have to follow good examples. So I do that. Bf-109 06:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding mark

I decided to add this mark, because article is fully falsificated and represents only Polish POV. Bf-109 14:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Vilna in English?

Vilnius (Vilna in English...

I've never heard it referred to as "vilna" in english, I've always heard it referred to as "Vilnius". And if Vilna was the official English version, why isn't this article titled "Vilna"? --Revolución (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Though it might seem strange to you, the name of Vilna was once commonly used in English, contrary to the current Lithuanian name. It can be found on a plethora of old maps and in books. Even now it is a common synonym, though the current name is much more popular (compare [1] with [2] and [3]). Anyway, it definitely deserves a mention in the header, much like the Polish name. Halibutt 16:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

As for Juzeris edits

Please note that German name for the city is Wilna, Wilno is the Polish name, therefore changing from Wilna to Wilno when talking about time when it was occupied by Germans is not correct. Also, there is no such thing as "River Vilnius", the river is known as Vilnia (and not Vilnelė either, which is more like a pet name).

I have corrected myself. --Jūzeris | Talk 16:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
And isn't it Neris in Lithuanian? Well, AAMoF the confusion is the same in more than one language. Vilnia River (Polish Wilenka) joins Neris (Polish Wilejka) in the city itself. So, both rivers pass through the city. Halibutt 13:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ethnographic region

It is quite amusing to see that Vilnius is a part of some ethnographic region. Could the editor provide any academic references that prove such a statement?

As far as I known Vilnius does not belong to any ethnographic region.

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. --Lysytalk 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 ? --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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 ? --Lysytalk 19:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. See the earlier discussion at #Polish painter above. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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 :-) --Lysytalk 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Done, unless someone reverts :) Renata 22:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I know someone who will. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 07:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Checked it: first regular buses in 1926. --Lysytalk 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 ? --Lysytalk 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 [4] 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. --Lysytalk 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 [5].--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. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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 ? --Lysytalk 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). --Lysytalk 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. [6] 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. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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: [7].-- 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)

"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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.41.4 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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?
    for infobox?
  • Synagogue
    Synagogue

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

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 [8] 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))

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

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vilnius/Archive_3&oldid=1274580826"