Talk:Vilnius Region

NOTE: some old talk is also on Talk:Eastern and Western Vilnius regions. Renata 05:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tuteishians

Where is source for 60% of Poles? This is not just for Vilnius city, but whole Vilnius region, including parts of it with Lithuanian and Byelorussian majorities.DeirYassin 20:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to 1916 census, the region had 58% Poles, (Vilnius city had only 50.2% Poles). According do 1921/23 census, 57.9% Poles in Vilnius region. Later, 1931 census of Vilnius voivodship: 59.7% Poles (65.9% in the city). All these results are consistent that in the Vilnius region there were slightly less then 60% Poles. I don't thing any oter censae than these were made at that time. Lysy 20:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

IMO this article should be either merged with Wilno Voivodship and Central Lithuania or simply reduced to a stub and then rewritten from the scratches. There are inaccuracies in almost every sentence here...

1. Vilnius region refers to territory of Lithuania which was under Polish control in the interwar period - then it is Wilno Voivodship
2. Major cities of Vilnius region are Vilnius, Gardinas and Lyda. - should either be Major cities of Vilnius region were Wilno, Grodno and Lida or Vilnius, Hrodna and Lida.
3. The region was first controlled by Lithuania, then taken by troops of general Lucjan Zeligowski. - oversimplification, see article on Central Lithuania; also, the statement is false at least in relation to Grodno and Lida, which were neither under Lithuanian control in 20th century nor where they seized by Żeligowski.
4. Because capital of Lithuania Vilnius was located in the region, Lithuania moved its capital to Kaunas - officially - yes. Practically, the capital was never moved to Vilnius, only several offices were moved there before Lithuania lost control over the city for the second time in a row
5. Polish version however states that the invasion to Vilnius region wasn't an occupation, because in the city of Vilnius Poles made a majority - officially the Polish army did not enter the city until it was rejoined with Poland in 1923. Also, it's not only the Polish version, since that situation was recognized by the Entente - and then all of Poland's neighbours (except for Lithuania). So, in other words, it's Lithuanian version versus the rest of the world (more or less)
6. because in the city of Vilnius Poles made a majority. However, Lithuanians tends to deny this version because in parts of Vilnius region Lithuanians were making up a majority, while in other parts Belarusians were a majority, and in some cities and towns - Jews; so Poles were making up only about 60% population - so, in other words, Poles were a majority in all of the territory. With notable enclaves where other nationalities were in majority.
7. Therefore Lithuanians say that - who says that? Mister John Smith or miss Jane Doe, but the whole nation says the same at the same time? Strange. Or bad English simply
8. Lithuania had more rights to the territory and to the establishment of multiethnic zone rather than Poles because territory was historically Lithuanian - what does a multi-ethnic zone (whatever that means) have to do with history? I suppose these are two completely different matters
9. Vilnius was a historical capital of Lithuania, and it never belonged to Poland. - Vilnius was a historical capital of Lithuania, as well as a historical capital of one of two major Polish provinces. In addition, it belonged to Poland between the May constitution and the partitions, then again during the November Uprising and finally in 1919.
10. mostly as part of newly created Wilno voivodship not mostly. Entirely.
11. In Vilnius region, Lithuanians were discriminated - needs a proof
12. Lithuanian schools were being closed down - the problem was that there were too many Lithuanian language schools and barely any Lithuanians. But still, it would need a proof that closing down schools was a matter of repression of anyone
13. Percentage of Lithuanian population was decreasing, especially in Polish-dominated areas. - needs a proof. It all depends on the sources you use. Which should be explained in the article
14. Jews also faced discrimination, same as elsewhere in Poland - what?! needs a proof
15. for example, the amount of Jews who could enter Vilnius university (named Stefan Batory university then) was limited the so-called numerus clausus was indeed introduced under the pressure of far right in 1937, though it was never fully introduced
16. and they were sitting in specially designated places. - nonsense, there were plans of the far right students to start bench ghettos, but these were opposed by both state authorities and the local professors.
17. Because, although Jews back then didn't have good rights anywhere in Eastern Europe - which back then consisted only of Soviet Union, where Jews had equal rights to gentile population... Even if we count Central Europe in, the Jews had full rights in Poland, Germany (until Hitler, of course), Czechoslovakia, Austria, Yugoslavia... As far as I know in the 1920's there were repressions of Jewish minority in Hungary and Romania only. Don't know much about Lithuania though.
18. in Lithuania they had better rights, - that is..?
19. some Poles were afraid that if a referendum would be done Jews would vote against being part of Poland during the Paris Peace Conference, when the Polish and Lithuanian government were trying to reach a compromise on the future of Central Lithuania, the idea of a referendum was boycotted by Lithuania, not by Poland. No wonder why.
20. However, referendum was done, and it was voted for being part of Poland. - there was no referendum in Central Lithuania. There were parliamentary elections and the newly-elected parliament chose (with strong opposition, also from the side of Polish parties!) to submit the area to Poland. It was not a referendum though.
21. However, because it was done under Polish administration, it's results can be disputed - it was not a Polish administration, it was Central Lithuanian administration. And the results of the elections might indeed be disputed, but there are no proofs of forgery or any other inaccuracies. The Lithuanians decided to boycott the elections and were hardly represented in the parliament, but noone forced them to do so.
22. and as well the electoral boundary, according to which elections to 1922 Vilnius parliament were organised, was not drawn to encompass Vilnius region, but instead it encompassed some territories which weren't part of Vilnius region nor claimed by Lithuania, but excluded non-Polish inhabitated areas, which were part of Vilnius region. - a nightmare phrase. Does it mean that Central Lithuania had also areas that were not part of Central Lithuania? Or what?
23. Lithuania therefore didn't recognised these elections or the referendum and continued to claim Vilnius as it's capital, seeking foreign countries support on this. - again, no referendum.
24. In 1927 however the situation of war was removed in Lithuania. - ? Do you mean the martial law? If so, what does it have to do with the area?
25. In 1938, when whole Europe was lookingat events related to nazi Germany, Poland used the time to give ultimatum to Lithuania, which required to renew diplomatic relations between Lithuania and Poland - if we mention Nazi Germany, and the Polish ultimatum, then we should also mention why was it issued and what was the diplomatical situation between Lithuania, USSR and Poland. Otherwise it would be an understatement.
26. Otherwise the war would be between two countries. - bad English
27. Understanding that Lithuania would most likely loose such war, it accepted ultimatum, which led to quiet protests in Lithuania. - what are quiet protests?
28. In 1939 Germany offered Lithuania to strike against Poland together, president of Lithuania Antanas Smetona at the time however didn't believed that Adolf Hitler would win the war, and he opposed nazism, so he decided against that, although with the help of Germany and Polish forces having to fight on two fronts Lithuania would have most likely been able to retake Vilnius region. - most probably not during the war but afterwards (four Polish divisions in the area...)
29. In 1939 Soviets gave proposal to Lithuania to give 1/5th of Vilnius region, including city of Vilnius itself, to Lithuania in exchange for stationing Sobvioet troops in Lithuania. Lithuanians at first didnt want to accept this, but later Russians said that troops would enter Lithuania anyways, so Lithuania accpted the deal. - bad English. Also, if you do not describe what is the region in question, then mentioning some 1/5th of it tells the reader nothing.
30. 1/5th of Vilnius region was ceded, despite of the fact that Soviet Union always recognised whole Vilnius region as part of Lithuania previously - except for the 1921-1939 period, when the Soviet Union recognized the Polish borders (it didn't have much option left after the Polish-Bolshevik War. Also, this part deserves a brief mention of the Polish Defence War.
31. Eventually Lithuania was annexed by Russia, then some more territories were attached to newly formed Lithuanian SSR - details badly needed!
32. during German occupation even more were added, however not whole Vilnius region - during the German occupation, the Germans added more territories to the Lithuanian SSR? Strange. Also, the area needs to be defined more clearly

--Halibutt 23:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

It should not be merged, both of mentioned territories means other things. Central Lithuania is smaller, Wilno Voivodhsip does not includes most of territories at south and includes more, unclaimed territoris towards the east. Besides, they has different meanings, Wilno Voivodship was administrative unit of Poland, Central Lithuania was a puppte state, Vilnius region is the territory, claimed by Lithuania. It would be same as merging Kashmir with Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, or mergin West Bank with Judea/Samaria; in other words, Wikipedia does not does such practice, it is revisionist. DeirYassin 05:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Another comment: Vilnius, Gardinas and Lyda, are official names of cities of Vilnius region; by this time official names already should be used, same as you use Wilno, Grodno, etc. for Polish cities. Vilnius region, when mentioned in this context, in generally means territory of Lithuania (or claimed by Lithuania), therefore Lithuanian names should be used. Wilno Voivodship is territory of Poland, so it's cities might be named in Polish if there'd be list. And please do not change city names in any of the articles: you yourself tend to use Polsih names for all cities in polish-Lithuanian commonwealth for example instead of local names, even for fiefs, e.g. Kroliewiec. You can write more in supposedly oversimplified parts. Zeligovski was Polish general and I hope you understand how it was and I hope that you dont think that he was soem independent person and that his actions werent influenced by Poland. Cause if you believe things like that, then there wouldnt be much point in discussing because you would always just take Polish opinion anyways. Will write more later. DeirYassin 06:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As for other countries in the world; Poland qwas a stronger country and more useful for Western European countries (cause of being between Germany and Russia where they wanted to have a strong country), therefore it was supported. It is official capital what matters; Amsterdam is Dutch capital even though king residence is in Hague. "Barely any Lithuanians" - there were whole regions with Lithuanian majority. Central Lithuania did not encompass whole Vilnius region. Electoral region (the zone where election was made) was larger than Central Lithuania ("state"), it included more territories, but still not whole Vilnius region. The repelling of War Situation in Lithuania has to do with Vilnius region, because that martial law was established cause of the occupation of Vilnius region; it's repelling meant that Lithuanian position is getting gentler. Quiet protests - people quietly gathered in Kaunas, as far as I remember with candles, in black clothes. As for "Lithuanians say" - well, I can tell that once in an article I wrote exact info on who says what and in what book and that was not liked. As for more territories being attached to LSSR, those were Švenčionys and surroundings and Druskininkai and surroundings, also Dieveniškės and surroundings. There was the Lithuanian region part of Ostland, and it is mentioned how it differed in size comparing to LSSR. Well, historically Lithuania of course had more rights to Vilnius, and that kingdom of Poland was also union of Poland and Lithuania, and it existed for few years, while Vilnius was Lithuanian for hundreds of years. Vilnius region was not entirely in Wilno voivodship. Central Lithuania was (the state), but not Vilnius region. I think misconception here arises probably cause Poles calls both the occupied zone and the "state" established in part of that zone Central Lithuania; that is why two articles are needed, one about the state, and one about the occupied territory as a whole. In Lithuanian these are separated, the state is called "Vidurio Lietuva", and region is called "Vilniaus kraštas". In short, you can edit the artcle where there are factual inaccuracies or bad English; but please do not make it into a Polish revisionist artcile as this is international Wikipedia DeirYassin 08:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Also I remember you objected word occupation somewhere. Well, as I understand the word, it means any inclusion of territory of one state into other state using force or ultimatums without the consent of first state. Therefore Vilnius region was occupied, as the territory legally belonged to Lithuania after Soviet-Lithuanian peace treaty agreement. Especially the parts where elections were not done (e.g. Gardinas, Druskininkai).DeirYassin 09:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you reply in points? It would be easier to keep track of the agreed changes. Halibutt 10:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I replied to the points in my string of four replies above. I'm not sure why you need ordering so much as my answers are readable and understandable anyways. If you don't understand one of it or so, you can ask about it. Sorry, it is not that I wouldn't respect you or such, but I do not see much point in rearranging what is already written, and because there is a logical chain between some answers it might be hard without rewritting. DeirYassin 06:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the latest edits by Zivinbudas. They hardly make this article more NPOV... Halibutt 10:31, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

All right, I'll check the status of our current dispute basing on my questions and your replies.

1. If we mention that VR is territory of Lithuania which was under Polish control in the interwar period, then we should write what makes it Lithuanian and when was it Lithuanian. The territory that was considered Lithuanian by most states at the time and by the Conference of Ambasadors was exactly the area of Central Lithuania. And all of it was incorporated into the Wilno Voivodship. Also, if the VR is, according to your words, the territory claimed by Lithuania, then why doesn't this article mention that fact? It's quite important here...
2. How come Vilnius, Gardinas and Lyda, are official names of cities of Vilnius region when the territory was by no means officially defined? Also, why were these cities named in Lithuanian (apart from Vilnius, which is a different case here)? The difference between the Lithuanian name of Grodno and the Polish/Belarussian name is that the city belonged to Poland and the Polish/Belarussian name was actually used by the local population.
3. remains unreplied
4. remains unreplied
5. remains unreplied
6. remains unreplied. According to all census data, with the German census of 1916 being the least disputed, the overall percentage of Lithuanians in said territory was roughly 5%; why try to hide that fact behind so many meaningless weasel frases?
7. remains unreplied
8. remains unreplied
9. remains unreplied (you repeated what is already in the article, without explaining anything)
10. remains unreplied. What parts of Central Lithuania were not included in the Wilno Voivodship? The very act of creation of the Wilno Voivodship included the term "all lands of former Central Lithuania" and the former "Wilno Department". Were any lands detached from Central Lithuania and added to other voivodships?
11. remains unreplied
12. remains unreplied
13. remains unreplied
14. remains unreplied
15. remains unreplied; it seems you used that argument to prove some point, but forgot to mention the details and the fact that it happened long after the area was claimed by Lithuania and was not a factor back then...
16. remains unreplied
17. remains unreplied
18. remains unreplied - and seems like a huge POV so far
19. remains unreplied; also, the same situation as with point No. 15: the only situation that could be treated as anti-Semitic, happened after 1937, not in 1919 or 1920.
20. remains unreplied
21. remains unreplied (unless you treat the remark on Żeligowski's liberty as a reply to that question...)
22. remains unreplied - what does that sentence mean anyway? Is it that the elections to Central Lithuanian Sejm were not held in other parts of the Lithuanian-claimed territory, which were not part of Central Lithuania, but part of Poland back then?
23. to be corrected, I guess
24. you failed to mention that the martial law in Lithuania was imposed, if memory serves me, in August, that is before Żeligowski's action took place. So, it has little to do with this article. Or does it?
25. remains unreplied
26. to be corrected, I presume
27. ok, thanks. Perhaps we could reword that bit?
28. interesting fact - didn't know that; it needs to be reworded anyway, since it suggests that Lithuania mercifully spared Poland from the tragic fate, or something similar
29. remains unsolved; how about some decent map that would give the reader a chance to see the difference?
30. remains unreplied
31. details given, more needed and the part could be expanded (?)
32. rewording badly needed..

So, all in all, most of my questions and remarks remain unsolved (forgive me if I missed any replies or explanations). Once we reach a compromise on the basic facts, we could prepare a new article and try to make it at least a tad NPOV. So far the present version seems completely unacceptable... Halibutt 09:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Before answers, I will write this as it matters to more than one question, it is the definitions. Vilnius Region is area which belonged to Lithuania legally because it was attributed by treaty with Russia. In Lithuania it was always seen as territory belonging to Lithuania but occupied, rather than claim. Territory, which was claimed, was the Suvalkai region. In the maps from interwar Lithuania which I have seen (I mean, published during those times), Vilnius region is always included, but in some maps Suvalkai region is excluded from Lithuania. Central Lithuania was a country established in part of Vilnius region; i.e. in part of region which according to peace treaty with Russia was part of Lithuania. Suvalkai region (claimed area) is NOT considered part of Vilnius region as it was not given to Lithuania by said Lithuanian-Russian treaty. Shortly:

• Vilnius region - area 'legally' belonging to Lithuania, but occupied
• Suvalkai region - area claimed by Lithuania
• Central Lithuania - puppet state in part of Vilnius region

Ok answers now:

• 1.Explained above. Central Lithuania (puppet state) was incorporated into Wilno Voivodship; southern part of Vilnius region however was not, nor it was a part of Central Lithuania. In some part of Vilnius region there were no elections either; however, the electoral territory was larger than Central Lithuania and included territories which were not part of Central Lithuania puppet state.
• 2.The area belonged to Lithuania and therefore cities were named in Lithuanian. I will not rename article Punsk to "Punskas" just cause there is Lithuanian majority there; XX age is not medieval already and we write cities according to official names. Official names in Vilnius region were like that (remember definition of Vilnius region; Vilnius region is "part of Lithuania" or claimed by Lithuania; Polish names should be written in article about Wilno Voivodship for those cities). In the same way if you would for example talk about proposed independent Kosovo state then you'd write Albanian spellings of names for cities and towns, but in common matters Serbian ones are used and so on.
• 3.As I said, if you see oversimplifications or too few information, you of course can write more.
• 4.Was replied (there with remarks to Amsterdam and Hague).
• 5.Was replied (there where I told "I hope you understand how it was" or something like it).
• 6.Censae were about languages, not nationalities, most of Polish speakers were polonized Lithuanians or Byelarussians; there was no major immigration to the area from Poland. I doubt many Scots or Irish for example would agree that nationality is the same as native language lol. And what is written is truth, Lithuanian-speakers were majority in some areas too, so were Byelorussian-speakers and Yiddish-speakers. And sizeable territories were with Lithuanian speaking majority. It wasnt done so as e.g. after WW1 with referendums in each area; it is therefre explained where each nation had majority. Sentence like "In eatsern Asia Chinese makes up the majority of population" would be correct, yet dumb; it always should be noted differences inside region or country or such if they exist.
• 7.As I said, if you see oversimplifications or too few information, you of course can write more.
• 8.It is discussed here whose territory was historically and such. All information is worth mentioning, historical claim always figures and sometimes starts conflicts (examples: Israel/Palestine, the claim bby Republika Srpska to the lands which were once Serbian bu supposedly were cleanised by nazis ("Serbia is everywhere where Serbian graves are" idea), etc.), so it is not that history would be unimportant. As well the previous remark about nationality/language counts.
• 9.May cionsitution worked for like few months and same was in 1919 as I said; but if you want to add that you can, however undoubtly Vilniu sis historically Lithuanian, it was Lithuanian for hundreds of years. As I also said, the May Constitution kingdom was still made by both Poland and Lithuania, even though those territories weren't clearly separated; same as for example Munich was Bavarian even during Hitler's unitarian rule. And also, contyrol during wars doesn't matters much (this is about 1919 arguement). E.g. baghdad was American recently too and etc, would that let you say that Baghdad has American history? Sounds stupid.
• 10.Explained at start and a bucnh of time previosuly too. Central Lithuania (puppet state) was included as a whole, but not the Vilnius region as a whole.
• 11.School closures, pressure over culture and language and such
• 12.So, maybe banning Latin script by Russians wasn't a repression either? There were many Lithuanans, majority at some places.
• 13.Censuses of Vilnius earlier shows over 2% of Lithuanians, in the middle of interwar less than a percent; some whole territories were polonized too as the maps shows, only elderly spoke Lithunaian there.
• 14-18.Correct as you wish though generally this information is not invented by myself, I believe read it online somewhere from some site about Jewish history in Eastern Europe or such.
• 19.There was this trying to influence locals of various nationalities to vote for them and such, in the elections and such.
• 20.Ok
• 21.Answered to some extent, but you can add more info to article on this topic if you want.
• 22.Explained above these point-answerings in definitions of VR, SR and CL.
• 23.Ok, change to elections
• 24.The war situation was kept however cause of occupation of Vilnius region.
• 25.As I said, if you see oversimplifications or too few information, you of course can write more.
• 26.Ok.
• 27.Ok.
• 28.Ok.
• 29.Yes probably will do once, or translate the map I drawn for Lithuanian wiki (link bellow).
• 30.As I said, if you see oversimplifications or too few information, you of course can write more. Soviets used to support Lithuania though afak, at least officially.
• 31,32.Explained. http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lietuvos_sienos scroll down for map drawn by me so not too good; purple in that map is territory given back to Lithuania in 1939, red and dark red - territories, attached after Soviet occupation to LSSR. Dark red - territory attached by Germans directly to Germany. Green - territories, attached to Lithuania by Germans, but removed again by Soviets. Yellow - teritorries never regained by Lithuania (bot Vilnius region and Suvalkai region). Map is not very correct but it gives the idea.

DeirYassin 12:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, only few points:

• Lithuanians were polonized almost exclusively in Lithuanian cities - Vilnius, Kaunas, Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Mariampolė... etcr. in second half of XIXth century - early XXth century (in occupied Vilnius at least to 1939). In Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region) part of willage people were not polonized but became (mostly in XIXth century - early XXth century) Simple language-speakers (Tuteishians). It is big mistake to mix these notions .
• Southern Sudovia (Suvalkai region) was not only a claim. It is occupied territory the same as Eastern Vilnius region. The border was to Štabinas (former border between Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland) (correctly illegaly occupied by poles in 1569 Lithuanian Vojvodship of Palenke (Polexia), so we could mention as a claim only Augustavas city, all other part of Sudovia always was part of Lithuania. Zivinbudas 17:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, it was always a part of Lithuania, with the exception of 1569-2005 period. Strange logic... Halibutt 19:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I checked maps and he is right, most of the Suvalkai region was indeed part of GDL (including Seinai, Suvalkai and such) after the Union of Lublin (so it is not since 1569). Only Augustavas and surroundings were taken by Poland shortly before the Union of Lublin together with Palenkė Voivodship. DeirYassin 10:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

When something is with mind... nothing to do... May be is it strange influence of "Historia Polski. Klasa 10. Warszawa, 1935"? Zivinbudas 20:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Provisional version

I prepared a sketch of a new version of this article at User:Halibutt/Vilnius region. It is by no means finished, so please be patient. If you have any suggestions or remarks - please feel free to make them. However, let's refrain from changing that sketch; it is in my own user space and I prefer to finish it myself before moving it to main wiki space.

I tried to focus mainly on the history of the Lithuanian claim, as well as the reasons behind claiming the area. I guess that there's no need to duplicate the History of Vilnius and Central Lithuania articles there, the history section should be sketchy and refer to the already-existing articles. Also, I decided not to use the POV terms that would support or disprove the Lithuanian claim ("Polish occupation", "illegal Lithuanian occupation", "Martian rule"...). Please do not suggest adding POV statements, it makes no sense. Halibutt 17:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Notes: for reasons I mentioned, Lithuanian names of cities should be used; Polish anmes might be used when reffering to territory as part or Poland or Central Lithuania, but not when reffering to Lithuanian claim or such. Also what is not true is that it was claimed "mostly ion historical reasons taht it was part of LGD", well then Lithuanians would have claimed whole Belarus and etc. The fact is that these areas were previously Lithuanian speaking, and therefore because there was no immigration, people there remained ethnically Lithuanians; that was reason for claim. There should be more mentionings about this, also more mentionings about the ultimatum, more mentionings about Lithuanian views towards the "coup" by Želigowski and such. I think personally that it would work better if other points of view would be added to current artcile, because current version already has info from Lithuanian side and you could add info from other side. DeirYassin 19:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As for the current version: sorry, but I'm afraid it's bad. That's why I thought that perhaps starting the whole thing from the scratches might be both easier and more sensible.

As to Lithuanian names - I gave all of them in brackets, after the official names used at the time. Perhaps a compromise solution would be to use current names and follow them with Lithuanian, Polish and Belarusian versions), though that would be an anachronysm and would need all names explained in at least three versions (and why not in Yiddish as well?), which would be quite long. However, what's wrong with the Lithuanian names given in brackets?

As to other issues- I believe that the 1938 Ultimatum could be explained in a separate article, no need to repeat that info in all related articles. If someone will be interested, he'll simply click the link. As to the Żeligowski's case - it's pretty well explained in the article on Central Lithuania and in his bio note at Lucjan Zeligowski. What info is missing? Halibutt 22:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

As to the idea that the local Poles, Belarusians and Jews were in fact polonised/belaruthenised/semitised Lithuanians is already mentioned in the second section. What exactly should be added? Halibutt 22:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

As for that idea, IMO historical basis for that should be mentioned (I think it does not includes Jews by the way, as Jews moved from elsewhere, but slavs instead as tehre was no major immigration of them). I think actually for names good compromise would be what I suggested, writing of names depending on contest (e.g. "Lithuania continued to recognise Vilnius as it's capital", but "Wilno was made capital of Wilno Voivodship" - would be the best, because officially, Vilnius was capital of Lithania and it was written this way; while Wilno was capital of said voivodship and it was written this way officially by Poles). Names would be explained at the first time of mentioning. If you talk something about Jews, then it could be Vilna (Yiddish name), e.g. "Jews consdered Vilna to be Jerusalem of north". In fact, it is already this way (e.g. Vilna Gaon article; articles about Polish things mentioning Vilnius as Wilno and about Lithuanian things mentoining it as Vilnius). As for ultimatum, yes, it might be explained in separate article. Also some things should be moved here from Central Lithuania article, so they wouldn't dublicate each other, but rather Vilnius region would be about the region, while central Lithuania would be about the short-lived 'state' in part of region. DeirYassin 09:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the names - how about using the contemporary official names, with explanations when needed? This would be in accordance with the talk:Gdansk solution. While I understand your line of reasoning, I believe it would only lead to more confusion as to which place is referred to.

As to moving the content from Central Lithuania - what exactly should be moved here? Perhaps, in addition to the History of Vilnius, we could simply merge the historical info on Vilnius region, Central Lithuania, and any similar article in a separate history-related article. It could be named in some neutral way, for instance Polish-Lithuanian border disputes, or something along those lines, and could be linked from all related articles. That way we could avoid repeating the history of the area over and over again. Also, it would ease our control over what is added there by nationalist anons.. What do you say? Halibutt 14:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I think these things are mayb eimportant enough to deserve their own articles; Central Lithuania should IMO be an article about the state, give info about various insignia of it, currency, awards and such, the government and leadership of it, some of major laws and things like that, also life in that state and it's dissolution. Vilnius region article should in my opinion tell information about whole conflict, life in the region, etc. It wouldn't go too much into history of Central Lithuania as a state, would just say that this state existed, when it was estabilished and when/how dissolved, and that it's independent/puppet status is disputed and if someone would want to find out more about state he'd click on the link to article fully about it. The information about he war would be as it is now in Polish-Lithuanian war; three articles would be interlinked. Now it might seem merge would be good, but now articles are quite short, and if there'd be lots ofinfo aboutr Central Lithuania for example, merging already would make a too long and hard to read article.DeirYassin 20:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As to your remarks regarding the article on Central Lithuania - I fully agree. However, I would keep this article also focused on the Lithuanian claim and not the history of the whole region. In other words, I would prefer to keep the general history in a separate article. If someone would be interested in Lithuanian claim, details of the Lithuanian-Bolshevist Alliance and such, they could simply click a link. Here we could describe the claim itself, attempts at resolution, legitimity or not and so on. These matters are IMO too detailed to be included in a general history article - unless of course we want to write a book on it, but we don't. Halibutt 21:34, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits by Deir Yassin

I recently rewrote this article in order to better explain both the nature of the Lithuanian claim and the actual history of it. However, as I predicted, the article was changed by Deir Yassin to present solely the Lithuanian nationalist POV. Too bad, I was hoping to end the dispute...

Specific concerns are:

1. Deir Yassin erased the map, commenting that it's not relevant to this article. Perhaps that's how the thing looks to him, but the map was based on the map used by the modern government of Lithuania on its official portal lietuva.lt ([1]). If Deir Yassin disputes it, he should contact his local government agenda. Also, the claims on that map are even more modest than those stated by Voldemaras in his note of March 24, 1919, in which he demanded more or less 150.000 square kilometres, with Białystok, Drohiczyn and Nowogródek.
2. The mention of the disputed status of the area was replaced with a simple statement that the area was left as part of Lithuania according to Lithuanian-Soviet peace treaty of 1920, but was taken by Poland. However, during the interwar period it was considered by Lithuania to be part of it's territory., so as to suggest that the legitimate owner of the area was Lithuania, and not the state to dispute the actual ownership.
3. The explanation of basis of both Polish and Lithuanian claims was replaced with some obscure story of Belarusian National Republic, which claimed it and ceased to exist shortly afterwards, some two years before the Polish-Lithuanian conflict
4. The fact that the treaty of July 12 promised to Lithuania much of the area and not actually ceded was obscured. In fact, the Bolshevik authorities never transfered the authority over most of the area to Lithuania. Perhaps it would have happened, but it's not up to us to decide what would've happened. Moreover, the treaty of July 12 included lots of areas that were still under Polish control at the moment the treaty was signed - including the city of Wilno itself, that was lost to the Bolsheviks two days after the treaty was ratified. Which makes it a promise, not a cessation, since the Reds could not have ceded what they did not own...
5. A mention was added on the 1926 treaty with the Soviet Russia so as to give an impression that the dispute was settled and the USSR continued to support the claims. However, Deir Yassin forgot to add that the USSR withdrew from all territorial claims on Poland and recognized its border together with the non-aggression treaty (and the Lithuanian meddling was ended after Piłsudski asked Voldemaras on the LoN conference whether he wanted war or peace).
6. Hard data of the 1916 census (the only one that is not disputed by Lithuanian historians, as far as I can tell) was replaced with some strange inventions and claims that the Lithuanian speaking mconstituted the majority in the west and some isles elsewhere of the area, which is a complete nonsense (especially that even now, 90 years afterwards and after the ethnic cleansing of 1939-1956, Poles constitute roughly 60% of population of the western part of that area). I know truth might be painful to one's national feelings, but why not replace such rubbish with actual hard data? It's easily obtainable and verifiable.
7. Also, the mention of the censae and ethnic pattern was replaced with some strange mixture of ethnic situation in Middle Ages with Lithuanian claims and modern situation. I know what was it changed for, but why? Finally, in earlier version both sides of the story were presented. Now it's only the Lithuanian POV.

Anyway, I lost incentive to repeat the arguments over and over again. Halibutt 15:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

1. I have to repeat yet again that the map on the said portal is on Lithuania in 1918 as it is clearly stated there, that is, of Lithuanian Province. Besides, you used that map to draw supposed claims to the south, but used real claims (the ones I showed) to show claims to the east. Trust me, I know where the official (that is, the one according to laws of Lithuania itself) border of Lithuania went in the south. I seen many maps on this and they are shown in many books. I am not sure how could I prove it to you; as that map, it might show some initial claims of Lithuania, but for almost whole interwar period, since 1920 border treaty with Soviet Russia, the disputed area was only to the north of Nemunas in the south and Lithuania withdrew all claims to Bialystok and such. The border according to 1920 treaty went along Nemunas in the south.
2. I thought the new summary at the top would explain better what the region is (i.e. that Vilnius region is the region, ceded to Lithuania by Soviets but later taken by Poland). You can add though the Polish opinion too at the first paragraph.
3. As for removing the explaination for claims, I thought it kinda doubled "Ethnography" section. It can be readded though, if neutral, or name of ethnography section might be changed into "explaination for claims" and information added there.
4. Reds taken the territories though. You can add information that Lithuania controlled only north of the Vilnius region before Poland overtake it, that was not actually a very small part though. That should not also say IMO that Lithuanians has any less rights to the area because the south of it was not actually controlled (not something "Lithuanians claimed it despite that they never actually controlled it"); most of disputed areas in the world were not controlled by those who dispute it, e.g. Indian Kashmir was not ever controlled by Pakistan, Taiwan was not ever controlled by People's Republic of China, but claims are based on various documents, ethnic compositions, past, etc.
5. Ok, you can readd census information, I won't remove it. Sorry, I edited out too much there (it is true however that the census was done according to native languages rather than nationalities, and it is not the same, as for example the fact that great number of Jews spoke Russian as first language indicates).
6. It is fact that people in the west (around Švenčionys, Druskininkai) spoke Lithuanian, and in some isles (Rodūnia, Dieveniškės, Gervėčiai). I agree however that the current formulation might seem that more people spoke Lithuanian than actually did; should be changed by mentioning actual regions where people spoke Lithuanian, regions, where people spoke Polish and regions, where people spoke Belarusian - might be hard due to pidgins and disputed censae though, therefore available explainations about pidgins and disputed censae could remain.
7. Sorry if it seems too POV, but the first version was quite on the Polish side and at places inaccurate (as the one about linking census native language to nationality), I corrected it. I agree however that I might have pushed it too much, because I guess it is hard for either Lithuanian or Pole to write a neutral thing by himself. You can add more, eventually it will become something that will satisfy both sides I hope.

DeirYassin 10:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

badly learned Polish

It's POV. Xx236 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

MAP MISTAKES

The map data showing "the areas of Lithuania with Polish majority as of 2006" is wrong. Please correct it. Polish as majority are only in Salcininkai region and Vilnius region, without Vilnius city and Vilnius city municipality. In the drawn picture about 40% of Trakai region are marked as "Polish majority" while where lives 19798 Lithuanians, 12403 Polish, 3188 Russians(2005.11.22 http://www.stat.gov.lt/lt/pages/view/?id=357). Secondly, Vilnius city and Vilnius municipality contours/borders seems good, but the size of it is obviously too small compared with official map. In order to drawn correctly, I suggest to use a map with regions borders. In newly, correctly drawn map we should see Vilnius city municipality surrounded not from all sides by "polish majority", but as having "a corridor in the west-south direction".

If you can please provide, in the talk page, Lentvaris, Trakai, Senieji Trakai, Paluknis little regions stats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.25.150 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)