Talk:History of Vilnius

Taryba

You're right about "Taryba". "Council of Lithuania" is probably the best. However I'm not sure if this relates to History of Vilnius at all, rather to History of Lithuania, so I would delete Cntence there. What do you think ? Lysy 21:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it could remain, as the fact that such a thing happened in Vilnius is part of city's history, same as probably you would mention Union of Lublin in case you'd be writting article on History of Lublin and such.DeirYassin 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good. Take a look at the beginning of the section and see if I have not made a mess in the paragraph about the Council in 1918 there. It might need some correction after my last edit. Lysy 06:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is ok DeirYassin 20:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that the monarchy restauration story took place before declaration of Feb. 16

General notes

Hi. The idea to write History of Vilnius was excellent. Now, this page is better-balanced than earlier section of Vilnius article.

But let me list some faults of the contents.

National communities

“Rapidly developing, the city was open to migrants from both East and West. Communities of Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Jews, Russians, Germans, Karaims, Ruthenians and others established themselves in the city.” Let's look at possible association here of the word migrants and the later list of communities. Lithuanians and Poles can't be call migrants here, and Belarussians, when our state had been common for long time should rather be called local people than “migrants”. Very interesting fact, that historical Vilnius had streets, named after national communities. There was Jewish street, Russian street, Tatar street (Tatars still aren't mentioned in the list), but there wasn't Lithuanian or Polish street. And distribution of national communities was also different than it's put here. What concerns Lithuanian community, i think, any local Lithuanian community didn't exist separately from Polish one till the middle 19th century. But there are clear data about Samogitian community in then Vilnius, and there was respective street under the name of Samogitians. So, Samogitian community was seen as extraneous, “migrant”.─ The same with Russian communities: There weren't three different ones (Belarusian, Russian and Ruthenian), but one orthodox community, or two during certain periods with division into Russian orthodoxes and Uniats. So, this sentence needs to be specified. But i doubt how to do it. The one way is simply to add the note “which subsequently were known as Poles, Lithuanians etc”, meaning, that then names can differ from the listed ones. Or perhaps we should use names of communities real for 16 – 18 centuries? (Local Lithuanians and Poles, Samogitian Lithuanians, Russians (Ruthenians) Orthodoxes and Uniats, Jews, Tatars, Karaims etc.) so we should discuss it here.

I've made some changes, but I'm not happy with them. I think this paragraph should be rewritten. Or maybe add aditional subparagraph about religious groups ? Certainly these are important pieces of information for understanding the city's history. Lysy 06:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capital of Belarus ?

The second thing is this: “The city was initially planned as the capital of Belarussian SSR, but then it was decided that Vilnius might be used as a way to get significant influence on Lithuania.” It isn't true. Or, perhaps it may be understood as true , for the passive voice with no agent used to describe the situation. It's true that leaders of Communists in Vilnius and leaders of Belarusian SSR tended to incorporate the Vilnius region into Belarus without dividing the region. It's very doubtful, if they planned to make Vilnius capital of the Belarus, but it's impossible to deny or confirm it. All these discussions were informal and you could understand, what did it mean in the then Soviet Union. But the official position of the USSR (with understanding that no declared position was untouchable for bolsheviks) was, that Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania.
This position was also expressed in the initial secret protocols of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. The protocols contained a sentence, that said, that the both sides (i. e. Germany and the USSR) will respect interests of Lithuania in Vilnius question (the translation is approximate). In the later treatments Lithuania was “re-given” to the USSR's sphere, but this thing wasn't changed. It's appropriate to add here, that Nazis' government also tried to “foster” Lithuania and proposed Lithuanian government to take part in “Vilnius company” with support of German military forces (differently from the USSR, Germany didn't have borders with Vilnius region). Lithuanian government categorically refused to participate in aggression against Poland. After this Soviets seized the city and Lithuania was donated to Soviets. Logic of events is clear here. And – Soviets never negotiated Vilnius in exchange of military presence. Their requirement to allow presence of Soviet military bases in Lithuania wasn't connected with any compensation. Lithuanian government wasn't allowed to refuse Vilnius in exchange of not interfering by Soviets in Lithuanian life (despite, that Lithuanian delegation had such instructions). Linas lituanus 09:56, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Again, I've introduced some minor changes here, but this is difficult and I believe that further suggestions/discussion would be helpful. Lysy 06:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, this section, I think, it's all OK. All facts are said now, and concerning hypotheses I still could add some things, but these are little things left. For example, Lithuanian officials during 1939 – 1940 declared obviously dependence of Vilnius region to Lithuania, but Vilnius as the capital of Lithuania was declared very fuzzily (I mean declarations after the 10th of the October, naturally). Perhaps it was connected with very unstable political situation, international treatments signed by Lithuania and position of the foreign diplomatic corpus in Kaunas. Smetona's opinion was very significant, but I think, it's too vulgar to reduce all this to his personal fears. If it added something to Lithuania in the question of Vilnius, Lithuanian government with no doubt would have transferred the capital with formal founding of the president's residence in the city at least. I think, the government doubted, if recognition of Vilnius for Lithuania, by Molotov – Ribbentrop pact signers will not turn against Lithuania after the war. This way the capital remained not transfered till the events of 1940. But new puppet government of Lithuania didn't transferred it too. German Nazi administration also ruled from Kaunas. I should add that all these administrations recognized dependence of Vilnius to Lithuania, but the status of Kaunas wasn't changed. Some sources say, that even after the war few communist leaders in Lithuania doubted, if it was useful to transfer the capital. Some add, that it was solved in Moscow, what is quite credible. Linas lituanus 10:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, election area wasn't fully corresponding to the area of Vilnius region, whch was overtaken by Poland. Some areas where the election was done actually were outside Vilnius region, and other, much larger, areas, including e.g. major city of Gardinas/Hrodna, were a part of Vilnius region, but despite of that elections weren't done there. It didn't fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either

- That's one of many possible examples of this article stylistic clumsiness. It seems rather obvious, that elections to the parliament of "Central Lithuania" are supposed to be conducted on the territory of "Central Lithuania", not somewhere else. Territtorial divisions invented and applied by Lithuanian governement to territories it never actually controlled (like Hrodna) are mostly irrelevant here, or at least should be clearly labelled as "official point of view of Lithuanian governement".

It didn't fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either; the election area was larger than Central Lithuania, but smaller than Vilnius region. And well, to say that Vilnius region voted to be a part of Poland we would have to get all Vilnius region to vote, not excluding the Lthuanian-majority zones such as Druskininkai as it was done. Therefore there is information, that it wasnt done in the whole occupied Vilnius region (and it is not Lithuanian invention, but the territory whcih was given to Lithuania by Russia in the respective peace treaty).DeirYassin 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit of the chapter on PL-LT conflict

I took the liberty to make a copyedit of the part on Polish-Lithuanian conflict for Vilna. Also, I explained some things that were not clear, hope I improved the article a tad. Above all I wanted to separate what is clear to both sides from what is stated by Poles or Lithuanians only. Hence the explanation of Brussels talks (read more in the article on Central Lithuania) or the elections.

At the same time, I decided to cut the following part and move it to talk for further discussion. First of all, I'm not sure such a detailed analisis belongs here. But if it does, feel free to expand the part I replaced it with.

'The Poles were the major ethnic group of the territory and the only significant group of which clear majority of voters participated in the elections. The area itself was multi-ethnic, and out of Belarusians less than 50% voted, less than 20% Jews and less than 10% of Lithuanians; this was due to the fact that some viewed Polish-administered elections as not legal, because Vilnius and the region de jure were a part of Lithuania. However, in face of clear Polish majority, the boycott had little effect on the result of the elections. Since Jews were usually considered as more pro-Lithuanian, most of the potential pro-Lithuanian voters boycotted the elections. The election area wasn't fully corresponding to the area of Vilnius region, as Lithuanian government define it. Some areas where the election was done actually were outside Vilnius region, and other, much larger, areas, including e.g. major city of Gardinas/Hrodna, were a part of Vilnius region, but despite of that elections were not conducted there. It did not fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either leaving both many Lithuanians and Poles outside the election area.

As to specific concerns I have with this part (the reason I replaced it with a para directly copy-pasted from the article on Central Lithuania):

some viewed Polish-administered elections as not legal, because Vilnius and the region de jure were a part of Lithuania - well, the problem is that others view the situation as if the area was de iure a part of Poland, Russia, Germany, Belarus... it all depends on the point of view and I guess that all positions could be easily defended here.
out of Belarusians less than 50% voted, less than 20% Jews and less than 10% of Lithuanians - I replaced that with exact percentage. The guys at the Central Lithuanian authorities did a good job by joining the elections with a micro-census :)
Since Jews were usually considered as more pro-Lithuanian, most of the potential pro-Lithuanian voters boycotted the elections - this would need a source; As to my own views and books I've read, the local Jews were mostly seen as either indifferent or pro-Russian. After all, apart from the local Jews of Polish-Lithuanian ancestry (I mean the ones Central European descent), the majority of Jews of the area were so-called Litvaks, that is the Russian-speaking Jews forcibly resettled to the Pale of Settlement. Their support for either side in this conflict was very problematic.
It did not fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either leaving both many Lithuanians and Poles outside the election area. - again, this would need a source. I'm really curious which areas were left out?

Anyway, I hope that the constructive copyedit was a move in good direction. Was it? Halibu tt 19:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Jews boycotted the elections. Yes, they were pro-Lithuanian. Xx236 14:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of Jewish boycott of the elections. In fact only a slight minority of local Jews did vote, but the Jewish parties did take part in the elections (most notably the Jewish socialists in the ranks of the Socialist Party. In fact even the head of the provisional government was a Jew (and one of the strongest proponents of authonomy of Central Lithuania, BTW). Halibu tt 18:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war deportation of Poles

As far as I know the Lithuanian policy was to expell educated Poles and lithuanize the other Slavs, not to expell all. It didn't work, the Slavs accepted rather Russian language or kept the Polish one. Later Polish schools, "Czerwony Sztandar" newspaper, Polish language chair were created. What happened to Polish inscriptions in Vilnius? I have a big book with pictures, where no Polish word can be seen. As far as I know (some?) Polish citizens of Vilnius are discriminated, they cannot regain their homes and farms. Polish newspapers are printed in Vilnius, there is a Polish radio there. Xx236 14:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krivis

Whad does "krivis" mean here ? (krivis Lizdeika) --_Lysy^talk 07:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Sort of Pagan priest. Supposedly Krivis Krivaitis was the main priest. If you can read German: de:kirwis - it says it's Prussian. Renata 13:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WERS

From Davies WERS, p.53 and 54, Vilnians reaction to Polish Army, April 1919: "The Polish citizens of Wilno on the whole were delighted. Their politicians envisaged a separate Lithuanian state closely allied with Poland, on the lines of the medieval Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[...] Even the Jewish population, which was the only other sizable community in Wilno, welcomed the Polish occupation." Also, from WERS, p.48, about Lit-Byel: "The Lithuanian SSR and Lit-Byel had been a particularly throughout and painful political experiment. They turned Wilno into a laboratory of social pharmacology where the fill range of communist panaceas were tested out on the luckless inhabitants." Anyway, my question is what happened to the idea of Lithuanian state with Wilno allied with Poland? I.e. what went wrong before the PLW started, and Zeligowski buried the chances for alliences in late 1920? On p.57 Davies writes that "[the Polish capture of Wilno] thwarted the ambitions of the Lithuanian nationalists governement in Kaunas. Although very few Lithuanians lived in the city at that time, Wilno, or Vilnius as they called it, was the historic capital of Lithuania; the nationalists could not resign themselves to its loss. Fighting broke out which defied all efforts of mediation. The 'Foch Line' of 27 July left Wilno on the Polish side. In August a Polish uprising in Sejny and an attempt by Pilsudski to organize a putsch in Kaunas destryed any inclinations the Lithuanians might have had to negotiate." That explains how the things went downhill later, but earlier Davies wrote that Poles living in Vilnius wanted an 'independent Lithuanian state' (likely with capital in Vilnius) - which is the same thing Lithuanian nationalists wanted. So who prevented those two sides from reaching a compromise? Was it some Poles who wanted Wilno in Poland, or some Lithuanians who saw no need for any alliance with Poland?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem was a differing understanding of what "independent, closely allied Lithuanian state" means. Poles dreamt something on the lines of the Commowealth, where all power was in the hands of ethnic Poles, the state language and the language of the Church was Polish, and ethnic Lithuanians were tolerated as long as they minded their agricultural chores and didn't try to speak Lithuanian in the Sejm. Basically Poles wanted "kresy" - nominally independent, but really part of Poland in everything but the name, kind of puppet state. This was completely unacceptable to Lithuanians. When Poles didn't get what they wanted, the war started, as the attempt was made to conquer Lithuania by force if stealth didn't work.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.206.209.197 (talk • contribs).

A fascinating speculation, albeit I find it rather counterfactual - the Polish-Lithuanian War was not started by the Poles (and who forbade speaking of Lithuanian in the Sejm??). Anybody else?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, referring to an obsolete state of July 27 is good, but I'd rather refer to the October 27 Suwalki cease fire agreement (and , and at the time it was broken by Poles. And as I've last time seen line drawn by the last legal agreement (Suwalki), Vilnius was on Lithuanian side.Lokyz 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lizdeika named Radziwill ref

Lysy, I know the legend, and the interpretation of the intial reason it was created (by H. Łowmiański, if I'm not mistaken), just somehow I managed to miss a part, where Lizdeika was named Radziwill, especially the linguistic research part of the legend. Are you sure those references do state exactly what it is said in this part, especially about Belarus and Polish language? (that part I was asking to reference, not the part about legend of iron wolf) I cannot check them right now, so just curiuos, whether Tomas Venclova did know something about that "radzicz" part.

Ah one more thing - why do not create an article about Henryk Łowmiański. I think he's not so loved by Polish editors, because he was amongst the first Poles to research history of Grand Duchy and even managed to find Lithuanians there. By this I do suggest an opportunity to work together. Lokyz 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I've checked the references before posting them. They do not mention about Polish or Belarusian language, this I thing is an extra explanation for an English reader, as for the Poles it would be too obvious. Here is the exact citation (please forgive me for citing in Polish): "Lizdejce za wytłumaczenie snu wieszczego wielki książę rozkazał zwać się Radziwiłłem". I think I'll have to go offline for now. --Lysy^talk 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For sure you've cited Venclova:) Another simple question - do they state source of that legend? And last one whether amove of citations before linguistic interpretation would be a deadly sin by me?--Lokyz 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

For the sentence: One of the unfortunate decisions made by Lithuanian authorities in this period was the closure and liquidation of Vilnius University on December 15th, 1939. The Vilnius University article states On December 13, 1939 [2], the new University Charter specified that Vilnius University was to be governed according to the statute of the Vytautas Magnus University of Kaunas, and that Lithuanian language programs and faculties would be established. . This needs to be clarified (references, anyone?). The conducting a policy of repressions against the inhabitants of the town part should also be expanded into more then this stub-sentence (althogh perhaps the Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II article would be a more appopriate place?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius University was closed and replaced by a branch unit of the Kaunas University. --Lysy^talk 09:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name Kaunas University emerged only after WWII, when remains of Vytautas Magnus University was reopened by Soviets. it did not last long. Vytautas Magnus University of Kaunas was never an official name, I know you'd like to refer to it as Litwa Kowienska, but please, do not invent names tha did not exist.--Lokyz 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to use "Kaunas University" as the official name. I only wanted to say "the University that was in Kaunas", regardless of what was its name. --Lysy^talk 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of pleasant discussion, may I suggest you try not to guess what other editors would like to say but didn't? Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of pleasant discussion, may I suggest you try t use official names of institutions?--Lokyz 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway it is a good place to mention Polish sanctions against Lithuanian cultural organizations and schools: to my knowledge, almost all the higher schools during occupation were closed, only Vytauto Didžiojo gymnasium did exist (and it's rector prof. Mykolas Biržiška got almost shot, for "treason" - only Antante officers did save him. It didn't have an easy life all the time. And I still did not mention the number of closed or even burned private Lithuanian libraries, even of the religious of St. Casimir society (other cultural organisations didn't had a slightest chance to exist). It was official policy that Lithuanians "do not exist" here, and it was practiced at full scale. I think it was a simple eye for an eye situation, and no KZ'ts were needed to ignite the hate - there was enough atrocities before that (and after that).--Lokyz 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably very much so. It would be good to have the facts about the Polish sanctions against Lithuanians mentioned in the article. If possible, avoiding the emotional details, but including the meaningful facts instead like how many schools were closed, libraries destroyed, etc. Were the schools closed because there were not enough Lithuanian students ? Or maybe just as a form of repression against the Lithuanian community ? I've heard that most Lithuanians left Vilnius during its troublesome times shortly following the WW1. It would be very useful, if we could try to reproduce what was the situation in Vilnius and how it changed under individual administrations. Of course we need to be careful not to get involved into too much original research. But on the other hand I expect that most of the secondary sources on the subject would be either Polish or Lithuanian (or Soviet ?) and probably most of both Polish and Lithuanian sources remain silent about the facts inconvenient for the writing side. I wonder if we could try to compile something reasonable out of this together. --Lysy^talk 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I saw some English publications on Google Print that touched on the related issues. So let's see what English sources have to say before we have to go into the POVed local sources. And don't scare us with Soviet ones... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus you are entering an shaky ground here - what makes you decide, what of the sources ar POV'ed, are you qualified enough to judge that? Do you a priori decide that Lithuanian research is POV'ed?

IMHO English language publication found in Google books, i.e. citation taken out of context is not any proof, neither NPOV'ed . You probably better than me know that there are lots of Polish POV'ed authors publications in English, much more than Lithuanian. So without a doubt you'll find a "NPOV'ed" facts by some researcher,that suit you better. I did at least even read the whole book of some claimed historian "who saw it all with his eyes", as it is written on the back cover (and it is one of most cited book in nowadays Wikipedia for LT-PL WWII time relations, PL-Jews and PL-Ukrainians relations !). For anyone who does understand at least a bit on methods how historians work - it is a deadly sin to state this, and it is an exact definition of POV'ed. And once again, this book belongs not any further, than to the memoirs or fiction section, not as a NPOV'ed resource. And it is a proof how a NPOV'ed research cannot be conducted.

Once again I do want to talk about possibility to easy prove anything using Google books, It's just a simple question, how would you formulate request. Most of professors in the three universities I have friends, have banned usage of Google books for anything else, than bibliographical research - e.g. to find books not for citing, but for reading, to understand context or understand POV of a researcher. The books are to be read, to understand context. And history is a scientifically discipline that does not only research facts, but also contexts. Yeah, I know, Wikipedia is not looking for truth, it is looking for verifiability. So who does not allow you to go to library and read cited paper book?

As for the subject - it is utterly painful for both sides, and easy solutions like using out of context citations is only making it a boiling pot and even more painful. And more of this – it is not researched enough to make any further going evaluation and even speculations - i.e. WP:OR. Lokyz 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can worry about methodology after we get some data, Lokyz. And facts will be facts, no matter what the context.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, exactly this kind of approach is that does give me most worries, and a tingling de javu sense that I'm mumbling to myself. Anyway, any facts you could provide would be most welcome. Lokyz 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Wilno/Vilnius throghout its history

Please note that that info (referenced) is available at Historical demographics of Poland.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article I can't find the demographics of Vilnus between 1920 and 1939. If you have the data of the census about Vilnus or any source of the same, please present here. Thank you.--125.2.75.196 (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repatriation

I do have sources, stating that repatriation (or evvacuations, as it is called sometimes) was organized by Polish side, and that person responsible for this was arrested and eventually executed. It was quite different than what was happening in Ukraine. --Lokyz 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to share those sources with us. If they are not online, please include citations (in English) so we may all benefit from them. Oh, and would you have any sources about deportations and repressions of Polish population of the city that begun in 1939?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Snyder

Another interesting quote, this time from Timothy Snyder, Yale University Press, 2003, ISBN 030010586X, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Google Print, p.82: "Demographic realities were harder to deny. When Lithuanian troops marched into Vilnius on 28 October 1939, they were shocked to find instead of the princess of their fairy tales, the streets of alien Wilno, unknown, speaking foreign language." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed: "Yes to Wilno but no Krakau"

We could use some feedback on "Wilno"-related issues at Talk:Kraków#Wilno but not Krakau. --Irpen 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323.

Which name was used?Xx236 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwar

Can anyone clarify the changes in control from 1918 to 1922? My information is that: Vilnius (Polish: Vilna) was taken in turn by the Germans from autumn 1915, Lithuanians in December 1918, Russians in January 1919, Poles in April 1919, Lithuanians in December 1919, Russians (for three months), Poles, and Russians again in June 1920, who handed it over to Lithuania in July, before it was seized by irregular Polish forces under General Lucjan Zeligowski on 9 October 1920, and formally annexed to Poland in 1922 following a plebiscite. Can anyone verify these and add more dates for 1920? Noel Ellis (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my incomplete draft at User:Renata3/tvd:

Germans - Autumn 1915
Poles self-defense - January 1, 1919
Russians - January 5, 1919
Poles - April 21, 1919
Russians - July 15, 1920
Lithuanians - August 26, 1920
Poles - October 12, 1920

Renata (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tripod.com reference

The article currently contains a reference linking to this Tripod.com url [1]. The website header says "The following is a verbatim transcript of the booklet "Eastern Poland," first published in December 1941, by the Polish Research Centre in London, England." The WP reference further states it was authored by Edward Raczyński (possibly Edward Bernard Raczyński?), altho no author is mentioned in the website.

The Tripod-hosted website - which contains extensive stretches of texts - does not state 'reprinted with permission of...'. But IMO it may very well not be in the public domain - if it truly was published in London in 1941 - since British_copyright#Printed_works gives the term of author's copyright as the lifetime of the author and 50 years thereafter (as of 1911, term of copyright extended in the 1990s). If the author was indeed Edward Bernard Raczyński, his WP article gives his year of death as 1993 and his works published in Great Britain would still be under copyright. Halibutt, could you explain why you added Raczyński as the author; if this was based on some other information, could you post it here. You could of course also replace the weblink with treeware info that includes an ISBN number and book page number.

If you remain convinced that it's appropriate to use this website in the ref, or that some other copyright law applies, pls state that here, and I'll post a question at the copyright noticeboard and maybe at the reliable source sources noticeboard too, since I believe links to sites hosted by free services are disparaged on WP. Novickas (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you don't expect me to add ISBN numbers for books published in the 1940s, do you. Secondly, I'm pretty confident that Edward Raczyński is Edward Raczyński (he didn't use his middle name on his book covers) as he was pretty much the only Polish author of that name, the only Pole of that name in London at the time - and the most popular author of English-language books on Poland at that time. I have some of his books at home myself, most of them published in London. I can't think of any other Edward Raczyński that could fit the scheme.

Anyway, if you're not comfortable with linking the publication from within Wikipedia, then just remove the link, not the entire source. A book is a book, we can refer to it just fine without breaking any copyright laws (we're not republishing it here, right?). And be sure to contact the website's author to let him know he's breaking the law. //Halibu tt 12:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323

But what was the name of the city? When was the name "Vilnius" first mentioned? Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon

... the Grande Armée retreated to the area where 80,000 of French soldiers died and were buried in the trenches they had built months earlier. Some mention should be made of the discovery of these soldiers' remains just a few years ago. Sca (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vilnius Great Synagogue 1945.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vilnius Great Synagogue 1945.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Jewish Progrom - WWII

Do we know who started the "four day long anti-Jewish pogrom" that started immediately after the Lithuanian army entered Vilnius? Was it the Lithuanian army (that is what I would assume reading that sentence)? Lithuanian people? Soviets? Poles? All of the above? None of the above? Although not deal breaking it would be interesting to know for sure and specify it in the section. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This book seems to indicate that the pogrom was perpetrated by Pols who had been instigated by Lithuanian authorities and/or Lithuanian Fascists. The book also states that the anti-Jewish pogrom was stopped by Soviet authorities. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.de/books?id=AUYQ8JQ-iM0C&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=anti-jewish+pogrom+vilnius+1939&source=bl&ots=8gAIR7C-MG&sig=VhSBEjhGoMZv-OS7abR5Ygswp9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlqeDX4-7KAhXMNJoKHVyHAN8Q6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=anti-jewish%20pogrom%20vilnius%201939&f=false

It appears you're right. You can change the text or I'll change it. Thanks for finding the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I am glad I was finally able to help a bit in area I am clueless about. I will give it a first shot, but, please, feel free to improve, edit, delete, add, whatever, as you see fit, as you know a lot more about all things eastern European than I ever will.

I personally believe it is crucial to keep it very neutral, and not finger pointing, just straight facts, given that at the moment there is a lot of finger pointing going on in Eastern Europe where it seems like everybody is accusing everybody of being a Nazi, a Fascist, and anti-Semite, etc.

I have also been reading through this particular book in order to try and find out *why* some Lithuanians egged on the local Polish population to start an Anti-Jewish Pogrom. The reason why some locals responded to such instigations seems to be sky-rocketing prices and food shortages blamed on "the Jews hoarding food items away", but why would the Lithuanian authorities and/or Fascists be promoting hatred against the Jews?? I am also looking for other sources and other points of view. Unfortunately I cannot even read any Eastern European language. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If one day pogrom (one victim) gets coverage similar to the Holocaust of tens of thousands, it's a radical bias.Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Occupation Section

To which ethnicity did the local population that was transferred out of Vilnius belong to? I would assume they were all Poles, but I am not sure. More importantly, were they transferred, repatriated (if we look at the demographics it does look like a whole bunch of Poles moved to Vilnius between 1890 and 1930), or maybe deported? It would be interesting to know. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit of everything. But Vilnius was majority Polish even before 1890 - most of these people's ancestors had been there for centuries, they got Polonized back in the 1500's or 1600's or earlier. As far as the deportation/repatriation/transfer etc - a very small proportion of them were "repatriated" in the sense that they were not originally from the area. Like I said, most had roots going back several centuries. Some did leave voluntarily figuring Poland, although dominated by SU, was still a better deal than Lithuania as part of SU. Or they got a sense of the anti-Polish policies that were about to be implemented by the new hybrid nationalist-communist Lithuanian authorities. Others were forced to leave. And still others were forced to stay. Very roughly speaking, those with higher education were forced to leave, more or less to get rid of as much of Polish culture as possible. Those with low education were not allowed to leave even if they wanted to because they were judged suitable for "re-education", both in terms of accepting the Soviet ideology, and the Lithuanian nationalism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Vilnius before 1890, but Wilno.Xx236 (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Poles 1920-1939

Bad Poles persecuted Lithuanians 1920-1939, two sources are in Lithuanian only, no explanation what the Lithuanians did. Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Most of Lithuanians were forcibly exiled by the Polish authorities or themselves retreated to Lithuania. - how many left, how many were expelledm 32+22 mentioned or more?Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 88 000 settled - only one Lithuanian source.Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the history of Vilnius, the capital and largest city of Lithuania.

Either the history of Vilnius, today the capital and largest city of Lithuania. or the history of Wilno/Wilna/Vilnius, the capital and largest city of Grand Duchy and modern Lithuania.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poland-occupied West Belarus

As if there existed any West-Belarus invided by bad Poles. Ethnically mixed lands were saved in 1920 from Soviet genocidal occupation.Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of the Founding of Vilnius

What was the name of the place at that time? Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilno was a center of activities of the Communist Party of Western Belarus

Any important fact belongs here including Communist terrorism - After shooting a witness during a trial in Wilno on January 27, 1936, Prytytski was arrested and sentenced to death..Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiethnic city

Vilna was multiethnic, as far as I remeber there existed Lithuanian, Polish, Ruthenian Orthodox and Jewish parts. The city was situated in Lithuanian etnic area but very close to Ruthenia, so it attracted Eastern Slavs.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Vilnius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002131/http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php?reg=32 to http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php?reg=32

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Vilnius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Polska-ww1-nation.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Vilnius TV tower.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Vilnius TV tower.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues and classification

The article has a multiple issues main page maintenance tag that includes "More citations needed" (June 2011) and POV (neutrality disputed, February 2016) and that is just to start.

There are inline "citation needed" tags, one from February 2007, two from September 2007, two from January 2009, one dated March 2010, two dated August 2015, one from September 2015, two dated February 2016, one from June 2019, one from November 2019, and one from September 2021. There is an "inaccurate or nonfactual" tag dated August 2015. There are also "clarification needed", "specify" and "quantify" tags dated June 2019.

The B-class criteria (#1) states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited and The article is reasonably well-written. (#4).

I am sure there will not be any argument the article fails the criteria. Reassess article to C-class. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethocide of Lithunians is a fringe theory

We need far more, far less biased and overall and far better source to include such controversial information in the article, that Poland pursued a policy of "ethnocide" against Lithuanians. Pinging @Pofka as author Marcelus (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]