 | This is an archive of past discussions about Vilnius. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
How many Germans ?
How many Germans ? They are not mentioned at all in the above statistics, but Baltic Germans played a huge role in the history of all Baltic states, so I gather also in Wilna/Vilnius. Refdoc 14:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- To be sincere, I doubt there were more than 0.1% of Germans there - ever. After all the ethnic Germans in the Baltic States area were mostly either descendants of the Teutons and other German monastic states (be it descendants of German settlers, Germanised locals or whomever) or were settled there in 19th century, after some of the areas of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were annexed by Prussia. However, the Germans (be it Prussia, Teutonic Order, German Empire...) never held the area of modern Vilnius for long. In the Middle Ages they pillaged it several times, but were always repelled, firts by Lithuanians and then by Poles and Lithuanians. The next period of German occupation started in 1915 and ended in 1918, which is quite a short time for Germans to settle there.
- To anonymous user who added the table: could you help me with the article I'm writing on Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania? I'd appreciate any links with data from censae you have. Halibutt 16:07, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think you doubt on very poor grounds. The German Balts were of huge influence and had considerable numbers. Incidentally the numbers for 1897 - safely before the major "ethnic cleansing" operations of the 20th century account only for 97.6% suggesting at least one other reasonably sized minority. Refdoc 16:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed: 1.4% Germans in Vilnius according to Russian census of 1898. Lysy 16:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the pre-WWII period Germans were about 4% of the Lithuanian population . On the one side this might be skewed by the Lithuanian annexation of Klaipeda/Memel with many Germans following WWI, on the other side this is after already many years of nationalistic/authoritarian government with a fair degree of anti-minority slant. Refdoc 16:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Source Andrejs Urzde "Die Rueckkehr der Baltischen Staaten nach Europa" in "Der Burger im Staat", 2/3/04 page 104ff)
- Actually the 1916 census was performed by Germans. What "ethnic cleansing" do you have in mind in Vilnius between 1898 and 1916 ? Lysy 16:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually none in that period. There were plenty more thereafter though, you will admit. Lithuanians leaving Eastern Poland, Polish coming into the city pre WWII, Poles leaving in early WWII dt Soviet occupation, mass extermination of Jews by Nazis, post WW2 expulsion of Poles and Germans, deportation of Lithuanians, settlement of Russians. Refdoc 17:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, not quite so. But I get your point. You seem to believe that there were some Germans in Vilnius that were expelled after WW2. Lysy 17:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As to the Germans in the city and its surroundings: the 1897/98 census (check the link I posted) indeed mentions some 0.2% of Germans in the gubernia of Vilna (and 1.4% in the city itself). Other nationalities not mentioned in the table posted by the anonymous user were Tatars and Ukrainians (0.5% and 0.3%, respectively). The Others/Not specified category was declared by 0.4% of people in the town and 0.1% in the surrounding gubernia.
- That census is of course disputed by both Polish and Lithuanian historians, but I guess that the tsarist authorities had no reason to falsificate the number of Germans, the main controversy is about the number of Russians, Poles, Lithuanians and Belarusians. Germans were neither persecuted by the Russians nor were they being forcibly russified, so I guess the numbers might be pretty accurate. Especially that the 1916 census (organised by the Germans!) does not list any Germans at all ("Others" - 2.2% in Wilna / 1.2% in the countryside). This would also be supported by the 4% of Germans in inter-war Lithuania quoted by Refdoc. It seems reasonable to assume that most of them (even if their number was slightly downgraded) came from the Memel area, which (contrary to Wilno/Vilna/Vilnius area) was under German control for centuries. Halibutt 16:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Under these circumstances I think it is eminently reasonable to maintain the alternative German name of the city in the header, certainly as long as the Belorussian is mentioned. Refdoc 17:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ukrainian ? :-) But seriously, did anyone mind keeping the German version in the header (although a bit ridiculous)? Lysy 17:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - My mistake - corrected, Belorussian... Refdoc 18:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, I'l try to find that data. Data in the table I had posted is got mostly from "Soviet Lithuanian Encyclopedia" (except last years) and I'll try to search again. But actually there is one big problem (really, antipolish scam in this discussion seems to be related to this): most of old (pre-wwii) data is doubtful because of some kind almost genocide politics performed by russian tsar government in second half of XIX century (mostly after 1863 rebellion). Maybe it could look like absurdity now, but in XIX century there was widespread opinion that lithuanians are not nation at all :-/ And such opinion sometimes lasted up to beginning of XX century (the term "tuteishi" is traced to this). So, big part of lithuanians were accounted as poles, belorussians and (sometimes) as russians. It is even more difficult to redo such accounting when you try to relate this to teritorial changes (I had never seen any clear and fair national demografy investigation of XIX - XX centuries Lithuania at all). Also, about germans: there were lots of germans in Klaipeda (Memel) land, Prussia, but in central Lithuania (near Vilnius) there were almost none of them, mostly because of Russian territorial sovereignity. --213.197.137.20 18:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's exactly why I decided to prepare an article that would list all available censae for the area, with a short description on what are their pros and cons. As far as I can tell, the pre-1914 censae are disputed by both Polish and Ukrainian historians. The interbellum censae are disputed by Lithuanians and Lithuanian censae of 1939 and 1942 are disputed by Poles. Finally, we have the Soviet censae which are quite a different case. Listing them all in one place would be a good idea, the reader would get a pretty good overview of both the ethnic situation and the controversies surrounding it. Halibutt 20:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- The data for 1941 is not typo, it is mentioned in "Soviet Lithuanian Encyclopedia". Actually, I am not sure where that data comes from into that book.
- Returining to the table. Numbers in the table show exactly I wanted to say (if I, perhaps, wasn't misunderstood). I used the same statistics, only from other sources then. We see consistent increasing of relative number of Lithuanians after 1955 year. We also see increasing of absolute number of Poles during the same period. These both increasings partially are result of migrations (leaving aside the natural growth). You ask about emptiness. But numbers show exactly this. Halibutt gives us number 20 711 inhabitants of the city directly after the “repatriation” (1946, see the earlier discussion). Assuming, that among these 20 711 were many not Poles, even number of Poles 47 000 (1959) shows a migration, not speaking about Lithuanians or especially Russians.
- Year 1941. Where is this number from? Halibutt is right, census wasn't done in 1941. But, perhaps, we deal with real numbers of the census 1942? Our encyclopedists did such tricks, this way avoiding accusations from communist officials of “using nazis' data”.
- Linas lituanus 14:41, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Beginning
Well, there seems to have been a lot of talk about this article, but I just want to say that it seems to lack any introduction! You have to scroll a long way down to find that this is the capital of Lithuania! Should we have a first sentence that would say something like "Vilnius (pop. number) is the capital and largest city of Lithuania"?--Martewa 10:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, there was an introduction, only some malicious vandal deleted it. Check it out now.
- Lysy 11:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good grief, this discussion is silly. There is no "English" name. Since the WWII-era border & ethnic changes, the name by which the city calls itself has been Vilnius, and that is its "English" name, too. I've been there many times and it is indeed Vilnius today.
Regarding the extent to which the city was known to itself as Wilna prior to the Nazi-Soviet pact, I defer to others, but it seems that Wilna was the official name prior to WWII. It seems logical that this would have been rendered in English as "Vilna" -- but that doesn't seem very important to me, as this was simply a matter of phonetic English spelling. So I suggest the article refer to Vilnius since 1945, explain that it was Wilna before that, and refer to it in pre-'45 historical sections as Wilna. I don't see why we should confuse casual English readers with "Vilna" or any other versions of the name.
It's basically the same as Gdansk since '45, Danzig before '45. Duh.
Sca 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wait. Who claims the name is not Vilnius ? What are you referring to ?
- Lysy 21:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Blocked IP addresses
A number of IP adress have recently been blocked indefinitely by two admins, in relation to above racist abuser. I am very concerned about this as none of the edits made by these IPs were in any form racist, and some were actually constructive. If above "editor" uses an ISP which hands out dynamic IPs, it would be quite wrong to slap indefinite bans on such an ISP. I ahve unblokced a few of the blocked IPs after reviewing the contributions made. I think such unauthorised indefinite range blocks are quite off and possibly an abuse of admin powers - however upsetting the abuse. Refdoc 22:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Refdoc, if not IP blocks then how do you suggest to handle this ? (BTW, I'm not sure if this discussion belongs to Talk:Vilnius page) Lysy 06:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You are right that such blocks should certainly not be indefinite. However, the 3RR rule surely applies, under the logical assumption that all the 85.206.19[3456].* are the same person (very similar edits), so a certain timeout is in order (a bit more than 24 hours, since "disruption" arguably also applies for this kind of sustained edit warring). Hopefully, this person will discuss edits in the talk page in the future, in the usual Wikipedia way. -- Curps 09:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Refdoc, which of those 'contributions' you would call reasonable? They are disrupting this article to the extent of giving us two choices: range block or protection. Until I see any good contribution from the blocked range, I believe block is a better choice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think there are a bit too many assumptions - several of the edits by those I unblocked were good normal additions (i.e other language version links). Editwarring as such is not an offense we can ban for and "Disruption" shoudl apply really only to the offending person/IP and no editwarring is not "disruption" in teh sense taht we can slap indefinite bans onto someone. I think the usual ways would be RfC and possible ArbCom. Refdoc 09:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This is not an editwar, this is a single person refusing any discussion ("I do not discuss with slavic pigs" or such) and bullying the rest and effectively blocking any civilised discussion or development of the articles. Look at the history to see that there's a wide consensus that his actions are vandalism. Why are you supporting this behaviour please ? Lysy 09:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think you are quite off here, Lysy - I do not support anyone, least of all someone with such obvious racist rants as above. My point is that there is a) absolutely no way of making sure that this is always the same person (I pointed out good and valid edits) b) the range blocked is actually a fair bit wider than just 2 or three numbers, suggesting an ISP or an institution and c) the policy for such dynamic addresses is short blocks to allow other innocent users of the same ISP to gain access. What has been done is pretty close to abuse of admin powers. The right way is to get someone univolved to protect the page and then ius ethe proper channelsRefdoc 10:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good. I see (I hope) that these forced changes has somehow stopped today and it's possible to come back to normal discussion on how the pages in question (Vilnius, Lithuania and several more) can be improved. Please anyone, do not introduce any controversial changes for now without reaching a consensus first, in order not to provoke further vandal attacks. Lysy 10:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- as a sidenote: I don't think the edits that you mention as valid were such valid indeed, but I'm not sure what you're referring to and hopefully there's no point discussing these as things seem to have calmed down a bit today. Thanks. Lysy 10:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, theese IP addresses belong to largest Lithuanian ISP's DSL dynamic addressing pool. Domas Mituzas 12:41, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
So the lot really should be unblocked ASAP! Refdoc 14:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I would argue that they should not, but are they blocked at all, anyway ?
- I already credited the vandal with the peace we are enjoying today ... Lysy 14:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are basically willing to exclude huge numbers of Lithuanians to edit on Wikipedia just because one is vandalising the page??? I would really ask the admins who have blocked IP adresses here indefinitely to sort this out. If the vandal returns the options are short (15 min) blocks acc policy or page protection. Refdoc 14:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Come on, for some reason you refuse to accept that this is a single person, not a "huge numbers of Lithuanians". However I agree that blocking individual addresses is not effective at all in case of dynamic addressing. If the problem repeats (hopefully not) and persists, I would block the 22 bit netmask range for limited time. Until then second on that individual IPs should be unblocked. Lysy 16:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Picture copyright
I'm concerned about the legal status of this picture: File:Old vilnius.jpg
It's very nice, but is it public (or who holds the rights ?). Where is it taken from ? Lysy 11:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
About Vandalism
Why do vandales deleate our Vilnius version? Our version is correct, the version of vandales is ONE ENTIRE FALSIFICATION. The main vandales are Lysy, Halibutt and Piotrus (this is an "administrator"). Vandales have to discuss every change of our version. We very hope that it will be in future. Antituteišas
- This is a two-bladed sword. And why do you keep deleting large parts of this article? So far you've been asked several times to explain your edits - yet to no effect. The only effect so far was calling names and accusations of chauvinism, nazism and other bad things. Again, these accusations were not supported with facts, diffs and links either.
- Anyway, this is wikipedia and I'm still convinced that cooperation is possible, even after I was so severely offended. Just write here what you consider wrong and why, and we'll talk it over. Halibutt 13:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Please see the Lithuania article and all explanations - result: protection of page . I think it is very dangerous game. Antituteišas
- Apart from the fact that on that talk page you accuse Lysy of some bad things, there is not much serious talk going on there either. Most notably you have not explained your (sacred and true, of course) changes to the article on Vilnius, neither at Talk:Vilnius nor at Talk:Lithuania. And that's what we expect. Halibutt 14:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I can't name any your statement not even as serious, but even close to some truth - they are only falsifications. polish falsifications of our history. Antituteišas
- But which ones? Which are the statements you consider wrong or false? So far you've been meddling with this article for quite some time now - yet without any explanation of your changes. If we are to prepare a compromise solution, you have to state what is wrong. I mean what is wrong with the article, and not what you find wrong with the admins, or the wikipedians - or me myself, for that matter. Halibutt 15:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Please see our basic Lithuanian version which was in force until the changing and protection of false polish version -> history. Antituteišas
Because they are famous only to polish chauvinistes. The word "vilnians" does not exist in English language and in other languages. Živinbudas
- It would be very interesting if any of those lithuanian nationalists would come to lithuanian wiki and discoss this in our native tongue. I'm pretty sure they will start doubt if theirs opinion is correct and stop these silly edit-war games. I would also like that Lithuania would be such a great nation as it is told in lithuanian schools, but be realistic - that was just a nice patriotic view. So stop the wars, so page can be unprotected and other contributors can add content to the article - it is best for all. Knutux 17:11, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
I have the very big doubts that you are Lithuanian (probably tuteišas). But you of course can have your own POV. Živinbudas
AN OFFICIAL PROTEST
We Wikipedia's users from Lithuania declare an official protest against the licence of polish administrators and consider their actions (blockings and other) as a striving to eliminate Lithuanian users from the editing of Wikipedia. Those actions are even more strange and awful because of these articles being on OUR country and OUR capital topics. We FULLY SUPPORT our basic Lithuanian versions of Lithuania and Vilnius pages and reject the falsificated polish versions. In the name of many Lithuanian users, Ringaudas
- yeah, right. But why do you use plural? It doesn't make your revision any more backed-up... Here in Wikipedia facts do count. Personal support for various versions is not that important. Halibutt 15:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean "facts" - cheap polish falsifications? Antituteišas
- Stop wasting your time and feeding the trolls with your attention - this goes for Lysy and all others users who reply to this anon. Attention is what he thrives on. Ignore him and he dies. Dealing with Trolls 101 :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
--------------------------
/| /| | |
||__|| | DO NOT FEED THE |
/ O O\__ |
/ \ TROLL |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
to admines
Please stop vandal Lysy which erases discussion's commentaries and calls other users "vandales"! How long will this hooliganism continue??? Please block him after 3 changes!!! He usualy does 10 changes per day. Antituteišas
NO to all chauvinists and nazists
why do you both polish and lithuanian nazi discuss and change article about truly our, Belarusian, Slavic city? If not for the intrigues of some lithuanians and stalin it should capital of Republic of Belarus now! So stop both! --Monkbel 14:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
note: don't take my note too seriously. i don't consider anyone here as nazists and chauvinists, however it's the fact that Vilnius is Belarusian city, because of being the capital of Belarusian state for centuries.
It is Lithuanian city and capital for centuries. Before that it was Balts' settlement. Antituteišas
- It (in fact, Vilnia, not Vilnius) was never Baltic city and capital before 1991. Hedymin founded it, and there are no facts that there was any Balts' settlement before. After that it was capital of Great Duchy of Lithuania, slavic state, and Lithuanian city - Slavic one - but not Zmudian or smth Baltic, like Kaunas. Don't think that if Baltic state of Zamojtians (Zmudians? I don't know how it is in English) of Kaunas area could steal the name of great country it can steal its history. No way. --Monkbel 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- But sorry. I don't really intend to participate in religious-historical wars. It's a pity, but a fact - for last 15 years Vilnius is Baltic city. :( --Monkbel 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting teories. May be from "12 Chairs"? Živinbudas
separate History of Vilnius article
Could I suggest to move the "history" section to a separate page? Discussion regarding the history of Vilnius has lead to blocking of this article, and that is harmful, because anyone can edit any other parts of this article. It seems to me that all vandalism and edit wars are mainly related to the history section, therefore I would leave only 2-3 sentences here and move all the rest to the separate page, where disscussion about the history could continue. Dirgela 17:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Labas. Generally I would support this idea, but in the current situation I'm afraid we would just end up in having two articles protected ("Vilnius" and "History of Vilnius") instead of one :-(
- I think that the suggestion Knutux made (about Arturas/Antituteišas/Ringaudas discussing this first in Lithuanian wikipedia) could be a good idea. Lysy 17:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the best idea would be to discuss your cheap falsifications in polish wikipedia. Živinbudas Are you tuteišas (tuteiszy Polish)?
- Dirgela, on the second thought, I'm quite aware that the history section is far from perfect. I've made a copy at User:Lysy/History_of_Vilnius. Maybe we could work to improve it in the background, while the "official" article remains protected (and intact) ? But please, do discuss any changes on the respective talk page before introducing them. No brute force - this is the only way to go. Please contribute. Thanks in advance. Lysy 18:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dirgela, he first will make his "true" polish "version" and after will ask to discuss on that falsification without any changes. Živinbudas
- Živinbudas - why are you so brave then posting anonymously. Be a man and show that you can tell something as registered user. After you are registered, we can discuss any arguments you have about falsification. Knutux 06:04, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Lithuania+Vilnius
Need your advice on Lithuania and Vilnius on English WP
(This text was copied from lt.User_talk:Dirgela)
Sorry to write in English, but there is a matter on the English wikipedia that needs your attention. The Lithuania and Vilnius articles are currently the target of a person engaging in personal attacks. This individual has claimed that there is a Polish bias in the article. I am not qualified to know that and would apreciate it if you could review the article and give me your opinion. Also if there is anything you could do to calm down the user that is engaging in personal attacks I would be thankful. -JCarriker|Talk
(This text was copied from User_talk:JCarriker)
Hey, generally current version of "Lithuania" looks o.k. for me except "It subsequently lost most of its previous grounds to Soviet Union and was plagued by territorial disputes with Poland (over Central Lithuania and Suvalkija/Suwałki) and Germany (over Klaipėda/Memel).", which I don't really understand. Either it's because of bad English there or my knowledge of English is not good enough. I don't understand the part "It subsequently lost most of its previous grounds to Soviet Union...". Accent on the capital city is not neccessary in the second paragraph, I think. Especially doubtfull is the claim that Vilnius has been capital city of Lithunia until 1919, because from 1795 to 1915 it was only the capital of Russian governorship.
"Vilnius" is much more problematic. I mean its "history" section. First two sentences "The area of present Vilnius has been inhabited by Slavs and then Lithuanians for centuries, as is proven by numerous archaeological findings in different parts of the city and is possibly a forgotten capital Voruta of the King Mindaugas." look simply not correct. There are archeological findings proving slav population in the city, but I never heard about such findings in the surrounding area. According to archeological findings and written sources there was jewish community there from about 11th century as well. I never heard that slav population was there before Lithuanians as these sentences imply. Next parts look more or less o.k. until we come to the 20th century. This part looks heavily biased. It seems that it represents very narrow point of view. In the first two paragraphs it is only one point of view represented, Lithuanian government is not mentioned even if it have played quiet active role during that time. Calling elections to parlament of Central Lithuania "free" is not correct at least. League of Nations recognized Vilnius as part of Poland but not the elections and their results. The word "returned" sounds pretty odd here as it wasn't recognized part of Poland any time before. Third paragraph lists facts, which are correct, I guess. Fourth sentence is rather doubtful as Vilnius become one of the peripheral cities of Poland and its flourishing at that time is to be proven. Next two paragraphs look more or less o.k. The role of Polish Home Army in liberating city from Germans is exaggerated, Polish forces were very small comparing to Soviet troops. And the following sentence looks rather strange - it is unclear -was the repatriation of Poles expulsion or voluntary as these are opposite terms and could not happen at the same time.
If somebody is claiming that this article is biased I would agree at least regarding the 20th century history. I would not call it Polish point of view, because it is very narrow understanding which could be characteristic to the narrow minded nationalist. Hope that these remarks will help you in some way. I might be biased somehow on these issues myself, although I have MA degree in nationalism and I have learned to look at these kind of things calmly. Dirgela 16:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- One more thing - the "history" section in Vilnius article seems to be too large and deserves its own page. Disscussion could be continued there - blocking the whole article only because of its section seems to be counterproductive for me . Now anyone can add anything about transportation or climate in Vilnius only because of issues related to its history. Dirgela 17:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And why not post it in Talk:Vilnius? IMHO that page would only benefit from a serious discussion. Anyway, I'll list your ideas there and will try to find some better wording, let's see if it works. Halibutt 03:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I moved my remarks posted below and all comments to them to User_talk:Lysy/History_of_Vilnius#Addressing_Dirgela.27s_remarks. I hope you don't mind. Halibutt 11:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)