Talk:Lithuania/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents 1 Mindaugas II from Monaco? 2 Terms of administrative division 2.1 Polish example 2.2 Circuit 3 The need of a phonetic transcription 4 Changes in text 5 to polish "administrators" 6 Comments on Current Disputes 7 Context on Vilnius conflicts 1918-39 7.1 Why dukes, why kings? 8 Don't whitewash Lithuanian culpibility in WWII. 9 Vote for deletion 10 Confederation 11 Discution and vote about the Polish and Lithuanian city names 12 Protection 13 Explanation 14 Lithuanian translator? 15 Propaganda poster 16 Regarding recent edits 17 Answer and suggestion 18 Dear Hallibut 18.1 My sources 19 Lithuanian point of view? 20 My opinion about Wikipedia 21 Suggestion for Next Step 22 Propaganda controls the "independence" section 23 Please take part in the improval of this article 24 excessive wikilinking 25 North-eastern Europe?! 26 Religion

Mindaugas II from Monaco?

"On February 16, 1918, Lithuania re-established its independence. From July, 1918 until November of that year, Monaco-born King Mindaugas II was the titular monarch of Lithuania" - what the f***? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.12.179.6 (talk • contribs)

• That's all correct. That was done when Lithuania was occupied by German forces at the end of World War I. Germans did not want independent Lithuania and were thinking to make their monarch the head of Lithuania, but Lithuanians beat them by announcing Mindaugas II as their king. Renata 17:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Terms of administrative division

A vote started on the subject apskritis vs. county, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Apskritys of Lithuania - Vote.

I see a problem now. user: DeyrYassin decided to change counties to apskritys. This thing becomes more problematic, than we could think, for the term apskritis is new, coined only in the Lithuanian national renaissance period, perhaps during the WWI. Slavic words, both Polish and Russian, very differ from spoken stylistic of Lithuanian language, so Lithuanians easily changed many words of Slavic origin to Lithuanian derivatives then. And pavietas or pavietis, a Polish word, was among them. Using different names for different periods, we understand, that they signify the same entity, but I doubt if many users of wikipedia could understand it. I would prefer an English word to all this our lexical tangle. So, what English word do Poles use for powiat (in wikipedia and generally) and if you use any at all? Linas Lituanus10:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I see county is used for Polish powiat in English wikipedia. Lysy 16:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well of course apskritis should be left untranslated, same as oblast, krai and the mentioned Polish derivatives too. Apskritis is a special word used almost only for Lithuanian administrative units. Apygarda in some cases might be translate dto county maybe, but grafystė is the best translation as county is derrived from count (grafas). Even when translating from English e.g. US counties it is frequently translated by grafystė even though there are no counts ("Santa Klaros grafystė"), therefore translating apskritis to county is strange and comes out of misconception. BTW, I made a special article, you can discuss there: Translations of Lithuanian administrative divisions DeirYassin 10:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You might also notice that Lithuanians use "apskritis" for Russian oblast -- 'Maskvos apskritis'. I believe county is a neutral English term for such subdivisions, its ethymology notwithstanding. Look it up in WordNet for instance. Alga 00:29, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Note - actually, "sritis" is used for "oblast" rather than "apskritits" (Kaliningrado sritis, Maskvos sritis and such).

Poles use county along with powiat. If You want to simplify the terminology and to make it more usable, introducing apskritis you'll get the reverse result. You argue, Lithuanians use the term apskritis alone. It's not too consequent. If we assumed this, we should leave all Lithuanian words untranslated. We give Lithuanian original in the brackets, but county is used for simplification, especially when Poles also use this term for powiat. I welcome, what You do on normalizing this usage, but look at all this. You deal from the point of view of Lithuanians, but not according to the point of view of any users. - Well perhaps Eastern Europeans do believe the idea about existing some international words. They actually do exist, but with different meanings in a specific language. For example, there are no any counts in the USA with counties still existing. So we should assume, that this world has different meaning, than '”count-y” presently. Your proposed normalizing perhaps could be accepted in Lithuania, but I doubt if it will affect English usage. We, Lithuanians may translate, how we want it, either Santa Clar'os grafystė or Santa Clar'os apskritis, but it doesn't concern English language wikipedia or English usage generally. I think it's much better, to leave county with Lithuanian translation in the brackets than introduce new words Linas Lituanus11:23, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Well, in wikipedia powiat, voivodship is used, same for oblast, krai, gubernya, etc. So therefore apskritis also should be used, because it is a national term. Santa Klaros grafystė can be apygarda, but not apskritis. Apygarda is sometimes translated from county, but apskritis is generally used only as Lithuanian unit (maybe sometimes Estonian "Maakond" is translated as apskritis too, but definitely not what is "counties" in English speaking countries), same as I do believe Poles do not rename administrative units of other countrie sto "voivodships" when they are translating because that is national unit. On the other hand, oblast for example isn't national Russian unit as Russians uses word oblast while translating units of other nations, e.g. Belarussian Voblasc too, yet it is still used in WIkipedia. Therefore Apskritis should also be used. I am not advocating for using for example "Rajonas" which can be directly translated to "district", however as for apskritis, such clear translation does not exist and therefore would be mistranslation, unless new word would be made, e.g. "roundship", but I doubt the wisety of such move. And simplification is not needed here IMO; national things, such as national names of territorial units, national foods, national clothes and such shouldn't be translated to some "common" words which would be understood immidietly as such: simple clicking and reading apskritis article will help anyone understand what it is, while in 99% of contexts it will be understood anyways, because contexts are such as list of administrative divisions of Lithuania and such. DeirYassin 11:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The translation of Rajonas is direct as much as the translation of apskritis (one could say, that we mayn't translate to district, because the meaning of district in Lithuanian is apygarda (e. g. Washington federal district). By the way, don't you feel, that rajonas (the word of French origin, got from Russian) means the same as apskritis (our own word), if we look for a direct meaning of these words. But when we don't look for this direct lexical meaning and start do things more natural, then we should assume some other moments, such as possibility of understanding and possibility of translation. Consequence of usage in English of apskritis will be that English speaking persons will revise into Vilnius apskritis, Kaunas apskritis, what is natural for English speakers, but I don't think, it's acceptable for you or it's your goal. Lithuanians then will revert these intoVilniaus apskritis, Kauno apskritis causing this way not understanding by English speakers. All this will increase confusion with no positive imput. So, translation should be made, remembering suitability of it and compatability of languages.

Apskritis isn't any traditional national name. It's simply Lithuanian translation of French rayon or German bezirk (sorry for spelling, if false). But English hasn't an adequate word, looking the direct sense, although it doesn't mean, that these words couldn't be translated to English. County isn't a perfect substitution, but it is optimal at the moment. At least, we add Lithuanian translation anyway, which fact shows that translation may be conditional only, and all thinking wikipedia users will understand it. The article apskritis is also positive and welcomed. We however shouldn't turn English articles to collections of unused words nor revise usage of English according to Lithuanian believes. I don't say we mayn't do it in the sense of the KGB, but, I'm sure, it's a wasted work. Linas Lituanus13:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, but as I said, because English doesnt has word for "oblast" it uses the Russian one... Lithuanian language has word "sritis" so we don't say "oblastas". Yet for example we say "teritorija" or "provincija" - adoptions of names where we have no direct translations. Same for English at wikipedia, as you can see. I just used the practice which was done elsewhere to change "counties" to "apskritis". Although wikipedia policy is made by concensus of people, so it could be addressed by posting a poll for wikipedians at some policy page "About usage of local names for administrative units in cases where direct translation is unavailable in English"; this also would be about similar Russian names, Belorussian names (Voblasc), some other eastern european language (and probably some other language) names which are comonly used in wikipedia, and that poll would decide wherether these should be translated into "counties", "provinces", "territories", "regions" and such or wherether they should remain as they are. Because this issue is rather touching quite a bunch of languages and countries, and so it would be decided on the policy once and for all that time, wherether to put infront simplicity to understand for English speakers, or to put infront accuracy in such cases, as it is currently. DeirYassin 13:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding more now, as I did not see the first part previously. I do not think "rajonas" and "apskritis" is the same litterally, e.g. rajonas (or mikrorajonas, derrivative from rajonas) could be said about part of city, e.g. Karoliniškės, and same for English word "district". Apskritis, neither apygarda could not be used this way. I don't see much bad if "Vilnius Apskritis" would be used, I was thinking myself werether <kilmininkas> case should be used or just the name of city should be left as is; decided for this version, but I wouldn't see tragedy if other version would be used too, as it is with Oblasts (e.g. Kaliningrad Oblast, not Kaliningradskaya Oblast), Voivodships and such. Then again, districts inside oblasts seems to be called by Russian respective case (example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pskov_Oblast ), but I understand that might be cause of lack of knowing names of their capitals DeirYassin 13:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I meant, that the general meaning of apskritis and rajonas is the same, remembering, that they are almost not used in this general meaning, using them as specific terms for any concrete division. If you negate, that apskritis has general meaning at all, leaving the specific meaning only (like some cepelinai /lithuanian national meal, its name is made from the Zeppelin airship/ or kepurinė /Lithuanian folk dance, name is made from kepurė, a cap/), You aren't right. Without any doubt, any Lithuanian will understand it in this general sense.

I really don't understand such terms as national history, national terminology and much more national in the sense, that some people use. Terms must be understandable, history should be objective and so on. It's more useful for any nation, than create legends or myths instead of history and speculate on national specifics like terms and so on. It's like some game, which some people like very much, but which is unnecessary at all. E. g. You serve national specifics, as You say, but You allow “I don't see much bad if "Vilnius Apskritis" would be used”. What national specifics You can see in this Vilnius Apskritis, if not a game, and even without the glass beads. There are some people, who like their mother language, who serve it, and it isn't a game for them, but the expression of their inner egos, but I doubt if Vilnius apskritis coincides well with their ideas. And in the looking after the how Russians or Belarusians name oblast one can see rather simple aping, the biggest enemy of national identity, than defending of national interests. One will see and will delete from your texts these ideas, influenced by Russian propaganda. Acting without the aping, accordingly to the situation is more positive input to all, including national movements. By the way, Poles use name woyewodship in English and not wojewódstwo, so this name is at least adopted for English usage. That is all, what I could say in this situation. N. B. You don't increase amount of information about Lithuania, reverting things, which still were done. Linas Lituanus15:00, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Well I changed <naudininkas> to <kilmininkas> quickly but appearently you were quicker to see it lol. Anyways, I did not fully understand what you meant, but if you meant that I am copying Russians, well, it has nothing to do with that, this is international wikipedia. If info about Russia is written in one way, it does not means we should write it in direct opposite, whatever opinion about Russians would be. There are policies in wikipedia, there are precendents, there are some common decitions, and it is not that every person would write each article whatever they'd want it to write like. And it is not game, but rather thinking of the best way to say it and discution werether in case some name of administrative unit is not translatable to English it should be used untranslated, or should be changed into some random name for administrative division (e.g. it might be not only county, but also province, region, etc. too and these names are probably all used at various places for apskritys of Lithuania). And well, if it is said "He lived in Vilnius" in English, it is not said "He lived Vilniuje" anyways, so it won't be so that Lithuanian cases will always be used anyways, that's why I said it wouldn't be tragedy. I am not saying it would be tragedy if it would remain Vilnius County either, just that seeing other precedents Apskritis is better IMO. And well, I written a bunch of articles on things about Lithuania so it's not like I wouldn't increase information here; and I explained in respective talk page why I removed that 1944 date. This exact change was just to "commonise" it. As for national names, well, national history might have some terms too, e.g. like wojewoda in Polish, samurai in Japanese, and such. It wouldn't be better to call samurais "knights" or such, or call cepelinai by name for some food which is the most similar to cepelinai out of foods which has names in English language. Anyways, I guess that is all I could say in this situation too, for now. Maybe others would comment their opinions now. DeirYassin 15:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(as a sidenote: cepelinai is not very old word and I don't think it's of Lithuanian origin either) ;-) Lysy

Surely, but they are tasty sometimes, especially home-made, not in a pub :-))) Linas Lituanus

Polish example

I don't really think we should be introducing foreign words into English Wikipedia where it is not necessary. Maybe an article explaining what apskritis is would be helpful, but I'm not even sure of this. In Polish administrative division we seem to have it a little easier, as województwo translates neatly into English voivodship, and then powiat translates into country and gmina into commune or municipality. They are also well established names throughout Poland's history, so it may make things again a bit easier. We also have only 16 voivodships in Poland, therefore the 3 levels of division make sense. 10 apskitis (what's the plural btw?) for a relatively smaller Lithuania seem a lot (but that's another story anyway) Lysy 16:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank You, I agree with your position. You perhaps have miswritten and there should be county, not country, or I'm wrong? Perhaps logic itself dictate us, that we should inform rather than demonstrate. - Concerning Your next idea, our apskritys really equal to pavietai in the past, not to Woiewodships. Lithuania refused from earlier divisions into Voivodships or Gubernyas after 1918 leaving counties only (During Stalin's times, Oblasts like earlier gubernyas vere reverted, but administration of Lithuanian SSR refused from this larger division later again). There were more counties before WWII than now. So counties were enlarged. I think they are close to optimal now. Perhaps lesser animals may have lesser cells too, mayn't they? :-)) - The other thing, that during numerous reforms the administrative system lost its historic roots and some people say that elements of historical division should be reverted to the system. Their arguments are very firm, but it means yet one reform. Linas Lituanus 16:53, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Yes, was supposed to be county, not country, I'm typing too fast. But now it's too late to correct once you've spotted this. Lysy

The point regarding reasoning for smaller size of apskritis is that actually municipality is the "main" unit of Lithuanian administrative system; it, unlike apskritis, is controlled by people, elected in municipality itself, instead of people sent "from above", and has way more powers. However, there are 60 municipalities now, which is quite much, therefore when doing the last reform it was decided also to create apskritys, so that government would send officials to each of apskritis who would be responsible to make sure that no municipality issues decitions which would contradict law of Lithuania or constitution. Supposedly with 60 municipalities and one government to control it, this might be overlooked. However now some apskritys has only 4 municipalities, and average number is 6, so some people of those who tends to conserve budget, argues that currently there are too many apskritys and it would be wise and cost less money to keep less of them. There are a few ideas for that, one proposed by Liberal democratic party and Rolandas Paksas, which advocated the mentioned division by ethnographic lands, while other, suggested by liberal and center union suggests just to leave 5 (if I am not mistaken; each based in one of 5 largest cities) apskritys instead of current 10 by artificially changing borders between and removing ones based in smaller cities to make the remaining ones larger. Also please note that apskritis, nor district, shouldn't be compared to any unit of past, because it is not the size what matters, but rather role. As far as I know, role of apskritis in interwar period was different from the role it has now, same as there were different roles between most of mentioned subjects. Anyways, taht was out of topic I guess.DeirYassin 17:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surely. Rolandas Paksas is Samogitian and Samogitians advocate this idea very much. Linas Lituanus17:17, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Apskritis is apskritys in plural. As I noted in other articles, there were plans to lower the number of them to 4 and make them to corelate to ethnlographic regions more or less, nopw however this seems to be spoken less about. In past Polish voivodships were smaller too however. As for the topic, well, it seems word powiat is used in wikipedia rather than county, even if it would translate into county, and voivodship is direct translation from that Polish word anyways, that means, it is not used for anything else as far as I understand DeirYassin 16:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think/hope that generally in English wikipedia county is used for powiat: List of counties in Poland by voivodships or category "Land counties of Poland". Voivodship is hardly Polish word and most Poles would not undertand it. Voivodship in Polish is województwo (not this redirects you back to voivodship). But anyway, I think that forcing foreign words in English wikipedia is not a good practice and can be only misleading. Lysy 16:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Powiat is used at many places though.DeirYassin 17:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just looked at my "Lietuvos kelių atlasas" and it has both Lithuanian and English names. Apskritis is translated into Region there. How about this ? Lysy 16:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said, in various places it is translated in different ways, including county, region, province and such, because it does not have any direct translation to English. And that is one of main reasons to use original apskritis, while from all possible (mis)translations there could be redirects. DeirYassin 16:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't really have very strong opinion on this. Just "counties" seemed easier and more English. How do you think people on English language news programme will address Vilnius Apskritis ? Nobody would understand them if they'd start to use Lithuanian words there (similarly Polish "powiat" would not be understood by most of English speakers). There's simply no such word in English language and it is not being used. Lysy 17:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Lithuanians (not me personally) like to translate these terms. Why? I tried to add some possible arguments here, but I don't think DeirYassin was persuaded. Perhaps declension plays some role here? For a word used in not declined system seems strange. For example, I always feel some discomfort, when my name is used by foreign people. For really my name is 'Lin' and 'as' is the ending only, which functions like article or preposition. For me it's a trouble. When I started editing in wikipedia, I also wasn't sure, that this translation should be namely county, but I found later, that it is most acceptable and understandable for English speaking people in this case. Linas Lituanus17:12, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

The very word county causes some troubles to the non-anglo-saxon administrative systems. For instance, in the Polish-Lithuanian administrative system (which is still used in Poland) there was nothing similar to a county, neither ethymologically (no counts nor dukes, only one king and the equal szlachta) nor administratively. That's why I usually leave the term powiat in its original, Polish version. Of course, I could translate it as county for simplicity's sake, but I have a strong feeling that wikipedia should not be focused on simplicity but on accuracy. So, perhaps the Lithuanian example is not that isolated. Halibutt 19:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless you have List of counties in Poland and not "List of powiats", Zlotow County and not "Zlotow powiat" etc. I think we should respect the widely accepted usage in English and not reinvent our own, neither in Polish, Lithuanian or any other language. Therefore I believe that voivodship is all right, because it is in usage, while powiat is not. I don't even know how to pronounce it in English. Lysy 20:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at a number of Lithuanian web sites in English, both more and less official ones, and have not found any that uses "apskritis" in its English language version. It seems that the widely accepted forms for this are "county" and "region". Try www.lietuva.lt for example. Lysy 20:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/62955/255/ is an example; I will agree however that it is not widely used. However, there are a few widely used ways to translate it, which means, there is no direct translation, which was already estabilished, and therefore raises problems on why one of ways to translate should be chosen over another, when all are wrong. Also, I agree with Halibutt about powiats; therefore I tend to use powiat myself too when speaking about Poland or Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Wikipedia tends to be accurate rather than simple. County has direct ethymological translation in Lithuanian, it's "grafystė" (from "grafas" - "count"), but that is used only about certain foreign administrative units. Region is "Kraštas" in Lithuanian, or "Regionas" (latter is loan word): these words shares the fact that they could be said about some non-estabilished region too, e.g. "Lake region of Lithuania", "Ethnographical region", while Apskritis can only be used about estabilished administrative units with this name DeirYassin 21:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right. I don't have any more arguments :-) we just present different approach to the same thing. It's only important to remember to keep redirect where possible so that this does not result in duplicate articles. (un)Surprisingly no single English native speaker seems to have an opinion on this :-) Lysy 21:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that as a challenge :-) As I've explained elsewhere, I'm technically not a native English speaker, as I spoke only Lithuanian until I was old enough to play with other children outside, but, certainly, for all practical purposes, English is my native language.

I find it easier to read articles where an equivalent English word is chosen. The problem is that there are many English words that mean approximately the same thing: area, region, district, or (in a more specialized way) municipality, county, province. Therefore, if one is going to describe a multi-tiered set of administrative divisions, to avoid confusion, it is fairly important to do it consistently, i.e. it is no good if one author has regions made up of smaller areas, while another one has areas made up of several regions. As I use these words, there is no intrinsic hierarchy of which one refers to smaller divisions and which one refers to larger ones. It's fairly arbitrary, but one must choose a consistent set.

For reference, I live in the Town of Oakville, which is in the Regional Municipality of Halton (which used to be called Halton County before they reorganized municipal governments a few years ago, and is south of Wellington County, which is still called a county, even though none of them has never had a "count" :-) ). All of Halton is part of the Greater Toronto Area, which is centered around the City of Toronto (which, before amalgamation, used to be called Metropolitan Toronto and was made up of the original City of Toronto and, for example, the City of Etobicoke, (which was the Borough of Etobicoke when I was a kid, and was itself an amalgamation of the Township of Etobicoke and several other townships)). All of this is in the Province of Ontario, which is part of the country called Canada. In other places, there will be a different hierarchy of administrative names.

As always, when doing any translation, one has to maintain a balance between accuracy and readability. Mapping all the native terms into some arbitrary English equivalents will be more readable, at the cost of some subtleties of accuracy. Using the native terms (all in the nominative case, of course) will be more accurate, at the cost of readability. The question is, where do you want to draw the line? How much readability are you willing to sacrifice? How much precision in naming terms are you willing to sacrifice?

I would draw the line where some term can be translated directly into Einglish and where there is a common translation available, that way avoiding use of diffeerent terms for same thing. I think district of Lithuania qualifies that and therefore should be named "district" rather than "rajonas" and it is named that way. "Savivaldybė" is "municiaplity", and therefore should be and is left that way. "Kunigaikštystė" should be and is "duchy". "Žemė" is "land". With some other units, including apskritis, I'd rather leave the original name. I mentioned myself that there are counties without counts now, however, to Lithuanian they are still usually translated as "grafystė" or, in some cases, "apygarda". DeirYassin 13:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ifdef 12:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I guess in future it might be possible to do a vote on it in Wikipedia policy, that way a general policy on things like that would be made which would then apply for all countries with cases like that. The question would be about werether to keep administrative division names in original languages when there is no direct translation into English available, and there would be a list of names concerned in particularly, which would be Apskritis of Lithuania, powiat of Poland, oblast, krai, federal subject of Russia, oblast of Ukraine, gubernya of Imperial Russia and maybe some other if there are more such cases. In that case we'd get more opinions from people from respective countries maybe (more Poles, some Russians too maybe), and, what's more important probably, opinions of people living outside mentioned countries. However, I'm not sure if it is needed right now, but it might be a good idea for the fture to delimit a common policy once, so it would be known for everybody what to do in case some new arministrative divisions would come up too. DeirYassin 21:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I see discussion about administrative divisions of Lithuania is still unfinished as I understood. Then a short comment. Commonly accepted not only in media but also in scholarly translations from Lithuanian into English of word apskritis is county. And this is not from purely linguistic but from special terminological point of view. i. e. from comparative politics position the same term should be used when we have the same political institution. Apskritis is in various countries not only self-government(sometimes it is wholly not self government) but mostly deconcentrated territorial unit of central government. So it is the main reason to translate it as a county. The same way danish translate their amt as county, norwegian their fylke as county or swedish their län as county. I also translate these terms as well as english county, when speaking not about history but about current political system as apskritis in lithuanian. User:LituanusSapiens 18:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Circuit

The definition of apskritis is given as being "round" without specifying which meaning of round was meant. I've inquired on the talk page for apskritis as to the exact meaning so that the page can be improved, but if the meaning is "a regular customary course or circuit" might not "circuit" be the best translation for "apskritis"? Granted, it is normally used today primarily for judicial circuits, but has been used for other sorts of regional organization. I myself live in the 11th Circuit of South Carolina. Caerwine 02:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The need of a phonetic transcription

I've said, that using of extraneous words causes plenty of troubles. But let it be. Let's go further. When i revised these “Vilnius apskritis”, “Kauno apskritis” before our current revisions I decided to use the English word for apskritis because using of Lithuanian words complicates the system too much. The one problem of it is, how to deal with Lithuanian pronouncing. Now, I have an additional idea on it: user page: LinasLit/simplified_phonetic_transcription_of_Lithuanian_language_(wikipedia). Now, how it looks specifically and this problem generally?

Notes:

1. I know without any doubt, that we may add English phonetic transcription. And even more, if we add any other transcription we should add English one too. But the English transcription isn't precise for Lithuanian language. If we give the precise coat of arms, if we don't translate “cepelinai” for precision, we also should add a precise transcription, i think.
2. The Lithuanian scientific transcription or the IPA (which even hasn't any commonly adopted variant for Lithuanian) for Lithuanian both are complicate and cause troubles for editors not linguists, both for them who revise and for them who simply read the article. Linas Lituanus 12:07, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

• I think it is good. But a few comments: if it is done specially for understanding in English, maybe "sh" (š), "kh" ("ch") and such could be used? I am not advocating it, just a possibility. I'd personally prefer just using Lithuanian letters which would be explained at some place, and bolding the accented letter.
• As for diphtongs, maybe it could just be used that way: first long letter (dashed) if there is <tvirtapradė priegaidė> or long second letter (dashed) if it is <tvirtagalė priegaidė>. Pvz. Klaipėda wiuld be with dashed "i" and Petrauskaitė would be with dashed "a". As it might be hard to understand the accenting of diphtongs for English speakers (čia iš patirties žinau, niekaip neišėjo vienam raštu paaiškint kaip reikia "žemaitis" tart, vis tvirtapradę priegaidę dėjo kai į mikrofoną pasakydavo).DeirYassin 12:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

On the first paragraph: You are right. There are three already existing possible variants of transcription. I've already inserted some examples of the first, which consists of usage of English syllables: e. g. Utena ---> Oo-ten-nah. But this variant is very unofficial and it's the most inaccurate. For example, how one will decide, if “oo” mean short [u] or long? The second possibility is to use the standard English transcription, which is very similar in different vocabularies of English and thus well known for English speaking persons. One can use it for Lithuanian too: e. g. Šiauliai --> [ʃǝʊ'leı]. But although it's more precise than the first for general, it's still not sufficient for Lithuanian; for example you can't distinguish hard and soft consonants in it clearly. So we should use the third variant, taking a specific transcription system for Lithuanian. Surely, it should be understandable for English speakers. But I think we should use in it phonetic signs ʃ, ʒ rather than sh and zh (zh and kh aren't a standard English literals at all, they're used by Russians mostly to transliterate ж and х in Russian names). I think we may include also ɳ for such cases as in Dubingiai [... iɳg] and æ for the long e. I doubt if more English transcripting signs are good to use in this case, especially the vowel signs, because English vowel transcription is too incompatible with Lithuanian phonetics.

On the second paragraph: We should write our simplified transcription not in contradiction with existing scientific transcription. I thought , that it may be good to use the dash above for expressing the priegaidė, but it confuses length with priegaide and makes our construction less solid looking from the point of linguists. So, it's better to abstain from it. But I think it's possible, especially cases with the tvirtapradė are possible ( āǐ, āŭ, æǐ), which actually are pronounced long. Did You notice, that I bold not the whole syllable, but a separate vowel accented. It allows to express priegaides for diphthongs (dvibalsiams). Perhaps it's sufficient. In any case, true pronouncing of priegaidė requires going more deep in it, as You've already seen. Linas Lituanus 14:54, 2005 May 4 (UTC) (UTC)

I dont see most of special symbols used (except dashed ones and ones with ae probably) but see just squares, and it is that way both i baltic and western European, and as well in unicode encoding. Kh is used in English, only loan words though (khan, khaki, etc.), russians usually just writes x for ch as far as I know, even in latin translitterations. You are right about "zh" however. As for <priegaidės>, they still tends not to understand how it differs if one letter is accented or other; but I guess that might be very hard to explain in written words anyways. Those are just my remarks however, I do not oppose such system, and as filologist You are probably more knowledgable at this field, therefore I wouldn't argue against any of final proposals you'd do I think.DeirYassin 18:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Changes in text

1) Vilnius always was capital of Lithuania (since Gediminas times). Lithuania never recognized occupation of capital by poland (1920 - 1939). In 1938 it only created diplomatic relations with that country after ultimatum to begin war (see Talk:Lithuania -> Archive); 2) Lithuanian rulers after Mindaugas to Jogaila were pagan Kings of Lithuania, not Grand Dukes (the first Grand Duke was Vytautas The Great (since 1392)) (see Talk:Lithuania -> Archive); 3) Mindaugas continued uniting (began his father) only Lithuanian dukes to one state (see Talk:Lithuania -> Archive); 4) There was Third Partition of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, not poland (see Talk:Lithuania -> Archive); 5) Lithuanians established great medieval Empire which included lands of present Ukraine, Bielorussia, Russia and poland; 6) Poland occupied (1920 - 1939) Eastern Lithuania (Southern Suvalkija including), not unrecognized by nobody puppet "state" of "central Lithuania".

I will do my changes. Could I? Zivinbudas 06:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Zvinbudai, dabar yra anglu kalboi prirasyta daugiau ir gilesniu straipsniu apie Lietuva negu yra parasyta Lietuviu kalboi. Nekankink cia visus, prisidek prie darbo ir pradekite pyldyti Lietuviskus straipsnius.linas 05:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Gerbiamasai, išmok pirma rašyti lietuviškai be klaidų. Tavo trumpame tekste yra 3 gramatinės klaidos, nekalbant apie baisią stilistiką. Iš to sprendžiu, kad tamsta esi tuteišas. 85.206.192.246 05:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

to polish "administrators"

Why did you protect false polish version, but not discussed last (see Talk:Lithuania -> above) version? 85.206.193.33 09:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Because it's always the wrong version protected here in wikipedia. Halibutt 16:05, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly. Always polish version - lets be correct. 85.206.194.143 18:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Current Disputes

From a Wikipedia member who studied this area's history extensively, here's my two cents worth:

1. The historical comments by Zivinbudas ("changes in text") above all look right to me. I did not double check the Medieval rulers against a book, but the info sounds right. The 20th century info is absolutely right. I recommend that he be allowed to enter the information listed in his Talk section.

2. The writing of "Poland" as "poland" was probably not intended as an insult. In the United States many people use almost no capitals when writing online, as in "i was happy to see you, david, while you were in california." I prefer to use capitals, but all lower case is common.

3. It feels inappropriate for me as an American to tell Lithuanians what to call their administrative divisions -- we can give input but we have no basis from which to dictate. I would respectfully suggest that all other nationalities use the same restraint.

4. On that basis, as input for the Lithuanian members writing in English, I find "County" easier to understand (and the Lithuanian system corresponds to the way Counties are set up in England) than apskritis. If I were describing American states in Spanish I would use the Spanish term "estados" rather than "states" for clarity. I would respectfully suggest that if most Lithuanian government websites in English translate to "county" that may be the most clear choice. Of course, on a Lithuanian wiki page I would expect to see apskritis.

5. I believe that the tragedies of the 20th Century (and the 1790's) are igniting tempers on these issues, and everyone needs to calm down and return to 2005. Before Sarajevo, Versailles, Hitler and Stalin changed everything, my family's home town in Eastern Europe had Catholics, Jews and Protestants living together reasonably well. By the time the Versailles "compromises" were implemented and the Communists and Nazis were done everyone had been turned against each other, murdered, sent to the Gulag or fled for their lives. Many in my family were killed by one side or the other.

Each country has lost cities and territories they held for centuries. The boundaries are where they are, communities have been exterminated, there has been a diaspora. It's a tragedy, but 1991-2005 has been so much better than 1891-1991 that we should all be celebrating.

Coll7

Yes, I noticed that most of Živinbudas's changes are correct too, however, a few of them kinda makes article more POV however and I guess because he always just makes back the previous version instead of going to compromises it is not accepted. When article will be unprotected I'll maybe try to do some of his changes without full reverts. As for apskritis, it is not always translated as country, sometimes it's translated as region or province too and such. DeirYassin 08:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I will do my changes without revert. But result will be the same - reverting to previous version by polish fanatics. Please see Vilnius, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Partitions of PLC, Confederation. Zivinbudas 09:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Esmė yra tokia, kad Vikipedijoje reikia daug įrodinėti. Gali kaip pavyzdį pažiūrėti straipsnį Armia Krajowa ir Talk:Armia Krajowa, ten užėmė daug laiko, kol įrodžiau, kad Armija Krajova žudė lietuvius, bet dabar jau rodos straipsnyje ir liko ta informacija, nepaisant to, kad iš pradžių kokie keturi lenkai irgi nesutiko. Tiesa, jei tik būčiau atstatinėjęs praeitą variantą, greičiausiai jie irgi būtų tik atstatinėję savo, ten reikėjo daug įrodinėti, duoti interneto nuorodų ir panašiai. Gali pažiūrėti tą diskusiją jei nori.DeirYassin 09:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Malonu pabendrauti čia su saviškiu. Pažiūrėjau tą straipsnį - toli iki realybės. Bet šiaip neblogai - ypač patiko tas perspėjimas viršuje (!). Mes, lietuviai, visada turime čia palaikyti vienas kitą - kitaip pralaimėsime. Pats juk puikiai supranti, kad lenkų fanatikai sąmoningai išnaudoja anglišką Wikipedią savo propagandai skleisti pasaulyje. Juk sekei visą eigą Partitions ir PLC - kiek berašytum, pateiktum nenuginčijamų faktų - rezultatas tas pats - pervertimas i lenkišką versiją. Turime būti labai vieningi. Kartu juos įveiksime. Zivinbudas 10:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Aš paprastai naudoju tokią taktiką: pakeičiu kaip reikia, tada jeigu kas nors revertina, rašau į diskusiją kodėl ir pradedu diskutuoti. Atrevertinti atgal tokiu atveju nebūtina, nes laikas čia nespaudžia, svarbaiau, kad nauja versija būtų galutinė ir niekas jos nerevertintų. Tada po diskusijos dažniausiai prieinamas šioks toks kompromisas, arba yra parašomos abi nuomonės. Jei straipsnis apskritai vienašališkas (kaip buvo History of Vilnius iki man pradedant redaguoti), tai galimas dalykas kad pavyks įrodyti, kad nauja versija teisinga. Jeigu kas nors truputį paredaguoja mano versiją vienašališkai, tuomet aš irgi ją truputį paredaguoju, neištrinu redagavimo, bet padarau jį neutraliu (pvz. kažkas prirašė kažkur "Lietuviai žudė lenkų civilius", aš tada pakeičiau "Lenkai kaltina lietuvius lenkų civilių žudymu, tai grindžia tuo ir tuo, bet lietuviai teigia taip ir taip ir tai grindžia tuo ir anuo" ar ten kažkaip panašiai. Visas šitas užima laiko, bet paprastai taip suformuotas straipsnis jau nebbūna revertinamas. O nesamonių beje prirašo ir pvz. baltarusiai, kurie teigia, kad Baltarusija buvo pagrindinė LDK o Lietuva tai buvo atsilikėlių kraštas, ir kad pirmoji sostinė buvo Naugardukas (žr. Navahradak (kur visiška nesąmonė buvo iki aš patasiau truputį), Belarus). Bet esmė yra kad wikipedija - bendras darbas, taigi jie jei pas juos moyklose moko istoriją taip, tik tokią ją ir žino, taip ir rašo į vikipediją. Tai bus vienpusė nuomonė. O mes, pridėdami dar ir savo požiūrį, galime adaryti ją neutralia.DeirYassin 12:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Once we agree among ourselves (which is hard!), we should give the Wiki admins the chance to help us protect against emotion-driven reversions. But first we have to prove to them that we have in fact agreed. If the people who believe "Kas bus, kas nebus, o zemaitis neprazus" cannot agree with each other we will never convince everyone else they should protect our edits. Also, this is the English language article we're debating -- we have to remember that we're educating English speakers for whom some subtle issues are in fact not that important. Millions of Lithuanian-Americans (like me, sadly) have lost the Lithuanian language over several generations. Thanks for considering my input. Coll7

Problem is that most of "administrators" operating here are unfortunately poles and they do what they want. Ie see my mentioned articles - all protected versions are polish. But we have try. Zivinbudas 22:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know there is only one Polish admin here on English wiki. Which makes exactly 1/423rd of wiki admins Polish (check the List of administrators). Halibutt 01:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Great point. We're supposed to be creating unbiased narratives of the known, and our national origins or opinions shouldn't shine through and inhibit that mission. Until those of us who have studied these topics extensively can agree we're going to get no support from the admins. Once we have an article that stands up to rigorous scrutiny I bet we'll get all the protection we need against prejudicial rev's. Coll7

Zivinbudas version:

"Vilnius is a capital of Lithuania since 1940 (as well as for centuries from 1323 to 1919). Between 1919 and 1940, its capital was at Kaunas, though until March 1938 Lithuanian authorities did not recognize Poland's control of Vilnius at the time and considered Kaunas a "temporary capital"." (deleted)

"Municipalities cosists of over 300 elderships. This administrative division was created in 1994. The most important unit is the municipality (some muicipalities are historically called "district municipalities", and thus shortened just to "district", others are called "city municiaplities", sometimes shotrtened just to "city", or leaving just the name of city, and some are called just "municipalities"). Each municipality has its elected government, which is elected in elections of municipality councils, which previously used to be done every 3rd year but now is done every 4th year. Then the municiaplity council elects mayor of the municipality and other required personell (larger municipalities has larger councils and more officials). Also, municipality council sends elders to the elderships in its territory (small municipalities do not have elderships though). Now there is a proposal though that both mayors and elders would be elected in direct elections by people. As for apskritys, these are regions to which whole Lithuania is partitioned and they are ruled by people (called "Ruler of Apskritis") who are sent by central government. Their job is to ensure that in the municipalities which are in territory of their apskritis are working according to the laws of Lithuania and the constitution. They don't have a big power vested on them, and so there is idea that 10 apskritys are not needed for Lithuania, because that puts on average each just 6 municipalities to look after (and in reality smaller ones has only 4 municipalities in their territory), therefore there is a proposal to change apskritys by 4 lands, a new administrative unit, which would be carved according to the ethnographic regions of Lithuania. Another proposed solution is to expand apskritys so that there would be 5 of them, each based in one of five largest cities, while territories of 5 other municipalities, those, based in smaller cities, would be merged into these remaining municipalities." (deleted)

"Gediminas' conquers, Lithuania became a part of an independent multi-ethnic Grand Duchy of Lithuania" - changed to: - "Lithuanians established a great medieval Empire - Kingdom of Lithuania (later Grand Duchy of Lithuania)," (Kingdom for 9 years (Mindaugas) a great empire?? - Was the Grand Duchy not multi-ethnic?)

when Grand Duke Jogaila was crowned the King of Poland, - changed to -when King Jogaila became the King of Poland, (was Jagiello king befor he was crowned as King of Poland? )

In 1569 Poland and Grand Duchy formally merged into the new state of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. - changed to - In 1569 Poland and Grand Duchy merged into the confederation of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. (confederation?!?)

May Constitution of 1791, which abolished all the subdivisions of the states and merged into Kingdom of Poland. (deleted)

territorial disputes with Poland (over Central Lithuania and Suvalkija/Suwałki) - changed to - territorial disputes with Poland (over Eastern Lithuania) (no territorial disputes over Cetral Lithuania? - Suwalki Eastern Lithuania?!)

Coll7 wrote: The historical comments by Zivinbudas ("changes in text") above all look right to me

DeirYassin wrote: Yes, I noticed that most of Živinbudas's changes are correct too

Are you really sure? :)--Witkacy 03:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Some explainations of changes whcih I think are correct or semi-correct: Grand Duchy of Lithuania started in Lithuanian ethnic lands, with 70% of people Lithuanians (Baltic) at the start. Therefore it is so that Lithuania established the GDL, which later became multiethnic. The version that Lithuania became part of it seems that it was already established and Lithuania just joined it. As for king Jogaila, there is this interpretation that styles of all pre-union with Poland grand dukes should be King actually - they werent kings because back then king by Europeans was considered a person who was Christian and received crown from pope. However, their were leaders of their nation, and in some documents styled as kings appearently. And for example when we talk about early African states or early Asian states of that time, we call the rulers kings frequently, even though they were not Christians and in case their countries would have been in constant contact to Europeans, nobody would have considered them kings at the time. I am not sure if it really should be changed to kings, however it could be mentioned that some considers the grand dukes to be kings and reason for that. The Central Lithuania is not correct term, it was Eastern/Southrn Lithuania. I think should be written "Vilnius region and Suvalkai region in the southern and eastern Lithuania", would be more clear. And there was no dispute over Suvalkija, Suvalkija was and is part of Lithuania, around Marijampole. Suvalkai region is not the same as Suvalkija - Suvalkija, although started as a name to call anybody from Suwalki gubernya, later became synonim to call Sudovia ethnographic region. As for deletion of constitution, I guess it was done because the constitution was disputed, short lived and during it's time there were "confederacies" which declared it repelled and such. I think however that the constitution should be mentioned, but maybe a bit more written about it. DeirYassin 09:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are simply funny. I will not repeat the same 10 times. Read discussions. About municipalities - I have nothing against this - it was mistakenly deleated because of reverting - will be remained in future. Zivinbudas 05:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, I would like to point some points: 1) I wouldn't call Lithuania in time of establishing of state "Grand Duchy" - certainly this term is from late XIVth century; 2) I have very big doubts that in Lithuania at the time of establishing of state were 70% of Lithuanians. As you know our state started from Mindaugas' (correctly his father's) domain. Land of Black Russia (Naugardukas region) was united only in the middle of XIIIth century. The same about Breslauja and Vileika regions; 3) I agree that discussion about Lithuanian pagan rulers' titles is continuing in Lithuania. My opinion you know - ie pagan Irish and British Kings. So I would agree with your proposed version; 4) I think we should use the term Eastern Lithuania because it always was used in political circles of the time - there was one problem, not problems of two different teritories. The term Suvalkija is late (probably from 19th century) and emerged certainly from Suvalkai town. Historical term of this teritory is Suduva (Sudovia). Zivinbudas 10:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I got the number of 70% from history books, however this might be a bit later than the establishing (I think during the time when Lithuania already included Naugardukas and such), so during the founding itself it might have been somewhat higher percentage - anyhow, there were probably no real censuses then so it would be hard to get the fully correct percentages. But the point is that the country started from Lithuania. Suvalkija emerged from Suvalkai town (Suvalkų Gubernija, as I said), however as it mentions in the article now is that Suvalkija = Suvalkai region and it is even translated to Polish as Suwalki, that is misleading because it seems that in Lithuanian that city is called Suvalkija, not Suvalkai. DeirYassin 10:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. And I propose to use Eastern Lithuania - political, not only geografical term (Southern Suduva/Sudovia including). Zivinbudas 11:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

So, when was Eastern Lithuania a distinct political entity? Halibutt 14:42, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

If Lithuanians of some kind knew, why Poles call Central Lithuania central, perhaps they wanted to do the same? Lithuanians wanted to create the new state, in the territory defined in ethnological way, but Poles kept traditions of the GDL. This way Lithuania has the east, where the GDL (in its postunial variant) had the center. Who doesn't agree with this sentence? (By the way, Belarusians name it “the Western Belarus”). I keep this Polish point of view very very very nationalistic, because it can inspire our nationalists and Polish users will suffer even more (for example: “why did you _poles occupied the point of view that LIthuania can be larger for account of _belarusia, when it's true our LIthuanian point of view”). - Speaking more seriously, users should be informed, that the Eastern Lithuania can be used instead of the Central, or vice versa, but let's not reduce all to absurd. Linas Lituanus 16:08, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

The issue is more complicated than you describe. Some poles would like to use the term "central Lithuania" not by geografical but by political reasons - because of pointing on puppet unrecognized by any state and organization "state" of "central Lithuania". It is full nonsens. Zivinbudas 17:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in, Linas. So, is Central Lithuania the same as Eastern Lithuania in terms of territory (I mean geographically speaking}? Halibutt 01:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think the Eastern Lithuania is rather the part of the Central Lithuania in the present Lithuania, but it depends on context. In pre-war sources the Eastern Lithuania was used as synonym for Polish Central Lithuania, but in a clear context only (for it could be understood as the Eastern part in the administrative boarders of then Lithuania). The problem of understanding, what the phrase the Eastern Lithuania means, is complicated by the fact, that the both (or even three, including Belarusians) sides involved hadn't common conception about Lithuania itself. So, before WWII, the Eastern Lithuania could mean "the Eastern part of the historical Lithuania (including of territories ruled by Poland, but not necessary), where Lithuanians live", "the part of historical Lithuania, coinciding with pre-WWI Vilnius diocese (also not necessary Polish, Lithuanians got a part of the diocese too, there Kaišiadoriai diocese later was founded), or, especially, with the eastern part of this diocese" or "The Vilnius region, ruled by Polish administration". And "The Eastern Lithuania" can be used in these senses sometimes now too.

But the Central Lithuania as a political unit had certain borders and the term "the Eastern Lithuania" is never used instead of "the Central Lithuania as a political unit". On the other hand "the Central Lithuania" can have the common geographic sense, and could be used in this sense, e. g. before 1920. Linas Lituanus14:36, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

P.S. I see a problem in the Central Lithuania, but not like it was described here. The definition is of the political unit, but the description concerns mostly wider problems of this ethno-geographic region. I understand, that in many cases it's impossible to do another (e. g. The government of the Central Lithuania didn't pursued a census, etc.), but it seemed me confusing. I wanted to find more information about the Central Lithuania from other sources, but a time deficit didn't allowed to finish it.

I think it should be discerned in some way, for the Central Lithuania under names the eastern Lithuania and the Western Belarus exist till now, if we speak about the ethno-geographic region, but if we speak about the state, it ceased to exist in 1922 and the later development seems a bit not relevant. Perhaps we could give double definition (1. the ethno-geographic region with its present status 2. the state in 1920 – 1922) in the article, where the meanings of the Eastern Lithuania and the Western Belarus would be explained too? Linas Lituanus14:59, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Context on Vilnius conflicts 1918-39

Relevant background: After the partitions of Poland & Lithuania by Prussia and Russia in the 1790's, much of the area that was once Lithuania was governed by Russia. Where ethnic groups had ALREADY been intermixed for centuries the arbitrary borders were now different, so still more mixing (sometimes orchestrated by the Russian government) occurred. Then comes the Versailles treaty, the Russian Civil War and armies and people fighting to settle new borders.

Some areas that had many Poles, Lithuanians and Russians intermixed ended up in Russia. (And some of the "Russians" were in fact other minorities like Ukrainians etc.)

Some areas that had many Poles, Lithuanians and Russians intermixed ended up in Poland.

Some areas that had many Poles, Lithuanians and Russians intermixed ended up in Lithuania.

To the west you can add Germans and the descendents of the Austrian refugees from the expulsion of Protestants from Salzburg in 1731 in place of Russians, and you have an improbable Lithuanian-Polish-German-Austrian Catholic-Protestant mix. They were divided by new borders in sometimes illogical ways as well.

Some of the 20th century arguments that are interfering with finishing this article come from this period. Vilnius is historically a Lithuanian city. During the centuries-long alliance between Poland and Lithuania the city absorbed a lot of Polish culture, and there's a lot of documentation of it being regarded as a gem in the Polish-Lithuanian empire. A Polish minority came to live there.

In 1918-24 each side was fighting to establish those new borders. The Poles had to turn the Russians back from Warsaw. The Lithuanians had to beat back the Russians from Vilnius. I could list another 25 such battles, many in ethnically mixed areas where sizable minorities (and sometimes majorities) ended up on the "wrong" side.

EVERY side lost land that was dear to them where some of their people lived. Sometimes a more powerful neighbor took a region where they were the minority.

In that context the Poles (who were getting pushed at from all sides in the post-Versailles rumbles) seized Vilnius. They called the area Central Lithuania presumably because under the then-current borders it was in the center of the Versailles border between Poland and Lithuania. As I said, it was one of 25 such events as everyone jockied for control of the areas around them.

After World War II the Russians took over the whole region and administratively linked it to Lithuania again, since those were its deep historical roots. But the whole area fell under the control of the Soviet Empire.

Another reason this creates so much emotion for Lithuanians and Poles: In 1939 Russia joined with Hitler to again invade, conquer and divide Poland. The Jews who had lived in Poland and Lithuania for centuries were destroyed by the Holocaust. After World War II Russia took the eastern "slice" of Poland 200 miles wide that Hitler had given them and made it part of Russia, and in turn they gave a similar slice of eastern Germany to Poland. The Russians also took the German areas of East Prussia and the major German city of Konigsberg as compensation for the damage of the war. All these areas had heavily mixed populations for centuries. All the Germans were expelled from the new Poland and the new Russia by force, often on 24 hours notice. Not long after this, most Poles were expelled from the corresponding parts of Russia by force. It was "ethnic cleansing," just as we saw in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

During this post-war period many Lithuanians, Poles (and Germans and Austrians) were killed by the Soviets or sent to the Gulag.

If readers wonder why we have a hard time settling on an impartial academic view of the period, it is because there were millions of deaths in the wars and the ethnic cleansings... AFTER the incomprehensible tragedy of the Holocaust. Lithuanians, Poles, Germans and Austrians all suffered terribly at the hands of the Nazis and the Soviets. The fate of the native Russians at the hands of the Soviets often wasn't much better.

My family suffered many dead and many disappeared. I'm sure that many of the people on this page who debate these issues have the same history.

We still have to calm down and create a documented, impartial Wiki article before we can ask the admins to help us defend its accuracy. But anyone who thinks all this passion just comes from silly nationalism doesn't understand. The Poles and Lithuanians have both suffered terribly in this century, and places like Vilnius where there was conflict between us are merely side effects of much greater mistakes at Versailles, by the Nazis and by the Soviets.

I think we Lithuanians and Poles should focus on documenting what was done by the Nazis, the Soviets and the horse-traders of Versailles, not on blaming each other.

Coll7 01:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why dukes, why kings?

The problem of kings before Jogaila is more problem of tradition. I didn't check it very accurate, but as I know, the tradition to call Lithuanian rulers dukes raised in the Great Duchy of Lithuania not later than in the beginning of the 16th century. We deal with the tradition of the chancellery office of our state, and historians almost without any exception keep this tradition. However this tradition is ... wrong indeed. Why? Some historians argue, that it based on acknowledgment of the Pope. This argument is false totally. The acknowledgment of popes was necessary during certain period of the history and in the Western European countries. For example the later kings of Prussia (I thing , nobody doubts, that they were kings) were not crowned by popes, as well as kings of many countries outside Europe. Lithuania wasn't catholic country before 1387, and looking from the point of the modern history, the argumentation of papal rights weren't valid for it (as they aren't valid for the majority of present crowned persons in Europe). Lithuanian rulers before 1387 called themselves kings (rex in Latin, which translation don't leave any doubts) and were often recognized as bearers of this title (e. g. by Bizantyne Emperors). - I don't actually know, why later officials of the state changed this thing, creating the new tradition still existing till now. Perhaps they didn't want to be accused in paganism? Or they didn't want to degrade the memory of Vytautas the Great, who hadn't been crowned? Or other reasons existed? In any case we have things as they are, now. Linas Lituanus15:34, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. But situation is changing now. Algirdas even called themselves Bassileus (Emperor) and it was completely truth - he was the emperor. Zivinbudas 17:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't whitewash Lithuanian culpibility in WWII.

No focus on the mass killings of Jews which many Lithuanians willingly took part in, as well as supplying SS camp guards and at least one Lithuanian Waffen-SS division [all volunteers] to the Nazis? '

There was no Lithuanian SS unit, Germans tried to make one out of the "Local Squad" allegedly, but the leaders of that squad seeing this possibility (to join that squad to German military or other units), ceased the existance of that squad. DeirYassin 21:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the problem with Lithuanian-Nazi collaboration is not with some Lithuanian SS or Waffen SS unit, but with the Lithuanian police forces and volunteer units. Most notably various formations recruited from the Lietuvos Šaulių sąjunga (Lithuanian Riflemen Society), including the infamous Ypatingas Burys that took part in the mass murder in Ponaren (Ponary, Panierai). On the other hand, out of roughly 45.000 of its members, some were indeed drafted to various SS Sonderkommando guarding units and other SS units. Halibutt 00:09, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that some Lithuanian policemen assisted the einsatzkommando death squads is well documented, and in more than one of the towns where executions took place. All Lithuanians should not be tarred with that brush, since many Catholic-Protestant-Jewish communities lived together for centuries, but any assertion that all the perpetrators were German is inaccurate. Coll7

In 1943 Germans ordered to form "Lithuanian Waffen SS Legion". But anti-nazi underground command appealed to Lithuanians to boycott this unit. This nazis' plan was totaly boycotted by Lithuanian population and Waffen SS unit wasn't formed. The repressions from nazis followed - were closed Vilnius and Kaunas Universities, many famous Lithuanian intellectuals and militaries were sent to the concentration camps. Zivinbudas 06:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That's the point I (keep) trying to express. It is not all good nor all bad. Some people helped the Nazis. Many others resisted them, and some risked their lives to protect Jewish families whom they knew. The same thing happened all over Europe under Nazi occupation. But we cannot say that some Lithuanian policement didn't help the einsatzkommandos, because the records of the policemen's trials have been published. Coll7

Yes, that's true. On the one hand Liethuania was maybe the only occupied state which resisted to form its own SS unit (as I remember from school),

(as a sidenote: why the only ? have you heard of any Polish SS unit?) (note written by Lysy - --Gvorl 05:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC))

(to a sidenote: yes, I was bit incorrect in my note, simply I thought that nazi regime counted poles as a nation which is inlegible to serve SS and they do not tried to form polish SS units at all. Actually, I do not know about this much, can you correct me?) --Gvorl 05:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

but on the other hand there were really sick nazi collaborators too. Few remarks: nazis used facts of mass murders and exiles executed in Lithuania by Soviet Union to convince that all the jews are communists regime supporters and that was the metod which helped involving some lithuanians to conduce the Holocaust. The later genocide of most Lithuanian population was planned by nazis too, partially because of Klaipeda region problem and partially because of the resistance to nazi regime. --Gvorl 05:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I had not read all of that, but it lines up with other things I have read that are well documented. The Nazis certainly seemed like they were ready treat Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in the same way that the Soviets DID treat Konigsberg and the coast of East Prussia: export or exterminate the local population, change the name of every town, hill and river, and then import their own people to inhabit the empty country. Then the Soviets rewrote all the books to say that East Prussia and Lithuania Minor were really part of Russia all along. My perception: If the Nazis had defeated the Soviets it would have been the same, but the capital city and language of the executioners would have been different. --Coll7

Vote for deletion

I think people here will be interested to tell their opinion at this vote for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupied_territories_of_Baltic_States

Lietuviai, nebūkit abejingi, paremkit mūsų poziciją! Zivinbudas 09:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

English please. Halibutt 09:49, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Translation: "Lithuanians, don't be apathetic, support our position" Ifdef 12:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

 :) thanks Halibutt

Confederation

Prašau pareikšti savo nuomonę Talk:Confederation. Ačiū. Zivinbudas 15:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Discution and vote about the Polish and Lithuanian city names

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions/Vote_on_city_naming , tell your opinion on the matter DeirYassin 22:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Oh, this is SO being unprotected. A month and a half is far too long. --Golbez 03:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

And again, after two weeks. Work it out. --Golbez 08:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Explanation

The fact is that dispues were over regions not single towns or cities (as Klaipeda or Suwalki makes it seem), and this should be mentioned. Besides, all three regions has their articles in wikipedia which are about respective disuptes, therefore linking to them is good, rather than linking to articles about cities. Also, Klaipėda region was a politically defined unit after WW1 before including it to Lithuania, and later too, as autonomy under Lithuania (German name Memelland is also given), therefore it was used by more than just Lithuania. Also, the dispute was over more than just Central Lithuania; and as far as I understand there is no other way to call the territory ceded to Lithuania by Soviets and claimed in the interwar as Vilnius region, because Central Lithuania seems that it is only the state of Central Lithuania which was disputed. DeirYassin 2 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

The problem is that these regions you link to were invented by Lithuanian authorities and were not accepted by anyone else. Similarily, Poland could name the Greater London Overseas Poland and claim it on any reason. Which wouldn't make this entity any more real.

As to Central Lithuania - it covered all the areas seized by Lithuanian troops in 1920, no other areas were ever taken from Poland back then as the rest was still in bolshevik hands at the moment it was regained by Poland. So, all in all, the "regions" were as non-existent as the hypotetical Overseas Poland.

Anyway, I won't insist on expanding that part or correcting it, but I only wanted to state that so far that part is false and misleading. Halibutt July 2, 2005 12:40 (UTC)

You are right as for Vilnius region and Suvalkai region; however, it is probably natural that the claiming country names it's claims in some way, and that these names are used for the claimed areas if there are no other names. And it is exactly spoken about the disputes here (and the Vilnius region was claimed and disputed by Lithuania for the interwar period, not just Central Lithuania, even though southern part of Vilnius region was not taken by Lithuanian troops in 1920); also, I would agree with the switch to city names if there would be no articles about Vilnius and Suvalkai regions in Wikipedia, but now when there are, it is easier this way that people can click on links and find the information about borders of these regions and as well the histories of disputes. And if Poland would issue an official claim that some, otherwise not anyhow defined, part of e.g. Great Britain is overseas Poland, then to define this claim that would be the only possible wording to be used.DeirYassin 4 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

Lithuanian translator?

Does anyone know of an online translator for Lithuanian to English?

No, there is no any. Only the dictionaries :-) Since Lithuanian is syntetic (without any formalised grammar) language, there is no possibility to make any automated translator (of course, maybe it will be created... After 10 or 20 years... Who knows?). In Lithuania we have some strong scientists and programmers who work on language translation and recognition systems for few decades, but actually they prefer work with Chinese language rather than Lithuanian. --Gvorl 20:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Lithuanian language is by no means synthetic. It is a live Lithuanian language dialect taken as a basis for the official Lithuanian language. (To be more specific, it is Western Aukstaitian dialect spoken around Marijampole). Official Chinese is also a standartised language but nobody calls Chinese synthetic. Creation of the automatic translators is not the question of the language complexity-simlicity, it is a question of financing such projects. Juraune 10:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Alkonas online, but its not working at this moment.

Try this [1] heqs 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda poster

On the top of this article is senseless statement about Lithuanian capital. It looks like a propaganda poster. Even more, it is completely false. Lithuania never recognized an occupation of it's capital. In March - April, 1938 Lithuania only created a diplomatic relations with Poland after the forced ultimatum. After that nothing changed in question of Vilnius. Two month after the ultimatum, on May 12, 1938 the new Lithuanian Constitution was passed with the same statement like in all earlier Lithuanian Constitutions - The capital of The Republic of Lithuania is Vilnius. There wasn't still border between Free Lithuania and the occupied Eastern Lithuania - there was only Administration line. Kaunas was temporary capital from October 9, 1920 (the beginning of Polish occupation) untill October 28, 1939 (entering of Lithuanian Army to liberated capital).

So I decided to remove this senseless and false propaganda poster. Bf-109 17:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As the matter is much more complex than you depict it, I'm adding the info back. You can read more on the topic at Central Lithuania and History of Vilnius. Also, it's neither a poster nor propaganda: indeed the Lithuanian authorities were forced to recognize the border with Poland, although they still considered Wilno their constitutional capital. There's no conflict in such a statement and the statement you try to erase does not suggest it. If you think that the part on Lithuanian claims should be reworded - please suggest such a change here, on the talk page. Halibutt 06:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement is nothing more as demagogy. I repeat - Lithuania never recognized an occupation of it's capital. The "border" with occupied Eastern Lithuania was never recognized - Lithuania recognized only border of July 12, 1920. The false statement on the top of main article on Lithuania looks like propaganda poster - this isn't proper place for that. So I remove it. Bf-109 08:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe you should read the 1938 agreement more closely. You'll discover that the Polish-Lithuanian border agreed upon was the status quo, not the border established by the pact between Lithuania and Bolshevist Russia in 1920. BTW, that's what the Polish ultimatum was all about. Also, if you dispute the facts I provided - please be more specific. Claiming that some statement is a mere propaganda requires some backup, I believe. Halibutt 08:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

All your statements are false and diletantic. It shows that you aren't historian or close to this science. 1) There wasn't any "agreement" of 1938 between Lithuania and Poland. There was only creating of diplomatic relations after forced Polish ultimatum of March 17, 1938. 2) Poland wanted to provide ultimatum to Lithuania with demand of recognizing of occupation of Eastern Lithuania, but Western powers stoped Poland from that (in ultimatum remained only demand to create diplomatic relations). 3) After ultimatum nothing changed in Lithuania's position regarding occupied Eastern Lithuania and capital - Lithuania continued to recognize the border of July 12, 1920. 4) After ultimatum there weren't even talks about changing of status of Administration line in Lithuania - Administration line was without any limitation, marking and any agreement with Poland.

There is interesting statement of President of Lithuania Antanas Smetona in historical sources. When after the creation of diplomatic relations President Smetona was invited to Poland he replaied: "I will meet with Poles only in Free Vilnius, when Lithuanian Tricolor will wave on Gediminas' Hill".

The top of Main article on Lithuania isn't place on such discussions. You can discuss in other places. This isn't proper place for such false propaganda posters. Bf-109 09:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're disputing only one statement from that paragraph (as seems quite obvious from yourt comment above), then why do you keep deleting all of it? Seems strange to me. Also, the recognition of borders of Poland seems pretty clear to me after reading the statements of both sides, as well as the ultimatum and the minutes of the meeting. Finally, Lithuania was to set up a consulate in Wilno. Why would it do that if not for the recognition? Anyway, if you feel that the paragraph could be improved - suggest your changes, but don't remove all of it just because you don't like one comma.. Halibutt 10:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

• Suvalkai region have it's article on wikipedia. It is a neutral name, Southern Sudovia would be direct translation of Lithuanian name. It is better to link to an article than just write "area around Suwalki"; in that article people can read about the dispute, which area it was exactly and such.
• Klaipėda region is a translation of "Klaipėdos kraštas" and more or less "Memelland" (correct me if I am wrong, but Memel is Klaipėda while Land is Region (as in German lands); unless of course Memelland was named after river Nemunas rather than city itself), this is English wikipedia. It is by no means an artificial unit, it was an autonomy inside Lithuania (with German language as second official, own government and parliament), prior to that an entente-controlled territory. As Lithuania controlled it afterwards (1923-1939), it had full right to name it, same as e.g. Poland has rights to name it's Voivodships.
• Vilnius region reffers to whole area which was seen by Lithuania as integral part of the state due to the fact that it was given by peace treaty with Soviet Russia. Central Lithuania was a state in part of said region. Unlike you say, it did not include every territories ever controlled by Lithuanian forces either (not large northern areas aound Breslauja(now Braslau, Belarus)), which were at first controlled by Lithuanian forces but not included into Central Lithuania. Not to mention vast areas in the south, which weren't controlled by Lithuanian troops, but they were ceded to Lithuania by Soviet Russia according to 1920 and they were also very real part of the dispute. Whole Vilnius region was a disputed area, not only Central Lithuania. Vilnius region is also a neutral English name. Vilnija is Lithuanian name, Vileiščina (if I am not wrong) Belarusian. Central Lithuania was the state and using it would be hard to make difference between that state and larger disputed region; as well Central Lithuania is never used for whole region here, but rather for the state, as I understand it is not used for whole region in Belarus also. Vilnius region is a neutral name, it merely states the major city and that it is region around that city, also, it is English. DeirYassin 10:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think using of term of "Central Lithuania" is incorrect. This was a puppet "state" made by puppet Polish militaries, never recognized by any state and organization. Lithuania never fought with "Central Lithuania", only with Poland. Bf-109 11:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are right. I think it is correct though to use the name in the article about the said state, but not as the name for whole disputed region, which was larger than that state. Also, by the way, as I didn't explain this previously:I think "controlled by" is the most neutral wording possible; "part of" is POV to one side, while "occupied by" - to another. "Controlled by" is used when talking about such disputes, where different countries claims areas to be their integral part, e.g. Kashmir. DeirYassin 13:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As to the Vilnius region versus Central Lithuania - the advantage of the latter term is that it was actually defined and, contrary to the mythical Vilnius Region - it did exist. On the contrary, the Vilnius Region was a construct of Lithuanian politicians, who used to call that way the Polish areas seized by Russia, that were to be transferred to Lithuania, though in fact the majority of the area never was. On the contrary, the area that actually was put under Lithuanian administration by the Bolsheviks had exactly the same borders as the later state of Central Lithuania.

Also, Bf-109 insist on calling the Polish ownership of Wilno an occupation. Fine with me as long as we state loudly and clearly that this is a purely Lithuanian POV as no other state accepted the existance of such an entity and that the majority of local inhabitants (well, probably 95%) found such an idea a complete absurd. At the same time, most (if not all) states of the world recognized the Polish borders by means of the League of Nations' decision and all European states (apart from Lithuania, obviously) signed bilateral treaties with Poland, recognizing its borders. Otherwise, we'd have to put the {{NPOV}} tag at the top of this article, which is what Bf-109 clearly wants.

As to the other "regions" - the problem is that those articles are extremely POVed as well. I recently rewrote the article on Vilnius region to explain what was it actually (the former version suggested that such an entity existed somewhere in the world), but I doubt it will stay unreverted for long. The article on what you call Suvalkai region remains an absurdity and a description of purely-Lithuanian nationalist POV. I doubt we should link to it as long as it stays that way.

Finally, you're mixing two things here. What Lithuanians call the Vilnius district was indeed claimed by Lithuanian government. However, it was not a disputed area since there was noone to dispute it with. The borders of the area that was actually being disputed by the Conference of Ambassadors, Polish and Lithuanian diplomats and even the LoN fit perfectly in what is called Central Lithuania. Note that I'm not referring to the state as I know that the Lithuanian authorities never recognized the right of self-determination of people living there. I'm referring to the borders only. Halibutt 13:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong about Central Lithuania being the same area that was actually controlled by Lithuania; the north of the area was controlled by Lithuania (up to Latvian border), but it was not included into Central Lithuania. You must also know that despite of what you say, the conflict was over Vilnius region, that is whole area. You can say the term was invented or such, in fact, all political areas and administration units are invented more or less. The fact is however that the conflict was over this area, which was ceded to Lithuania according to the peace treaty with Soviets and not just Central Lithuania. And this is important, because it is how it was; saying that the conflict was only over Central Lithuania is a dezinformation.

As for calling it an occupation, that is why I suggest "controlled by" as it would be most neutral wording IMO. The article about Suvalkai region was also edited by Polish contributors and it is not anymore what I have originally written; these contributors accepted the current version as being NPOV and I agreed. I think you should stop added disputed neutrality tags to all articles outside Polish POV - the Vilnius region article as you rewrote it was actually POV at some places and I corrected some. You can correct it more if you think I made it POV to other side. I might correct it more and you again - usually with every correction the corrections becomes smaller; it is not like with revert wars which leads nowehere. Eventually, that way it should be came to a conclusion and compromise and the article would become NPOV, as it is not good if articles stays with NPOV tags and no edits for months.

The claimed are is disputed area, that was the area ceded to Lithuania by Lithuanian-Soviet peace treaty, with the exception of territories in the southwest (I am nott very sure here, maybe territories inside the Curzon line) which are explained under article Suvalkai region. DeirYassin 14:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, please re-check your sources then. The area between Central Lithuania and Latvian border was seized by the Red Army and then re-taken by Poland from the Soviets (at least that's what all documents, both Polish, Bolshevik and French support). There were Polish-Russian battles there while there were no Lithuanian troops. It was not included into Central Lithuania because:

1. Żeligowski didn't seize it. Polish Army did
2. Nobody had to seize it by an alleged mutiny since there were no Lithuanian forces nor Lithuanian administration there
3. As far as I can tell, the area was not even included in the region that was promised to Lithuania by the Bolsheviks.

As to the conflict - the Lithuanians claimed large chunks of Poland, but disputed only the part they actually controlled at the moment Poland re-entered the area. The rest was but a dream of some of your politicians, nothing more. If we were to treat all claims the way you propose (that is as real entities and not as virtual entities), then we'd have to aggree that the conflict was actually between two Polands, Red Russia, White Russia, Green Russia, Makhnovists, Lithuania, Germany, France, Great Britain, Latvia, various factions of the Bolsheviks and so on: all these factions had their own plans for the region and even named them in a different way. However, nobody is describing the dreams of Belarusian politicians as if they were real or as if they ever came true (check this map to see what I'm talking about).

As to the Vilnius region - after my edits you again edited so as to give an impression that it actually existed. As to the legitimacy of the Bolshevik-Lithuanian treaty - who gave that are to the Bolsheviks? Anyway, I'm too tired to repeat all of the arguments over and over again. I withdraw from this article, feel free to rewrite it to show that most of Lithuania is still under occupation from Poland, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and whomever else, I don't care. However, as long as the historical accuracy is ommitted and replaced with some purely-Lithuanian POV, I will find enough time to check whether the NPOV tag is in place. Halibutt 15:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Answer and suggestion

Hmmm what I have seems to state that Polish and Lithuanians fought bolsheviks at these northern places at the same time and also the maps indicates that the area was controlled by Lithuania. It was most certainly promised according to 1920 treaty for sure, (around Breslauja/Braslavas (currently Braslau, Belarus) and such. I will try to check more when I am home, as I am in internet cafe now so don't have my maps and books with me. Will try to tell sources.

As for dispute supposedly being "not real" according to you if country did not actually control the area, I explained that in Talk:Vilnius region now. Most of disputes are like that actuall, Pakistan never controlled Indian part of kashmir (but disputes it on the basis that it is a muslim place, and as for partition of Indian colony muslim places should have wnet to Pakistan, while hindu - to India; but hindu Maharaja of Kashmir against people's will invited Indian army), People's Republic of China never controlled Taiwan (but disputes it on the fact that it was part of single China state previously) and so on. Actual control does not means more in dispute sthan various documents, recognition, historical things and such. Germany controlled half of Europe during WW2, but I don't think it has many rights to all these areas.

I hope you will not withdraw from the articles and help to make them more neutral; trust me, I don't want to make everything POV, each person has their opinions though and therefore one person probably couldn't make something totally NPOV, many people with different opinions are needed for that. Sorry if I seem to be pushing too much POV sometimes, nobody is neutral though

My suggestion here is: avoid "judging words" like "occupied", "part of", "liberated", instead use "taken", "controlled by"; I believe nobody questions the fact that there were conflicts over areas between Poland and Lithuania during interwar, and if it is spoken in this articles about these disputes, it should link to pages about the disputes, therefore, I think we should leave leave links to Suvalkai region and Vilnius region. However, if something is not neutral there, let's immidietly move to those pages and discuss there, as it is not good anyways if there are POV articles in Wikipedia. Now by adding and removing these links we do not actually solve problem and never will; the problem will only be solved by neutralising articles about said disputes, so then everyone will agree on keeping links. I hope eventually mind will win over bias. DeirYassin 13:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin 10:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Hallibut

I see you would like to provoke me to answer to your personal attacks but I won't do that. I only quote you one quotation:

"Lithuanians were under the stern rule of Czarist Russia for 120 years untill, on the 16th of February, 1918, the National Council in Vilnius declared Lithuania an independent state, with ancient Vilnius as its capital. On July 12, 1920, during the war between the Soviets and the Poles, Lithuania signed in Moscow with the Soviet government a peace treaty by which the city of Vilnius with the region about it was assigned to Lithuania. But the old Polish scheme began to manifest itself again. After defeating the Soviet troops near Warsaw, the Poles appeared on the Southern Lithuanian frontier and precipitated fighting with the Lithuanians. Finding the going more difficult than they expected, the Poles started negotiations which were carried on under the supervision of the League of Nations and resulted in the conclusion of the Treaty of Suvalkai on October 7, 1920. Two days later, however, the special Polish army, commanded by General Zeligowski, took the Lithuanians completely by surprise and occupied the city of Vilnius and the Vilnius region, comprising almost one third of ethnographic Lithuania. This treacherous act received well-merited censure from the League of Nations. Leon Burgeois, then President of the League, officially referred to this occupation, verbally and in writing to Paderewski, Polish delegate to the League, as "a violation of the undertakings given to the Council" But neither then nor throughout the subsequent years of their country's independent existence did the Polish government once attempt to adjust the grave injustice commited against its neighbor in violation of its own treaty. Instead, the Polish government sought to legalize its fait accompli by local elections. In regard to this measure, Hymans, then spokesman for the League of Nations, at the seventh sitting of the Council at Brussels, said:

"In the opinion of the Council, the plebiscite should be taken in conditions of absolute freedom. It should be sincerely and quickly done. But this has become impossible on account of the coup de force of General Zeligowski. The League of Nations did not desire a camouflaged plebiscite or the maintenance of these troups in the Vilnius region." (The Vilna Question. London, 1929, P. 15)

But the Polish government managed the elections for the so-called Vilna Seim (diet), whose delegates voted an act of incorporation of the Vilnius region into the Polish state. The Council of the League of Nations, however, in its resolutions of January 13, 1922, refused to recognize the legality of the elections conducted under these unfair conditions. On March 15, 1923, the Conference of Ambassadors put into effect a decision handing over to Poland Vilnius and adjoing districts. This decission, which was met by vehement protests on the part of Lithuania to the League of Nations, was never recognized by the Lithuanian government. According to such an authority on international law as Andre Mandelstam, the Lithuanian government is not bound by the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors. In his opinion, "The Government of the Lithuanian Republic is not bound, either in law or equity, by the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors of March 15, 1923, regarding the Polish-Lithuanian frontiers" (The Vilna Question. London, 1929, P. 91). Thus the Vilnius incident was the first failure of the League of Nations to exact respect for its authority from a recalcitrant member (Poland). This example, which was later followed by other states, poisoned international relations, in the course of years reduced the authority of the League of Nations to the lowest ebb, and finally resulted in the League's complete inability to solve international disputes." Anicetas Simutis. The Economic Reconstruction Of Lithuania After 1918. Columbia University Press, New York, 1942.

Anicetas Simutis was the Consul General of the Republic of Lithuania in New York, USA. He wrote this book after the Roosvelt - Churchill Atlantic Charter, preparing to the future Peace Conference. Bf-109 16:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I find it a nice and funny description of the Lithuanian POV on the issue, it does not support your vision of the world ("Lithuanian area north of Central Lithuania"...) nor does it answer my questions. If you want me to, I could list all mistakes done by the author (or things ommitted, as was the case with the idea of a plebiscite, which was boycotted by... Lithuania during the talks in Brussels). However, if asking to recheck the sources is treated as an offense, then I won't waste my time. Especially that providing more sources or asking for yours would surely lead me to even more trouble. After all the more questions I ask, the more offended you get... Halibutt 18:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that all your "work" here in Wikipedia is one entire Polish POV? Lithuania always considered and consideres 1920 - 1939 as Polish occupation of Eastern Lithuania and capital. You states that it is Lithuanian POV. OK. Then Wilno Voivodship is Polish POV. I already don't speak about puppet state of "Central Lithuania". Don't you think? User:DeirYassin proposed the term "control", but this is for you "Lithuanian POV" as well. I think that all your "works" (and Central Lithuania first) should be deleated as heavy Polish POV. And we will do the steps for that. Bf-109 19:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt: I would like to also add a respectful request to you. I believe your intentions are good and that you are probably editing Wikipedia to match the way that you were taught this history in school. I also agree that some edits you have called Lithuanian POV were in fact POV. However, I have read many of your posts and I believe that often they are in fact inaccurate, even though someone may have taught you that the things you've written are true. You may not intend to be writing from a strong POV, but that's what your words end up being. I was educated in the US, not in either Poland or Lithuania -- I'm interested solely in accuracy. I'd like to ask you to have an open mind, edit other peoples' posting less and allow other points of view to be read. I believe an academic review of these articles, if we had to go to the length of doing one, would reverse many of your edits. I agree that it may be necessary to request formal Wikipedia actions to stop you from future reverts, but before we asked for this I wanted to appeal to you to consider that perhaps you've made some errors. (I know I was taught some things in school, too, that turned out to be inaccurate!) Thanks for considering this. Coll7 00:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Coll7, thanks for staying cool when the things around get hot. Note that I'm not engaged in a revert war, so I simply can't stop reverting (I would have to start reverting in order to stop such action, don't you think :) ). Anyway, I've stated loudly and clearly my problems with this article, which however were not answered so far. IMHO most of the problems are related to the fact that the story is written entirely from Lithuanian point of view, which was - to say it kindly - unique. Just imagine: whole world accepts some situation while a single country disputes a world order. And currently wikipedia reflects only theirs point of view.

Anyway, so far we have a conflict between my version which was not disputed by simply reverted and the version supported by Bf-109, which is disputed by yours truly, yet is reverted to. I would like to settle the dispute here, on the talk page, but I'm loosing hope it's possible at all. As to my knowledge on the history of the area in the period shortly after WWI - it's pretty much ommitted in Polish schools, only the most basic facts are taught. Most of my knowledge comes from my own books and lectures - and the knowledge is easily verifiable. Halibutt 08:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, wikipedia now reflects Polish POV much more than it does Lithuanian POV, due to a simple fact that there are more Poles here I guess (I could give many examples, such as Polish names for Lithuanian cities including those in former Klaipėda region, stating Voivodships of GDL as Voivodships of Poland and many more - but let's keep to the topic here). Anyways, the goal is neutrality, and it is really not so as you named that "whole world" supports Polish POV - in fact, most people from other places than Poland or Lithuania does not know much about this and bases their opinions on historian's books either on one side or another if they are interested. There are however more Poles than Lithuanians, Lithuanian historians were more silenced by Soviets than were Polish and such - but wikipedia aims at neutrality, and this is what should be seeked for, not the most popular opinion (maybe "muslims are terrorists" is the most popular opinion about muslims in many western states now, but we won't write that in WP of course). Facts are facts and nobody would call facts POV, therefore facts are what needs to be written, opinions about facts of different people from various sides too maybe. I try to write it more neutrally and I explain my point in discutions; however as I said full neutrality is impossible and I accept that; you should too - neither Polish nor Lithuanian POV won't be fully neutral and only by group work we might reach something closer to perfection. See my suggestion which I written several paragraphs above in separate paragraph. DeirYassin 14:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

My sources

The following is a list of books that comes to my mind. Some of them I read only in fragments, while others (mostly related to military history) I have on my shelves.

1. Krzysztof Skłodowski (1999). "Dzisiaj ziemia wasza jest wolną"; o niepodległość Suwalszczyzny. Suwałki Area Museum. ISBN 8390578565. 
2. Krzysztof Buchowski (2002). Panowie i żmogusy. Historical Institute of the University of Białystok. ISBN 8387881295.  (hillarious caricatures)
3. Piotr Łossowski (1985). Po tej i tamtej stronie Niemna; stosunki polsko-litewskie 1883-1939. Czytelnik. ISBN 8307012899. 
4. Piotr Łossowski (1997). Stosunki polsko-litewskie 1921-1939. Polish Academy of Sciences. ISBN 8386301406.  (one of few monographies on the topic)
5. Piotr Łossowski (1996). Konflikt polsko-litewski 1918-1920. KiW. ISBN 8305127699. 
6. various authors (2004). W kręgu sporów polsko-litewskich na przełomie XIX i XX wieku. Jagiellonian University Press. ISBN 8323318417.  (sadly the second part was not yet published)
7. Norman Davies (1972/2003). White Eagle, Red Star. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0712606947.  (a classic)
8. Zenon Krajewski (1996). Geneza i dzieje wewnętrzne Litwy Środkowej. ?. ISBN 8390632101.  (lots of interesting stuff on the elections boycotted by the Lithuanian minority)
9. collection of documents (1998). Bitwa niemeńska 29 VIII - 18 X 1920: dokumenty operacyjne. Rytm. ISBN 83867893056.  (part 1)
10. collection of documents (1999). Bitwa niemeńska 29 VIII - 18 X 1920: dokumenty operacyjne. Rytm. ISBN 83867893056.  (part 2; I've spent half of my monthly income on that book once...)
11. Lech Wyszczelski (2003). Operacja Niemeńska 1920 roku. Neriton. ISBN 8388973436.  (book written by a profesional soldier, so it's not passionating, but has lots of details on Bolshevik-Lithuanian cooperation)
12. Lucjan Żeligowski (1991?). Wojna w roku 1920. Polish Ministry of Defense. ISBN 8311078416.  (I wonder if his memoirs were ever translated to Lithuanian ;) )

Halibutt 08:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Not getting too deep into discussion, note that there is just one non Polish book in the list. When reading any lithuanian book on history I try to be critical in terms of pro lt pov; I assume the same on the list above, vice versa (pl-lt). What can for sure be said on what was taught to us (poles and lithuanians) in schools (based on works of our historians, etc) is oriented towards increasing our national awareness, thus often showing very nationalistiuc picture of history. I offer being very critical on that. --UmR 07:33:10, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Just to set some things straight: Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 are not Polish. But even then, what you write is generally true for all sources, regardless of their topic or author. One has to bear in mind that interpretation of facts and statement of facts are two different things. //Halibutt 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So there, ha! 4 of the 12 sources are not Polish! Dr. Dan 00:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian point of view?

I understand all users, who were discomforted by the one unsuccessfull Lithuanian user. But I still believe, that his illiness isn't contagious. It's possible, that we shouldn't use our arguments vastely, where arguments aren't accepted. It would cause less huff. Lithuanians disagree with treating of events of 1938? They have some reasons for it. Why we can't say reasons, instead of repeating conclusions. These reasons are also includable into text. And, looking from other side: For example, I repeated few times in discusions and tried to revise in the Vilnius the statment, that Lithuania took Vilnius region in exchange of its independence (for actually any real negotiations didn't took place between Lithuania and Soviet Union then. Lithuanian officials were forced to sign already prepared (by Soviets) document. Soviets gave Vilnius region not because Lithuanians wanted it, but because they wanted it. ). But these my revisions were discarded everytime. I don't think it's a "Polish" version, but I also doubt, if Polish users have any reasons to keep this imprecise, as I see, version. If one has, why not to say? - So, it will be impossible to reach any conclusion, when we discuss about some conclusions, that actually are speculations of historians, e. g., if Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was federation or confederation. Polish - Lithuanian Commonwealth was as the name states the state obojga narodow. And no one such state was re-divided without strives. And those countries, where such strives were intellectual only were only successfull exclusions. And we could find reasons of all this discussion rather in it, than in disputing, whether it was federation or confederation. So, many Lithuanians think, that the division of former Commonwealth territory between later successor states were inequitable (i. e. incorrect, biassed) for Lithuania. I see, that many our Lithuanian users share this point of view too. Perhaps it should have nothing common with describing of real historical events? But unhappily it has. But maybe we coud restrict to describing historical events only, without including such conclusions, that are true only partially or have been raised having specific point of view? Well I incite both sides to do this way. Linas Lituanus 13:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

My opinion about Wikipedia

I think this is funny place! Slum of all unrecognized geniuses, pimpled teens, mental patients and similar. I made sure that nobody takes this Wikipedia (Shitypedia) seriously. Let rubbish play. Bye trashers. Benjamin07 13:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Though this statement has no value to Lithuania I would have to say I agree. My own History teacher stated exactly as follows: "for your country research projects avoid using non-credible sources lets say Wikipedia or something like shibidydibidy.com" Wonderful discription on the demographics of Wikipedia users, I love it and I think it is perfectly accurate. Its got all the losers puffing up at home in front of their computers. As you said, there will always be these minorities who want to make their statment because, since their statements are so idiotic, nobody in the real world would listen to things like "The Czech Republic was founded in the 9th century." But, let these Wiki users have their little club here on Wikipedia - afterall it is necessary to put this thrash of society somewhere so it doesn't get under foot of people who actually have jobs and contribute to society. $$$=^^&^

Suggestion for Next Step

Thanks, Halibutt for your thoughtful reply to my comment above. Same to Deir Yassin for the great suggestion: "only by group work [will we] reach something closer to perfection." Linas Lituanas made a similar suggestion and acknowledged that POV has crept in from all sides, and at times we might all be guilty of it. I agree, and it applies to me, too.

So here's a suggestion that I saw work well on another article:

1. We create a "Lithuania/Temp" article as a temporary working space, and mention this in a notice at the top of the Lithuania article.

2. We form a unified team. Halibutt, Deir Yassin, Linas Lituanas, Coll7 (me) and anyone else who wants to take the same "focus on facts, try for balance" approach work on a re-write of the Lithuania article in that /Temp workspace.

3. We debate possible text on the Talk page of Lithuania/Temp rather than by reverting or editing each other in the page itself.

4. We agree we will merge the rewritten article back into the regular Lithuania article once we all agree on its contents. This will require trust and compromise on all sides, and a commitment to a balanced point of view by everyone.

5. Once we re-merge the article, we all defend it AS A TEAM against edits and reverts that contradict the approach we agreed upon. If we do this right we can have a unified approach built by Lithuanians, Poles, and lots of other nationalities.

6. I personally will only spend time on this if active members of BOTH the Lithuanian and Polish wiki community participate. Without a unified team approach we'll just set off more revert wars, and I don't have time for that.

7. My own prejudices: I am an American with several family branches from Eastern Europe, and lost family members both to the Nazis and to the Soviets. So when issues of the history of the Nazis and Soviets in Lithuania come up I may be vulnerable to POV.

If you'd like to take part in our effort, please post below. (If you think my idea is bad, feel free to say that, too!) If we get a good variety of opinions I will set up the Lithuania/Temp Page and we can all start work. Thanks. Coll7 01:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I guess we should focus mostly on the historical part as it is the most disputed. Halibutt 03:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Great to have you! Now let's see if we can get more of our interested Wiki writers to sign on! Coll7 05:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested, but I will be busy for a week or so, so if I'll join that will be after a week DeirYassin 08:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That timing actually works well for me, since this is a huge busy week for me. Now there are three of us. Anyone else interested? Coll7 18:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we can accept this plan by Coll7. I would like to add yet a one point, which could be called “The point of good will”. If there will be a question, in which we couldn't came to any common point or conclusion, we simply state, that different points of view exist and 1) we don't try to put our point of view as absolute and impersonal. 2) We don't try to revise unilaterally different from ours points of view, if they aren't given as absolute or as impersonal (meaning “Martians arrived this morning to the Earth from Mars” instead of “The Improper Star says that Martians arrived this morning...”, or “It was easy for Chacura to seize Monisobha city, but he showed his good will and thus lost the battle” instead of “Advocates of Chacura claim, that he lost the battle , because showed his good will, not seizing Monishobha city”, or “Persians decided that the evil, which helps them, will conquer all the world and started the war campaign” instead of “Greeks accused Persians, that they serve the evil and thus started the war campaign” /this one is personal, but wrongly/). - And I think, we shouldn't stick to such “troubles” like local name standard, meaning, that we should put local names, which are not common in English, as they are used officially, not prohibiting however single informative usage of dialectical, historical or other possible variants of a certain name.

On what DeirYassin says I also am sometimes busy and others, I think, are, but I think we shouldn't hasten doing this. The tempoes will be simply dictated by our possibilities and the life itself. - And yet. We are adding great comma now to the revision history. But I don't think, that any possibility exists to add ever the final point there. It's because of nature of wikipedia.

Lithuania/temp

To Coll7: I added a part of the present Lithuania article to Lithuania/temp. This part is, as I think, purely informative. If You have prepared another version to start up, don't hesitate to change it to yours.

Linas Lituanus 09:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I hear the spirit of what you're suggesting as "Let's try to write in ways that focus on facts rather than on accusations, current standards rather than past standards, etc. in an atmosphere of mutual respect." That sounds very wise to me. I am part-way through my first Lithuania/temp draft (which I expect my partners in this team to edit and change in MANY ways), and I'll compare it to your work, Linas Lituanas, before I post it, to have benefit of your advice. Thanks to Halibutt, DeirYassin, Linas Lituanus for joining the team! And others who want to join remain welcome! Coll7 18:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to help. One the naming convention, I think that the current naming policy of wikipedia is really bad (using historical names Danzig or Wilno instead of Gdańsk or Vilnius in historic context) and confusing. On the other hand the naming convention used should be consistent. Poles may think it's justified to use Wilno name for Vilnius as long as Danzig is used for Gdańsk (just an example, there are many more). What can we do about this ? --Lysy ^(talk) 19:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up! Like others above, I'm traveling the next few days so it will be a while longer before I finish my first draft article proposal for everyone to criticize! Thanks again to everyone who is joining the team! Coll7 07:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets make another vote! Space Cadet 19:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this should be addressed as a WP policy on geographic naming, at least Europe-wide. Otherwise we'll end up with the same problem elsewhere. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's get a first draft done that follows Wikipedia rules for city naming. If we then believe we have a case for making some exceptions we can suggest it to the Admins, but we'll have a solid, balanced article to work from. Coll7 07:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda controls the "independence" section

I think the current information given for "Independence" of the Lithuania article is poor. Lithuania has already existed much earlier than just the 20th century. I find this inaccurate information all over articles on European countries. This is due to the bias of political propaganda attempting to eliminate other countries. Couple months ago the "Independence" information for the Czech Republic said the Czech Republic was formed in the 9th century and was officially created during 1918. This information is totally unacceptable because

• The Czech Republic, being the youngest country in Europe (never was formed before 1993), was not formed in the 9th century but in the 20th century by the works of Masaryk and (Slovak) Stefanik who wanted to create the first state in which Czechs had their own government (the Czecho-Slovak Republic). The year 1918 was the year when Czechoslovakia (called officially the Czecho-Slovak Republic) was created, not the Czech Republic!

Please take part in the improval of this article

Hello. I would like to inform you all here that there is an ongoing discussion at article Territorial claims of the Baltic States (formerly was known as "Lost territories of the Baltic States", but was recently renamed; some users seems to disagree with that renaming). Recent edits as well were accused of POV, and, in fact, article was disputed for a long time already. There currently seems to be no Lithuanians editing the article and in order to get the most neutral viewpoint represantatives from all of related nations are needed. It would be nice if you would add that article to your watchlist and continue helping to improve it until a decition will be reached about its future (there is currently a poll about it in the article's talk page). I hope together we all will be able to make that article neutral. Kaiser 747 10:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

excessive wikilinking

This article suffers from major wikilinking, especially in the first section. I removed a few wikilinks but there's still some work to be done. Gflores ^Talk 01:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

North-eastern Europe?!

The center of Europe is in Lithuania, so Lithuania is in the central Europe, I think.

User of Lithuanian wikipedia, Vikte

The "central", "eastern," or "western" Europe does not depend that much on the goegraphical location as on geopolitical situation. The debate which region to use for Lithuania is old and never ending. If someone asks me - it's eastern Europe (history, culture, etc.) North eastern ios more accurate. But it's not central europe for sure. Renata 17:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely Central Europe. Not East, South, West or North. Article does not say that North-East is a geopolitital location, and geopolitics is more ambiguous than geography. Sigitas 17:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the phrases "Eastern Europe", "Central Europe", "Western Europe" are commonly used, and they mean more than just the geographical location with respect to some agreed-upon (ha!) reference point. Poland may be west of the "center of Europe", but NOBODY would seriously refer to Poland as being in Western Europe. London, England may be south of this same reference point, but NOBODY would seriously refer to London as being in Southern Europe. I'm not sure where the dividing line is exactly, but (in my mind, at least) the lands around the Mediterranean sea are "Southern Europe", the lands north of the Baltic sea are definitely "Northern Europe" (and possibly the other lands around the Baltic sea are also), the lands east of where the Iron Curtain went are "Eastern Europe" (or maybe it should be the lands east of the historic Catholic-Orthodox division line? Hmm, that WOULD place Poland in the western part). Nevertheless, it's not particularly useful to use these terms as we think they SHOULD be used, if that's not how the majority of readers will understand them. Ifdef 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be written both geographical and geopolitical locations, and it must be clear which is which. Foreign reader who has no idea where Lithuania is may be misleaded by certain version of article.

I think Lithuania would fit in historically with Central Europe. It's not Western Europe for sure, but it's interaction with Poland and the Teutonic Knights and its Catholicism would move it towards Central Europe. Geographically... I dunno Jztinfinity 01:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If I look at a map of Europe, Lithuania seems to be within its North-eastern boundaries (like Estonia, for example). Hungary and Austria appear to be in more, to what one refers to as, "Central Europe". If this make sense, fine, if it doesn't, do not lose sleep over it. Dr. Dan 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[2] Sigitas 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigitas, does the argument appear to be conclusive to you? I mean from the article and your link. Sometimes just looking at a map for a moment, might save one a lot of time. But at least for now, I think we can agree that Lithuania is not in South-western Europe. Dr. Dan 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fully conclusive. Geographical centre of Europe is in Lithuania, very close to Vilnius. Only from geopolitical perpective it can be moved to the east or north. Check this one map for example [3]- Lithuania is clearly on the very centre of continent, unlike Austria or Hungary Sigitas 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The "article" seems less conclusive than either of us are on the matter, at least me (Slovakia and Rheinland-Pfalz, also taking claim). Take a look at a map of the United States, I think you'll agree that Maine, is in the North-eastern U.S., and so is New York. Maybe what throws the argument off, for some, is the vast area of Russia (reaching into the Ural mountains), that "Westerners" don't mentally include into Europe. They consider "Western European Russia" to be smaller than what is officially, its European borders. So you have a point. Just the same, you will have some difficulty in claiming Sweden to be in Central Europe or Switzerland in South-western, Europe. Good luck, and as I said earlier, "do not lose sleep over it". Dr. Dan 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion

It is very clear, and supported by statistics, that Church attendance in Lithuania is high, and that Roman Catholicism is the majority religion of the country. This may not be changed in favour of some protestant evangelical propagandist editing this site, even claiming that only 1,5 % of Catholics go to church regularly. That's propaganda, not fact. Given the mount of crosses etc. Lithuanian Catholicism is well known and deeply rooted.82.72.148.85 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think, that polls as such should be avoided in encyclopedia. M.K. 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Polls are OK, Church attendance in Lithuania is very low by european standards Sigitas 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I will tell you a bit of “polls”. “Polls” as such are pointless spam. If you want that polls be a bit more then spam it should have several points – year then it was carried out, number of population which was asked, territory in which it was carried out, methodology how the data was spread, margin of error, etc. etc. etc. This why, official data should be used in first place. M.K. 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Ronald Reagan, who said (probably not the originator) "that figures lie, and liars figure". I think he was talking about polls and or statistics. I'm not calling anybody a liar, but keep the quote in mind when dealing with polls and statistics. Dr. Dan 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Figures don't lie, liars figure - Twain. Bowley and Strunsky expressed quite good view on statistics. Political statistics should not be interfered here also (Churchill made a straight remark on this issue). M.K. 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Dr. Dan 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is nonsense. I must stress, that the weird allegations as to religion are not confirmed by European Union standards. Maybe evangelical fundamentalist protestants will see with pleasure, that Catholics do not attend, but that is not the real case in Lithuania. The English of the demographics part is of Eastern European quality, that is: total hogwash and babylonian, not fitting for an encylopedia. And the allegation of 1,5 % has to be proven, as not even the Netherlands have such a low Mass attendance rate. "A poll" does not suffice. Maybe if you ask amongst communists, socialists or ex-Catholic evangelical protestants they might respond with such a result, but not if one asks a common Lithuanian. The Roman Catholic Church is closely tied to the country. Protestantism is no majority religion, it is neither a dominant religion. Protestantism disappeared virtually with the expulsion of Baltic Germans after WW II. It will revert the paragraph of demographics to the state in which it was. I ask the moderators to watch the demographics particularly, reverting all attempts by protestant fundamentalists, liberals and communists to imply "facts" about a country they don't even know or only want to depict in a caricaturical sense. 82.72.148.85 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The recent edits by the new user: Hundred, seem a bit far-fetched. Rather than RV or delete them in a "knee-jerk" reaction, I will let these anti-Catholic, and somewhat hostile edits be examined by the community at large. Since the World Cup is being played out at the moment, I ask if the Basketball vs. Religion comments are true and appropriate? Dr. Dan 16:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hundred's edition is better than older one overstating influence of Catholicism. Still, sources need to be cited, and love for basketball moved from the section. Sigitas 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the "Religion" sub-category in the article Lithuania, needs to be culled and refined, and let's get to the facts. Both religous and anti-religious proselytizing needs to be removed. Just the facts, and some statistics, without POV, would be best. I looked at a few other countries, and their religion, "sub-category", is much less polemic. The English grammar is poorly written from both sides as well, in the article. Put it in the Lithuanian Wiki first, and let's see what can be shaken out of the mess. I think there is a middle ground between the History of religion in Lithuania, and the present. Dr. Dan 17:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I believe this should be taken to edit - Some voices however claim church attendance is even lower. - no? M.K. 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm not for church attendance, or against church attendance. People can, and should do as they like. The actual facts are somewhere in between what it was, was it is, and what it might be in the future. Religion in Lithuania goes back to pre-Pagan religions, and then Pagan and Christian religions, and then later even Stalinism became a "religion". The common denominator is, they were organized and political entities, as well as giving spiritual comfort to those who needed it. I'm against presenting a Pro or Anti stance on the subject, or my personal viewpoint either. I'm equally against hearing someone else's viewpoint on the subject. At least not in anti-religious propaganda, nor in some proselytizing "in the name of the Lord" viewpoint (and being asked for a donation). If it's important enough, write an article called Religion in Lithuania and be done with it. This is an article about Lithuania, that could use more important improvements than statistics on current church attendance. Dr. Dan 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mine aim is this problem - Some voices -, not a pro or anti church. Is it good to formulate sentence in this way? Is it good style for encyclopedia? Maybe better is - opinion but it is a bit wrong too... M.K. 23:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is bad style; see wikipedia:Weasel words. If it is an opinion, a reputable source is a must. `'mikka (t) 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)