Talk:Vilna offensive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (nations and regions): Polish military history task force Russian and Soviet military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

An entry from Vilna offensive appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 November 2006.

	Vilna offensive is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Comments	Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Vilna offensive was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 22, 2007

Contents 1 Name 2 The Jewish Issue 3 So What's Wrong With this Picture? 4 Statement by Halibutt: tri-lingual? 2 to 5 % spoke Lithuanian, the rest spoke either Polish or Russian... 5 Back to Square One? 6 And square two 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 7.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 7.2 Discussion 7.3 Alternative name 7.4 Battle descriptions 7.5 Political front 8 English vs. Polish 9 Soviet commander 10 "Widely Accepted Historical English Name" 10.1 Name of City 11 POV 12 Where to now? 13 Consistency 14 Failed "good article" nomination 15 Atrocities 16 Concentration camps 17 Citations 18 Beyond pale 19 Atrocities 2 20 Verifying Bendersky 21 Doubious parts of Meltyukhov: routine excesses, uprisings of local population 22 Dubious statements in Piotrowski’s publication 23 copyedit lead 24 what a strange article 25 Removal of Meltyukhov 26 Less confusing 27 Fair use rationale for Image:Polish army in Wilno 1919.jpg 28 Tagging 29 Much turmoil

[edit] Name

Shouldn't this be under battle of Wilno (1919)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are you asking this question to, Piotrus? didn't you create the article and the title? Dr. Dan 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The name Wilno is not historically correct. Not in 1919, anyway. Perhaps Lysy can get Piotrus (the author), or Halibutt the referee on "historical" names to change this. Dr. Dan 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is the historically correct name then ? --Lysy^talk 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking me personally, or rhetorically, I thought Halibutt is the final say on these matters, isn't he? Dr. Dan 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You challenged it, you might want to explain yourself now. --Lysy^talk 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

O.K., in 1919, the name used for Paris in the English language was not Paryż, nor was the historical capital of Lithuania called Wilno. Dr. Dan 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do go on - I wonder after how many proddings you will answer your own 'rethorical' question... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Knowing something is incorrect, doesn't require knowing the correct answer, if one is looking for the correct answer. How about Wilnius? Now back to my questions. I'll try again. Is the title of this article, original research? And what is the basis for using the Polish name for this historically Lithuanian city during this time period on English Wikipedia? The Polish annexation took place in 1922. Dr. Dan 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And the Lithuanian annexation took place in 1991. So..?//Halibutt 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Annexation in 1991, huh?--Lokyz 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there some militarily historic verification of this article's title, namely Operation Wilno? Is there some evidence that this action as portrayed in this article, was under a military code name, that equates to the title "Operation Wilno," created by the Polish military? It has an original research "ring" to it. Dr. Dan 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Another try. Did the Polish military have a plan called "Operation Wilno", that was implemented, as presented in this article. What is the basis for using the Polish geographical toponym in this time period in the English encyclopedia? Dr. Dan 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the source for Operation Wilno, there are plenty, just google for operacja wileńska and you're there. If you want some specific source, check some serious publications, like for instance the preface to: Marek Tarczyński (1998): Bitwa niemeńska 29 VIII - 18 X 1920: dokumenty operacyjne. Warsaw: RYTM. ISBN 83867893056. Or Grzegorz Łukowski (1994): Walka Rzeczpospolitej o kresy północno-wschodnie, 1918-1920. Polityka i dzialania militarne. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Universytetu Adama Mickiewicza. ISBN 83-232-0614-7. //Halibutt 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did the Polish military have a plan called Operacja Wilenska, in 1918-1919, or is this name extracted from some serious publications written in 1994 and 1998? And again, what is basis of using Wilno, on English Wikipedia, in the time period, between 1918-1922. Dr. Dan 15:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Halibutt gave you serious publications above, so stop repeating yourself. As for the basis for Wilno, this is how the city was called by the most of it's population and the army which was involved in this operation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop this! Contributor asked you and your friend question in which nor you nor your friend did not answered at all. Regarding serious publications, I also presenting publications check them: V.Lescius. Lietuvos kariuomene nepriklausomybes kovose 1918-1920. 2004. J. Vaicenonis. Lietuvos kariuomene valstybes politinio gyvenimo verpetuose 1927-1940. M.K. 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please behave, M.K. And give ISBN and publishing house info, thank you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You easily can redirect your first part of remark to your "comment" above. As follows - 9955423234; 9955601043. As name is questionable - this result tagging. M.K. 11:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a very popular book, either one of them. When giving sources, please give all the relavant information next time, like this: Vytautas Lesčius, Lietuvos kariuomenė nepriklausomybės kovose : 1918 - 1920, Vilnius, 2004, Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos Karo Akademija and Jonas Vaičenonis, Lietuvos Kariuomenė valstybės politinio gyvenimo verpetuose : 1927-1940, Vilnius, 2003, Versus Aureus. So, what are those sources of yours claiming?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

After finally getting a reply of sorts, some thoughts. First, it appears that no respectable historical English source has ever referred to the surrounding events in this article as "Operation Wilno". Second, no one has provided any historical Polish military designation of an "operation" given the name in the article (this is the unanswered question that I kept repeating). As to what the city was called by most of it's population, and that being "Wilno"; that is an unencyclopedic personal opinion. Most importantly what the Polish army or any army "called" the city is not a reason to use a historically incorrect Polish toponym on English Wikipedia. Making it simpler, if the Germans called Cracow, Krakau, during the Second World War, it's not any kind of a reason to use the German name on EN-WP. Further, if there was a actually (there wasn't) a "Fall Krakau" instituted by the German military, one would still expect that one would refer to the Polish city as Cracow rather than Krakau on English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the title can be either descriptive or based on the established usage. If there is an established usage in the English language literature to call the subject of the article "Operation Wilno", that settles is. If there is no single established name, we need to use the descriptive name. It would be some noun (maybe "operation", maybe "offensive", maybe "invasion" (right?) or maybe "expedition") followed by the name of the city (last time I checked it was Vilnius) and followed by the year. --00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you (please sign in next time, Irpen). If you read the history of the article and who authored it and gave it its title, and then read the very first entry on this talk page on November 4, 2006 (and the author of that question), maybe you'd be confused too. Dr. Dan 15:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I just followed the red link from the battlebox, IIRC. Halibutt noted above that the Polish term is operacja wileńska. English historiography doesn't seem to have any term for it. So do we use 'operation' translating Polish term, or go with battle? As for Wilno/Vilnius the historical context favours Wilno (this is not the modern Lithuanian city but the 2% Lithuanian historical one we are talking about). Recall also Wilno Uprising and Battle of Vilnius (1944).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Two totally different time periods, two totally different events, although the uprising and the battle are certainly more entitled to some merging or commingling. Dr. Dan 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No. See my reply below with quotes from WERS, where Davies uses Wilno.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this current article, and poorly named article and the Battle of Vilnius 1944, are still two different time periods and two totally different events. Perhaps the Battle of Vilnius, or Vilne, 1919, might be an acceptable alternative? Dr. Dan 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Jewish Issue

This incorrect POV regarding the Lithuanian Jewish population throughout these "articles", is really too much. It demonstrates a total lack of objectivity and an immense bias. It thwarts reaching any kind of compromise and consensus. Anyone having any idea about history and geography knows that Vilnius is historically a Lithuanian city, in what is the historical territory of Lithuania. Whether it has been occupied by various other states doesn't make it any less Lithuanian, than Paris is any less French, because it too has been occupied. This constant referring to Vilnius as 2% Lithuanian, needs to be addressed with the question: Why was Pilsudski bothering to issue his Proclamation to the inhabitants of the former Grand-Duchy of Lithuania, bi-lingually in both Polish and Lithuanian to the inhabitants of Vilnius? Doesn't this strike anyone else as unusual? I mean why bother for a measley 2% of "illiterate" Lithuanians? Could it be that this "Polish speaking majority" was bi-lingual, or that their national consciuosness had to be addressed (or the Naczelnik's own conscience was bothering him). As to my major issue, my objection to the earlier claim that the Jewish inhabitants of Vilnius were Polish Jews, the reality is that for the most part the identity or the "nationality" of Jews, other than their Jewish heritage, would be residency. Isn't that the reality of what constitutes a Danish Jew or a French Jew? Or a Polish Jew, or a Lithuanian Jew? The real issue with this Polish POV, is denying that Vilnius is Lithuanian, or implying that Lithuania is simply a province of one occupier or another. Dr. Dan 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish issue is simple and explained in the footnote with references including the Oxford published one. Wilno's Jews included those fitting the definition of Lithuanian Jews, Polish Jews and even Russian Jews. If you want to have only one term, then Polish is more accurate then Lithuanian (just read apporpiate articles), as Polish Jews refers to all the Jews that lived in former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, while Lithuanian Jews refers only to Ashkenazi Jews. As for Piłsudski's reasons for the bi-lingual proclamation, please provide some academic references instead of your speculations. Finally, as to 2% of Lithuanians, this number is referenced; I'd also like to point out some interesting quotes from WERS: "The Polish citizens of Wilno... were delighted... Even the Jewish population, which was the only other sizable community in Wilno, welcomed... [the Polish capture of Wilno] ...thwarted the ambitions of the Lithuanian nationalists governement in Kaunas. Although very few Lithuanians lived in the city at that time, Wilno, or Vilnius as they called it, was the historic capital of Lithuania; the nationalists could not resign themselves to its loss." This also shows why it should be Operation Wilno, not Vilnius.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The provided source do not give such formulation which is presented in "referencing part", as well as suggestions to read wikipedia, this means personal interpretation of source in other words - Original research. Second in my presented sources also noted support to Lithuanians from Jews; taking into consideration that Jews, Belorussians etc boycotted staged elections during later evens, draws some light too. M.K. 10:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Lithuanian Jews are Ashkenazi Jews, and what, Polish Jews are not? Let it be noted that your original edit here called the Jewish inhabitants of Vilnius Polish Jews, and now that you are confronted with the reality that it is a position which is not tenable or possible to defend realistically, they are no longer Polish Jews, but Jews. Or anything but possibly Lithuanian Jews? If if can't be the Polish version, O.K., but certainly not the Lithuanian version. Hello, people! What's going on here? The article title has no basis to be presented as it is on English Wikipedia, yet it's here. The author of the article and it's title asks on the top of this talk page, if the title shouldn't be something else. Then this same person calls the Jews of Vilnius, Polish Jews, and upon being called on this "fact", now retracts this false edit, but refuses to acknowledge Lithuania's Jewish inhabitants, due to what? Lastly, my questioning Pilsudski's bi-lingual proclamations do not require citations. The talk pages are a forum where such a question can be asked. And a damned good question it remains. Perhaps someone else can tell us why Dziadek thought the "2%" of the Lithuanian population of Vilnius deserved proclamations in both Polish and Lithuanian. Dr. Dan 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is far outside my realm of expertise, but I'll comment anyways... My understanding is that Kovno, unlike Wilno, was, in Jewish spheres, long considered to be Poylish, rather than Litvish—Wilno being only ever considered Litvish. That said, there is a history that's being ignored in this entire discussion...namely, that the liberties of Jews in the PLC were inherited from the policies of the Polish Crown, not from Lithuanian policies prior to the period of the Commonwealth. From that perspective, any exorbitantly successful Jewish community could reasonably, even from a historical perspective, be considered more "Polish" than "Lithuanian", regardless of the locale in which the community found itself. Cheers, Tomer^talk 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting sidenote - I'd have thought that Kowno (Kaunas) would be much more Lithuanian then a more polonized Wilno (Vilnius) which became part of SPR during the interwar period. Would you have any refs to support the 'Litvishness' of Wilno when compared to Kowno?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To Tomer: thanks for you input. Since this is far outside your realm of expertise, I'll let that comment speak for itself. And Btw, the "liberties" of Lithuanian Jews in the PLC is not the issue being discussed, nor is any exorbitantly succesful Jewish community the issue here either. Your "regardless of the locale" remark is quite telling, and absolutely makes very little sense in the context of the discussion at hand. To the party commenting with Interesting sidenote, your knowledge of the subject matter is best exemplified with your belief that the uniqueness of Lithuanian Jews is that they are Ashkenazi Jews. Leading us to the conclusion that Polish Jews are Sephardic Jews. Right? Rather humorous, isn't it? Putting bluntly it seems you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. Dr. Dan 18:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you do? I see no reason to discuss the matter with you further until you show us your knowledge by contributing something useful to the articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Damned right I know what I'm talking about! Go up all the way to the the top of this talk page and read your first entry as a reminder of just what this article and your imput is all about. You are the author of its name after all, right? Dr. Dan 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So What's Wrong With this Picture?

First and foremost the title is bogus. There is no historical basis for the title "Operation Wilno". The Polish military itself had no such designation for the events described in this article. Nor would referencing a few Polish magazine articles calling it "Operation Wilno" justify this article's current title. What legitimate scholarly historical work calls this event "Operation Wilno"? Then we have the Polish geographical toponym "Wilno" interjected into English Wikipedia, and are told that since the Polish soldiers involved in this event, called it "Wilno", we should call it Wilno too. As far as any kind of balance is concerned, I suspect the reason that the "Soviet" aspect in the "Battle Box" is so barren is because this victory took place, against a virtually militarily undefended city. Just how many "Soviets" were manning the "garrison" that was conquered. I haven't checked out Davies yet, hopefully he tells us. One thing we do know is that the German occupying forces were there as late as January. The article needs more work and more objectivity. Dr. Dan 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, operacja wileńska exists although it seems to be more often used in relation to the 1944 Operation Ostra Brama (on the other hand, the 1944 uprising is more known that 1919 battle). The 1919 event is reffered to as operacja wileńska for example in WIEM Encyklopedia[1]. That said, this term is also used by at least one book for a battle during the November Uprising in 1831, too. Per my above comments, I would support renaming this to Battle of Wilno (1919). And it's Wilno per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (just as it is the battle of Stalingrad, not the battle of Volgograd. PS. And Davies uses Wilno, too, see my citations above...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I would support renaming this to Battle of Vilnius (1919). As it was capital of Lithuania also with 1918 issue too, while Vilnius was never part of Poland before its occupation. M.K. 10:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the naming is such a problem, I would support the Battle of Vilna (1919), as both in Russian and English the name of the town at the time was Vilna. The fact that the locals knew it as Wilno or the fact that one of the governments claiming the area referred to it as Wilnius is rather of secondary importance. Does it sound acceptable? //Halibutt 11:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

governments claiming the area referred to it as Wilnius?? Government called it Wilnius?? M.K.

M.K., I should hope by now you would have noticed that he has a great inability to spell Vilnius correctly, consistently, or in an un-biased historical context. However that's not the case for similar editing by him regarding Kraków, Cracow, or Krakau. Just read the history of his various edits. Dr. Dan 14:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Btw, M.K., you'll notice that Pilsudski's proclamation to the "2%" of Lithuanians living in Vilnius and the rest of the inhabitants of the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" spells Vilnius correctly. Pilsudski got it right, but then again he was dealing with reality. Dr. Dan 04:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least the correct name of the city is mentioned here in the first line. It's already a huge favor you are all getting. As of now, another battle article does not even mention what city this is all about. --Irpen 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Halibutt: tri-lingual? 2 to 5 % spoke Lithuanian, the rest spoke either Polish or Russian...

Now we are told that the majority of Vilnius' city dwellers did not exist. According to this edit summary, none of the 52 percent of the city's inhabitants consisting of Lithuanian Jews living there spoke either Hebrew or Yiddish - only Polish and Russian.--Lokyz 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lokyz, this comment not only is a blatant ad-hominen violating WP:NPA, but jokes about one's ethnicity are extremly offensive. Please apologize to Halibutt.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not joking. I was deadly serious, although, sadly, I do have to admit, I was wrong this time. The edit summary did mislead me.--Lokyz 10:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

After some reconsideration, accept my apology Halibutt, I was wrong, and should have held my temper (and more closely read the edit).--Lokyz 10:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Now on to your question: I consider the statement that was introduced into the article a perfect example of weasel term. Józef Piłsudski, a native of Vilnius, decided that regaining control over the city - whose population was mostly composed of Lithuanians, many who were tri-lingual and spoke Lithuanian , Polish and Russian and Jews is a complete nonsense. Sure, if we adopt the broadest possible definition of who a Lithuanian is, the Lithuanian nation would have some 30 millions of people back then: all Belarusians, most Poles living in what used to be GDL, all Jews living there, many Ukrainians, Russians and so on. However, the fact remains that people considering themselves [[Lithuania]]ns were but a slight minority there. Judging by the results of the elections even the [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania|Lithuanians]] (such as krajowcy) were a minority. On the other hand we have something tangible: the effects of all censuses held there around that time clearly show that the above statement is plainly wrong: neither there were Lithuanians there nor there were "many" tri-lingual people. Most spoke Polish or Yiddish, with Hebrew, Lithuanian or Georgian being but minority languages. Besides, judging from the post-1920 censuses, the major part of tri-lingual people (some 2% of the local population altogether) spoke Polish, Russian and Yiddish. Lithuanian was not among those.

All in all I decided that the statement I introduced is simply more correct as it is perfectly supportable by facts: most of the locals spoke Polish or Jewish. Full stop. Why hide it beneath some fancy terms that suggest something completely different? Besides, contrary to your original statement here I did not pretend the Jews were not there. To the contrary, I left only the two major nationalities in the list, being Polish and Jewish. //Halibutt 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And the evidence that these Lithuanian Jews (which most Jewish scholars consider to be "Lithuanian") mostly spoke Polish and Yiddish, but not Russian would be what? Dr. Dan 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody suggests that they didn't speak Russian - only that they didn't speak Lithuanian. What's your evidence for 'most scholars considering them to be Lithuanian'? Anyway, to expand on the issue of language of Wilno's Jews in particular and Lithuanian Jews in general: there is no doubt that some Lithuanian Jews spoke Lithuanian ([2], . However that does not mean that Wilno was inhabited by Lithuanian Jews who spoke Lithuanian. First, remember that only about 2% of Lithuanians lived there - so Jews would have little reason to Lithuanize. Here are some quotes: [Jews in Wilno]: 1) "majority spoke Yddish, minority spoke Russian and very few spoke Polish" [3] 2) in the paragraph about Wilno Ghetto, note that the author discusses pros of knowing Polish language and sais nothing about Lithuanian [4] 3) "Most middle class Jews in Wilno in 1938 spoke Polish" [5] 4) "Jews used to communicate with others in Polish and Russian had weak grasp of Lithuanian " (after Lithuania regained independence) p.135 - scroll up 5) "Poles outnumbered Jews in Wilno. Older Jews spoke Russian rather then Polish." Scroll-down for "majority of Wilnians self-identified as Polish".[6] 6) "The ethnic Lithuanians speaking Lithuanuian dominated countryside. Cities spoke Yddish, Russian (Jews) and Polish (Poles)."[7] 7) "Lithuanian Jews spoke Russian (more frequently than Polish)" [8] And so on. As you can see, Lithuanian Jews did not speak Lithuanian more prominently than they spoke Yddish and Russian, they apparently spoke Polish at least as much as Lithuanian, and whether it was Polish or Lithuanian Jews who inhabited Wilno (or both), that group most certainly spoke more Yddish, Russian and Polish than Lithuanian.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you're going all over the place. What do you want to straighten out first, your confusion about Lithuanian Jews in Vilnius, or whether the title of the article should be Operation Wilno, 1919? As for your reference to what Jews in "Wilno" spoke in 1938, are you trying out for an audition for a comedy act, or are you trying to be serious? What would that remotely have to do with this debate? And I add "remotely" in all seriousness. Dr. Dan 04:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As usually, nobody knows that, Dan. It was you to ask for evidence, so we thought that you might know how is that related. However, now that you got the evidence you tell us that both your question and the evidence presented is unrelated... //Halibutt 07:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should feel "honoured" that you would deign to respond to me, unfortunately you must have tried to do so late at night, or without the benefit of your electronic translator or other help. I'm sorry, but I don't even understand the gist of what you are trying to say in your above remarks. Dr. Dan 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to Square One?

Why are we being given the "treat" of the Polish toponym "Wilno" on English Wikipedia to descibe Vilnius, instead of it's accepted English name? Why are we told by an "administrator" that this is proper because the Polish solidiers involved in this misnamed article called it Wilno? Fortunately we are not being asked to call Rome, "Rzym" because that's what John Paul II called it. For the record, this article is not disputed only for an incorrect title of this short skirmish. It currently is an unbalanced propaganda piece, full of misinformation and weasel words, formulated to create a one-sided picture of the events in question. Dr. Dan 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

More on Pioturs' approach to the issues like "Vilna (modern Vilnius; known to Poles as Wilno)" is illuminated here. Three times he reverts similar usage of "Krakau (modern Krakow)" from a different article trying to suppress the contemporary name and replacing it with the modern one running a fierce revert war to achieve that: [9], [10], [11].

I think the term of double standards does not really apply. It may be double standards in a sense that contemporary name is suppressed in one incident but insisted upon in the other one, but I view this differently. I think this is a consistent approach. It is just based not on the contemporary/modern but Polish name/non-Poilish name approach. Polish name is the main one and should stay and the non-Polish name is either "irrelevant" ([12], [13], [14].) or "secondary" ([15], [16]) and should be suppressed. I think we should at least point out with pleasure that this approach is self-consistent and lacks double standards (at least by some standards). --Irpen 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides take a note that name Vilnius was used long time before this event. And yes such manipulation by user:Piotrus becoming disruptive. BTW, I did not have time to reread the whole presented referencing article Zerkolo, but does it correspond with newest Piotrus' edits [17]? M.K. 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And square two

And why are we seeing the editor war with certain users fiercely warring to remove the word "occupation" even from the text (not even the title)? Was the town militarily occupied by Polish troops or not? Or do some here consider "Occupation a non-neutral term? That would be a huge step forward. Too good to be true but if this is the case, I congratulate my opponent with their progress towards the sense of neutrality and we can proceed with this new understanding to other articles and rid them from the POV terms. Or, perhaps ridding articles is too much, let's just rid the titles first. Objections? Or am I misunderstanding something here on why those same editors who invasion, massacre and occupy article's titles liberally, suddenly get so sensitive about the in-text usage. --Irpen 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, "capture" in the context of the events portrayed here, just doesn't cut it in English. It's awkward and it has nothing to do with "neutrality", just semantics. Of course the city was occupied. In fact it was occupied for most of WWI and in 1919, and again by the Soviets in 1920. And between 1922-1939 as well. Just as Warsaw and Cracow were occupied in 1939-1945. It doesn't really matter if one "likes it or not". Those are the realities and facts of the case. More troubling is this absurd title, concocted out of some magazine article. Btw, do you know of any source that might have some information about the Soviet forces that were miraculously defeated by another stunning military victory? You know, strength, commanders, etc., just to balance out this one sided article. Dr. Dan 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, the reason is quite simple. We opposed the usage of the word liberation and we oppose the usage of the word occupation in all but most explicit cases. Such words are inherently POVed and their usage depends on our beliefs and not on facts. Capture is more neutral. I guess that's the very same reason why Russian wikipedians opposed to various Russian and Soviet occupations of Poland and preferred to call it with some less-loaded terms. //Halibutt 11:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point Halibutt and would have applauded your position if it was not selective thus expressing double standards. Where were you when I was crying out loud about various "invasions"- and "occupation"-titled article when the "inherently POVed words" where used followed by "of Poland" in the article titles? But it is not too late to correct. I've posted the list of those invasion, occupation and massacre titles to the Polish board several times. I can dig it out if you are going to help me to do something about changing their titles to more neutral ones. --Irpen 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, Irpen, only in Soviet propaganda Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) is called liberation. Sometimes invasion is invasion, liberation is liberation, occupation is occupation. Sometimes it is POV pushing. Fortunatly, Wikipedia community is quite good at determining which is which.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another straw man, Piotrus. Please show me where and when I tried to call the 1939 operation "liberation". I think the rule you imply is that or invasion occupation is by Poland (be it Vilnius, Tesin, Kiev, Lviv, etc.), calling it by name is POV-pushing. If it is an occupation or invasion of Poland, the occupation is an occupation. Did I get your view correctly? --Irpen 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Close. Let's use an example to help you grasp it. If Poland takes over a city with 2% or less population which speaks Polish, than its occupation. If Poland takes over a city where most population speaks Polish, considers itself Polish and welcome Polish troops, it is liberation. If somebody who is not Polish takes over a city where most of the population speaks Polish and has Polish citizenship, it is occupation of Poland. Better, now?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then in which respect the invasion of Russia in the 17th century or two invasions of Ukraine in the twentieth century are not "invasions"? --Irpen 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen while you are waiting for your response. I'd like to ask him if he thinks Breslau is a Polish city, using his statistical information regarding language and "nationality". And whether it's been "liberated", "recovered", "occupied", or whatever else he thinks he can get away with describing it in the context of our discussion. Dr. Dan 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you ask me where was I. Let me tell you then where was I - I was trying to convince you and Ghirlandajo that the Soviet view on the history of the world is not the only one. Remember your campaign of "liberation" in the context of 1920, 1939 and 1945? That's exactly it. And I admitted back then (just like I do now) that in some cases - very clear - I accept such words. For instance setting people free from concentration camp is liberation. However, in the context of the glorious march of the Red Army the matter is too complex (to put it mildly) to use such words. What to you was a liberation of Poles, to the Poles was yet another occupation. That's why there's plenty of neutral terms to use. I also pointed out back then (more than a year ago, if memory serves me) that the word "invasion" is much easier to use since it's technical: any entry of a foreign force on another state's territory is an invasion. Of course, there are problems as well. Take the Polish-Ukrainian offensive of May 1920. Technically it could be described as any of the following (depending on one's POV):

• Liberation of Ukraine
• Occupation of Ukraine
• Polish invasion of Ukraine (but not of Russia since no Polish soldier entered Russia)
• Ukrainian invasion of Ukraine (sic!)
• perhaps even a dozen more

That's precisely why it's much better to use neutral wording, without judging who was right or wrong. The term "offensive" is completely neutral, the term "liberation" is not. We don't have an article on the Polish liberation of Vilna or Lithuanian occupation of Vilna for a reason. Get the idea? //Halibutt 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Halibutt, for this explanation, although I have a feeling it may be wasted on some. For the others, I will stress that we are not using 'Polish occupation/liberation of Vilna (Wilno, Vilnius, whatever) of 1919/1920' for the same reason we are not talking about 'Lithuanian occupation/liberation of V/W of 1939'. Anybody who insists on using occupation/liberation in such POVed context is doing nothing but 'fanning the flames', and I don't intend to engage in such pointless discussions. What needed to be said was said, and unfortunatly more, too. If somebody wants to move the article, WP:RM is there. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First an "administrator" tells me in his edit summary on March 24, 2007, that he might change the terminology in the article's lead to "liberate" instead of "occupy" if I insist. Hello! Then his "landsman" throws in his two groszy with the same threat on March 26, 2007 in his edit summary ...liberation..., "if I insist".... The only thing that I do insist upon, is a rational title be given for this article that is not based on original research. I further insist that that the repeated childish vandalism of changing the accepted English geographical toponym of Vilnius, to the Polish version of Wilno, also cease, as there is no basis for it. Quit playing games with history and propagandizing a Polish nationalistic skewed interpretation of these events in the article, and thereby cheapening the WP project. Dr. Dan 00:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of feeding Piotrus and Halibutt's silly games here. They know they're being hypocritical. I will not loose my night's sleep over continued selective usage of the terms: of Poland=Occupation, Invasion, Massacre. By Poland=Offensive, Operation, Capture.

I was thinking for a while about writing a dedicated article about "Liberation of Tesin". I will perhaps call it such as these terms may make some here feel so great. Hell with accuracy, the Polish nationalist POV makes a fun reading. --Irpen 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Teschen, you have to read Winston Churchill's comments in his book, The Gathering Storm, regarding Poland's actions vis a vis the hapless population of this territory for another perspective, other than that of our friends. I think I included it in the talk pages of the article last year (February 15, 2006). As a result of all of this propaganda and weaseling, I'm giving serious thought to placing Churchill's comments in the article itself. You might have a laugh re-reading the talk page of the article (you participated in the discussion), for more "fun reading". The silence regarding Breslau is almost deafening , BTW. Dr. Dan 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you support one vision. That's ok with me as long as there is a slightest chance you'd also accept another vision. For instance, if you insist on using the POVed terms like "occupation", then why don't you allow me to call the operation a "glorious liberation from the red yoke"? That's the other side of the coin and if we decide not to follow NPOV vocabulary, then we'd have to present both POVs. No third option, I'm afraid. //Halibutt 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For one "Glorious liberation from the red yoke" is not in the same ball-park by POVishness as the "occupation". That would be "Brutal imposition of Polish yoke through an occupation" or smth along these lines. Where did I use that?

Next, you want to stick to NPOV terminology. Commendable!!! Let's start from the article's titles that I was calling for all along. Let's specifically start from all sorts of invasions, occupations and massacres of Poles and Poland in the titles all over the place. You can't eat your lunch and have it too. Let's finally rid those terms from the "...of Poland" titles while we insist on their non-neutrality when it is "...by Poland". You know what pages should be renamed if you accept my drive for NPOV terminology. Let's get the ball rolling. --Irpen 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat for the umpteenth time: in some cases terms like liberation or occupation are neutral and acceptable. Occupation of Czechoslovakia is a neutral term, as there are no alternatives. Same for Nazi occupation of parts of USSR, Soviet occupation of eastern Poland in 1939, liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp and so on. Are there any titles in particular you'd like to discuss? If so, please be so kind as to provide the links here. //Halibutt 08:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Operation Wilno → Battle of Wilno (1919) — I created the article few months back under the title 'Operation Wilno', which with a hindsight is rather problematic. As there are no sources supporting the use of this term in English, and Polish term 'operacja wileńska' usually refers to Operation Ostra Brama/Wilno Uprising (ex. [18]), I'd like for this article to be moved to Battle of Wilno (1919) and Operation Wilno redirected to Wilno Uprising. Bottom line is that while there is still disagreement on whether it was Wilno/Vilna/Vilnius, nobody currently supports the 'Operation' part and 'Battle' should be rather uncontroversial.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Before any vote on the newly suggested "title" takes place, especially since the last one was not agreed to be appropriate by its own author, we need to have the entire circumstances of this "battle" reviewed. Did the Polish army really fight the Red Army to gain control of the city? Was there in fact a battle? What was the Red Army's strength during the battle? Its commanders? Its strategy? Its casualties? Did the Polish Army stay in Vilnius? Were they thrown out by the Red Army in 1920, when the Red army retook control of the city? Or did the Reds enter and occupy a virtually undefended city as did (I suspect), the Polish Army in 1919? These are somewhat rhetorical questions, but questions that might enable us to come to an agreement as to what in fact was going on in these months in question. A one-sided picture is not what the WP project needs or wants here, or anywhere. Dr. Dan 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested name for move is also unacceptable, particularly "Wilno" part. M.K. 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the article will stay under 'Operation Wilno'. I think you'll be even less happy with that name than I am.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not even Salvador Dali could have made a more surrealistic assertion than that. First you create the title, then you question your own creation and suggest it should be something else. Finally, because your second "suggestion" is shown to also be bogus and without any real basis, we're told we'll just have to live with your "original" creation. Nice. But if there was no battle, we can't add "Polish Victory" in the battle box, and that simply would be unnacceptable. Right? And although with or without a battle, Pilsudski, HIMSELF, could have entered Vilnius on April 21, but without a battle, the Victory Parade, would be more like Commodus entering the Colosseum dressed as Hercules. Right, again? Dr. Dan 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you expect Piotrus to create a perfect article with his first edit? Wikipedia is an ongoing project with ongoing improvements. Please stop with the straw man attacks. Your digressions and bizarre analogies aren't helping either. Appleseed (Talk) 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perfection? Hardly, however I do notice that you haven't added anything at all to the article to "improve" it yourself. Nor until you made these pithy remarks, have you added anything to the talk pages, other than now speaking for someone else. BTW, I was hoping to at least get some thanks from you yesterday, for providing the link that you asked for regarding the definition of "Pogrom", at the talk page of the Krakow pogrom, of what a progrom is. Best Dr. Dan 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. The article has been in existence for five months.

This request has reached the backlog at WP:RM, so I'm checking in, and I find the above discussion puzzling. What is this battle/operation called in the sources? I'd check myself, but most of it seems to come from a print source that I couldn't access until tomorrow at the earliest, and then it would take me a few hours. I see that people are disagreeing with the current name and the suggested name, but I don't see any suggestions for a better option. Why not suggest a few and allow another week for people to comment on various suggestions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The curent name should redirect to Wilno Uprising without any doubt, so as long as it stays under current name we have a problem. Unfortunatly nobody can find any better name, it appears - that is, referenced and with more support. Personally I think battle, the most commonly used word for this kind of event, is best - there was also some referenced support provided earlier (above) for that name.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What do the sources from which this article was written call the event? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I created this article based on Davies' White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War. Unfortunatly, I don't own an (English) copy, and it's not on Google Print. I guess I will go down to the library and look up his specific wording... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative name

This event is to obscure to have an established name, so the descriptive name should be used. I suggest Polish occupation of Vilnius (1919) as this name certainly describes the event and does not invoke Battles and Operations for the event which was none of this sort. What happened was that the Polish army rolled in and occupied the undefended city. Any objections? --Irpen 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey! Forgot that we have a tradition that "occupation", "invasion", etc can only be used if this is of Poland but never when by Poland. So, I guess, I should change my proposal to Polish takeover of Vilnius (1919). Or should it be only liberation? --Irpen 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I still see no reason why we cannot use shorter, common 'battle'. And for this period, Wilno or Vilna is more appopriate then Vilnius.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Because there was no "Battle". Otherwise, sources would call it such. Similarly, there were no Battles at many other places where Wikipedia calls them such, (Wolodarka anyone?). --Irpen 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I admire your denial of reality. Yes, I am sure the Soviets gave up on Wilno just like that, without a battle. It's just Poles incompetence which prevented them from taking this undefended city in less than three days, right? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, did it ever occur to you that sometimes troops retreat giving up the city without the battle. The was no Battle of Kiev (1920). Reds just left and Poles rolled in. Same was here. --Irpen 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: explain, please, why did it take Poles three days to take over a city Reds simply left? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they were waiting for Pilsudski, himself. I'm trying to find the Davies book, myself, (unfortunately, it's not all that readily available), but you've read it. What does Davies say about the "Soviet" defense of the city and their efforts to prevent its "capture" for three days of presumably heavy fighting. Dr. Dan 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that my or anyone's version of why they "waited" would be ORish. Bottomline is that no one calls (or "Wolodarka" for that matter) "a battle" except of Wikipedia. If you disagree just quote a mainstream source contrary to my asserion. --Irpen 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody calls it Polish takeover of Vilnius (1919), neither. So why do you advocate violating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)? 'Battle' is shorter than 'Polish takeover'. Thus we should use battle.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And Wolodarka is called a battle as well. And there the conflict was also between two sources on one side and one user's own beliefs on the other. History repeats itself. //Halibutt 08:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle descriptions

Polish takeover of Vilnius (1919) is a descriptive name for an event which, due to its obscurity, does not have any dedicated works deovted to it. This descriptive name correctly relfects the order of events because this is what it was, Polish military rolled in and took over the control of the city. I would have called it occupation but because the naming convention of some here allows only the "..of Poland" events to be called "occupations" I propsed a takeover. The Battle does not apply simply because there were no fighting to an extent as to call this a Battle. Was there any fighting btw? If we go with "occupation" we could be most precise as occupation is a usable term no matter whether fighting to place or not. This would allow to put the semantics aside but for this we need to change the rule that Poland cannot occupy any territory, it can only get occupied. The old song... --Irpen 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Presented name Polish takeover of Vilnius (1919) is quite balanced one, I would support it.M.K. 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This letter to Rzeczpospolita provides an interesting citation from collection of Polish military comminiques, 1919-1921, "O niepodległą i granice", Wyższa Szkoła Humanistyczna, Pułtusk, 1999. "Formation of our cavalry under col. Belina took Wilno 19.04 at 0500. [...] Enemy had resisted with extreme strenght. For two nights fights with bayonetes took place around the city. [...] Assault battalion of cpt. Komierowski and battalion of col. Wileński, using their bayonetes, first, spreading panic through enemies, entered the city." It doesn't look to me like the Soviets just retreated; a three day combat described by one side as 'extremely heavy' is no takeover, it's a battle. Here's another piece of info from Urbankowski's book (see Piłsudski's article from full citation), p.296: 'Belina's cavalry bypassed the city and attacked from behind, taking train station on the night of 18/19 April. From the front Śmigły's infantry prepared to attack. With the aid of local railwayman major Zaruski's unit moves a cargo train for Polish advancing infantry. Cavalryman acting as infantryman begin to fight for control of Śródmieście, take plac Katedralny, but their forces are too small compared to enemys. Belina sends a message asking for immediate reinforcements; around 2000 the train send in the morning returns. Poles resume the attack. On the morning on the first day of Easter Wilno is free." As we can see from Davies (per my old refs), Belina had 800 men and some light artillery. He couldn't take the city by himself. A force that could stop 800-strong assault and fight the supporting division for 2-3 days would not be small, and again this is most certainly a battle.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Do be patient, we are all trying to put this mess into some kind of unbiased encyclopedic article. In the meantime, your above reference (This letter to Rzeczpospolita), regarding your belief that there was a battle, also comments on "two pogroms" (one in Pinsk on 05.04.1919, and the other in Vilnius on 19.04.1919), that resulted in the Polish military executing Jews. As it makes the sweeping generality that the "Jews" supported the bolsheviks (shades of Zydokomuna again), the citation contradicts the assertion in "Operation Wilno", that the Jews of Vilnius welcomed the Polish government. And do try to translate your references into English when you use them on English Wikipedia. Dr. Dan 00:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Davies wrote that majority of the Jews welcomed Poles. The new ref notes that a minority of Jews, the 'bolshevik faction', fought them. The sources nicely confirm each another. I am looking forward to the day you will present a single reference of your own, instead of criticizing efforts of others.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you're saying the "bolshevik" Jews fought the "majority of Jews" who welcomed Poles? I know that you consider Davies the alpha and the omega, and the final arbiter of all such questions concerning Polish history in English, but I don't think he states this anywhere. I don't think your "new" source states this either. So where did you get that idea? Dr. Dan 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. It's directly referenced. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I read it. Where are "bolshevik Jews" engaged in a fight with the "Jews who welcomed the Poles", in the article? Can't find it. Dr. Dan 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Another battle account, from Przybylski's translation ([19]). It has a map and note the translation calls the event 'Vilnius Operation' (hence the Polish original was likely 'operacja wileńska'). "At dawn on 19 April the Polish squadrons arrived at the city, still with the benefit of surprise. In one swoop they took the station and a large section of the town, spreading panic and complete disorder in the garrison. However, little by little the enemy succeeded in holding itself in the north and west of the town, and began to put up a stubborn and coordinated defence. Sometimes they even attacked. The cavalry, not very numerous, dispersed throughout the streets of the large town and not used to fighting in such conditions, found itself in a difficult situation. But during the night help arrived in the form of the first infantrymen, transported in a train seized at Vilnius and sent to meet them. Still, it was only on 21 April that the issue was finally decided, with the arrival of General Rydz-Smigly and the rest of the infantry, allowing the Poles to attack decisively those parts of the town still held by Russian troops. During the afternoon of that day the entire town fell to the Poles" Again, we can see that the battle lasted for three days, and it was not an easy one (if you disagree, go ahead and particpate in a city fight lasting three days...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it's telling that your Przybylski translation refers to Wilno as Vilnius (which remains its proper description on English Wikipedia). Take a hint. Dr. Dan 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, amateur translations like that are likely indeed not to pay much attention to correct historical usage, indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes? Why are you using and then "treating" us to amateur references in that case? Dr. Dan 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amateur translations are better than none, I am afraid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've told you, and told you, and told you, "Be not afraid!" And if you insist on using "amateur" sources, references, translations, etc., try not to pick and choose the pieces here and there that you like, and "dissing" the parts that you don't like. Your source calls the city Vilnius, it's proper name and the proper translation of Wilno from Polish into English. How much time and effort are you going to waste denying that fact? Quit whistling Dixie! Dr. Dan 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Next: from Janusz Odziemkowski, Leksykon Wojny Polsko-Rosyjskiej 1919-1920', Oficyna Wydawnica RYTM, 2004, ISBN 8373990968 Wilno battle(s) are described on p. 431 to 437. Notable points. Fighting in that area lasted from 16 April to 15 May. Pilsudski worked on offensive from March (it actually was a counteroffensive, as Poles expected a Soviet push in that region). Preeliminary oders given by him on 26 March. Soviet forces in the area: Lithuanian Division, Western Division, and smaller units (my note: possibly part of Western Army (Russia)?). Soviet garrison of Wilno: 2,000, newly trained and mostly green. Soviet forces in the area estimated at 7,000 infantry, few hundreds of cavalry, and 10 artillery pieces. Polish forces (details in Polish - translating from military jargon will be done in the future): Belina's calvary group - dwa szadrony 11 pul; trzy szwadrony 4 pszwol, dwa szwadrony 11 pul, szwadron 7 pul; poltora szwadrony ckm, dwa dziala); and Smigly's infantry (trzy bataliony 1 ppLeg, dwa bataliony5 ppLeg, batalion 6 ppLeg, bateria 9pap, bateria 6pap oraz kompania telefraficzna). Forces left village of Myto in early morning. At 0330 on 19 mjr Zaruski took Lipowka. No enemy encoutered. Cavalry (spieszona) under lt. Gustaw Orlicz-Dreszer attacks train station, took 400 prisoners, 13 trains, and various mil. supplies. One of the captured trains is sent back for slower infantry reinforcements. Enemy completly surrounded, Polish forces take pl. Katedralny, Gora Zamkowa, and regions at the southern riverbank. City's population support Polish troops. About 1000 prisoners taken so far - soldiers and bolshevicks officials. In the afternoon Soviets organize defence; meanwhile Poles got tired and were running low on ammo. Around 2000 the train with infantry reinforcements under mjr Zaruski arrives (III/1 ppLeg of cpt. W. Langer; soon another battalion arrives). Infantry reinforces city center, during the night with help of local guides Polish forces cross the river. On the 20th bridges are in Polish hands, and more and more of the city, In the night of 20/21 rest of Polish infantry arrives. Last areas to be taken on 21 are Surpiszki. Pilsudski declares Belina's cavalry action a most excuisite military action carried out by Polish cavalry in this war ("najpiekniejszy czyn wojenny, dokonany w tej wojnie przez polska jazde"). Interestingly; this does not end the battle of Wilno. As noted in our article, Soviets tried hard to recapture it. Near the end of April about 12,000 infantry, 3,000 cavalry, 210 ckms and 44 guns are gathered by the Soviets in the area of Szyrwiany, Podbrodzie, Soly - Oszmiana. Polish forces in the area under gen S. Szeptycki numbers 11,000; in Wilno Smigly has 8 infantry battalions, 18 calvary szwadrons and 18 guns. Smigly decides to engage enemy forces before they merge. On the night of 28 to 29 gen. S Dab-Biernacki takes Podbrodzie. Soviets attack in Deliny-Ogrodniki direction; south of Wilno. Polish counterrack pushes Soviets back towards Szkodziszki-Grygajce. Soviet counterattack from the north of Wilno is succesfull, comes in several km lenght, breaks through Polish defences. They delay the attack for the night; Poles strenghten defence and counterattack, Soviets retreat toward Mejszagola and Podberezie; Poles pursue and take those two places and Giedrojsc and Smorgon. By mid-May Poles reach the line of Narocz lake - Hoduciszki - Ignalino - Lyngniany. Then there is the description of the 1920 battle; I'll live the details for that article - the battle was quick, Polish forces disorganized, Soviets took the city on 14 July. Names used: operacja wilenska, atak, uderzenie na Wilno, zajecie, zdobycie Wilna... Bibliography has several positios: G. Lukomski, R. Stolarski, Walka o Wilno: Z dziejow samoobrony Litwy i Balorusi, 1994; T. Piskorski, Zdobycie Wilna, Bellona, 1919; A. Przybylski, 'Ofensywa na Wilno', 1929. Based on that I think that the best name for the article would be Wilno offensive: offensive as it was an offensive without any doubht (from 16 IV to mid-V), and Wilno, since it was a Polish offensive's name and target.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

From Grzegorz Lukowski, Rafal E. Stolarski, Walka o Wilno, Oficyna Wydawnicza Audiutor, 1994, ISBN 8390008505. In early April members of Komitet Obrony Kresow - Michal Romer, Aleksander Prystor, Witold Abramowicz, Kazimierz Switalski met with Pilsudski, stressing the plight of occupied Wilno, and the need for the creation of self-government of city's inhabitants. p.45 Wilni is defended by Western Army. p. 46 Number of prisoners given is 1200. After end of suprise, in the afternoon - early evening, before the arrival of Polish reinforcements, enemy counterattacks were heavy; Poles were significantly aided by city's Polish population.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A note, perhaps unrelated to this discussion, but since Dan insists on it... The translator of Przybylski's work simply adopted a scheme in which all toponyms are translated to their modern names, regardless of the context. Hence there are Polish documents quoted with modern Belarusian or Lithuanian names in them, even though at the time the documents were created some of those names did not even exist. Such a solution seems logical and perhaps allows uninformed readers to check the names more easily on modern maps. However, fortunately wiki is not about easier reading. And we don't have to create articles on the Battle of Volgograd (a thing Przybylski's translator would most surely do). //Halibutt 02:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Volgograd" analogy is totally ridiculous. What you fail to grasp in your inconsistent editing concerning the matter, and insistence that Vilnius is some modern rendition of "Wilno", is that this remains English Wikipedia. I should hope you agree that we would be completely out of line to refer to the Warsaw uprising as the Warszawa uprising, because that's what the Polish participants called the city. This insistence of using "Wilno" here, is not going to cut it in English Wikipedia. This is going to finally be resolved. Quotes stating that Wilno is the best name for the article, since it was a Polish offensive and target, speaks for itself, and is biased nationalistic POV pushing, and is not any kind of basis to call this "Operation Wilno" or the "Battle of Wilno" (1919). The city was occupied numerous times between 1915-1922, and the best way to distinguish this particular occupation is to call this one, The Polish Occupation of Vilnius (1919), so as to distinguish it from the other occupations in its history. It's that simple. As for the word "occupation" itself, in the English speaking world, it is not pejorative, inflammatory or otherwise offensive. It's very descriptive and proper in this case. Dr. Dan 02:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Dan, it is your example which is totally ridiculous. As explained by WP:NCGN policy, quoted to you many times. Warszawa is not used English sources. Wilno is. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's Cracow, Warsaw, and Vilnius in English. It's Kraków, Warszawa, and Wilno in Polish. Those are the facts, regardless if someone wants to believe it or not. If someone cares to use "Warszawa" in an English "source" (and it has been done), does not make using it correct. All your arguments boil down to Vilnius should be called Wilno in this article "since it was a Polish offensive and target", not because it is correct. Nor is Wikipedia about harder reading either, or about complicating and confusing issues, or nationalistic POV pushing. Dr. Dan 13:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political front

From Antoni Czubinski. Walka o granice wschodnie polski w latach 1918-1921. Instytut Slaski w Opolu 1993 p 83. One of Pilsudski's goals was to take control of Wilno before western diplomats could rule on whom the city, demanded by various factions, should be given to. Wilno was defended by 'Western Rifleman Division'. The action was not discussed with Polish politicians. P. 92 - About Pilsudski's declaration: Polish capture of Wilno caused Lithuanians to protest, the P. declaration was aimed at showing good will to L. and international diplomats; the latter succeeded as P. dealt a blow to the image of 'Polish conquest' and created the image of 'Poland fighting with Bolshvicks dicatorship and liberating other nations' but the L. were not convinced. It was not discussed with Sejm, and caused much anger among P. opponents from endecja who even accused P. of treason; particulary ZSL and PSL Piast demanded incorporation of Wilno region into Poland. PPS supported

[edit] English vs. Polish

Since this article needs to be "reviewed", and it has been now suggested by an administrator, to be militarily peer reviewed, and since "neutral" input needs to be infused into this "article", I suggest a resolution to the question of whether the Polish toponym, "Wilno", is the correct toponym on English Wikipedia to describe the city. First, it is totally uneccessary to confuse our readers with multiple POV pushing names for cities (based on nationalistic biases). Second, it can be demonstrated that the constant reverts of Vilnius to Wilno, and then as a concession, to Vilna, is not applied in any kind of consistent manner, but rather in a "maybe we can get away with it today" mentality bordering on childish vandalism. Dr. Dan 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet commander

If anybody can find information on Soviet commander, it would be great. No sources I read seem to have the information.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame (I mean about your inability to find different sources). Before "creating" articles, it might behoove you find such sources in order to present a balanced rather than one-sided perspective. Anyway, you'll be happy to know I bought Davies', "White Eagle, Red Star", at an antiquarian book store today. Wow! I'm going to enjoy adding some of the aspects of Davies' book that you overlooked, or purposely neglected to add to the article. I might even spin off an article or two of their own, based on his research. Some of it very shocking, I must say. Dr. Dan 23:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You would really start editing content seriously? I am looking forward to seeing the Dan, The Content Editor.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A good question, Piotrus. In theory, the Red Army at that point did not have any commanders in the western sense of the term. You know, the voting, councils of deputies, war councils and all that bolshevik stuff.. However, in practice Russian units did have commanding officers, or rather comrades in charge. Several names come to my mind when it comes to Vilna 1919, would have to check the books for the details though. My candidates would be Miasnikov (the political commander of the Western Front shortly before that battle) and/or the Stanisław Bobiński-Stefan Żbikowski duo (the political commanders of the Western Rifle Division to hold the city, soon afterwards renamed to 52nd Rifle Division). However, as the Western Division was quite dispersed all along the front in the area, perhaps there was also a comrade in charge of the city's garrison. //Halibutt 02:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If you could check the books, it would be most appreciated. Also, any further information on the Soviet 'Lithuanian Division'? I wonder what are best official names for them in English. PS. It's a pleasure to receive meaningful and constructive comments on this page, I was begining to forget such a thing is possible here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As to 'Lithuanian Division', I guess it might be one of the names for the Vilnian Regiment of the Western Rifle Division, which was in large part composed of ethnic Lithuanians (while the rest of the division was in large part Polish, BTW). I'll search the books after the Easter though. //Halibutt 08:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As to the 'Lithuanian Division', this is pure WP:OR original research (like so much else in this article). No such division, named as such, existed. Dr. Dan 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to ask Janusz Odziemkowski for clarification; nonetheless he uses this term and it fullfills WP:V.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Janusz Odziemkowski isn't involved in this discussion, so he can't explain how this term fullfills (sic). But you can tell us what scholarly English source speaks of a "Soviet Lithuanian Division" during the Polish military occupation of Vilnius in 1919. Dr. Dan 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly write an article on that, although first the I'll take care of the Western Rifle Division. For now, existing sources comply with our policies.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Widely Accepted Historical English Name"

Please, Wilno is not the widely accepted "historical" English name for Vilnius. Nor is Vilnius, its "modern" name either. Wilno is the Polish toponym for the city. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue with some blather about its "historical" association, and please quit trying to confuse the readers with its innapropriate use. It's Vilnius (formerly Vilna) known in Polish as Wilno. Very simple. During the Polish occupation 1922-1939, you can call it Wilno if you must, but not everywhere else (with ridiculous and constantly changing rationale from article to article). Some like to call Gdynia, Gotenhafen during its occupation 1939-1945. Personally I don't, but that's another matter altogether. There is definitely a pattern of Polish editors constantly attempting to give Polish lessons and "teach" us with WP:OR, (as in Vistulan Country) things that are not appropriate or even heard of in English histography. Dr. Dan 04:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that, the usage of "Krakau modern Krakow" (not even "modern Crakow") was reverted by who? --Irpen 04:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The case of Vilnius is more similar to Gdańsk or Klaipeda than Kraków. Danzig was inhabitated mostly by German-speaking population, Wilno by Polish-speaking. Dan, please mind that whether you speak of Polish "occupation" or "liberation" of Vilnius is a matter of POV. Its Polish inhabitants would certainly not consider it an occupation. In the case of Kraków or Gdynia these questions do not exist, so please choose your parallels adequately. --Lysy^talk 05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, since residents of Kiev never called it "Kijow", the historic mentions of Kijow should be purged from articles and Kijow Voivodship renamed. I am looking forward for your and Piotrus' support of this development. --Irpen 05:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Irpen. The people who dealt with administration were Polish speaking and so 'Kijów V.' was the name used; although I would not object to the use of 'Kiev V.' if we can show this term is preffered in English literature. Similary, once I translate pl:Warszawski Okręg Wojskowy (rosyjski)] (Варшавский Военный Округ) into English, it will be either under English name or Russian transliteration, depending on which one was more popular.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the inhabitants of Kiev never called the city that way, the paralell would probably be ok. However, the Polish-speaking diaspora in Kiev was quite notable at the time. Certainly much more numerous than "Ukrainian" community of Kiev in, say, 16th century. As late as 1937 there were more than 0,4 million self-declared Poles in the Ukraine. And the number of Polish speakers was certainly much higher back in the times when Polish was a lingua franca of Central Europe. //Halibutt 08:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I'm sure you remember we have developed a guideline for this, WP:NCGN, in order to avoid having to discuss this over and over again in each individual article. Can you voice your doubts there maybe ? --Lysy^talk 09:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Vilnius/Wilno issue seems to be surfacing realativly often, I think it's a good idea to consider a large discussion and vote on which name to use in which situation, as was done with Gdańsk/Danzig issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime "Operation Wilno", or even "Operation Vilnius" is a nonsensical title, and WP:OR, pure and simple. And using "Wilno" in any retitling of this skirmish is inappropriate in the time frame of 1919. The rationale that it was "known by this name to the participants of this action" (or some such absurdity) is really something to laugh about. Dr. Dan 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And Lysy, I noticed in your comments you didn't address the issue as to whether, "Wilno is a widely accepted historical English name for Vilnius". Do you think it is? Dr. Dan 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly you opposed the move proposal above. Seems like you don't want to have the cake nor eat it, Dr. Dan. In the 1919 (and broadly before 1990s) the terms Wilno and Vilna were more popular than modern Vilnius. We can find, in period 1900-1945, 212 English language books using word Wilno; 439 using Vilna and 58 using Vilnius. The trend is quite clear - and supports Halibutts claim that Vilna was the most popular. Note that for period 1990-2007 the stats are 239 for Wilno, 519 for Vilna and 520 for Vilnius. The trend and differences are clear. WP:NCGN clearly states: if the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. For period before 1900-1945 we can clearly see that the accepted historical English name is either Vilna or Wilno. This applies both to the title and usage in article. Per name, I am currently considering two names: Battle of Wilno (1919) or Wilno offensive, with preference to the latter as the article describes more than just fights in Wilno.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I never opposed the proposed move, I simply didn't support it (there's a difference), and I didn't support it because it is original research. And now we're told that "Polish was the lingua franca in Central Europe". Amazing! Dr. Dan 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. What is this Polish obsession with denying that they are part of Eastern Europe, anyway. Is being Eastern European something shamefull?

You might want to read up more on the languages spoken in Central Europe back in, say, 17th century. You'd surely be amazed to learn a thing or two.

Oh, and aren't you the one to make fun of anyone who makes a typo BTW? Who's the pot and who's the kettle here? //Halibutt 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As late as the Interbellum, many educated Lithuanians spoke and wrote Polish. Nihil novi 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Central-Europe question, the article "Geographical centre of Europe" lists Poland as one of the claimants as the geographical center of the continent. As such, it is unlikely to be part of Eastern Europe. Nihil novi 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who spoke what and where is irrelevant here. What is relevant is what terminology is used in modern English historiography for the specific toponym in the context of the specific time. We had a similar dispute about the name of Chernihiv in the context of the time of the Kievan Rus and what was the most decisive factor was that it is called Chernigov in the works about medieval times almost consistently even in the books published now.[20] As such, it is the incumbent of the Wilno-pushers to show the prevailance of the term in English in the specific context and that the prevailance persisted to this day. Unless this can be done, the usage should fall on the default name of the city, that is Vilnius. What language was spoken by Litvin Pilsudski, a native of the area, is by far less relevant. --Irpen 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). //Halibutt 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be more specific. I read that page and took active part in the writing of that policy. No need to point it out. Explain... --Irpen 22:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done this above - both the relevant policy part is quoted, and evidence presented.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The article does not deal with the period of time when the city held a different name, if you mean that entry of yours. The name of the city did not change. It remains Wilno in Polish and Vilnius in Lithuanian. The Russian name changed from the 20th century ineed from Вильна to Вильнюс. So, don't bring the Volgograd straw man again here. One thing is when the city was actually renamed, another thing is to claim that a different than current national name serves a basis for the English usage in the particular context. You have to demonstrate this similar to how this was demonstrated in case of Chernihiv. If you can provide us with the analysis of the modern English usage in the particular context and show that Wilno prevails, you get the name to use in the article. --Irpen

No, Irpen, we are not talking about modern context, but about historical one. Wilno prevails in historical one and should be used in such cases. And if we consider all publications, and how they do refer to Wilno in this event, we see a very similar result for Wilno and Vilnius and huge majority for Vilna. In light of this I would suggest using the Vilna offensive name.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As a Polish codename, "Operation Wilno" arguably could keep that name in English translation. On the other hand, why use a Polish codename? Why not rename it "Battle of Vilnius (1919)"? Nihil novi 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, Piotrus already mentioned the relevant part. //Halibutt 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it myself right now, but may I suggest exploring actual English data to see what the city and what the subject of this article is called when discussing 1919. This is what WP:NCGN recommends; besides Encyclopedias, which are unlikely to go into detail, the New Cambridge Modern History and perhaps George F. Kennan will be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was saying all along. However, it is the burden on those who want to put a different from a currently accepted name to show the prevailance of the name they favor in particular context. I've done the same for Chernihiv in the medieval context. --Irpen 02:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Per my above comments, Vilna is the preferred variant. Any objections to Vilna offensive?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it help to add "(1919)"? Might this title be ambiguous as to whose offensive is meant (Poles'? Red Army's?)? Nihil novi 04:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Vilna [Vilnius?] conflict (1919)"? Nihil novi 05:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "conflict" is too watered-down to be useful. Appleseed (Talk) 13:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, offensive is more precise and used by sources (just substitute city for offensive in my searches above). We use only one - dominant - name in names. As for data, I have no problem with it, although it would be good to show there is at least one other Vilna (Wilno, Vilnius) offensive meriting a disambig.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents: I think there should be two parallel discussions: one, in accordance with WP:NCGN on Talk:Vilnius, regarding the use of various names of the city in historical context; one here, focusing solely on the name of the military operation. So far, no one has listed Google hits or any other evidence supporting a particular name of the operation (Vilnius/Wilno/Vilna battle/conflict/offensive...). I would suggest trying different combinations in Google Scholar and Google Books. This is an article about a historical event, not about a city. And, by the way, as to the city itself, the Vilnius article should include all the relevant names in the lead or in a separate paragraph (see WP:NCGN). Can anyone fix that? Tankred 12:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I listed the Google results above, in two posts. As for Vilnius and alternative names... I agree with you, however some Lithuanian editors find that solution offensive, and the link o alternative page seems to be a relativly stable compromise. Feel free to raise it on Vilnius talk, maybe we are ready for a change (but I doubht it).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant more direct google hits, the names of the military operation, not just the names of Vilnius during Pilsudski's times. As to Vilnius, I do not see any reason why a short paragraph discussing historic names of the city should offend anyone and I will be happy to propose it on the article's talk page. Tankred 21:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell, the operation didn't have any codename and was described in various words - battle, offensive, operation, capture, occupation, liberation... Nothing seems to be dominant. Considering the scope of the article I think 'offensive' is the best term - and so far nobody has objected to it (we have previously disagreed on operation (as there is no formal codename for it) and battle (for several reasons). I hope that nobody will claim there was no offensvie towards... well, that last part is still debated, as you can see.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Or campaign; offensive, in addition to the problem of its other meaning, suggests the Poles always advanced. Even if true, we may not want to suggest it in the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I haven't thought of that one, but it's good. If there are more campaign supporters, I have no problem with that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, campaign consists of several battles, while this article describes a single battle. I'd go for operation, as it clearly was an operation, but offensive is nice as well (technically both sides were on the move back then, so both were taking part in an offensive). //Halibutt 13:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of City

This is clearly going to be the hard part. WP:NCGN suggests that we should use what the city was called in English in 1919. But what is that?

Names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages:_U-Z#V claims the answer to that question is Vilna. This jibes with my recollection and the Historical Index to the New York Times to be found here. This solution will displease both contending nationalities; but is that a bad thing? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Scholar.google.com results for 1919-1922:

• Vilnius 2, one in Polish, one in Lithuanian (?)
• Wilno 17; all but two are in Polish, and one of the English results says Vilna(Wilno)
• Vilna 37, all but one appear to be in English.

I hope this helps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You forgot one thing city Vilnius was already capital city of reestablished Lithuania. M.K. 12:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that the Lith. government claimed a city which had <3% of Lithuanians as their capital, this changes Anderson's argument how...?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

M.K.'s factual statement doesn't "change Anderson's argument", and doesn't have to affect his statistics. The skewed and biased, "but reliably sourced", nonsense that Vilnius' Lithuanian population was less than 3% might be believed by you, but then again Idi Amin, believed he was the Last King of Scotland. As you have been repeatedly told, the Polish speaking (who also spoke Lithuanian and/or Russian too) population of Vilnius and its environs, who were ethnically Lithuanian, did not therefore lose their nationality, any more than an educated Pole who could speak Russian, lost his nationality. You can dance around all of the reasons that Pilsudski issued his Proclamation to the inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in Lithuanian, all you want. The fact remains that after his army occupied Vilnius, he issued the proclamation bilingually, and makes numerous appeals in it to the Lithuanians as a nation and a people (all for 2% of the population). When a year and a half later the Republic of Central Lithuania was "created" (another joke in itself), Vilnius (po Polsku, Wilno), was named its capital. Keep in mind it wasn't called "The Republic of North Eastern Poland". So then, you can kid yourself with google hits, and any biased research all you want that Vilnius is not historically Lithuanian, and that Lithuanians "invented" the toponym Vilnius in 1918. It's really quite humorous. Dr. Dan 02:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Pilsudski proclamation speaks for itself. Why not issue proclamation then occupying city in languages of people, who by some elements today considered to be mush more "dominant". And another interesting fact Pilsudski himself perfectly spoke in Lithuanian language, is he counted to those 2% or not? M.K. 08:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortunatly only Vilnija supports your claims, why dozens of reliable academic publications support mine. And no amount of virtual ink spilled will change that, nor the fact that Vilnija hate-publications will not be accepted as reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Prokonsul Piotrus, I suggest you to stop attacking contributors. It becoming really disruptive behavior. M.K. 08:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)P.s. I also would like to ask you, Piotrus, that you warn user:Halibutt, that such remarks as this one is not tolerated here, which mocks tragedy of Lithuanian people in 1991. M.K. 09:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather think that your reference to Lithuania regaining independence as 'tragedy' is rather alarming and disruptive, but than coming from somebody who uses Vilnija sources I guess I should not be surprised. In any case, we are discussing the article, not editors here - despite some people favorite tactics, I will not reply to any more off-topic comments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I regard this and this as tragedy of Lithuanian people in 1991. And btw, Lithuania reestablished its independence in 1990. M.K. 10:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, fortunatly (sic), "only" Vilnija "supports" my claims (according to you). So, why is that so fortunate? And why (sic)... while dozens of "reliable" academic publications (and a couple of tabloids out of Poland) support yours, I'll go to bed tonight knowing that only you, and a couple of other "reliable" publications, really think that Vilnius is not a historically Lithuanian city. I will concede however, that you probably know best when it comes to whether or not "hate-publications" are acceptable or reliable as sources to be used on WP. Dr. Dan 05:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the research. It appears that as Halibutt has been tellig us for ages, and I have become convinced recently, Vilna is the way to go. Yes, it will not please neither Wilno nor Vilnius factions, but in the end - the compromise is the solution which makes everyone equally unahappy, isn't it? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you... :) Let's wait for the other side to respond. //Halibutt 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you and your friend tell us in the Antoni Bohdziewicz article? Why didn't you change it in this article? In any case, for Septentrionalis' benefit: 1922, 1921, 1920, are not relevant to the issue here, and their inclusion "adulterates" the evidence. Furthermore the real issue here is the unbalanced, biased, article based on original research, which was named incorrectly. The "creator" of the article has suggested the improper name (Wilno) in several further renaming suggestions. Dr. Dan 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not be surprised to find this article POV; but that is a separate issue. As for Piotrus changing his mind: Good; that is what discussion is supposed to produce. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Now let's see what can be done to change his mind (P.P.), about the rest of his POV. Dr. Dan 01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

OK, Dr. Dan, fire away: what are your POV complaints, and (where they are also accuracy complaints) what's your evidence for The Truth? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you take the time to re-read this talk page, from start to finish, you will see not only my complaints, but those of others who felt the same way about the POV inherent in this article. You will also notice the evolution and improvements in the article (hopefully some were as a result of the complaints) Also, if you read the article from start to finish (including edits and changes from its incipiency), you can make your own determination about accuracy. Which is ultimately the purpose of WP, as I understand it. No original research, verifyable information, and allowing the reader to decide, The Truth. As for the truth, scriptures tell us, even Jesus didn't take that one on. Dr. Dan 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan, you were asked to state your POV complaints by a neutral editor. As a participant of this discussion from beginning till end I claim you have not done so, other than with relation to the name of the city (which has been resolved). Prove me wrong or decist from posting about squares or other off topic stuff along the lines 'Poles are POVed so this article is POVed'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And I addressed the neutral editor, by suggesting that he read the talk pages, and allowing him to determine the matter for himself, without a boring and unnecessary recapitulation of the same old, same old. But here you are, a half hour later, accusing me of of posting along the lines, Poles are POVed so this article is POVed. Try to do better than that.

To Septentrionalis: We can start with the Jewish issue (read the thread on the talk page, "The Jewish Issue"), and the original edit in the article referring to the Jews in "Wilno", as being Polish Jews. Untrue, and another example of biased (nationalistic to boot) POV. And the fact that so much of the POV is being removed and changed, doesn't negate the fact that it was there in the first place, and usually has to be removed bit by bit, like pulling teeth. It's all there in black and white. Dr. Dan 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen from history of article and discussions, some editors insisted that the Jews of Wilno were Lithuanian Jews only. After researching this issue I showed that they were often described as Polish or Russian, and it is explained in footnote with references - but some are still unahppy that it was not as easy as 'Lithuanian Jews = Lithuanians = Lithuanians in Wilno' only, apparently.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least we are in agreement again, and that other than with relation to the name of the city (which has been resolved) (sic), there were other issues of POV, and your contribution concerning "Polish Jews", is also fortunately gone. The hope is when the "smoke clears", you will be more objective in your editing, and this recapitualtion of point by point of your innacuracies and POV, won't be necessitated in the future. In the meantime do re-read this talk page from the top, and then your earliest entries in this article, and you might be surprised at its metamorphosis. Dr. Dan 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan, would you care to adopt a different tone? I suspect that without you to constantly fuel the fire with your sarcastic and patronizing remarks (including your beloved sic), there would be a lot less tension between editors of Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, and Soviet topics. Back on topic, I'm happy to see we are making some progress here. Appleseed (Talk) 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, how nice of you to drop by. As for (sic), I hope it helps with his English. As for my tone, thanks for your suggestion, even though I don't agree with your analysis. In any case, it would have been nice of you to comment [21]on the tone here as well. I know you enjoy reading my talk page. Maybe you missed it. Dr. Dan 02:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided doesn't work. And I stopped reading your talk page after our last encounter there. Anyway, let's stay on track here with the naming discussion. Appleseed (Talk) 03:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then, let's throw a few darts here and there, and take a shot here or there, and then get back on topic and stay on track. I love it! Dr. Dan 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At present, the article expresses no PoV on the nationality of the Jews, and has a source for the claim that most of them supported the Poles. I am not, thank God, on ArbCom, and therefore need not consider past PoV edits, now fixed. What else is now POV? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

please, dont be so fast - from one issue to another. Issue regarding Jews are quite complex and such small scrutiny on this issue as "supported the Poles" can be reviewed by other sources - [22]:

“

The arrival of the new 'liberators' opened a fresh chapter of Jewish agony. The Bolsheviks, before retreating, made their last stand from the old Jewish cemetery at Shnipishok. This circumstance, together with the fact that some Jews had sided with them, although many Poles had likewise done so, sufficed to make the Polish legionaries see a Bolshevik in every Jew. After a couple of days' fighting the Bolsheviks were driven to flight, whereupon the legionaries defiled and desecrated the cemetery, smashed the tombstones, and opened up the graves (including some of Vilna's earliest rabbis) in the belief that they would find in them arms and money. Disappointed in their search, the Poles transferred their attention from the dead to the living and ran amuck in the Jewish quarter. For three days they seized Jews in the streets, dragged them out of their homes, bludgeoned them savagely, and looted their houses and shops. About eighty Jews were shot, mostly in the district of Lipuvka, where some were ordered to dig their own graves; others were buried alive, and others were drowned, with their hands tied, in the Vilia. On April 21 [1919] a detachment of soldiers fired at a house from which they said, Jews had been shooting through a window. They drove out all the occupants, who included the writers A. Weiter, Lieb Jaffe, and Samuel Niger. Weiter was shot on the spot; the two others were seized and imprisoned for several days

”

Actually the Jews issue is deserved an separate chapter, and current state, when pretending that nothing happened is not NPOVM.K. 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of PMAnderson: You may be or not be aware that the Polish Army entered Pinsk during this "eastern advance" two weeks earlier, and murdered, in cold blood, Jewish civilians (emphasis: murdered, cold blood, civilians) in what was alliteratively referred to by the western English press as the "Polish Pogrom In Pinsk". The so-called Jewish support of this Polish Operation is as non-sensical as its title. Dr. Dan 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

M.K., if you mention the Morgenthau Report, please don't forget to add that it "found out that the Polish military and civil authorities did do their best to prevent the incidents and their recurrence in the future. It concluded that the excesses were of political rather than anti-Semitic nature and that the term pogrom was inapplicable to the conditions existing within a war zone"? (Tadeusz Piotrowski (1997). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide.... McFarland & Company, p. 41-42. ISBN 0-7864-0371-3.). Such incidents are described in Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War article. Jewish support for the Poles is mentioned in various refs, although certainly it was not as unified and strong as Polish, and a fact that a significant minority activly supported Bolsheviks, fought against the Poles in turn leading to Polish Army treating Jews with suspicion is worth mentioning. Again, per Morgenthau report, majority of Jewish casualties were a result of being in a warzone and activly fighting aganst Poles, not of any 'anti-semitic' excesses. See also my posts from 17:09, 4 February 2007, 01:41, 4 April 2007.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not quoted you Morgenthau Report, so Tadeusz Piotrowski ideas is not relevant, at least in this abstract. Killings of Jews then Poles occupied city Vilnius is reflected in western books widely, so it is only the question of time when this chapter appears here. And one of the killings of Jews that they "too much" supported Lithuanians. M.K. 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that so? And the Pinsk incident? The fact that the Jewish community has a different perspective than yours on what was going on in these weeks is telling in itself. In any case your original attempt to portray the Polish occupation of the city as a Jewish supported event is not so. Don't kid yourself. Dr. Dan 13:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Tough choice. Trust Norman Davies or trust User:Dr. Dan. Hmmm. Well, I am afraid WP:RS will have me stick with a respected scholar over another Wikipedian's opinion. Davies wrote "Even the Jewish population, which was the only other sizable community in Wilno, welcomed... [the Polish capture of Wilno]" (see p.53 or p.54). So how are you going to argue white is not white now? The fact that some Jews fought against Poles and got hurt in exchange doesn't represent what happened to majority. Some Poles fought alongside the Red Army in the Western Rifle Division and got hurt too, that doesn't mean they represented views or fates of majority.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a tougher choice is whether to trust Norman Davies or you, and your cherry picking of what you like out of his works, and disregarding what you don't like out of them. Take a look at p.47 (same work) and Major Łuzyński's actions which were precusors to the horrors just around the corner, and I'm talking about actions similar to what was done during the Holocaust. Not using WP:Weasel phraseology like ...The fact that some Jews fought against the Poles and got hurt in exchange (sic) doesn't represent what happened to majority (sic). How about this instead, "The Polish Army took Jewish civilian hostages in Pinsk, stood them up against a wall and murdered them?" As I've told you before I like Norman Davies, and I am going to give you lots of Norman Davies in the future. You on the other hand do not give Norman Davies enough credit when credit is due. Example: Upon Anglicizing Miedzymorze to "Federation of the Borders" (straight out of Davies) you felt using one English speaking scholar with knowledge of Polish history was insufficient grounds to make the change. So who do we trust, Dr. Dan quoting Davies, or do we trust the Prokonsul Piotrus, removing Davies when it doesn't agree with his agenda. Dr. Dan 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to write an article about the Pinsk events, go ahead, it is certainly notable. It is also off topic to this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I will. But it is not off topic, because those events at Pinsk took place during this Polish offensive and are definitely interelated. Perhaps when all is said and done the article will be properly renamed to something along the lines of "Polish Eastern Offensive" and incorporate all of the story. In any case the removal of the absurd title "Operation Wilno", with the new one (even though not ideal) is refreshing. A better title should still be worked out. Finally, the sooner you come to grips with the reality of the atrocities commited against Jews by the regular Polish Army in Vilnius and Pinsk and elswhere during these events, the better it will be for all of us. Instead of removing information about these crimes and trying to whitewash them, you should have added them yourself. That would be a step in the right direction. Dr. Dan 13:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to now?

What this article should have been, could have been, or might have been, was a description of the Polish Army's eastward advance in early 1919, in which several cities and towns were occupied by them. Some with resistance, and some without. Just as the lead indicates. This would avoid articles like "Operation Lida", "Operation Pińsk", and of course "Operation Kijów" (Heaven forbid). They are all equal and deserving of our attention, but since there were no such events called "operation" this or that in history, we'd be stuck with an WP:OR creation, if we allowed them into Wikipedia. If OR were permitted, we could simply name it something like Soviet Defensive War or Polish Freedom Wars. Another option is deletion of the article, followed by the incorporation of the relevant parts of the article into the Polish-Soviet War. Dr. Dan 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Vilna offensive is better than the present name. (Please note that it is not my first choice.) Unless anybody thinks it worse than the present name, can we go there, having at least improved the situation for everybody? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note the source, which should excuse usage of "operation" use name Vilnius, not Vilna or Wilno second note, in the affair regarding Vilnius, Lithuanians also prepared plans for recapturing their capital city. M.K. 11:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This article neither affirms or denies that the city in question is of right the capital of Lithuania, and it shouldn't. Neither should the title. If the Lithuanians prepared or mounted an offensive, write the article, or add it here. That has nothing to do with what this article should be named (except perhaps to make it offensives.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "If the Lithuanians prepared or mounted an offensive, write the article, or add it here. That has nothing to do with what this article should be named", actually it has. As Lithuanians never participated in so called "Operation Wilno", and after article scale expansion [23] the movement of Lithuanian army towards Vilnius approx. date fall in it as well. If we do not want to see 3 different articles on the same issue, presented points directly affects the title. M.K. 09:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What Lithuanian army offensive? I am not aware of any Lithuanian actions until Polish-Lithuanian War; please point us to the related referenced articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know why you not aware of any Lithuanian actions, probably as these there never considered to by "Polish-Lithuanian War". My recommendation of references holding nessasary information at first would be - Lietuvos kariuomenė nepriklausomybės kovose : 1918 - 1920, Vilnius, 2004. An impressive ~500 pages book prepared by scholars and military experts. M.K. 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Any English references? And please add who is the publisher of the book you mention.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Publishers Vilniaus universitetas and Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija; included in Lithuania's Millennium program. M.K. 09:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If the Lithuanian offensive is included in the article (with sources, please), then I will change my proposal to Vilna offensives. In the meantime, I repeat what I actually asked: Is Vilna offensive, while not ideal, better than what we have now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting that I can write chapter regarding these issues, but I will wait as I 99.99 % convinced that all these additions would be removed at sight, will wait to see that ArbCom suggests - if removal of referenced info is tolerated or not. Coming back to naming. The name which has only location name, would imply that all activities there conducted only for Vilnius, while it is not so (yes the main prise is Vilnius but not only), So answering query, no as one bad name should not be changed with another wrong one.M.K. 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Until you write a referenced addition, there is no reason not to rename the article. And please provide citations how if indeed the Lithuanian operation is known as "Vilnius offensive".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What "Vilnius offensive" ???? M.K. 09:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

M.K. never claimed that the proposed Lithuanian military action was called the "Vilnius Offensive", but right now we are still faced with the dilemma of the article named by you, Operation Wilno. Unresolved, original research, biased, and unworthy to be in the project as it stands. Still needs to be renamed and although much progress has been made in reshaping the article, much more is needed. Dr. Dan 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Halibutt and others above, that would get my support, as well as usage of Vilna in this historical context.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw no objection, so I moved it. Doubtless there are better names, but at least we're not talking about a non-existent Operation Wilno. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

May I ask you a question do you follow discussion? So answering query, no as one bad name should not be changed with another wrong one. Besides the name move which attracted a bunch of editors such not be moved without RM procedure, as editors may had no opportunity to follow title-Jew issues. M.K. 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you propose to rename this Vilnius pogrom? If not, what has the title to do with the Jews? Feel free to add {{PoV}}. or {{expand}} if you think them warranted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you did not understand, probably because I wrote not very clearly. And again, no I am not suggesting to rename this article to pogrom, but indeed the pogrom which accrued after Polish occupation of city should be noted in the article text. I was responding to your statement that there is no objections to move the tile, and this suggestion is simply untrue; as I noted before one bad name should not be placed with another bad. I placed "title-Jew" formulation because we talked not only about title issue but as well as developments regarding Jews, and to not so deeply involved contributors to follow naming issue could be a challenge, to avoid such problem there is an adequate procedures for moving articles. M.K. 11:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. As far as I am concerned that's a good name for the future, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

Now that the title issue has been resolved (temporarily?), and we are told what Vilnius was/is known by in Polish and Russian in the lead, I have taken the liberty to make the article uniform using the widely accepted English name of the city in the interest of consistency. It further helps to allay confusion on the part of readers having to deal with too many different names of the same city in the same article. If I missed any, please change them to Vilnius. Dr. Dan 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was for Vilna, not Vilnius (nor Wilno).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The "consensus" was regarding the title (and I suspect only temporarily), not the description of the city's modern name. Again to avoid confusion, Vilnius is the logical choice to describe the events occuring in the article to our current readers. It's known as Vilnius today, and the change will be made back to it again. But user:Piotrus, the author of this article, used neither Vilna nor Vilnius, in his many edits and reverts in his now discredited and removed attempt to use "Wilno" instead. In that regards, I rest my case, although a quick review of the history of his edits (now conviently changed) in the Antoni Bohdziewicz article, will further demonstrate that his activities here are not logical, fair, nor objective. It seems that anything, anything but Vilnius is his preference. How strange. 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 22, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Some rewording needed here and there in the article; spelling mistakes.

2. Factually accurate?: Sufficiently referenced and overall facts ok (as far as I know).

3. Broad in coverage?: Facts well covered.

4. Neutral point of view?: Text feels in some parts not-so-neutral, and an established Wikipedia user has also tagged article's neutrality disputed 2 weeks ago.

5. Article stability? Little changes during the last month.

6. Images?: Sufficient images, positioning might need some rethinking.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Drieakko 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atrocities

For the benefit of Prokonsul Piotrus, the crimes precursorily mentioned by me are well known to you. Inspite of this I have given this new stub a vagueness by calling these horrible acts allegations. If you wish to play games with the facts and want me to pepper this information with "references", I will give you them to you and expand this stub into a lengthy compilation of the crimes commited by the Polish Army in Pinsk, Lviv, and Vilnius in the Spring of 1919. I prefer a brief mention of these events here without an edit war. These events can be, or need not be expanded into articles of their own. That remains to be seen. Please do not suggest by your threats to remove my information, that they cannot be legitimately referenced by scholarly historical works. You more than many others are very well aware of what happened here and that the references can be easily provided. Please do not pretend that you are unaware that these crimes occured. One of your biggest faults is taking a simple sentence and loading it with citations, which ultimately makes the WP project subject to ridicule in academic circles. Take a look a the Vilnija article, where you have made considerable edits, and ask yourself if this is what a good Wikipedia article should look like? The first sentence is a real beauty. Dr. Dan 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan, or anyone, can you provide these references please ? I'll try to find some as well. --Lysy^talk 17:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, can you please provide some additional sources to support the "atrocities" ? Possibly by Western academics ? --Lysy^talk 14:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, thanks for starting the Pinsk massacre, it's a notable tragic event, but not related to this article. I have expanded and referenced the part about events in Vilna itself, although I am not sure if they need a separate section of their own. There is also some material discussed above in previous discussions about Jews in 1919 Vilna on that page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be mentioned in the article, as this happened during the campaign. Probably not a separate section, though, as this incident did not influence the fate of the operation and is only vaguely relevant. On the other hand the article about Pinsk massacre could be expanded with more details. --Lysy^talk 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know where it belongs, maybe to the "prelude" section ? What do you think ? --Lysy^talk 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Pinsk was taken before the Vilna offensive (around early March, based on this source), so it certainly is a 'prelude' event. What I don't see is its relevance to this article - as Davies notes [24], Pinsk events were a tragic decision by a "panicky" officer, with no impact on the Vilna offensive. It is rightly mentioned in the Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War, it has its own article, can be linked from History of Jews in Poland or some subsection, should be discussed in Morgenthau Report once this article is written, but what is the Pinsk connection to Vilna offensive, I don't see. On that note, there were reports of some attrocities in Lida, a town taken during that offensive, that seems more notable and could be mentioned in this article, although it appears to be a smaller event then what happened in Vilna - but at least it has some relation. Pinsk does not. PS. I found other sources for number of casualties in Vilna, but they are from 1919/1920 so I am not happy with them (current one is more academic). For the record: this gives 8 casualties for Vilna, none for Lida, but discusses larger property damage; this one gives the range 60-70. Brodonsky is an academic ([25] - Professor of German History and Chairman of the Department of History at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond) - so I think his 'over 100' estimate is more reliable, although it would be nice if he cited his sources...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concentration camps

The article now mentions concentration camps, to which the arrested Bolsheviks were sent. What concentration camps in 1919 ? --Lysy^talk 08:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The usage is referenced. Perhaps it is a matter of opinion how to call Tuchola resort. --Irpen 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a POW camp. Calling it a "concentration camp" seems extremely POV and bordering on Soviet propaganda. --Lysy^talk 09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the entire recent edits seem like nothing but. Russian (Soviet?) online ebooks providing very controversial claim should be first discussed on talk, per WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to confirm this usage with Google and Google books but found none. --Lysy^talk 09:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The book isn't an ebook. It is a paper book and I gave you an ISBN. Russian web-site militera posts scanned versions of books on military history online as a service to the community interested in history. That the book's copy is online does not make it more or less reliable. --Irpen 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean "Russian usage" ? I was trying to find some English language usage. Some terms are used much more liberally in Russian language than English, and "concentration camp" is among them, but we need to stick to English for the purpose of this wikipedia. So, if you are referring to Tuchola, it was a POW camp, at least in English terminology. --Lysy^talk 08:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now we get into the semantics of what a "concentration camp" means. Tuchola was not a resort, and the conditions there and the mortality rate accrued by the prisoners put it in a slightly different category than a typical POW camp. Perhaps it could be called a rehabilitation settlement or a re-education center. Is calling it a concentration camp innacurate or simply unpleasant? Are the creation of gulags and concentration camps only to be ascribed to Russians (Soviets) and Germans (nazis)? There are greater and deeper issues that need to be delved into here regarding the atrocities. Dr. Dan 14:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be correct in Russian, where the term is apparently being used more liberally, but in English usage it's not correct. There is a clear distinction between a POW camp and a concentration camp. --Lysy^talk 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Please try to provide page numbers when citing Мельтюхов's book. Otherwise the refs are hard to follow and less useful. --Lysy^talk 09:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I share your sentiment as I always have hard time verifying refs in similar situation. Therefore, I named specific sections and subsections in the online editions. Precise page numbers are unknown to me but most subsections are not long at all. --Irpen 09:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The page numbers are known and clearly marked in the book as presented online: [1] Так помечены страницы. Номер предшествует странице. Can you please provide them ? Thanks. --Lysy^talk 09:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers are only given in the content table and only for section starts. I gave just that. --Irpen 09:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, page numbers are given for every page. I do not understand why you don't want to provide them. --Lysy^talk 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide ISBN, publisher data and academic reviews. Per WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources, this book has some very controversial claims, it needs to be verified with other sources (preferably neutral Western research). You can count pages to give us numbers if it is a pdf, if not, please provide translated quotes, preferably showing what sources M. uses for his revelations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the above to achieve maximum transparency. - Darwinek 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, I don't get your point. I don't see page nubers in the text but I name the section title for your convenience, finding the piece of text within sections is even easier than the page number. I can easily get a paper copy and use its page numbers if you insist. It would be much more difficult for you to verify than referring to online sections like I am doing now but I can do that if you ask. Piotrus, ISBN, publisher data etc are given. --Irpen 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you do not get my point, indeed. The online version provides the page numbers. Please read again the following sentence:

[1] Так помечены страницы. Номер предшествует странице.

it refers to the online text to which you have kindly provided the link. Now, as an example, I have provided one page number in the Pinsk massacre article, for the fragment that I found in the online text. However, since you provided the citations, all I'm asking is that you complete them with the specific page numbers, which are provided in the online text, as I just did for the hospital incident. This would be much easier for you, since you know where the original passages that you had in mind were. Later, you would forget them and the citations you provided will prove useless. --Lysy^talk 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Page numbers, like [24], look too similar to ref numbers notes as {24} and they all seem one to me. Hold on, will add page numbers now. --Irpen 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was sure it was a misunderstanding. This is a good example to show why WP:AGF policy is important. --Lysy^talk 08:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond pale

The claims Piotrus is making while revert warring are interesting. A historic monograph specifically on the article's subject written by an academic historian with hundreds of refs is called "unreliable" (elsewhere Polish newspapers written by journalists is OK by this editor), claims sourced to the commission report are also deleted. This is a nice illustration of double-standards and biased editing for the arbcom. I suppose emails are now going out to recruit help to continue this silly revert war. --Irpen 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As both I and Lysy tried to explain on your talk page, Meltyukhov revelations, being very controversial and unsupported by other sources, fail WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Specifically, the disputed claims include: concentration camps (discussed above), that "the uprisings of local population took place immediately upon the Polish advances", that "elderly, women and children were executed without trial", and the entire para with "Michel Kossakowski" quotations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the realities of Putin's Russia and the resurgence of nationalism there, any recent work by Russian historians on sensitive and controversial subjects (such as conflicts between Russia and its neighbours) must be carefully examined for nationalist bias. Sad but true. Balcer 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That was low blow. Unnecessary and off-topic. There is no need of insulting the whole groups of people just because of their nationality. Just because Liga Polskich Rodzin is in power, neo-nazis are appointed to the vice-president posts in the Polish Public Television [26], that does not make all the studies of Polish historians unreliable. So why the Russian scientist should be attacked using such logical fallacy. M0RD00R 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I would be highly suspicious of any publications made under the control of Liga Polskich Rodzin, or Polish Public Television programs made under the direction of Piotr Farfał. I would be the first to protest if someone tried to push controversial claims using such publications.

However, Poland remains a democratic country, with rule of law, independence of universities, free press etc etc. It cannot thus be said that it has to be assumed that the work of any Polish historian is likely to be influenced by the bias espoused by LPR and its supporters (who currently get less than 5% support in the polls). So your comparison is rather off the mark. Surely you can see at least some differences between the current internal situation in Poland and Russia. Balcer 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, frankly, I did not expect such kind of nonsense from you. But in any case, this does not apply. Meltyukhov's book was written in 2000 and all your speculations about modern day Russia does not apply. As for Poland's press and academia, I happen to read Polish press, especially, when I need a good laugh. --Irpen 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure I have my dates straight, Putin came to power in mid-1999, and the book was published in 2001. Plus obviously Putin's rise reflected changes in Russian political climate which have been evident since the second half of the 1990s, once the love affair with the West of the early Yeltsin years evaporated. As for the Polish press, I fully agree with you that much of it is of low quality. But that is a direct consequence of having a free press and one has to live with it.

Anyway, as Wikipedians we cannot just quote any random book found online as a serious academic source. This does not apply only to sources from Poland, Russia or any other country. However, it is especially relevant when a source written by an academic from country A about a war between country A and B contains highly negative and selective statements about individuals from country B. Balcer 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

M0RD00R, you forgot to mention that a known nationalist and xenophobe in appointed as a minister of education in Poland. I view of this, our respected opponents would probably stop using any kinds of Polish sources from now on and remove those that are used from articles. But indeed, the reply to the above speculations is self-evident. Reigning with double standards is neither new nor unusual. --Irpen 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, with Giertych as minister, I believe we can no longer use materials issued by the Polish Ministry of Education to reference controversial claims. Balcer 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Setting your unrelated comments aside, we are not discussing Polish but Russian sources here. OT: Polish parliamentary election, 2005 with 8% of votes in Sejm is hardly 'in power', and even if such sad individuals as Farfal ([27]) are occasionaly appointed to government posts, it is no different from mistakes in any other country; however in Poland political aganda has no influence on academic publications - for Russian one, please see this interesting article. Anyway, instead of ignoring faults of Polish and Russian historiography, they must be analyzed in detail on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atrocities 2

I understand that Piotrus' concerns are that some of the events being added to the Atrocities section are not really relevant to the article, as did not happen during the Vilna offensive. Probably they deserve a separate article, like the one that I created on Pinsk massacre. Can those of you that add information about the atrocities to the article explain why do you think they belong here ? Thanks. --Lysy^talk 08:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which specific atrocities do you think we should split off?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Only atrocities which happened directly in connection with the offensive should be discussed. A general discussion of atrocities committed by both sides during the war belongs in a more general article. Let's stick to the subject. This is an article about a very specific military operation localised in time and space, not Polish atrocities during the whole war.

Finally, let's not put in anecdotes, personal opinions, or stories about the fates of individual people. I understand that some editors here want to use these to put Poland in a negative light (sorry but that's how I see it), but there are limits to everything. Balcer 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that some editors would want to whitewash crimes, although removing referenced information isn't the best solution, even if you do not like it. Sadly enthusiasm for finding sources even in newspapers, and pushing them as reliable does often cease and even academic books begin to be unreliable when it does come to covering some nations war crimes, and such "patriotic" and one sided books as Piotrowski's begin to be "reliable".--Lokyz 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Even more appauling is horrific misrepresentation of Bendersky. I will correct this nonsense and bring it into an agreement to the book which the section claims to be its main source. --Irpen 07:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The section with a single boy incident is backed up by personal reminiscences of a single Polish officer who Mitliukhov identifies as: представителя польской администрации на оккупированных территориях - Гражданского управления Восточных земель (ГУВЗ) М. Коссаковского - or representative of Polish administration in occupied territories ... . Sounds impressive, does is not? Here was someone with influence and access who would clearly know what is going on. Except that he is talking about pl:Tadeusz Kossakowski, who in 1919 was 32 years old and had a rank below Lieutenant Colonel (Подполковник), commannding a rather small Company of Engineers in the 2nd Polish Division at the time.

The more I examine the accuracy and throughness of Mitliukhov work here, the more I cringe. Balcer 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I have come to the conclusion that maybe the problem is more systematic. The content of Советско-польские войны. Военно-политическое противостояние 1918-1939 гг. i.e. Soviet-Polish Wars by Mitliukhov is showing up in more and more articles. This is not surprising, as there are not too many publications on the obscure events of 1919-1921 and he is convenient to cite since his work is all online (unlike most other authors). However, his work contains at least some mistakes, innacuracies and distortions (as shown above, I could dig up others). What is more, as I discussed in Talk:Pinsk massacre, he uses extensively such biased compilations of documents as Документы и материалы по истории советско-польских отношений. This is a problem, since even though he presents himself as a modern Russian historian untainted by Soviet bias writing in 2001, he is in fact relying on sources compiled in the 1960s and 1970s, with all the prevalent bias at the time. There is also the problem of him not relying on original documents, which puts his caliber as a historian in question.

To this we have to add his apparent bias, as evidenced by his extensive description of Polish atrocities, but nary a mention of anything similar carried out by the Russian side (which we know did occur from other reliable publications and memoirs). Finally, we have to mention the specific flavour of his writing, more that of a sensational publicist in the style pioneered by Victor Suvorov instead of that of a serious historian.

Now I am sure accusations will follow immediately that what I wrote above is just a result of my own bias and unwillingness to face unpleasant facts. To avoid this, we should have some impartial way to address this isssue. So I ask: is there some formal process in which an impartial review of an extensively used reference can be carried out by people not involved in a dispute? In this way it can be determined once and for all whether a citation of that reference is sufficient to establish a fact in Wikipedia, or whether one have to go to more reliable sources? Balcer 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, see User_talk:Irpen#Meltyukhov where his reliability is also discussed; te that Melt. is an employee of Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research, an organization of unknown reliability and association. His publisher, if I understand our citation correctly, is Вече (Veche), which also doesn't look like an academic (or at least, university) publisher. I also agree with all your considerations. Now, to answer your question: recently a reliability noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) has been launched to disucss reliability of specific sources. We could ask for review of this source there. If not, we are left with standard content WP:RFC (which would never hurt, of course).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: few month back when we last looked at Melt., there were no mentions of him in Western academic publications, so it was difficult to decide if he is reliable or not. Now, as more and more journals and such are published online, I found one publication discussing his POV, which should help us determine his reliability: Peter Cheremushkin (from Moscow State University), Russian-Polish Relations: A Long Way From Stereotypes to Reconciliation, InterMarium Volume 5 (an academic journal of nstitute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Columbia University's East Central European Center). With reliability of author and publisher estabilished, let me bring a few quotes from the journal: p18: "Russian historians were unable to take a united stand against those who claim that “nothing wrong happened in Katyn.” Some historical publications have appeared in this context, such as a book by Mikhail Meltyukhov called Soviet-Polish Wars: Military and Political Confrontation in 1918-1939.42."[...] "This [Meltyukhov's - note by P.P.] point of view can be used to justify the execution of the Polish officers in 1940." [...] "But can this point of view be considered correct if it is so close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts?" This review of Melt.'s POV is certainly casting serious doubts on his reliability: should we use a publication that was criticized by a Russian historian publishing in peer-reviewed Western journal as "close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts"? I think not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So the one time he is mentioned in a reliable Western academic source, he is described as a Stalinist and a neoimperialist? Oh my. I expected he would be criticized, but this? We should remove all claims referenced by his books immediately, unless contrary evidence as to his reliability is presented. Balcer 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me suggest what I think is the reasonable way to proceed here. The editors who inserted the claims backed by Meltyukhov as reference are invited to find other Western academic sources which would contradict the one source found so far claiming him to be a Stalinist. If they cannot be found, I invite those editors to take the next week to locate other, trustworthy references which would replace the Metlyukhov citations and confirm his claims. After that all references to his works will be removed, and all claims referenced by them for which other backing references have not been found will be removed as well. I trust that none of the editors involved here want to spread the views of a neo-Stalinist and neo-imperialist historian, so that my proposal will not raise any objections. Balcer 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

More critical commentary: Polish professor of Jagiellonian University, Andrzej Nowak, in his conference paper writes (p.9): "It would be possible to indicate various examples of more subtle apologias for the Empire, linked with the rejection of all arguments for its victims or critics. Examples which dress themselves in the trappings of the most academic monograph. [...] A more brutal example of the same tendency is expressed in the book by the professional historian from Moscow, Mikhail Meltyukhov, dedicated to the Polish-Soviet conflicts of the twentieth century. These conflicts are, for him, fragments of eternal Western aggression against Russia. When Russia (in this case, Soviet Russia) comes into conflict it is only to take what is rightfully hers. Stalin appears as a genial successor to Catherine II. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the involvement of the USSR in the attack on Poland in September 1939 are presented as purely defensive postures, underlining the primacy of Russian raison d’etat. This posture represented not only Stalin’s profound realism but also historical justice and even – argues Meltyukhov – humanitarianism. In this context the mass deportations of more than half a million people from the territory occupied by the Red Army in September 1939 to camps in the depths of the Soviet Union is presented as a “peacekeeping mission” which prevented the murder of those Poles deported to Siberia by protecting them from the Ukrainians panting with thirst for revenge...". Please also note a damning footnote: "M. Meltyukhov, Sovetsko-polskie voiny. Voienno-politicheskoe protivostoianie 1918-1939 gg., Moskva 2001 – compare my comprehensive review concentrating on the shocking falsehoods in this book – in: A. Nowak, Od imperium do imperium. Spojrzenia na historię Europy Wschodniej, Kraków 2004, p. 258-271." So in addition to Western academic article by a Russian academic calling his work Stalinist and neoimperial, we have a Polish academic that refers to his book as containing shocking falsehoods. Granted, Polish review by itself would be less then enough, but now that we have to highly critical sources, Balcer's point gets only stronger.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifying Bendersky

I'm forced to ask for the verification and the exact quote from Bendersky book, because by clicking on the link I'm not seeing anything like that, and the second part of the sentence Polish view was also confirmed by a US Army representative on the scene[28] and by the Anglo-American Investigating Commission of Henry Morgenthau is blatant misinterpretation of the sources. Morgenthau: From the evidence submitted, it appears that none of these people, among whom were four women and eight men over 50 years of age, had served with the Bolsheviki. Eight Jews were marched three kilometers to the outskirts of the City of Wilna, and deliberately shot without the semblance of a trial or investigation. Others were shot by soldiers who were robbing Jewish houses M0RD00R 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bendersky quote (scroll down to p.85: "Colonel Wiliam F. Gordon who entered Vilna shortly after its capture denied a pogrom had occured. [...] "The connection between Jews and the bolsheviks at Vilna he wrote seems to be proven without a doubt." [...] "Neither in Pinsk nor in Vilna has pogroms accured, since General Józef Piłsudski has prohibited even the appearance of the abuse of Jewish element. Allegations of pogrom originated with vigorous propaganda from German and Jewish sources, to throw every aspertion possible upon Poles and their army, which was not at all borne out by the observations made on spot by Gordon himself. The fact showed that Jewish Bolsheviks have fired on Polish soldiers, who fought back and carried some unwise executions."

Further, if some insist on adding excessive but poetic details of alleged Polish attrocities, this is a good source (one of many) for Bolshevik attrocities (p.85 (end of)-86): "Yet the savagery of Bolsheviks far suprassed even the unimaginable suffering caused by the famine. Total devastation by robbing, looting and destruction of the livestock was just part of their barbarism. He [Gordon - P.P. note] described at lenght ghastly accounts by Russian emigrees of Bolsheviks executing and mutilating civilians: they cut off ears and noses, nailed boots to faces, and disembowled the living. The photograph evidence he enclosed in his report to Washington typified, for Gordon, the true nature of Bolshevism and the peril to civilized life. After stripping and mutilating two Polish soldiers, laughing Bolsheviks hung them uspide down on large trees, with one impaled through the anus."

As for Morgenthau: he did indeed criticize the actions of Polish local commanders in Vilna; this is stated in both versions; there is no reason to cite his long report about Vilna - it is linked to on wikisource, and it is our policy not to cite overly long sections of primary sources, particulary when they are linked as easily.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't care to cite sections of primary sources, even when they are not "overly long". Like when I added the short text of the Proclamation to the Inhabitants of the Former Grand Duchy of Lithuania. And what exactly do you mean it is "our" policy anyway? Who's the we? Dr. Dan 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doubious parts of Meltyukhov: routine excesses, uprisings of local population

The following claims need more verification, per WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources:

• Polish advance was carried with routine excesses against the local population - sounds like a vast and unfair generalization
• uprisings of local population took place immediately upon the Polish advances - what uprisings? I haven't heard of any in any other sources I read, this is a truly exceptional generalization that requires verification by other sources

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious statements in Piotrowski’s publication

The Polish leader, Józef Piłsudski and Nobel-prize winning author, Władysław Reymont also denied that pogroms took place. The presented source for it is Piotrowski’s publication “Poland’s Holocaust”. In provided page (42), the author writes – in 1919 the Noble prize-wining author Władysław Reymont reported on Wilno pogrom : “There were no anti-Semitic disturbances in Wilno on May 5 despite report coming from Kaunas.” First Reymont notes date May 5, which is dubious as other source notes that pogrom took place in April 19 (Profiles of a Lost World - Memoirs of East European Jewish Life Before World War II p.378;). So conclusion can be – the dates are in error or there were separate developments in May 5 and April 19 towards killings of Jews, as my presented source call it - pogrom. M.K. 08:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe these are two different events ? --Lysy^talk 11:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at this and it is probably a confusing translation. It becomes clear when we continue reading the fragment: "...despite reports coming from Kaunas. When the Polish army entered the town on Easter Sunday, a number of Jews perished either from fighting in the streets or because many [Polish] soldiers fell from shots emanating from houses inhabited exclusivly by Jews." The key part of this fragment is "Easter Sunday" - which per this source was April 20. Therefore Raymond is describing the events of 20th April in relation to which he states that accoriding to him, Jews who fell on April 20 were casualties of the ongoing battle in the city. The date "May 5th" refers most likely to either the fact that reports of April 20th pogrom came on May 5 from Kaunas or that on May 5 there were no pogroms despite higher tension caused by such reports. PS. His ref 47 on p.309 is 'Władysław Reymont in Gazeta Warszawska, October 17 1919, as quoted by Zwoliński Andrzej, Starsi bracia, Kraków, 1994, p.76. Perhaps we can find orignal to verify this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be different evens it can be and wrong date and similar, until some clarifications will be found, current part may fall into OR. My presented web page high above also notes April. M.K. 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, his second sentence makes it quite clear there was no pogrom (according to him) on April 20th, which is what we are discussing. The article mentions nothing about 5th May, so there is nothing confusing or dubious in the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Somehow it is not clearer at all. To me it looks like two different developments, probably if the original source could be found, situation may be clearer. M.K. 09:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyedit lead

I have set about copyediting this article. I have done the lead. In the process, I did a little research on the name, and "Vilna" is what the New York Times called it in April 1919, so that's what I went with. Vilnius is obviously better, because we want people to be able to find the article, and nobody I know has ever heard of Vilna before. But I like Vilna, anyway, because that's what it was, and because its exotic strangeness is what made me go to the article from the "in need of copyediting" page in the first place. That said, will somebody please make a redirect from "Vilnius"? (I stink at that.) A search on "Vilnius" doesn't get here. --Milkbreath 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am about to tackle the "Atrocities" section, but I need a little help:

1. I can't tell what "aggravation of the adversity" is supposed to mean or how it might have influenced Piłsudski. I don't read Russian.
2. In March, Polish newspapers were outraged at who, the Poles or the Russians? --Milkbreath 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what a strange article

This is like return to the old Soviet books. Shame! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.87.120 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but you didn't pipe in anonymously, or sign in when the article originated as a "Glorious" Polish military "victory" which returned "Wilno safely" behind Polish lines. No shame then? Dr. Dan 01:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Meltyukhov

As has been pointed out #Doubious parts of Meltyukhov: routine excesses, uprisings of local population and at #Atrocities 2, and fully discussed at Talk:Mikhail Meltyukhov, his book has been criticized as "Stalinist and neoimperial", full of inaccuracies and even lies. As such, it most certainly fails WP:RS, particularly for controversial POVed claims. Please find other sources to verify such claims.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This does not explain why you are removing the rest of the referenced information. M0RD00R 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the Michlic ref and rewrote the section.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, you do not get to define what sources are permissible and what are not. A Polish nationalist article calling him names is not a reason good enough to discredit his entire work. He is a very respected historian and his work is frequently referenced by other academics. I will restore the referenced info you removed later when I have time to though "rewrite" where you removed facts and replaced them with weasel terms, like the section name itself: "Claims of anti-semitic pogroms". Claims? --Irpen 18:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reviews by respected Polish academics are not "nationalist". You failed to present a single academic review supportive of his book, so don't try to restart the "Melt is reliable" discussion again.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding claims. More "claims" can be referenced by Israel Cohen book "Vilna" (c. 1943, Jewish Publication Society ISBN 0-8276-0415-7). As I can tell from Piotrus input to the Warsaw pogrom article, he no longer objects using studies by not very modern historians, so there should be no problem with incorporation of some "claims" from this source:

The arrival of the new 'liberators' opened a fresh chapter of Jewish agony. The Bolsheviks, before retreating, made their last stand from the old Jewish cemetery at Shnipishok. This circumstance, together with the fact that some Jews had sided with them, although many Poles had likewise done so, sufficed to make the Polish legionaries see a Bolshevik in every Jew. After a couple of days' fighting the Bolsheviks were driven to flight, whereupon the legionaries defiled and desecrated the cemetery, smashed the tombstones, and opened up the graves (including some of Vilna's earliest rabbis) in the belief that they would find in them arms and money. Disappointed in their search, the Poles transferred their attention from the dead to the living and ran amuck in the Jewish quarter. For three days they seized Jews in the streets, dragged them out of their homes, bludgeoned them savagely, and looted their houses and shops. About eighty Jews were shot, mostly in the district of Lipuvka, where some were ordered to dig their own graves; others were buried alive, and others were drowned, with their hands tied, in the Vilia. On April 21 [1919] a detachment of soldiers fired at a house from which they said, Jews had been shooting through a window. They drove out all the occupants, who included the writers A. Weiter, Lieb Jaffe, and Samuel Niger. Weiter was shot on the spot; the two others were seized and imprisoned for several days.

M0RD00R 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All important details are mentioned in the article already.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as seen from your perspective. What a joke! But the Meltyukhov information will be restored, and Wikipedia will not be "twisted" to push some POV that suits you. Please be sure of that. Dr. Dan 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Less confusing

After reading the Kraków vs. Cracow arguments, I'll agree that consistency is important, and less confusion is important on English WP. Rather than change all references to Cracow back to its prevalent or "historical" English name in any reference to the city prior to 1970, it's easier and less confusing not to. This is why I changed the Vilna to Vilnius. Same argument. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Polish army in Wilno 1919.jpg

Image:Polish army in Wilno 1919.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

Certain croup of polish volunteers insisting that tag should be removed because, there is no ongoing discussion. May I ask which WP official policy suggest and states that unsolved arguments stated previously and previuos discussion becomes invalid after some time? M.K. (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

M.K, if you have issues with the article, please state them specifically. This will help us understand what your problem is. --Lysy^talk 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I understand correctly, you failed to present any rationale with regards of official WP policies, which support previuos edits that older unsolved arguments and discussion becomes invalid? I will wait for a while to receive more precise answer. M.K. (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently it is you who have failed to present any arguments. Tags require rationale, which is quite visibly lacking here. Removal of tags without rationale is perfectly in line with our policies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Much turmoil

What is the intended meaning of this sentence in the lead: In the aftermath, the Vilna offensive would cause much turmoil on the political scene in Poland and abroad. --Lysy^talk 08:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is unclear about it? It was covered, discussed and criticized (and supported) by many for various reasons.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's very vague and it's only in the lead. I do not see the topic being discussed in the article's body. If it's important for the article, it should be explained in more detail. If it's not, why put such sentence in the summary only ? --Lysy^talk 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It was supposed to describe the aftermath section. Feel free to adjust it if you feel it sounds strange.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)