Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 27 April 2007

Military history: European / Polish / Russian & Soviet / World War I Start‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Polish military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War I task force

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

Lithuania Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 proclamations 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... ...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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 ]ns were but a slight minority there. Judging by the results of the elections even the ] (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 (, . 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: : 1) "majority spoke Yddish, minority spoke Russian and very few spoke Polish" 2) in the paragraph about Wilno Ghetto, note that the author discusses pros of knowing Polish language and sais nothing about Lithuanian 3) "Most middle class Jews in Wilno in 1938 spoke Polish" 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) "The ethnic Lithuanians speaking Lithuanuian dominated countryside. Cities spoke Yddish, Russian (Jews) and Polish (Poles)." 7) "Lithuanian Jews spoke Russian (more frequently than Polish)" 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)

Back to Square One?

Why are we being given the "treat" of the Polish toponym "Wilno" on English Misplaced Pages 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: , , .

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" (, , .) or "secondary" (, ) 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 ? M.K. 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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. ), 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)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (nominator)
2. Per references in Discussion below. Appleseed (Talk) 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, though I'd rather have this article at Battle of Vilna (1919). But the proposed name has its pros as well. //Halibutt 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support this title for the article. It seems straightforward, communicative and reasonably NPOV, given the realities of the time. Cross-references could be provided for variants of the title that include other versions of the city's name. logologist|Talk 07:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And how would using the linguistically incorrect toponym of "Wilno", be NPOV? This is not the Polish Misplaced Pages. The accepted English spelling of the city is Vilnius. Dr. Dan 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely why I'd rather support the name Vilna, which is the English name for that city and is neither Polish nor Lithuanian. //Halibutt

It sounds good here, but like Irpen told you "you can't have your lunch and eat it too" (I prefer the metaphor using cake). When you "created" the Antoni Bohdziewicz article (please read complete article history), you failed to demonstrate your position about "Vilna", either logically or in a consistent manner. This, has been the case throughout your and P.P.'s edits concerning Vilnius. You said Bohdziewicz was born in Wilno in 1906. When I changed it to Vilna, P.P. reverted it to Wilno (without a peep from you). When and only when, I changed it to Vilnius, we got Vilna (my original correction) put back. Enough is enough. Google hits, common sense, desire for less confusion, and reality, argue for Vilnius to be the decriptive toponym on English Misplaced Pages. Everybody else can see through this hypocritical game playing of yours. Enough already. Dr. Dan 23:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose, Changing one wrong name for another wrong name makes the situation worse as it creates the wrong impression that the problems are being addressed. Both names are equally unacceptable. --Irpen 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   The name Operation Wilno clearly relates to the 1944 event, how can you object to the freeing up of that name?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   To start with, I object to Wilno. To continue, I object to the pervasion of "Battles" for every skirmish or a simple takeover when the troops just roll in the city unopposed. Here is what an article itself says about the event: "On 18 April Col. Belina decided to use the element of surprise and move into Wilno without waiting for the slower infantry units. On 19 April the cavalry charged into the suburbs, spread panic among the confused garrison, seized the train and sent it down the line to collect infantry. By the evening of 19 April half of Wilno was in Polish control. With support of the city's predominantly Polish population, by 21 April the city was in Polish hands. Piłsudski himself reached Wilno that day." Where is the "Battle" in this? --Irpen 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   From battle: 1) battles may last a day or less 2) may be small scale, only involving a handful of individuals, perhaps two squads. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources. Find references that qualify this event as such rather than argue semantics. --Irpen 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Why? You argue semantics all the time - I have yet to find you citing some sources here that would call this 'not a battle'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Because demanding to cite an absence of something is a logical fallacy. You have to cite the existence to prove something and not cite non-existence to prove the lack of it. Non-existence cannot be cited particularly because it does not exist. --Irpen 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

   Volodarka again? //Halibutt

2. As I said new suggested name is not good at all, and indeed Changing one wrong name for another wrong name makes the situation worse. M.K. 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Futile move, as creating article about battle that did never happen is quite an embarrasment.--Lokyz 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Your denial of reality is amazing. The 1000+ Poles and Russians had a three day picnic in the city, right?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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? Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 (). 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 Misplaced Pages). 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages about harder reading either, or about complicating and confusing issues, or nationalistic POV pushing. Dr. Dan 13:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

"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 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 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. 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 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)

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)

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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class Polish military history articles
• Polish military history task force articles
• Start-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War I articles
• World War I task force articles
• Start-Class Lithuania articles
• Mid-importance Lithuania articles