Talk:Vilna offensive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:40, 4 April 2007 editDr. Dan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,342 edits →Alternative name ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:35, 12 March 2024 edit undoOpalYosutebito (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers159,252 editsm →top: fixing/removing unknown parameters across Misplaced Pages using AutoWikiBrowserTag: AWB
(297 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Article history
	{{move\|Battle of Wilno (1919)}}
			\|action1=WPR
	{{WPMILHIST
			\|action1date=04:20, 11 April 2007
	\|class=start
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Vilna offensive
	\|priority=mid
			\|action1result=reviewed
	\|Polish-task-force=yes
			\|action1oldid=121863652
	\|WWI-task-force=yes
	\|Russian-task-force=yes
	\|peer-review=yes
	}}
	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk"
	\|-
	\|]
	\|An entry from '''{{PAGENAME}}''' appeared on Misplaced Pages's ] in the ''']''' column on ], ].
	\|]
	\|}
	{{WikiProject Lithuania\| class=Start\|importance=Mid\|comments=}}

			\|action2=GAN
	== Name ==
			\|action2date=22 May 2007
	Shouldn't this be under ]?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
			\|action2result=not listed
	:Who are you asking this question to, Piotrus? didn't you create the article and the title? ] 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|action2oldid=132775982

			\|action3=GAN
	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. ] 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|action3date=19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
			\|action3link=Talk:Vilna offensive/GA1
			\|action3result=listed
			\|action3oldid=220821975

			\|currentstatus=GA
	:Which is the historically correct name then ? --]<sup>]</sup> 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|topic=War
	::Are you asking me personally, or rhetorically, I thought Halibutt is the final say on these matters, isn't he? ] 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|dyk1date=5 November 2006\|dyk1entry=...that the ''']''' set the stage for the future ] and ]s?
	:You challenged it, you might want to explain yourself now. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|otd1date=2011-04-16\|otd1oldid=424312764
	::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. ] 03:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|otd2date=2012-04-16\|otd2oldid=487706048
	:::Do go on - I wonder after how many proddings you will answer your own 'rethorical' question... :) --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
			\|otd3date=2019-04-16\|otd3oldid=892750079
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|
			{{WikiProject Military history
			\|class=GA
			\|B-Class-1=yes
			<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
			\|B-Class-2=yes
			<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
			\|B-Class-3=yes
			<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
			\|B-Class-4=yes
			<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
			\|B-Class-5=yes
			\|Polish-task-force=yes\|WWI-task-force=yes\|Russian-task-force=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Lithuania\|importance=Mid\|dyk=yes\|comments=}}
			{{WikiProject Soviet Union\|importance=Low\|hist=yes\|mil=yes\|rus=yes\|rus-importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Poland\|importance=low}}
			}}

	::::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. ] 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	::And the Lithuanian annexation took place in 1991. So..?''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

			{{Archive box\|search=yes\|
	:Annexation in 1991, huh?--] 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
			* ] <small>(2006–2007)</small>
			}}
			__TOC__
			{{Clear}}

			==Fair use rationale for Image:Polish army in Wilno 1919.jpg==
	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. ] 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
			]
			''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with ].

			Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
	: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? ] 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

			If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->
	:: 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. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

			] (]) 08:33, 21 January 2008 (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. ] 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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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. ] 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Please behave, M.K. And give ISBN and publishing house info, thank you.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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. ] 11:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::: , . When giving sources, please give all the relavant information next time, like this: ], ''Lietuvos kariuomenė nepriklausomybės kovose : 1918 - 1920'', Vilnius, 2004, ] and ], ''Lietuvos Kariuomenė valstybės politinio gyvenimo verpetuose : 1927-1940'', Vilnius, 2003, ]. So, what are those sources of yours claiming?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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 "]" 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. ] 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

			==Tagging==
	: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. ] 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 ] and ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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. ] 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::No. See my reply below with quotes from WERS, where Davies uses Wilno.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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? ] 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

			M.K, if you have issues with the article, please state them specifically. This will help us understand what your problem is. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
	This incorrect POV regarding the ]ish 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 ]'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. ] 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
			:Am I understand correctly, you failed to present any rationale with regards of official WP policies, which support that older unsolved arguments and discussion becomes invalid? I will wait for a while to receive more precise answer. ] (]) 15:17, 1 February 2008 (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 ], ] and even ]. 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 ]. 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 ]: ''"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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 17:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
			::Currently it is you who have failed to present any arguments. Tags require ''rationale'', which is quite visibly lacking here. Removal of tags without rationale is perfectly in line with our policies.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 16:12, 1 February 2008 (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. ] 10:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
	::What are you talking about? Lithuanian Jews are ], 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 ]? 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 ] thought the "2%" of the Lithuanian population of Vilnius deserved proclamations in both Polish and Lithuanian. ] 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 ], 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, ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 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?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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 ]. Leading us to the conclusion that Polish Jews are ]. Right? Rather humorous, isn't it? Putting bluntly it seems you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. ] 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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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? ] 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

			== Much turmoil ==
	==So What's Wrong With this Picture?==

			What is the intended meaning of this sentence in the lead: ''In the aftermath, the Vilna offensive would cause much turmoil on the political scene in Poland and abroad.'' --]<sup>]</sup> 08:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	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 ] occupying forces were there as late as January. The article needs more work and more objectivity. ] 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 ]~~ (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 ]. That said, this term is also used~~ by ~~at least one book~~ for ~~a battle during the ] in 1831,~~ ~~too. Per my above comments, I would support renaming this to ]. And it's Wilno per ] (just as it is the ], not the ]. PS. And Davies uses Wilno, too, see my citations above..~~.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 23:02, 8 ~~March~~ ~~2007~~ (UTC)		:What is unclear about it? It was covered, discussed and criticized (and supported) by many for various reasons.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			It's very vague and it's only in the lead. I do not see the topic being discussed in the article's body. If it's important for the article, it should be explained in more detail. If it's not, why put such sentence in the summary only ? --]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::While I would support renaming this to ]. As it was capital of Lithuania also with 1918 issue too, while Vilnius was never part of Poland before its occupation. ] 10:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
			:It was supposed to describe the aftermath section. Feel free to adjust it if you feel it sounds strange.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well, if the naming is such a problem, I would support the ], 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? ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 11:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::: ''governments claiming the area referred to it as Wilnius''?? Government called it Wilnius?? ]
	::::::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, ], or Krakau. Just read the history of his various edits. ] 14:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Oh, and Btw, M.K., you'll notice that ] proclamation to the "2%" of Lithuanians living in Vilnius and the rest of the inhabitants of the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" spells ] correctly. Pilsudski got it right, but then again he was dealing with reality. ] 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 ] what city this is all about. --] 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

			{{Talk:Vilna offensive/GA1}}
	==Statement by Halibutt: tri-lingual? 2 to 5 % spoke Lithuanian, the rest spoke either Polish or Russian...==

			==References==
	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 ] living there spoke either Hebrew or Yiddish - only Polish and Russian.--] 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			Hi, just noticed something you might want to address. The inline citations cite Davies, but there are two books by Davies in the references section. It might be a good idea to explain in the inline citation which one you mean.--] (]) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
	:Lokyz, this comment not only is a blatant ad-hominen violating ], but jokes about one's ethnicity are extremly offensive. Please apologize to Halibutt.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
			:Unless otherwise noted, they refer to his WERS monography on the PSWar.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

			Btw, I've added a new map but it doesn't want to go above the infobox, even through we have space on the left... --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 23:33, 23 June 2008 (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.--] 10:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

			== Wrong reference to Prussia Empire? ==
	:::After some reconsideration, accept my apology Halibutt, I was wrong, and should have held my temper (and more closely read the edit).--] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

			One reads in the article following: "...The leader of the Polish forces, Józef Piłsudski, discerned an opportunity for regaining territories that were once the part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and since then were the part of the Prussia Empire, shaken by the 1917 Revolution and the ongoing Russian Civil War..." -- Vilnius, however, was never a part of Prussia Empire and there was no such thing as Prussia Empire at all. I think the reference here is made to Russian Empire. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::No problem. Now on to your question: I consider the statement that was introduced into the article a perfect example of weasel term. ''], 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 ]'' 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 <nowiki>]ns</nowiki> were but a slight minority there. Judging by the results of the elections even the <nowiki>]</nowiki> (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 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. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::And the evidence that these ] (which most Jewish scholars consider to be "Lithuanian") ''mostly'' spoke Polish and Yiddish, but not Russian would be what? ] 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) 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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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 ] in Vilnius, or whether the title of the article should be ]? 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. ] 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... ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 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. ] 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 ], 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 ], ''"Rzym"'' because that's what ] 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 ], formulated to create a one-sided picture of the events in question. ] 14:35, 25 March 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. --] 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 ]. Of course the city was occupied. In fact it was occupied for most of ] and in ], and again by the Soviets in ]. 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. ] 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. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 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. --] 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Unfortunatly, Irpen, only in Soviet propaganda ] 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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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 ], ], ], ], 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? --] 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?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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"? --] 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Irpen while you are waiting for your response. I'd like to ask him if he thinks ] 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. ] 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 ] or ] for a reason. Get the idea? ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 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 ]. What needed to be said was said, and unfortunatly more, too. If somebody wants to move the article, ] is there. EOT.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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 ], 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. ] 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. --] 01:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Regarding ], you have to read Winston Churchill's comments in his book, ], 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 ] is almost deafening , BTW. ] 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. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 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. --] 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Requested move ==
	] → ] — 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 ]/] (ex. ), I'd like for this article to be moved to ] 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. <sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

	===Survey===
	:''Add  <tt><big><nowiki># '''Support'''</nowiki></big></tt>  or  <tt><big><nowiki># '''Oppose'''</nowiki></big></tt>  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Please remember that this survey is ], and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.''

	====Survey - in support of the move====
	#--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (nominator)
	# Per references in Discussion below. ] (]) 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	# '''Support''', though I'd rather have this article at ]. But the proposed name has its pros as well. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	#'''Support''' this title for the article. It seems straightforward, communicative and reasonably ], 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. ]\|] 07:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:And how would using the linguistically incorrect toponym of "Wilno", be ]? This is not the Polish Misplaced Pages. The accepted English spelling of the city is Vilnius. ] 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. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]

	====Survey - in opposition to the move====
	#'''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. --] 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?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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? --] 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	#:::From ]: 1) battles may last a day or less 2) may be small scale, only involving a handful of individuals, perhaps two squads. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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. --] 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'.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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. --] 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	#::::::: Volodarka again? ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']]
	# 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''. ] 11:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	# Oppose. Futile move, as creating article about battle that did never happen is quite an embarrasment.--] 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?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	===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. ] 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

	Suggested name for move is also '''unacceptable''', particularly "Wilno" part. ] 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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Not even ] could have made a more ] 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 '']'', would be more like ] entering the ] dressed as ]. Right, again? ] 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. ] (]) 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 ], of what a progrom ''is''. Best ] 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. The article has been in existence for five months.

	This request has reached the backlog at ], 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? -]<sup>(])</sup> 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:The curent name should redirect to ] 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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::What do the sources ''from which this article was written'' call the event? -]<sup>(])</sup> 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... --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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 ] 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? --] 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	:]! 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 ]. Or should it be only ''liberation''? --] 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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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?). --] 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? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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 ]. Reds just left and Poles rolled in. Same was here. --] 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Again: explain, please, why did it take Poles three days to take over a city Reds simply left? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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. ] 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. --] 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Nobody calls it ], neither. So why do you advocate violating ]? 'Battle' is shorter than 'Polish takeover'. Thus we should use battle.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	] 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... --] 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: Presented name ] is quite balanced one, I would support it.] 18:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	to ] 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. <u>Enemy had resisted with extreme strenght.</u> 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'''.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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 ] 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. ] 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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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? ] 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Read the article. It's directly referenced. EOT.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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. ] 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...).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Don't you think it's telling that your Przybylski translation refers to Wilno as ] (which remains its proper description on English Misplaced Pages). Take a hint. ] 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Yes, amateur translations like that are likely indeed not to pay much attention to correct historical usage, indeed.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes? Why are you using and then "treating" us to amateur references in that case? ] 15:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Amateur translations are better than none, I am afraid.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 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 ]! ] 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	==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. ] 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:35, 12 March 2024

Vilna offensive has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 11, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
May 22, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 5, 2006.The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Polish capture of Wilno in 1919* set the stage for the future Polish-Soviet and Polish-Lithuanian Wars?*
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 16, 2011, April 16, 2012, and April 16, 2019.
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

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

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

Lithuania Mid‑importance

	Lithuania portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column.

Soviet Union: Russia / History / Military Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Russia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (2006–2007)

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

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

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

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

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

Tagging

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

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

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

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

Much turmoil

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

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

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

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

GA Review

1. Well written?: ~~Fail~~ Pass

1.1 Prose

Although generally good, I feel that the entire article could benefit from a copyedit. If you wish, I can do this myself (I already copyedited the section that had the "please copyedit" tag on it, so I'm off to a start). Of particular note:

There's quite a bit of information that relies on parentheses (which tends to disrupt the flow of the article). Would it be possible to work the text in the parentheses into the article itself without that disruption? For example:
- ~~"After three days of street fighting (April 19-21)" could be reworded as "After three days of street fighting from April 19-21"~~
- "The forces moving on Vilna included the cavalry group of Colonel Władysław Belina-Prażmowski (nine squadrons supported by a light battery of horse artillery, about 800 men) and infantry under General Edward Rydz-Śmigły (three battalions of the Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division with two batteries of heavy artillery, about 2,500 men)." should probably be reworded to:
  - "The forces moving on Vilna included the cavalry grou pf Colonel Wladyslaw Belina-Prazmowski, composed of 800 men in nine cavalry squadrons and a battery of horse artillery; and infantry under General Edward Rydz-Smigly, his force containing 2,500 men in three battalions of the Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division and two batteries of heavy artillery."
Generally, military ranks shouldn't be shortened to Col. Gen. Luit.-Gen. etc. Although us military history junkies (you and I included) will know what that means, someone coming to the page to locate information on the offensive probably won't. It just helps to make the page as clear as possible

Good point. I found and expanded two col.'s and one lt.'s :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

*In the section Jewish Deaths, you say that "dozens of people connected with Litbel were arrested, and some were executed". then, in the Soviet counteroffensive section, you state "The Polish victory infuriated the Soviets, leading to dozens of arrests and several executions among those connected to Litbel". I'd suggest removing one of these to avoid the redundancy of it.

Actually, this is not a redundancy: in Jewish deaths, we are discussing executions by Poles (who were executing Soviet symphatisers); in Soviet section - executions made by the Soviets (who were executing their own scapegoats).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Ok, don't know why I didn't catch that before. Cam (Chat) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

for those page viewers who don't know where Vilna is, it may help to expand upon where exactly Vilna is located in Poland/Lithania. Although you and I both know where Vilnius is located, most people won't.

1.2 MoS

There are a couple issues concerning the formating of date wikilinks. Most notably:
- ~~Dates should be wikilinked at their first appearance. I didn't catch a wikilink for April 15, although I did catch one for April 19, just something to check.~~

2. Factually accurate?: ~~Minor Fail~~ Pass

Very well cited. However...

Looking through the article history, there seems to be some disagreement concerning what some of the sources said about certain events or statistics. To be on the safe-side, I'd double-check the errors to ensure that they are errors.

"*Well, I can try to answer specific questions, but as far as I remember (it was some time ago that I wrote this article), the sources used were reliable... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'm able to take that stuff in stride. Cam (Chat)

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

coverage is quite broad and comprehensive. No objections.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

Although there has been a lot of editing lately, none of it appears to be in the form of edit-warring. As such, this section is passed.

6. Images?: Pass with comment

The maps check out ok for copyrights. However, I'd be interested to see whether there is a Polish Public-Domain template in place for use in the copyright for the infobox image.

As such, I have placed this article On Hold. Although (technically), it says "one week until pass/fail" I feel that some common sense has to be applied when reviewing GA-Articles. Provided that progress is made, I won't be failing this article any time soon. If you have questions, feel free to contact me on My Talk Page. All the best, Cam (Chat) 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Passing GA...Cam (Chat) 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! —PētersV (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Hi, just noticed something you might want to address. The inline citations cite Davies, but there are two books by Davies in the references section. It might be a good idea to explain in the inline citation which one you mean.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless otherwise noted, they refer to his WERS monography on the PSWar.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I've added a new map but it doesn't want to go above the infobox, even through we have space on the left... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong reference to Prussia Empire?

One reads in the article following: "...The leader of the Polish forces, Józef Piłsudski, discerned an opportunity for regaining territories that were once the part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and since then were the part of the Prussia Empire, shaken by the 1917 Revolution and the ongoing Russian Civil War..." -- Vilnius, however, was never a part of Prussia Empire and there was no such thing as Prussia Empire at all. I think the reference here is made to Russian Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.88.253 (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories: