Talk:Vilna offensive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:07, 27 March 2007 editHalibutt (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,067 edits →And square two ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:35, 12 March 2024 edit undoOpalYosutebito (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers162,646 editsm →top: fixing/removing unknown parameters across Misplaced Pages using AutoWikiBrowserTag: AWB
(371 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Article history
	{{WPMILHIST
			\|action1=WPR
	\|class=start
			\|action1date=04:20, 11 April 2007
	\|priority=mid
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Vilna offensive
	\|Polish-task-force=yes
			\|action1result=reviewed
	\|WWI-task-force=yes
			\|action1oldid=121863652
	\|Russian-task-force=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, 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)

	: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)

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: