Talk:Republic of Central Lithuania

message: As far as I am concerned, the issue was migration of Belorussians to Lithuanian villages, Roman Catholics. In the process, those areas became Roman Catholic 
:Belarussians were poor migrators AFAIK, unless they were administratively resettled, of which into Lithuanian lands I didn't hear (I am not an authority here, of course). Mikkalai 01:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: migration

message: What was the Polish an Lithuanian population in Suvalkai region in 1920 ? Was there indeed a significant Lithuanian majority ? How big compared to other nations ? Lysy 20:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suwalki/Suvalkai

message: I would like to know - anybody can recommend sources I could read up? What were the exact details of suggested confederation and federation, when were they discussed, what were the leading personalities during the negotiations? Was Pilsudski involved and if so, what course of action did he recommend - did he even had a final say in the negotiations? The text states only one reason (threat of polonisation), where there others reasons for Lithuanian refusal? Btw, I rewrote the relevant paragraph to be more gramatically correct in English. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did Lithuanians reject [[Miedzymorze]]? 

message: Thanks Dr. Dan I agree with your copyediting, except the “ Instead they took them as renegade children, rebelling against the Fatherland (ojczyczsna), that had to be answered armed conflict and propaganda. (Like, that Lithuanians were intractable and so on).” It was mistake of mine there, but i meant “instead they considered declarations of Lithuanians to be propaganda, that had to be answered by counter-propaganda (like, that Lithuanians were intractable and so on).”Linas Lituanus 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks for the clarification. I will work on it some more, unless you want to give it a go yourself. On occasion, I enjoy copyediting the Belarusian, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian (alphabetically listed), related articles. Partially because I'm familiar with the history, languages and cultural customs of the area, and partially because I have an insight into the mind set of these nationalities. This isn't meant arrogantly, but I do understand this better, much more so than the typical American does. I wish Roosevelt and Churchill, had it instead of me. The biggest problem that I have is trying to leave the essence of the author intact, when there is a syntaxical and grammatical mess to untangle. Just the same, I compliment you all on your courage and ability to communicate in a difficult and a language which is foreign to you all. Namely English! Dr. Dan 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Dan, don't get me wrong, you are doing a great job here but maybe, just maybe, your language skills would be used better if you copyedited the actual articles instead of their talk pages ... --Lysytalk 06:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I try to do both. But is this something strange? Do you find anything wrong with it? Dr. Dan 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, copyediting ongoing discussions in the talk page is quite strange but I do not mind as long as you keep the original meaning. I would mind if copyedited somebody's statement after it has been answered or addressed by another editor as this could change the context of the response. Otherwise, I appreciate your correcting English, as I've written before. --Lysytalk 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Linas, I never take offense when a copyedit of mine is re-copyedited. Sometimes I don't totally understand what is being said, and try to untangle it. It's not easy. Please make the necessary changes to your contribution. If they need further grammatical tweaking, I'll do my best to help you. Dr. Dan 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a good English style of yours, and doubt to wade in. That's the reason. But if you repeat and insist, i would do. I'd understood the sense of your copyediting the way as you describe, so there's no problem in it. --Linas Lituanus 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Or even better User:DariusMazeika and User:Dirgela --Lysytalk 18:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or better still, user:Lysy, he's not bad either, when he's rested a little. Dr. Dan 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Dan's copyediting 

message: I don't think we should put personal or disputable opinions in the lead. I'm going to remove "actually a construct" and " It was more of a military dictatorship, than a democratic Republic" opinions added by Dr. Dan. "Actually" and "more of" suggest a supposition rather than sourced facts. The lead should be a brief summary of the article's contents, not a place for disputes or speculations. --Lysytalk 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed further personal opinions from the lead. I would also consider NPOVing the rest of the article, as currently it seems quite one-sided. //Halibutt 21:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article's lead. 

message: Recently I took it upon myself to do more research on this "state's" name. This was largely prompted by an insistence in some quarters to claim that the capital of this state, Vilnius, was not comprised of Lithuanians, who they claimed were at best, a mere 2% (naturally backed by the requisite "sources") of it's population, but of mostly Poles and Jews (usually "Polish" Jews), although the Jewish component's ethnicity (Lithuanian Jews, Polish Jews, Russian Jews) varied from edit to edit when put under scrutiny. Next, I personally questioned the reasons that Pilsudski's proclamations to the people of "Lithuania" and it's capital were issued bi-lingually, i.e., in Lithuanian and Polish. After a little difficulty and a "short" waiting period, I was told in essence that these proclamations engendered a larger geographical area than Vilnius and the subsequent Republic that was formed, i.e. the subject of this article. Leading us to the next question. So why then, did this  now extinct state originally bear this name, Central Lithuania? Why was is not called Republika Północno-wschodniego Polska the Republic of North-Eastern Poland? Let's not guess, but there had to be a good reason, of that we can be sure. Dr. Dan 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read the articles on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Międzymorze. //Halibutt 10:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not only read those articles, but quite a few others as well. The denial that Lithuania had any legitimate basis for this territory that was historically Lithuanian, is not endorsed by the Polish naming of this puppet state to be Litwa Środkowa. Dr. Dan 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dan, perhaps you could tell us who denies such rights? //Halibutt 08:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You! Dr. Dan 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You lie, dear Dan. Not for the first time and unfortunately not for the last one, I'm afraid. //Halibutt 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Halibutt: please, WP:DFTT.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just try to aswer the question. And do try to be more civil. And P.P., :please, WP:Dick, do re-read it. Dr. Dan 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Choice of the Republic's Name

message: There were two links showing Lithuanian-Belarusian border. They are not reliable, because they show areas around Vilnus as dominated by Belorussians, but it's not tru. It's enough to find info on Wikipedia about Polish minorty in Lithuania to get to know that, people, claimed in thess maps, to be Belorussians, are acctually Poles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.160.69.126 (talk) 07:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
:Those maps are based on 19th century ethnopgraphers research - Polish and Russian.--Lokyz 08:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These maps are Lithuanian not Polish or Russian, maps shows distribution of languages, according linguists, poprostu is counted as Belarusian, but not shows distribution of ethnic groups, therefore these maps are not reliable. 81.7.98.250 (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not reliable links 

message: Is there any referenced evidence, that cease fire was signed before Lithuanian counter-offensive on November 19th, or is there an attempt to present later signed cease-fire (enforced by League of Nations) as if it would have happened before ?--Lokyz 08:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Piotr Łossowski, Konflikt polsko-litewski 1918-1920, p.216-218. On 20th November Lithuanian government agreed to Żeligowski's proposal (mediated by the League) that the ceasefire should begin on 21 and until than both sides will not undertake offensive actions. Lithuanians have subsequently violated that by launching an offensive on the night of 20 and 21st, towards Giedrojcie. Further, the Lithuanians did not stop moving forward until 1400 on 21st, even through the complete ceasefire was to start on the 0900 of that day - hence violating not only the 'no offensive moves' before the ceasefire agreement from the 20th, but the ceasefire itself. On a related note, the Lithuanians refused to inform a Polish cavalry unit which operated behind Lithuanian lines, without radio communication, the information about the ceasefire and right to return to the Polish lines; the Lithuanians declared they will encircle and destroy it; it caused further controversy but the cavalry unit evaded the Lithuanian forces and broke through to the Polish lines itself on the 24th (and having learned about the ceasefire released 200 Lithuanian POWs). This was the last episode of the conflict. A truce was signed on 29th.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cease fire on November 21

message: 2 publications use the term puppet state in this context. About 200 don't. Even weeding out some out of context in the second group, the difference makes it pretty obvious that majority of publications do not consider CL a puppet state.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I can't go through all 200 books that you claim don't call it so, I did notice on the first page of your link, that the second book calls it a "puppet" state, the eighth book calls it an "artificial creation", and the ninth calls it a "puppet state". Would "artificial creation" be a better choice to describe it? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the 2nd and the 9th are the two I mentioned earlier that use that term. "Artificial creation" doesn't seem very clear, nor useful.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you including them in the 200 don't category then. What parts of "artificial creation" are unclear to you? What makes the terminology not useful? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of states were "artificially created" in the aftermath of the WWI, including Poland and Lithiania. So what? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As Lokyz edit shows here, other than this single publication, no other seems to refer to this entity as a puppet state. While such a note may stay in this article, if there is consensus for it, I don't think that a single scholar description of it is of due weight in others.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To be exact - my edit removed WP:WEASEL language "some" . The book is written in English  and is widely available to English reading public. Do not see a reason to duplicate it with Central europen language sources, as per WP:ENGLISH.--Lokyz (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me visit library. And well, a "state" receiving military support from Poland (aviation and cavalry). A "state" whose military leader is an outlaw, "rebelled" general. Under normal military command he'd land under firing squad. And he did retire peacefully in Poland. A really "mutineer" indeed.--Lokyz (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, only why didn't the Polish army support their "puppets" and taken Kaunas in late 1920? Why did Piłsudski's refused such a request from Żeligowski?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Re first - ask there. Re second - ask some scholars to write more papers on that, it appears 99% of them don't use that term in this context. Whether they should or shouldn't is not our concern, that they don't - is.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: First, out of presented "200" hints, which allegedly should point to so called "state" actually pointing to Lithuania's geographical region  etc. By doing various  searches this "state" is called so called; so called state, puppet Republic,  puppet state, The Genocide and Resistance Research Center  of Lithuania call it sham. It is clear that sources designate this "state" "special" status. And I did not find any single source which would argue that it was normal state of similar. For this reason it should be clearly designated about "state" status. I also worried that current formulation The new state (Polish historian Jerzy J. Lerski went as far as to call it a puppet state lacks basic NPOV. M.K. (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, we should go with the quantity in this case. No one doubts here it was artificial entity but "puppet state" is way to strong. - Darwinek (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, contributors' duty is to present reliable  sources and their interpretations rather then contributors personal beliefs. For this reason I added section dedicated for description and summarized it in the lead. M.K. (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such summaries however should not violate WP:UNDUE.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can ignore reality and cite WP:UNDUE. We can say No one doubts here it was an artificial entity but puppet state is way too strong. We can ingore Wikipepedia's article on Puppet state or False flag, or an English dictionary's definition of what a PUPPET STATE actually is. Or we can allow a simple fact to be presented in this article, even if we find it personally objectionable? The "shoe does fit" in this instance, and the rest seems to be bordering on a mind game. Calling it a "state" without some attempt to clarify the truth of what is was, does not help our readers. Are we trying too hard to obsfuscate the reality of what historically happened here when this covert and surreptious operation was ordered? When Pilsudski secretly ordered this operation, was is not to create a puppet state with an ulterior purpose, namely annexation of this region (which soon followed, BTW)? Or was it to create the "state" that we are presented with in the article, without acknowledgement of what actually was the case? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, you are wrong. Piłsudski did not want to annex Lithuania, Central or otherwise. He wanted to create a federation - or an appearance for one. Annexation was pushed through by endecja, which have replaced Piłsudski's as the leader of the state around that time and kept it until his coup. By the time of the plebiscite, the federation idea was obviously dead, and even Wilnians themselves voted for annexation. Of course there is no denying that Międzymorze would be a pro-Polish federation, and Poland a dominant partner in it - but annexation of Wilno region into a 'purely Polish state' was not what P. wanted (through it was preferable than its annexation into an anti-Polish state). As R. A. Vitas writes, it all might have been different if more people could compromise - but the dominant factions both in Poland and Lithuanian were all 'mine, mine, mine' (this contemporary cartoon illustrates this pretty well), and so it ended up how it usually ends: with brute force and long-lasting hostility. Sadly, history teaches us again and again that human stupidity is indeed pretty extensive :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you are wrong, and the facts support my contention. I never said that Pilsudski wanted to annex Lithuania. He wanted to annex Vilnius, and he created the scenario that did that. Whether or not he was "in power" at the time, is not my argument either. I won't deny that this false flag operation of his may have had something to do with his hope for a re-establishment of the Miedzymorze Federation, but so what. The reality is that a puppet state was created. That is the argument. That is what happened. The further psychological analysis of Pilsudski is speculative and is neither here nor there. As I mentioned to you in the past, the engineering of Narutowicz, to become President of Poland by Pilsudski, was a master stroke on his part. That's my opinion, but that's WP:OR. So that's out. And if someone like Norman Davies wrote a history stating that same viewpoint, we might have two or three editors that would object to that viewpoint because it was offensive to them. And such sourced and referenced material would be removed or reverted again and again. That's the way it goes. Trudno. Btw, I was looking forward to seeing the contemporary cartoon that you mentioned, but got a scantily clad Brazilian model from your link instead. It was O.K. (maybe more so), just the same. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piłsudski didn't want to annex Lithuania, nor Wilno. If he wanted it in Poland, he could have taken it by force many times in 1919 and 1920 without the need to resort to any false flag operations. I double checked the link, works for me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  05:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wilno? Anybody else getting through on the link? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try . There's something both amusing and sad about old political satire... not the least the fact that some attitudes don't seem to disappear even today.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  06:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Puppet state?

message: As I already wrote and provided sources (so called; so called state, puppet Republic,  puppet state, sham etc.) academic sources designates this "state" from normal state. Only designations words vary, for this reason reader should be informed about this "state" status and how it is represented in academic works, especially then no body provided academic works which would argue over these facts. Therefore such section as I installed   and which later was removed  definitely needed. M.K. (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would like to see page numbers for Timothy Snyder in regards of state status. M.K. (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elimination of "state" status

message: I support this tag; the article has unferenced claims, and until this is fixed this tag is ok.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation, I couldn't understand a word of what was written above by an unsigned user. //Halibutt 13:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs additional citations for verification

message: Piotrus pasted the same text (Ironically, the loss of Vilna might have safeguarded the very existence of the Lithuanian state in the interwar period) here and in several other articles. Now, I dispute this sentence. I do not dispute that Lithuania was independent because Poles won PL-Soviet war (which you have references for). I dispute that Vilnius had anything to do with it. Lithuanians lost Vilnius because of Zeligowski and his mutiny, and that had nothing to do with PL-Soviet war. Renata (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job c/e-ing this article. I would like to see Alfred E. Senn clarify his statements "Kaunas, in effect, paid for its independence with the loss of Vilna" and "Polish victory costs the Lithuanians the city of Wilno, but saved Lithuania itself"; he is an expert on Lithuanian history and he made this assertion at least twice in his works. Perhaps we could rewrite the sentence you quote to make it less problematic? I'd interpret Senn writings as saying that the Lithuania was going to lose something - and in the end the Polish victory was the lesser evil for it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  07:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a full pdf of his article in the Slavic Review. Citation: "As it was, The Bolsheviks were defeated, and Poles retook Vilna, now from the Lithuanians. Kaunas thus, in effect, paid for its independence with the loss of Vilna." I interpret this as "as compensation for independence and fighting Soviets, Poland took Vilnius." It's like tit for tat, but it does not mean that loss of Vilnius was necessary for LT independence. He probably meant same/similar thing in the other work (full citation please?) In any case, it's way too stretching to draw such far-reaching conclusions from a two-sentence  summary of the entire Vilnius dispute. Renata (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you find this version acceptable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Every new "saver"  claim should be properly attributed. M.K. (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Loss of Vilna = LT independence

message: Why is the obsolete English name of Vilnius used in this article? --Doopdoop (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why aren't we using the name as used by the inhabitants and government of the Republic, i.e. Wilno? Seems to me it is the one to be used, per WP:NCGN.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete name of Vilnius 

message: As in any historical context, a definite distinction has to be made between what took place and the concept of counterfactual history. The edit here  explains it correctly. The following revert  does not, and the accompanying edit summary is particularly unhelpful and untrue. No one suggested that Senn is not a historian. Maybe this  will help. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point me to a Wikipedia policy that requires marking of all "what if" sentences in historical context as counterfactual history. The "what if" construction of the sentence makes it pretty clear; one could just as well go around and "clarify" all sentences written in the past time along the lines "X died. This occurred in the past, and concerns a historical event." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, I think that if there is an actual source which refers to Senn's work as "counterfactual history" then it may be worth mentioning. Otherwise it's just an editor's interpretation, i.e. original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. But to get more opinions, I asked about this situation here. PS. And now I requested an RfC here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterfactual History 

message: Godło Litwy Środkowej.svg|This is original user research
Coat of arms of Central Lithuania 1920.svg|Colors according to the description in the sources
Herb Litwy Srodkowej 1922 crop.jpg|From the official doc
Stamp of Central Lithuania CoA.jpg|1920 postage stamp
Godło-Litwy-Środkowej.jpg|Drawing of the coat of arms of 1920 
On all stamps of Central Lithuania and in the Official Gazette of the Provisional Administrator of the Commission of Central Lithuania (polish Litwa Środkowa. Dziennik Urzędowy Tymczasowej Komisji Rządzącej) No. 1, November 17, 1920, the coat of arms is one-color.
: The website heraldicum.ru states that the Polish eagle and the Lithuanian Pursuit were silver: “the coat of arms was a red dissected shield, in the right scarlet field there was a Polish silver one-headed crowned eagle, in the left scarlet field there was a silver Lithuanian Pahonia”. Where does blue come from? Just because it is so on the modern coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania after 1991? There is not a single document that speaks of a blue saddle and a rider's shield. This is an original user research.
* Here is a color image of the coat of arms (source). This is a Dutch source. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms