Talk:Vilnius Region

message: NOTE: some old talk is also on Talk:Eastern and Western Vilnius regions. Renata 05:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

message: Where is source for 60% of Poles? This is not just for Vilnius city, but whole Vilnius region, including parts of it with Lithuanian and Byelorussian majorities.DeirYassin 20:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to 1916 census, the region had 58% Poles, (Vilnius city had only 50.2% Poles). According do 1921/23 census, 57.9% Poles in Vilnius region. Later, 1931 census of Vilnius voivodship: 59.7% Poles (65.9% in the city). All these results are consistent that in the Vilnius region there were slightly less then 60% Poles. I don't thing any oter censae than these were made at that time. Lysy 20:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuteishians 

message: I recently rewrote this article in order to better explain both the nature of the Lithuanian claim and the actual history of it. However, as I predicted, the article was changed by Deir Yassin to present solely the Lithuanian nationalist POV. Too bad, I was hoping to end the dispute...
Specific concerns are:
:# Deir Yassin erased the map, commenting that it's not relevant to this article. Perhaps that's how the thing looks to him, but the map was based on the map used by the modern government of Lithuania on its official portal lietuva.lt (). If Deir Yassin disputes it, he should contact his local government agenda. Also, the claims on that map are even more modest than those stated by Voldemaras in his note of March 24, 1919, in which he demanded more or less 150.000 square kilometres, with Białystok, Drohiczyn and Nowogródek.
:# The mention of the disputed status of the area was replaced with a simple statement that the area was left as part of Lithuania according to Lithuanian-Soviet peace treaty of 1920, but was taken by Poland. However, during the interwar period it was considered by Lithuania to be part of it's territory., so as to suggest that the legitimate owner of the area was Lithuania, and not the state to dispute the actual ownership. 
:# The explanation of basis of both Polish and Lithuanian claims was replaced with some obscure story of Belarusian National Republic, which claimed it and ceased to exist shortly afterwards, some two years before the Polish-Lithuanian conflict
:# The fact that the treaty of July 12 promised to Lithuania much of the area and not actually ceded was obscured. In fact, the Bolshevik authorities never transfered the authority over most of the area to Lithuania. Perhaps it would have happened, but it's not up to us to decide what would've happened. Moreover, the treaty of July 12 included lots of areas that were still under Polish control at the moment the treaty was signed - including the city of Wilno itself, that was lost to the Bolsheviks two days after the treaty was ratified. Which makes it a promise, not a cessation, since the Reds could not have ceded what they did not own...
:# A mention was added on the 1926 treaty with the Soviet Russia so as to give an impression that the dispute was settled and the USSR continued to support the claims. However, Deir Yassin forgot to add that the USSR withdrew from all territorial claims on Poland and recognized its border together with the non-aggression treaty (and the Lithuanian meddling was ended after Piłsudski asked Voldemaras on the LoN conference whether he wanted war or peace).
:# Hard data of the 1916 census (the only one that is not disputed by Lithuanian historians, as far as I can tell) was replaced with some strange inventions and claims that the Lithuanian speaking mconstituted the majority in the west and some isles elsewhere of the area, which is a complete nonsense (especially that even now, 90 years afterwards and after the ethnic cleansing of 1939-1956, Poles constitute roughly 60% of population of the western part of that area). I know truth might be painful to one's national feelings, but why not replace such rubbish with actual hard data? It's easily obtainable and verifiable. 
:# Also, the mention of the censae and ethnic pattern was replaced with some strange mixture of ethnic situation in Middle Ages with Lithuanian claims and modern situation. I know what was it changed for, but why? Finally, in earlier version both sides of the story were presented. Now it's only the Lithuanian POV. 
Anyway, I lost incentive to repeat the arguments over and over again. Halibutt 15:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
::#I have to repeat yet again that the map on the said portal is on Lithuania in 1918 as it is clearly stated there, that is, of Lithuanian Province. Besides, you used that map to draw supposed claims to the south, but used real claims (the ones I showed) to show claims to the east. Trust me, I know where the official (that is, the one according to laws of Lithuania itself) border of Lithuania went in the south. I seen many maps on this and they are shown in many books. I am not sure how could I prove it to you; as that map, it might show some initial claims of Lithuania, but for almost whole interwar period, since 1920 border treaty with Soviet Russia, the disputed area was only to the north of Nemunas in the south and Lithuania withdrew all claims to Bialystok and such. The border according to 1920 treaty went along Nemunas in the south.
::#I thought the new summary at the top would explain better what the region is (i.e. that Vilnius region is the region, ceded to Lithuania by Soviets but later taken by Poland). You can add though the Polish opinion too at the first paragraph.
::#As for removing the explaination for claims, I thought it kinda doubled "Ethnography" section. It can be readded though, if neutral, or name of ethnography section might be changed into "explaination for claims" and information added there.
::#Reds taken the territories though. You can add information that Lithuania controlled only north of the Vilnius region before Poland overtake it, that was not actually a very small part though. That should not also say IMO that Lithuanians has any less rights to the area because the south of it was not actually controlled (not something "Lithuanians claimed it despite that they never actually controlled it"); most of disputed areas in the world were not controlled by those who dispute it, e.g. Indian Kashmir was not ever controlled by Pakistan, Taiwan was not ever controlled by People's Republic of China, but claims are based on various documents, ethnic compositions, past, etc.
::#Ok, you can readd census information, I won't remove it. Sorry, I edited out too much there (it is true however that the census was done according to native languages rather than nationalities, and it is not the same, as for example the fact that great number of Jews spoke Russian as first language indicates).
::#It is fact that people in the west (around Švenčionys, Druskininkai) spoke Lithuanian, and in some isles (Rodūnia, Dieveniškės, Gervėčiai). I agree however that the current formulation might seem that more people spoke Lithuanian than actually did; should be changed by mentioning actual regions where people spoke Lithuanian, regions, where people spoke Polish and regions, where people spoke Belarusian - might be hard due to pidgins and disputed censae though, therefore available explainations about pidgins and disputed censae could remain.
::#Sorry if it seems too POV, but the first version was quite on the Polish side and at places inaccurate (as the one about linking census native language to nationality), I corrected it. I agree however that I might have pushed it too much, because I guess it is hard for either Lithuanian or Pole to write a neutral thing by himself. You can add more, eventually it will become something that will satisfy both sides I hope.
::DeirYassin 10:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by Deir Yassin 

message: It's POV. Xx236 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  badly learned Polish 

message: The map data showing "the areas of Lithuania with Polish majority as of 2006" is wrong. Please correct it. Polish as majority are only in Salcininkai region and Vilnius region, without Vilnius city and Vilnius city municipality. In the drawn picture about 40% of Trakai region are marked as "Polish majority" while where lives 19798 Lithuanians, 12403 Polish, 3188 Russians(2005.11.22 http://www.stat.gov.lt/lt/pages/view/?id=357). Secondly, Vilnius city and Vilnius municipality contours/borders seems good, but the size of it is obviously too small compared with official map. In order to drawn correctly, I suggest to use a map with regions borders. In newly, correctly drawn map we should see Vilnius city municipality surrounded not from all sides by "polish majority", but as having "a corridor in the west-south direction".
If you can please provide, in the talk page, Lentvaris, Trakai, Senieji Trakai, Paluknis little regions stats.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.25.150 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MAP MISTAKES