Talk:Republic of Central Lithuania

territory and national composition

The described tripartition seems suspicious to me. "In the aftermath" of WWWI the there was no Grand Duchy. Lithuania and Poland were within Russian Empire, and one must speak in terms of aministrative division and traditional division. The maps and census data I have before my eyes do not agree with the article; but I don't have sufficient original data to fix it. Mikkalai 21:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I tried to avoid both the Polish 1931 census and the Lithuanian estimations since they are both debatable. What census data are you thinking of? And I don't see anything wrong with the statement that the historical Grand Duchy has been divided onto three parts since that was the case (of course one can add Ukraine as a fourth part annexed by Poland way earlier, but that wouldn't add much to the article). However, you are right that adding some info on the russian gubernyas that formed Central Lithuania might be useful.Halibutt 16:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am not historian and not particularly familiar with movements in this area. I just happen to be in possession of a series of maps of this region, which make me doubtful. First, what is "historical Grand Duchy"? Second, what does this mean: "divided"? Administratively? Traditionally? What is "Central Lithuania with Belarusuan minority"? 1897 census data I put into the article show belarussian MAJORITY in Vilno guberniya. Hence you are not speaking about administrative division. That's all what I am saying: the article is imprecise, both in phrasing and in lack of actual data. "The aftermath" of WWI is civilized times, and data can be digged out. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to do this, so I'm merly raising the red flag.

I don't see the reason why Russian (pre-rev) census data might be questionable. The interpretation may be questionable, that's true. 1897 Census specifically avoids the term "nationality", speaking of "native language" instead. The talks that polish-speaking population of Wilno are in fact polish-speaking lithuanians are not original. For example, in Communist Bulgaria there was propaganda that turkic-speaking population are in fact Bulgars turned into muslim faith. Bulgars themselves turned into Slavs after migration, being of Iranic origin. So changing "nationality" happened all the times. Some countries specifically say that a person is of <X> nationality if he declares himself <X>. BTW just the same, polish-speaking folk might as well have been catholicized belarussians.

This is all I can say on the issue. Not very helpful, sorry. Mikkalai 17:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One of the main problems with Russian censuses is that they were actually ment to prove that most of the lands of the empire rightfuly belong to the tsars. That's why in all parts of the empire most eastern-Slavic nations were treated as if they were Russians. Ukrainians were made Little Russians, the name White Russians speaks for itself.

Be careful with blames here. Some Polish (Commonwealth) territories beared the names with the word "Rus" within way befrore Russian occupation. And BTW, the term "Ukraine" is relatively young itself. Mikkalai 01:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Even the languages other than Russian were constantly banned or at least marginalized.

Yep.Mikkalai 01:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The data for Central Poland shows drastic russification although no later census (neither German nor Polish) support this. That's why the only census that seems reliable is the German census made during WWI. Simply, this was the only administration that couldn't care less about the results of the census. Sadly, I can't find its' results eventhough it's civilized times. I'm perfectly satisfied with the Polish census of 1931, but it is being questioned by the Lithuanians as biased so we have to rely on some other source in order to satisfy both sides.

For more info on what was Grand Duchy of Lithuania try History of Lithuania or Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Thanks. Silly me :-)... But my question of doubt was: what is "historical Grand Duchy", -- implying that the word "historical" is too vague to be used in this context.Mikkalai 01:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This should suffice. Finally, when it comes to Russian 'gubernyas' division system, it's much different from both the traditional administrative division (voivodships) and the later Central Lithuanian borders.

I pointed to a diagreement between census data and the article, meaning that the term "Central Lithuania" is under-defined. It this particular case the census is hardly disputable. Mikkalai 01:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's why I did not see any need to include such info. OTOH, if you feel it's needed - feel free to add it. It's wikipedia after all...Halibutt 22:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, I am merely raising a flag here; I am not saying that you did bad job, since the issue is controversial. I am even aware of the hypothesis that the term "Litvin" was in fact to denote a "Belarussian" these olden times, and that today's "Lithuanian" is in fact the then "Samogitian" (Żmudźin). Mikkalai 01:26, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1897 data reliable? By the time, when lithuanian language was banned, all pupils in the school who were speaking lithuanian were punished by hanging a plate "lithuanian" who would want to declare himself as Lithuanian to russian officials?--Lokyz 15:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

migration

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)

and Slavic speaking and in this circumstances, this means Polish. Whatever origins were, there is still oficially recognised Polish majority in countryside around Vilnius. Cautious 14:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lithuania, Zmudz, Lithuania propria

The real position is this: Term 'Lithuanian language' was never related to language of Orthodoxes in G.D.L. Never. But 'Lithuanian state' or Lithuania always meant the whole G.D.L. Don't look at the problem as it all takes place today. Nobles may use Ruthenian language or Polish one and name the state Lithuania. But it caused the problem , how to distinguish the usage of both terms. So, sometimes “Lithuania propria” was used, especially on maps, which means 'Lithuania itself', 'Lithuania in the direct sense of the word'. But Lithuania Propria never had a sense of any administrative unit.

Lithuania and Zemaitija, or Zmudz in official form of times of G.D.L. Zemaitija was a part of G.D.L., moreover it was the administrative part. But it never coincided with Lithuanian-speaking Lithuania. Arguments:

1) The pagan shrine was in Vilnius before 1387. Who does not know it? So Vilnius was in pagan territory.

2) Lithuanian-language books in XVI-XVIII centuries are written in two dialects of Lithuanian language, which were called Lithuanian (the third meaning of Lithuanian!) and Zemaitian. Besides to it, there are certain references in these books , where both dialects were used.

3) The fact of existence of the term 'Lithuania Propria' does not allow to coincide it with 'Zemaitija'. Zmudz was a duchy, had an autonomy (since XV century), thus it was an administrative unit. So it did not need any supplementary name or definition.

4) Kaunas, the capital in 1919-44, wasn't in territory of Zemaitija (in times and borders of G.D.L.). (It was a center of Zemaitian diocese since the middle XIX century, after an administrative reform, made by Russian officials. Zemaitija as administrative unit had not existed since 1840).

5) Look at maps of G.D.L. more closely. Where the name 'Lithuania propria' is positioned?

Conclusions:

1) Lithuania propria means Lithuanian-speaking Lithuania, in order to distinguish it from orthodox Lithuania.

2) This name doesn't concerns problem of polonization among Lithuanian nobles (both catholics and orthodoxes). Nobles spoke Polish in all G.D.L.

3) The process of distinguishing these territories could not be precise in these times. I suppose, it was made, basing upon subjective view of map compilers and upon traditional line distinguishing traditionally orthodox and traditionally catholic territories.

4) And, according to the 3 point, it did not show the real distribution of Lithuanians and Ruthenians. And, if it was really based on the catholic-orthodox line, even then it referred situation of 1387 only and not the position of XVI – XVII or XIX centuries).

some reflections

Thus, using of 'Lithuania propria' for this problem is waste. Also the discussion about censuses hasn't decisive importance in this problem. It may show only, who was less an who was more right in contention for Vilnius. But it doesn't shows the causes and development of the problem.

I think all must agree, that it was contention between two nations (belarusians or former Ruthenians took part in it minimally over situation in Belarus), and the forming of Litwa Srodkowa was only a consequence of the contention. It was an answer to 1) cathegorical attempts of lithuanian-speaking Lithuanians to form independent state (It existed de facto in 1920) . 2) Tendency of Warsaw government to recognize Lithuania “with Kaunas” in order not to deepen the conflict. - I think you will agree, that Lithuanian Poles did not want to form an independent state. If they wanted, they declared it in 1918 year and Litwa Srodkowa weren't included in Poland. They had all possibilities for it. - So if Lithuanians did not fight for independence, we had only two states now instead of former G.D.L. (after Lublin), Poland and Belarus. But you must agree, that there were three nations in the middle of XVI century: Lithuanians, Poles and Ruthenians (Lithuanians separated by language, Ruthenians by religion).

But there didn't exist any fourth nation in 1918-1922, to form an plus one independent state. Poles of G.D.L. had not become different nation from Poles in the Korona. If it was, then the contention hadn't been for Vilnius, but it had been for Suwalki and Bielystok between Poles of Lithuania and Poles of Poland. And, who knows, Pilsudski had been a president of Lithuania? - Without explaining of these obstacles, the problem gets some mystical touch. For example, it can be understood, that borders of central Lithuania coincided with some traditional borders. It isn't said this way, but it can be understood this way. And so on. I suppose all references to the past, traditional borders, territories and so on must be revised in the article.

As I think, the main reason of formation of Polish speaking territories in Vilnius region was the fact, that Vilnius was the capital of the state, official language of which was Polish, and plus to it, it was in a centre of G.D.L., near the catholics (primary Lithuanians)- orthodoxes line. The mixture of both nations also raised Polish usage (The same thing, as we use English). There were Lithuanian territories, there were Ruthenian territories, and there were some zone of amalgamation. And this zone naturally became Polish. Mostly in XIX century, I think, but we don't need to speak about dates. And we can speak about all it without any references to facts, often misused by propoganda, declaring, that Lithuania propria coincided with Zemaitija, or, on other hand, that Vilnius region was purely Lithuanian before 1918.

Linas 12:44, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

To add even more confusion here one should notice that the terms Żmudź, Zemaitija and Lithuania Propria in English are called Samogitia... Anyway, I must say that I'm astonished that there are no edit wars here and that we can work out some acceptable version - together. That's how the things should look like.Halibutt 22:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Samogitia... I think we should use this name of Latinized origin (as we use not Lietuva or Litwa but Lithuania – also of Latinized origin). This is clear.

But why do you insistently identify Lithuania Propria as Samogitia? Lithuania Propria is the term of XVI century, when catholics in Lithuania concerned themselves as one nation. Its better to say, Lithuania Propria was all G.D.L., excluding Belarus / Ruthenia.

Where I find a problem in it? The conflict for Vilnius was described in old terms then, as “Samogitia” and so on. And if we repeat this, readers will be able to make some unreal conclusions. For example. Kaunas is situated about 15 kilometers out from the historical Samogitia. If one take the definition in the article, he will have to conclude, that Kaunas was in the Central Lithuania. The same with Panevėžys, Utena cities.

And this simple lack of precision may be regarded by some Lithuanians as “political incorrectness”, by the way.

The next point on borders. If we define Central Lithuania only as a land with certain borders, it will mean, for example, exclusion of Czeslaw Milosz and Jozef Pilsudski from culture of C.L. Isn't it? Central Lithuania was more symbolic, cultural unit, than political. Politically it existed during very short time. So we must include some cultural aspect into its definition. Or, maybe, to write two parallel definitions?

By the way, Lithuanians name this region not Central Lithuania, but Eastern Lithuania. All these names have been motivated upon political position after 1918. Lithuanians were creating new Lithuania, Poles tended to traditional explanation of Lithuania as G.D.L. - And we must find exit from all these ambiguities now. Linas 15:02, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

I think that the easiest way would be to refer to Central Lithuania only in its' 1920 borders, without too much insight into the differences between different historical regions. The same should go for history - I believe we should stick to the 1918-1940 history and mention the earlier or latter history only if it's really region-specific. The rest should be mentioned in History of Poland, History of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Lithuania or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

As to the culture and sociology - this should definitely go in. Pilsudski was Lithuanian just like Bohdan Chmielnicki was Ukrainian... That should be explained, although that would be the most difficult part. However, both Jozef Pilsudski and Czeslaw Milosz belong more to the Culture of Lithuania, Culture of Poland and History of Lithuania than to Central Lithuania, don't you think?Halibutt 18:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can accept this point. But, if we not look more wide, i think then the C.L. can be seen only as sporadic thing?

Linas 09:48, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

Then, if we forbear from widening the meaning of Central Lithuania, I propose the main definition for “Central Lithuania”:

“Central Lithuania was a political unit (1920 – 22 semi-independent state, 1922 -39 part of Poland), formed by Polish side during ethnic conflict between Poles and Lithuanians of the former Great Duchy of Lithuania”. How do you think about it?

Plus to it, I'd like to add some details, which haven't been mentioned in the article, but which had direct relations to position of Lithuanians in the conflict. Three points, I think:

1)The fact of founding C.L. had another reason, than to show will of Poles of former G.D.L. to form an independent state. This reason should be explained.
2) The position of other national groups in the conflict (Jews, Tatars) may be explained.
3) The main points in events of 1939 – 1940 years also may be mentioned (Such as: the occupation of C.L. by Soviets. “Donating” a part of region to Republic of Lithuania (1939). Soviet occupation in Lithuania (1940 and 1944). Proclaiming Vilnius the (local) capital of Soviet Lithuania (1944)).

I don't speak about including long and detailed explanation here, for somebody may argue, that all these facts better suit in the History of Lithuania. But some references in one or two sentences on every point may be added. If you will not be categorically against these points, I'll give more precise phrasings.

Linas 16:32, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

!!! And the fact about persecutions of Poles should be revised. For, looking intentions of Russian officials of that time, it's true. But the legal situation (I think) was a bit different. Not Poles, but Catholics were persecuted. Not only Polish language, but three languages, used by Catholics in the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, were restricted, Latgalian or Eastern Latvian (in the Catholic part of Latvia), Lithuanian and Polish (in alphabetic order). And the sentence about the real estates should be revised. Russian law gave priority to Orthodoxes to buy real estates. So it wasn't prohibited to buy real estates for Catholics or Poles, but presence of the legal confines often gave the same effect, as if it was prohibited. - But in all this explaining I lean on my memory. So something significant can be missed, and I can't simply take and edit the article (I did only the fact, which was not doubted). If anybody knows some facts on it , let me know! Better to do in short form, for it's discussion about one or two sentences.

Linas 08:36, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

---

Post stamps

A interesting finding some days before. Look at: http://www.filatelija.lt/zem_vl.htm Even if the material there is known for you, I think, you will have some nice minutes.

Linas 15:02, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

No, I did not know this site (I have one CL stamp in my collection, but most of them were new to me). ThanksHalibutt

Suwalki/Suvalkai

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)

It does not says that whole region had Lithuanian majority, but rather that "parts of Suwalki region had clear Lithuanian majorities". Actually, it is so even now, e.g. Punsk district now has 80% of Lithuanians (source: http://www.punskas.pl/pkv3-en.htm ). Other sources (e.g. http://www.lietuva.lt/index.php?Lang=5&ItemId=29641) cites 84%. In Sejny district, according to this source, there is currently 34% of Lithuanians. It is a minority in this case, but also it can be naturally assumed that during recent history, I mean, communist rule of Poland, percentage of Lithuanians have decreased in the area, due to the moving of people to major cities from there and then loosing national routs, as well as moving people from elsewhere into the region. Also, not immidietly after the WW2 Lithuanian language was given rights as they are today, that might have lowered percentage of Lithuanian speakers too. Of course, many of these things are assumptions, they can be hard to proove unless you'd have access to some censuses or such of that time but even that might be faked because of need for Poland at the time to proove legitimacy of keeping the mentioned regions. However if there is significant majority in some areas now, it for sure was so that there was this majority in same areas back then too; just without larger research it is hard to say in how many other territories there also was Lithuanian majority. But if you think of current article as not-NPOV, you might drop the word "significant" or change word "parts of Suvalkai region" to "some parts of Suvalkai region". DeirYassin 20:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elections

the Central Lithuanian election -- date posted seems to be wrong (says 1923, seems that should be 1922?) to fit other dates in the article. I don't know the facts, just asking. Thanks!

Indeed, my bad. Thanks, I'll correct that. Halibutt 22:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Why did Lithuanians reject Miedzymorze?

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)

I would think myself that Lithuanians at the time didn't seen enough reasons to make it viable; same as e.g. Poland of the time would probably have refused a similar union with Russia in case it would have been offered instead of attacking Poland. Past attributed here too, and the fact that Poland was a larger country with larger population, therefore Polish would have been most likely the "prime language" of state, while Lithuanian at best would have been used only in territory of Lithuania; while the mutual institutions would have to be addressed in Polish, parliament sessions would be held in Polish and such. At least that was the way common Lithuanians seen the idea, because that is how it was in Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. Therefore it did not gained popularity.DeirYassin 19:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fully falsificated rubbish

Fully falsificated rubbish made of course by marazmatic Hello-but. Zivinbudas 15:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Any details? Halibutt 16:01, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Lokyz's edit

I took the liberty to revert this edit by Lokyz. The reasons are:

1. the allegation that the elections were controlled by the military would need some proof, to which there is none. I know the problems Lithuanians have with that part of our common history, but the elections themselves seem to be fair and most surely were neither forged nor controlled by the military.
2. boycoted by lithianians, belarusians and other "minorities" who lived here is both bad English (sorry) and wrong. Sure, the Lithuanians in great part boycotted the elections, which however did not affect its outcome much as they constituted not more than 6 per cent of the population. At the same time the "Belarusians and other >>minorities<<" did not boycott the elections. The attendance among them was low (mentioned in the article), but there was no boycott whatsoever.
3. The fact that the elections to the parliament of Central Lithuania were held in... Central Lithuania is pretty obvious, no need to repeat it twice in the header. Also, I see no need to mention the Polish name twice, once is enough IMHO. //Halibutt 00:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Halibutt, regarding the elections. Sometimes people don't like the results and come up with excuses about the vote tallys, and such. Take the plebicite concerning the German Anschluss with Austria. Even though many do not like the results, the elections themselves seem to be fair and most surely were neither forged nor controlled by the military. Live with it. Dr. Dan 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that allegations of elections "fairness" needs some proof, by answering some questions that sprung to my mind after your declaration you might prove, my allegations are wrong:

A. Nationality of population:

a. Based on what data you declare 6 percent of Lithuanians – are these only on the “Litwa Srodkowa” wojewodztwa, or 1897 year russian demografic ststistics based on the whole Wilno gubernya ? 2. You somewhat forgot Jews, a fairly big minority, if not to say main majority in Vilnius. Is there any data how they voted? 3. What makes you think, that not many belarusians got to vote: was there any statistics or data collecting on nationality of voters, or belarsuiasn were simply ot alowed to wote? 4. What was literacy rate of population?

B. I can somewhat change my statement - it might have been not controlled, but had major impact. My further questions regarding armend forces.

1. How much of an army there was in Litwa sriodkowa, and where was it all formed. Didn’t they have origins in regular Polish army? 2. Did soldiers have right to vote? 3. Were the houses, where poll was held protected, and by whom? d. Were there any courts except war courts?

C. I somewhat lack declaration of official data:

1. how many voters voted, what was percentage for or against, what was the count of voters, that have given their vote from the whole population. 2. What was the procedure of voters registration? 3. Was there any agitation allowed, or was it censored? 4. were there any foreign observers, who could justify data?

Another one thing – not to mention the fact, that it was Officially boycotted, it is not fair, at least. As for this - “Also, I see no need to mention the Polish name twice, once is enough“ I do agree, it was not Polish, it was Poland’s armed forces, thank you for correcting my mistake.--Lokyz 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me interject, that I hope the ancestors of user: KonradWallenrod, user: Mattergy, and others didn't vote in the "elections".

Regarding the current fraud perpetrated on the members of the Wikipedia community, I intend to pursue this a little deeper. To you students of WWII history, what we need to know is, if Logologist is the Klaus Graf von Stauffenberg, and somebody else is playing General Friedrich Fromm. Dr. Dan 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1. 6% is an approximation by yours truly. Check the article on Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania, where all sorts of censuses are mentioned.
2. It's already mentioned in this very article. Just check Central_Lithuania#Resolution.
3. I don't know on what was the stats based, whether it was an exit poll, electoral register or anything. It was mentioned that way in one of the sources out there. As to the voting rights, they were based on geographic criteria exclusively (all people living there had a right to vote) so no, nobody was excluded because of his nationality (which is also mentioned in this article).
4. No idea. And what does it have to do?
5. Yup, the Lithuanian-Belarusian division was previously a unit of the Polish Army. However, initially it was formed as a self-defence unit in the area of what is now northern Belarus and southern Lithuania, out of local volunteers. Is it fair to suggest that the elections were then rigged by local volunteers? Interestingly, some of the soldiers of Żeligowski's division were from other Polish areas - and did not have voting rights at all.
6. Those who fit the voting rights criteria (mentioned in this article) did have a right to vote. Others didn't.
7. No idea what you mean. What poll? What houses? What protection - and from whom?
8. Yup, this article mentions that as well. You might want to read it, really. //Halibutt 07:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't got what do you mean by that: "6% is an approximation by yours truly" let me cite your statement" "as they constituted not more than 6 per cent of the population"

Well you still didn't get it:)

Furthermore about 6 percent - look to the official data in the article - counting Jews, Belorusians and Lithuanians in wilno there would be 46 percent, if we would add russians - 66 percent, poles - 30 percent. The same goes to the Wilno goubernya Belorusians and Lithuanians make 73 percent of population (well, add to it anoter 12 percent jews). If they boycoted elections - i don't think we can speak about any majority of votes in elcetions, even by nowadys standards. And to say it was unafeced by low attendence is a little absurd, don't you think?

"Previously", and later? Did it became german or russian volonteers? Sounds kinda funny to hear about "local volunteers" under comand of Poland maszalek. As if army would be bunch of footbal fans - every squad attack what they wan't, and goes wherewer it likes. Don't you think this atitude is quite questionable?

Another thing it in the army there was at least one belorussian or lithuanian speaking person? If not why would pole call himself "chlop" deliberately?

I still do miss reference to any official documents or research.--Lokyz 10:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Check that article for sources. It was neither the main point in my argument nor was it as important as to cite exact percentages. Firstly, it was Żeligowski himself who partially demobilized his forces. After the Central Lithuanian territory was annexed by Poland the division was, as far as I know, dissolved. However, I might be wrong on that one. And no, Żeligowski was not a marshal. He was a mere general. Finally, as to local volunteers - there were zillions of such units in Polish service ranging from the Lit-Bel divisions (two of them) which were composed of both local Polish and Belarusian self-defence units, former Green Army vets and others, to Ukrainian Cossacks, to Siberian Brigade... All were part of the Polish Army during the war against the Bolsheviks. Whether their staged coup was indeed not supported by Piłsudski is indeed a disputable matter (to say it lightly), but what does it have to do with wording of this article?

As to your chlop remark - I'm sorry but I simply fail to understand you. Could you possibly reword that? //Halibutt 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There was only one marzalek. And you perfectly know that:) he tired to use Vilnius as Chantege instrument, but as it didn't worked, seems he lost this game to ND party, which annexed "Litwa Srodkowa" by means of, well, let's call it elections, that nobody recognised.

As for "chlop" isn't that the word most widely used to describe non polish speaking inhabitants of parts GDL up until XX-th century?--Lokyz 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

marszałek is the word. And no, Żeligowski was not Piłsudski. Also, chłop is a generic Polish word for peasant or farmer, regardless of his nationality, ethnicity, culture or language. //Halibutt 20:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

let me cite he Polish commander Józef Piłsudski, ordered his subordinate, General Lucjan Żeligowski, to defect with his '1st Lithuanian-Belarusian Division' and capture the city, without declaring war on Lithuania. I didn't say, that Zeligowski was marszałek:) Anyway you somehow managed not to answer question about Jews and other minorities:)--Lokyz 09:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your Sounds kinda funny to hear about "local volunteers" under comand of Poland maszalek. remark, not the part you quoted above. //Halibutt 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Article's title

The comment below has been copied here from my talk page

Don't you see, Halibutt, that aside from political controversy of these topics, the names of these two articles are nonsensical. Central Lithuania nowdays is somewhere around Kėdainiai town and area. The creators of Litwa Srodkowa were probably dreaming about restoring Grand Duchy of Lithuania which would be once more part of Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth (quite imperialistic desires, IHMO, if they thought this is the center, then the whole country had to spread from sea to other sea) The area of Litwa Srodkowa now includes South East part of Republic of Lithuania and Western part of People Republic of Belarus. You get people lost in time and space with these kind of names. Rename the article to "Republic of Litwa Srodkowa", and even most nationalist Lithuanians will have little to object to. Why do you translate the name of this republic to English? If translated to English, it should be written in quotes "Central Lithuania". For example if we translate Lithuania in English, it will be "Rain Country", "Country of Pouring water", and without quotes it has no sense.

Name of the article Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania is even a bigger nonsense. Ethnic composition of Kėdainiai district is quite different from presented in your article. I don't have the statistical data now at my hand, but I suppose it must be ~90% Lithuanian. There is nothing wrong with having several censuses in one article, but, if you include censuses that were performed after "Central Lithuania" ceased to exist, you cannot call it "of Central Lithuania". I suggest to call the article "Censuses in Vilnius area". "Ethnic composition" counting during times of represions and wars was inacurate, since people were afraid for their life and safety if they choose the "wrong" ethnicity. There is an excerpt from a book "History of Lithuania" by Lithuanian historian Zigmantas Kiaupa:"On January 8, 1922 elections were held under occupation conditions to the "Central Lithuanian" Sejm and officially 60 percent of voters took part. The elections were boycotted by Lithuanians, Jews and some Belorussians and a certain percentage had doubts over whether they should vote." Juraune 10:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Juraune, first of all, I don't really get the idea behind the name change you propose. The state (regardless of its political status or our views on it) was called that way. Litwa Środkowa in Polish, Central Lithuania in English, Vidurine Lietuva in Lithuanian, Sredinnaya Litva in Russian and so on. Perhaps Republic of Central Lithuania would be a more appropriate title, but notice we place articles on states under their shortened forms. We have Lithuania and not Republic of Lithuania, we have United Kingdom and not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (not to mention its former, even longer names) and so on. Whether the term coincides with some geographical term is irrelevant here IMO. On the other hand if there indeed is a geographical region more commonly referred to in English as Central Lithuania, then perhaps we might want to create a separate article on it. However, judging by the fact that there is no such article so far, most of the people would refer to the state as Central Lithuania, rather than be searching for the area around Kėdainiai.

Anyway, your idea on literal translation of each and every morpheme rather than simple translation seems an absurd to me. We translate the Lithuanian term Lietuva as Lithuania, no need to translate the etymology.

I also don't get your idea that articles on non-existent states should change their names to conform with modern naming. We have an article on United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland eventhough Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom no more. Similarly, we have an article on Babylon, eventhough the place is nowadays called Iraq and the name could be misleading, as there is also Iraqi province of Babil. I'm not sure what is it that you actually propose here...

As to Republic of Litwa Środkowa - now this is a complete absurd. We'd have to rename other articles as well. Republic of Lietuva, Republic of Polska, Federal Republic of Deutschland... We have WP:UE policy which orders us to use English terms where applicable - and this certainly is one of such cases. We also have WP:NAME policy, which states that article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.. No need to import Polish language terms here.

As to other issues - I doubt anyone there in Vilna at the time wanted to re-create the Grand Duchy. Sure, Lithuanians had claims over a large part of the former GD, but so did any state in the area (including the short-lived Belarusian National Republic, which claimed all lands of the GD excluding the historical Samogitia; I mean the broader term, roughly synonymous to modern-day Lithuania, and not the narrower geographical term of Samogitia as such). Anyway, whether such re-creation of Lithuania ruling large parts of modern Belarus, Ukraine and even Russia would be imperialism or not - I have no idea, perhaps yes. However, this is a purely hypothetical situation and as such should not be the scope of this article.

As to the Ethnic Composition - I already explained at your talk page that the article was initially meant as a sub-page of this article and was to include the relevant censuses. It was later extended, but the title stayed. I also pointed out that you're free to propose some better name. Just go to Talk:Ethnic composition of Central Lithuania and make some proposal there. //Halibutt 11:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand from your answer, you believe that Republic of "Central Lithuania" is equal by its status to Republic of Lithuania. It is not. Litwa Srodkowa was never recognised as a state, while Republic of Lithuania is. Present time sense and geographical sense should have priority over historical sense. Ok, you do not agree with Republic of Litwa Srodkowa, I agree, your argument is sound. Then rename to Republic of "Central Lithuania". Otherwise, your logic tells us that it would be quite normal to name article Lithuania as "Country of Pouring Water". Don't tell me you are blind to the nonsense this names brings. Please answer to me and yourself, whose center this "Central Lithuania" is then? Juraune 12:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Central Lithuania is perfectly OK, it is a historical name, and widely used in English in this context. We are not supposed to perform any orignal research on why the name was used and certainly not to attempt to change it or rewrite the history to satisfy anybody's political agenda. Juraune: I sincerely believe that the title of the article is not anti-Lithuanian per se. --Lysy^talk 13:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Lysy. Apparently I am blind to the nonsense this names brings. Adding quotation marks would be an absurd in itself. Of course, it would nicely fit in the scheme of the Lithuanian nationalists who did not recognize the state. However, in wikipedia we don't judge whether someone's claims are right or wrong. We report them. Take a look at other articles on non-existent countries to see what I mean. Gosh, even micronations and fictional countries are written with their actual names, without any quotation marks. Why should this case be any different? As to your final argument, I'm sorry but it's illogical. And is Greater Poland indeed a Greater part of Poland? Or perhaps it is Greater than Poland? //Halibutt 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Halibutt, ...but notice we put articles on states under their shortened forms. And just who would that WE be? Like the WE who wrote the article on the Republic of Texas, maybe? This "state", Litwa Srodkowa, if one can call it a "state" is unique and no objective person can say that this "state" was established with the intention for it to exist beyond an interim perod. Would it be incorrect, IYHO, to say it was created to put pressure on the Lithuanians to become part of Miedzymorze, again, or simply a prelude to the ultimate annexation that took place? Dr. Dan 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan, please stick to the topic. Regardless of the intentions behind its creation, be it Hymans' plan, pressure on Lithuania or social experiment, the state did exist - if only as a "facade" of "Polish imperialism". And it did have a name it used, no need to put it in quotation marks. Slovakia was a German puppet during WWII. Yet we don't name it "Slovak" Republic or Slovak "Republic". //Halibutt 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sticking to the topic, which is what is the better name for the article in English. I absolutely agree with your belief that the quotation marks are unneccessary. And don't be so touchy, if you're going to teach and lecture Juraune about how WE write things about articles on states, don't be upset if that remark was challenged by a rather good example. And the Republic of Texas lasted almost a decade. No one doubts that it was created as a facade of "American imperialism." Dr. Dan 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. There are plenty of other examples but neither you nor I are interested in me "showing off."

And Lysy, The Republic of Central Lithuania is perfectly OK, too. It links up very nicely to the article.As to whether or not Central Lithuania is so "widely" used in English, is another matter entirely. Ocassionally, these Polish translations into English sound weird and confusing to the English language "ear". Like my recent pet peeve, the title to the article Union of Vilnius and Radom. Putting aside the nationalistic biases from both sides, Central Lithuania has more of a "geographical" connotation than an informative one about the issue. That would be about this republic and what it was about. Dr. Dan 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it really confusing ? I don't think there's any administrative entity of Lithuania using this name. Or is the term used to denote something else ? If somebody is looking up "Central Lithuania" in wikipedia, he is presented with this article, and this is very correct and expectable. --Lysy^talk 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, look this way. What if you, or somebody, who is not Polish, but English, entered words "Pouring water" in and get article named "Pouring water", but it were an article about Lithuania actually. And then there would be discussions, if "Pouring water" deserves disambiguation and separate article. This is an absurd. Central Lithuania is actually a very interesting region of Lithuania with it's Western Aukstaitian dialect and interesting history. Juraune 13:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

All right. I was unaware of existing of the "Central Lithuania" region, and thought that it didn't have any other prominent meaning. Of course people sometimes use terms like "central Poland" as well, but then they do not mean any specific region but just the central part of the country's territory (usually during weather forcasts etc.), nothing more. I was unaware that it's different in Lithuania. Anyway, it would be worthwhile to have a more descriptive article about this region then. Alas, I did not understand your remark about "pouring water" and why would it deserve a separate article. --Lysy^talk 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a disambig between Central Lithuania (state) and Central Lithuania (region) or something like this. Anyway, the Polish name of 'Litwa Środkowa' is used only by one English book ([1]) and that is in parenthesis following the English name. I certainly don't see why we should use the Polish name in that case, the current English one seems prelevant througout English academic literature ([2]).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's my ignorance, but have you ever heard of Central Lithuania (region) ? AFAIK modern Lithuania has 2, 4 or 5 regions (depending on how you count them) but "Central Lithuania" is not among them. --Lysy^talk 16:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was under the impression that this is what Juraune is saying - that we need to differentiate the historical state of CL from the current 'central part of Lithuania'...?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect that Central part of Lithuania deserves an article of its own, as much as Central part of Poland or Central Part of Czech Republic does not. --Lysy^talk 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why the title, The Republic of Central Lithuania, make the most sense in English. It describes what this entity was. A literal translation of Litwa Srodkowa, does not. Such a literal translation is just what you, yourself are objecting to; calling it the Central part of Lithuania. Dr. Dan 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, the name of the country in English is Central Lithuania, not the Republic of Central Lithuania, in many contexts, e.g. check any catalogue of post stamps of Europe. I'm against inventing new names for the purpose of wikipedia so lightly, where there exist well established ones. Frankly I'm surprised that you, as a historian, support it. It may be that I do not understand you, though. --Lysy^talk 20:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Err... is it me, or were we discussing some issues here when all of a sudden someone came and dumped our discussion in the paper bin? //Halibutt 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not you, but unfortunately in Wikipedia, that's the way the "cookie sometimes crumbles". In our little club, we have the additional baggage of differences of language, culture, POV, and lot's of other things, including the problem of "idioms". Dr. Dan 20:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. Hal, you never did tell me your spin on your translation of the Union of Vilnius and Radom, or maybe I missed it.

I did - at the relevant talk page. You simply ignored my proposal and went on to continue with stories on how you learnt Polish and other similar (yet loosely related issues). But my proposal is already there. //Halibutt 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just read, and re-read your imput, at the relevant talk page, and I'd like to cut through the obscurities of our discussion, and re-ask the question. Do you think the title, The Union of Vilnius and Radom, makes sense in English, or should it be changed? Forgive the "Stalinist" prosecutorial tone of the question, but it would be helpful to get a straight and simple answer. You don't like my digression's on my studies in Cracow, ...how you learnt (sic) Polish and other silmilar (yet loosely related issues). I love it. In fact, if I was Emperor of Rome, I'd consider adopting you. Meanwhile, instead of answering the question, you went on to continue with stories about the Privilege of Koszyce and the Proclamation of Polaniec (sic) and other similar (yet loosley related issues). Should I ask the question again? Or is your direct quote regarding necessary changes, the "bottom line", ..."so we are free to name them anyway we please", an answer. Is anyone else confused? Dr. Dan 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to hear what's wrong with that title, but check also the fourth comment on the very top of that talk page, where I explicitly stated that the title seems ok, but could as well be improved. And thanks for mentioning the Stalinist tone yourself. The main problem with Stalinist prosecutors was that they continued to ask the same question without listening to answers - which apparently is the case here as well :). And let's keep the discussion here related to Central Lithuania, ok? //Halibutt 01:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's move the above discussion back to where it belongs, and where I asked you to discuss it with me a few days ago. You (I) have yet to hear what's wrong with that title..., Really?; nothing on the talk pages gave you any pause that the meaning of the "Union of Vilnius and Radom", was questionable verbiage in the English language. OK, maybe we should have the "usual" vote on it. I can certainly suggest a "prominent editor" to monitor it for us, if you can't come up with one. Dr. Dan 01:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, which of my points that you reverted were untrue? Which ones disrupted wikipedia, instead of displeased you? Dr. Dan 06:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I misjudged your intentions. Anyway, "allegedly rebellious" seems fair, everyone agrees that the rebelion was staged by the Poles. Maybe the wording was infortunate, but there's no reason to remove this information altogether. Also, your "Lithuanian had no claim whatsoever" is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Lithuanians claimed the territory not on ethnic, but on historical grounds. I'm sure you are aware of this. --Lysy^talk 07:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There were ethnic grounds too. You might be misled by the numbers and percents of the censuses presented in Wikipedia, but I know for sure, that even now there are villages in the territory of Belarus, next to Lithuanian border, where old inhabitants are ethnic Lithuanians. These small islands of Lithuanian language are quickly melting, with young generation either choosing Lithuania or choosing Russian or Bielarussian as their language and identity. Juraune 13:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there were Lithuanians living in the area, but they would hardly form a majority. What I meant was that Lithuanian arguments in this conflict was primarily the integrity of Lithuanian country with its historic capital, while Poles claimed it primarily on ethnic grounds. --Lysy^talk 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting observation. I too, met people from these "small islands" of Lithuanian language, while in Poland (which in the modern world of mass communications, began to erode}. I saw the same phenomenon in the Kashubian areas. Dr. Dan 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There are areas where people speak Lithuanian, Kashubian or German in Poland, but is this something strange ? Do you find anything wrong with it ? --Lysy^talk 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on the claims of the Lithuanian side below. I think, something should be included to the article too. Whose main target is, what Poles did in the C. L., but i think some additions about the then position of Lithuanians may be usefull. Agree, don't you? Linas Lituanus 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Earth to Lysy! Why would you ask me if I found anything wrong with it? Why would anything in my remarks suggest that I found anything strange about it either? My remarks were a direct comment to Juraune on her observation. The remarks that you divided from hers by your later interjection. Dr. Dan 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood the purpose of your comment, Dr. Dan. --Lysy^talk 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And it's not the first time in these discussions. I truly resent your continual attempts to missrepresent my comments, and your "sticking your nose" in my debates with others, before the other party has a chance to respond. Am I being too sensitive, or are are you continually trying to fan the embers of animosity between people? Dr. Dan 21:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As you seem to be addressing me personally and this chat is not relevant to the article any more, I'll respond on your talk page. --Lysy^talk 09:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, you repeated [3] twice. You probably meant [4] the second time. Lysy and Halibutt should look and see in what context words "Central Lithuania" are used most often. Juraune 08:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the search for "Litwa Srodkowa" lists exactly one English book mentioning the region, while the other search lists at least 3 books on the very first page of the search, 3 additional on the second page, 5 on the third page, 3 on fourth and so on. //Halibutt 09:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The book search on "Central Lithuania" gives mostly books with the geographical or even geological meaning of the term. Most often Kaunas (or Kedainiai) is identified as Cetral Lithuanian town, even in historical context. Only four books give the historical meaning coinsiding with this article, I will cite the context, since it is the key importance in this case:

• 1. "The Vanished World of Lithuanian Jews" by Alvydas Nikzentaitis, Stefan Schreiner, Darius Staliunas: "As Poland prepared elections to the Central Lithuania Seimas N. Rachmilevich declared in the Lithuanian Provisional Seimas in the name of the Jewish faction that: Lithuania's Jewish citizens join their voice to the protest against the steps by which the Poles wish to confer [legitimacy] on their act of violence ... we protest against the elections to the Vilnius Seimas which are intended to tear the body of Lithuania into two parts..." and "After the leaders of the Vilnius Jewish parties decided to boycott the general elections to the Central Lithuania Seimas ..., J. Wygodski, Tsemach Shabad and Rabbi I. Rubenstein were summoned after the plebiscite to Warsaw to explain events to the interior and foreign ministers and other high-ranking Polish officials. The Jews explained that they regard Vilnius as the same part of Lithuania as Kaunas".
• 2. "The Baltic States: Years of Independence-Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 1917-40" by Georg Von Rauch. "For eighteen months Vilnius was a Polish dependency, and as such served as a buffer state, which was known in Warsaw as Central Lithuania. The Polish language was used for all administrative purposes, and the territory was governed by a commision set up by Zeligowski and composed entirely of Poles."
• 3. "The Changing Political Structure of Europe" by Martinus Nijhoff. Chapter "Developments up to World War II, THE EASTERN BORDER" [of Poland]. "After World War I, the Soviet-Polish boundary was determined by successful military action on the part of Poland. The British Foreigh Minister, Lord Curzon, had suggested a line which would have roughly followed linguistic boundaries. However, in the Polish-Soviet War of 1920/21 the Red Army was defeated. This led to the incorporation of Central Lithuania including Vilnius, Western White Ruthenia, Western Wolhynia and East Galicia into Poland".
• 4. "Being Goral: Identity Politics and Globalization in Postsocialist Poland" by Deborah Cahalen Schneider mentions Central Lithuania as a administrative region of Poland in the 1930-ies: "five regions - Posnania, Silesia, Cieszyn, East Galicia, and Central Lithuania (Wilno) - maintained separate administration." The book is about postsocialist Poland, though.

I don't count the books on post-stamps collections. So please stop insisting, that books in English favour the meaning of Central Lithuania as one explained in this article. "So called" is often added in these cases and it corresponds to quotes. Juraune 11:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

After a second thought, I consider Republic of Central Lithuania to be a better title than Central Lithuania as long as a redirect is kept. Mostly because Central Lithuania apparently annoys many Lithuanian editors, so it is best avoided. I may be influenced by my stamps collection, though ;-) --Lysy^talk 17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Too bad you consider the new title to be better, to placate Lithuanian editors, rather than because it makes more sense in the English language. In spite of your humorous allusion to your stamp collection, I think your crypto-nationalist POV is showing. Btw, what does your stamp collection call Poland during the occupation? You know the one with Hitler's portrait on it? Should we refer to Poland by the name on your stamps? A ticked-off (see above). Dr. Dan 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I don't find too many people opposed to your redirects. Whatever keeps you happy.

Stamp collectors refer in English to "General Government" and I see no problem with that. Similarly they refer to "Central Lithuania" and I've also seen no problems with that until here. Feel free to use my talk page if you wish to continue this chat, as it's getting off topic again.--Lysy^talk 10:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Position of Many Lithuanians During These Conflicts

The Lithuanian claims were based on a few basic principles (I'll write them in the present tense, but everyone should understand, that this is a historical perspective from the the past): (A)

1. The Lithuanian people are a nation, inspite of some its members (as in any nation), denying it.
2. Lithuanians as most other people have their historic living space, which is recognized by objective analysis.
3. Lithuanians have a moral right to claim certain territorial areas, based on historical precedent,
4. But to promote good will and to gain respect of all of the nations involved (including Lithuania itself), it has to restrict its territorial claims those areas, where ethnographic studies show the greatest similarity within the core of Lithuania (using the Lithuanian language as an important principle, but not the only one).

The current situation, when the re-establishment of the State became possible, added some necessary amendments. Namely: (B)

1. Lithuania continues the administrative jurisdiction, inherited from Russia and Germany, over the certain territory, that encompasses the counties of Vilnius, Grodna, Kaunas and Suwalki. This also consequences, that Vilnius as the traditional and the last administrative center of Lithuania continues to be its capital. {Note: these counties were traditionally considered as “Lithuanian” by all sides before 1919}
2. Based on the previous (the point A3), Lithuanians consider that boarders of this territory can be changed after a process of fair negotiations, or in any other fair way, that would be recognized by the International Community, getting this way stable and recognized boarders of Lithuania (Note: subsequently that was done with Latvia only. The treaty with the Soviet Union wasn't fair from the Soviet side, but it also can be mentioned here).

Polish leaders didn't recognize these principles at all, arguing:

1. Lithuanians aren't a nation. They aren't capable of governing their State {Pilsudski wrote this even in 1919}.
2. Lithuanians, as an ethnic group were traditionally ruled by Poland, and can be allowed to have some autonomy in the places, where Lithuanian-speaking people are in majority {Poles used that principle from the first days of the conflict, both recognizing independence of Lithuania in 1919, and later}. {N. B. not autonomy for Lithuanians in a homogenous territory, but in separate areas not necessarily contiguous!}
3. The territory that Lithuanians have claimed is historically Polish {cf Polish claims to Klaipėda between 1920 – 1923}.
4. {The aspect of A4 couldn't be answered, from the Polish perpective, at all. The answer was given to Lithuanians by using military force against them}.

Also, Poland didn't recognize the government of Lithuania in 1918. (no talk about principles or territories).

All of this suggests that the Poles didn't look at the Lithuanian position as that of the serious request of a nation. 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). Meanwhile a concord was possible. Latvians came to one with the Lithuanians. Assuming, that Latvia evidently wasn't the greatest power in the region, it seems that the greater neighbors of Lithuania didn't want Lithuania to exist at all. This understanding and perspective of the situation caused the Lithuanian government to take some radical steps, that seem to obstruct the consolidation of the nation (pushing Lithuanian-speaking and Polish-speaking historical Lithuanians into conflict), but saved the idea of an independent Lithuania.

I think that gives an accurate sketch of the perspective of the Lithuanian government at the time in question. --Linas Lituanus 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that background. It explains a lot how the Lithuanian side perceived the conflict. The Polish perspective was of course different. First, Poles assumed that the people of Vilnius had the right of self-determination, an as there were virtually no Lithuanians in Vilnius, the population there organized self-defense and pressed for joining with Poland. While Poles organized defense of the town against the Bolsheviks in 1919, the Lithuanians left for Kaunas. Lithuanian assumption was that these were not really Poles, but Polonized Lithuanians that were only unaware of what they should really want. Would this be correct as well ? Even recently I've heard Lithuanian opinions that the Poles in Lithuania are not really a national minority, only they do not know about it. --Lysy^talk 16:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But i have some corrections. The point of view, that you talk about, is typical for many Lithuanians, now and earlier, but after all this experience. It's consequence of propaganda war that had been going for the 20 inter-war yes and even, at least extent, after the WWI and isn't very fair to Poles, but some differences existed prior to 1919. The point of view of educated Lithuanians, that created consequently independent Lithuania, was approximately this: One of conflict backgrounds was the situation, that almost all (but Prussian Lutherans) educated Lithuanians were Polish educated (many reasons, you know it, at least approximately). And they thought: Well, we recognize this priority of Polish education etc, etc, but we should get something in exchange. What can be the idea that would be acceptable?” Gradually they developed this idea of the independent state. But then something wonderful happened, that is above all historical logic. The more Lithuanians joined around the idea of the independence, the less Lithuanian Poles agreed with the idea of Mickiewicz, that “Lithuania was their motherland”. Perhaps its a simple coincidence, but it was fatal. Lithuanians not necessary thought that people with Polish mother tongue are Lithuanians the same way as they are, but they expected, that we all could be Lithuanians at some extent, although with naturally different traditions. Now, we see, how they had been under delusion. Perhaps this delusion was inspired by patriotic Polish education too? The next moment is, that Poles had never raised the idea of a Polish Wilno republic prior to 1918.

Was the position of Poland more right than the position of Lithuania? I don't know. Pilsudski wasn't a principal enemy of Lithuanians, perhaps he even felt some com-patriotic feelings to Lithuanians, but both he and other Polish leaders didn't want, that independent Lithuania existed. If they want they would have done it, and, presently, perhaps i wouldn't know Lithuanian but spoke Polish in Wilno, that would be the capital of Lithuanian Republic ;-). That was the choice of our neighbor nations.

Poles could occupy Lithuania, Germans could occupy Lithuania, Russians (initially from the both sides, later Soviets) could. I think, our then government had quited up fearing of such trivia.

“While Poles organized defense of the town against the Bolsheviks in 1919, the Lithuanians left for Kaunas.” You say, that Lithuanians didn't organized self-defense in Vilnius. Well, there were virtually no Lithuanians in Vilnius. It was optimal then to organize Lithuanian defense from Kaunas. But perhaps it doesn't match with that picture of aggressive and intractable Lithuanians? It's very interesting fact, that the conflict hadn't been started yet then. Lithuanians withdrew their symbolic troops from the city, but Poles didn't interfere it. The conflict started later, when both sides started “not to know” where was the border of the Vilnius region. But could it have the border? Let's think about it.Linas Lituanus 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it would be much nicer if Poles did not annex Vilnius (although Polish nationalists would certainly disagree), if Lithuanians accepted Polish minority, and if the Poles in Vilnius region would consider Lithuania to be "their motherland". Unfortunately, what would come natural in 21st century, was not possible with the 19th and 20th century nationalisms of the two nations that just regained their independence. Every Pole expected that Vilnius would belong to Poland and probably every Lithuanian had no doubt that it was the capital of Lithuania. Both Polish and Lithuanian governments had no choice and had to do what they did. I think you are wrong about Piłsudski, though. From what I know, contrary to what Lithuanian propaganda said, he wanted to keep Lithuania as an independent country (see my comment below).

You mentioned that after WW1 the Polish population in Lithuania was better educated than Lithuanians. Ironically, this has all reversed later, with Soviet expulsions of Poles in 1940s, and the Poles that live in Lithuania today are mostly the "lower class" of the society (this also can partly explain the higher level of nationalism among Poles in Lithuania or the behaviours like supporting pro-Soviet parties in elections). However, when you talk with Lithuanian Poles now, they exactly consider Lithuania to be "their motherland", contrary to what their ancestors would say in 1920s. The irony of history ? --Lysy^talk 21:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be also worth noting that Polish position was not a universal one. While Dmowski's camp wanted Lithuania incorporated into Poland, Piłsudski stressed that Lithuania had to remain independent and several times declined requests to invade and occupy Kaunas and annex the rest of the country, even though Lithuania had no military force that would have been able to prevent Polish occupation. --Lysy^talk 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Polonised Lithuanians it is very complex question, involving Russian imperial politics , especial in 1864-1904, and USSR national politics. But of course, this statement is quite contorversial and cannot be solved by such direct statements. I think, they recognise themselves as Poles now, and this can be only historical dispute (no nationalism involved). Both sides have some unreasoned statements and this is only one of them. I consider them as Poles and do not see a problem in it.--Lokyz 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lokyz, you are right. In a nutshell, it is best understood in the 1917-1919 context of the Narutowicz brothers. One chose Poland, the other Lithuania. We saw this phenomenon in the American Civil War, where one brother fought on one side, and the other fought on the other side. I have always thought it somewhat ironic that two of Poland's greatest historical figures, Jogaila, and Pilsudski, came from Lithuanian ancestry. Or is this POV, too? Dr. Dan 17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Mickiewicz. Personally I think this was very good as both Jagiełło and Piłsudski respected Lithuanias independence at least to certain extent and preferred federation rather than annexation of Lithuania. As for the population of Vilnius in 1920s, the majority obviously felt Polish, regardless of what Lithuanians would say about them. As for Vilnius itself, it seems obvious that Poland had to attempt to annex it one way or another after WW1. Otherwise it would betray the Polish population there, which self-organised itself in effort to join Poland. Do you think that Polish leaders had any other reasonable alternative ? Not that I think that their decisions were wise or just, but they simply had no other choice in the circumstances of the times. --Lysy^talk 18:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There are more examples - Mykolas Riomeris , Tadas ivanauskas Fabijonas Neveravičius Oskaras Milašius, Czesaw Milosz ant other krajowcy, (Mickiewicz is also from this tradition) but not Dmowski's ND'ks - they're similar to any other modern nationalists, born out of German romanticism.--Lokyz 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Jogaila - he had no need to anex Lithuania, he was already its ruler. secont state/krown didn't change that:) You still think of him as a barbarian who was granted privilege to become king of an "civilisied nation", don't you? :)--Lokyz 19:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, Jogaila/Jagiełło is highly regarded in Poland, (but figure of Vytautas/Witold was one of my first toy soldiers when I was in kindergarten ;-) And you are of course right that annexing Lithuania to Poland would be absurd for Jogaila, I was over-simplifying, but what is important is that both Jagiełło and Piłsudski played important role in Polish-Lithuanian relationships, both of them wanted the countries to join their forces in one or another form of federation. Of course neither of them was popular among Lithuanian nationalists of 20th century, who were unhappy about Poland dominating Lithuania. --Lysy^talk 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan's copyediting

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)

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)

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 ... --Lysy^talk 06:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. --Lysy^talk 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The further copyediting. “Lithuania will continue the administrative jurisdiction” The idea was a bit different. Lithuania continues (not it will continue) (compare the next point). Lithuanians considered that no territorial changes of that territory should be made without a consent of the government of Lithuania (or other authoritative state institutions like Seimas). But it didn't considered, that all this territory was covered by Lithuanian claims. Or, in other words, Lithuanian government claimed to the right to administrate that territory till some necessary changes.

Also I doubt, if stressing the point of Vilnius not wrenches the idea here: (you edit “Consequently the historically Capital City of Lithuania, Vilnius, would remain its capital.”). Don't you mean consequently 'after it'? I meant, that if we take the former division as a start-point, Vilnius had to be the capital in the consequence of this principle ( as it was the administrative center of the region before).

The B2 is doubted too. I wrote that in the present tense. It should be “Lithuanians consider that this territory can be changed(/ is changeable /isn't the fixed territory of the state), doing it in the way of ...”. --Linas Lituanus 14:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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) p.s. Regarding the copyedits on talk pages. They are often as important as article copyedits. When the meaning of the author of the talk page is obsfuscated by grammatical issues, it can help to clarify what they mean, and thereby shape the article. Anytime someone has a specific problem with a copyedit of mine, let me know. If someone prefers that I do not copyedit their contributions, let me know as well. I'll find something else to do with the extra time.

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)

One of the great mottos of WK is Be Bold! Don't ever be intimidated. None of us are making any attempts to add information to, or contribute to, the the discussion in Lithuanian WK. Consider trying to re-do some parts over yourself. Again, you do an excellent job, as do the newcomers, Juraune and M.K.- Lokyz is an excellent contributor, as well. Maybe you can all get together and get user: DeirYassin to make a comeback, at least part time. Dr. Dan 18:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Or even better User:DariusMazeika and User:Dirgela --Lysy^talk 18:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Or better still, user:Lysy, he's not bad either, when he's rested a little. Dr. Dan 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The article's lead.

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. --Lysy^talk 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Didn't the fact of the Polish army presence in that territory of Vilnius, its surroundings make it pseudo, abnormal state?

Review by Piotrus

Since this article has been popping out on my watchlist quite often recently, I decided to reread it and provide a review for the interested editors. First and most important: this article would become much more controversial and revert-war prone if it had Wikipedia:Inline citations (see WP:CS and WP:RS for more info). I have added citation requests to the parts that should be backed up by a reference. The first two paras of history, especially the 'Changes in language and nationality', need much copyediting, as their English-language and wikification quality is much lower then that of the remaining sections. Aftermath and the lead should be expanded.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that references are neded, altough, I do think, that too much of references create text unreadable or at least uneditable. I've counted Piotrus requests for over 30 citations, and IMO it's utterly too much for enciclopedia. Such massive citation is not common in any encyclopedias. This is not research aricle, and if it gets too much clogged, it would become too difficult to grasp. I think reference to some general research books would be enough.

Revert wars start not when someone doubts facts (in this case there is consensus on them), only when interpretatios differ. And asking for citation in case of: "soon afterwards, Lithuania was forced to become a Lithuanian SSR[citation needed]" it's even ridiculous. Altou I do admitt that phrases like "Lithuanian success was however short-lived:" need heavy copyediting.--Lokyz 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That is because wikipedia is better than the rest. No need to level up to the worse guys. //Halibutt 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup - to clug article with tons of refferences with doubtfull relevance is better? I doubt it. Because tendecy to use google book search, and put a phrase of your liking without reading a book is not referencing, it's immitation of referencing.--Lokyz 22:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current citation requests are somewhat 'uglyfing', to quote some old discussion to it. If you'd like to comment out to editor mode some of them (like where I use more then one per para) I won't object, but I think it is important to show where we need them. PS. Inline citations are encourged by WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE, while their lack is discouraged, Lokyz.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not say we don't need them at all - I just say that 30+ in one article is too much, esepcialy when someone asks referencing the fact, that Lithuania was incorporated int USSR. I agree that, stating about "more reliable statistics" needs referncing, because for someone it might seem contradictionary statement.--Lokyz 07:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Some remarks on references -

It is also speculated that perhaps Piłsudski gave his direct orders to Żeligowski. Provided source without doubt or speculation states - <… Zeligowski, acting on a secret command from Piłsudski entered…> source do not provide any speculation on this issue and do not support editors idea on speculation.

And this one is top one. The entire area had been seized in less than two days, without a single fire shot. Looking to the “source” (pathetic I should add) - <..lithuanians again evacuating without fight on the advice of…> source do not lead to the assumption that there was no shots – who evacuated? – civilians, units or all? And is this the reliable source at all, 3 visible lines ? M.K. 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the wording. I changed the second para to say exactly what is said by the reference (that Lithuanians retreated without fighting). For the first, as the specific page is not linked, I could not verify it (I have no time to read the entire book). As yes, it is reliable, see WP:RS.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

fell free to read this "book"—Preceding unsigned comment added by M.K. (talk • contribs)

While it is a sad testament to the folly of copyright paranoia and the dangers of copyright, it clearly states that "Lithuanians evacuated without fighting".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

<...their commanders, because soon afterwards Liths. commanders ordered to launch nuclear bomb on their enemies> possible scenario? :D M.K. 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Everythings got the way I was affraid of - "google booksearch referencing".

Imo it's phrase (out of context) referencing, not meaning referencing - I.E. pseudo referencing - because every book can have multiple argumentation methods, for instance stating all of known POV's and then comparing and evaluating them. There is also a method of historical research, that is called "resource critics" (de:Quellenkritik) - i.e. every book or statement is eavaluated: and whrn someopne is looking for exact phrase, it does not mean, that this is te main statement or conclusion of the author, it might be just a simple citation of another source. That's why books are to be read.

And Halibutt knows better and goes the Lenin way: it was quite a popular anecdote in soviet times, that Lenin did not read complete book, he just read first sentence of paragaraph. That's why he had read so many books. So does Halibutt - he does not look for the meaning of the book, he's just looking for any phrase ((sic!)even incomplete ones, without knowing the ending of a phrase, as M.K pointed out) to support his beliefs (imo it's not opinion, because it is not based on facts, just wishfull thiking).

Thats' why i do call it pseudoreferncing.--Lokyz 10:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question of "Construct"

I was asked indirectly by a non-native English speaking contributor, what a "construct" is. It is a term loosely used to denote or describe a bogus geopgraphical entity by created by another power for it's own benefit. Like the General Government, or Litbel, or Litwa Srodkowa to cite a few examples. If someome can recall some others I would appreciate the help. I'm sure I've read of a few other constructs in WK. Dr. Dan 01:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest adding an article about political construct first - while it may be some sort of colloquial term I have yet to see it used in the real of political science, and it is not listed at construction (disambiguation) (where construct redirects) in such context. For now let's stick to calling states states; this term is broad enough (especially with puppet state and satellite state) to be sufficient for all situations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I really got a "kick" out of an edit summary that I just read, pertaining to this article, which made the brilliant statement Portugal didn't recongnize the election either", followed by the question, So what? To whom it may concern, the article isn't entitled The Republic of Central Portugal, that's what. And the fact that the elections concerned the historical capital of Lithuania, that's what. I don't know if it's the continual blatant bias or the continual blatant denial of it, that bothers me more. If the perspective and position of Lithuania are not significant in the history of this "state", just continue to enjoy yourself with your delusions. I truly hope these activities don't further damage the relations between the various nationalities partaking in our little group in WK. Interestingly enough, most of my many Polish friends are much less hostile, then the constant and relentless need to create animosity between editors, that I see primarily coming from one source. Dr. Dan 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Republic of Lithuania was not a person, so it could not be granted voting rights. And, consistently, it could not boycott elections it could not take part in anyway. It could vow for a boycott, which it did, but that's a completely different thing.

Now then, the fact that Lithuania did not recognize the elections is well explained in the text, even though it is at best of secondary importance. No need to repeat it twice in the header, and then several times in the text. Poland did not recognize the "plebiscite" held by the Soviets after 1939, yet we don't mention that in the leads of the article on West Belarus. The position and perspective of Lithuania is crucial to the history of Central Lithuania, but the fact that Lithuania did not recognize the elections was not. Frankly, I doubt anybody gave a darn about it back then - except for Lithuanian politicians, of course. Those guys did not recognize Central Lithuania as a whole, a Polish majority there and the right of self-determination of the locals, so the fact that they did or did not recognize the elections they did not and could not take part in is not important enough to stay in the header. Surely, I wouldn't object to a clear statement that Lithuania did not recognize Central Lithuania and considered it a part of its own territory, but that's already there. //Halibutt 16:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and when it comes to personal remarks, most of my English-speaking friends are much more civil and much more friendly than some of us here. Tit for tat? //Halibutt 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the snide and off topic remark regarding Portugal's "also not recognizing those elections", fall into the Tit category, or the Tat category? Dr. Dan 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, perhaps you would like to address main points of Halibutt's argument, instead of nitpicking his comments for the proper use of Enlish language or such? And it would also help if you'd remeber that you are supposed to treat other editors with respect and assume good faith.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus since you feel the need to get involved here, let me ask you what you think my point was? My point was that Halibutt's argument that the Republic of Lithuania's rejection of these "elections" was as irrelevant as Portugal's position on the matter, is the issue. It was snide and off topic. As for the respect issue and assumption of good faith issue, the tit for tat, has been going on for some time now. I think there's actually a dying down of it, with some humor replacing some of the sarcasm. Thanks for the admonition though, I know you've had quite a lot of experience from what I've seen. Both as a "catcher" and a "pitcher". Dr. Dan 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you then: should we similarly mention that Poland did or did not recognize the elections in Lithuania in the lead of the article on Lithuania? With all due respect to Poland, it would not be the most important fact in the history of that state, would it. Halibutt (can't log in right now)

Fake state, that is created by occupying by Polish army (nevermind how did they call themselves, they acted by direct orders of Pilsudsky, who later admitted that) certainly does need elections to be recognised to be at least called a state.--Lokyz 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

References

The reference #4 is about "state of things", should be removed as irrelevant. Juraune 09:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it also specifically mentions the Hymans' plan - and is used to reference the proposal to cantonise Lithuania - and that's precisely why it is used in the text. I don't see why should it be removed. //Halibutt 10:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the ISBN of Naujųjų laikų Lietuvos istorija? I can't find any information about Dr. Griniaus fondas publisher; this raises the question of WP:RS#Self-published_sources. According to [5], "The History of Lithuania" by Zigmantas Kiaupa was published by Baltos lankos, Vilnius (seems like a publishing house, [6]). Is this an English language publication? Are the Documents diplomatiques. Conflit Polono-Lituanien. Questions de Vilna 1918-1924 cited from original or from other source? The books from 1924 are acceptable, but should be treated with caution nonetheless.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know isbn, it is not provided on American publication. I do know only a photocopy publication reprint in Lithania. It is isbn 5-89957-012-1. Becuse I at university library I did find American version, i did not provide isbn.

About Kiaupa - why do you think, why title is written in English, huh? Although I think, I would replace it with Čepėnas, because the later is more detailed on subject. Kiaupa only mentions it, Čepėnas has a 10 pages on the subject of elections.

Documents diplomatiques, is not a book, this is collection of documents, certainly not POV'ed, as it represents non involved side opinion (French, to be exact). And I think opinion of one of leaders of League of Nations mission is important. There is not a citation, only rephrasing. Yes, from original source, you might want to find it and check it yourself. It does represent view of league of Nations.--Lokyz 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:Reliable sources and our policy on primary sources. Can you provide exact quotations for the facts you reference with this collection of original documents?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It would take time, book is in Vilnus only, and i do travel there rarely. If you want i can even provide a picture of the page. Anyway this document is evaluated in other lithuanian books that are cited. Would it be enough if I'd support this statement with another references? Please do not remove the reference, as it is official document of League of Nations. It is not to removed only because you do not like it, as in other cases of denial.Lokyz 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Of coure secondary sources which refer to this primary source are acceptable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

pseudo or not pseudo

The state Central Lithuania was created by Polish army, but this was not said officialy. The purpose of creating it was to show that inhabitants of Vilnius don't want to live in Republic of Lithuania. So, doesn't this propaganda state rates the name pseudostate. Dellijks 22:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:V - please find references to support the usage of Pseudostate in this context, and then we can add this to the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

pseudo means that something is imaginary, pretended, unnatural. This state was created by Polish army and lasted two years. I think it can be used pseudo-state. If pseudostate has some other fixed and definite meaning, then puppit state should be good as the Polish army created it and funkcionated in it during its brief existence. Dellijks 13:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

by the way in Polish variant they have: quasi-państwo. As we know quasi means the same as pseudo. So Poles see no complications in it and understand that the meaning of quasi-state and pseudo-state is not fixed. I think in English it is not fixed as pseudostate too. Dellijks 13:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This may be seen as controversial and per WP:V should be backed by reference. I am basing this on a very similar discussion (and edit war :( ) we had at Congress Poland, which ended only after I provided refs for the usage of puppet state in such context.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the article on state first and check against the list there. Whether you like it or not, Central Lithuania had its own armed forces, civil service, state bureaucracy, courts, postal services and police. In the last days it even had its democratically-elected parliament. What was it lacking? //Halibutt 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pseudostate" is a political slur, rather than a strict definition. We alrady have one used: puppet state (btw, this is an opinion hence must be referenced in the aticle). No need to add more. `'mikka 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if the General government was a pseudo-state or a legitimate state. Clarifying this, might help in this debate. I know they issued postage stamps. Recently I added a link to it that was promptly deleted. Dr. Dan 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Mikkalai. Now let's find some evidence for that and we're there :) //Halibutt 09:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me suggest you to find some good research book on the subject, rather than looking for citations to support your POV, this would be more scholar way, and would not seem so biased. Because, as for now I do see attempts to a.) legalise Central Lithuania as a "state" and b.) prove by any means that elections held in 1922 were democratic, completely ignoring the background of the events like (French support for Poland, hoping to find new ally against Stronger England, and England's support for Lithuania's claims), and the later events, that led to legalization of Polish annexion by the Conference of Ambassadors, but by any means not by the League of Nations. You might read some memoirs of contemporary Polish ministers, to understand what pressure was made on the elections day, to understand on what scale they were non democratic. Even pro-Polish Chief of Military control sent by League of Nations French col. Chardigny noted that.

There were two propositions to hold plebiscite, but surprisingly both were rejected by both sides (yes even by Poland), as both sides were afraid to loose. And League of Nations had only one condition to hold it - the territory should be controlled by Entente army, not by army of interested side. (Supposedly 1 500 French and English soldiers were required for that), and after supposedly "rebelous" army of Poland entered territory, constantly getting supplies form Poland, the chances for such plebiscite were lost.--Lokyz 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I did read a lot on the subject, yet so far I didn't see any books (not to mention English ones) calling that state a puppet. IMHO it was not entirely independent in that it did not want to have its own foreign policies and perhaps if the Central Lithuanian Sejm decided for a complete independence (which was quite a popular option initially), Poland would've intervened. However, this is but my speculation, while we need references.

As to the elections, please provide at least one notable scholar to say that they were not up to democratic standards. So far I've seen none of such claims, except from the Lithuanian writers who follow the logic "we decided to boycott the elections, so they must've been forged".

Finally, as to the plebiscite, could you please post some more details about Poland allegedly not supporting the idea? That doesn't seem too probable given the ethnic composition of that area, but perhaps some facts were missing in my sources... Dates and details preferred. //Halibutt 10:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Halibutt you're expert in using google books, you might find any answers there - puppet state, Zeligowski's controlled elections, Vilna/Vilnius plebiscite, French support, only the Polish population participated in the elections, the reason why international supported plebiscite did not took place and many others, including judgement of Zeligowski's actions. You're renowned for creating NPOV'ed articles, so I thought you might find my little hints useful. Have a good day.--Lokyz 11:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, let me repeat that I could not find any evidence of what you state. Which means I couldn't find it in google books as well. Do you know any specific facts that could help me in my search? A simple date would be enough, or perhaps some other detail that would point me in the right direction? You know, this is the place where "Go and find it yourself" tactics does not work. //Halibutt 11:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this? [7] --Lokyz 11:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, we have a reference to call it a puppet state (could you add it to the article?) - and also call it an independent state, but what the heck. Anyway, how about my other request (electoral forgery)? It's always easier to compare sources to sources that sources to user opinions... //Halibutt 13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to pretend to not understand what "independent state, and actually puppet state" means, so let's ask for native English speakers to explain it to you.

As for pseudo state or puppet state IMHO it is the same, do not see a need to elaborate on differences. Maybe Halibutt might write an research paper on how they do differ?

And of course he might elaborate on democracy of elections, that were influenced by a.) legality of vote for army of foreign country (if we do speak about independent country, then Poland's army regiments were foreign there, and thy were there) b.) legality of elections, as more than half of "citizens" did not vote c.) requirement for people, who wanted to be elected "speak polish" d.) not asking for papers from voting people e.) closure of every single Lithuanian newspaper before elections f.) deporting of Lithuanians from Vilnius g.) pressure of Poland's government apparatus on the population. I could go on and on with similar facts collected from various authors - contemporary and historians, just as for now I'm kinda tired to dėfend every single word trying to change Pro-Polish tone in an article, and do not have time to go to library right now (and you know what exactly I do think about google books).Lokyz 14:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's you to bring the argument, so the burden of proof lies on you I guess. As to your specific comments:

1. The army did not vote en masse and the rules were pretty strict: people not being inhabitants of the area on January 1, 1919, or for five years prior to August 1, 1914 could not vote. Sure, within the Lithuanian-Belarusian Division that formed the core of Central Lithuania's forces there were non-natives, but they had no civil rights (which was one of the main problems, besides lack of military supplies from anywhere)
2. In many countries I know there is no electoral quota. Besides, the attendance was around 60%, so you can't say that the majority did not vote
3. In Lithuania one has to speak Lithuanian in order to become a citizen. Does it mean that all post-1991 elections were invalid as well?
4. I can't comment on not asking papers since I never read any documents that would support such a phenomenon. Any sources and details?
5. was there any Lithuanian newspaper in Vilna? Remember that Lithuanians formed roughly 5% of the region's inhabitants and the city became part of Lithuania only a month before the Żeligowski's take-over, so perhaps there were no Lithuanian newspapers at all?
6. Similarly, you'd have to find some back-up for the deportation claims. Who was deported, by whom, when and where?
7. Do you mean propaganda? If so, then does the Lithuanian pressure also qualify? Of course, if no Polish party organized electoral campaign (in a predominantly Polish area!) and only Lithuanian parties did, then the elections would be fair. Right?

It's nice if you could elaborate on such accusations. Take care. //Halibutt 10:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Choice of the Republic's Name

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)

You might want to read the articles on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Międzymorze. //Halibutt 10:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Dan, perhaps you could tell us who denies such rights? //Halibutt 08:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You! Dr. Dan 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Halibutt: please, WP:DFTT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Not reliable links

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)

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)

Cease fire on November 21

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)

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)

Puppet state?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

To be exact - my edit removed WP:WEASEL language "some" [8]. 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)

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)

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)

Two simple questions, first is the definition of Puppet state as presented in Wikipedia correct? Second does the short-lived Republic of Central Lithuania fit that definition? Perhaps an analysis of these questions may help resolve this matter. Everyone is capable of digging up sources or dragging in Google hits to defend their position. Perhaps an honest review of the facts might settle this argument more easily. And the definition used in WP, uses a pretty good source too. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Asking here doesn't seem out of line to me, and I should hope not by most other people either. It's quite relevant. Secondly, concerning the 99% "statistic" you refer to. I also hope that you are not including all of your 200 or so "links" in those numbers. Two that jumped out at me included, "Ethnic Groups in Michigan" (with the comment that Central Lithuania is a fertile lowland growing grain and sugar beets). And of course the "Baltic Straits" (a formation of Cambrian sandstone) hardly seems to be supportive of your argument. Best Dr. Dan (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

The question of sovereignty and dependence of RoCL is certainly interesting and merits discussion in main body. But with only two publications using the term puppet state, and dozens using different descriptions, we cannot stress it. As you have pointed above, why shoudn't we prioritize "artificial", "buffer", "satellite", or other terms? The 200 book link above, while containing some false hits, shows that without doubt more scholars don't use puppet to refer to it and not, and citing various qualifiers they use only weakens the case for puppet.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Such summaries however should not violate WP:UNDUE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wilno? Anybody else getting through on the link? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Try [9]. 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)

Elimination of "state" status

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 [10] and which later was removed [11] definitely needed. M.K. (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Would like to see page numbers for Timothy Snyder in regards of state status. M.K. (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide valid references per Wp:V

Since this strange multiple references as a single note, without providing exact citations isn't acceptable because it's creating a dangerous precedent. Reason:

1. no citations given,
2. instead of doing many ref's it's some salad, where no consistency can be found.

Hence they land here for further evaluation to the talk page, i.e. here:

References

This article needs additional citations for verification

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)

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)

Loss of Vilna = LT independence

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)

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)

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)

I hope you find this version acceptable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Every new "saver" claim should be properly attributed. M.K. (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete name of Vilnius

Why is the obsolete English name of Vilnius used in this article? --Doopdoop (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

""Applicable rules in WP:NCGN are "If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it. If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context.". These rules support using simply Vilnius. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Counterfactual History

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 [12] explains it correctly. The following revert [13] does not, and the accompanying edit summary is particularly unhelpful and untrue. No one suggested that Senn is not a historian. Maybe this [14] will help. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Coat of arms

• 
  This is original user research
• 
  Colors according to the description in the sources
• 
  From the official doc
• 
  1920 postage stamp
• 
  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)