Talk:Vilnius/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"National Versions"

I think there are several very wrong assumptions here, Antituteisas. The first one is that we at Wikipedia want to entertain any particular (national or otherwise) POV. The second one is that you have to fight in order to get one or another version accepted, while editing is actually open to anyone here. You have brought a lot of good new information whcih is not in the article so far. I would suggets that instead of replacing we add your information. Where there appears to be a dispute, the best approach is not to choose the "Polish", the "Lithuanian" or whatever version but to show and explain what the dispute is. In this fashion the article gains in credibility and in scope. Refdoc 11:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Refdoc. I did that what you suggest many times in Lithuania and Vilnius pages. You can see for example all explanations of changes in Talk: Lithuania. But all my changes and additions were erased by polish chauvinistes and finaly - protection of pages from Lithuanians. To users of other nationalities I can suggest - don't believe what poles wright here - its only dirty nationalistic game. Antituteišas

Edit war on Vilnius - Comment from the German side

Mein herzliches Beileid! I was quite shocked and amused at the same time to see what troubles you have with your English article on Vilnius. I thought the GErman discussion was already useless enough - but, thanks God, not so many people speak German than English... We had the discussions only among Germans about the correct naming (so, comparatively few comments like 'nazi' or 'fascist') and it's still 'Wilna' though you should know that 'Vilnius' is adequately used today in Germany and I hope for the day to come we could just forget about the whole history stuff and use the siuolaikiniai name. but it was interesting to read that the fight between Polish and Lithuanians about the "true" history of Vilnius is so fierce and unrespectful - tells a lot about people's understanding... anyways, good luck for those who try to be fair! --Mastaart 14:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear German Friend. Start discussion in Germany on Danzig, Breslau, Kolberg ectr. The very best wishes from Lithuania! We will win together! Antituteišas

Thanks. For the sake of correctness, it's not a fight between Polish and Lithuanians, but a struggle against a single anonymous user, signing his edits with different fictious names and using different IP addresses. Lysy 15:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this rubbish fight has some historic roots: lithuanian nation has experienced several genocides (1831, 1864, 1939, 1945, etc., 40 years of language prohibition, etc.), and Vilnius land was maybe the most important theatre of those historic events, so actually all the issues about Vilnius are very painful to most of lithuanians - this nation had experienced oppression comparable even to that suffered by jews. So, I think that troll is one of those lithuanians who still feels hurted... --213.197.137.20 09:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to "administrator" Refdoc

Why did you erase your comment and my answer to your comment? I restored them. Is it confirmation that game of polish "administrators" is dirty? Antituteišas

I am not sure what you are talking about. I have not deleted anything of which I am aware. If I did delete something accidentaly, I am sorry, but I would appreciate a diff to show me what went wrong. Apart from this I would suggest that you think carefully about what you accuse people of. "Assume good faith" is a good starting point. Another is not to shout undre any circumstances. Long stretches of bold text are usually understood as shouting, just as CAPITALISING is not nice..

With regard to the article it would be very good to reconsider what the aim of this encyclopedia is: To provide articles from a neutral point of view. If there is a dispute about a matter than the article should not authenticate one version but should indicate and explain the dispute. Further in situations of dispute it is a good and required policy to bring evidence. If you work in this way the article will grow and will reflect the full scope of the (academic and otherwise) discussions about Vilnius' history. If you work though in an aggressive and hostile fashion, bent to get your way alone, the article will end up protected for long stretches, quite possibly on the "wrong version" and your and everybody elses' bloodpressure will needlessly rise. Refdoc 23:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you unite fascist propaganda with antifascist text? If text is totaly falsificated, I can't understand how could it be improved? Please compare protected polish text with basic Lithuanian version ( -> history) and explanations to this version (above). Could they be united? I very doubt. Ringaudas

I think it would be a lot better if you ceased calling people fascists for not agreeing with you. And yes I do not see any major difficulties in putting the information you have provided into the current article. People might ask you to provide evidence, but I am sure this will not be a major problem for you. The point though I have made already several times: There is no place for the one "correct" version, but what we try to achieve NPOV, and show where there are disputes. Refdoc 13:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not you see any major difficulties to unite both textes? Really? Please do that! I can provide all evidences on that what I wright. But please ask to provide evidences for false polish statements. I would like to see them. As I made opinion about few here operating immature polish "historians", all their evidences are fantasy and polish school tutorials. Ringaudas

I will certainly give it a try later today. But with regard to evidence - I think the point is that there are not two versions, one of which will be chosen, but there are numerous individual facts and assertions of facts, some brought by you some by others, each of which - if under dispute - should be backed up with evidence. So if you do have a concern it should be you who is pointing this out and requesting evidence, rather than me guessing which matters are in requirement of more evidence. Be specific though and do not rubbish other people's contributions. Refdoc 16:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. It would be very interesting to see this new text. And I would like to ask you to do the same with Lithuania text. But I would like very seriously to stress that I hope you aren't pole, because on this circumstance I don't expect any neutrality. Ringaudas

As it is, I am not Polish. But I do think you should be a lot more careful in your assumption of bias based on nationality. Refdoc 16:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is other thing. I would like only to ask you to be fair and neutral. Thank you. P.S. With mentioned people we unfortunately have very wide experiences. Ringaudas

Thanks, anon. I feel much better now. Halibutt 16:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

And again you're using plural... does it mean that there are actually two of you? Halibutt 22:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

A new version

I have taken a version prepared by some of the other editors and considered the complaints you had, incorporating what I felt could be done easily. This is a work in progress. See what you think :Vilnius History (a new attempt)]]

Refdoc 23:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello polish falsificator! I provide new version. All explanations above. Please discuss every change Antituteišas

Unprotect the page

I would like to unprotect the page

Refdoc 23:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be brave, go ahead. Lysy 23:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page and incorporated all the various changes suggested on Wojszläs page and the very valid concerns by some lithuanian editors. I do hope that this page is not just a compromise now but is closer to NPOV than before. Refdoc

Thanks.

Its any compromise. And it says many about you. Go ahead f. "administrator". Antituteišas

Further discussion

I see you have added Lithuanian names along with the English names of the monarchs. How about adding Polish names then, to keep the balance ? Do you think it's a good idea to use national names in English WP ? Lysy 00:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure and I thought about this while writing. Thing is the English names are really Anglicized versions of the Polish names, while similarly Angilziced versions of teh Lithuanian names do not exist. Nevertheless it is more than fair enough to stress teh fact that these people were not "foreign rulers" but the local Grand dukes. Do provide a better solution and I am more than happy. Refdoc 07:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, not quite. As you know there were many foreign rulers across Europe. Poland and Lithuania is not an exception here. An expection might be that Polish/Lithuanian monarchs were elected. E.g. Stefan I of Poland was a Hungarian from Transylvania, and his original name was "Báthory István", his name in Polish was "Stefan Batory" and "Steponas Batoras" is simply a Lithuanian translation. Lithuanians have a habit of "translating" all proper names into Lithuanian which may make them appear exotic to you. Similarly "Wladislaus II of Poland" would be "Wladysław Jagiełło" in Polish and "Sigismund II of Poland" would be "Zygmunt II August". My suggestion would be to leave the English versions as they were most NPOV for English Wikipedia and this is how these monarchs are being referenced here (though my personal opinion is that this is artificial anyway). Lysy 08:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well it is not so much a matter of exocticism, but rather correctness. The original name was Bathory Istvan you say which would be Stephen Bathory in English and Stefan/Stepanas are both only translations too.

Yes and no. Bathory Istvan was his original Hungarian name. Stefan Batory was the name he assumed as the monarch. The Lithuanian form is a recent translation and was not officially used in his times. Also being crowned a king of Poland autmatically meant being the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Lysy 12:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would think the main thing is to use the correct title (Grand Duke ) and then use whatever version of the name is more common in English - usually probably anglicized Polish or anglicized German versions (translations of translations of translations..). But the title with which people are known in the outside world and referenced in Wikipedia should not just be a redirect link but shoudl be mentioned too eg (Grand Duke Sigismund (King Sigismund II of Poland) Refdoc 08:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on official title then it would read "King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania etc.". I also think the English name is not derived from German but Latin. Lysy 12:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that these names are translated from German. I have made a general remark re names and how they end up being pronounced in various languages. I think I personally would prefer the current English names, links to people as they are called in other places in Wikipedia, show that they act here as Grand Dukes of Lithuania and clarify that this person is in personal union also the King of Poland. I think the details can be hashed out, but the principle is sound. Refdoc 15:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(deleted)

Before you keep shouting at me I would ask you to read what I have written. Every single concern you had raised above is incorporated, starting from Mesolithic times, to stressing the Grand-Dukes rather than teh Polish Kings to what you wrote about the 20th century. With reggard to teh man you mentioned - I do not know him. I am not Lithuanian nor am I Polish and have little clue about Lithuanian history, though I do have a lot of clue about history in general and about article writing in hostile siuations. I am trying therefore to push forward an article accpetable to everyone. This only works if everyone stops using personal attacks and stops insisting on a "national" version, but tries to incorporate all points of view in the evolving article. Refdoc 07:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are simple provocateur. Jeszcze gowniana polska ne zginela, poki kura v garnku. Antituteišas

For those who do not know Polish, the above is the first verse of national anthem of Poland with several words changed into what is attempted to be vulgarisms. This is not correct Polish anyway, so I'm not impressed. Lysy 10:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As it is, I do not understand you. I must assume it is another obscenity as you seem to be fond of throwing them around, not to the credit of your mission. I would therefore suggest that do read the relevant sections of NPOV and contribute. The version I have published is one incorporating everything you had asked for above in this talk section. Please point out now where you have differences of opinion or think the article is less then clear. Please also consider that your current behaviour is what one would call "disruptive" and may result ultimately in a ban. This is something all here would want to avoid. Refdoc 08:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Čiulpk, apsimyžęs lenkų provokatoriau. F.y. Antituteišas

Please converse in English so that all can follow. I can not. Please also desist from personal attacks. Please pinpoint the relevant bits of current version wher eyou have a divergent opinion. Thanks Refdoc 09:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't play naiv pinokkio, see basic Lithuanian version above -> there are all points. Živinbudas

How can you "administrate" Lithuania and Vilnius pages, if you don't understand Lithuanian? But now became clear from where are your "sources" - from one slavic country which is very "famous" in the world)))))). F.y. m.-f. Antituteišas

As it is, I am not from a Slavic country nor would it matter if I were. I am trying to help you to get yourself out of the corner you are just now in. A week ago your ISP was under a range block making it impossible for you to contribute to Wikipedia at all. It was actually me who got this block lifted. People were (and are) very angry with you and the frequent horrible insults you threw at them. This is not the result of you being Lithuanian, but is the result of your unwillingness to interact in a polite way, assuming good faith and understanding what Wikipedia is about. Now if you wish I can continue to assist here, or if you wish you can continue to throw allegations around. Former will help to get the article closer to what you wish it to be like (The article now mentions that that the city area was populated in mesolithic times, "grand dukes" are mentioned instead of "Polish kings", and the 1944 seizure of Vilnius by Soviet troops is not anymore described as "liberation") latter will only result in further anger and upset.

Refdoc 11:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't understand, that this falsificated by poles text (entire lying) is huge outrage to all Lithuanians Živinbudas