Talk:Vilnius University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wouldnt have time for such, actually would be too lazy. What was the author of the first book(in Europe) about rocketry? He must have studied here. anyway.. respect--Vytautas 21:27, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

First book about rocketry? They tell tales of such guys in most of the universities I know (well, except for Warsaw University which is relatively new). Probably there was a similar guy in Wilno too... Any details? Halibutt 02:44, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Kazimier Siemienowicz -- Artis Magnae Artileria 1650

After googlin a bit it becomes clear that all these telling tales about such guys have smth. to prove it. It is actually about artilery but contains a chapter about rockets. It was used as a manual for more than a hundred years, was translated to many languages.

I have found stated(lithuanian source) that there is a source (sort of university book containing names of all students) stating that Casimiry Symonowicz studied here at the time and got a magister degree. Compare with „Artis Magnae Artilleriae Pars prima, studio et opera Casimiri Siemienowicz, Eguitis Lithuani, olim artileriae Regni Poloniae…”. It is undoubted here that this is the same man.

This man deserver his own page on wikipedia :)

[1] -- interesting.

By the way there should be a translation to polish printed in 1963.

I never heard of this guy but it seems that he was a very interesting personality. I'll prepare an article on him soon. As a sidenote, ther was a book on him published in the late sixties, I'll see if I can reach it. Halibutt 19:01, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Revert war 2 Image 3 Oldest University in Eastern Europe? 4 Logo 5 Relevancy 6 Question 6.1 Off-topic play by Dr. Dan and Xx236 7 The University's international students 8 Vilnius was returned [1] to Lithuania 9 Vilnius was transferred [1] to Lithuania which considered the previous eighteen years as an occupation by Poland of its capital. 10 Now it Gets Interesting 11 Vilnius is where it belongs, with the name that it has 12 which considered the previous eighteen years as an occupation by Poland of its capital. 13 Oldest Lithuanian book 14 Republic of Central Lithuania 15 V. Kapsukas Vilnius State University

[edit] Revert war

I must say that I like this article the way it is. I must also say that I'm quite worried by the latest additions by Zinvibudas ([2]). Could someone explain to me:

• Why should we translate all names to Lithuanian, even if those people did not speak that language nor were they using Lithuanised names? I understand that translating foreign names is common in Lithuanian language, but this is English wiki, not Lithuanian.
• Why should we change perfectly working links to already-existent articles to non-UTF compliant links to non-existent articles?
• Also, is adding more POV to this article really necessary? I mean mostly the deletion of the word Poland wherever possible, deletion of mention of the repressions against the university community in 1940 and so on.

I understand that our honourable friend Zinvibudas has his ways, but could someone ask him to discuss his edits before he starts yet another revert war? Halibutt 10:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is not English wiki. This is an international wiki and belongs as equally to me as to you. It would have NEVER exceeded 1 million article threshold were it not for the contributions of people from all over the world.--RokasT 13:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the general standard of Wikipedia for historical articles is to use the names of cities,etc that were commonly used at the time or of the ruling power. Thus, the names, if anything, should be in Polish. As the above user pointed out, it is intolerable to many Lithuanians to think Vilnius, or Wilno, is for the most part a historically Polish city, and it is sad that some must resort to things like removing mention of its Polish past through means of Lithuanization of names, and deletion of certain inconvinient facts as if this self-deception actually changed the past. That being said, RokasT this is a wiki which is fairly international. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to go around and convert names like Sniadecki and the like to Lithuanian versions as that is the forcing of one's chauvinistic self-deception on others. It would be in good taste to refrain from such edits, and I encourage Zinvibudas to follow that logic. --24.91.40.69 02:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Whenever this page gets unprotected again, this nice image from Commons should be added. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 19:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Oldest University in Eastern Europe?

Surely not the oldest university in Eastern Europe, since the Jagellonian Unversity in Krakow is at least 100 years older? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Krak%C3%B3w

Krakow is in central Europe, not Eastern! Lithuania is Eastern Lithuania.

Not according to the map of Europe as stated by the U.N. Dr. Dan 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

Would anyone be interested in uploading a better version of the logo than the current one? I could provide it in a lot of formats, including small PNG (with white background), PS or SVG (converted from PS).

my contact address: rimas.kudelis -AT- cr.vu.lt

By all means, please do so. We welcome all contributions!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevancy

The Polish name for this institution is irrelevant in the lead. I left in Stefan Batory (as it is relevant). Whatever historical information concerning VU and Poland is relevant, can be added to the article. And P.P., just curious, was Wroclaw "returned" to Poland or "transferred" to Poland, in 1945, (just like you I don't want weasel wording used either). Dr. Dan 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say transferred (it's neutral) - just as Vilnius/Wilno was transferred to Lithuanians in 1939. But since this article states Vilnius was returned, I guess we should be consistent...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

After Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), Lithuanian language programs and faculties would be established. What happened to the existing Polish language programs and faculty? Otherwise, an interesting article! PS. Other possible issue: the Marshal of the Crown, Kazimierz Lew Sapieha was supposed to become one of the sponsors of the university. As it is written, it suggest he was one of the founders - but 1) I cannot find information about 'Kazimierz Lew Sapieha' who lived in 16th century nor about one who was 'marshal of the crown'. There was however Kazimierz Leon Sapieha (Leon=Lew) who lived in the first half of the 17th century [3], attended the university and was Court Marshal of Lithuania and Marshal of the Sejm. I think this needs correction...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

P.P., is that a rhetorical question, What happened to the existing Polish language programs and faculty?, or are you asking seriously because you don't have even a small clue? If you're serious, I'd say probably the same thing that happened to the faculty and programs at the University of Breslau, in 1945. Dr. Dan 02:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not rethorical and I'd like a clear, referenced answer. The article states However, soon after the city was occupied by the Soviet Union, most of the professors returned, and most of the faculties were reopened on October 1, 1939. I do wonder how much they were change than, and how much were they changed after oDecember 13. As for the comparison with Wrocław/Breslau in 1945, do note that most of the (German) city population was expelled, including professors, student and most of the German speakers. This, to my knowledge, was not the case of Vilnius in 1939/1940 (there were expulsions, but I don't think they involved most Polish speakers... or did they?). On a related note, I wonder if there were any courses in foreign languages (particularly Lithuanian) before Sept 1939 at the university? What was the cirriculum for foreign languages anyway than, in Poland and worldwide (but that's a question not for this article to answer).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vilnius was handed over to Lithuanians on October 27. Before then, the Soviets grabbed most of what they could, including supplies, art, industry, coal, some people etc. - the usual thing you'd expect. Under Lithuanian rule the names of the streets and people's surnames were immediately changed or Lithuanised. Polish social or cultural organisations were dissolved and banned, including all non-primary level education, with the exception of two secondary schools. Polish faculty and students of the university were dismissed. Poles were denied citizenship, and as such were not eligible to work (considered foreigners). About 150.000 Poles were left jobless in the town. --Lysy^talk 22:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you have some refs for that? Particularly the dismissal of Polish faculty and students from the university would be certainly useful to this article. PS. History of Vilnius has this unreferenced yet interesting sentence: One of the unfortunate decisions made by Lithuanian authorities in this period was the closure and liquidation of Vilnius University on December 15th, 1939 and conducting a policy of repressions against the inhabitants of the town.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic play by Dr. Dan and Xx236

Lysy,doesn't it sound a lot like what happened in Breslau in 1945. Just substitute Polish for Lithuanians and Germans for Poles, leave Soviets as is? Dr. Dan 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But Dear Dan, using your logic one could come to the conclusion that Poles tried to conquer the world and exterminate all Lithuanians... I don't see much point in that. And Uncle Joe wasn't in charge, neither (at least, not until 1940...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

But Dearer P.P., my logic has nothing to do with who was calling the "shots" or whether "Uncle Joe" was in charge or not. If Lysy is correct, and the Soviets grabbed most of what they could, ...The usual thing you'd expect,... then Uncle Joe would have been in charge. If none of what Lysy stated took place, then an apology to the fewer and fewer Soviet war veterans is in order, from you boys. As for "logically" coming to any conclusion concerning world conquest or extermination, please get some rest, and loosen the collar of your żupan. Dr. Dan 04:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of splitting your usuall off-topic remarks from the content that is actually relevant to this article. I'd think you'd be familiar with history of Vilnius; but seeing as you are unaware of parts of it, you may be interested to find out that Vilnius was actually occupied by the Red Army during the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) before being turned over to the Lithuanian government (not for very long at that) - Lysy wrote as much. As it is indeed late, I will not look for sources about looting of Vilnius by Red Army now (hopefully Lysy has some refs handy), although I will offer you this quote from the history of Vilnius article: A month of Soviet rule in Vilnius had catastrophic consequences: the city was starving, the museums and archives robbed, the valuables and historic documents were stolen and transferred to Russia, and many people were deported.. Finally, knowing your love for off-topic arguments, let me give you those two photos of a mostly unrelated event: [4], [5] - Russian forces stripping Warsaw of metal before their retreat in 1918. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dr. Dan, I think this might be somewhat similar to Breslau. But that Breslau thingy happened later, after all the horrors of WW2, the concentration camps, mass killings of civilians and all the stuff you know. I'm not trying to justify the oppression of Germans in Breslau, but it can be somewhat explained by what the Poles went through. --Lysy^talk 09:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

liquidation? As far as I remeber they expelled (all?) Polish professors and moved the Kaunas University to Wilno. Xx236 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer to dr Dan - Breslau Professors were evacuated by German authorities in a train, the students probably fought against the Red Army so they went to Soviet POW camps after the war. Xx236 15:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Xx236, is any of your comment researched and verifyable, or just "some of it"? Ever hear of Festung Breslau and see pictures of the University of Breslau and the University of Vilnius in May 1945? Please try to stay away from inserting your POV into this discussion. You have no idea of what the German students of Breslau did or didn't do, let alone their fates, and whether they were imprisoned in Soviet POW camps or not. And the Breslau professor's train ride, where did that come from? Dr. Dan 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dan - if you want to say that I'm a liar, do your job - get some reading and go the the right talk page. Xx236 07:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Xx236, no one has called you a liar. Please don't insert you "opinions" about German professors, German students, and Soviet Pow camps with information that cannot be sourced or verified. Also please don't refer to this being off topic, and then continuing to put in more off topic "information". And finally, if you truly do not like "off topic" entries, please chide all editors contributing with off topic remarks and photos equally. Dr. Dan 06:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pleas don't insert your opinions "about German professors, German students, and Soviet Pow camps with information that cannot be sourced or verified". The German professors were evacuated to Dresden but you keep misinforming the readers.Xx236 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the professors, ten of them, two of them? When were they evacuated to Dresden? What are your sources? Were they killed in the Bombing of Dresden? Did some stay and fight with the Volksturm? Did some of them end up in Soviet POW camps? Please be consequential with your edits and in your comments. I don't want anyone to misinform the readers either. And I'm happy to move our discussion off of this talk page. Where would you like to take it? Dr. Dan 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The University's international students

Weren't they memebers of minorities in Poland? It's almost impossible that students from Soviet Russia studied in Wilno.Xx236 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also puzzled with this sentence. What is the supposed meaning of "international" there ? Foreign ? What is the source of this information ? --Lysy^talk 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vilnius was returned [1] to Lithuania

It's a biased statement. How a 98% non-Lithuanian city can be returned to a state created in 1918?Xx236 15:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The same way that you think it belongs to different state created in 1918. Dr. Dan 15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But a little differently than a 99% German city was "recovered"(ziemie odzyskanie), by Poland in 1945. Dr. Dan 03:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dan, this article is about the University, let's concentrate on the subject. Your opinion about the Recovered Territories should be placed on the related talk page.

I don't think, I'm writing about documented facts. The modern, nationalistic Lithuanian state was created after WWI. Xx236 07:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As was Poland. Dr. Dan 05:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And many other countries. How is that relevant here ? --Lysy^talk 08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Dr. Dan 15:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove info which is directly referenced. M.K. 11:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can easily find a reference confirming that Vilnius was occupied by Lithuania. Do you want this ? Why are you doing this, M.K ? --Lysy^talk 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Do you separate difference between words "occupation" and "return"? M.K. 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

M.K., why don't you just back down? Lysy can certainly find a reference that Vilnius is occupied by Lithuania, and a reference that Lithuania occupied Vilnius again in 1991, (like we were recently informed). Haven't you learned that there are a "plethora" of tygodniks out there proving everything except that if one's Aunt had a moustache she'd be your Uncle. Dr. Dan 21:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase this. I understand that your personal POV is that Vilnius was "returned" , you believe it and you dismiss any other POV. However as a wikipedia editor, you should try to avoid taking sides. It's much better to avoid terms like "returned" in such contexts if not absolutely necessary. Using such words does not add any valuable information to the article itself. On the contrary, it might suggest that Vilnius belonged to Lithuania before WW2, which is not true, as it was in Poland. Other than that, I'm sure you know that the Soviets did not "return" Vilnius to Lithuania but first occupied it and then traded for their military presence in the country. --Lysy^talk 08:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First, you making personal attack here, stop this now! Second why you failed to see that word is directly referenced? And why do you not consulting with other English sources which uses same formulation? And stop accusing me with one sided approach, you have been warned. M.K. 09:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see any personal attack, I'm only trying to explain the problem to you. I also fail to understand your warning. Can you elaborate on this so that your warning is clearer to me ? --Lysy^talk 10:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of one side then is supported by neutral sources. M.K. 10:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon ? --Lysy^talk 10:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You directly accused my being one sided you believe it and you dismiss any other POV. M.K. 10:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

M.K, nobody is 'attacking' you - your command of English is poor and you misunderstand others, in turn accusing them of things they didn't commit (which now can be seen as personal attack). Please stop 'ad hominen's' and concentrate on the content issue at hand.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vilnius was transferred [1] to Lithuania which considered the previous eighteen years as an occupation by Poland of its capital.

This article is about the University. Wouldn't be better to move the information to Vilnius? If the Lithuanian POV is quoted here, why not the data about the population of the city?Xx236 15:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Polish POV is not being "quoted" here? And although I agree that the "data" regarding the composition of the population is somewhat OT regarding this article, I fail to understand why you and the loyal oppostion continue to bring it up here. And maybe you, Xx236, can answer my question on this page, or wherever you think would be more appropriate, if not here. This "disputed" data that Vilnius was a 2% Lithuanian city does not jive with Pilsudski's proclamations to the inhabitants of the city bilingually. Why would this be done for a mere 2% of the population? Dr. Dan 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember once you suggested you were a historian... dubious, but what the heck: just check the censuses for yourself (they are in one of the articles you criticised if you're lazy or too far away from any decent library). And then check the title of the proclamation (that would be enough, you don't have to read it all) and then check whether you still want to ask the same question. //Halibutt 09:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from your insulting demeanor, you have not answered the question. And please, the answer to my question would benefit everyone who might be interested, not just myself. Riddles, and guessing games seem to be more to your liking. Dr. Dan 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dan, if you don't like any POV, oppose it. Xx236 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Been doing that for sometime now. Dr. Dan 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Without citing any sources, just insulting those who provide ones you don't like. This is not a good strateg, Dan. As for the word 'transfer', it is used by a very respectsble historian, Norman Davies (the entire paragraph is definetly worth reading, btw).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Supporting anti-Polish POV is something different than supporting NPOV. "in the Lithuanian city of Vilna" (1906) - Wow! Paneriai - the removal of Poles and Russians from the list of victims, fact about after the Ypatingasis būrys link. The article quotes Lithuanian source. What is your question?

Xx236 14:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Supporting pro-Polish POV is also different than supporting NPOV - as for Lithuanian city take a look into link, and I would doubt that any other nation (except Polish, of course) would argue that this city is in Lithuania - take a look at any map form 13th till 20 th century (except, of course 1920-1939), and the weasel name Central Lithuania was chosen not because those people did love Lithuania, but because of the historical name of that area. And Republic of Lithuania did clearly state that this is city of Lithuania, and even Pilsudsky agreed on that on Suwalki cease fire. I do exactly know that it has never been city of Poland (except again 1922-1939), and was never perceived as such (except, maybe, harsh Polish nationalists like endecja). And now you're trying to prove it otherwise. It's ridiculous.--Lokyz 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, Dan, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt once more and reply to your question. First of all, the proclamation was issued not to the Lithuanian inhabitants of Vilna, but to the inhabitants of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Compare the areas and you'll see why the bilingual version. Also take note that the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania included also Lithuanian lands, such as Samogitia, where Poles were but a minority. //Halibutt 12:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As for giving me the benefit of the doubt, keep in mind this is an open discussion rather than a private one, and many things that you and I are aware of are being presented to others (maybe even for the first time). Regarding the proclamation, I suppose the Lithuanian inhabitants of Vilnius were not targeted by the proclamation, and therefore irrelevant. And please do not negate the fact that a significant number, a very significant number of Lithuanians were multi-lingual. Which is the heart of the matter anyway. Some in this discussion think if you can speak Polish, you're Polish. That's simply not the case. One of my roomates at UJ, Samuel U, was from Nigeria, and his ability to speak Polish was very impressive. And let me remind you that the Lithuanian Jews in Vilnius and the rest of Lithuania were just that Lithuanian Jews. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt too. Are you Polish, or a Jew, or a Polish Jew? If you had ancestors in Warsaw during the Partitions, were they Polish Jews or Russian Jews or just Jews? Try to be logical and consequentual in your thinking when you answer this question. Why this distinction regarding these Lithuanian Jews? Or the claim of XX% Poles, XX% "Jews", XX% Lithuanians, XX% Belarusians, XX% Russians? This special designation of these citizens smacks of something strange in my way of thinking. Maybe it's because there is a different mentality in the U.S. (my home base), considering this matter. Perhaps if you pause and think about this you can open your thought processes to a different POV. The only way this edit war will stop, and the WP project regarding the overlapping histories that Poland and Lithuania share, is when this relentless campaign to belittle and deny the uniqueness of Lithuania (as opposed to being conjoined to Poland), its history and geography stops. It unfortunately smacks of those trying to do the same to Poland. Truly a pity. Dr. Dan 14:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of sharing, why do you refuse to 'share' the Jews of Vilnius with the Poles (and Russians...)? Please explain what are your reasons for arguing that the Jews in the city where majority were Poles and minority were Lithuanians should be classified as Lithuanian Jews (especially when the footnote explains it quite clearly that such labels are misleading)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Someday you'll let your "better-half" answer my questions himself. In the meantime, the answer to your question is simple; Jews in France are French Jews, and in Russia, Russian Jews, and in Lithuania, Lithuanian Jews. Too bad you didn't focus like a laser on the more important aspect of my edit. That was that the constant denial of the uniqueness of Lithuania and it people, resembles anti-Polonism, by those who denigrate Poland over and over again. Truly a pity. Dr. Dan 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be suprised to read Lithuanian Jews article. From the lead: the term Lithuanian Jew, or (in Yiddish) Litvisher or (in Hebrew) Litaim often means someone who follows [certain] approaches, rather than someone from Lithuania.. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The operative words in the sentence being often means (probably should be "sometimes means"). Big deal, it negates nothing. Guess it could apply to Polish Jews or Danish Jews as well. And again too bad you didn't "focus like a laser" on the more important aspect of my edit. Truly a pity. Dr. Dan 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now it Gets Interesting

An administrator tells us in his above comment that I insult contributors by challenging their POV. First of all, I primarily challenge some of them, because false POV and historical inaccuracies are a detriment to the WP project. If that insults someone, that's a psychological issue that they must deal with themselves. Unfortunately this administrator often peppers his POV with great falsehoods as well. As proof of this I offer this flurry of his contributions to the recently added Antoni Bohdziewicz article and it's talk page as a concrete example. Perhaps we can take this matter to that talk page. Dr. Dan 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Transferred or returned, doesn't bother me. Vilnius is where it belongs, with the name that it has. P.P.S. Davies is a nice man. We used to shop at the same Pewex in Cracow.

[edit] Vilnius is where it belongs, with the name that it has

If it isn't Lithuanian POV, what it is?

• The city has many names, a Polish one and a Jewish one, too.
• The city is mainly Lithuanian as the result of the mass executions and expulsion of Poles. Do you approve those mass executions and expulsion?

Xx236 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, Polish majority again, what an selctive attention. Check your sources, the city had majority of Jews, not Poles. After annexation in 1922 there was massive immigration (one would call it colonization) of Vilnius: more than 200 thousand Poles came from Poland to Vilnius region. And at the time Lithuanian schools in the region were closed, teachers and priests were imprisoned and libraries and schools were burned. Is this the Polish justice way?

And after WWII soviets forbade Lithuanians to move to Vilnius, to not have too many Lithuanians there, and expulsions - well, the material I've read states, that most of repatriated people did it on their own will (unlike those, who were forced out from former Prussia i and Silezia), and that there were much more more wiling to leave, than actually did [6].

As for "Vilnius is where it belongs, with the name that it has" - it's a fact, or do you want to change borders, or even recapture Vilnius by military force to be where it belongs in your POV? Go read some books before acting as an expert. Have good day at a library, Wikipedia talk page is not reference board, and I do not have time to answer all of your questions.--Lokyz 10:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

w*"Vilnius University" article isn't the right place to discuss if mass executions of Jews and Poles and expulsion of Poles is the right way to Lithuanize the city.

• The term repatriated is a Communist propaganda, why are you using it?
• The poeple were running away from the Soviet Union, not "on their own will". The same thousands of ethnic Lithuanians run away to Poland, USA, Western Germany.

Xx236 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Xx236

Read some books, before asking ignorant questions again, this is not a chat room.--Lokyz 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lokyz, I find your comment offensive. BTW - I haven't asked any questions above, I'm informing you that you aren't right - it's something totally different. The question why are you using it is rhetoric, please replace it by Plese don't use Communist propaganda vocabulary.Xx236 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The word repatriate preceeds Communism by quite a long time. Everyone has a POV, the problem is when it leaves the talk page and is incorporated into an article with a mixture of half-truths and blatant falsehoods. Then the WP project suffers. And this "discussion" has gone way OT to the subject matter at hand. Dr. Dan 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Before informing me, inform yourself, please. Read some decent third party books, not Polish propaganda. if you find offensive reading some research, I wonder what are you doing in wikipedia? Statements like "something totally different" not supoported by any argument here are called POV or weaselising. --Lokyz 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How someone born in Wilno can be repatriated to Toruń or Gdańsk? This Wikipedia should be written precisely, i.e. words should be used according to their meaning.Xx236 13:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The same way they were repatriated to Szczecin and Wroclaw and a "plethora" of " Ziemie odzyskanie. Dr. Dan 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lokyz, please avoid personal attacks. Dr. Dan can tell you what do they lead to. Xx236 asked you some civil questions, please either reply in a civil manner - or don't.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop pushing me with that favorite WP:CIV of yours - I did nothing incivil - I was even very mild, compared to your favorite Halibutt behavior, so no need to scare me or show your superiority. I do doubt that suggestion to read some books is incivility. i did it because, the question was addressed to me, and I'm busy right now and do not have time to argue with someone's babling without arguments, (that is on the verge of trolling). Have a good day.--Lokyz 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of ignorance, babbling and trolling is clear incivility. On the sidenote, Halibutt has never been incivil in such a way as you are almost daily.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all stop accusing people all around wikipedia, such behavior problems were discussed in your Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus. Interesting how P.P. classified Xx236 comments as "some civil questions" , quite interesting "civil" "questions" indeed - The city is mainly Lithuanian as the result of the mass executions and expulsion of Poles. Do you approve those mass executions and expulsion?; The term repatriated is a Communist propaganda, why are you using it?. Talking about disruptive edits of user:Halibutt, I would like to point to Prokonsul this  : [7]. Do you P.P also stand by accusation that Lithuanian annexation took place in 1991? M.K. 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dan can tell you where that attempt at censoring him led to. Nowhere. Except to be thrown out, and this "new" venue to "investigate" people thrown out with it. And I should hope some embarrassment for the under handedness of the originator of this very sad event. But I wouldn't count on it. My advice is Be not afraid! Dr. Dan 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When I see a fur coat, I ask how many animals have been mistreated to make the fur coat. Some people accept the price of animal suffering and admire the beauty of it, I ask them the incivil question - Do you approve the suffering? When I see "Vilnius is where it belongs, with the name that it has" I ask how many people died or were expelled to make the city as it is. I ask the incivil question "Do you approve those mass executions and expulsion?" and don't obtain the human aswer No, I don't, I remember the victims". Xx236 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] which considered the previous eighteen years as an occupation by Poland of its capital.

This article is Vilnius University. The history of the city should be discussed in Vilnius. If the above Lithuanian POV has to be here, the same a Polish POV should be included. Xx236 13:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How nice of you to notice, This article is "Vilnius University". Dr. Dan 20:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan, yes, this article is about the University, not about your ego. Xx236 14:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest Lithuanian book

Oldest Lithuanian book, Luther's small cathecism translated by Martynas Mazvydas, was printed in 1547, not in 1595. Furthermore, I seriously doubt whether this Jesuit institution printed works of Lutheran Mazvydas.

Yes, that That was mistake, ir was book of Mikalojus Daukša, oldest (surviving) printed Lithuanian book in Lithuania proper .--Lokyz 16:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Central Lithuania

Republic of Central Lithuania was annexed by Poland in 1922, not in 1919, like this article claims.

[edit] V. Kapsukas Vilnius State University

Wasn't that the legal name? Xx236 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)