text:
Talk:History of Vilnius

/archive1/

Taryba
You're right about "Taryba". "Council of Lithuania" is probably the best. However I'm not sure if this relates to History of Vilnius at all, rather to History of Lithuania, so I would delete Cntence there. What do you think ? Lysy 21:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it could remain, as the fact that such a thing happened in Vilnius is part of city's history, same as probably you would mention Union of Lublin in case you'd be writting article on History of Lublin and such.DeirYassin 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Good. Take a look at the beginning of the section and see if I have not made a mess in the paragraph about the Council in 1918 there. It might need some correction after my last edit. Lysy 06:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is ok DeirYassin 20:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that the monarchy restauration story took place before declaration of Feb. 16

General notes
Hi. The idea to write History of Vilnius was excellent. Now, this page is better-balanced than earlier section of Vilnius article. But let me list some faults of the contents.

National communities
“Rapidly developing, the city was open to migrants from both East and West. Communities of Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Jews, Russians, Germans, Karaims, Ruthenians and others established themselves in the city.” Let's look at possible association here of the word migrants and the later list of communities. Lithuanians and Poles can't be call migrants here, and Belarussians, when our state had been common for long time should rather be called local people than “migrants”. Very interesting fact, that historical Vilnius had streets, named after national communities. There was Jewish street, Russian street, Tatar street (Tatars still aren't mentioned in the list), but there wasn't Lithuanian or Polish street. And distribution of national communities was also different than it's put here. What concerns Lithuanian community, i think, any local Lithuanian community didn't exist separately from Polish one till the middle 19th century. But there are clear data about Samogitian community in then Vilnius, and there was respective street under the name of Samogitians. So, Samogitian community was seen as extraneous, “migrant”.─  The same with Russian communities: There weren't three different ones (Belarusian, Russian and Ruthenian), but one orthodox community, or two during certain periods with division into Russian orthodoxes and Uniats. So, this sentence needs to be specified. But i doubt how to do it. The one way is simply to add the note “which subsequently were known as Poles, Lithuanians etc”, meaning, that then names can differ from the listed ones. Or perhaps we should use names of communities real for 16 – 18 centuries? (Local Lithuanians and Poles, Samogitian Lithuanians, Russians (Ruthenians) Orthodoxes and Uniats, Jews, Tatars, Karaims etc.) so we should discuss it here.

 * I've made some changes, but I'm not happy with them. I think this paragraph should be rewritten. Or maybe add aditional subparagraph about religious groups ? Certainly these are important pieces of information for understanding the city's history. Lysy 06:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capital of Belarus ?
The second thing is this: “The city was initially planned as the capital of Belarussian SSR, but then it was decided that Vilnius might be used as a way to get significant influence on Lithuania.” It isn't true. Or, perhaps it may be understood as true, for the passive voice with no agent used to describe the situation. It's true that leaders of Communists in Vilnius and leaders of Belarusian SSR tended to incorporate the Vilnius region into Belarus without dividing the region. It's very doubtful, if they planned to make Vilnius capital of the Belarus, but it's impossible to deny or confirm it. All these discussions were informal and you could understand, what did it mean in the then Soviet Union. But the official position of the USSR (with understanding that no declared position was untouchable for bolsheviks) was, that Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania. This position was also expressed in the initial secret protocols of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. The protocols contained a sentence, that said, that the both sides (i. e. Germany and the USSR) will respect interests of Lithuania in Vilnius question (the translation is approximate). In the later treatments Lithuania was “re-given” to the USSR's sphere, but this thing wasn't changed. It's appropriate to add here, that Nazis' government also tried to “foster” Lithuania and proposed Lithuanian government to take part in “Vilnius company” with support of German military forces (differently from the USSR, Germany didn't have borders with Vilnius region). Lithuanian government categorically refused to participate in aggression against Poland. After this Soviets seized the city and Lithuania was donated to Soviets. Logic of events is clear here. And – Soviets never negotiated Vilnius in exchange of military presence. Their requirement to allow presence of Soviet military bases in Lithuania wasn't connected with any compensation. Lithuanian government wasn't allowed to refuse Vilnius in exchange of not interfering by Soviets in Lithuanian life (despite, that Lithuanian delegation had such instructions). Linas lituanus 09:56, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

 * Again, I've introduced some minor changes here, but this is difficult and I believe that further suggestions/discussion would be helpful. Lysy 06:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, this section, I think, it's all OK. All facts are said now, and concerning hypotheses I still could add some things, but these are little things left. For example, Lithuanian officials during 1939 – 1940 declared obviously dependence of Vilnius region to Lithuania, but Vilnius as the capital of Lithuania was declared very fuzzily (I mean declarations after the 10th of the October, naturally). Perhaps it was connected with very unstable political situation, international treatments signed by Lithuania and position of the foreign diplomatic corpus in Kaunas. Smetona's opinion was very significant, but I think, it's too vulgar to reduce all this to his personal fears. If it added something to Lithuania in the question of Vilnius, Lithuanian government with no doubt would have transferred the capital with formal founding of the president's residence in the city at least. I think, the government doubted, if recognition of Vilnius for Lithuania, by Molotov – Ribbentrop pact signers  will not turn against Lithuania after the war. This way the capital remained not transfered till the events of 1940. But new puppet government of Lithuania didn't transferred it too. German Nazi administration also ruled from Kaunas. I should add that all these administrations recognized dependence of Vilnius to Lithuania, but the status of Kaunas wasn't changed. Some sources say, that even after the war few communist leaders in Lithuania doubted, if it was useful to transfer the capital. Some add, that it was solved in Moscow, what is quite credible. Linas lituanus 10:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''Also, election area wasn't fully corresponding to the area of Vilnius region, whch was overtaken by Poland. Some areas where the election was done actually were outside Vilnius region, and other, much larger, areas, including e.g. major city of Gardinas/Hrodna, were a part of Vilnius region, but despite of that elections weren't done there. It didn't fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either''

- That's one of many possible examples of this article stylistic clumsiness. It seems rather obvious, that elections to the parliament of "Central Lithuania" are supposed to be conducted on the territory of "Central Lithuania", not somewhere else. Territtorial divisions invented and applied by Lithuanian governement to territories it never actually controlled (like Hrodna) are mostly irrelevant here, or at least should be clearly labelled as "official point of view of Lithuanian governement".

It didn't fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either; the election area was larger than Central Lithuania, but smaller than Vilnius region. And well, to say that Vilnius region voted to be a part of Poland we would have to get all Vilnius region to vote, not excluding the Lthuanian-majority zones such as Druskininkai as it was done. Therefore there is information, that it wasnt done in the whole occupied Vilnius region (and it is not Lithuanian invention, but the territory whcih was given to Lithuania by Russia in the respective peace treaty).DeirYassin 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit of the chapter on PL-LT conflict
I took the liberty to make a copyedit of the part on Polish-Lithuanian conflict for Vilna. Also, I explained some things that were not clear, hope I improved the article a tad. Above all I wanted to separate what is clear to both sides from what is stated by Poles or Lithuanians only. Hence the explanation of Brussels talks (read more in the article on Central Lithuania) or the elections.

At the same time, I decided to cut the following part and move it to talk for further discussion. First of all, I'm not sure such a detailed analisis belongs here. But if it does, feel free to expand the part I replaced it with.

 * 'The Poles were the major ethnic group of the territory and the only significant group of which clear majority of voters participated in the elections. The area itself was multi-ethnic, and out of Belarusians less than 50% voted, less than 20% Jews and less than 10% of Lithuanians; this was due to the fact that some viewed Polish-administered elections as not legal, because Vilnius and the region de jure were a part of Lithuania. However, in face of clear Polish majority, the boycott had little effect on the result of the elections. Since Jews were usually considered as more pro-Lithuanian, most of the potential pro-Lithuanian voters boycotted the elections. The election area wasn't fully corresponding to the area of Vilnius region, as Lithuanian government define it. Some areas where the election was done actually were outside Vilnius region, and other, much larger, areas, including e.g. major city of Gardinas/Hrodna, were a part of Vilnius region, but despite of that elections were not conducted there. It did not fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either leaving both many Lithuanians and Poles outside the election area.''

As to specific concerns I have with this part (the reason I replaced it with a para directly copy-pasted from the article on Central Lithuania):
 * 1) some viewed Polish-administered elections as not legal, because Vilnius and the region de jure were a part of Lithuania - well, the problem is that others view the situation as if the area was de iure a part of Poland, Russia, Germany, Belarus... it all depends on the point of view and I guess that all positions could be easily defended here.
 * 2) out of Belarusians less than 50% voted, less than 20% Jews and less than 10% of Lithuanians - I replaced that with exact percentage. The guys at the Central Lithuanian authorities did a good job by joining the elections with a micro-census :)
 * 3) Since Jews were usually considered as more pro-Lithuanian, most of the potential pro-Lithuanian voters boycotted the elections - this would need a source; As to my own views and books I've read, the local Jews were mostly seen as either indifferent or pro-Russian. After all, apart from the local Jews of Polish-Lithuanian ancestry (I mean the ones Central European descent), the majority of Jews of the area were so-called Litvaks, that is the Russian-speaking Jews forcibly resettled to the Pale of Settlement. Their support for either side in this conflict was very problematic.
 * 4) It did not fully corresponded to area of Central Lithuania either leaving both many Lithuanians and Poles outside the election area. - again, this would need a source. I'm really curious which areas were left out?

Anyway, I hope that the constructive copyedit was a move in good direction. Was it? Halibutt 19:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the Jews boycotted the elections. Yes, they were pro-Lithuanian. Xx236 14:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Never heard of Jewish boycott of the elections. In fact only a slight minority of local Jews did vote, but the Jewish parties did take part in the elections (most notably the Jewish socialists in the ranks of the Socialist Party. In fact even the head of the provisional government was a Jew (and one of the strongest proponents of authonomy of Central Lithuania, BTW). Halibutt 18:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Post-war deportation of Poles
As far as I know the Lithuanian policy was to expell educated Poles and lithuanize the other Slavs, not to expell all. It didn't work, the Slavs accepted rather Russian language or kept the Polish one. Later Polish schools, "Czerwony Sztandar" newspaper, Polish language chair were created. What happened to Polish inscriptions in Vilnius? I have a big book with pictures, where no Polish word can be seen. As far as I know (some?) Polish citizens of Vilnius are discriminated, they cannot regain their homes and farms. Polish newspapers are printed in Vilnius, there is a Polish radio there. Xx236 14:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Krivis
Whad does "krivis" mean here ? (krivis Lizdeika) --Lysytalk 07:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... Sort of Pagan priest. Supposedly Krivis Krivaitis was the main priest. If you can read German: de:kirwis - it says it's Prussian. Renata 13:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

From WERS
From Davies WERS, p.53 and 54, Vilnians reaction to Polish Army, April 1919: "The Polish citizens of Wilno on the whole were delighted. Their politicians envisaged a separate Lithuanian state closely allied with Poland, on the lines of the medieval Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[...] Even the Jewish population, which was the only other sizable community in Wilno, welcomed the Polish occupation." Also, from WERS, p.48, about Lit-Byel: "The Lithuanian SSR and Lit-Byel had been a particularly throughout and painful political experiment. They turned Wilno into a laboratory of social pharmacology where the fill range of communist panaceas were tested out on the luckless inhabitants." Anyway, my question is what happened to the idea of Lithuanian state with Wilno allied with Poland? I.e. what went wrong before the PLW started, and Zeligowski buried the chances for alliences in late 1920? On p.57 Davies writes that "[the Polish capture of Wilno] thwarted the ambitions of the Lithuanian nationalists governement in Kaunas. Although very few Lithuanians lived in the city at that time, Wilno, or Vilnius as they called it, was the historic capital of Lithuania; the nationalists could not resign themselves to its loss. Fighting broke out which defied all efforts of mediation. The 'Foch Line' of 27 July left Wilno on the Polish side. In August a Polish uprising in Sejny and an attempt by Pilsudski to organize a putsch in Kaunas destryed any inclinations the Lithuanians might have had to negotiate." That explains how the things went downhill later, but earlier Davies wrote that Poles living in Vilnius wanted an 'independent Lithuanian state' (likely with capital in Vilnius) - which is the same thing Lithuanian nationalists wanted. So who prevented those two sides from reaching a compromise? Was it some Poles who wanted Wilno in Poland, or some Lithuanians who saw no need for any alliance with Poland?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the problem was a differing understanding of what "independent, closely allied Lithuanian state" means. Poles dreamt something on the lines of the Commowealth, where all power was in the hands of ethnic Poles, the state language and the language of the Church was Polish, and ethnic Lithuanians were tolerated as long as they minded their agricultural chores and didn't try to speak Lithuanian in the Sejm. Basically Poles wanted "kresy" - nominally independent, but really part of Poland in everything but the name, kind of puppet state. This was completely unacceptable to Lithuanians. When Poles didn't get what they wanted, the war started, as the attempt was made to conquer Lithuania by force if stealth didn't work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.206.209.197 (talk • contribs).
 * A fascinating speculation, albeit I find it rather counterfactual - the Polish-Lithuanian War was not started by the Poles (and who forbade speaking of Lithuanian in the Sejm??). Anybody else?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt, referring to an obsolete state of July 27 is good, but I'd rather refer to the October 27 Suwalki cease fire agreement (and, and at the time it was broken by Poles. And as I've last time seen line drawn by the last legal agreement (Suwalki), Vilnius was on Lithuanian side.Lokyz 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lizdeika named Radziwill ref
Lysy, I know the legend, and the interpretation of the intial reason it was created (by H. Łowmiański, if I'm not mistaken), just somehow I managed to miss a part, where Lizdeika was named Radziwill, especially the linguistic research part of the legend. Are you sure those references do state exactly what it is said in this part, especially about Belarus and Polish language? (that part I was asking to reference, not the part about legend of iron wolf) I cannot check them right now, so just curiuos, whether Tomas Venclova did know something about that "radzicz" part.

Ah one more thing - why do not create an article about Henryk Łowmiański. I think he's not so loved by Polish editors, because he was amongst the first Poles to research history of Grand Duchy and even managed to find Lithuanians there. By this I do suggest an opportunity to work together. Lokyz 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, of course I've checked the references before posting them. They do not mention about Polish or Belarusian language, this I thing is an extra explanation for an English reader, as for the Poles it would be too obvious. Here is the exact citation (please forgive me for citing in Polish): "Lizdejce za wytłumaczenie snu wieszczego wielki książę rozkazał zwać się Radziwiłłem". I think I'll have to go offline for now. --Lysytalk 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

 * For sure you've cited Venclova:) Another simple question - do they state source of that legend? And last one whether amove of citations before linguistic interpretation would be a deadly sin by me?--Lokyz 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed
For the 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. The Vilnius University article states ''On December 13, 1939 [2], the new University Charter specified that Vilnius University was to be governed according to the statute of the Vytautas Magnus University of Kaunas, and that Lithuanian language programs and faculties would be established. ''. This needs to be clarified (references, anyone?). The conducting a policy of repressions against the inhabitants of the town part should also be expanded into more then this stub-sentence (althogh perhaps the Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II article would be a more appopriate place?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vilnius University was closed and replaced by a branch unit of the Kaunas University. --Lysytalk 09:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Name Kaunas University emerged only after WWII, when remains of Vytautas Magnus University was reopened by Soviets. it did not last long. Vytautas Magnus University of Kaunas was never an official name, I know you'd like to refer to it as Litwa Kowienska, but please, do not invent names tha did not exist.--Lokyz 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to use "Kaunas University" as the official name. I only wanted to say "the University that was in Kaunas", regardless of what was its name. --Lysytalk 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of pleasant discussion, may I suggest you try not to guess what other editors would like to say but didn't? Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of pleasant discussion, may I suggest you try t use official names of institutions?--Lokyz 20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway it is a good place to mention Polish sanctions against Lithuanian cultural organizations and schools: to my knowledge, almost all the higher schools during occupation were closed, only Vytauto Didžiojo gymnasium did exist (and it's rector prof. Mykolas Biržiška got almost shot, for "treason" - only Antante officers did save him. It didn't have an easy life all the time. And I still did not mention the number of closed or even burned private Lithuanian libraries, even of the religious of St. Casimir society (other cultural organisations didn't had a slightest chance to exist). It was official policy that Lithuanians "do not exist" here, and it was practiced at full scale. I think it was a simple eye for an eye situation, and no KZ'ts were needed to ignite the hate - there was enough atrocities before that (and after that).--Lokyz 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably very much so. It would be good to have the facts about the Polish sanctions against Lithuanians mentioned in the article. If possible, avoiding the emotional details, but including the meaningful facts instead like how many schools were closed, libraries destroyed, etc. Were the schools closed because there were not enough Lithuanian students ? Or maybe just as a form of repression against the Lithuanian community ? I've heard that most Lithuanians left Vilnius during its troublesome times shortly following the WW1. It would be very useful, if we could try to reproduce what was the situation in Vilnius and how it changed under individual administrations. Of course we need to be careful not to get involved into too much original research. But on the other hand I expect that most of the secondary sources on the subject would be either Polish or Lithuanian (or Soviet ?) and probably most of both Polish and Lithuanian sources remain silent about the facts inconvenient for the writing side. I wonder if we could try to compile something reasonable out of this together. --Lysytalk 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that I saw some English publications on Google Print that touched on the related issues. So let's see what English sources have to say before we have to go into the POVed local sources. And don't scare us with Soviet ones... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Piotrus you are entering an shaky ground here - what makes you decide, what of the sources ar POV'ed, are you qualified enough to judge that? Do you a priori decide that Lithuanian research is POV'ed?
 * IMHO English language publication found in Google books, i.e. citation taken out of context is not any proof, neither NPOV'ed . You probably better than me know that there are lots of Polish POV'ed authors publications in English, much more than Lithuanian. So without a doubt you'll find a "NPOV'ed" facts by some researcher,that suit you better. I did at least even read the whole book of some claimed historian "who saw it all with his eyes", as it is written on the back cover (and it is one of most cited book in nowadays Wikipedia for LT-PL WWII time relations, PL-Jews and PL-Ukrainians relations !). For anyone who does understand at least a bit on methods how historians work - it is a deadly sin to state this, and it is an exact definition of POV'ed. And once again, this book belongs not any further, than to the memoirs or fiction section, not as a NPOV'ed resource. And it is a proof how a NPOV'ed research cannot be conducted.
 * Once again I do want to talk about possibility to easy prove anything using Google books, It's just a simple question, how would you formulate request. Most of professors in the three universities I have friends, have banned usage of Google books for anything else, than bibliographical research - e.g. to find books not for citing, but for reading, to understand context or understand POV of a researcher. The books are to be read, to understand context. And history is a scientifically discipline that does not only research facts, but also contexts. Yeah, I know, Wikipedia is not looking for truth, it is looking for verifiability. So who does not allow you to go to library and read cited paper book?
 * As for the subject - it is utterly painful for both sides, and easy solutions like using out of context citations is only making it a boiling pot and even more painful. And more of this – it is not researched enough to make any further going evaluation and even speculations - i.e. WP:OR. Lokyz 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can worry about methodology after we get some data, Lokyz. And facts will be facts, no matter what the context.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeh, exactly this kind of approach is that does give me most worries, and a tingling de javu sense that I'm mumbling to myself. Anyway, any facts you could provide would be most welcome. Lokyz 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Population of Wilno/Vilnius throghout its history
Please note that that info (referenced) is available at Historical demographics of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the article I can't find the demographics of Vilnus between 1920 and 1939. If you have the data of the census about Vilnus or any source of the same, please present here. Thank you.--125.2.75.196 (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Repatriation
I do have sources, stating that repatriation (or evvacuations, as it is called sometimes) was organized by Polish side, and that person responsible for this was arrested and eventually executed. It was quite different than what was happening in Ukraine. --Lokyz 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to share those sources with us. If they are not online, please include citations (in English) so we may all benefit from them. Oh, and would you have any sources about deportations and repressions of Polish population of the city that begun in 1939?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

From Snyder
Another interesting quote, this time from Timothy Snyder, Yale University Press, 2003, ISBN 030010586X, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Google Print, p.82: "Demographic realities were harder to deny. When Lithuanian troops marched into Vilnius on 28 October 1939, they were shocked to find instead of the princess of their fairy tales, the streets of alien Wilno, unknown, speaking foreign language." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Feedback needed: "Yes to Wilno but no Krakau"
We could use some feedback on "Wilno"-related issues at Talk:Krak%C3%B3w. --Irpen 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323.
Which name was used?Xx236 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwar
Can anyone clarify the changes in control from 1918 to 1922? My information is that: Vilnius (Polish: Vilna) was taken in turn by the Germans from autumn 1915, Lithuanians in December 1918, Russians in January 1919, Poles in April 1919, Lithuanians in December 1919, Russians (for three months), Poles, and Russians again in June 1920, who handed it over to Lithuania in July, before it was seized by irregular Polish forces under General Lucjan Zeligowski on 9 October 1920, and formally annexed to Poland in 1922 following a plebiscite. Can anyone verify these and add more dates for 1920? Noel Ellis (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

From my incomplete draft at User:Renata3/tvd: Renata (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Germans - Autumn 1915
 * Poles self-defense - January 1, 1919
 * Russians - January 5, 1919
 * Poles - April 21, 1919
 * Russians - July 15, 1920
 * Lithuanians - August 26, 1920
 * Poles - October 12, 1920

Tripod.com reference
The article currently contains a reference linking to this Tripod.com url. The website header says "The following is a verbatim transcript of the booklet "Eastern Poland," first published in December 1941, by the Polish Research Centre in London, England." The WP reference further states it was authored by Edward Raczyński (possibly Edward Bernard Raczyński?), altho no author is mentioned in the website.

The Tripod-hosted website - which contains extensive stretches of texts - does not state 'reprinted with permission of...'. But IMO it may very well not be in the public domain - if it truly was published in London in 1941 - since British_copyright gives the term of author's copyright as the lifetime of the author and 50 years thereafter (as of 1911, term of copyright extended in the 1990s). If the author was indeed Edward Bernard Raczyński, his WP article gives his year of death as 1993 and his works published in Great Britain would still be under copyright. Halibutt, could you explain why you added Raczyński as the author; if this was based on some other information, could you post it here. You could of course also replace the weblink with treeware info that includes an ISBN number and book page number.

If you remain convinced that it's appropriate to use this website in the ref, or that some other copyright law applies, pls state that here, and I'll post a question at the copyright noticeboard and maybe at the reliable source sources noticeboard too, since I believe links to sites hosted by free services are disparaged on WP. Novickas (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * First of all, you don't expect me to add ISBN numbers for books published in the 1940s, do you. Secondly, I'm pretty confident that Edward Raczyński is Edward Raczyński (he didn't use his middle name on his book covers) as he was pretty much the only Polish author of that name, the only Pole of that name in London at the time - and the most popular author of English-language books on Poland at that time. I have some of his books at home myself, most of them published in London. I can't think of any other Edward Raczyński that could fit the scheme.

 * Anyway, if you're not comfortable with linking the publication from within Wikipedia, then just remove the link, not the entire source. A book is a book, we can refer to it just fine without breaking any copyright laws (we're not republishing it here, right?). And be sure to contact the website's author to let him know he's breaking the law.  // Halibutt 12:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323
But what was the name of the city? When was the name "Vilnius" first mentioned? Xx236 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon
... the Grande Armée retreated to the area where 80,000 of French soldiers died and were buried in the trenches they had built months earlier. Some mention should be made of the discovery of these soldiers' remains just a few years ago. Sca (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish Progrom - WWII
Do we know who started the "four day long anti-Jewish pogrom" that started immediately after the Lithuanian army entered Vilnius? Was it the Lithuanian army (that is what I would assume reading that sentence)? Lithuanian people? Soviets? Poles? All of the above? None of the above? Although not deal breaking it would be interesting to know for sure and specify it in the section. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 * This book seems to indicate that the pogrom was perpetrated by Pols who had been instigated by Lithuanian authorities and/or Lithuanian Fascists. The book also states that the anti-Jewish pogrom was stopped by Soviet authorities. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=AUYQ8JQ-iM0C&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=anti-jewish+pogrom+vilnius+1939&source=bl&ots=8gAIR7C-MG&sig=VhSBEjhGoMZv-OS7abR5Ygswp9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlqeDX4-7KAhXMNJoKHVyHAN8Q6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=anti-jewish%20pogrom%20vilnius%201939&f=false
 * It appears you're right. You can change the text or I'll change it. Thanks for finding the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I am glad I was finally able to help a bit in area I am clueless about. I will give it a first shot, but, please, feel free to improve, edit, delete, add, whatever, as you see fit, as you know a lot more about all things eastern European than I ever will.
 * I personally believe it is crucial to keep it very neutral, and not finger pointing, just straight facts, given that at the moment there is a lot of finger pointing going on in Eastern Europe where it seems like everybody is accusing everybody of being a Nazi, a Fascist, and anti-Semite, etc.
 * I have also been reading through this particular book in order to try and find out *why* some Lithuanians egged on the local Polish population to start an Anti-Jewish Pogrom. The reason why some locals responded to such instigations seems to be sky-rocketing prices and food shortages blamed on "the Jews hoarding food items away", but why would the Lithuanian authorities and/or Fascists be promoting hatred against the Jews?? I am also looking for other sources and other points of view. Unfortunately I cannot even read any Eastern European language. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 * If one day pogrom (one victim) gets coverage similar to the Holocaust of tens of thousands, it's a radical bias.Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Soviet Occupation Section
To which ethnicity did the local population that was transferred out of Vilnius belong to? I would assume they were all Poles, but I am not sure. More importantly, were they transferred, repatriated (if we look at the demographics it does look like a whole bunch of Poles moved to Vilnius between 1890 and 1930), or maybe deported? It would be interesting to know. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

 * It was a bit of everything. But Vilnius was majority Polish even before 1890 - most of these people's ancestors had been there for centuries, they got Polonized back in the 1500's or 1600's or earlier. As far as the deportation/repatriation/transfer etc - a very small proportion of them were "repatriated" in the sense that they were not originally from the area. Like I said, most had roots going back several centuries. Some did leave voluntarily figuring Poland, although dominated by SU, was still a better deal than Lithuania as part of SU. Or they got a sense of the anti-Polish policies that were about to be implemented by the new hybrid nationalist-communist Lithuanian authorities. Others were forced to leave. And still others were forced to stay. Very roughly speaking, those with higher education were forced to leave, more or less to get rid of as much of Polish culture as possible. Those with low education were not allowed to leave even if they wanted to because they were judged suitable for "re-education", both in terms of accepting the Soviet ideology, and the Lithuanian nationalism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no Vilnius before 1890, but Wilno.Xx236 (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad Poles 1920-1939
Bad Poles persecuted Lithuanians 1920-1939, two sources are in Lithuanian only, no explanation what the Lithuanians did. Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Most of Lithuanians were forcibly exiled by the Polish authorities or themselves retreated to Lithuania. - how many left, how many were expelledm 32+22 mentioned or more?Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 88 000 settled - only one Lithuanian source.Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

the history of Vilnius, the capital and largest city of Lithuania.
Either the history of Vilnius, today the capital and largest city of Lithuania. or ''the history of Wilno/Wilna/Vilnius, the capital and largest city of Grand Duchy and modern Lithuania.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Poland-occupied West Belarus
As if there existed any West-Belarus invided by bad Poles. Ethnically mixed lands were saved in 1920 from Soviet genocidal occupation.Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Legend of the Founding of Vilnius
What was the name of the place at that time? Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wilno was a center of activities of the Communist Party of Western Belarus
Any important fact belongs here including Communist terrorism - After shooting a witness during a trial in Wilno on January 27, 1936, Prytytski was arrested and sentenced to death..Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiethnic city
Vilna was multiethnic, as far as I remeber there existed Lithuanian, Polish, Ruthenian Orthodox and Jewish parts. The city was situated in Lithuanian etnic area but very close to Ruthenia, so it attracted Eastern Slavs.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Vilnius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002131/http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php?reg=32 to http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php?reg=32

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Vilnius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211074200/http://www.vilnius.lt/new/en/gidas.php?open=122&root=1&sub_cat1=127 to http://www.vilnius.lt/new/en/gidas.php?open=122&root=1&sub_cat1=127
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120904222203/www.istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=1998&n=102 to http://www.istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=1998&n=102
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927205013/http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html to http://www.istorija.lt/lim/stravinskiene2004en2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Polska-ww1-nation.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Vilnius TV tower.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Vilnius TV tower.jpg

Article issues and classification

 * The article has a multiple issues main page maintenance tag that includes "More citations needed" (June 2011) and POV (neutrality disputed, February 2016) and that is just to start.
 * There are inline "citation needed" tags, one from February 2007, two from September 2007, two from January 2009, one dated March 2010, two dated August 2015, one from September 2015, two dated February 2016, one from June 2019, one from November 2019, and one from September 2021. There is an "inaccurate or nonfactual" tag dated August 2015. There are also "clarification needed", "specify" and "quantify" tags dated June 2019.
 * The B-class criteria (#1) states, The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited and The article is reasonably well-written. (#4).
 * I am sure there will not be any argument the article fails the criteria. Reassess article to C-class. --  Otr500 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethocide of Lithunians is a fringe theory
We need far more, far less biased and overall and far better source to include such controversial information in the article, that Poland pursued a policy of "ethnocide" against Lithuanians. Pinging @Pofka as author Marcelus (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of Vilnius


text:
Skippers Seafood & Chowder House

Skippers Seafood & Chowder House is a group of independently owned and operated restaurant locations licensed by Harbor Wholesale. There are currently licensed Skippers restaurants operating in Washington. Skippers produces clam chowder, tartar sauce, cocktail sauce, and coleslaw dressing, in both retail and industrial sizes. Retail items are sold in grocery stores, convenience stores, and over the internet. There are over 50 Skippers fleet locations operating under limited license agreements with Harbor Wholesale.

History
Skippers was founded in 1969 by Herb Rosen in Bellevue, Washington. It initially served fried fish, prawns, scallops, clams, and chowders. Its corporate headquarters were moved to Edmonds, and then to SeaTac. Skippers, Inc. was dissolved in 2007 and the Skippers brand was sold.

Skippers experienced rapid growth during the 1970s, with new restaurants being opened in several western states and in British Columbia, Canada. In 1989, Kansas-based NPC International purchased Skippers, Inc., closing some restaurants. NPC International operated Skippers until it was purchased by Meridian Capital in 1995. From 1995 to 2002, the Skippers management team introduced a line of grilled entrees, including grilled wild-caught salmon, halibut, and chicken.

In late 2002, Skippers was purchased by a group of Pacific Northwest investors. New logos and products were introduced in the Spring of 2003, and again in 2007. As of 2007, there were Skippers stores operating in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

On December 12, 2006, Skippers, Inc., filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in U.S. Court in Seattle during an organizational restructuring. Skippers, Inc. was liquidated on June 29, 2007. 14 of the 58 remaining stores were sold to various individuals and corporate interests through limited license agreements after Skippers initially filed for bankruptcy. After the sales of individual units and closures were finalised, Skippers, Inc., ceased to exist.

Starway Restaurants acquired the intellectual property of Skippers Seafood & Chowder in late 2007, forming a partnership with Harbor Wholesale to create the "Go Fleet" locations in 2013. Starway eventually sold the intellectual property to Harbor Wholesale at the beginning of 2022. As of October 2022, there are five conventional Skippers restaurants known as "Ships of the Line" operating in Washington. Skippers offers a limited number of menu items in "Go Fleet" locations, typically found in convenience stores and supermarkets.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Skippers Seafood & Chowder House


text:
Talk:Special Reconnaissance Regiment

E Squadron here?
I think, based on the source, E squadron is distinct from the SRR although SRR members may join the unit. BlueD954 (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Insigne Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR).svg

Organisation section
The organisation section was removed because of issues with its source, despite no reasoning within WP:POL being given in this regard. @Dormskirk then removed this section because its material became unsourced as a result. After I restored the section (with its source), @Thewolfchild removed it all again. I think Thewolfchild did this because they thought I only reverted Domskirk's edit re unsourced material (i.e. restoring the material in the section but not the source) rather than also restoring the source this information came from (i.e. restoring both the material and its source), when in fact I did the latter. To prevent an edit war, I'd like to ask if everyone is happy to restore this section along with its source. 13tez (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi - WP:RS says that articles should be based on "reliable, independent, published sources". The staff officers handbook is not a published document: it appears that someone has uploaded a copy to https://pdfcoffee.com/ which is a merely document sharing website. Dormskirk (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I take that point; its details with respect to the SRR's structure cannot be verified elsewhere. Maybe that makes it unsuitable for use here, at least by itself. It did contain information I never found elsewhere in regard to UKSF units, however, which make me believe it is authentic. For example, it contained information on the Special Forces Parachute Support Squadron, which couldn't previously be found when searching generally for information on the structure of UKSF, could only be corroborated by an archived RAF webpage, and is now on the SAS article. The MMS and SMG of the SBS are similar examples. 13tez (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it may well be authentic but it is not published. Please can I suggest therefore that we remove the relevant material from the Special Air Service article and the Special Boat Service article and, importantly, remove the link to a document sharing website? Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your reasons and I think they make sense. 13tez (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of posting assumptions like "I think the thewolfchild did this or that", why not just ask? (And you know what they say about assuming things, right?) I attempted to verify the source but found the site to completely unnavigable. Also, Dormskirk makes a good point, but further to that, this source, if it was published, would be considered a primary source. Do you have any secondary sourcing? - w o lf  00:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Special Reconnaissance Regiment


text:
List of railway companies involved in the 1923 grouping

Under the Railways Act 1921 the majority of the railway companies in Great Britain (along with a few in Northern Ireland) were grouped into four main companies, often termed the Big Four. The grouping took effect from 1 January 1923.

The Big Four
The Big Four and their constituent companies, showing route mileage, were:
 * Great Western Railway (GWR)
 * Great Western Railway 3005 mi
 * Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (ADR) 10+1/2 mi
 * Barry Railway (Barry) 68 mi
 * Cambrian Railways (Cambrian) 295+1/4 mi
 * Cardiff Railway (Cardiff) 11+3/4 mi
 * Rhymney Railway (RhyR) 51 mi
 * Taff Vale Railway (TVR) 124+1/2 mi
 * for the list of subsidiary companies and joint railways see List of constituents of the Great Western Railway
 * London and North Eastern Railway (LNER)
 * Great Central Railway (GCR) 852+1/2 mi
 * Great Eastern Railway (GER) 1191+1/4 mi
 * Great Northern Railway (GNR) 1051+1/4 mi
 * Hull and Barnsley Railway (H&BR) 106+1/2 mi
 * North Eastern Railway (NER) 1757+3/4 mi
 * Great North of Scotland Railway (GNSR) 334+1/2 mi
 * North British Railway (NBR) 1378 mi
 * for the list of subsidiary companies and joint railways see List of constituents of the London and North Eastern Railway
 * London, Midland and Scottish Railway (LMS)
 * London and North Western Railway (LNWR); 2667+1/2 mi
 * including Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (L&YR) amalgamated from 1 January 1922
 * Furness Railway (Furness); 158 mi
 * Midland Railway (MR) 2170+3/4 mi
 * North Staffordshire Railway (NSR) 220+3/4 mi
 * Caledonian Railway (CR) 1114+1/2 mi
 * Glasgow and South Western Railway (GSWR) 493+1/2 mi
 * Highland Railway (HR) 506 mi
 * for the list of subsidiary companies and joint railways see List of constituents of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway
 * The Railways Act 1921 did not extend to Ireland, but Irish lines owned by constituent companies became part of the LMS:
 * Dundalk, Newry and Greenore Railway (DNGR) 26+1/2 mi (owned by the LNWR)
 * Northern Counties Committee lines (NCC) 265+1/4 mi (owned by the Midland Railway)
 * The NCC and Great Northern Railway (Ireland) (GNR(I)) operated the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee lines jointly, and these became joint lines of the LMS and GNR(I) after grouping.
 * Southern Railway (SR)
 * London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LBSCR) 457+1/4 mi
 * London and South Western Railway (LSWR) 1020+1/2 mi
 * South Eastern and Chatham Railways' Managing Committee: a working union of the South Eastern Railway and the London, Chatham and Dover Railway 637+3/4 mi
 * for the list of subsidiary companies and joint railways see List of constituent companies of the Southern Railway

Companies not covered by the grouping
Over fifty railway companies were not covered by the grouping. Those in the following list were those organised on an independent basis, usually providing locomotives and rolling stock also. They are included under classification headings.

Joint railways
Joint lines in this respect were wholly owned by two or more other companies. If not all of the owning companies went into the same group then the joint company could not be grouped. Joint lines did not always operate any services: they owned the track, stations etc. and the services were operated by one or more of the parent companies:

 * These are those in which the group companies only are concerned:
 * Cheshire Lines Committee: (GNR, Midland and GCR); now operated under direction of a board of directors appointed by LNER (two-thirds) and LMS (one-third). Length 142 mi. Rolling stock owned by CLC; locomotive power by LNER.
 * Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway: GWR and GCR; subsequent to the grouping the parent companies were the GWR and the LNER, but the title was not altered.
 * Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway: LNWR and GCR; subsequent to the grouping the parent companies were the LMS and the LNER.
 * Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway: (Midland and GNR; subsequent to the grouping the parent companies were the LMS and the LNER). Length 183 mi. This was the largest joint system in the UK, and many of the services were operated by the joint company itself. In addition, it received substantial traffic from the GNR and MR/LMS, but rather less post-grouping from the LNER (which also owned the competing ex-GER system in East Anglia).
 * Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway: (Midland and LSWR). Length 105 mi.
 * Joint lines where one or more partners were ungrouped:
 * Aylesbury Station: joint between the GW & GC Joint and the Metropolitan and Great Central Joint Committee
 * East London Railway: prior to grouping, this railway was owned one-sixth each by the Great Eastern Railway, London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, Metropolitan Railway, District Railway; and one-third by the South Eastern and Chatham Railway (as successors to the London, Chatham and Dover Railway and South Eastern Railway, who had owned one-sixth each). After grouping, it was owned half by the Southern, and one-sixth each by the LNER, Metropolitan and District. Length 5 mi. Managed and operated by Met; goods traffic by LNER.
 * Metropolitan and Great Central Joint Committee: prior to grouping, owned by the Metropolitan Railway and GCR; post-Grouping, Metropolitan and LNER.

Electric or electric and steam lines

 * Railways associated with the Underground Electric Railways Company of London:
 * Central London Railway: 7 mi. Trains worked through to Ealing over the Ealing and Shepherd's Bush Railway (GWR)
 * City and South London Railway: 7+1/4 mi
 * London Electric Railway: 24 mi: amalgamation of the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway and Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway
 * District Railway: 27+3/4 mi
 * Other electric/steam railways:
 * Liverpool Overhead Railway: 6+1/2 mi
 * Mersey Railway: 4+3/4 mi
 * Metropolitan Railway: steam and electric 65+3/4 mi including the Great Northern and City Railway

Light and similar railways (standard gauge)

 * Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore Railway: 7 mi closed at time of grouping
 * Bishops Castle Railway: 9+3/4 mi
 * Corringham Light Railway: 2+3/4 mi
 * Derwent Valley Light Railway: 16 mi
 * Easingwold Railway: 2+1/2 mi
 * East Kent Railway: 48 mi
 * Glasgow (Cable) Subway: 6+3/4 mi
 * Hellingly Hospital Railway: 1+1/4 mi
 * Hundred of Manhood and Selsey Tramways: 8 mi *
 * Kent & East Sussex Railway: 24 mi *
 * Mumbles Railway: 5+1/2 mi
 * Nidd Valley Light Railway: 6 mi public; 7 mi private
 * North Sunderland Railway: 4 mi
 * Rowrah and Kelton Fell Railway: 3 mi
 * Shropshire and Montgomeryshire Railway 26 mi *
 * Stocksbridge Railway: 2 mi
 * Swansea Improvements and Tramways Company: 18 mi
 * Wantage Tramway: 2 mi
 * Weston, Clevedon and Portishead Railway: 14+1/2 mi

Light and similar railways (narrow gauge)

 * Ashover Light Railway: ; 7+1/4 mi
 * Brighton Electric Railway: 2 ft; 1+3/4 mi
 * Camborne and Redruth Tramway: ; 3+1/4 mi
 * Campbeltown and Machrihanish Railway: ; 6 mi
 * Corris Railway: ; 11 mi
 * Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway: ; 7+1/4 mi
 * Ffestiniog Railway: ; 14+1/2 mi
 * Glyn Valley Railway: 2 ft; 8+1/4 mi
 * North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways: ; 12+1/4 mi
 * Portmadoc, Beddgelert and South Snowdon Railway: ; 4+3/4 mi
 * Rye and Camber Tramway: ; 3 mi
 * Snailbeach District Railways: 2 ft; 3+1/4 mi
 * Snowdon Mountain Tramroad: ; 5 mi; rack railway
 * Southwold Railway: ; 9 mi
 * Talyllyn Railway: ; 6+3/4 mi
 * Wolverton and Stony Stratford Tramway: ; owned by LMSR

Railways outside the jurisdiction of the Railways Act 1921
The Railways Act 1921 only extended to Great Britain. Railways in Ireland and the Crown Dependencies were not affected unless owned by a railway company in Great Britain. The railways included in this section were standard gauge, unless otherwise noted:
 * Alderney Railway
 * Belfast and County Down Railway;
 * Cork, Bandon and South Coast Railway; ; 94 mi
 * Dublin and South Eastern Railway; ; 161 mi
 * Great Northern Railway (Ireland); ;
 * Great Southern and Western Railway; ; 1100 mi
 * Guernsey Railway; 3 mi
 * Isle of Man Railway; ; 46+1/4 mi
 * Jersey Eastern Railway; 6+1/4 mi
 * Jersey Railway and Tramways; ; 7+1/2 mi
 * Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway;
 * Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway;
 * Manx Electric Railway; ; 18 mi; and ; 5 mi
 * Midland Great Western Railway; ; 538 mi

Miscellaneous railways
The railways included in this section were standard gauge, unless otherwise noted:
 * Felixstowe Docks and Railway: 1/2 mi
 * Manchester Ship Canal: 156 mi
 * Mersey Docks and Harbour Board: 104 mi
 * Milford Haven Dock and Railway: 1+1/4 mi
 * Pentewan Railway: ; 4 mi; temporarily closed 1923
 * Trafford Park: 18 mi


text:
Provence, Switzerland

Provence is a municipality in the district of Jura-Nord Vaudois in the canton of Vaud in Switzerland.

History
Provence is first mentioned in 1340 as Provency.

Geography
Provence has an area,, of 31.84 km2. Of this area, 17.36 km2 or 54.5% is used for agricultural purposes, while 13.74 km2 or 43.2% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 0.7 km2 or 2.2% is settled (buildings or roads) and 0.06 km2 or 0.2% is unproductive land.

Of the built up area, housing and buildings made up 0.7% and transportation infrastructure made up 1.5%. Out of the forested land, 36.1% of the total land area is heavily forested and 7.0% is covered with orchards or small clusters of trees. Of the agricultural land, 3.2% is used for growing crops and 12.4% is pastures and 38.6% is used for alpine pastures.

The municipality was part of the Grandson District until it was dissolved on 31 August 2006, and Provence became part of the new district of Jura-Nord Vaudois.

The municipality is located on the border of the Val-de-Travers and stretches from the foot of Mont Aubert to Creux-du-Van. It consists of the village of Provence, the hamlet of Les Prises, the housing development of Montagne Devant and the La Nouvelle Censière area.

Coat of arms
The blazon of the municipal coat of arms is Pally of Six Argent and Azure, a Buck Gules crowned with a Latin cross emanating Or.

Demographics
Provence has a population of. , 4.9% of the population are resident foreign nationals. Over the last 10 years (1999–2009) the population has changed at a rate of 5.6%. It has changed at a rate of 8.3% due to migration and at a rate of -2.7% due to births and deaths.

Most of the population speaks French (354 or 96.2%), with German being second most common (11 or 3.0%) and Italian being third (1 or 0.3%).

Of the population in the municipality 154 or about 41.8% were born in Provence and lived there in 2000. There were 57 or 15.5% who were born in the same canton, while 96 or 26.1% were born somewhere else in Switzerland, and 25 or 6.8% were born outside of Switzerland.

In there were 3 live births to Swiss citizens and were 2 deaths of Swiss citizens. Ignoring immigration and emigration, the population of Swiss citizens increased by 1 while the foreign population remained the same. There was 1 Swiss man and 1 Swiss woman who emigrated from Switzerland. At the same time, there was 2 non-Swiss women who immigrated from another country to Switzerland. The total Swiss population change in 2008 (from all sources, including moves across municipal borders) was a decrease of 2 and the non-Swiss population increased by 1 people. This represents a population growth rate of -0.3%.

The age distribution,, in Provence is; 29 children or 8.1% of the population are between 0 and 9 years old and 54 teenagers or 15.1% are between 10 and 19. Of the adult population, 34 people or 9.5% of the population are between 20 and 29 years old. 46 people or 12.8% are between 30 and 39, 60 people or 16.8% are between 40 and 49, and 41 people or 11.5% are between 50 and 59. The senior population distribution is 45 people or 12.6% of the population are between 60 and 69 years old, 30 people or 8.4% are between 70 and 79, there are 18 people or 5.0% who are between 80 and 89, and there is 1 person who is 90 and older.

, there were 165 people who were single and never married in the municipality. There were 154 married individuals, 27 widows or widowers and 22 individuals who are divorced.

, there were 144 private households in the municipality, and an average of 2.3 persons per household. There were 48 households that consist of only one person and 13 households with five or more people. Out of a total of 148 households that answered this question, 32.4% were households made up of just one person and there was 1 adult who lived with their parents. Of the rest of the households, there are 40 married couples without children, 43 married couples with children There were 7 single parents with a child or children. There were 5 households that were made up of unrelated people and 4 households that were made up of some sort of institution or another collective housing.

there were 51 single family homes (or 40.2% of the total) out of a total of 127 inhabited buildings. There were 21 multi-family buildings (16.5%), along with 44 multi-purpose buildings that were mostly used for housing (34.6%) and 11 other use buildings (commercial or industrial) that also had some housing (8.7%). Of the single family homes 35 were built before 1919, while 5 were built between 1990 and 2000. The most multi-family homes (16) were built before 1919 and the next most (2) were built between 1961 and 1970.

there were 165 apartments in the municipality. The most common apartment size was 3 rooms of which there were 46. There were 6 single room apartments and 44 apartments with five or more rooms. Of these apartments, a total of 127 apartments (77.0% of the total) were permanently occupied, while 29 apartments (17.6%) were seasonally occupied and 9 apartments (5.5%) were empty. , the construction rate of new housing units was 0 new units per 1000 residents. The vacancy rate for the municipality,, was 0.58%.

The historical population is given in the following chart:

Heritage sites of national significance
The Chalet D’Alpage La Redalle is listed as a Swiss heritage site of national significance. The entire village of Provence is part of the Inventory of Swiss Heritage Sites.

Politics
In the 2007 federal election the most popular party was the SP which received 30.89% of the vote. The next three most popular parties were the SVP (29.84%), the Green Party (17.43%) and the FDP (7.07%). In the federal election, a total of 100 votes were cast, and the voter turnout was 40.0%.

Economy
, Provence had an unemployment rate of 1.5%. , there were 62 people employed in the primary economic sector and about 22 businesses involved in this sector. 11 people were employed in the secondary sector and there were 4 businesses in this sector. 47 people were employed in the tertiary sector, with 9 businesses in this sector. There were 163 residents of the municipality who were employed in some capacity, of which females made up 41.7% of the workforce.

the total number of full-time equivalent jobs was 94. The number of jobs in the primary sector was 49, of which 46 were in agriculture and 3 were in forestry or lumber production. The number of jobs in the secondary sector was 8, all of which were in manufacturing. The number of jobs in the tertiary sector was 37. In the tertiary sector; 5 or 13.5% were in wholesale or retail sales or the repair of motor vehicles, 8 or 21.6% were in a hotel or restaurant, 1 was in the information industry, 3 or 8.1% were in education and 21 or 56.8% were in health care.

, there were 31 workers who commuted into the municipality and 80 workers who commuted away. The municipality is a net exporter of workers, with about 2.6 workers leaving the municipality for every one entering. Of the working population, 7.4% used public transportation to get to work, and 50.9% used a private car.

Religion
From the, 32 or 8.7% were Roman Catholic, while 243 or 66.0% belonged to the Swiss Reformed Church. Of the rest of the population, there was 1 member of an Orthodox church, and there were 12 individuals (or about 3.26% of the population) who belonged to another Christian church. 56 (or about 15.22% of the population) belonged to no church, are agnostic or atheist, and 30 individuals (or about 8.15% of the population) did not answer the question.

Education
In Provence about 97 or (26.4%) of the population have completed non-mandatory upper secondary education, and 30 or (8.2%) have completed additional higher education (either university or a Fachhochschule). Of the 30 who completed tertiary schooling, 53.3% were Swiss men, 36.7% were Swiss women.

In the 2009/2010 school year there were a total of 44 students in the Provence school district. In the Vaud cantonal school system, two years of non-obligatory pre-school are provided by the political districts. During the school year, the political district provided pre-school care for a total of 578 children of which 359 children (62.1%) received subsidized pre-school care. The canton's primary school program requires students to attend for four years. There were 19 students in the municipal primary school program. The obligatory lower secondary school program lasts for six years and there were 22 students in those schools. There were also 3 students who were home schooled or attended another non-traditional school.

, there were 11 students in Provence who came from another municipality, while 32 residents attended schools outside the municipality.

title: Provence, Switzerland


text:
John S. Spence

John Selby Spence (February 29, 1788 – October 24, 1840) was an American politician.

Born near Snow Hill, Maryland, Spence attended the common schools and graduated from the medical department of the University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia in 1809 and practiced in Worcester County, Maryland. Spence served as a member of both the Maryland House of Delegates and as a member of the Maryland State Senate. In 1822, Spence was elected to the Eighteenth Congress, and served from March 4, 1823, to March 3, 1825. He was again elected as an Anti-Jacksonian in 1830 to the Twenty-second Congress, and served from March 4, 1831, to March 3, 1833.

In 1836, Spence was elected as an Anti-Jacksonian (later Whig) to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Robert H. Goldsborough. He was reelected in 1837, and served from December 31, 1836, until his death near Berlin, Maryland, in 1840. He is interred in the Episcopal Churchyard.

title: John S. Spence


text:
Talk:Helmut Schmidt

Untitled
NOT vandalism. same text as is in german Wikipedia.

Jewish ancestry and identity
Could we have some more info on Helmut Schmidts jewish ancestory and how it played into his politics? Also is he Germanys first ethnically Jewish chancellor?

 * Could first someone try to verify this information or give a source for it? de:Helmut Schmidt and both official biographies linked from there don't say anything about this. Smells a bit like a troll, but I'm not sure. -- till we ☼ ☽ | Talk 17:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Looked my self and found this http://www.das-parlament.de/2003/40_41/DaspolitischeBuch/006.html - a review of a book about Schmidt. There it is said that indeed his father was the illegitimate son of a jewish trader, but that Schmidt himself didn't know about this until later (it isn't specified what later is). I'd say this ancestory didn't play a role in Schmidts politics, it is not even sure if he knew about it then. I'm not sure how the category:Jews is organized, but I'm quite sure that Helmut Schmidt isn't placed there correctly, so I removed that category entry. -- till we ☼ ☽ | Talk 17:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Schmidt himself made that public in 1984, two years after he had left office. His biological grandfather gave Schmidts father Gustav to the Schmidt-family, who adopted the child. I don't think there was any influence on his politics as chancellor, and I certainly would not think of Schmidt as 'ethnically Jewish'. It's of course interesting when you look at his youth under the nazis. He always said he didn't like them, because they had forbidden the paintings of several artists he liked. That his father would have had serious problems, had his ancestory been revealed, was certainly a far stronger reason for him. Nevfennas 17:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * He's an ethnic Jew plain and simple, if you have Jewish backround, you are an ethnic Jew.

 * That's nonsense. Jewishness is not inherited genetically but culturally through indoctrination during one's upbringing. Maybe a look at Ethnicity will help. Mr Schmidt is not a Jew. He's just a heavy smoker. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A little clarity here. 1) Under traditional Jewish law, Helmut Schmidt is not Jewish, because his mother was not. For the same reason, neither was his father. 2) Under the Nuremberg laws of 1935, which defined "who is a Jew" for Nazi racial purposes, Schmidt would have been counted as a quasi-Jew and therefore not inexorably subject to disenfranchisement and deportation. However, he would have remained at considerable risk, and almost certainly not elegible for service as an officer in the Wehrmacht. Under the circumstances, he would have had to have been insane to reveal anything.

The Nazi laws established three categories of "Mischlinge" or people of mixed origin. Gender was irrelevant. The "worst," of course, was someone who had three Jewish grandparents and one Gentile grandparent. That person was flat-out "Jewish." The next "worst" was a "Mischling of the First Degree," meaning someone with two Jewish grandparents. In the least disadvantageous category belonged somone like Schmidt, who was a "Mischling of the First Degree," meaning someone who had one Jewish grandparent. Nonetheless it was hardly a desireable or "safe" situation for him.

It is worth noting the cynicism undergirding these laws in the first place. The authorities could "aryanize" people for whatever reason. Furthermore, exclusions were written into the laws for Hitler and all of the top Nazi brass. Therefore, if perchance the rumors surrounding Hitler's alleged Jewish grandfather somehow turned out to be true, Hitler himself would have remained beyond reproach, at least from an official standpoint. (Whether in fact Hitler's father, Alois (Schicklgruber) Hitler was in fact half-Jewish has never been conclusively proven.)

bamjd3d 0938 PST 21 June 2005

 * So did he "come out" about being Jewish before, after or during his chancellorary.

 * Just how stupid are u people?? He's a non-practicing lutheran, and has been all his life. His ancestry doesn't make him jewish, christian, muslim or anything; these are religions, not races! religion isn't in your f***ing blood! -- 82.198.201.170 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

After all many Nazis had Jewish blood and got their Blood Certificate through corruption and friendship with Nazi leaders. Even Hitler accepted to give a Blood Certificate to Field Marshall Erhard Milch, whose father was Jew, as he was a good friend of Hermann Göring. So even in the worst times there are exceptions. It would be a very intersting movie: "Erhard Milch, the Jewish Nazi General"--81.36.211.93 (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Schmidt already knew in the 1930s about his Jewish grandfather. He falsified documents about his ancestry being not pure "arien", so he won't get any troubles (See: "Auf eine Zigarette mit Helmut Schmidt" by Giovanni di Lorenzo and Helmut Schmidt) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.207.1 (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

nukes
Although it might be true that he was against nuclear weapons in his early political days, it was Schmidt who made possible the permanent posting of cruise missiles in Germany in the 70s! Remarquable also are his appearances in Bohemian Grove about which has even written a few words in his biography.

Source?
User:212.185.62.98 inserted the following claim, about Schmidt's Jewish ancestry:
 * Only under pressure did Helmut Schmidt publicly admit the fact in 1984, after journalists had learned of it from his friend Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.

Do we have a source for this? The anonymous user has inserted dubious claims elsewhere. --- Charles Stewart 19:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Under pressure? I doubt it.  I've seen a number of interviews in which he VERY candidly talks about his Jewish ancestry, and the lengths with which he went to conceal it (by falsifying documents, etc).  I'll find the sources and post them here later.  I think he revealed it after he left office because it would no longer present any political problems for him.  He had been publicly excoriated by Menachem Begin for his role in the war; as I recall, Begin's language came across as harsh, undiplomatic, and downright mean.  But it begins to make sense if Begin knew - as he may well have - what most of the public didn't know at the time. If Begin did know about Schmidt's origins, it is understandable that he found that hard to take.  How members of the German, Israeli, and international public might have put together his partly Jewish origins and his wartime roles MAY have been why he never publicly revealed the matter until after he had retired.  Then again, it may just not have been an important factor in his thinking until he got older.  I will try to find out more about it.  David Cannon (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Source: Hand aufs Herz Helmut Schmidt im Gespräch mit Sandra Maischberger ISBN 3430179645

It's discussed inside the book which is mostly an interview with Schmidt. I don't know if there is an english translation, I doubt most of it would be interesting for people outside Germany). Nevfennas 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Karl Popper?
Schmidt is listed in the Karl Popper infobox as having been "influenced" by Popper. Is there anything to this? A Geek Tragedy 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Climate change skeptics category
I've included Helmut Schmidt to the global warming skeptics category because he is a textbook example of the mainstream skeptical opinions. See e.g.. He says that the hysteria should stop, the climate has always been changing, and the reasons behind various climate changes haven't been properly researched so far. It's how Wikipedia defines skeptics and his opinions are virtually identical to those of Michael Crichton and other skeptics. --Lumidek 06:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - no. It is possible to think that the debate is hysterical - and at the same time agree that climate is changing by greenhouse gases. You should notice that he continues on arguing that Nuclear power is the only way to "protect the climate" (klima-shutz). --Kim D. Petersen 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Helmut Schmidt is a skeptic

English http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/03/helmut-schmidt-calls-for-ipcc-inquiry German http://www.mpg.de/print/990353 Get over it Kim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.188.63 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Musician
Maybe it could be added that, as described in the German article, Schmidt is a fine pianist, with professional recordings to his credit. (e.g. Johann Sebastian Bach: Concerto for 4 Pianos and Strings in A minor, BWV 1065. Hamburg Philharmonic, Christoph Eschenbach, Justus Frantz, Gerhard Oppitz and Helmut Schmidt. Deutsche Grammophon 415 655-2. See also ). L'omo del batocio 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something?
The award of the Schleyer Prize is 2013 on this page and 2012 on the page of the Prize. Perhaps someone can find out what is the correct year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.29.124 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As of 2008, he is the oldest German Chancellor alive. Did I miss something? Which of them died this year? --85.181.238.167 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

ONO one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mux (talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed 'as of 2008', which wrongly implied that he became the oldest living German Chancellor this year, when in fact he has been the oldest living for years. F W Nietzsche (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He is the oldest chancellor alive since the death of Willy Brandt on 08th October 1992. And since 06th October 2009 he even is the oldest former Federal Minister alive since the death of Werner Maihofer.YOG'TZE (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)YOG'TZE

I removed the statements mentioned above from the article. Although I only now understand the point of him being oldest minister, this is a trivial fact that, if it should be mentioned at all, should not be in the lead. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but this fact is not totally unimportant as it's remarkable he's the oldest chancelor ever and the current oldest minister alive. If you want to remove this from the lead, please place it somewhere else in the article but from my POV, it could remain in the lead as it is important enough. YOG'TZE (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Last surviving person to have been solely Chancellor of West Germany"
This needs to be phrased differently. Helmut Schmidt was Federal Chancellor or Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. There was no office "Chancellor of West Germany" (definitely not with a capital "C"). I do not see what is supposed to be unnecessarily ambiguous about "Federal Republic of Germany before re-unification"; anything less ambiguous in this context risks being POV. --Boson (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with Chancellor of West Germany at all. You don't have any problem with "U.S. President" (with a capital P) instead of "President of the United States of America" either, don't you?--84.138.18.134 (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad example. The German Reunification didn’t create a new state. The former GDR just joined the Federal Republic of Germany. There is no difference in the Office of Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany and Chancellor of West Germany. Merkel has the same Office he had, so he isn't the last Chancellor. It is comparable to States joining the U.S (like Alaska and Hawaii did in 1959).

It is also not true that he never accepted a medal. He did reject them later, as it is against hanseatic tradition and forbidden for a (former) member of the Senate of Hamburg to accept orders or medals. But during WW2 he received and accepted an Iron Cross (see German Wiki Article of Schmidt or "Jonathan Carr, Helmut Schmidt. Econ, Düsseldorf/Wien 1985, S. 29. Zwei Bilder von 1942 belegen zudem das Eiserne Kreuz: Vgl. Hartmut Soell: Helmut Schmidt: 1918–1969. Vernunft und Leidenschaft. DVA, München 2004, zwischen S. 272–273. Jonathan Carr: Helmut Schmidt. Econ, Düsseldorf/Wien 1985, zwischen S. 136–137" and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesverdienstkreuz#Hamburg). --46.59.166.110 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Helmut Schmidt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121123223222/http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/148.pdf to http://www.lisproject.org/publications/liswps/148.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Accolade refs
Unfind ref to "Naples Prize of [sic.] Journalism / Neapel-Preis des Journalismus. Deleted. Sca (talk)
 * Having trouble finding refs to other 'accolades' – such as Spanish journalism prize Godo. Perhaps this section should be curtailed, leaving only the more notable awards. Sca (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The various government members
I removed a massive unreferenced section. It didn't seem particularly relevant in any case, but if someone cares to create a spinoff list of something to incorporate the information I removed, fine. For attribution purposes, this is the edit I made. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good decision. Will make seperate articles for the cabinets at a later point. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Early Life, Military Service, "Jewish", and College Education
OK. There is a brief section on his military service. No mention if ever wounded, or ranks achieved. Should be if information is available. It does not directly state - but is inferred some college attendance occurred before Military service- should add some specifics. How much there is on talk page as to Jewish seems ridiculous to me. He served in the German Army. If there was a question on Jewish anchestory then, he would have been stuck as a factory worker, and not in the military with weapon access. Wfoj3 (talk)!
 * His grandfather was Jewish, a fact kept from the authorities, which allowed him to serve in the army. Otherwise, it would not have been the factory he'd been heading to... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Germany has no real eqivalence to the American college. Schmidt made his Abitur in 1937 and served afterwards in the RAD and then the Wehrmacht. After the regular conscription time of 2 years, WW2 had already started. After the war, he could study directly at the University.--Beliar (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

British or American English?
Denfense/Defence still appears in both forms on this page. Could we please decide which English form should be used. As Schmidt was a European, I would suggest British English is a better choice.IsarSteve (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Schmidt's seat in the Bundestag
He obviously had one, so which one was it? Was he elected from a constituency or on a state list? Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the German page: Schmidt was elected in 53 and 65 via state list. In 57 and 61 he won the constituency Hamburg VIII, in all other years he won the constituency Hamburg-Bergedorf. BR Ulrich Nillurcheier (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't speak German, so it would've been rather difficult for me to find that out. Would you be willing to provide the sources that say that so this information may be added to the page? I am also attempting to assemble a succession linkage of articles on Bundestag seats held by the Chancellor (since the establishment of the Federal Republic); for comparison see Sedgefield (UK Parliament constituency) (for an example of a former head of government seat) and Papineau (electoral district) (for an example of a present head of government seat. Thank you! Lockesdonkey (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the German wiki entry references another German wiki entry which references [this].
 * None of this makes too much sense without a deeper understanding of the voting system.  As far as I can see, there is no idiot proof guide to the German electoral system on English language wikipedia.   Which is a pity.   If anyone has the necessary time and insights to spend the holiday creating one, that would be a seriously useful thing to do.   And thank you "Im Vorhaus" (or maybe Hoffnung/Hope).
 * (If anyone with a sufficient appetite for the screamingly ....um ... bizarre were moved to add a second idiot proof guide, to the "single list" voting system they operated in East Germany UNTIL 1990, that would be seriously interesting/useful too, though self-evidently that has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion on Helmut Schmidt.  Still, it's just possible that with a high profile entry such as this one, the request might get noticed by ... someone.)   Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This archive seems to be a better source: http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/cgi/show.php?fileToLoad=627&id=12 I will add the info as soon as possible. Yes, the German voting system is a bit tricky Nillurcheier (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I will also provide sources once I start/finish my workovers of Schmidt's and Kohl's articles in January. Also, it's "im Voraus", not "im Vorhaus" (which would be in the front house). Merry christmas! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Place of birth
Helmut Schmidt was born in Hamburg in 1918. At the time of his birth, Germany's official name was the German Reich (commonly referred to as the Weimar Republic by posterity). Given the political upheaval and emergence of several 'German' polities (Kaiserreich, Weimar, Third Reich, East, West etc.) across the twentieth century, and in the interest of historical fact, accuracy, and avoiding confusion, it would be prudent to have an underlying link directing to the German Reich/Weimar Republic page on his place of birth. In other words, the Germany he died in was not constitutionally, territorially or politically the Germany he was born in.

Some have argued that this is wrong - that historical 'time periods' should not feature in this respect. However, as a riposte to their refusal to reach consensus, I point to the Wikipedia page for Adolf Hitler. This details his place of death as 'Nazi Germany', however, this was never the official name of Germany. In fact, during the Nazi period, Germany continued to use the same official name as the Weimar Republic, the 'German Reich'. There is, therefore, inconsistency across Wikipedia's articles.

As a point of comparison, the articles of numerous historical and contemporary personalities on Wikipedia detail their places of birth as states that are no longer in existence today. This, I believe, is right and historically accurate. It enriches the general information about the person and provides the reader with convenient historical context. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 * This has been explained to you ad nauseam, for example on your talk page by Geraldo Perez, who wrote
 * "For most biographical articles and per conventions at WP:OVERLINKING, major geographical locations are left unlinked as most readers don't need the common country names defined in any way. People reading bio articles of normal living people will not be interested in an article describing an era of their country at the time of their birth. Linking to something not obviously related to the term linked is also discouraged per WP:EGG as the article that comes up when clicked will be a surprise and not be what is expected."
 * "Birthplace" is about geography, not about the historical era. Nobody was "born in the Weimar Republic"; they were born in Germany (the country) during the political era known unofficially as the Weimar Republic, much like a person can be born in the United Kingdom during the Premiership of Theresa May or born in France during the Fifth Republic. Germany the country is indeed very much in existence today and is the same country (both according to German constitutional law and international law) and cannot be compared to "states that are no longer in existence today." Political and constitutional changes don't mean that a country ceases to exist. For example, France has experienced numerous very significant changes in constitution and form of government since the French revolution and until the postwar era, but that doesn't mean that France the country from before the Fifth Republic no longer exists. --Tataral (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helmut Schmidt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213182242/http://openvault.wgbh.org/wapina/barcode48541schmidt_1/index.html to http://openvault.wgbh.org/wapina/barcode48541schmidt_1/index.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Drafted for Wehrmacht service in 1937 ?
Schmidt was born in 1918. His class was called up later, but not in 1937. This year, the youngest draftees were born in 1916 (see: Reichsgesetzblatt, part I, p. 606: Anordnung über die Aushebung zur Erfüllung der aktiven Dienstpflicht im Jahr 1937 vom 29. Mai 1937). So, it seems that Schmidt has volunteered for Wehrmacht. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 18-year-old were in fact not drafted before the war (in 1937). --129.187.244.19 (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Verteidigungsminister Helmut Schmidt.jpg

Nearly 4,000 words commented out
A huge chunk of this article has been commented out. The text is all in one block, under the heading "chancellorship".

This commented-out block is nearly 4,000 words long, so it is a substantial chunk of the article. The unhidden part is currently 7034 words, so basically one third of the article is commented out.

My burrowing found that some of it was commented-out in this 11 November 2015 edit by @Zwerg Nase with the edit summary whole section is still a mess, subheaders are horrible. Keep blocked out until major work on the section.

This is not a good situation. If there are problems with the section, they should be tagged or removed. But I can see no case for leaving he text in this limbo situation where it is not visible to readers, or to editors unless the o looking for it.

So I propose to uncomment these sections, and restore the text. I do this without having formed any view on the merits of the text, just a desire for the article to develop in the normal way by having the text visible.

Any objections? Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I see that the hidden text text has been uncommented in this edit by User:CheesedToMeetYou.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I do not even remember having done this. Still think that section is not very good though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Similar to what suggested, I uncommented because I saw very little changes in the ~6 years the text was not visible and I believe visible text will lead to a higher chance of improvement. I changed the subtitles slightly in an attempt to improve them, though I have no opinion on whether the information/format should stay in the article, moved to this talk page for potential improvements, or otherwise changed/moved. CheesedToMeetYou (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Predecessor: I think we should list Brandt, not Scheel
I think Walter Scheel should not be mentioned there; he was Foreign secretary and only acting as Bundeskanzler, but never elected. But [https://www.bundestag.de/gg according to the Grundgesetz, Art. 63], the Bundeskanzler has to be elected by the Bundestag which Scheel was not. Accordingly, Schmidt is considered the 5th Bundeskanzler (see here on the website of the Bundestag and there is no portrait of Scheel in the Galerie der Bundeskanzler. Moreover, naming two predecessors is confusing, there can be only one. --Qcomp (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023
On 13 October 1981, Schmidt was fitted with a cardiac pacemaker.

I suggest adding there: ''In August 2002 he suffered a heart attack and subsequently underwent bypass surgery. ''

I suggest a second edit for Honours and awards: Since November 2016 Hamburg Airport has been christened after Schmidt. Tolmount (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 * ✅ using this citation. Xan747 ✈ 🧑✈ 22:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023
 On 27 August 2002, he suffered a heart attack and subsequently underwent bypass surgery.

This sentence about him having the heart attack was added because of an edit request of mine. It originally just said In August 2002, it was changed afterwards to 27 August, which is incorrect. The linked article in Der Spiegel was published on the 27th, a Tuesday. But the article says that Schmidt suffered the heart attack past Saturday, ergo the 24th. If we're doing exact dates it was on the 24th. Tolmount (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  Wandering  Morpheme   22:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Helmut Schmidt


text:
File:Whatif105.jpg

Summary
Cover to '''What If? (volume 2) #105''', February, 1998. Featuring Spider-Girl. Art by Ron Frenz. © Marvel Comics.

title: File:Whatif105.jpg


text:
User:Txqueen

=Txqueen= To put it simply, I am from Texas and I am "Queen of Everything" in my own little household.

I am engaging and literate. I write professionally. I have a background in journalism and teaching. I adore history research and consider myself a cryptofolklorist (collecting cryptofolklore) I once published a book of poetry, but to my knowledge only a few copies sold.

I have a husband whom I adore, a teenage daughter whom I consider talented, and three cats who tell me when its time for me to feed and pet them.

I have a livejournal.com account under the name Spectoria

title: User:Txqueen