text:
Talk:Eastern and Western Vilnius regions

Stalinist polonisation
I find it strange that Soviets were supposed to "polonize" western Vilnius region. I know they successfuly attempted to win the support of Polish minority there in the 1980/90-ies, but I've not heard of any support of the Poles by Soviets. On the contrary - they were being deported to various remote areas of the Soviet Union, which hardly can be called "polonization". What period are you specifically reffering to here ? Lysy 20:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here I am reffering to this page: http://www.lithuanian.net/language/occupied.htm. An excerpt about the polonization is presented bellow

The occupation had a particularly great impact on eastern Lithuania. The Bolsheviks changed the borders of Byelorussia and Lithuania. The Smolensk, Novel, Starodub, etc. districts which had been part of Byelorussia since early times were given to Russia, and the Byelorussian border was moved to the west, into ethnic Lithuanian territory. The Amena (Osmyany) and Svyriai (Svir) districts were taken away from Lithuania, however, the Druskininkai-Marcinkonys section which had been annexed by the Germans, as well as the Klaipeda territory, were returned to Lithuania. According to the terms of the 1944 treaty between the USSR and Poland, approximately 200,000 people were repatriated from Lithuania, mostly from the former Vilnius territory. Among them there were many Lithuanians who identified themselves as Poles in order to escape Stalin's terror. They were quickly replaced with newcomers. Russians moved mainly into the cities and the countryside was filled with immigrants from the neighbouring Byelorussian districts, who inundated the Vilnius territory and became "Poles". Around 1950 Stalin decided that the Lithuanianisation of the Vilnius Region ran counter to Soviet interests. Lithuanian (and even Russian) schools were extensively changed into Polish schools.

The Stalinist Polonisation of the Vilnius territory had begun and was more brutal than that of the Poles during their occupation. Under Bolshevik rule, a great, even fatal blow was struck to the Lithuanian spirit in this area. In many of the settlements where after the war almost everyone spoke or at least understood some Lithuanian, now only the elderly still remember it. For instance, according to official 1933 data, approx 90% of the people in the neighbourhood of Paskonys spoke Lithuanian, in 1979 barely 30% registered themselves as Lithuanians, and in the even more Lithuanian neighbourhood of Dievenikes barely 19%. The ethnic map was being repainted in new colours. However, Lithuanian traditions were maintained in all of these places: Lithuanian roadside crosses (torn down by the Bolsheviks in many places), home woven cloth, towels, blankets with Lithuanian patterns, Lithuanian flower gardens,unaltered methods of farming, as well as Lithuanian customs, legends, superstitions and fragments of ancient mythology prevailed.

DeirYassin 21:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I think he's making up various things, like "It was forbidden to speak Lithuanian ... (in Poland]) by phone as late as 1990". There are more similar examples in his text. I'm sure there's some truth in what he writes, but it's difficult to differentiate between the facts and his imagination. Anyway, the topic is quite interesting and would benefit from a broader research base. Lysy 06:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm maybe there was some long forgotten and unused law, which in theory not allowed to talk Lithuanian on phone? As for the territory mentioned however, there can be another possible proove that the mentioned territories were Lithuanian, is that they were attached in 1940 to Lithuanian SSR, although as you can see in map (this is that small "tail" of Lithuania in the southeast), it wasn't really well for that geographically, as well I seen it ethnical maps it being shown as a Lithuanian speaking area deep into Vilnius region.DeirYassin 12:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I do not doubt this. What surprised me were these "false" Poles from Belarus. How does he know if they were "true" or "false" Poles ? You know, for Polish all this region also in Belarus is "Litwa", so maybe they just moved from one part of Litwa to another one ? Lysy 15:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess the basic support for the idea that someone forcibly polonised some area in Lithuania after WWII comes from a doubtful source: the comparison of 1933 census data with any other census. That census is openly disputed by most historians I've heard of (including Lithuanian ones) for downgrading the number of national minorities in Lithuania. As far as I can tell, the fact that people in 1933 were registered as Lithuanians does not mean that they were Lithuanians indeed. Just compare the alleged number of Poles in Lithuania in 1930's with the number of Poles allowed to leave Samogitia after the WWII (I mean the pre-WWII Lithuania, not the areas annexed by the USSR from Poland). Halibutt 21:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, but in 1933 the mentioned territories (Poškonys, Dieveniškės, etc.) were a part of Poland, not Lithuania. These two villages were attached to Lithuania only in 1940. DeirYassin 21:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I would like to remove the paragraphs about "western Vilnius region" and "Suvalkai region", they are not relevant to the article, but, what's worse, they don't seem to be based on facts. In 1945 about 379.5 thousand Poles wanted to leave Lithuania for Poland.
 * Altogether 190 thousand (190,000 - Polish data, 171,158 - Lithuanian data) were deported from Lithuania, many others were arrested, murdered or sent to Russia, so it's not even funny to write about "Soviet polonization". According to Polish sources around 200 thousand Poles were deported to Poland in 1944-1947 and further 50 thousand were deported in 1956-1959. Number of Polish schools in Lithuania systematically decreased and in 1970 was already below 100 (for over 250 thousand Polish population). Poles were denied opening a Polish cultural society in Lithuania, which was allowed only in 1988. I'm mentioning these things only to explain why this polonization under Soviet Union seems dubious. Lysy 16:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the claim of Belorussians cheatiing that they are Poles is probably wrong, probably author imagined that in Belorussian SSR there were only Belorussians living. However any major settlement under Soviet times was not free but ruled by goevernemnt, and it was common practice to colonise empty territories with people from nearby territories (e.g. abandoned by locals Ruhnu island of Estonia was collonised by people from Kihnu and Saaremaa islands not far away, Memelland territory which lots great part of people was colonised by Samogitians mostly. So it would be natural to assume that after Poles were deported, and after Stalin decided that it wouldnt be good to Lituanize the Western Vilnius region, it might have been decided to settle it with Belorussian Poles. Now I dont know how it is in Belars, but in Lithuania Polish-dominated area did not decreased, and the areas of modern day Lithuania which used to be Polish dominated parts of Vilnius region remains dominated by Poles, e.g. in Šalčininkai district there are 31'223 Poles and 4'086 Lithuanians, in Vilnius district - 54'322 Poles and 19'885 Lithuanians, the districts which are partitioned between former Lithuanian and Polish dominated areas alos has somewhat equal distribution of both nationalities. The only place where former Polish majority is no longer is Vilnius city itself, but even there Poles makes 104'446 people (over 20%), so the number of them not decreased, just that influc of Lithuanians and Russians lowered their portion. Well anyways, my point here is that with known deportations of Poles to Poland, the only way it was possible that such Polish majority was kept everywhere, and also some former Lithuanian-speaking enclaves as one of Dieveniškės-Pošklonys became Polish-dominated, was if there was an influx of Poles from Belorussia or such; and during Soviet times this could have been done only planned. While as for deportations to Siberia, Kazakhstan and such, every nation lost many people in them, including Lithuanians, so they probably didn't alter the ethnic makeup much except for increase of Russian share DeirYassin 17:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, certainly, moving people and whole nations around was one of the Stalin's techniques to create and control local conflicts, which made it easier to control the Soviet empire. Also people thrown out of their houses and forced to live in another environment were easier to control. So, I agree that this seems very much like Stalin to move Poles from Belarus to Lithuania only to be able to later conflict them with Lithuanians. As you probably know, even later in 1980s and 90s there were KGB directives to not allow for Poles and Lithuanians to act friendly together. Unfortunately, the conflicts were only too easy to achieve, even with simple provocations. But back to moving Poles from Belarus to Lithuania - this seems probable, but I think we would need some evidence to support it. I've never heard of it. It would be helpful to observe the growth of Polish population in Lithuania during after-war period, but it's difficult, because there was no census in Lithuania until later 1950s. Polish estimate of Poles in Lithuania in 1945 would be over 400.000. After deprtations in 1944-47 and in 1956-59 there should be then some 150.000 left. Today, 50 years later I believe there are about 200.000 ? It's hard to judge what happened because they woud be now grandchildren of the Poles that decided to stay in Lithuania after the war. So, for not I think the theory about then moving from Belarus is just a theory, nothing more ... Also, remember that Poles from Belarus were also deported to Poland and that still many of them live there. Lysy 18:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The Stalinist Polonisation of the Vilnius territory had begun and was more brutal than that of the Poles during their occupation" (sic!) no comments--Witkacy 20:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is completely truth. Zivinbudas 13:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, I would welcome that this article gets some more neutral POV. There are at least four if not more different point of view here (Belarusian, Lithuanian, Polish and Soviet). I'm not sure if each has to be respresented in this article. Better it would be NPOVised instead by avoiding disputable wording or theories that are not based on proven facts. Lysy 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

How to make this thingie better
I believe we could improve this article by simply adding facts and figures to it. So far it gives plenty of data, but for instance fails to inform an uninformed reader like me where the hell is Eastern Vilnius region. The name would suggest that it's the eastern boroughs of the city of Vilnius, but perhaps I'm wrong. So, here's a list of info we need before I remove the neutrality tag:
 * 1) Where is it (names of towns)?
 * 2) Whose was the area in 1919, 1921, 1923 and 1939?
 * 3) How is it related to the Central Lithuania?
 * 4) Was it an unit of administrative division, a historical region, a range of claims or what?
 * 5) Whether Vilnius Region includes more or less than the Polish Wilno Voivodship?
 * 6) Or are these terms equal?
 * 7) How was the greatest part of historical Vilnius region that was attached to Belorussian SSR related to the areas controlled by Belarus in 1919?
 * 8) Examples of Russification (not Russianization, for G*d's sake!)
 * 9) How is the falsification of censae related to it
 * 10) What exactly is the number of some old people who speak Lithuanian in the region?
 * 11) How is it related to previous Lithuanian population there?
 * 12) If the area was not under Lithuanian sovereignity in 20th century, then how come it was effectively ceded to Belarus?
 * 13) Examples and more facts on Soviet-led Polonisation of the Vilnius area
 * 14) Also, how exactly is the perestroyka concept of finally recognizing the minority rights in the USSR related to Polonisation?
 * 15) If the Lithuanians were unloyal - to whom?
 * 16) If the sithuation in Suwałki (why not to use the proper name for it?) was better, then which period are we referring to?
 * 17) What are the towns with Lithuanian majority there? (actually there is one: Puńsk (Punskas), with some 2000 inhabitants, of whom a large majority are Lithuanians)
 * 18) Also, a general NPOVisation of language and cleanup would be in place. If we write that when all Lithuania was annexed by Russians, then we should post the names of those Russians as well. And so on.

Could anyone reply to those questions and add as much data as possible? This would really be helpful. Halibutt 10:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ok I'll reply:
 * Eastern Vilnius region is the part of Vilnius region (territory I delimited in your map previously which is now part of Belarus, not Lithuania. Main towns are Ašmena, Svyriai, Gardinas, Lyda, Smurgainys, Breslauja and others. The part of Vilnius region which was reattached to Lithuanian SSR after WW2 and now is part of Lithuania (includes Vilnius, Švenčionys, Druskininkai), is Western Vilnius region.
 * The area's history is similar to Vilnius region.
 * Vilnius region is the territory of Lithuania occupied by Poland in the interwar. It was recognised to be a part of Lithuania by Soviet Union-Lithuanian peace treaty, and then occupied by Poland. Central Lithuania was a puppet state established in this region. It included a bit of what is now Western Vilnius region (part of Lithuania), a bit what is now Eastern Vilnius region (part of Belarus), but far from whole these regions. Wilno voivodship included soem eastern territories which are not part of Vilnius region, but excluded some southern territories which were part of Vilnius region (you can check the update on your map I did and compare it to map of Polish interwar voivodships and you'll see).
 * Suvalkai region is not the same as Suwalki. It is also a territory which was claimed by Lithuanians, included cities of Suvalkai, Seinai, Punskas. Suvalkai region is the correct term rather than Suwalki region (but redirect exists from there), because the region was not anyhow defined by Poles, it was only envisioned by Lithuanians. However, unlike Vilnius region, which was occupied part of Lithuania, Suvalkai region was rather a Lithuanian claim, because Suvallkai region was not recognised by anyone as part of Lithuania.
 * Area was Lithuanian territory, and was controlled briefly by Lithuania too, and Soviet Union, which ceded it to Belarussian SSR, always used to recognise it all as part of Lithuania.
 * In USSR Lithuanians were seen as unloyal to USSR, therefore they weren't e.g. hired to do soem jobs, such as commercial pilots for example (in fear that they would go to somewhere to seek assylum) and such. After WW2 there were even plans to exile Lithaunians en masse same as it was don e with certain Caucassian nations.
 * There is Punskas and some nearby villages, as well as villages around Seinai, with Lithuanian majority (in the Suvalkai region)
 * There was Russian politics of getting Poles in Western Vilnius region agaisnt Lithuanian cause of independence, by promising them a special autonomous republic, and doing propaganda that Lithuanians would opress them and such (but I am not an expert here so I dont know too much).
 * About situation in Suvalkai being better, we reffer to all the times basically, after like 50s. Like there are Lthuanian schools in Suvalkai region, but never were in Eastern Vilnius region, etc.

Hope that helps DeirYassin 12:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

And now about the ethnic compositions in Vilnius region (Eastern Lithuania). At the time of occupation of it by poles in 1920 there was an absolute majority of Lithuanians - Lithuanian-speakers and Simple Language-speakers (Tuteishians) and absolute minority of poles in Vilnius region (Eastern Lithuania). There were only big ambitions of polonised Lithuanian (Samogitian) Joseph Pilsudski. Zivinbudas 08:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, few points to your text. 1) The Peace Treaty was signed on July 12, 1920 between the Republic of Lithuania and Soviet Russia and confirmed with USSR in 1926, 1931 and 1934; 2) Western Vilnius region returned to Lithuania in 1939 - 1940, not after WWII; 3) The Peace Treaty of 1920 described Lithuanian - Soviet border until Štabinas - former border between Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland (correctly occupied by poles in 1569 former Lithuanian Vojvodship of Palenkė (Polexia). Further in treaty is pointed that Lithuania should agree with Poland on border in Sudovia. As you know, Lithuanian Army in 1920 liberated all Sudovia and Lithuanian government proposed concrete border (to the South of Augustavas) to Poland. So it wasn't only theoretical claim. Zivinbudas 08:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, both the term "liberated" and "all" are highly disputable. As for liberation - the area with mixed population, with a huge majority of Poles living there, was simply handed over to Lithuania by the German Ober Ost army. The Lithuanian forces simply seized the area after most of the Red Army and German units withdrew from there in late May of 1919. And the Lithuanians were forced by the Entente to abandon it less than a month afterwards, in July of 1919. Moreover, the Lithuanians were not given control over all of the disputed area in Suvalkija either - they controlled the city of Suwałki and Sejny, but not the third most important town of Augustów. Also, if we mention the two-months-long Lithuanian rule over the city of Suwałki, then we should also mention that the town, although governed by the Germans, took part in the Polish parliamentary elections of 1919.

 * Also, the second Lithuanian occupation of the region in 1920 was far from complete. Following the Lithuanian-Soviet Alliance of July 12, the demarcation line between Soviet and Lithuanian troops ran north of Augustów (Orany-Merecz river-Augustów line). The latter city was never seized, and the Lithuanians controlled the other two cities for a few days only. Read more on the Polish-Lithuanian War... Halibutt 02:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, in 1920 Lithuanian Army stopped on Augustavas channel - it was few steps from Augustavas town and about 20 kilometres from proposed to Poland border. Until the Peace Treaty of July 12, 1920 Lithuania claimed much larger territory in Polexia - Balstogė including. Lithuanian-Soviet "alliance" never existed. Zivinbudas 05:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * All right, let's call it military and political agreement to divide the territory of common neighbour and cooperate militarily. And indeed, the army reached the Augustów channel and stayed there between July 5th and July 6th, that is before it was defeated. But the town itself was never taken. Halibutt 07:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

One point of view
This article contains only one point of view, the Lithuanian one, there is nothing about proccess of "lithuanization" of Poles living in this and other parts if Lithuania, still not allowed to use polish signs in their names.

This article is about Eastern Vilnius sregion, which is now in Belarus, not Lithuania (in Lithuania there is Western Vilnius region). Besides, as far as I recon, there was a deal signed which allows Poles to use Polish letters in their names in Lithuania and Lithuanian minority to use Lithuanian letters in their names in Poland. DeirYassin 11:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You see? From the present version of the article it's not clear where exactly the region is. The name suggests that it's close to Vilnius, therefore in Lithuania, while it's not.

 * As to the agreement - indeed such an agreement was signed and since 2000 the Lithuanian minority in Poland is allowed to have their name rendered properly in all documents (the problem was with the diacritics). However, the Lithuanians did not introduce the agreed standards in their offices so far. AFAIR the reason was that Lithuanian offices lack Polish fonts and lack enough computers to be modernised. Halibutt 11:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, I agree to use the term Vilnius region in Lithuania article. So we can say that there was a problem with occupation by poles of Vilnius region (Southern Sudovia including). About the closure of all Lithuanian schools and opening polish shools in their place in 1950 - 1951 by the order of Stalin. This happened in territory united to Lithuania in 1939 - 1940 (Western Vilnius region). This was Stalin's "gift" to Lithuania for Partisan War (1944 - 1953). The same happened in Eastern Vilnius region - unliberated part of Lithuania - but there in place of closed Lithuanian schools were opened bielorussian shools. Zivinbudas 07:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Just a note: Zivinbudas means Lithuanian nationality as I understand, while censae of those times used to show only native language. Poles from Vilnius region according to this view were Polonized Lithuanians (and it is supported by the historical fact that not many Poles actually emmigrated to Lithuania under PLC, it was more like people were learning Polish langauge and starting to use it in day-to-day lives as it was more "prestigious" at the time; similar thing happened in Ireland as Zivinbudas mentioned somewhere else.DeirYassin 08:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * So, if these people were using Polish language, regardless of their nationality, then what's the point in forcing them to go to Lithuanian schools? I don't really get it... Halibutt 09:08, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as I understand nobody forced them to Lithuanian schools, it was rather that there were too few Lithuanian schools even for those who spoke Lithuanian. DeirYassin 10:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, if Lithuanians would have the same rights in present Poland like Tuteishians have in Lithuania, it would be paradise to them. Zivinbudas 09:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

DeirYassin, don't muddle Simple Language which was used by Tuteishians and Polish language. This is a big mistake. Only part of Tuteishians started to use Polish language language after the polonisation policy of occupiers in 1920 - 1939. Zivinbudas 09:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Sources? Halibutt 21:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Liberation of Augustavas and all Southern Suvalkija (Sudovia) in 1920
My first statement was absolutely right. I checked the factes of history of this war. Lithuanian Army liberated Augustavas town and all Southern Suvalkija (Sudovia) in July, 1920. Army reached the confluence of Augustavas channel and Bebra river. Lithuania holded this territory and Augustavas town until late August, 1920 until poles occupied them. So, Halibutt, your statements are completely false. There weren't any military agreements between Lithuania and Soviets. There was only agreement of transfer of recognized territories to Lithuania. Zivinbudas 17:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That's precisely what the article I pointed you to says. It's great you read it. As to the city of Augustów (called Augustavas by the Lithuanians): it was captured by the Red Army on July 29, 1920. It was under Soviet control initially, but was later transferred to Lithuania. It was held in Lithuanian hands until August 28, when the Lithuanians started their withdrawal to the other side of the Foch Line - without a single shot fired. During their counter-offensive of September they did not reach the city and were repelled to the north of it. So, altogether, the Lithuanian military held the city for roughly a month. That is one month, as compared to roughly 365 years of the city's existence.

 * Also, how do you thing a huge army hands over quite a big chunk of land to other army without a military agreement? Also, all my sources say that the Lithuanian-Russian agreement of July 12th granted the Red Army the right of passage through Lithuanian territory in exchange for the Polish areas conquered by the Red Army. If that's not a military agreement, then what is it?

 * Finally, what was wrong in my description of the situation? How come it was false? And finally, what does it have to do with the accuracy and NPOV of the article on "Eastern Vilnius region"?

 * As a sidenote: in where I live we usually put down the names of nationalities with capital letter. This is usually explained as a sign of respect for others. Is the situation different in Lithuanian culture? Halibutt 21:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Note to sidenote - actually, yes, in Lithuanian language less things are capitalised than in English, and nationality names (Poles, Lithuanians, etc.) are not capitalised (same as e.g. month names or weekdays, which are also capitalised in English)., therefore some people might incidently apply this when writting in English too maybe. DeirYassin 22:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Note to note to sidenote :) - ok, now I get it, thanks. But why do they keep using the lower case only in relation to "poland", "polish", "poles", "pole", and so on? Never mind, I think I get the idea. Halibutt

Augustavas always was a Lithuanian town, in 1569 illegaly occupied with all Lithuanian Vojvodship of Palenkė (Polexia) by Kingdom of Poland. Zivinbudas 10:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * So, it was Lithuanian for 12 years and one month: between its foundation in 1557 and 1569 and then back in 20th century. Quite a short persiod to call it "always"... Halibutt 11:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote illegaly occupied. As you know, breaking of law doesn't create a law. Zivinbudas 12:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * And what made the occupation illegal? Certainly not the concient of the Lithuanian monarch... Halibutt 10:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The article is again violent and highly subjective
The region of northwest Belarus was never part of Lithuania except for in some ambitions of militarist nationalists of the 1920ies. The lands were not inhabited by Baltic population since for centuries, moreover Belarusian speakers were the dominating majority of the whole Vilnia (Vilnius) region by the beginning of he 20th century. When Lithuanian armies got into the /presented to Lithuania by Joseph Stalin/ Vilnia the soldiers were surprised, as there was not a single Lithanian word heard on the streets of Vilnia - only Belarusian, Polish and Yiddish. Even today the elder population of the rural areas of southwest Republic of Lithuania speak pure Belarusian! Just go there and hear it!--Czalex 19:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Not true actually. Polish maybe, not Byelarussian (there are some Belorussians, that is true, but much less than Lithuanians, Poles and such; and in the part of Vilnius region which is now part of Lithuania tehre weren't more of them). Belorussians made majority in parts of Vilnius region, in part of it majority was Lithuanian, in some town Jews made majority, in some places Polish-speakers made majority. It was multiethnic. Some of Lithuanian-speaking islands remained in Eastern Vilnius region, e.g. Rodūnia, Gervėčiai, etc.; these were Russianized/Byelorussianized during Soviet times; once in USSR there were 50,000 Lithuanians in Belarussian SSR, now there are just a few thousands and mostly elderly. And, another truth is that way more territories of the region were Lithuanian once (XVII age and such), but people starte dusing other langauges instead of Lithuanian with time because Lithuanian langauge was unprestisious, the slavinisation happened. I am not saying that whole Eastern Vilnius region was Lithuanan speaking as even if it was, there is no information from those times as that would have been long ago so it is hard to find prooves. Balts however (not Lithuanians, but Balts in general), once lived from Wistula to Moscow river as hydronims and toponyms in area proves (that was very long ago hwoever). Then again, Lithuania is not a continuation of whole Balts or such so of course there can be no claims or such to all these areas. Eastern Vilnius region is not claimed either; here it is an article with information about what this region is and it's history, etc. DeirYassin 20:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It is true. Of course, jewish population was very numerous in urban area, also no one denies that there were Poles and Lithuanians. But ethnographical maps of the begin of 20th century show the Vilnia region with perfectly the same "Belarusian" colour as they show Mahilou or Homiel. So why don't we speak of tens of thousands of Lithuanised Belarusians in west Vilenscyna that were much more than the population of Russified and Belarusianised Baltic lslands of West Belarus? People massively were forced to even change their name from Zubr to Zubrus, from Kavalevic to Kavalevicius, from Sakalouski to Sakalauskas and so on! This had a much larger scale than the demonised Belarusisation described in this article. By the way, Soviet officials would hardly ever support Belarusian language here - Russification was their means and that's what they did in Belarus, Latvia, Ukraine.
 * Doubtless, the whole territory of Belarus used to be inhabited by Baltic (speaking) tribes, but

 * 1) this refers only to the period till early Middle age
 * 2) of course, Baltic does not mean Lithuanian. Belarusians have very much Baltic elements in their culture, language and mentality. In some aspects these elements are even stronger than than Slavic, so, taking into consideration that there were never massive migrations from Belarus and genetically the population of Belarus stayed the same during centuries, some people claim Belarusians to be sth like "the 4th Baltic nation". It means that Baltic does not mean "not Belarusian".
 * An interesting aspect is also why Stalin presented the city of Vilnia to the Lithuanian Republic in 1939, after his invasion in Poland. Would be nice to cover this in the article too --Czalex 20:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As for ethnic maps, it is a matter of opinion/propaganda really, in the same way I seen ethnic maps which shows area as almost fully Polish, and in the same way I seen maps which shows that Lithuanians made majority south to Brest even; back then everybody issued maps which respected more their own views rather than real thing (and in fact, due to what I'll explain bellow, real thing is hard to determinate). While cnsuses doesnt confirms any large availability of spoken Byelorussian in general, not in what is now part of Lithuania I mean (of course, there were and are Belorussians in Gardinas/Hrodna an dsuch). Also, the arguement of Lithuanians was that because there weren't any immigration to the area (only nobles migrated, peasants (majority) used to stay where they born), and the area was once Lithuanian-speaking, that means the Belorussians and Poles were actually Lithuanians speaking Belorussian and Polish respectively (nationality doesnt change, same as e.g. Irish and Scots are of those nationalities even though most of them speaks English as native language now); also, there was large number of people speaking in pidgins (mixed Belorussian-Polish-Lithuanian) so in many cases even determinating language might have been hard (in fact, these pidgin speakers probably made majority, and they were considered by Poles, Lithuanians and Byelorussians to be members of their nationality). All this confusion have been used by the carthographers and such of these nations to draw their own versions of ethnic maps. Stalin gave Vilnius to Lithuania in relation to deal of stationing troops in Lithuania, as well the part of Vilnius region which was given back actually had few Belorussians; the part of Vilnius region which had more of them was attached to Byelorussian SSR. You can start an article about Western Vilnius region if you want (the part of region which was given to Lithuania) and wrie there the reasons of giving it to Lithuania, also Belorussian opinion and such. As for Lituanization of Western Vilnius region, as far as I know there was more polonization because Stalin understood that it will fit Russian interests better if there will be concentrated Polish minority in Lithuania. And you are right I think about the fact that in Eastern Vilnius region Lithuanians were more russianised than belorussianised. Anyways, as a conclusion, I am not saying that current article on Eastern Vilnius region is completely neutral, but still I think it is an useful article as Wikipedia is lare and someone might want to for example to search info about Lithuanians in Belarus during Soviet times, or about the situation of this area and such. I think with time and more edits the article should become more neutral probably. DeirYassin 21:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Maps I am talking of are of Russian and German scientists.
 * Hrodna is and was inhabited by mainly Belarusian population, opinions like "there were and are Belorussians in Gardinas/Hrodna an dsuch" are the same as "there were and are Germans in Bremen as such" *lol*
 * Censuses do confirm large availability of spoken Belarusian in Vilnia region, I will give you numbers if you want
 * About migration: that is really an interesting point. A person's self-identification with either Belarusians or Lithuanians bases mainly on the language spoken, so we have 2 different tendencies with the ethnical border here:
 * 1. Slavisation came up almost to Kouna, there were Belarusian-speaking islands just like Lithuanian-speaking islands in West Belarus.
 * 2. In the 20th century Lithuanisation rolled and rolls back to the newly established state border as the new generation of Vilenscyna people speaks mainly Lithuanian (I already wrote about the old generation above).
 * I already wrote about it: on both borders there are Balts, but some of them spoke and speak Lithuanian, and the others - Belarusian. So, basically, the people of Vilenscyna didn't have to be Belarusianised - they were originally Belarusian-speaking.
 * About Stalin: in 1939 Vilnia was actually firstly attached to the Belarusian SSR, but it just stayed part of Belarus then just for a month or so. There was evidence of almost celebrations in the city because of this (I might be imprecise). Under Polish control Vilnia was the inofficial capital of West Belarus, the center of Belarusian national scholarship, culture, intelligentsiya etc. I already wrote about the nearly absence of Lithuanian speakers among Vilnia inhabitants. So, the minimum we can say is that the Belarusian presence in Vilnia was enormous if not dominant.
 * good idea, I will write an article on this topic to make the issue seen from different viewpoints.--Czalex 22:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting visions which don't have nothing with reality. Simple language-speakers weren't Byelorussians. Tsarist russian government wrote them as Byelorussians in Census of 1897, but this only shows trying to show that Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius region) was close to russian ethnos (the same did polish nationalistes, when wrote Simple language-speaking Lithuanians as poles). Zivinbudas 06:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You have an inferiority complex towards the Poles (side note)--Witkacy 07:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Polakozerca? Tak, lubię sloninkę. Zivinbudas 09:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * (Note: this is answer to Czalex, not Witkacy) What Zivinbudas said is the truth actually; maps I mentioned weren't some things created fro propaganda also, but French maps released before WW1 in Switzerland which shows that Lithuanians were living south even to Brest; and the misconcepton here arises from the fact of usage of various pidgings (or simple langauges, as Zivinbudas said); and everybody used to attribute these people speaking pidgins to their own nationality. Also, languages in fact were never pure at that time, there were always various dialects, on the borders languages were intermixed, etc. especially here because there was actually never a border between Belorussian and Lithuanian nations up till recently. As for islands, the closest to Kaunas point slavinisation were actually influenced by Polish rather than Belorussian - slavinisation does not means belorussianisation, because, as I said, these people spoke pidgins, influenced by Lithuanian, Byelorussian, Polish, Russian languages, etc. Poles, as Zivinbudas said, considers them all to be Poles; Belorussians considers them all to be Belorussians, Lithuanians considers them all to be Lithuanians. Only some of new maps/researches tends to show everything more neutral. In the days before TV, radio and mass travelling such things as pure languages were spoken very rarely; every small region had it's subdialect. The people of Vilnius region (large parts of it) were formerly Lithuanian speaking and slavinised, I have a map of decreasing of spoken Lithuanian there; the reason why I mentioned Gardinas/Hrodna is because it is one of territories of Vilnius region where there is no information that they would previously have been Lithuanian-speaking; however many other areas (including Vilnius and surroundings) were once Lithuanian speaking, but later due to slavinisation it gave way to pidgins. As for celebrations in 1939, I think it is way more related to attaching to USSR rather than to Belarussian SSR; there were of course many communists and such. Celebrations happened in Western Vilnius region when Lithuanians took it also; then Lithuanian community and those who opposed communism were celebrating. As for inofficial capitakl of West Belarus - well, it was largest city, and also historically a cultural center, and historically the capital of state which comprised of Belarus as well (LGD); that is larger reason I think, in city itself there were mostly Jews (Russian and/or Yiddish speaking), Poles and polonized people, only some Lithuanians and Belorussians. DeirYassin 07:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Only one point: the Gardinas' surroundings (and territories to the South until Naura (Narew) river) were Lithuanian-Ruthenian mixed, but local population until polish occupation (1920 - 1939) had strong Lithuanian consciousness. In XIXth century the majority of this population spoke Simple language as well. Zivinbudas 12:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I only wonder on what are you basing your assumptions. Also, Was the situation any different during the previous "Polish occupation" between 16th and 19th centuries? Halibutt 12:53, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Was Gardinas occupied by Poland in 16th - 19th centuries? Study better Lithuanian History and drop away "Historia Polski. Klasa 10. Warszawa, 1935". Zivinbudas 13:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You wrote something about the areas north of Narew river, which were in Poland back then. So, I repeat my questions. Care to reply? Or perhaps you prefer continue your mindless accusations? Halibutt 23:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

(nationality doesnt change, same as e.g. Irish and Scots are of those nationalities even though most of them speaks English as native language now)

British Isles make a rather bad example here - Ireland is an island and Scotland has well established border which didn't change for more then a millenium. Nationality in anglo-saxon world is traditionally defined by territory one lives in, not by language spoken or family origin. People from these areas whose families are of known norman or english descent are still considered to be Scotsmen or Irishmen (and so consider themselves). There is also no clear idea of national minority.

In contrast, national movements of Central and Eastern Europe (including Lithuanian) refer to language and culture rather than area as the basis of nationality. Lithuanian National Movement of late 19th century firmly rejected the historical tradition of large, multi-ethnic GDL and limited is interest to supposed "ethnographic borders" of Lithuania, which (borders) had no historical precedence. This is as if Scottish national movement limited it's interest to Scottish Highlands only and tried to impose Gaelic as only language in the area, calling all english speakers "anglicised Scotsmen".

To put things simply: you can't both have a cake and eat a cake.

 * Either you define Lihuania as an ethnoligustic area - in which case you get a rather small territory and have to accept the fact that some people of provable Lithuanian origin but not using Lithuanian for many generations will see your national movement as something alien and will not join it.

 * Or you refer to historical identity of GDL (as the Irish and Scottish refer to historical and not lingustic borders), in which case you have to accept the fact that ethnic Lithuanians make a minority in the whole historical area, and that for most of the country's history Lithuanian was a language of minor importance and low social status.

 * Needles to say, that nationality is a social construct developed to modern shape by "national movements" of late 19th (or even early 20th) century and spread by means of education system. The idea that nation is some kind of an eternal and permanent being is an invention of romantic nationalism and is not worth serious discussion.

And sorry, but claim that one's nationality is or should be defined excusively by his forefathers origin is plain racism.

 * You did not understood the idea of Lithuanian national revival well. Lithuanian nation could not have been based on GDL same as e.g. English nation could not have been based on whole former British Empire: GDL controlled territories of many nations, same as British Empire did for example (of course, GDL had less territories than British Empire). Lithuanian nation, however, same as Irish or Scottish nations, by the view of XIX age-first part of XX age people, was based also on territory rather than language or culture. The territory, where people once spoke Lithuanian, and therefore they were considered Lithuanians. In the same way in Irish and Scottish territories once Gaelic languages also were widespread, and this is how these territories formed. As for GDL, it started in this ethnic Lithuania, however over the time many territories of other nationalities joined. "Polonized Lithuanians" is just a term I used to refer to them, because it seems to be used in some of the wikipedia's articles; it can be Polish-speaking Lithuanians as well, maybe this would be better. DeirYassin 13:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In the same way in Irish and Scottish territories once Gaelic languages also were widespread, and this is how these territories formed

I can't agree here - Ireland was formed first of all by geological processes, as it is an island ;), so its borders are much more obvious than those of any Central European state. Irish independence movement for most of its history demanded only territorial autonomy and had little interest in language. Scotland was never fully Gaelic speaking (see History of Scotland) and it's territory neither is nor was defined mainly by language criterion.

GDL controlled territories of many nations

The only idea of nation which existed in GDL before mid 19th century was that of political nation of nobles of the whole Grand Duchy - including Minsk, Pinsk and Gomel. By the late 18th century this noble class was almost exclusively Polish speaking and usually not much interested in what language their peasants speak. Most of them would not consider differences between Lithuanian speaking peasant, Polish speaking peasant and Ruthenian speaking peasant (there was no separate term for "Belorusian" back then) to be of any major importance. Peasant was supposed to work hard and obey the orders. In fact a "progressive" nobleman who cared about his peasants would start from teaching them Polish ("the civilised language"). When the GDL-born Polish speaking writer needed to call the language we currently call Lithuanian he would usually use terms like narzecze żmudzkie ("samogitian idiom").

There was obviously also a wider Idea of political nation of the whole Commonwealth (often simply called Poland). Therefore one has to understand that both polish and lithuanian had completly different meanings then.

Modern Lithuanian national movement, led by a small group of intellectuals of mostly peasant origin, created completely new idea of Lithuania and Lithuanian identity, including the idea of polonized lithuanians. As the majority of upper classes felt no connection to that movement and in turn came to support modern Polish nationalism, the movement had also strong socioeconomic or "class" traits (peasants vs landowners). This movement was quite typical for its time - a nice comparative study of 19th century "national revivals" can be found in works of Czech sociologist Miroslav Hroch. (see also Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm - in particular The invention of tradition) To put it clearly: most sociologists and quite a lot of hisotrians would agree, that nations are a fairly modern phenomenon and that "national revival" is in most cases "creation of a nation". Therefore Lithuanian or Belorusian nation simply didn't exist before 19th century (although obviously there were such ethnic groups). The case of Polish nation is a bit more complicated - it's idea may have been not created from scratch, but it definetely was heavily transformed thoughout 19th century. Just like modern Lithuania is not a simple continuation of GDL, modern Poland is not a simple continuation of neither the Crown, not the whole PLC.

Lithuanian nation existed when your slavic mutant bands still jumped on the trees as monkeys. 85.206.192.188 13:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

And now we come to the problem with this article (and a number of other): it shows the ideas (and Estern Vilnius Region is nothing more than an idea) created by Lithuanian intellectuals and spread by Lithuanian schools as more important than political reality. The topic obviously deserves an article, but the one written from neutral perspective, that is describing political claims from the inter-war period as political claims from the inter-war period and not as the only true designation of the area.

 * I'd say that the fact that people does not consider themselves to be part of some nation at any given time does not mean that nations does not exist. Due to isolated place for example people might not even know existance of any other nations (that was the case with rapanui people from Easter Island), due to vast territories controlled by nation and inability to travel they might be unable to see these other nations for themselves; therefore this considering was lacking in past. In fact, I do not see a great difference between ethnicity and nation; proably because in Lithuanian language both words could be translated as "tauta". Lithuanians differend from Eastern Slavs (later Byelorussians, Ukraineans) by language and religion (Lithuanians were first pagan, then adopted catholicism, and Eastern Slavs were eastern orthodox; at the time immidietly after adopting catholicism by the Lithuanian nation there were even some discrimination against orthodoxes: they were not allowed to write their lands in testament to their children). In fact, only now, after Soviet rule (for Poles maybe after interwar), it is so that people of Vilnius region fully consider themselves as Polish (those who speaks Polish) or Byelorussians or Russians (those who speaks respective languages). In the interwar and before, quite many slavic or pidgin speaking people considered themselves Lithuanians, and I mean Lithuanians as what the term means now, not just someone from LGD; me being from Vilnius, I know older people among my relatives and among friends' old relatives who speaks Polish, learned Lithuanian only at school for example but always considered themselves to be Lithuanians. Many of nobles actually considered themselves Lithuanian, many grandchildren and such of them are now speaking Lithuanian as native language, only a part of nobles started thinking of themselves as Polish. As for Eastern Vilnius region being an idea: I guess then many things would be just ideas, all territorial claims and such. I tend to consider real territorial claims, werether present or past, something more than just an idea (e.g. idea of reconnection of eastern Lithuania Minor to Lithuania, which was also considered in the interwar Lithuania, but never had major political backing). If you want to do some NPOV, you can, just don't bring it to another POV. DeirYassin 18:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Western Vilenščyna
Why not making the 2nd part of this article separate? --Czalex 2 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)

 * I agree that it does not belong here, but this whole article is strange anyway. I don't see why it was separated from Vilnius region and why it requires a separate article. Maybe merge it instead ? There seem too many all these Vilnius county, Vilnius apskyrtis, Vilnius region etc. around. In fact I don't know why Vilnius region article was created in the first place as it generally described the same area as Central Lithuania already did. Lysy 2 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

 * Yes it can be made a separate article (Western Vilnius region). As for Vilnius County/Vilniaus Apskritis it is an administrational division, same for Vilnius disrtict municipality and Vilnius city municipality (smaller administrational divisions). Vilnius region is the historical area claimed by Lithuanians, Poles and Belorussians. As for Eastern Vilnius region and Western Vilnius region, maybe they could be merged into Vilnius region, however I think it is easier to use this way. E.g. you could say "Polish minority in Lithuania is mostly in Western Vilnius region" and link instead of saying "Polish minority in Lithuania is mostly concentrated in areas which were controlled by Poland in the interwar, (western part of Vilnius region"; this way it'd also give a wrong implication that the minority only appeared in the interwar or such. Because these areas are a sensitive place and Lithuanian, Belarusian and Polish versions of history and such kinda differs here, I think it is easier to just link from the places of mentioning so people could read all viewpoints and opinions. DeirYassin 8 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

O my God! What a shauvinist nonsenses... I am really shocked to find something like that on Wikipedia.82.163.39.236

Agreed - this should be split or merged with Vilnus region, assuming this can be referenced. Currently Western Vilnius region redirects to Vilnius region, which is confusing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


text:
MIND Institute

The UC Davis MIND Institute (Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders) is a research and treatment center affiliated with the University of California, Davis, with facilities located on the UC Davis Medical Center campus in Sacramento, California. The institute is a consortium of scientists, educators, physicians and parents dedicated to researching the causes of and treatments for autism spectrum disorders, fragile X syndrome, and other neurodevelopmental disorders. The director of the MIND institute is Dr. Leonard Abbeduto.

Origins
Parents of autistic children led the drive to raise funds for the cause, anticipating the institute could become the premiere autism research institute in the world. Among the parents behind the institute are Chuck and Sarah Gardner, whose son Chas has been diagnosed with autism. Chuck is a Sacramento area building contractor and co-founder of the institute along with his wife, Sarah, a television anchorwoman for Sacramento (KCRA 3).

The institute's largest contribution came from the California State Legislature, which provided $34 million to the institute for autism research. The efforts enabled construction of the institute's facility at the UC Davis Medical Center campus in Sacramento. After the major funding from the State, Rick Rollens, the former Secretary of the California State Senate and one of the leaders in the effort to create the institute, said the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was funding genetic-oriented research into autism, and that the MIND Institute was created by parents demanding that scientists look at other causes.

Interdisciplinary research teams
The MIND Institute brings together experts in fields as diverse as molecular genetics and clinical pediatrics, using a multidisciplinary approach to treating and finding cures for neurodevelopmental disorders.

David G. Amaral is the research director of the MIND Institute and a professor in the Department of Psychiatry and the Center for Neuroscience, a neuroscientist who studies the organization of memory systems in the brain. Sally J. Rogers is a specialist in developmental psychology and professor of psychiatry and behavior science for the institute. Jacqueline Crawley is a behavioral neuroscientist and an expert on rodent behavioral analysis and the director of IDDRC Rodent Behavior Core in MIND Institute.

Fragile X and fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome
MIND institute has a major focus on studying neurodevelopmental disorders caused by genetic instability, e.g. fragile X syndrome. Randi J. Hagerman and Paul J. Hagerman have been studying genotype-phenotype correlations in fragile X and potential discovery of targeted treatment.

Prevalence study
In October 2002, the institute released a study appearing to confirm that the prevalence of autism has risen steeply. The study was led by Robert Byrd, whose team gathered information on 684 children with developmental disabilities from California's Department of Developmental Services regional centers. Byrd's team's reported autism was on the rise in California, and that some of the increase was real and could not be explained by artificial factors such as misclassification and diagnostic criteria changes, nor by migration of children into California. However, a 2006 analysis found that special education data poorly measured prevalence because so many cases were undiagnosed, and that the 1994–2003 U.S. increase was associated with declines in other diagnostic categories, indicating that diagnostic substitution had occurred in the U.S. overall (though not in California in particular). The current consensus is that the rise in the number of autism cases is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness, though as-yet-unidentified contributing environmental risk factors cannot be ruled out.

However, a study published in 2009 found that the seven- to eight-fold increase in the number children born in California with autism since 1990 cannot be explained by either changes in diagnosis or counting. Published in the January 2009 issue of Epidemiology, results also suggest that research should shift from genetics to the host of chemicals and infectious microbes in the environment that are likely at the root of changes in the neurodevelopment of California's children.

Autism Phenome Project
In 2006, the MIND Institute launched its Autism Phenome Project, with the objective of identifying biological and behavioral patterns in order to define distinct autism spectrum subtypes. According to Amaral, "The tremendous variation in autism leads us to believe that it is a group of disorders rather than a single one."

The longitudinal study will enroll 1800 children, aged two to four: 900 diagnosed with autism, 450 with developmental delays, and 450 neurotypical control subjects. The study will involve systematic analyses of immune systems, brain structures, genetics, environmental exposures, blood proteins and other developmental indicators, and the medical evaluations will continue for several years. Over time, it is anticipated that this information will assist in determining the appropriate supports or therapies to fulfill each individual's specific requirements.

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

title: MIND Institute


text:
Hierocles (charioteer)

Hierocles (Ἱεροκλῆς, late 2nd century – 222 AD) was a favourite and lover of the Roman Emperor Elagabalus.

Most of the descriptions of his life are given by Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta. Hierocles was from Caria in Anatolia, and was at some point enslaved, later becoming a charioteer in the service of Elagabalus. Initially, he was a lover and student of another charioteer named Gordius.

Elagabalus was said to have been captivated by the blond and youthful Hierocles when the athlete fell in front of him during a chariot race. The Emperor made him his lover and husband and, as a consequence, Hierocles was alleged to have gained significant political influence. Seeing as the monarch considered the blond Hierocles to be his husband, Elagabalus is credited with saying:

"[I am] delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the Queen of Hierocles"

Additionally, Hierocles' mother, a slave, was promoted to be equal among wives of ex-consuls. Hierocles banished the Emperor's other lover, athlete Aurelius Zoticus, and inflicted physical violence upon Elagabalus when the latter was unfaithful.

After Elagabalus granted Hierocles his freedom, he wanted Hierocles to be declared caesar, against the opposition of his grandmother, Julia Maesa. Allegedly, Elagabalus' partiality towards Hierocles, coupled with his eccentricities, were the principal reasons he lost the support of the Praetorian Guard, which led to his death. When the Emperor fell from power in 222, and was assassinated by the Praetorian Guard, Hierocles was executed, along with other members of Elagabalus' court.

title: Hierocles (charioteer)


text:
Category talk:Psychoactive drugs

Untitled
merge template removed, as being a "psychoactive drug" does not at all make something a "psychiatric medication". --Heah 20:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't parent category be "Drugs"?
I see that as of edit 00:15, July 28, 2005 Centrx (this topic does not belong in both categories), this category seized to be a subcategory of "Drugs". I find this hard to understand and I request the rationale for this change. __meco 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

nootropics
should they be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.167.198.34 (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency in amount of data listed
On some pages it will have the onset, duration, and dosages, but on some pages it doesn't even have a very good list of the effects. Ex: 2C-B vs. MDMA Muchotreeo (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Psychoactive drugs


text: File:NIRA logo.png

title: File:NIRA logo.png


text:
Alain Hutchinson

Alain Hutchinson (born 10 December 1949) is a Belgian politician and Member of the European Parliament for the French Community of Belgium with the Parti Socialiste, part of the Socialist Group and sits on the European Parliament's Committee on Development where he is Coordinator for the Socialist group.

He is a substitute for the Subcommittee on Human Rights and a vice-chair of the Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya).

Education

 * 1970: Social worker

Career

 * 1972-1987: Secretary of the FGTB employees' union
 * 1988-1989: Head of the office of the Minister for Social Welfare and Health, French-Speaking Community of Belgium
 * 1989-1999: Head of the office of the Premier of the Brussels-Capital Region
 * 1988-1999: Deputy Mayor for education and culture, Saint-Gilles
 * 1999-2004: State Secretary for housing and energy, Brussels-Capital Region
 * Minister for the Budget and Social Welfare, French Community Commission

Decorations

 * Knight of the Order of the Crown (Belgium)
 * Commander of the Order of Leopold II

title: Alain Hutchinson


text:
Pécs Brewery

Pécs Brewery or Brewery of Pécs (Pécsi Sörfőzde) is of the four big breweries in Hungary and the biggest in the Southern Transdanubia located in Pécs, the capital of Baranya County in southwestern Hungary.

History
The brewery was founded in 1848 by Hirschfeld Lipót (Leopold Hirschfeld). Following the death of Leopold Hirschfeld, his son Sámuel took over the brewery. He expanded the facilities and drilled a spring to provide a supply of good quality water. The Szalon Sör brand was registered as a trademark by the Iparkamara (Industry Chamber) in 1907, and is still produced under that name today. In 1911, Sámuel founded the company that would later become known as Pécsi Sörfőzde Rt. It was first known as Hirschfeld S. Sörgyár Részvénytársaság (S. Hirschfeld Brewery Incorporated). In the following years, the company managed to stay successful and continue operations through the depression, and both world wars. The company was nationalized during the communist takeover following World War II, but during the 1970s and 1980s experienced growth and development that would increase the capacity of the brewery to its current size. In 1992, several years after communism had ended in Hungary, the company again returned to a private corporation. During the privatization in 1993, a large portion of the company was purchased by the Austrian Ottakringer Group. The new ownership and additional capital helped the modernization efforts of the brewery. In 1994, the company name was changed to Pécsi Sörfőzde Rt. (Brewery of Pécs, Inc.). Although the company is majority-owned by the Austrian Ottakringer, it is still run independently of its parent organization, as a truly Hungarian brewery.

Company
In 2000, Pécsi Sörfőzde Rt. was 78% owned by Ottakringer of Vienna, Austria, with another 6% in the hands of Brau Union AG. 12% of the company is owned by employees, and the remaining 4% is owned by private investors, as well as the local city government. Despite the fact that such a large percentage of the company is in Austrian ownership, the company still maintains a distinct independence and pride in being a Hungarian brewery.

Beers
As of October 2005, Pécsi Sörfőzde produces 8 kinds of beer. Six of them are traditional Hungarian brands, while the other two are produced under license from the parent company. The brewery also distributes and sells three Austrian brands within Hungary. The products are sold in bottles (0.33L, 0.5L, 0.66L), cans (0.5L), six packs (6 x 0.5L), barrels (30L, 50L) or any combination thereof. The beers are best known in the Dél-Dunántúl (Southern Transdanubia) region, but they can be found throughout the country as well.

 * Szalon Sör (4.6% alcohol, pale ale) – Essentially, the flagship of the brewery, the Szalon világos sör has been around since 1907, when it was registered as a trademark. Since then, it has gained popularity throughout Hungary.
 * Szalon Félbarna (5.5% alcohol, semi-dark beer) – The newest addition to the product line, this beer combines the lighter taste of a pale ale, and the stronger taste of a darker German-style beer.
 * Szalon Barna (5.8% alcohol, dark German style) – This beer has proven to be a valuable product for the brewery since it was introduced next to the Szalon Sör in 1994.
 * Három Királyok (6.6% alcohol, seasonal beer) – Három Királyok (Three Kings) was introduced in 1999 as a seasonal beer produced for a limited time around Christmas and New Year's Eve. It is also the highest alcohol beer produced by the brewery
 * Tavaszi Sör (4.8% alcohol, seasonal beer) – Tavaszi Sör (Spring Beer) is another seasonal offering of the company that was introduced around the same time as Három Királyok. As the name states, the beer is produced in the spring time, and is somewhat lighter than its winter counterpart, befitting the season.
 * Radler (1.4% alcohol, soft drink-beer) – Introduced in a complete untouched segment, the Radler is a light, low-alcohol beer that is essentially a combination of lemonade and beer.
 * Gold Fassl Pils (4.8% alcohol, Pilsner) – Owned by the parent company, Ottakringer, and licensed to Pécsi Sörfőzde for brewing in Hungary, this is a light Vienna lager.
 * Gold Fassl Spezial (5.3% alcohol, pale ale) – This somewhat heavier, golden-colored ale originally from Vienna is also produced under license in Hungary.

In addition to the seven listed above, the brewery also sells three other Austrian brands. Ottakringer Helles (5.2% alc.) famous in Vienna, and the Schneider Weisse (5.4% alc.) unfiltered wheat beer originally from Bavaria in southern Germany are the two alcoholic ones. The Null Komma Josef is a non-alcoholic beer sold only in small 0.33L bottles, which is a valuable addition to the product family, since Hungary has a zero tolerance policy for driving while intoxicated (maximum 0.0% allowable blood alcohol level).

In addition to widely distributed beers, the brewery also produces "Pécsi sör" on a microbrewery basis. This special unfiltered beer (5.2% alc.) is only available in a limited number of licensed establishments in Pécs (the most locally known is Cellárium).

title: Pécs Brewery


text:
Macc Lads

The Macc Lads are an English punk rock band from Macclesfield, Cheshire, England. Self-proclaimed the "rudest, crudest, lewdest, drunkest band in Christendom", the Macc Lads have typically used irreverent, foul-mouthed and politically incorrect lyrics; common themes have been binge drinking, sex and fighting.

Concerts
The band were prevented from entering or ejected from venues in Macclesfield, London, Huddersfield, Bury, Cornwall, Blackpool, Colchester, Hull, Newcastle, Cleethorpes, Northampton, Leeds, Wigan, Lincoln, Bolton, Mansfield, Portsmouth, Cheltenham, and Norwich. They were also banned from entering the United States.

A concert at the Birmingham Hummingbird in 1989 resulted in thousands of pounds' worth of damage by fans. Vandalism included scaffolding being pulled apart and thrown onstage as well as a broken toilet, pots of paint and ashtrays. Band members McCavity and Muttley suffered cut heads and fans went on stage to fight the road crew and stage security members Lockstock and Mungo. At the end of March 1990 the band played at The Marquee Club in Tottenham Court Road, London on the same day as the Poll Tax Riots were taking place in the streets outside. Many fans were caught in the cross-fire between fighting in the concert venue and the rioting on the streets.

The Lads' website states that at a gig in Cheltenham in 1991 a "bag of hot sick" was thrown at the band.

The band played their 500th gig at Nottingham Rock City on 4 December 1995.

Break up, subsequent media appearances and reunion
Before reforming in 2018, the band last performed at a private show in 1997 for Muttley's local football team in Macclesfield. The line-up was the four-piece of Muttley, Winston Dread, Al O'Peesha and Johnny Mard. In 1999 Stez Styx, The Beater, Muttley and Al O'Peesha reunited for an interview at the Ivy House pub, Macclesfield for The Bear's Head fan website. This was conducted by long-term Macc Lads fan and Bear's Head fansite contributor Lance Manley, also known as Liquid Goblin.

On 23 June 2015 The Guardian published an article by Ian Gittins in which he put a satirical interpretation on the Macc Lads' lyrics and said that they had arrived "too early" in music history to not be taken at face value. The article stated that they were ultimately "a coarse yet clever spoof". Muttley McLad himself rejected this description, saying "There was no ulterior motive, The Guardian are reading too much into it. Making us out to be witty, intelligent satirists is probably the worst thing that's ever been said about us."

In November 2015 a five-minute documentary called Coffee, Sex & Johnny Bags by The Beater's son Joe Conning was made and published on 2 January 2016 on YouTube and social media. The video is another reunion of the original line-up with Muttley, The Beater and Stez Styx giving insights into lyrics the band wrote plus reflections on their success. Also contributing was long-term "affiliate" Bammy the Bamster who is mentioned in a couple of the band's songs.

On 25 February 2017, the Macc Lads members Muttley McLad, The Beater, Stez Styx and Chorley the Hord reunited for a gig as F.I.L.F. with Bammy the Bamster on vocals. Although not an official reunion of the Macc Lads, this was the first time in since 1988 that Muttley, Chorley and Beater have played in the same band and the first time that Chorley and Stez have shared a stage. F.I.L.F. are an ongoing project aiming to cover classic punk music, and began closing performances with Macc Lads material at Blackpool's Rebellion Festival. A gig at No.5 Bar in Macclesfield on 10 February 2018 sold out in three days.

On 1 July 2018 Lance Manley published a memoir of his time following the Macc Lads. Entitled Beer, Sweat & Blood: On Tour With The Macc Lads, the book covers the period 1988 to 1999 and the recent reunion.

On 3 August 2018, the Macc Lads reformed to play the Rebellion Festival in Blackpool. The line-up was the same as F.I.L.F. with Bammy on vocals. Two months later Muttley resumed lead vocals, and Bammy stepped aside to become the band's full-time manager. A tour entitled The Usual Subjects took place in November 2018 with all of the gigs sold out.

On 16 November 2019 Lance Manley published a follow-up book entitled From The Cradle To The Gravy: Fan Tales Of The Macc Lads which features short stories and tales from other fans and associates of the band over the years.

On 14 December 2019 the band released their first original material since 2006. A vinyl 7-inch single with the tracks Mary, Queen of Pox and Middle Finger was given away free to all fans attending the final gig of 2019, at the Engine Shed in Lincoln.

In 2020 the Macc Lads began selling their own range of COVID-19 face-masks, featuring a cartoon of a stubbly chin and a mouth holding a lit cigarette. They also released five new songs via their website: "Devil's Handcart", "Best Barbershop", "Black Latrine", "Sunniside Nursing Home" and "Curley Clare". There is a video for "Curly Clare" featuring Muttley and the Beater.

In December 2020 the Macc Lads published a Ladvent calendar on their website. This featured a one-minute track entitled "Let's Get Pissed Again" which was originally featured on the 1982 release "Minge Pies & Mistletoe". Its lyrics were changed to reflect the lockdown over COVID-19. This calendar has been repeated with different material every December since then.

In February 2022 the Macc Lads manager Bammy stated that the 2021 tour was possibly the last one with that line-up but material will continue in other forms.

In December 2022 a new song was released on the Ladvent calendar entitled "More Kids". It is about a man lamenting that his children are politically correct, vegan and "woke" and surmising that he could always have more children to replace them. It was only available while the Ladvent calendar was active and can no longer be accessed.

In July 2023 a group called The Spontanes was formed with Muttley McLad on bass and Bammy the Bamster on vocals and rhythm guitar. Other members are Andy Lewis on lead guitar and Shaun Salmon on drums. The music genre has been penned by Muttley as ‘Uneasy Listening’

Current members

 * Muttley McLad, (real name Tristan O'Neill) - lead vocals, bass, songwriting (1981–1995; 1997; 2018–present)
 * The Beater (real name Geoffrey Conning) – lead guitar, backing vocals (lead vocals on Boddies), (1981–1986, 1986–1989, 1990–1991, 2018–present)
 * Stez Styx (1st incarnation), later known as Johnny Mard (real name Steve Hatton) – guitars, backing vocals, drums (1981–1986, 1993–1995, 2018–present)
 * Chorley the Hord (real name Charles Moore) – drums, backing vocals (1986–1989, 2018–present)
 * Bammy the Bamster - band and tour manager (2018 to present)

Former members

 * Stez Styx (2nd incarnation, real name Howard Minns, also known as frequent support act Eddie Shit) – drums, backing vocals, lead vocals on "Newcy Brown" (1990–1991)
 * Phil "Fast Fret" McCavity (real name Phillip Turner) – lead guitar, backing vocals (1989–1990)
 * Al O'Peesha (real name Peter Bossley, a journalist with The Sentinel) – guitar, piano, backing vocals (1991, 1993–1995, died in 2005 in Stoke-on-Trent)
 * Cheeky Monkey (real name Percy Perkins) – drums, backing vocals (1985–1986)
 * Winston Dread (real name Kevin Hooper) – drums, backing vocals (1993–1995)
 * Uncle Knobby – guitar, backing vocals (1986)

Other members

 * Bammy the Bamster- lead vocals, 2018
 * Barrel – Roadie, lead vocals on "Feed Your Face", 1987
 * Binbag – lead vocals on "Dans Round Us 'Andbags", and "Fluffy Pup", 1989
 * Stella Strict – lead vocals on "Two Stroke Eddie", live singer of Fluffy Pup in 1990
 * Young Man – lead vocals on "Failure With Girls", 1985

Timeline
This is an approximate timeline of the members of the Macc Lads.

Albums

 * Eh Up (1983) Hectic House
 * Beer & Sex & Chips n Gravy (1985) Hectic House
 * Bitter, Fit Crack (1987) Hectic House
 * Live at Leeds (the who?) (1988) Dojo
 * From Beer to Eternity (1989) Dojo – UK No. 72
 * The Beer Necessities (1990) Dojo
 * Alehouse Rock (1994) Dojo

EPs

 * One Gallon Demo (1982)
 * Minge Pies and Mistletoe (1983)
 * Macc Lads 5 (fan club only) (1986)
 * Filthy, Fat and Flatulent (1987)
 * Sheepless Nights (1988)
 * ...and Drinking Partners (1989)
 * Bog N Roll Circus (1990)
 * Turtles' Heads (1991)
 * England (2006)

Compilations

 * Dirty CD Chips n Gravy (1989)
 * Twenty Golden Crates (1991)
 * An Orifice and a Genital (Outtakes 1986–1991) (1993) Dojo
 * God's Gift to Women (1998)
 * The Lads From Macc (1999)
 * Anthology (1999)

Videos

 * Beer and Sex and Chips 'n' Gravy (1986)
 * Made in Macc (1987)
 * Four Bleats to the Baa (1988)
 * Come to Brum (live in Birmingham) (1988)
 * The Three Bears (1989)
 * The Quality of Mersey (live in Liverpool) (1989)
 * The Beer Necessities (1990)
 * Sex, Pies and Videotape (live in Manchester) (1991). The video was produced by EMI. Muttley stated in an interview in 1999 that the final result was "nearly as rude as a school choir".

title: Macc Lads


text: File:GirlHappyElvisP.JPG

title: File:GirlHappyElvisP.JPG


text:
National Intercollegiate Rodeo Association

The National Intercollegiate Rodeo Association (NIRA), based in Walla Walla, Washington, was established in 1949. It sanctions more than 100 college rodeos every year in the United States, and represents over 3,500 student athletes attending more than 135 member colleges and universities. As well as regional rodeos, the NIRA sanctions the College National Finals Rodeo (CNFR) every June.


text:
Heinz Kindermann

Heinz Kindermann (born 20 June 1942 in Welhotta, Reichsgau Sudetenland) is a German politician who served as a Member of the European Parliament from 1994 until 2009. He is a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, part of the Socialist Group.

In parliament, Kindermann served on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Fisheries. He was also a member of the Delegation to the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee and a substitute for the Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe.

Career

 * 1956–1958: Farming apprenticeship
 * 1961–1967: Studied veterinary medicine

Education

 * 1968: Doctorate
 * 1967–1990: Veterinary doctor in a partnership in Strasburg
 * 1990: Specialist qualification for small animals
 * 1990–1994: Veterinary official in Strasburg
 * 1992: Passed the veterinary officers' civil service examination
 * 1992–1994: Head of the district veterinary and food supervisory office of Strasburg
 * 1991–1993: Chairman of Strasburg district SPD
 * 1991–1992: Head of the Human Justice and Culture of the Minorities
 * 1992–1995: Vice-Chairman of Uecker-Randow district SPD
 * 1990–1994: Municipal Councillor and SPD Group Chairman in Strasburg
 * 1994–2009: Member of the European Parliament

title: Heinz Kindermann


text:
CBC Tower (Mont-Carmel)

The CBC Tower, also known as the WesTower Transmission Tower, was a 331.4 m guyed mast (now 326.7 m after its reconstruction) for FM- and TV-transmission located atop Mont-Carmel near Shawinigan, Quebec, Canada. The tower was built in 1972 and it served for several decades as Quebec's primary CBC transmission point and also served several radio and television stations for the Trois-Rivières market.

2001 Incident
On April 22, 2001 a lone pilot, Gilbert Paquette, flew his Cessna 150 into the tower and was killed. The fuselage of the plane remained wedged in the upper part of the tower, with the pilot's body inside. The crash also knocked the tower several metres off balance. It was decided that due to the structural damage and the need to recover the pilot's body the mast would have to be demolished. Several days later a controlled implosion brought the tower down, not damaging the several buildings nearby. At the time, it was the tallest structure to have ever been demolished with explosives.

In July 2003, a new mast broadcasting with over double the effective radiated power of the original mast (from 4,386 watts to 9,300 watts) was built exactly at the same place, on the same base. Its height is the same, 307 m for the tower structure, but the antenna on the top who was 24.4 m is 19.7 m  now.

title: CBC Tower (Mont-Carmel)


text:
Talk:Union of Lublin

Statues of Lithuania
What exactly were these "Statues of Lithuania" ? Were they approved by the parliament (Sejm) ? Lysy 21:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statute of Lithuania - maybe mistranslation, in Lithuanian they are known as "Lietuvos statutas". Basically it was like a collection of all the laws, which was unique in Europe at the time, because unlike Poland-Lithuania most of countries were absolute monarchies so didn't needed those things. If I remember correctly, copies of statutes used to be kept in each powiat so they could be used and seen by each person (probably only nobles). DeirYassin 21:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I was wondering who was writing them and who approved them ? Lysy 21:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got myself a book now. First statute was created in 1522, came into power in 1529 by the intiative of nobles' council, basically it was like standartising and collecting various tribal and traditional laws and writting them at one place, major work was done by Albertas Goštautas. Second statute came into power in 1566 by the order of king/grand duke Žygimantas Senasis (Sigismund the Old?) and was larger and more advanced. The king did this because of pressure of Lithuanian nobles, it was done because of expanding nobles' rights the first statute became redundant. Second statute was prepared by a special commition appointed by grand duke and nobles' council, commition consisted of 10 people. Third statute was accepted in 1588, to somewhat alter laws in relation to Union of Lublin.DeirYassin 21:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Tnx for the info. A stub (at the very least) at the Statutes of Lithuania is in order, I believe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Try at Lithuanian Statutes :) Halibutt 08:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Uh-oh. And now we have to merge them :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Talking about 1588, you forgot to mention that this variant was made under direction of Lew Sapieha. ---Litwinowicz

EU?
I think that maybe last lines should be removed (I mean ones about many historians considering it to be similar to EU), as it is kinda POV, unnecessary comparement (because EU has no direct connection to the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth), and such things could be written maybe by members of any nation/country about their nation/country being like something (considered "good") of our days. In fact, similar things about union being similar to that of EU, can be said at many unified countries, e.g. Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, maybe even Yugoslavia, etc. and such claims are probably an overpompastification (wrong word probably I know) DeirYassin 20:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the author, as I interpret it, is to make the point that Poland-Lithuania was the *largest* such union in Europe until the formation of the EU, not that it was merely a unification. --Vegalabs 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon comments
Someone needs to clean up the spelling and grammar of the article. If I see another "it's" instead of "its" I think I'm just going to die. (Done) And this sentence makes no sense:

"However the commoners, especially peasants, who aggravated by a rapid inserfement as the Ruthenian territory was colonized by Szlachta, continued to speak in their own languages and the Orthodox religion, which eventually created a significant rift between the lower social classes of people and the nobility in the Lithuanian and Ruthenian areas of the Commonwealth."

Merge
“Poland provided military aid in that war after the union of the two entities, but did not return the previously annexed territories. Lithuania had to recognize its incorporation into Poland.[5]”

Is any chance of merge this sentence with others because it looks a bit about of context especially if trying to read aftermath part. Or at least expand part –“ recognise its incorporation” to - Lithuania had to recognize incorporation of Podlachia, Volhynia, Podolia and the Kiev regions into Poland. M.K 23:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Be bold and show us what you mean?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Serfdom
First, we should create serfdom in Poland, just like there is serfdom in Russia. Second, this article is quite incomplete. Third, serfdom was not a direct consequence of the Union, and we could discuss whether it should be mentioned at all. But if it is mentioned, I see nothing wrong with noting that it created conditions that were worse than in the West but better than in the East.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Colonization of Ukraine and serfdom that it brought was the direct consequence of the Union of Lublin which legitimized the Polish occupation of Ukraine. On the other hand, the comparison of the Polish serfdom with any other serfdom does indeed belong to the Polish serfdom article, but not this one. Here it is merely irrelevant. --Irpen (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * And of course when Piotrus runs low of his "revert quota" the same editors quickly show up to help. An accident perhaps. More looks like a very sad pattern. --Irpen (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I just look at it as the proof that Wikipedia works - multiplie users revert bad edits and support good edits. PS. You are more than welcome to expand, with references, your point that Colonization of Ukraine and serfdom that it brought was the direct consequence of the Union of Lublin which legitimized the Polish occupation of Ukraine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, Piotrus, you are now saying that my edits are worse than those of Molobo. However outrageous a statement, nothing you say surprises me anymore.

 * You habit to act off-wikipedia to achieve the onwiki goals have been exposed multiple times and since you never expressed any remorse or apology, even when caught red-handed with the most despeakable off-line actions, you gave no reason to believe that it has stopped.

 * Thank you for telling me taht I am "welcome and expand" but with a dedicated team reverting my edits, I am not in the mood to merely waste my time. --Irpen (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 * As I don't see content creation as a waste of time, I will at some point create an article about serfdom in Poland, and likely move various stuff (including some discussed here) there. Until that happens, I see no reason to delete useful and referenced information. I don't intend to reply to your incivil comments; may I remind you you have been asked to refrain from such tone and attitude?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, let me remind you that the community response to this ArbCom clause was overwhelming and shows that ArbCom goofed (it was also discussed not so long ago an ANI). You do not need to respond. Your, now blanked, Piaskownica in pl-wiki is louder than anything you can possibly say, save an apology that has yet to come. --Irpen (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you satisfy my curiosity and link the ANI discussion you mention? You can do it on my talk page as we are getting OT here. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Conclusion about Commonwealth
The following link and conclusion on Polish website about Lublin Union was removed from wikipedia Union of Lublin

Info-Polen (link below) concludes "that the common republic (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) was a sluggish none-functioning body without political and legal mechanisms"

Lublin Union on info-polen (German-Polish site) MfG 30 Jan 2008 --

Royal Prussia
The first paragraph somewhat misinforms. Poland was not in personal Union with ROyal Prussia. Royal Prussia was autonomous part of Poland. Szopen (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference "DavN"
I think the reference is wrong in the background chapter, where it is defined as

.

The reference is alleready definded in the first chapther, second paragraph as

.

With the current definitions of the reference you don't get link to both sides in Google Print. On top of that, page 151 in the book don't give any meaning to the content in the chapter. I have glanced through the book and think the reference in the backgroundchapter should be like this:

as page 121 in the book relates to the topic. PerV (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Legacy
This sentence in the lede : "Polish historians concentrate on its positive aspects, emphasizing its peaceful, voluntary creation and its role in the spreading of Polish culture. Lithuanian historians are more critical of the Union, pointing out that it was dominated by Poland." is unsourced and unsupported by anything in the text. While it may be somewhat true I can also think of some Polish historians who are critical of the union. I think it should be removed unless it can be sourced. Volunteer Marek 16:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I vaguely think I added it a while ago. I agree it should be sourced, I thought it was. Perhaps we can source it or rewrite it with the similar content of Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, I think the Lithuanian side of it - that the PLC is viewed in a negative light - is historically mostly true and of course it appears to be true going by the attitudes of various users on Wikipedia. But even there I expect there is a lot more diversity of opinion and nuance. On the Polish side, it's not that hard to find historians who are critical of the union - Jasienica for example who though that by uniting, Poland inherited all of Lithuania's problems and reoriented itself eastward, rather than westward, which hampered its economic development. I've also seen some allusions to the argument that it was the union with Lithuania - and more specifically the acquisition of Ukraine - which was responsible for the re-emergence of serfdom in Poland. Volunteer Marek 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Lithuanian" includes today Belarus and Ukrainian.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ks. Pomorskie
What is Ks. Pomorskie, which appears on the legend of the map? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's Duchy of Pomerania - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Pomerania From 11th century this territory was a fief of Poland. In 1138 Bolesław Krzywousty split the polish territory into different parts, so each of his sons would have some territory to reign. This act weakend Poland and technically the country didn't exist up until the begging of 14th century. Discussed territory became more independent and was named Ks. Pomorskie (Księstwo Pomorskie - Duchy of Pomerania). It didn't return to Poland and later on it became part of Prussia. Sarabonnat2 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes. File:Irp1569.jpg, which is presumably the one you are discussing, should be translated to English (sadly, I don't have the skills to do so). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Union of Lublin. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130217222629/http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1618.jpg to http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1618.jpg
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130217222634/http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1717.jpg to http://homepage.interaccess.com/%7Enetpol/POLISH/historia/MAPY/1717.jpg
 * Added tag to http://aleph.ukma.kiev.ua/e-lib/V/Velychenko_The%20Influence.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Quotes and additional explanation about the 1580 ceremony of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Stephen Báthory
Here are additional explanation and sourcing about the 1580 Lithuanian ceremony of Grand Duke Stephen Báthory. During the inauguration/elevation ceremony of the Grand Duke Stephen Báthory (29 May 1580) a blessed sword and hat (both were sanctified by Pope Gregory XIII himself) was used in the Vilnius Cathedral and the ceremony likely did not feature the usual Gediminas' Cap at all (it certainly wasn't placed on Báthory's head). Nevertheless, multiple WP:RS describe the ceremony of 29 May 1580 as elevation/enthronement ceremony of the new Grand Duke of Lithuania (Stephen Báthory) and this clearly was an ignoration of the stipulations of the Union of Lublin. Supporting sources: "1. 'Iš pradžių, regis, buvo mėginama didžiajam kunigaikščiui rengti atskirą ceremoniją. 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. Vilniaus katedroje įvykęs popiežiaus kalavijo ir karūnos perdavimo aktas amžininkų akimis ir buvo Stepono Batoro, kaip didžiojo kunigaikščio, intronizavimas' (At first, it seems, there was an attempt to hold a separate ceremony for the Grand Duke. In the eyes of contemporaries, the act of handing over the papal sword and crown that took place in the Vilnius Cathedral on 1580 May 29 was the enthronement of Stephen Báthory as the Grand Duke). Source: publication by Lithuanian Institute of History, p. 9." "2. Maciej Stryjkowski's Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiéj Rusi Macieja Stryjkowskiego. T. 2. Warsaw, 1846, p. 432. This source is provided as a backing source in the publication by Lithuanian Institute of History (mentioned above)." "3. 'Vienas iš tokių, Lietuvos valstybingumą tvirtinančių valdovo gestų buvo jo pakėlimo į Lietuvos sostą ceremonija. 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. valdovas priešais Vilniaus katedros didįjį altorių iš žemaičių vyskupo Merkelio Giedraičio rankų priėmė popiežiaus Grigaliaus XIII atsiųstą kalaviją ir Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio kepurę kartu su apaštališkuoju palaiminimu. Toks ritualas turėjo sąsajų su ankstesnių valdovų pakėlimo į Lietuvos dk sostą ceremonialu, nors sudarius Liublino sąjungą, jis neturėjo būti praktikuojamas.' (One of such gestures of the ruler confirming Lithuania's statehood was the ceremony of his elevation to the throne of Lithuania. On 29 May 1580 in front of the high altar of the Vilnius Cathedral, the ruler accepted the sword sent by Pope Gregory XIII and the hat of the Grand Duke of Lithuania together with the apostolic blessing from the hands of the Samogitian Bishop Merkelis Giedraitis. Such a ritual had connections with the ceremonial elevation of previous rulers to the throne of Lithuania, although it was not supposed to be practiced after the union of Lublin). Source: publication by Vilnius University, p. 67 (title page claims that there also is a translation to the Hungarian language by BEATRIX TÖLGYESI)." "4. 'Vienas įdomiausių su Lietuva susijusių Naujosios Karalystės iždinės eksponatų – iš pirmo žvilgsnio neišvaizdi kalavijo geležtė. Iš tikrųjų – tai 1580 m. gegužės 29 d. priešais Vilniaus katedros didįjį altorių Lenkijos ir Lietuvos valdovui Steponui Batorui (1576–1586) įteiktas popiežiaus Grigaliaus XIII pašventintas kalavijas, per amžius praradęs savo puošnią rankeną. Kalaviją ir perlais puoštą popiežiaus pašventintą kepurę valdovui įteikė žemaičių vyskupas Merkelis Giedraitis. Lietuvoje ši ceremonija traktuota kaip Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio pakėlimo iškilmės, kurias rengiant buvo ignoruojama Liublino unija ir manifestuojamas Lietuvos savarankiškumas.' (One of the most interesting exhibits of the treasury of the New Kingdom related to Lithuania is an unsightly sword blade at first glance. In fact, on 29 May 1580 in front of the high altar of the Vilnius Cathedral, the sword consecrated by Pope Gregory XIII was presented to the ruler of Poland and Lithuania, Stephen Báthory (1576-1586), having lost its ornate handle over the centuries. Merkelis Giedraitis, bishop of Samogitia, presented the ruler with a sword and a hat decorated with pearls consecrated by the Pope. In Lithuania, this ceremony was treated as the celebration of the elevation of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, during which the Union of Lublin was ignored and Lithuania's sovereignty was manifested). Source: article published by the Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania." "5. Identical paragraph like in the 4th point (above) was (likely) later republished by the official website of the Lithuanian National Radio and Television (HERE) and a very popular Lithuanian news website 15min.lt (HERE)." By the way, the 1569 Union of Lublin was not accepted in the first try because of the Lithuanian nobles strong objection to it and its conditions. However, the Principality of Moscow was waging a successful war against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which lost important territories like Polotsk) and the Kingdom of Poland was not much willing to help the Lithuanians until a chunk of territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was transferred to the Kingdom of Poland and eventually they accepted the Union of Lublin. This led to successful reconquests by joint Polish-Lithuanian military forces (e.g. Polotsk, etc.). Moreover, this ceremony of Stephen Báthory is not the first example when the Lithuanian nobles violated previous agreements with the Poles (e.g. Casimir IV Jagiellon was separately proclaimed the Grand Duke of Lithuania by the Lithuanians and a ceremony inaugurating him as the Grand Duke of Lithuania was held in 1440, this way violating the Union of Grodno (1432) and terminating the Polish–Lithuanian union (first source, second source, p. 8). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Union of Lublin


text:
Hierocles

Hierocles may refer to:

 * Hierocles (Stoic), 2nd century, Stoic philosopher
 * Hierocles (charioteer), 2nd–3rd century, presumed lover and court official of the emperor Elagabalus
 * Sossianus Hierocles, 3rd–4th century, proconsul of Bithynia and Alexandria during the reign of Diocletian
 * Hierocles, possibly 4th century, co-editor of Philogelos
 * Hierocles of Alexandria, 5th century, Greek Neoplatonist writer
 * Hierocles (author of Synecdemus), 6th century, Byzantine geographer, author of the Synecdemus
 * Hierocles, a character in the play Peace by Aristophanes

title: Hierocles