Talk:History of Lithuania

Map

Lithuanian territorial issues 1939–40 needs key or at least an explanation, in the caption, of the colors. Sca (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Klaipėda region

...with its Lithuanian majority.

From Klaipėda region:

A Lithuanian census carried out in the region in 1925 found its total population was 141,000. Declared language was used to classify the inhabitants, and on this basis 43.5 percent were German, 27.6 percent were Lithuanian, and 25.2 percent were "Klaipėdan" (Memelländisch). Other sources give the interwar ethnic composition as 41.9 percent German, 27.1 percent Memelländisch and 26.6 percent Lithuanian.

Population	German	Memelländisch		Lithuanian	other
141,645	41.9%	27.1%		26.6%	4.4%

Therefore, above clause has been changed to ...with its large Lithuanian minority, and the exaggerated, POV map "Lithuanian-speaking areas in the 16th century" (which cites no sources) deleted. Sca (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox in the 1918-1940 period

I think we should add one because people could see info about that period easier in the infobox. There is no problem if it is the same republic as the current one! For example, take a look at the Afghanistan 1996-2001 page! It's the same emirate as the current one, and there it not seems to be a problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.122.234 (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Support it is weird that there is no History of Estonia (1920–1939) or something like that. They are seen as identical but it is still weird that there is no infobox or article. For comparison Republic of China (1912–1949) exists even though its identical with Taiwan at least up to 1971. Braganza (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it's clearly a distinctive period of history of Lithuania. Marcelus (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria how about explaining it here. Braganza (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The commenters above identify this as a historical period, and I'd agree with that characterization - {{infobox historical era}} is the most appropriate template for that usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria the article OP mentioned Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) is not a historical era or do you mean @Marcelus? Either way in my opinion excluding the political system is big loss of it. Braganza (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but the era template is still the most appropriate. The alternative would be not including a template at all, since the section is in fact not a standalone article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Infoboxes have been removed more than once from this section so do no reinstate it in any form as it just clutters the page. – sbaio 08:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

​​I agree with User:Braganza that a standalone article for this period along the lines of History of Estonia (1920–1939) is in order. This period warrants far more detailed coverage than can be done here. Look at History of Lithuania (1219–1295) for an example with far less material to draw from. There was an article at Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940)Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) that existed off and on until pretty recently. This version included a lot of useful information and an infobox that is not in the current History of Lithuania article, but I agree with User:Sbaio that putting that info here would create WP:WEIGHT/clutter issues. A restoration of that article, maybe under the title of History of Lithuania (1918–1940), would help readers seeking details on this period to get the all info they need as easily as possible. —  AjaxSmack  17:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Article split consideration

I personally don't think the article should be split entirely, although certain sections/periods could be split into their own separate pages, such as shown in the Taylor Swift article under Filmography. ᓏ Gustis24680 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Support Braganza (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Ban on language?

'In 1864, the Lithuanian language and the Latin alphabet were banned in junior schools.'

When printing Lithuanian in Latin was banned, printing Lithuanian in Cyrillic was simultaneously encouraged, so Lithuanian in general can't have been banned. If the idea is that the language was banned at school only, that should be sourced; but in that case, too, the sentence is misleading by suggesting a false parallelism in that the ban on the Lithuanian Latin alphabet was not limited to schools.

The source cited later in that section (truelithuania.com) is not cited properly, which makes verification impossible. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)