Jump to content

Talk:Dubingiai massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Familiarizing oneself with RS

[edit]

[1] "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

I don't think that a leader of an extremist nationalist group can be considered "trustworthy" and "authoritative"

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made"

Even if, the picture does not directly support the info in this article as it is not a photo of this massacre.

And then there is an entire section which is relevant here [2]radek (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, is there a section about historical pictures taken during occupations? Strange enough, pictures from Bundesarchivum, taken by the occupying Nazi soldiers are emerging, and are considered RS. And pictures taken by locals are not? Or do you think that one was drawn by hand? And, of course, it would be useful if you would familiarize yourself with a concept of wikilinking.--Lokyz (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific picture - that is relevant to this article - from Bundesarchivum that you are talking about or are you just trying to change the subject? The issue at hand is not whether this picture was "taken by locals" (was it? I have no idea) but whether it comes from a RS or not. I have not removed it again because I am waiting on more information on the Garšva source, but as of right now it looks like it's non RS (and whatever is found in other articles is irrelevant to this discussion). What's this stuff about "drawn by hand", unless it's a contorted attempt at incivility? And you keep telling me to familiarize myself with stuff that you yourself seem fairly ... unfamiliar ... with.I mean, the 'familiarity' with [3] is right there in the quotes from the guidelines I provided above. Now you're changing the subject again. These are honest questions and I'd appreciate it if you approached them with at least a modicum of AGF.radek (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did Garšva take the picture? Was Garsva present at the burial ceremony of the children slaughtered by the AK? What does Garšva have to do with the picture? --Lokyz (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about answering some questions before you start asking new ones? Is there a specific picture - that is relevant to this article - from Bundesarchivum that you are talking about or are you just trying to change the subject? As to what Garšva has to do with the picture - it's from a book of which he is an editor isn't it? This is exactly the issue I'm asking for clarification on above.radek (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Lokyz. Among other things, no academic material presented for support of "unreliable" concept, so far. M.K. (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Garsva a leader of an organization which is considered to be extremist and nationalist? If so then he is not an RS. Is the book in question edited or written by him? If so then the book in question is not an RS. Does the image in question come from this book? If so the inclusion of the image is unwarranted since it's not based on RS. There's no requirement to provide academic sources to prove that an unreliable source is unreliable. The question is simply whether or not the source meets the criteria for RS. Per the quoted guidelines of RS - me, "familiarizing myself" - a work by a leader of an extremist and nationalist organization does not meet the criteria for RS. I don't know how much more clearly this can be spelled out.radek (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest nominating the image for deletion at WP:IFD. It is of dubious origin (unreliable source), and it seems to be little for useful but for spreading hatred. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.K. aka P.P., do you mean like [[:Image:Nazi Lithuanian poster.JPG|thumb|right|1941 Nazi propaganda antisemitic "Jewish Bolshevism" poster in Lithuanian language equating Stalinism and Jews[d]]] this one? If my memory serves me correctly, I believe you introduced it into Wikipedia. And placed it into a variety of articles until you found a home for it. Perhaps you want to nominate this image for deletion at WP:IFD too, or should I, since it's of dubious origin (unreliable source), and it seems to be little for useful but for spreading hatred (sic). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, what the hey are you talking about??? First the existence of that image is completely irrelevant to the reliability of the image in this article. This is more of trying to change the subject than actually addressing the issues with THIS article. Second, that image comes from a book published by Yale University Press, clearly an RS, rather than a book edited by a leader of an extremist nationalist organization. Third the image is used in a completely different way - to illustrate Nazi anti-semitic propaganda. What does one image have to do with the other? Nothing. This is just obscurantism designed to avoid admitting that the image in this article comes from a non-RS.radek (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far, no luck finding academic material, which support your "not reliable" claim? It seems that certain Polish volunteers dont like Mr. Garšva; so how he makes Arūnas Bubnys', Rimantas Zizas', and dozen of others, articles non reliable? As a book is a collection of different articles written by different prominent scholars. For reliability of those articles speak such facts, as they cited in number of others academic publications, and listed among bio of scholars [4]. And no, Mr. Garšva has nothing to do with image either, as he was not born then it was taken. So , present academic material with relevant criticism, which pointed out specific alleged misstates of the book, alleged falsification of particular image etc. Until then , I will not respond to any further original research. M.K. (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Rimantas Zizas reliable? I've asked several times for his article to be stubbed, at least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And dozens of times it was replayed to you over and over again about Zizas credentials [5]. Well it seems I have to repeat Rimatas Zizas is Ph.D of Vilnius University, working in Lithuanian Institute of History as scientific associate, main interest Related to WW II. M.K. (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide sources for this claim? And maybe put them into an article, to end this question once and for all? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[6]. M.K. (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MK, this is exactly why I'm asking the question about the book to which for some reason no one wants to respond. Is the image from an article by Garsva? Or is it from another article by someone else? If it is from an article by Garsva then its definitely from non-RS. And in fact he would have plenty do to with the image as he would be the one identifying it - that's the concern in fact, as no one is saying the photo was staged or something. Can we agree that a source by a leader of an extremist nationalist organization is not RS? Please also refer to the title of this section, that I started with prompting from Lokyz, in regard to the need to present academic sources that a leader of an extremist nationalist organization is non-RS. And as far as OR goes, let me repeat what I said with regard to your BLP accusations. I have NO idea what you are talking about. It seems like you're basically throwing every single possible wiki guideline at me without rhyme or reason and just hoping that something will stick. That's not a way to conduct a productive discussion.radek (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of picture

[edit]

The standing of the book where the pic was published counts here. (Armija Krajova Lietuvoje by A Bubnys; et al). Worldcat lists the book in several university libraries: Yale, Harvard, University of Illinois, Oxford, Stanford. [7] Novickas (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record my reply on the same issue [8]. M.K. (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's what I want to know - and thanks for answering. My understanding is that Bubnys is a professional historian and can be considered an RS here but Garšva is not. So that's why I'm asking about Garšva's role in the book (editor? publisher? contributor?) and where the picture actually comes from. The fact that the book is in some university libraries does not establish it as RS though - I can walk down to my universities' library right now and find some pretty weird stuff.radek (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty weird stuff, even Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda posters printed in Polish, Lithuanian, and other languages disseminated in countries that they occupied. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009
Again, I don't understand what you're saying here. If you're trying to insinuate that the Snyder book is not available in university libraries then you're wrong. There's plenty of books written on Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda and inevitably these books will include examples of it. But seriously ... what is the relevance to the topic at hand?!?!? Also Your placement of edits makes following the discussion difficult and makes it look like editors are replying to editors they're not replying to. [User:Radeksz|radek]] (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, let me help you understand. First, I'm not trying to insinuate anything. Next, we're dealing with a two pronged issue, i.e., the "picture" concerning this article has been removed on several occassions in reality due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because it is detrimental to the sacrosanct image that some want to convey on WP regarding the AK. This is cloaked under the argument that it come from a non-RS source, again due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or that it comes from a source that is "extremist". That's an issue that hasn't been resolved yet. When P.P., in reference to the now highly contested "picture" threw in a new angle, namely, "it seems to be little for useful but for spreading hatred" (sic), I asked him if he didn't consider his placing the Nazi anti-Semitic Poster (posted above on this talk page) into various Lithuanian related articles in the past to be the same, i.e., "to spread hatred". It may have confused you, but I doubt that it confused him. Hope it's more understandable now. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P., Responding to Radek's above query:

The book is composed of chapters, each written by a different editor. While some chapters are written by respected historians like Bubnys, the book contains at least one chapter written by an unreliable "scholar", Garsva, with claims IIRC that AK wanted to carry out a genocide of Lithuanians, and so on. Obviously, this chapter casts a major shade of unreliability on the entire book. Nonetheless, I think that in the past we reached a compromise in which we agreed that we can use chapters of the book written by reliable scholars (the book was discussed in the past here, here, here (has link to the book), here, here, and here (discusses pictures). Now, the question is: who has provided that picture of the book? Does it come from unreliable archives of Vilnija, or from some other (hopefully more reliable) archives? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you taking about? What unreliable archives of Vilnija??To what chapter you are referring to written by an unreliable "scholar", Garsva,? Care to clarify, or this is just another instance like you did in the past by accusing living person of faking AK archives.? M.K. (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that that's a reasonable question. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what's the answer?radek (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only everything was that easy to answer, patience is a virtue. Actually, I have waited many times for an answer on the WP talk pages that have never come. Not at the moment mind you, but it happens. Something tells me, however, that you'll get an answer here. My question is will any answer satisfy you, unless you like it? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for an answer to everything just a single specific question.radek (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes two of us. Btw, you did notate my question didn't you? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it's Bubnys I would consider that RS. If it's Garsva, definitely not.radek (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Nationalism is one thing - asserting that the editor or contributors to this book doctored a photo or misstated its provenance is a very serious charge that needs to be substantiated. The edition mentioned above was edited by Arunas Bubnys. Novickas (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trying to show that leading scholars' articles are non reliable, without proper academic criticism, is unproductive attempt to push certain POV, also such baseless claims can negativity effect those people in question. P.S. All pictures are coming from Zizas article, if I remember correctly. M.K. (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the uploader of the picture, please provide the page it appears on, and an author of that section. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rimnatas Zizas. Armijos Krajovos veikla Lietuvoje 1942-1944 metais. pp.19 39. M.K. (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the entire book was by Bubnys and if it didn't include "leading scholars" like Garsva then there'd be no problem in including the picture. We are now finally getting some beginning of a semblance of an answer as to where exactly the picture comes from. Why can't the uploader of the picture - who presumably has the source in his/her possession - just simply tell us which part of the book the photo comes from (and tell us definietly not in a IIRC kind of way)? The concern is not that the photo was doctored. It is, however, that it might have been misattributed, either purposefully or by accident. There's precedents for this kind of thing happening, for example the Tarnopol picture. This is why it's important to make sure that this pretty graphic photo comes from a reliable source.radek (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist sources, redux

[edit]

I made some updates to the "cowing" the Lithuanians section. I think we can agree that this (along with there were no other reprisal actions) is all speculative since the Soviet occupation of July immediately thereafter effectively halted activities by both the Lithuanians and AK. I have some family issues to deal with, however, since we've all woken up again, I'll be glad to take a whack at anything which appears to deviate from plain fact into nationalist interpretations. PetersV       TALK 03:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good point indeed; I do recall similar claim (that Soviet invasion stopped any potential escalation) in Piaskunowicz chapter, if we need a ref.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is very good that you removed that POv'ish claim which I pointed out back in 2008. However a lot of issues still remaining over neutrality etc., see my previous comments. M.K. (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent observation, ...since the Soviet occupation of July immediately thereafter effectively halted activities by both the Lithuanians and AK.... , you beat me to it. Was about to make that point. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the "Polish scholarship contends..." part. Could you reword the scholarly assessment without making the generalisation? AFAIU, we only have one white side of a zebra in evidence. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. In general because of the dim view taken in sources of the other side, it's probably better written in "thesis" style, referring to sources by author's last name. Editorially (not personally) speaking, I think there is also a problem with every Lithuanian police unit being described as Nazi supporters, sympathizers, the AK only going after "known" Nazi supporters, et al. Denouncing innocent individuals as collaborators and killing them is the oldest trick in the book. It's clear to me, at least, that part of the ongoing issue (as with the 'cowing'--an impossibly POV conclusion given the Soviets rolled in!) is that this is (tragically) much more about bitter Polish-Lithuanian animosity over the Polish occupation of Vilnius--masked by both sides using labels to kill each other. There's no AK anti-Nazi nobility here, I'm afraid, which is still an implication carried through the article. PetersV       TALK 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in cleaning up the undue weight? Starting from historian and author of several publication etc. M.K. (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Zizas? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see Zizas mentioned in the main article body? M.K. (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think MK means the at least partly non RS "Armijos Krajovos...".radek (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccessible reference and reference to possibly non-reliable source

[edit]

This reference has only a few sentences [9]. The Wayback Machine has no listing of it. [10] If those few sentences support the ref, please post them along with a translation. Also, what makes this reference reliable? [11] Novickas (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what makes this reference reliable? Nothing, as far as I can tell. So I removed it. However all info was cited to other sources, except for the fact that one Polish woman was killed which I've also seen in other sources so give me some time to find an alternative source for that.radek (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reference has only a few sentences. No, it only has a few sentences available online which is different. Internet availability is not a requirement for something to be a RS. Additionally, this is another instance where there's a second source for the same info.radek (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pov tag removal over and over again

[edit]

Well, it looks like Polish volunteer for some reason can't look for the previous discussions and see that exactly is wrong with this article, instead he chooses to revert warring over it [12]. Well this why article has POV tag: [13], [14], [15]. M.K. (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, several editors are disagreeing with each other and discussing it here. Removing and replacing POV tags is, um, a POV issue in and of itself. Novickas (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well tag can be {{Neutrality}}. M.K. (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MK, the proper term is "editor", not "volunteer". I believe you've been around on wiki long enough to know that. So please use proper terminology, otherwise it will be taken as a sign of disrespect and incivility. The discussion you point to is 1) one year old, there have been changes to the article since, and 2) reflective of the fact that your main contention seems to be that the article is not-POV enough. In particular that it doesn't include extreme nationalistic POV of folks like Garsva. This is what makes the POV tag spurious. Now, the BLP accusation you make above is just plain weird, especially since it appears to be made on a non-BLP article and in reference to comments made on the talk page.radek (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cowing issue was removed just quite recently; so no, issues listed back then, is topical today. Most Wp editors are volunteers, so it is proper terminology. From BLP - Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. So you again mistaken. folks like Garsva? To whom you are referring, specifically.? M.K. (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I'd like to request that you use the term 'editor' rather than 'volunteer' when referring to me. I assume you know who Garšva is and are just being obscurantist again.radek (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re removing references pro & con AK reprisals

[edit]

We could just remove all refs to the reprisal issue. Barring that, both sides need to be represented. Novickas (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Agree, M.K. (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that this was a reprisal for the massacre carried out by Lithuanian police then no. It's noteworthy and relevant.radek (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the statement in the body of the article that this was the only reprisal ever carried out by AK. Check history. Novickas (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. And thanks, Peters, for stepping in. Novickas (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's referenced and notable that this massacre and the reprisal action were an exception.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you basically suggesting that AK in 1944 did not burn down 11 Belorussian villages, and it was also an exception? M.K. (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you keep following the tactic of changing the topic when confronted with a request for specific info on reliability of sources or your contentions with an article. I am suggesting nothing. Basically or otherwise. But this article is not about what happened in Belorussia or Ukraine between Poles and Belorussians and Ukrainians but about what happened in Lithuania between Lithuanians and Poles. The stuff that is being added is irrelevant or at least becomes so when we clarify the statement in the text. Or do you think it'd be appropriate to insert detailed info on the extent of the Holocaust in Lithuania, the culpability of Lithuanians in it and the Lithuanian collaboration with the Nazis into this article. You know, for "background".radek (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And are you suggesting this? With some reliable sources to back this up? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is already presented on this page, just scroll up. M.K. (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 20 links above, I am afraid I don't have time to check which one of them may contain this strange claim.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actully, it was was not so hard to find it there [16]:
Interesting article, and parts of it are valuable, but unfortunately large chunks are quite unreliable, as they rely on Soviet historiography. It uses Soviet sources to argue for the reasons of rising hostilities between Polish and Soviet forces; it portrays the Soviet partisans as the "good guys" disarming the "violent Polish bandits"; notably the cited claim about AK burning down Belarusian villages comes from an alleged Soviet partisan report in Belorussian State Archives. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say, that Ph.D. Leonid Smilovitsky, from the Diaspora Research Center of Tel Aviv University can not distinguish between RS and non-RS source? IT is a BLP vilation. And are you really trying to perceive us, that your outrageous OR pretending to be peer review on a published scientific source is enough to ignore facts, just because you don't like it?
The source provides us with a phrase: However, the assessments and conclusions of Polish and Belorussian historians often are mutually exclusive. It would be not so strange, if this statement would be only about Polish-Lithuanian relations (since we have hard it countless times). It just seems, that Polish POV is not acceptable not only for Lithuanians, but also for Belarusians. And how about Ukrainians, Germans, Latvians? Therefore I want to ask: how long this insolent removal of references, bashing scholars or simply denying the facts will continue. Restoring the tag.--Lokyz (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adolf Plich, ps "Gora", that the article refers to actually did fight against the Germans on numerous occasions and tried to establish friendly contacts with the Soviets. It was only after the Soviets treacherously attacked him and destroyed his unit that he gathered up the survivors, negotiated a cease fire with the Germans and fought against Soviet (not "Belorusian") partisans. It was a matter of survival. Now, "cease fires" and even tactical cooperation in multi-belligerent conflicts are common and are not generally considered collaboration. Additionally the few isolated actions in which this occurred were all condemned by AK command. Of course this has been discussed to death elsewhere and it was established that there was no 'collaboration' between AK and the Nazis. MK is basically trying to use this article as a POV fork, hence the spurious tag. All this in addition to the fact that this particular portion of the text is based on non-RS Soviet forces. And once again, furthermore, this is about Belarus, not Lithuania which is what article is about. POV-fork anyone?radek (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stub Adolf Pilch for further reference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od+edit conflict) While Boradyn has good facts at hand, he is also a biased interpreter of events in his contention that this was a single exception to AK conduct. (Most Lithuanians didn't murder Jews, those that did were the exception, but that's not the sense one gets here. Still a ways to go.)
   I haven't even gotten back to the rival claims on Vilnius. We should note Vilnius was occupied by the Poles on October 9, 1920. Even today, the Polish government (in EU documents) has complained that there was no occupation as the territorial residents voted in 1922 to join Poland, with no mention in those same EU documents that they took Vilnius two years earlier. (What other elections under occupation painted as legitimate do we know of... whether or not the proverbial shoe fits equally well.) And the Catholic Church still hasn't recovered from sticking Vilnius in a Polish diocese. The deeper you dig, the uglier it gets, sadly. PetersV       TALK 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petras, remember that in 1920 Vilnius had a population of ~44% Poles, ~44% Jews and ~3% Lithuanians. Yeah, Poles occupied the very Lithuanian city then... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also we should not forget to add info that person responsible for the Dubingiai slaughter got an award from PL President Kaczynski. M.K. (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Peters: to me it seems that linking to the conflict over the Vilnius region is enough for now - of course that article could be improved, but basically stating that there was a bitter conflict seems good enough for now. Book refs to other AK reprisals: 1: Philipp Ther, Ana Siljak (2001). Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 159. ISBN 9780742510944. Meanwhile, the Polish nationalist undergound, the Armia Krajowa (AK), launched its own terror campaign against the Ukrainians. It organized acts of brutality, such as burning entire villages and massacring their inhabitants. The AK declared that it was taking revenge against similar massacres inflicted on Poles by Ukrainian nationalists in Volynia two years earlier. 2: Elizabeth Harvey (2003). Women and the Nazi East: Agents and Witnesses of Germanization. Yale University Press. p. 267. ISBN 9780300100402. In response to the destruction of Sochy, members of the Polish Home Army (Armia Krajowa) attacked Siedliska. 3: David R. Marples (2007). Heroes and villains. Central European University Press. ISBN 9789637326981. Kulchitski also observes that the OUN-B and the AK continued to regard each other as adversaries, and that their confrontation was instigated deliberately by the German occupiers; and that it had led to bloody massacres of the Ukrainian population in the Khomn region in 1942-1945, and of the Poles in Volynia in 1943-1944.
I think this can be added to the list too. M.K. (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


To Piotrus, recall that the League of Nations protested the Polish occupation.
   The all-empire Russian census (1870?) I think showed only 2% Lithuanians with the largest minority being Russian. Of course, the census included military stationed/passing through, inflating the Russian minority, while Lithuanians who were educated in Polish were most likely counted as ethnic Polish. Numbers never tell the whole story.
   I'm fine with just linking to more background on the conflict. To this day, Lithuania views it as an occupation of its historical capital while Poland says "what occupation?" (pretty much their exact words in commenting on Lithuania's petition, I think it was 1993, to join the Council of Europe). So, clearly, we can remind each other until the cows come home. But we all know that. PetersV       TALK 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I have no problem leaving this WP:DEADHORSE alone; unfortunately, certain editors seem to be hell bent on reanimating the dead horse of another type of nationalism ("AK was a genocidal organizations...") and similar ones. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.P., why is it then that you are unable to turn this high-powered introspection on the certain editors "hell bent" on reanimating the dead horse of a different type of nationalism ("Vilnius was the least Lithuanian of Lithuanian cities"). From my own interaction with these editors, it never fails to amuse me when they insist that Breslau, was in reality a Polish city that spent an aproximately 700 year sabbatical somewhere else in the world. The same editors who cannot logically explain why Pilsudski bothered to publish his famous Proclamation to the Inhabitants of the Former Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was a bilingual proclamation, in Vilnius, for the benefit of 2% (oops now up to 3%) of its population. Nor why Pilsudski felt it necessary to use an invented name "Vilnius" in the Lithuanian translation (sometimes claimed by biased editors to have been "invented" circa, 1918, other times "invented" circa, 1939), instead of Vilna, Vilne, or Wilno. The same editors who insist that the Jews residing in Vilnius were Polish, or when that argument appeared to weaken against most evidence to the contrary, that they were Russian Jews. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again this is more topic changing and red herrings. It's quite clear that the purpose here is to reignite old edit wars in which certain editors didn't get to put in their POV into some articles. What does Wroclaw (before 1945 German Breslau) have do to with this article?radek (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It helps set up a straw men, that's what. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Petras, remember that in 1920 Vilnius had a population of ~44% Poles, ~44% Jews and ~3% Lithuanians. Yeah, Poles occupied the very Lithuanian city then"... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC) ....[reply]

Did this remark made by P.P. seem to be a red herring concerning this article to anyone else? Was it to set up a straw men (sic)? Was it in order to educate Vercumba? Or was this more topic changing... simply inserted to reignite old edit wars? Or does that POV apply only to lil' old me? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Vilnius is at least in the region that this article's about, unlike the "issues" brought up by some of the other editors. But I agree with you in that the info as is in the article right now ("Polish-Lithuanian relations during the interbellum period were strained since both sides had laid claim to the Vilnius region.") is sufficient here and other aspects should be discussed elsewhere.radek (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead

[edit]

A particularly thorny issue that needs to be reviewed is the lead. The Dubingiai massacre is one event and the Glinciszki massacre is another event. Granted they are related and connected to one another, but the way the lead is currently formulated makes it appear that the one would not have occurred, if the preceeding massacre had not taken place. As it stands, the lead completely ignores the fact that the Glinciszki massacre, was the result of a previous act of violence against Lithuanians. All of the information concerning these events needs to included in this article and any other pertinent articles, just not in the lead. My culling the lead is based on a desire to keep the lead concise. If one explains the DM, as a result of the GM, and then was to objectively add why the Glinciszki massacre took place, the lead begins to be unencyclopedic and convoluted. In short, ridiculous. Mind you, I am not for removing any of the related information and I'm in favor of it all being presented, just in it's proper place. It will probably help in removing the POV tag sooner. This is the basis for my shortening the lead. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is already concise. I could see the logic if it was like four paragraphs or something and this was some trivial information hardly relevant to the article. But it's neither. This is a completely unjustified edit.radek (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A retaliation to the retaliation of a retaliation - someone really thinks it is concise? It is only building sort of chicken or the egg dilemma, and it does not explain a thing, except, that there were numerous murders from both sides. And that in this case, the whole section about how Armia Krajowa leadership forbade any actions is dubious and pointless - they did happen. And waving the paper in the wind we didn't mean it - does not change a thing. People died. End of story.
I think current state of the lead only proves the attempt to hide previous facts of Armia Krajowa actions, that are documented, but are dismissed and deleted one after another as unreliable or OT, because they do not support Polish POV. And this is a clear violation of one of the basic columns of Wikipedia - the WP:NPOV principle.--Lokyz (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with just mentioning Glinciszki (Glitiškės) massacre in the lead since it's the most directly relevant incident.radek (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the thing is, there weren't numerous murders from both sides. There were attacks on auxiliary Nazi Lithuanian Policemen by the AK - and these kinds of actions under conditions of war and occupations are generally not regarded as 'murders' - and then there were "pacifications" (to use that weasel word) of Polish villages and civilians by these same auxiliary policemen - essentially reprisals against civilians which are usually considered 'murder'. This massacre is the exception to how AK conducted itself in Lithuania, hence this article in the first place. But it's still an exception, rather than a pattern as with Nazi auxiliary Lithuanian policemen.radek (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People tend to believe the most pleasant facts, although the history is not so pleasant. When there is war, there are killings - and AK is no exception, despite how one's trying to believe otherwise. Murdered were innocent civil people - teachers, foresters, postmens, farmers for example, under the pretext of collaboration. Policemen? Those not trusted by Nazis, and given one or two bullet for a man, because they were afraid, that "auxilaries" would turn arms against them?
Tell me, what do you know exactly about the so called "pacifications"? Numbers, dates, units, casualities? With WP:RS please. Or would it be rather stopped AK shopping action for food in Lithuanian villages, because AK would not rob swych rodakow? (How do yo think anyone camping for years in the wood got food?) Maybe there is another retaliation of a retaliation to the retaliation story untold?
I could point you to published research on how many munitions and guns AK did receive directly from Nazis, how many AK commanders captured by the Sauguma were released by the Nazis, how many Belarusian and Jews villages were "pacified", how many priests were killed for hiding Jews - and of course, they "deserved" it for collaboration: broad word - if farmer shoots back to protect his grain - he's collaborator, if one works in forest - he's a spy, if policemen protects from marauders (few armed people from neighboring village, not even related to organized underground) - he's auxiliary collaborator and war criminal. But those references are fought over and over, as unreliable - despite presenting more than dubious Polish private homepages as reliable. BTW, don't you think, that AK fighting against Soviet partisans has put the organization into rather anti-Allied position, and that it may have sealed the outcome of Warsaw uprising?
This is how I do understand what's missing till WP:NPOV - not one side is white, the other is black, or vice versa.--Lokyz (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
presenting more than dubious Polish private homepages as reliable - where? There was one private homepage in the article which I removed as soon it was pointed out by Novickas. Now all we have is books. Also how many Belarusian and Jews villages were "pacified", how many priests were killed for hiding Jews I assume you mean by Lithuanian policeman right?radek (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not in this particular article (would be strange if Polish nationalistic sources would write about this, don't you think?) Speaking about the force "pacifyng" Belarusian and Jewish villages I ment Armia Krajowa. Te article provided by M.K gives much broader view on the topic - and it seems those issues are not exceptional Lithuanian-Polish history chapter, but also Belarusian and Ukrainian, hence it was not an exception.--Lokyz (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Let's not pretend this was about Polish heroes versus Lithuanian Nazi villains. I'm disappointed in the repetitive "Nazi auxilliary" theme edits. This was all about Poles versus Lithuanians--or Lithuanians versus Poles, take your pick. Everything else was an excuse for each side to justify their actions. Killing Poles? Checking who is a Lithuanian man? Those are not massacres, those are practicing ethnic cleansing. I would suggest that sticking to the Poles and Lithuanians and their historical conflict with resultant conflicting historical accounts and interpretations of events will keep the (very obvious in more than one source) anti-the-other bias in check. PetersV       TALK 16:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All true, and unfortunately present day continuation of the same:

Radek, please re-read your above comments to see just how POV'd and biased they are. And sorry to say, that's the heart of the problem here.

"This massacre is the exception to how AK conducted itself in Lithuania, hence this article in the first place." (right, so the "exception" is why this article is here "in the first place"?) followed by, " But it's still an exception, rather than a pattern as with Nazi auxiliary Lithuanian policemen".radek (talk) - Ergo, the purpose of the article would seem, by this "reasoning, to portray this incident as the exception to atrocities committed by Poles, rather than the ugly truth of the crime itself. And naturally to convey to all, that it's an "exception", rather than a "pattern" like such acts by Lithuanians. I don't think that's the purpose of the article at all, but your comments here are definitely worth a double take. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of this article is to portray the massacre because it happened, but an accurate portrayal also requires that it is noted that it was an exception. I don't actually think that any "pattern" of such acts by Lithuanians really belong in this article either except in a minimal sense, same as I don't think what happened with AK in Belarus belongs in this article. The basic pattern here is that MK tried to get some extremist-sourced info about AK into the AK article, it was rejected there as blatantly POV and non-RS so he moved on to this article as a sort of a POV fork.radek (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peters, let's distinguish a few points here. Nobody is trying to justify this massacre. The Poles who massacred the Lithuanians are as guilty as the Lithuanians who massacred the Poles a few days before; eye for an eye is not a justification, but a simple explanation of the logic of retribution. However, the big picture - that Polish the anti-Nazi resistance almost never targeted civilians nor engaged in ethnic cleansing, while the Lithuanian Nazi collaborators often did - is made important by the very editors who try to rewrite history and portray its revisionist version, replacing the part of the history they don't like (widespread Lithuanian collaboration) with the fairy tale of how evil Poles tried to carry out a genocide in Lithuania (oh, look at the poor innocents killed in Dubingiai and despair). Or to put it another way: as long as certain editors try to make Dubingiai massacre article into a POV fork to advocate the extremist thesis that it was "one of many examples of genocidal AK atrocities in Lithuania and elsewhere", or at best, equate the anti-Nazi Polish resistance to Lithuanian Nazi auxiliaries, this and related articles will be a source of friction. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to name those editors who try to rewrite history and portray its revisionist version? M.K. (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that claim the big picture - that Polish the anti-Nazi resistance almost never targeted civilians nor engaged in ethnic cleansing is similar to well know myth, that Poles were the most purely moral among all nations that had to live under Nazi occupation. I am optimistic, that with time such myth will completely collapse.
But let’s see, that scholars have on this “nor engaged in ethnic cleansing”, I shall not cite Lithuanian commission for the evaluation AK’s activities in Lithuania, nor Arūnas Bubnys, facts that AK carried out crimes against humanity or organized ant-Lithuanian terroristic campaigns. But I shall go for that “big picture”:
I wonder those 1050 women and children, killed between March 13-14, were also exception from the rule or the rule itself. Now, combine material about situation in Belarus and Lithuania and you will get that “big picture” indeed.M.K. (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's note a couple of things:
  • 1) The reason you don't cite the Lithuanian commission or the Lithuanian historian Bubnys is because they disagree with the one sided nationalistic extremist view you're pushing. Bubnys specifically has stated that AK's actions were not genocidal nor were they crimes against humanity. So you make up some stuff about "looking at the big picture" instead.
  • 2) Again, you're trying to change the topic, in this particular instance by referring to events that happened in Belarus and Ukraine not Lithuania, which is what this article is about.
  • 3) The source you quote: a) first says that these events are not well researched, hence any conclusions are tentative, b) does not say they were carried out by AK (they could've been carried out by GL or NSZ or some other group), c) puts the information in its proper context of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia (which, unlike actions of the AK, was an episode of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide) which you completely ignore.
  • 4) I don't know about any myths (though you seem intent on inventing new ones) and I'm only concerned with NPOV and verifiability. This is another instance of a red herring and a straw men argument.radek (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're the one going around to various articles on Polish-Lithuanian relations during and around WWII trying to insert POV info based on non-RS extremist nationalistic sources. And unsurprisingly this starts up controversy since it's unlikely that editors are going to stand for insertion of extremist text of any kind. Well, I guess what is somewhat surprising, at least to me, is that you have the support of other Lithuanian editors in this endeavor.radek (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I appreciate the strong emotions on both sides. However, there is much about Nazi collaboration which is fiction and fact, and we must do our best to walk the line. There is irrefutable documentation, for example, that when Lithuanians could not be roused to do so, Germans went out into the countryside killing Jews and reporting those as (spontaneous) Lithuanian acts, or paying drunken Lithuanians to pose in German uniforms next to slaughtered Jews. So before we paint pictures of massive Nazi collaboration (which is always taken as supporting if not participating in the Holocaust), we should consider the circumstances and the sources. Pietrowski, for example, exhibits his bias: (a) Lithuanians welcomed Germans (no mention of the Soviet mass deportations across the Baltics only a week earlier as being a potential motivator); he then (b) takes this "welcoming" as described by a Holocaust survivor (witness) and takes that person's interpretation of "eagerness to collaborate" to write that the Lithuanians were all eager to collaborate with the Nazis. I'm sorry, inappropriate projection of accounts by witnesses is one of the cardinal sins in writing about history.
   Now in the case of the lead, we have two choices: (a) we mention nothing specific prior, only that it was part of an escalation, or (b) we mention Glinciszki, in which case we must also mention that it started with an action earlier that day so that this particular chain of events is complete. That is not convoluted, that is simply factual. I'm fine with either choice. PetersV       TALK 13:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just to be clear, that means we cannot mention only the second half of Glinciszki in the lead. PetersV       TALK 13:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. Petrowski study, cited here, is called "unbalanced" by researchers. So no surprise that you noted this bias M.K. (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glinciszki needs to be in the lead as it is directly connected to this event. radek (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Source

[edit]

Radek, we can get back to the lead if you want to later. Currently the discussion is digressing, actually degenerating into a unnecessary black hole. So the new question is, whether this [18] is an acceptable source or not? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be impatient. After all you've consistently evaded and procrastinated on answering my questions since this started - and in fact this "we can get back to the lead" later is another version of that evasion. So now we finally got info that the image comes from Zizas but still no info on him. We can see some of the disagreements with the lead but other than that still no reason for the POV tag except for the exclusion of extremist text from Garsva. Why is this so hard? But ok, I'm a nice guy so I'll answer. Yes the source appears to be RS. But please see my comments above on the use of the text - the part that MK wants to insert - from it. And I don't see anything in the text that is relevant to this article (though not all pages are available online).radek (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please be so kind, and point out what portion of text is written or referenced by text written by Garšva? This would make things much easier.--Lokyz (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there is none, which is good. But MK has tried in the past to insert it and in the more recent past he's tried inserting it into other related articles. And it seems like his placing the POV tag on the article was essentially because he didn't get to insert text based on that author, which is what started this latest round.radek (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this too many assumptions in one place? Information about Zizas - [19], [20].--Lokyz (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radek, "Patience is a Virtue". I have plenty of patience. As for my responsibility for answering your questions posed to other editors, I don't feel any obligation to do so. However your acknowledgement that this [21] is a RS, would obviously refute your claim that the atrocity at Dubingiai was some kind of anomaly or "exception" regarding Polish criminal behavior in WWII. In fact it was one of many other examples of tragedies that were the result of Polish actions taken against perceived "enemies" (which included in the example given, that 70% killed were women and children). The true explanation or point of this is that no one was without "skeleton's in their closet". This kind of denial does not serve the interest of Wikipedia's need to be neutral and unbiased. Dr. Dan (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)`[reply]

Dan, I didn't claim anything about Polish criminal behavior during WWII. We are talking about actions of AK in Lithuania during WWII here. But you know, one nice thing about internet conversations is that when one finds it necessary to repeat oneself repeatedly one can just copy & paste, so let me do that here:

Let's note a couple of things:
  • 2) Again, you're trying to change the topic, in this particular instance by referring to events that happened in Belarus and Ukraine not Lithuania, which is what this article is about.
  • 3) The source you quote: a) first says that these events are not well researched, hence any conclusions are tentative, b) does not say they were carried out by AK (they could've been carried out by GL or NSZ or some other group), c) puts the information in its proper context of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia (which, unlike actions of the AK, was an episode of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide) which you completely ignore.
  • 4) I don't know about any myths (though you seem intent on inventing new ones) and I'm only concerned with NPOV and verifiability. This is another instance of a red herring and a straw men argument.radek (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek cancels edits

[edit]

Stop cancelling edits made not by you, egoist tyron. If you once falsificate history, or discard edits made by others, I'll report you. By discarding my edits you should have written the reason. In this case name Dubinki in the article about Lithuania and the territory which never was in the area of Polish influence or Poland is absolutely unnecessary in English Wikipedia, it's the same as I writing on Estonian territories Spanish names. This is English Wikipedia and it should stay so, not Polish. You may write how your people called these places in Lithuania in Polish Wikipedia. Another one, why are you trying to remove my word "only" if it's historically correct as it's mentioned in this article with reliable sources. Are you trying to falsificate history, or make confusion? I'd be delighted to hear your response. If you won't respond and cancel edits by other Lithuanians (mostly) I can reform you not only for vandalism but and for racism as well. (official author of the text User:78.61.230.14, re-posted by User:BladerKubo) (talk) 21:49, 2017 27 August —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, you claim you're not the IP editor. Yet you make the same edits/reverts as the IP editor and there's substantial overlap in your interests. The most charitable interpretation is that you are tag-teaming with them to edit war.
Second, you need to stop it with the personal attacks (another thing you have in common with the IP editor). If you want to report me, be my guest. But remember WP:BOOMERANG.
Third, this article is obviously related to Poland and in fact the massacre is often referred to by the villages Polish name in sources. So it obviously belongs somewhere in the article.
Fourth, the "only" part is just not true. I don't know if Bubnys makes that claim but if he does that just illustrates that he's not a reliable source. There has been previous discussion regarding that matter.
Finally, I'd appreciate it if you disclosed your previous accounts on Wikipedia since your edits are eerily similar to those of a banned user from several years ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(official author of the text User:78.61.230.14, re-posted by User:BladerKubo) (talk) <--- and ---> "I am not".
LOL.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

War crime?

[edit]

While I recently removed a war crime category from this article ([22]), I recently became aware of a source that may be relevant: [23]. The blurb clearly calls this event a war crime (ditto for the Glinciszki massacre). Does anyone have access to the content of this so we could check what pages discuss the concept of war crimes in this context? Ping User:Buidhe. I think the source is likely reliable, and if we could get to see what is inside it seems we could attribute the claim this was a 'war crime' to Paweł Rokicki. But is a single opinion historian sufficient to add a 'war crime' category? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, Surely it's sufficient for a RS to call it a war crime? You can always cite the book description directly; the publisher should be a reliable source for the book's contents. (t · c) buidhe 06:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, I'd support adding a sentence to the article saying that Rokicki described those two events as war crimes. But I am not sure whether an opinion of a single historian merits the addition of a category, given WP:REDFLAG and so on. Think about all the problems spurious categorization can cause. I also glanced at List of war crimes and it is a mess... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, If it's not disputed there's no need to make a dispute over it. Deliberate killing of civilians has always been considered a war crime for the last 100+ years so I doubt you could find any RS that dispute the assessment. Classifying this as a war crime is not an extraordinary claim but actually completely expected one. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, The way I read the current consensus emerging here is that this one mention is not sufficient to add a category. It's an opinion of one historian and there is no evidence he represents the majority POV for the possible WP:REDFLAG here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any such consensus in the discussion that you link. As I explained above, it's clearly not an extraordinary claim that killing civilians would constitute a war crime, actually the opposite is the case. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, the consensus of that discussion is very clearly against you. Volunteer Marek 07:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Marek, Indeed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dubingiai_massacre&oldid=1234694587"