Talk:Home Army

Fork ?

I think the Lithuanian aspects should be forked into a separate article. Something like "Wileński Okręg AK" maybe ? --Lysy^talk 07:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

MedCab case

(Part copied from archive)

Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Legionas, Piotrus, Lysy, Szopen, //Halibutt

Would any other involved parties add their name to the list. Thanks, Addhoc 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Paragraph

I tagged paragraph with POV, maybe more contributors will express their view on this. M.K. 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we discuss the folowing disputed paragraph:

"Relations between Lithuanians and Poles were strained during most of the interwar period due to conflicts over the Vilnius region and Suvalkai region, areas whose population was a mixture of Poles and Lithuanians. Germans relocated Lithuanian families to Vilnius region from Western parts of Lithuania by force, and this complicated situation. During the war these conflicts resulted in thousands of deaths, as groups on both sides used the opportunities offered by the war to commit violent acts against those they perceived as enemies."

Addhoc 11:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to move this section up to the main medcab section, where we have been discussing this para anyway. As this para is disputed by Sigitas, I think we all will appreciate his reply to why he persists in deleting most of this paragraph; as I think no other editor finds it objectionable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, do you know if there's a reference specifically for this paragraph? Addhoc 15:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't appear to be there ATM, but I think that the first and third sentences are rather NPOV and semi-obvious, and can be easily referenced with some of our existing refs. The middle sentence about German relocation of L. families should have its own inline citation; plus we may want to note that Poles were deported from Vilnius by the Soviets ([1], [2]. etc.), further changing the population balance and antagonizing the Polish population. PS. Adhoc, since you said you have recently begun to read about those issues, you may want to see our well referenced article on Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_by_occupiers#Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_under_Soviet_occupation for some relevant information.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the "thousands of deaths" should not be referenced as well. While obvious to me, this may be not so clear for every reader. --Lysy^talk 16:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Second sentence is supported by Rimantas Zizas. Armijos Krajovos veikla Lietuvoje 1942-1944 metais (Acitivies of Armia Krajowa in Lithuania in 1942-1944). Armija Krajova Lietuvoje, pp. 14-39. A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas (editors). Vilnius – Kaunas, 1995. This paragraph is OK. Sigitas 13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Addhoc 13:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

After some thinking I have reservations regarding the "thousands of deaths". AK probably killed 4000 locals in "ethnic Lithuanian lands" but many of victims were Belarussians, Jews and Poles. Thousands of Poles would be killed by Germans with or without Lithuanian administration in place. Sonderkommando Ypatingasis burys in Paneriai were killing people not because they "took the opportunities offered by the war to commit crimes" but because they were forced to. Sigitas 09:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about the villages burned by Plechavicius men? They weren't forced to kill and murder Poles? Szopen 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You should evaluate these data carefully. I know for sure that at least some of the villages burned by Territorial Defence Force were simply invented by Polish propagandists, for example killings in Grauziskes, when Territorial Defence Force didn't even reach this place before being destroyed by AK. Sigitas 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard about killings in Graużyszki, as indeed, Plechaviczius men were defeated earlier; however, In Sienkowszczyna (quite near Grauzyszki) Plechaviczius men were burning houses and killing people - probably that's why they were so easily defeated, since AK attacked while the butchers were busy with shooting the civilians. As for Burys being forced to kill Poles, well, they were all volunteers; Szopen 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT: plus Pawłów, Adamowszczyzna, Tołminów

Witnesses say they there ambushed marching by AK, which probably was tipped by Germans. I don't know much about these events though. Burys' members volunteered to assist germans initially, but not to kill people in paneriai. Most of them only were aknowledged of their role in killings after arrival to Paneriai and had no option to say "no" (Arūnas Bubnys (2004). Vokiečių ir lietuvių saugumo policija (1941–1944) (German and Lithuanian security police: 1941-1944). Vilnius: Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras. Retrieved on 2006-06-09.) Sigitas 10:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is sad, but the same could be probably said of many Germans who did not go to army to murder civilians but then had no choice. I think the times were difficult and we're really often too easily assigning blame. On the other hand thousands of people were murdered in Paneriai and this also requires some justice and we cannot pretend that nobody killed them. --Lysy^talk 11:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can indeed be said about many people involved in war. We cannot say "used the opportunities offered by the war to commit violent acts against those they perceived as enemies" as this wording would mean voluntary and enthuasiastic participation in killings, when in fact Burys' people volunteered for escorting Jews to Ghettos, not for killings in Paneriai. Sigitas 12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant. The "thousands of deaths" seems to be an oversimplification of the rather complex situation and may easily lead to misinterpretations. I'm not sure how to rephrase it in a NPOV, yet meaningful way, however. Maybe just remove this sentence from the lead ? --Lysy^talk 10:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wondering is this case is over? M.K. 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So, how about it? M.K. 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What about it? The article is stable, consensus has been reached, as it appears.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment of Piotrus, sorry for not replying earlier - I took the article off my watchlist. Addhoc 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very quick. Thank you. Still I would like to ask some questions, Addhoc. Particular contributor Piotrus in one of the articles demonstrated examples of weasel words weasel words. looking in the light of this, I would like about this particular sentence in the article of AK: the nationalist[11] and extremist[10][19] Lithuanian Vilnija organization claims that. Please observe the ref of nationalist 11 is Polish Gazeta Wyborcza, while extremist also link to Gazeta Wyborcza also. According to Piotrus (evidence provided above) these particular words should be referenced in English. And second note near the word extremist contributor also placed and this EN source [3] From this ref it does not clear is Vilnija is the same as mentioned in this article, or it is another organization (or association !), that context in this article and in provided ref. Some my question - is this EN source is credible in this context, which speaks about AK, not about 20-21st. politics and relations plus is this the same Vilnija? M.K. 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Piotrus (evidence provided above) - please be more specific in your attributions, I don't recall saying anything that those refs are invalid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

let's not use non-English sources for weasel words, shall we? M.K. 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff for context?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my compromise suggestion is removing extremist in accordance with Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, and keeping nationalist, which doesn't appear to be unreasonable. Also, I would suggest rewording to avoid 'claims', have a look at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim... Addhoc 11:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd prefer we rephase it - it is important to note that Vilnija is not only nationalist, it represents extreme end of a political spectrum by being very anti-Polish (several refs I have refer to it as an organization promoting hate...), and thus has very low reliablity (like Stalin Society or, for examples of Polish organizations one should not really cite on encyklopedia, see Radio Maryja or All-Polish Youth). It would be nice if we had an article Vilnija, where reader could see those issues discussed in details.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess, these it represents extreme end of a political spectrum are from the Polish nationalists sources, no? M.K. 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Gazeta Wyborcza, which is used as the source, is pefectly mainstream. When we get around to expanding on Vilnija, you can analyse my other sources; this article is however no place to describe one fringe organization.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While Gazeta would be prefect source for section Polish newspapers thoughts over Vilnija or something like this. This is the right place actually discuss the sources, actually; sadly you did not presented any NPOV sources which could back your case, till this moment. M.K. 19:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? Would you like to cite a policy that supports your view? And besides, we have at least one English academic one: [4]. How would you like to debunk this one?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Really. neutral outsider suggested to drop this extremist from as you called English academic. forgot? And I ask you once more, does English academic source speaks about same Vilnija as you do, a? M.K. 20:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, so you want to drop 'extremist' because it's suggested we may want to avoid this, and 'nationalist' because it's Polish, so we would remove all refs criticizing Vilnija? I am sorry, but readers need to be warned it's as unreliable source as there is. Or are you suggesting otherwise? I'd be willing to rephrase this sentence, if you'd like to suggest something that would keep the information but formulated it in a more acceptable way?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer my question above firstly, then we can continue. M.K. 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I did, but for your convinience, here it again. It states it is extremist. And reputable Polish sources note it is nationalist and confirm extremist. Oh, and from the above source it appears it is an anti-semitic organziation as well, thank you for making me catch that, I must have missed it before. While you, on the other hand, have not presented a single shred of evidence that would show Vilnija in a more positive way.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For the last time I will repeat my question, this time in bold - does English academic [5] source speaks about same Vilnija as you do and article do, a? ' M.K. 23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what do you want to get by repeating the same question and ignoring my answer. The source states it is extremist. EOT, although I am sure it will not satify you, especially considering how you think something must be done with me, fast. I have also asked for WP:MILHIST peer review and notified the mediator of the case you resurrected, maybe they will have better luck discussing that issue with you them myself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not answering my question, I want to understand from there do you know that the source which you provided talks about the same organization. Do you understand the question now? M.K. 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see now where you are going, although I find it puzzling. If it looks like a cat and meows like a cat, it is a cat. Or: if it is called Vilnija, exhibits behaviour consistent with all refs I could find, particularly ones used in the article, and if we use the Vilnija described by the source as 'extremist' to back up such claims in the article... the answer is: yes, I believe that if the source calls Vilnija extremist, and the article calls Vilnija extremist, and uses the source to reference that claim, than yes, both the article and the book are talking about the same Vilnija. Is this clear enough?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope not clear enough. Your delivered message is irresponsible. And you did not provided any evidence that this English source [6] speaks about same Vilnija as in AK context. This means you basing everything on your own presumptions this could mean – WP:OR. Speaking bout provided source; source:

• Does not speak about Vilnija in Armia Krajowa context
• Does not speak about Vilnija`s provided assessments;
• Does not speak about Armia Krajowa at all;
• In provided source Vilnija mentioned on time in one sentence;
• Lists several organizations - Mažeikių Nafta, LNDP (?) ,UJL (?).
• And similar

Having in mid such context and conducting simple googling you get a lot of “Vilijas” in internet [7], such as – [8]; this particular Vilnija is interesting because it is business incubator organization - [9], maybe author not random chosen to mentioned Mažeikių nafta? Maybe these are same Vilnija too? So, in the light of these remarks, I did not find any hint, which could lead to combining in source provided association Vilnija with organization Vilnija, which conducted assessments of AK crimes. This could spark strong reaction from these organizations due to your used strong word, which is without reasonable support. M.K. 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

M.K, I find your defence of Vilnija on such thin 'legal' grounds rather discouraging. There are not many Vilnija's, and there is only one involved in Lithuanian politics as far as I know. If you have sources to show otherwise, please do, but the existence of a business incubator with the same name does not make it likely it is that organization which is talked about in the book about politics. Anyway, per peer review suggestions, I think we should split the Lithuanian section off this article and leave an uncontroversial summary here; then we can worry about the controversies and details in the subarticle.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not committed any "legal" defense of Vilnija, if I did it would be in different format, and I am not wiling to do so; that I doing is raised question about source credibility in presented context. And Vilnija is not listed as any major "party", or very active in politics. Presented googling hits shows nice variety of Vilnijas. Your message - with the same name does not make it likely it is that organization which is talked about in the book about politics , indeed the same name does not make likely and I am talking about the same issue. Splitting the article - wouldn’t solve the problems. M.K. 23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would at least take all of the cite needed and neutrality issues out of this article and into a subarticle, where we could concentrate on the AK-Lithuanian story.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa

This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting. M.K. 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Armia Krajowa

While we are on the subject of reviews, there are many good comments at WPMILHIST review.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Restored older version

I reverted this article to older versions for several reasons. First of all the splint suggestion was labeled for very short time, so other neutral contributors could not evaluate all sides of it [10] [11]. The split was done without any further talk, which parts, facts and statements should go to separate article so this can lead to loss of facts and could present one person’s POV. Very important issue is additional requests for neutral contributors to evaluate problems of this particular state article [12][13] not to transferring existing problems of this article to other sub article. So my suggestion - wait until more neutral contributors state their position regarding referencing problems etc., after it start discussions which parts of article should go etc. M.K. 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it would be nice if you could ask in the future before reverting others; also, don't revert copyedit changes and such, this is not good style. Second, comments from peer review all advised splitting the section, feel free to submit the split of article to further reviews. Splitting this section was discussed weeks ago (see archive), there were no objections. After the split, this article contains no controversial information, which is a significant plus, the split of controversial info was not really relevant to this article (like the Vilnija issue). Thus, reverted. PS. Also, before reverting, please nominate the Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II for deletion - we don't need any forks, do we? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be be nice if you could ask in the future before removing vital information from the article. M.K. 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked, everybody but you think it's a good idea - just read peer review, where this idea was actually suggested. Please stop inserting unreferenced information into this article; use the subarticle to pursue the details - this article is about AK, not 'AK and Lithuanians'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you will continue remove information you will be reported. M.K. 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AYB.

Threats, now? I guess I should not have expected anything more contructive :( I said all that I wanted above, but let me note that I am not removing any referenced information - it is moved to Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II. Unreferenced POVed claims will however be removed from this GA-level article, please don't lower it quality with such edits.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You deleted material from this article with refs [14] not even talking that intervened then tag {{inuse}} was displayed. M.K. 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think my opinion on this matter is neutral, because I honestly had never heard of this event in history until I read this article. If I understand the issue here correctly, Piotrus is trying to split the "Relations with Lithuanians" (RwL) section off into a separate article and M.K. objects? In my opinion, the RwL section should be it's own, separate article. The RwL subject is secondary to the main topic, which is about the Armia Krajowa. There appears to be more than enough secondary information out there to support a separate RwL article. All this article needs is a couple of paragraphs (cited, of course) that explain the Armia Krajowa's involvement with the RwL issue and that's it. Cla68 03:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you did evaluate my actions wrongly. Let my ask does information from historians commission or prosecutor`s office is not credible here? Does facts that AK collaborate with Nazi in Lithuania is not credible, of killing civilians and louting schools in Lithuania too? I think differently. While Piotrus continues to remove this info from article. M.K. 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Do you think that the current section is satisfactory, or should it be shortened further?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the section looks fine the way it is now. It's not too long nor too short. Cla68 07:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Two of the best and most prominent members of the WP:MILHIST, Kirill and Cla68, proposed in the relevant peer-review that a seperate sub-article about "Relations with Lithuania" should be created, because the current section is too long. Per WP:SUMMARY this is probably the adequate solution. If a sub-article (sub-article of this article, but main article about the RwL) is created including the infos in the current section, no info will be deleted, and, therefore, I do not think that Piotrus should be reported for anything - he does not delete anything; he transfers encyclopedic material to the main article on the particular topic. If a main RwL can stand on its own, I think that what Kirill and Cla68 proposed is the best solution: a main RwL article and a summary of it in the relevant section of this article.--Yannismarou 09:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II seems like a better choice then Armia Krajowa and Lithuania, as the information contained in that section had to describe (and still, to some extent, do) the background and aftermath, both of which go well beyond existence of AK.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand M.K.'s objection. He/she feels that there should be more information in this article specifically about Armia Krajowa's place in the "RwL" issue? Some mention of that in this article is fine, but it's ok for it to be somewhat short with a "further details" link to direct to a longer, more detailed article on the issue, which I believe is what Piotrus is trying to do, and is supported in doing this by myself and at least a couple of other editors, judging by other comments here on the discussion page. As long as the information (cited of course) is in a linked article I don't see a problem with doing it that way. I don't think that's a "POV fork", because there's apparently more to the issue than just Armia Krajowa's place in it, and there would still be some mention of it on this page. Cla68 07:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This is under review at WP:GA/R. If you expand the lead to summarize the article, I think it will stay a GA. Leave msg on my talk page when done.Rlevse 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• GA kept.Rlevse 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Relations with Lithuanians

M.K, seeing what you're trying to do, I'd like to comment that I think that this section in the article should be shortened, not expanded. I believe it should contain only the outline information and all the details should go the the separate article, devoted to the subject. Also, we should try to avoid potentially incorrect, and certainly disputable statements like "Such ethnic cleansing continued most of the Armia Krajowa`s operation time in Lithuania" or similar. --Lysy^talk 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It will be referenced if you asking about this. Note - discussion should go first before removing or moving any info and this should be done not one person, as Piotrus demonstrated here for several times [15], [16]. removal information from article is very disruptive behaviour not even talking about such edits then tag of {{inuse}} was removed and all info was removed. Note that Piotrus styles himself as "administrator with almost 2 years". So my question should admin act in this way by removing tags, info, despite of left notes in summaries, etc.? M.K. 11:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying not to discuss the behaviour of individual editors here, but the article. Otherwise I'd rather suggest you discussing the obviously controversial changes first, before introducing them. Anyway, all I'm saying is that in my opinion the section should be shortened, not expanded. --Lysy^talk 11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The changes are referenced. Or maybe you would like reformulate your suggestion to - rather suggest discussing the obviously controversial moves first? M.K. 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The only 'obviusly controversial' behaviour here is your own, as my changes are supported by everyone else who has taken the time to review this article (including all neutral reviewers). No referenced info is removed, it is only moved to a separate article as has been noted time and time again. As for the inuse tag, it can be removed just as any other controversial part of an edit; and if you want to work on article in the period of days, please use your sandbox instead of messing the GA-quality article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The tag is not for days first of all, this is yet another your POV; second there was no suggestion from anybody that proper material should be removed from this article. That you conducting is selective facts which should stay, based only on your POV M.K. 15:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

MK: I did not ask if the changes were referenced or not. Also, I'd rather prefer to avoid discussing editors' behaviour (including "controversial moves") here as I think we should be better focusing on the article itself. As I said, the particular section you are expanding should be shortened, not expanded. That was my comment. --Lysy^talk 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Piotrus uses his own and only POV to classify which info should go or which should stay in this article and this is a problem. M.K. 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How about keeping the outline - general information that this is a controversial issue, the background of the problem, that Lithuanian side considered (or maybe still does) AK to be a criminal organisation. That there've been killings of civilians on both sides etc. But leave all the specific details for the separate article covering the issue. --Lysy^talk 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So you suggesting that we should drop parts about special commission conclusions, as well as prosecutor`s office? Or we should keep silent about AK work with Germans or killings of civilians? M.K. 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I just suggested to keep the information about killing of civilians. Why are you asking if I would like to keep silent about this ? --Lysy^talk 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in the other sections, there is no need to repeat in in every place, especially as all reliable refs agree such occurences where an exception to the rule (per Piotrowski and others).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is a large section and it's almost as big as the main article. If there were no main article, I'd say leave it alone as this section is borderline in length. But, as there is a main article and it has 26 or so refs, it'd be best to make this section a 2-3 paragraph summary, leave the main article link in place, and STABILIZE the section and format it better or it WILL loose GA status eventually. This section has format issues, such as periods go before refs, not after. Everyone cooperate and work together otherwise you'll only harm yourselves and the article.Rlevse 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are moments when I am afraid some people may actually want to destabilize this article on purpose... let's hope I am wrong.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Armija Krajova Lietuvoje"

Since M.K. quotes this publication so extensivly, I recalled that we already discussed the reliability of this source at Talk:Glitiškės and did a new search, hoping to find (finally) a single English review. Unfortunatly, I failed; as far as I can tell all the reviews are either in Lithuanian (which I cannot understand - hope some editor can compile a list with summaries) and Polish, which I do understand. Of course Polish sources will be somewhat biased, but it is interesting to see that they are all condemning this publication with rather strong words (note: some references describe a documentary movie based on the book). The most telling and official is the statement on the official pages of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affrairs:

• [17] - V. Kavaliauskas, an advisor to the Lithuanian president, said: 'The film left a bad taste in my mouth... I am sorry it was shown... it was pointless... it was a political not historical film". The film is called 'not objective' and 'one-sided'. Motiekaitis, the spokesperson of the Lithuanian TV 3 which showed the film, promised that it will not be shown again and more careful screening will be put in place to avoid such controversies. Other critics of the film include Polish-Lithuanian historian J. Wołkanowski,Lithuanian journalist from "Veidas", A. Baciulis, and expert on Polish-Lithuanian pyblications, Jan Sienkiewicz, who reffered to Garšva as 'pseudohistorian'. Garšva is also reffered to as 'known for his anti-Polish sentiments'.
• [18] Tygodnik Wileńczczyzny (a Polish-language publication printed in Lithuania for Polish minority there): 'provocation' and 'work in the spirit of Soviet propaganda' and condemns wokrs of Kazimieras Garšva (a leader of the Vilinja 'extremist' organization we discussed recently)
• [19] Nasza Gazeta - condemns works of Kazimieras Garšva
• [20] - 'extremly POVed', 'intolerant'
• [21] Instytut Pamięci Narodowej - 'anti-Polish film'

While I will be the first to say that we cannot use Polish sources to completly debunk a publication critical of Poles, I'd like to point out is is obviously a controversial publication (a review of Lithuanian-language reviews would be most useful). It would be useful to try to find another, more reliable (English, preferably) source to confirm claims of the above publications - but in any case, such claims should be discussed at talk first, and not on this GA-class article, but at Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Film? Did I quote a film?? M.K. 15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the film was based on the book, and anyway several of the refs above criticize the book and/or it's primary author. We should be careful when using such extremist sources, printed or in other media. Per WP:RS, not everything that is printed is reliable, and we have plenty of sources indicating that Garsva works are far from neutral.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat my self - it is not a film which I used. And by the way did your "critics" talk about the extremist Lithuanian prosecutor's office and eye-witnesses accounts too? M.K. 17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And stop misleading other editors, the book does not belong to Garsva as you trying to show it has info of A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas j. Klausykla, M. Salgaris, S. Liskauskas, J. Žvinas, B., Radžiulis, j. Pajuodis, G. Katinias, B. Juodzevičius, K. Daugintis, P. Dunduliene, R. Tumolevičius, etc, etc, etc; M.K. 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And I will repeat myself, too: the reviews above criticize the book, too. And out of curiosity, chapters written by which of those editors are you quoting?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The validity of that source probably should be debated on the Relations with Lithuanians article discussion page. Not here. There are ways to compromise on the use of a single, disputed source, but I'm not going to get into it here. Cla68 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish editors disruptive edits

The Polish editors reached the peak with their disruptive edits [22],[23] [24]there are no talk about facts presented in article only simple removal of legitimate info. M.K. 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Shortened the section

OK, as suggested by everyone but M.K, I have significantly shortened the section on "Relations with Lithuanians". The more detailed description of the events should go to Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II. --Lysy^talk 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also do not forget to restore images which I uploaded! M.K. 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The sections on relations with the Scots, the Brits, the Dutch, the French, the Spaniards and the Czechoslovaks will soon be added as well. Any other nations that deserve special sections? //Halibutt 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Hali, you have to admit relations with some groups deserve a mention here. At the moment I can't think of any other section we would need, though - I think we are quite well covered in the relations sections.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Piotrus) I agree with the shortening. My opinion is that the SS content of the current section must be the result of a consensus among the interested editors. I hope that after Lysy's intervention the editors will have the chance to focus on the other problems of the article, in order to keep GA status and, possibly, to go for FA promotion.--Yannismarou 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Lysy for shortening and copy editing. Concur with Yannismarou's comments. Addhoc 11:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Piotrus continues to remove info

This time article was not “increased” or “expanded” now, which was last time was an excuse for Polish contributors to remove my version, but removal continues with even stranger statements: [25] now the Lithuanian Government position became untenable, as well as presented sources. But how say this? This is based only by users:Piotrus POV. I urge Yannismarou, Addhoc, Cla68 to make the comments about which info and facts should be used, because this version was not disused on talk at all. M.K. 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)