Talk:Dubingiai massacre

Old talk

For some old discussions, see Talk:Dubingiai.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant image

Image:Armia Krajowa killings 2.jpg is not relevant. Not only is the source dubious, but the image simply has nothing to to with Dubingiai massacre. Caption states: "Killed Lithuanians by Armia Krajowa" - this could have happened anywhere. A much better picture would be a monument in the village; is there a one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Image is completely relevant. Image shows killed civilians, who there killed by Armia Krajowa in 23 June, 1944 in Molėtai district (there Dubingiai is).Article covers this time and area and specific subject. I also should note that you failed to produce any academic sources, which denounce specific facts, which supports your speculation about "dubious source". M.K. (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything written by Garšva is as reliable as works of Irving, as the relevant articles (Vilnija) demonstrate. Please provide a reference to your claim that the image shows what it you claim it shows.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have undisputed facts that presented photo is falsification - present the these sources and facts. Currently you failed to produce any academic facts, which would contradict photo material presented in article. Reference of photo you will find and in presented cource. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not and argument to delete and other information. M.K. (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the info is supported by WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, among others. In other words, Vilnija claims are not encyclopedic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You failed to a) produce any academic source, which support your view that this image is not relevant here b) personal speculations is not an argument, especially proclaiming something as FRINGE. Therefore image is restored. M.K. (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And you have failed to present a source that states the photo represents people killed in Dubingiai.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Pic taken from particular source is quite clear, there slaughter took place. Some more "new" excuses why picture should be removed? M.K. (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

70-100?

Please provide quotations and translations for the 70-100 victims range. Please provide those particularly for Rimantas Zizas Arūnas Bubnys; I am sure that KG and Vilnija make such claims - but they are hardly reliable. Also, please provide the quotation for Kozłowski's claim about Joniškis.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I am glad to see that the ref to KG was removed without much fuss. Now, if we can get exact citations for those other claims? Do note that the issue is primarily the confusion between casualties in Dubingai; I have sources that in that period there were indeed other actions of AK that resulted in casualties among the civilian bystanders, so this is not disputed (although it would be good to have exact citations for exact numbers - who wrote 70, who wrote a 100...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations provided, there are more facts provided. As a gesture of I do insist that you' remove antisemitic references of yours and your friend in other articles, would you?--Lokyz (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If you can show any article where antisemitic sources are used to make antisemitic claims, I will remove them ASAP.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a hint:Holocaust deniers are generally considered unreliable sources in Western civilization.--Lokyz (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Łupaszko or Rakoczy

Can we have a ref for Łupaszko being the commander of the unit that carried out the massacre? I have a ref in front of me that notes that the company of AK 5th Brigade that carried out the executions in Dubniki was commanded by lt. "Rakoczy" (Jan Wiktor Wiącek). For the record, Zygmunt Szendzielarz "Łupaszko" was the commander of the 5th Brigade. It is likely that some sources erroneously attribute the event to him as the unit commander, even through he was not on spot and it was "Rakoczy" who was in fact the commander on spot. PS. To clarify: can we have a ref for his direct involvement? Being a commander of a unit whose subunit does something without order and not in a presence of its superior officer should not portrayed as "a unit under the command of a superior officer did this and that".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass murder or executions?

Please provide the ref (with original and translation if necessary) for the term "mass murder"; the ref I have in front of me (which I will soon use to expand this article) refers to the event as "executions" (pl. "rozstrzelanie").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Civilians

I do not intend to go into edit warring and violate WP:3RR, you're trying to force me into. Just let me provide translation of the citation (presented on the main page) for antoher time: "Translation=Especially brutally were murdered Dubingiai inhabitants on the end of June 1944. According to a non final data Polish partisants did kill here around 70 peacefull people, including old men and underage kids." Please explain, what word exactly describes killed people as"non civil", "military", "agressors", "collaborant" and any other. I do understand, that someone might find, that "old men" and "underage children" is not enough to be "civil" population, but the source say just that.--Lokyz (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The translation suffers from poor grammar and ambiguity. First of all, it suggest that - contrary to all other sources - in Dubingaiai itself 70, not 27, people were killed. Second, "peacefull people" is very unclear. I am not disputing that some innocent bystanders were killed, but how many? Were all 70 innocent bystanders? Polish sources note that there were such casualties, but also note that the victims included members of Nazi-Lithuanian police forces and administration, as well as the fact that many executed civilians were either informants of the police/Nazis or fought against the Poles. The story is quite different when the "old men" become "informants" and "underage kids" - "child soldiers" (many partisans, Polish and presumably Lithuanian, were underage - being 13 or 14 years old did not prevent over 2000 of children to take part in Warsaw Uprising, for example). PS. For the record, I don't consider you edit warring on this article, replacing tags with citations - or adding tags with explanations to a new place - is not edit warring; only repeating removal (or addition) of the same information or tag in the same place would qualify. I think we are making nice progress here improving this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No wonder indeed, if you kill someone in retaliation just for having a Lithuanian prayer book (why did this referenced information was removed?), you need some reasons to state for public.

And your assumptions about child soldiers do not hold water either. The books has many more facts - including Polish killings of Lithuanian teachers and foresters, and also clear statement that AK in this region did evade direct actions against Nazi, focusing their efforts only to Soviet partisants and local Lithuanian administration.--Lokyz (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The prayer book information makes little sense and is contradictory to other sources. Can you provide a larger - let's say, paragraph - quotation, translation and another source that confirms that possession of the prayer book was the main reason for being killed? I have plenty of sources that describe AK fights with the Germans, although due to such high level of Lithuanian collaboration Germans were indeed able to significantly lessen their presence near Vilna, hence by simple numbers and odds most of AK anti-Nazi operations encountered Lithuanian opposition, not German. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As for now you haven't provided a SINGLE translated WORD to support you allegations, although you insist Polish point of view is "reliable" (installing Polish newspaper scrap, and removing Lithuanian newspaper as not reliable - well, because it is newspaper). Remember, this is still English Wikipedia, not Polish.

Please note, we are talking about documented killings by Polish side, and note, that I did show good will removing reference to a person, you did attack personally violating WP:LIVING, and also I did provide citations you requested. And please note, you did interpret and twist them them without any supporting evidence. So I do not consider your evidence worth a dime, unless you provide translated citations, and I do reserve my right to interpret them, the way you did mine. Furthermore - what you did in this article, is a justification of mass murder of civilian people (including children). Think about it, and think how other people would think about you after such statement.

FYI - there is evidence, that there were 4 children killed in their cradles (including three months old child), and one 10 years girl raped and killed. Were those also "children soldiers"? And killed whole families holding rosaries and prayer books were also enemies?.--Lokyz (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to continue the discussion if you will misinterpret my statements into such lies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So you step down from your statement "The story is quite different when the "old men" become "informants" and "underage kids" - "child soldiers""? I'm rather interested what part of your statement did I misinterpreted? As for German collaborators - I do have evidence, that AK soldiers killed Lithuanians who were volunteers in Lithuanian Wars of Independence, and had nothing to do with Nazi government. yes thay did kill family of one Policemen, and one Policemen - but killing family with little children is not the same as kill collaborator, don't you think? But well, I might be overreacting, as I've read the Lithuanian commission material and it is quite difficult to remain calm after reading how, for example, AK did shoot a teacher in the school, holding her two years child in her hands, or stabbed a child lying in a cradle with a bayonet and held him in the air until he stopped moving, and many more facts of "punishing collaborators". BTW, I do have full statement of this commission, and it clearly states that AK did commit manslaughter and crimes against humanity. It's official document, not some newspaper interpretation.

Another thing - please would you explain, how so you forgot to mention in the edit summary, that you are removing perfectly valid references to professional historians, both of whom are specialists on the subject here, and evaded requested citation from Polish newspaper (how so is Polish newspaper good, ad Lithuanian is not?)--Lokyz (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Building emotional straw man is not a game I intend to play, so I will not go into details on how Lithuanians killed a three-year old in Glinciszki who was trying to crawl away from the bodies of her parents, or how they mutilated the dead bodies with barbed wire. Sufficient to say that all reliable sources, including certain historian Bubnys, agree that the tragedy in Dubingia was an exception to the rule - while for Lithuanian collaborators, Glinciszki was just one of many similar incidents. No matter how unpleasant, you will find it hard to challenge this fact.

What commission document? Could you reference it? Is there a Polish or English translation?

The refs were removed because you have failed to provide citations that most victims of the larger action were civilians. Some, I don't dispute that. PS. If Rimantas Zizas is such an expert, could you create a stub on him? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to create any more stubs on people you seem not to like. You might look for Zizas in Google search, he's Lithuanian Institute of History scientific associate.

As a matter of fact,it is the only one act, that Poles do acknowledge. The documents and statements of survivors speak about many many more robbings of Lithuanian villages and killings of innocent people. As a matter of fact Bubnys mentions not only this one incident, and says that tehre were several hundred Lithuanians killed by AK. Many of survivors evidences were presented in the before Lithuanian commission. I do not recall Bubnys stating that this was an isolated incident.

It would be really cooperational of you, to restore removed valid references (including those of Bubnys and Zizas). you still have failed to evaluate why did you remove them? i suspect it is WP:IDONTLIKE case. The reference is perfectly valid, as it does speak about "peacefull" people. If you insist, i can build a list of victims. As far i do remember there were 4 children shot/stabed with bayonets lying in cradles, 2 year old kid shot lying in a bed with his mother, raped and shot 10 years old girl (after death she was inscribed K word on her body with a knife), another 10 year old boy and 13 years old girl, an 83 years old grandma shot in a head and left alive for another 8 hours to die. Should I continue the list of supposedly collaborators?

The documents are available in Lithuanian, as the commission was Lithuanian.--Lokyz (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that labeling 0,5-7 year old children as "child soldiers" is completely unacceptable. M.K. (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to ponder on the difference between justification and explanation. Or did I justify Nazi starvation of Poles and Russians in Hunger Plan? Hmmm? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claims

Apart from non encyclopedic language which was employed in this article, I would like to request that proper citations should be provided to identify who proclaimed "Lithuanian units" as "guilty". there was any trial? Or this is routine AK's terror excuse by non existing proclamation of guilt. Second I refuse to believe that Polish sources actually notes that killing civilian population was "success" as relevant article parts implies, exact citations and translations are requested. M.K. (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The guilty were determined by the AK Special Tribunal (akin to military tribunal). Translation - Piskunowicz, p.57: "Only the drastic methods, which unintentionally affected the Lithuanian population on the pre-war territory of the Lithuanian state, made the Lithuanian political elites realize that further repressions aganst the Poles will not be tolerated and will result in immediate Polish reprisal. Lithuanians did not use any reprisals [for the Dubingiai massacre]. The AK Vilna Region HQ had no intention of fighting with the Lithuanian civilians. However once again it was shown that even a planned reprisal limited to members of police formation and administration involved in repressions could escalate and result in tragedies of uninvolved, innocent people. It should be noted that [the Dubingiai massacre] was the only reprisal action of such type ever carried out by AK during the Nazi occupation as a result of an order from any AK regional HQ." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First AK have no legal authority, therefore these assertions of "guilty" is dubious. M.K. (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as we talk about dubious claims, the issue of 200 victims, sourced to some rather unknown Lithuanian newspaper, was discussed here. Per WP:RS and WP:V: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Doubling the range of victims requires something more than one newspaper.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

a) this is not the newspaper b) you removed it not only from referencing numbers c) it seems that it is only you who disputes this nobody supports your view. M.K. (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is not a newspaper, what is it? Who is the author of that claim, and what are his/her academic credentials? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit lost, so it is appears that you in fact do not know enything about this source but keep insisting that this is newspaper on variuos article talk pages. Could you clarify this, M.K. (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed info

Since we seem to have some unhelpful edit war, let me explain why I think certain recent additions are unhelpful:

• info on Zygmunt Szendzielarz being posthumously awarded a medal is not relevant as it had nothing to do with Dubinki; we could just as well discuss the controversy over a similar reward to Nazi collaborator Povilas Plechavičius. This is done elsewhere, and this is not a place for such discussions. Even the fact that Szendzielarz was executed (which I have added) is of dubious relevance, as I don't have a source that clearly connects his fate with the massacre.
• accusations of AK collaborations with the Germans are discussed elsewhere and have nothing at all to do with this article
• several sources note that the policemen responsible for Glnciszki masaacre and their families were in Dubinki, and that this was the reason this village was chosen; there is nothing "alleged" about this
• please don't restore claim that most of the victims of June 23-27 were civilians until you provide a source that states so; the current sources are unclear on percentage of civilians among the victims; we have included a note that there were civilians victims - please don't add ORish speculation that they were a majority
• the Panorama 200 claim should be discussed above

Thank you,--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely concur. The article in its current form is NPOV IMO. No one tries to whitewash the fact that AK murdered those Lithuanians. - Darwinek (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

a) from this it is quite clear who started this edit war. b) Zygmunt Szendzielarz being posthumously awarded a medal is completely relevant as he was the person who organized the raid, and yes Lithuanian sources clearly connects massacre and awarding. c) presenting one side as collaborators, and stressing this in any possible location, while being silent on AK collaboration, (which was established before this slaughter)is not NPOV. I will add additional sources for this claim. d) Alleged is necessary , if want to avoid it proper attribution to original claim should be made; more so called AK "courts" judgments are dubious,at best. e) Is it surprise to learn that panorama is not newspaper? form this edit it seem that was clear conversance over the source...in other hand I ready temporary to drop 200 victim claim until find another book. f) variuos other issues - like over linking, WP:UNDUE attributions, removal of other referenced academic statements, removal of variuos other expansions are not "more neutral version" M.K. (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a ref that connects Szelendziarz award with controversy, we can add it - but it's undue weight to the lead.

Since all Lithuanian units were collaborators, it's not really 'presenting one side as such'. As almost none of Polish units were - and probably none of those involved in this incident (after all they were fighting Nazis and their collaborators), this is quite obviously off topic.

The sentence about L. guards is clearly attributed via footnotes.

Feel free to discuss those various issues in more detail, it is more helpful than just reverting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Produce academic sources which supports your view that Since all Lithuanian units were collaborators. M.K. (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some fresh perspective

I took a quick look through the above, ak vai (I rather suspect I don't need to translate). Much more to deal with than just the current state of the actual article, but I'll start there.

My thanks (I think!) to Piotrus for asking me to take a look. I did also read through Talk:Dubingiai before these comments, but I've purposely avoided the talk page here so I could hopefully offer some fresh perspective.
   The larger context was the efforts by the Poles in the aftermath of WWI to drive Soviet troops from their soil. The situation looked grave and caused doubt in the Poles' ability to succeed, preventing significant progress in a drive for Baltic Unity (a number of conferences, including Poland as a potential signatory). Ultimately the unity effort failed because of Lithuanian opposition. The Polish occupation (per non-Baltic source) of the Vilnius region became a particular source of contention in Polish-Lithuanian relations between the wars, and adding an extra level of acrimony and complexity with the hostilities of WWII.
   We should then be particularly careful, especially with the myths that have been built up around the Nazi occupation of the Baltics, e.g., the notion there was "local administration" that was only loosely accountable to the Nazis, that locals were happy Nazi subjects, etc. which have their root in Nazi propaganda and, frankly, conjecture. That includes statements like...

• from the Piotrowski's "Poland's Holocaust", I recall running into a judgement that the paucity of Nazis required to subjugate the Lithuanians is proof of Lithuanian support
• elsewhere, that the only way the Holocaust could have claimed so many victims with such great "efficiency" because of "widespread" local support for the murder of Jews

At any rate, to the article. Apologies where I simply cut and pasted from the page view and not the actual content (for refs). I've bypassed any simple copy edits.

Background

1. Paragraph 1: "Lithuanian pro-Nazi administration and military units and the anti-Nazi Polish resistance"
   Minimally this should read "Nazi-organized Lithuanian military units...". In the end it's perceptions of sympathies more than "sympathies" themselves that drive events and subsequent accounts.
2. Paragraph 1: The chain of events needs some better narrative for context instead of launching right into Glitiškės. For "On June 20 1944 Polish resistance killed 4 and wounded..." something such as: "An escalating chain of attacks and reprisals began on June 20 1944 when the Polish resistance killed 4 and wounded..."
3. Paragraph 1: "It should be noted that the AK command did not plan, and actually strictly forbid, any reprisals against innocent civilians." Well, this is a problem isn't it? It's really that the AK command authorized itself to kill anyone it deemed not innocent, i.e., as long as they didn't wear a uniform or weren't outed as an informant or.... At best this can be stated as "It should be noted that the AK command forbade reprisals against those it considered to be innocent civilians."
4. Paragraph 2: "It should be noted that there is a confusion over who led the raid on Dubingiai; as most sources attribute it to the commander of the 5th Brigade, Szelendziarz[5][4] - although Henryk Piaskunowicz, Polish historian an expert on Armia Krajowa operations in Vilna region, specifically pointed out to Wiącek.[2]"
   The narrative should lead toward the likeliest candidate. Differing accounts are not necessarily "confusion" in and of itself. Something along the lines of "Most sources simply attribute leadership of the raid to the 5th Brigade's commander, Szelendziarz[5][4]. However, Henryk Piaskunowicz, an expert on Armia Krajowa operations in the Vilna region, specifically singles out Wiącek[2]." This sentence itself needs to go in the Events section where "commanded by" is missing who it was. By the way, if we believe a historian has provided an accurate account, we don't need to say what nationality they are. It's a slipperly slope to the divisiveness of judging sources by their last name.
5. Paragraph 3: no issues

Events in Dubingai

1. There is some unneeded repetition. We've already established why the Polish unit was coming, there's no need to repeat the complete chain of events again. Also, who commanded should go in here. Since at least one Polish woman was killed, we should be clearer on intended targeting or sparing based on allegiance or ethnicity versus being sure of the final victims. First is current, then proposed:
   • (current) The village was warned about the coming of the Polish forces, and in fact many individuals - including the policeman who participated in the Glinciszki massacre - escaped before the Polish forces secured the village. On 23 June 1944, the local Armia Krajowa unit commanded by entered the town and murdered a number of Lithuanians, mostly civilians, in a retaliation for an earlier massacre of Polish villagers in Glitiškės Glinciszki done by Nazi-sponsored Lithuanian police. Polish partisans were selective in targeting their victims (as they had a list of collaborators); they also did not kill Lithuanian men married to Polish women - although at least one Polish women was killed, too. The number of Lithuanian victims in Dubingiai is estimated at 20 to 27.
   • (proposed) The village was warned about the coming of Polish forces bent on retaliation for Glinciszki. Many, including the intended targets—the policeman who participated in the killlings in Glinciszki—had escaped by the time forces of the 5th Brigade arrived on 23 June 1944. While sources tend to attribute leadership of the raid to the 5th Brigade's commander, Szelendziarz, Henryk Piaskunowicz, an expert on Armia Krajowa operations in the Vilna region, specifically singles out the local AK unit commander, Wiącek. Upon entering Dubingiai, the Polish forces murdered a number of Lithuanians, mostly civilians. They targeted those listed as collaborators while sparing those with Polish ties (Lithuanian husbands with Polish wives). However, at least one Polish women was also reported to have been killed. The total number of victims is estimated at 20 to 27.

Aftermath

1. I don't even know where to start. We state this started a wider Polish operation and reprisal actions by both sides, but then later that this incident was the only "reprisal" by the Poles. The whole "cowing" thing has to go too, as does the air of justified reprisal by the Poles (not saying it's intended editorially, just how it reads) where it's left out that this particular chain of escalation started with the Poles--and what does that have to do with the "aftermath?" Not that the Lithuanians were blameless either. Regardless, the narrative really needs to be redone for tone and content to focus on the actual aftermath and not exist as an excuse to rehash events.

So... if editors are amenable to the changes I've suggested to the earlier sections, then I could perhaps make those and then take a crack at the aftermath section. And suggest something regarding the number of victims. Not that I really have time for this right now, but I feel a certain sense of obligation here to put my money where my mouth is where it comes to my recent comments (elsewhere) about central/eastern European and Baltic editors not tearing down their own house. I can see where we would easily arrive at editorial conflict (all in good faith) here. —PētersV (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'd also suggest we not get into who started what and not give in to the urge to revert, report, escalate.... What's gone on here in that regard is a sad inheritance of the greatness of Poland-Lithuania. —PētersV (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus reply:

Thank you, it is a nice change to be able to discuss this issue in a neutral tone.

Background:

1 - agree, it sounds better

2 - disagree, since combat was common. Those were hardly the first fatalities, Polish resistance and Lithuanian Nazi auxiliaries had many skirmishes in the past. In this case we only have a rare, clear line - military skirmish (L. patrol tries to ambush Polish partisans, is itself ambushed, takes casualties, retreats...), Lithuanian retaliation on P. civilians specifically for the losses sustained in the skirmish, P. retaliation on L. civilians for the specific retaliation.... I could agree to your version but 'began' should be replaced by 'continued'.

3 - sounds reasonable. It is a valid point that often what Poles/AK saw as Nazi collaborators were for Lithuanians local patriots.

4 - agreed

Events:

Notes: the source states clearly that only some (part of the) policeman escaped. There is also the issue of the "Lithuanian prayer book", which as one Lithuanian historian claims were used to determine who died or not (I think the current version of this sentence is acceptable, although I cannot verify the Lithuanian original quote and translation).

Aftermath:

The aftermath, for the most part, refers to the larger reprisal action, so indeed it is somewhat out of focus. But we do mention the larger picture in the background. Perhaps we should have one para about the dubinki aftermath, and one about the larger picture aftermath? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2008-03-30 Reply

I write my reply in following fashion - will compare two versions, namely these ones and address issues to other comments presented above and Vecrumba suggestions, I will do this because all this is related to each other and current Vecrumba's suggestion do not cover full problems (I know that suggestions is only in developing stage). Therefore:

• First, lead, article have no proper lead as other party keeps removing lead summary Removed parts - Executions of local population by Armia Krajowa continued for several days in nearby villages, total number of executed people vary. Zygmunt Szendzielarz, one of the persons responsible for civilians murdered in town, posthumously was awarded by Polish president Lech Kaczynski back in 2007.
• Armia Krajowa collaboration with Nazies, it is well established fact. As article presents general background about the events and exclusively in background section stress conflict with and due to conflicts between Lithuanian pro-Nazi administration and military units.. while keeping silent of AK collaboration with Nazies, it is not NPOV.(especially then these AK collaboration statements are perfectly referenced) I on 03-26 had implemented neutral formulation, whoever it was made not NPOV by subsequent edits of other party.
• decided that it represented a beginning of a new, large anti-Polish operation and only a demonstration of a Polish force in the region could stop the pacifications and protect the Polish civilians. completely not neutral statment, it should at least have proper attribution which I implemented in article Henryk Piaskunowicz claims that only a demonstration of a Polish force in the region could stop the pacifications and protect the Polish civilians..., however it was reverted to so called "more neutral version" [1]. statements Itself with words "only" should be treated with care and with maximum references rather then one persons impressions.
• Leaflets were distributed through the region that AK is planning to execute members of the Lithuanian units guilty, as other party explained that "guilt" was was determined by so called AK "courts", while AK was separatist type movement which have no legal authority nor powers to make justice, such POV statements about "quilt" should go ASAP.
• It should be noted that the AK command did not plan, and actually strictly forbid, any reprisals against innocent civilians.; variuos formulations like It should be noted should go as they not proper style, plus this assertion is just Polish side only, while Lithuanian historians are not so categorical that "command did not plan, and actually strictly forbid, any reprisals against innocent civilians.". Therefore not NPOV, my version of 03-29 minimized such POV'ish claims by proper attribution, however it was reverted...
• It should be noted that there is a confusion over who led the raid on Dubingiai; again It should be noted should go, bad style. The whole section is big POV and WP:UNDUE claim: It should be noted that there is a confusion over who led the raid on Dubingiai; as most sources attribute it to the commander of the 5th Brigade, Szelendziarz - although Henryk Piaskunowicz, Polish historian an expert on Armia Krajowa operations in Vilna region, specifically pointed out to Wiącek. particularly confusion are only to Polish historians as Lithuanian (at least which I have, and which there presented in article) points to Zygmunt Szendzielarz; more Polish historian an expert on Armia Krajowa operations in Vilna region, is total undue weight to the claim, if Piaskunowicz, is shuch an expert he should have separate article and readers from it should make judgment about his so called "expertise", obviously this "argument" should go, as I could ask for for single claim

Polish historian {{fact}} an expert{{fact}} on Armia Krajowa operations in Vilna region {{fact}}, and every single reference had to go with attribution, who thinks that he is an expert. My suggestion implemented in article on 03-29 - There is a certain level of confusion among Poles over who led the raid on Dubingiai; as most sources attribute it to the commander of the 5th Brigade, Szelendziarz - although Henryk Piaskunowicz, specifically pointed out to Wiącek. However, Lithuanian sources directly names Zygmunt Szendzielarz as raid leader. was plainly reverted using arguments...actually there were no arguments.

• every single sentence which has - including the policeman who participated variuos labels of "of participations" "guilt" should be properly attributed or used with caution.
• The whole unhandy referenced paragraph (The survivors of the massacre stated, that primary target of AK riflemen was men, who were found having Lithuanian language prayer-books.) there deleted without proper argumentation.
• between 70-100 Lithuanians, mostly peaceful people, were killed in total by the end of June 1944 sentence properly meets WP:V and WP:NOR, therefore it is not up to personal contributors' opinion to judge about it and distort reference text.
• The reprisal action of 23-27 June has succeeded in cowing the Lithuanian authorities, one of the most shameful statements in article not even without proper attribution who made such "claim" but also shame that Polish historians regard slaughter of civilians as "success". Fell free to compare two article versions for insight.
• The whole referenced text however AK terror directly pointed to local population continued. was deleted and installed nonetheless it has still managed to stain the reputation of AK in Lithuania. weasel type claim. It should be asserted that AK criminal actions did not ended with this slaughter, like it or not it is fact with academic opinion.
• Ending about responsible person. My version had this info:However he was rehabilitated by Poland after fall of the Soviet regime. On 2007 Zygmunt Szendzielarz posthumously was awarded by Polish president Lech Kaczynski.. Other party claims: If you can provide a ref that connects Szelendziarz award with controversy, we can add it - but it's undue weight to the lead.[2], if he looked at the provided text and specific reference in the my version of article, instead of reverting at sight, it become clear that provided source's title states To organizer of Dubingiai slaughter - award from Polish president, is a clear direct link with slaughter and award. And presenting development summary into the lead it is not undue weight but a requirement per proper guidelines.
• Current version has around 5 links to Glidiškės clear over linking.

As from that is written above, it became evident that proposed new formulation by Vecrumba of specific part is also ill crafted. In situations then proper attribution needed like intended targets—the policeman who participated in the there are non - whose this claims - AK or modern historian?. again problems an expert on Armia Krajowa operations in the Vilna region, WP:UNDUE etc. They targeted those listed as collaborators --- so after all 2-5 years old children there collaborators, right? and the sentence implies that all those civilians there were collaborators, well we had an opinion that those children there actually "child soldiers". I hope that presented formulation will be adjusted , also remaining problems addressed as well. Fell free to contact me on my talk if any additional questions arise. M.K. (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My initial suggestions were from reading the current article at face value and where I felt the current version was lacking. Thanks to you and Piotrus for your responses. I wasn't proposing all fixes all at once.

   Given the amount of propaganda about Eastern Europeans as collaborators, and the degree to which the Vilna region just on its own was an incendiary Polish/Lithuanian issue, labeling people as collaborators (on both sides) surely assuaged any guilt about killing them but that whole discussion of who was more of a collaborator does very little to add to the understanding of the chain of events (IMHO).

   I also believe that the the Zygmunt Szendziela rewarded for slaughter angle is problematic. It's quite clear that it's not conclusive that Szelendziarz led the raid. And I can guarantee that whatever Szelendziarz was commended for, it wasn't for slaughtering civilians. This is where I'm sorry to say that there may be emotionalism in sources. I have certainly encountered it in Latvian sources.

   I sense that part of the problem is which source is more authoritative (or not). I've done some study on writing about history--the best narrative incorporates all reputable sources from all sides of an issue. That means we don't simply write things such as "X was rewarded by Y for their slaughter of innocent Z"--even if that is exactly what a source said, because I'm sure that in the case mentioned, Kaczynski didn't mention Dubingiai. That a source contended reward for slaughter is part of "Aftermath", that is, the wounds are still bleeding today. —PētersV (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the article diff, that lays out most of the current issues. —PētersV (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I will answer to it tomorrow. Bets, M.K. (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take the diffs and do some work in my own user space. Do you have a ref for "Armia Krajowa collaboration with Nazies, it is well established fact."? Thanks! —PētersV (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Plenty , M.K. (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you wouldn't indicate well-established otherwise. From what I have been reading, the myth of widespread Nazi collaboration across Eastern Europe has spared no nationality, so I believe the best way to deal with the collaboration issue is to state it in background but to keep the article free of Nazis. At the end of the day, it was a label tragically used by both sides to justify their actions. The refs are to complete the each side is patriotic, the opposition of each side is a collaborator picture. Not to mention that with the prior Soviet annexation of Vilnius to Lithuania, the Lithuanians were already Soviet collaborators (to the Poles).

   Also, if it's not too involved, is it possible to get a literal translation of "The survivors of the massacre stated, that primary target of AK riflemen was men, who were found having Lithuanian language prayer-books"? Or confirm that what's currently written there is literally what's in the source? Thanks! —PētersV (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So, as promised here is my reply. Yes, Pēters, I know that your proposal is initial suggestion; and my first response was a bit long only to provide general problems of this so called "neutral version". Regarding Zygmunt nobody writes that he was awarded because he slaughtered civilians (if this was a case perhaps current Polish ambassador would be kicked out of Vilnius at least). please investigate proposed text in article's history for insight.

Regarding Armia Krajowa collaboration with Nazies I present specific sources below answering to other party's claims. And yes I have to agree that we have to be careful with "Nazi collaborators" "sympathizes" etc. However if you look to present so called "more neutral version" you will see that article is written using formula - Nazis Lithuanians vs Anti-Nazis Poles, over linking to the Glidiškės murder is another sign which supports this. However NPOV requires that other side opinion should be included as well, this is impossible to do due to blunt reverts

Regarding "The survivors of the massacre stated, that primary target..." translation I will look for it. M.K. (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. just a reminder that relevant info you may found below

"Nazis Lithuanians vs Anti-Nazis Poles" - and this is exactly the situation in the Vilnius region during WWII. Didn't the Lithuanians significantly collaborated with the Nazis, lured by promises of independence? Didn't the Poles fought the Nazis? Didn't this lead to Polish anti-Nazi resistance fighting Lithuanian pro-Nazi collaborators? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect synthesis. M.K. (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly, thank you for agreeing with me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very good that you acknowledge your mistakes. Very good sign. M.K. (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Szendzielarz wasn't obviously commended for Dubinki; as his bio will show he fought Nazis and the Soviets, and this is what he was commended upon. The Dubinki tragedy is mostly unknown in Poland, as from the Polish historiography perspective is a minor event.

For the issue of AK-Nazi collaboration, please see Armia_Krajowa#Relations_with_Lithuanians. "Armia Krajowa collaboration with Nazies, it is well established fact" is a fringe, undue claim. Only some - NOT ALL - Lithuanian historians pursue this argument; notable Lithuanian critics of this argument include such prominent Lithuanian historians as Arūnas Bubnys who stated that "there were no mass murders carried by AK (with the only exception being Dubinki); while that AK was guilty of some war crimes against Lithuanian individuals or selected families any accusations of genocide are false and have an underlying political motive, among them a counteraction to the accusations of widespread German-Lithuanian collaboration and crimes committed by units such as the Lithuanian Secret Police [3]. Historian Tomas Venclova referred to such arguments as "pathetic spectacle" and "anti-Polish propaganda campaign" [4]. Polish historian Piotr Łossowski have addressed this very issue [5]: "Massacre in Dubinki was highlighted by the Lithuanians, and became the basis for repeated and false claims. Due to activities of a extremist group of activists related to anti-Polish organization Vilnija, activities of AK have been subject to continuous misinterpretation and falsehoods. Due to activities of Vilnija leader, Kazimieras Garsva, a highly biased, event slanderous publication Armija krajova Lietuvoje was published in years 1995 / 1999. [Piotrus comment: this is the publication that is used as basis for majority of MK's claims]. In the tome two... the issue of alleged AK collaboration with the Germans is addressed. The talks regarding exchange of prisoners and purchase of weapons and ammo to be used against the Soviets are falsely portrayed as some far-reaching alliance (which never happened, and AK never stopped its fight with the Germans)." In any case, this entire issue is quite irrelevant to this article - nor to others...

Various "terror, slaughter" and such claims regarding AK, provided without proper attribution, are hardly neutral. And as they are used only by some - again, not all - Lithuanian historians (with others, as noted, distancing themselves from such language and interpretations). Łossowski quoted above notes that this event was condemned by Polish side, he cites another historian (Roman Korab-Żebry), who (like many others - as stated for example by Institute of National Rememberance([6])) notes that this tragedy was an exception to the rule. Hence attempts to push anti-AK POV and to portray it as an anti-Lithuanian organization (where in fact it attempted constantly to negotiate a ceasefire with the Lithuanians - many refs can be presented for that) should be properly addressed, to a considerable degree this is beating the same old horse - there was a mediation over a year ago already. It's the same horse, just a new article... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well lets see that we got. 1) please do not convert this discussion to unrelated essay. 2)Having troubles to understanding why Dubingiai is being called "Dubinki". 3) I presented sources which directly links Szendzielarz and massacre, but in response we receive personal reassurances that zendzielarz wasn't obviously commended for Dubinki; as his bio will show he fought Nazis and the Soviets, and this is what he was commended upon. . It seems that other party likes to quote an Polish journalist Komar, so lets quote him! Recently his article was presented and in LT newspaper in regards to "awarding" ceremony of Szendzielarz under the title Order to major Lupaszko - deliberate slap to Lithuania or stupidity of Kaczynski twins?, relevant quote originally produced by LT scholars - "committed crimes against humanity, by killing innocent civilians. And therefore are not worthy any glory". BTW, is there any Modern Polish nationalism article, because this source could be very usefully describing current nature of Polish nationalism. 4)I would like to see academic sources that AK-Nazi collaboration "is a fringe, undue claim", as well source for the "Only some - NOT ALL - Lithuanian historians pursue this argument" as well as that Arūnas Bubnys suggested there was no collaboration between AK and nazis as implied with this "notable Lithuanian critics of this argument include such prominent Lithuanian historians as Arūnas Bubnys " . Btw, thank you that acknowledged that Bubnys is prominent Lithuanian historian, I will definitely use his authority and I do it now. Lets see that actually sources have on AK affairs with Nazis:

“ However, while resisting Soviet pressure, the AK High Command and its local representatives went to extremes: They cooperated with the Nazis. The first contacts began to be established in the summer and fall of 1943, after the breakdown of relations with the USSR. In December 1943 and February 1944, Captain Adolf Pilch (pseudonym "Gora"), commander of one of the AK detachments, met with SD [Security Service] and Wehrmacht officers in Stolbtsy, requesting urgent assistance. He received 18,000 units of ammunition, food, and uniforms. During the eight months of its exi'stence (September 1943-August 1944), the "Gora" Detachment did not engage in a single battle with the Germans, whereas it waged 32 battles against Belorussian partisans. Andziej Kucner ("Maly") ["Small"]) followed his example until he was transferred to Ashmyany Rayon by order of the AK District Headquarters. The Nazis' attitude toward cooperation with "Akovtsy" [AK members] can be judged from German trophy documents. In February 1944, SS Obersturmbanfuhrer Strauch reported: "Cooperation with White Polish bandits is continuing. The 300-strong detachment in Rakov and Ivenets proved to be very useful. Negotiations with Ragner's (Stefan Zajaczkiewicz) 1,000-strong band have been concluded. Ragner's band is suppressing the territory between the Neman and the Volkovysk-Molodechno Railroad and between Mosty and Iv'ye. Contacts with other Polish bands have been established".

First Lieutenant Jozef Swida (Vileyka Oblast), commander of the Nadneman AK Formation in the Lida District, also cooperated with the occupiers. In the summer of 1944, in Shchuchin Rayon, Polish legionnaires gained control of the small towns of Zheludok and Vasilishki, where they replaced German garrisons. For the purpose of fighting partisans, they were given four trucks and 300,000 cartridges[55]. Some sub-units of Armia Krajowa displayed great cruelty toward the civilian population suspected of sympathizing with the partisans. The legionnaires burned down their homes, drove away their livestock, and robbed and killed the families of partisans.[7]

”

Should I continue? Of course, lest see that Arūnas Bubnys, a prominent Lithuanian historian, got on AK and Nazis:

“ But lest not forget that there were and Polish partisans battles with soviet partisans, different AK batalions' unspoken collaboration with Nazi occupation force, killings of peaceful non-Polish ethnicity civilians, plunder and torture. ”

[8]

I can continue with Bubnys! But let see that another Lithuanian historian, Zizas, have to say with this (source already in article)

“ More or less peaceful "coexistence " between Germans was important condition for AK to strengthen its powers. At the beginning of 1944, Germans and Polish underground attempted to make cooperation and establish communication. initiative for cooperation shown both sides... Negotiations began in Naujoji Vilna 1944... Germans were seeking to have results ASAP, therefore they promised supply plane fro communication between Vilnius department HQ and Warsaw...in 1944 February negotiations concluded that AK would not attack Germans, and will help to deal with soviet partisans...Collaboration between Germans and Poles there determined by several major factors...Collaboration between Polish underground movement was especially wide in Navahrudak district, however it was significant in Vilnija as well ”

I can cite this source without end as it covers collaboration with great detail, presenting even detail corespondents with AK nad Germans. It is evident that not only Lithuanian historians points collaboration issue. Therefore Polish scholarly opinion is not universal and is not the single one. Therefore my proposal that anti-Nazi Polish resistance, which was supported by Nazi in different occasions is well crafted, especially then two mainstream WWII researches, notably Bubnys and Zizas, makes such assertions.

5) Please stop slandering me with false accusations that these are "my claims", those are Bubnys, a notable Lithuanian historian, Zizas, Smilovitsky. 6) I made the impression that then Lithuanian historians agrees with certain view which is handy to some, it became a notable, but then the same person presets facts of different side he became "fringe" claim. Lets use some more of Bubnys ideas

“ We can continue with Lithuanian passional in eastern Lithuania , but in one article you can not write all AK "achievements". Presented facts raise a lot of questions. They establish an effect that Armia Krajowa, as the main enemy in Lithuania, regarded Lithuanians in general, not only who worked in police and local self-government. But in variuos organizations worked and Polish nationality persons as well, like in railroad company in Vilnius from 9622 servants 7118 were Poles, in Vilnius electricity station from 2416-206, in Ašmena from 297-207, in Svyrai self-government from 672-504. Of cource Polish servants were not regarded as German collaborators by Armia Krajova and they there not been terrorized. ”

And this is understandable why, as Bubnys, a notable Lithuanian historian, notes, "Because AK partisans as their enemies regarded all who thought differently and had different political interests - occupants, soviet partisans, Lithuanian authority, Lithuanian national underground resistance " Not surprisingly that Rimantas Zizas makes such assertion "They [Modern day Polish historiography - MK note] conceal and downgrade anti-Lithuanian character of Armija Krajowa, particularly civilian population slaughters"

6) Tomas Venclova, a notable and saluted essayist and poet , became a "historian"?! Well...then we should "updated" the main article. 7) I have to agree that my initial proposal that however AK terror directly pointed to local population continued. should also be attributed, feel free add like this however as asserts Arūnas Bubnys and Rimantas Zizas AK terror directly pointed to local population continued. References there were presented in article. 7) About so called exception from the rule. I suspect that claim The action of 23-27 June was the only reprisal action ever carried out by Armia Krajowa is OR, because it is well established facts about crimes in Belarus like:

“ They reported that in Zaslavl' and Dzerzhinsk (Koydanovo) rayons, AK detachments destroyed 11 Belorussian villages, killing 200 civilians, including old men, women, and children. About 1,200 people were killed in the Lida District. ”

I think 11 villages burned by AK in Belarus (1943) is quite a record even compared to Nazis. Is this also an exception from the rule or the rule itself? Just out of curiosity how many villages Nazis burnt in Belarus for comparison of course. Regarding Łossowski quoted above notes that this event was condemned by Polish side, he cites another historian (Roman Korab-Żebry) Brilliant! now we have a main source of "exception of the rule" - "historian" Roman Korab-Żebry. Actually this is an ex-AK soldier, so bias is quite possible. But lets see that Arūnas Bubnys has on this Roman Korab-Żebry : "But lest not forget that there were and Polish partisans battles with soviet partisans, different AK battalions' unspoken collaboration with Nazi occupation force, killings of peaceful non-Polish ethnicity civilians, plunder and torture.//All mentioned veiling are especially typical to Roman Korab-Żebry...". And Roman Korab-Żebry is quoted for controversial statements and in preset "more neutral version" article. Anybody removed this "historian" claims who keeps silent on certain unhandy things? No, but Lithuanian historians like Bubnys, Zizas presented facts are being reverted at sight, under variuos "excuses". 8 ) I am delighted that I can use more of Bubnys remarks over these "proofs" -- push anti-AK POV and to portray it as an anti-Lithuanian organization (where in fact it attempted constantly to negotiate a ceasefire with the Lithuanians - many refs can be presented for that. Apart of Zizas assertions of anti-Lithuanian character of AK, lets see that Bubnys got over those "good will" negotiations from AK :

“ Poles do they best to take better positions [during Nazi occupation in Lithuania MK note] in government, military, industry structures in order to secure their personal and national interests...Polish underground dreamed about Middle and Eastern confederation of states in which Poland predominated. Lithuanian resistance saw this as hegemonic Polish claims and Lithuanians their future associated with Scandinavia states. Poles, during negations with Lithuanian resistance, relayed much more upon intimidation and pressure tactics rather then equality principals. During By Polish government representative document in 1942 m. there was prepared negotiation tactics with Lithuanians...claimed that Lithuanians respect intimidation more then persuasions.... Relationship there downgrade due to perspective of different enemies, battle tactics, discord prompted by occupying force, Lithuanian battalions and police persecution actions towards Poles, terroristic anti-Lithuanian actions of different AK detachments. ”

[9]

I think that as all parties agrees that Bubnys is notable LIthuanian historian, we should quote him about terroristic anti-Lithuanian character of AK in background. 9) this discussion is not "dead horse" . 10) Of course AK should not be equaled to SS or similar structures, however all its aspects should be noted to maintain NPOV. M.K. (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC) P.s. sorry for rough translations of the texts

It's amusing how you condemn essays and then go on to discuss Polish nationalism. I'd find Lithuanian nationalism much more relevant here, but since we already have article on Vilnija, I guess we have already taken a step towards writing one. In any case, even your out of context quotes don't prove that there was any relation between the limited AK-Nazi cooperation against the Soviets and Dubinki (which is the Polish name for the village, since you ask). That a limited cooperation against the Soviets occured is already discussed in AK article (relations with the Soviets section) as well as the subarticles (P-L relations during WWII, P-S wartime relations). Btw, it is interesting to note that even when some units of AK tried to work with the Lithuanians, open negotiations, and imitated them by refocusing from anti-Nazi to anti-Soviet, the Lithuanian atrocities on Polish civilians continued. This may be somewhat more relevant to this article, although I would not insist on it - the big picture does not belong here, this is an article about a small event. PS. You still quote from the unreliable Armija... book which has been shown to have many errors; for example AK routinely targeted and assassinated Polish Nazi collaborators. That said, since many more Lithuanians collaborated with the Nazis then Poles, obviously the ratio was skewed toward targeting Lithuanians. PSS. Even in those quote of yours you mention stuff like "Lithuanian battalions and police persecution actions towards Poles". Why not quote Bubnys for that? PSSS. "Terroristic" is your translation, per WP:WTA it should be avoided unless you can show that such a strong phrasing is common in majority of works (and your translation is verified). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1) I provided general look to AK collaboration as there were false claims of "fringe" theories. As I it is well established facts about collaboration and Ph. D. Leonid Smilovitsky's assessment proves that such collaboration was not limited only to Lithuania, but was and in Belarus (As Zizas pointed out). As the have background section, mentioning AK collaboration is must, to maintain proper NPOV. |P.S. very interesting quite recently there was alleged AK collaboration now it is limited AK-Nazi cooperation, small progress, but still progress... 2) Yes you can quote Bubnys over Lithuanian battalions and police persecution actions towards Poles, along side with terroristic anti-Lithuanian actions of different AK detachments, I am sure that that it was terroristic. Bubnys quite well demonstrates that Lithuanian historians report all facts, in contrast to some Polish ones, like so called historian Roman Korab-Żebry, who keep silent of certain unpleasant things. 3) From the newest personal speculations above I had nothing to comment, but only to request academic sources for backing such claims mainly >> 4) Please provide academic sources that AK-Nazi collaboration "is a fringe, undue claim" 5) Please provide source for the "Only some - NOT ALL - Lithuanian historians pursue this argument" 6) Please provide the academic source there Bubnys suggests that there was no AK collaboration 7) Please provide the academic source that all Lithuanian units were collaborators. 8) Please provide the academic source Tomas Venclova became a historian 9) Please provide a source which would discuss Roman Korab-Żebry academic credentials and his reliability. 10) please provide exact errors which have, as it was called "Armija...", with academic source. 11) Cite me there I quoted "Armija..." in contrast context of "AK routinely targeted and assassinated Polish Nazi collaborators". I waiting for sources! P.S. I also intent to all Cracow Krokuva and Wasaw-Varšova. M.K. (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Version reconciliation sandbox

Still a work in progress, see what you think. I have not gone through the last couple of days of comments above. Note that I've eliminated the whole subtext about cowing the Lithuanians, about no other Polish reprisals, no other Lithuanian actions, etc., those are all projections of the authors' POVs as Vilnius was reoccupied by the Soviets the following month, cutting this tragic cycle short. User:Vecrumba/Dubingiai Reconcile Please do not edit that version, comment there or here (or edit here). —PētersV (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I'm hoping for another cut at the sandbox incorporating discussions later this week. —PētersV (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus comments

• I have no problem with the usage of words more strong than killing, i.e. murder or massacre. I don't know any Polish sources that try to whitewash this tragic event.
• I am not aware of any significant Lithuanian-Soviet "collusion" or collaboration, this would have to be reffered properly. Lithuanias were quite anti-Soviet, from what I have read - in that Poles agreed with them.
• equaling Polish and Lithuanian collaborations is a gross error. On the Polish sides, a few units of AK - not sanctioned by AK command for the Vilnius region (not to mention higher authorities in Warsaw or London), and not representing majority of AK forces - accepted a limited ceasefire with the Germans to fight against the Soviets. On the Lithuanian side, a massive collaboration effort ensued, starting with the Lithuanian 1941 independence and culminating in 20,000 or so volunteers for the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. See also Collaboration_during_World_War_II#Lithuania. Further, the limited Polish collaboration was in no way whatsoever related to Dubingai (hence it is undue to mention it); while Lithuanian collaboration was (as it was a unit of Lithuanian collaborationist police that committed an atrocity in Glinciszki that led to this reprisal).
• in Glinciszki massacre I have added info on Polish and Lithuanian units that clashed before the Glinciszki massacre
• in the description of the massacre, while "They targeted those listed as collaborators" was the intent, in the end - and Polish sources agree - many innocents were killed, including very young children. All Polish sources agree that what was meant as execution of collaborates escalated into a massacre (as I noted above).
• "The AK reprisal in Dubingiai, despite its not being planned by AK command, initiated a wider operation by the 5th Brigade and other units" - this is a bit unclear. The wider operation was planned by the AK command, Dubingai massacre was not.
• as discussed above, the number of 200 victims could use a direct quotation
• Piaskunowicz notes that the wider operation (NOT the Dubingiai massacre) proven to be a success as the Lithuanian units did not commit any more large scale reprisals or anti-Polish partisan operations that they were planning before
• I don't think that general Lithuanian criticism of AK, nor general criticism of Lithuanian as participators in the Holocaust, is of due weight here.
• Polices sources all state that Dubingai was an exception to the rule and condemn it as an event that tainted AK honor and reputation. This should be noted.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a short commentary.

"Polish sources all state that Dubingai was an exception to the rule". Please, let me remind that per WP:RS and WP:V Polish sources are not third party sources, and as such are equal in weight as Lithuanian sources, and Lithuanian sources say it was not isolated incident.

And your statement I don't think that general Lithuanian criticism of AK, nor general criticism of Lithuanian as participators in the Holocaust, is of due weight here. is not only unjust, but, furthermore, inflammatory and intimidating. We're not talking about Holocaust here, it's war crime form Polish side we're discussing, so please, do not use red herring. And criticism of AK is very detailed, as you can see form the discussion above. As a matter of fact so detailed, that the exact list of victims can be provided.

As a matter of fact, It was written in the main article, that this reprisal action was directly ordered by AK command, and only cancellation orders came too late. Now the information is covered with Polish links without citations and English translation. This raises questions: what's the reliability of the Piaskunowicz? Is he another AK veteran or historian? We do not know this. Google does not find a word on him.

As for this passage: Piaskunowicz notes that the wider operation (NOT the Dubingiai massacre) proven to be a success as the Lithuanian units did not commit any more large scale reprisals. I will repeat myself for n'th time - justification of children killings is inadmissible, and it does sound like terrorism advocacy. By the way, it shows some flaw in the logic: in one place there is a statement that this massacre was isolated incident, here we do have some reference to a large scale operation. Furthermore, this logic does not go well with timeline of the events - let me remind you this massacre did happen on June 23-25, and Soviets did enter the region in July, approximately 10-20 days later. So maybe the major factor was Soviets, not terroristic actions of AK?

More - later.--Lokyz (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Lithuanian. I have quoted Bubnys who agrees it was an isolated incident. Of course, much depends on what we mean by incident. As Bubnys notes, other civilians have died due to AK activities, but as isolated individuals - this was the only massacre.

Yes, I heard that Vilnija has produced a large list of victims....

Piaskunowicz also mention the entry of the Soviets as another stabilizing factor, and Petras version mentions it. As for the other "flows of logic", I suggest rereading the text carefully, all those points should be clear - perhaps Petras will rewerite his version to make it even more so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing things

Now about things I did not find on this article and talk page: a.) a single translated quotation of Polish sources (including alleged Bubnys citation), b.) mentioning of Soviet approaching in the time, c.) editor called User:Petras is not present and also he is neither present in article edit history. P.S. We still do not know who Henryk Piaskunowicz is (he's not present on google search, and this does sure ring bells), and we do know that Roman Korab-Żebry was (is?) AK veteran, but we're missing his accademic background (if there was any).--Lokyz (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no Petras here, like there is no "historian" Tomas Venclova as well. I seconded, would like to hear necessary info about Żebry, whose credibility was directly challenged by Bubnys. M.K. (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And we yet did not receive any info on this person, but instead image of this event is being nominated for deletion. Somehow I fell we will not receive any info at all...M.K. (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Modest Dubingiai reconciliation sandbox changes, April 9 2008 update

Couple of notes following the latest update...
It will take a bit of work to properly address who says who collaborated with whom and when and why, so I request everyone's patience on that.

• Intro - added that AK actions continued and total Dubingiai victims once all was done
• Background - not changed
• Events - I restructured the narrative. Given the range of victims, it was clear "Lithuanian" was sufficient. Instead of "AK targeting collaborators", now 'AK forces targetted Lithuanians...". Collaborators prime targets. The whole prayer book thing now also makes complete sense in the revised context. And a bit of the Aftermath is brought in where Lithuanian sources indicate 70 victims by the end of the month (initial massacre, then later actions)

As others have noted, we do have some outstanding requests for translations of various bits and pieces, as well as some work to do on Piaskunowicz's credentials (re: who led the raid). Not a huge leap forward but I hope it's made some progress in cohesion. —PētersV (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a comprehensive review, and leaving collaboration off the table, I'd request one or two points at most (primary) which editors believe are in the most need of correction/inclusion/deletion, or specific objections. I think the article discussions to this point pretty much have all the basic materials and positions, so I'd like to concentrate on only a few items at a time to work on improving the draft to where all parties are sufficiently satisfied. —PētersV (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pēters, I will investigate your editions in upcoming days. M.K. (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My comments:

• 70 dead in lead is incorrect, as the massacre refers to the events of June 23, which all the sources agree had around 20-27 victims. I am not sure where the number of 70 comes from anyway? Your version is also the first I have seen that claims that events in Dubingai continued for several days. I assume the confusion stems from mixing sources about the wider AK operations with this event.
• I have made several important comments at #Piotrus comments; they are still not addressed (points 2, 3)
• I am still awaiting your reply on why are we using unreliable sources such as Armija krajova... book (see my post from 04:16, 31 March 2008 for an explanation of its unreliability) as well as the Panorama newspaper for the claim of 200 victims (my questions about reliability of that source have not been answered here)
• I have incorporated some of your changes into the current version of the article, which I consider neutral and accurate.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be responding to your points. I'll clarify the hiatus between the massacre and actions following. The 70 comes from the Lithuanian ref indicating that by the end of the month, so, massacre plus subsequent AK sanctioned actions, totaled that number of dead in Dubingiai. I'd also hold off moving any changes from the sandbox into mainspace as I'd like to make sure that I've got explicit agreement from both yourself and M.K. that sources from both sides (that is, of the conflict, not the editors here) are fairly represented in a cohesive narrative that doesn't take sides. —PētersV (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see full translation of the 70 reference part. I still think it refers to the events outside Dubinki, and even if not it belongs only in the aftermath section, not in the lead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A thought... my own editorial perspective is this boils down to more a Polish-Lithuanian clash than something driven by the Nazis or Soviets--who rather seem more of an excuse to take action. That said, and given the conflicting accounts/perspectives, I'm thinking it might be worthwhile having a "Historiography" section which delves into the accounts by each side in a bit more detail while we leave the central account as NPOV as possible. That might lend more clarity and help separate what's agreed upon (and that we can agree on) and what is better represented as the position of one side or the other. —PētersV (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag legitimacy

Given the very serious nature of this article, I don't think it's undue to ask for direct quotations, page numbers, and translations of the central reference here - a book in Polish. As currently ref'd the book doesn't appear in a Worldcat seach [10] and the ISBN number returns invalid. [11] Novickas (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Which book are you referring to specifically? While we're on the subject of books, can we have more information on this: "(Lithuanian) Garšva, Kazys; A. Bubnys, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas (1995). "Armijos Krajovos ištakos ir ideologija Lietuvoje" (Beginnings and ideology of Armia Krajowa in Lithuania). Armija Krajova Lietuvoje. Vilnius–Kaunas. ISBN 9986-577-02-0.". If this is the same Garšva then this should not be considered an RS (just like works by extremist Polish nationalists shouldn't be considered as RS either) and should be removed from the article. But it's not clear what his role in the book is. Is he the editor? The publisher? An author?radek (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

May I answer your first question, even though the answer seems rather obvious: Działalnośc zbrojna Armi Krajowej na Wileńszczyśnie w latach 1942-1944 by Zygmunt Boradyn; Andrzej Chmielarz, Henryk Piskunowicz (1997). Tomasz Strzembosz. ed. Armia Krajowa na Nowogródczyźnie i Wileńszczyźnie (1941-1945). Btw, you suggest that Garšva is an extremist and should not be considered reliable, "just like works by extremist Polish nationalists." That seems even handed and an attempt at a compromise. Can you name any such Polish authors? Do any examples come to mind? Regarding these AK and Lithuanian matters, of course. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with this book? The ISBN might have been typed in incorrectly, that's about it. This [12] gives ISBN 10 as "8390716804" rather than ISBN 8390716803 in the text. Are you questioning the existence of this book? Or its being a RS (and by extension the reliability of Polish Academy of Science)? Page numbers appear to be already provided. Also I'm not sure which Polish authors should come to mind in response to your rhetorical question (that kind of approach is not very conducive to a productive discussion, btw). As far as I'm aware none of the Polish historians mentioned here are heads of extremist nationalist organizations which makes the comparison with Garšva ridiculous.radek (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So, about that second question?radek (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's finish with the first one first, and what you call my "rhetorical question". It's not at all rhetorical. I'm not comparing anyone with Garšva either. The statement "just like works by extremist Polish nationalists" is your own. So I'm interested in who you think might fit the bill in context to our discussion. Or is it possible that only the Lithuanian sources are unreliable and extremist? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The book seems to have issues with ISBN, but there is plenty of proof of book existence: Worldcat, Google Print. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, the book exists, now back to the question of whether or not there are "works by extremist Polish nationalists" concerning this subject matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said above I don't see names of any Polish historians that could be considered "extremist nationalist", unlike Garšva. Do you see any? The book you mentioned above was published by the Polish Academy of Sciences. PAoS is a quite different organization than Vilnija isn't it?radek (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to remain focused on Garšva. I give a hoot about him. Nor am I concerned about the august Polish Academy of Sciences, or the book either. "As I said above I don't see names of any Polish historians that could be considered "extremist nationalist", unlike Garšva," is not my question either. Again the question is whether or not there are "works by extremist Polish nationalists" concerning this subject matter, in your opinion. Sorry if I didn't make myself clearer enough, earlier. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There very well might be. But why does this matter as long as they're not being used in this article? If you don't give a hoot about Garšva then would it be fine to remove material sourced to his book from the article? radek (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Familiarizing oneself with RS

[13] "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 [14]radek (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 [15] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

P.K. aka P.P., do you mean like

File:Nazi Lithuanian poster.JPG

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)

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)

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 [16]. 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)

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)

And dozens of times it was replayed to you over and over again about Zizas credentials [17]. 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)

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)

[18]. M.K. (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Familiarizing oneself with POV

Version 1: (which Radeksz seems to prefer)

On 20 June 1944 Polish resistance killed four and wounded several other members of the Lithuanian police in the village of Glitiškės (Glinciszki); in retaliation the Lithuanian police murdered 36 mostly Polish villagers (the Glinciszki massacre).

Version 2: (which Radeksz seems to find to be a "joke")

On 20 June 1944 elements of the Polish resistance murdered four members of the Lithuanian police, and wounded several others, in the village of Glitiškės (Glinciszki); in retaliation for this act the Lithuanian police killed thirty-six Polish villagers (the Glinciszki massacre).

In spite of obvious grammar issues, why does the first version appeal to you, Radeksz? Or to ayone else, why with a plethora of similiar entries in this article would one question the legitimacy of the POV tag? Dr. Dan (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, the killing of civilians is generally regarded as murder. The killing of military and police personnel under the conditions of war and occupation is not. If somewhere in the article it says that Lithuanian Police "murdered" soldiers of AK then that should also be changed to "killed". But we're talking about civilians here.radek (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Per your last edit I think having "killed" in both instances is a good enough compromise.radek (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, compromise is a good thing. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this considered POV, or simply WP:Weasel? (open to everyone)

The AK command did not plan, and actually strictly forbade, any reprisals against innocent civilians.[2][3]

Too bad that "plan" didn't work out for the two month old baby girl killed by these brave "soldiers".

The Dubingai massacre, part of a wider reprisal action of Armia Krajowa, lasting till 27 June, was the only reprisal action ever carried out by Armia Krajowa.

Hmm! ...part of a wider reprisal reprisal action of Armia Krajowa..., if so, the wider plan must not have worked out too well if ...this was the 'only reprisal ever carried out by the Armia Krajowa. And the point of this weaseling is what? That the murders of these civilians is somehow mitigated by the fact that they didn't do it elsewhere. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's neither. The AK command did not plan and forbid reprisals. However, this being war, in fact these reprisals happened. It's an issue of responsibility. The command of the US army forbade the execution of German POWs, yet on some occasions frustrated American soldiers did execute German POWs. The responsibility for these executions is then with the individual soldiers who disobeyed orders rather than US army command. Same issue here.

In regard to the second paragraph, I'd change "wider reprisal action" to "wider show of strength action" or something along those lines, or just "action". The wording as is is clunky and unclear, I agree. But the larger point that this massacre was an exception and an isolated instance is verifiable and relevant. And who's saying that this is being "mitigated"? You're reading something into the text that's not there.radek (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's you who's missing the boat here. This article is not about the AK command. It is not about their "forbidding" reprisals. It is however about a reprisal that took place. One motivated by revenge. One that murdered innocent cilvilians, including the elderly and infants. One that is not mitigated, repeat mitigated, by any activities that took place prior to its occurence. Nor do the actions of frustrated American soldiers disobeying orders explain this crime away. I am sorry to say I have seen this tendency in other articles like the Pinsk massacre and Bloody Sunday, where somehow crimes commited by the Polish Army or it's affiliates are "explained away" in the most unusual and by weasel terminolgy. This article not need follow suit. What it needs to do is focus on the shameful specifics of what occured, not "explanations" that are one sided POV. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan, no one here is denying that the massacre took place. But the massacre took place in a larger context and the fact that it was non typical is significant. The point of the analogy with American soldiers was that the massacre was not sanctioned or ordered by AK command, which is also significant. This is basically removal of relevant info to create a POV impression.radek (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For a while I was hoping that I was getting on the same wave length with you but the signal is starting to fade. It's good "that no one is denying that the massacre took place", it did take place, and nothing that took place earlier justifies or mitigates it. It was a crime committed by the Polish AK on Lithuanian territory (border prior to 1939), against innocent civilians. This is where the focus needs to be, both in the lead and in the article itself. A remark like..."but the massacre took place in a larger context and the fact that it was non typical is significant" is way too weasely to how I view atrocities like these. Anywhere in the world! Sorry, it's my pacifistic nature. The Holocaust itself took place in a larger context. The Holocaust itself was also non typical. So what? Would that give Holocaust deniers more credence? Let me be perfectly clear about this, because this continual need to obfuscate the facts by a cadre of the same individuals is beginning to anger me. The article is currently very one sided, with a POV tag that is well deserved. I'm still very interested in finding common ground and a solution to this problem. So let's work it out. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the POV problem with this article, aside from an inclusion of an image from a non-RS? The complaint seems to be in fact that this article is not POV enough as it includes information (sourced to RSs) which some editors find uncomfortable. There's nothing weasely about noting that while this massacre occurred it was atypical.radek (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Read discussion from top to bottom. And then read WP:BLP, as you close to breaking it. M.K. (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have NO idea of what you're talking about. What BLP? What Biography? What Living Person? How am I breaking it - given that I've hardly edited this article and mostly made an effort at discussion on the talk page? What are you talking about? Can you be clearer? It would really help the discussion if yourself and the two other editors stopped being purposefully obscure, kept changing the topic from one thing to another, answered specific questions that are being asked and elucidated what specific POV problems they have with this article. As it is right now it just seems that the problem some have is that the article is not POV enough in that it does not include dubious information from extremist nationalist sources. The POV tag is spurious.radek (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Legitimacy of picture

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. [19] Novickas (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record my reply on the same issue [20]. M.K. (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I will agree that that's a reasonable question. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what's the answer?radek (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'm not asking for an answer to everything just a single specific question.radek (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes two of us. Btw, you did notate my question didn't you? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it's Bubnys I would consider that RS. If it's Garsva, definitely not.radek (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

Rimnatas Zizas. Armijos Krajovos veikla Lietuvoje 1942-1944 metais. pp.19 39. M.K. (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Nationalist sources, redux

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

You mean Zizas? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you see Zizas mentioned in the main article body? M.K. (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I think MK means the at least partly non RS "Armijos Krajovos...".radek (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccessible reference and reference to possibly non-reliable source

This reference has only a few sentences [21]. The Wayback Machine has no listing of it. [22] If those few sentences support the ref, please post them along with a translation. Also, what makes this reference reliable? [23] Novickas (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Pov tag removal over and over again

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 [24]. Well this why article has POV tag: [25], [26], [27]. M.K. (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Well tag can be {{Neutrality}}. M.K. (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Re removing references pro & con AK reprisals

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)

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)

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)

Better, thanks. And thanks, Peters, for stepping in. Novickas (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, it is already presented on this page, just scroll up. M.K. (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Actully, it was was not so hard to find it there [28]:

“ However, while resisting Soviet pressure, the AK High Command and its local representatives went to extremes: They cooperated with the Nazis. The first contacts began to be established in the summer and fall of 1943, after the breakdown of relations with the USSR. In December 1943 and February 1944, Captain Adolf Pilch (pseudonym “Gora”), commander of one of the AK detachments, met with SD [Security Service] and Wehrmacht officers in Stolbtsy, requesting urgent assistance. He received 18,000 units of ammunition, food, and uniforms. During the eight months of its existence (September 1943-August 1944), the “Gora” Detachment did not engage in a single battle with the Germans, whereas it waged 32 battles against Belorussian partisans....

...In March 1944, AK members burned 28 farmsteads and the village of Bol'shiye Berezovtsy in Vasilishki Rayon, executing 30 peasants. In Zaslavl' and Dzherzhinsk (Koydanovo) rayons, they set fire to 11 Belorussian villages and killed 200 civilians

”

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)

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)

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)

I'll stub Adolf Pilch for further reference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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. 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. 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. 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.

• There's also the Radio Free Europe ref to the effect that Yushchenko and Lech Kaczynski met in a reconcilation attempt over Pawlokoma. [29] But these probably belong in the AK article. Novickas (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this can be added to the list too. M.K. (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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% 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)

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)

It helps set up a straw men, that's what. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"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) ....Did this seem to be a red herring? Was this more topic changing...thats purpose here was to reignite old edit wars? Or does that apply to lil' old me only? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)