Talk:The Holocaust in Lithuania

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello there, thanks for submitting this article. I've had a read and noted the following areas that need attention. Please note I'm being critical of the article, not the authors, and that this critique is intended only to be constructive. I am writing this as I read so the points are not necessarily in order of importance:

1 dates - please correct and make consistent the formatting of all dates as found in Wikipedia:Date#Dates

Done Fainites ^barley 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1a numbers - please make consistent throughout the article all use of dates and numbers, do not mix 1,000,000 and '1 million' or 'one million'. See also point 4.

Done - except for where the phrase "tens of thousands" is used.Fainites ^barley 16:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

2 peacock terms - please see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms and correct instances like "The numbers given by historians differ much more significantly", and "Lithuanian police battalions surpassed their own by far". There are more examples, please read through and remove similar.

Done. I have not removed all superlatives though as it is likely they derive from the sources as this is a subject in which even the driest of historians is moved to superlatives.Fainites ^barley 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

3 links - try and shorten some of the links, for instance the operation barbarossa link is quite long and could be improved upon. Also, there are too many red links in the text - please remove these, or at least create disambiguation pages to subjects that are related. Some links are used too commonly, and too close together - such as Pogrom, which appears linked twice in a single paragraph, and 'Simon Wiesenthal Center'. A balance has to be struck between information to the viewer, and readability. Try and insert links only where necessary.

Done Fainites ^barley 17:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

4   - use this instead of a space inbetween numbers and words. This prevents a carriage return between the number and word, and makes it easier for the reader to read. For instance, "200,000 Jews" would make that appear on the same line, rather than 200,000 and Jew being on separate lines (depends on what size of screen the viewer is browsing upon).

Done Fainites ^barley 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

5 Grammar - generally very good, however phrases like "Before the German invasion" could be improved thus "In the years approaching the German invasion". "The estimate" could become "This estimate", 'The' is a bit ambiguous in this context. "puts the number of Lithuanian Jews murdered in the Holocaust at 195,000 to 196,000.[2] It is difficult to estimate the exact number of casualties of the Holocaust and the latter number cannot be final or indisputable." - repeated use of the word 'holocaust', and the sentence doesn't read well. Also the sentence in point 4. - what does 'foreign' mean in this context? As a reader, I'm not sure.

Done Fainites ^barley 17:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

6 The German killing squads - this is bordering on a non-neutral point of view (in my opinion that is). While subjects like this are controversial, I think the article would be better sticking to cold, hard, facts, rather than emotive terms like this. Also, begun/began in the following sentence, and About/Around/Approximately/An estimated in the following sentence. Jews did not 'wait' in Ghettos, they were imprisoned surely? Also, why is it that the majority of Jews were not in Ghettos, but a few sentences later 45,000 survived in Ghettos? This needs a little clarification.

Done except for the "killing squads". I'm not sure how else one could describe the einsatzgruppen. "Death squads" would be accurate. "Execution squads" implies some quasi judicial or military purpose which did not exist. These were not soldiers. The Einsatzgruppens purpose was to kill jews and certain other categories of civilians after the army had been through. Fainites ^barley 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

7 'quick destruction of Lithuanian Jewry' - Quick would not be my choice of word, perhaps 'rapid'? Also, 'another factor' should be changed so the viewer knows to what it refers (reading the sentence twice makes it obvious, but it should be obvious straight away).

Done Fainites ^barley 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

8 'Kaunas on June 25 and held agitation speeches' - gave speeches, or held rallies?

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

9 'Many of Lithuanian supporters of the Nazi policies' - 'of' and 'of the' - needs correcting

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

10 Lithuania - the incompatibility of the Jewish population within the perceived model of the Lithuanian nation-state,[1]), - punctuation, consider a semicolon instead of a hyphen, and the commas around the brackets need fixing

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

11 'By the time of German invasion,' - consider 'onset of' or 'at the time of' or similar

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

12 'The involvement of the local population and institutions, in relatively high numbers' - make clearer to the viewer what they were involved in - the blame in the sentence before, or the holocaust.

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

13 'Out of Lithuanian population of close to three millions' - bad grammar, and see point 1a.

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

14. 'sheltering the Jews' - the Jews, or just 'Jews'?

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

15. 'Jewis' - spelling

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

16. 'Since Lithuania regained independence in 1990' - independance from whom - needs stating or linking

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

17. 'Holocaust has been also difficult' - bad grammar

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

18. 'yet many heroes of the Lithuanian resistance against the Soviets' - should be 'soviet control' or similar

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

19. 'NCSJ: Advocates on Behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia have declared that' - I do not understand this sentence

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

20. 'the Seimas (Lithuanian parliament) held a session during which Alfonsas Eidintas, the historian nominated as the Republic's next ambassador to Israel delivered an address dealing with an accounting of the annihilation of Lithuania's Jews' - consider linking Seimas to Lithuanian parliament, and also break up this sentence with punctuation

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

21. 'There have however been criticism that Lithuania is too slow to deal with that issue' - should be on the previous paragraph, change 'have' to 'has', and change 'that' to 'this'.

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally the article is well referenced, but there are several reference repeats in the references section, such as 'Dina Porat, “The Holocaust in Lithuania: Some Unique Aspects”'. I understand that different pages are referenced, but consider instead changing the reference so the page item reads "100, 123, 152, 187" - this would simplify things. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for general information on references. My personal preference is to use reflist in the References section, and cite web/book/news templates for each reference.

Images - consider unifying the size of both images.

Done Fainites ^barley 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please edit the above points to indicate that you have attended to each one, by writing - done where relevant, or explaining why such changes are unnecessary. I am placing this article 'on hold' until improvements are made. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

As the changes I requested in my review have not been done, I am failing this article. Please feel free to address the problems I have listed and to resubmit the article in future. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Tens of thousands"

re: only a small part - a few tens of thousands
from Dina Porat, “The Holocaust in Lithuania: Some Unique Aspects”, in David Cesarani, The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation
   I'm sorry, but this source has to be described as challenged. Cesarani has explicitly stated that he takes Soviet propaganda about Baltic Nazis as having been "verified" by other sources--those being Nazi accounts of Baltic complicity for propaganda consumption which are contradicted by other Nazi accounts at the scene. There were categorically not tens of thousands of Lithuanians, nor Estonians, nor Latvians, participating in killing Jews. —PētersV (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cesarani is an editor of the volume, but Porat has created the content.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GA suggestions

I have completed the corrections suggested by the GA reviewer as best I am able although I haven't altered the referencing system for multiple cites of the same ref. A tricky one. Parrot of Doom may be prepared to look at it again or you may have to re-refer for GA.

As I have no access to sources and do not have a detailed knowledge of the subject I have endeavoured not to interfere with content in any way but I suggest the authors check my edits to make sure there are no inadvertent content changes.Fainites ^barley 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes a change from unvalidated psychotherapies! Fainites ^barley 23:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please omit the statement that antisemitism was among the “national traditions and values” of Lithuania. MacQueen, sole the source cited, does not support the proposition. The notion that antisemitism was among the “national traditions and values” of pre-war Lithuania is conclusory, racist, inflammatory and simply wrong, and greatly hinders the reader really understanding the topic, the Holocaust in Lithuania. Pre-war Lithuania demonstrably was more accepting and tolerant of Jews than its Central European neighbors like Germany and Poland and, for that matter, many Western nations like Denmark, France and the United States -- and this even after absorbing a huge wave of Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia. Andris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Vizbaras (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Still could be more comprehensive but I feel it touches the subject enough to pass GA criteria

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

• "The Holocaust of Lithuanian Jewry can be considered the worst tragedy in the history of Lithuania - never before or since in Lithuania have so many people died in so short a time." Watch Weasel words here. Also this is a stub paragraph, consider expanding or combining. H1nkles (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

partially done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Note the new lead image (map).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding background

• "Prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, some people in Lithuania believed Germany would grant the country independence and in order to appease the Germans expressed significant anti-semitic sentiments." Runon sentence, break up into multiple sentences.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• You'll need to cite the end of this section. I added a to this so it's easy to see what facts need citation.

• Slightly expanded and referenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think this section could be more comprehensive. How long have Jews been in Lithuania? Where were they concentrated? Had there been anti-semitic feelings prior to Nazi occupation? I think you could expand this section a bit. H1nkles (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Added a template and link to History of the Jews in Lithuania where interested editors can find out many more details on this subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Destruction of Lithuanian Jewry

• Good attempt to detail how many Jews were in Lithuania prior to Nazi occupation and how many were killed.
• " A rogue unit of insurgents headed by Algirdas Klimaitis and encouraged by Germans from the Sicherheitspolizei and Sicherheitsdienst, started anti-Jewish pogroms in Kaunas (Kovno) on the night of 25 June-26 June 1941 in which over a thousand Jews perished over the next few days in what was the first pogrom in Nazi-occupied Lithuania." This is a run-on sentence please break up.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• This sentence is fairly awkward, "Additional factors were religion (Orthodox Catholic), severe economic problems (leading to killing of Jews over personal property) and opposed political orientations (support of the Soviet regime in Lithuania during 1940-1941 by Lithuanian Jews)[d]." Consider expanding this section by giving specific rationale for each factor. H1nkles (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

partially done. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Comprehension and rememberance

• this sentence, "Early in the war, some Lithuanian Jewish survivors fell victim to pogroms, some orchestrated by the Lithuanian nationalists." seems redundant, I could be wrong though.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I added two more to the end of two paragraphs in this section. Please reference.

Referenced first, removed second (block of text) - see my comment at #Jewish partisans in modern Lithuania below.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Have there been any memorials erected to commemorate the holocaust in Lithuania? H1nkles (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd hope that our Lithuanian editors could answer that, if they are following this thread? I have not run into any mentions of that in English sources I read.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Notes

Interesting section, I've never seen an article with such extensive notations like this. H1nkles (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• Reference 22 is dead please fix.

Done.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 17 has a large description after it in Lithuanian, why? In an English dictionary this won't be of use.

• As I don't know Lithuanian, I can only ask our Lithuanian editors to explain it (and preferably, translate). Otherwise, I'd support removal what is for 99,9% of the readers an incomprehensible (and thus indeed useless) block of text.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise the references are good, formatted well and credible.

Regarding overall review

• Could a see also section be added? I think there are several related articles that would be good to put here.

• It is my understanding see also is bad style. Since we have the entire Holocaust template in the article anyway, I am not sure what else could we add to see also that's relevant and not linked somewhere in the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some prose issues - run on sentences for example - need to be addressed.
• Photos look good.
• check that dead link.

• What dead link? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I already fixed it. It was to "Righteous Among Nations".Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is an issue of comprehensiveness. I think more could be added, especially in the background section.
• I'll put the article on hold for a week and give some time to make corrections. Please let me know if you finish early and I'll finish my review. H1nkles (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Final comments

• The fixes have been made and I will pass the article. Well done.
• Regarding the naming controversy, I will post my opinions in the discussion thread on the article's talk page. Keep up the good work on this very important topic. H1nkles (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

Almost all articles in Category:Holocaust by country follow similar naming guidelines. This is one of the exceptions, and should be moved to Holocaust in Lithuania. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. May well make it easier to find. The simplest title may also avoid the political concerns debated at the top of this talkpage.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This title is more exact and logical - Holocaust did not happen on national basis, neither it did happen before Nazi-occupation. Maybe this naming practice should be applied to other articles also, to avoid confusion? "The simplest" is not always the best, and there is a redirect for easier finding.--Lokyz (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My views are; a) there should be consistency of naming between all the articles dealing with this topic, b) the titles should be worded in a way that avoids making any assumptions either way about matters which may be the subject of controversy within the article. On that latter point, speaking as a non-expert, I had understood "Holocaust" covered the process of genocide of Jews as planned/organised/carried out by the Nazis by a variety of means. This would include recruiting/encouraging people of other nationalities to join in, including creating a climate which gave murderous anti-semites or just criminals free rein. If there is a controversy about the extent to which various groups from various countries took part, this should be dealt with in the body of the article and/or a separate article. Hence the preference for a simple title that makes no assumptions one way or the other.Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NC#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things. Compare: "Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania" - 2 GBooks hits and "Holocaust in Lithuania" - ~270 GBooks hits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the reason for the title as is, is to counter the false contention that Lithuanians (and Latvians and Estonians) took to gleefully slaughtering their Jewish neighbors before the Nazis arrived. Even as is, the article presents too much the notion that the Nazis just pointed and the Lithuanians took up all the planning and execution.

   Rather, no Legion could be formed by the Nazis even if against the Red Army, small but effective German killing squads were sent out to annihilate Jews and then blame the Lithuanians--there's documentation for all of this: correspondence from non-military Germans observers writing back to Berlin about "how bad it would look" if it were discovered the Germans were roaming the Lithuanian countryside killing Jews--in direct contradiction to military reports towing the propaganda line constructed in Berlin before the invasion, that of Lithuanians--and all Eastern Europe--joyfully taking up the cause of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, most authors as soon as they find "neighbor killed neighbor" accounts denounce [fill-in-your-Eastern-European-ethnicity]. Exactly why is there a veritable industry that Eastern Europeans hated Jews for centuries and became barbarians bludgeoning their Jewish neighbors to death at the very "first opportunity" the Nazis presented? Because we indulge those who all too easily accept the Western Europeans are civilized and Eastern Europeans are animals given the chance. It starts with Nazi propaganda, usurped by the Soviets, and accepted by far too many without question.

   The notion that the archives of possibly the two most propagandist regimes in all of recorded human history "don't lie" and can be accepted at face value is preposterous. Exactly why are so many, including serious scholars, so eager to accept the most heinous of evidence at face value and ignore existing contradicting evidence?

   I find myself agreeing with Lokyz that perhaps the more appropriate solution, albeit not the simplest, is "Holocaust in Nazi-occupied X" so that we are never ambiguous about who brought the Holocaust to X and who was responsible for the execution of the Holocaust in X.

   The notion that many or the majority of ethnicity X were involved in (or welcomed) the Holocaust in Eastern Europe both smears ethnicity X and minimizes the crimes against humanity of the (far fewer) collaborators of ethnicity X by effectively contending that they were no different from any other X, they were just caught. PetersV       TALK 02:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I'd like again to point out to the naming conventions above, and the fact that 99% of the related articles and categories follow the simpler naming convention. I don't see why Lithuania - or the Baltics in general - should deserve special treatment. Please note I've also proposed the move of Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland to Holocaust in Poland as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what it is you want to avoid but I don't think the title" Holocaust in Lithuania" implies what you fear it may imply. It would never have occured to me for example for the reasons I explained above. My first concern would be consistency between all the articles. Secondly the title needs to be as simple and obvious as it can be without being inaccurate or raising false implications. I don't think "H in L" does raise a false implication as you fear. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet we have Polish death camp controversy. Renata (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't a controversy. I'm saying I don't consider the proposed title implies anything one way or the other.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop building straw men, please. There is no controversy regarding Holocaust in Lithuania, save a sad tendency by some to push a version of Holocaust Denial and trying to minimize the very fact that yes, Holocaust occurred in Lithuania, and local populace was involved. The very fact that Lithuanian article is an exception in the series of "Holocaust in a country" articles is sending a very interesting message here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Where Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland is concerned that too suffers from insufficient Nazi accountability--weasel phrases like "German-inspired massacres" implying no Nazi involvement, et al. IMHO, that's why the "reminder" is required in the title. We might consider "The Nazi Holocaust in X", using "Nazi Holocaust" is quite common in titles on the subject. PetersV       TALK 02:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't The Holocaust as a proper noun refer to the Nazi one by common usage? I haven't looked but no doubt this has already been debated endlessly on various pages before. We need a consistent formula and one place to debate it. The choices seem to be "Holocaust in X", Holocaust in Nazi-occupied X", "Nazi Holocaust in X".Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Indeed, rarely, the Holocaust is used in another context. But in this cases it is usually indeed specified in more detail. Thus "clarifying" the title of "Holocaust in Lithuania" makes it actually more confusing - and suspicious. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also in favor for the current tittle. "Arguments" for the "simplest", "shortest", or "more popular", usually obscure in such situations. Good example German camps in occupied Poland during World War II, title is one of the most clumsiest ever, even have no established usage in google hits (compare German camps in occupied Poland during World War II 4 hits of same source, Polish concentration camps 325 hits, concentration camps in poland 617 hits.) M.K. (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer on this article I will weigh in on the debate. I am fairly impartial on this subject having just reviewed the article. To me, two of the above arguments hold the most weight, one being consistency - I am a big proponent of being consistent across all articles on a given subject. The second is regarding the term "the Holocaust", which is a proper noun and is used to describe the Nazi Holocaust of WW2. I don't think there is any ambiguity in removing "Nazi-occupied" as the term "Holocaust" automatically infers Nazi involvement and Nazi responsibility. I don't feel that it automatically puts a stigma on the nationality described (in this case Lithuania). As long as the body of the article correctly reflects the history of the time then the reader is left to judge. The title of the article will not sway the reader one way or the other. Make all the articles on the topic named the same, this enhances Wikipedia's credibility and organization. Those are my two cents. H1nkles (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article, per arguments above and comments of neutral GA reviewer. Please note that the current name (HiL) is the original name the article was created under. It was moved to HiNoL without discussion. If some editors still feel strongly about moving it back and making it a singular exception throughout Category:Holocaust by country, please use WP:RM.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy regarding Holocaust in Lithuania, save a sad tendency by some to push a version of Holocaust Denial.

Could P.K. aka P.P. elaborate on this opinion of his? Who are "some" and how does "this tendency" push Holocaust denial? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For benefit of other editors I'll make an exception to the WP:DFTT policy and answer your question. Few years ago, respected Lithuanian scholar Arūnas Bubnys noted that there are certain organizations in Lithuania who try to spread false claims, creating straw man and bogymen (for example by slandering the name of Armia Krajowa) while having appalling underlying political motives, chiefly among to whitewash and divert attention from German–Lithuanian collaboration and crimes committed by units such as the Lithuanian Secret Police. As for which editors share this POV and try to promote it on Wikipedia, I think it has been clear for years now. EOT for me on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to beg to disagree. Nazi propaganda regarding the Holocaust in Eastern Europe and the extent of collaboration by the local populace is still alive and well. Both Lithuanians are victims as well as Poles (aforementioned Polish death camp "controversy"). People are making their livings on the tenet that all Eastern Europe were vile Jew-haters for centuries, it only took Hitler to unleash them.

   I've read that the local populace of X supported the deaths of Jews because "that's the only way Hitler could have been so 'successful'". There's a wide gap between reputable scholarship and sensationalist taking "authentic" Nazi reports at face value (that would be the aforementioned "slander"). "Archives" does not mean "authentic"--especially when those VERY SAME ARCHIVES contain documents that give the lie to military reports, "news" accounts sent out through Nazi collaborators in Sweden, etc. It's too bad my hands are full with family matters, an article on Hitler's creation and engineering of the myth of the "Germanless" Holocaust as part of his invasion of Eastern Europe, Soviet exploitation of that myth, and how that myth is rooted and being reinforced today is long overdue. PetersV       TALK 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Polish death camps controversy is not a result of Nazi propaganda. It was not Nazi propaganda that tried to portray EE as a haven for antisemites. The best explanations I've run accross is that such an image was created by Jewish historiography, which assumed that the death of local Jewish populations had to be a responsibility of local (non-Jewish) populations which could have but didn't stop the Holocaust. In any case, I certainly think that we should have an article on the myth of the Germanless Holocaust (or whatever is the appropriate term). But that has little to do with the title here. Holocaust in [country name] does not suggest it was was a Holocaust perpetrated by the populace of that country; it simply notes it occurred there. Singling out Lithuania, Poland, the Baltics or so on simply confuses things. Either all of the articles in the series use the "Nazi-occupied" string, or none at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Piotrus, it's a bit late to be ordering anyone who wishes to restore the old name to "please use WP:RM". Article has been at HiNoL for nearly a year, from a few days after it was created. The stable version is hence HiNoL, so if your move is reverted it will be you who needs to hold a WP:RM. I don't think you'll find any WP:RM admin who disagrees with me on this one btw. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Less wikilawyering, please. The article was created under proper naming conventions as part of the series "Holocaust in country", it was moved without discussion to a new title. Indeed, I gave the editor who moved it more time then I should before I moved it back, but the current name is the consensus name throughout the entire series of "Holocaust in country". RM should have been used then, wasn't, now the situation is restored to were is should've been. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no written law for WP:RM, just custom. It is not the custom to treat names that haven't been the location of pages for nearly a year, and even then only for a day or so, as stable. The only reason this was brought up was because you yourself brought it up citing the article's earliest name as some kind of precedent. Less [pointless?] wikilawyering? Start with yourself. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, as all other such omit the "Nazi-occupied" part it does not seem feasible to make Lithuania an exception. I agree with Piotrus that there's no choice at this stage but to 1) leave this article without "Nazi-occupied" or 2) move most other such articles. It should be noted though that not all such articles could be moved; e.g. the currently non-existing Holocaust in Romania, where it was the free Romanian government rather than German government that planned and carried out genocide against Jews. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish partisans in modern Lithuania

I removed the following unreferenced block of text which doesn't seem that relevant anyway.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus convoked a special panel of international experts to investigate what were termed "the crimes of the Nazi and Soviet occupational regimes in Lithuania," a move that initially drew criticism because the title of the commission again equated the Holocaust with an alleged genocide against Lithuanians committed by the Soviets. Initial criticism evaporated when respected figures in Holocaust Studies such as Sir Martin Gilbert and Yitzhak Arad, former head of Yad Vashem, agreed to work with the Lithuanian presidential commission. In 2007 Lithuanian prosecutors began investigations of war crimes allegedly committed by Jewish anti-Nazi partisans in Lithuania and asked Israeli authorities to question Yitzhak Arad. Arad promptly withdrew from the Lithuanian presidential commission and told the Israeli press he would not return to the Baltic country. Since then, Lithuanian prosecutors have expanded their investigation to include other anti-Nazi Jewish partisans who survived the Lithuanian Holocaust through armed struggle. The investigation has drawn international criticism and global media attention. Speaking in an interview with BBC Radio 4 documentary "Lithuania: The Battle for Memory" by Tim Whewell on 22 July 2008, Efraim Zuroff noted Lithuania's total lack of will to prosecute Nazi collaborators but enthusiasm in accusing Holocaust survivors of crimes against Lithuanian civilians.

I do not think removing this information is inappropriate. It would be tantamount to including information or quotes in an article on WP such as The History of anti-Semitism in Poland:

"Poles suck anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk. This is something that is deeply imbued in their tradition, their mentality. Like their loathing of Russia. The two things are not connected, of course. But that, too, is something very deep, like their hatred of Am Yisrael. Today, though, there are elements in Poland that are cleansed of this anti-Semitism." Yitzhak Shamir former Prime Minister of Israel.