Talk:Juozas Ambrazevičius

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

Missing Facts[edit]

Check this reference and google his name:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18101716 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.59.206 (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography items for discussion[edit]

Rough and not properly formatted yet but in the interests of advancing discussion:

should meet Holocaust in Poland sourcing standard[edit]

Saulius Sužiedelis Lithuanian Collaboration during the Second World War: Past Realities, Present Perceptions: a modified summary and collation of my studies presented in earlier venues: my reports “Foreign Saviors, Native Disciples: Perspectives on Collaboration in Lithuania, 1940–1945”, presented at the conference “Reichskommissariat Ostland” at Uppsala University and Södertörn University College, in April 2002, now published in: Collaboration and Resistance during the Holocaust. Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, ed. by David Gaunt (et al.). Bern 1941” in Vilnius at the conference “Holocaust in Lithuania” September 2002

Articles
    • The Burden of 1941, in: "Lituanus" 47:4 (2001), pp. 47-60;
    • Thoughts on Lithuania’s Shadows of the Past: A Historical Essay on the Legacy of War, Part I, in: "Vilnius" (Summer 1998), pp. 129-146;
    • Thoughts on Lithuania’s Shadows of the Past: A Historical Essay on the Legacy of War, Part II, in: "Vilnius" (Summer 1999), pp. 177-208;
    • introduction to Avraham Tory’s well-known diary, Avrahamo Torio Kauno getas: diena po dienos. [The Kaunas Ghetto of Avraham Tory: Day after Day]. Vilnius 2000, S. V-LX
  • Sužiedelis, Saulius. "Lithuanian collaboration during the Second World War: past realities, present perceptions." Collaboration and Resistance during the Holocaust: Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (2006): 158.2004, pp. 313-359, and “The Mass Persecution and Murder of Jews: The Summer and Fall of
  • Amir Weiner. "Timothy Snyder: Bloodlands". Monde Russe. doi:10.4000/monderusse.7904.


Konrad Kwiet (Spring 1998). "Rehearsing for Murder: The Beginning of the Final Solution in Lithuania in June 1941". Holocaust and Genocide Studies. 12 (1): 3–26.

  • Eglė Rindzevičiūtė. "ENTREPRENEURS OF A DIFFICULT PAST: THE ORGANISATION OF KNOWLEDGE REGIMES IN POST-SOVIET LITHUANIAN MUSEUMS". European Cultural Memory Post-89.

Dan Kaszeta (2023). The Forest Brotherhood: Baltic Resistance against the Nazis and Soviets. Hurst Publishers. doi:10.1163/9789401208895_005. ISBN 1805262432.

still acceptable under current sourcing standards[edit]

“It’s time to stop blaming each other, leave our ghettos and start talking,” he adds.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/how-chicago-teacher-sparked-memory-war-forcing-lithuania-confront-its-n1262889

Recent changes made by Elinruby[edit]

@Elinruby I examined your recent changes to the article, and I noted that some of them are unsupported by the existing sources, and you didn't provide new sources to them. Here is the list of changes:

  • The LAF had a strong anti-Semitic and anti-communist profile, calling for the expulsion of Jews from Lithuania and the requisition of their property, blaming them for the country's loss of independence to Certainly their early publications called for the expulsion of Jews from Lithuania and the requisition of their property and blamed them for the country's loss of independence
    You removed important information about the ideological profile of the organization, in addition to incorrectly writing that anti-Semitic content was only found in "early publications," when in fact it was also in texts directly preceding and published during the June uprising. It is also impossible to distinguish between early publications and late publications in relation to an organization that existed for about a year.
  • On August 5, 1941, the provisional government was dissolved, and on September 22, the LAF was dissolved to On August 5, 1941, the provisional government dissolved itself, and on September 22, the LAF was dissolved
    Both provisional government and the LAF were dissolved by German administration.
  • Ambrazevičius ordered Petras Vilutis in May 1942 to form the "Kęstutis" military organization to Ambrazevičius ordered Petras Vilutis in May 1942 to form the "Grand Duke Kęstutis Motorized Infantry Battalion" of the Lithuanian Land Force named after Kęstutis, and the Kęstutis military district of the Lithuanian partisans was named for him as well
    "Grand Duke Kęstutis Motorized Infantry Battalion" is a modern Lithuanian military unit and was established in 1992, Kęstutis military district was anti-Soviet partisan district established in 1946, and while it was indirectly connected to 1942 Kęstutis, it wasn't identical, and certainly wasn't established by Brazaitis nor by Vilutis.
  • "Kęstutis" was to become the core of the Lithuanian armed forces reconstituted by the VLIK. to "Kęstutis" became the core of the Lithuanian armed forces reconstituted by the VLIK.
    VLIK never reconstituted the Lithuanian army, so the perfective aspect is incorrect.

I would be grateful if you would be so kind as to undo the changes I mentioned in the text. Best regards and happy holidays. Marcelus (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I failed to hit send last night. I have removed some unsourced material. Not all of the OR and SYNTH in the entire article, mind you, but a start. If you want it in the article you need to source it. It would be simpler to just wait until I am done adding in a full context at Lithuanian Activist Front and Provisional Government of Lithuania. These "errors" that you speak of are not errors nor is this article required to conform to the version you dragged Cukrakalnis to ANI to protect (I guess? Though I don't understand why?). The article will say he is a war criminal when and if I or someone else can substantiate that. Which reminds me, the vandalism saying do in the lede has had a chance to be substantiated.
Meanwhile, the content you say is unsourced is right next to an example of "early writings" as I recall, but maybe that's a matter of differing screens; I'll go ahead and name/reuse the reference shortly. I'm trying to add the double genocide fallacy into the wider articles without seeming anti-Polish or antisemitic or Russophobic or whatever.
I really have to ask this: you realize that you are still not sourcing your assertions, right? Elinruby (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps- taking this is small doses to spread out the time sink, but I will ask about the regiment name. I haven't yet seen individual instances of military units with multiple incarnations get separate pages, but that may be a notability issue. Although the French Foreign Legion units I am thinking of were all individually pretty notable and this may depend on whether the subsequent units wore the regalia and unit commendations of the predecessor (?) It's a really tangential point though.Elinruby (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your last two points. I thought this was information you added? That text is definitely not mine, except for the wikilink on Kęstutis. I am willing to copy that entire text off to the talk page for discussion, or as a reminder to write up whatever did happen. You want to do that? Elinruby (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every sentence I added is based on sources, if you think that more refs needs to be added please mark them with [citation needed] template. You are changing text on fly without veryfing the content of the sources. Please revert the changes mentions by me, especially about Kęstutis; you are conflacting several different bodies into one, Kęstutis is a popular name as it was the name of the ancient Lithuanian ruler. Marcelus (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verification problem[edit]

Sources are plentiful. Would you please select one that is available online? I can live with the Polish if you must. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out some conflation[edit]

You removed important information about the ideological profile of the organization, in addition to incorrectly writing that anti-Semitic content was only found in "early publications," when in fact it was also in texts directly preceding and published during the June uprising. It is also impossible to distinguish between early publications and late publications in relation to an organization that existed for about a year.

If it is important, please source it.

Early=Yes, the organization came into being with the June uprising, no? Anything written before that seems pretty early to me. I am not sure I agree with your final point, but in any event, the article is about a prime minister who was in power for six weeks, not a year. Elinruby (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you starting a new topic? Let's discuss it all in one place. Lithuanian Activist Front was formed in November 1940 and dissolved in September 1941. Marcelus (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source? Elinruby (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sužiedėlis 2006: On 17 November 1940 a group of emigres inaugurated the aforementioned LAF in Berlin. Formally, the organization was an alliance of all non-Communist parties, but the LAF gravitated to the more militant nationalist political spectrum. Marcelus (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were complaining about "self-dissolved". (I did see that sourced on one of these articles, btw, but I was doing something else and didn't check it. I didn't necessarily believe it, mind you, didn't even look at it, but since you asked.)
As to what you just posted, I am pretty sure that all these. articles now say pretty much exactly that, or if not, go ahead and add it, as far as I am concerned. The end of the last sentence gives me slight pause but if it's a quote I am not going to second-guess it. Just so this is all in one thread, I also saw "the government dissolved LAF" with a source, and will try to tag you on that. As I mentioned I don't care either way, and I am till trying to nail down events and just barely touching the differin,g narratives so... but that is where we are on that, as I understand it. I need to go though, and please bear in mind that I am working on multiple articles on a phone. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agency in dissolution[edit]

Both provisional government and the LAF were dissolved by German administration

then someone has gone to great lengths to say otherwise in all related articles. I personally don't care one way or the other but both of the dueling assertions seem to be unsourced OR as far as I can tell. If you have a source I will make that change for you in deference to your 0RR or is it 1RR status. If you do not have a source then this is an edit request that I will try to investigate but I am pretty busy right now. So noted, I guess. Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

stumbled across a source that supports part of this, working on that. Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are saying that LAF dissolved itself? Please name them Marcelus (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Omg. I didn't say that. I say it was in several of the related articles but your OR doesn't trump their OR, whoever they are or were. Somebody cared about this point. See the part about unsourced OR? Why would I say that about a source???? It seems like I can answer silly questions or I can finish what I am doing elsewhere and I choose the latter. You have also used up all the misrepresentation of my editing I am prepared to ignore tonight. So... merry Christmas, say hi for me to the ghost of Christmas past Elinruby (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question: are there any sources that say the LAF has dissolved itself? If so please provide them. I do not know such sources. You are the one who made the change, so it is up to you to back them up with sources. There is absolutely no reason to be overdramatic. Marcelus (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting my remarks[edit]

I think the long reply I just typed out is the third time I've explained this to you. Here is the fourth: TL;DR=I did not claim there was. See "unsourced OR"' in the original mention I may have seen a sourced mention earlier, but I didn't click it, and if we're having trouble with "that's not what I said" maybe we shouldn't worry about the "maybe, I haven't looked at it yet" part until I get back. Merry Christmas. PS: And actually that isn't really what WP:ONUS says, but please process thai this has been an attempt to discuss where I was not waving acronyms, and expected the same. What ONUS does say is that it's been removed and you need.consensus to put it back. If I agree you have consensus, and if you provide a source I can check I will agree. You should strike "overdramatic" btw. Elinruby (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the basic Wikipedia rule: when you make the change provide a source. For a reader it doesn't matter much that you saw it in some source a while ago, the reader needs a source provided in order to trust the text he reads. Marcelus (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:ONUS. Bubys contradicts your unavailable source in Polish. I am not available at (squints at clock) zero dark thirty to explain it to you and I was working on a different sourcing problem yesterday -- Kaunas massacre definitely has a Polish narrative and a Lithuanian narrative. Let's remember we are here because you were insisting that Cukrakalnis make a change based on your assertions alone, and decided he was yet again doing something or other. Source verification is failing left right and center, much of it not your work to be fair. Bottom line, I believe Bubnys, whom I can verify, over your alleged source, which I cannot. Especially since you are misrepresenting policy. Find a source that is online and we can do "x says that "Lithuanian police committed the massacre but Bubnys says not." There are lots of sources that this is what IPN says. I have two, from another article, but they are really terrible as sources go and I don't want to use them just because you are making representations about another source that allegedly says the same thing. You've made a lot of representations lately. Provide a useable source like anyone else and I will be delighted to include it in the rewrite with attribution. Otherwise I am currently preoccupied tracking down a different distortion in the sourcing. In the morning that is. Right now I am going back to sleep. Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to explain clearly what the source discrepancy is. It is not clear from the article. Secondly, explain what the discrepancy between the "Polish narrative" and the "Lithuanian narrative" about the Kaunas pogrom is. I don't see it, I certainly don't see a discrepancy between what Wnuk and Bubnys write. Nor do I know why there would be a distinct "Polish narrative" about the Kaunas pogrom. iMarcelus (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet seen a source explain the divergence in terms of Kaunas program specifically, but I have seen a discussion of post-Soviet countries still being affected by their propaganda -- but that description applies to both countries here. I already gave you a cite to Bubnys' testimony to the Holocaust Commission; that is in reference to the 258th. If you have a source that specifically attributes it I would give it great credence if I were able to verify it without searching it out through rare book dealers. There are a lot of sources. man. The one you are using appears to be out of print as well as not online. You can look if you like at the source verification I did yesterday at Kaunas pogrom and Holocaust in Lithuania; bottom line the IPN sources are mediocre at best, although they do say "lithuanian police" are responsible for Kaunas as I recall. Bubnys says it was... I can't remember their name without looking but it starts with Y. That there isn't really a contradiction, just loose IPN terminology. I am overdue on a whole bunch of RL stuff and won't be available until tonight. Gotta go. Elinruby (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. What IPN are you talking about? I didn't use any IPN source yet, Wnuk is not related to IPN, nor his book was published by the IPN.
2. You need tsay specific what the divergence between sources is exactly, with plain words. We can move on from there. Marcelus (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see myself as here to do your bidding believe it or not, nor am I trying to make a case against you. I see myself as a more or less neutral finder of fact (whom others can believe or not of course) in a matter where you are a symptom. Wnuk cannot be verified by mere mortals. Find something else. This really isn't difficult and I don't understand your contention that he is the only possible source on routine matters, at the same time as you are complaining that there are too many items in the bibliography. I have about four hours to put into this right now. Don't waste them please. I am not going to respond further in this talk page until I am done with the organizations he founded. Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional bibliography[edit]

Bibliography

Secondary sources believed to meet Eastern Europe criteria
  • Sužiedelis, Saulius (2006). "Lithuanian Collaboration during the Second World War: Past Realities, Present Perceptions: Collaboration and Resistance during the Holocaust: Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". The Mass Persecution and Murder of Jews: The Summer and Fall of. Vol. 158.2004. pp. 313–359. This presentation is in part a modified summary and collation of my studies presented in earlier venues: *;My reports **Foreign Saviors, Native Disciples: Perspectives on Collaboration in Lithuania, 1940–1945, presented in April 2002 at the "Reichskommissariat Ostland" conference at Uppsala University and Södertörn University College, now published in: Collaboration and Resistance during the Holocaust. Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, ed. David Gaunt et al *;My articles in Vilnius at the conference Holocaust in Lithuania in Vilnius 2002: **The Burden of 1941, in: 'Lituanus' 47:4 (2001), pp. 47-60; **Thoughts on Lithuania's Shadows of the Past: A Historical Essay on the Legacy of War, Part I, in: 'Vilnius (Summer 1998), pp. 129-146; **Thoughts on Lithuania's Shadows of the Past: A Historical Essay on the Legacy of War, Part II, in: 'Vilnius' (Summer 1999), pp. 177-208...

Criterion problems[edit]

  • June 1999 United States Justice Department
    • I believe the US Justice Department is considered "a reputable institution" if not though, this may well qualify as written by an expert since afaik it concerns their litigation

Elinruby (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this edit.[edit]

[1] Elinruby (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack removed[edit]

Elinruby please don't make any changes to the sources content, without veryfining it. List of your unsourced changes:

  • When the Soviets occupied Lithuania, Ambrazevičius became involved in the anti-Soviet resistance movement as a member of the Lithuanian Activist Front (LAF) in Lithuania to While the Soviets occupied Lithuania, Ambrazevičius became a member of the Lithuanian Activist Front (LAF) in Lithuania.
yes, so? Elinruby (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why you removed mention of anti-Soviet resistance?
not that organized
  • its goal was to rebuild an independent Lithuania with the help of the Germans to Its goal was to rebuild a Lithuania independent of the Soviets under German protection.
    The source is saying clearly about "help" not "protection"
that is correct. is it ok if I add better sources now? Elinruby (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uprising was organised by LAF, source says it clear.
:Trying to find a polite way to put this. I can build that out or I can try argue with your strongly held beliefs. I choose the former. See above Elinruby (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also you added bunch of positions to the bibliography that aren't used in the article, it's contrary to the Wikipedia policies, there are also problems with formating. Please remove them, let's limit bibliography to the sources that are actually used in the article. Marcelus (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use the sources in the bibliography! For example, to replace your Polish source with no url with a source that has one.

please also make sure your sources actually support what you say, Having trouble with that, although I think this material is from another article, right? So not your obfuscation probably but thus my desire to verify that source that's in Polish. You are supposed to use English if an equally high-quality source can be found. I won't insist on that, but I do want something that can be verified, especially since you are complaining that the bibliography has too many sources.

Go fix the stuff you copied over and are now complaining about. Next time you claim I made a mistake none of the performative stuff please; just tell me what it is that you think is wrong

This is what is meant by working collaboratively. Elinruby (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafał Wnuk is the only source I know that describes in detail the activities of Ambrazevičius and the Lithuanian Front in 1941-44. As you can see he uses sources in Polish, English and Lithuanian. You make changes without adding any new sources in the form of refs.
I don't have any "beliefs", everything I added in the sources is based on sources. Please withdraw the changes I mentioned or provide the sources on which these changes are based. Marcelus (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the text, since I cannot access the source and you say I misrepresent it. If so it isn't deliberate, but I believe I am deep enough in the sources to cover this with accessible sources. If not there may be ways to work this out. Admittedly I am not getting a lot of Polish-language sources back; will make an attempt to remedy this. Possibly you provide some quotes and we go to the tactic I have used before in diverging accounts of events, such as some of the Sikh campaigns in India: for example "on the one hand group A says that x happened next, whereas group B says that y and z happened before x." Etc. Conversely, if the book is archived somewhere that I am missing, please do let me know. However Wnuk seems to be wrong about Kaunas (?), although I am open to feedback on that. Happens. Not casting stones at anyone but there has definitely been PoV pushing, but not by you or Cukrakalnis as far as I can tell without combing through the entire history. But paranoia is therefore somewhat justified on all of our parts when, as here, disinformation is definitely part of the history. Merry Christmas.

References

The government succeeded in rebuilding the pre-war local administration and also established the National Labor Service Battalions (TDA).[1] The government began reconstituting the Lithuanian army from TDA members on June 28, 1941.[2] Insurgents and TDA members organized and engaged in pogroms against the Jewish population.[citation needed] One of the bloodiest occurred in the capture of Kaunas, when 3,500 Jews were killed.[3] Elinruby (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby in order to do the Sikh campaigns in India: for example "on the one hand group A says that x happened next, whereas group B says that y and z happened before x." you need to present the sources that support the text proposed by you, right now you aren't doing that; you are simply changing the content provided by me, changing its meaning without providing any new sources that would support these changes. Marcelus (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also there was no personal attacks in the title of this section, so there was no reason to change it. Marcelus (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i disagree and removed it. Elinruby (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing text that doesn't verify[edit]

There may be a copy of this book somewhere but several good faith searches have failed to find it, or another source that says the same thing, and the editor who used it doesn't think there is a problem and therefore is not addressing it.

References

  1. ^ Wnuk 2018, pp. 59–60.
  2. ^ Wnuk, 2018 & p61.
  3. ^ Wnuk 2018, pp. 60–61.
  • "According to Soviet reports, both LF and "Kęstutis" were in close contact with the Germans and the German intelligence service, and cooperated with them in fighting Soviet partisans and activists.[1]"

Elinruby (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ambrazevičius ordered Petras Vilutis in May 1942 to form a military organization. Vilutis, after he left to study in Vienna, was replaced by Juozas Jankauskas [lt].[2]"
    • Is any of this actual useful information? Google Search results for Petras Vilutis, at least the top fifty or so, are not about this man. Possibly as keywords? In any event, this one sounds true but possibly undue Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elinruby I can provide you with quotations that support these facts, I can even send you picture of the book pages. Just ask. And don't remove content that is supported by the sources. Marcelus (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it appears to be contradicted by other sources in the first case. It isn't about whay *you* are allowed to do, it:s about writing an encyclopedia. I have been very patient about this. i insist on verifying the sources, especially since they all disagree, and i have no good reason to make an exception for you. Wnuk has two other books that ARE on Google Books. Use one of them. Tne fact that you insist on using a source i can't verify raises an eyebrow, The fact that in some cases Bubnys says the. same thing proves we don't have to use the Wnuk that is unavailable. if you don't want to use Bubnys there is a case for that but it seems like I am doing all the work here while you are both creating a problem and for some reason think it is ok to use the imperative tense with me and order me not to fix it. Source your stuff, dude. i keep saying that. Elinruby (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wnuk is avaiable in libraries, I own the copy of the book, WP:RS do not necessarily have to be available online. I repeat again: I am able to provide you with exact quotes and even page images from Wnuk's book if you wish. Removing source information that you don't like for some reason is to the detriment of Wikipedia. And we are in the WP:CT area.
I'll ask again: restore sourced content that you removed, I can provide exact citiation that supports them.
Also, please do not address me as "dude". We aren't that close. Marcelus (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need all that if other sources cover it, like the date of the June uprising, and if they don't then what does this tell us? I will accept any alternate source that is online. I saw a video where he was speaking at a conference and he seems like a decent historian...I also went over his wikipedia page. But there are already about five different narratives amd I shouldn't have to guess what the context is.Elinruby (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept any alternate source that is online - it really doesn't work like that, it's not up to you to decide if you accept this source or not; Wnuk is reliable source, so content supported by him shouldn't be removed. Wnuk isn't contradicting any other source. You keep talking about "different narratives" but you still didn't explain what you mean by them. What narrative is Wnuk representing according to you? Marcelus (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know because the source doesn't verify. Stop fishing for diffs. All I ask is one source that I can verify.
There are also stages in the historiography. i have explained this to you before. From what I heard of the conference he seemed stage 3 or 4, but the line between those is blurry because it's just a gradual decrease in ideology. I'll get you a link for that later, but the taxonomy is in one of the articles, Provisional government, I think. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intro narratives: was in the bibiliography you deleted. By the way, why did you think it was a good idea to delete the bibliography? Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know because the source doesn't verify, you can verify this source it's publicly avaiable, what's more I can provide you with pages.
I didn't delete a bibliography, I removed sources that wasn't used in the article, and also removed your meta comments. Which I don't know why you put them there. Marcelus (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I notified you about a discrepancy with Wnuk on December 24, in this very thread.Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


you try that and let me know how it goes; Worldcat thought it over and said nowhere. Conceivably the title is off but then please explain the isbn that goes to a completely different publication? Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I asked you on 28 December: You need tsay specific what the divergence between sources is exactly, with plain words. We can move on from there, you never gave clear answer on that. Furthermore, the isbn is correct.
The bottom line is: you shouldn't remove content sourced with RS. Marcelus (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The bottom line is that you're mistaken about that, and it was removed precisely because it wasn't actually sourced, not really. The book does seem to exist but I don't think it's the Holy Grail or a sine qua non when it comes to building this article. We are supposed to use english when there is a good english-language source, which would be the case here, the more so since the foreign-language source is out of print and does't seem to be reviewed or excerpted anywhere, Worldcat gives zero results and the isbn number goes to some other book. At a bare minimum the referencing needs checking.

Please stop bludgeoning. Your comments here are not advancing anything. I don't understand why you are acting like this way but maybe you should think about that. Elinruby (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Leśni bracia can be found in the worldcat ([2]), also the isbn is correct ([3]). None of these is of course requieremnt for a source to be considered reliable. In general your reluctance to say directly what's your actual issue with Wnuk's book, and what is the "divergence" you talk about is worrying. Marcelus (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaunas pogrom[edit]

@Elinruby why did you mark information about 3500 victims of Kaunas pogrom as dubious? Marcelus (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's in the tag. Go into edit mode. There were not that many killed in the Kaunas pogrom -- the garage +-and the number is too low for Ninth Fort Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you basing this on what exactly? Both Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 and Kaunas pogrom article mention similiar numbers. Marcelus (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source? I want to know what the are counting exactly. I've see<n Kaunas pogrom, hell I've probably edited it, but mostly people are talking about the garage when they say Kaunas pogrom. And wikipedia is not a source as you know.
The number could be fine on what they are counting but I want to know what that is. Encyclopedia of camps is a usable source, put it in if their number matches, but amnd the text to show what they are including. Seriously though, why did you think it was a good idea to delete the bibliography? Elinruby (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you claim that the figure of 3,500 is false then you must have sources that give a different calculation: please provide them. Marcelus (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you go issuing orders again. You concentrate on finding a source. Did you make the change we discussed to the part about Kaunas. Also, why did you think it was a good idea to delete to bibliography? Elinruby (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming anything is false. Well, the isbn number on that book is definitely wrong. But as casualty figures I questioned it because not that many died at the garage, but they include more in the count they use at Kaunas pogrom. You asked a question and we discussed. if you want to use the encyclopedia of camps, that is fine, but the text should be edited if necessary to reflect the source? did you do that? Usually these discrepancies are differences in definition. We just make it clear what it includes and doesn't. In the text about coordination with the German, is Wnuk talking about the Iron Wolf? when the the Germans were approaching but not there yet? I'll keep my eyes open for a source like that. Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wnuk is completely fine as a source. You failed to provide a source that would give different number of victims. Murders in the "Lietukis” garage are only one part of the entire pogrom, much more Jews was killed in the Slobodka district for example, but also in other part of the city. As you can see there is nothing "dubious" about numbers given by Wnuk.
In the text about coordination with the German, is Wnuk talking about the Iron Wolf?: what text exactly? Marcelus (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Wnuk 2018, p. 128.
  2. ^ Wnuk 2018, pp. 127–128.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juozas_Ambrazevičius&oldid=1208668632"