Talk:Glitiškės

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Glitiškės is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Comments	Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

"Commanders responsible for murder of civilians in Glitiškės were executed". That's quite interesting and uncommon for that time nad place. Could someone elaborate on this reference and hopefully find some others to confirm this particular piece of information? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the only information I could get so far.. Does anyone know fate of perpetrators of Dubingiai massacre? Sigitas 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in my sources so far, but honestly I have not done much searching on the AK-L issue yet.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 100 retaliation victims

100 retaliation for Glintiskes victims should be included here. That they are mentioned in Dubingiai article is a poor argument. Glitiskes massacre is also included in AK article. Do we need to remove Glitiskes article because of this? There is no hierarchy of wikipedia articles, and there is no such rule, that information cannot be duplicated. Sigitas 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is no such rule, but since this piece of information is highly controversial, it's better not to spread it over multiple articles and stay focused instead. Dubingiai is already mentioned in the short article and there is no need to do it twice. So fat it seems like an apologetic stance of Lithuanians saying: "Yes, the Lithuanians killed 37 Polish civilians, but you Poles killed more, a hundred". I don't think this is something that is needed here. Just a reference to the other article will suffice, as is done in the case of Dubingiai, which does not discuss the number of victims in Glitiškės. --Lysy^talk 11:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not controversial number. If you say it is controversial, you should provide a contradicting reference. It is not controversial until you do so. Sigitas 11:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't you read Dubingiai article for start ? There you'll find an English language source confirming the number of the victims being 27. Take a look here. --Lysy^talk 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not contradicting my info at all. People were killed by retaliating AK not only in Dubingiai but in surrounding towns as well. Polish sources just "forget" to mention victims in the surrounding places.Sigitas 11:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is something really new to me. Is there any peer reviewed research, that support this ? Or at least some sources in English ? That would be helpful. No offence Sigitas, but your aggressive edit behaviour means that my trust in your good faith is limited and I would ask some other Lithuanian editors that I trust more to comment on this. --Lysy^talk 11:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My search for English sources was unsuccessful. I don't hide, however, my sources, today I uploaded scanned book AK in Lithuania, it is up to anyone to verify my info. [1].Sigitas 13:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the effort (however this link does not work yet). Could you also let me know where does the number of 70 Lithuanian victims come from ? --Lysy^talk 13:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad. The link should work now. Sigitas 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry for one more question, would you call it mainstream Lithuanian historiography or borderline ? I am asking because aside of the mainstream research in Poland we have a number of borderline historians, who write books only in order to to prove their nationalistic theses but they are not published in serious journals and nobody treats them seriously. Is the situation in Lithuania similar ? --Lysy^talk 15:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream. I don't know even one historian challenging this view. Most of historians from editorial bord of this book were members of governmental commission investigating AK actions in Lithuania, some of them are employees of Governmental Center for researching genocide and resistence of residents of Lithuania (Bubnys, Zizas). Sigitas 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, frw months ago Legionas noted himself that "XXI amzius has weakest journalists and I will avoid using its publications when possible". Change of heart?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, my question concerned the "Armija Krajova Lietuvoje" book. Thanks for scanning it, I've read the Polish summary there. --Lysy^talk 17:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigitas, thanks for agreeing on compromise in the article and thank you for letting me have a look at "Armija Krajova Lietuvoje". This is not necessary, but I would like to comment on the latter. From your comment above I understood that this is a rather serious Lithuanian historic monography. While I was not able to read it as I don't know Lithuanian, I've read the couple of pages long summary, and I must say it was an eye opening for me. The book, or at least the summary, seems to be written with an agenda to demonstrate that AK was a criminal organisation. If this is indeed a respectable editorial board, I do not know how they could agree on that such partial and tendentious summary accompanies the book. Of course we have similar authors in Poland, writing "history" books, but they can be easily recognised by the style of their writing and I would never consider them to be serious historians. Maybe the way of doing history research is simply different in Lithuania. But on the other hand I do know very good books written by Lithuanian authors. I don't know what to think about it now. --Lysy^talk 18:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be really interesting to see a review of it in English academic press, or at least Polish and other Lithuanian reviews. I did a search for English reviews but found none, which indicates to me the book is not considered notable or reliable enough for review.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is enough material published about how great AK was. This book about the dark side of AK helps to balance a view. Sigitas 09:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Although, ideally, we would use the sources that neither praise nor disprove it, but present non-biased results of historical research. I'm afraid that it might be difficult for AK actions in Lithuania. Hopefully it will be changing in the future. --Lysy^talk 09:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Jumping into Legionas' shoes for a second, his task is indeed harder than "ours", as the topic he's focused on is pretty obscure. While in the recent years there were numerous English publications on the Home Army in general or its major activities, the relation of the AK with Lithuanians in general, with Lithuanian collaborators or Lithuanian communists is still something pretty missing from English libraries... //Halibutt 05:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

True, however good non-English publications on such rare and interesting topics are often reviewed in English academic press. As far as I can tell the above source is ignored, which means either nobody spotted it (which doesn't say much about recognition for its authors) or it was judged to POVed to deserve a review.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

badcop, goodcop this is the game? Double makes a team.

Another one question 40 million opposed against 3 million.

What I do speak about? tell me.--Lokyz 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)