Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 Armia Krajowa in Lithuania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-09-10 Armia Krajowa in Lithuania
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator and refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Sigitas 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Armia Krajowa
- Who's involved?
- Sigitas 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- User:Piotrus
- What's going on?
- Piotrus without argumentation and without providing alternative verifiable referenced information is reversing and distorting referenced information about activities of Armia Krajowa in Lithuania, especially about crimes of AK against civilian population during the war. He removed , for example, information about AK hunting down Lithuanians during the battle for Vilnius in 1944, and persecution of Jews in Lithuania during the war. He distorts statements about persecution of Lithuanians, claiming that AK was only fighting Nazi collaborators, while large part of victims are children.
- I appears that AK collaboration with Nazis, and Nazi support for AK in Vilnius region is also questioned by Piotrus. I think we can sort this here as well. Sigitas 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- What would you like to change about that?
- I want unfounded reverses and distortions to be stopped. Sigitas 10:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- As Piotrus is not even trying to provide any verifiable information conttradicting my sources, and without any reason reverses my info (which is provided according to the Wikipedia standards), I want him be simply banned from the editing of AK and related articles. Sigitas 10:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok stating the obvious, that isn't part of the MedCab remit. Could I suggest you look at WP:DR and possibly consider other options? Addhoc 13:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good luck with the WP:ARB case, Legionas ;p -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Not completely. However, from a Google search there are books written in English that establish anti-semitism and killing civilians. In the context of several references indicating this, I wouldn't have a problem about citing the book. However, we possibly aren't going to reach consensus about the precise figures, probably we could give a range and indicate what sources tend to give the upper and lower values. Although I am new to this subject, there are several Wikipedia articles that have sources that give very different amounts concerning fatalities and nearly all of these disputes were eventually solvable. Piotrus, could you confirm whether you consider the Armia Krajowa were anti-Semitic and whether they were involved in killing civilians? Addhoc 13:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sigh. This is all discussed in the article, backed up with many references. AK was not anti-semitic, although few of its members certainly were. See Armia_Krajowa#Relations_with_Jews for details, especially the last para. As for civilians, obviously it was involved in killing civilians who were collaborators. However Lithuanian attempt to build from a few exceptional instances to portray AK as mainly engaged in killing Jews and Lithuanians resembles slander of what was one of the most heroic Allied underground organizations of the IIWW. PS. While I appreciate Sigitas making the book available online (although the language barrier is still a significant problem), I would like to note that this may be a copyvio; perhaps a better solution would be to quote relevant fragments only?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ok, thanks. Addhoc 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- And so we have a situation where mediator agrees with validity of my sources but Piotrus reverses my referenced info. How can we deal with it? I guess it's time to request a vote as it is necessary step for initiating arbitrage. Sigitas 14:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Legionas, I'd suggest you let the mediotor speak for himself. But nonetheless even I agree with the validity of your sources - I have no reason to suspect that this book does not exist, and some of its authors seem notable in Lithuania. I however question your POV and selection of facts, as well your reliance on a single Lithuanian publication to question facts of dozens of widely publicized and easily verifiable English-language academic publications. To be specific: I am not disputing that AK killed between a 100 to 1000 Lithuanians. I (and other users you have mentioned in the mediation request) are disputing that this equals genocide or that main activity of AK in Lithuania was fighting Lithuanians b/cause of AK anti-Lithuanian stance.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Word "Genocide" is not even mentioned in the article, stop complaining about that. My sources show that AK in Eastern Lithuania was indeed mostly focussed on terrorising Lithuanians. AK had a truce with Soviets and with Nazis, but never with Lithuanians. If you have different information, you should provide references. So, how many many Germans were killed by AK in Vilnius district? We can compare this number with number of Lithuanians killed. Sigitas 11:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- As Piotrus does not dispute my sources and facts anymore, I feel free to put my info back into article. Sigitas 11:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Could I request you propose changes on the talk page and give at least 24 hours for other to comment. Thanks, Addhoc 11:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- A simple search for 'gencocide' will show it is mentioned twice in the article. Your source (not sources, you have given only one) has revelations not quoted in any English (or Polish) language sources I can find, it is further contradicted by many others (truce with Soviets? LOL, read the well referenced Soviet partisans in Poland). In light of your continued assertion of such hard to verify with other sources claim, I am increasingly inclined to believe that either this book of yours is very POVed, or that your interpretation of it is.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- AK was collaborating with soviets during the [Battle of Vilnius (1944)]. One "genocide" word is put by one of the Polish editors, another is from Lithuanian prosecutor (although I cannot find original text).Sigitas 09:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Legionas, I'd suggest you let the mediotor speak for himself. But nonetheless even I agree with the validity of your sources - I have no reason to suspect that this book does not exist, and some of its authors seem notable in Lithuania. I however question your POV and selection of facts, as well your reliance on a single Lithuanian publication to question facts of dozens of widely publicized and easily verifiable English-language academic publications. To be specific: I am not disputing that AK killed between a 100 to 1000 Lithuanians. I (and other users you have mentioned in the mediation request) are disputing that this equals genocide or that main activity of AK in Lithuania was fighting Lithuanians b/cause of AK anti-Lithuanian stance.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I don't realy know how to end this conflict. As Piotrus now agrees with the validity of my source and with the facts provided, and he cannot find any information contradicting my sources, I don't really see a tiniest reason for his reversals. I consider his actions as simple trollying. Sigitas 09:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- As Legionas continues to ignorde policies related to good editing, pushes his POV against opposition of several editors and breaks WP:NPA by accusing others of bad faith, vandalism and trolling, I ask the mediator to warn him that such actions are disruptive to Wikipedia and may result in admin actions, if intensied.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I agree that describing other editors in a content dispute as vandals or trolls isn't very productive. Could we continue this discussion on the talk page and try to reach consensus regarding the next paragraph? Addhoc 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- It can be public.
[edit] Mediator response
I'll take this interesting case. Addhoc 11:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
[edit] Persecution of Jews by AK in Eastern Lithuania
AK killed 20 Jews in Eisiskes on 12 November 1943, and killed 12 Jews in Barunai in the end of March, 1944. AK especially brutally treated Jewish partisans. AK punished father and son Sadowski for hiding the Jews. Soviet sources of the wartime also report killing of hiding Jews by AK. This all is taken from the source: Rimantas Zizas. Armijos Krajovos veikla Lietuvoje 1942-1944 metais (Acitivies of Armia Krajowa in Lithuania in 1942-1944). Armija Krajova Lietuvoje, pp. 14-39. A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas (editors). Vilnius – Kaunas, 1995. Any comments?Sigitas 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is discussed at Talk:Armia Krajowa. PS. If you are going to use Soviet sources, you are really grasping straws here, Legionas...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer to make my case here, in a presence of the third party. I will wait for an answer of opponents regarding these facts provided, by the way, in the book on AK, editors of which include the most authoritative historians specialising in ww2 events. And what is wrong with Soviet sources? Sigitas 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer to make my case in a place where more than two of us are following. The most authorative historians - care to provide a ranking or something to prove that claim? And in any case it's the most authorative Lithuanian historians, mostly unknown in English-speaking world (same would go for the Polish historians, I am not claiming Lithuanians are less known then Poles, btw, but are obviously just as biased). This is English Wikipedia, please try to use English language sources, per WP:RS. Last but not least, what's wrong with Soviet forces: may I recommend chapters 8 and 10 of this book, or simply think about Soviet propaganda (a grossly underdeveloped article, unfortunatly).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- These are qualified historians able to distinguish propaganda from internal information. Lithuanian sources are OK, as "there is no equivalent article in an English-language" book. "Foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources." I would suggest you to start looking for referenced material instead of dismissing perfectly valid sources. Sigitas 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is more then enough English language sources ([2], [3]), none of which repeat the claims asserted by your source. The books was not very notable as it seems it was not reviewed by English academic press, neither ([4]). Let me repeat again that if you have a single non-English, hard to verify publication, contradicting many English easy to reference publications, this is not enough to instert such controversial statements into an article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously these facts are not controversial and not contradicting any English sources, as you cannot find any source contradicting them. Sigitas 10:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Suprisingly few sources contradict the claim that the Moon is made from green cheese, too. The burden of proof is on you to show that your claims are anything more then your interpretation of a sigle book written in a languge few people speak by few guys virtually unkown outside Lithuania.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously these facts are not controversial and not contradicting any English sources, as you cannot find any source contradicting them. Sigitas 10:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is more then enough English language sources ([2], [3]), none of which repeat the claims asserted by your source. The books was not very notable as it seems it was not reviewed by English academic press, neither ([4]). Let me repeat again that if you have a single non-English, hard to verify publication, contradicting many English easy to reference publications, this is not enough to instert such controversial statements into an article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- These are qualified historians able to distinguish propaganda from internal information. Lithuanian sources are OK, as "there is no equivalent article in an English-language" book. "Foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources." I would suggest you to start looking for referenced material instead of dismissing perfectly valid sources. Sigitas 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer to make my case in a place where more than two of us are following. The most authorative historians - care to provide a ranking or something to prove that claim? And in any case it's the most authorative Lithuanian historians, mostly unknown in English-speaking world (same would go for the Polish historians, I am not claiming Lithuanians are less known then Poles, btw, but are obviously just as biased). This is English Wikipedia, please try to use English language sources, per WP:RS. Last but not least, what's wrong with Soviet forces: may I recommend chapters 8 and 10 of this book, or simply think about Soviet propaganda (a grossly underdeveloped article, unfortunatly).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer to make my case here, in a presence of the third party. I will wait for an answer of opponents regarding these facts provided, by the way, in the book on AK, editors of which include the most authoritative historians specialising in ww2 events. And what is wrong with Soviet sources? Sigitas 21:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
