Talk:Armia Krajowa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Armia Krajowa has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review Armia Krajowa has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Armia Krajowa is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.


/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Fork ?

I think the Lithuanian aspects should be forked into a separate article. Something like "Wileński Okręg AK" maybe ? --Lysytalk 07:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab case

(Part copied from archive)

Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Legionas, Piotrus, Lysy, Szopen, //Halibutt

Would any other involved parties add their name to the list. Thanks, Addhoc 12:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Paragraph

I tagged paragraph with POV, maybe more contributors will express their view on this. M.K. 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Could we discuss the folowing disputed paragraph:

"Relations between Lithuanians and Poles were strained during most of the interwar period due to conflicts over the Vilnius region and Suvalkai region, areas whose population was a mixture of Poles and Lithuanians. Germans relocated Lithuanian families to Vilnius region from Western parts of Lithuania by force, and this complicated situation. During the war these conflicts resulted in thousands of deaths, as groups on both sides used the opportunities offered by the war to commit violent acts against those they perceived as enemies."

Addhoc 11:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to move this section up to the main medcab section, where we have been discussing this para anyway. As this para is disputed by Sigitas, I think we all will appreciate his reply to why he persists in deleting most of this paragraph; as I think no other editor finds it objectionable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, do you know if there's a reference specifically for this paragraph? Addhoc 15:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't appear to be there ATM, but I think that the first and third sentences are rather NPOV and semi-obvious, and can be easily referenced with some of our existing refs. The middle sentence about German relocation of L. families should have its own inline citation; plus we may want to note that Poles were deported from Vilnius by the Soviets ([1], [2]. etc.), further changing the population balance and antagonizing the Polish population. PS. Adhoc, since you said you have recently begun to read about those issues, you may want to see our well referenced article on Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_by_occupiers#Treatment_of_Polish_citizens_under_Soviet_occupation for some relevant information.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the "thousands of deaths" should not be referenced as well. While obvious to me, this may be not so clear for every reader. --Lysytalk 16:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Second sentence is supported by 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. This paragraph is OK. Sigitas 13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Addhoc 13:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

After some thinking I have reservations regarding the "thousands of deaths". AK probably killed 4000 locals in "ethnic Lithuanian lands" but many of victims were Belarussians, Jews and Poles. Thousands of Poles would be killed by Germans with or without Lithuanian administration in place. Sonderkommando Ypatingasis burys in Paneriai were killing people not because they "took the opportunities offered by the war to commit crimes" but because they were forced to. Sigitas 09:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about the villages burned by Plechavicius men? They weren't forced to kill and murder Poles? Szopen 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You should evaluate these data carefully. I know for sure that at least some of the villages burned by Territorial Defence Force were simply invented by Polish propagandists, for example killings in Grauziskes, when Territorial Defence Force didn't even reach this place before being destroyed by AK. Sigitas 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard about killings in Graużyszki, as indeed, Plechaviczius men were defeated earlier; however, In Sienkowszczyna (quite near Grauzyszki) Plechaviczius men were burning houses and killing people - probably that's why they were so easily defeated, since AK attacked while the butchers were busy with shooting the civilians. As for Burys being forced to kill Poles, well, they were all volunteers; Szopen 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT: plus Pawłów, Adamowszczyzna, Tołminów
Witnesses say they there ambushed marching by AK, which probably was tipped by Germans. I don't know much about these events though. Burys' members volunteered to assist germans initially, but not to kill people in paneriai. Most of them only were aknowledged of their role in killings after arrival to Paneriai and had no option to say "no" (Arūnas Bubnys (2004). Vokiečių ir lietuvių saugumo policija (1941–1944) (German and Lithuanian security police: 1941-1944). Vilnius: Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras. Retrieved on 2006-06-09.) Sigitas 10:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This is sad, but the same could be probably said of many Germans who did not go to army to murder civilians but then had no choice. I think the times were difficult and we're really often too easily assigning blame. On the other hand thousands of people were murdered in Paneriai and this also requires some justice and we cannot pretend that nobody killed them. --Lysytalk 11:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it can indeed be said about many people involved in war. We cannot say "used the opportunities offered by the war to commit violent acts against those they perceived as enemies" as this wording would mean voluntary and enthuasiastic participation in killings, when in fact Burys' people volunteered for escorting Jews to Ghettos, not for killings in Paneriai. Sigitas 12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what I meant. The "thousands of deaths" seems to be an oversimplification of the rather complex situation and may easily lead to misinterpretations. I'm not sure how to rephrase it in a NPOV, yet meaningful way, however. Maybe just remove this sentence from the lead ? --Lysytalk 10:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wondering is this case is over? M.K. 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So, how about it? M.K. 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What about it? The article is stable, consensus has been reached, as it appears.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment of Piotrus, sorry for not replying earlier - I took the article off my watchlist. Addhoc 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
You are very quick. Thank you. Still I would like to ask some questions, Addhoc. Particular contributor Piotrus in one of the articles demonstrated examples of weasel words weasel words. looking in the light of this, I would like about this particular sentence in the article of AK: the nationalist[11] and extremist[10][19] Lithuanian Vilnija organization claims that. Please observe the ref of nationalist 11 is Polish Gazeta Wyborcza, while extremist also link to Gazeta Wyborcza also. According to Piotrus (evidence provided above) these particular words should be referenced in English. And second note near the word extremist contributor also placed and this EN source [3] From this ref it does not clear is Vilnija is the same as mentioned in this article, or it is another organization (or association !), that context in this article and in provided ref. Some my question - is this EN source is credible in this context, which speaks about AK, not about 20-21st. politics and relations plus is this the same Vilnija? M.K. 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
According to Piotrus (evidence provided above) - please be more specific in your attributions, I don't recall saying anything that those refs are invalid.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

let's not use non-English sources for weasel words, shall we? M.K. 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff for context?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, my compromise suggestion is removing extremist in accordance with Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, and keeping nationalist, which doesn't appear to be unreasonable. Also, I would suggest rewording to avoid 'claims', have a look at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim... Addhoc 11:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd prefer we rephase it - it is important to note that Vilnija is not only nationalist, it represents extreme end of a political spectrum by being very anti-Polish (several refs I have refer to it as an organization promoting hate...), and thus has very low reliablity (like Stalin Society or, for examples of Polish organizations one should not really cite on encyklopedia, see Radio Maryja or All-Polish Youth). It would be nice if we had an article Vilnija, where reader could see those issues discussed in details.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me guess, these it represents extreme end of a political spectrum are from the Polish nationalists sources, no? M.K. 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Gazeta Wyborcza, which is used as the source, is pefectly mainstream. When we get around to expanding on Vilnija, you can analyse my other sources; this article is however no place to describe one fringe organization.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
While Gazeta would be prefect source for section Polish newspapers thoughts over Vilnija or something like this. This is the right place actually discuss the sources, actually; sadly you did not presented any NPOV sources which could back your case, till this moment. M.K. 19:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? Would you like to cite a policy that supports your view? And besides, we have at least one English academic one: [4]. How would you like to debunk this one?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Really. neutral outsider suggested to drop this extremist from as you called English academic. forgot? And I ask you once more, does English academic source speaks about same Vilnija as you do, a? M.K. 20:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, so you want to drop 'extremist' because it's suggested we may want to avoid this, and 'nationalist' because it's Polish, so we would remove all refs criticizing Vilnija? I am sorry, but readers need to be warned it's as unreliable source as there is. Or are you suggesting otherwise? I'd be willing to rephrase this sentence, if you'd like to suggest something that would keep the information but formulated it in a more acceptable way?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Answer my question above firstly, then we can continue. M.K. 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I did, but for your convinience, here it again. It states it is extremist. And reputable Polish sources note it is nationalist and confirm extremist. Oh, and from the above source it appears it is an anti-semitic organziation as well, thank you for making me catch that, I must have missed it before. While you, on the other hand, have not presented a single shred of evidence that would show Vilnija in a more positive way.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
For the last time I will repeat my question, this time in bold - does English academic [5] source speaks about same Vilnija as you do and article do, a? ' M.K. 23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what do you want to get by repeating the same question and ignoring my answer. The source states it is extremist. EOT, although I am sure it will not satify you, especially considering how you think something must be done with me, fast. I have also asked for WP:MILHIST peer review and notified the mediator of the case you resurrected, maybe they will have better luck discussing that issue with you them myself.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for not answering my question, I want to understand from there do you know that the source which you provided talks about the same organization. Do you understand the question now? M.K. 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think I see now where you are going, although I find it puzzling. If it looks like a cat and meows like a cat, it is a cat. Or: if it is called Vilnija, exhibits behaviour consistent with all refs I could find, particularly ones used in the article, and if we use the Vilnija described by the source as 'extremist' to back up such claims in the article... the answer is: yes, I believe that if the source calls Vilnija extremist, and the article calls Vilnija extremist, and uses the source to reference that claim, than yes, both the article and the book are talking about the same Vilnija. Is this clear enough?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope not clear enough. Your delivered message is irresponsible. And you did not provided any evidence that this English source [6] speaks about same Vilnija as in AK context. This means you basing everything on your own presumptions this could mean – WP:OR. Speaking bout provided source; source:

  • Does not speak about Vilnija in Armia Krajowa context
  • Does not speak about Vilnija`s provided assessments;
  • Does not speak about Armia Krajowa at all;
  • In provided source Vilnija mentioned on time in one sentence;
  • Lists several organizations - Mažeikių Nafta, LNDP (?) ,UJL (?).
  • And similar

Having in mid such context and conducting simple googling you get a lot of “Vilijas” in internet [7], such as – [8]; this particular Vilnija is interesting because it is business incubator organization - [9], maybe author not random chosen to mentioned Mažeikių nafta? Maybe these are same Vilnija too? So, in the light of these remarks, I did not find any hint, which could lead to combining in source provided association Vilnija with organization Vilnija, which conducted assessments of AK crimes. This could spark strong reaction from these organizations due to your used strong word, which is without reasonable support. M.K. 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

M.K, I find your defence of Vilnija on such thin 'legal' grounds rather discouraging. There are not many Vilnija's, and there is only one involved in Lithuanian politics as far as I know. If you have sources to show otherwise, please do, but the existence of a business incubator with the same name does not make it likely it is that organization which is talked about in the book about politics. Anyway, per peer review suggestions, I think we should split the Lithuanian section off this article and leave an uncontroversial summary here; then we can worry about the controversies and details in the subarticle.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not committed any "legal" defense of Vilnija, if I did it would be in different format, and I am not wiling to do so; that I doing is raised question about source credibility in presented context. And Vilnija is not listed as any major "party", or very active in politics. Presented googling hits shows nice variety of Vilnijas. Your message - with the same name does not make it likely it is that organization which is talked about in the book about politics , indeed the same name does not make likely and I am talking about the same issue. Splitting the article - wouldn’t solve the problems. M.K. 23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would at least take all of the cite needed and neutrality issues out of this article and into a subarticle, where we could concentrate on the AK-Lithuanian story.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armia Krajowa

This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting. M.K. 23:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Armia Krajowa

While we are on the subject of reviews, there are many good comments at WPMILHIST review.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored older version

I reverted this article to older versions for several reasons. First of all the splint suggestion was labeled for very short time, so other neutral contributors could not evaluate all sides of it [10] [11]. The split was done without any further talk, which parts, facts and statements should go to separate article so this can lead to loss of facts and could present one person’s POV. Very important issue is additional requests for neutral contributors to evaluate problems of this particular state article [12][13] not to transferring existing problems of this article to other sub article. So my suggestion - wait until more neutral contributors state their position regarding referencing problems etc., after it start discussions which parts of article should go etc. M.K. 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it would be nice if you could ask in the future before reverting others; also, don't revert copyedit changes and such, this is not good style. Second, comments from peer review all advised splitting the section, feel free to submit the split of article to further reviews. Splitting this section was discussed weeks ago (see archive), there were no objections. After the split, this article contains no controversial information, which is a significant plus, the split of controversial info was not really relevant to this article (like the Vilnija issue). Thus, reverted. PS. Also, before reverting, please nominate the Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II for deletion - we don't need any forks, do we? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be be nice if you could ask in the future before removing vital information from the article. M.K. 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I asked, everybody but you think it's a good idea - just read peer review, where this idea was actually suggested. Please stop inserting unreferenced information into this article; use the subarticle to pursue the details - this article is about AK, not 'AK and Lithuanians'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you will continue remove information you will be reported. M.K. 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
AYB.
Threats, now? I guess I should not have expected anything more contructive :( I said all that I wanted above, but let me note that I am not removing any referenced information - it is moved to Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II. Unreferenced POVed claims will however be removed from this GA-level article, please don't lower it quality with such edits.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You deleted material from this article with refs [14] not even talking that intervened then tag {{inuse}} was displayed. M.K. 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think my opinion on this matter is neutral, because I honestly had never heard of this event in history until I read this article. If I understand the issue here correctly, Piotrus is trying to split the "Relations with Lithuanians" (RwL) section off into a separate article and M.K. objects? In my opinion, the RwL section should be it's own, separate article. The RwL subject is secondary to the main topic, which is about the Armia Krajowa. There appears to be more than enough secondary information out there to support a separate RwL article. All this article needs is a couple of paragraphs (cited, of course) that explain the Armia Krajowa's involvement with the RwL issue and that's it. Cla68 03:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you did evaluate my actions wrongly. Let my ask does information from historians commission or prosecutor`s office is not credible here? Does facts that AK collaborate with Nazi in Lithuania is not credible, of killing civilians and louting schools in Lithuania too? I think differently. While Piotrus continues to remove this info from article. M.K. 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. Do you think that the current section is satisfactory, or should it be shortened further?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the section looks fine the way it is now. It's not too long nor too short. Cla68 07:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Two of the best and most prominent members of the WP:MILHIST, Kirill and Cla68, proposed in the relevant peer-review that a seperate sub-article about "Relations with Lithuania" should be created, because the current section is too long. Per WP:SUMMARY this is probably the adequate solution. If a sub-article (sub-article of this article, but main article about the RwL) is created including the infos in the current section, no info will be deleted, and, therefore, I do not think that Piotrus should be reported for anything - he does not delete anything; he transfers encyclopedic material to the main article on the particular topic. If a main RwL can stand on its own, I think that what Kirill and Cla68 proposed is the best solution: a main RwL article and a summary of it in the relevant section of this article.--Yannismarou 09:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II seems like a better choice then Armia Krajowa and Lithuania, as the information contained in that section had to describe (and still, to some extent, do) the background and aftermath, both of which go well beyond existence of AK.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand M.K.'s objection. He/she feels that there should be more information in this article specifically about Armia Krajowa's place in the "RwL" issue? Some mention of that in this article is fine, but it's ok for it to be somewhat short with a "further details" link to direct to a longer, more detailed article on the issue, which I believe is what Piotrus is trying to do, and is supported in doing this by myself and at least a couple of other editors, judging by other comments here on the discussion page. As long as the information (cited of course) is in a linked article I don't see a problem with doing it that way. I don't think that's a "POV fork", because there's apparently more to the issue than just Armia Krajowa's place in it, and there would still be some mention of it on this page. Cla68 07:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This is under review at WP:GA/R. If you expand the lead to summarize the article, I think it will stay a GA. Leave msg on my talk page when done.Rlevse 14:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • GA kept.Rlevse 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relations with Lithuanians

M.K, seeing what you're trying to do, I'd like to comment that I think that this section in the article should be shortened, not expanded. I believe it should contain only the outline information and all the details should go the the separate article, devoted to the subject. Also, we should try to avoid potentially incorrect, and certainly disputable statements like "Such ethnic cleansing continued most of the Armia Krajowa`s operation time in Lithuania" or similar. --Lysytalk 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It will be referenced if you asking about this. Note - discussion should go first before removing or moving any info and this should be done not one person, as Piotrus demonstrated here for several times [15], [16]. removal information from article is very disruptive behaviour not even talking about such edits then tag of {{inuse}} was removed and all info was removed. Note that Piotrus styles himself as "administrator with almost 2 years". So my question should admin act in this way by removing tags, info, despite of left notes in summaries, etc.? M.K. 11:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying not to discuss the behaviour of individual editors here, but the article. Otherwise I'd rather suggest you discussing the obviously controversial changes first, before introducing them. Anyway, all I'm saying is that in my opinion the section should be shortened, not expanded. --Lysytalk 11:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The changes are referenced. Or maybe you would like reformulate your suggestion to - rather suggest discussing the obviously controversial moves first? M.K. 11:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The only 'obviusly controversial' behaviour here is your own, as my changes are supported by everyone else who has taken the time to review this article (including all neutral reviewers). No referenced info is removed, it is only moved to a separate article as has been noted time and time again. As for the inuse tag, it can be removed just as any other controversial part of an edit; and if you want to work on article in the period of days, please use your sandbox instead of messing the GA-quality article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The tag is not for days first of all, this is yet another your POV; second there was no suggestion from anybody that proper material should be removed from this article. That you conducting is selective facts which should stay, based only on your POV M.K. 15:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

MK: I did not ask if the changes were referenced or not. Also, I'd rather prefer to avoid discussing editors' behaviour (including "controversial moves") here as I think we should be better focusing on the article itself. As I said, the particular section you are expanding should be shortened, not expanded. That was my comment. --Lysytalk 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Piotrus uses his own and only POV to classify which info should go or which should stay in this article and this is a problem. M.K. 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
How about keeping the outline - general information that this is a controversial issue, the background of the problem, that Lithuanian side considered (or maybe still does) AK to be a criminal organisation. That there've been killings of civilians on both sides etc. But leave all the specific details for the separate article covering the issue. --Lysytalk 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
So you suggesting that we should drop parts about special commission conclusions, as well as prosecutor`s office? Or we should keep silent about AK work with Germans or killings of civilians? M.K. 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I just suggested to keep the information about killing of civilians. Why are you asking if I would like to keep silent about this ? --Lysytalk 16:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is already covered in the other sections, there is no need to repeat in in every place, especially as all reliable refs agree such occurences where an exception to the rule (per Piotrowski and others).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a large section and it's almost as big as the main article. If there were no main article, I'd say leave it alone as this section is borderline in length. But, as there is a main article and it has 26 or so refs, it'd be best to make this section a 2-3 paragraph summary, leave the main article link in place, and STABILIZE the section and format it better or it WILL loose GA status eventually. This section has format issues, such as periods go before refs, not after. Everyone cooperate and work together otherwise you'll only harm yourselves and the article.Rlevse 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There are moments when I am afraid some people may actually want to destabilize this article on purpose... let's hope I am wrong.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Armija Krajova Lietuvoje"

Since M.K. quotes this publication so extensivly, I recalled that we already discussed the reliability of this source at Talk:Glitiškės and did a new search, hoping to find (finally) a single English review. Unfortunatly, I failed; as far as I can tell all the reviews are either in Lithuanian (which I cannot understand - hope some editor can compile a list with summaries) and Polish, which I do understand. Of course Polish sources will be somewhat biased, but it is interesting to see that they are all condemning this publication with rather strong words (note: some references describe a documentary movie based on the book). The most telling and official is the statement on the official pages of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affrairs:

  • [17] - V. Kavaliauskas, an advisor to the Lithuanian president, said: 'The film left a bad taste in my mouth... I am sorry it was shown... it was pointless... it was a political not historical film". The film is called 'not objective' and 'one-sided'. Motiekaitis, the spokesperson of the Lithuanian TV 3 which showed the film, promised that it will not be shown again and more careful screening will be put in place to avoid such controversies. Other critics of the film include Polish-Lithuanian historian J. Wołkanowski,Lithuanian journalist from "Veidas", A. Baciulis, and expert on Polish-Lithuanian pyblications, Jan Sienkiewicz, who reffered to Garšva as 'pseudohistorian'. Garšva is also reffered to as 'known for his anti-Polish sentiments'.
  • [18] Tygodnik Wileńczczyzny (a Polish-language publication printed in Lithuania for Polish minority there): 'provocation' and 'work in the spirit of Soviet propaganda' and condemns wokrs of Kazimieras Garšva (a leader of the Vilinja 'extremist' organization we discussed recently)
  • [19] Nasza Gazeta - condemns works of Kazimieras Garšva
  • [20] - 'extremly POVed', 'intolerant'
  • [21] Instytut Pamięci Narodowej - 'anti-Polish film'

While I will be the first to say that we cannot use Polish sources to completly debunk a publication critical of Poles, I'd like to point out is is obviously a controversial publication (a review of Lithuanian-language reviews would be most useful). It would be useful to try to find another, more reliable (English, preferably) source to confirm claims of the above publications - but in any case, such claims should be discussed at talk first, and not on this GA-class article, but at Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Film? Did I quote a film?? M.K. 15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the film was based on the book, and anyway several of the refs above criticize the book and/or it's primary author. We should be careful when using such extremist sources, printed or in other media. Per WP:RS, not everything that is printed is reliable, and we have plenty of sources indicating that Garsva works are far from neutral.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat my self - it is not a film which I used. And by the way did your "critics" talk about the extremist Lithuanian prosecutor's office and eye-witnesses accounts too? M.K. 17:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
And stop misleading other editors, the book does not belong to Garsva as you trying to show it has info of A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas j. Klausykla, M. Salgaris, S. Liskauskas, J. Žvinas, B., Radžiulis, j. Pajuodis, G. Katinias, B. Juodzevičius, K. Daugintis, P. Dunduliene, R. Tumolevičius, etc, etc, etc; M.K. 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
And I will repeat myself, too: the reviews above criticize the book, too. And out of curiosity, chapters written by which of those editors are you quoting?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The validity of that source probably should be debated on the Relations with Lithuanians article discussion page. Not here. There are ways to compromise on the use of a single, disputed source, but I'm not going to get into it here. Cla68 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish editors disruptive edits

The Polish editors reached the peak with their disruptive edits [22],[23] [24]there are no talk about facts presented in article only simple removal of legitimate info. M.K. 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortened the section

OK, as suggested by everyone but M.K, I have significantly shortened the section on "Relations with Lithuanians". The more detailed description of the events should go to Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II. --Lysytalk 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also do not forget to restore images which I uploaded! M.K. 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The sections on relations with the Scots, the Brits, the Dutch, the French, the Spaniards and the Czechoslovaks will soon be added as well. Any other nations that deserve special sections? //Halibutt 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Hali, you have to admit relations with some groups deserve a mention here. At the moment I can't think of any other section we would need, though - I think we are quite well covered in the relations sections.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Piotrus) I agree with the shortening. My opinion is that the SS content of the current section must be the result of a consensus among the interested editors. I hope that after Lysy's intervention the editors will have the chance to focus on the other problems of the article, in order to keep GA status and, possibly, to go for FA promotion.--Yannismarou 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Lysy for shortening and copy editing. Concur with Yannismarou's comments. Addhoc 11:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Piotrus continues to remove info

This time article was not “increased” or “expanded” now, which was last time was an excuse for Polish contributors to remove my version, but removal continues with even stranger statements: [25] now the Lithuanian Government position became untenable, as well as presented sources. But how say this? This is based only by user:Piotrus POV. I urge Yannismarou, Addhoc, Cla68 to make the comments about which info and facts should be used, because this version was not disused on talk at all. M.K. 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

M.K, please, please, try to discuss obviously controversial edits in talk first. Also try to keep the number of references per section at reason. Why are you not interested in working on the main article on the topic first. Your activity there is limited to inserting the POV tag only, without any rationale. --Lysytalk 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
My activity is not limited to inserting the POV tag only actually user Piotrus failed to produce evidence, which will denounce presented facts, also probably can not separate case brought to court and investigation conclusions (one two episodes etc.). Nevertheless we will wait for some more people to come that we can discuss these all sides. M.K. 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You have been asked time and again to discuss controversial changes first on talk, then in articles. As long as you keep adding such controversial stuff into articles, expect to be reverted. It is telling that not a single user so far supports your changes. Your 'Lithuanian government claims' is best described by comments of Lithuanian historian Arūnas Bubnys, as quoted in Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II: any accusations of genocide are false and have an underlying political motive. Accusations of genocide and similar ones should be backed by a reliable academic publications in English language, per WP:RS, particulary as there have been objectiosn whether works of Kazimieras Garšva, leader of the extremist[26] Vilnija organization. Besides, we have sources more modern and contradicting your sources: you claim that in 1999 Lithuanian investigation concluded, but this article from 2001 states that the investigation has not yet ended, and in 2004 Lithuanian president and prime minister encouraged reconciliation between Lithuanian veterans and AK ones. I can hardly see such notable personas being so nice to veterans of organization who supposedly committed 'genocide' on their people... unless of course we trust the works of people who have been described as extremists (sic!).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And you, list authors which you do not like here below M.K. 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC):
  • >

Dear Piotrus, care to tell why Lithuanian sources are wrong, and English are good? I know, you have found one "English" book written by Polish author, that uses extensive weasel language and adjectives (exactly or even more than Garšva does). This author even admits his intention on the back cover - we find out that he was living there, at the times as it did happen. You might check reviews of hat book at amazon.com, to understand what I'm talking about. Somehow you do not find it to be contraversial and POV'ed. Isn't this so, only because it does support your POV? This makes me think, that everything you do not like is going to labeled as POV or and authors as "extremists".

In my opinion - denial is not a way to reach compromise, and I was hoping, that moving all the subject to separate article could help. I know that AK fighters are regarded as heroes in Poland, and i do agree with that, that's why separate article was good. Although heroism of Warszawa uprisal does not give any right to deny crimes in other regions (like Lithuania and Belarus).

Ah, and last thing - if historian states his opinion to a newspaper, it does not change decision of court -you are confronting things of completely different weight.Lokyz 12:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you'd care to share which book you have read, it would be quite useful in allowing me to reply to this general statement. I am not aware of any AK crimes in Belarus, perhaps you should expand on that. I value average Lithuanian sources as much as Polish, but in such controversial cases prefer English academic ones, when I can get it. As for national sources, I find it difficult to evaluate them when the author is virtually unknown abroad; unfortunatly this is the case with authors M.K. uses - with the notable exception of K. Gasrva who is apparently notorius enough to get an extremist label in at least one English academic publication, which does not feel me with the desire to threat anything he contributes to as reliable (per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources). Also, it would be interesting to learn who published the books and so on. From various references I could find none was a good review of the dispute sources; and statements by people like an advisor to Lithuanian president that he is sorry a film was aired again don't make me feel like those publications even represent mainstram Lithuanian research. And you say that the case has concluded - but I found at least one source to the contrary. Which is right? I'd expect that a declaration that AK committed genocide would be widely discussed in both Polish and English media - but they are silent, and it's only mr. Gasrva who seems to be writing about it... In the end, those are clearly controversial claims who at the moment most evidently don't represent a majority point of view; as such, per WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS they should not be inserted into major articles. I am looking forward to seeing my requests for stubs on those authors and organizations that I left on WPL page fullfilled - hopefully we will have more info then.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English... Addhoc 13:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I did read it - it does not say that non-English books are POV'ed by default. The subject we're discussing now is vaguely represented with newest research in English, so I suppose books in other language should be ok, at least until there will be enough sources in English, or am I wrong?Lokyz 14:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Having information on authors, publishers, reception (in Lithuanian, because we already have Polish and there is no English) and quotations would be useful. Please read also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
That will be not a problem. I've recently found Lithuanian research translated to English on the subject, so it will be fun:) Lokyz 19:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the new stubs, they will be useful.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup I will do make them usefulLokyz 22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Lokyz 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou mediation

Although it is one of the most boring things in Wikipedia IMO, I checked the differences in dispute, per M.K.'s kind request. I don't want to go into an evaluation of the conflicting Polish-Lithuanian comments, and I do not want to decided on who has the historical truth with him! In any case, I think that there is a chance to avoid endless edit wars here, if you try to implement three basic principles in the relevant section:
  1. Do not overexpand the RwL section, and respect rules of WP:SS. Any addition or rephrasing of this section should respect this rule, so as RwL section to remain concise.
  2. If you decide that, despite point 1, a new assessment is absolutely necessary to be added in this section, then use verifiable sources. A Polish or Lithuanian source is not enough for me. In order a regarded as Pro-Polish or Pro-Lithuanian addition to stand in the section, a third party source (preferable english) should be needed. Clarification: Not a Polish or Lithuanian source translated in English! No! Not a book of a Pole or Lithuanian writer in English! No! No!! No!!! A third party source (Not Polish! Not Lithuanian!) preferably written in English (although German or French would also be fine IMO).
  3. Communicate with the altera pars. Assume good faith, and, if you think that a new addition of yours is going to annoy another editor of the article, do not hesitate to communicate with him. You may reach a wording satifying for both parties; you may reach a compromise!
Now, let's be more specific. I think the main problem here was two additions by M.K.:
  1. "In 1943-1944, Armia Krajowa collaborating with Nazis as well".
  2. "During this period hundreds of Lithuanian policemen, teachers, farmers and other civilians were killed,[1] especially were damaged Lithuanian schools, which activities were paralyzed.[2]"
  3. "On 1993 Lithuanian Government established commission pronounced conclusions that Armia Krajowa threatened to Lithuania’s territorial integrity,[3][4] made crimes against humanity,[3][4] killed civilians,[3] mostly Lithuanians.[3] [5] On 1999 the Prosecutor’s Office of Republic of Lithuania after investigation concluded that Armia Krajowa made genocide[4] of Lithuanian people, hoping to reoccupy Vilnius Region.[4]"
M.K. regards that these addition do not violate Point 1 of mine, and per Point 2 should be added. He did not implement Point 3 trying to find a compromise with the altera pars. I'm going to comment in detail these two additions:
Addition no 1. I agree that five words (collaborating with Nazis as well) do not violate Point 1. The problem is: is this assessment accurate? Do we have a third party source substantiating and verifying that AK co-operated (we speak for an official co-operation here! Not some actions of AK that may have served Nazi's interests! Let's be careful here!) with the Nazis. If M.K. can provide such a source (and not a just a Lithuanian one) I would accept this addition, but I would aslo give the right to the altera pars to contradict this assessment with third pary's sources again, although we should have again in mind WP:SS. Let's say that both M.K. and Piotrus provide third party sources -the one in order to substantiate his allegations agains AK; the other to contradict these assertions. A compromise wording would be the following (don't take it word by word as a ready form to add! - It is just an crude example):"In 1943-1944, Armia Krajowa is said to have collaborated with Nazis as well, (cite third party verifiable source) although these allegations are disputed (cite third party verifiable source)."
Addition no 2. Similar commentes with Addition No 2. I must underscore here that verifiable third party sources should be demanded for both sides here - not only for the Lithuanian one!! I say that, because in this assessment "In response, Lithuanian police, who had already murdered hundreds of Polish civilians since 1941, I see as a source a Tadeusz Piotrowski who is a Pole (from Wrocław in Lower Silesia!). But his book is in English?! And what?!! The fact that his book is in English does not make it a third party verifiable source! Neither makes his assertion undisputable. Third party verifiable source also needed here IMO.
Addition no 3. In this case M.K. exposes undisputable facts. I have no reason to ask third party sources, because I do believe that these were the decisions of the Lithuanian governement. Nevertheless, in this case I have to give the right to the altera pars (It's you Piotrus!) to respond, and say what was the reaction of the Polish government to these allegations against AK. Let's say that both these additions are accepted. Are we OK? No! Because we forgot Point 1!!! Where is WP:SS?! Lost in the mist of the additions!! So, I just think: should you really overexpand here, and tell what are the accusations in detail of the Lithuanian government and the response in detail of the Polish government? Why don't you agree on a POV concise wording - maybe a very brief presentation (in one sentence) of Lithuanian government's allegations, and their denial by the Polish government (in one sentence again or combined in the same sentence)? And leave all the further details for the RwL sub-article?
So, my final conclusions:
  • Any additions should not harm WP:SS.
  • Any pro-Polish or pro-Lithuanian assertion, which will remain there, should be verified by a third party verifiable source. A Polish or a Lithuanian source translated in English or a book written in English by a Pole or a Lithuanian writer is not a third party verifiable source! Assertions of both sides that do not fulfil this criterion should be omitted.
  • I think my three points above are a good basis for reaching a compromise here.
I hope I helped and that my logorrhoea did not exhaust you. Have a nice day!--Yannismarou 10:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Yannismarou, for making the comments; I will try very try to answer to them today at night :). But very technical question:
Do you think that images, which I uploaded [27],[28] was deleted in proper manner several times - [29],[30],[31]
Lets drop in this case text removal, and note that pictures were added separately [32], but they were removed as well for several times without any explanation, despite the urge to restore them [33]. So how do you see this situation then historical value pictures were deliberately removed several times without any reason, by Piotrus and other Polish contributors? M.K. 10:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
These are very strong images, and they help me understand the sensitivity of the whole issue for both sides. I tried to find similar examples of such images in other articles. And I did found in a Greek-Turkish related article: [[Image:He-smyrna-vict-line.jpg]] in Great Fire of Smyrna. I think that their use is legitimate, because they do illustrate history. But they also incite passions, and, therefore, I wouldn't use them, so as not to provoke the altera pars. Nevertheless, if I was a co-editor of this article, and you wanted to add these picture, I would not impede you, because it is your right to do it, despite my disagreement. But under one term: I would demand you to verify the accuracy of these pictures, in a way that will convince me that the persons depicted are really victims of AK. Who took these pictures? Are they published only in Armija Krajova Lietuvoje? Exact date and year they were taken? Are they exposed somewhere? Have they p[ossibly been a subject of controversy? As you had initially added the pictures, the caption provided insufficient information (the caption of the photo I used as an example also provides insufficient information). With better captions and a solid verification of their content, I would definitely accept them as part of the article.--Yannismarou 12:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take a moment to read this: Talk:Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#Survey._What_to_do_with_the_Image:Wolyn1943.jpg.3F. I think a similar problem was there solved in a satisfactory way in the article about Ukrainian Insurgent Army. My opinion is that these are not correct images to illustrate the article. Otherwise we might end up with illustrating all the articles about military formations or units with the pictures of their victims. --Lysytalk 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures taken in 1944.06.23, Molėtai par. presents family of Vinslovai – 7 people were killed by then, killed members:

  • Vinslovaitė Elena 7 years old child (girl), buried in Molėtai,
  • Vinslovaitė Leonora (girl)10 years old child, buried in Molėtai,
  • Vinslovaitė Liudvina 20 years woman buried in Molėtai,
  • Vinslovaitė Ona 12 years old child (girl), buried in Molėtai;
  • Vinslovienė Salomėja 47 years old women,
  • Vinslovaitė Salomėja 18 years old “women” ,
  • Vinslovas Petras 60 years old-man.

Family classified as peasants-farmers. And yes these are historical pictures, presenting drama of Lithuanians which is now trying to be hidden by removal without any reason. I did not ever deleted images which portrays the massacre of Jews in Lithuania, and I insist that these images would be not deleted too. AFAIK there were no controversies of these images. M.K. 12:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou, thank you very much for taking time to address this issue in such a detailed and constructive manner. I completly agree with what you wrote. Now, to address some specific details: 1) & 2) the issue of cooperation between AK and Germans is already addressed in a well referenced and more relevant section - check second para of 'Relations with the Soviets' (refs are primarily based on work by Tadeusz Piotrowski, a sociologist and historian at University of New Hampshire [34] and not the Polish lexicographer - Tadeusz Piotrowski is a disambig, btw). As for 3), I disagree that the sources are reliable. One (Kazimieras Garšva. Armija krajova ir Vietinė rinktinė Lietuvoje (Armia Krajowa and Local Detachment in Lithuania). XXI amžius, No.61 (1264), 18 August 2004) is a newspaper article by a very unreliable author (see Kazimieras Garšva and Vilnija) in a newspaper (XXI amžius) that the user who added it admitted XXI amzius has weakest journalists and I will avoid using its publications when possible. (see Talk:Armia_Krajowa/Archive_1, post from 22:29, 6 June 2006). Then we have another newspaper article (Voruta). Kodėl negalima sakyti tiesos apie Armiją krajovą? 2005) of unknown author, and last but not least, another Garsva's work (A. Bubnys, K. Garšva, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas (editors). Armija Krajova Lietuvoje. Vilnius-Kaunas, 1995 p.3) which as was discussed here, on his page and in several other places was shown to be very controversial to say the least (the movie based on it was criticized by both Polish and Lithuanian governents, and the publication itself had many negative reviews in Polish press (per links above, I am unaware of any English and despite my requests no Lithuanian ones were provided)). Further, most of thos revelations seem to be contradicted by other sources we have (see my post above from 16:42, 13 January 2007 - and look at chronology here - in 1999 AK is supposedly declared 'genocidal', a 2001 article notes the investigation is ongoing and in 2004 L. government allows AK veterans to use the AK name and encourages reconciliation between AK and L. veterans? Something doesn't add up, wouldn't you agree? And that something is, not suprisingly, Garsva and Vilnija claims). Summarizing, I am not convinced that Lithuanian government presently supports such claims; it seems to me that occasionaly in the past such claims were made by lower officials, but they were politically motivated (as was admitted by Arūnas Bubnys, a respected Lithuanian historian asked about them) - as such they fail WP:RS and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. As for 4) images, they are sourced to the controversial Armija Krajova Lietuvoje work. For both the reasons of disputed reliability and because this section should not be too long, those images don't belong here (please note the images were not removed from Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II). Lastly, please note that per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight if we want to add images of casualties, why not add the much more numerous Polish casualties in the Vilnius region? Alas, I don't insist on adding [[Image:Lithuania Ponary Monument.jpg|such images here], instead I believe that uncontrovesial image of local AK commander is a much better picture for that section.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, Yannismarou, I would not finish to answer to your questions, as I promised, my paper work killed all my free time. Will try to do so in upcoming days. M.K. 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for long delay Yannismarou, various disputes regarding contributors and articles prevented smooth discussion in this particular field. You raised points taken into account. But the problem still exists – particular AK activity in the Lithuania is limited described in English sources. Let’s begin from the first mark 1): collaboration. Actually the Poles themselves do not deny the fact that collaboration between AK and Germans/Soviets was established. But Piotrus “argument” is that collaboration has “more relevant section”. By such logic many statements could be placed under “more relevant section”. Related issues with Lithuania should be mentioned in proper part and not somewhere else, especially then in summary mentions one side cooperation but keeps silent about another. Lithuanian multiply sources mentions AK`s collaboration and Polish too. So there is a problem? Nevertheless I keen to look for some German sources, because they also investigate collaboration question. Yannismarou, you could help in this field too. 2) Second point, I can not present for it a third party source now, because it almost direct quotations form the Lithuanian source. And I am not familiar that any (including Polish) scholars, who would interested in Lithuanian schools in particular context (while source presents comprehensive study about this issue). But worth to keep looking and will do 3) While yes this presented facts from 1993 Commission report (which was not denounced till present day; despite Piotrus attempt to discredit source using only his speculations). As you say that this particular section is too wide, lets summaries – for example: government`s established commission concluded that AK committed crimes against humanity in Lithuania. Because now we have section: Its activities in Lithuania have been investigated by a special Lithuanian government commission in 1993. So what? Does reader not deserve to be informed, at least briefly, main concluding points? Because now it is empty words. Second distorted summary element: Lithuanian police, who had already murdered hundreds of Polish civilians since 1941, Is it balanced? 1941? While AK started major it activities in 1943 in Lithuania. Or maybe we also should place a note about Polish bad deeds from 1920? Another note, the first paragraph is too wide. It can be summarized even more to consume a space for more important elements. Images. Some voices say that my presented pictures, which there were disruptively removed by Polish contributors, somehow wrong, so we going to remove them and from Holocaust related articles, because there they are even more dramatic. And now in article presented picture is quite controversial, especially with such “remarks” as (now Vilnius). And one more note if we look from the presented rules, section strongest remarks are made with non third party sources. Btw, Yannismarou, do you think that removal of this sign was appropriate ? M.K. 20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your points:
1) What I believe is that the relevant section should be concise; and this stands for both sides. Now, I cannot go into the wording of each sentence. I don't have the time neither the courage! But I do believe that both sides shouldn't overexpand here, and treat in detail the relevant issues in PLR article. I could help in order to find a content and wording satisfying both sides, if you all agree on that. About your additions I expressed myself above, although this was weeks ago, and I have almost forgotten me. If you could tell me particularly that x,v, and c sentences of the current section are my problem and I would prefer this wording, and that I would like to see in the section a,b, and c content additions or changes, and if I had specific responses of Piotrus on these sentences and additions, I could make more concrete proposals. If I can help about the sources: Honestly, I can't! For three reasons: A) I have limited free time for Wikipedia during this period, B) Although in German I have the Kleines Sprachdiplom, I have years to practice them, and I have almost forgotten them! C) I'm also involved in Greek-related conflicts (e.g. the Pontic Greek Genocide issue), I'm righting my own articles (4 of them are right now pending!), and I have also to conduct research for these issues as well. I could express my opinion for the conclusions of your research and Piotrus', but conduct my own research on this article is almost impossible for me right now.
2) Yes, it is worth looking, if you want to strengthen your arguments.
3) "government`s established commission concluded that AK committed crimes against humanity in Lithuania." I would be fine with that. But we need another sentence after this on, presenting Poland's response. Thus, IMO something like that would be fine: "Lithuanian government's established commission concluded that AK committed crimes against humanity in Lithuania during WW II. Nevertheless, Polish governement rejected the commission's conclusions arguing that ... " Piotrus says "I am not convinced that Lithuanian government presently supports such claims; it seems to me that occasionaly in the past such claims were made by lower officials, but they were politically motivated (as was admitted by Arūnas Bubnys, a respected Lithuanian historian asked about them)". Can you provide sources (news reports etc.) verifying that the Lithuanian government endorsed and endorses these commissions and their findings? I think this should not be tough.
4) About the POV tag: Not the whole article is disputed; only a specific section. But if you manage to settle your differences the tag in this section will have no reason to be there! Otherwise, you can add it; Lisy will remove it; then you'll readd, and you will be playing hide-and-seek, until one of you violates the 3R rule! Another solution is to lock the article until you settle your differences. Me or somebody else will put an ugly padlock at the top of the article, and we'll wait until issues are settled! Anyway ... About the particular removal: IMO the POV-tag should not be removed but placed under the relevant section; but IMO as well this issue should have been already settled in order not to need POV tags.
5) About the photo, I expressed myself. But Piotrus is right when he says that these pictures are exposed in Polish-Lithuanian relations during the World War II, which is after all an article with a broader topic, and, theoritically, more readers. If you add the photo, then the Poles will ask the addition of the photo depicting a "Monument commemorating Poles murdered in Paneriai massacre, Paneriai, Vilnius, Lithuania". Would you be fine with that? From one side the one photo, and from the other side the other photo?
I don't know if I am constructive here. The problem is that whatever I may or may not say, you will live with this article, and you must find a way to settle the differences. Whatever comments or efforts I may do, if there is no ground or will for a solution satisfying both sides, any "third party involvement" will be pointless. The failure of such initiatives is unfortunately the rule in Wikipedia. And then we have RfCs against users, mediators, ArbComs etc. etc. etc.--Yannismarou 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right saying that it is time too see some actual suggestions. As I am convinced that the section is not NPOV I re added tag and also think solution from this situation is to go step by step discussion of paragraph sections. Lets start from the first part:
Relations between Lithuanians and Poles were strained already during most of the interwar period but during the war the previous conflicts escalated. Although Lithuanian and Polish resistance movements had in principle the same enemies - Nazi Germany and Soviet Union - they never became allies during the war. The main obstacle in forming an alliance was a territorial dispute centering on Vilnius. Only in 1944-1945, after the Soviet re-occupation, did Lithuanian and Polish resistance start cooperating in the fight against Soviet occupants.
I believe section is too big, and can be summarized further in oder to have more space for other issues. My initial suggestion of this part is:
Relations between Lithuanians and Poles were strained during the interwar period, and they escalated further during the war.The main obstacle was a territorial dispute centering on Lithuanian capital Vilnius. Only 1944-1945, after the Soviet re-occupation, did Lithuanian and Polish resistance start cooperating fighting common enemy.
Suggestions? M.K. 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
While I agree it can be further shortened, I have two objections: reffering to Vilnius as 'Lithuanian capital' in that time is highly POVed; for Poles it was the capital of their voivodeship and we can just as well refer to it as 'dispute centered on Polish voivodship capital'. Second, for Lithuania, it was Soviet re-occupation, but for Poles, first occupation.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Take into account, Lithuanian state capital not some sort of district capital (for several years). The difference is quite clear.M.K. 17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as clear as claiming that a city inhabited by 2% of one's native language speakers as capital. I'd have no problem with elaboration along the lines: a territorial dispute centering on a city of Vilnius, inhabited by 2% of Lithuanians ref, capital of Polish Wilno Voivodship in the interwar period but since the end of World War I claimed by Lithuanians as their historical state capital. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and claiming a multicultural city, that was in territory identified as Lithuania, and majority of which were Jews Polish is a very nice example of weaselising:) Especialy if we would remember, that Pilsudsky had to close load of of Lithuanian schools in 1927 and send Lithuanian priests to jail, to diminish the number of Lithuanians to the desired 2 percent;)--Lokyz 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget about WP:POINT, neutral contributor suggestions about length and of course your own words which you delivered quite recently, and already breaching them. And indeed if will be agreement of expanding this particular part it will be easy to adjust your suggestion properly. M.K.
Please stop ad hominems, improve your English and address the content issue in question.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
How query of my spelling is related with content issue in question? M.K. 11:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Because quite often your sentences are so ungrammatical that it's impossible to understand your point.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"in principle the same enemies - Nazi Germany and Soviet Union" - in principle 1941-1944 Lithuania was a German ally and Poland was a British ally, Lithuanian police fought Polish underground, Lithuanian soldiers killed tens of thousands Jews and Poles. Xx236 13:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no Lithuanian police, because there was no Lithuanian state. Collaborationist police force formed by Reichskommissariat Ostland from inhabitants of Lithuania (mostly, but not only Lithuanians), and ruled by Ziwilverwaltung has nothing to do with Lithuanian statehood. Ergo Lithuania was not fighting on either side. The fact that Lithuanians did participate in those structures is regrettable and shameful, although it does not throw shadow on Lithuanian state as such. As for the statement about Lithuanian soldiers killing Jews - you are misled again - at the time no official army of Lithuania existed - contraversial LAF, colaborationist "Lithuanian" police and other structures which included former officer and soldiers of Lithuanian army, were not representing Lithuanian state.
The only Local detachment that never gave oath to Hitler did not participate in any mass killings.
AK was official armed forces of Polands Government in exile, so it is official Polish state politics.
Can you grasp this concept, or fancy names still disturb you? --Lokyz 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that Lithuanian Security Police was not really Lithuanian, nor was Ypatingasis būrys and such? OK, so what were the 'real Lithuanian' organizations of that period? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Lokyz, before you answer this question, do consider that the Blue Police consisted of 15,000 members, while the article concercing the Lithuanian Security Police states their number to be around 500. Dr. Dan 19:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus before I will answer, please explain what do you mean by saying "Lithuanian", based on my previous explanation.--Lokyz 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
First, what organizations of that period were created by Lithuanians of their own free will? Second, what were the largest organizations composed of Lithuanians in that period? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
While waiting for Lokyz' answer, I will only add that that the Lithuanian Security Police and the YB, were not created by Lithuanians of their own free will, just as the Blue Police was not created by the free will of the Polish. Is that easy to agree to? Dr. Dan 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course. What about the Local Lithuanian Detachment?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge Local Detachment never gave oath to Hitler, and for that was poorly armed and sent to "hot" places, like fight partisans in eastern Lithuania. As for detais I'm not expert on the subject, although hear accuations on mass kilings by local detachment it's quite new for me.--Lokyz 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Were are such accusation? That aside, the Detachment fighting Polish partisants as well as Soviet ones is well documented. Did the Detachment fight against anybody else?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Official representatives of Republic of Lithuania were diplomatic service in the US and by the Holy See, and to my knowledge they did not recognise neither Merkys' government, neither Provisonal government neither the puppet Council, neither any one later until circa 1990.--Lokyz 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, but setting legal continuity of the government aside, I am still waiting for the anwer.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There will be not any until you answer my. I can't stand if someone tries to evade direct questions.
Second thing -I do not think someone did count Lithuanian organizations of the period by number of members. And authority which gave orders to those "organizatons" is also quite clear, so reaso for those questions evades me.--Lokyz 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What question? Sigh. You can ignore my and other questions, but this is also a pretty interesting reply for all to see, one way or another.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What did the Lithuanians exactly to oppose the Germans and to help the victims? I don't know, I'm asking. How did the officers of the Sauguma conspire like the Blue Police did? Any sources?Xx236 14:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have realized thera are two DrDans. The other has one mentioned 10,000 to 15,000 Blue Policemen, a number of them Ukrainian. The one here writes above something different. Xx236 14:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please rewrite your two edits (above) in English. I am unsure of the points you are trying to make. Thanks. Dr. Dan 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POVed Lithuanian section?

I ask M.K to state clearly what he sees as POVed in that section. No POV was detected by reviewers from WPMILHIST project, the mediators or any other users, and you failed to continue the discussion with Yannismaru mediator, but I am willing to discuss this - if you can reply and simply state what is it that you see as POVed. Please use reliable sources (i.e. ones not from fringe and extremist organizations or people) to back up your claim and show us what POV is overrepresented or underrepresented.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw your message, Piotrus, but the last days (and the next ones!) were very very full! Please, give me, all here, a couple of days to see where we stand right now, to study the arguments of both sides, and some further sources I'll try to find about Armia Krajowa (I admit that until 2 months ago I hadn't even heard about it, and, hopefully), and I'll come soon come back with concrete proposals.--Yannismarou 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggested and initiated concrete steps how to solve the situation, but Piotrus choose to disrupt this attempt by demonstrating his point by making "suggestions" which denounced earlier agreements (for instance length). I also ask you,Yannismarou, to restore the tag, which was removed by this particular contributor with strange "argumentation" [35]. M.K. 10:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please quote your concrete steps. Please also quote where there was an agreement for them (others then of everyone else against you, and you with yourself).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Re-read the thread again. M.K. 11:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What for? To see the many places you have failed to address objections by others or the ones where you support your own claims with nothing but Vilnija propaganda?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly about such "constructive" contributions I am talking. What is Vilnija propaganda? M.K. 10:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/m/Talk%7EArmia_Krajowa_f648.html"