Talk:Kazimieras Garšva

message: Provided source , which should convinced that organization (?) Vilnija is "extremist" due not link Garšva;  by this source it is not clear if the talk going on about the same Vilnija, which is lead by Garšva. In the light of facts that there are a lot of Vilnijas . such as – ;  This particular Vilnija is interesting because it is business incubator organization - , maybe author, who uses “extremist”  term not random chosen to mentioned Mažeikių nafta in the provided “source” context?  Maybe these are same Vilnija too? According  to live persons biography guidelines such “statement” is removed from article.  M.K. 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious he is talking about that Vilnija, please don't try to 'lawyer' you way out of that. Unless you can find an example of other Vilnija which could be controversial in this context, the reference stays. PS. This has already been discussed on Talk:Armia Krajowa, I see no need to restart that argument.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is not sourced it is your POV only M.K.
Consult WP:living :
We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. [2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. M.K. 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course. Controversiality, extremism and similar qualities of this person are claimed by many sources, as discussed in #Controversial?.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry as for now I can only see position of Polish newspapers and analytics, who do foreign press analysis for Foreign Ministery of Poland. Ah and yes, there is one mentioning in Lithuanian researcher book, but it does not claim the person we're discussing here to be extremist.--Lokyz 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps ambiguity of English is the problem: the source - and our article - do not state that KG is extremist, but he is a leader of an extremist organization (that said, it's rather logical he is an extremist himself, but I don't insist on such a formula, it's pretty obvious). For the Polish sources, please check my post at the top of this page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ”Extremist” is controversial and poorly sourced

message: Please, could someone evaluate Polish sources, because not everyone in the world can read Polish, and this is English encyclopedia. 
I think some statements by Piotrus can be misleading, like -statements from Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, although to my knowledge they're simply translations of foreign press with some remarks by an unsigned editor. Others are citations of newspapers, including infamous Rzecpospolita. 
I do not wish to whitewash anyone, I'm just simply curious, whether an press article can be used as a source on living people, for example like this one form a very trusted source  (sorry Lysy, it was you who did mention this man earlier), and why do this is not reflected on the article, or is it some sort selective attention on people whose argument on AK you do want to diminish ? Who'll be the next, Dalia Kuodytė? It's rethorical question, I'm not pointing finger to anyone.Lokyz 08:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No refs to my knowledge claim that 'this is a statements from Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs'. We have several refs which clearly state they are press articles reprinted on the Ministry site (which would indicate ministry supports their POV, I think). Any information on why Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is infamous would be appreciated (I am sure that the spelling mistake you made is just a mistake, and not some sort of 'mockery' of Polish language, of course). Press articles are often used as sources, although of course English academic references are preffered. But as the proverb sais: if you don't have what you like.... Who has discarded the BBC article as a source? And Dalia Kuodytė certainly deserves an article, yes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was you who did claim, that claimed, the references include statements from Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs []. As for Rzeczpospolita I might be wrong, I've heard about it some not nice things, although it was some time ago, and do not have references right now, so I withdraw my opinion on it.Lokyz 14:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the page has somewhat confusing layout, at first I thought it was a statement. Still, our refs make it clear that it is a tetriary source (news reprint on ministry pages), and so this issue is dealt with.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Tnx for replacing 'fact' with refs for biographic information. They were not hostile - they were just requests to reference it. While I don't insit we readd the refs we remove (we have others) I wonder what is the policy you used to remove them (WP:RS)? I'd think that a homepage of a reputable professor is a reliable source (unless anybody has sources that would argue he is not reliable?). Which other references would you like to discuss?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is BLP--the standard for RS for BLP with respect to particular derogatory information is very high, and rightly so. After all, this guy is also a reputable professor in his subject, and one can put anything one pleases on ones personal web page.   I'm not happy about that "we have others" --is there some sort of a cabal?  Let me suggest something--there is no need to go to any further lengths to discuss his political views, the link to the name of his organization is quite enough, and you have much more leeway for criticism  there.  What would be useful is some clear statement  that he is the head of the organzation--what exact office does he hold?--it can surely be documented.DGG 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DGG, I hope that you noticed my statment here, I would also ask you to deliver your opinion on this source, , which Piotrus uses all the time. Also please not that sources which describes biographical material is exclusively Polish, person actively investigates crimes conducted by Poles so this should be paid additional attention. Ana also could would look at the article Vilnija there is also things which WP:LIVING prohibits. i will make more detail explanation there if necessary.  M.K. 11:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: DGG, please, consider that cabal accusations may be offensive to others. The history of this article shows that there are other users (Halibutt, Lysy) who support my POV, so yes, "we have others" (users, although I actually meant refs in the context above). Garsva is the leader of Vilnija per our refs Gazeta Wyborcza, 2001-02-14, and even more reliable reference are official commentaries on the site of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which calls him nationalist and anti-Polish (I correct the refs to reflect that they are commentary and not translations), feel free to adjust that (I was under the impression that him being the leader of Vilnija is not controversial, but him being 'nationalistic, extremist and anti-Polish' is - thus the refs follow the controversial statements). As a good number of references to him, particulary in foreign press, are related to him being controversial, and not him being the scholar, I believe that his views - and others opinions of them - should be presented in this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish sources 

message: I have removed 2 hostile fact tags for obvious biographic elements, and removed some outrageous POV. I now ask whether the references  used for critical purposes  are all of them reliable sources. i removed one obvious non-RS web site and one personal web page. They might be appropriate on the page for the organization, but not on the page for him as a person.  I must mention that to the extent I understand the politics of his group I find them abhorrent, and that is the most neutral word that comes to mind. I therefore did not want to make any non-obvious edits. DGG 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tnx for replacing 'fact' with refs for biographic information. They were not hostile - they were just requests to reference it. While I don't insit we readd the refs we remove (we have others) I wonder what is the policy you used to remove them (WP:RS)? I'd think that a homepage of a reputable professor is a reliable source (unless anybody has sources that would argue he is not reliable?). Which other references would you like to discuss?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is BLP--the standard for RS for BLP with respect to particular derogatory information is very high, and rightly so. After all, this guy is also a reputable professor in his subject, and one can put anything one pleases on ones personal web page.   I'm not happy about that "we have others" --is there some sort of a cabal?  Let me suggest something--there is no need to go to any further lengths to discuss his political views, the link to the name of his organization is quite enough, and you have much more leeway for criticism  there.  What would be useful is some clear statement  that he is the head of the organzation--what exact office does he hold?--it can surely be documented.DGG 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DGG, I hope that you noticed my statment here, I would also ask you to deliver your opinion on this source, , which Piotrus uses all the time. Also please not that sources which describes biographical material is exclusively Polish, person actively investigates crimes conducted by Poles so this should be paid additional attention. Ana also could would look at the article Vilnija there is also things which WP:LIVING prohibits. i will make more detail explanation there if necessary.  M.K. 11:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: DGG, please, consider that cabal accusations may be offensive to others. The history of this article shows that there are other users (Halibutt, Lysy) who support my POV, so yes, "we have others" (users, although I actually meant refs in the context above). Garsva is the leader of Vilnija per our refs Gazeta Wyborcza, 2001-02-14, and even more reliable reference are official commentaries on the site of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which calls him nationalist and anti-Polish (I correct the refs to reflect that they are commentary and not translations), feel free to adjust that (I was under the impression that him being the leader of Vilnija is not controversial, but him being 'nationalistic, extremist and anti-Polish' is - thus the refs follow the controversial statements). As a good number of references to him, particulary in foreign press, are related to him being controversial, and not him being the scholar, I believe that his views - and others opinions of them - should be presented in this article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comment from outside

message: Piotrus has restored dead links as valid, can someone  explain whether it is valid information per Wikipedia policy, especialy per WP:VERIFY?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lokyz (talk • contribs).
:Yes, non-online sources are perfectly valid, read the policy and see my comment at Talk:Polish_minority_in_Lithuania#Restoration_of_dead_links_by_Lysy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked to comment here--There's a specific WP policy at WP:EL-- you should try to replace them with live links--about 1/2 of apparently dead links are simply moved, or see if you can find it in one of the Internet archives, or else make sure the document is  described so it can be found it print if it exists in print, and the links are to be kept but marked as dead so someone else may be able to find the equivalents. If there is contentious material supported only by the link, other sources should be looked for to support it. In this case if there is a print equivalent cited, there is no need to remove the information. Print is usable for WP, though obviously it does cause some problems for people, which is why we prefer electronic equivalents as well--this is why its best to cite both every time, instead of just the electronic. DGG 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked more into the matter. According to , MSZ (Polish ministry) has without any explanation restricted access to the online version of its (daily!) bulletin (it is password protected now). For the record, the bulletin contained exceprts of articles and MSZ commentary on them (several examples can be found on the net and even on MSZ website, see ). I have emailed a Sejm Deputy who has enquired about that matter to the MSZ, and hopefully I will know more in the future. And I checked Google Chache and Internat Archive first thing yesterday, they don't have a copy of those sites :( Unfortunatly for now, all we can do is to treat this source as print only, and hope that in the future MSZ will restore public access to the site and 'unrot' the links.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links