Talk:Dubingiai massacre

message: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
I don't think that a leader of an extremist nationalist group can be considered "trustworthy" and "authoritative"
"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made"
Even if, the picture does not directly support the info in this article as it is not a photo of this massacre.
And then there is an entire section which is relevant here radek (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, is there a section about historical pictures taken during occupations? Strange enough, pictures from Bundesarchivum, taken by the occupying Nazi soldiers are emerging, and are considered RS. And pictures taken by locals are not? Or do you think that one was drawn by hand? And, of course, it would be useful if you would familiarize yourself with a concept of wikilinking.--Lokyz (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a specific picture - that is relevant to this article - from Bundesarchivum that you are talking about or are you just trying to change the subject? The issue at hand is not whether this picture was "taken by locals" (was it? I have no idea) but whether it comes from a RS or not. I have not removed it again because I am waiting on more information on the Garšva source, but as of right now it looks like it's non RS (and whatever is found in other articles is irrelevant to this discussion). What's this stuff about "drawn by hand", unless it's a contorted attempt at incivility? And you keep telling me to familiarize myself with stuff that you yourself seem fairly ... unfamiliar ... with.I mean, the 'familiarity' with  is right there in the quotes from the guidelines I provided above. Now you're changing the subject again. These are honest questions and I'd appreciate it if you approached them with at least a modicum of AGF.radek (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Garšva take the picture? Was Garsva present at the burial ceremony of the children slaughtered  by the AK? What does Garšva have to do with the picture? --Lokyz (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about answering some questions before you start asking new ones? Is there a specific picture - that is relevant to this article - from Bundesarchivum that you are talking about or are you just trying to change the subject? As to what Garšva has to do with the picture - it's from a book of which he is an editor isn't it? This is exactly the issue I'm asking for clarification on above.radek (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Indeed, Lokyz. Among other things,  no academic material presented for support of "unreliable" concept, so far. M.K. (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I suggest nominating the image for deletion at WP:IFD. It is of dubious origin (unreliable source), and it seems to be little for useful but for spreading hatred. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.K. aka P.P., do you mean like thumb|right|1941 Nazi propaganda antisemitic "Jewish Bolshevism" poster in Lithuanian language equating Stalinism and Jews this one? If my memory serves me correctly, I believe you introduced it into Wikipedia. And placed it into a variety of articles until you found a home for it. Perhaps you want to nominate this image for deletion at WP:IFD  too, or should I, since it's of dubious origin (unreliable source), and it seems to be little for useful but for spreading hatred (sic). Dr. Dan (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan, what the hey are you talking about??? First the existence of that image is completely irrelevant to the reliability of the image in this article. This is more of trying to change the subject than actually addressing the issues with THIS article. Second, that image comes from a book published by Yale University Press, clearly an RS, rather than a book edited by a leader of an extremist nationalist organization. Third the image is used in a completely different way - to illustrate Nazi anti-semitic propaganda. What does one image have to do with the other? Nothing. This is just obscurantism designed to avoid admitting that the image in this article comes from a non-RS.radek (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far, no luck finding academic material, which support your "not reliable" claim? It seems that certain Polish volunteers dont like Mr. Garšva; so how he makes Arūnas Bubnys', Rimantas Zizas', and dozen of others, articles non reliable? As a book is a collection  of different articles written by different prominent scholars. For reliability of those articles speak such facts,  as they cited in number of others academic publications, and listed among bio of scholars . And no, Mr. Garšva has nothing to do with image either, as he was not born then it was taken. So , present academic material with relevant criticism, which pointed out specific alleged misstates of the book,  alleged falsification of particular image etc. Until then , I will not respond to any further original research. M.K. (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is Rimantas Zizas reliable? I've asked several times for his article to be stubbed, at least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  And dozens of times it was replayed to you over and over again about Zizas credentials . Well it seems I have to repeat Rimatas Zizas is Ph.D of Vilnius University, working in Lithuanian Institute of History as scientific associate, main interest Related to WW II. M.K. (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you provide sources for this claim? And maybe put them into an article, to end this question once and for all? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  . M.K. (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: MK, this is exactly why I'm asking the question about the book to which for some reason no one wants to respond. Is the image from an article by Garsva? Or is it from another article by someone else? If it is from an article by Garsva then its definitely from non-RS. And in fact he would have plenty do to with the image as he would be the one identifying it - that's the concern in fact, as no one is saying the photo was staged or something. Can we agree that a source by a leader of an extremist nationalist organization is not RS? Please also refer to the title of this section, that I started with prompting from Lokyz, in regard to the need to present academic sources that a leader of an extremist nationalist organization is non-RS. And as far as OR goes, let me repeat what I said with regard to your BLP accusations. I have NO idea what you are talking about. It seems like you're basically throwing every single possible wiki guideline at me without rhyme or reason and just hoping that something will stick. That's not a way to conduct a productive discussion.radek (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Familiarizing oneself with RS 

message: I made some updates to the "cowing" the Lithuanians section. I think we can agree that this (along with there were no other reprisal actions) is all speculative since the Soviet occupation of July immediately thereafter effectively halted activities by both the Lithuanians and AK. I have some family issues to deal with, however, since we've all woken up again, I'll be glad to take a whack at anything which appears to deviate from plain fact into nationalist interpretations. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 03:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point indeed; I do recall similar claim (that Soviet invasion stopped any potential escalation) in Piaskunowicz chapter, if we need a ref.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very good that you removed that POv'ish claim which I pointed out back in 2008. However a lot of issues still remaining over neutrality etc., see my previous comments. M.K. (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Excellent observation, ...since the Soviet occupation of July immediately thereafter effectively halted activities by both the Lithuanians and AK.... , you beat me to it. Was about to make that point. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Point taken. In general because of the dim view taken in sources of the other side, it's probably better written in "thesis" style, referring to sources by author's last name. Editorially (not personally) speaking, I think there is also a problem with every Lithuanian police unit being described as Nazi supporters, sympathizers, the AK only going after "known" Nazi supporters, et al. Denouncing innocent individuals as collaborators and killing them is the oldest trick in the book. It's clear to me, at least, that part of the ongoing issue (as with the 'cowing'--an impossibly POV conclusion given the Soviets rolled in!) is that this is (tragically) much more about bitter Polish-Lithuanian animosity over the Polish occupation of Vilnius--masked by both sides using labels to kill each other. There's no AK anti-Nazi nobility here, I'm afraid, which is still an implication carried through the article. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be interested in cleaning up the undue weight? Starting from historian and author of several publication etc. M.K. (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Zizas? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you see Zizas mentioned in the main article body? M.K. (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think MK means the at least partly non RS "Armijos Krajovos...".radek (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalist sources, redux 

message: This reference has only a few sentences . The Wayback Machine has no listing of it.  If those few sentences support the ref, please post them along with a translation. Also, what makes this reference reliable?  Novickas (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccessible reference and reference to possibly non-reliable source 

message: Well, it looks like Polish volunteer for some reason can't look for the previous discussions and see that exactly is wrong with this article, instead he chooses to revert warring over it . Well this why article has POV tag: , , . M.K. (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, several editors are disagreeing with each other and discussing it here. Removing and replacing POV tags is, um, a POV issue in and of itself. Novickas (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well tag can be . M.K. (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Cowing issue was removed just quite recently; so no, issues listed back then, is topical today. Most Wp editors are volunteers, so it is proper terminology. From BLP - Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. So you again mistaken. folks like Garsva? To whom you are referring, specifically.?  M.K. (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, I'd like to request that you use the term 'editor' rather than 'volunteer' when referring to me. I assume you know who Garšva is and are just being obscurantist again.radek (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pov tag removal over and over again 

message: Radek, we can get back to the lead if you want to later. Currently the discussion is digressing, actually degenerating into a unnecessary black hole. So the new question is, whether this  is an acceptable source or not? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason to be impatient. After all you've consistently evaded and procrastinated on answering my questions since this started - and in fact this "we can get back to the lead" later is another version of that evasion. So now we finally got info that the image comes from Zizas but still no info on him. We can see some of the disagreements with the lead but other than that still no reason for the POV tag except for the exclusion of extremist text from Garsva. Why is this so hard? But ok, I'm a nice guy so I'll answer. Yes the source appears to be RS. But please see my comments above on the use of the text - the part that MK wants to insert - from it. And I don't see anything in the text that is relevant to this article (though not all pages are available online).radek (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please be so kind, and point out what portion of text is written or referenced by text written by Garšva? This would make things much easier.--Lokyz (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now there is none, which is good. But MK has tried in the past to insert it and in the more recent past he's tried inserting it into other related articles. And it seems like his placing the POV tag on the article was essentially because he didn't get to insert text based on that author, which is what started this latest round.radek (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this too many assumptions in one place? Information about Zizas - , .--Lokyz (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Let's note a couple of things:
*2) Again, you're trying to change the topic, in this particular instance by referring to events that happened  in Belarus and Ukraine not Lithuania, which is what this article is about.
*3) The source you quote: a) first says that these events are not well researched, hence any conclusions are tentative, b) does not say they were carried out by AK (they could've been carried out by GL or NSZ or some other group), c) puts the information in its proper context of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia (which, unlike actions of the AK, was an episode of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide) which you completely ignore.
*4) I don't know about any myths (though you seem intent on inventing new ones) and I'm only concerned with NPOV and verifiability. This is another instance of a red herring and a straw men argument.radek (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Source 

message: While I recently removed a war crime category from this article (), I recently became aware of a source that may be relevant: .  The blurb clearly calls this event a war crime (ditto for the Glinciszki massacre). Does anyone have access to the content of this so we could check what pages discuss the concept of war crimes in this context? Ping User:Buidhe. I think the source is likely reliable, and if we could get to see what is inside it seems we could attribute the claim this was a 'war crime' to Paweł Rokicki. But is a single opinion historian sufficient to add a 'war crime' category? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Surely it's sufficient for a RS to call it a war crime? You can always cite the book description directly; the publisher should be a reliable source for the book's contents. (t · c) buidhe 06:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'd support adding a sentence to the article saying that Rokicki described those two events as war crimes. But I am not sure whether an opinion of a single historian merits the addition of a category, given WP:REDFLAG and so on. Think about all the problems spurious categorization can cause. I also glanced at List of war crimes and it is a mess... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , If it's not disputed there's no need to make a dispute over it. Deliberate killing of civilians has always been considered a war crime for the last 100+ years so I doubt you could find any RS that dispute the assessment. Classifying this as a war crime is not an extraordinary claim but actually completely expected one. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , The way I read the current consensus emerging here is that this one mention is not sufficient to add a category. It's an opinion of one historian and there is no evidence he represents the majority POV for the possible WP:REDFLAG here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any such consensus in the discussion that you link. As I explained above, it's clearly not an extraordinary claim that killing civilians would constitute a war crime, actually the opposite is the case. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Buidhe, the consensus of that discussion is very clearly against you. Volunteer Marek  07:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Indeed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crime?