Talk:Home Army/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fork ?

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

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)

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. --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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 ? --Lysy^talk 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)

Armia Krajowa

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

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)

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)

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)

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. --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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. --Lysy^talk 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 ? --Lysy^talk 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)

"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)

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)

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. --Lysy^talk 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)

Removal of 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. --Lysy^talk 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)

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, especially were damaged Lithuanian schools, which activities were paralyzed."
3. "On 1993 Lithuanian Government established commission pronounced conclusions that Armia Krajowa threatened to Lithuania’s territorial integrity, made crimes against humanity, killed civilians, mostly Lithuanians. On 1999 the Prosecutor’s Office of Republic of Lithuania after investigation concluded that Armia Krajowa made genocide of Lithuanian people, hoping to reoccupy Vilnius Region."

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. --Lysy^talk 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)

Certainly not the Polnisches Schutzmannschaftsbataillon 202. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr Dan, just a friendly reminder. Piotrus asked who the Detachment fought, not who it did not fight. Next time read questions more carefully, and you do not have to thank me. Tymek (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase the question then, Tymek, did the detachment fight the Polnisches Schutzmannschaftsbataillon 202? A short answer will do. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr Dan, this is really weird, as you are asking a question which you have already answered yourself. Well, memory loss is a real problem, even among historians, experts on everything Polish. Tymek (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tymek, on February 5, 2007, the Prokonsul responded to M.K. with..."Because quite often your sentences are so ungrammatical that (sic) it is impossible to understand your point..." (Yes, right here on this talk page, a few paragraphs above). Could you get some help, or try restating your point yourself? You lost me. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who wrote on Feb 7 Certainly not the Polnisches Schutzmannschaftsbataillon 202, or was it a clone? Tymek (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2008 (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)

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)

Armia Krajowa or Polish Home Army?

Do English speaking people use Armia Krajowa or rather Home Army?Xx236 16:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless they have some in depth knowledge about the subject, it's usually Home Army.radek 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What about moving to Home Army?Xx236 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That might have been brought up before. As long as Home Army redirects to Armia Krajowa (or if a move is made, vice versa), and the beginning of the article gives both names, I don't think it matters much.radek 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? AK is used extensivly by English academic sources; that the average reader doesn't know it is no argument to 'dumb it down'. PS. Yes, this was discussed before, check older threads.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for academy only. It's not rational to force someone to say Krajowa.

I stared the same discussion last year. The vote was 2 versus 2 and Google was radically for "Home Army". Xx236 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was me. See Talk:Armia_Krajowa/Archive_1#Requested_move, where in spite of rather overwhelming evidence in support of a move to Polish Home Army (there are hundreds of Google Books hits for "home army" that have nothing to do with Poland, for instance), the unfortunate "vote" with very little discussion or counter-argument was split 2-2. Please, feel free to initiate another WP:RM. heqs 17:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Even in academia people who don't speak Polish or a Slavic language use "Polish Home Army." I've sat over beer discussing the Polish Home Army with a group of American, Polish, German and Italian academics, and as a courtesy to the non-Polish speakers, everyone used "Home Army." Not a single Polish scholar disagreed with this, and in fact, one of them provided this when the subject was initially opened. But my account of using this in academia is no more important than any other account of not using it in academia--what we need are sources, and these should not be confined to academia. Alas, outside of Slavic speakers and linguists, pronouncing Armia Krajowa in English tends towards Armeea Krădżovuh--I'd rather folks used "Home Army" than this. Using known English titles rather than foreign titles is not "dumbing it down." The Persians on Wikipedia are literally obsessed with naming articles with the phonetic Persian names--when an unknowing reader gets one of these as a random article, they might do just what I do, simply dismiss it. It makes the Persian articles difficult to read and cluttered and designed for other than the English language reader, when this is English Wikipedia. But if I came across Polish Home Army as a random page, or got it returned as a google hit, it would be something I might know about, or be curious about. "Polish Home Army" is what it is called in English. KP Botany 18:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming we gain a consensus of HA, should the article be at 1) Home Army with Polish Home Army redirecting there, or at 2) Polish Home Army with Home Army redirecting there or to Home Army (disambiguation)? One of the arguments in the past discussion which resulted in no consensus was that Home Army is used primarily in Polish context, thuse variant 1) was supported, but the move was to variant 2).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This I don't know. People tend to be very picky about this little detail. If talking in general, in English, one would always says Polish Home Army to be clear. But, the topic is seldom discussed

outside of a discussion of Poland in WWII, and in writings on the topic in English, it tends to simply be Home Army. Are there guidelines for this? Maybe Home Army (Polish)? I don't think a satisfactory answer will be reached, without some general guidelines. KP Botany 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The guideline is Wikipedia:Use English. heqs 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What are the uses of "Home Army" outside the Polish context? Ireland?radek

So the guideline on Wikipedia as to whether to use "Polish Home Army" or "Home Army" is Wikipedia:Use English. Since we're comparing English to English, why would you say the guidelines are to use English? Let's stay on topic. What are the guidelines for naming pages such as this, should we include Polish, either leading or paranthetically, or not? KP Botany 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I already demonstrated in the old Requested Move, there are many uses for "home army" outside the Polish context. According the the Use English guideline, the article should be titled with the most common English name ("Polish Home Army"), with all other common names listed in the first paragraph. What is the big mystery here? heqs 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The big mystery is the overwhelming consensus when 4 people voted last time, you've provided no links to evidence, and you can't seem to or won't answer the question being asked. This is an academic subject that gets a lot of play outside Google searches, not the world's leading authority on anything but web searches. If there was never any question about "Polish Home Army" versus "Home Army (Poland)" the issue never would have arisen the first time. However, I'm getting a feeling why folks didn't vote last time. KP Botany 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Heqs. Most books in English use "Home Army" when the Polish context is clear; the AK itself, an Allied army, used "Home Army" or "Polish Home Army" in English-language communiques. I would tend toward "Polish Home Army" with Armia Krajowa and AK mentioned in the first sentence. (Think French Foreign Legion as a parallel example). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

French Foreign Legion is a good example article, with the page Foreign Legion being a disambiguation page to various foreign legions. Thanks. KP Botany 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish applicants to AK

In the section on the AK's relations with the Jews, it says, "it generally turned down Jewish applicants, since they could be more easily identified by the Nazis." It would be good to note WHY it was easy to identify Jews. In Poland, as in Germany and in Europe in general, it is very rare for men to be circumsized, EXCEPT for religious reasons, eg. if they are Jewish. So if the Nazi occupation authorities suspected that a man was Jewish, they would simply, physically check. All this might not be immediately obvious to U.S readers, where routine circumcision has been common. 140.147.160.78 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

But how does the fact that someone could be identified as a Jew cause a problem when joining a resistance organization? If any member of a resistance were captured, they were in trouble, if known to be a member of it, Jewish or not. If a Jew who was a member of AK were found alone, why would they suspect membership?Jrm2007 13:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Jews could be identified by looks/language/behavior/people knowing he was a Jew. Hence a Jewish undercover partisan could be more easily captured.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I could see this as being a problem in a group of partisans in a city, where the jew amongst them might give them away. However, the original argument involved circumcision, did it not? I will frankly say that I am not convinced by these arguments and even more frankly state that while the AK was perhaps not officially antisemitic, there were many antisemites in its ranks, based on my reading of history books. What is the point of denying this? Why is it even surprising since there was official government antisemitism pre-war and pogroms both pre and postwar?--Jrm2007 08:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Resistance members could be captured in routine arrests made by Germans, in "lapankas" or just by accident. Germans then could sometimes release them if they would not know whom they caught. But I think that's not the point. The fact is that 1) preWar many people claimed, wrongly or rightly, that they can recognise Jewish by sight. I don't know whether it's true or not, but definetely this was widespread belief which could influence people 2) many Jewish simply didn't know Polish well enough and Polis customs well enough to pass as Poles in conspiration 3) AK was acting in cities and most of its members were not partisans, but city inhabitants 4) not many Jewish lived outside the cities. Szopen 08:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't the Armia Ludowa then disallow Jews for the same reasons?--Jrm2007 10:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea. However AL is bad example, because they allowed also common criminals into their ranks, they didn't care about repercussions of their actions etc. Second, AK, didn't DISALLOW JEWS into their ranks. A token of Jews fought in partisan units. And of course by time AK started to field any significant partisan units, most of Jews were already gone. My suspect is also the general distrust of Jewish applicants, but this is just my feelings. ANyway, the reasons were quite complex. Szopen 12:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How different is distrust of Jews from anti-semitism? Not very, I think.--Jrm2007 06:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you can say so - but antisemitism in the sense in which WHOLE EUROPE AT THE TIME was antisemitic. I mean, the stereotype that Jewish are poor fighters (till 1943), don't care about Poland, are not good patriots, the stereotype that they side with communists and enemies of Poland ... Similar to stereotypes many Europeans have about Poles: that they are all catholics, antisemites, wild patriots and ardent churchgoers. Stereotype, even negative, is not always equal to xenophobia. Szopen 07:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I will further ask, given that every Jew was whether he liked it or not involved in a life or death struggle with the Germans, I would think that would make him eminently trust worthy, no??--Jrm2007 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Read about the very difficult topic of Jewish Schmaltsovniks, for example Szopen 07:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Szmalcownik. I am not aware of an English translation (or transliteration).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit off topic, but don't forget about Judenrat or Judenordnungsdienst, for example.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs, bringing up something that applied to a miniscule portion of Jews; the fundamental idea that any Jew knew that ultimately he faced death at the hands of the Nazis would make him on the average as trustworthy as anyone and probably moreso. Your argument is absurd.--Jrm2007 08:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jm, let's first explain a thing. We do not argue that they were less trustworthy. We challenge your view that they were authomatically MORE trustworthy ("eminently" in this context stronly implies "more" since on average Poles were not "eminently" trustworthy to AK).

Also, _I_ think that there is no difference between Jewish Poles and Catholic Poles, Protestant Poles of any other kind of Poles. So is Piotrus. I, and Piotrus too, think that Jewish Poles are as trustworthy as any other people. You asked about motives of AK in 1940s and we speculated on them. You assumed that Jewish would be authomatically more trustworthy than Poles, because they faced the death from Nazis. We showed you that this is no true. Jews were not more trustworthy (which does not imply "less trustworthy") than ordinary Poles, as you probably already know about the traps which used this naive assumption. Second, also only miniscule portion of Jews had any chance to even TRY to go into AK. It's not like they had recruitment beaureaus (bureaus?). Don't argue about partisan units started to be fielded in larger number at the time when most Jews were already killed, and most of their members were people accustomed to villages. AK members in cities had to have chances of going freely. Someone, who spoke Polish with heavy accent and didn't know Polish customs would be authomatically at greater danger of being caught than others.

Yes, some antisemitism surely played the role. This could also vary through territory to territory, from leader to leader. Actually I read the story told by one Jewish applicant to Polish partisan unit in eastern Poland, to the effect that partisan leader refused to accept him and his friends, explaining that they do not trust the Jews because most of them sided with soviet partisans. After Jewish applicant said that he has nothing to do with them, leader said that he understand his situation, and he knows that Jews from central Poland are different but the most he can do for him is give him a letter of passage guaranteeing movement through Polish partisan-controlled. Definetely example of what you would call antisemitic motives. I can write down whole passage if you want.

Szopen 09:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, final note: remember that Polish partisan weren't usually spending all their time in forests. At the times they indeed WERE living in villages (e.g. during winters). Szopen 09:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

From Amy Cores, author Jews in the Armia Krajowa: The issue is not quite so simple. My thesis, written in 2000, explains that the situation in Poland provided for Jewish participation in the various armed resistance groups, depending on a variety of factors. Specifically, political affiliation, assimilation into Polish culture, age, location, etc., were defining factors. I was able to interview several former Jewish partisans, who were members of the AK. I believe that I have the most comprehensive, non-biased research avaialable on this particular issue. I am willing to provide a copy of my work, for a small fee to cover copying, binding, and postage costs, to anyone interested. You may email me at amysaracores at yahoo.com. [They will not let me post with an email address] It may take me some time to respond. Please indicate in the 'Subject' line "Armia Krajowa". Thanks, asc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amycores (talk • contribs) 12:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about AK's Relations with Jews

More than one source describes the attacks made on Jews by the AK. What is the possible motivation for Jewish holocaust survivors to mis-represent the AK in this regard?Jrm2007 11:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm2007 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very good questions. 1) Quite often they didn't differentiate between AK and other armed units - there were armed bands of common bandits in the forests. 2) Quite often they saw AK as enemies - e.g. in western Belarus AK carried war with Soviet partisans, and most of the Jews sided with Soviet side (one can argue that they haven't got much choice...) 3) Outright anti-polonism is possibility in some cases 4) and finally, AK had specific order to liquidate criminal bands (regardless of their nationality), and the victims sometimes were also Jewish - seems nobody cared that Jews have to rob to survive, and AK was just shoting all the robbers without asking for their motives. 5) Finally, they were sporadic incidents of AK units attacking Jewish groups - in the ranks of AK also were antisemites. E.g. Massacring the ZOB group - which resulted in military court for the commander of the mentioned AK unit. Szopen 08:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think that the second reason you offer (if accurate) pretty much makes it clear that whether from anti-semitism or anti-Soviet sentiment, the Jews did have much to fear from the AK. It is important however to note that this does not imply an anti-Jewish policy of the AK, just that many Jews no doubt suffered at the AK's hands for whatever reason.Jrm2007 08:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Our Armia_Krajowa#Relations_with_Jews and Armia_Krajowa#Relations_with_the_Soviets sections contain most of the relevant info; do you think they need to be changed? PS. I'd also add a 6) explanation to Szopen's: AK often turned down Jewish applicants, as they didn't want to risk having Jews in their conspiracy, since AK members, particularly in cities, lived undercover, and Jews could be more easily spotted and arrested by the Germans (for being Jews), and then turn in rest of the local cells. Hence the reason Jews commonly formed their own resistance organizations. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think those sections need to be changed. My question was not one about the AK and Jews but rather one about why some have portrayed this relationship so negatively -- as I asked originally, what would be the motivation of Jews to portray the AK as their enemies if this were not so.Jrm2007 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If anybody could access this publication (Amy Sara Davis Cores, "Jews in the Armia Krajowa", 2000) , it should provide useful data.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Could someone establish the reliability of source #1 [36]? Novickas 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See Witold Pilecki.Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pawłokoma

I don't think Pawłokoma massacre is relevant, since it was carried out after AK was disbanded.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But the reference specifically says that AK members were involved. And the article says that many units decided to continue their struggle even after being disbanded. Ostap 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we find some academic sources for that - the reference in the article goes to a media article. See also my comment at Talk:Pawłokoma massacre.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no doubt this could not be AK, as AK did not exist in March 1945. They were former AK soldiers, but still they were mostly the same people. But the article also discussed the situation of AK soldiers after January 1945 in the "postwar" section, so I don't quite understand the problem here. --Lysy^talk 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

AK was formally disbanded in January, but many AK units did not obey and continued fighting. Does it mean that the AK soldiers would not subordinate to their supervisors ? Or were they bandits ? --Lysy^talk 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps cursed soldiers would be a more appropriate article for that mention. Further, there may be some confusion as the AK may refer for example to Armia Krajowa Obywatelska or another organization tracing it origins to AK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Or most likely, pl:Zgrupowanie Warta.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, pl:Józef Biss was one of the commanders in battalion „D" of Zgrupowanie Warta but still, Zgrupowanie Warta is considered of a group of AK units, see e.g. http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=361&id=1111 --Lysy^talk 07:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A description of an excursion as an argument. Are we on the bottom already? Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AK and Ukrainians

The section lacks numbers of murdered Ukrainian civilians. I think it should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.126.22 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Now the section contains the number of civilian Poles murdered in 1943 in Volhynia, and the (fantastic) number of Ukrainians killed in Volhynia during the whole period. So the numbers cannot be compared. And I doubt it's a right article to compare such numbers. The article is about the AK, which was responsible for its actions, not for any action against Ukrainians. Xx236 (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• The lead is messy, with a lot of short sentances and paragraphs. The lead should be redesigned to provide an accessible and useful introduction to the article. There also appears to be a lot of information which should be summarised in the lead but isn't, particularly regarding the post-war activities of the force.
• {{Fact}} tags are dotted throughout the article. Deal with them please.
• Numerous parapgraphs throughout the article are missing citations and in some places, notably "postwar", the whole section is sourced to a single fairly short web news article. This is significant undersourcing.
• I have suspicions that the article is not comprehensive. There seems to be a low level of detail on the organisation's activites within Poland. For example, was the V-2 stuff the only major achievement of the force? I don't think it was, but it is given a level of prominence which suggests it was on a par with the Warsaw Uprising or similar.
• Sub-headings would aid navigation between important events and break up the big blocks of text. They may also encourage development of a greater level of detail which this relatively important article is lacking.
• Fair-use information should be written for Image:26PPAK relief Warsaw Uprising.jpg, Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Image:Henryk Wolinski.jpg, Image:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza2.jpg,Image:1Baon1PPLeg Radom-Kielce 1944.jpg, Image:Zapluty karzel.jpg and complete information made avaliable for Image:Aleksander Krzyzanowski.jpg.
• "Relations with Ukrainians" is a mess.
• Any short one line paragraphs should be merged into the text around them.

These are just the more obvious problems here. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article while I continue to review it. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have copyedited lead; it reads well to me and seems to summarize the most important information.

Citation needed tags addressed.

The article is not comprehensive - one could write a book on AK (and indeed many did so); nonetheless I think it is a good summary. Only a para is dedicated to the V-2 rocket operation, I think it is due weight.

Feel free to add more subheadings; I feel there are enough of them at the moment but wouldn't mind seeing an alternative.

Rationales added.

Yes, the Ukrainian section needs some improvement; it was also discussed above. I have now rewritten it.

Short line paras merged where I thought it appopriate.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've crossed off the resolved issues above, and I'll address the others soon when I can give them my full attention. Rest assured, this article will not be delisted anytime soon as long as concientious editors are still working on it. I'm also going to hold off deciding on this article until consensus is established on the Belarusian issue below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have taken time to run through the article and I have put a more detailed list of the problems I have found below.

• The lead should summarise the article but at the moment there is minimal information on the following essential topics: Major actions undertaken during the war; the AK's conflict with the Soviet backed government after 1945. The lead could also be improved by mentioning details like important leaders of the AK, successes, failures and modern popular opinion of the organisation. Alhough the last section is optional, I would expect to see the first two well covered in two or three paragraphs numbering several sentances each.
• The first four paragraphs are untidy and largely unsourced. I would prefer to see them merged in two or three coherent paragraphs with a clear narrative, but at the very least provide some sources where I have left {{Fact}} tags.
• Although not essential, provision of some examples in the fourth paragraph would improve the prose, which is not of high quality in this section.
• The Warsaw Uprising, the most famous action of the AK, is skimmed over in two unconnected short paragraphs. This is a problem which needs fixing if the article is to pass the comprehensive requirement of the GA criteria.
• The sentance which begins "In Autumn of 1946 . . ." needs expanding - what was this massacre? Was it one of many or notable for its uniqueness? This seems to be an important event, yet it has no context.
• The writing as a whole is rather poor. I would like to see this listed with the League of Copyeditors to try an straighten out some of the prose.
• I have added {{Fact}} tags to parts of the article I feel need sourcing. These are the bare minimum which should be sourced for this article and I may find more in the future.
• At least one web source still has not publication information or last access date.

This list is hopefully clearer than the one above. See how much you can get done of the above and I will reassess when you are ready, although I may find other issues to be dealt with. All the best--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the lead and filled a request with League of Copyeditors; I will try to work on the other issues soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have carried out various improvements, hopefully addressing most of the above, with the notable exceptions of copyediting (I am not a native English speaker) and there are still some refs missing for the 'weapons and equipment' section - so far I cannot find them (although the claims are rather plausible and non-controversial, as far as I can tell).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work, I have copyedited the article myself (although I am no expert) and in all it reads and flows much better. The sourcing is improved and in all I am more than happy for this to remain a GA. There are still a few issues, some tags are not after punctuation and I couldn't work out what "That the number of sympathizers was much higher, but the number of armed members participating in actions would be smaller." meant. Nice job though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Off topic?

AK was disbanded in January 1945, so 1946 NSZ history should be rather described in an another article. Xx236 (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this section may be cut back; NSZ is not that much of part of AK history, but fate of cursed soldiers is highly relevant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the NSZ-related sentence to that article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Belarusians

The article doesn't even mention Belarusians. Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with you, Xx236, it is a shame that AK crimes towards Belarussians not mentioned, hope this will be solved quickly. M.K. (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you open bias. TV series Smersh is a must for you. Xx236 (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And is there anything to mention? I don't recall a single source discussing AK and Belorussians.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC).

There are such subjects as Belarussians in the AK, conflicts (eg. in Nowogródek region) between AK, Germans and Soviets, Belarusian report of the AK supreme command. Xx236 (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a part of Soviet partisans in Poland issue, already described in 'Relation with the Soviets' subsection of our article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Partially yes, but certainly not all Belarusians were Soviet. Many collaborated with Germans and many common people were victims of the fighting parties. According to some sources there were Belarusians in AK troops. Xx236 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.bialystok.ap.gov.pl/dziedzictwo/pliki/historycy.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tnx, I will look at it soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? The pdf is very interesting, but it includes the entire proceedings of a conference - close to twenty articles - not all of them in languages I can understand (ex. Belorussian).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Crimes involving Armia Krajowa

Last little revert war hinted that we need separate section about crimes in which AK was involved, as AK is not treated equally in all countries. For instance Lithuanian Prosecutors Office has listed criminals charges to AK members. Thinking that possible actions there taken and in Belarus. In any case if this part evolves to bigger part, we always can have and separate article like Crimes involving Armia Krajowa any thoughts. M.K. (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You man: "crimes involving Armia Krajowa" as suggested by extremist organizations and tabloids? This has been discussed before; there is no place for fringe rants from such unreliable sources in this article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as suggested by these tabloids. It quite sad, say at least, to see that Lithuanian Government is equaled in such context. And again if you have nothing constructive to add, dont. Instead try to search a source which would concur your point that In Lithuania AK is not involved in crime charges. M.K. (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not just add that to this article? A seperate article would be a violation of WP:POVFORK, wouldn't it? Ostap 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Ostap, currently I just trying to receive some feedback from fellows contributors about this issue. I know situation in Lithuania, have some info (not satisfactory) about Belarus, etc. Maybe you know developments in Ukraine? And no, if we have many info on particular issue, this info can be cropped into separately article and leaving here just the main points. In any case, I discussing this possibility, as in my view, this issue should be covered. M.K. (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. I think it would be best to include all information in just this article, unless it gets way too long. Ostap 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I will just point out that MK tried once already to introduce his POV into this article and the consensus was that this was undue - not to mention of terrible quality (in grammar and sourcing); the entire resulting mess was split off to Polish-Lithuanian relations during World War II. PS. There was an entire mediation regarding this; I would suggest not kicking this dead horse too much.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea. Kicking dead things is no fun... Ostap 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is not dead horse. The discussion which was pointed, was about section in regards of Lithuanians and AK and its length. Current proposal is about assessment of particular activities not limiting only on Lithuania, as AK actions is controversial in several countries. M.K. (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the current 'relations with Ukrainians' section portray the relevant events in sufficient and neutral detail. I look forward to Ostap commenting on that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well my proposed section is not only about Lithuanians and Ukrainians. Of cource it would be great to know, are any criminal charges filled against AK members in Ukraine. M.K. (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversial relationships in lead

The statement about AK's difficult relationships with various other peoples belongs in the lead, which should summarize the article. There is currently a lot a material about that here - several sections.

To clarify the positioning of this ref as supporting the statement that AK-Belarussian relationships were troubled, rather than including it in the AK-Jewish section. "On May 14, 1943, in Brest Oblast, partisans intercepted a directive from the center of the Grenadiers Party, stating that Germans and Belorussians were the enemies of Poles. Poles were ordered to prepare for an armed rebellion, collect weapons, and discredit Belorussians before the Germans. The directive signed by Captain Dubinski, one of the leaders of the Poles'ye AK District, concludes with the following statement: “Blend with the partisans, win their trust, and, if an opportunity arises, destroy them”. From [37] If/when a Relations With Belarus section is created the ref could go in there. Novickas (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the controversies should be mentioned; however due weight, neutrality and verifiability are important - for example your version spoke of conflicts between AK and Lithuanian resistance (red linked - was there any notable one?), while it is more correct to note the conflicts between AK and Lithuanian Nazi-collaborators. PS. The issues you discuss above are covered in relation with the Soviet partisans in Poland (as Belorussian resistance was part of that movement) and the lead already has a sentence on AK-Soviet conflict.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If Lithuanian doesn't mean Soviet, the same Belorussian doesn't mean Soviet. Soviet is Soviet, even if it pretends to be Lithuanian, Polish or Belorussian. Soviet is controlled from Moscow and the orders are known. AK was a bunch of amateurs opposing Soviet genocidal policy. Why is the same Soviet policy wrong in Lithuania and O.K. in Belarus? Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a big difference between Belorussian SSR, which existed for two decades, and Belorussians, who had relatively little national identity, and Lithuanian SSR, a year old by the time Germans came, and Lithuanians, deeply nationalistic and patriotic. Hence calling Lithuanian 'Soviets' makes much less sense than calling Belorussians that; further, no arguments or sources have been made to argue that there was any significant Belorussian faction that was not subsumed by the Soviets with regards to AK relations.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The history was more complicated, there existed obviously Belarusian nationalism, partially pro-Nazi. Half of Belarus belonged to Poland and was occupied by the Soviets less than two years. [38]. Read Turonek.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Which underground organisation had non-controversial relationships with the outside world? Only the ones invented after the war. Xx236 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Novickas for raising this important subject. That any of this were not even mentioned in the lead was a gross omission. I corrected it by adding less than a sentence (to avoid UNDUE) to a lead with two references. Hopefully, there won't be WP:IDONTLIKEIT removals and revert wars. --Irpen 08:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. A complete revert with a misleading edit summary that hides it. --Irpen 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)