Talk:Battle of Murowana Oszmianka

Citation request

Please provide exact citation in Polish and/or in English. Thank you.--Lokyz (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The book speaks of the battle. What's your basis for the claim that "This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing: the books about Harry Potter are written, you woul'd not guess this, about the same Harry Potter! Thank You Piotrus, you've just publicly acknowledged, that you haven't even seen the book. Ah, just wondering, what color is the back cover?

And even now I'm obliged to ask you the exact citation as per WP:V--Lokyz (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't read the book, did you? if you did please provide exact citation (a paragraph without your own comments and quoting exact page number. Please stop disrupting humanitarian sciences as a whole, making idiot of people who do believe that there IS a way to find a truth even in dubious situation.--Lokyz (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz can you write this again, I don't get what you mean ?--Molobo (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The book is covered in white linen (well, not that white after those years). The exact citation is "W miejscowości Murowana Oszmianka został doszczętnie zniesiony baon litewski za znęcanie się nad ludnością polską. Npl stracił ok. 60 zabitych, wielu rannych, ok. 320 wzięto do niewoli". Happier? //Halibutt 12:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot the translation. Here it goes: In the village of Murowana Oszmianka a Lithuanian battalion has been utterly destroyed in reprisal for maltreatment of Polish civilians. The enemy lost ca. 60 killed, many wounded, and approximately 320 were taken prisoner of war. //Halibutt 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Photos of the event.

"After the battle all Lithuanian prisoners of war were disarmed and set free with only their long johns and helmets on."

I found information that pictures of this events are available and were even shown on Polish television during anniversary in 2004[1]. Might be worth to look for them to improve the article.--Molobo (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. pl:Rzeczpospolita Turgielska is interesting, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found two photos reprinted in Edmund Banasikowski (1988). Na zew ziemi wileńskiej. I will try to scan them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

Current name is unknown in English sources [2], it is even strange that Polish name is used on those territories, which back then was not controlled by Poland. Therefore it would be more logical to use proper Belarussian name.M.K. (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a part of Poland occupied by Germany. Sadly, I couldn't find a German name. On the other hand we don't speak of the Warschau Uprising, Kauen Ghetto, or the Invasion of Normandie even though all of that happened in German-held territories. That's why this title was chosen (and is in accordance with the MoS (specifically WP:UE). //Halibutt 16:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For start it was Polish occupied lands. Second, as it is evident there is no English name of such battle. Therefore it is reasonable to use Belarusian name. M.K. (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Like in the case of Siege of Sankt Petersburg or Battle of Volgograd? We don't rename historical placenames when they change names. The area at the time was not part of Belarus, it was part of German-occupied Poland. As we don't have an English name of the place at hand we'll have to chose between Polish and German names. Ooops! No German name either. //Halibutt 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, then names are not available, is logical to use present one. It is good that you agree with me. M.K. (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the battle is more prominent in Polish than Belorusian historiography, I think that the Polish title is more acceptable (for the same reason we have battle of Stalingrad, not battle of Volgograd).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely different things with Stalingrad, as those names are clear rename, while this situation is different "Murowana Oszmianka" is just translation of original name and imposed on article. Hardly, the argument that Since the battle is more prominent in Polish than Belorusian historiography can be valid as this battle is also prominent in LT history, so maybe use LT name, especially then Oszmianka and its forms are taken from Lithuanian language in the first place. therefore I still think that name should be used Belarusian one, for this reason I will restore the tag, M.K. (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Lithuanians were commanded by the Germans, perhaps you would like to argue for the German name, too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Apart of that the name of that village has been invented, it was a neologism. And guess who renamed the village? Its' owner. And who was it? And in what language did he rename the village before it became part of Belarus in 1991? //Halibutt 11:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fact is clear, there is no English publication which would use this battle name. Impose an Polish name is not the best approach. M.K. (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh? And are there any that use Lithuanian, Belorussian, or German? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Source in German

If anybody can read German, I found one source that seems to be relevant: [3]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My translation would be "The largest battle was fought on May 13, 1944, in Murowana Oszmianka, (which ended) with destruction of a Lithuanian 301st police battalion and the dissolution of the Lithuanian troops by the Germans, and to their internment". The translation might not be 100% accurate as my German is very limited. //Halibutt 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources' reliability

Holocaust denier as reliable source

For some time I asked fellow contributors to provide necessary information on used sources and variuos authors per WP:RS [4][5] [6], as they referencing controversial statements like causation of War crimes. However my attempts to receive necessary information, (natural request then seeing personal web sites as presented as reliable sources; catholic catholic newspaper etc.), yielded assurance that reliability of those sources are verified and notice tags there removed on variuos occasions [7]; I even was accused of staging some sort of games then insisted to keep high standards per WP:RS. Such situation was not acceptable and I launched additional search, currently I found a "scholar" Dariusz Ratajczak, who is in reality a convicted Holocaust denier. So, I am sorry that I cant name him as "reliable source" despite the assurance that his reliability was "verified". In the light of this we definitely need an article about this storeman Dariusz Ratajczak, to inform our readers about his credibility. Sadly this incident is not the first one in this field. Credibility questions on kiosk newspaper, Andrzeja Solaka, remains. M.K. (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Could those responsible for adding the statements supported by Mysl Polska remove them? Per this: "Antisemitic periodicals include Szczerbiec, Stanczyk, Mysl Polska and Nasza Polska" and "Holocaust denial has found support in the right-wing weeklies Mysl Polska and Najwyzszy Czas." [8] (Tel-Aviv University). Novickas (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

More I investigate this article sources more I being amazed M.K. (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly oppose using publications in such sources for Holocaust-related articles. This is, however, an article on a different topic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And could any of you finally respond to my question what is wrong with the article referenced in this one? It says nothing of the Holocaust BTW. And it's the only one we currently have to confirm that both sides committed war crimes, all the other mention only Lithuanian collaborators murdering Polish civilians.

Besides, Myśl Polska is a journal. Did all of its collaborators commit a criminal offence? And are all of their articles unreliable? As Piotrus pointed out, there's no guilt by association here and currently the source is used only to confirm that the numbers differ. I removed the other part already.

Finally, as to Ratajczak, his article is used only to confirm what's already confirmed by 4 other references. So, in other words it's not used to source anything controversial. Feel free to remove it, but would it make any difference? Would the Lithuanian POWs become any less naked after that? //Halibutt 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP is not the place for variuos storeman ideas this is encyclopedia. M.K. (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also not a random discussion forum, which you keep on forgetting about. So unless you can present concerns about information in this article, I see no need to engage in further off topic criticism of Polish right wing media.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Self published sources

What is rationale for using self-published sources as personal web page as this? Who is Andrzeja Solaka, his academic degree? How reliable is catholic (?) newspaper? Which academic degree have a ex-journalist Jacek J. Komar, how reliable is cited kiosk newspaper of his ? M.K. (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

1. The rationale is fairly simple: the article is available at his personal website for free, while the archive of the journal it was published in is not. If you feel that it's bad - let's remove the link. OTOH I'm not sure how would that make Wikipedia better, as the reference would still be there - only without a valid link. After all you don't voice any concerns with the paper version, only the fact that the article is also available through his page...
2. As to Ratajczak's article - it is used as a backup reference and two others are present. If you feel this one lies while the other two tell the truth - feel free to remove it. But again, would it make Wikipedia better?
3. As to Gazeta Wyborcza - it's the largest and most respected Polish quality newspaper, somewhere between your Lietuvos rytas and Respublika probably.
4. Finally, as to Komar's academic degree - I have no clue. He has been Gazeta Wyborcza's correspondent to the Baltic States for several years now, but how is his academic degree important? //Halibutt 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, Who is Andrzeja Solaka? his academic degree? In wikipedia should be used WP:RS not some unspecified catholic (?) newspapers M.K. (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea. From a quick google search it seems he's a Catholic publicist and author of at least two books. Do you have any problem with his article referred to in this article, or are you questioning him just for fun? //Halibutt 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I will just add that if it can be shown that his work has been criticized, we should certainly review it in more detail (as we did with Mikhail Meltyukhov, for example). But until then, he seems relatively reliable. Is any of the information he provides highly controversial, or, as Halibutt noted, are we questioning him "for fun" (or because WP:IDONTLIKE)?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WP policies are clear per [[WP:RS], that: Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sourcesSo, no your answers are not enough to clear this things. Also who is Dariusz Ratajczak? how notable he is, his academic degree? M.K. (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I continue playing your game please tell me which "major and significant minority views" does this article ommit? Or the sources you question, for that matter. //Halibutt 11:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this not about selpublished sources but rather about Polish right-wing propaganda sources, taking all the roots to Endecja and with cleary antisemitic views [9], [10] or [11]. I'm once again surprised what "reliable" sources Halibutt and Piotrus are using, no less i'm surpised that such rubbish is considered a WP:RS, and I'm raher sad, that such porpaganda is allowed in Poland (as .pl domain suggest)--Lokyz (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In the light of these issues, I will again insist on asking about reliability of the sources, particularly how non Andrzeja Solaka academic degree? Also who is Dariusz Ratajczak? how notable he is, his academic degree? If certain group of contributors thinks that WP policies WP:RS is "just for fun" I will wait untill other more wiling contributors produce necessary info, for this reason I retag the article.M.K. (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Interia.pl is a generic host, and guilt by association is not we practice on Wikipedia. What specific claims by the authors above do you find dubious or controversial, and what sources can you present that have contradictory information? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not enough to discard a source.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to go through this "you like I don't" game. Anyway, just my opinion - the source is much worse than Vilnija publications (which you didn't see, but created an article about). And I've read some really disgusting "patriotic" thoughts by the author we're discussing now. But well, if such tone of the articles fits you - de gustibus non disputandum, i do not intend to balance on the verge of WP:LIVING and create an article to destroy image of author not known, and about whom no one has a clue about, but does not like his writings.--Lokyz (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lokyz, but then again, what's your problem with this article? Is it not balanced? Or is it POVed in any way? Or are there contradicting sources while the article in question mentions only one side? Specific concerns are much easier to explaiexplain. Otherwise we're always left with "you and me" dispute, which leads nowhere. //Halibutt 03:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it. Experienced contributors are trying to defend the use of self-published sources at free-hosting web-sites or otherwise non-scholarly sources whose authors credentials cannot be established. Please get serious. --Irpen 03:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The source was published on paper, the on-line version is just for simplicity's sake. If I pointed the reference to a paper version only (without the link) you wouldn't have a chance to check it. That way you do - but if that's a problem - remove the link (but don't remove the reference itself, as it's a valid paper-version article in an established journal (not that I read it often, but still). //Halibutt 10:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing

It is simple to resolve the issue of usability of the newspaper as well as any sort of web-sites as Wikipedia sources. We should simply look whether the author or the source (one of the two is enough) has any scholarly standing to publish history works.

Reputable newspapers are reliable sources but when used in article about current events. This does not put them on equal footing with reputable academic sources, such as peer-reviewed publications or history books published by reputable academic publishers, as far as historic topics are concerned.

What makes a reputable newspaper, is the fact checking mechanism. But fact checking applies to facts obtained by the journalist directly or through his sources. The whole concept of "fact checking", in the context of regular journalism, is inapplicable when we talk about the events from the remote past as such writing is based not on the facts established by journalists who write this papers, but people long before that. Can we reasonably expects the articles on the historic subject published in a regular newspaper to be by default as much usable in an encyclopedia as the article on the current political events, published in the similar newspaper? Possibly, but not universally, since the historic research is not the field of expertise of the general press.

Non-academic publications, and especially everyday newspapers, are written not with an intent to be a source of the historic info, but the current one. Our expectations to the fact checking in newspapers applies to reporting. Current news is reporting. Their analysis is reporting. Writing about something that happened long ago and described by historians is not reporting but a history science.

Are we talking about the work written by a historian or a journalist (who may as well be a historian but may be not)? The author may be an otherwise established historian. This would of course matter. But if the journalist decided to try himself in a history science he has to go the same path as when an engineer does it, submit his work to a peer-reviewed journal. This is where the reputation is established. Once it is established, even the academic's personal web-site is an OK source.

If the newspaper article devoted to history is written by an otherwise established author, it is usable. If, however, it is written by we do not who, we can't use it. If that not known person got his work through a peer-review scrutiny, it is fine. If we know nothing about the author, the source is of the publicist nature and the subject is history, we cannot allow this to an encyclopedia.

Scholarly sources includes peer-reviewed journals, books published by academic publishers or by the university presses. If, , the author who is otherwise established in academia publishes the article in a normally non-academic source, web-site or newspaper, this would also be acceptable.

What is non-acceptable is non-academic publications authored by people with no confirmed credentials. --Irpen 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While I can agree with some of the above comments - and would very much like to see this issue fleshed out once and for all in WP:RS - there is another argument to consider. When there are very few sources on certain historical event, we are often faced with a choice of using less reliable sources for some details. Now, if those details are controversial, I would be leaning to not including them. But if the details in question are not controversial (or contradictory to some other sources), I don't see any harm in using such sources. Of course it is all a gray line, but I prefer to have a more comprehensive article than less. Consider, also, that we have tons of uncontroversial content (and some controversial) that's unreferenced and generates little discussion. Should be remove some harmless and likely correct info because it's better referenced than 90% of Wikipedia, and because it's falls in the gray line of WP:RS (I repeat, gray, because the source does not seem to clearly contradict WP:RS)? Again, I'd think not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the two disputed sources here meets the reliable sources criteria or fall into a gray area; sites hosted by free services (such as interia.pl) are specifically disparaged, with specific exceptions noted - articles about themselves. Geocities as a reference, for example, has a long history of editors defending its use, which have all been denied. And marginal publications such as Myśl Polska don't meet that page's definition of mainstream publications with reputations for fact-checking. Novickas (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So, the assumption is that sources published on web-pages not allowing free hosting are reliable, while sources published on pages allowing it are unreliable, right? Strange, really, but what can we do... Anyway, I'm tempted to ask you to find a better reference for the removed numbers yourself. Or any of the guys who wanted it to disappear - why won't you make the effort and repair it? :) //Halibutt 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Novickas, it's not the first time you misunderstood RS policy. If you want, we can ask on RSN. Again.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox refs

My mistake to have removed the reliable source along with the others. However the infobox needs references now. Novickas (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I could have attributed the info, but since you prefer to remove the ref altogether - fine. We could safely remove the numbers altogether, as they are all unreferenced (except for the "at least 60" mention in the "PSZ"). Who cares they seem right...

That's how this play ends: there's no way I could find more references than I did. Since the reference removed was used SOLELY to back the numbers up, we should remove the numbers as well now. By removing the reference on some strange grounds ("I don't have anything to say about the article, but some Israeli site mentioned that similar article was bad") instead of making the wiki better - we made it worse. //Halibutt 16:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, be more optimistic: the play motivated us to find even more reliable sources and use them to reference the article :) All numbers in the infobox are now referenced, although I have one question - see #Lithuanian units.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

The only source, which I managed to retrieved on numbers of killed and captured, is Zizas publication, quoted in this article already, is ~150 killed on VR side, however this number represents total kills of variuos campaigns carried out in May battles. Will look for additional details, maybe missed them. M.K. (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As my university has more books on semi-forgotten Polish history than stuff like organizations (sigh...) I should be able to look through several sources relatively soon, maybe they have the relevant number. Out of curiosity, wasn't there any Lithuanian work on LVR we could cite?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It might help to get involvement from some kind of Lithuanian wikiproject - but I've seen ethnic conflicts played out on the wiki before, and I've found them very disheartening. A spirit of enlightenment and cooperation would be needed. Anyway, just dropping by - a lot of this article has just moved from the LVR page, which means the LVR page really could do with shortening, with relevant info moved here. Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

LVR page indeed needs improvement; I have started to work on it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers now referenced with a reliable work (by Henryk Piskunowicz and published by Polish Academy of Sciences).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of numbers: assuming that the four companies mentioned by Piskunowicz were of equal strength and formed the entirety of the 301st, L. forces in MO were ~375 soldiers (since each LVR battalion was ~750 strong and thus the companies approx. 190 strong). For the record, Polish 5 brigades had a combined strength of 600 soldiers; assuming equal strength that's 125 soldiers per brigade. Three (3rd, 8th and 12th) assaulted MO (that gives equal strength to each side), one (13th) assaulted Tołminowo (that's 125 Poles to 190 Lithuanians) and the 9th brigade was tasked with delaying actions against the Germans.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanian units

Henryk Piaskunowicz in his relatively detailed account of that battle writes nothing about the 308th battalion. He notes that three unspecified battalions of LVR were in the region - he refers to the "Ashmena" battle group, which also had small elements of Lithuanian military police and (based on the units he mentions on the following pages the three battalions in question were probably the 301st, 308th and 310th). On the eve of the battle two (1st and 2nd) companies of 301st were in Murowana Oszmianka, 3rd was in Tołminowo and 4th was in Michałkowo/Nowosiółki.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Henryk Piaskunowicz in his publication Armia Krajowa na Wileńszczyźnie in Rozwój organizacyjny Armii Krajowej (Krzysztof Komorowski, ed.) from 1996 (so published a year earlier than the cited work 1997) gives Tołminowo as the location of the 1st company and MO as that of the 2nd. He gives much less detail there (one para instead of two pages), so I think it is safe to assume his latter, more detailed work from 1997 is more correct. Nonetheless I thought this contradiction should be noted, if we find any other sources with similar claims.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Banasikowski has the most detailed account - he was a member of the resistance and participated in the battle. He does not give details on which Lithuanian units were there, but notes 4 companies in MO and 2 in T.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers again

Judging from this [12] edit a number of captives and killed are actually combined from two different locations, am I right? M.K. (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Action at Tołminowo is treated as a part of action at MO. The sources provide a breakdown between the two, as the text of the article makes clear.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite contrary, there was no "Murowana Oszmianka campaign". Zizas quite clear notes that there were different battles. And this is article on MO battle not about T. of course those event can be mentioned in text, but box numbers should represent specific battle not a sum of different battles. M.K. (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC) P.s. and that about numbers of forces are those also sum of participants on different battles, rather then this specific one?

Just look at infobox, place parameter.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then it should clearly be stated and near numbers that those taken from two battles, M.K. (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Murowana Oszmianka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. I have also given the article a thorough copyedit. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)

• "the Germans decided to transfer" - Clarify which Germans; the German government of Lithuania? the Wehrmacht? who?

• The sources were not clear on that, I am afraid. The order was presumably given by the superiors of the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force; how high in the c-o-c it originated is not covered by the sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I cahnged this to German authorities since it is not clear exactly which authority was responsible.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the towns of Oszmiany" - Oszmiany is only one town, either add more or lose the plural

• Presumed typo fixed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The Lithuanian troops, however, satisfied by their perceived superiority, started pacifying the local Polish communities suspected of harboring the partisans" - Firstly clarify the percieved superiority; are we talking in terms of numbers, weapons, morale, arrogance, what? Secondly, "pacify" is a word with more than one meaning. Try to be more specific about what their intentions were, if you mean intimidate or attack then say so.

• I am afraid I don't have the refs with me to look it up in detail, but as far as I remember, the perceived superiority was both numerical and in armament. Pacification refers to both intimidation and occasional killings.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is what pacification means in this context, you either need to link it to a relevant article or wikitionary page, or explain the meaning in this article itself. Pacification is a word with several related meanings and it should be clearer in what sense it is meant when used here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it to "suppressing" which should be less confusing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The detailed plan needs to a) if it is a quote it must be properly identified as such - see if there is a nice box that goes around it. b) If it is not a quote then it is in the wrong tense. This is a big problem, and as I cannot read the sources I cannot properly advise what solution to use. Having said that, my advice would be that if it is not a quote then it should be a paragraph of prose instead.

• The detailed plan, from Banasikowski, is a direct translation from his work. He doesn't clarify if its a quote of some document or not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it formatted in this way in Banasikowski? Since it is a direct quote, you have to make that much more clear, perhaps as I mentioned with a box or quote marks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is formatted that way in Banaskikowski. Do you mean Template:Cquote? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Is this text from a primary source or from Banaskikowski's historical secondary source? I think it would help if the article stated explicitly where the text comes from and seperated it from the text around it in someway (either a box or cquotes or similar). As it is it looks a little odd as it is not clear that this is a quote from somewhere.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please address this by the end of the week or I will have to fail the nomination. I need you to either a) break the list up into text using your own words to describe the objectives or b) format it exactly as in the sources and make it very clear that it is a direct quote, preferably with the use of a box or similar. Thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, the above hasn't happened and although I don't think this article is far off from GA, I also don't think it is there yet, sorry. Look at the comments above and try to make improvements in the article's comprehensivveness and most importantly in its style, especially when it comes to quotes.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

• Any chance of an image? Some were mentioned above as possibilities. If not, even a map showing the 1944 Polish-Lithuanian border region might help give the article a little more context for people like myself unfamiliar with the place or event.

• There was no PL border, as the territories belonged to Reichskommissariat Ostland. As you can see, we don't have any detailed maps for that article, unfortunately. If I ever find a relevant image, I'll do my best to add it to the article(s) here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Attributing and WP:WEASEL

One user is continuosly removing atribution to the sources, and is calling them weasel'ising. I'm convinced, that this article is one-sided for now, meaning it is based on Polish sources only. Therefore attibuting would only make it more WP:NPOV.--Lokyz (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do blow a whistle on POV

Starange enough the seemingly Polish victory is supported only by memoirs of the glorious AK members.--Lokyz (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Victory is supported by reliable historians like Piotrowski or Piskunowicz. That is it also confirmed by the memoirs is hardly surprising. I wonder if any of the Nazi auxiliaries Lithuanian policemen had written and published their memoirs? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrowski is sociologist, not a historian, Piskuniwicz is AK veteran. Both of them, and all the other sources are Polish I do not find it to be neutral in any way especially after User:Piotrus has removed any mentioning of that[13]. Also feel free to answer the question on the other article, tuo did fail to answer earlier.--Lokyz (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Both these authors are considered as Reliable Sources. Their nationality or ethnicity is irrelevant. If you don't like it, take it up on RS Noticeboard [14]. This article was checked for neutrality by outside editors. It was declared neutral. Hence your POV tag is spurious and against consensus. Please remove it.radek (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant, since the whole section of references does provide only one side POV, that even contradicts with timeline of documented events.--Lokyz (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have other RELIABLE sources then please add them. But the fact that a reliable source does not agree with your own POV does not make that source, or the article, POV.radek (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do. Is Bubnys reliable enough?--Lokyz (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Piskunowicz is an AK veteran? Do you have a source for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, he finished his PhD in the 1980's and some people DO take a long time with their graduate studies so I guess it's possible...radek (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe one could write a stub on Piskunowicz? Just for clarification.--Lokyz (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So, in other words, you were just pulling the "Piskunowicz is a AK veteran" out of thin air? Bluffing? Or is there a source?radek (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put your words into my mouth (or keyboard). It is not polite and also incivil. I did just suggest to clarify the matter.--Lokyz (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Third comment, this section, first sentence, third part after the second comma.radek (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to this: So, in other words, you were just pulling the "Piskunowicz is a AK veteran" out of thin air? Bluffing?. Strange enough, one is ignoring a suggestion to clarify the matter by himself and goes into mockery. Per WP:NOT#CHAT I will leave you to find the appropriate reliable sources.--Lokyz (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- Lokyz, you asserted with a lot of confidence that Piskunowicz was an AK veteran, in an attempt to discredit him as a source (not that it would...) and claim he was POV. At the same time you had no evidence on this (because it's very unlikely, seeing as how he got his PhD in the 80's). It's hard to interpret this kind of discussion as one being carried out in GOOD FAITH. But fine, I'll just chalk it up as an absent minded mistake on your part.radek (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And this was a Personal attack alltogether with bad faith. BTW, could you explain how being veteran of AK is discreditable? Do you have any bad thoughts about Polish national heroes?--Lokyz (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Act I

Lokyz: "Piskuniwicz is AK veteran"

Me: "(So) you were just pulling the "Piskunowicz is a AK veteran" out of thin air?"

Lokyz: "Please do not put your words into my mouth"

Act II

Me: "(not that it would...)".

Lokyz: "could you explain how being veteran of AK is discreditable? Do you have any bad thoughts about Polish national heroes?"

I feel like I'm in a Ionesco play.radek (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A rather strange way to answer the direct question (about feelings and the possibility of the stub, to be precise).--Lokyz (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talking about stubs, when will we get long-requested stubs on Lithuanian scholars like Stanislovas Buchaveckas, Rimantas Zizas, Tadas Galinis, Juozas Lebionka and others? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it mandatory?--Lokyz (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusing

Why does the German reference (currently #14): Die polnische Heimatarmee: Geschichte und Mythos der Armia Krajowa seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg(History and Myth of the AK in the Second World War). Munich: Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt; Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. pp. 630-631. ISBN 3486567152. http://books.google.com/books?id=A4FlatJCro4C&pg=PA166&vq=Murowana&dq=1939+Soviet+citizenship+Poland&source=gbs_search_s&sig=EJD5X62pH3DXOMvJrfvqj7lIeys. Retrieved on 2008-03-18., link up to a book by Piotrowski? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.radek (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Generalbezirk Litauen

Could anyoune provide the map of the forementioned Nazi formation? Since thereis a lot of mis-attribution by some ediors who do not grasp the context of Polish annexion, Soviet collaboration with Nazis (or vice versa) and mixing the (several) timelines. I'd thank anyone for being not biased.--Lokyz (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Reichskommissariat Ostland Administrative.png - but I don't think we have one with pre-war borders on them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not exactly a map rather schematics, but it will do.--Lokyz (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

B-class review

Confirmed for WP:POLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Murowana Oszmianka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070522074304/http://www.knss.uksw.edu.pl/index.php?nazwa=5_1 to http://www.knss.uksw.edu.pl/index.php?nazwa=5_1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311013108/http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1%2C34234%2C2262779.html to http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1%2C34234%2C2262779.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)