Open main menu


Initial talksEdit

Poorly marked up and needs a serious dose of NPOV from knowledgeable contributor. Ortolan88

The title itself is NPOV. -- Zoe
Why? Wehave massacre in Jedwabne and nobody never complained about it. szopen. There was massacre, so why calling it massacre is NPOV?
Since there are no arguments questioning the article I am going to remove NPOV statemant. Cautious 17:11, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Massacre in Jedwabne needs work too. Both of these articles are poorly marked up and need copy editing and both of them have an appearance of advocacy or unsettled issues. I don't know much about the terrible happenings on the eastern front in World War II, but I do know there were killings by partisan groups as well as by Russian and German soldiers and I also know that partisan groups often were organized by ethnic group. And, I am pretty sure that someone with good knowledge and a firm grip on the idea of NPOV could improve both these articles. Ortolan88

Removed editsEdit

Ghirlandajo, why have you removed my edits again ? I'm particularly interested why this edit was removed ? --Lysy (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Because you removed my yesterday's edits without any explanation. You know that such behaviour is good only for spawning revert wars, and that's probably your intention when you make such outrageous edits as this one. Until you grow up and learn to edit properly, such edits will be promptly removed. Also, please stop adding Polish links and find some links in other languages, preferrably English, per my previous request. Otherwise, I'll have to remove your Polish links on the basis of Wikipedia:Links. I hope that you don't want to meet the New Year in pointless revert wars. --Ghirla | talk 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
All right, I'm afraid your response only confirms that you're reverting without checking the contents first only for the sake of revert warring. Now, since you have chaged "soviet partisans" into "Lithuanian and Jewish partisans", as if their ethnic origin was important, I'm going to add missing information about Russians among them and hope you will not remove it. By the way, all the sources mention only Jewish and Russian partisans in these units. Where did you get the information about Lithuanians from ? --Lysy (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Soviet partisansEdit

Another question that I have is why are you removing all the references to the fact that the attackers were Soviet partisans ? --Lysy (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I haven't seen a single English-language ref that there were Russian partisans near Vilnius. How would they get there, I'd like to know. Seems like a typical Polish nationalist mythology. I'll revert until the reputable sources are provided. --Ghirla | talk 17:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, the article has its references, it's enough to check them instead of reverting my edits, e.g. this one is in English and in the first sentence mentions that these were soviet partisans. On the other hand, if we admit Russian language sources in other articles, then what is wrong with Polish ? If you cannot read Polish and do not trust me, then you can always ask someone else to verify it for you. Not all the topics of Eastern Europe are adequately covered by English language literature, I'm sure you know this. --Lysy (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, that we have this explained, can you undo your revert, please ? --Lysy (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


BTW, Ghirlandajo, are you aware that with these reverts: [1], [2], [3], [4] you are over your daily revert threshold again. It's really more productive to discuss as above than fight so desperately. You are asking me to "do something more productive", yet you're reverting dozens of my edits without even bothering to check them. Maybe you could take a look as this recent version of mine as explain what was wrong there ? --Lysy (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent editsEdit

I have introduced several edits to the article today. The rationale is explained in respecive edit summaries. Please discuss here first if something bother you instead of reverting all of the edits without examining them again. --Lysy (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Renamed ?Edit

I see the article was moved to Koniuchy Incident. Was there any consensus to rename it ? --Lysy (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it back. As this rename obviously is controversial, please use WP:RM if you want to move it to another name. --Lysy (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested moveEdit


User:Ghirlandajo insists on renaming the article into "Koniuchy Incident". Since he is reluctant to discuss it, I've started a WP:RM for him and hope the consensus will be reached either to move the article or to keep the original name. --Lysy (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No consensus to move, the article was removed from WP:RM. --Lysy (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. Killings of several dozen people by forest bandits under obscure circumstances is hardly a massacre. --Ghirla | talk 13:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (the rest of Ghirla's discussion moved to the #Discussion subsection below, --Lysy (talk))
  • Support. Should be incident, not massacre. KNewman 15:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is known as "Koniuchy massacre". "Incident" is only Ghirlandajo's invention here. Google has over 500 hits for "Koniuchy massacre" and no hit for "Koniuchy incident". --Lysy (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lysy--SylwiaS | talk 16:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Maybe incident as a descriptive name cannot be so widespread, but massacre is a POV term and should be used only in exceptional cases of the udoubted and large scale mass-killings. --Irpen 21:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposee-Killing aimed at destruction of whole village, including defencless women and children fills the criteria of massacre. --Molobo 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, based on WP's explanations of Mass murder and Massacre. Olessi 00:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have never heard of this, but reading the article now about what happened, it sounds preposterous (and insulting to the memory of the victims) to call this a mere "incident". Gryffindor 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lysy, Molobo, and Olessi. Appleseed (Talk) 02:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lysy et al. Really, those 'rewrite history by changing name' attempts are kind of silly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments
  • Unfortunately, the Polish editors have an annoying tendency to call every group execution of ethnic Poles a "massacre". This inflammatory term caused countless edit wars in the past, and will cause in the future. I'm not the first to point out that the term is highly charged with POV; read the comments above. Khatyn in Belarus was a real massacre, and we still don't have an article on this. P.S. What the heck its name in Lithuanian, Belarusian, Russian is? I can't find any refs to this occurrence outside this wikipedia. --Ghirla | talk 13:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    Murdering civilians can hardly be called an execution. I also do not appreciate the nationalistic flavour of your comment ("the Polish editors have an annoying tendency").
    To P.S.: I have added the Lithuanian name to the article, you have just removed it and now you're asking what is the Lithuanian name :-) ? Have you actually read my edits before reverting them ? --Lysy (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Listing prematurely removed from WP:RM is restored until we get some statistically significant sampling to determine an outcome. This has nothing to do with the holidays. Whoever closed the vote prematurely simply haven't read the WP:RM policy which calls for a standard minimum 5 days voting with possible extentions if necessary to determine consensus.
    Quote: Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged.
--Irpen 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
To boldfacing in the quote above by Lysy, please note that "or earlier" is related to "moves may be implemented". That is moves can be made swiftly if there is enough evidence to determine the consensus and not to close the voting for the lack of it. --Irpen 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was you who said above: policy which calls for a standard minimum 5 days voting, and now you're saying that the policy is related to "moves may be implemented". So what is it related to, eventually ? --Lysy (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't get the question. But to rephrase your own message you left at my talk, are you eager to close the vote because you prefer the current name? --Irpen 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
All right, what I meant was that in one sentence you call the policy to support your reopening the closed vote, and in the next sentence you explain, that the same policy does not refer to voting but only to implementation of the article move instead. This seems a little schizophrenic, therefore I've asked you to explain. --Lysy (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your complements and they evidently don't need a response. As for the argument itself, the policy issue is formulated at the 3-rd paragraph of the WP:RM page. If you and I read it differently because I am a "little schizophrenic", let's wait and see how others see the issue. I don't want to repeat what's already said and don't want to respond to the personal insult. Do you insist on the continued debate on the closure? If not, please turn to the issue itslef. --Irpen 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I certainly did not intend to insult you. I somehow hoped you'd explain your rationale, but since you're obviously evading this, I'm happy not to continue this issue any more. I'd like to encourage you to address the issues I've bulleted below, instead. --Lysy (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why "massacre" would be seen as an "inflammatory term" ? It simply means mass killing of civilians or POWs. Murdering a village at night seems to perfectly match the term. What is wrong with this name ? --Lysy (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Dear Lysy! You were so fast in closing the Koniuchy massacre voting that it's not even funny. Please, keep in mind that this renaming issue will continue despite this whole no-consensus farse of yours. Sometimes voting takes weeks on certain issues, you should know better than that. It was very convenient to close the voting knowing that there is a 10-day holiday in Russia right now and there's no one here to cast their votes :). Try to avoid doing things like this in the future. KNewman 19:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. It was not me, who closed the vote. Check this edit.
    2. I don't see what holiday is Russia would have to do with this vote. Koniuchy is not in Russia, is it ? --Lysy (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not for us to abitrarily invent new names for this event. It is known as "Koniuchy massacre", not a single source mantions it as "Koniuchy incident" and this is not a place for original research on established names. Period. --Lysy (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There are also numerous examples of massacres involving much smaller numbers of victims. Consult the list of massacres. --Lysy (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Article not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent changesEdit

1-I fail to see what relation is Khatyn to Koniuchy ? Both are different cases unraleted to each other in terms of who comitted the atrocity and where it happened etc. They were lots of massacres during this time Khatyn doesn't seem connected to this one in any way. The wordign also misleads by saying "one of these villages" after it says that villages were destroyed by SS-while Koniuchy were destroyed by Soviets not SS, so they can't be said to be "one of those villages".

2-According to IPN they weren't Lithunian members but Russian ones [5] the records of the investigation was added an authenticated copy of a situational secret report prepared by Operational Division of the Wermacht Command Ostland prepared on February 5, 1944 in Riga. From the content of the report it results that there appeared in Koniuchy "a medium size group of Jews and Russians" ... "36 inhabitants were shot, 14 were wounded. The locality was turned into mostly charred ruins." the inhabitants of Koniuchy, in relating the details of the raid, used interchangeably the descriptors Jews and "Ruskies."

3The fact of this "massacre" has not been recognized by any government except the Polish. I think this fits OR and is in fact irrelevant as Poland conducts its own research into this. Is there any statement of any government that denies it took place ? Otherwise it seems simply POV pushing especially seen in writing the massacer in "massacre".

4. It is a fact that partisans were of different ethnic group and they should be named but they were "Soviet Partisants". --Molobo 21:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the introduction that many villages were burnt to the ground is necessary. The text should deal with this specific massacre not with other massacres. I suggest removing the whole introduction. I also think that partizans can be calles "Soviet", because that was the only thing they had in common. Definitely they cannot be called "Lithuanian", otherwise they could be confused with Lithuanian nationalists. Jasra 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The introduction seems to repeat a Soviet propaganda attempt to conceal Katyn Massacre, see here: Then, in 1969, Moscow did something strange that many believe was further calculated to confuse the issue further: it chose a small village named Khatyn as the cite for Belorussia's national war memorial. There was no apparent reason for the selection. Khatyn was one of 9,200 Belorussian villages the Germans had destroyed and one of more than a hundred where they had killed civilians in retaliation for partisan attacks. In Latin transliteration, however, Katyn and Khatyn look and sound alike, though they are spelled and pronounced quite differently in Russian and Belorussian. When President Nixon visited the USSR in July 1974, he toured the Khatyn memorial at his hosts' insistence. Sensing that the Soviets were exploiting the visit for propaganda purposes, The New York Times headlined its coverage of the tour: "Nixon Sees Khatyn, a Soviet Memorial, Not Katyn Forest." (The Times probably got it right. During the Vietnam war, the Soviets frequently took visiting US peace activists to Khatyn.) --Molobo 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the involved parties to talk here instead of engaging in the revert war.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. So what shall be done with the introduction. The introduction:

During World War II, thousands of villages in Russia and other Eastern European countries were burned to the ground and their inhabitants slaughtered. Khatyn, not to be confused with the Katyn Massacre murder of Polish officers, by the NKVD, which is probably the most famous such event with a similar name. does not contain the definition.

My proposal is:

One of many massacres taking place during the World War II. The Koniuchy massacre was carried out on the inhabitants of the village with the same name

Of course maybe the language should be improved (inflicted - intead of carried out?).

I do not think there is any good reason to mention Khatyn or Katyn in this place, but if someone considers it absolutely necessary it should be put at the end of the article rather than at the beginning. Jasra 13:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we can safely deleted the intro-the source I provided shows that there is heavy involvment of Soviet authorities to present Khatyn as significant while in fact it wasn't anything out of ordinary. The reasons for this are considered suscpicious. Also the village has nothing to do with Koniuchy. It seems like attempt of POV pushing of reader towards another unconnected massacre. --Molobo 17:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I see again that you apply different standards when the victims were non-Poles. " there is heavy involvment of Soviet authorities to present Khatyn as significant while in fact it wasn't anything out of ordinary" is an extremely insensitive and horrific remark on your part. "Ordinrary"? I am saddened that the Polish community doesn't deal with such behavior of yours despite my repeated calls. Perhaps, some find comfort in using you as a loose cannon to advance some agenda. I hope not and this is just lack of oversight. Initially, I couldn't even beleive what I was reading was really written by a person from a country that had its share of suffering from the Nazi rule and a huge one. --Irpen 19:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I touched your delicate nerves but nobody denies such massacres but they are unconnected to each other and there is no reason here to bring another unrelated event to this article. As to ordinary, yes Khatyn was one of thousands of villages destroyed by German forces in WW2. An article on it is fine but I don't see in what special way it connects to Koniuch, different killers, different issue. I think you are overreacting. --Molobo 20:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Molobo, I see again that you apply different standards when the victims were non-Poles. Am I trying to delete Khatyn article or even writing something in it ? No. But here is an article about Koniuchy not Khatyn. --Molobo 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Molobo's behaviour may be classified as a sample of Holocaust Denial. I don't think the wikicommunity should tolerate such a severe trolling. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your rational and objective comments are as always welcomed Ghirla :) --Molobo 20:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The nameEdit

Note please that the village was in the Lithuanian Territory of Ostland Reichkomisariat at the time of the massacre, not Poland as Molobo had declared in a commentary to his previous edit. In the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia; as well probably Belarus as it was also in the Ostland) during the nazi rule the German names were used for major cities (where German names existed) and local names were used as official for all the smaller towns and villages, depending on in which territory they were. Thus, the official name was Kaniūkai (or, without diacritics Kaniukai, as the Germans does not use such diacrtitics). I checked some historical maps - the town was part of the Lithuanian SSR in 1940-1941 as well and a part of the Republic of Lithuania prior to its annexation into the Soviet Union. Thus, I am correcting some things in the article. I am not going to rename the article however as it seems that "Koniuchy massacre" gets somewhat more hits on google than does "Kaniukai massacre". As for the ethnicity of the partisans, Russians and (to a smaller extent) Jews made the bulk of them, but there most likely were Belarusians and Poles as well (information I have states Russians, Jews and some Poles as well). In general, in this particular area these were the nationalities that made the majority in perhaps all Soviet partisan units as well. I don't have great sources right now however so I am not correcting that for now. Similarly, I would like to note that English language and the standart of the article is bellow the Wikipedia standards, I hope someone who knows more about the subject will improve it. Burann 16:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


All Polish sources claim this was Polish village. E.g few villagers fought in the ranks of AK according to memories of

Tadeusz Truszkowski ps. "Sztremer" commander of V batalionu 77 p.p. AK

The names of the victims: 1. Bandalewicz Stanisław ok. 45 lat 2.Bandalewicz Józef 54 lata . 3. Bandalewiczowa Stefania ok. 48 lat 4. Bandalewicz Mieczysław 9 lat 5. Bandalewicz Zygmunt 8 lat 6. Bobin Antoni ok. 20 lat 7.Bobinowa Wiktoria ok.45 lat 8. Bobin Józef ok. 50 lat 9. Bobin Marian 16 lat 10.Bobinówna Jadwiga ok. 10 lat 11.Bogdan Edward ok. 35 lat 12.Jankowska Stanisława 13.Jankowski Stanisław 14.Łaszakiewicz Józefa 15.Łaszakiewiczówna Genowefa 16.Łaszakiewiczówna Janina 17.Łaszakiewiczówna Anna 18.Marcinkiewicz Wincenty ok. 63 lat 19.Marcinkiewiczowa N. (sparaliżowana, spaliła się) 20.Molis Stanisław ok. 30 lat 21.Molisowa N. ok. 30 lat 22.Molisówna N. ok. 1,5 roku 23.Pilżys Kazimierz 24.Pilżysowa N. 25.Pilżysówna Gienia 26.Pilżysówna Teresa 27.Parwicka Urszula ok. 50 lat 28.Parwicki Józef lat 25 29.Rouba Michał 30.Tubin Iwaśka (?)ok. 45 lat 31.Tubin Jan ok. 30 lat 32.Tubinówna Marysia lat około 4 33.Wojsznis Ignacy ok. 35 lat 34.Wojtkiewicz Zofia ok. 40 lat 35.Woronisowa Anna 40 lat 36.Woronis Marian 15 lat 37.Woronisówna Walentyna 20 lat 38. Ściepura N. - krawiec z miejscowości Mikonty.

In Polish links I could find the info that Poles were 80% of population of the village. What's more, the memories of the villagers (e.g Stanislawa Woronis, Jozef Bandalewicz) are in Polish. Edward Tubin, one of the villagers, even said that all villagers were Polish and around there were only Polish villages:

Kolejny świadek Edward Tubin, wówczas 13-letni mieszkaniec wsi (obecnie zamieszkały w Kanadzie), w wywiadzie udzielonym A. Kumorowi (w maju 2001 r.)   
"A.K.: Koniuchy należały do Polski przed wojną, czy to była całkiem polska wieś?
E.T.: Polska wieś, wszyscy byli Polacy, żadnego tam nie było jakiegoś Ruskiego, nikogo tam nie było innego. Tam dookoła nas wszystkie wsie to byli  
Polacy. (...)" 

Szopen 14:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, I was confused by similar fate of another village - Bakaloriskes, which was Lithuanian inhabited. Sigitas 14:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You do seem to play fast and loose with the facts. Apparently there was no Jewish partisan named Jacob Penner. The correct reference is probably to the partisan commander Yaakov Prener.

Poor and not-wikipedian articleEdit

This article is totally to re-write as it is extremely POV. Statements like Many Russian sources try to minimize the significance of this crime by stating that during World War II, thousands of villages in Russia and other Eastern European countries were burned to the ground and their inhabitants slaughtered. By doing so, they want to remove the uniqueness of this horrible crime and bury it in the general mayhem and killing of the eastern front. In Poland and Lithuania, the Koniuchy massacre is treated as one of the many examples of communist crimes against humanity. can't find place on Wikipedia. (Bagiddo 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

To correct all that kind of stuff you would have to go through every article dealing with any person, place or event from any territory that has been forcibly occupied over the last several millennia, and any person, dead or alive, who is in the least bit controversial. I am doing my best to help out, but I don't want to try to edit this one because I am not Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, Jewish or Belarussian and thus don't understand the mixture of sensitivities involved. Furthermore no-one remains to stick up for the partisans involved or is interested in putting across the viewpoint of the USSR, so articles like these are probably best left as semi-POV. Lstanley1979 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The article reads like run-of-the-mill Polish national martyrology, not encyclopedic. The English is atrocious. There is no evidence to support the event even happened. IPN appears as an acronym before it is named, and the links to this organization shows their investigation into the "massacre" was carried out by press release (it really says that) and deposing former Polish Home Army partisans living in Canada. Again, none of this possibly semi-valid information is included. The link in the reference section to the Lithuanian article by Zizas is even more interesting. The article says Kaniukai was a Lithuanian village with a small number of Poles as well. The surnames in this article are Lithuanian (or Lithuanianized). It says the initial police reports by the Lithuanian officials called to the scene claim the village was attacked by Russians, Jews and Poles. An expedition to take revenge in a Polish village nearby never came off because cooler heads prevailed, the article says. It also mentions that the village was mentioned in memoirs by at least a few Jewish partisans who are presumably now dead and were never published in English. That is the best evidence so far that Jewish partisans were even involved, the wiki entry fails to establish that at all. As far as calling it a massacre, the Lithuanian article says Lithuanian police reports show a history of armed conflict between this village and the partisans in Rudniki Forest. The Jewish partisans cited in the Lithuanian article claim these villagers ambushed and attacked them repeatedly. The Lithuanian article surveys contemporary press reports and sources and puts the figure of those killed between 30 and 35. Additionally, it gives reports that one Soviet partisan was killed. The Soviet partisans called it a Nazi village and claimed to have killed at least two Lithuanian auxilliary police there. Another thing: the village was located inside the post-World War I borders of the Republic of Lithuania but was part of the territory claimed and occupied by Poland until 1940, when Stalin handed it back to Lithuania. The Nazis in Lithuania later annexed a portion of Belarusian territory in the region to Lithuania. The borders were readjusted after WWII in Belarus's favor within the Soviet Union but the village still seems to be just inside the Lithuanian border. Lida is not. Eisiskes (Eyshishok) is mentioned in the Lithuanian article as significant in the story, a town almost completely Jewish and completely murdered by Nazis and Lithuanians.

If the article in its present form can't be improved by the hotheads watching it, I think it should be deleted as hearsay and ethnic lambast. At least two of the links in references are broken as well. (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The German article quotes original reports. Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Small village, not a townEdit

English language sources ignore elementary data. the town had organized an armed group to fight the partisans - civilians in the region were robbed by several partizan units, so they had to defend themselves, certainly not fighting the partizans outside the village with few obsolete guns, if any. Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koniuchy massacre. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

POV tagEdit

In modern Polish historiography (which led to the politically appointed IPN investigating post 2001) - this incident is viewed as a massacre of helpless Polish civilians, emphasizing the role of Jews. However Soviet and Jewish accounts this is described in completely different terms - a raid against a village collaborating with the Nazies, hostile to the partisans, that was armed.[6][7][8] Our article at present is a one-sided modern Polish narrative which fails to present the opposing view of events.

See for instance this coverage of the modern historiography - Nazi Hunter: Lithuania Hunts Ex-partisans, Lets War Criminals Roam Free, Haaretz, 2008. The Lithuanian partisans, who operated under the aegis of the Central Partisan Command of the Soviet Union, had information that there was a German garrison in the village. After the fact, it turned out that the Germans had abandoned the place. In the battle that ensued, 38 villagers were killed, including women and children. In independent Lithuania, with a tendency to rewrite history after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, they describe this attack as a "massacre," and a special prosecutor opened an investigation..Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
More coverage of the modern "investigation" - LITHUANIA ASKS PARTISANS TO ‘JUSTIFY’ THEIR ACTIONS.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
More - Tensions Mount Over Lithuanian Probe. Given that only three Lithuanians have ever been tried for wartime crimes against Jews — nearly 200,000 of whom were murdered — the ongoing investigation of Jews has not gone over well outside Lithuania. There had been rumblings before Kirkilas’s trip that the probes may be dropped, but the prime minister’s visit with Jewish communal officials only heightened tensions..Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Additional - [9] [10].Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I may well support your case and I'm going to ask you to ease up on generalizing phrases such as "Our article at present is a one-sided modern Polish narrative." There is no such thing as a single modern narrative from any country in the world. Just look at 'modern Israel' - or 'modern America' for that matter. There are as many narratives as there are people. Poland is the same as Israel and America in that way. We must not stereotype entire countries with broad brush-strokes. That's the non-prejudicial attitude Wikipedia policy and guidelines ask us to conduct ourselves with. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize, indeed I was over-simplistic in the use of "modern Polish narrative" (which obviously also includes voices such as Bikont or expats such as Gross) - erring with the use of a stereotype. I meant - "modern, post-communist, nationalistic narrative advanced by some modern Polish sources" - obviously not all Poles agree with this. I do think it is important to note that this is a very modern narrative that is in some senses reactionary or reactive (in attempting to build an ethos of victimhood in relation to other groups).Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

John ZeleznikowEdit

I have removed Zeleznikov. He is not a historian but "the Head of the Laboratory of Decision Support and Dispute Management, School of Management and Information Systems at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia.". Also it seems his father was one part of the partisants in the regionJohn Zeleznikow was born of Polish/Jewish parents. His father Avram was living in Vilna, Poland when the German army invaded in 1941. He was incarcerated in the Vilna ghetto and remained there until 1943 when he made his perilous escape through the sewers to the neighbouring forests. He joined the partisans and fought with them until his liberation in 1944.

This doesn't seem like a neutral or reliable source on the subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

As per above "Over the past 20 years, Professor Zeleznikow has focussed on how artificial Intelligence can be used to enhance decision-making. Specific examples have been created in the domains of law, negotiation and sport. His research findings have been utilised by law and mediation firms, Victoria Legal aid, Relationships Australia Queensland, Victorian Institute of Sport, Australian Institute of Sport and Relationships Australia Victoria" --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This was published in the peer reviewed Holocaust Studies - by an author with a multidisciplinary background (including conflict management). The peer reviewed Holocaust Studies is obviously preferable to the a PRIMARY report by the IPN, an institution set up to prosecuted alleged communist crimes which definitely has an agenda - this is beyond NOENG which has us preferring English language sources.Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, the argument that Zeleznikov has a background in AI and decision making is irrelevant - we routinely use journal papers by students and recent graduates. Zeleznikov additional publications in additional fields is not a drawback. Regarding his father being a partisan - that's not grounds for precluding - if it were - we would have to remove just about any Polish or Lithuanian source based on the parents of the authors being involved in WWII in various capacities. What is highly relevant - is the venue of publication - Holocaust Studies - which is a highly esteemed peer review journal.Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
As WP:BIASED says, reliability is always in context. Sometimes partisan sources are the only ones available which discuss such matters. We can add content from Zeleznikov with proper attribution. He is notable enough.--יניב הורון (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


As we are trying to strive for high level sourcing, I've made the following changes -

  • IPN dispatch - this is PRIMARY. The releasing agency is a political prosecution agency, and in this case its activities have been described as "contemptible farce". Not required in any event as we have better English sources for the same information - so WP:NOENG applies as well.
  • Bogdan Musial in the lede - non-English, from a questionable author in regards to Jews (and Soviets) - per The Dark Return of Polish Anti-Semitism. These books were widely criticized in peer reviewed publications regarding their accuracy and interpertition - and were being used to source a trivial detail about livestock (for some reason in the lede only).
  • Anna Kraus (phd student) in website - not a peer reviewed publication, not in English, not by a expert. Very borderline for use at all - and should be excluded as we have better sources. The sentence it was sourcing did not make sense in relation to the situation in 1944 - possible misrepresentation of Kraus.

Please discuss here.Icewhiz (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent editEdit

I've reverted this recent editing string that removed a number of high quality academic references. Please discuss here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Blind revertEdit

Re [11]

First, the edit summary is false. It wasn't a IJDL revert, I provided rationales for all the changes. All of which were reverted en masse without even an attempt to address them.

Second, Icewhiz's revert remove well sourced info (first para in the diff) In particular it removes the fact that the massacre was documented by one of the participants, which is obviously important.

Third, it includes unencyclopedic language and ridiculous generalizations such as "it was seen in the West" or "Most of the world". Most of the world? What, did someone take a global poll or something? This is a function of either using junk sources, or in the other case, not realizing, or pretending not to realize, that the source is being sarcastic.

Fourth, um, the wording... "the investigation was seen as (...) an attack on the heroic Soviet antifascist resistance". WTF? Is this Soviet Union 1960's or something? "Heroic Soviet antifascist resistance"? You sure it wasn't an attack on the Dear Leader too? You sure it wasn't carried out by the Rabid Scoundrels of Reaction? Or Degenerate Imperialist Swine? This text is just ridiculous.

Fifth, the text is badly formatted. Again, obvious from the diff.

Sixth, Icewhiz removes well sourced text. This is IPN, a source which he has been trying desperately to remove from everywhere, but which he has not convinced anyone about it's supposed unreliability.

Seventh, it restores text attributed to "Soviet sources". Why are we using "Soviet sources" for this?

Eight, it makes the claim "the number is not supported by other sources" and... links to a collection of primary documents [12]. This is obvious original research.

Ninth, it claims that the Lithuanian investigation was closed, but I don't see that in the source.

And a bunch of more stuff.

And this wasn't a "stable version". This was the stable version. It had problems, but it was helluva better than what Icewhiz tried to do with the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This was in here for over a month ergo stable. Removing a whole well sourced section on reception of the investigation, in an academic book, since you did not like "The rest of the world" (source - "outside world"). The "Heroic Soviet antifascist resistance" matches language in an academic book - by a Lithanian author one must note. English academic sources are preferred, per WP:NOENG to primary non-English documents by a government anti-communist lustration agecncy with serious reputation problems. And yes, this case, amidst international outcry against it, was closed in Sep 2008 - something clearly visible in the cited source in page 340 -- which was apparently not read prior to removing this bit of info that should be an uncontroversial fact (we should also note removal of this is a WP:BLP issue vs Arad who is alive). Finally WP:IJDLI is npt a rationale for removing academic coverage of this investigation in WP:IRS - which we should reflect.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any Wikipedia policy which says that if an article hasn't been changed much for exactly a month then it's "stable". Hell, I don't know of any Wikipedia policy which privileges a "stable" version in the first place. Anyway, the version before you got busy with it was stable for much longer than a month. So by your logic, please restore that version [13] since it's been "stable" for much longer.
And first, even if "Heroic Soviet antifascist resistance" matches language in a source or not doesn't matter. It's ridiculous sounding non-encyclopedic writing and obivously POV. There's two possibilities here. Either the source is garbage. Or the source is being sarcastic. And you're pretending it's not.
English academic sources blah blah blah - how many times have we been over this? One more time - you haven't convinced anyone? You're misrepresenting NOENG. IPN is a reliable source. What the hell does "anti-communist lustration agecncy" (whatever that is) have to do with the topic of this article. What is the BLP issue? You're making stuff up. None of this is IJDLI, I explained in detail the numerous problems, so please stop making stuff up and misquoting policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
As for "Soviet sources" - covered in secondary English academic sources - the Soviets were one of the two sides here (the other being the AK self defense unit in the village) - and as they are covered in a secondary manner, they should be mentioned by us - just as we mention Polish accounts present in secondary sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz- This article was stable and accepted. It was created on December 7, 2001,[14] authored by over 50 unique editors. It was last revised on August 2, 2017 [15]. Next edit was yours on March 14, 2018, it was a POV tag [16] followed by 39 highly aggressive edits that destabilized an article entirely[17]GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not "destablize" the article. I did rectify some serious BLP and NPOV issues, using high quality secondary sources (in English or mostly in English). In most of the world, per RS, this piece of memory politics was seen as a "contemptible farce" whose purpose was to derail actual investigations into Lithuanian and Polish participation in the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes you did destabilize the article I’m afraid, as per my evidence above. PS. Could you elaborate on what you mean by “Polish participation in the Holocaust”? Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella may we have an explanation of the following revert?

  • The massacre of Koniuchy and murder of its inhabitants was documented by one of the attacking partisans, Chaim Lazar - we're calling a primary source, but citing a secondary one. Do we have the original?
  • You're quoting Chodakiewicz, who we know is not exactly unbiased, quoting another historian. Do we have anything on the latter?
  • Why did you change In order to survive the partisans regularly raided nearby villages in order to obtain food, clothes, and footwear. This raiding led to skirmishes between the partisans and the men of Koniuchy to The partisants regularly raided nearby villages to rob them of food stocks, cattle and clothing?
  • Why did you remove the following?
    • According to Soviet and Jewish sources, the villagers constituted a pro-Nazi threat to the partisans, though collaborations is denied by the villagers who have claimed that only a few men in the village were armed with rifles for self-protection?
    • a veteran Jewish partisan fighter, described Koniuchy as having a record of hostility to the partisans and that, in collaboration with the Nazis and the local police, the town had organized an armed group to fight the partisans
    • A paragraph on world reactions, starting with Most of the rest of the world...
    • Following wide international criticism, the investiation was closed in September 2008

François Robere (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Glaukopis textEdit

The IPN decided not to pursue?Edit

Such information was published in Polish press in February, but the IPN portal lists the case as open.Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Two things that need doingEdit

  1. Sources need sorting out to make sure there are no duplicates.
  2. We need some more on the Lithuanian perspective. The investigation didn't take place in a vacuum.

François Robere (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The background, as I understand it, was the possible investigation of Lithuanian Nazi collaboraters (which was widespread - Lithuania has the dubious distinction of leading this category in occupied Europe - the political background of this being anti-Soviet, particularly due to 39-41) - and their widespread participation in atrocities (again - unlike other countries - most of the dirty ground work was done by locals). Michlic covers this IIRC.Icewhiz (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits: this edit does a lot more than just "Tagged sourcing problems in 1st par". In addition to incorrectly tagging a couple sources in the lede (which is inappropriate- we use secondary sources), you also

  1. added the controversial sentence about "heroic Soviet resistance" (sic) which has been challenged as non-encyclopedic.
  2. removed for some reason the fact that this investigation was closed
  3. for some reason changed the English language "Home Army" to the Polish "Armia Krajowa"
  4. removed Soviet War Crimes from the See Also section
  5. removed the "short description|1944 massacre of Poles by Soviets during World War II"

Please use edit summaries which accurately describe your edits, rather than the ones which can be seen as misleading.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

  1. "heroic Soviet resistance" - unencyclopedic is not an editing rationale - and this isn't said in our own voice - rather we are saying the perception in most of the world was that .... And we're doing that based on a very strong source. You've also removed quite a bit more - an entire paragraph - based on this challenge to the language in the source.
  2. Soviet war crime - please establish that there is world wide scholarly consensus to classify this attack on an AK strongpoint (with prior German presence) as a war crime. The investigation has been viewed in a very dim light in most of the world.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
We can discuss these issues separately (feel free to start the appropriate sections). The issue here, is that Francois Robere used a misleading edit summary - he claimed he was only adding couple tags but instead actually made several major changes further down in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You haven't gained consensus to removing academic-level sources on the investigation - gutting out an entire paragraph which was strongly sourced. You haven't gained consensus to redact actual RS coverage of how this "investigation" (yes - several RSes use scare quotes to describe this) was perceived in most of the world.Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, BRD. Multiple editors have objected to the content. YOU need to get consensus to add it, and it's UNDUE (and "most of the world" doesn't give a cra
There are some edits there that I don't recall doing (eg. I would never add Mark Paul as a source). I may have worked off of an older version and rewrote Ealdgyth's changes. My apologies. François Robere (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"There are some edits there that I don't recall doing" - that's not an excuse. Also, this concerns a single edit, not edits. Please do not use misleading edit summaries in the future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Volunteer Marek, I know you tend to assume the worst in other editors, but if you see an odd revision like this you can just ask. I would've reverted the unintended changes all the same. François Robere (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"I know you tend to assume the worst in other editors" - you are engaging in personal attacks. I have asked you to stop [18] several times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack, that's a statement of fact of which this discussion is proof: You claimed I made a misleading edit, which made no sense whatsoever considering its contents; I replied that it was in error, apologized and corrected what needed correcting; and instead of accepting it, you continue with this contentious tone. I would advise you listen to the admins on ANE, which on two recent discussions warned you against casting aspersions. François Robere (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is about...Edit

... a massacre in Koniuchy, not a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK for "Anti-semitism in Lithuania". While something may be mentioned, piling this on seems only to try and distract from the actual topic of the article, particularly since the amount of space devoted to it is almost as big or is as big as the description of the actual topic of this article. Hence I removed some text as WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The incident itself, in 1944, is fairly not noteworthy - it was one of very many conflict between Soviet units and resisting AK affiliated positions - if we were to write an article based on pre-1990 sources we wouldn't have much of an article at all. Most of the coverage of this incident is in relation to modern memory politics and investigations (which, per the sources, decided to focus on this particular Soviet incident due to an ethnic twist) - thus the sources themselves place an emphasis on the investigation, and it is definitely DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"The incident itself, in 1944, is fairly not noteworthy" - that's your own idiosyncratic opinion. You are free of course to nominate it for deletion. Though seeing as how the article was judged good enough to appear on Wikipedia's main page multiple times, I expect you will have a hard time convincing others that your own idiosyncratic opinion is correct.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh - it will pass notability thresholds - due to investigation in the 2000s, which has been described in a WP:RS as "The outside world and even some Lithuanians viewed the entire case as a contemptible farce".[1] The notoriety of this incident arises mainly from memory politics - which did indeed establish notability - however this entails, per WP:DUE, to reflect such coverage (which is, for the most part, in reputable academic sources on the memory politics and not on the incident itself).Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The article was considered notable long before it got WP:POVFORK'd with all the info about the investigation. This is the article Koniuchy massacre. Not the article Controversy surrounding the investigation into the Koniuchy massacre. If you'd like to create the latter then of course you can, and we can see if it passes notability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Articles of this kind typically have sections on related events: "aftermath", "controversy", "popular culture" etc. There's nothing wrong with writing about that here. François Robere (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe, John-Paul Himka and Joanna Michlic, pages 339-342, "Not surprisingly, the inquest evoked strong foreign protests, out— rage among Jews everywhere, even criticism from President Adamkus. The failure of the Lithuanian judiciary to press the investigation of pro-Nazi collaborators, as evidenced by the delayed proceeding against the former head of the Lithuanian security policy in Vilnius, Aleksandras Lileikis an others, gave rise to charges of hypocrisy concerning the motives behind the investigation of Jewish partisans. In one stroke, the prosecutor's office derailed the official research apparatus on Nazi war crimes. The Yad Vashem directorate protested the investigation of a "victim of Nazi oppression", and suspended Israeli participation in the commission. In solidarity with their Israeli colleague, the commission refused to convene any further meetings until the case was resolved." "The outside world and even some Lithuanians viewed the entire case as a contemptible farce. Unwilling to judge Nazi collaborators, the judiciary was preparing a case against Arad, a teenage ghetto survivor who, faced with an existential choice, had fled to the forests and joined the battle against the fascists" "The acrimony engendered by the Arad partisan case... One of the persistent themes that has gained new momentum is the rise of anti-Semitism, which, according to some, is now expressed in Lithuania by politicized attempts to equate Nazism with communism. As in the case with the establishment of the commission in 1998, charges of false symmetry between Nazism and communism as an effort to conceal the scope and extent of Lithuanian criminality during the Holocaust have been raised again."

Introduction of popular history website as a sourceEdit is not a scientific publication. It is a mass market website intended for a popular audience, and articles seem to be written to a large extent by students. Adding this as a source - is not compliant with WP:RS policy. The author is probably this person - who holds a masters degree and is not an established historian in the field. The site's editorial controls are not documented to be as expected from a reputable publisher. Finally - we have WP:NOENG - which is relevant policy for use of this non-English source. That an editor would introduce such a source - while removing a University of Nebraska Press academic book written by an established scholar and edited by an established scholar - is quite perplexing. Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit ambivalent about histmag myself - but there does need to be some background regarding the attacks by Soviets on Polish villages and partisan units. The source is not not-reliable, it's just we can probably find something better. How about we ask other editors to weight in?
And as far as WP:NOENG, you've been told several times now (and not just by myself), that that's not an excuse to remove non-English sources that you happen not to like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOENG is Wikipedia policy - and when better or equal English sources are available - non-English ones are removed. Removing top-notch academic sources and inserting a non-English piece my a master's graduate (who seems to be involved in education and tour guiding - assuming I've locate the right person) - is not the sort of sourcing policy we'd expect in an article like this. We have sufficient academic level sources in English to forgo non-English sources for the vast majority of the text here (perhaps some anecdote is covered in non-English sources and would merit inclusion, but on the whole - non-English sources here are not required).Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe this is like the sixth time that I have to explain to you. But ok. What NOENG says is that if there is an English language source which says X and a non-English language source which says X, then we just use the English language source. It does not say that if there is an English language source which says X and a non-English language source which says "abracadabra" we cannot use the non-English source to say "abracadabra" and have to limit ourselves to saying X. That would be silly. That would effectively ban all non-English language sources from Wikipedia. Again, this is your own strange and self-serving interpretation of Wikipedia policy which you keep trying to use to remove sources which you simply don't like (it's basically an updated substitute for your earlier demands that Polish sources should not be used on articles about Polish history).
While we're on the subject, while histmag is indeed not an academic source but I don't see why it would be unreliable. It's a popular history magazine with very high circulation. It's got editorial over sight. It's got a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". It fulfills the requirements as outlined at WP:RS. The editor is this guy, I think, who's won numerous awards for his work. It looks like it's comparable to something like The Smithsonian Magazine, although obviously specialized in history. Indeed, it's probably more reliable for historical issues than newspaper articles which we use in this article. If you really want to push this, then you obviously are free to inquire for outside opinion over at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOENG is policy - if we have English sources covering a particular aspect - we use them. is a popular audience website. It does not seem they have any editorial policy beyond having an editor (e.g. articles are not peer reviewed). The authors on seem to be mainly students or recent graduates (e.g. - this particular author has a master's degree). It is definitely a poor source in relation to any actual academic work, and would also be poorer than a newspaper (which does have an editorial board). It does not meet the criteria for WP:RS - and - you've got this backwards - it is up to you to get consensus for including this. It is definitely not comparable to Smithsonian. It is possible it just barely scrapes above WP:BLOGS level.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, NOENG is a policy, a policy which you repeatedly misrepresent, despite the fact that this has been explained to you numerous times. It is not a license to remove non-English sources which user Icewhiz happens to disagree with. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
And histmag does have an editorial board. Yes, as I already said, it's not of the same quality as a scholarly work - since it's a popular history magazine - but it is better than a newspaper article. Yes, it does have an editorial board, I even linked to the article on the main editor! What are you talking about? Yes it does meet the criteria for WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a reminder that a recent AE on a sister article reiterated the importance of WP:NOENG with some admins supporting a source language restriction. François Robere (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Factual error introduced to referenceEdit

This revert - introduced a counter-factual error describing a source that is in English as being in Hebrew. This error remains in the present version. @Volunteer Marek: - please correct this. I also urge you to self-revert your mass removal of academic sources which are actual WP:IRS in regards to the "investigation" - while some editors may disagree that the Soviet anti-fascist resistance was heroic, that this resistance movement is perceived as such by a rather wide audience - duly noted with this precise language by an academic - is a factual description regarding the perception.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If you would actually explain what the reference is then it would be much easier to correct this "counter-factual error"
As to my edits, I provided a detailed rationale for all of them, unlike you who merely jumped in to make quick blind-reverts. Several users have objected to your and FR's edits but rather than working toward obtaining consensus, you two have chosen to instigate repeated edit wars with blind reverting. Yes, you are very careful to avoid breaking 3RR but a slow-motion edit war which you and FR are engaged in can still be seen as an instance of WP:TEND and disruptive editing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You've reverted this change to which is in English, not Hebrew. I have not made blind-reverts here - I've retained your constructive edits (for instance - retaining this ref fix in this revert. You have not gained consensus here regarding your view of several academic sources that have covered this incident.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This is trivial to fix, so I'm not sure why you're making a big deal out of this. And yes, your reverts were blind and whole sale - this can be easily seen from the article's edit history. Wherease I tried to go through FR's edits one-by-one and judge the merits of each one, you jumped in with one single revert (twice) to undo everything.
As to consensus, it's obvious from discussions above that FR/Icewhiz have not obtained consensus for most of their proposed changes. FR/Icewhiz are free to start RfC's on the relevant topics. But per BRD, the onus for consensus is on them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a lack of consensus either, not by a majority of editors nor by relevant arguments... François Robere (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


Most of the rest of the world, as well as some Lithuanians, viewed the Lithuanian investigation of Jewish Holocaust survivors as a "contemptible farce",[citation needed] - we know what the whole world thinks but we don't have any source.Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. It used to be cited - the sentence apparently got moved around without the citation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The "Most of the world" phrasing, along with the "heroic Soviet resistance" language mostly just cast doubt on the quality of the source. Who is "most of the world"? This is extremely strange phrasing and obviously non-encyclopedic. Generally I think we should avoid using this source at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"Most of the rest of the world" - would seem to be any place outside of Poland or Lithuania that has covered this. Many do consider Soviet partisans as "heroic" - which is what the source, a RS, conveys. An editor's opinions on the opinions of "most of the rest of the world" have little bearing on the reliability of a source.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"any place outside of Poland or Lithuania" - like Fiji? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems to have been covered mainly in Europe, North America, and the Middle East.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
By Arabian academicians?Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Eyewitness accountEdit Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If it is an eyewitness account, it's primary. And it's hosted on a non-reliable site. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Lazar's accounts are quoted from secondary sources but described as verification needed. I don't understand the problem.Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There were other secondary sources in the article. Quite possible they were removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

equipped with some rusty rifles.[8][verification needed]Edit

The are plenty statements in this Wikipedia to be verified, this one hardly.Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This one uses "few rifles". Not rusty. And attributes this as a claim made by the residents.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


Chaim Lazar: Destruction and Resistance, Shengold Publishers, New York, 1985 - what about reading the book to verify the stories?Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should cut out Lazar - I think it is a primary account - we should mention this only if it is really covered by secondary sources.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There has never been a rule against using primary sources. I don't want to edit this article, but I ordered the book and will verify the content. Zerotalk 13:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
But IT IS covered by secondary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually more bothered by that. Do we have the original? François Robere (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I now have Chaim Lazar: Destruction and Resistance. The story of Koniuchy is on pp174–5 and matches the various quotations I have seen around the place. Copyright law prevents me from copying the whole lot here (about a page) but I can check what you ask me to check. Zerotalk 11:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Zero0000: - does Lazar state what units he was part of as a partisan? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
What does Lazar say of the circumstances leading to the raid? Musial has For some time it had been known that the village Konjuchy was nest of bands and the center of intrigues against the partisans. Anything else there? Is that there?Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The same account by Lazar is quoted in this secondary source. The same source has a few other testimonies from the participants:
Paul Bagriansky: "When I saw my unit I saw one of our people holding the head of a middle aged woman against a big stone and hitting her head with another stone. Each blow was accompanied by sentences like 'this is for my murdered mother, this is for my killed father, this is for my dead brother, etc. (...)
Bagriansky, cont.: "I saw an awful, gruesome picture. In a small clearing in the forest six bodies of women of various ages and two bodies of men were lying around in a half circle ... One man at a time was shooting in between the legs of the dead bodies. When the bullet would strike the nerve the body would react as if it was alive ... All men of the unit were participating in this cruel play, laughing in a wild frenzy. I was at first petrified by this performance, then became sickly interested."
Bagriansky, cont.: "They (partisans) enjoyed the killings, the destruction, and most of all the drinking."
The account is footnoted and there are several others in the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An editor just left a link to this text on my talk page. I've been notified it would have to be deleted shortly to avoid copyright violations:

Lazar's account

Removed 5 July 2018 to avoid copyright violations.

Let's be quick about it. (Xx236 Icewhiz Volunteer Marek) François Robere (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The account is actually interesting not so much in regards to the claimed results of 300 dead which we currently quote (and which, per the usual course in war, is significantly inflated vs. the actual 30-40) - but due to the motivation of the attacking units. Particularly, I think we should consider quoting the following: Its [Koniuchy] residents, known for their villany, were organizing the people in the area, distributing arms among them which they received from the Germans, and leading every attack on the partisans. The village was well fortified. Every house was a military position and there were defense trenches near every dwelling. There were watchtowers on both sides of the village, so it was not at all easy to penetrate the place. Nevertheless, the partisans chose this very place to carry out an act of vengeance and intimidation. The Brigade Headquarters decided to raze Koniuchy to the ground to set an example to others., attributed to Lazar, in our article.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, no. That's not the relevant part of the quote, especially in light of how self serving it is, and especially since that part of the account is contradicted by other sources. The interesting part is the glee with which he describes the murders ("Half-naked peasants jumped out of windows and sought escape. But everywhere fatal bullets awaited them. Many jumped into the river and swam towards the other side, but they, too, met the same end") and the complete lack of empathy or remorse for the action; "Sixty households, numbering about 300 people, were destroyed, with no survivors." - those 300 people included women and young children, who even under the most charitable interpretation of his statement (if we buy all that nonsense about the village being "evil" and "fortified" and all that) were innocent victims that he celebrates killing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
You don't get to pick what to include and what to ignore, including the exaggerations. And I don't hear glee in what he's describing. François Robere (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
But you and Icewhiz do? And I'm sure you don't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

One thing I noticed is that Lazar writes in the third person and never states explicitly that he was there. Probably the Hebrew original would need to be consulted to be sure, but from this source alone one cannot say that he was a participant. That doesn't mean he wasn't a participant, just that we can't assume it without another source. On the other hand, it is clear that he was at least in a position to hear about it directly from the participants. Zerotalk 00:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at Chaim Lazar - he was a partisan historian who wrote a number of titles - hewiki entry - this definitely might be a secondary account.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
No, this is like the definition of a primary source. Even if he wasn't a participant, which is not how most sources view it, he would be close to the event.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

POV forkEdit

Just a reminder that this article is on the Koniuchy massacre. It is not an article on The Controversy Surrounding the Koniuchy Massacre (although of course such can be mentioned, while keeping WP:UNDUE in mind). Likewise it is not suppose to be a POVFORK of Anti-semitism in Lithuania (or I guess a substitute for, since that's a red link). All the extra info about "rise of anti-semitism in Lithuania after fall of Soviet Union" belongs in that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVE - as long as we don't have an article on Koniuchy massacre "investigation" (perhaps we should move this article there? That's the more notable topic) - material belongs here. Wholesale removal of how RSes cover this "investigation" - is violation of NPOV - particularly if we mention this "investigation".Icewhiz (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Lol, that's not what WP:PRESERVE says. This isn't "appropriate content". It's a massive UNDUE violation and WP:POVFORKing. The "investigation" is not more notable. This article has been around just fine for a long period of time before you showed up and even appeared on the front page several times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Most of this content has been here for over 6 weeks - dating back to 6 May - ONUS on you to show a policy based reason for why this strongly sourced material should be removed.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
And "unenecyclopedic" is not a rationale when there are two academic texts with this language.Icewhiz (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if the source is actually academic. "Heroic Soviet resistance" is not definitely not encyclopedic. Note that a source can be reliable, even very good, but it may still use unencyclopedic language. That's because ... ... ... the source is not an encyclopedia! Saying that the phrasing is "unencyclopedic" isn't necessarily some kind of an insult to a source. Encyclopedias use encyclopedic language. Non-encyclopedias sometimes use non-encyclopedic language. It just means that we can't use the same language because we're... ... ... an encyclopedia.
BTW, looking around I see some info that the IPN investigation has been recently closed but I can't find a source I consider reliable enough for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:RS trumps an editor's opinion. Nothing unencyclopedic in saying that the Soviet resistance is perceived as heroic by X, Y, Z. And even if that were a problem - the solution is fixing the language - not cutting out well sourced material wholesale.Icewhiz (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Articles of this kind typically have sections on related events: "aftermath", "controversy", "popular culture" etc. There's nothing wrong with writing about that here. François Robere (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"heroic soviet resistance"Edit

Sorry guys, there's absolutely no way you can say that in Wikipedia voice. You could say it with attribution, perhaps, but why would you want to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We are not saying this in wiki voice. We have one quote was perceived in the West and among Jewish groups as "an attack on the heroic Soviet antifascist resistance", and one instance where we say it was perceived as such The investigation was seen in the West and among Jewish groups as an attack on the heroic Soviet antifascist resistance. Neither of which is a stmt of fact - it is a stmt of public perception - back up by an impeccable source. We follow sources, which are rather clear here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
That's pretty much saying it in Wiki voice even with the quote as it doesn't say who claimed this was "heroic Soviet resistance". There are two problems here: 1) whether or not Soviet resistance was "heroic" and 2) whether or not Soviet resistance was "perceived as heroic" in the West (seriously?). Both claims would need to be attribute since they're both, to say the least, extremely controversial. The source btw, is not "impeccable". If nothing else it appears to have problems with translation from Lithuanian and makes lots of strange statements, this "heroic Soviet resistance" being one of them, to the extent that one wonders whether the author is being sarcastic. Regardless, this is UNDUE anyway. But you are welcome to start an RfC on the question of whether we should include the mention of this "heroic Soviet resistance" in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:IJDLI on a quite strong source. Stable version is with this - ONUS on you. If your problem is attribution (not actually required here as this is, in most of the world, an uncontroversial statement - most of the English press coverage saying similar stmts about partisans) - add attribution - don't remove strong sourced material. A Rowman & Littlefield book by an academic trumps an editor's opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a "quite strong source" and this isn't IJDLI since I've explained in detail what the problem is. The stable version does not include this ridiculous wording. So... that's three false claims out of three claims made.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this quote can be kept in the ref, but should not be present in the article, as it is quite non-neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It is present in an academic source saying how this was perceived world wide. Unless you have some sort of evidence that the source is biased (the author is Lithuanian I would note) - then an editor's opinion on neutrality is rather irrelevant. I'll note that per rather strong RS, if there is anything biased - it is the Lithuanian/Polish investigation.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont see what is the problem. It seems content is well sourced and attributed.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that it's unencyclopedic language and we can't call Soviet resistance "heroic" in Wiki voice, and we can't even say that "the West perceived Soviet resistance as heroic" in Wikipedia voice either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Add "according to...". François Robere (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP violationEdit

This article mainly describes an "investigation", widely seen as a contemptible farce (per an actual RS which were removed[1]) against at least one BLP. A singificant chunk of the article's text present this investigation (including the Canadian Polish Congress.... If there were anything UNDUE here...) - in a manner that one might conclude that this farce had a semblence of legitimacy - while RSes indicate otherwise. Beyond being a serious NPOV issue to display this "investigation" in this manner - this is also a serious BLP issue towards those indviduals who were persecuted in the course of this farce. @Volunteer Marek: - I do suggest you self revert, or alternatively remove the investigation all together - in its current form the article is a serious BLP issue.Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the BLP violation? Against whom?
Aside from the UNDUE problem, there is also the problem that that whole section is a complete mess. Probably because whoever added the info was more interested in cramming their views into the article than actually writing an encyclopedia article. For example, the Marrus quote in the FOURTH paragraph appears to reference the Lithuanian investigation. But... the existence of a Lithuanian investigation is not actually mentioned until the FIFTH paragraph. Oh wait, no! There is something in it about in the FIRST paragraph. Wait... is the investigation in the first paragraph the same investigation as the fifth paragraph? Were there two Lithuanian investigations? If not, why is this repeated? Which investigation are all the quotes referring to? Oh, and IPN is required to open an investigation if there is enough evidence that a possible crime was committed. They don't really have a choice in the matter. And then it seems like some of the quote reference the Polish investigation. Except... that investigation was just an examination of documents, not any interviews with Holocaust survivors or partisans.
So. This is UNDUE. And it's horribly written. Removing borderline incoherent, UNDUE text which attempts to turn the article into a WP:POVFORK is not actualy a "BLP violation".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

And let me be explicit here - I'm fine with discussing the fact that the Lithuanian investigation was controversial and that there was international criticism of it. But this has to be done in a DUE way. Gratuitous quotes about how anti-semitic Lithuania is are not the way to do it. Neither is using unencyclopedic language about "Most of the world thought that..." I mean, if there had been a UN Resolution or something like that, then MAYBE you could make that claim. But honestly, most of the world obviously didn't give a flip or even ever heard of this small village in Lithuania.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yitzhak Arad is a BLP. Introducing material from the IPN - a prosecuting agency - is a BLPPRIMARY violation. Not covering the investigation as it is covered in actual RSes - is beyond a NPOV problem - also a BLP problem.Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The IPN doesn't say anything about Arad so I have no idea what you're going on. You're confusing two different investigations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally Lithuanians are known to be very touchy about anyone bringing to light their extensive pro-Nazi collaboration. I am not sure, however, what is the problem here? The Lithuanian investigation can be described as controversial, and the source cited above seems solid. While a mention of this on Arad's page could be BLP, mentioning here that he was one of the persons related to the investigation seems fine - particularly as we note the investigation was dismissed / cancelled. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This incident is the subject of an investigation involving at least one BLP (Arad). While Arad could possibly be named here per WP:WELLKNOWN, this does still require us to adhered to BLP sourcing standards and use independent WP:RS (which the investigating bodies - are not). Specifically, this source, which is a WP:PRIMARY press statement (undated and unsigned I will note), of an investigative/prosecuting agency involved in the case which is presently used to make statements in Wikipedia's voice on the details of the investigated case (which, in most of the world, has been viewed as "contemptible farce"[19] - making use of such a source a NPOV issue) - is beyond just a violation of just about any RS policy - a WP:BLPPRIMARY ((tq|Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.}} violation. WP:BLP policy extends to any Wikipedia page - thus naming units (with BLP members) and details of an alleged incident, from the investigating agency, is a clear and outright infraction.08:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
One more time - the IPN is not investigating Arad, even though you structured the text to make it seem like it is. That's on you though. Indeed, if there is a BLP violation here, it's because of your edits (making it seems like Arad was being investigated by IPN when in fact he wasn't).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So this is actually sorta sad-funny. Icewhiz commits a BLP violation by misrepresenting a source - making it seems like Yitzhak Arad is a subject of an IPN investigation. He's not, and the source says nothing about Arad. He then complains that BLP is being violated because ... the text implies that Arad is being investigated by IPN and he's not allowed to include a bunch of info about how some other investigation, or Lithuanians in general, are anti-semitic. SMH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yitzhak Arad#Dismissed investigation in Lithuania François Robere (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Right, so what's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I did not misrepresent anything. The IPN was working in concert woth the Lithuanians - and continued to investigate (including living persons) after 2008. The IPN's prosecutor (as well as Lithuania) is a PRIMARY source we should not be using at all. We should not be using press releases at all (all the more so by a poloce agency). And - since every single detail in this article has BLP implications - it is a BLPPRIMARY issue as well.Icewhiz (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, yes you did. You made it seem like IPN was investigating Arad when it wasn't. The IPN was NOT "working in concert woth (sic) the Lithuanians". All it did is ask Lithuania for documents. It also asked Russia, Belarus and Israel for documents.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe, John-Paul Himka and Joanna Michlic, pages 339-342, "Not surprisingly, the inquest evoked strong foreign protests, outrage among Jews everywhere, even criticism from President Adamkus. The failure of the Lithuanian judiciary to press the investigation of pro-Nazi collaborators, as evidenced by the delayed proceeding against the former head of the Lithuanian security policy in Vilnius, Aleksandras Lileikis an others, gave rise to charges of hypocrisy concerning the motives behind the investigation of Jewish partisans. In one stroke, the prosecutor's office derailed the official research apparatus on Nazi war crimes. The Yad Vashem directorate protested the investigation of a "victim of Nazi oppression", and suspended Israeli participation in the commission. In solidarity with their Israeli colleague, the commission refused to convene any further meetings until the case was resolved." "The outside world and even some Lithuanians viewed the entire case as a contemptible farce. Unwilling to judge Nazi collaborators, the judiciary was preparing a case against Arad, a teenage ghetto survivor who, faced with an existential choice, had fled to the forests and joined the battle against the fascists" "The acrimony engendered by the Arad partisan case... One of the persistent themes that has gained new momentum is the rise of anti-Semitism, which, according to some, is now expressed in Lithuania by politicized attempts to equate Nazism with communism. As in the case with the establishment of the commission in 1998, charges of false symmetry between Nazism and communism as an effort to conceal the scope and extent of Lithuanian criminality during the Holocaust have been raised again."

Garbled ref...Edit

Here: Between 30 to 40 villagers were killed and dozen more were wounded, and in addition many houses were looted and burned.<ref>[''Destruction%20and%20Resistance''%20Koniuchy&f=false}}</ref> - can this be fixed, please? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

More: "Sowjetische Partisanen 1941-1944: Mythos und Wirklichkeit Bogdan Musial Ferdinand Schoeningh, 2009, page 547" or "Bogdan Musial Sowjetische Partisanen in Weißrussland Innenansichten aus dem Gebiet Baranovici 1941-1944 Cover: Sowjetische Partisanen in Weißrussland Oldenbourg Verlag, München 2004, page 28" ... is it possible to actually like format the citations, please? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ugghgh, I was working on these issues and trying to format refs and then the page got fully protected. Not that I object or blame but it does make fixing these issues hard for non-admins. Ealdgyth, you can still edit so I'll try to help as much as I can on talk.
So easy one - Musial's Sowjetische Partisanen in Weißrußland, page 28, is already used as a ref (currently citation #6) in the article. Just name that ref as Musial28, then replace the google book link after the text "Between 30 to 40 villagers were killed and dozen more were wounded, and in addition many houses were looted and burned" with the named ref.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Yet another WP:NOENG violation and use of Musial who has rather out of right field positions (and this particular work was throughly roaseted in reviews in German). We should prefer mainline sources. In the stable version from 22 May, this was sourced to an English academic book, which is what we should be using here.[1]
Not a NOENG violation. How many times has the actual NOENG policy been explained to you? And you need to stop it with the borderline BLP vios.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
NOENG is policy. If we have better or equal sources in English (which in this case we clearly do - both in terms of academic sources and news orgs for the few bits that are news related) - we use the English sources. In part we do so since non-English sources may be misrepresented and otgpher editors are unable to verify the source. Considering the highly biased nature of some of the sources here and the use of this incident as an anti-Jewish dog whistle in modern discourse this is of extra importance.Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Suziedelis, Saulius A. (2011-02-07). Historical Dictionary of Lithuania. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810875364.


More issues - note that I'm not digging to find out who made these errors - I don't care. They need fixed. It doesn't matter who originally put them in or why or how - let's work together to FIX the issues rather than playing blame-games. And I'm not getting into formatting issues - of which there are a LOT.

  • Here Polonsky, Antony; Michlic, Joanna B. (11 April 2009). The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland. Princeton University Press. ISBN 1400825814. - this ref which is used 3 times - does not list a page number - rather it links to a google books search that returns four results. Not all the search results are related to the information being sourced - this is not helpful. Please put in actual page numbers not just search results when the search results turn up more than one result.
    • Used twice. Can only be used to establish the second statement, and only with a change, as it states "Jewish-Soviet partisan unit", not "Soviet unit with a contingent of Jewish partisans...". François Robere (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Another problem with that ref - it gives the date as "7 February 2011" - this is a date from Google books - and is NOT the date given in the actual book's copyright page - where the date is just "2011". Books don't have exact dates of copyright ... we shouldn't use Google Books pretty-much-made-up date for references.
    • The book was out in 2003. I'm not sure there was actually a reprint in 2011. François Robere (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no need to specify "language=en" when citing a reference on English Wikipedia.
  • Current ref 4 is cited to support "under their command during the Second World War in the Polish village of Koniuchy (now Kaniūkai, Lithuania) on 29 January 1944. According to the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance, at least 38 Polish civilians were killed and about a dozen injured. The massacre of Koniuchy and murder of its inhabitants was documented by one of the attacking partisans, Chaim Lazar. According to Lazar the village was to be destroyed completely[1]
    • A couple of problems here - The linked search is again not given a page number, but more importantly nothing on the page in the source says anything about Lazar.
    • Another problem is that this is also sourcing the statement "under their command during the Second World War in the Polish village of Koniuchy (now Kaniūkai, Lithuania) on 29 January 1944. According to the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance, at least 38 Polish civilians were killed and about a dozen injured." - I suspect this is just sloppy placement of sources - and the preceeding source is supposed to go at the end of the sentence "a dozen injured."
    • A third problem is that the source cited (Stachura) is actually a collection of documents and primary sources - so the citation is actually wrong. It implies that Stachura made the statment but in actuality its extracted "A description from Jewish sources of the desctruction of the Polish village of Koniuchy by a Jewish partisan unit on 29 January 1944" and then the given source is "M. J. Chodakiewicz (ed.) Ejszyszki. Kulisy zajsc w Ejszyszkach. We're getting this information third-hand (at least). So it appears that Chodakiewicz pulled some primary accounts of the massacre together into Ejszyszki in 2002. Then Strachura pulled from Chodakiewicz's account (and left bits out given the many ellipses in the Strachura work)... so we're not getting the full context of the primary source. I'll note that Strachura's introduction says that it was only Jewish partisans that took part in the massacre - which is disputed by other sources. The cited primary account also claims 300 deaths - which conflicts with the IPN investigation.
  • Current ref 20 is sourcing "The institute examined a number of archival documents including police reports, encoded messages, military records and personnel files of the Soviet partisans. Requests for legal assistance were then sent to state prosecutors in Belarus, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and Israel. The IPN investigation was closed in February 2018. The official reason for the closure was that the investigators were not able to establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" that any perpetrators of the massacre were still alive, and as a result concluded that there was no one who could be charged with a crime."
    • A problem here is this is apparently a news article that states that the reporter/newspaper has learned that the investigation is GOING to be closed shortly so we can't say in wiki voice that it closed. (Here's the Google Translate if that helps)
  • Current refs 11 and 12 support "Historian Kazimierz Krajewski has said that the only crime of the inhabitants was that they had enough of "the daily - or, rather, nightly - robberies and assaults" and had decided to defend themselves against these." Current ref 11 is this source (Here is the Google Translate) which doesn't support the quote. Ref 12 goes to a Google Books search for "Intermarium: The Land Between the Black and Baltic Seas" which is very unhelpful since that's the title of the work and it returns a LOT of pages. I suspect that this search with the third result is what is meant, but since the books pages are not numbered in the Google Search, its difficult to be sure.
  • Current ref 14 is supporting "The Soviet units surrounded the village and then attacked at five o'clock in the morning. The attack lasted between one and a half to two hours." (14a) and "One of the groups was from the Kaunas Brigade of Lithuanian Headquarters of the Partisan Movement (subordinate to the South Branch of the Lithuanian Communist Party) while others were from the Vilnius Brigade." (14b). The problem here is that this source is undated - and has no author - which basically means its a press release by the IPN. Doesn't mean it's not considered a WP:RS, but there are better sources that should be used in such a contentious topic. Can we find those better sources - even the full report on the investigation by the IPN would be infinitely better than this source.
    • This same main source is also given as ref #3 where it is amusingly given as the author " Narodowej, Instytut Pamięci" ... as if "Narodowej" was the author's last name rather than the "Institute of National Remembrance" (This is the Polish version of current ref 14 - which is in English).
      • Frankly, I've had enough with fixing these things, which usually entail verifying the details of the source as well. Delete it, and let whoever added try better next time. François Robere (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Current ref 1 is supporting "The village of about 60 households and 300 inhabitants was not fortified but the villagers were armed with a few rifles. A small local self-defence unit was created in the autumn of 1943 to defend the village against repeated Soviet partisans' raids. According to Soviet and Jewish sources, the villagers constituted a pro-Nazi threat to the partisans. Local villagers denied that there was any collaboration with the Germans and have said that only a few men in the village were armed with rifles for self-protection." (1c)
    • First problem is that the source doesn't mention anything about the number of households in the village or population. Nor is the forming of a 1943 self-defense force. And the source says that the rifles were to defend themselves "against marauding bandits" not Soviet partisans.
      • Not surprising. This was added by an editor with shabby sourcing practices, which was eventually banned. Remove it. François Robere (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The given source is too closely paraphrased in our article - the source says "Soviet and Jewish sources claim the Koniuchy villagers, mostly ethnic Poles and Belarusians, constituted a pro-Nazi threat to the partisans. The local people have denied collaboration with the Germans and claimed that the community had only a few men armed with rifles to protect themselves against marauding bandits." This is entirely too close to the source's wording and needs to be fixed.
  • Current ref 9 is sourcing three things:
    • 9a: "Before the Second World War the village belonged to Second Polish Republic, after the Soviet invasion of Poland it was briefly transferred to Lithuania which was then occupied by the Soviets on 3 August 1940. With the German invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa, the remaining Soviet forces hid in the local forests, forming partisan groups." The source is here (Here is the Google translate) As near as I can tell - this source mentions nothing about any events prior to 1943 - there is no mention of 1939 or 1941 or Operation Barbarossa or similar events. Am I missing something?
      • It was originally added to support the below [20]. I suggest commenting out the first two. François Robere (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • 9c is sourcing "In May 2004, a memorial cross commemorating the event was erected in Kaniūkai with the names of the victims." it does support that there was a memorial erected in 2004, but not May.
  • Current ref 17 supports "According to Chaim Lazar, one of the partisans who participated in the massacre, the village was to be destroyed completely." this is Strachura again - which has been dealt with above.
  • Current ref 13 is here which is used twice.
    • The first time is to source "On 29 January 1944, the village was attacked by Soviet partisan units under the command of the Central Partisan Command in Moscow, who had received information on a German garrison that was stationed there, although as it turned out the German garrison had been abandoned before the attack." Several problems - first - it doesn't support the exact date. Second, it's way close paraphrasing - the source says "The Lithuanian partisans, who operated under the aegis of the Central Partisan Command of the Soviet Union, had information that there was a German garrison in the village. After the fact, it turned out that the Germans had abandoned the place" - this needs to be paraphrased better. Third - the source calls them "Lithuanian partisans" not "Soviet". Fourth - we can do better than a newspaper article for this sort of historical information, surely?
      • I added this source, but not in support of the whole statement, just the part about the garrison. The rest was existing content. I generally agree about the sourcing. François Robere (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Current ref 15 supports "The raid was carried out by 100–120 partisans from various units including 30 Jewish partisans from the "Avengers" and "To Victory" units under the command of Jacob (Yaakov) Prenner." This supports the second part but not the first part. And it's a primary source ... which while allowed, is still not best practice.
  • "As part of its investigation, Lithuanian prosecutors sought out Jewish veterans of the partisan movement. One of these was Yitzhak Arad, a former Israel Defense Forces brigadier general, an expert on the Holocaust in Lithuania, and former chairman of Yad Vashem. Arad had also served as a member of a commission appointed by Lithuania's president in 2005 to examine past war crimes. In response to the investigation, Yad Vashem issued a protest saying it focused on "victims of Nazi oppression" and suspended Israeli participation in the commission which Arad was part of." is sourced to three different sources all at the end of this information - it is difficult to figure out which source supports which parts of the sentences - this needs untangling and putting the sources on the information that they support rather than putting them all at the end.
  • Note that I didn't look at the current refs 5, 6, 10, or 18 - as I either don't have access (10) or can't figure out what the title/author is from the mangled citation (5, 6, 18). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The latter two should be added to the article's "todo" list. Thanks for this review. François Robere (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Here Polonsky, Antony; Michlic, Joanna B. (11 April 2009). The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland. Princeton University Press. ISBN 1400825814. - this ref which is used 3 times - does not list a page number - ok this one first.
The citation after " including women and children" should be to page 431. Same page applies to the citation after "carried out by a Soviet partisan unit along with a contingent of Jewish partisans". In fact, it would make sense to just put in the citation once since this is a single sentence. Presumably, someone was worried that these two claims would be challenged separately so they put it in twice. I don't see the third instance where this ref is used in the current version of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that I'm not editing as an admin here - so I won't be editing through full protection without consensus ... we might worry about resolving the issues which led to full protection being placed. The sourcing issues will wait ... But I would really really like to stress to other editors that its important to make sure your references back up the information you're putting in. It's very easy to get sloppy on referencing but it leds to big huge messes like this list above. (No, I'm not calling anyone out for specifics - it's not helpful to the editing enviroment. The issues exist, it doesn't matter how.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with you editing through protection. The problem is that it's hard to fully format stuff and do a thorough job in that regard when uh, someone, jumps in in between your edits to revert you causing multiple edit conflicts. Like, why should I spend lots of time to completely format a ref if it's going to get removed with a blind revert seconds later? At that point I'm just trying to show that the text can be sourced, and hence shouldn't be removed. Anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Citation 4 is citing the sentence "The massacre of Koniuchy and murder of its inhabitants was documented by one of the attacking partisans, Chaim Lazar. According to Lazar the village was to be destroyed completely". I guess the text "under their command during the Second World War in the Polish village of Koniuchy (now Kaniūkai, Lithuania) on 29 January 1944. According to the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance, at least 38 Polish civilians were killed and about a dozen injured. " should have a different citation, though this is the lede.
The citation [21] is a statement from Lazar, which is also referenced to a secondary source in Stachura. It would be better to use the secondary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The references from the stable version.[22] were fairly close to meeting WP:HISTRS. The problem presently is that PRIMARY sources of an investigative agency have been added by recent edits, as well as various low quality news sources and Stachura (colllection of primary documents) - while removing high quality secondary academic sources. We should be using top line academic sources for this type of article - not presss releases by a police/prosecuting agency!Icewhiz (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Let's NOT rehash who did what or why or when ... I don't care who did it. The thing is... it needs fixing and recriminations do not help with the collaborative nature of the project. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not re-hashing anything. This article is presently stuck in a messy edit-warred version - the correct thing is to roll back to a stable version. In any event - the sourcing there was solid (and properly cited). At present - source 3,14 is a PRIMARY source from an investigative agency, source 4,17 is a collection of primary documents, source 5,6,7,12,16,18 are from historians described in histiographical literature as being extreme ethno-nationalists (with very poor reviews (except when they review each other - which they have:-)) - one of the books cited actually has a review in a peer review journal saying it was full of conspiracy theories), source 15 is a primary document. These are sources that for the main part, should not be used in a serious Wikipedia article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No, this is the stable version, or alternatively this. These version were there before all the edit warring started. Can we get to fixing the problems higlighted by Ealdgyth? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Stability - 4-6 weeks - 22 May or 6 May. Cleaning up recently entered citation that should be removed anyway - is not a way forward. Entering Musial and Chodakiewicz both of which are described as extreme ethno-nationalists in a RS on histiography,[23], Chodakiewicz being a far-right activist and covered by the SPLC,[24], Musial recently covered in The Dark Return of Polish Anti-Semitism | commentary, and the specific works rather thoroughly roasted in peer reviewed journals - e.g. Intermarium being described as "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book".[25] And these are the actual sources purporting to be academic (as opposed to press releases (!!!)). No, this sort of sourcing definitely can not stay if this is going to adhere to any sort of NPOV. This is particularly egregious since this a topic that is a dog whistle (or "word-code" in Polish media -

The regular readers of Nasz Dziennik know very well the murder cases of Koniuchy and Naliboki because the authors often refer to these crimes when writing about the Jedwabne murder case. It is as if the Polish dark patch of history was somehow erased by another dark patch - here attributed to the Jews. Though Koniuchy and Naliboki are known to the reader still Nasz Dziennik insists that those crimes are surrounded by silence. While some regular authors see in this silence a deliberate conspiracy, historian Leszek Zebrowski has a less mysterious explanation. According to him these massacres are surrounded by silence because there are no publications in English written about the crimes by the Polish side. .... Nevertheless, after the intense campaign to publicise these crimes during the Jedwabne controversy, Koniuchy and Naliboki started functioning as word-codes, symbols of Jewish savagery and refusal to repent for `their' atrocities.


So no - coverage of an anti-semitic dog-whistle by such sources is far from appropriate in terms of NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was going to try and work on this and help out, but fuck it. I give up. [27] [28] [29]. Icewhiz hijacked another thread. There is no way one can work constructively on these issues with Icewhiz turning everything into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sorry User:Ealdgyth, this is just going to have to wait until the protection expires.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Complete mess of a section, misrepresentation of sourcesEdit

Alright, let's take a look at Icewhiz's version of the "Controversies section". Here is the text:

The Lithuanian authorities launched an investigation into the massacre in 2004, in which they sought to interview elderly Jewish Holocaust survivor who served with the partisans. The investigation was seen in the West and among Jewish groups as an attack on the heroic Soviet antifascist resistance.[9]

The Institute of National Remembrance initiated a formal investigation into the incident on 3 March 2001, at the request of the Canadian Polish Congress.[14] The institute examined a number of archival documents including police reports, encoded messages, military records and personnel files of the Soviet partisans. Requests for legal assistance were then sent to state prosecutors in Belarus, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and Israel.

Most of the rest of the world, as well as some Lithuanians, viewed the Lithuanian investigation of Jewish holocaust survivors as a "contemptible farce",[15] particularly given the lack of prosecution in Lithuania against the many collaborators with the Nazis. Efraim Zuroff said that "to date, Lithuanian governments have not punished a single Lithuanian war criminal. In spite of our considerable efforts and the large amount of information we have given them, they handled three cases with astonishing slowness. Not one of the three served a single day in prison. On the other hand, they're not ashamed to persecute and harass Lithuanian partisans who fought the Nazis. What is common to all these cases is that they're all Jews. Instead of punishing Lithuanian criminals who collaborated with the Nazis and murdered Jews, they're harassing the partisans, Jewish heroes."[10]

The rise of antisemitism in post-communist Lithuania had led to politicized attempts to equate communism with nazism in an attempt to create a false symmetry and conceal the extent of Lithuanian criminality during the Holocaust.[15] Michael Marrus has said that Polish and Lithuanian authorities chose to investigate to draw attention away from their own atrocities such as the Jedwabne pogrom and Kielce pogrom.[12] According to Meike Wulf the investigation was a "historic act of partisanship is employed to endorse the potent Judeo-Bolshevik myth and to support the strategies of whitewashing of guilt to legitimise the local collaboration with the German occupiers".[16]

The Lithuanian prosecutor general subsequently opened its own investigation into the massacre. As part of its investigation, Lithuanian prosecutors have sought out Jewish veterans of the partisan movement, including Ginaitė and Yitzhak Arad, a former Israel Defense Forces brigadier general, Jewish resistance movement veteran, and former chairman of Yad Vashem, who served as a member of a commission appointed by Lithuania's president in 2005 to examine past war crimes. Arad became the subject of criticism by Lithuanian right-wing groups after his public recommendation for an examination of Lithuania's role in the Holocaust. An investigation into Arad's wartime activities in Koniuchy was opened by Lithuania's chief prosecutor in the wake of the criticisms of Arad's proposal.[17][10][18] Following wide international criticism, the investigation was closed in September 2008.[15]

So here are the problems.

The opening of the Lithuanian investigation is mentioned in the first paragraph and... in the last paragraph. Were there two Lithuanian investigations? No. This is just sloppiness. At best.

The interviewing of Holocaust survivors is mentioned in the first paragraph. Then in the third paragraph. And then in the last paragraph. In each case this is presented as if it was a novel information. Looking at this a read would get the impression that there were actually three Lithuanian investigations, and that three different sets of Holocaust survivors were interviewed on three separate occasions. This is of course not what happened.

The first two sentences state that Yitzhak Arad was interviewed as part of the Lithuanian investigation. For some reason this info is again repeated, as if it was a novel development in the next to last sentence. It's like whoever wrote this is afraid that whoever is reading it, didn't read the previous paragraph or even the previous sentence, so, to make sure they get the point that is being pushed, they repeat the same thing multiple times, nilly-willy.

Finally, there is the issue of just straight up misrepresentation of sources. The first paragraph is about the Lithuanian investigation. This investigation sought to interview, or "harass" (depending on one's perspective) Holocaust survivors. The second paragraph is about the Polish investigation by the IPN (which is required to investigate any cases where non-trivial allegations of war crimes have been made). This investigation did NOT seek to interview Arad, or Ginaite, or any former Soviet partisans. It reviewed documents, consulted survivors and witnesses and asked for additional documents from the Soviet archives. Yet... the next paragraph is all about the criticism of the Lithuanian investigation! Ordering the text this way makes it look as if the criticism is being leveled at the IPN investigation which is misleading. Indeed, in his comments above, Icewhiz keeps jumping back and forth between the Lithuanian investigation (which has been extensively criticized) and the Polish one (which has not) as if they were the same one. Again, this is a misrepresentation of sources and highly POV.

If nothing else this whole section is one huge mess. It is borderline incoherent. It confuses more than it explains. It repeats the same info multiple time for no discernible reason. It misrepresents sources. And even if it didn't have all this problems, most of this would be UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly "my version" - others have edited it. I do agree that there is some redundancy here. As for misrepresenting the Polish investigation - we should perhaps expand on this. What got the "ball rolling" is the Polish investigation. They sent out requests for assistance to other countries. The Lithuanians took them up in 2004. In terms of the persecution of Holocaust survivors - there actually were several. Arad was one. Rachel Margolis was another - Yet amid the recent wave of anti-Semitism in the Baltic state, prosecutors are trying to implicate her in a case against a fellow partisan hero of the anti-Nazi forest war of the 1940s. Fearing harassment and arrest, she is in exile in Israel but those who hear her story will surely conclude that the Lithuanian authorities should grant this extraordinary woman – now in her 90th year – a permit to return to her native land. (mentioning anti-semitism in Lithuania as the cause of this - Independent in their own voice.... And jee whiz - here is an academic source labelling this as "ethno-nationalist" retribution for unpopular research). Fania Brantsovky was another.[30] And I believe there were a few more. The Polish investigation and Lithuanian one are the same investigation - they were done jointly - and Polish side relied on the findings (and interviews) by the Lithuanians (as the site was in Lithuania - jurisdiction and the like). We could perhaps consider cutting down the length of coverage in the article of the Polish side of the investigation (and the Polish Canadian congress) - as rather minor.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
You are not actually addressing the points raised nor are you making any suggestions on how to clean up the mess you tried to restore.
The new source you brought up [31] ... doesn't even mention this topic. So I don't know why you're even bringing it up.
"The Polish investigation and Lithuanian one are the same investigation - they were done jointly " - Nonsense. You're making this up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
They were done in cooperation. The Polish IPN initially asked for help from Lithuania. Lithuania sent material back. I do indeed agree we should remove redundancies, and I also think we should rely mainly on English language sources - preferably acadmic sources or good English newspapers (for current affairs) in regards to the "investigation". We should certainly avoid any primary material from the investigating body - for instance the current section contains a stmt regarding possible BLPs (claiming they are possibly dead) - which should not be done from a BLPPRIMARY source.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
They were done in cooperation. The Polish IPN initially asked for help from Lithuania. Lithuania sent material back. Sources plz. And that actually does not make them both done in cooperation. The IPN also asked the Russians for documents. Does that mean there was a "Russian investigation" as well? Asking for documents does not make the two investigations "the same investigation" (I see that you have backed off your false statement that these were "the same investigation" somewhat. Perhaps we're making some progress after all. Very very very little. But some. I guess) Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
And omg, you can't be serious with this nonsense: " for instance the current section contains a stmt regarding possible BLPs (claiming they are possibly dead)". The freakin' IPN closed the investigation because it came to the conclusion that there were NO PEOPLE ALIVE who were RESPONSIBLE for this massacre. Now, if you happen to know otherwise, if somehow you yourself are aware of some of the perpetrators of this massacre running around, then please tell us! Who is this a BLP vio against??? This is so ridiculous, I can't believe it, even after all the other stunts you've tried to pull.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
And IT IS "your version". Per the argument you advanced at WP:AE (and which some admins agreed with, in their infinite AE admin wisdom) if you revert to it, you take responsibility to it. This version - the complete mess, the misrepresentations of sources - is the version you've been blind-reverting to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The IPN's conclusions, a primary source from an investigating agency, should only be used via a reputable secondary source. The IPN's assertions regarding whether the people the IPN thinks are involved in this battle are alive or dead are BLP assertions. In any case, per coverage, the Polish case is much less significant than the Lithuanian one - we should probably limit the IPN's involvement to a sentence or two per amount of coverage in RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
"The IPN's assertions regarding whether the people the IPN thinks are involved in this battle are alive or dead are BLP assertions" - stop being ridiculous. First, it wasn't a "battle", it was a massacre of civilians. Your POV is showing. Second, if this is a BLP violation - who is it a BLP violation against? Please be specific or stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Certainly there were civilians in the village, but all sources agree that the village had a German (or Lithuanian auxiliary police which was an extension of the German) sanctioned militia armed with rifles that was engaged in armed hostilities vs. the Soviet partisans who attempted to requisition supplies from the village. The IPN is making a statement on possible BLPs/BDPs (members of the units it names (as well as those units it chose not to name this time))- and is a primary investigative agency - thus this is a BLPPRIMARY situation (and regardless - we shouldn't be using such press releases in any event).Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
The investigation centered around the supposed massacre of civilians in a small village, Koniuchi, near the Rudniki forest, which was controlled by Soviet partisans late in the war. Here’s what seems like a probable scenario: Jewish and Soviet partisans regularly commandeered food and supplies from local villages. Nazi efforts to contain the partisans in Rudniki consisted mainly of arming villagers and local police as proxy fighters. Koniuchi was hostile to Soviet requisitioning, and contained Nazi sympathizers who organized ambushes of Soviet partisans — who organized a counterattack and put torch to the village by firing incendiary ammunition into wooden buildings. The pro-Nazi police officers made a last stand and fired back. Around thirty-five villagers, mainly men but also women and children, died in the battle. To date there is no reason to believe any of the people sought by Lithuanian prosecutors were present during this violence.Analyzing Lithuanian Anti-Semitism, JC, There were many villagers, hostile to the partisans, who were organized into armed groups, supplied by the Germans. Yes, they were villagers, but no, they were not unarmed civilians. Such a conflict was most likely the reason for the tragedy in Koniuchy.‘Investigating’ Jewish Partisans in Lithuania, JC, The villagers in Koniuchy had a record of hostility to the partisans and attacked us whenever we passed the vicinity of the village. They organized an armed group to fight the partisans, were supplied with weapons by the Germans, and collaborated with the Nazis and the local police. At the end of December 1943, during a food-gathering assignment in a village close to Koniuchy, we were spotted and attacked by the villagers. During the battle. two of our partisans were killed and a third was captured and handed over to the Nazi-controlled police.LITHUANIA ASKS PARTISANS TO ‘JUSTIFY’ THEIR ACTIONS.06:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Facts about the raid are heavily disputed, including whether the villagers were acting in concert with the Nazis.[32] - so Foreign Policy is calling this a raid in their voice (and treats the Lithuanian "investigation"'s (much maligned in the same piece) as "allegations").Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
People who commit massacres, of civilians, always try to blame the victim ("they deserved it", "they sympathized with the enemy", "they were throwing rocks at us", "if they had only obeyed our orders", "they were obviously armed or we had every reason to believe they were armed"). People who sympathize with the perpetrators, perhaps for unrelated reasons, are always willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. These are low quality sources. You need to find better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Facts about the raid are heavily disputed, including whether the villagers were acting in concert with the Nazis[33] - Foreign Policy disagrees with you. Certainly the Soviet action was punitive, however the background was a conflict with the armed villagers.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you're deflecting, obfuscating and trying to change the subject. Again. There are two issues/questions we were discussing:

  1. 1 Your claim that the IPN investigation and the Lithuanian investigation were "the same investigation". This is completely false. Yet, in the article and on this talk page you kept insisting otherwise. Are you sticking with that claim or can you admit that there were indeed two separate investigations (in fact, into two different things)
  2. 2 You failed to answer the question I asked. You claimed there was a BLP violation in the article because IPN concluded that there was no one alive who participated in this massacre. Of course calling that a BLP violation is ridiculous on several levels. So - WHO is the supposed BLP violation against? Name them.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I agreed that the Polish IPN investigation, which received very little coverage in reliable sources, should be cut down. I can produce sources showing the link between the two (the IPN itself says it reached out to Lithuania - however using the IPN is a BLPPRIMARY situation) - however I think this irrelevant since we should cut the IPN to a one or two line mention. As for the BLP violation - any assertion by the IPN on the incident is a BLPPRIMARY situation. As for this particular statement, the IPN named units, these units are known to have consisted of known named people (readily available in other sources) - whom the IPN is tying to what the IPN considers a crime of some sort. The IPN is also making an assertion that all of these people are dead.Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
That wasn't the question. The question was - are you still insisting that the IPN investigation and the Lithuanian investigation were "the same investigation", or are you dropping that claim?
You also failed to answer the other question. If there is a BLP violation, WHO is it a violation against? You say "known named people (readily available in other sources). Ok, in that case NAME THEM, it shouldn't be that hard. Or acknowledge that there is no BLP violation here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


"The Arad Affair"Edit

Reposting from the Talk:Yitzhak_Arad#The_Arad_Affair:

Here's a source on the Lithuanian investigation: Amending the Past: Europe's Holocaust Commissions and the Right to History.

Is the linked chapter about the same investigation? I could not find the name of the locality in the book, so I'm not sure if this is about the same event or not. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: That's a good source and describes what happened very well. Note however two things:
1. There's nothing in the source which would link the Lithuanian investigation to the IPN investigation and there's absolutely nothing in the source which would suggests that the two investigations were "the same investigation" as Icewhiz repeatedly and falsely asserts above.
2. There's nothing in the source which mentions Koniuchy. Indeed, it's actually quite clear from the source that even the Lithuanian investigation into Arad was NOT about this massacre. Arad was investigated for allegedly participating in an attack on a Lithuanian village and Lithuanian civilians. The subject of this article is an attack on a Polish village and a massacre of Polish civilians.
Basically Icewhiz is trying to use the Arad affair, which is not related to this incident, to whitewash the facts of this massacre and make up excuses for it and to distract from it. He's basically creating a WP:POVFORK about anti-semitism in Lithuania. The basic strategy is to say "well, there was this massacOHLOOK!LITHUANIANSAREANTISEMITICDONTPAYATTENTIONTOANYTHINGOVERHERE!!!"
Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Arad, as well as several other Holocaust survivors who fought as partisans, was investigated by Lithuanian for the attack on Koniuchy or Kaniūkai - village in modern day Lithuania that at the time of WWII had a large Polish population. This is abundantly clear in this Haaretz piece, Historical Dictionary of Lithuania, Saulius A. Suziedelis, Scarecrow press, or Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe, John-Paul Himka and Joanna Michlic, pages 339-342. Note that there are approx. 5-6 different spelling variations for Koniuchy - standard Polish, standard Lithuanian, and a number of other transliterations.Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It is NOT "abundantly clear". In the Haaretz piece Koniuchy is mentioned once... in relation to some other person. The other two sources are just making sweeping generalizations. The source provided by K.e.coffman deals in specifics and is very detailed, yet it does not mention Koniuchy at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
That the source K.e.coffman presented does indeed seem to not name Koniuchy or any other location, which is not surprising since the raid on Koniuchy is of little interest outside its use as a "word-code"[34] and the investigation in Lithuania which was seen as a contemptible farce by some Lithuanians and the outside world.[35] However, Historical Dictionary of Lithuania, Saulius A. Suziedelis, Scarecrow press quite clear - under a section on Koniuchy The Koninuchy incident gained international notoriety when Lithuanian procurators opened an investigation into the massacre in 2004, during which they sought to question elderly Jewish veterans of the partisan movement, including Yitzhak Arad, for head of Yad Vashem and a member of the Lithuanian government's commission investigating the Soviet and Nazi occupations. The author - Saulius Sužiedėlis - is an expert on the field, and has commented on this affair elsewhere, e.g. in this Foreign Policy article in 2009.Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This source - The Jewish Chronicle - [36] - The local media have also reported than an investigation is under way, accusing both Arad and Brantovsky of massacring civilians in the village of Kaniukai.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, just to be clear: are you against mentioning Arad in this article at all, or against mentioning him with IPN 'primary' sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Arad isn't mentioned with any "IPN source", primary or secondary! Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Arad is WP:WELLKNOWN (as are possibly other individuals we could name) - he can be named. I am opposed to any use of the IPN (who in this case - was an investigating agency - this was handled by an IPN prosecutor) in the article - for starters since we shouldn't be using PRIMARY sources at all (all the more so when they are press releases), and since any and all details in the article relate possibly to BLPs (e.g. Arad) - and hence BLPPRIMARY comes into play.Icewhiz (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Arad isn't mentioned by any IPN source, primary or secondary! There is no BLP issue with respect to Arad and IPN. If there is some BLP issue wrt to Arad it's due to sources and text YOU introduced. Stop saying absurd things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Per IPN it asked for legal assistance from Lithuanian, Russian and Belorussian authorities, as well as Israeli (which I doubt gave a reply). Assuming some materials were supplied by Lithuania, Icewhiz would not be wrong suggesting there was some cooperation between IPN and the Lithuanian authorities. Whatever the nature of that cooperation was, we ought to be very careful not to suggest anything that might violates WP:BLP. François Robere (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: I’m pretty sure that the “Arad Affair” was about the Lithuanian investigation in questions. It seems extremely unlikely that there were two investigations into Arad in the same timeframe. See:Historical Dictionary of Lithuania, Saulius A. Suziedelis, page 146-147: "The Koniuchy incident gained international notoriety when Lithuanian prosecutors opened an investigation into the massacre in 2004…” Separately, the IPN investigation is mentioned in the same source as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I concur this is likely the same topic. Arad's name should not be mention in lead here, of course, but a brief mention of him in the investigation section seems prefectly due (and, as long as we are clear he was not found guilty, not violating BLP). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


I expanded the lead with this diff. The material, as described in Historical Dictionary of Lithuania gives equal weight to the investigation and the massacre itself. I also removed Mark Paul from ext links while I was at it. Please let me know of any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

My problem with this edit is that it omits the much lengthier and not-criticized Polish investigations. Both, of course, ended with no charges (unsurprising, given they were decades too late), but they (at least, the Polish ones - I am not aware of the Lithuanian body doing much scientific research, unlike the Polish institution, which is less - if sadly, not devoid of - politically motivated) did contribute to the scholarly understanding of the issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Religious prejudiceEdit

I'm sorry, but trying to get rid of a source because it's a religiously affiliated publisher as Icewhiz is trying to do here [37] is pretty despicable and contrary to Wikipedia policy. This is putting aside that we have academic source for the same talk as well as well. What do you think would happen if someone went around Wikipedia removing sources simply because they're Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist or something? What the fuck. This is some pretty odious behavior.

And btw, while Pax is a publisher affiliated with the Catholic Church, it is very much liberal (indeed, the usual criticism levied against it is that it's too leftist). Sheesh. Volunteer Marek 20:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

NPA please. This is a church affiliated publisher - not an academic publisher - known for publishing the bible, other religious texts, and patriotic texts. The author was not an academic (he would receive a phd over a decade later). Your "academic" source (citing this 1997 non academic book) has been described in a review as being full of conspiracies.[1] Sources published later have more details on weapons in the village.
There's no PA's here. Removing a source on the basis of religion is fucked up, full stop. This is sanctionable as it clearly demonstrates WP:NOTHERE behavior. And no, this is NOT what this publisher is known for. Volunteer Marek 20:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
On the basis of this being a church affiliated publisher, not academic scholarship.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
You removed it because it was "Catholic". That's bigotry, straight up. How is it that you're even allowed to edit Wikipedia? (And it is academic). Volunteer Marek 00:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The exact phrase was POV language on requisitions. Source descrubed in academic review as full of conspiracies. The cited Polish source is by a Catholic publisher by a (at the time) non-phd. You're making a serious accusation based on Icewhiz leaving out or substituting the word "church" for "Catholic" - a common practice in reference to eg. evangelical sects. He explained himself well, I suggest leaving it be. François Robere (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That's actually a separate issue. The issue here is that Icewhiz removed a source because it was "Catholic". Which is fucked up.
And of course you think "he explained himself well" (he didn't - he doubled down on the insane idea that he gets to remove sources because he doesn't like their religion) - I mean, how long is this list? You're not even trying to hide it. Volunteer Marek 14:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You do use watchlists, Marek, do you not? Icewhiz clearly explained himself in his previous messages (see above), and you've shown no evidence to suggest any religious bias on his side. I again suggest you drop the issue. François Robere (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The "evidence" is his own edit summary. If he says he's removing a source because it's "Catholic" I believe him that he's removing a source because it's "Catholic". He sorta slipped up and accidentally said out loud what he was he thinking, didn't he? But that's a problem for him, as it shows he's WP:NOTHERE to push a WP:AGENDA. Volunteer Marek 22:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Err. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is a reliable historian (through he represents a particular side in relevant debates). I am not aware of any consensus to remove his works, and it has been published by Routledge. The fact that his book got a critical review in [38] - so what? The Sarmatian Review is sadly a very minor journal with little impact (I say this, sadly, as I've also published a book review in TSR and I know it counts for very little). Chodakwicz book is reasonably well cited and received several other reviews - here's one that's not paywalled, and it's quite positive: [39]: "On the whole, the book is one of the most competent and well-written accounts of the Intermarium that I have read. It is based on an impressive range of sources. It sheds new light on historical and present-day processes. " Right now I don't have easy access to paywalled reviews at [40] and [41] but at the very least the latter seems to be a rather positive reception of the book, if the first two paragraphs are any judge.
The other work in Polish is be an also reliable historian (pl:Kazimierz Krajewski). That he had no 'doktorat' (=/= PhD) in 1997 doesn't make him unreliable. pl:Instytut Wydawniczy „Pax” is a perfectly reliable Polish publisher with almost a century of history; if you have any sources arguing its publications are problematic en masse, do cite them. Those are reliable works and there is no reason for their removal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, if you honestly think we cannot use a source because it's "Catholic", go to WP:RSN and take it up there. Or hell, let's go to ANI and see what other editors think about removing sources on religious grounds. Like I said, a person who thinks that a source can be disqualified on a basis of religion has no business editing Wikipedia on anything remotely controversial. Volunteer Marek 14:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove the source since it was "Catholic", nor did I say so in the edit summary. I did state the publisher was Catholic (which is factually correct) as a shorthand for Catholic church affiliated publisher of religious material, and that the author was not an academic in 1997. What is shameful here, is that in an article on an incident that is used as an antisemitic dog whistle (or "word-code")[42] that we are using such borderline sources. Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"I removed it because the publisher was Catholic" and "I removed it because it was Catholic" mean the same thing. You can try to spin it but the basis for your removal was that the source was of "wrong religion", according to you. Which is shameful.
Your second claim - are you accusing the author of this source and/or the publisher of being anti-semitic? If yes, then say so directly. If no, then don't try to make false insinuations which you're unwilling to state explicitly (that clearly shows that you're making stuff up and trying to deflect the attention from your own extremely problematic behavior and beliefs)
Third - are you still contending that we cannot use a source because it was published by a Catholic-church-affiliated institute? Please provide a clear answer.
Volunteer Marek 16:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
A source published in a non-academic setting (a Catholic church affiliated publisher known for bible publishing, religious texts, and patriotic texts) by a non-academic author - is UNDUE. That this is referenced by a second source described as full of conspiracies,[1] written by an author known for being a far-right activist who has been accused himself of anti-semitism,[43] does not support use of this source.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Bullshit. You removed it because it was "Catholic". At least own up to it. Then you posted an unrelated source and implied that the source you removed was anti-semitic (it's not, not even close, you were being deceptive). Your description of Pax is also completely off the mark and just something you pulled out of thin air. Pax, while Catholic, publishes academic works, philosophy books, classic works of literature. This particular source under discussion - a book by a prominent historian - perfectly illustrates that. The source under discussion is neither the bible, nor a religious text, nor a "patriotic text" (whatever that is suppose to be). So stop making shit up and writing nonsense to justify your problematic behavior.
Do you continue to object to a source on the basis of its religious affiliation? Volunteer Marek 18:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not a matter of religious affiliation. The guy is not an academic. Source is weak and POV.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
According to Icewhiz himself, yes it was a matter of religious affiliation. You're wrong.
Yes, the guy IS an academic. In fact an expert in this topic whose received numerous awards. You must not have been paying attention, but rather just do reflexive blind reverts on Icewhiz's behalf.
No, the source is not "weak" or POV. It's a scholarly, liberal, left-leaning, institute publishing a well known and established historian with great credentials. Stop making stuff up.
Seriously, can we get a good-faithed discussion just once? The discussion always lead nowhere because some editors just show up and make shit up without any backing from sources or policy.21:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Weak how? Did the book break on you when you tried to use it for heavy lifting? As for POV, check WP:NPOV. Of course it is POVed, NPOV sources do not exist, all sources have some POV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line is Icewhiz removed a source on religious grounds. That's messed up and is sanction able. At the very least the text needs to be restored and his cheering squad needs to back off and stop defending his problematic actions. And like I said, if you seriously believe that sources shouldn't be allowed because "they're Catholic", please, go to WP:RSN and make that argument. Otherwise please stop wasting our time here. Volunteer Marek 21:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss sanctions. Please keep this discussion to the source in question; the Catholic issue and its sanctionability belong elsewhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of information that Soviet units robbed local villagers-although source clearly states soEdit

This edit removed information about robberies carried out by Soviet units against local villagers[44], however the source at this sentence clearly states that they were robbed " "Partyzanci w czasie powtarzających się napadów na tę wieś rabowali jej mieszkańcom żywność, odzież, bydło".Partisans during repeated raids on this village, robbed its inhabitants from food, clothing,cattle.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

English language souces generally use requsition (or other non-POV language), e.g. Sužiedėlis, S. (2018). The International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation Regimes in Lithuania: successes, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Baltic Studies, 49(1), 103-116.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Can I see a quote stating that robberies by Soviet forces are described in English language as "requisition"? In any case, this, and other sources state clearly that these were robberies.Requisitions can be carried out by legal authorities, and Soviets weren't one in occupied Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
So Germans requisitions Jewish property during the Holocaust, not robbed from them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
We are comparing Jewish and Soviet partisans to the Nazies now, are we? The Soviet partisans in this area, including for this case, provided villagers with documentation (scrip) that supplies were taken feom them.Icewhiz (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You're evading the question. Quotes please. Volunteer Marek 20:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Still waiting on the source for these claims.... Volunteer Marek 08:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Source? And yeah, German-Soviet comparison is often valid. You know - German invasion of Poland - Soviet invasion of Poland, Polish territories occupied by Nazi Germany - Polish territories occupied by the Soviet Union, etc. Anyway, neutrality requires using the same language for different factions. You know, one's group terrorists are another group's freedom fighters. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly the point with the "bandits" discussion, if you recall. At any rate, I'd place the emphasis here on the "partisans" part, as in "comparing partisans to the Nazies". Would anyone here dare make similar assertions about other partisan groups? I doubt it. François Robere (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I vaguely recall some people you may by familiar with comparing Polish partisans in such a way... but what's the point of this discussion? We should focus on improving the article, not useless talk about who knows what. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't. At any rate, Icewhiz presented an RS - go with it. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I will note that the bandit/robbing terminology appears in Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions reports, quoted by Polonsky, whose units rushed to defend the collaborating villagers and intercept the Soviet forces during and after the attack. It is quite jarring to see advocacy for use of terminology used by the main perpetrators of the Holocaust in Lithuania (unlike other countries, in Lithuania these local and eager helpers were the main driving force). The intervening Lithianian force here, the 252nd battalion, was formed to guard Majdanek concentration camp and was also involved in guarding prisoner conveys."Bronius+Bajerčius"&source=bl&ots=tThT5dOpXk&sig=8shddgiF192RJnUv5B5OfHd8Z7c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjC4PKC-dreAhVCPVAKHW32BZ0Q6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="Bronius%20Bajerčius"&f=false. So while the origin of this terminology is quite clear - it is not used by mainstream English scademic sources (except when they quote others - e.g. periodic pro-Nazi sources).Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you please stop it with the bullshit POV phraseology "collaborating villagers"? You're victim blaming to try to imply that the women and children murdered in this massacre somehow "deserved it". Yes, there are some authors - mostly those who are just repeating Soviet propaganda or uncritically accepting statements from the perpetrators of this massacre - who try to do the same, but that's a clear POV view which is contradicted by other, reliable, sources. Volunteer Marek 19:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Other reliable sources? You mean authors designated by the SPLC for hate speech or fringe ethno-nationalist writers? Polonsky or Suziedelis are mainstream academics, published academically, who clearly assert the collaboration here and that this was a conflict between two armed forces - innocent civilians died as well - bit not all fatalities here were innocent.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, other reliable sources like Krajewski. There were also other reliable sources you (or your buddies) removed but I have to go back to much older versions of the article to get them. I don't see where Suziedelis asserts what you claim he asserts. For that matter, I don't see where Polonsky does either, since we only have your word to rely on that. And no, this was NOT "conflict between two armed forces". It was a murder of civilians. Stop it with the disgusting "blame the victim" nonsense. Volunteer Marek 20:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
For the record I checked the source provided by Icewhiz and there is nothing within that source stating that English language sources used term requisitions instead of robberies.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

as typical in such attacks there were also many innocent victims.Edit

Killing civilians in Ejszyszki is wrong, in Koniuchy it's typical.Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

These are Polonsk's wordy (as others - who go farther - e.g. this one which also has the villagers placing two dead partisan scouts on public display) is treating the target of the attack - the self defense force which collaborated with the Nazis - as a legitimate military target. He does not treat the dead villagers as civilians - as the collaborationist self defence was not civilian - but he does say there were innocent bystanders killed as well. It would be interesting if someone made an age/sex breakdown of the dead - I haven't seen such an analysis. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hold up. Let me get this straight. You objected to a source, written by a professional historian who specializes in the topic, published by a scholarly institute because ... it was "Catholic", but now, YOU are trying to pass off a source written by some guy who writes instructional books on... catfish fishing (!!!) for ... preschool to K12 (!!!) and who clearly has no idea what he's writing about and is spouting clear nonsense (the hey did Kovner have to do with this massacre???). Right.
Once again Icewhiz, you put your own biases, as well as your WP:NOTHERE on display. Your double standards are so blatant and obvious that once again I have to ask - how is it you're allowed to edit Wikipedia at all? Volunteer Marek 19:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Cohen's book is on the same level of the non-academic author published by a church affiliated publisher currently in the article - I did not introduce it to the article (it is not however nonesense - the dead scouts are present in several primary accounts). I think we should stick to mainstream academics such as Polonsky (who frames this as typical) and Suziedelis - and avoid lesser quality sources.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. Cohen's book is garbage which can't even get basic facts rights. Cohen's book is published a non-scholarly publisher. PAX is a scholarly publisher. Cohen has no credentials except the fact that he writes ... catfish fishing guides for school children. Krajewski is an award winning historian who specializes in the topic. Nice try at false equivocation though.
And what the hell??? Are you seriously trying to argue "since you didn't let me put in my shitty source in the article, I'm not going to let you put in a source that you like"???
PAX's publication is a top notch source. The fact that it's "Catholic" might bother you, but that's YOUR PROBLEM.
You can go to RSN with respect to PAX if you want to. But if you keep trying to remove sources on the basis of their religious affiliation, then you will wind up at an admin board. Volunteer Marek 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Not an acadmic press, known for bible and patriotic texts, written by a non-academic (later would become an IPN employee...). I am not trying to introduce Cohen - but yes - this school textbook is a better source than the pax book.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a scholarly institute with impeccable reputation. And no it's not "known for bible and patriotic texts". Stop making shit up. Stop trying to smear it. You tried to remove it on the basis that it was "Catholic" which is very problematic behavior. What do you think would happen if someone tried to remove sources because "they were Jewish"? Or because "they were Muslim"? Or because "they were Protestant"?
And it IS written by an academic, what are you talking about??? A history professor who's won numerous awards. You really need to watch WP:BLP. Volunteer Marek 20:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
And are you seriously trying to defend the Cohen book? Really? Let's see Cohen... "the author of such books as Catfish Fishing" [45] [46] "Introduces catfishing and the equipment used, describes catfish noodling, and discusses the effects of pollution on fish and the ethics of fishing." Great! Now, what are his credentials IN THIS topic? Hmmm, it can't be the fact that he writes patent nonsense, such as the claim that Abba Kovner was the one who "ordered this raid". The fact that you're making ridiculous assertion that this is "a better source" than a source written by a professional historian once again illustrates why you have no business editing this topic area. Volunteer Marek 20:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Are we talking this PAX? Not that I mind, personally, but there's some irony in you describing a pro-Communist publisher as "top notch" while trying to exclude one writer on the grounds of (supposedly) being Stalinist [47]. François Robere (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Sort of. PAX started as a pro-communist Catholic organization. It kind of split in 1956, after Stalin's death and afterwards drifted towards and then became part of the democratic opposition to Communism. In the 1960's it was a big supporter of Vatican II reforms. It pretty much completely ditched the communists (and nationalists) in 1979 and backed the Solidarity movement. It was shut down as a result during the martial law in Poland. The first freely elected, non-Communist Prime Minister of Poland, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, was a prominent member of the association. And it pretty much reflected the same ideology as Mazowiecki - leftist liberalism (as opposed to far left communism or right wing nationalist). It's EXACTLY the kind of source you should find acceptable. Volunteer Marek 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
So to answer your bad faithed, rhetorical question, yes, we're talking about that PAX, but it isn't (or wasn't at the time the source we're talking about) a "pro-Communist publisher" or Stalinist. So sorry bud, no contradiction on my part here. Volunteer Marek 22:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
but it isn't (or wasn't at the time the source we're talking about) a "pro-Communist publisher" or Stalinist Neither was Krakowski. François Robere (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


Per all mainstream academic English source (e.g. Michlic, Polonsky, Sužiedėlis) this event is primarily notable for ethno-nationalist discourse against Jews in Lithuanian and Poland. Such discourse vastly overstates the Jewish component of the Soviet forces (per Polonsky 100 of 400 approx), obsfucates the collaboration of the village self defense forces with the Nazis and their local Lithuanian helpers, and overstates the civilian casulties in relation to the armed members of the village self defense who were involved in an armed conflict with the Soviet forces. Our article does not properly reflect the use of the incident in antisemitic discourse, and furthermore dangerously promotes (e.g. in the lead) a civilian narrative not present in mainstream sources. Citing an author, as a source, who is a far right activist, widely accused of antisemitism, and designated and profiled by the SPLC,[48] clearly illustrates the many problems here. The article should clearly and unequivocally describe the collaboration, armed nature, and conflict of the village self defense with the Soviets (while also covering the death of innocent civilians). The article should also, per weight in academic sources, cover the use of this incident in ethno-nationalist discourse and hate speech.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That is obviously not true as multiple sources in the article illustrate. And yeah, this includes the reliable sources which you are repeatedly trying to remove.
Right now, the article is full of "blame the victim" apologia which tries to insinuate in a really disgusting way that it was ok for the Soviets to murder women and children because... they deserved it! They had a few rifles so they were combatants! The soviet partisans needed food!!!
Enough of this crap. Yes, the article is POV. It's POV'd the other way. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
If we ignore ethno-nationalist writings and use actual academic sources - e.g. Poloonsky - which an editor here is keen on reverting - the village self defence force was armed, in conflict with the Soviets, and on the night of the attack the 252nd Lithuanian auxillary police battalion (Majdanek camp guards) rushed to their aid. Certainly, per Polonsky, there were civilians as well in the village - but also armed fighters.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
We ARE using academic sources. But you keep trying to remove these. And misquoting or cherry picking others, like "Poloonsky" (sic).20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
And let's see - "the self defence was armed" - yes, they had a few rusty rifles. "In conflict with the Soviets" - yes, I guess being robbed by somebody makes you "in conflict" with them. As for the "rushed to their aid" - where do you see that? And Majdanek guards "rushing to the aid"??? You know Majdanek was in present day south-eastern Poland, and this is present day Lithuania we're talking about, right? Volunteer Marek 20:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Reliable mainstream sources (as opppsed to a non academic in a church affiliated publisher) do not agree with the above assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. Stop making stuff up. PAX is a reliable source. It's non-academic but it's scholarly. The actual text is from a professional historian. Stop. Trying. To. Smear. It. It's bad enough that you tried to remove it on the basis of religion.
You've been asked to support your assertions with quotes from sources before. You haven't bothered. And the text you want to include from Polonsky is barely relevant to the topic. Volunteer Marek 20:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
And btw, I actually agree that in terms of responsibility and significance, the participation of Jewish partisan units in this massacre is secondary. It was a massacre perpetrated by the Soviets. But guess what? A while back, before you showed up, this article actually 'de-emphasized the participation of Jewish partisans. But then you tried to stuff it chock full of Soviet apologia and that inevitably brought up the issue of Jewish partisans.
Where are they mentioned in the article presently? The Lithuanian investigation which YOU insisted be given prominence (I think it should be removed from the lede). And the testimony of Sara Ganaite which one of YOUR tag team restored to the article [49]. And... that's basically it.
See, if it hadn't been for YOUR efforts to whitewash this massacre, then the topic of Jewish partisans would be mentioned only briefly. So why are you trying to spin it, and blame others? Volunteer Marek 20:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Reliable mainstream sources focus on the political investigation and derailment of am actual war crimes commision - and are quite critical of this "investigation". They also do not treat this as a black and white massacre - but rather an act of war against an armed force that was in conflict with the partisans - a conflict which also led to civilian victims. We should do the same - and avoid adopting the simplistic ethno-nationalist victim narrative.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
No, there are reliable sources which are JUST ABOUT the massacre, and there are some reliable sources which also discuss the Lithuanian investigation. And that's already included. So what's your problem? It seems like you're saying that the whole article should be ONLY about the "investigation" but not about the actual massacre. What kind of logic is that?
And one more time - most of the instances where Jewish partisans come up in this article are there because YOU wanted to put it in. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, please stop restoring the highly inflammatory title of this section, since it looks like that is directed at your fellow editors, hence it's nothing but a disgusting WP:NPA. Volunteer Marek 20:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It is directed at the present content of the article - which presents an inflammatory ethno-nationalist narrative (per multiple academic sources - e.g. Polonsky, Michlic, Sužiedėlis such a narrative is actively promoted) - and yes - an antisemitic narrative - in Wikipedia's voice. Editors who promote such content should beware, however I said nothing regarding any editor here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
No, no it doesn't. The few times that Jewish partisans are mentioned are in instances where YOU insisted on including it.
And your section title certainly seems like it attacks other editors. Easy solution - trim it down. Which I tried to do but then you reverted. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Describing the fatalities in the Nazi-collaborating village self defense force as non-combatant innocent victims is embracing a narrative present only in ethno-nationalist sources.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Your continued insistence that the women and children murdered in this massacre are to be referred to as "Nazi-collaborating" is odious and you should be ashamed of yourself. Your assertion is completely false. You have not provided any sources to support it. Most sources acknowledge that the village had formed a self-defense militia after being repeatedly robbed by Soviet partisans but they also note the pathetic state of armament of this self defense and none but Soviet propaganda ones describe this as a "battle" - it was a massacre of civilians. Stop trying to blame the victims.
And let me repeat. The few times that Jewish partisans are mentioned are in instances where YOU insisted on including it. Volunteer Marek 20:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Polonsky describes this perfectly (yet keeps getting reverted - [50]) - the village hindered partisan activity and harbored collaborationist police, though as typical in such attacks there were also many innocent victims.... That there were also innocents does not mean we should present these as only innocents - a view not present in mainstream academic writing.Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
"Hindered partisan activity" here means "didn't want to be robbed or killed by Soviet partisans". So strictly speaking it's correct but it's also cherry picked and POV. Likewise "harbored" - do you think the village had any choice of who stayed in it? This is just more victim-blaming which this article is too full of already. And when you refer to "mainstream academic writing" (sic) you seem to mean "sources which Icewhiz agrees with", seeing as how you've actually tried to remove such sources. Not how this works.
And let me repeat. The few times that Jewish partisans are mentioned are in instances where YOU insisted on including it. So stop it with the disingenuous faux-concern that there is too much about Jewish partisans in the article. Volunteer Marek 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This is fairly closely paraphrased language that appears in Polonsky's summary in page 42 - Polonsky (as well as any other mainstream English language source) believes the choice of the villagers to create a German sanctioned armed force and to engage in combat against the Soviets as relevant to the battle on the 29th of January.Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Right, "paraphrased" by you. Your claim about "as well as any other mainstream English language source" is straight up false, except in a No True Scotsman kind of way (any mainstream English source which does not agree with you, by definition, cannot be mainstream. According to you).
And let me repeat. The few times that Jewish partisans are mentioned are in instances where YOU insisted on including it. So stop it with the disingenuous faux-concern that there is too much about Jewish partisans in the article. Volunteer Marek 21:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the version of the article before Icewhiz's first edit on March 14th (introducing a {{POV}} tag). In it there are five mentions of Jewish partisans, plus one in the lead. François Robere (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've restored one of the Polonsky statements and added another two. I think he characterizes the situation there well. François Robere (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You have added a memoir by a member of the group who boasted about the massacre and praised it,you also constructed the source in such a way that it suggested it is a book by by Polonsky. I have removed it as it is not a neutral source and description of the background is already above it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
See below: [51][52] François Robere (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Wait, so now you're cool with including memoirs by the perpetrators (iirc those were being removed previously because they were primary)? Are you sure you cool with that? Cuz there's plenty from the perpetrators' memoirs that can be included. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Polonsky is not a "perpetrator" - and he authored the extensive introduction, which is a secondary analysis. Per Polonsky this was an armed conflict between the self defense force and the partisans.Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nobody said he was. That's sort of the point, if you actually read the few comments right above yours. Volunteer Marek 05:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


If anyone is interested in doing serious work rather than using this article for their WP:AGENDA, then it would be useful if we could establish what was the involvement, if any, of Abba Kovner. As far as I know, he wasn't involved, although his unit operated in the same region (Rudnicki Forest). A search for any info on Kovner and Koniuchy brings up... a lot of far-right, anti-semitic, websites which place blame on him. Those are obviously unreliable. However, there are a couple sources which seem to repeat this info. In particular it seems like Richard Cohen in his (unreliable) book on the subject took this fake info at face value but then rewrote it to make it seem like a heroic battle by Kovner's forces.

More significantly, JVL makes a brief mention to the same effect. It may be the case that some of the partisans moved between units and some were earlier or later associated with Kovner. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Polonsky (for some reason reverted whenever used) - has overall command by Genrikas Zimanas, and estimates (for some reason - reverted as well) that some 100 of the 400 Soviet fighters deployed that night (in Koniuchy and a couple of other villages) were Jewish.Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
We can certainly use Polonsky to cite the fact that Zimanas was in command and the 100/400 number.
But we're not going to use that to try and insinuate - and Polonsky certainly doesn't - that the 252nd Lithuanian Battalion was somehow involved in some fictitious battle with the Soviets at Koniuchy. Yes, Lithuanian collaborationist units and Germans fought against Soviet partisans... and water is wet. What does this have to do with the massacre? Volunteer Marek 20:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Polonsky clearly states that 52 men from the 252nd arrived at Koniuchy in the early morning of the battle to intercept and engage the Soviet forces, and that other detachments from the 252nd and 253rd attempted to set up ambushes elsewhere to interdict the Soviets leaving Koniuchy and a couple of other villages that night. As such the 252nd and 253rd along with the self defense force were combatants against the Soviet partisans in the battle and all should be clearly present in the lede and infobox. Polonsky makes the connection - there is no basis to remove this (except perhaps IDONTLIKE of the aid rendered by a unit originally formed to guard Majdanek) - it is as clear as daylight they were involved in the combat operation.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's see the quotes. Either Polonsky claims that the Lithuanians participated in some battle at Koniuchy, in which case he is the ONLY source to make that claim - neither Polish, nor Soviet, nor Jewish (including from people involved) sources make that claim - or, you're twisting what Polonsky says. And if there was some fighting between Soviets and Lithuanians AFTER this massacre, then that's another topic. To try to exploit that fact to whitewash a massacre of civilians is, well, fucked up. Volunteer Marek 20:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This is in Polonsky - pages 40-2. He treats the Lithuanian command as the opposing command to the Soviet one, and describes movements and attempts to engage in the early morning of the battle in Koniuchy. He also provides extensive quotes from orders and after action reports from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
One more time. Does he say that there was a battle between Lithuanians and Soviets at Koniuchy while the massacre was carried out? No? Then stop trying to confuse matters in order to whitewash it.
Look. At My Lai, American troops came under fire from the enemy. They then MASSACRED the village. We don't describe My Lai as a battle. This wasn't one either. And hell, here the Soviets ... may ... have engaged with Lithuanian forces but AFTER the massacre, not before it like the case with My Lai.
(and while we're at it, My Lai figures pretty prominently in some Soviet and communist far-left sources as an example of "evil American imperialism". But just because Soviets and communist have used it for their own ends, doesn't mean the massacre didn't happen. Same thing here. Just because you can find some far-right writers who try to use this massacre for their own ends, doesn't mean the massacre didn't happen. Stop trying to whitewash it) Volunteer Marek 21:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Polonsky views the 252nd attempts to engage and ambush the Soviet forces immediately after (same morning) as the engagement in the village as relevant. My Lai is irrelevant and different - as in the case of Koniuchy there was a sizeable armed self defense force (30+ men) in the village which the Soviets engaged. Certainly we should not whitewash the civilian victims - but nor should we whitewash armed Nazi-allied men into civilians - as Polonsky makes clear.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
You haven't actually supplied any quotes to support your claims about Polonsky. Despite being asked repeatedly. You just assure us that "it's relevant" or "Polonsky makes clear". Let's see the quotes.
(And how was My Lai "different"? All massacres are different. Yet, they share the same characteristics. One of these is that very often the perpetrators try to justify their actions by claiming that their victims - women and children - were "collaborators") Volunteer Marek 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This material is readily available in Polonsky - on what basis are yoou reverting if you hadn't read the source? (In My Lai the dead were civilians - not armed members of a self defence force engaged in hostilities).Icewhiz (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Bullshit. In My Lai the dead were civilians. In Koniuchy the dead - women and children - were civilians. At My Lai American troops came under fire prior to committing the massacre (perhaps from self defense forces). At Koniuchy the villagers were armed with a couple rifles. Same thing.
We can go further. At My Lai the perpetrators claimed the people they were murdering where Viet Cong or "Viet Cong sympathizers". At Koniuchy the perpetrators claimed the people they were murdering where "Nazi sympathizers". People who perpetrate massacre ALWAYS claim that those whom they murder are "collaborators" of some kind or another. The Germans, when they "pacified" villages (i.e. murder everyone in them and burn the houses) also claimed that they were carrying out "anti-partisan activities" and that villages were "harboring" (sound familiar?) the partisans. Perpetrators ALWAYS do this. Whether it's Soviets killing Poles, Germans killing Russians, or Americans killing Vietnamese.
And stop making excuses but provide the quotes. That's your responsibility. Volunteer Marek 22:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
"According to [the Lithuanian's police commander's report] at around 7 a.m., 52 men of the 252nd police battalion, armed with machine guns, went to [Koniuchy] but were unable to intercept the retreating Soviet partisans... [Several units] attempted unsuccessfully to ambush Soviet partisans." (there, pp. 41-42)
Right, so that was after the massacre. There was no "battle" and this was a massacre, not an armed conflict.
And btw, who wrote the above comment? Was it Icewhiz or Fancois Robere? Volunteer Marek 22:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
We're not here to do OR. If the sources are insufficient, then we don't state it. François Robere (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
You have added a quote from a memoir by a member of the group who boasted about the massacre and praised it,you also constructed the source in such a way that it suggested it is a book by by Polonsky.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It's from the introduction by Polonsky, and I didn't "construct" the source - I restored it. François Robere (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Why are you removing Polonsky from the article then? Volunteer Marek 19:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


The above thread on the serious question of involvement, or lack thereof, of Aba Kovner was (once again) derailed by Icewhiz. So, simple question and let's stick to the topic:

Did Aba Kovner have anything to do with this massacre or is that just a couple sources mixing up their stories? Volunteer Marek 21:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't derailed by Icewhiz, it was derailed by you. Icewhiz cited a source on the order of battle on the Soviet side; you mentioned the 252nd Battalion and the discussion was drawn there.
As for Kovner - as I previously stated, it's not our role to do OR. Either the sources state it, or they don't. In particular, we're not looking to draw targets around arrows. François Robere (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
No, his complaints that Polonsky was being removed derailed it. Which is funny, since he's removing Polonsky himself [53], just, you know, in cases where doesn't fit the POV.
As to the actual question - you're sort of missing the point. There are some sources which for some reason mention Kovner in connection to this massacre. I think they're garbage and they got it wrong. I'm asking if anyone know if there are any reliable sources which make the connection. Volunteer Marek 22:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed falsely described sourceEdit

A source was entered into the text falsel attributed to Polonsky, without information that it is actually a memoir by a person involved with the groups that carried out the massacre.Please use reliable sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The extensive introduction (42 pages), whose pages were cited, was authored by Polonsky - this was clearly noted in the citation - A Partisan from Vilna (Jews of Poland), Introduction by Antony Polonsky, Academic Studies Press, pages 40-42, ISBN 978-1934843956. The memoirs are by a person honored by multiple organizations - however regardless she did not author the segment. The publisher is academic, and Polonsky is the preeminent living scholar in this field. The segment in question is also repeated in Polonsky's The Jews in Poland and Russia: Volume III: 1914 to 2008. Your removal of an academic source by a well established author has no basis. Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Didn't you just try to remove some source because it was only an introduction to a book? Volunteer Marek 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Polonsky is the preeminent living scholar in this field" Good, I will quote Polonsky then. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lest I be accused of OR - this is per Anna M. Cienciala in Cienciala, Anna M. "The Jews in Poland and Russia, Volume III: 1914 to 2008." (2013): 101-108.. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
You're not being accused of OR. You're being accused of first saying that "Polonsky is the preeminent living scholar in this field", but then when someone actually adds some material based on Polonsky to the article you... actively remove it. With false edit summaries. See the problem? Volunteer Marek 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Zizas - Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania - not remotely a RSEdit

At present, following recent edits, 50% of the citations (and even more of the text) in the article are to works authored by Rimantas Zizas - who is affiliated with the state-funded Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania. Zizas, per worldcat and google-scholar, has authored very few works - it seems almost all of his works are related to Koniuchy, are rather scantily cited, and are published for the most part under the auspices of the Centre and its associated publications. The Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania promotes the WP:FRINGE view of the "Lithuanian genocide thesis",[1] or "double genocide myth",[2] and was involved in the derailment of investigations into actual war crimes committed by Lithuanians in WWII, and the persecution of Jewish holocaust survivors,[3][1][2] an investigation triggered (and acknowledged as such by the centre) by a newspaper which has been sanctioned for anti-semitism,[4] and see in most of the world as a "contemptible farce".[5] Promotion of ethno-nationalist Lithuanian discourse, in Wikipedia's voice no less in many cases, is clearly not acceptable.Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania has it's own wikipage " is a state-funded research institute in Lithuania dedicated to "the study of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Lithuania; the study of the persecution of local residents by occupying regimes; the study of armed and unarmed resistance to occupying regimes; the initiation of the legal evaluation of the activities of the organisers and implementers of genocide; and the commemoration of freedom fighters and genocide victims." The centre was founded on 25 October 1992 by the Supreme Council of the Lithuanian Republic as the "State Genocide Research Centre of Lithuania". [1][2] It is a member organisation of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience.[3]" The centre publishes the academic journal Genocidas ir rezistencija and operates the Museum of Genocide Victims in the former prison of KGB in Vilnius and memorial at the Tuskulėnai Manor. One of its long-term research projects is a database and multi-volume publication of names and biographies of the victims of the Soviet and Nazi persecutions.[9] In 2001–2001, the centre handled some 22,000 applications for compensation from the Foundation "Remembrance, Responsibility and Future".[10] "The Centre has been active in seeking the prosecution of Jewish partisans on the grounds of war crimes. In 1999–2002, the centre was involved in legal proceedings regarding Nachman Dushanski, an Israeli citizen.[11] In 2007 the head of the Genocide Center at the time, Arvydas Anusauskas, initiated a criminal investigation against Holocaust survivor Yitzhak Arad.[4][12][13]"

"The centre publishes the academic journal Genocidas ir rezistencija and operates the Museum of Genocide Victims in the former prison of KGB in Vilnius and memorial at the Tuskulėnai Manor. One of its long-term research projects is a database and multi-volume publication of names and biographies of the victims of the Soviet and Nazi persecutions.[9] In 2001–2001, the centre handled some 22,000 applications for compensation from the Foundation "Remembrance, Responsibility and Future".[10] "The Centre has been active in seeking the prosecution of Jewish partisans on the grounds of war crimes. In 1999–2002, the centre was involved in legal proceedings regarding Nachman Dushanski, an Israeli citizen.[11] In 2007 the head of the Genocide Center at the time, Arvydas Anusauskas, initiated a criminal investigation against Holocaust survivor Yitzhak Arad.[4][12][13] " All in all a reliable source, although like most scholarly sources dealing with this subject not without its controversies.And we are using Zizas, not the Centre. I am glad you agree th that promotion of ethno-nationalist discourse is not acceptable(be it Lithuanian, Polish or Israeli) in Wikipedia's voice no less in many cases, is clearly not acceptable.Since we are writing about Polish village, there is little here for Lithuanian nationalism and we will make extra case to avoid it.For the record Jewish history quarterly praises Zizas article as detailed and going against some of the nationalist ciaims(Jewish history quarterly, Issues 225-228, Zydowski Instytut Historyczny).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to quote the entire history of Lithuania to make your argument, Molobo. The bottom line is his statements should be examined and in the very least attributed where appropriate. François Robere (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Pettai, Eva-Clarita. "Negotiating history for reconciliation: a comparative evaluation of the Baltic presidential commissions." Europe-Asia Studies 67.7 (2015): 1079-1101.
  2. ^ a b Katz, Dovid. "The Extraordinary Recent History of Holocaust Studies in Lithuania." Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust 31.3 (2017): 285-295.
  3. ^ Budryte, Dovile. "Travelling trauma: Lithuanian transnational memory after World War II." Memory and trauma in international relations: Theories, cases, and debates (2013): 168-82.
  4. ^ Bravin, Nick. "Baltic Ghosts." Foreign Policy 172 (2009): 163-165.
  5. ^ Himka, John-Paul, and Joanna Beata Michlic, eds. Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe. U of Nebraska Press, 2013, page 340

This one doesn't make any senseEdit

In this edit Icewhiz removes sources with the following edit summary:

"An opinion piece in the Polish American Journal (a newspaper) lamenting inability to Publish the author's views on the Holocaust by major publishers, and alleging "notorious" bias by majo......."

(the (....) is some hyperbolic rhetoric by Icewhiz). The actual source being removed is this one: [54]. Quote: "Edited by Antony Polonsky, Joanna B. Michlic".

If one reads above discussions one can easily see how Icewhiz keeps repeating we should use... Polonsky. But yet here he is REMOVING a source edited by ... Polonsky.

What gives? This appears to be more of just the same blatant double standard that Icewhiz has employed throughout these disputes. This source is good. This source, even though it's the same dude, is no good.

I don't see any reason for this except, well, the simplest one - if a source says something that Icewhiz agrees with, then it's good (or as he likes to pretend "mainstream academic"). If a source says something Icewhiz doesn't agree with - EVEN WHEN IT'S THE SAME AUTHOR OR PUBLISHER - then all of sudden "it's fringe" or "ethno-nationalist" or whatever BS Icewhiz invents.

If you object to books edited by Polonsky, then why are you trying to include books by Polonsky in the article???????????


If you want to include books by Polonsky in the article, why are you removing books edited by Polonsky from the article?????????

Volunteer Marek 22:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This book is a collection of (mostly) translated opinion pieces intended to study the varied Polish response (from denial to acceptance, including antisemitic responses) to Jedwabne. The cited content is a quote of an opinion piece in the Polish American Journal. Polonsky did not author the opinion piece, nor do Polonsky, Michlic, or the publisher endorse any of the collected opinion pieces - they are quoted as a subject of study. If you want to use it (grossly undue)- cite the Polish American Journal and the author. The book itself is a source for the translation (and that it was published) - but not for the contents of the opinion pieces. The book also includes commentary on the quoted pieces - which can be attributed to Polonsky/Michlic, but not the quoted pieces. Quotations in secondary RSes are reliable only for the existence of the quote in the source document, not for the factual accuracy of the quote.Icewhiz (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"opinion pieces intended to study the varied Polish response " <-- that's your own personal characterization of the book, and one which is far from accurate. Here is an accurate characterization, from the publisher's website: "This book captures some of the most important voices in the ensuing debate", "The Neighbors Respond makes the debate over Neighbors available to an English-speaking audience", "It constitutes an engrossing contribution to modern Jewish history, to our understanding of Polish modern history and identity, and to our bank of Holocaust memory"
So no, it doesn't "study" the Polish response, it presents various responses. In particular, the article (not an "opinion piece" (sic)) you're trying to remove is from a professional historian who specializes in the topic. Just in case anyone is confused, this is a DIFFERENT professional historian who specializes in the topic that you're trying to remove. I mean, there's like four or five (at least) historians who specialize in the topic that you've been trying to remove (all the while claiming, apparently non-ironically, that we should use "mainstream academic sources"). Volunteer Marek 05:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes - it is a study of the Polish response, presenting Polish voices - opinion pieces - quoting them, not endorsing them. Specifically, the authors write the following of the quoted piece - Apologetic voices, often of a radical type, were, however more commonly heard within American Polonia. A good example is the article below, by Richard Lukas. This is a moderate statement of the position, and far more extreme and antisemitic responses could be cited - so a radical apologetic piece in which one should note in which Lukas laments on how major publishers aren't willing to publish his POV on the Holocaust. So yes - good job - you are citing an opinion piece described as less antisemitic than others of the type. The Polish American Journal is niche newspaper/newsletter - it is not a RS for history - in this particular instance Lukas's opinion is wrong on the facts in the same sentence - he is claiming "several hundred" fatalities - regardless, his opinion is not a source for facts. At least, I suppose, we aren't trying to use quotes in Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War, A. Kallis, Palgrave as sources for fact.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Wait, so is it "radical" or is it "moderate"? And no it doesn't describe it as "antisemitic". It explicitly says that OTHER "responses" were antisemitic. And I have no idea why you're citing a completely different work which does not appear to mention the topic of this article or the author or the editor under discussion. Did you just find a unrelated book called "Nazi Propaganda" and link it for the hell of it to smear a living person? Watch WP:BLP please. Volunteer Marek 08:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh wait, I get it. You weren't just trying to smear a living person, you were also making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors, by suggesting that they are spreading "Nazi Propaganda". I'm assuming that was intended to provoke a reaction, since you know, nobody likes to be subject to such false and disgusting allegations. And then, let me guess, you were planning to take that provoked reaction and go running to a drama board and file a report about how the editors that you just falsely accused of spreading "Nazi Propaganda" are "uncivil" or something because they didn't take kindly to such smears. So rather than responding explicitly in the way that you hoped, I'll just let your own imagination fill in the appropriate response to your slurs. Volunteer Marek 08:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I was quoting Polonsky and Michlic - in their study of Polish responses - who described this one as - "Apologetic voices, often of a radical type, were, however more commonly heard within American Polonia. A good example is the article below, by Richard Lukas. This is a moderate statement of the position, and far more extreme and antisemitic responses could be cited". If other responses are "far more extreme and antisemitic" - then this one is less so - per Polonsky and Michlic. In any event, it is described as "apologetic" and "radical" - while certainly valuable as a topic of study regarding the attitudes of American Polonia to the Polish role in the Holocaust and Jedwabne specifically - the quotation in Polonsky and Michlic may only used to be sources the attributed quotation. Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's put aside your idiosyncratic and peculiar interpretation of what Polonsky and Michlic write for now. Can you explain why you brought up this book, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing? Volunteer Marek 08:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: So the original was not published in a peer-reviewed (or otherwise WP:RELIABLE) publication? François Robere (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Published in the Polish American Journal - [55] which per themselves is a "English language Newspaper dedicated to the preservation, promotion and continuance of Polish American culture and heritage.". At best - a highly niche newspaper, definitely not a peer reviewed academic source.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
But here we are using a book edited by ... Polonsky. Whom you insisted we should use. Stop it with these obnoxious double standards. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
But Polonsky and Michlik don't endorse his opinion, do he? They merely present it as part of a literature review. The most we can take out of that (unless otherwise noted) is that they think his opinion is representative or important, not that it's true or accurate; we still need to examine Lukas and his article on their own merits, or in the very least attribute his claims rather than present them in our voice. François Robere (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I read the whole short thing - I apologize it took this long. Icewhiz is right, but is too articulate to pass one impression coming off of the text: that Lukas went off the rails. I've more than once criticized the politicization of the Holocaust, but Lukas goes several steps further, essentially equating the academic publishing industry with tabloids. Whatever factual claim he has against Gross hides between a lot of anger and apologetics, with little analysis or depth, and no references (including that one statement on Koniuchy that for some reason is cited here). This doesn't look like a piece written by one professional about the work of another, but like a "letters to the editor" tirade. I'm hardly surprised he sent it to the "neighbourhood gazette"-looking "Polish American Journal" and not to a "big name" publisher, where I doubt it would've been accepted. François Robere (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted but also irrelevant since it constitutes original research. I guess you can try at WP:RSN to see if others agree with you. If anyone could remove any source simply because they feel that it "doesn't look like a piece written by a professional" we wouldn't have a sourcing to speak off and you might as well throw WP:RS out the window. In other words - not how this works. Volunteer Marek 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Lukas's column in the Polish American Journal has context - his own book on the Holocaust (promoted, I shall note, by the same Polish American publication) which has been criticized as tendentious and filled with inaccuracies and distortions (see - Engel, David. "Poles, Jews, and Historical Objectivity." Slavic Review 46.3-4 (1987): 568-580) - has been apparently rejected by major academic publishers, being published by Hippocrene Books which is known mainly for cookbooks as well as translating foreign language texts.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
So what? Academics criticize each other's work all the time. Just because you're capable of dredging the internet in order to find a negative review or two, does not invalidate our policy on reliable sources - which this is. Volunteer Marek 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It's the same publisher who published... who was it? We've discussed it before on an RfC or RSN. François Robere (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Ewa Kurek - [56]. Lets put it this way - this isn't an academic publisher. On their translated works they rely on the editing/publishing of the original publisher (which in this case would be absent). Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, so what? And what is an "academic publisher"? A publisher who publishes academics, obviously. And Lukas is one. So please stop trying to redefine terms to cook up excuses for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removals. Volunteer Marek 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP we generally regard academic presses (please see Academic publishing if you require a more detailed expose) as scholarship. we would not regard a niche popular-audience publication (such as polamjournal) as scholarship. Lukas's opinon on major academic presses (and their acceptance of Holocaust manuscripts) is not a RS for anything but Lukas's own opinon, which carries fairly little weight.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course we regard academic presses as scholarship. What else would we regard them as? What's your point? On the other hand WP:SCHOLARSHIP does not say that we regard ONLY academic presses as scholarship. In fact, it quite specifically says otherwise (it's got that "or" in there). And in fact "academic publishing" is not synonymous with "academic press".
And I'm sorry, is anyone trying to use "Lukas opinon (sic) on major academic presses" in this article? No? Then, again, what's your point?
Oh, and one more indulgence please - I looked at the Wikipedia article on Academic publishing which you so condescendingly provided for my edification and ... it seems the words "academic press" do not even appear in that article. Indeed, most, if not all, of the article appears to be about journals not books published by academic presses. And a good chunk of it is about a "crisis" in publishing. So... why exactly did you bring this article up? Did you actually bother reading it before you got supercilious for no good reason? Volunteer Marek 09:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, journal articles are better. The polamjournal is not an academic journal by any stretch - Lukas's opinion - is merely a rather fringey opinion on Holocaust studies. I will note that Lukas also casts the inhabitants of Koniuchy as Polish traitors/collaborators, which for some odd reasons advocates of the use of this source do not want to include (though this tidbit can be sourced to a bona fida academic source - e.g. Polonsky).Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Is "fringery" (sic) a technical term or does it just mean "Icewhiz don't like it"? Both Lukas and Polonsky are academics (and one more time - if you're fine with Polonsky, why are you trying to remove him from the article?) Volunteer Marek 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's simplify matters: The whole piece was published in a non-RS, reads like a conspiracy piece, has no refs, and mentions Koniuchy only in passing. If it wasn't by a semi-renown historian we wouldn't even discuss it. François Robere (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure we can keep it simple - the things you say above are not true. Volunteer Marek 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
And the sentence itself is factually incorrect - "Several hundred Poles, including women and children, were murdered..." - we know that "several hundred" is incorrect.Icewhiz (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It's true he gets this one wrong, but for a very understandable reason; "several hundred" murdered civilians is what the partisans who perpetrated the massacre, like Chaim Lazar, bragged about in their post war memoirs, and what the field reports at the time claimed. At any rate, we are neither claiming that "several hundred" were killed in this article nor are we using Lukas to source the number of casualties.
But I tell you what. In interest of compromise, and since we have other sources to source the claim, I'll remove this particular source, though noting that I'm only doing so to placate you, not because it's not RS (it is). Volunteer Marek 20:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced materialEdit

@Volunteer Marek: Why did you commit this removal? And can we have a proper citation for the Polonsky quote? François Robere (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "commit" anything. I restored text which you removed for no reason. Why did you commit the removal of an author which you yourself are trying to use? Volunteer Marek 19:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I reverted this as, at the very least, it was a BLP vio vs. Polonsky to say he wrote something Piotr Zychowicz wrote (of an interview) in a right wing Polish newspaper. There were also misrepresentations in the summary of the quote - if we were even to trust this source for a quote - the quote attributed to Polonsky makes a very passing reference to the role of Jewish partisans, with a "the same applies" - without exploring or detailing the role.Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This is completely false. It's Polonsky's own words. The quotes have already been provided. You're making stuff up. Volunteer Marek 20:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Which brings us back to me asking for a proper citation, preferably with a link, ISSN or some other unique identifier. I'm not very good with reading unformatted citation intertwined with quotes that may, or may not have been taken out of context in the heat of the moment by an editor literally saying "You like Polonsky? I will quote Polonsky!" That is why I removed the quote, and I stated so in the summary. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
There IS a proper citation. Here is a link. Volunteer Marek 09:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

And this part is funny: " a right wing Polish newspaper". So... "right wing Polish sources" are not allowed. And ... "left wing Polish sources" (like PAX) are not allowed..... one starts to suspect that the problem Icewhiz has with sources here is not whether they're "right wing" or "left wing", but rather that other part. You know, the "Polish" part. Which is par for the course since Icewhiz has previously tried to exclude sources based solely on their ethnicity, just like above he's tried to exclude sources based solely on their religious affiliation. Volunteer Marek 20:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You are trying to add a blurb from an interview, twisted out of context, from a dodgy source.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Both Rzeczpospolita and Polonsky are reliable sources, and Polonsky mentions Koniuchy specifically.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Another false edit summary by Icewhiz. Another false and nonsensical accusation of BLP vio by Icewhiz. While he commits BLP vio himselfEdit

This revert by Icewhiz

With the following edit summary:

"BLP vio vs. Polonsky by stating he wrote something he didn't - the cited piece being a talk/interview in the opinion section of a Polish right wing newspaper authored by an alternative history author, and not by Polonsky."

Let's take that turn by turn.

Icewhiz: "BLP vio vs. Polonsky by stating he wrote something he didn't"

Text under dispute: "According to Polonsky the process of de-mythologizing Jewish history during Second World faces resistance from living survivors, but with time perhaps Jews will look critically at their history"

Text in source: "Polonsky: I think that when Jews see Poles looking at their own history critically, they will follow their example. Up until now, any attempts to demythologize wartime (Jewish) history have been met with stubborn resistance from still living participants"

Text under dispute: "Antony Polonsky writes that time has come for Jews to accept that their compatriots also carried out atrocities, and partisans involved in Koniuchy and Naliboki massacres committed "very evil things".

Text in source: "The same thing applies to the massacre in Koniuchy and the pacification of Naliboki, and the role which Jewish partisans played in these. I have no problem saying that these people (Jewish partisans) also did very evil things"

To say that this is "authored by an alternative history author, and not by Polonsky" is... I don't know how else to put it, a blatant, shameless lie. Why is it a lie and not just an error? Because these quotes WERE ALREADY provided in text, so Icewhiz was perfectly aware of their authorship. Volunteer Marek 20:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And please also note that it was Icewhiz himself who insisted that we use Polonsky in this article. Apparently there are two Polonskies. The "good Polonsky" - i.e. those cherry picked statements of Polonsky that Icewhiz agrees with - and the "bad Polonsky" - the other statements of Polonsky that Icewhiz does not agree with. To call this hypocritical is an understatement. Volunteer Marek 20:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The text is by Polonsky not Zychowicz(who is a journalist besides being a writer). Rzeczpospolita is a conservative liberal newspaper."Apparently there are two Polonskies. The "good Polonsky" - i.e. those cherry picked statements of Polonsky that Icewhiz agrees with - and the "bad Polonsky" - the other statements of Polonsky that Icewhiz does not agree with".Good point. It might be worthwile to check if the other quotes and use of this author are really in line with what he is actually writing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Are we reading from the source itself, or Mark Paul's highly selective rendering of it? Usually in a Q&A one quotes the question and the whole paragraph - e.g. the no apology bit, or the lack of Jewish-Polish trust, or the passage being mainly on Bermen, with a brief aside mention of Koniuchy. The source itself is an interview, with Piotr Zychowicz on the byline and posing questions. Polonsky did not write the text - it was written by Zychowicz, based on an interview. One should note that Zychowicz himself has come under fire, from some Polish historians, reported in the same newspaper for his writings/views on Hitler - Adolf Hitler był lewakiem – twierdzi Piotr Zychowicz. Czyżby stracił kontakt z rzeczywistością?, (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The source clearly indicates which parts are Zychowicz's questions and which are Polonsky's answers. Your characterization "Polonsky did not write the text - it was written by Zychowicz" is completely false. I suggest you stop repeating this BLP vio and nonsense.
(and funny how first the source Rz. is not reliable because... it's "right wing", then all of sudden it's reliable because it publishes historians critical of Zychowicz. Make up your mind! Better yet, stop it with these disingenuous arbitrary double standard) Volunteer Marek 20:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not claim Rz. is or not reliable (though the piece on views on Hitler I mentioned has an AFP byline). Interviews are generally performed via spoken words, and then edited and summarized (e.g. omitting some questions, removing banter and asides, etc.) into written form by the journalist involved - not the interviewee. We generally trust reputable journalists to do such editing in a suitable manner. If we trust (a true question mark here) Zychowicz, then Polonsky said something, he did not write something. On top of that, we have the omission of context in our content - most of the passage (and subsequent comments) is about Jakub Berman.Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The statement is by Polonsky not Zychowicz Icewhiz.If you are claiming Rzeczpospolita falsified Polonsky's statements please present very strong sources confirming this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

So I've read the interview with Polonsky (or a translation of it) and I have to say we're again faced with a prime example of cherry picking: Polonsky, like Martin Winstone, presents a complex and cruel reality spanning over half a century, with cycles of persecution and abuse fueled - but not ignited - by a series of invasions by adjacent superpowers. He refutes many of the common anti-Semitic myths: that an unusually large number of Jews were communists; that an unusually large number of communist leaders were Jews; that communist Jews were unusually cruel to their Polish neighbours under Soviet rule; that persecution of Jews was merely the product of their collaboration with the Soviet rule, and others. And what does Molobo take out of it? That Jews committed atrocities and are in denial.

This is a biased, bad faith edit, and if any admin has any sense in them then Molobo should not be allowed to edit here. François Robere (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Yes, Polonsky does do all this stuff. But then he discuses this topic in particular. You're basically saying that the problem is that Molobo used the most relevant part of the interview, most relevant to this topic, and somehow this is ... bad! bad! bad! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Gimme a fucking break Francois.
If you want to put in what Polonsky says about other topics, be my guest - there's other relevant Wikipedia articles on them. In the meantime, quit it with the ridiculous accusations. Volunteer Marek 20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

And seriously, first you guys were running around claiming - falsely, despite the fact that quotes were provided - that Polonsky "did not say these things!!!!!". Apparently Francois made that claim without even bothering to read the article, since he JUST NOW admitted to having read it for the first time. And Icewhiz kept on repeating the falsehood long after quotes were provided, links were given and it was repeated to him several times that yes, this is what Polonsky says.

So having exhausted that little false strategy, you're now switching to one which says "yes, ok, Polonsky, does say these things ... but he also says OTHER things! You can't use what he says because he says other things too!!!" Even though those "other things" in no way contradict his own statement nor are they relevant to the topic of this article.

Why is this kind of chicanery and obvious bad-faith tolerated? Volunteer Marek 20:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Did not write - and indeed he did not write them. Per the RP piece by Zychowicz - Polonsky in a very brief aside (in a passage mainly on Berman), mentioned Koniuchy in an interview. And I said this in my very first reply here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Well that's a very... creative excuse. But it sort of illustrates how bad faith your editing on this (and other) article has been. So yeah, I guess, technically Polonsky didn't "write" those words, only "spoke" them. If we are going to be that pedantic neither did Zychowicz write these words. In fact, these words weren't "written" at all! They were "printed"! Perhaps they should be attributed to whoever pressed the "start" button on the printing press which publishes RZ?
Stop being ridiculous.
You wrote, quot: "BLP vio vs. Polonsky by stating he wrote something he didn't"
Any sensible person would take that to mean that you're alleging that Polonsky didn't say these things.
Indeed your subsequent comments say the same thing - you keep insisting that these were Zychowicz's words, which is completely false.
Now you've resorted to playing games about whether Polonsky "spoke" or "wrote" these words and trying to use that both to justify your dishonest edit summaries as well as your continued edit warring.
(and the passage is not "mainly about Berman". It's about "admitting "bad things" that happened". One falsehood on top of another falsehood does not magically turn both true)
Volunteer Marek 21:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I cannot verify the interview since it is paywalled - it would be nice if someone with the access to the source could paste the relevant snippet here for full context. But based on quotes present in the article's diffs it seems like something that should be mentioned, particularly since Polonsky is already cited in another paragraph, and this interview helps to clarify his views. Polonsky is a reliable source, and it is worth nothing that he confirms that some Jewish partisans committed war atrocities here. Nobody is trying to take this out of context to generalize that most Jewish partisans acted like this, or that they were solely responsible for this particular incident, so this shouldn't be much of a neutrality-issue. For the record, RP is a reliable newspaper, and I think nobody seriously claims Polonsky interview was falsified? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The journalist on the byline is Zychowicz (of these highly irregular Hitler remarks) - this is questionable. Polonsky allegedly addressed Koniuchy in a single sentence - "To samo dotyczy masakry w Koniuchach, pacyfikacji Naliboków i roli, jaka odegrali w nich zydowscy partyzanci." - after 3 sentences discussing Berman (and this after a long discussion of Zydkommuna perceptions in Poland, and various other stuff). He doesn't specify what role Jews played there, just that the same (as he said on Berman) applies to the (unspecified) role. We do however have an actual piece of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, written by Polonsky himself (and not an interview), which devotes some 2 full pages to Koniuchy (with citations, with primary source material, with conclusions) - which was published some two years after this alleged brief aside in a Polish language interview - and which paints a different picture. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Zychowicz is on the byline because he conducted the interview with Polonsky, as is plainly obvious! What the hey does "Polonsky allegedly addressed..." even mean???? Are you really saying that the newspaper made stuff up and Polonsky didn't actually says this? Please stop being ridiculous. Same goes for "alleged brief aside". Sheesh.
And no Polonsky has been consistent in what he says. You are just making stuff up about his views. You've been asked to provide quotes numerous times and yet you have failed to do so. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing to a capital-T. Volunteer Marek 16:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: Are you saying that Piotr Zychowicz falsified (twisted, changed) Polonsky's quote or not? Yes or no, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what Zychowicz did or did not do to Polonsky's words. I do know Zychowicz has been covered himself as a subject (in the same newspaper, though attributed to AFP in the byline) in this piece with the title "Adolf Hitler był lewakiem – twierdzi Piotr Zychowicz. Czyżby stracił kontakt z rzeczywistością?" or per google translate - "Adolf Hitler was a leftist - says Piotr Zychowicz. Has he lost contact with reality?" - which clearly makes Zychowicz a WP:QS for WWII. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And ANOTHER false edit summary by IcewhizEdit


Icewhiz claims " passage is mainly on Berman" - this is false. Berman is mentioned but the passage is not "mainly on" him. The passage is about acknowledging the "bad things that happened". This includes the Koniuchy massacre. And when you've resorted to screaming "no consensus!!!! no consensus!!!!" as your excuse for removing reliable sources, ONES WHICH YOU advocated for, it's a pretty clear sign that there's no actual argument here.

And while we're here this edit summary is false as well, though I guess that's being a bit pedantic. But then again, Icewhiz shouldn't be hyperbolic when he's making excuses for his edit warring. Half the article is NOT cited to... I'm guessing he means Zizas. There is ONE paragraph out of FIFTEEN that's cited to Zizas, who is, in fact a reliable source.


Just stop.

Volunteer Marek 21:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion of this blurb from an interview. There is a difference between academic scholarship which treats the subject at some depth and a very brief (and in this case misrepresented) mention in a media interview in a somewhat questionable non-English source. The passage is mainly on Berman - 3 sentences - and then per Zychowicz Polonskys say that "the same applies" (including Polonsky not apologizing since he is not responsible) to Koniuchy and Naliboki and the (completely unspecified in the interview) role of Jews within these events. Instead of edit warring disputed content in - please achieve consensus on the talk page first. Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
" There is no consensus for inclusion..." - you YOURSELF advocated for using Polonsky. Now, when you found out that Polonsky said something which doesn't fit your POV you want to remove it. It doesn't work like that. The fact you're resorting to the "no consensus!!!!!" just shows you don't actually have an argument and are just obfuscating. This is acerbated by the fact that you first tried to ... say falsehoods, about the source (claiming this was someone else, not Polonsky), and that you continue to repeat falsehoods about it. To wit:
"in this case misrepresented" - this is false. There's no misrepresentation going on. It's what he said. Quotes have been provided multiple times. Just because you say something doesn't make it magically true. It just makes you false.
"the passage is mainly on Berman - 3 sentences" - this is false. There is ONE sentence about Berman. Rest of the paragraph is about admitting "bad things that happened". This has already been pointed out to you at least twice, yet you persist in repeating this false statement. Which you means that you are PURPOSEFULLY and with full knowledge saying something which is just not true.
"per Zychowicz" - oh stop it! This is false. It's not "per Zychowicz". It's Polonsky's OWN. DAMN. WORDS. There's no "Zychowicz" in here. Quit making shit up.
Look asIcewhiz. You don't get to remove a reliable source, from a prominent historian, which YOU YOURSELF suggested, just because it turns out that he doesn't agree with your extremist POV and prejudices. Your yells of "no consensus!!!" are just as false and bad-faithed as your repeated false statements about Polonsky, which by this point amount to a WP:BLP violation. Volunteer Marek 22:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's assume that Zychowicz misquotes Polonsky. Why doesn't Polonsky nor any Polish historian demand a correction? Zychowicz is controversial and any his error will be attacked. The interview has been reprinted in a book. Xx236 (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
There are, in fact, 3 sentences in the paragraph whose subject is Berman:
Zydzi powinni zaakceptowac to, ze ich rodacy takze popelniali zbrodnie. Ja nie zamierzam przepraszac za Bermana, bo nie czuje sie odpowiedzialny za to, co zrobil. Nie bede jednak udawal, ze ten czlowiek nie istnial. Ze nie byl Zydem albo ze byl niewiniatkiem. To samo dotyczy masakry w Koniuchach, pacyfikacji Naliboków i roli, jaka odegrali w nich zydowscy partyzanci.(highlighted).
Per Google translate: Jews should accept that their countrymen also committed crimes. I am not going to apologize for Berman because he does not feel responsible for what he did. However, I will not pretend that this person did not exist. That no he was a Jew or a pagan. The same applies to the massacre in Koniuchy, pacification of the Naliboki and the role played by the Jewish partisans in them.
This prior to the brief aside mentioning Koniuchy as well (to which "the same applies" to the "role played" - without expounding on the role). This is perhaps not clear in the highly selective quotations in a patently unreliable source, however it is clear in the original (which we should note is a media interview by Zychowicz ). Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Stop wikilawyering it. The paragraph is about "admitting bad things happened". Berman is an example. Naliboki is an example. Koniuchy is an example. Who cares? This article is about Koniuchy so we use what he says about Koniuchy. We can certainly go into the article on Berman and include the info there as well.
Here is the summary of your arguments so far:
First, falsely pretend that the source isn't Polonsky but someone else.
Second, once it becomes impossible to deny that this is Polonsky, then start some ridiculous argument about whether Polonsky "said" something or "wrote" something as if that mattered.
Third, when that becomes patently absurd, mumble something about "highly selective quotation in a patently unreliable source". What does that even mean? What "selective quotation"? These are the man's own words and they are part of the general point he's making (one more time - "admitting bad things happened"). What "patently unreliable source"? What on earth are you talking about?
Fourth, start screaming "no consensus! no consensus!" when the absurdity of your position is too transparent for anyone with a basic knowledge of English and the ability to do a search on the internet.
Fifth, insist that the interview or a passage is about something else, even though it explicitly mentions the topic. Then wikilawyer about it.
And finally, let me remind you and your buddy there that it was YOU who suggested Polonsky as a source. Then, when you found out that Polonsky doesn't actually agree with your extremist POV, you decided to remove him from article (selectively of course, which means that it takes some real chutzpah on your part to accuse others of being "selective").
Freak. In. A. I've been here 10 years and I don't think I've ever been in a dispute as ridiculous and bad faithed as this.
WP:CRUSH needs to be enforced. Volunteer Marek 06:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - based on the quoted content it's pretty clear Koniuchy is used as an example. It would be good to see a bit more than the few sentences here to make sure we are not misrepresenting the quote. For now, I think it is clear that Polonsky agrees that Jewish partisans were involved in the crimes (atrocities? - zbrodnie) in Koniuchy, and this is what we should say, likely in the paragraph that already cites him ("According to Antony Polonsky, ethno-nationalists in both Lithuania and Poland have portrayed Koniuchy as a "Jewish action". While the exact determination of the ethnicity of the Soviet partisans is not possible, it is clear that Jews were a minority in these formations"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Does Polonosky know he has a curator, who censores his interviews, who knows better? Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

General suggestionEdit

I suggest that any issues or questions with regard to the sources, in light of the numerous false allegations and misrepresentations that continue to be made about them on this talk page, be taken to WP:RSN. That's what it's there for and having more eyes on these, um, "discussions", would be welcome.... which I guess is probably why the editor(s) making stuff up about the sources has taken it to WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek 21:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Source pleaseEdit

Icewhiz rewrote the entire article to make it portray a pretty disgusting "blame the victim" POV and removed several significant and well sourced details (for example, that the victims included women and children) replacing them with... details which have little citations at their end but which have not been verified. For example, can we get the exact text from the source which backs up the claim, which Icewhiz added straight to the lede that (the village) was 'collaborating with German authorities and their Lithuanian auxiliaries'.

There have been repeated request for the quote from the source which is allegedly supports this text but so far, despite having several weeks to do it, Icewhiz has refused to do so. Volunteer Marek 01:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Right now this claim is mentioned only in lead (and not in text, which violates MoS WP:SUMMARY/WP:LEAD), and is sourced to "A Partisan from Vilna (Jews of Poland)", with malformatted citation "A Partisan from Vilna (Jews of Poland), Introduction by Antony Polonsky, Academic Studies Press". At the very least, Polonsky is unlikely to be the author of that claim, since the book is a memoir of Rachel Margolis, a Holocaust survivor. Usage of a memoir is problematic (WP:PRIMARY, anyone?). At the very least, the claim should be moved from the lead to the body and attributed. Anyway, please quote the part that supports this claim (or link to an online source). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Polonsky is the author of the text in question. The book contains, prior to the memoir, a 42-page (pages 11 to 53) introduction from Polonsky, whose sole author is Polonsky, which is written in scientific form with citations and is disconnected from the memoir. As for quotations requests, I am more than happy to oblige polite quotations requests (to my recollection such a request hasn't been made prior to today). Quote: (page 41) ...increase in the fighting between Soviet partisans and village self-defence set by German and Lithuanian police in Eastern Lithuania. During this period many encounters between partisans and local police from the villages took place, marked by the arbitrary killing on both sides of suspect civilians. No doubt, many of these suspects were innocent. On such episode was the attack by Soviet partisan units on the village of Koniuchy (Kaniukai), a village today in Lithuania, but largely inhabited by Poles. At the time of the attack the Soviet partisans were in a critical position and were harassed by the local police force and its German superiors.... Polonsky then goes on to describe and contrast primary accounts by Soviets and Lithuanians, describes the battleattack and Lithuanian aux police reinforcements to the village and other movements, provides the Soviet post-combat assessment of success, mentions the modern ethnonationalist claim this was a "Jewish action" - and refutes it, and goes on to conclude in the final paragraph on the bottom of page 42 that - "Clearly what was involved was an attack on a village which harboured collaborationist police and had hampered partisan activity. As so often happens in such incidents, there were also many innocent victims". Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Replaced "battle" with "attack" to better reflect the language in the source.Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning with "... increase in the fighting" DOES NOT say the village was 'collaborating with German authorities and their Lithuanian auxiliaries'.
The paragraph beginning with "Clearly..." DOES NOT say the village was 'collaborating with German authorities and their Lithuanian auxiliaries'.
Is there anything else in this source that ACTUALLY SUPPORTS the text you added to the lede? Or did you just blatantly misrepresent the source?
Volunteer Marek 07:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit strange. What "collaborationist police" was "harboured" at the village? Blue Police? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
This has already been addressed. "harboured" here just means that a couple Lithuanian policemen stayed in the village. It's not like the village had a choice in the matter. Icewhiz is reading into it and pretending it says something than it actually does. Likewise "hampered partisan activity" here just means "did not want to get robbed by the Soviets". Ditto. Volunteer Marek 17:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions (one of the main perpetrators of the Holocaust in Lithuania) and the self-defense force which was an auxiliary/volunteer component of the auxiliaries (I believe Polonsky in his voice chooses to the self defense as police or local police from the villages). Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
That's not the question (I think everyone familiar with the topic knows this). The question is - why are you misrepresenting sources to pretend they say something they don't actually say? Volunteer Marek 17:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have obtained a copy of the text in question (it seems that the part we discuss and is cited in the article is also reprinted in "The Jews in Poland and Russia: Volume III: 1914 to 2008, Littman Library Of Jewish Civilization, Antony Polonsky, pages 523-526", I suggest we combine refs into one). Anyway, the quotes above are correct, but a bit more context is relevant - Polonsky is pretty clear that he draws his conclusions from the reports of Soviet partisans. I do think the article should quote him "what was involved was an attack on a village which harboured collaborationist police and had hampered partisan activity" - but with the note that he draws those conclusions from Soviet partisans reports. Other interesting item he notes is that various "other sources confirm number of the casualties in Kaniukai [35 killed, 15 wounded] and that they were overwhelmingly civilians. Two were policemen." Anyway, his assessment should be moved from lead to the main body. As per sources cited, there's no agreement between historians on how significant and anti-partisan the village self-defense was. I'd suggest something like this for the lead, replacing the current undue and biased "The men of the village had formed an armed self-defense force, collaborating with German authorities and their Lithuanian auxiliaries, which was involved in conflict with the Soviet partisans" with "the village hosted a self-defense garrison, created with tacit approval of German authorities for defense against the robberies from Soviet partisans, through the historians significantly differ in their assessment of the self-defense garrison's strength and activity." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Polonsky does not base his conclusions on Soviet reports - he cites Soviet as well as Lithuanian reports - striking a middle ground between the two + using other sources. As for the self defense force - it was not tacit approval - a 1943 August order permitted and promoted organization of local village self defense (see Zizas (poor source), as well as primary NEWSORG coverage of this). These were armed from the stocks of the Lithuanian regular full time auxilaries - this is not in dispute even in nationalist sources. What is in dispute is the amount of arms provided (from the 1997 claim of a few rusty rifles, through some 12 guns, to claims involving machine guns) and amount of men from the village who were members of the self defense unit. Note thay "self defense" itself is not an innocous term (as it seems to sounds) - the regular fulltime auxiliaries were also called self-defense - Schutzmannschaft - in fact, most sources which deal with the Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft do not even distinguish between the full-time Schutzmannschaft and the local, village, part-time (mainly volunteer), short-lived (less than a year formally, a few months effectively) Schutzmannschaft who were subordinated to the local full-time battalions. Soviet requisitions are not "robberies" in neutral sources - this is language used in Nazi and Lithuanian reports.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What does any of this have to do with the fact that the source you provided does not say what you pretended it said? For the purposes of this question, what in the hey does your original research as to the nature of the term "self-defense" have to do with anything? Polonsky explicitly states that these were civilians (+ two policemen) who were killed. Hell, so do the actual perpetrators of the murders.
(And drop this nonsense about "nationalist sources")
Soviet "requisitions" are most certainly described as "robberies" in reliable sources (these were in the article until you removed them per your own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). You have been asked numerous times to provide sources/quotes that these were "just requisitions" and you have failed to do so. Hell, you made the claim that, quote, "The Soviet partisans in this area, including for this case, provided villagers with documentation (scrip) " and you were asked for a source TEN DAYS AGO. You haven't provided squat.
So let's see:
  1. Misrepresenting Polonsky and other sources.
  2. Suggesting that Polonsky be used in this article, but when actual text from Polonsky is added, you remove it because it turns out he doesn't support your own fringe POV.
  3. Falsely claiming that Polonsky's words weren't his but rather someone else's. Repeating this falsehood even after it's been proven to be false. Then WP:WIKILAWYERing about whether you meant "wrote" or "spoke" or some such nonsense.
  4. Making claims about what sources say but when asked to actually list these refusing to do so.
  5. Being evasive about specific text when asked for quotes (probably since when you finally do provide it turns out to say something OTHER than what you claimed)
  6. Removal of actual reliable sources from the article.
  7. A bunch of WP:OR about unrelated topics, apparently intended to derail the discussion and deflect attention from your other disruptive behavior.
  8. Removing sources based only on their religious affiliation.
  9. Using false edit summaries.
I probably missed a few things. But that's enough. Volunteer Marek 07:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Polonsky uses both sources, but the also quotes them. Lithuanian source doesn't talk about any extensive collaboration; in fact it doesn't talk about any collaboration - just mentions that the village was attacked and civilians were killed. Any accusations of collaboration he discusses seem based on Soviet sources. Let's face it, the story is pretty simple. Soviet partisans were raiding village for supplies. Villagers didn't like Soviet raids, and when Germans allowed them to carry some arms to defend against the Soviet raids, figuring out they can have the resentful occupied villagers fight even more problematic partisans, killing two birds with one stone, they agreed. Soviets decided they need to steal the food and/or make a show of force, so they decided to massacre the village, to discourage other such resistance. It is undeniable, however, that the choice to escalate the conflict was Soviet - they didn't need to destroy the village, it is not like it was holding Soviet partisans prisoner or otherwise interfering with what they were doing outside the village and its vicinity. So let's stop blaming the victims, and using sources related to those who massacred the village for their justification is also hardly a proper way to treat primary sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
What a wonderful piece of OR - the Soviets could have given up? Perhaps in 1941? As Polonsky makes clear, this was a warzone in which there was a conflict between the Soviets and the Nazis/Lithuanians. The villagers, per Polonsky, made a choice - they choose to resist supplying the Soviets and actively hinder them, while choosing not to resist the Nazis/Lithuanians (e.g. in supplies for them) and collaborate with them. As Polonsky makes clear, such choices in a warzone have consequences. And yes - as Polonsky makes clear - "As so often happen in such incidents, there were also many innocent victims" - however, we should not conflate the existence of innocent victims with the collaborating villagers as a whole. Polonsky is not a source "related to those who massacred the village". Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Historians often judge some sources as more reliable than others - there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the judgment is justified. But either way it isn't the case here - Polonsky gives some credibility to both sides' reports, as demonstrated by the casualty numbers. What I'm getting from Polonsky here is that this was a "military" action - a reaction by partisans to ongoing pressure by the police-backed "self defense" forces - that had gone terribly wrong and resulted in many civilian casualties (as an aside, it's unclear whether the Lithuanian police source considers the armed villagers that comprised the "self defense" force as civilians or police - but again the overall impression is that the majority of the casualties were civilians by any definition).
I suggest something along the lines of The village hosted a self-defense garrison, created with the support of the Lithuanian Auxiliary Police, which was active against Soviet partisans, though historians significantly differ in their assessment of the garrison's strength and activity. François Robere (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
"What I'm getting from Polonsky here..." - yeah, that's WP:OR and not even good OR since Polonsky says nothing of the kind. You can WISH that Polonsky said that all you want, but you can't put in the article that Polonsky said that, since he didn't. This is more attempts to misrepresent the source. Volunteer Marek 14:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
No, that's reading comprehension. Polonsky does not state it, but he implies it strongly enough for Piotr to conclude that he relies solely on Soviet sources. I don't believe that's the case, but nevertheless it gives you an idea of how that text reads. François Robere (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If "Polonsky does not state it" then it can't be an issue of "reading comprehension", can it? But hey, thanks for the personal attack. "He implies it" is just another way of saying "Oh let me do some OR here to make the source fit my POV and pretend it says what it doesn't actually say". Volunteer Marek 21:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
One tiny-teeny question: Have you read the text? François Robere (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We should stick to mainstream sources in English published by mainstream publishers for POV language.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am glad someone wants to discuss constructive improvements in wording. I will implement something like this in text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
What does this non-sequitur have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek 14:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
(also the statement is nonsensical on its face - why would we want "POV language" in the article? Is this a Freudian slip?) Volunteer Marek 14:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Translation: We should stick to major English-language sources when dealing with contentious statements. François Robere (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Like the Polonsky interview which you guys keep trying to remove? Like works by American historians which you guys keep trying to remove? These goal posts of what source are "acceptable" to you and Icewhiz keep changing minute to minute, according to just simply whether they agree with a particular POV or not. Anyway, we're actually NOT DISCUSSING any non-English sources in this section, are we? Hence, Yan's statement was a complete non-sequitur which just looks like he's slapping down a comment so that he can claim that he "participated in talk page discussion" before he reverts again on Icewhiz's behalf. Even though his "participation" is completely spurious and non-constructive. But thanks for translating English to English for me. Volunteer Marek 21:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
That one isn't in English, and no one is trying to remove it per se. And those "goal posts" aren't changing - they're backed by policy and admin decisions. As for non sequiturs - again you're complaining about what some editors you yourself collaborate with have done themselves. It would be best if the discussion focused on the material. François Robere (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Quote pleaseEdit

Above Icewhiz asserts that Polonsky "describes the battle" that allegedly took place at Koniuchy (rather than a massacre of civilians, including women and children, between the Soviet partisans and "Lithuanian auxilliaries".

Please provide the quotes from Polonsky which support the existence of such a "battle". Volunteer Marek 07:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Polonsky describes the reinforcements from the Lithuanian auxiliary battlions, attempts to to intercept the Soviet forces, as well Soviet operations the same night to confiscates arms in nearby Klepociai, Butrimonys, Jononiai, Sauliai, Pasalis and a concurrent attack in Kiemeliskes (provisions). However, as the source favors the use of "attack", I struck "battle" above in my very brief summary and replaced it with "attack". Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't just "favor" the word "attack". It simply DOES NOT USE or DOES NOT DESCRIBE the event as a "battle". But hey, I'll take this little bit - you admitting that your claims above were indeed false. Volunteer Marek 14:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Marek, if there was a tally of the number of times you expressed bad faith in other editor on this page alone, we could've funded Wikimedia for a year. François Robere (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
"Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact (and I'm not "assuming" anything. My observations are based on his actions, not any "assumptions"). If someone like Icewhiz repeatedly and constantly ACTS in bad faith (here's a list) then criticizing their disruptive editing and non-constructive way of conducting themselves on the talk page (by repeating false claims and constantly misrepresenting sources) is legit. More, it's required. What's worse ACTING in bad faith, or pointing out that someone is acting in bad faith? The fact that you consistently sanction such bad faith behavior sort of says something about your own approach here. Volunteer Marek 21:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't sanction "bad faith behavior", I merely disagree with you on whether some edits constitute it - and I do not go around blaming everyone I disagree with of doing acting so. Take it easy. François Robere (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The real issue in leadEdit

The lead should, neutrally, discuss why the massacre is really controversial. I.e. stuff like exaggeration (or denial) of Jewish involvement, or attempts to blame the victims/justify the massacre ("Soviets were requisitioning supplies, and when trying to go shopping in the village, where ambushed by pro-Nazi garrison there and had to defend themselves, killing two policeman and few dozens of civilians caught in the crossfire"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Source for "denial" along the lines of "Soviets were requisitioning supplies, and when trying to go shopping in the village, where ambushed by pro-Nazi garrison there and had to defend themselves, killing two policeman and few dozens of civilians caught in the crossfire" ? I am aware of no-one making such a claim. I am aware of academic sources portraying this as resistance to forceful Soviet requisitions, by villagers collaborating with the Nazies and engaged in armed conflict with the partisans, leading to the Soviets carrying out a punitive raid on the village (killing armed people - as well as innocent victims). I am unaware of Soviet sources claiming that they were "trying to go shopping" (in fact - that seems a non-Soviet notion - they would view supplies as "collectively owned") - there are primary sources (as well as some secondary sources) saying that prior to the raid the villagers had captured one or two Soviet scouts, killed them, and put the corpses on display in the village. Soviet primary sources (as well as various memoirs) are actually quite explicit on the punitive and purposeful nature of the subsequent raid - in fact - some of them exaggerate quite a bit (in relation to casualties and amount of destruction).Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

POV tagEdit

I've restored the POV tag, as it was removed without consensus. The article is over reliant on a Lithuanian source associated with promoting the double genocide myth. Futhermore, POV language of "robbing" attributed to partisans - language used in Nazi (and their Lithuanian auxiliary henchmen) reports - and sourced to an author profiled extensively by the Southern Poverty Law Center for antisemitism and far-right activism,[57][58], the specific book was described as a polemic tract advocating for US policy vis-a-vis Poland (specifically, that US policy makers should support the return of the Intermarium (or the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seat) and "filled with conspiracies" (Roider, Karl A. "Intermarium: The Land Between The Black and Baltic Seas." Sarmatian Review 33.3 (2013): 1776-1778.). In a published review specific to the inserted work, the reviewer wrote that "Turning to Jewish issues, it is no secret that Chodakiewicz comes to the table with a controversial record that has included disguising Polish nationalism and anti-Jewish sentiment on Poland-related issues as objective historical research." and wrote the following in his conclusions regarding the specific chapter on Koniuchy which he treats at length - The hatchet job against Jewish partisans in the final chapter of Intermarium resorts to a number of abuses of academic structure to mask the genre of nationalist polemic. Aside from failing to inform the reader of the existence of the Lithuanian state campaign centered on the same incident, the Jewish texts cited at length are a hodgepodge of personal memoirs (sometimes penned decades after the events), scholarly treatments, and openly fictional works by survivors’ children, not meant to be academic research..[59] Use of this source in general is highly questionable, but given its WP:BIASED nature - use of it to support POV language is not acceptable. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to remove Chodakiewicz, take it WP:RSN. Until that point he is a reliable scholar. Being profiled by SPLC is not sufficient to disqualify a person from being a reliable source. Anyway, there's a ton of reliable academic sources for robbery by partisans (Polish ones, too). Ex. "One Jewish partisan in Polesie recalled "Our partisans called these excursions 'economic action', but the peasants regarded it as robbery' ... The provisions robbered by partisans (at least by Soviet partisans in Belorussia) included not only food but almost every household necessity imaginable, which often later appeared in the marketplaces of local towns, having been sold for 'pocket money'. Even Nechama Tec talked about this [60] (interesting case, as it doesn't deal with a conflict involving Poles, just Soviet vs Jewish partisans) - each partisan group considered their 'acquisitions' justified, called others robbers... and for peasants, it usually it didn't matter who stole from them. Also consider Allan Levine (just like Tec, hardly a Polish ethno-nationalist...): [61] ""That Jewish partisans and fugitives were guilty of stealing food from Polish farmers is an uncontested fact. It happened reguarly. Furthermore, Jews did kill peasans they believed, rightly or wrongly, had either betrayed them or other Jews.". So no, the term robbery is not biased, partisans of all shapes robbed from the peasants. The only exception could be made when the local peasantry identified with the partisans and voluntarily supplied them. That was clearly NOT the case for Soviet partisans in Eastern Poland, who had little support from locals (Poles). PS. Here's an entire article on the topic: Soviet Partisan Violence against Soviet Civilians: Targeting Their Own:

. If this is what happened in the loyal Soviet territories, the borderlands where much more violent (hence, the massacres like this one). Now, the source in question talks about that too:

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


Right now in the lede it says "though historians significantly differ in their assessment of the self-defense force's strength and activity."

This does NOT summarize the content of the article. Probably because HISTORIANS actually DON'T differ in their assessment - they almost all universally agree that the "self-defense" was a token force. The only people who depart from this view are... well, the perpetrators of the massacre and some popular-style writers (whom we do not cite, as we shouldn't) who embellish their accounts.

This needs to be rewritten as it simply misrepresents both the rest of the article as well as source. Volunteer Marek 10:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

this diff is a falsification of sources, as Polonsky (who is cited) does not write this force was a token force. If Chodakiewicz says so - this is not "several" - and beyond being UNDUE and from a source described as unreliable by other academics, should be attributed to him. Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Koniuchy massacre" page.