Talk:Koniuchy massacre/Archive 2

POV tag

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.[1][2][3] 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 - [4] [5].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 Zeleznikow

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)

Sourcing

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 histmag.org 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 edit

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 revert

Re [6]

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 [7]. 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 [8] 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,[9] authored by over 50 unique editors. It was last revised on August 2, 2017 [10]. Next edit was yours on March 14, 2018, it was a POV tag [11] followed by 39 highly aggressive edits that destabilized an article entirely[12]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 text

http://www.glaukopis.pl/images/artykuly-obcojezyczne/KONIUCHYMASSACRE1.pdf Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPN decided not to pursue?

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 doing

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 [13] 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...

... 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". 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)

References

Introduction of popular history website as a source

histmag.org 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 histmag.org 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. Histmag.org 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 histmag.org 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 reference

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 Haaretz.com 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)

Strange

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 account

http://www.geocities.ws/jedwabne/sila_w_cierpieniu.htm 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]

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)

Lazar

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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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 fork

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"

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 violation

This article mainly describes an "investigation", widely seen as a contemptible farce (per an actual RS which were removed) 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"[14] - 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)

References

Garbled ref...

Here: Between 30 to 40 villagers were killed and dozen more were wounded, and in addition many houses were looted and burned.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=2NnoBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT26&dq=Chaim+Lazar+%27%27Destruction+and+Resistance%27%27+Koniuchy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGlu-NmvPbAhUCba0KHXOLC5kQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=Chaim%20Lazar%20''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.

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)

References

Sourcing...

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
  • 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.
    • Doesn't mention some of the other details either. François Robere (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 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."
    • Agreed. François Robere (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Agreed. François Robere (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
    • I didn't find any such PR or news item in English. François Robere (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• 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.
  • @Volunteer Marek: Your source? François Robere (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• 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 [15]. 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.
    • Probably WP:SYNTH. François Robere (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• 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.
  • I assume WP:SYNTH again. Tag. François Robere (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• "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 [16] 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.[17] 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,[18], Chodakiewicz being a far-right activist and covered by the SPLC,[19], 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".[20] 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.

[21]

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. [22] [23] [24]. 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)

References

Complete mess of a section, misrepresentation of sources

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.[25] 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 [26] ... 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.[27] - 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[28] - 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)

References

"The Arad Affair"

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"[29] and the investigation in Lithuania which was seen as a contemptible farce by some Lithuanians and the outside world.[30] 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 - [31] - 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)

Lead

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)