Talk:Koniuchy massacre/Archive 3

Religious prejudice

I'm sorry, but trying to get rid of a source because it's a religiously affiliated publisher as Icewhiz is trying to do here [1] is pretty despicable and contrary to Wikipedia policy. This is putting aside that we have academic source for the same talk as well as well. What do you think would happen if someone went around Wikipedia removing sources simply because they're Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist or something? What the fuck. This is some pretty odious behavior.

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

NPA please. This is a church affiliated publisher - not an academic publisher - known for publishing the bible, other religious texts, and patriotic texts. The author was not an academic (he would receive a phd over a decade later). Your "academic" source (citing this 1997 non academic book) has been described in a review as being full of conspiracies. Sources published later have more details on weapons in the village.

There's no PA's here. Removing a source on the basis of religion is fucked up, full stop. This is sanctionable as it clearly demonstrates WP:NOTHERE behavior. And no, this is NOT what this publisher is known for. Volunteer Marek 20:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

On the basis of this being a church affiliated publisher, not academic scholarship.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You removed it because it was "Catholic". That's bigotry, straight up. How is it that you're even allowed to edit Wikipedia? (And it is academic). Volunteer Marek 00:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The exact phrase was POV language on requisitions. Source descrubed in academic review as full of conspiracies. The cited Polish source is by a Catholic publisher by a (at the time) non-phd. You're making a serious accusation based on Icewhiz leaving out or substituting the word "church" for "Catholic" - a common practice in reference to eg. evangelical sects. He explained himself well, I suggest leaving it be. François Robere (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a separate issue. The issue here is that Icewhiz removed a source because it was "Catholic". Which is fucked up.

And of course you think "he explained himself well" (he didn't - he doubled down on the insane idea that he gets to remove sources because he doesn't like their religion) - I mean, how long is this list? You're not even trying to hide it. Volunteer Marek 14:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You do use watchlists, Marek, do you not? Icewhiz clearly explained himself in his previous messages (see above), and you've shown no evidence to suggest any religious bias on his side. I again suggest you drop the issue. François Robere (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The "evidence" is his own edit summary. If he says he's removing a source because it's "Catholic" I believe him that he's removing a source because it's "Catholic". He sorta slipped up and accidentally said out loud what he was he thinking, didn't he? But that's a problem for him, as it shows he's WP:NOTHERE to push a WP:AGENDA. Volunteer Marek 22:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Err. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is a reliable historian (through he represents a particular side in relevant debates). I am not aware of any consensus to remove his works, and it has been published by Routledge. The fact that his book got a critical review in [2] - so what? The Sarmatian Review is sadly a very minor journal with little impact (I say this, sadly, as I've also published a book review in TSR and I know it counts for very little). Chodakwicz book is reasonably well cited and received several other reviews - here's one that's not paywalled, and it's quite positive: [3]: "On the whole, the book is one of the most competent and well-written accounts of the Intermarium that I have read. It is based on an impressive range of sources. It sheds new light on historical and present-day processes. " Right now I don't have easy access to paywalled reviews at [4] and [5] but at the very least the latter seems to be a rather positive reception of the book, if the first two paragraphs are any judge.

The other work in Polish is be an also reliable historian (pl:Kazimierz Krajewski). That he had no 'doktorat' (=/= PhD) in 1997 doesn't make him unreliable. pl:Instytut Wydawniczy „Pax” is a perfectly reliable Polish publisher with almost a century of history; if you have any sources arguing its publications are problematic en masse, do cite them. Those are reliable works and there is no reason for their removal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I did not remove the source since it was "Catholic", nor did I say so in the edit summary. I did state the publisher was Catholic (which is factually correct) as a shorthand for Catholic church affiliated publisher of religious material, and that the author was not an academic in 1997. What is shameful here, is that in an article on an incident that is used as an antisemitic dog whistle (or "word-code")[6] that we are using such borderline sources. Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"I removed it because the publisher was Catholic" and "I removed it because it was Catholic" mean the same thing. You can try to spin it but the basis for your removal was that the source was of "wrong religion", according to you. Which is shameful.

Your second claim - are you accusing the author of this source and/or the publisher of being anti-semitic? If yes, then say so directly. If no, then don't try to make false insinuations which you're unwilling to state explicitly (that clearly shows that you're making stuff up and trying to deflect the attention from your own extremely problematic behavior and beliefs)

Third - are you still contending that we cannot use a source because it was published by a Catholic-church-affiliated institute? Please provide a clear answer.

Volunteer Marek 16:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

A source published in a non-academic setting (a Catholic church affiliated publisher known for bible publishing, religious texts, and patriotic texts) by a non-academic author - is UNDUE. That this is referenced by a second source described as full of conspiracies, written by an author known for being a far-right activist who has been accused himself of anti-semitism,[7] does not support use of this source.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. You removed it because it was "Catholic". At least own up to it. Then you posted an unrelated source and implied that the source you removed was anti-semitic (it's not, not even close, you were being deceptive). Your description of Pax is also completely off the mark and just something you pulled out of thin air. Pax, while Catholic, publishes academic works, philosophy books, classic works of literature. This particular source under discussion - a book by a prominent historian - perfectly illustrates that. The source under discussion is neither the bible, nor a religious text, nor a "patriotic text" (whatever that is suppose to be). So stop making shit up and writing nonsense to justify your problematic behavior.

Do you continue to object to a source on the basis of its religious affiliation? Volunteer Marek 18:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a matter of religious affiliation. The guy is not an academic. Source is weak and POV.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

According to Icewhiz himself, yes it was a matter of religious affiliation. You're wrong.

Yes, the guy IS an academic. In fact an expert in this topic whose received numerous awards. You must not have been paying attention, but rather just do reflexive blind reverts on Icewhiz's behalf.

No, the source is not "weak" or POV. It's a scholarly, liberal, left-leaning, institute publishing a well known and established historian with great credentials. Stop making stuff up.

Seriously, can we get a good-faithed discussion just once? The discussion always lead nowhere because some editors just show up and make shit up without any backing from sources or policy.21:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Weak how? Did the book break on you when you tried to use it for heavy lifting? As for POV, check WP:NPOV. Of course it is POVed, NPOV sources do not exist, all sources have some POV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

References

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

This edit removed information about robberies carried out by Soviet units against local villagers[8], however the source at this sentence clearly states that they were robbed " "Partyzanci w czasie powtarzających się napadów na tę wieś rabowali jej mieszkańcom żywność, odzież, bydło".Partisans during repeated raids on this village, robbed its inhabitants from food, clothing,cattle.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

English language souces generally use requsition (or other non-POV language), e.g. Sužiedėlis, S. (2018). The International Commission for the Evaluation of the Crimes of the Nazi and Soviet Occupation Regimes in Lithuania: successes, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Baltic Studies, 49(1), 103-116.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I see a quote stating that robberies by Soviet forces are described in English language as "requisition"? In any case, this, and other sources state clearly that these were robberies.Requisitions can be carried out by legal authorities, and Soviets weren't one in occupied Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So Germans requisitions Jewish property during the Holocaust, not robbed from them? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

We are comparing Jewish and Soviet partisans to the Nazies now, are we? The Soviet partisans in this area, including for this case, provided villagers with documentation (scrip) that supplies were taken feom them.Icewhiz (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You're evading the question. Quotes please. Volunteer Marek 20:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting on the source for these claims.... Volunteer Marek 08:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Source? And yeah, German-Soviet comparison is often valid. You know - German invasion of Poland - Soviet invasion of Poland, Polish territories occupied by Nazi Germany - Polish territories occupied by the Soviet Union, etc. Anyway, neutrality requires using the same language for different factions. You know, one's group terrorists are another group's freedom fighters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly the point with the "bandits" discussion, if you recall. At any rate, I'd place the emphasis here on the "partisans" part, as in "comparing partisans to the Nazies". Would anyone here dare make similar assertions about other partisan groups? I doubt it. François Robere (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I vaguely recall some people you may by familiar with comparing Polish partisans in such a way... but what's the point of this discussion? We should focus on improving the article, not useless talk about who knows what. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't. At any rate, Icewhiz presented an RS - go with it. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I will note that the bandit/robbing terminology appears in Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions reports, quoted by Polonsky, whose units rushed to defend the collaborating villagers and intercept the Soviet forces during and after the attack. It is quite jarring to see advocacy for use of terminology used by the main perpetrators of the Holocaust in Lithuania (unlike other countries, in Lithuania these local and eager helpers were the main driving force). The intervening Lithianian force here, the 252nd battalion, was formed to guard Majdanek concentration camp and was also involved in guarding prisoner conveys."Bronius+Bajerčius"&source=bl&ots=tThT5dOpXk&sig=8shddgiF192RJnUv5B5OfHd8Z7c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjC4PKC-dreAhVCPVAKHW32BZ0Q6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="Bronius%20Bajerčius"&f=false. So while the origin of this terminology is quite clear - it is not used by mainstream English scademic sources (except when they quote others - e.g. periodic pro-Nazi sources).Icewhiz (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop it with the bullshit POV phraseology "collaborating villagers"? You're victim blaming to try to imply that the women and children murdered in this massacre somehow "deserved it". Yes, there are some authors - mostly those who are just repeating Soviet propaganda or uncritically accepting statements from the perpetrators of this massacre - who try to do the same, but that's a clear POV view which is contradicted by other, reliable, sources. Volunteer Marek 19:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Other reliable sources? You mean authors designated by the SPLC for hate speech or fringe ethno-nationalist writers? Polonsky or Suziedelis are mainstream academics, published academically, who clearly assert the collaboration here and that this was a conflict between two armed forces - innocent civilians died as well - bit not all fatalities here were innocent.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, other reliable sources like Krajewski. There were also other reliable sources you (or your buddies) removed but I have to go back to much older versions of the article to get them. I don't see where Suziedelis asserts what you claim he asserts. For that matter, I don't see where Polonsky does either, since we only have your word to rely on that. And no, this was NOT "conflict between two armed forces". It was a murder of civilians. Stop it with the disgusting "blame the victim" nonsense. Volunteer Marek 20:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record I checked the source provided by Icewhiz and there is nothing within that source stating that English language sources used term requisitions instead of robberies.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

These are Polonsk's wordy (as others - who go farther - e.g. this one which also has the villagers placing two dead partisan scouts on public display) is treating the target of the attack - the self defense force which collaborated with the Nazis - as a legitimate military target. He does not treat the dead villagers as civilians - as the collaborationist self defence was not civilian - but he does say there were innocent bystanders killed as well. It would be interesting if someone made an age/sex breakdown of the dead - I haven't seen such an analysis. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hold up. Let me get this straight. You objected to a source, written by a professional historian who specializes in the topic, published by a scholarly institute because ... it was "Catholic", but now, YOU are trying to pass off a source written by some guy who writes instructional books on... catfish fishing (!!!) for ... preschool to K12 (!!!) and who clearly has no idea what he's writing about and is spouting clear nonsense (the hey did Kovner have to do with this massacre???). Right.

Once again Icewhiz, you put your own biases, as well as your WP:NOTHERE on display. Your double standards are so blatant and obvious that once again I have to ask - how is it you're allowed to edit Wikipedia at all? Volunteer Marek 19:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Cohen's book is on the same level of the non-academic author published by a church affiliated publisher currently in the article - I did not introduce it to the article (it is not however nonesense - the dead scouts are present in several primary accounts). I think we should stick to mainstream academics such as Polonsky (who frames this as typical) and Suziedelis - and avoid lesser quality sources.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Cohen's book is garbage which can't even get basic facts rights. Cohen's book is published a non-scholarly publisher. PAX is a scholarly publisher. Cohen has no credentials except the fact that he writes ... catfish fishing guides for school children. Krajewski is an award winning historian who specializes in the topic. Nice try at false equivocation though.

And what the hell??? Are you seriously trying to argue "since you didn't let me put in my shitty source in the article, I'm not going to let you put in a source that you like"???

PAX's publication is a top notch source. The fact that it's "Catholic" might bother you, but that's YOUR PROBLEM.

You can go to RSN with respect to PAX if you want to. But if you keep trying to remove sources on the basis of their religious affiliation, then you will wind up at an admin board. Volunteer Marek 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Not an acadmic press, known for bible and patriotic texts, written by a non-academic (later would become an IPN employee...). I am not trying to introduce Cohen - but yes - this school textbook is a better source than the pax book.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a scholarly institute with impeccable reputation. And no it's not "known for bible and patriotic texts". Stop making shit up. Stop trying to smear it. You tried to remove it on the basis that it was "Catholic" which is very problematic behavior. What do you think would happen if someone tried to remove sources because "they were Jewish"? Or because "they were Muslim"? Or because "they were Protestant"?

And it IS written by an academic, what are you talking about??? A history professor who's won numerous awards. You really need to watch WP:BLP. Volunteer Marek 20:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

And are you seriously trying to defend the Cohen book? Really? Let's see Cohen... "the author of such books as Catfish Fishing" [9] [10] "Introduces catfishing and the equipment used, describes catfish noodling, and discusses the effects of pollution on fish and the ethics of fishing." Great! Now, what are his credentials IN THIS topic? Hmmm, it can't be the fact that he writes patent nonsense, such as the claim that Abba Kovner was the one who "ordered this raid". The fact that you're making ridiculous assertion that this is "a better source" than a source written by a professional historian once again illustrates why you have no business editing this topic area. Volunteer Marek 20:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Are we talking this PAX? Not that I mind, personally, but there's some irony in you describing a pro-Communist publisher as "top notch" while trying to exclude one writer on the grounds of (supposedly) being Stalinist [11]. François Robere (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sort of. PAX started as a pro-communist Catholic organization. It kind of split in 1956, after Stalin's death and afterwards drifted towards and then became part of the democratic opposition to Communism. In the 1960's it was a big supporter of Vatican II reforms. It pretty much completely ditched the communists (and nationalists) in 1979 and backed the Solidarity movement. It was shut down as a result during the martial law in Poland. The first freely elected, non-Communist Prime Minister of Poland, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, was a prominent member of the association. And it pretty much reflected the same ideology as Mazowiecki - leftist liberalism (as opposed to far left communism or right wing nationalist). It's EXACTLY the kind of source you should find acceptable. Volunteer Marek 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

So to answer your bad faithed, rhetorical question, yes, we're talking about that PAX, but it isn't (or wasn't at the time the source we're talking about) a "pro-Communist publisher" or Stalinist. So sorry bud, no contradiction on my part here. Volunteer Marek 22:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

but it isn't (or wasn't at the time the source we're talking about) a "pro-Communist publisher" or Stalinist Neither was Krakowski. François Robere (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

Per all mainstream academic English source (e.g. Michlic, Polonsky, Sužiedėlis) this event is primarily notable for ethno-nationalist discourse against Jews in Lithuanian and Poland. Such discourse vastly overstates the Jewish component of the Soviet forces (per Polonsky 100 of 400 approx), obsfucates the collaboration of the village self defense forces with the Nazis and their local Lithuanian helpers, and overstates the civilian casulties in relation to the armed members of the village self defense who were involved in an armed conflict with the Soviet forces. Our article does not properly reflect the use of the incident in antisemitic discourse, and furthermore dangerously promotes (e.g. in the lead) a civilian narrative not present in mainstream sources. Citing an author, as a source, who is a far right activist, widely accused of antisemitism, and designated and profiled by the SPLC,[12] clearly illustrates the many problems here. The article should clearly and unequivocally describe the collaboration, armed nature, and conflict of the village self defense with the Soviets (while also covering the death of innocent civilians). The article should also, per weight in academic sources, cover the use of this incident in ethno-nationalist discourse and hate speech.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

That is obviously not true as multiple sources in the article illustrate. And yeah, this includes the reliable sources which you are repeatedly trying to remove.

Right now, the article is full of "blame the victim" apologia which tries to insinuate in a really disgusting way that it was ok for the Soviets to murder women and children because... they deserved it! They had a few rifles so they were combatants! The soviet partisans needed food!!!

Enough of this crap. Yes, the article is POV. It's POV'd the other way. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

If we ignore ethno-nationalist writings and use actual academic sources - e.g. Poloonsky - which an editor here is keen on reverting - the village self defence force was armed, in conflict with the Soviets, and on the night of the attack the 252nd Lithuanian auxillary police battalion (Majdanek camp guards) rushed to their aid. Certainly, per Polonsky, there were civilians as well in the village - but also armed fighters.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

We ARE using academic sources. But you keep trying to remove these. And misquoting or cherry picking others, like "Poloonsky" (sic).20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

And let's see - "the self defence was armed" - yes, they had a few rusty rifles. "In conflict with the Soviets" - yes, I guess being robbed by somebody makes you "in conflict" with them. As for the "rushed to their aid" - where do you see that? And Majdanek guards "rushing to the aid"??? You know Majdanek was in present day south-eastern Poland, and this is present day Lithuania we're talking about, right? Volunteer Marek 20:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliable mainstream sources (as opppsed to a non academic in a church affiliated publisher) do not agree with the above assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Stop making stuff up. PAX is a reliable source. It's non-academic but it's scholarly. The actual text is from a professional historian. Stop. Trying. To. Smear. It. It's bad enough that you tried to remove it on the basis of religion.

You've been asked to support your assertions with quotes from sources before. You haven't bothered. And the text you want to include from Polonsky is barely relevant to the topic. Volunteer Marek 20:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

And btw, I actually agree that in terms of responsibility and significance, the participation of Jewish partisan units in this massacre is secondary. It was a massacre perpetrated by the Soviets. But guess what? A while back, before you showed up, this article actually 'de-emphasized the participation of Jewish partisans. But then you tried to stuff it chock full of Soviet apologia and that inevitably brought up the issue of Jewish partisans.

Where are they mentioned in the article presently? The Lithuanian investigation which YOU insisted be given prominence (I think it should be removed from the lede). And the testimony of Sara Ganaite which one of YOUR tag team restored to the article [13]. And... that's basically it.

See, if it hadn't been for YOUR efforts to whitewash this massacre, then the topic of Jewish partisans would be mentioned only briefly. So why are you trying to spin it, and blame others? Volunteer Marek 20:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliable mainstream sources focus on the political investigation and derailment of am actual war crimes commision - and are quite critical of this "investigation". They also do not treat this as a black and white massacre - but rather an act of war against an armed force that was in conflict with the partisans - a conflict which also led to civilian victims. We should do the same - and avoid adopting the simplistic ethno-nationalist victim narrative.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, there are reliable sources which are JUST ABOUT the massacre, and there are some reliable sources which also discuss the Lithuanian investigation. And that's already included. So what's your problem? It seems like you're saying that the whole article should be ONLY about the "investigation" but not about the actual massacre. What kind of logic is that?

And one more time - most of the instances where Jewish partisans come up in this article are there because YOU wanted to put it in. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

It is directed at the present content of the article - which presents an inflammatory ethno-nationalist narrative (per multiple academic sources - e.g. Polonsky, Michlic, Sužiedėlis such a narrative is actively promoted) - and yes - an antisemitic narrative - in Wikipedia's voice. Editors who promote such content should beware, however I said nothing regarding any editor here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, no it doesn't. The few times that Jewish partisans are mentioned are in instances where YOU insisted on including it.

And your section title certainly seems like it attacks other editors. Easy solution - trim it down. Which I tried to do but then you reverted. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Describing the fatalities in the Nazi-collaborating village self defense force as non-combatant innocent victims is embracing a narrative present only in ethno-nationalist sources.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Your continued insistence that the women and children murdered in this massacre are to be referred to as "Nazi-collaborating" is odious and you should be ashamed of yourself. Your assertion is completely false. You have not provided any sources to support it. Most sources acknowledge that the village had formed a self-defense militia after being repeatedly robbed by Soviet partisans but they also note the pathetic state of armament of this self defense and none but Soviet propaganda ones describe this as a "battle" - it was a massacre of civilians. Stop trying to blame the victims.

And let me repeat. The few times that Jewish partisans are mentioned are in instances where YOU insisted on including it. Volunteer Marek 20:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Polonsky describes this perfectly (yet keeps getting reverted - [14]) - the village hindered partisan activity and harbored collaborationist police, though as typical in such attacks there were also many innocent victims.... That there were also innocents does not mean we should present these as only innocents - a view not present in mainstream academic writing.Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"Hindered partisan activity" here means "didn't want to be robbed or killed by Soviet partisans". So strictly speaking it's correct but it's also cherry picked and POV. Likewise "harbored" - do you think the village had any choice of who stayed in it? This is just more victim-blaming which this article is too full of already. And when you refer to "mainstream academic writing" (sic) you seem to mean "sources which Icewhiz agrees with", seeing as how you've actually tried to remove such sources. Not how this works.

And let me repeat. The few times that Jewish partisans are mentioned are in instances where YOU insisted on including it. So stop it with the disingenuous faux-concern that there is too much about Jewish partisans in the article. Volunteer Marek 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is fairly closely paraphrased language that appears in Polonsky's summary in page 42 - Polonsky (as well as any other mainstream English language source) believes the choice of the villagers to create a German sanctioned armed force and to engage in combat against the Soviets as relevant to the battle on the 29th of January.Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, "paraphrased" by you. Your claim about "as well as any other mainstream English language source" is straight up false, except in a No True Scotsman kind of way (any mainstream English source which does not agree with you, by definition, cannot be mainstream. According to you).

And let me repeat. The few times that Jewish partisans are mentioned are in instances where YOU insisted on including it. So stop it with the disingenuous faux-concern that there is too much about Jewish partisans in the article. Volunteer Marek 21:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the version of the article before Icewhiz's first edit on March 14th (introducing a {{POV}} tag). In it there are five mentions of Jewish partisans, plus one in the lead. François Robere (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

You have added a memoir by a member of the group who boasted about the massacre and praised it,you also constructed the source in such a way that it suggested it is a book by by Polonsky. I have removed it as it is not a neutral source and description of the background is already above it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

See below: [15][16] François Robere (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so now you're cool with including memoirs by the perpetrators (iirc those were being removed previously because they were primary)? Are you sure you cool with that? Cuz there's plenty from the perpetrators' memoirs that can be included. Volunteer Marek 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Polonsky is not a "perpetrator" - and he authored the extensive introduction, which is a secondary analysis. Per Polonsky this was an armed conflict between the self defense force and the partisans.Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said he was. That's sort of the point, if you actually read the few comments right above yours. Volunteer Marek 05:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Kovner

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

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

Polonsky (for some reason reverted whenever used) - has overall command by Genrikas Zimanas, and estimates (for some reason - reverted as well) that some 100 of the 400 Soviet fighters deployed that night (in Koniuchy and a couple of other villages) were Jewish.Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

We can certainly use Polonsky to cite the fact that Zimanas was in command and the 100/400 number.

But we're not going to use that to try and insinuate - and Polonsky certainly doesn't - that the 252nd Lithuanian Battalion was somehow involved in some fictitious battle with the Soviets at Koniuchy. Yes, Lithuanian collaborationist units and Germans fought against Soviet partisans... and water is wet. What does this have to do with the massacre? Volunteer Marek 20:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Polonsky clearly states that 52 men from the 252nd arrived at Koniuchy in the early morning of the battle to intercept and engage the Soviet forces, and that other detachments from the 252nd and 253rd attempted to set up ambushes elsewhere to interdict the Soviets leaving Koniuchy and a couple of other villages that night. As such the 252nd and 253rd along with the self defense force were combatants against the Soviet partisans in the battle and all should be clearly present in the lede and infobox. Polonsky makes the connection - there is no basis to remove this (except perhaps IDONTLIKE of the aid rendered by a unit originally formed to guard Majdanek) - it is as clear as daylight they were involved in the combat operation.Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's see the quotes. Either Polonsky claims that the Lithuanians participated in some battle at Koniuchy, in which case he is the ONLY source to make that claim - neither Polish, nor Soviet, nor Jewish (including from people involved) sources make that claim - or, you're twisting what Polonsky says. And if there was some fighting between Soviets and Lithuanians AFTER this massacre, then that's another topic. To try to exploit that fact to whitewash a massacre of civilians is, well, fucked up. Volunteer Marek 20:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is in Polonsky - pages 40-2. He treats the Lithuanian command as the opposing command to the Soviet one, and describes movements and attempts to engage in the early morning of the battle in Koniuchy. He also provides extensive quotes from orders and after action reports from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

One more time. Does he say that there was a battle between Lithuanians and Soviets at Koniuchy while the massacre was carried out? No? Then stop trying to confuse matters in order to whitewash it.

Look. At My Lai, American troops came under fire from the enemy. They then MASSACRED the village. We don't describe My Lai as a battle. This wasn't one either. And hell, here the Soviets ... may ... have engaged with Lithuanian forces but AFTER the massacre, not before it like the case with My Lai.

(and while we're at it, My Lai figures pretty prominently in some Soviet and communist far-left sources as an example of "evil American imperialism". But just because Soviets and communist have used it for their own ends, doesn't mean the massacre didn't happen. Same thing here. Just because you can find some far-right writers who try to use this massacre for their own ends, doesn't mean the massacre didn't happen. Stop trying to whitewash it) Volunteer Marek 21:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Polonsky views the 252nd attempts to engage and ambush the Soviet forces immediately after (same morning) as the engagement in the village as relevant. My Lai is irrelevant and different - as in the case of Koniuchy there was a sizeable armed self defense force (30+ men) in the village which the Soviets engaged. Certainly we should not whitewash the civilian victims - but nor should we whitewash armed Nazi-allied men into civilians - as Polonsky makes clear.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You haven't actually supplied any quotes to support your claims about Polonsky. Despite being asked repeatedly. You just assure us that "it's relevant" or "Polonsky makes clear". Let's see the quotes.

(And how was My Lai "different"? All massacres are different. Yet, they share the same characteristics. One of these is that very often the perpetrators try to justify their actions by claiming that their victims - women and children - were "collaborators") Volunteer Marek 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This material is readily available in Polonsky - on what basis are yoou reverting if you hadn't read the source? (In My Lai the dead were civilians - not armed members of a self defence force engaged in hostilities).Icewhiz (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. In My Lai the dead were civilians. In Koniuchy the dead - women and children - were civilians. At My Lai American troops came under fire prior to committing the massacre (perhaps from self defense forces). At Koniuchy the villagers were armed with a couple rifles. Same thing.

We can go further. At My Lai the perpetrators claimed the people they were murdering where Viet Cong or "Viet Cong sympathizers". At Koniuchy the perpetrators claimed the people they were murdering where "Nazi sympathizers". People who perpetrate massacre ALWAYS claim that those whom they murder are "collaborators" of some kind or another. The Germans, when they "pacified" villages (i.e. murder everyone in them and burn the houses) also claimed that they were carrying out "anti-partisan activities" and that villages were "harboring" (sound familiar?) the partisans. Perpetrators ALWAYS do this. Whether it's Soviets killing Poles, Germans killing Russians, or Americans killing Vietnamese.

And stop making excuses but provide the quotes. That's your responsibility. Volunteer Marek 22:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"According to [the Lithuanian's police commander's report] at around 7 a.m., 52 men of the 252nd police battalion, armed with machine guns, went to [Koniuchy] but were unable to intercept the retreating Soviet partisans... [Several units] attempted unsuccessfully to ambush Soviet partisans." (there, pp. 41-42)

Right, so that was after the massacre. There was no "battle" and this was a massacre, not an armed conflict.

And btw, who wrote the above comment? Was it Icewhiz or Fancois Robere? Volunteer Marek 22:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to do OR. If the sources are insufficient, then we don't state it. François Robere (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You have added a quote from a memoir by a member of the group who boasted about the massacre and praised it,you also constructed the source in such a way that it suggested it is a book by by Polonsky.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It's from the introduction by Polonsky, and I didn't "construct" the source - I restored it. François Robere (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are you removing Polonsky from the article then? Volunteer Marek 19:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Kovner2

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

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

It wasn't derailed by Icewhiz, it was derailed by you. Icewhiz cited a source on the order of battle on the Soviet side; you mentioned the 252nd Battalion and the discussion was drawn there.

As for Kovner - as I previously stated, it's not our role to do OR. Either the sources state it, or they don't. In particular, we're not looking to draw targets around arrows. François Robere (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No, his complaints that Polonsky was being removed derailed it. Which is funny, since he's removing Polonsky himself [17], just, you know, in cases where doesn't fit the POV.

As to the actual question - you're sort of missing the point. There are some sources which for some reason mention Kovner in connection to this massacre. I think they're garbage and they got it wrong. I'm asking if anyone know if there are any reliable sources which make the connection. Volunteer Marek 22:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed falsely described source

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

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

Didn't you just try to remove some source because it was only an introduction to a book? Volunteer Marek 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Lest I be accused of OR - this is per Anna M. Cienciala in Cienciala, Anna M. "The Jews in Poland and Russia, Volume III: 1914 to 2008." (2013): 101-108.. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You're not being accused of OR. You're being accused of first saying that "Polonsky is the preeminent living scholar in this field", but then when someone actually adds some material based on Polonsky to the article you... actively remove it. With false edit summaries. See the problem? Volunteer Marek 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References

This one doesn't make any sense

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

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

(the (....) is some hyperbolic rhetoric by Icewhiz). The actual source being removed is this one: [18]. Quote: "Edited by Antony Polonsky, Joanna B. Michlic".

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

This book is a collection of (mostly) translated opinion pieces intended to study the varied Polish response (from denial to acceptance, including antisemitic responses) to Jedwabne. The cited content is a quote of an opinion piece in the Polish American Journal. Polonsky did not author the opinion piece, nor do Polonsky, Michlic, or the publisher endorse any of the collected opinion pieces - they are quoted as a subject of study. If you want to use it (grossly undue)- cite the Polish American Journal and the author. The book itself is a source for the translation (and that it was published) - but not for the contents of the opinion pieces. The book also includes commentary on the quoted pieces - which can be attributed to Polonsky/Michlic, but not the quoted pieces. Quotations in secondary RSes are reliable only for the existence of the quote in the source document, not for the factual accuracy of the quote.Icewhiz (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"opinion pieces intended to study the varied Polish response " <-- that's your own personal characterization of the book, and one which is far from accurate. Here is an accurate characterization, from the publisher's website: "This book captures some of the most important voices in the ensuing debate", "The Neighbors Respond makes the debate over Neighbors available to an English-speaking audience", "It constitutes an engrossing contribution to modern Jewish history, to our understanding of Polish modern history and identity, and to our bank of Holocaust memory"

So no, it doesn't "study" the Polish response, it presents various responses. In particular, the article (not an "opinion piece" (sic)) you're trying to remove is from a professional historian who specializes in the topic. Just in case anyone is confused, this is a DIFFERENT professional historian who specializes in the topic that you're trying to remove. I mean, there's like four or five (at least) historians who specialize in the topic that you've been trying to remove (all the while claiming, apparently non-ironically, that we should use "mainstream academic sources"). Volunteer Marek 05:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes - it is a study of the Polish response, presenting Polish voices - opinion pieces - quoting them, not endorsing them. Specifically, the authors write the following of the quoted piece - Apologetic voices, often of a radical type, were, however more commonly heard within American Polonia. A good example is the article below, by Richard Lukas. This is a moderate statement of the position, and far more extreme and antisemitic responses could be cited - so a radical apologetic piece in which one should note in which Lukas laments on how major publishers aren't willing to publish his POV on the Holocaust. So yes - good job - you are citing an opinion piece described as less antisemitic than others of the type. The Polish American Journal is niche newspaper/newsletter - it is not a RS for history - in this particular instance Lukas's opinion is wrong on the facts in the same sentence - he is claiming "several hundred" fatalities - regardless, his opinion is not a source for facts. At least, I suppose, we aren't trying to use quotes in Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War, A. Kallis, Palgrave as sources for fact.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so is it "radical" or is it "moderate"? And no it doesn't describe it as "antisemitic". It explicitly says that OTHER "responses" were antisemitic. And I have no idea why you're citing a completely different work which does not appear to mention the topic of this article or the author or the editor under discussion. Did you just find a unrelated book called "Nazi Propaganda" and link it for the hell of it to smear a living person? Watch WP:BLP please. Volunteer Marek 08:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh wait, I get it. You weren't just trying to smear a living person, you were also making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors, by suggesting that they are spreading "Nazi Propaganda". I'm assuming that was intended to provoke a reaction, since you know, nobody likes to be subject to such false and disgusting allegations. And then, let me guess, you were planning to take that provoked reaction and go running to a drama board and file a report about how the editors that you just falsely accused of spreading "Nazi Propaganda" are "uncivil" or something because they didn't take kindly to such smears. So rather than responding explicitly in the way that you hoped, I'll just let your own imagination fill in the appropriate response to your slurs. Volunteer Marek 08:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I was quoting Polonsky and Michlic - in their study of Polish responses - who described this one as - "Apologetic voices, often of a radical type, were, however more commonly heard within American Polonia. A good example is the article below, by Richard Lukas. This is a moderate statement of the position, and far more extreme and antisemitic responses could be cited". If other responses are "far more extreme and antisemitic" - then this one is less so - per Polonsky and Michlic. In any event, it is described as "apologetic" and "radical" - while certainly valuable as a topic of study regarding the attitudes of American Polonia to the Polish role in the Holocaust and Jedwabne specifically - the quotation in Polonsky and Michlic may only used to be sources the attributed quotation. Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's put aside your idiosyncratic and peculiar interpretation of what Polonsky and Michlic write for now. Can you explain why you brought up this book, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing? Volunteer Marek 08:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: So the original was not published in a peer-reviewed (or otherwise WP:RELIABLE) publication? François Robere (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Published in the Polish American Journal - [19] which per themselves is a "English language Newspaper dedicated to the preservation, promotion and continuance of Polish American culture and heritage.". At best - a highly niche newspaper, definitely not a peer reviewed academic source.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

But here we are using a book edited by ... Polonsky. Whom you insisted we should use. Stop it with these obnoxious double standards. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

But Polonsky and Michlik don't endorse his opinion, do he? They merely present it as part of a literature review. The most we can take out of that (unless otherwise noted) is that they think his opinion is representative or important, not that it's true or accurate; we still need to examine Lukas and his article on their own merits, or in the very least attribute his claims rather than present them in our voice. François Robere (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Your opinion is noted but also irrelevant since it constitutes original research. I guess you can try at WP:RSN to see if others agree with you. If anyone could remove any source simply because they feel that it "doesn't look like a piece written by a professional" we wouldn't have a sourcing to speak off and you might as well throw WP:RS out the window. In other words - not how this works. Volunteer Marek 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Lukas's column in the Polish American Journal has context - his own book on the Holocaust (promoted, I shall note, by the same Polish American publication) which has been criticized as tendentious and filled with inaccuracies and distortions (see - Engel, David. "Poles, Jews, and Historical Objectivity." Slavic Review 46.3-4 (1987): 568-580) - has been apparently rejected by major academic publishers, being published by Hippocrene Books which is known mainly for cookbooks as well as translating foreign language texts.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So what? Academics criticize each other's work all the time. Just because you're capable of dredging the internet in order to find a negative review or two, does not invalidate our policy on reliable sources - which this is. Volunteer Marek 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the same publisher who published... who was it? We've discussed it before on an RfC or RSN. François Robere (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ewa Kurek - [20]. Lets put it this way - this isn't an academic publisher. On their translated works they rely on the editing/publishing of the original publisher (which in this case would be absent). Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, so what? And what is an "academic publisher"? A publisher who publishes academics, obviously. And Lukas is one. So please stop trying to redefine terms to cook up excuses for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removals. Volunteer Marek 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP we generally regard academic presses (please see Academic publishing if you require a more detailed expose) as scholarship. we would not regard a niche popular-audience publication (such as polamjournal) as scholarship. Lukas's opinon on major academic presses (and their acceptance of Holocaust manuscripts) is not a RS for anything but Lukas's own opinon, which carries fairly little weight.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course we regard academic presses as scholarship. What else would we regard them as? What's your point? On the other hand WP:SCHOLARSHIP does not say that we regard ONLY academic presses as scholarship. In fact, it quite specifically says otherwise (it's got that "or" in there). And in fact "academic publishing" is not synonymous with "academic press".

And I'm sorry, is anyone trying to use "Lukas opinon (sic) on major academic presses" in this article? No? Then, again, what's your point?

Oh, and one more indulgence please - I looked at the Wikipedia article on Academic publishing which you so condescendingly provided for my edification and ... it seems the words "academic press" do not even appear in that article. Indeed, most, if not all, of the article appears to be about journals not books published by academic presses. And a good chunk of it is about a "crisis" in publishing. So... why exactly did you bring this article up? Did you actually bother reading it before you got supercilious for no good reason? Volunteer Marek 09:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, journal articles are better. The polamjournal is not an academic journal by any stretch - Lukas's opinion - is merely a rather fringey opinion on Holocaust studies. I will note that Lukas also casts the inhabitants of Koniuchy as Polish traitors/collaborators, which for some odd reasons advocates of the use of this source do not want to include (though this tidbit can be sourced to a bona fida academic source - e.g. Polonsky).Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Is "fringery" (sic) a technical term or does it just mean "Icewhiz don't like it"? Both Lukas and Polonsky are academics (and one more time - if you're fine with Polonsky, why are you trying to remove him from the article?) Volunteer Marek 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's simplify matters: The whole piece was published in a non-RS, reads like a conspiracy piece, has no refs, and mentions Koniuchy only in passing. If it wasn't by a semi-renown historian we wouldn't even discuss it. François Robere (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure we can keep it simple - the things you say above are not true. Volunteer Marek 20:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

And the sentence itself is factually incorrect - "Several hundred Poles, including women and children, were murdered..." - we know that "several hundred" is incorrect.Icewhiz (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's true he gets this one wrong, but for a very understandable reason; "several hundred" murdered civilians is what the partisans who perpetrated the massacre, like Chaim Lazar, bragged about in their post war memoirs, and what the field reports at the time claimed. At any rate, we are neither claiming that "several hundred" were killed in this article nor are we using Lukas to source the number of casualties.

But I tell you what. In interest of compromise, and since we have other sources to source the claim, I'll remove this particular source, though noting that I'm only doing so to placate you, not because it's not RS (it is). Volunteer Marek 20:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

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

I didn't "commit" anything. I restored text which you removed for no reason. Why did you commit the removal of an author which you yourself are trying to use? Volunteer Marek 19:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted this as, at the very least, it was a BLP vio vs. Polonsky to say he wrote something Piotr Zychowicz wrote (of an interview) in a right wing Polish newspaper. There were also misrepresentations in the summary of the quote - if we were even to trust this source for a quote - the quote attributed to Polonsky makes a very passing reference to the role of Jewish partisans, with a "the same applies" - without exploring or detailing the role.Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is completely false. It's Polonsky's own words. The quotes have already been provided. You're making stuff up. Volunteer Marek 20:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Which brings us back to me asking for a proper citation, preferably with a link, ISSN or some other unique identifier. I'm not very good with reading unformatted citation intertwined with quotes that may, or may not have been taken out of context in the heat of the moment by an editor literally saying "You like Polonsky? I will quote Polonsky!" That is why I removed the quote, and I stated so in the summary. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There IS a proper citation. Here is a link. Volunteer Marek 09:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

You are trying to add a blurb from an interview, twisted out of context, from a dodgy source.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Both Rzeczpospolita and Polonsky are reliable sources, and Polonsky mentions Koniuchy specifically.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

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

This revert by Icewhiz

With the following edit summary:

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

Let's take that turn by turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we reading from the source itself, or Mark Paul's highly selective rendering of it? Usually in a Q&A one quotes the question and the whole paragraph - e.g. the no apology bit, or the lack of Jewish-Polish trust, or the passage being mainly on Bermen, with a brief aside mention of Koniuchy. The source itself is an interview, with Piotr Zychowicz on the byline and posing questions. Polonsky did not write the text - it was written by Zychowicz, based on an interview. One should note that Zychowicz himself has come under fire, from some Polish historians, reported in the same newspaper for his writings/views on Hitler - Adolf Hitler był lewakiem – twierdzi Piotr Zychowicz. Czyżby stracił kontakt z rzeczywistością?, rp.pl.Icewhiz (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The source clearly indicates which parts are Zychowicz's questions and which are Polonsky's answers. Your characterization "Polonsky did not write the text - it was written by Zychowicz" is completely false. I suggest you stop repeating this BLP vio and nonsense.

(and funny how first the source Rz. is not reliable because... it's "right wing", then all of sudden it's reliable because it publishes historians critical of Zychowicz. Make up your mind! Better yet, stop it with these disingenuous arbitrary double standard) Volunteer Marek 20:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not claim Rz. is or not reliable (though the piece on views on Hitler I mentioned has an AFP byline). Interviews are generally performed via spoken words, and then edited and summarized (e.g. omitting some questions, removing banter and asides, etc.) into written form by the journalist involved - not the interviewee. We generally trust reputable journalists to do such editing in a suitable manner. If we trust (a true question mark here) Zychowicz, then Polonsky said something, he did not write something. On top of that, we have the omission of context in our content - most of the passage (and subsequent comments) is about Jakub Berman.Icewhiz (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The statement is by Polonsky not Zychowicz Icewhiz.If you are claiming Rzeczpospolita falsified Polonsky's statements please present very strong sources confirming this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Nonsense. Yes, Polonsky does do all this stuff. But then he discuses this topic in particular. You're basically saying that the problem is that Molobo used the most relevant part of the interview, most relevant to this topic, and somehow this is ... bad! bad! bad! Ban him! Ban him! Ban him! Gimme a fucking break Francois.

If you want to put in what Polonsky says about other topics, be my guest - there's other relevant Wikipedia articles on them. In the meantime, quit it with the ridiculous accusations. Volunteer Marek 20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Did not write - and indeed he did not write them. Per the RP piece by Zychowicz - Polonsky in a very brief aside (in a passage mainly on Berman), mentioned Koniuchy in an interview. And I said this in my very first reply here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a very... creative excuse. But it sort of illustrates how bad faith your editing on this (and other) article has been. So yeah, I guess, technically Polonsky didn't "write" those words, only "spoke" them. If we are going to be that pedantic neither did Zychowicz write these words. In fact, these words weren't "written" at all! They were "printed"! Perhaps they should be attributed to whoever pressed the "start" button on the printing press which publishes RZ?

Stop being ridiculous.

You wrote, quot: "BLP vio vs. Polonsky by stating he wrote something he didn't"

Any sensible person would take that to mean that you're alleging that Polonsky didn't say these things.

Indeed your subsequent comments say the same thing - you keep insisting that these were Zychowicz's words, which is completely false.

Now you've resorted to playing games about whether Polonsky "spoke" or "wrote" these words and trying to use that both to justify your dishonest edit summaries as well as your continued edit warring.

(and the passage is not "mainly about Berman". It's about "admitting "bad things" that happened". One falsehood on top of another falsehood does not magically turn both true)

Volunteer Marek 21:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I cannot verify the interview since it is paywalled - it would be nice if someone with the access to the source could paste the relevant snippet here for full context. But based on quotes present in the article's diffs it seems like something that should be mentioned, particularly since Polonsky is already cited in another paragraph, and this interview helps to clarify his views. Polonsky is a reliable source, and it is worth nothing that he confirms that some Jewish partisans committed war atrocities here. Nobody is trying to take this out of context to generalize that most Jewish partisans acted like this, or that they were solely responsible for this particular incident, so this shouldn't be much of a neutrality-issue. For the record, RP is a reliable newspaper, and I think nobody seriously claims Polonsky interview was falsified? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The journalist on the byline is Zychowicz (of these highly irregular Hitler remarks) - this is questionable. Polonsky allegedly addressed Koniuchy in a single sentence - "To samo dotyczy masakry w Koniuchach, pacyfikacji Naliboków i roli, jaka odegrali w nich zydowscy partyzanci." - after 3 sentences discussing Berman (and this after a long discussion of Zydkommuna perceptions in Poland, and various other stuff). He doesn't specify what role Jews played there, just that the same (as he said on Berman) applies to the (unspecified) role. We do however have an actual piece of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, written by Polonsky himself (and not an interview), which devotes some 2 full pages to Koniuchy (with citations, with primary source material, with conclusions) - which was published some two years after this alleged brief aside in a Polish language interview - and which paints a different picture. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Zychowicz is on the byline because he conducted the interview with Polonsky, as is plainly obvious! What the hey does "Polonsky allegedly addressed..." even mean???? Are you really saying that the newspaper made stuff up and Polonsky didn't actually says this? Please stop being ridiculous. Same goes for "alleged brief aside". Sheesh.

And no Polonsky has been consistent in what he says. You are just making stuff up about his views. You've been asked to provide quotes numerous times and yet you have failed to do so. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing to a capital-T. Volunteer Marek 16:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Are you saying that Piotr Zychowicz falsified (twisted, changed) Polonsky's quote or not? Yes or no, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what Zychowicz did or did not do to Polonsky's words. I do know Zychowicz has been covered himself as a subject (in the same newspaper, though attributed to AFP in the byline) in this piece with the title "Adolf Hitler był lewakiem – twierdzi Piotr Zychowicz. Czyżby stracił kontakt z rzeczywistością?" or per google translate - "Adolf Hitler was a leftist - says Piotr Zychowicz. Has he lost contact with reality?" - which clearly makes Zychowicz a WP:QS for WWII. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And ANOTHER false edit summary by Icewhiz

Here

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

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

Please.

Just stop.

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

There is no consensus for inclusion of this blurb from an interview. There is a difference between academic scholarship which treats the subject at some depth and a very brief (and in this case misrepresented) mention in a media interview in a somewhat questionable non-English source. The passage is mainly on Berman - 3 sentences - and then per Zychowicz Polonskys say that "the same applies" (including Polonsky not apologizing since he is not responsible) to Koniuchy and Naliboki and the (completely unspecified in the interview) role of Jews within these events. Instead of edit warring disputed content in - please achieve consensus on the talk page first. Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

" There is no consensus for inclusion..." - you YOURSELF advocated for using Polonsky. Now, when you found out that Polonsky said something which doesn't fit your POV you want to remove it. It doesn't work like that. The fact you're resorting to the "no consensus!!!!!" just shows you don't actually have an argument and are just obfuscating. This is acerbated by the fact that you first tried to ... say falsehoods, about the source (claiming this was someone else, not Polonsky), and that you continue to repeat falsehoods about it. To wit:

"in this case misrepresented" - this is false. There's no misrepresentation going on. It's what he said. Quotes have been provided multiple times. Just because you say something doesn't make it magically true. It just makes you false.

"the passage is mainly on Berman - 3 sentences" - this is false. There is ONE sentence about Berman. Rest of the paragraph is about admitting "bad things that happened". This has already been pointed out to you at least twice, yet you persist in repeating this false statement. Which you means that you are PURPOSEFULLY and with full knowledge saying something which is just not true.

"per Zychowicz" - oh stop it! This is false. It's not "per Zychowicz". It's Polonsky's OWN. DAMN. WORDS. There's no "Zychowicz" in here. Quit making shit up.

Look asIcewhiz. You don't get to remove a reliable source, from a prominent historian, which YOU YOURSELF suggested, just because it turns out that he doesn't agree with your extremist POV and prejudices. Your yells of "no consensus!!!" are just as false and bad-faithed as your repeated false statements about Polonsky, which by this point amount to a WP:BLP violation. Volunteer Marek 22:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's assume that Zychowicz misquotes Polonsky. Why doesn't Polonsky nor any Polish historian demand a correction? Zychowicz is controversial and any his error will be attacked. The interview has been reprinted in a book. Xx236 (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There are, in fact, 3 sentences in the paragraph whose subject is Berman:

Zydzi powinni zaakceptowac to, ze ich rodacy takze popelniali zbrodnie. Ja nie zamierzam przepraszac za Bermana, bo nie czuje sie odpowiedzialny za to, co zrobil. Nie bede jednak udawal, ze ten czlowiek nie istnial. Ze nie byl Zydem albo ze byl niewiniatkiem. To samo dotyczy masakry w Koniuchach, pacyfikacji Naliboków i roli, jaka odegrali w nich zydowscy partyzanci.(highlighted).

Per Google translate: Jews should accept that their countrymen also committed crimes. I am not going to apologize for Berman because he does not feel responsible for what he did. However, I will not pretend that this person did not exist. That no he was a Jew or a pagan. The same applies to the massacre in Koniuchy, pacification of the Naliboki and the role played by the Jewish partisans in them.

This prior to the brief aside mentioning Koniuchy as well (to which "the same applies" to the "role played" - without expounding on the role). This is perhaps not clear in the highly selective quotations in a patently unreliable source, however it is clear in the original (which we should note is a media interview by Zychowicz ). Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering it. The paragraph is about "admitting bad things happened". Berman is an example. Naliboki is an example. Koniuchy is an example. Who cares? This article is about Koniuchy so we use what he says about Koniuchy. We can certainly go into the article on Berman and include the info there as well.

Here is the summary of your arguments so far:

First, falsely pretend that the source isn't Polonsky but someone else.

Second, once it becomes impossible to deny that this is Polonsky, then start some ridiculous argument about whether Polonsky "said" something or "wrote" something as if that mattered.

Third, when that becomes patently absurd, mumble something about "highly selective quotation in a patently unreliable source". What does that even mean? What "selective quotation"? These are the man's own words and they are part of the general point he's making (one more time - "admitting bad things happened"). What "patently unreliable source"? What on earth are you talking about?

Fourth, start screaming "no consensus! no consensus!" when the absurdity of your position is too transparent for anyone with a basic knowledge of English and the ability to do a search on the internet.

Fifth, insist that the interview or a passage is about something else, even though it explicitly mentions the topic. Then wikilawyer about it.

And finally, let me remind you and your buddy there that it was YOU who suggested Polonsky as a source. Then, when you found out that Polonsky doesn't actually agree with your extremist POV, you decided to remove him from article (selectively of course, which means that it takes some real chutzpah on your part to accuse others of being "selective").

Freak. In. A. I've been here 10 years and I don't think I've ever been in a dispute as ridiculous and bad faithed as this.

WP:CRUSH needs to be enforced. Volunteer Marek 06:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - based on the quoted content it's pretty clear Koniuchy is used as an example. It would be good to see a bit more than the few sentences here to make sure we are not misrepresenting the quote. For now, I think it is clear that Polonsky agrees that Jewish partisans were involved in the crimes (atrocities? - zbrodnie) in Koniuchy, and this is what we should say, likely in the paragraph that already cites him ("According to Antony Polonsky, ethno-nationalists in both Lithuania and Poland have portrayed Koniuchy as a "Jewish action". While the exact determination of the ethnicity of the Soviet partisans is not possible, it is clear that Jews were a minority in these formations"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Does Polonosky know he has a curator, who censores his interviews, who knows better? Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

General suggestion

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

Source please

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

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

Seconded. Right now this claim is mentioned only in lead (and not in text, which violates MoS WP:SUMMARY/WP:LEAD), and is sourced to "A Partisan from Vilna (Jews of Poland)", with malformatted citation "A Partisan from Vilna (Jews of Poland), Introduction by Antony Polonsky, Academic Studies Press". At the very least, Polonsky is unlikely to be the author of that claim, since the book is a memoir of Rachel Margolis, a Holocaust survivor. Usage of a memoir is problematic (WP:PRIMARY, anyone?). At the very least, the claim should be moved from the lead to the body and attributed. Anyway, please quote the part that supports this claim (or link to an online source). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Polonsky is the author of the text in question. The book contains, prior to the memoir, a 42-page (pages 11 to 53) introduction from Polonsky, whose sole author is Polonsky, which is written in scientific form with citations and is disconnected from the memoir. As for quotations requests, I am more than happy to oblige polite quotations requests (to my recollection such a request hasn't been made prior to today). Quote: (page 41) ...increase in the fighting between Soviet partisans and village self-defence set by German and Lithuanian police in Eastern Lithuania. During this period many encounters between partisans and local police from the villages took place, marked by the arbitrary killing on both sides of suspect civilians. No doubt, many of these suspects were innocent. On such episode was the attack by Soviet partisan units on the village of Koniuchy (Kaniukai), a village today in Lithuania, but largely inhabited by Poles. At the time of the attack the Soviet partisans were in a critical position and were harassed by the local police force and its German superiors.... Polonsky then goes on to describe and contrast primary accounts by Soviets and Lithuanians, describes the battleattack and Lithuanian aux police reinforcements to the village and other movements, provides the Soviet post-combat assessment of success, mentions the modern ethnonationalist claim this was a "Jewish action" - and refutes it, and goes on to conclude in the final paragraph on the bottom of page 42 that - "Clearly what was involved was an attack on a village which harboured collaborationist police and had hampered partisan activity. As so often happens in such incidents, there were also many innocent victims". Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Replaced "battle" with "attack" to better reflect the language in the source.Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

So...

The paragraph beginning with "... increase in the fighting" DOES NOT say the village was 'collaborating with German authorities and their Lithuanian auxiliaries'.

And

The paragraph beginning with "Clearly..." DOES NOT say the village was 'collaborating with German authorities and their Lithuanian auxiliaries'.

Is there anything else in this source that ACTUALLY SUPPORTS the text you added to the lede? Or did you just blatantly misrepresent the source?

Volunteer Marek 07:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit strange. What "collaborationist police" was "harboured" at the village? Blue Police? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This has already been addressed. "harboured" here just means that a couple Lithuanian policemen stayed in the village. It's not like the village had a choice in the matter. Icewhiz is reading into it and pretending it says something than it actually does. Likewise "hampered partisan activity" here just means "did not want to get robbed by the Soviets". Ditto. Volunteer Marek 17:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions (one of the main perpetrators of the Holocaust in Lithuania) and the self-defense force which was an auxiliary/volunteer component of the auxiliaries (I believe Polonsky in his voice chooses to the self defense as police or local police from the villages). Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not the question (I think everyone familiar with the topic knows this). The question is - why are you misrepresenting sources to pretend they say something they don't actually say? Volunteer Marek 17:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Polonsky does not base his conclusions on Soviet reports - he cites Soviet as well as Lithuanian reports - striking a middle ground between the two + using other sources. As for the self defense force - it was not tacit approval - a 1943 August order permitted and promoted organization of local village self defense (see Zizas (poor source), as well as primary NEWSORG coverage of this). These were armed from the stocks of the Lithuanian regular full time auxilaries - this is not in dispute even in nationalist sources. What is in dispute is the amount of arms provided (from the 1997 claim of a few rusty rifles, through some 12 guns, to claims involving machine guns) and amount of men from the village who were members of the self defense unit. Note thay "self defense" itself is not an innocous term (as it seems to sounds) - the regular fulltime auxiliaries were also called self-defense - Schutzmannschaft - in fact, most sources which deal with the Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft do not even distinguish between the full-time Schutzmannschaft and the local, village, part-time (mainly volunteer), short-lived (less than a year formally, a few months effectively) Schutzmannschaft who were subordinated to the local full-time battalions. Soviet requisitions are not "robberies" in neutral sources - this is language used in Nazi and Lithuanian reports.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the source you provided does not say what you pretended it said? For the purposes of this question, what in the hey does your original research as to the nature of the term "self-defense" have to do with anything? Polonsky explicitly states that these were civilians (+ two policemen) who were killed. Hell, so do the actual perpetrators of the murders.

(And drop this nonsense about "nationalist sources")

Soviet "requisitions" are most certainly described as "robberies" in reliable sources (these were in the article until you removed them per your own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). You have been asked numerous times to provide sources/quotes that these were "just requisitions" and you have failed to do so. Hell, you made the claim that, quote, "The Soviet partisans in this area, including for this case, provided villagers with documentation (scrip) " and you were asked for a source TEN DAYS AGO. You haven't provided squat.

So let's see:

1. Misrepresenting Polonsky and other sources.
2. Suggesting that Polonsky be used in this article, but when actual text from Polonsky is added, you remove it because it turns out he doesn't support your own fringe POV.
3. Falsely claiming that Polonsky's words weren't his but rather someone else's. Repeating this falsehood even after it's been proven to be false. Then WP:WIKILAWYERing about whether you meant "wrote" or "spoke" or some such nonsense.
4. Making claims about what sources say but when asked to actually list these refusing to do so.
5. Being evasive about specific text when asked for quotes (probably since when you finally do provide it turns out to say something OTHER than what you claimed)
6. Removal of actual reliable sources from the article.
7. A bunch of WP:OR about unrelated topics, apparently intended to derail the discussion and deflect attention from your other disruptive behavior.
8. Removing sources based only on their religious affiliation.
9. Using false edit summaries.

I probably missed a few things. But that's enough. Volunteer Marek 07:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Polonsky uses both sources, but the also quotes them. Lithuanian source doesn't talk about any extensive collaboration; in fact it doesn't talk about any collaboration - just mentions that the village was attacked and civilians were killed. Any accusations of collaboration he discusses seem based on Soviet sources. Let's face it, the story is pretty simple. Soviet partisans were raiding village for supplies. Villagers didn't like Soviet raids, and when Germans allowed them to carry some arms to defend against the Soviet raids, figuring out they can have the resentful occupied villagers fight even more problematic partisans, killing two birds with one stone, they agreed. Soviets decided they need to steal the food and/or make a show of force, so they decided to massacre the village, to discourage other such resistance. It is undeniable, however, that the choice to escalate the conflict was Soviet - they didn't need to destroy the village, it is not like it was holding Soviet partisans prisoner or otherwise interfering with what they were doing outside the village and its vicinity. So let's stop blaming the victims, and using sources related to those who massacred the village for their justification is also hardly a proper way to treat primary sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What a wonderful piece of OR - the Soviets could have given up? Perhaps in 1941? As Polonsky makes clear, this was a warzone in which there was a conflict between the Soviets and the Nazis/Lithuanians. The villagers, per Polonsky, made a choice - they choose to resist supplying the Soviets and actively hinder them, while choosing not to resist the Nazis/Lithuanians (e.g. in supplies for them) and collaborate with them. As Polonsky makes clear, such choices in a warzone have consequences. And yes - as Polonsky makes clear - "As so often happen in such incidents, there were also many innocent victims" - however, we should not conflate the existence of innocent victims with the collaborating villagers as a whole. Polonsky is not a source "related to those who massacred the village". Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Historians often judge some sources as more reliable than others - there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the judgment is justified. But either way it isn't the case here - Polonsky gives some credibility to both sides' reports, as demonstrated by the casualty numbers. What I'm getting from Polonsky here is that this was a "military" action - a reaction by partisans to ongoing pressure by the police-backed "self defense" forces - that had gone terribly wrong and resulted in many civilian casualties (as an aside, it's unclear whether the Lithuanian police source considers the armed villagers that comprised the "self defense" force as civilians or police - but again the overall impression is that the majority of the casualties were civilians by any definition).

I suggest something along the lines of The village hosted a self-defense garrison, created with the support of the Lithuanian Auxiliary Police, which was active against Soviet partisans, though historians significantly differ in their assessment of the garrison's strength and activity. François Robere (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"What I'm getting from Polonsky here..." - yeah, that's WP:OR and not even good OR since Polonsky says nothing of the kind. You can WISH that Polonsky said that all you want, but you can't put in the article that Polonsky said that, since he didn't. This is more attempts to misrepresent the source. Volunteer Marek 14:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, that's reading comprehension. Polonsky does not state it, but he implies it strongly enough for Piotr to conclude that he relies solely on Soviet sources. I don't believe that's the case, but nevertheless it gives you an idea of how that text reads. François Robere (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If "Polonsky does not state it" then it can't be an issue of "reading comprehension", can it? But hey, thanks for the personal attack. "He implies it" is just another way of saying "Oh let me do some OR here to make the source fit my POV and pretend it says what it doesn't actually say". Volunteer Marek 21:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

One tiny-teeny question: Have you read the text? François Robere (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I am glad someone wants to discuss constructive improvements in wording. I will implement something like this in text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What does this non-sequitur have to do with anything? Volunteer Marek 14:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(also the statement is nonsensical on its face - why would we want "POV language" in the article? Is this a Freudian slip?) Volunteer Marek 14:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Translation: We should stick to major English-language sources when dealing with contentious statements. François Robere (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Like the Polonsky interview which you guys keep trying to remove? Like works by American historians which you guys keep trying to remove? These goal posts of what source are "acceptable" to you and Icewhiz keep changing minute to minute, according to just simply whether they agree with a particular POV or not. Anyway, we're actually NOT DISCUSSING any non-English sources in this section, are we? Hence, Yan's statement was a complete non-sequitur which just looks like he's slapping down a comment so that he can claim that he "participated in talk page discussion" before he reverts again on Icewhiz's behalf. Even though his "participation" is completely spurious and non-constructive. But thanks for translating English to English for me. Volunteer Marek 21:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That one isn't in English, and no one is trying to remove it per se. And those "goal posts" aren't changing - they're backed by policy and admin decisions. As for non sequiturs - again you're complaining about what some editors you yourself collaborate with have done themselves. It would be best if the discussion focused on the material. François Robere (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Quote please

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

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

Polonsky describes the reinforcements from the Lithuanian auxiliary battlions, attempts to to intercept the Soviet forces, as well Soviet operations the same night to confiscates arms in nearby Klepociai, Butrimonys, Jononiai, Sauliai, Pasalis and a concurrent attack in Kiemeliskes (provisions). However, as the source favors the use of "attack", I struck "battle" above in my very brief summary and replaced it with "attack". Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't just "favor" the word "attack". It simply DOES NOT USE or DOES NOT DESCRIBE the event as a "battle". But hey, I'll take this little bit - you admitting that your claims above were indeed false. Volunteer Marek 14:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Marek, if there was a tally of the number of times you expressed bad faith in other editor on this page alone, we could've funded Wikimedia for a year. François Robere (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact (and I'm not "assuming" anything. My observations are based on his actions, not any "assumptions"). If someone like Icewhiz repeatedly and constantly ACTS in bad faith (here's a list) then criticizing their disruptive editing and non-constructive way of conducting themselves on the talk page (by repeating false claims and constantly misrepresenting sources) is legit. More, it's required. What's worse ACTING in bad faith, or pointing out that someone is acting in bad faith? The fact that you consistently sanction such bad faith behavior sort of says something about your own approach here. Volunteer Marek 21:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't sanction "bad faith behavior", I merely disagree with you on whether some edits constitute it - and I do not go around blaming everyone I disagree with of doing acting so. Take it easy. François Robere (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The real issue in lead

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

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

POV tag

I've restored the POV tag, as it was removed without consensus. The article is over reliant on a Lithuanian source associated with promoting the double genocide myth. Futhermore, POV language of "robbing" attributed to partisans - language used in Nazi (and their Lithuanian auxiliary henchmen) reports - and sourced to an author profiled extensively by the Southern Poverty Law Center for antisemitism and far-right activism,[21][22], the specific book was described as a polemic tract advocating for US policy vis-a-vis Poland (specifically, that US policy makers should support the return of the Intermarium (or the old Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seat) and "filled with conspiracies" (Roider, Karl A. "Intermarium: The Land Between The Black and Baltic Seas." Sarmatian Review 33.3 (2013): 1776-1778.). In a published review specific to the inserted work, the reviewer wrote that "Turning to Jewish issues, it is no secret that Chodakiewicz comes to the table with a controversial record that has included disguising Polish nationalism and anti-Jewish sentiment on Poland-related issues as objective historical research." and wrote the following in his conclusions regarding the specific chapter on Koniuchy which he treats at length - The hatchet job against Jewish partisans in the final chapter of Intermarium resorts to a number of abuses of academic structure to mask the genre of nationalist polemic. Aside from failing to inform the reader of the existence of the Lithuanian state campaign centered on the same incident, the Jewish texts cited at length are a hodgepodge of personal memoirs (sometimes penned decades after the events), scholarly treatments, and openly fictional works by survivors’ children, not meant to be academic research..[23] Use of this source in general is highly questionable, but given its WP:BIASED nature - use of it to support POV language is not acceptable. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to remove Chodakiewicz, take it WP:RSN. Until that point he is a reliable scholar. Being profiled by SPLC is not sufficient to disqualify a person from being a reliable source. Anyway, there's a ton of reliable academic sources for robbery by partisans (Polish ones, too). Ex. "One Jewish partisan in Polesie recalled "Our partisans called these excursions 'economic action', but the peasants regarded it as robbery' ... The provisions robbered by partisans (at least by Soviet partisans in Belorussia) included not only food but almost every household necessity imaginable, which often later appeared in the marketplaces of local towns, having been sold for 'pocket money'. Even Nechama Tec talked about this [24] (interesting case, as it doesn't deal with a conflict involving Poles, just Soviet vs Jewish partisans) - each partisan group considered their 'acquisitions' justified, called others robbers... and for peasants, it usually it didn't matter who stole from them. Also consider Allan Levine (just like Tec, hardly a Polish ethno-nationalist...): [25] ""That Jewish partisans and fugitives were guilty of stealing food from Polish farmers is an uncontested fact. It happened reguarly. Furthermore, Jews did kill peasans they believed, rightly or wrongly, had either betrayed them or other Jews.". So no, the term robbery is not biased, partisans of all shapes robbed from the peasants. The only exception could be made when the local peasantry identified with the partisans and voluntarily supplied them. That was clearly NOT the case for Soviet partisans in Eastern Poland, who had little support from locals (Poles). PS. Here's an entire article on the topic: Soviet Partisan Violence against Soviet Civilians: Targeting Their Own:

“ The extent of procurements depended mainly on the views of field commanders. Sidor Kovpak, Grigorii Balitskii, Mikhail Naumov, Petr Vershigora and Nikolai Popudrenko consistently tried to prevent plunder and executed a number of their fighters, even officers, SOVIET PARTISAN VIOLENCE AGAINST SOVIET CIVILIANS1531

for petty crimes like the theft of a pair of boots or a sack of grain, but, to their frustration, they could not eliminate plunder (Bazhan2010, pp. 112, 165, 244, 285, 448, 605; Gogun & Kentii2006, pp. 143, 179). Other commanders frequently overstepped the blurred line between requisition and robbery. Balitskii described how the partisans from the unit commanded by Yakov Mel’nik ‘ransacked Rudnitsa village like jackals and robbed almost all peasants’ (Bazhan2010, p. 452). Other units confiscated the entire potato crop in several villages having threatened their residents with execution (Bazhan2010, p. 418); they beat peasants up with rifle rods to force them to surrender harnesses and clothes and smashed the stoves in peasant homes to extract steel chimneys (Bazhan2010, pp. 424, 427). Balitskii called these gangs ‘bastards...alienating peasants from the real partisans engaged in fight against the fascists’ (Bazhan2010, p. 424). Ivan Syromolotnyi, inspector of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian Communist Party, reported that partisans from the formation commanded by Aleksandr Saburov ‘resemble bandits. People flee from his unit to the forests as they flee from the Germans. Plunder is unlimited’ (Gogun & Kentii2006, p. 143). According to Dmitrii Medvedev, commander of Pobediteli unit, Saburov’s partisans became so accustomed to plunder that their commanders could not restrain them any longer. When he demanded that Ivan Shitov, commander of one of Saburov’s units, stop ‘the banditry and robberies’, ‘the former commissar of Shitov’s battalion asked me: “Do you want our partisans to kill us in the first action?”’ (Gogun & Kentii2006, p. 180). All these sweeping requisitions and plain plunder, sanctioned by field commanders, took place in villages considered generally loyal

”

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

“ Despite the ruthless procurement policy sanctioned at the top level and numerous abuses by commanders that aggravated this policy, most requisitions in [the pre-1939 Soviet lands] still had a benign outcome: civilians perceived the loss of some of their assets to partisans as a fair price for the temporary absence of Germans and the eventual victory. However, most people in the borderlands, incorporated by the Soviet Union in 1939–1940, resented the Soviet regime and its representatives, the partisans. [...] However, Ukrainian and Polish nationalist guerrillas, raised on a territorial basis, maintained close bonds with the local communities. Nationalists established an orderly and fair requisition system among members of their ethnic group; they swiftly punished marauders and did not pursue scorched earth policies that were incomprehensible to the borderland people. The roaming Soviet bands were outsiders with an alien culture; most borderland peasants rejected the partisans’ political agenda and refused to sponsor them. Although some Red partisan commanders paid for supplies several times as much as peasants received from the Germans (Gogun2008, pp. 310, 315), which was never done in the pre-1939 lands, other commanders perceived the wealthier borderland residents as kulaks and therefore as legitimate targets for sweeping confiscations. ”

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

Historians

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

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

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

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