Talk:Kazimieras Garšva

Controversial?

The fact, that Garšva is interested in contraversial subjects does not proove him to be nationalist. And Polish newspaper, defending tunic of AK, is probably not the best source to use opinion from.--Lokyz 17:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, statements like this "Przewodniczący "Vilniji" Kazimieras Garśwa stał się nieformalnym liderem Wspólnoty. Kilkakrotnie Wspólnota Litwy Wschodniej była inicjatorem działań wrogich wobec mniejszości polskiej (apele do parlamentu, premiera, ministra sprawiedliwości itp.)" truly represents full scale of nationalism of Vilnija. I suppose "apele do paralamentu" is considered criminal and nationalistic action in Poland?--Lokyz 17:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, why did you remove his scientific credits? And one more thing - all the references with name calling and no arguments why this organization is considered nationalistic won't help here. They might support thesis, that organization is considered nationalistic by Polish side, althoug I do not think that this is enough.--Lokyz 17:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think I removed his scientific credits. If I did it was an accident, but I cannot see removing any kind of information. --Lysy^talk 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for creating this stub. Anyway, the organization is called 'extremist' in English academic book (Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europe - the title is quite telling). Btw, I just found an English language ref with another ref to Vilnija (bookTaming Nationalism?: Political Community Building in the Post-Soviet Baltic States). Quote: Vilnija wanted to get rid of Polish (and Russian) textbooks, teachers and schools. Btw, seems like we are missing the article on Lithuanization, a term used in that book). A third ref to Vilnija in English publication I can find is unfortunatly restricted by copyright issues, but the title of the book is interesting as well: Understanding Ethnic Violence: : Fear, Hatred, and Resentment in Twentieth-century Eastern Europe. And then we have quite a few Polish publications (mentioned on Talk:Armia Krajowa), including statements from Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (refers to him as 'nationalist', calls his works 'not objective', 'one-sided' and 'subjetive', and quotes Lithuanian officials (presidential aide) who apologizes about Garšva works which 'left a bad taste in my mouth' and were 'pointless' [1][2]), Instytut Pamięci Narodowej (refers to his works as ', [3]), representatives of Polish minitority in Lithuania (refer to Garšva works as 'lies', 'provocation' and 'works in the spirit of Soviet propaganda' [4]) and respectable journal like Gazeta Wyborcza (calls him 'author of scandalous accusations'). Sure, Polish publications would have a POV, but they are quite respectable - a tag I don't think we can associate with Vilnija, which to me looks as respetable and reliable like Stalin Society. Certainly the above sources are enough to note that Poland-related work by this author is highly criticized in Poland, at the very least. Out of curiosity: can you find any Lithuanian-language soruces which would be critical of Garšva? Because I have not yet found a signle Polish one that would be positive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not remember calling this organization nationalistic, I just said I do not know much about it, and he seems to be quite radical. and I haven't found any decent info on Vilnija organization either.

Although newspapers are made to be make money, and some fancy headings are made to be sold better.

Do you know exactly which publications disgusted officials? Is there some official info, or rumours only?Lokyz 18:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Particulary the movie about the AK, based significantly on his works and made with Vilnija help, which was seen as extremly one-sided, historically inaccurate and offensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, without any doubt AK were saints, nd did not kill noone. An there was no political decision made, that "Lithuanias are not ripe to have independance". This last part is not insulting, don't you think?

As for factual inaccuracy, let's wait what the AK documents found in Franciskans monastery in Vilnius have to say. It seems they will give more than enough of evidence, that there were no "rogue" AK troops, and they were acting on direct order.Lokyz 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you about WP:NPOV? The 'monastery documents', one of Garšva's favourite findings, and fondly quoted by you too, are suprisingly not touched by anybody other Garšva in academic publications, despite being over 12 years old. We have discussed this particular revelation before, see Talk:Armia_Krajowa/Archive_1. Seriously, think for a moment - why such important documents have not been discussed for 12 years? Because they don't exist, are fake or grossly overinterpreted by mr. Garšva, it would seem. So can we drop this little revelation?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A, Reserch takes some time, or do you think that whole Lithuanian Institute of History would rush to research it and drop other important projects?

b. Documents are referenced not only by Garšva.

c. The name is Garšva, not Garsava, are you trying to mock him - it is not very nice, don't you think? (it seems you know his name, after using it on Google books search)

d. NPOV here does not apply, this is talk page, my dear bureucrat.

e. Vilnija is an organization of Lithuanian teachers[5]

f. without a doubt Vilnija+Nationalistic search is the best way to prove you're expert on the subject.

g. Try Garšva[6]Lokyz 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A: If LIH has better things to do then to investigate revolutionary documents about genocide accusation against their own nations, I'd think they would agree with my interpretation above that there is nothing to research there.

B: I am waiting to read bios of the other people who support those documents. Do try to see if they are associatied with Vilnija

C: My mistake, corrected. And please, WP:AGF.

D: I'll nonetheless try to keep to NPOV on talk pages. I don't expect everyone to keep to such standards, though.

E: Quoting Sigitas 22:29, 6 June 2006: XXI amzius has weakest journalists and I will avoid using its publications when possible. I think I'll prefer the Routledge publication, and hope that very few Lithuanian teachers belong to Vilnija.

F: Huh?

G: Garsva is better.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As we're talking about person with family name Garšva, only it is good. All others are not.Lokyz 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, As Google Print is iffy with diactrics, search for undiactriv version almost always yelds additional useful refs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI somehow, Google books With diacritics provide more accurate info on the person we're talking about. Lokyz 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

well, anyway - please would you care to provide info what exactly this organisation does, to be clled extremist and nationalist? As for now I do see only claims to shut up and destroy credibility of an difficult oponent, that is especially not liked in Poland.Lokyz 09:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Check Vilnija. Btw, I'll repeat a question I asked you on your talk page: are you all right? If you are seeing things which are not there (like 'claims to shut up' - care to point out where?), this is not a good sign...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly allright. This case of witchhunt by obviously biased editor is ok with me. It only is just another example on how we do see things different. I do not ever said that Garšva is smart, and never justified what he does. Although define organization as extremist for petitions, well, is a bit dubious. Now as it is official coined as nationalistic, I can live with that. I do suppose that everyone who is writing nonsense books or print postcards about Lithuanian occupied "Nasze Wilno" until now is not called nationalist and radical in Poland?

And if you do think, that asking for references shows too you that I do not feel well, well I'm a bit surprised. It just proves me your attitude towards non-Poles, as a habit to see Poland's involvement everywhere. And that's what you'll have to live with.Lokyz 19:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of anybody who is writing nonsense books or print postcards about Lithuanian occupied "Nasze Wilno". If I were, I'd be sure to call him nationalist extremists and so on, no different from KG and Vilnija. That said, let me remind you of two things: 1) we have provided lots of refs that back up the labels of 'nationalist extremist' for KG. You have failed to provide any that would dispute those claims. 2) Your accusations that others are carrying a 'witchhunt' or have some 'attitude towards non-Poles' are violations of WP:NPA. Please stop slandering others. Thank you.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As about bios of other people who did see documents it's Dalia Kuodytė [7], very respectable person and it's your reference btw. Lokyz 09:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

”Extremist” is controversial and poorly sourced

Provided source [8], which should convinced that organization (?) Vilnija is "extremist" due not link Garšva; by this source it is not clear if the talk going on about the same Vilnija, which is lead by Garšva. In the light of facts that there are a lot of Vilnijas [9]. such as – [10]; This particular Vilnija is interesting because it is business incubator organization - [11], maybe author, who uses “extremist” term not random chosen to mentioned Mažeikių nafta in the provided “source” context? Maybe these are same Vilnija too? According to live persons biography guidelines such “statement” is removed from article. M.K. 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious he is talking about that Vilnija, please don't try to 'lawyer' you way out of that. Unless you can find an example of other Vilnija which could be controversial in this context, the reference stays. PS. This has already been discussed on Talk:Armia Krajowa, I see no need to restart that argument.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

it is not sourced it is your POV only M.K.

Consult WP:living : We must get the article right. [1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. [2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. M.K. 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Controversiality, extremism and similar qualities of this person are claimed by many sources, as discussed in #Controversial?.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry as for now I can only see position of Polish newspapers and analytics, who do foreign press analysis for Foreign Ministery of Poland. Ah and yes, there is one mentioning in Lithuanian researcher book, but it does not claim the person we're discussing here to be extremist.--Lokyz 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps ambiguity of English is the problem: the source - and our article - do not state that KG is extremist, but he is a leader of an extremist organization (that said, it's rather logical he is an extremist himself, but I don't insist on such a formula, it's pretty obvious). For the Polish sources, please check my post at the top of this page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Polish sources

Please, could someone evaluate Polish sources, because not everyone in the world can read Polish, and this is English encyclopedia.

I think some statements by Piotrus can be misleading, like -statements from Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, although to my knowledge they're simply translations of foreign press with some remarks by an unsigned editor. Others are citations of newspapers, including infamous Rzecpospolita. I do not wish to whitewash anyone, I'm just simply curious, whether an press article can be used as a source on living people, for example like this one form a very trusted source [12] (sorry Lysy, it was you who did mention this man earlier), and why do this is not reflected on the article, or is it some sort selective attention on people whose argument on AK you do want to diminish [13]? Who'll be the next, Dalia Kuodytė? It's rethorical question, I'm not pointing finger to anyone.Lokyz 08:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No refs to my knowledge claim that 'this is a statements from Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs'. We have several refs which clearly state they are press articles reprinted on the Ministry site (which would indicate ministry supports their POV, I think). Any information on why Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is infamous would be appreciated (I am sure that the spelling mistake you made is just a mistake, and not some sort of 'mockery' of Polish language, of course). Press articles are often used as sources, although of course English academic references are preffered. But as the proverb sais: if you don't have what you like.... Who has discarded the BBC article as a source? And Dalia Kuodytė certainly deserves an article, yes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was you who did claim, that claimed, the references include statements from Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs [[14]]. As for Rzeczpospolita I might be wrong, I've heard about it some not nice things, although it was some time ago, and do not have references right now, so I withdraw my opinion on it.Lokyz 14:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page has somewhat confusing layout, at first I thought it was a statement. Still, our refs make it clear that it is a tetriary source (news reprint on ministry pages), and so this issue is dealt with.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

comment from outside

I have removed 2 hostile fact tags for obvious biographic elements, and removed some outrageous POV. I now ask whether the references used for critical purposes are all of them reliable sources. i removed one obvious non-RS web site and one personal web page. They might be appropriate on the page for the organization, but not on the page for him as a person. I must mention that to the extent I understand the politics of his group I find them abhorrent, and that is the most neutral word that comes to mind. I therefore did not want to make any non-obvious edits. DGG 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tnx for replacing 'fact' with refs for biographic information. They were not hostile - they were just requests to reference it. While I don't insit we readd the refs we remove (we have others) I wonder what is the policy you used to remove them (WP:RS)? I'd think that a homepage of a reputable professor is a reliable source (unless anybody has sources that would argue he is not reliable?). Which other references would you like to discuss?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is BLP--the standard for RS for BLP with respect to particular derogatory information is very high, and rightly so. After all, this guy is also a reputable professor in his subject, and one can put anything one pleases on ones personal web page. I'm not happy about that "we have others" --is there some sort of a cabal? Let me suggest something--there is no need to go to any further lengths to discuss his political views, the link to the name of his organization is quite enough, and you have much more leeway for criticism there. What would be useful is some clear statement that he is the head of the organzation--what exact office does he hold?--it can surely be documented.DGG 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I hope that you noticed my statment here, I would also ask you to deliver your opinion on this source, [15], which Piotrus uses all the time. Also please not that sources which describes biographical material is exclusively Polish, person actively investigates crimes conducted by Poles so this should be paid additional attention. Ana also could would look at the article Vilnija there is also things which WP:LIVING prohibits. i will make more detail explanation there if necessary. M.K. 11:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

DGG, please, consider that cabal accusations may be offensive to others. The history of this article shows that there are other users (Halibutt, Lysy) who support my POV, so yes, "we have others" (users, although I actually meant refs in the context above). Garsva is the leader of Vilnija per our refs Gazeta Wyborcza, 2001-02-14, and even more reliable reference are official commentaries on the site of Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which calls him nationalist and anti-Polish (I correct the refs to reflect that they are commentary and not translations), feel free to adjust that (I was under the impression that him being the leader of Vilnija is not controversial, but him being 'nationalistic, extremist and anti-Polish' is - thus the refs follow the controversial statements). As a good number of references to him, particulary in foreign press, are related to him being controversial, and not him being the scholar, I believe that his views - and others opinions of them - should be presented in this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

preliminary comment

The principle is BLP. Let's begin with the easy stuff. I see no reference to "He is the leader of the controversial organisation "Vilnija"." It may be obvious to those who follow the events, but WP needs a neutral third party source for this. If the Cas Mudde book says so, please give me a transcript of the pertinent paragraph on p.151, since it is not part of the Google excerpt. For a statement like this, WP usually accepts a published statement by him that he is, or by the party that he is, but that precise point must be excerpted and translated. What position does he hold--a vague reference to leader is not sufficient, and the word "leader" will go in quotes unless a position can be specified and sourced. For how long has be been in whatever position he holds? Is he still in that position today?

We'll go on from there tomorrow. Please respond here, on the talk page for the article, since we are discussing a particular article--not on my talk p. And put the statements and the sources in the article. This part at least should be straightforward and be the consensus view.. DGG 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For 'he is the leader of Vilnija', please see my post above (19:16, 21 January 2007). I was unable to find detailed information on what is his official title or since when does he holds this position. The Polish sources use the word przewodniczący which can be translated as 'presiding officer, chairman, president, leader' (or sometimes not translated at all?). He is przewodniczący at least since 2001[16]. As for 'controversial', we have no refs for that word - I added it as it seems more neutral solution that stating that Vilnija is 'extremist, nationalistic or anti-Polish' in lead (we have refs for those words to describe the organization). I believe it is important to note that Vilnija is controversial, as it is one of the most notable thigns about this organization (if it was not controversial, I doubt it would be mentioned in any Polish or English sources, as all that we have note that fact...). All the refs for other items are in the article. I do agree that it can be expanded, but I belive it is currently neutral enough to satisfy BPL.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, here shouldn't be such wording as probably, most likely etc., here should be his official and granted title, not its interpretation. I suggest you to contact contributor who started Vilnija article [17],he should certainly know about persons in question official title, because it would be strange if contributor who starting new article about this organization/association/friendship (?) would not knew this essential information. M.K. 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's see. That reference 16 will be good enough, especially because I gather from one of the Poland-related articles that Vilnija may not actually have a formal organization--which would explain why we haven't found a formal title. Talking generally, sometimes "probably" is appropriate. When we give facts, we want to indicate the degree of certainty. This will be clear to someone knowing the subject from the nature of the references, but an objective summary is useful to those who don't. For political subjects, one does not necessarily assume everything on an official web site is true. The site for the White House is not where one looks for an objective view of Iraq, or for that matter of the US, but it is evidence for what the present government chooses to say.

A recurrent problem in many different contexts is that when there is an article on an organization, & also a closely connected person, how much does one say about the organization in the article on the person? Usually, very little--just enough for the context of his life, and a reference does the rest. That's what we do for companies and their owners. The article on Bush describes his presidency, not the US during his presidency.

I've figured out how to do it, at least to my own satisfaction:

I think Vilnija, & Garsva, would probably agree --& be proud-- that they are nationalistic, which is a relatively neutral term. I've arranged the other references in what looks like a clearer (& less obtrusive) format--linking to individual words looks much more POV, and much less dignified.

I think I'm finished, and hope I've been of some help. DGG 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dead links

Piotrus has restored dead links as valid, can someone explain whether it is valid information per Wikipedia policy, especialy per WP:VERIFY?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lokyz (talk • contribs).

Yes, non-online sources are perfectly valid, read the policy and see my comment at Talk:Polish_minority_in_Lithuania#Restoration_of_dead_links_by_Lysy.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here--There's a specific WP policy at WP:EL-- you should try to replace them with live links--about 1/2 of apparently dead links are simply moved, or see if you can find it in one of the Internet archives, or else make sure the document is described so it can be found it print if it exists in print, and the links are to be kept but marked as dead so someone else may be able to find the equivalents. If there is contentious material supported only by the link, other sources should be looked for to support it. In this case if there is a print equivalent cited, there is no need to remove the information. Print is usable for WP, though obviously it does cause some problems for people, which is why we prefer electronic equivalents as well--this is why its best to cite both every time, instead of just the electronic. DGG 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have looked more into the matter. According to [18], MSZ (Polish ministry) has without any explanation restricted access to the online version of its (daily!) bulletin (it is password protected now). For the record, the bulletin contained exceprts of articles and MSZ commentary on them (several examples can be found on the net and even on MSZ website, see [19]). I have emailed a Sejm Deputy who has enquired about that matter to the MSZ, and hopefully I will know more in the future. And I checked Google Chache and Internat Archive first thing yesterday, they don't have a copy of those sites :( Unfortunatly for now, all we can do is to treat this source as print only, and hope that in the future MSZ will restore public access to the site and 'unrot' the links.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)