Talk:Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II

Origin

The article was split from Armia Krajowa, per recommendations of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Armia Krajowa. Please see Talk:Armia Krajowa for discussions prior to the split, which resulted in the section being tagged with 'POV' tag several times.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tags deletion by Lysy and Piotrus

Do not delete tags concerns raised in other articles are valid here as noted above. M.K. 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please elabore here why this article is supposedly POVed, not in other articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

conflicts over the Vilnius region and Suvalkai region, areas whose population was mostly a mixture of Poles and Lithuanians

The Vilnius region wasn't a mixture of Poles and Lithuanians. Unbelievable ignorance.Xx236 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on Ethnic history of the region of Vilnius, Belarusians and Jews were the major minorities, Lithuanians were indeed few and far in between (even Russian and German censuses give them less than 20%, and Polish around 5%).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

After exterminations and expulsions Poles still consist a majority in certain areas. I'm not happy with this, but it exists and existed during WWII.Xx236 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the text that during the interwar period the Vilnius region had a Polish majority is not supported by facts. Please see sources cited in www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Republic-of-Central-Lithuania. According to those sources, in 1860 Lithuanians constituted between 71% and 66% of the Vilnius region, the rest Poles, Byelorussians, Russians, etc. There is also a reference there to a German census of 1942, though that data is not provided. From a secondary source I find that the German census (of March 1943, not 1942) states that in the Vilnius region 56% were Poles and 38% were Lithuanians.

Now how did Lithuanians go from 71% to 38% - was there a plague or something in the intervening years which singled out Lithuanians and by-passed Poles? Well, sort of. If one recalls, the incorporation of the Vilnius region into Poland was started by Poland with a fraudulent “mutiny” by Zeligowski in 1920. So, it is not surprising that the occupation of the Vilnius region for the 20 years following also continued in the same spirit of fraud. That was the plague that was brought upon the Lithuanians in the region. They way it worked was as follows: Lithuanians were required during that period to register their Lithuanian names as Polish instead of Lithuanian (e.g., Witold instead of Vytautas, Volanski instead of Valenskas), and thereafter they were referred to as Poles instead of Lithuanians.

In the 1942 (or 1943) German census there was another factor that distorted the native population. Because of the German occupation of western Poland in 1939, eastern Poland and Lithuania had large numbers of Polish refugees who had fled from the Germans, so this termporary influx of Poles distorted the ethnc statistics.

Consequently, due to the above two factors, it is not correct to state that during the interwar years the Vilnius region had a majority of Poles for its population. --Orintas (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I dint think that http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Republic-of-Central-Lithuania is proper source for that. M.K. (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To M.K.,

I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, so please bear with me if I am not fully familiar with some of the terminology as defined here. Whether what I referred to was or was not a proper source, there are sources within that internet page, and I thought the article's editors might want to be given a heads up on errors and follow up on it.

The French experts who took a census for the Versailles Peace Conference found at that time, before the Zeligowski plague and occupation, that only 20% of the Vilnius region populations were Poles, and the Poles did not dispute that, but were very pleased with that number.

To give you one specific example of how the fraudulent Zeligowski "plague" affected the census statistics: In Punsk in the 1919 census there were 4,666 Lithuanians and 25 poles. But after Zeligowski's plague descended on the Lithuanians, in 1921 there were only 1,689 Lithuanians left, but apparently because of the Poles' miraculously increased fertility rate, the population of Poles went from 25 in 1919 to 3,068 in 1921. And, of course, in the official government records all the former Algirdas were now named Olgerd, the former Vytautas were now Witold, and so forth. They were, of course, the same people as they were before, just re-baptized with new names and new ethnicity.

Please recall, that not only was Zeligowski's "mutiny" a fraud, which Pilsudski later publicly confirmed was really part of the Polish government's hidden imperialistic policy, but it was also carried out within a day after the Poles had signed the armistice with Lithuania in Suvalkai, and was a violation of that armistice treaty. The preparations for Zeliogowski's "mutiny" were, in fact going on while the Poles were at the negotiating table with the Lithuanians. So, falsification and fraud was part of Poland's government action at that time, and this continued in census statistics after the plague. Any scholarly encyclopedia should not overlook such basic uncontroverted facts. --Orintas (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.51.48 (talk)

Suvalkai region

The Suvalkai region doesn't inform about the ethnic proportions. Xx236 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on that article on its talkpage. It is unreferenced and possibly OR - may warrant AfD or merger, I think.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lithuanian historiography

Please see here for a translation of relevant part of an academic article from 2004, by Alvydas Nikzentaitis, director of Lithuanian Institute of History, discussing some biases Lithuanian historigrophay had (has?) regarding the issue of Polish-Lithuanian relations during WWII. Original article: Lithuanian, German.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A More Important Question

A day or so ago I began an attempt to copy-edit this "joke of an Encyclopedia article". Am I mistaken, or is this one of the worst examples on English Wikipedia of childish POV pushing from the various editors involved? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Historic picture

With recent attempts to remove certain historic picture under variuos suggestions [1] [2] (reassembles same pattern as here), I have to note that hardly historical images can be removed under minor edit mark as well under argument that it is not clear. Many historical images are not HQ. In other hand if contributors agrees we can move current image to Dubingiai massacre (as it presents crime scene) and the picture from Dubingiai massacre, this one, here. M.K. (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The other picture - also uploaded by you - is higher quality and more relevant. I see no reason we should use the bad quality photo - and keep the non-free one under fair use - when we have a better one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A request

It would be helpful if referenced by academic research sentences would not be modified, putting one's bias into notable scholar's mouth. Thank you in advance.--Lokyz (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have specific issues, please list them here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here you go - even after clearing the text according to the references provided (note that every fixed sentence is feferenced by Bubnys work) [3], [4] one editor is keep inserting his "explanations", that are not present in the cited authors text with rather insulting edit summaries [5]. Strange enough, i could not find any references in western historiography that would call LTDF a "nazi auxilairies", and even soviet historiography does not accuse them on being "auxilaries". What do I find even more unacceptable is putting Polish name on Lithuanian settlement from the interwar Lithuanian republic.--Lokyz (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As disruption still continues I'd like to ask whether any of the editors supporting the disrupted version can read Lithuanian and whether they could support their preferred version with proper quotations of the work cited.--Lokyz (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A new editor on the scene

An insulting edit summary as such is not worth a dime "Communist propaganda cannot beat the Yale" [6] - Pleease, could the editor identify who is Communist, and who is Yale? And what's most interesting - how does it relate to inserting back words not present in the Bubnys work (it was not published nor by communist nor by Yale). The main question in this - Greg, please revert yourself, if you'd fail to answer this simple question.--Lokyz (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that Bubnys reference do not have such info as some trying to prove it like in these edits [7], [8] [9]. Therefore per WP:NOR such info should be eliminated. Also edit summaries with accusations of propaganda as well as reverts of "historical versions" do not justify inclusion of OR, and serves only for one purpose to win place per personal preferred version. M.K. (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly references outweigh other sources as per WP:V and WP:N, especially in historical articles. The content based on Arūnas Bubnys looks like original research. It should be corroborated by other educational institutions, which never happened. The article about him has been referenced by his resume supplied by his employer only, actually, a subject for AfD by WP:V if someone's cared but I doubt. But I didn't even remove that, just restored the Yale ref. I saw my input was reverted by someone. If you guys wanna go into edit war, suit yourself, play your little games. I won't bother you no more. greg park avenue (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with concept of WP:NOR (and yes it is research done by scholar), and also let me inform you, that Lithuanian Institute of History is internationally recognized research institute, as is the Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania. FYI research is done not only eductional institutions, but also by scientific ones.

Anyway those excuses you've provided does not let you alter referenced text to your liking.--Lokyz (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just restored content based on reliable sources coming from well established educational institutions as Yale or University of New Hampshire which you can find in almost any university library around the world, and which was modified lately by weasely inserting of a series of small digressions into main text suggesting this or that event may never happen or happened differently. And based on what? I didn't say it was based on Arūnas Bubnys, you said that. And who is this guy? A rookie whose works are available only in Lithuania and nowhere else. I won't mind if you create a subsection dedicated to his findings, just don't clutter the main thread of this historical article by unsupported revelations and reticences. Commie times are over and you don't have to write between the lines any more. It's a clear POV-pushing anyway. But as I said before I won't bother you guys with participating in this edit war no more, however, someone else more involved might. greg park avenue (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please watch your language talking about internationally renowned and cited historians - if one does not know Bubnys reputability there is no reason to start throwing dubious epithets. Furthermore I'd suggest you to familiarise yourself with concept or references (those blue numbers at the end of sentence) and footnotes and concept of WP:NPOV, and understand - that putting words into mouth of person did not say them, is much more than POV pushing. Until then I do not see a reason to continue this discussion.

As for accusation of "commie" - please could you clarify whom you're accusing of being commie? (let me remin that you have already been warned to stop personal attacks--Lokyz (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? When I say you write between lines, it doesn't mean I suggest you're a commie. Just the opposite. Commies wrote party lines, not between the lines. Cheer up! greg park avenue (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

An insult that spawns three questions

LTDF was Nazi auxiliaries, Polish names are relevant due to high % of Polish population in region, and explain your grieviances about Piotrowski on talk

Since my previous questions (see abowe) are still unanswered, I'll repeat some of them:

1. A) How many times Bubnys citation will be disrupted by one POV pushing editor? And for the n'th time - did one EVER read Bubnys publication before disrupting it numerous times and put words into the mouth of his, that does not exist in the publication.
2. B) I do not have grievances about Piotrowski, although he seems the most cited sociologist" (correct me if I'm wrong) by certain editor. But the certian editor has grievances about one nation historians, and is constantly removing the references. Care to share grievances about those?
3. C) Please feel free to explain what is wrong with attibuting Piotrowski's argument's as such. I do remember we met with one user on WP:WEASEL/talk - should we go there to find a right word again?

An extra question - strange, that such skilled Gbooks user still failed to find a reference proving about "LTDF as a Nazi Auxilary force", and still try to put words into the mouth of historians that did not say this. Cheers----Lokyz (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disrupting Bubnys. Is it disputed that LTDF were Nazi auxiliaries/collaborators? This is a non-controversial piece of info. I'd be very surprised if Bubnys did not mention that in his Lithuanian language article, but even if he doesn't, as a non-controversial, relevant piece of info there is no need to not include it.

Tadeusz Piotrowski is a reliable scholar, sociologist and historian, whose work appeared in peer reviewed western outlets. There is no need to attribute all statements by him; doing so is a simple WP:WEASEL. And yes, feel free to ask at WP:WEASEL when the attribution is proper.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WOW. You'll ceaseto disrupt referenced sentences ( and put words people did not ewer say into thei mouths) DID you find a single reference that LTDF was Nazi? Congratulations! I am certainly aware that it was not Bubnys:) As for LTDF - finally I've found an extensive source, surpisngly it is Bubnys again. A good one. Day by day. It will surprise one sociologist.

BTW - you failed to answer my qestions up abowe.I'm still waiting.-Lokyz (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am looking forward to your explanation how LTDF, organized, funded and directed by the Nazi Germany for their goals - and whose autonomy was limited to carrying atrocities against Polish population - was not a Nazi collaboration organization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about atrocities? Because this accsuation sounds ugly, but I wonder what 2 thousand men could have done in two weeks? As for LTDF - strange enough, that over a thousand soldiers and over 100 officers of "Nazi auxilary unit" landed into three concentration camps, over 5 thousand simply disappeared in woods with arms, and circa 100 soldiers were shot, including Mariampole cadet school, who staged an armed opposition to Nazi forces. I'll revrite the article LTDF in upcoming days with full referenced material. An preview - gen. Plechavičius was notified only in late may that Jackeln issued an order for LTDF to use SS uniforms and perform nazi police functions in April 15th. Plechavičius dd also oppose the LTDF batalions entrance into Vilnius Region. There is more.--Lokyz (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

LTDF, numbering 10,000, as Piotrowski (p. 166) and others note, committed various attrocities against Polish populations. I will help your rewrite and add information on that, as I fear the Lithuanian sources, glorifying the anti-Soviet resistance heroes, may (again) gloss over the pro-Nazi and anti-Polish part of their history. PS. As to the fate of the exectued LTDF soldiers, many of them landed not in some concentration camps, but as Piotrowski points out (p.166) - were executed in Ponary by their fellow countrymen, ones who still carried out the orders of their Nazi masters.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, LTDF was consisting of 14 batallions, poorly armed (as for an instance 1 person got 1 bullet as for ammunition), into Vilnius region there were transferred 4 battalions. Piotrowski does not have a clue how the LTDF was formed, and how it was dissolved (or rather self-dissolved). Another fact - Germans were trying to use LTDF as mass mobilization vehicle for Lithuanians and they did not get the requested circa 200 thousand men. As for your help, thank you, but I do refuse to accept it. You still failed to answer my question about the specific extent of so called "atrocities". Have a good day.--Lokyz (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You're being mislead by Piotrowski - in Paneriai there were a lot of executionists, not only Special SD and German Security Police Squad. But I'm aware this needs some deeper research than google books.--Lokyz (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Should I suggest to help you rewrite Battle of Murowana Oszmianka? It is an exemplary article of miscitations, and btw written by Polish editor and sourced overwhelmingly by Polish sources. Should we correct it to reflect the WP:NPOV policy?--Lokyz (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Whose propaganda

Health issues in the family have severely limited my WP time. Again, let us review. The Nazis rolled out a program across Eastern Europe to make the Holocaust appear to be a spontaneous eruption of virulent anti-Semitic "self-cleansing." "Eyewitness accounts by German officers" of neighbors killing neighbors? There is proof in black and white in Nazi correspondence where you have the official report of locals (fill in Lithuanians, Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians...) slaughtering their Jewish neighbors in the most brutal manner possible contradicted by Nazi correspondence saying the very same locals refused to participate and, instead (as an example) a small German unit was sent out to slaughter the Jews in the Lithuanian countryside, this won't look good for the Germans if the news ever gets out. Of course if the Jews are all dead, who will contradict Nazi accounts blaming the Lithuanians?
   The Nazis were planting news through sympathizers in Sweden as soon as they invaded. I would suggest the editors do a bit of research away from the sources which would appear to so decisively paint both sides as evil. Any sources built on a selection of Nazi reports purporting the most barbaric behaviors by Eastern Europeans against their neighbors are suspect. You might all start with Stahlecker’s reports. Even in Gross' neighbors bludgeoning neighbors in Jedwabne, more research has indicated many of the guilty were not local Poles, nor were those "locals" lead by ethnic Poles.
   This Polish-Lithuanian mud-wrestling match over who was the worse collaborator has to stop. And especially, there were not entire armies of Lithuanian Nazi units as being suggested here and elsewhere, instead, on the order of around 300--all other partisans being explicitly disarmed by the Nazis. —PētersV (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Petras... this article has little to do with Jews. It has to do with relations between Poles and Lithuanians, and - as sad as it is - both of them did not saw the Jews as a major issue. It is also quite obvious that (percentage-wise!) there were almost no Polish collaborators - and that there were many, many Lithuanian ones (and of course we can find notable exceptions to all of that). Do note that by collaborator - one working with the Nazis - we don' necessarily mean one working in the Holocaust. LVR, for example, was a major Nazi auxiliary in Lithuania - but had almost nothing to do with the Holocaust in Lithuania. The problem with this article is in Lithuania, anti-Soviet resistance heroes were at the same time Nazi collaborators, since Nazis promised some sort of autonomy and anti-Soviet support to the desperate Lithuanians. It is understandable that many Lithuanians decided to work for the "lesser evil" - and we also have to remember that the Polish phenomena of "almost no collaboration" was aided by the fact that Nazis did not care for Poles enough to be ask them to collaborate (and were busy exterminating them for Generalplan Ost). That difference in attitude to Nazi Germany - whom Poles saw as evil occupants and Lithuanians as possible allies - caused bad blood between anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet Poles and pro-Nazi, anti-Polish (due to Vilnius issue) and anti-Soviet Lithuanians. However, revisionist Lithuanians try to erase the pro-Nazi label (since nobody wants it nowadays...), and are inventing a false story about how Lithuanians were forced to work with Nazis to save themselves from the evil Poles (Armia Krajowa intended to carry out a genocide in Lithuania, etc....). Btw, those are not my speculations, this POV is supported by scholars - including honest Lithuanian scholars, like Bubnys (it was in an interview with him that I first read of this extremist Lithuanian POV). It is, after all, only an extremist fringe (Vilnija) who supports such revisionist POV, and mainstream Lithuanian scholars, like Bubnys, produce good and honest works. But every now and often, some extremist user will try to push this POV on Wikipedia - and as minor as it is, compared to more famous POVs we are familiar is, it is as dangerous. Please note that nobody is trying to intentionally emphasize the Lithuanian collaboration issue, but it is being emphasized in a response to intentional attempt to whitewash it by demonizing Poles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now it is obvious, that Piotrus has some agenda - he's trying to present Poles as "no evil", dspite proofs of their wrongdoing. It is strange, that Lithuanians, who were working during the Nazi occupation are labeled as "colaborators" and were shot by AK partisans (and this is justifiable because the "collaboration"), and thousands of Poles that were working for example in railways, that were supplying munition and soldiers - are not collaborators. Isn't this selective labeling a rather dubious practice? I'm also suprised, that such expirienced editor accuses a scholar of being "extremist" and "POV" - the fact of AK plans are clear from the documents found in Bernardine church. And no there is no mentioning of genocide - they say, that Lithuanians are not ready to be independent, and after war Poland will seek to get Lithuania as it's protectorate. Also numerous selctive killing by ethnicity facys are documented. Nobody is trying to say anything general about Poles, we're just talking about documented facts.--Lokyz (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody was shooting Lithuanian railworkers. Lithuanian collaborators - usually executed by the verdict of the Special Courts, just as Polish collaborators were - were spies, high-ranking administrators/officers, and so on. I am not accusing scholars of extremism - or are you referring to Vilnija as to a scholarly organization? As for "Bernardine church" documents, as far as I remember, they are highly controversial - either their very existense or as a forgery. In any case, while political organizations in Wilno region were more radical, Polish gov't in exile was one of the very few countries that supported restoration of fully independent Lithuania (just as post-1989 Polish government was one of the first to recognize the modern Lithuanian state). Interesting, how inconvenient facts are ommitted from nationalist "Poles are evil" propaganda... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To make it more comprehensible to you - just change one word and try to understand, that "Lithunians are evil" is not less insulting. As for the "forgery" ofdocuments, this does not sound convincing, it is rather the "they are evil" thing, and I do have a reason to believe you're not neutral when assesing actions of Lithuanians.--Lokyz (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting anywhere that Lithuanians are evil (albeit one can wonder about motivations of Vilnija-related hate-mongers... but they are a tiny minority, each country, Poland included, has them). Even Lithuanian Nazi collaborators were not evil, as I wrote their choice was quite understandable in their circumstances. If Poland was occupied by the Soviets and if Nazis promised Poles autonomy, instead of trying to exterminate them, Poles might have been on the same boat. As it stands, they didn't. That's a neutral fact, not a judgment. On the other hand, edits that try to negate that Lithuanian collaboration existed, or blame Poles for it, are hardly neutral.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange enough, every time I do put referenced information that those "colaborators" were silently doing their thing and sabotaging German orders, you do delete it on sight, or whats's worse, replace it with some Polish source with another general accusations about vile Lithuanians (including "historians" like Ratajczyk). Not to mention, that as Lithuanian author does write something documented about Polish crimes, we do get a lot of grievances about "falsified, extremist and anti-Polish" organizations behind this, even suggesting that everyone who does rely on the sources is an extremist. It is insulting, absolutely not NPOV, as it is not very productive. Strange enough, after this other editors get accused on whitewashing .--Lokyz (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any specific referenced claims of yours that are not in the article? Please be so kind and describe them here, I thought we kept all the info on LVR uneasy relation with the Germans, I've even created a section dedicated to this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)]

Inappropriate mixing

I thought I'd continue the above here. The main problem with the article right now is that it inappropriately mixes the Holocaust in Lithuania and later Lithuanian mobilization against the Red Army as all being Nazi collaborators, Holocaust perpetrators, etc. This is completely inaccurate. The Holocaust and who collaborated is one topic. Who was mobilized--whether or not Nazi allowed or concripted or supported or sponsored--in 1943/1944 is a completely different topic. These units did not consider themselves Nazi. Nor were they part of the Nazis "convicted at Nuremberg" as the Soviets so often love to declare even those which were Waffen SS. It's unfortunate that we have a Polish source that tars Lithuanians with the same Nazi brush regardless of the historical circumstances--that tarring is not accurate.
   For further reading you might try here.
   Rather than revert the last edit, the whole "Armed conflict" section needs to be redone and split into the appropriate periods:

• Soviet occupation
• Nazi invasion and Holocaust
• Soviet advance
• Soviet reoccupation

Hope this helps. "Nazi-sponsored" for the LVR in 1944 is a completely inaccurate characterization of the situation. —PētersV (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

This (namely killed hundreds of mostly Lithuanian policemen, members of village self-defence units, servants of local administration, soldiers of Nazi-sponsored[16] Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force, teachers, foresters and farmers, who were collaborating with the Nazi regime.) This is synthesis of different sources. Arūnas Bubnys did not wrote that those killed teachers, foresters and farmers were collaborated with Nazis, and Snyder did not wrote about those teachers, farmers etc in provided source. So basically that was done - was taken different sources and merged together. So it is textbook case of synthesis, and original research is not allowed on WP main space. Therefore I removing this. M.K. (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. please do not remove other sources then reverting, at least...

The fact the victims were mostly collaborators is of crucial importance. But I agree that this can be simplified; I'll remove the more dubious part indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Provide Snyder's original quote, there according to you he described foresters as collaborators with NAzi. Btw, care to provide rationale about removal of other sources/material? M.K. (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply, per reliable ref. Snyder notes that AK attacked the collaborators. Bubnys goes into details, telling out their professions. Their accounts are supplementary, not contradictory. The less reliable and verifiable source, in this case, is Bubnys, whose offline article in Lithuanian may in any case agree with Snyder. I would actually expect a good scholar like Bubnys to make such a statement - that those targeted by AK were collaborators - somewhere in his article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I cant access that Snyder's page, this why I asking to provide quote. BtW, do you have a ref that their accounts are supplementary? How do you know that Bubnys would not dispute Synder, etc? M.K. (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just google books. But here:

The Nazi regime allowed Lithuanians to serve as security police (Saugumas) which legitimized Lithuanian attacks on Poles in Wilno. Whereas in 1939-1940 independent state discriminated against Poles in Wilno, and in 1940-1941 Soviet Union deported Poles from Wilno, in 1941-1944 the Lithuanian security police and its German masters killed Poles in Wilno... From autumn 1943, the Polish underground Home Army attacked and disarmed collaborating police units in and around Wilno. Lithuanian policemen responded by executing Polish civilians. This was followed by retributive attacks on Lithuanian villages by Poles.

There, don't say I never did anything for you.radek (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Seeing original citation and there it was used in original text and WP article, it is 100 % synthesis of different sources, in other words pure OR. And no Bubnys is categorical - ... that Armia Krajowa, as the main enemy in Lithuania, regarded Lithuanians in general, not only who worked in police and local self-government. M.K. (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid your translation is dubious. "As the main enemy in Lithuania"... just doesn't make much sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The only dubious thing is the conclusion made by involving synthesis of different sources. M.K. (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, I saw your request for a Third Opinion, and I'd like to help. However, I can't read Lithuanian to verify Bubnys's statement - could I get a translation of the passages in question? Snuppy 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for taking this issue, much appreciated. Translation: Especially brutally AK operated in the first half of 1944 in Eastern Lithuania. During this period they murdered several hundred Lithuanian policemen, village self-defense members, servants of local administration, Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force members, teachers, foresters and farmers [peasants]. (p.12) M.K. (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see the problem. The Snyder quote specifically says, "From autumn 1943, the Polish underground Home Army attacked and disarmed collaborating police units in and around Wilno." The operative words here are "collaborating police units", which I would assume included policemen, village self-defense members, local administration, and Territorial Defense Force members. All of these could be considered collaborating police units. However, I don't see a rationale in the Snyder citation for including teachers, foresters, and farmers as collaborators.

This is not to say that the Home Army didn't suspect these people of being collaborators, and that they were killed for this - but the two citations do not complement each other in this way, and they don't necessarily support such a conclusion.

If you can find another quote that says that, in addition to the police forces, the Home Army went after foresters, teachers, and farmers due to their collaboration, I'd recommend the statement's inclusion. As it is, I'd go with something like this instead:

During the first half of 1944, AK killed hundreds of collaborating[4] Lithuanian policemen, members of village self-defence units, servants of local administrations, and soldiers of the Nazi-sponsored[16] Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. They also attacked teachers, foresters and farmers[12].

Once you can find a source that says they killed only collaborators or suspected collaborators, you can return the statement to its original meaning, but until then, I would remove the civilians from the list of collaborators.

I hope this helps! As a side note, at some point I'd like to come back and correct the grammar on the page, but that's a project that will have to wait for a bit. :) Snuppy 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is that Bubnys speaks about 1944 first half, while Synder do not talk about the same time frame (he uses 1943, as I see), plus Synder do not talk about Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force there (adding Nazi sponsored also can be seen as WP:UNDUE here). M.K. (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Snyder mentions the Home Army began its operations in the autumn of 1943; Bubnys says "early 1944". These times are close enough, in my opinion, that they can be considered overlapping. Snyder doesn't mention the LTDF by name, but the LTDF article outlines clearly that the Home Army fought with the LTDF, specifically on May 4. (see Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force_(1944)#Activities).

I don't think it's giving undue weight to note that the LTDF was Nazi-sponsored (see Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force_(1944)#Creation). From Armia_Krajowa: "The AK's primary resistance operations were the sabotage of German activities";

... and the LTDF certainly falls under that umbrella. Snuppy 15:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there are plenty of sources saying that AK target Lithuanian collaborators. A sentence from Bubnys, which may be taken out of context (I don't think we can accept this sentence as a reliable source unless the entire article is translated or verified by a neutral party), about "teachers, foresters and farmers", creates a misleading impression that AK attacked innocent civilians, as it logically equates those two sentences (AK attacked Nazi collaborators and civilians -> reader thinks "equally??"). Please be aware that Lithuanian nationalists have long tried to propagate a fairy tale that AK tried to organize a "Lithuanian genocide". See archival discussions here or here and below. A neutral sentence would make it clear that AK targeted primarily Lithuanian collaborators, primarily from Nazi-state sponsored organizations (police, LTDF), but also civilians suspected of being collaborators. PS. There were of course exceptions, and some innocent Lithuanian civilians did die ([10]), but any attempt to portray exception as the rule is a sad POV pushing strategy. PPS. As a partial solution, I suggest removing the confusing part about "teachers, foresters and farmers" entirely - we should speak of civilians anyway, not the professions of a few. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed solution, since we're close to plagiarizing Bubnys here anyway. I'd really prefer to see an additional source that mentions that the AK targeted civilians it suspected of collaboration; if there are concerns about NPOV, statements like this should be backed up by reliable sources.

We're getting well out of the area in which I could be expected to have any expertise whatsoever, even from a day or two of reading, so if I may make some suggestions:

1. Try to stick to verifiable, cited statements.

2. Try to keep the tone neutral - neither side should be glorified at the expense of the other.

3. Keep the discussions civil.

Thanks for letting me help with this, and good luck. Snuppy 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion will see how this will hold. M.K. (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reliable source that would clearly say that AK targeted Lithuanian civilians who were not collaborators (other then the sad Dubinki massacre event. As long as we lack such a source, following what most sources say - that AK primarily fought against local collaborators, mostly members of Nazi auxiliary organizations - seems like a reasonable solution. A mention that civilians died is present in the current version.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Would be Bubnys and Zizas sufficent?--Lokyz (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have asked many times for an article on Zizas to be created; currently we know nothing of him, and thus whether he is a reliable source or not is unclear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And dozen times was provided necessary info on his credentials. M.K. (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

When and where? Diffs please. You could create a stub on him, as I've asked many times, and this would end this issue. Unfortunately, I cannot find any sources on him in Polish or English. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[11]. M.K. (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mostly in Lithuanian. If he's a notable scholar (and I am not doubting that he is) why not start a stub on him? While we're at it there probably should also be one on Stanislovas Buchaveckas.radek (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Another editors edits

there is no garšva citation, stop using straw man - Lokyz's edit summary

Ok. What is this then? Garšva, Kazys; A. Bubnys, E. Gečiauskas, J. Lebionka, J. Saudargienė, R. Zizas (1995). "Armijos Krajovos ištakos ir ideologija Lietuvoje" (Beginnings and ideology of Armia Krajowa in Lithuania). Armija Krajova Lietuvoje. Vilnius–Kaunas

Notably, the ref does cite "Garšva, Kazys" as the author.radek (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an academic source that Mr. Garšva wrote Commission's conclusions? Or this is another instance of original research? M.K. (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The source in text is to Garsva. If there is another source for the Commission's conclusions please include it in the article.radek (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The source in text is to Garsva. What is that? Regarding request of other sources, actually I did include another one, but you and your friend Piotrus blindly reverted and it. Such blind revert warring is unhelpful and far from good editing practice. My numerous request to explain and provide rationale, backed by academic material, regarding those blind reverts, still not answered till now. M.K. (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

These "numerous requests" essentially amount to denying that there's a source with Garsva's name on it when it's there jak byk. Provide a link to the commission's report or to a REALIABLE, non-extremist source which describes the commission's findings. And that's not even getting to the fact that non-extremist historians distanced themselves from the commission's work.radek (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I need Academic sources not your beliefs for claims of "extremist source" so I repeat my self:

a) which academic sources considers these sources [12][13][14][15][16] "extremist", as you say, and why. Per Wp:EXTREMIST

b) Which scholars are non-extremist historians distanced themselves from the commission's work.? M.K. (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no Garšva citation in the article, one co-author of the book does not make the book and other authors less reliable. And I do oppose using my name in section header.--Lokyz (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

{{cite book | first=Kazys |last= Garšva | ... }} very clearly implies the authorship. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a sec. - authorship or co-authorship? Please, be more specific than generic. One liners isn't enough--Lokyz (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That commission is a bit of a dead horse: claims about it have been made for years, but never with reliable sources. Please discuss this commission and its findings here, with reliable sources (i.e. not Vilnija-sponsored newspapers). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What and interesting research but never with reliable sources. Do you have an academic source for that? Also do you have academic source that Commission's conclusions belongs to Garsva, as you implying with that "authorship"? M.K. (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, the burden of proof is on you: do you have any reliable sources about this commission? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is you claiming that but never with reliable sources. not I. M.K. (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027041339/http://geocities.com/skrzydla/ to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Battles

Considering that this article is about Polish-Lithuanian relations during ww2, would it be ok if i added a list of battles? @Piotrus @Marcelus Olek Novy (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Will need to see how it looks but it sounds ok to me for now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if adding separate list of battles would be useful here Marcelus (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The current Polish-Lithuanian Ethnic Conflict should be merged into the Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II because the current scope of the article about "Ethnic Conflict" is essentially just World War II (despite the tensions existing before and arguably after the war) and it just seems to be an incoherent and low-quality translation that is missing even dots to complete the sentences. Instead of outright deleting the article, maybe some salvageable parts can be just added to a more established article that deserves some work as is.

This case is almost identical to the Polish–Ukrainian ethnic conflict, which was proposed by Marcelus to be renamed to Polish–Ukrainian relations (1939–1947). +JMJ+ (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree; both articles should be merged under a title of Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's better to stay with ethnic conflict, relationships don't fit in too well after that how to combine these two articles please tell me to do it well Wladekimperialny (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the article and replace it with Polish-Lithuanian Ethnic Conflict.

As I have created an article about the conflict and its consequences, and the article is underdeveloped with little detail and some points are not clarified and thoughts are dropped, I propose to move some things to my article and delete the whole article Wladekimperialny (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's discuss proposed changes

@Querty1231 please self-revert and restore the stable version, and let's discuss the changes you want to make here. This is a massive change to a controversial topic. Please avoid edit war. Marcelus (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

well, I changed it because for me the article is well written, but it does not contain a thorough explanation of the dispute and the conflict itself for someone reading it, it is more adektwat such a detailed description of events in addition there is no outline for the Świeciany massacre. Querty1231 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but you removed a lot of other sourced information, also added a lot of new texts that isn't well written, lacks sources, and frankly sometimes seems unnecessary. Can you please first self-revert and restore the stable version? Marcelus (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I will analyze well and the sources are given I can give others too, at your request I will do a scan on a bot that detects errors to correct later on. ;) thank you for help Querty1231 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not all. You need to restore the previous version becasue the article is about Polish-Lithuanian relations and not about Polish-Lithuanian ethnic conflict. If you want to change the scope so drastically, you need to start the discussion. Also your text is written very poorly and simply cannot stand as it is now. Marcelus (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

as it is written poorly, you cannot simply say that it is "poor" as it contains a lot of details, and the footnotes are there, in addition the article on the Polish-Lithuanian ethnic Conflict is literally the same as the Polish-Lithuanian Relations ww2, even +JMJ+ suggested to re-direct these articles into one, because it is , the same thing Querty1231 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Read: WP:SCOPE. The English of the article is poor, and the footnotes are lacking. Marcelus (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

how it lacks footnotes every text has footnotes, in addition how poorly written I ask you again to show an example, maybe The causes of the conflict may not be coherent but the rest is right. Querty1231 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to expand it but you also changed to the scope by moving the article to a more problematic name. You should discuss your changes here or at least introduce them in a series of edits, with detailed edit summaries for each, explaining what is being changed (removed/added/rewritten). Your new version removed much existing content and/or referenced to it - for example, you removed all (three) references to Timothy Snyder, and reduced referenced to Tadeusz Piotrowski from over a dozen to two, without justifying this at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Problems with the revamp

@Marcelus Could you tell me what your problems with the article exactly are then? Straight up erasing the entire thing without mentioning whatever you find to be wrong is just strange. Setergh (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Certainly. To begin with, the structure of the sections is problematic. The emphasis on a specific section titled "massacres" feels misplaced and detached from the broader context. Moreover, the selection of four events labeled as "massacres" is not comprehensive, though the structure suggests that these are the only notable incidents. Similarly, battles between the AK and Plechavičius's units are intermixed with skirmishes involving the Lithuanian police and gendarmerie, leading to confusion. There are sub-sections called "battles," which list unrelated events consecutively without clear connections. This lack of coherence can be seen throughout the article.

Additionally, there are concerns about neutrality. For instance, the "Prelude" section extensively covers "Polonization," yet barely touches on the Lithuanianization of the Polish population. The claim that Poles constituted the majority in Vilnius only from 1916 is inaccurate, as historical data shows that Poles were the majority long before that year. Another misleading statement is the assertion that after the war, it was not possible to speak Lithuanian over the phone in Poland—this is entirely false.

Although the earlier version had its flaws, it presented a more coherent narrative and offered essential information. Thus, it is considerably better than the current version. Marcelus (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

"To begin with, the structure of the sections is problematic. The emphasis on a specific section titled "massacres" feels misplaced and detached from the broader context. Moreover, the selection of four events labeled as "massacres" is not comprehensive, though the structure suggests that these are the only notable incidents."

Yeah, you're definitely right about that. Honestly, I just classified them as notable ones which had specific names attached to them, but yeah this isn't a very good way of doing it, I'll change it.

"Similarly, battles between the AK and Plechavičius's units are intermixed with skirmishes involving the Lithuanian police and gendarmerie, leading to confusion. There are sub-sections called "battles," which list unrelated events consecutively without clear connections. This lack of coherence can be seen throughout the article."

Don't particularly get what you're saying here. Am I not meant to cover battles and skirmishes? These are meant to be placed in order, so I don't particularly understand your point in them not being connected to each other, because they are not meant to be (only by the topic itself).

"Additionally, there are concerns about neutrality. For instance, the "Prelude" section extensively covers "Polonization," yet barely touches on the Lithuanianization of the Polish population."

This was mostly due to someone telling me to extend the Prelude part, and Polonisation was a good topic I could add to. Either way, absolutely tons of this article mentions Lithuanisation (just not the "The beginning of Lithuanisation" part), so I don't see how I'm not being neutral in this case?

"The claim that Poles constituted the majority in Vilnius only from 1916 is inaccurate, as historical data shows that Poles were the majority long before that year."

Bad wording on my part, you're most definitely right.

"Another misleading statement is the assertion that after the war, it was not possible to speak Lithuanian over the phone in Poland—this is entirely false."

This was copied by me from another article, perhaps you are right. I'll check the source attached to it once I find a version I can access (and if I cannot I'll just remove the information).

Thank you so much for your feedback, I'll be sure to try and improve on this (and get back to you when I do). The structuring is definitely the worst part of it, so I'll need to find a way to focus on that.

I personally just don't understand:

1. The straight up removal of the revamp without any sort of mention of the exact problems (and where they are)
2. Why not just have improved this yourself? You don't seem to genuinely mention tons of wrong and sections/things that could easily be changed. Your sudden removal heavily exaggerated this.

Setergh (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello again.

I was wondering, is this fine? (User:Setergh/sandbox)

I was unsure how to do the structuring, for example:

If the Conflict in the Vilnius Region area stretches from let's say 1940 to 1944, but there are other things in between, should I put all of this together or also add the things in between and just continue conflict in the vilnius region in other parts? Setergh (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've decided to go with the "put all of this together" idea. Setergh (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Suppose you've just chosen to ignore what I've previously said, so I'll just be re-entering the fixed page in, especially because I put it up for GA-class and I don't want further confusion to happen. I don't see any big problem with it now, if you find problems then please just replace them or tell me instead of straight up deleting it. Setergh (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not active on Wikipedia 24/7, and you didn't give me a chance to respond. I don't see any major changes, and I still consider your version to be worse. The mere fact that you ask for such basic things makes one wonder whether you have the competence to write an article on such a broad and multi-threaded topic. Please revert all your changes. Marcelus (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I get that you aren't active 24/7, but you have quite literally made edits today while I sent one of my messages yesterday, so yes, you did ignore me. And when it comes to my version being worse, your points are extremely broad and questionable. If you have a problem, either pinpoint it or change it. I'm not gonna waste my efforts just because you think that the article is downright bad. And what do you mean ask for basic things? You've decided to outright delete my entire thing and then bring up rather weak points which could've easily been changed by you. I can't read your mind, so either tell me exactly what sort of things are bothering you or stop trying to outright remove my efforts because I'm just meant to know that whatever the hell is wrong with it. Setergh (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

During the day, I'm at work, and sometimes I find a moment to make a few edits, but I don't have time to check articles or respond on talk pages.

In reality, you haven't changed anything. It remains a collection of unrelated events. For example, you describe the Battle of Murowana Oszmianka, and then in the next section, you write about the "Lithuanian offensive" (putting aside the fact that it was a German anti-partisan operation in which the used Lithuanian units), of which Murowana Oszmianka was a part. It makes no sense. Similarly, you mention some "Battle of Pavlov" from May 4, 1944, and then the next section is about the massacre in Święciany, which took place in 1942. It is clear that you are mindlessly copying from other articles without a deeper understanding or reflection on the topic. There are numerous errors. At the beginning, you mention a ban on speaking Lithuanian publicly in Sejny in 1919. No such thing ever happened. Elsewhere, "From Autumn 1943, the Home Army attacked and disarmed any collaborating Lithuanian police units in and around Vilnius"—nonsense, the AK (Home Army) never had such capabilities. "Some Lithuanian clergy called for the pogroms of Poles, stating that they were worse than the Jews. They even offered indulgences for those who killed a Polish person."—this highly controversial statement needs a source. Similarly, "LAF campaigned for the establishment of ghettos for Poles, a requirement for them to wear identifying badges." The article is terrible. Marcelus (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I get the work part then, although it just looked like ignoring to me, my mistake.

Not all of the sections are added by me anyway, some are added by another guy.

I suppose you have a much better understanding of the whole topic than I do, and if there are truly these many mistakes (all of the sources are referenced, but perhaps they may be wrong) then I'll make sure to check everything tomorrow. Setergh (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Had to end my response early yesterday. I didn't realise that I accidently put Pavlov above Święciany and I'll get rid of my version once I'm able to get onto my laptop. Setergh (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello again! It sure has been a long time.

I'm quite close to checking all the sources (User:Setergh/sandbox) now, although I'm starting to struggle with finding all of them. Do you think there are still any sources that I should make sure I can confirm are true? Setergh (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)