User talk:+JMJ+/Archives/2023/September

Please answer

Can you answer me here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_31#Category:18th-century_people_from_the_Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth_by_occupation? Marcelus (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Done. Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Please restore sourced content you removed

Plrease revert your edits: [1] and [2]. Go to WP:RSN if you want to dicuss reliability of the source used. Marcelus (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The author herself dismisses essentially the whole Lithuanian scholarship of WWII of the last 30 years by falsely portraying Lithuanian scholars of the topic as exclusively "producing biased historical accounts that are highly nationalist in tone". The most that can be done with this highly biased source is to include it in a manner that highlights how it is at odds with the mainstream academic discourse in a way that takes the policy of WP:BIASEDSOURCES into account. However, to be fair to mainstream academic scholarship, even mentioning her in the article would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight as even mentioning an article cited by nobody would give it too much credit. After all, a PhD student coming along and saying all experts are wrong should not be listened to. She can hardly be considered a part of the mainstream academic discourse because she lacks even basic acknowledgement from the historians of that topic, who are far better experts on it than the PhD student.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Please make a post on a proper noticeboard if you want to establish reliability of the source. I don't see how the claim this source is supporting (that LTDF was a collaborationist body) is against any established consensus. You can try to discuss this.

But now I'm asking you again to revert your edits and removal of the reliable source. Judging by your edits and comments I'm worried that you are trying to censor collaborationist past of the mentioned unit. Marcelus (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Your fears are unfounded because:

• the unit was disbanded for disobedience to the German occupiers and the vast majority of it escaped from the German occupiers and all 'deserters' would be EXECUTED ON SIGHT. Properly speaking, they were not deserters because the Lithuanian soldiers obeyed the orders of their real commanders - the Lithuanian officers - when dispersing to avoid serving the Germans.
• over 50 of the commanding officers were repressed in the Salaspils concentration camp
• 106 cadets in Stutthof concentration camp
• 983 soldiers in Oldenburg concentration camp that was ran by the Gestapo
• over 80 of its soldiers killed in Paneriai massacre out of roughly a hundred from the LVR killed by the Germans
• when Germans came to disarm the Marijampolė officers' school, a third of the Lithuanians involved in the firefight against the Germans were killed (!!!)

If you call this opposition to the German occupation "collaboration", then it seems like you're just parroting Soviet propagandistic distortions of history. After all, for Stalin, even those Red Army soldiers captured by the Germans were "collaborators".

Furthermore, if you call the LTDF "collaborationist" (which it obviously was not), then the Polish Home Army in the Vilnius Region that received weapons from the Germans, while being commanded by its own Polish officers, fought against the Soviet partisans in the same area where the LTDF operated for a far shorter period is also "collaborationist" according to your logic.

As already mentioned, that chapter is not a reliable source due to the extreme bias in it and the effectively self-proclaimed opposition to the mainstream academic discourse. Such a source that denigrates the real experts on the subject matter does not belong in a serious historical discussion. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to support that with WP:RS. Your numbers are a bit weird. For example: 983 soldiers in Oldenburg concentration camp that was ran by the Gestapo, I highly doubt that, since there was only a small "protective custody" camp in Oldenburg, there was no place for such a number of detainees and it was disbanded in 1935. So your really need to check your sources.

If you call this opposition to the German occupation "collaboration", I'm just following RS, which calls establishing and serving voluntary in the military German unit collaboration, and frankly I don't see how is that a "Soviet propaganda". So once again, please revert your edits. Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What I wrote is straight from the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force and it has direct RS supporting those statements in the article. If you actually cared and read the article itself, you would have known that what I wrote is supported by RS, but obviously you didn't read the article, barely know about the history of Lithuania during WWII and yet still pretend to know what qualifies as a RS in this topic. And those RS from the mainstream academic discourse on this topic are precisely the ones being smeared by the PhD student as nationalist and etc. *spoiler alert* a PhD student claiming that everyone else except she has the wrong interpretation of this whole thing can obviously not be seriously included in a historical article as it would give her views that are irrelevant in the wider academic discourse WP:UNDUE weight.

At this point, you obviously not reading the article but wanting to label the unit mentioned as collaborationist shows how little you care about the topic as well as your undeniable lack of knowledge about this topic too. You're not following RS because the author excludes herself from the RS, i.e. the mainstream academic discourse about this topic, and she's obviously not following RS, because she opposed what was written in them.

I wouldn't trust your evaluation of what constitutes NPOV, RS, and other basic Wiki policies, because you embraced WP:FRINGE WP:POV in your User:Marcelus/sandbox6 draft about the "Lithuanian occupation" of Vilnius (Lithuanian occupation of their own capital! What an absurd Polish POV). Exceedingly rarely do English-language RS write about a supposed "Lithuanian occupation of Vilnius". In stark contrast, I have found at least 40 serious and sufficiently recent English-language academic work mentioning the Polish occupation of Vilnius. Knowing what you have written before, I can almost certainly predict that you will deny what is written in the mainstream academic discourse in those numerous NPOV RS and so I personally doubt the trustworthiness of your statements about what is and is not RS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Since when Wikipedia rules and policies applies to the sandbox area? Weird change of the topic. I'm checking Arūnas Bubnys works and he doesn't give such numbers. I would really like to see a direct qoute if you will. Marcelus (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I actually checked the book cited and he does give such numbers, so your inability to find the given information in specific RS seems disquieting. I added the pdf to the book in this edit [3]. You can find the number of 983 Lithuanian soldiers sent to Oldenburg concentration camp on page 421. It's not a Weird change of the topic because that draft seems to prove that you ignore the mainstream academic discourse in favour of your own POV, which is highly relevant here. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we can move the discussion about the numbers here: Talk:Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force#Number_of_prisoners. As for the other issue, a draft is a draft and nothing more, I still didn't decide about the name of the article, but "occupation" seems rather valid.

But the main issue here is you removing reliable sources you don't like; I'm asking you for the last time to restore the source and content it supported. Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I will add additional information about the LTDF over the coming days (maybe even weeks) because this is a topic that deserves more attention and clarity. Now it is very late and I must go to bed soon, so I will not add anything immediately like you or I want, but I am considering whether to add that source in a sort of "evaluations" section or something of the sort. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Since you are refusing to add this source and revert your changes I will do that myself in hope you won't stop edit warring. Marcelus (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Your lack of patience and consideration for others and yourself is disappointing. Considering the late hour at which you wrote that obvious mistake (hopefully it was a mistake) of in hope you won't stop edit warring, it proves that my choice of going to sleep instead of succumbing to your provocations of an edit war was the wiser choice.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis I don't want to report you or anything, but your constant removal of Smalkyté without any attempt to seriously justify this is forcing me to do so, because I literally don't see any other way to deal with your behaviour and content removal. You simply saying that she is in counter with the historians you prefer isn't enough. Marcelus (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus Are you aware that Smalkyté is still referenced in the article of LTDF? It seems bizarre to me that you do not consider my previous writings as falling under "any attempt to seriously justify this". And this is not about her just disagreeing "with the historians you prefer", but you pushing her undue minority viewpoint that is not to be found in the vast majority of sources about this topic to the very first lines of several articles. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So you are not only removing sourced content, but also WP:NOTGETTINGIT. And you also failed to present that view that LTDF (a German unit consisted of Lithuanians!) was a collaborationist is in fact minority viewpoint. You clearly simply prefer Sužiedėlis viewpoint. Marcelus (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus of the community in this case as there was only the two of us, so, ironically, you are not getting what the WP:NOTGETTINGIT actually means. The LTDF was not a German unit, because it was not subordinated to them, as the LTFD precisely disbanded itself to not be commanded by the Germans as the Germans tried to force the LTDF into being commanded by them - as the LTDF was being insubordinate to the Germans. You making such historically inaccurate statements proves that you are out of your depth in this topic. The whole point of the LTDF was that it was a rather autonomous/independent unit commanded by Lithuanian officers.

Your attempt to also question the mere existence of the fact that 983 Lithuanian soldiers from this unit were sent to a Nazi concentration camp in Oldenburg as "fringe" [4] despite the statement being given an expert on the topic is suspicious, because you tried to erase this mention of the suffering caused by Nazi Germany to the people you're falsely accusing of being collaborators. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Litauische Sonderverbände was of course a German unit in which they decided to give substantial autonomy, but it doesn't change the fact it was established by German to realise German goals. It was basically a police batallion with a fancy name. It was directly subordinated to German SS and Police commander. Plechavičius dreamed of something bigger, and that's why the formation was eventually disbanded.

I'm sorry @Cukrakalnis but if you really claim that this unit doesn't have anything to do with Germans it questions your competence and quality of sources you are using. Marcelus (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

A unit that was composed exclusively of Lithuanians, commanded by Lithuanian officers with the supreme command belonging to Povilas Plechavičius himself, without whose approval the unit could not be used outside Lithuania, which disobeyed German orders, did not swear the Hitler oath, was hunted down by actual German soldiers and deported to Nazi concentration camps, is not a German unit. If you think that it remains a German unit despite literally zero Germans in the ranks and being harshly persecuted, then according to your logic, the 3rd AK Brigade in the Vilnius Region was a German unit because it was placed under German leadership. What you are saying is totally absurd.

The more you pretend that you know something about this unit when your competence is obviously lacking, while also accusing the real experts like Arūnas Bubnys of being fringe, the more you expose that you shouldn't even be touching Lithuanian history due to your entrenched and false views. At this point, it seems like you don't even care and just want to shove your fringe POV where it certainly does not belong, all while smearing Lithuanian experts because you dislike their writings because they disprove your POV. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

LVR was a German unit, organized by the Germans and subordinated to them. It is true that they gave the Lithuanians quite a lot of autonomy, but it does not change anything in the fact that it was a unit created by the Germans to fight Polish and Soviet partisans.

3rd AK Brigade in the Vilnius Region was a German unit because it was placed under German leadership, I won't go so low to even comment on that, FYI: it was noted.

accusing the real experts like Arūnas Bubnys of being fringe, first of all I never did that, just said that his claim seems fringe because not supported by other actors, secondly it's nothing wrong in challenging reliability of sources. Marcelus (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Saying that the LVR was a German unit is a WP:FRINGE statement that literally not a single RS supports. Truly, there is not a single source that supports your misconceptions.

Der Spiegel is a normal newspaper and this is what it wrote here:

At the beginning of 1944, the Vilnius AK proposed negotiations for cooperation with the Germans. The “hatred of Bolshevism” is equally “great” among Poles and Germans. The AK, noted SS Oberführer Wilhelm Fuchs, was "the only force capable of holding down the Bolshevik-Jewish gangs." On February 7, 1944, AK Colonel Aleksander Krzyzanowski agreed on a “truce” for the Vilnius region. The Germans offered weapons, medicine and care for the wounded. The Poles wanted to support Hitler against the Soviets in the long term with 18 infantry battalions. In return, they demanded an end to German terror and the recognition of Poland's 1939 borders. As a “test of German-Polish cooperation,” the AK placed the 3rd Polish Partisan Brigade under German leadership. She received maps, German espionage information and attacked Soviet partisans on German orders.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

LVR was an unit established by Nazi Germany, that's not a fringe Marcelus (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No sources support your fringe statement of calling it a German unit. There is not a single source naming the LVR as a "German unit".--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

So what unit it was if not German? Marcelus (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

All the sources that I come across on this topic call it a Lithuanian unit.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Inconsitency in your edits

How can you at the same time insist on adding Lithuanian name to Michał Węsławski article ([5]), but removing it from Povilas Plechavičius article ([6])? Can you explain that? Marcelus (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The source given for the Lithuanian-language name Mykolas Venslauskis comes from the personal memoirs of Mykolas Biržiška, who is writing about his extended family as well as people he himself encountered and lived with - at the very least, he encountered the people from whom he heard about the man.

The difference between what I added and what you added is that your source gets the most basic facts about the person wrong and thus is completely untrustworthy, while Biržiška's memoirs include extensive and detailed information that is not recorded elsewhere because of how focused it is on the microhistory. Also, Michał Węsławski was probably a member of Samogitian nobility considering that he was born in northern Samogitia and spoke Samogitian (he served as interpreter for peasants who did not know any other language).

You're just drawing false parallels. I would totally agree with you that I would be inconsistent in my editing if I started adding Lithuanian names for all people from Kashubia, Lesser Poland and etc. without any connection or ties to Lithuania, but that is not what I am doing. Adding Lithuanian-language names to Wiki articles about Lithuanian-born people is actually very consistent and logical. What is actually inconsistent is adding Polish-language names for all Lithuanians. Do you see me adding Lithuanian-language names to people born in Cracow and Warsaw who never set foot in Lithuania or had no ancestors in Lithuania? No!--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Povilas Plechavičius is called Paweł Plechowicz by Michał Römer regularly in his journals, they knew eachother quite well. The situation is identical to that of Biržiška and Węsławski. Marcelus (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Show source. Also, if a person was writing in Polish (which Römer was doing), then the Lithuanian names almost always were Polonized, especially in 19th century and before, as well as in early 20th century - just like the Lithuanian names were Russified when writing in Russian. That does not mean that Russian names should be added to all Lithuanian that lived during the Russian Empire. Unless you want to add Russified names to everyone forced to live under Russian rule. Curiously, you only ever add Polish names to Lithuanians, but never Russian ones which would have been used in administration and elsewhere. Sounds like you are pushing a Polish POV, even on those that fought with weapons against the Polish army.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, if a person was writing in Polish (which Römer was doing), then the Lithuanian names almost always were Polonized, but Biržiška was writing in Lithuanian! So it applies to him also! And Römer wasn't polonising Lithuanian names! Here is an excerpt from April 29, 1927: Dr Pajaujis, Tornau i podoficer Žemaitis zostali ułaskawieni. Prezydent Smetona zamienił im karę śmierci na bezterminowe ciężkie więzienie. W sądzie polowym idą sprawy jedne po drugich. Dziś znowu toczy się sprawa, w której w liczbie oskarżonych są asystenci Čereška i Žvironas z Wydziału Przyrodniczego na uniwersytecie. Żyjemy w stadium nie tylko dyktatury, ale prawdziwego terroru rządowego, który działa nie folgując w niczym. Wszystko, co było opozycją - stłumione. Cały ruch opozycyjny wpędzony w podziemia. Rząd Voldemarasa z zakulisowymi sprężynami Dowkonta, Plechowicza itp. działa tak, jak żeby z nikim liczyć się nie potrzebował. As you can see the only name that are polonized are Plechowicz and Dowkont.

And my proposition to include Polish name of Plechavičius isn't based on primary source, but three secondary sources. Marcelus (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It is very interesting what you found. It is bizarre that the surnames of Povilas Plechavičius and Teodoras Daukantas (both descended from Samogitian nobility) were polonized but not the rest. He's obviously not writing positively about them - the whole excerpt paints almost everyone in pretty dark colours. Maybe Römer disliked them?

By any chance, are Römer's memoirs accessible online? Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lithuanian soldiers

A tag has been placed on Category:Lithuanian soldiers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Cukrakalnis. Thank you for your work on Lithuanian Separate Corps. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Union of Military Poles in Russia moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Union of Military Poles in Russia. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Idoghor Melody I added a source Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Cukrakalnis, you should submit your draft for review and wait for a reviewer to decide the next action . Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)