Talk:Dubingiai

Lithuania Mid‑importance

	Lithuania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Review comments: Renata (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical demographics

About Dubingiai. I haven't found data, how much Poles lived in in the village itself. It had about 300 inhabitants before WW II. But the situation there was something like this: Dubingiai parish consisted of approx. 3600 catholics (so, Poles and Lithuanians;- Jews and others are not included). In this region to South West from Vilnius ~50% of catholics considered themselves Poles and the rest ~50% - Lithuanians. However data from different sources vary, plus to it there was big percent of undecided men (till 1918-20).

I can't say it's NPOV, what you wrote, but we must accept, that all this situation was not specific exclusively to a little village, Dubingiai, - it was common for all Central Lithuania (if we look at Central Lithuania, as I proposed in its talk page, as at cultural unit, not only short-aged political). For example, conflicts in churches were typical of quite the all Vilnius region both on Polish side and on Lithuanian.

I think it's better to disambiguate sentence about priests. Studies in priest seminaries in Lithuania till 1918 (and in Vilnius also later) were in Polish language. So, before WW II quite all priests in Lithuania knew polish language. These conflicts mostly were (I speak generally, not specifically) for time and frequency of (sacred) services in one or another language.

But I haven't found data specifically on Dubingiai. Even I doubt, if such data exist in some encyclopedic non-archival form. So I think, its better in this case use more abstract sentences, avoiding concrete statements, which can be incorrect. Some statements must be fined down too. For example, statement about Polish inhabitants and massacre of Lithuanians are not contradictory, when we know, that its spoken about the village with 300 inh. in the first case, and about all parish in the second.

But I afraid, this revising concerns all the article and even its structure. I'd like to pay more attention to it; I think I'll do it a bit later.
Linas 15:13, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

Kazimieras GARŠVA

Kazimieras GARŠVA is a philologist. Would you be so kind to quote a historian instead? Xx236 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter? If he has red documents and done research on this topic, he's reliable source. there is no license that distinguish historians and linguists.--Lokyz 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Historian : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis" --Merriam Webster. So he is historian. Sigitas 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A PhD in history is nice, but we have the sources we have. I suggest noting in article that KG is a philologist and moving on, unless sb can provide souces to cast his reliability in doubht (per WP:RS).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimieras GARŠVA is a philologist. One needs two minutes to check it. You may do it if I have myself. Xx236 13:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'He's Ph.D. in Humanitarian disciplines - i.e. skilled enough to make conclusions from documents.--Lokyz 13:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From which documents? Where does he quote any?Xx236 13:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here [1] this is Polish author, historian.--Lokyz 13:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are proud of the facts? Xx236 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure what we are talking about? Where did I say something about being proud? This is encyclopedia, not beauty contest.

So do you believe now that massacre did exist? --Lokyz 14:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town or village

With 260 inhabitants it sounds more like a village to me...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "fortified" village (whatever it means). --Lysy^talk 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a town. Lithuania has this city - town - village classification, and most of the time it's all based on history and not present-day population. The smallest offcial city has only 325 residents. Renata 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then this one with 260 would be the smallest, wouldn't it?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, three different things: 1. cities (miestas, 103 as in the list), 2. towns (miestelis, ca. 235), and all sorts of 3. villages (kaimas). Very clear classification. Dubingiai is a miestelis, therefore a town. Renata 02:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A monument

Is there a monument or are the victims commemorated in another way in the village ? --Lysy^talk 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian references

Would it be possible to provide exact page numbers in the Lithuanian references ? Right now the page ranges span whole chapters of individual authors. --Lysy^talk 05:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Lysy's removal of the number of victims of the massacre

I have removed the number of victims of the massacre in order to avoid the need for a longer discussion in this article. This is discussed in detail in Dubingiai massacre. Various numbers are given by different authors and should not be quoted without proper explanation of what they mean. Most authors give the number of victims in range of 20-27. The two hundred is not the number of the victims in Dubingiai but an estimate of the total number of victims in a number of towns and villages, span over longer timeframe, and executed by a number of different units. This number does not really belong to the article about Dubingiai but is explained in Dubingiai massacre. --Lysy^talk 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided explanations not merit justification of removal up to date encyclopedic information. Provided "argument" that most authors give 20-27, should be noted that it refer to Polish authors. So by using this argument basic POV line is not met. Contributors are not in position do denounce at least Lithuanian historiography tradition, which regard that under Dubingiai name there were number of 200 victims and similar. Number of killed civilians must be presented without doubt. Looking to the Paneriai, which gives not even unbalanced by NOV killed people but also encompassing several year (!) developments, which was carried out not even by different units but also by different ethic people, including and Poles. And yet again removal of enciclopedic information solely driven by only one contributors POV is not justify. In regards I will restore this information, do not remove this information again, until clear consensus on talk is reached among different contributors (and not only by Polish editors) to include numbers or not, however you are free to add apropriate tag on article main page, if needed. M.K. 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have first to show that Lithuanian historiography differs. You have failed to do so, thus Lysy's version, as more NPOV, should remain.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? What? I presented the source; you presented your own speculation. What contributors should be trusted - a personal driven POV or source. I choose source, as WP policies required. M.K. 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion shows exactly the reason why I have removed the figures. This particular article is about Dubingiai town, and does not need to be the place to demonstrate the POV difference on the massacre, since this can be (and is) much better done in the Dubingiai massacre article, where different POVs are discussed in detail. I would not mind providing the number of victims here, had it not been for the known controversies around these numbers, which require a wider explanation. There reason not to provide the number of victims here is exactly to avoid such disputes as the one above in this article. They belong to Talk:Dubingiai massacre. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of other Lithuanian editors on this approach. --Lysy^talk 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this situation could been avoided if before making almost fork article Dubingiai massacre, you placed splitting tag to demonstrate good editing practices and wait for others to make input. This was not done. Exactly this situation would be avoided if before reducing article forking [2] was asked on article talk which info to leave or which remove. This was not done. So it is not surprisingly that article was adjusted to certain POV frame rather then NPOV version as required. Not surprisingly. M.K. 11:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we should note the most common numbers: correct me if I am wrong, but the 20-27 range of victims in the village is not often questioned, is it? Any wider estimates, with their relevant time/place/POV issues, do indeed belong only to the detailed subarticle.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commemoration

Is there a monument or other commemoration of the victims of the massacre in Dubingiai ? --Lysy^talk 13:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

200 victims?

What is the source for the 200 victims? Who or what is "Panorama" (some kind of magazine? Who wrote the article, how reliable is the magazine and article's author)? Our previous numbers were 20-27 in the village, and 70-100 elsewhere around that period.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss this in Talk:Dubingiai massacre please ? --Lysy^talk 16:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Perhaps we should move all threads related to that event there, leaving notices here?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per request, translation of source info sounds like this: “By Polish historians’ calculations, at that time from AK hands died 27 Lithuanians, while Lithuanian ones calculate up to 200”. This publication was distributed by 40 000 circulation pieces, provides eyewitnesses accounts, as well as observers, including Polish ones.M.K. 14:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dubingiai. 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/20070927184653/http://www.moletai.lt/index.php?340788597 to http://www.moletai.lt/index.php?340788597

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) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]