Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, an obvious POV fork by a user currently blocked due to his inability to rein in his strong opinions. The path from here to an article compliant with fundamental policies is not clear, and it is close to impossible to sort any valid material from the mess of uncited opinion. Presence of this content degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red army crimes in Lithuania[edit]

Red army crimes in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

POV pushing arbitrary half-cooked chaotic collection of events involving Red Army. If any, the crimes are that of the Soviet Union. Army was but its instrument. We don't write articles "crimes committed by Maxim Gun". `'Miikka 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONTRA against Mikalaj from Belorussia - (not Mikka from Finland).
I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every soldier had a chance (little) not to shoot at lithuanians in 1918 - (lots of lithuanians escaped from russian army and returned to homeland) or leave the army. But for someone there was better to make bandit activities against civil. Not Maxim-gun was guilty, but those who supported Trocky, Stalin, Lenin - all the marasmatic company. Don't be demagogic.

Ttturbo 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONTRA against Petersburg student A Bakcharev. For U studying physics this article gives no any profit, but for history students looking at the Baltic problem of their 'Grand neighbour" it is valuable source.Ttturbo 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking at the map I see no common border between Lithuania and any country that can be viewed upon as "great". But thanks for the compliment anyway ;)--Kuban Cossack 17:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and rewrite. It's obviously a direct translation from a Latvian article, by someone who doesn't know colloquial English. I'd like to give it a fix-up before it's deleted, including finding citations. A lot of Soviet history went unreported prior to the end of the Cold War. I agree the title should be fixed to something else... suggestions? Mandsford 00:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'v seen recently that the total of nazi victims was 20 million but of comunism -100 mln. It shocked me and I've started research. I think this is only aproximately figures and possibly the real ratio is 30:80. Where is this described correctly? Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before you dive headlong into rewriting I suggest you to ponder over the idea that the whole Soviet state was kind of criminal. How will you separate crimes of Red Army per se from its ingamous activities resulting from esecution of state orders? the current article is a mess and nothing to keep. If you know where to start, please start a new one, and with correct title, too: Red Army crimes in Lithuania. You may also want to read Red Army atrocities. And since you seem cannot tell Latvia from Lithuania, you better stay away from the topic. A cooperation of a hater and an ignoramus is a dangerous mixture. `'Miikka 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
State orders are governmental orders. If they are criminals - they are according to constitution and international law. Every Army chief has the possibility not to agree to prime minister or president (history knows such facts) like every soldier has a chance not to fight. This chance makes them guilty at a humanistic pacifistic moral field and in the case of crimes against civil - makes them guilty according to the law system.Ttturbo 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed... we won't cooperate on anything for the time being; I admit I am kind of hateful. I disagree with your assertion that the whole Soviet state was criminal... there were atrocities, and a great deal of secrecy until recently. In wasn't until 1988 that Moscow acknowledged the Katyn Forest massacre. However, you're right... I said Latvian instead of Lithuanian. I almost said "Latveria" which was the fictional kingdom ruled by Dr. Viktor Von Doom in the Fantastic Four comics. My lame excuse is... that I thought that the article (about Lithuania, of course) was written in Latvian. Dang thing is that I accused the writer of not knowing colloquial English, and turns out that I don't know the Lithuanian language. Mandsford 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO PROBLEM - Latvia and Lithuania are brother Baltic countries and even russian occupants often maDde such mistakes. Thank You for support.Ttturbo 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must intervene here: Miikka never accused you of being hateful. "Cooperation of a hater and an ignoramus" meant "Cooperation of User:Ttturbo and you". I suppose you mixed up the words cooperation and combination. Note by the way that if this is a literal translation (via some translation site on the internet) as you suggested it is arguably a copy violation, and qualifies for speedy deletion. --Pan Gerwazy 10:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who allowed to pan Gerwaz to remove my debate from here? according to wiki rules the debate is not only the voting! You hide the traces of crimes and support red bandits. Ttturbo 04:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Baltic states occupation is the darkest period in all the history of Baltic states, who lost huge amount of their best citisens. So let us to express our point of wiev not worrying about some kb memory on disk. 20 thousand killed by Red army young Lithuanian partisans fighting for freedom in 1944-1952 can't support me, working for their memory.Ttturbo 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to intervene here. Mansford looks like a smart guy: he cleverly turned the table to say that it is me who is ignoramus :-) `'Miikka 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging with Red Army atrocities or Red Army atrocities (WWII) ( and I must be forgetting some) which is where this belongs. Note that the author of this article, first tried to insert this "info" (I am using a neutral term here) in Red Army, was told that there were other places to do that, but did not seem to like that advice. --Pan Gerwazy 00:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was computer problem -sometimes U use comp and U are kicked out from Your user name to anonymous. Don't be so paranoyed. I had no idea about 3RR.Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the period after I WW - the first Red army attack against independent Lithuania? For Lithuania second world war finished in 1952!!!Ttturbo 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hopelessly biased. MaxSem 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but stick anything which can be sourced (the fact that there are sources means that a Lithuanian-speaking editor might be able to find something in them) in any of the articles mentioned above, assuming they're not there at the moment. I don't see a good reason to have a bunch of articles about the Red Army doing nasty things in Country X, Country Y and Country Z. If the list were unusually long, there might be a point, but this doesn't seem to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Collection of loosely related events assembled here (or on Lithuanian Wiki) in a way fitting someone's ideological predispositions. Some events (mandatory service in Soviet Army is not crime unless the term is extended to cover almost everything). Last but not least - during wars massacres and other actions labeled as war crimes are rather norm than an exception. Wikipedia should cover this by overview articles, not by endless lists. Pavel Vozenilek 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Russians they are. For Baltic states -no. It depends.

One russian told me for example, that Khatyn massacre in 1939 was commited having the memory how polish troops shooted russians in 1919. So I don't agree that mentioning of crimes in 1919 and in 1940 are loosely related events assembled here. The study of aggression reasons must involve historical memory too Mr Pavel! When I've met Vaclav Havel - I told him THANKS. Do U understand WHY?Ttturbo 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete perhaps some of this information could be put in relevant sections of the relevant articles, but with this set of information, it does not warrant its own article. Bassgoonist 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
United forces made some reconstruction! Ttturbo 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, nothing but a Propaganda piece. No mention of the fact that the Lithuanians actively supported the German invasion of Russia. Tovojolo 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lithuanian Activist front started the rebbel against soviets who deported 10 thousand of Lithuanian intelectuals, politicians and farmers (kids, women, grand people) to Siberia - cold death the week before, on the 22th of June. Real battle started, LAF deceived russians, phoning, that in Kaunas threre is German desant ant using the radio proclaimed othe independent Lithuania again and formed the government. german troops entered capital the next day and found it free, but after 43 days they stopped all the activities of Lithuania government. If You want, You can try to right the article how lithuanians supported naci invasion -and U'll be deleted by historical facts immediately. EU started the new investigation about the crimes of comunism. About the nazzi crimes we have got much more than propaganda, but about the comunists there is no enough information.Ttturbo 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV pushing arbitrary half-cooked chaotic collection of events - yep. --Fredrick day 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The crimes everytime appear more orrless chaotic - this is the style of hell!Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that Ttturbo has also just created Category:Red Army crimes and several unsourced stub articles within that category. Should they be considered in this AfD, or tagged seperately? If nothing else, a warning about WP:POINT seems to be in order. -- Kesh 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some have some sources. What is your point of wiev about military crimes of any army?Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!The attackers of Red army crimes... article and fans of Red army do not made any real comments in the disccusion page of article, so I am forced to dispute HERE! This is antidemocratic to start deleting attack urgently. Some part of turbo comment was moved by kesh somwhere - who allowed u to edit my comment?Ttturbo 02:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mv to Talk page - most of this has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and is a repost of material already moved to Talk, so off-topic to the AfD -- Kesh

Do the newcomer understand your mv. This is not teenagers' chat! It's your opinion not waiting any answer of opponents. This is not polite! And don't edit my comments insurting yours in the middle of mine!Ttturbo 05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It was moved to the talk page for this AfD. In case you hadn't noticed, your previous discussion had already been moved there. It is commonly accepted that discussions that are not directly related to the deletion of the article are to be moved to the talk page. None of your comments actually addressed any Wikipedia policy reasons for keeping the article. In fact, they all sound like a desire to have a memorial enshrined in the encyclopedia. -- Kesh 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kesh's concept is not true - my answers were directly related to opponents sometimes even absurd ideas. U are false! Your activitie looks like construction of assylum for military crimes comittments. I speak in my article about THE CRIMES not about the the HEROES or suffered civils! Your common practice is not the rule. I accuse you Kesh in disruption - this is persecuted in wiki -u r dictator. In your editing 02:57, 29 June 2007 Kesh (Talk | contribs) (6,804 bytes) (mv off-topic portion to Talk page you simply deleted my text from this page giving no understanding about my possition and only after my protest you left some trace o this. I don't ask to do this. So you comitted the crime colaborating with criminal military elements -look for the lawyer and study geneva convention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttturbo (talk • contribs) 04:16, June 29, 2007
First, please respond directly below the post you are replying to. You keep inserting new comments into other places which makes it difficult to follow. And please remember to sign your new comments with four ~ signs.
Second, I suggest you calm down. I left quite explicit information of where the information went for anyone to read.
Third, remain civil. Accusing me of a crime is absurd, and recommending I get a lawyer is over-the-top. The Geneva Conventions don't apply to conversations on a notice board. If you want to complain about my actions, you may. However, legal threats are not welcome here and you can be blocked for making them.
Your position can be read on this AfD's Talk page, which I clearly indicated when moving your comments. Again, your comments do not address Wikipedia's policies, which are what we use to decide if an article should be kept or not. If you wish to make an argument, please see the relevant policies: WP:V WP:N and WP:NPOV. -- Kesh 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some red bandits murdered my grandmother and the others in 1945 and I must be calm when u are hiding those crimes?!. For the first time You deleted my answers with no trace of this and only after my protest made changes. If I go to the street or to sleep...You comitted real crime - consult the layer about the crimes using computers so u must be responsible for your action. The Geneva convention gives the understanding about international military crimes - u hAVE NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THEM I SEE.Ttturbo 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe you've made your POV quite clear. For the record, I did not "delete (your) answers with no trace," and anyone who looks in the history can see this. -- Kesh 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the first time U left no link giving some remark about not understandable talk(which?) and Afd(will everyone understand this abreviation) ? This is not teenagers' chat! Ttturbo 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge, but latter option is only applicable to bits that can be both sourced properly, and phrased as not to violate WP:NPOV in blatant manner, as the article now does. The name of the article per se strongly pushes the same POV; there is absolutely no mentioning of any events that might explain the "crimes", or even give context. There is also no mention of any opposing POVs, or any events fitting the latter (such as per Tovojolo). IgorSF 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How u could stay neutral when speaking about military crimes?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttturbo (talk • contribs) 04:28, June 29, 2007
Our policy on neutral point of view requires us to stay neutral on all topics. -- Kesh 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was your attempt to hide my answers neutral? U ewen not appologised. Ttturbo 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there was no attempt to "hide" your answers, as I believe I have adequately shown. If other editors feel I was incorrect, they may undo my changes and I will not object. My only intention here was to keep the AfD flowing smoothly. If you will note, I have not registered a keep/delete opinion here and have no intention of doing so. My only contribution to this AfD was a desire to keep it on-topic and formatted for clarity. -- Kesh 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was MY position clear after yours mysterious changes? Ttturbo 04:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear as crystal. -- Kesh 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. For newcomers your "language - mv Adf .." is not understandable.From wiki rules - These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. Who allowed u to make my position not direct reachable? I would like to know about rules but not common general practice?! Why u don't try to transport posts of the other users? Why do You attcked the whole category? Why U made false conclusion in help desk giving comment to my asking?Ttturbo 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's prevent this from getting even more ridiculous than it already is. All User:Kesh has done was moving extraneous comments on the talk page. I, for one, agree with this move. The rules you quoted mean that every vote on a deletion page like this should be cast with a reason stated, rather than simply "yes" or "no". They do not mean, however, that every user, or any user, should reply to every vote with his own rebuttal, especially when such rebuttal consists of essentially the same arguments repeated over and over. This is why User:Kesh didn't "transport" posts of other users - they put a single vote, with at most a single paragraph of argumentation behind it. IgorSF 06:22, 29 June 2007

(UTC)

The main problem was how it was made for the first time and he placed his text in the middle of my comment! It was done not understandably for me and some others using teenagers chating and abbreviating style. Well, I could start to split his comments and to remove them from here saying -those are about shrines, not about victims and murders. I suppose - every one has right to make comment on any remark in democratic structure.Ttturbo 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (after edit conflict, and re-indenting): Agree in principle with IgorSF, but I have to state that [[User:Kesh] did not move the threaded comment to the tlk page, I did. I also deleted my own comment here on my vote [the one stating that User:Ttturbo was edit-warring on Red Army ], so he is wrong to say here (and on my talk page) that there was some kind of bias because I did not transport other people's comments. I kept the interchange between Miikka and Mandsford because that was about possible collaboration to keep the article alive. In hindsight, I should perhaps not have done that. I repeat that the way User:Ttturbo is commenting on every single vote and comment - even Kesh's, which was completely neutral, is disruptive and makes this AfD impossible to follow. I would advise anyone who votes here to come back later and, if appropriate, to move Ttturbo's comment on their vote to the talk page. --Pan Gerwazy 07:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Belorussian fighter Mikalaj Miikka attacks all the articles from category Red army crimes. I would like to research how there appeared 100 000 000 victims of comunism (less then nazzi) and what was the role of Red army giving sequencies of facts and knolidge according to wiki definition. But Mikalaj giving no comments started deleting procedures on my articles, so he wants to hide horrible crimes (including my grandma murdering). To delete knowledge from wiki is equal to vandalism. The crimes must be presented, discussed, understood and persecuted finally - for never repeating!

Your comment pan Gerwaz is not equal to the answers of the author, so better not to try repeat your DISRUPTIVE act of "mess" gathering by other hands. Is position to hide the crimes attacking all the category- 100 million murderings neutral? You voted to delete crimes and now cleaned your vote.

Well, it is possible to create single article about total Red Army crimes but how this will be used in the history of every country? If pan Gervaz wants to see the clear sequence of delete delete delete removing my answers and debate (debate is not only voting - wiki rules), this does not mean that the administrator who wil read after five days has the same opinion.Ttturbo 08:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, you got it wrong: I did not just vote "delete" on this article. I agree that it is very difficult to note that because someone here is continually putting comments all over the place making it impossible to follow this vote. And I did not delete my vote. I did move (not delete!) my threaded comment on my vote, which was perfectly proper because I did that to all the threaded comment. I gave a reason for my vote, and that should still be visible, but with extreme difficulty because "someone put comments all over the place making it impossible to follow this vote". I have indeed voted "speedy delete" on the other (attack) pages you have just created. WP:POINT and WP:Beans.--Pan Gerwazy 08:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is real reason at court of history. Why U don't answer -what about the crimes of Red army in 1918-1921? 15 million of victims in Russian civil war and what about victims in Poland?. What about 20 thousand Lithuanian partisans murdered by reds 1944-1952? And U propose to merge ewerything to WWII history deleting the other periods crimes?. I think your knowledge about recent war history shown in this debate is awfull.

I would like that users better vote here not looking at the other opinions staying neutral, but if they want -they can study positions of both sides. There is some responsiblility for politicians too and sometimes they trie to accuse troops, sometimes generals accuses. They must SHARE responsibilities (for Mikalaj Miikka)Ttturbo 08:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment articles deals with crimes committed by Soviet Army at multiple points in history and both during and after the period that it was known as the Red Army - any merging or redirecting should take this into account. Bigdaddy1981 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. The subject is notable but does not justify an article of its own, and it's far better to develop one article (at least until its size justifies splitting). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I hope this article can survive deletion. I've done some fixup to make it sound "more American" for those of you who have made fun of the author. I'd say his English is better than your Lithuanian. The article has citations and refers to notable events. It can continue to be improved. I say, keep it around for awhile longer, give the author an opportunity to learn the Wikipedia style. Mandsford 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this; however, whether this article is deleted or kept depends mostly not on its style or level of English, but content and (alleged) violation of WP:NPOV, as evidenced by the arguments presented thus far on this page. I also don't think keeping an article that otherwise should be deleted merely to give its author an opportunity to learn is a good suggestion; first, Wikipedia articles have no authors; second, and perhaps more importantly, the relationship between editors and articles is - in my opinion at least - exactly the opposite: the editors serve articles, rather than articles serving editors. An article that should not be here, should not be here even for the sake for editors contributed to it. IgorSF 03:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!Ttturbo 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text is faeces as it is. How is the fact that Lithunians took part in the Afganistan constitute a crime of the Red Army? Is having ethnic Native American Indians serve as part of the US occupation force in Iraq also make this a crime against the Native American population? Also fyi since 1946 the Red Army was not Red anymore as the name was changed to Soviet Army... Lack of knowledge supported by nationalist paranoia is a tumour that must be amputated from wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 10:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kuban Cossack raises a good point - the Soviet Army was no longer known as the Red Army after 1946. As I suggested earlier, any merging or redirecting that admins decide upon should take this fact into account. Bigdaddy1981 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've stressed, that this circimstamce is discussed in the beginning af the articele Red Army. Becouse of wide spreading of the original name in lots of countries, it is understandable as the same noun. In the beginning of every article of this category I've once more time streesd this circumstance. This could be only formal reason to make chaos in the difficult theme.Ttturbo 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Geneva convention the crime is to recruit citizens of occupated country and use them in military campaings. Secondly, it is explained in the beginning od Red Army article that "From 1946, the Red Army was officially renamed the Soviet Army, though people in the West commonly used the term Red Army to refer also to the Soviet military after that date." Don't be so suspicious propagandist! Tell better about crimes against Cossack. Every army commits crimes, so why red one must be the great exeption?Ttturbo 15:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Lithuanian SSR was an integral Soviet Republic so don't see a crime in recruiting its own people, finally the lead says about the 1919 and 1920 assaults on Vilnius by the USSR, well fyi the USSR was not formed until 1922. WRT crimes against Cossacks, sure they took place, but alas not by the Red Army, but the internal police, namely the NKVD. Actually the Red Army's record for one is quite clear of any crimes, but then you did say that every army commits crimes, so why don't you write one about the Lithuanian one? --Kuban Cossack 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania was occupated country and according to Geneva convention recruiting is a crime. I havn't seen any literature about Lithuania Army crimes, only know some stories about participating of some officers in conspiracy and revolt. Thank you for remebering of 1922. Do you know the town were during Chrushchev regime there was shooting at the workers demonstration? And what about red Army crimes against Kozak during civil war? Ttturbo 08:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relocate appropriate material and then Delete. It appears some of this information is notable (although more reliable sources in English are needed) and should be moved to appropriate articles, such as Red Army and Soviet war crimes. There are suitable places in those articles, but the information should be sourced before moving it.
    Jim Dunning | talk 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is poorly sourced and has POV issues. I wouldn't mind seeing a legitimate article on this topic, though, so no prejudice to recreation in another form. —Psychonaut 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_army_crimes_in_Lithuania&oldid=1081000703"