Talk:Aukštieji Paneriai

Namings

I've wrote this message to another Talk, but here it is again:

There was a very nice discusion over similar topic (I think Polich-German naming) and I think they have reached agreement about that:

In English WP english naming (englisized current names) should be used for all cities regardless historical period (eg. Vilnius will always be Vilnius (not Wilno or Vilna), and Gdansk (not Danzig), and Kaunas (not Kowno) and etc.)

The same rule applies to all namings, ex. rivers, lakes, regions, mountains and etc.

"Namings of other languages and/or periods can be (and must be, in case of dispute) mentioned in main describing article

I dont want to be as Zivi, so I think we should decide what naming convention should we use and use it strictly. eLNuko 15:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

including 7,500 Polish POWs shot in 1941

What is the source of it? Xx236 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[1]. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? Czieslaw Michalski. Dr. Dan 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that person. Appears reliable. Although we should note he doesn't clearly states the nationality of the POWs, only mentions them in the paragraph about the Polish victims. I did further digging and I found another source (unfortunatly it looks least reliable of all our sources so far - i.e. least likely to be peer reviewed) with the number of 7500 POWs, but it claims they are Soviet - I have adjusted the text accordingly (and it makes some sense, Germans didn't actually shoot Polish POWs like that often (they preffered the POW camps for regular soldiers), not to mention the data (1941) is also telling). Still, more sources on that would be appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Better sources and research (not a newspaper article or magazine) would be more credible, and third a party source would be even more reliable, but P.P knows that...--Lokyz 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrowski's reliability was discussed here [mediation], and other Polish sources like these need to be scrutinized. So I suggest finding a third party source, as per Yannismarou's suggestion - although, removing info the way Piotrus did is not recommended to any party, because it's POV pushing.--Lokyz 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No serious arguments against reliablity of Piotrowski were presented. Feel free to 'examine' the reliablity of sources presented here by listing in detail what you find dubious or unreliable about them - other, of course, then them being Polish. On the other hand, plenty of arguments against reliability of Vilnija revalations were presented. If you continue to put Western academics on the same level as local hate group propaganda, don't expect others to take your comments or edits seriously.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You have stated how you are dissapointed with OT discussions, yet you are bringing up Vilnija here. It's about as relevant as bringing up the Kielce pogrom. I'm not going to bring up the Jedwabne massacre for the same reason that it would be OT here, even though the events being debated are more related than Vilnija. Dr. Dan 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dan, it is Lokyz who brought up the removed (Vilnija) referenes issue. And yes, I agree that it is OT issue which bears little relevance here - alas, ask Lokyz, not me, why he perefers to bring OT issues instead of discussing the matter at hand.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm more concerned with the source you provided that does not confirm your objections to my disputing the assertion regarding 7,500 Polish POWs being killed here. In fact it seems to confirm this. BTW, the only reference to Vilnija on this talk page is from you. Dr. Dan 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm more concerned with your denials that Poles and Russians died in that massacre. As for the 7500 POWs, I don't see the problem: the article no longer claims they were Polish but uses a source which claim they were Soviet. Unless you have any source to dispute that, the matter is closed. As for Vilnija, again, it was Lokyz who brought up the question of my removal of references, and the only case that comes to mind in our related discussions is my objectiosn to using Vilnija as a reliable reference.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you can't understand the problem. Hopefully it's not a language issue. The operative words regarding my edits were mostly and Polish POWS. The victims were mostly Jews, and the POWS were not Polish POWS. These are not denials, but facts of the matter. As for the claim of them being Polish, the article no longer claims they were Polish POWS , is not thanks to you, but to me. Your original attempt to interject the magazine article as a "source" for Xx236's query about the 7,500 Polish POWS was untrue and innaccurate. The problem is when these attempts to use what resembles the Big Lie technique are left unchallenged, people unaware of the facts are left, to wonder whether or not they are true. I'll assume good faith and let it go as a semantical or language issue, rather than a deliberate attempt to misinform. Although this should now be clearer to all concerned, I have little expectation for any apologies or agreement that I am correct. Dr. Dan 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dan, I am sorry to brush you with reality, alas, your claims are simply not true. That the article on longer claims that the POWs were Polish is due to efforts of Xx236 who raised this question above, and myself finding the relevant source(s) and correcting that in the article. Your 'contributions' to the article were primarily based on removing data from it without any references to back it up. I am still waiting to hear why you decied to remove information about Polish and Russian victims from the lead.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Over the word mostly. Dr. Dan 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

some improvements

I suggest to study some improvements by Dr. Dan, eg. the removal of the information about non-Jewish victims. I believe that such important changes should be discussed here before, not imposed. Xx236 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add any referenced info--Lokyz 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lokyz. 7,500 Polish POWS killed here? A reference to this "fact" needs to be provided or an immediate retraction is in order, and an apology for this Big Lie needs to be made. Even Davies doesn't cross that kind of a line. And Xx236, please do not diminish the horrors of the Jewish victims, by trying to divert attention to non-Jewish victims that are just propaganda. 7,500 Polish POWS were not killed here, and this nonsense only gives ammunition to those who would deny true examples of Polish POWS who were murdered while in captivity. And now for your references? Dr. Dan 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

please do not involve me into disputable things - I did not state anything, i did not remove anything. Dr.Dan there are tags for unreferenced statements {{fact}} or {{dubious}} - please do not remove things you do not like, instead tag them for referencing. --Lokyz 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to you were only for asking for references, nothing else. Dr. Dan 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Xx236, I have studied the improvements - feel free to notify me or the WP:PWNB about similar incidents in the future. I trust that the references I provided should satisfy any doubts about "facts" that indeed, many Poles were killed in the Ponary massacre (this article, btw, should be split off, the subject is certainly notable enough to deserve an article of its own). Now we shall wait for the apology from Dr. Dan about the "Big Lie" accusation, as well as for his removal of the mention of Polish and Russian victims from the lead and his calling of the murder of 7500 POWs nonesense.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many Soviet POWs were murdered, but I bet their nationality wasn't Russian. Eventually the majority was Russian, but certainly not all of them. I don't know anything about Polish POWs, the victims were members of many underground organizations. including scouts. Xx236 09:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet is the term used in text, and I believe it is better?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New Article

Do to the expansion of the events concerning this tragedy, it has transcended the scope of the geographical entity of Paneriai. It is unfair to the inhabitants of this town to make this event its end all, and be all. The people currently living there do not have to make these events the central focus of their lives, any more than the current residents of Kielce need to focus on the Kielce pogrom as the major event of their lives. In the former case, the inhabitants were under a brutal occupation, in a brutal war, with no oportunity to militarily oppose it. Let these events be recounted in a specific article dealing primarily with them. The article about the town can have the appropriate links to find them. Dr. Dan 03:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that this deserves a separate article, and only a summary section should be left here. It's a shame that nobody had found a time to work on this article in the context of it's general history or even more important, architecture, administration, and other elements one would usually expect to find in an article about a quarter. That leaves the question of how should the new article be called.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Paneriai massacre" - 13 Google hits, "massacre in Paneriai" 2 hits, no Google Print hits for neither
• Ponary massacre - 4 Google hits, 2 Google Print hits, "massacre in Ponary - 6 Google hits, 1 Google Print hit.

Suggestions?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ponary+Holocaust - 103 books, Panerai+Holocaust - 3 books. As it is obvious in the context of massacre which names is more popular, I will soon create the relevant article at Ponary massacre.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion of splinting the article is quite recent event, probably not all contributors stated opinion, and the name issue was not discussed at all before splinting. So discussion should go before any active steps. M.K. 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Using the above criteria, and although I must say "google hits" are not my favorite method of measuring the basis of naming an article, the presenter of these facts ( of the % of google hits), shows "Paneriai massacre" to outnumber "Ponary massacre". Then he names the article Ponary (Poonary {sic}) massacre anyway. Since the article is not named Ponary+Holocaust, is this logical? Go figure. Dr. Dan 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Google Print is a much serious comparison, and it shows that Ponary is the proper name. And M.K, I am sorry, if you or other editors don't have time or will to edit Wikipedia, don't criticize those who do.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, so I may be wrong, but I understand massacre as something what happened once, during a short period of time, eg. Kaunas massacre, Jedwabne massacre. Killings during years aren't in my opinion a massacre. See also Massacre, which confirms my position. Xx236 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the talk of the relevant article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Families of the victims against the executioners

According to the last issue of Gazeta Polska IPN refused to accuse Lithuanian executioners of Ponary. Families of many victims appealed. Xx236 14:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the talk of the relevant article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not balanced

As this articles biggest part is about killings, which presented not in NOPV way, for argumentation see: Talk:Ponary_massacre. M.K. 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The correct tag for such a case is 'expand, not 'npov'. I suggest on your talk page alraedy that you should familiarize yourself with what WP:NPOV is. To be clear: article which concentrate on one aspect but should concentrate on many is not POVed, only underdeveloped.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

name

Oh come on. This one's obvious: Ponary: [2] 771 hits Paneriai: [3] 575 hits. Given the fact that this was a site of mass extermination of Poles and Jews (as well as Lithuanians), the Polish and Yiddish (or Hebrew) name obviously belongs in here.radek (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How about at least discussing it first before reverting?radek (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Gbooks is not a library. It's a compromise with copyright holders (who do not necessary have the best/newest/most informative books). It's a marketing thing, not a reliability] thing. Please, do not use that argument again. Read the books, not just google them. Best regards.--Lokyz (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The relevant Wiki policy does not require Gbooks to be a library. It requires that 10% of the English language sources use the name. Which Gbooks shows they obviously do. All the hits at Gbooks are reliable sources - or is this under dispute?radek (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that scientific methods are not important, while there is gbooks smelling of marketing and sales?--Lokyz (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?radek (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Marketing and pro-profit Corporations like a Google Inc.. It's rather strange to hear a question like that from someone who claims to have a degree in economics. --Lokyz (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're losing me even more. I guess you have a problem with Google books in general, because Google is a private company. Are you trying to say that some Poles paid off Google to include these hits to "Ponary" in their search? I'm really confused here about what it is you have a problem with. Are the hits from Google books reliable sources or not?radek (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And what is "smelling of marketing and sales"? Who's smelling whom and where here? Are you trying to say something is stinky? What? What is this about???radek (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice

The editor [[Radeksz likes to dispense advice, and inform anyone that he has a dispute with what Wiki policy is all about. At this talk page we are asked ..."How about at least discussing it first before reverting? radek ..." Unfortunately Radeksz doesn't like to heed his own advice. A day or two ago he blindly reverted my latest edit at the Lithuanization article. It concerned the Selonians, Jotvingians, Nadruvians and Curonians. Rather than asking me to come up with a citation confirming that these tribes shared cultural, linguistic, and religious affiliations with Lithuanians (and btw, Prussians) which they indisputably did, he chose to blindly revert me. Now really, Radeksz, try to be a little more objective, and even a little more consistent in your approach to subjects that you are involved with. You like to cushion your more controversial edits with some blather about WP:AGF. It's my opinion that you are becoming more and more biased in your editing and are bordering on disrupting the project. Once again, you might want to back off and spend your talents improving the WP project rather than wasting everybody's time with a lot of nonsense. If this article has a link to Polish Wikipedia (it does) our readers are one click away from getting the "indispensable" information as to what the Polish language geographical toponym is for this suburb of Lithuania's capital is. Meanwhile the pertinent information considering the crimes committed here, remain here. Nothing wrong with that. It's becoming obvious that your recent activities concerning Lithuanian related articles have an agenda that is more questionable than your claims that your are abiding by Wiki policies. Hits at Gbooks? Yeah, right. That's what this is all about. You've got to be joking. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)