Talk:Ponary massacre

An entry from Ponary massacre appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 February, 2007.

Wikipedia

Old discussions

Please note that the Ponary massacre has been discusseed previously at Talk:Paneriai, until it was split into it's separate article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Masacre?

I'm not a native speaker, so I may be wrong, but I understand a 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 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

When I was looking at the various literature, massacre was the most common term. I am open to hearing arguments about different name, of course.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gdańsk court will decide

According to the last issue of Gazeta Polska IPN Gdańsk doesn't prossecute Lithuanian executioners of Ponary. A local law court will decide. Families of the victims protest. Xx236 15:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you have any bibliogrpahical information (date, name of the article) or even better an external link to that article?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not balanced

Article one sided interpret numbers of victims, Genocide and Resistance Research Centre and Bubnys notes that 100 000 victims is exaggerated [1], [2]. Mostly killed Jews, and as noted in provided sources Polish victims were hundreds not thousands, such inaccuracy happed “thanks” to “works” to contributors like Helena Pasierbska, while article itself do not make any disclaimer on her, while Lithuanian and Polish scholars identified her, lets say – one sided. Another one article - not mentioned Belorussians, who there also killed here, small number but still. About Ypatingasis burys, it participated in killings at the beginning of 1941 later its actives was limited and nonexistent like in 1944, nothing is motioned about killers later fates etc. Generally article is not NOPV, this way it is tagged. M.K. 10:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which provided sources give 'hundreds' instead of 'thousands' Poles? All sources I found claim that the number of Polish victims was at least 15000 and usually agree on 20000 estimate. As for 100 000 exaggerated, the common brackets are 80 000 - 100 000, as some sources (but not all) note that the number of Jews killed may vary from 50 000 to 70 000. Please provide sources for your arguments, and read up on WP:NPOV. The article is not POVed - you have failed to even state what particular POV is it that is supposed to be 'pushed' here. PS. That said, your claim that it was Poles and Russians who carried this massacre is certainly POVed to the extreme - please answer the querry at Talk:Ypatingasis būrys and please don't insert such 'revelations' into the article until they matter has been debated and accepted by other editors.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Firts of all stop deleting tags. Article clearly not NPOV, and it was concurred by your recent selective information removal as this : [3] your motivating only as [4] yes you for the first time hear this, but this do not give you power to remove tags and info, that you conducted is called Original Research. And as you called one contributor a vandal recently because he removed the ref [5], you once again removed ref, conclusions? Restoring tag, M.K. 10:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)p.s. or we should remove and Polish sources?

The fact that you claim that 'Article clearly not NPOV' does not make it so. Nobody supports your POV, on the other hand other users are disputing your claim. I am still waiting for the responce and appopriate translation at Talk:Ypatingasis būrys, per our policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS) you need to provide a translation if you try to use a source in non-English language to claim something that apparently is not claimed by any source discussing that matter in all other languages (and is obviously controversial). It is what you are doing that can be called POV pushing, OR and tag spamming. Please desist from disrupting the project in that way.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious edits

I'll be kind and call it tendentious editing, even though it borders extreme on POV pushing that borders vandalism. I am within my rights to add related events in the See also categories. That the author of Zydokomuna, would take it upon himself to remove Babi Yar, or the other removed events, is bizarre. The readers of WP can make the determination of the relevance of the suggested links to the subject matter at hand. Dr. Dan 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I added Babi Yar to this article. It, as well as the other links, are redundant with {{The Holocaust}} now in the article. See also is considered bad style, please familiarize yourself with WP:MOS suggestions before engaging in WP:TE.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not important who added Babi Yar to this article. What's important is who removed it and that I wish to replace it. Whether the Holocaust template is there or not, is not a sufficient reason to remove it if I choose to put it back in the See also: category. Furthermore unlike Babi Yar, Bogdanovka is virtually unknown and is an appropriate link as well. You are not some final arbitrator as to whether these links belong under the See also linking mechanism. Its unfortunate that you didn't make the effort to remove the false information regarding 7,500 Polish POWS being killed here (it was in the Paneriai article for over two years until this month), with the same gusto. Dr. Dan 20:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I still consider see also bad style, but if you insist, I see no much harm in having this redundant section here. You may want to edit the template to add those links there, if you think they are important enough.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. More light! You have more experience at editing templates than I. Whatever you decide on that is fine with me. Dr. Dan 20:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain me logically, why Babi Yar is mentioned twice? Xx236 15:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See also

How do the articles listed under "See also" expand the topic of this article ? --Lysy^talk 20:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, how are links under "See also" required to "expand" the article that they stem from? Dr. Dan 20:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not just an arbitrary selection of links that otherwise do not match the article. The articles in "see also" should be providing additional information on the subject to a reader. --Lysy^talk 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That surprises me to hear you say that. If you can't see why someone reading about this event, or doing research on it, wouldn't be interested in the other events that I listed, or see the connection, you are rather mistaken. I think most objective people, even those who frequently disagree with me, would have very little doubt that these are similar types of events, taking place in the same general area, and that the majority of the killings are of the same people, mostly Jews. Dr. Dan 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you are assuming that the reader is researching Holocaust. Then you have hand-picked a number of completely different and unrelated Holocaust events. If you were looking for something similar, you should be rather mentioning the Palmiry or Katyn massacre instead. --Lysy^talk 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Katyn is mentioned in text, as indeed a comparison between Ponary and Katyn is often made in Polish press.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus reverts

I do not doubt, that annexation of Vilnius region in 1939 October by Lithuanian Republic (this one should be NPOV'ed, as per many articles talk) is not some fact unknown to our dearest Piotrus. So eventually tose cities became Lithuanian, and this fact somehow got omitted. (and of course, please, would you care to explain do you really believe Vilnius region was annexed by Lithuania in 1991, as your dearest friend Halibutt stted? (ref's please)) I'm really sick and tired of your continuing selective approach to the material you're copy-pasting in between articles, without even reading it. I know, such a renowned administrator has not a second to read a line further, than google search (be it books or plain google-sercg) suggests. As per POV this time - if you really think, that Ypatingasis būrys was called so by Germans read this - Wykonawcami mordów byli żołnierze narodowości litewskiej z oddziału egzekucyjnego tzw. "Ypatingas burys"(Oddział Specjalny). Rekrutowali się oni przeważnie spośród członków paramilitarnej organizacji litewskiej "Lietuvos Sauliu Sajunga" (Związek Strzelców Litewskich). Organizatorem i komendantem tego znanego z niebywałych okrucieństw Sonderkommando, olicjalnie przydzielonego do gestapo, był Niemiec Martin Weiss.[6]. This reference is quite messy, and absolutely unreferenced, although even Polish source does not call that unit Lithuanian, it calls it Sonderkommando. Just citing it as an example of selective reading (without trying to improve Ypatingasis būrys article)) you again showed your Google generation approach. You did find it on google didn't you? I'm looking forward to have another portion of your in-famous intimidations to be persecuted if it does not suit your POV.Have a good day--Lokyz 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For the umpht time, since almost all members of this organization were Lithuanian, it is quite logical to call this a Lithuanian unit. I see no point in dscussing this with somebody who hasn't provided a single reference to back his claims - I guess you technically must be from pre-print generation, then, if you can only rely on your own opinion. Unfortunatly, it's not good enough for Wikipedia, I am afraid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite enough to fully READ references provided by others, to understand what they're about, and not only cite one line that fits your gust.--Lokyz 08:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The scope of this article

This article is about Ponary massacre. Not about Ypatingasis burys (or their ethnic composition), not about Armia Krajowa or Red Army (nor their ethnic composition), not about Katyn, not about Jedwabne, and not Kielce, nor Auschwitz, nor Poland, nor Lithuania, nor Second World War, nor about many other things that are irrelevant to this article. Please don't push some POVs by inserting information here that has no relevance to that article. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove facts and references provided, it is directly talking about the issue dispite you like it or not. M.K. 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to us how the information, considered irrelevant by all other sources, that one of the units involved in the massacres had a few members of other nationality/ethnicity then its majority is relevant to this article any more then information on composition of SD, SS, AK or Red Army?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds good now, but interestingly you had no objections about making the 100 man Ypatingasis burys the perpetrators of circa 100,000 killings, or removing or even questioning the Big Lie that 7,500 Polish POWS were killed here. You know, the earlier article that you edited before your re-direct. You, brought in the "See also" link to Babi Yar. You, brought up Ponary's relevance to Katyn. You, disputed the "ethnic" composition of the killers, and wanted references. Now that you got them, it seems it's insignificant information beyond the scope of this article. All of this is an ugly inter-related part of the history of this part of the world during the Second World War. It can be, and will be, mercilessly edited, and discussed, and debated, long after we are gone, whether you like it or not. Live with it! Dr. Dan 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dan, please don't expect a reply to claims which are simply false. Does the article sais that YB squad was the sole peraptrator of the massacre? No. Who dug up reference that 7500 POWS were not Polish and corrected this in the article? Me. So please stop trying to cause yet another flame war by twisting facts - you have alraedy been blocked once for such disruptive behaviour.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked for "incivility", and I still claim that all other participants in the debated matter, including yourself, were guilty of it as well. Am I to understand that you are now threatening me again, because of a very debatable difference of opinion? Dr. Dan 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You can claim all you want but the facts are that you were incivil and penalized for it, and I am warning you that you are going the same path again.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lysy's edits

After supposed anon attack, user:Lysy by restoring text lost various information. Could you Lysy fully restore it? M.K. 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)