Revision as of 19:48, 18 February 2007 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,860 editsm →Tendentious edits← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:00, 18 February 2007 edit undoDr. Dan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,342 edits →Tendentious editsNext edit → | ||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
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 ], would take it upon himself to remove ], 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. ] 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | 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 ], would take it upon himself to remove ], 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. ] 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
:I added ] to this article. It, as well as the other links, are redundant with {{tl|The Holocaust}} now in the article. See also is considered bad style, please familiarize yourself with ] suggestions before engaging in ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | :I added ] to this article. It, as well as the other links, are redundant with {{tl|The Holocaust}} now in the article. See also is considered bad style, please familiarize yourself with ] suggestions before engaging in ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 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, ] 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 ] article for over two years until this month), with the same gusto. ] 20:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:00, 18 February 2007
An entry from Ponary massacre appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 February, 2007. |
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 , . 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 : your motivating only as 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 , 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)
- Firts of all stop deleting tags. Article clearly not NPOV, and it was concurred by your recent selective information removal as this : your motivating only as 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 , 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?
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)