Talk:Ponary massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poland Portal
Ponary massacre is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Ponary massacre is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
An entry from Ponary massacre appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 February 2007.
Wikipedia
Ponary massacre is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] See also

How do the articles listed under "See also" expand the topic of this article ? --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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. --Lysytalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 says 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 already been blocked once for such disruptive behaviour.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

I'm not through it, yet. --Lysytalk 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be more transparent actions if you fully restore info and only after edit it. M.K. 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. I've removed the excessive discussions about Ypatingasis būrys, which is already discussed in its own article. I've also removed the unreferenced "disputed" claims, and several spurious or unnecessary requests for refs. How is that now ? --Lysytalk 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually you deleted all credible information, first - you claim that removed the excessive discussions about Ypatingasis būrys there was probably around two sentences about YP less then excessive discussions, removing fact that YP had and Polish killers but leaving as Lithuanian and this is one sided approach. Second - why did you removed NPOV statment about disputed numbers? removal of {{facts}} claiming that is This is self evident if you have seen the Soviet monuments in Paneriai majority people can not see this so called "self evident" issue and this is strange claim regarding Russians; as well as in no need for references for obvious things it is not obvious thing that the poor people were aware that eventually they would be executed themselves; why did you deleted referenced account of Polish killer Borkowski, who killed Jews? M.K. 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S and I strongly suggest you to role back edits until so called anon appeared. M.K. 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What for ? Were you enjoying the revert war that was here before ? --Lysytalk 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Because I like transparency - during the heat of debate, then you started editing article so called annon appeared and after so called restoration of previuos info you somehow lost the same information part, which did not liked some contributors particular user Piotrus and you. This event is worth for launching an investigation. M.K. 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I explained my edits below. But go ahead and launch an investigation. I wholeheartedly support the idea. --Lysytalk 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Lysy I did not found explanations of your recent actions below. Let me explain. this is version before so called vandal; including this information (which did not like one contributor) - composed primarily of Lithuanians, although a few Russians and Poles served in it too.; (and with account of Polish killer); as well as - By the end of the 1941 year, more than 40,000 Jews had been killed at Paneriai.[citation needed] Germans were aided by Ypatingasis burys in 1941 killings, during 1943 Ypatingasis burys killed less then in 1941, while in 1944 Ypatingasis burys did not carry any more killings.[5]; more - although these numbers are disputed.; after so called revert of vandal which you conducted non of this information was present of article and no warning that you deleted some info by reverting it. So how it can happed that reverting blanked page all this info disappeared? later you tried to recover the "disputed" paragraph, after few attempts you recovered it full and removed it [7], but other info was not restored. Let me put some more doubts - after your so called restoration of article - the parts of info was present particularly -{{fact}} tags from this my edit - [8] as you may see it has and info which you somehow lost. In other words you lost part info of this mine edit, and i am assure you that it is impossible to recover info which has one part but other don't; of course if it was not modified during "restoration" process. So do you have something to say? M.K. 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been explained - above and below, and in edit summaries - why certain information is not needed here. Please stop asking the same question over and over again; instead you may want to enlighten us why you think this information is needed here - this was a question asked of you, again, several times, above and below...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed information about ethnic composition of Ypatingasis būrys purposefully. Firstly because this article is not about Ypatingasis būrys but about the massacre. Secondly, because it fed the unnecessary revert wars. For the "disputed numbers", who disputes them ? As for the Stutthof inmates, they have been kept in the pit holes for months when they were forced to crush the bones. Why would you assume that they were stupid enough not to be aware of what was happening ? As for the Soviet monuments in Paneriai, they are completely mute about Jewish or Polish victims, and they clearly make an impression that the victims were Soviet POWs only. --Lysytalk 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Firstly because this article is not about Ypatingasis būrys but about the massacre - information provided were about killers directly liked with this issue including testimony of Polish Jew killer. removing polish killers but leaving lithuanian is not NPOV.
  • Secondly, because it fed the unnecessary revert wars. - one contributor launching an reverts, instead of finding relevant info
  • For the "disputed numbers", who disputes them - look at my sources provided in above sections
  • they have been kept in the pit holes for months when they were forced to crush the bones. Why would you assume that they were stupid enough not to be aware of what was happening - your - WP:OR and WP:POV
  • Why would you assume that they were stupid enough not to be aware of what was happening - same as above
  • As for the Soviet monuments in Paneriai, they are completely mute about Jewish or Polish victims, and they clearly make an impression that the victims were Soviet POWs only. - continues WP:OR and WP:POV, it needs much more then claim to look to the monument, btw did you met any encyclopedia which stated such thing only based on looking to the monument? M.K. 22:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

M.K: Expecting references on obvious things is just ridiculous. Are you aware of any Soviet commemoration of Jewish or Polish victims of Paneriai ? Have you seen the Paneriai museum at all ? I am surprised and saddened to see a Lithuanian supporting the Soviet ways to rewrite the history of Lithuania. --Lysytalk 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First stop accusing me as you doing for some time [9] such your claims are unacceptable. And answer the questions presented above about your so called revert of vandal. I am waiting for answers about this issue. M.K. 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not see any questions that are left unanswered here. --Lysytalk 10:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this your final answer? M.K. 10:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not an answer but a statement. But feel free to consider it final. --Lysytalk 11:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I completly support Lysy's edits. M.K and Lokyz, please stop disrupting this article with the irrelevant references. Your attempts to portray Ponary massacre as caused by Poles and Russians are deplorable at best.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
please stop removing properly adjusted and credible info, indeed your attempts to portray Ponary massacre without Poles etc. are deplorable at best. M.K. 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? But we have good references that ~20 000 Poles died there (and lets not forget that most of the Jews had Polish citizenship, too). So if you are implying that somebody is trying to remove information that Poles were massacred there, I think you are quite mistaken.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One remark. Detailed ethnic composition of the killer's squad indeed belongs to a squad's article. I mean, if the unit included a couple of Poles and Russians it does not change the overall picture. If only Piotrus was similarly following the approach that narrow stuff belongs to narrow articles less selectively unlike taking one on the other side based on which approach would better benefit the POV he is pushing in the current article. Here, he supports a sound approach of keeping the narrow and marginally important stuff to where it belongs. He behaved quite differently in connection with the sad incident of Zaluski Library whose collection was taken to Saint Petersburg by the order of the Russian Empress to expand the Imperial Public Library. Not only Piotrus rightly mentions this episode in the Zaluski Library article. Not only even he finds it warranted to describe this very incident again in the Russian National Library article. He even launched a fierce revert war to insert the said info into the Russian Enlightenment article, claiming the logic:

ZL important for Ru Library + Ru L important for RE → ZL important for RE

By this logic Piotrus (and Lysy who helped Piotrus in revert warring aimed at inflaming the RE article) should support a detailed ethnic composition of the death squad included in the article about the crime perpetuated by the said squad. But for some reason, the loosely relevant stuff needs to be included or not included in the articles according to a rule whether such inclusion fits certain agenda or not.

On a side note, Lysy's remark about his being "surprised and saddened to see a Lithuanian supporting the Soviet ways to rewrite the history of Lithuania" is worth of a strong reprimand. While this is not the worse example of ethnic talk I've seen from this editor, I hope he will desist from any of that from now on. --Irpen 09:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an another example. When I wanted to mention Nilov monastery POV camp in Lake Seliger I obtained such comment: "Dear Polish friends, stop pushing your propaganda by hook or by crook. It is absolutely irrelevant in articles on natural objects such as lakes. You have spawned these same sentences to half a dozen articles already". Why is pushing of Lithuanian propaganda tolerated? Xx236 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
First, the ethnic composition of the death squad being referenced is not "Lithuanian propaganda". It belongs to a narrower articles but not this one, I agree. But I am glad you see the general idea and will now finally purge the irrelevant grievances of the Russian vandalism to the Polish culture from the Russian Enlightenment keeling it in Zaluski Library where it belongs. --Irpen 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if you'd be correct (and a consensus of editors was to leave this example in the article about RE...), this would be a tu quoque argument. That said, after few months to look at this matter again, I agree the ZL example is not that relevant to the larger picture of RE - however it most certainly should not be removed from article about the RNL.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Xx236's above remark concerning Lake Seliger, it's precisely the OT type of comparison that he asks me to desist from. Why are you doing it yourself? As for "Lithuanian propaganda". The "propaganda" that you are referring to comes from U.S. Holocaust research. It was provided by you, Xx236. The fact that it states that a former Polish border guard was an anti-Semitic murderer who collaborated with the nazis and killed Jews, at Ponary, is not Lithuanian propaganda. If it's not true, and is propaganda, why did you provide it in the first place? Hmm? Dr. Dan 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is that this minor detail indeed does not belong to the article where it is so loosely relevant. Similar to how the transfer of the Zaluski library collection does not belong to the RE article (it may be mentioned in the RNL though), or how the Russo-Japanese War war article does not benefit from revert warring aimed at adding there some Polish grievances [10] or every article where Vilnius is mentioned does not need the Polish name of the city and an elaboration on the percentage of the Polish population century by century.

Piotrus, and I am sorry that only by bringing up the tu quoque argument one is able to make you admit something which is plain obvious. There was never ever consensus at RE. Read its talk. Some people just got tired by yours and Lysy's persistence at the time. I am glad we can now finally find a consensus on this issue. --Irpen 22:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, thank you for refereeing the issue and hoping to diffuse it a little, but I don't agree that it's a minor issue. But whether it is or not, I would like Xx236 to respond to the question, so that it can be laid to rest. Dr. Dan 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can put this matter to rest as it is at least on this issue. We have an undisputable fact of the role of YB in this massacre and we just say that this was a Litnuanian police unit in this article. Whether it also included some Poles and Russians does not change much in this article context. At the same time, this referenced info clearly can be mentioned in YB article and the true facts poperly referenced is not "Lithuanian propaganda" in any way. If I can draw an analogy, the issue of the complicity of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) in anti-Polish and anti-Jewish events is often brought up. Nevertheless, at times some Jews served in UPA as doctors. This by itself does not raise the question of the role of the Jews in the massacres of Polish villages committed by UPA. The notable and complex UPA-Jewish relationship is mentioned in UPA article and nowehere else. --Irpen 02:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I remember Russian Enlightenment article! The same Polish enthusiasts participating here too, but now they invented new tactics. Regarding Detailed ethnic composition of the killer's squad , let me write few words; in this text was not added detailed composition which we may identified as - in YYYY serverd X nationality and Z nationality killers, while in YYYx year there were more Z nationality killers then X, due to GG reason, while after one year H nationality appeared etc., such comparison was never added to the article, that was done - in the same sentence added the note that squad consisted of Lithuanians, fewer Russians and Poles only. Now leaving only "Litnuanian police unit", implies that it received orders from Lithuanian authorities (and this is not the truth) and that it only Lithuanians were recruited to it. Your remark about Jews served in UPA as doctors is not correct in this article because we have third party source, which clearly states that Poles were directly killed Jews. One account of such Polish Jew killer was presented in the article notes (presenting his motives why he killed Jews in Paneriai), but it was deleted too, is it the same motive about ethnic composition? M.K. 11:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Good and agreed. Now it would be helpful for Xx236 to refute that the information he provided was Lithuanian propaganda. Dr. Dan 04:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good and agreed. I remove the word Polish from the Blue Police article, because squads of that police didn't receive orders from Polish authorities. Xx236 12:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that YP squad did receive orders from Lithuanian authorities? Think again or better read main YP article, M.K. 16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By Lithuanian propaganda I mean that Dan puts the same statement into several articles. Either we put the same statements into many articles so I put the camp information into Lake Seliger, or we apply some economy and DAn doesn't put Vilnius was transferred to Lithuania which considered the previous eighteen years as an occupation by Poland of its capital into Vilnius University. A youngsters in love engrave name of the beloved girl everywhere, but you are an editor. BTW, if the Lithuanian POV is there, Polish, Jewish and Belarussian POVs should be also included. Xx236 13:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Xx236 13:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Next time when presenting your once again OT "arguments" see who added your so favourite part, M.K. 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Is that your refutation of the article that you brought up regarding the Polish murderer at Ponary is not Lithuanian propaganda? Dr. Dan 13:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ypatingasis būrys

What exactly was the role of Ypatingasis būrys in the mass-murder in Ponary ? --Lysytalk 09:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lysy what are you doing for heaven's sake, why did you remove the official name of the unit Special SD and German Security Police Squad and suddenly renamed it again to Lithuanian Ypatingasis būrys? It was German Police unit, although consisting of Lithuanians. And this Lithuanian is misleading. You're making this article an object to another ongoing revert war.--Lokyz 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, replaced the previous "German Security Police Squad", but perhaps the Ypatingasis būrys article should be renamed then ? Do we have any English language sources using the "German Security Police Squad" name for the unit ? --Lysytalk 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we replace the same way the Blue Police by German Police in GG? Xx236 12:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because Blue Police was not Sonderkommando, nor part of SD like YB was. This exact unit according to documents was direct subordinate of German Police, Lated SD and even later SS, and not subordinate neither to Saugumas, nor Lithuanian police. Longest serving commander of YB was SS'man Martin Weiss.--Lokyz 14:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Blue Police wasn't a police, because it didn't have common command. Any local police was commanded by the local German SS and police commander. Where is the Lithuanian police described here? Xx236 16:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Again: What exactly was the role of Ypatingasis būrys in the mass-murder in Ponary ? Was Ypatingasis būrys a German or a Lithuanian unit ? --Lysytalk 15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The railway station ?

The article states that the murder took place near the railway station. Would it not be more correct to state that they happened in the forest near Paneriai ? --Lysytalk 11:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

Need exact citations and translations of referenced sentence which starts: It was only on 22 Octoer, 2000, a decade after the.. M.K. 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The date is given by both citations following the sentence ([11] and [12]). On related note, we could use more material on other memorial(s) located there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I asked give the exact citation of original text and its translation for this: It was only on 22 October, 2000, a decade after the fall of communism, that the new government of independent Lithuania allowed a monument (a cross) to fallen Polish citizens to be built there, during na official ceremony in which representatives of both Polish and Lithuanian goverments (Bronisław Komorowski, Polish Minister of Defence, and his Lithuanian counterpart), as well as several NGOs, took place. not only date, because I cant find any hint that government did not allowed to building monument earlier. After you do so we will see there was committed original research or not.
Another dubious thing - provide exact citation and translation for Bubnys work there he states The Ponary massacre (or Paneriai massacre) was the mass-murder of about 100,000 people performed by German SD and SS and their subordinate Lithuanian Sonderkommando collaborators (Special SD and German Security Police Squad "Ypatingasis būrys" units) because you placed a ref to several places here, which I cant find in his text. M.K. 10:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The text was not meant to imply Lithuanian government activly opposed the raising of the monument, as we don't have references for that. The references state that efforts of several Polish NGOs resulted in the raising of the monument, we currently don't know how long they've been trying to do this and how quick was Lithuanian government reply. I have rephrased this fragment to address the issue; please note that the point of the paragraph is not to berate Lithuanian government for its action, but note that unlike Soviet government it did allow the matter to be investigated and monument to be raised.
As for the second one, your dubious tag is disputing the Lithuanian adjective. Bubnys uses in his English abstract the phrase Lithuanian security police and notes that tens of thousands died in Ponary. Unfortunatly I cannot read the main artice for details, but the fact that Lithuanian collaborators participated in the massacre is confirmed with our other references (for example in the very title of the IPN article, which has been translated).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Going to second part of your response. Actually you committed original research. Why? First the article presented in EN abstract do not mention YP at all. Second article covers several formed units, and this not means that Lithuanian security police=Ypatingasis burys and contrary. These are different units. So how "Lithuanian" YP appears here? And as you did to list them in one line is pure OR. Despite if the particular ref will be removed labeling "Lithuanian"; still such formulation will be dubious and disputed, because Arūnas Bubnys quite clearly covers these issues, if we go by ethnicity principal it would be incorrect to label "Lithuanian" as in it was not only consisting by Lith.; if we go by commanders and persons who could issue orders, once again labeling "Lithuanian" wrong - because YP was directly commanded by Germans and was part of SD; if we go by the name - wrong again it did not have "Lithuanian", quite contrary. This why tag remains. Another point present Polish sources translations of this part and we will see all picture and motives why they uses "Lithuanian" . And I another note, I do not dispute that Lithuanians also participated in killings alongside with Germans, Poles and Russians. M.K. 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
All right, since Bubnys in the English summary indeed doesn't talk aboyt YBs, I have removed the ref to him for nationality. All other sources note the massacre was committedy by Lithuanians, most identify the primary unit involved as YBs. Before we address the Polish sources, please comment on this book. Per sources, Germans and Lithuanians were the two major groups that participted in the killings. They might have been a few people of other nationalities there, two - but for the same reason, a support for Nazis by few Americans, Brits, or Poles (not to mention Vichy France and such) did not make Nazism international.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I ask you to provide exact translations of the Polish sources, please do so and we will see if they can match historian Bubnys research magnitude. M.K. 11:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This Yale University Book is quite clear: "About sixty thousand Jews from Wilno (Vilnius, Jewish Vilna) and surrounding townships in present-day Lithuania were murdered by the Nazis and their Lithuanian collaborators in huge pits on the outskirts of Ponary". This is also confirmed by other English and quite reputable sources: UofMinnessota: More recent historical investigations through newly released documents have proven Lithuanian complicity with the Germans in the annihilation of Lithuanian Jews. . US Holocaust Museum: During the same month, German Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing squads) aided by Lithuanian auxiliaries killed 5,000 Jewish men at Ponary forest, eight miles outside Vilna. And so on. Yes, there were Lithuanians involved, M.K - please stop denying that. And no, no other source finds it important to note that among the dozens of YBs and other auxiliaries there might have been a few Poles or Russians... this is quite telling, I'd think (per WP:NPOV#Undue weight). Btw, was there any research done in Lithuania on the Ponary massacre?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop accusing me of denial. Now it is Undue weight right? If I remember correctly first it was preposterous claim. M.K. 10:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop disrupting the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to take the time to read the entire book, but for now I'll point out that the book review puts the (Sakowicz) author's "objectivity" in quotation marks. It also refers to "Wilno" as being Lithuanian, the Jerusalem of Lithuania. It also lessens the claimed number of victims by 40%. Dr. Dan 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the Blue Police Polish according to the above?

Lithuanians also participated in killings alongside with Germans, Poles and Russians. is a masterpiece in the context of the Ponary massacre. Xx236 11:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Poles should inform what's going on in Lithuania. Strange.?Xx236 11:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange? Strange how? It seems that a lot of Polish editors on Wikipedia find it necessary to "inform" our readers what's going on in Lithuania. And always in the most "objective" and "scholarly" manner to boot. Again, strange how? Dr. Dan 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (tag WikiProject Lithuania for Lokyz)

If you tag something there is no need to dedicate it for me, dear Piotrus. Is it some kind of flirt with me? Should I tag Jedwabne massacre "Template:Wikiproject:Poland for my dear Piotrus"? STOP STALKING ME!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lokyz (talk • contribs).

I am sorry you read my gesture of good will as stalking. I will make sure not to commend you upon your participation in Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Assessment in the future.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I do not see the purpose of the "for Lokyz" dedication either. Anyway, I suggest that you guys use your userspace rather than articles' talk pages if you feel you have to exchange the "gestures of good will" or such. --Lysytalk 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning to Wonder

First Wikipedians are treated to the article Zydokomuna, now its author and an "administrator" is treating us to nazi propaganda posters. Strikes me as shameful. Dr. Dan 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dan, are you trying to communicate something here ? What is your point ? --Lysytalk 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Too bad you even have to ask. If you think adding that vulgar, rabidly anti-Semitic, nazi propaganda poster is relevant to this article, that's truly a shame. Perhaps your friend deserves to be commended for these kinds of contributions? Or maybe get a barnstar or some other medal? Personally I was extremely offended, and these "contributions" seem to me, to have a pattern of sorts. Dr. Dan 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be easier to understand you if you were more specific about what you're referring to. What poster, which administrator, what kind of contributions ? Thanks. --Lysytalk 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Lysy, please, you are very good at "following up" on my contributions and edits. As a matter of fact you once told me on my talk page that you weren't stalking me, it's just that we have many mutual items on our watchlist. Take a good hard look at the Ponary massacre article's history and my edits within the last few days, and all of your "lack of understanding" will magically vanish. Cheers. Dr. Dan 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The poster is rather relevant, as it is a direct evidence of Nazi anti-Jewish and anti-Soviet propaganda directed at Lithuanians, which aimed to increase support among Lithuanians for the final solution of the 'Jewish problem' (and to stress Nazis as enemies of the Soviets). As such propaganda was obviously successfull in recruiting Ypatingasis būrys volunteers and assorted auxiliaries, I don't understand why you find its inclusion objectionable. Wikipedia should not censor facts (textual or graphical), no matter how offensive some may find them today.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is relevant or not (I do not see how, and find your explanation to be quite a stretch) to this tragic episode at Ponary, was not my point. Most historians agree that Nazi propaganda was highly effective, inspite of it being of questionable veracity. In fact so successful, that it was suggested by the communist authorites in Poland of perpetuating anti-Semitism and pogroms, in Poland, even after the war. See Kraków pogrom and Kielce pogrom. On the other hand, the Polish border guard, Borkowski, could not read Lithuanian, yet he was able to participate in the Ponary murders without the benefit of the "Poster". If you feel there is a need to display Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda on Wikipedia, I suggest you "create" another article for that purpose. I'm sure you can find many examples of Polish-Nazi "Posters" to show us. Perhaps you can add some of them to an article that you have already created, Zydokomuna. And by the way, you have no idea as to whether this type of propaganda was obviously "successful" in recruiting Y.B. volunteers. Just another example of your own "opinion" being offered as "fact". Dr. Dan 14:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You may not see how it is relevant. Timothy Snyder does, showing it next to Ponary description in his book. It is a good illustration of Nazi propaganda which contributed to Ponary massacre. Nothing more, nothing less.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
How nice, maybe Julius Streicher would like it too. What happened to your ...such propaganda was "obviously" successfull (sic) in recruiting YB volunteers and auxiliaries... argument? What even too unverifiably POV for you? Dr. Dan 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excess

Can anyone reduce the amount of superscripts on the first few sentences of this article? Maybe compress them into one big footnote. Horvat Den 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P.P. at it Again

P.P., the Final Solution as it is now called and known, was implemented in Wannsee, in 1942. Although the murder of Jews took place in the Baltic States earlier (doubt that you personally consider Paneriai, part of the Baltic States), this anti-Semitic barbarity also had a long association with Poland prior to the Holocaust, (see Pinsk massacre), and after that horror, (see Kielce Pogrom). Your reference is too general, does not mention Lithuania specifically, and as a consequence, I chose to remove it again. If you wish to play more mind games with this outrageous anti-Lithuanian bias, go for it, and you will get a tsunami of references to Polish anti-Semitism. To try to "make hay" out out the sad fact that the Jews first in the line of the Nazi policy to kill Jews, were in the Baltic States, is so bogus and actually surprising that you have fallen so low in our debates. Should we think that the fact that the Nazis gave Poland the "honor" of being the site of the most death camps somehow relate or show Polish complicity in the Nazi's policy? Do back off of this one. Dr. Dan 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something Good out of Something Bogus

Although P.P. continues to create a bellicose attitude regarding the Baltic States with his recent edits, we at least have the acknowlegement that Paneriai, a suburb of Vilnius, was/is part of the Baltic States, rather than of Poland. O.K. Dr. Dan 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time it was part of the Baltics in the very same way Paris was part of Germany. //Halibutt 11:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many Poles died?

Piotrowski on p.167 ([13]) gives a list of how many Poles were executed and when, according to Polish resistance. The list must be incomplete, or other estimates exaggerated (he doesn't state that the list is comprehensive), but it adds up to only about 1,000 victims. On p. 174 ([14]) he quotes two Polish historians: Longin Tomaszewski's "estimate for ethnic Poles is several thousands", Zdisław A. Siemaszko writes about 1,700 including many AK members. So the 20,000 estimate may be too high.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)