Talk:Przyszowice massacre

message: Additionally, I request some way to confirm that the current title is the established name of this event in the English-language scholarship. If the other name is established, the other name should be used. If the event has no established name, it has to use a neutral descriptive name rather than the term strongest possible, the naming convention favored by some editors. --Irpen 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting policy proposal. But you should raise at village pump, not here. The event has no English-language schoarship. As such, the name as used in Polish scholarship is applicable (if you know of other names for that event, maybe in Russian works, please share them with us). Polish sources use the words massacre, tragedy and crime (against humanity). Massacre is less ambigious, thus preferable. Although I am sure you'd prefer 'Przyszowice liberation'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The only one who is using straw men to ignore any arguments he dislikes here is you. Please reply to my notes about naming instead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support Piotrus on that one. Let's hold a WP:RM and move it to Liberation of Przyszowice. //Halibutt 07:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not react to this blasphemous provocation by both of you. --Irpen 17:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, trying to get to seriously reply to discussion about other names is blasphemous indeed...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Irpen, frankly, it was you to state that the term liberation is NPOV and should be used in all cases, even as extreme as this one. Sure, the proposal above was not serious, but it was irony rather than provocation. Now on to your original question (which was already replied to I believe) - I doubt the event is mentioned in any English-language publications at all. //Halibutt 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Let me add that I have some concerns about this article (my attention was drawn to it from T:DYK). All the sources as presented now are apparently from Polish newspapers. I cannot read Polish nor can most editors on this project. Additionally, I have reviewed several databases of English-language academic journals and I can find no reference to this event, or even the village. I am left wondering if it is at all appropriate for this article to be on the English Wikipedia.
Another concern is whether this event, in itself, needs its own article. Atrocities of this sort were plentiful on all sides and in East Prussia especially. I am personally acquainted with several East Prussian refugees who witnessed these kinds of events. With respect to the dead, the murder of some 70 civilians (and subsequent cover-up) is not unusual and we have articles on similar events that have been documented in peer-reviewed journals. It might make sense to merge this information into Institute of National Remembrance or Red Army atrocities, but as I said I remain unconvinced that this article, in itself, should exist. Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article satisfies WP:N as far as I can tell, but you are ore than welcome to test it by fire. I would just note that the fact that Wikipedia is biased against non-Western events does not make things from non-West lest notable - even if they have not been sufficiently described in Western literature. Katowice Trade Hall roof collapse or Ulyanovskaya Mine disaster may be not as famous as Virginia Tech massacre, but that doesn't mean our coverage of them should be smaller (even, if thanks to bias, it is).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, these other events which you describe have been described in Western literature. This event has not. Any encyclopedia will show some bias towards its native tongue; I have no doubt that the Polish Wikipedia has disproportionate coverage of Polish topics. I have no way of knowing, at this moment, whether this article satisfies WP:N or not; I'm far more worried about its verifiability and the reliability of its sources. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said above, I share these concerns fully Mackensen. An article, especially one on such a controversial event, cannot be referenced without reliable sources. Having only newspapers referencing such an event is dubious as best. Who can tell how those figures were obtained. Who can tells that these journalists did not invent some of the details to add "punch" to their article? (a technique that is oh-so-known). And so on, so forth. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All important notes are referenced with Institute of National Remembrance, only superficial details are referenced with newspaper articles (which are anyway considered reliable and used on Wikipedia in many, many articles). I don't understand your concerns: there is no policy that sais non-English sources are not reliable, nor one that sais newspapers are not reliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That once every while you will be able to gain a temporary support for your POV pushing doesn't make your violation of policies any better. Per WP:RS#Scholarly_and_non-scholarly_sources sources as used in this article are quite acceptable. You have failed to indicate any bias in them other; the only thing they violate is your personal POV.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Irpen on this issue; non-scholarly newspaper articles aren't reliable sources. As was stated above by another editor, this is a controversial event, and cannot be deemed reliably sourced if the only sources provided are Polish-POV. I'm fine with the title as is though. Parsecboy 05:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Polish sources just as perfectly appropriate as similar Russian sources (although English sources are preferred) according to WP:SOURCE#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. It only says: "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.". Note that this is only about direct quotation. It does not matter if there are any English sources claiming the same. There are no any reasons for concern here. Looks like a minor disagreement that does not worth your time. Biophys 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: According to WP:SOURCE, "In general, sources of questionable reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.". There is nothing here about "scholar" or  "non-scholar" sources. Journalists usually have no PhD degree. ANY newspaper with editorial oversight qualify. Of course one can challenge reliability of a certain newspaper or publication (in the respective article). But that should  be done using other reliable sources. Our personal opinions cost nothing.Biophys 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse analysis - you summarized my lenghty explanations in few points, thank you.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns 

message: Editorially-controlled, fact-checked, mainstream newspapers are reliable sources. Information may certainly be sourced to them. If you disagree with what's in the newspaper, or believe they've made an error, the solution is to write to the newspaper in question, explaining why you believe they are in error. If they publish a subsequent correction, you may certainly cite that. You may also find another source (for example, a peer-reviewed scholarly paper) which may be of greater reliability than the newspaper, and disagrees with some of its findings. In that case, you may certainly bring up that source material. What you may not do, is use your own interpretations. If you believe further study into the matter is required, encourage people to do that. But this is not the place to correct any perceived errors made by sources. If you have strong evidence of an error in a source, ask them to correct. If they won't, ask someone else to investigate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Sources provided by Piotr are as good as most other sources in WP (see my arguments above). There is absolutely nothing special in this article and sources. What is the reason for such long discussion? If every article was discussed like that, no one would be able to work in WP. This is especially frustrating since such productive editor as Piotr could create a couple of new articles instead of this useless discussion. Biophys 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Another related question. There is a :Category:Japanese war crimes.  This is not :Category:War crimes in Japan.  One could suggest a couple of similar broad categories like Nazi war crimes (there is only article about this subject) and Soviet war crimes or even Communist war crimes where this aricle belongs.Biophys 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly they seem like useful categories, although probably better discussed at Talk:War crime than here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would think because NAZI is more specific than plain old German. Parsecboy 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Just like we say Soviet or Muscovy, or Polish-Lithuanian, or Prussian...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it refers to a more specific period of time. The Soviet Union was a distinct political entity that existed from 1917-1991. Nazi Germany was a similar such entity, just like the Weimar Republic that preceded it and West/East Germanies that followed. The point is, Nazi war crimes are totally unrelated to those that may have been committed by the German Empire during WWI or the Franco-Prussian War; therefore the distinction must be made. Parsecboy 08:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New categories?

message: Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes against humanity category removal