Talk:Parośla I massacre

Military history: European / Polish / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	World War II task force

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV tag

The reason I added a NPOV tag to this article is that while this was a very real massacre, a very brutal massacre, and a very notable massacre - in that it pretty much was the one that opened up the massacres in Volhynnia, the article is still written in a very propagandistic style. It appears that the text is more concerned with exciting the readers' emotions (with grisly tales of gratuitous violence) rather than explaining what happened in an encyclopedic tone.

This was an important event, it's the kind of an event that should be described in an encyclopedia but not in the way it's being written.VolunteerMarek 03:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough to claim about "propagandic style". Please cite examples of this style. GlaubePL (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we lie about this massacre to reach "encyclopedic tone"?--Paweł5586 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about "lying" but it is about presenting the event in an encyclopedic tone. You seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive but that's just not true. Anyway, I think I've removed the excessive language that was present so I'll remove the tag that I put in. Also, the one thing that this article is missing is an "Significance" section - this was the first massacre of an entire village which basically kicked off the wider massacres and that should be emphasized. The fact that Perehijniak got killed soon after and the fact that this event has sometimes been portrayed by UPA sympathizers as an action against Germans should also probably be included.VolunteerMarek 23:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that POW captured by Soviets would not be an RS, but was reverted without explanation [1]. Can we really be using persons in such a position as sources for such detail? Surely there are better sources.--Львівське (говорити) 20:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This information is supported by reliable historian, no need for template.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing Motyka, I'm disputing the reliability of an interrogated POW to give an account of events. Something like this would need better sources; like Motyka himself confirming this is what happened as an historian who has reviewed the events thoroughly.--Львівське (говорити) 23:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things.

1. Which Motyka book is this? I looked very quickly at the "Od Rzezi..." and didn't see it there. I might have missed it though and I'll check again.

2. This issue is similar to the one brought up here [2] - if we should trust a reliable source like Snyder in deciding whether or not information from a propaganda pamphlet is useful or not, likewise we can trust another reliable source like Motyka in deciding whether particular information from a POW is useful or not.VolunteerMarek 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) There's a difference between written documents and coerced testimony. The fact still remains, did Motyka judge this to be a source for his work to document events, or was he simply quoting the POW without being critical of it? --Львівське (говорити) 23:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way. Unless he was explicitly critical of it, then he is presenting information from it as legitimate. Like I said, I didn't see the relevant passage in the book, but I'll have to check again. I guess there is a difference between a written propaganda pamphlet and coerced testimony but I'm not sure which way that one actually falls. Both are potentially problematic primary sources - but that's why we leave it to professional historians to judge to what extent information (and it is still information) from these can be used. And that's why we just cite the historians, not the original primary documents.VolunteerMarek 23:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]