Talk:Rainiai massacre

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming discussion

Rainiai massacre is indeed the best name here. The word "massacre" on itself is not POV, it merely explains the situation when many people are killed at one place; and it was without trial, thus not really executions. It was similar to Katyn massacre and that article is titled massacre, similarly to many other articles in Wikipedia. Furthermore, what is also important, "Rainiai massacre" gets more hits on Google. Please discuss name changes. Thanks in advance. Burann 12:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Katyn massacre was not a massacre, as was many times argued by different editors on the appropriate talk page. It is the name which has stuck in English usage. Many executions of the Stalinist period were not preceded by trials, this didn't make them "massacres" however. Please stop silly revert warring and do something useful. --Ghirla | talk 12:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And the case is similar here, Rainiai massacre as well stuck in the English usage more than Rainiai executions as google search easily proves. Naming a killing of Poles to be a massacre, while a similar killing of non-Poles just 'executions' is a clear pro-Polish bia. Burann 12:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You comparisons are not appropriate. Katyn claimed the lives of thousands, of the entire generation of Polish intelligetsia. When 70 people are executed by the country's legitimate authorities, it is not massacre. It is repression and/or execution. I would support the move of Katyn Massacre to a more neutral title, however. --Ghirla | talk 12:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

However, as with examples I given here and at Medininkai massacre, you can see that the number of those killed is not the main indication on werether the event is a massacre or not; it is more how it was carried away what is important, werether it fits the description of "massacre". And similarly, massacres carried out by legitimate authorities can still be and are considered massacres - e.g. Tlatelolco massacre. It doesn't matters who are those massacred - fascists, communists, Jews, blacks, Poles, nationalists, Russians, Lithuanians, students, elders or such - for that definition. If you support moving of Katyn massacre, then you should attempt to do that also. Burann 13:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As well, it is doubtful what the legitimate autorities were at the time, as the Soviet government was already removed from power (and in Lithuania Soviet government came to power illegally as well - situation differed from that in Latvia and Estonia, I could explain more if you'd want). DeirYassin 13:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept the opinion of community. Let's see what other editors think. I don't know anything about those executed - whether they were guerilla fighters, members of the Lithuanian military resistance, or those sympathizing with the Nazis? If such was the case, then it was not a massacre. As best I understand, the term denotes the killing of civilians, usually without any political background, as, for example, was the case in Novocherkassk. --Ghirla | talk 13:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The account of communist Domas Rocius explains about some of those killed and their crimes. They weren't belonging to any groups that you have mentioned. Some of them seem to have had large ammounts of land prior to 1940 summer (according to the account), others took part in politics then (e.g. were members of parliament, had adminsitrative or legislative jobs). As such, they were arrested once the Soviets came and maybe wouldn't have been executed (probably would have been deported to Siberia(?)), but the revolt and war, as is stated in the article, made the leaders of the prison guards to organize the massacre so that these people would not be freed. As for Lithuania not taking part in World War 2 - Soviet Union and Nazi Germany definitely took part in it, and Lithuania was under control of these countries for most of WW2, including 1941. So, we have to do voting as for the name of the article? Burann 13:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's how such edit conflicts are normally solved. --Ghirla | talk 13:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. Correct the poll if it is not according to wiki style. Burann 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move: Rainiai executions →Rainiai massacre

Should the article be moved back to its original name "Rainiai massacre" per reasons listed above?

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support --Burann 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (For the reasons specified in the discussion above. It gets more google hits and deciding on what the event was, as well common practice of naming such events in Wikipedia, I think such name fits better.)
• Oppose. Ditto. --Ghirla | talk 14:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A more common name and it doesn't seems POV on itself, many articles are named massacres as it had been mentioned already by Burann. --DeirYassin 14:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The same extrajudicial killing happened in many places; see eg NKVD massacres of prisoners. mikka (t) 18:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Again, I don't really care. Both work for me. Renata 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The move would make it more in line with "Malmedy Massacre" and the like. Kazak 04:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Illegal execution is called massacre and I fail to understand why does Ghirlandajo hate the word so much. Halibutt 12:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For all of the reasons given above. --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It seems irrelevent to me whether the event was technically a set of extrajudicial executions or a massacre – Rainiai massacre is the most common name, so best fits the Wikipedia convention of Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. The Boston Tea Party wasn't a tea party, but no-one would suggest changing its name to something more accurate. Jll 15:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For the reasons already specified by the others. --_Lysy^talk 14:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not how it is done. First of all, this must be announced at WP:RM, for broad participation. (done) mikka (t) 18:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't edit so absent-mindedly. The article was announced there, just look more carefully. —Ghirla | talk 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But the listing procedure was incomplete: the sticker was not slappen on the talk page, and it did not fall into the category:Requested moves. mikka (t) 19:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.