Jump to content

Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeWar crimes in occupied Poland during World War II was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed

B-class review

[edit]

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. Additionally, there are numerous sections that are just "see also". They should be filled with content for this article to be comprehensive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with article, September 2013

[edit]

The article is incomprehensible in its present form. All there is, is an out of control barrage of internal links split into superfluous themes. Unnecessary bullet points constantly break the train of thought. The article needs prose, not just "tidbits" of data. Poeticbent talk 04:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'm trying to make this article read like a concise, yet comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. Please bear with me. It's a slow going process. Poeticbent talk 06:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to thank user Jniech and others for compiling the raw data included in this article, because without specifics, this would only be a mere fork ready to be merged back into other similar articles in this series. Poeticbent talk 19:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked on this article it was nothing more that Nazi German crimes. Due to my commitment elsewhere meant I never finished it. Thanks to Poeticbent for improving it. If you ever need me to check sources then please do ask. Jniech (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:B-Class criteria

[edit]

Article has been checked according to WikiProject article quality grading scheme in the following categories.

Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problems

[edit]

While it's uncontestable that the Polish people suffered terribly during the occupation of their country, this article does not appear to mention the crimes conducted by Poles. While many, many Poles sheltered or provided other forms of assistance to Jews, others actively helped with the Holocaust: [1]. The article covers repression of Poles after the war, but does not note the killings of Jewish survivors by Poles [2] or the harsh conditions suffered by the ethnic Germans who were expelled from Poland. I don't mean to suggest that there was anything which remotely approaches moral equivalence between the appalling conduct of the Germans and Soviets, but an article on "crimes" needs to acknowledge that some Poles also committed "crimes". Nick-D (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not easy to keep the perspective in this area. The subject is part of the Holocaust industry with new books published every day, without any assessment from the broader community of historians. Your first link speaks about the book by Jan Grabowski from Toronto, about a rural town of Dąbrowa Tarnowska in southeastern Poland. The book is called Rescue for money: paid helpers in Poland, 1939-1945. I don't know if the subject can be classified as a war crime, or perhaps series of morally reprehensible acts. Again, I did not read the book.(see: launch in Polish)
Your second link is an attack page based on a well advertised "massacre at Kielce, in which 42 Jews were killed..." The controversy, however, is not mentioned in it, stemming from the Soviet NKVD presence in Kielce. The tone of that article is troubling. We have a big article about Kielce pogrom. It needs to be mentioned here. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 04:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Economist is an "attack page"? In regards to your response to the first link I provided, is all the content of this article restricted to actions which were established to be "crimes"? Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that crimes committed by Poles are relevant here. Would you add crimes committed by Jews to Holocaust? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is "World War II crimes in occupied Poland", so it's clearly relevant: if the article retains such a broad title you can't justify picking and choosing so that it only includes crimes committed against Poles. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: The Economist. Not sure, why you quote business and world economy magazine with no stake in historical research of the World War II crime in Eastern Europe? We all know, it's a good magazine, especially for those who believe in the free market and western perspective in world politics. However, you don't need to be Einstein to assess a short newsbyte, not signed except for initials. It is a nasty old propaganda trick to use unassessed "monster quotes" in stimulating emotional response. "Mini-Holocaust" he said? Read the writing on the wall. Poeticbent talk 16:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article focuses on state actions mostly, if we would want to shift focus on actions comitted by each particular ethnic group from pre-war Poland, the shift would need to detail actions by ethnic Germans(the largest group actively involved in active genocide actions and sending people to concentration camps) in Selbstschutz, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and entities like Jewish Ghetto Police. At this moment this would require re-writing the whole article, and I don't see how the lead could be changed without giving undue focus to non-state actions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. However, if the article is actually about Crimes committed by the German and Soviet governments in Occupied Poland it should be moved to that name (or something like it) rather that the current very broad name. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the version I wrote there were sections on Polish, Jewish and Lithuanian crimes. Therefore I agree with Nick-D about crimes in the war but not post war. Jniech (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GA comments

[edit]

Few citations are needed, cite requests added. See also seems too long, please make sure there are no duplicate links and incorporate as much of it as possible into the body. Some references need proper formatting, for example [3] only has a title, ditto for [4] (which also raises a reliability flag). At least one url ref is bare. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Article name misleading

[edit]

The article name is misleading, there are no burglaries, thefts, fraud offences etc recorded. Suggest rename to World War II war crimes in occupied Poland or similar. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that works Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Poeticbent talk 22:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Gday. Per WP:LEADLENGTH an article of this size (100 kb) should have approx 3-4 paragraphs. This one only has one very short paragraph at this stage so it doesn't really summarise the article. I'm not familiar enough with the content to fix this, but if anyone else is looking for a way to assist the improvement of this article that might be a place to start. Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article "promotion"

[edit]

I have reverted the "promotion" of this article to GA status, for reasons explained here. I would ask that any discussion of this take place on the GAN talk page, not here, but I appreciate that some interested in this article may not have been aware of that discussion. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews were also Poles

[edit]

This article talks about Poles and Jews as if they were different. No matter what their religion they were all Polish. I have attempted to give some balance by using for example; "50 Poles, seven of them Jews" etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews are also an ethnicity - separate from religion - there are Christian Jews.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement

[edit]

This is a VERY big subject and will always be difficult to accomplish in one article. Can I suggest using a more summary style. There is already the Nazi crimes against the Polish nation article, which duplicates part of this one. If there was also a separate article Soviet World War II, war crimes in occupied Poland, both those articles could more easily be brought to GA standard. Then this one could, as an overview, using summary style link to the others. It could then be the lead in a three article Good Topic. Any thoughts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Jim Sweeney here. Poeticbent, I know you want to be thorough, but listing the number of Poles and/or Jews killed in every village is somewhat excessive. I see you do this in "Indiscriminate executions by firing squad", "German pacifications of Polish settlements", "Soviet executions of civilian prisoners", and "Ukrainian massacres in occupied Poland". This goes against the Wikipedia policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", particularly "Excessive listing of statistics".
But on another level, Poeticbent, it's hard to read the article with these excessively long list of statistics presented in prose. They would read much easier in list form. For that reason, I suggest starting a new article titled List of war crimes in occupied Poland during World War II and moving the long lists of statistics there. You don't need to necessarily remove the long lists entirely, just move them to a more appropriate location. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please have a discussion here about the possible solution? I totally agree that in the context of war 1 man shot in passing in Tuchola on 8 September 1939 is insignificant. Mentioning it becomes problematic. But in the preceding line, there is the Częstochowa massacre of 4 September 1939 with more than 1,000 Polish and Jewish civilians shot dead by the Wehrmacht, one of the first mass killing of this sort in World War II. Where do we draw the line? – These are the examples of war crimes that justify the existence of this entry. Poeticbent talk 04:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about a hundred or more? AmericanLemming (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, any decission we make is going to be perceived as purely arbitrary. How about a dozen or more? I've noticed that "a dozen dead victims" is the phrase used more commonly including by the Holocaust Museum. Poeticbent talk 19:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do that for now, I suppose. It won't remove very many entries, but I probably need to read through the article in its entirety before I can get a better idea of how to improve the long lists of statistics included here and there. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also thinking of combining strings of references into a single reference i.e. [1][2][3][4] → [x]; [49][51][52][21][48] → [y]; [48][62][63][64] → [z]; and so on, using Template:Refn, but I have to refresh my memory about how to set it up. Poeticbent talk 06:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank-you

[edit]

As I finally begin my copy-edit/proofread/peer review of this article, I'd like to thank @Anotherclown, @Jim Sweeney, and @GraemeLeggett for stepping in on such short notice to help improve the article. I would have gladly helped out myself, but I was plenty busy trying to mediate an incredibly acrimonious dispute. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

At present, I'm just listing instances of awkward and/or unclear wording that I don't know how to fix at the moment. I'm doing this as I go along so I don't forget any. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from peer review

First third: Sections 1-3

The invasion of Poland (September 1939)

  • "Records show that during the first month of the Wehrmacht advance across Poland, over 2,500 civilians were murdered (600 of them Jews) in at least 35 different locations." I really think that this paragraph does not read well, and I think a cutoff higher than 12 would greatly improve the readability. If you think 100 is too high, how about 50? AmericanLemming (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I prefer to keep it brief for the overall size of article. Poeticbent talk 20:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. You want to keep every instance where 12 or more Poles were killed, but you don't want to have a short paragraph on a massacre where 1,000 people died? Wikipedia:Article size says there's nothing wrong at all with having an article that has 50 kB of readable prose; the article currently has 47 kB. The World War II article has 78 kB and 12,691 words, way above the recommended maximum limit of 10,000 words. This article currently has 7400 words, so we're well within the 10,000 word limit. Would you mind explaining your reasoning here? I'm not demanding that you add a paragraph just for the Częstochowa massacre; I just want to understand where you're coming from. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Light bulb iconB Thanks for asking AmericanLemming. To get an idea about what I mean, please take a look at the last subsection I worked on: "Indiscriminate executions by firing squad" Before GAN, it was made up of 385 words (2,737 characters with spaces). As of now – after my overhaul with all the necessary clarifications – the same section is composed of 663 words or 4,415 characters with spaces (160% increase). At this rate, the article will reach the recommended maximum limit of 10,000 words well before its renomination.
ClockC Anyhow, it took me two days of meticulous research trying to find a single proof of wp:original research based on summarizing our Wikipedia numbers, instead of summarizing sources. It was added by Jim Sweeney in his 12 January 2014 edit. Quote: "Records show that during the first month of the Wehrmacht advance across Poland, over 2,500 civilians were murdered, (600 of them Jews) ..." This is definitely not helpful. I realized yesterday for the first time that Jim Sweeney summarized these numbers himself from copytext. Please look at what the source says about them. One quote from Browning (p. 443, note 99): "in September [1939] alone the total number of executions in Danzig and Pomerania was 11,000 out of a total of 16,000 for all of Poland." (end of quote). Another quote, this is from Piotrowski: “By the end of 1939, over 40,000 people had died in the annexed territories and some 5,000 in the General Government... By 1944, over 52,000 persons had died in occupied Poland, many by execution.” (end of quote) – I was unable to confirm the number of civilians who died in executions committed by Wehrmacht throughout September but the total number of executions (16,000) has already been confirmed. Meanwhile, you reinstated WP:OR although it wasn't supported by a citation as oppose to my revision of that erroneous statement which it was. Poeticbent talk 18:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Well, you could take out some of info on the smaller massacres (and summarize them at the beginning of the paragraph, as long as that's not considered original research), and then add some more info on the Częstochowa massacre. But we can leave it be for now. If we still have some words left over when we're done, we might be able to let it have its own paragraph.
2. Hmm. I thought that statement was sourced in the first inline citation in the paragraph, and I wasn't sure why you removed it. But even if it is unsourced, aren't allowed to add up numbers that appear in reliable sources? AmericanLemming (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the claim of 2,500 casualties summed up without looking at reliable sources was more than just original research. It was misinformation. Although not deliberate, it wasted a lot of my time. Poeticbent talk 15:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Poeticbent, I'm sorry to hear that. In that case, I think we'll leave this issue alone. We've spent enough words talking about this one issue, and there are plenty of other things we can do to improve the article. I don't entirely agree with you that on summing up numbers from reliable sources is original research, but I am willing to respect your opinion on the matter. I still need to go through the second two-thirds of the article, anyway. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Widawa (3 September), Rabbi burned to death," This doesn't even meet the 12 cutoff. I understand that you're trying to bring some personal touches to this article, but what we're trying to achieve is an overview of the subject. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][18][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]" This concentration of references looks rather unsightly, and it doesn't help the reader know which statistic can be found in which source. I know it might be a lot of work to intersperse them throughout the paragraph, but I think it would improve things greatly. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Do you mean to bring back citations after each and every city (with corresponding date)? — This is how they were set up originally. Restoring it wouldn't be that difficult. Poeticbent talk 22:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Readibility much improved with additional formatting. Poeticbent talk 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, what do you think about at least rewording this paragraph? As it stands it's basically a giant run-on sentence. If you were to add a few periods here and there, I think it would make it a whole lot easier to read. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Along with civilians, captured Polish Army soldiers were also massacred." This paragraph is very short compared to the previous one. Expanding it would help balance the article's coverage of POWs who were executed. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 20:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Poeticbent talk 20:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second third Last third

First third: Sections 1-3

[edit]
  • "for the first time since the end of the war categorized as violations of fundamental human values and norms" When were they last categorized as violations of fundamental human values and norms? During the war? Before the war?

I keep thinking about the issue of listing all known incidents of civilian killings, and I admit we want to put a face on the victims. But an article isn't really the place to do that. I've said this before, but what do you think of starting an article titled [List of war crimes in occupied Poland during World War II]]? It would make this article much easier to read. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The number of civilians wounded or killed by aerial bombing is put at over 100,000" Is that in the first month alone? What's the time frame here? AmericanLemming (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""The scale and extent of the brutality practised in occupied Poland far exceeded anything experienced in other occupied countries."" I don't mean to take away from Poland's suffering in World War II, which was certainly far greater than that of any countries in Western Europe occupied by the Nazis. But I think you can make the argument that the Soviet Union suffered nearly as much if not as much from summer 1941 through 1945. Perhaps you could clarify this statement? If nothing else, I think you said attribute it to whoever said it. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uniformed men captured in Rohatyń were murdered along with their wives and children" Do we know how many? AmericanLemming (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the Ukrainian front 5,264 officers (including ten generals), 4,096 non-commissioned officers and 181,223 soldiers." You're missing a verb here. Were these all executed, or did they just surrender? AmericanLemming (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cultural destruction of Kresy" I think it would be worthwhile to mention that Kresy = Eastern pre-war Poland = zone of Soviet occupation. I only figured that out by looking at the Kresy article. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "concocted premises of class struggle" Is this what the source says? If so, I would suggest putting it in quotes and/or attributing it to the source. It's a somewhat loaded statement (and I agree with it personally), but we might want to emphasize the fact that the source said it. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the remains of King Stanisław August Poniatowski were ditched" Do you mean that they threw his remains in a ditch? What exactly did they do with the remains? AmericanLemming (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but gave them blatantly absurd equal value." So was the zloty worth more than the ruble? I think that would be worth mentioning. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good place to stop. I'm getting pretty tired, and it's going to take you a while to address my concerns above. As usual, I think some of them go beyond what' s required for GA status. Addressing them will improve the article, but are they absolutely necessary to achieve GA status? I have no idea. Probably not. But after this article's first review for GA, you may want to go beyond the GA criteria just to be on the safe side. But it's all up to you. Fixing all of these comments would take a long time. I'm just here to give you some suggestions on how to improve the article. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did a terrific job as always, AmericanLemming. Thank you for the peer review, I will be addressing your questions progressively, top to bottom as usual. Poeticbent talk 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Poeticbent: My apologies for not getting back to you yet. I hope to do so tomorrow afternoon, although I might not finish the peer review itself until the end of the week. I've been a little busy with my studies. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Poeticbent: Update: I will not be able to look at the article this afternoon, but I will do so tonight. I will look at all the changes you've made since I began the peer review and determine whether or not I think you've addressed the comments you say are done. I apologize once again for the delay. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Poeticbent: Update: I'm going to begin looking over your changes now. Since you are in the middle of working on the article, I'll try to stay out of your way and only edit the talk page for now. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, AmericanLemming. Please go ahead, it's all yours, until tomorrow. Poeticbent talk 06:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Poeticbent: Update: I've now finished looking at all the edits you've made so far this week, copy-edited them as I saw the need to, and moved all of the comments which I consider to now be addressed. Feel free to revert any of my edits; you know a lot more about this topic than I do, and I may have accidentally introduced some factual errors. I will probably continued the peer review starting Thursday or Friday night, but I'll try to keep up with any additional changes you make to the article between now and then. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Poeticbent: Update: I don't think I'll be able to continue the peer review, or at least not anytime soon. I undertook it mainly to cheer you up after the disastrous GA review, and I thought that I would be able to finish it before my professors really started piling on the work. However, I was wrong in that regard; I'm taking second semester organic chemistry, organic chemistry lab, advanced German conversation, advanced Spanish conversation, and sociology, and I really don't have time to do the article justice. I'm sorry for saying that I would do a peer review and then not keeping my word, but real life trumps Wikipedia editing, I'm afraid. I'd still be willing to co-nominate Treblinka at FAC if you want (I even have a blurb all ready for the renomination). Let me know what you think. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally understand. Good luck with your studies. They are infinitely more important than this. I have also continued editing this article in order to offset the bad feelings from recent past. I think I can continue with whatever comments you've made, not to mention those left by MarcusBritish before his block. Please let me know when your schedule would again allow you to return to addressing the anticipated new comments resulting from Treblinka FAC renomination. I'm sure you have a pretty good idea about the timeframe of your college obligations. We'll wait with new FAC until then. Poeticbent talk 05:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the various smaller killings, rather than attempting to list them all it would be better to summarise them. eg a sentence or two alogn the lines of "as well as the larger massacres, [insert number] were killed in incidents in [another number] of small settlements between [date] and [another date]". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second third: Sections 4-6

[edit]
  • "The Selbstschutz, along with SS units, took an active part in the mass murders in Piaśnica, in which between 12,000 and 16,000 Polish civilians were murdered." This sentence, along with the one before it, probably needs an inline citation. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • AB-Aktion and Operation Tannenburg aren't the same thing, right? As a side note, I think this paragraph probably should be expanded; right now AB-Aktion and Operation Tannenburg get one sentence each. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in destruction of villages and towns in the path of Polish defense lines." What exactly does "in the path of Polish defense lines" mean? Were they on the front? Was the Polish army retreating through these villages and towns? AmericanLemming (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between 2 October – 7 November 1939, over 8,866 Poles were klilled (53 of them Jews)." Is the 8,866 figure from a reliable source? In the first FAC you said you put inline citations in the lead of Treblinka because "stats are controversial". We probably should put an inline citation here, then. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they were gassed with carbon monoxide delivered in metal tanks." You mean "metal tanks" as in "metal container", not "vehicles with large turrets and treads", right? AmericanLemming (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last third: Sections 7-10

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to renominate this for Good Article status?

[edit]

My impression from a brief perusal is that this article failed Good Article 3 years ago seemingly at least partly to placate a very combative reviewer who shortly thereafter got indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for that kind of behavior. With 3 years of subsequent mods, and that reviewer no longer a problem, is it time to renominate? (Note: I won't be doing so myself as I know far too little about the criteria, and am not particularly interested in whether it passes or fails - I'm just mildly interested in what, if anything, the fate of the article may or may not tell us about the effect of certain kinds of editor on Wikipedia). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

[edit]

Massacres

[edit]

The Germans burned about 2,000 Jews in the Great Synagogue (Białystok) on 27 June 1941, so the problem didn't start in 1943. Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ponary and Glinciszki were Lithuanian crimes

[edit]

I have removed the links from Ukrainian section. Xx236 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility and punishments

[edit]

See also

[edit]

The "See also" section is a to-do list. Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A similar problem
  • Auschwitz-Birkenau
See also:
The listed problems should be described in the text, See also doesn't solve the problem.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of the Kielce cemetery massacre 45 Jewish children were shot by the Germans on a cemetery

[edit]

The phrase is unsourced and put into wrong place.Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The author is blocked, so I'm removing the phrase.Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spam or vandalism?

[edit]

The link has been removed by Icewhiz https://en.truthaboutcamps.eu/ > I believe that the link should be used. Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added by an editor with a COI (+ involved in socking). This is a partisan source maintained by a revisionist organization engaged in public diplomacy - it shouldn't be here. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion. I don't write here my opinion about your vandalism in tens of pages. Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is Yad Vashem much better than the IPN?Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Name one error in https://en.truthaboutcamps.eu/ and I'll demand correction of it. Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You reject any information about German crimes. It's a form of Holocaust revisionism. Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial to victims of Nazism in occupied Poland during World War II, Kraków

[edit]

I don't know the memorial. It's from Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp. The monument isn't notable, it isn't described in this Wikipedia. The picture should be iconic. Auschwitz or destroied Warsaw?Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: Why not both Since the Auschwitz 2 camp picture is one of the most iconic pictures of history and then the Warsaw picture Jack90s15 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please change the picture.Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To what? and I am not good with doing pictures I am sill learning @Xx236: Jack90s15 (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed, is it O.K.?Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xx236: Is there any way to get both in the info box ? Jack90s15 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Warsaw contains a number of pictures in the infobox. But such synthesis should be studious, a bllck-and-white plus a color picture don't look good.Xx236 (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NKVD massacres

[edit]

I added citation to the caption of the image portraying the Lwów victims: [5]. I had originally made a correction because the previous caption stated:

  • [[File:Victims of Soviet NKVD in Lvov, June 1941.jpg|thumb|left|Corpses of Poles murdered by the Soviet [[NKVD]] in [[Lwów]], June 1941]] -- diff.

Given that pre-war Poland was a multi-ethnic stated, it's worthwhile to provide this additional information. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I agree that the previous caption was problematic (WP:OR), but so is the current one ([6]). We don't know who are the victims in the photo, maybe Poles, maybe Ukraininas, maybe Jews, maybe some other ethnicity. And a caption is not the best place for discussion of Lviv's ethnicity composition. At the very least I suggest moving the sentence about the ethnic composition to the article's body, where it would be more relevant, assuming there is of course a good place for such an note in this article. PS. Are you sure that the added source is reliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved / expanded the text: [7]. I also fixed my error in re: location; I must have misremembered since the content/source comes from Lviv pogroms (1941). The source looks reliable; its publisher is Amsterdam University Press. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 9 2021 - murdered nuns story

[edit]

The news services have issued a story about the bodies of seven nuns found murdered by Soviets after the re-conquest of Poland in WWII - from what I've seen so far, they are sensationalist and lacking scholarly prose - but, that may change in the coming days - any editors interested? --> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/archaeologists-uncover-skeletons-catholic-nuns-who-were-murdered-russian-soldiers-wwii-180977184/HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - looks like the Polish story was issued in Nov 2020? >> https://poszukiwania.ipn.gov.pl/bbp/aktualnosci/15631,Olsztyn-Poszukiwania-szczatkow-siostr-zakonnych-ofiar-sowieckich-zolnierzy.html?search=80150832605 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of poles killed by Germans for sheltering Jews

[edit]

So, this article states that the number of poles that were killed by Germans for sheltering Jews was 1335, listed in the Jewish ghettos section.

However, this article claims the total number throughout the entire war years was 800.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939

It cites the Ryszard Walczak et al. (eds.), Those Who Helped: Polish Rescuers of Jews During the Holocaust (Warszawa: IPN, 1997).

What should be done? FIREYSUNSET (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_occupied_Poland_during_World_War_II&oldid=1264143094"