← Archive 1 (2004–2008) • Archive 2 (2008–2010) • Current discussion →
Why does this page even exist? Isn't Wikipedia a compendium of facts?
This page is the very definition of POV, because to call something an atrocity is to define it within one's own moral view point. Unless someone can come up with a rigid and unambiguous definition of atrocity, this page should be deleted.
Not only is this page not NPOV, but I was reading over the articles on "Original Research", and I think some of this qualifies.
"Origin of this policy: the opinion of Wikipedia's founder
Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows...
An article that 'makes no new low-level claims', but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one. ... I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" (WikiEN-l, December 6, 2004)."
Non-standard interpretation of history? Makes no new low-level claims? That sounds just like half of these incidents to me.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to espouse their own theories, no matter how accurate they may be, because Wikipedians do not have the specialized knowledge necessary to verify theories. If the theory is not widely accepted by the community most capable of falsifying it (in this case, academia), then it has no place in Wikipedia. If you want to keep this article, I suggest that you redefine it in a sense which clearly labels it as interpretation, or that removes the interpretation from it. If this article doesn't receive some attention soon, I'm going to begin the process of deletion. -- 72.240.124.125 11:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in objective honesty! This page purely is propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.171.3 ( talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the connection between the Kaunas pogrom and Poland? I believe that the link should be removed, the same the other one about Kaunas. Xx236 ( talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It was a German organized maasacre rather than a pogrom. Xx236 ( talk) 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JewsandPoles/message/111 Xx236 ( talk) 14:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
We make an effort to say Soviet terror rather than Russian terror as many of the perpetrators were non-Russian and to say "Russian terror" would imply the will of the Russian people. Should we lend the same consideration to the crimes of the Nazi state? - Schrandit ( talk) 14:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The article accurately reflects the references, which are many. If you any concerns then say which and I will double check source but from memory they state German not Nazi hence the article reflects this. Jniech ( talk) 08:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Editor of Wikipedia are meant to reflect the sources not their personal views. This article reflects the sources. The change you want appears too simply be to match your personal views.
Further the argument doesn’t hold as Soviet doesn’t mean Russia. Nazi however does mean the government of Germany. Therefore Nazi is associated with Germany and Austria only but Soviet is associated to 15 different modern day countries.
Put it another way, it was the army of German which attacked Poland and carried out many of the atrocities it wasn’t the Nazi army. It wasn’t the army of Russia but the Soviet Union which invaded Poland. The article reflects this. Jniech ( talk) 08:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The article already has sections for Soviet, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian and Lithuanian crimes. If a crime can be put down to a particular group then it should be done in this article. If/when I find crimes by French SS volunteers in Poland then they will appear as such.
You basically want to write out Germans from this article which means those who were primary victims such as Jews and Poles have to face up to their crimes but the Germans can hide behind the word Nazi.
If you disagree with the article then change it PROVIDED you put enough references to support. I used almost two hundred to support the work I did on the article and stand behind it as fairly reflecting their views expressed in the sources used. Jniech ( talk) 18:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
If you check the article prior to my first edit, then there were no sections for any crimes beyond German/Nazi. I added all the sections on crimes by Soviets, Poles, Jews, etc. Tell me which crimes you plan to say were German as I doubt you plan any which means Soviets, Jews and Poles who suffered at the hands of the Germans will be named but you plan to hide German crimes behind the word Nazi. I accept non-Germans committed crimes but the bulk of the crimes were by Germans.
Anyway edit the article BUT please ensure you put sources to support changes. I stand by this article fairly reflects the sources used. Jniech ( talk) 19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What I think has no bearing on this article as editors of Wikipedia must simple use existing work NOT try to do original research.
Answering your question merely in the hope we can move on, it is impossible to say.
German crimes are simpler as it was the German government which authorized it making Germany ultimately responsible. Further the bulk of the crimes were done by the German army, police and similar. Collaborators such as Polish, Jewish and Ukrainians were generally kept separate such as the Blue police and Ukrainian SS units. This makes it easier to separate their crimes into sections.
The Soviet leadership authorised crimes such as Katyn massacre on behalf of all the republics which I believe make up 15 modern day countries. I don’t know that much about the make up of Soviet armed forces but apart from a few units such as the Polish army, the Soviet Union appears not to have this division.
Put it this way, the gulag were set-up by the leadership of all Soviet republics, the camps in occupied Poland by the German authorities not on behalf of others such as their allies Finland and Hungary.
Still in my personal writing I do say Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia BUT this is out of line with standard writings hence I don’t use it when editing Wikipedia.
Anyway back to the issue. If you have proof of crimes committed by Slovakia for example then start a section. If a crime is currently reported as German but you believe Russia collaborators did it then you should challenge. Currently there is nothing about Slovakia crimes as I unaware of them. Crimes by collaborators are stated e.g. in the Warsaw Uprising atrocities section it states “In Ochota district, civilian killings, rapes, and looting were conducted by the members of Russian collaborators from SS-Sturmbrigade RONA.”
To my knowledge the article fairly reflects sources but I am happy to check any individual source you feel maybe wrongly used in the article. Jniech ( talk) 08:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
In 1939 the Polish army under the Polish government control defended Poland. The fact it was made up of Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Belarusian and others likely including some ethnic Germans, does not stop it being the Polish army. The fact the pre-war government was authoritarian does not stop it being the Polish government. The fact parts of Poland were claimed by others and modern day Poland has different borders, does not stop it being Poland.
It doesn’t matter if we agree or disagree, as your and my views are not important. What is important is what can be shown as original research is banned on Wikipedia. Please do edit the article BUT ensure you put sources to support any changes. I stand by this article fairly reflecting the sources used. Jniech ( talk) 10:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You claim “Many, if not most of the sources say Nazi, “. Remember these are your sources. I had a quick read and they appear to use German far more often than Nazi.
For example ( http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/wwii/special.studies/katyn.massacre/katynlrc.txt)
You pick up “the Nazi government, whose troops occupied” which simply mean Nazi Germany in my mind. You completely ignored
It a long article hence I may have missed some but I made it 8 references supporting the idea the German occupied Eastern Europe to 1 for Nazi occupation. That hardly seems to support your case.
If you like we go over each of the example you think support your case. Like us start with
( http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005473)
Let see what support your case for using Nazi:
That seems to be 6 points to you.
That’s 10 points to me.
It clear to me that you must accept that using German for the occupation, crimes, etc is fully supported by your references but occasional they abbreviate Nazi Germany to Nazi. The alternative is these articles make no sense as they claim both Germans and Nazis occupied the same land, both the Germans and the Nazis had contempt for Poles, etc. Jniech ( talk) 14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You don’t have to change my mind, merely show proof that your case is valid. Using the reference from the article was silly as they were always going to say German more than Nazi.
Please keep all editors informed of any debate of this page.
Further please note that Nazis are referred in the article e.g. Nazi Germany, Nazis' goal, a Nazi secret program, Nazis in occupied Poland, Nazi terror, Nazi leadership. Nazis upon the city's population, and the end of the Nazi crimes are all in the article. This is done when the sources support the Nazi not German. Jniech ( talk) 18:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/Archive 2 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: Another disclaimer: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This opinion is one of that kind. I don't think that the exact terminology used by the sources is important unless there is clear evidence in the source that the author was specifically making the distinction, in the context in which the work is cited as a source, between the two terms in question. If that is not the case, then I don't think that it's any more original research to change the term for consistency or clarity than it would be to use the alternate term to reword the source to avoid a copyright violation. That being equal, I think that the name of the national government involved should be used, i.e. Germany or Soviet. I know that some of those countries would now like to distance themselves from the acts of groups within their governments during that era, but who they were is who they were. Consider: Would we refer to the Republican Party seizure of Baghdad in 2003? No, we'd refer to the US seizure. The fact that the Republican Party was in control of the US government at the time would not make any difference. The same would be true for any war crimes perpetrated by US forces during that seizure. If a government was a puppet government, such as the Vichy or Lublin governments, I would usually make that distinction clear, especially if there was a government in exile elsewhere. If the crimes were perpetrated by some specific ethnic group or foreign nationals unambiguously working for a government and the fact of their identity was relevant to the context in the article and was supported by the source, I would make that distinction too, making clear both the identity of the individuals and for whom they were working (if not important to the context, I would merely refer to the government for which they were working). But I would not use, for example, Nazi for German simply because there were some Germans who weren't Nazis or merely because the Nazis were a subset of the German government or German people. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 19:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
My thanks to TransporterMan for taking the time to comment on this issue. I would like to discuss your views on original research on your talk page if that would be alright.
I take it by Schrandit reply this has not gotten us further forward?
Regarding the photos that Schrandit has added, the short answer is no it wouldn't be correct and has not been done in this article to my knowledge. The first is a unit made up of Indians called the Indische Legion shown in France. To my knowledge were never in Poland hence couldn’t have committed an atrocities there. The second photo I have no knowledge of. Still both appear to be non-Germans hence if they have carried out atrocities in Poland then I would refer to them as such like I did for the SS-Sturmbrigade RONA to make it clear that unit wasn’t German.
The simple answer to this problem is for Schrandit to say which units were made up mostly of non-Germans, which atrocities they were involved in and those non-Germans inside German units (rather than foreign units) show these non-Germans took part as Hilfswilliger were generally used for supplementary service (e.g. drivers, cooks, hospital attendants, ammunition carriers, messengers) then we can correct the article or add the information. Jniech ( talk) 10:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
My answer to Schrandit would be the number is at the time of the atrocity not at all points of the war. The amount is not important as if you have the details, we can work it for each atrocity e.g. let assume you find out that 50 Germans and 5 Poles took part it in a massacre we could be worded the German unit with a few Poles in their ranks carried out the murders or even simply put the numbers.
There is no way to change the descriptions like with the Soviet army. You can’t use Nazi as not all of them were Nazis (15 million served in the various German forces during WWII, 8 million in the Nazi party assuming ½ were elderly, woman, other non-combatants then somewhere between 1/3 and ¼ of the German forces were Nazis). We can’t use Axis as not all of them took part in atrocities in Poland. There is no word other than German.
Let try a different route. Over at the World War II article it makes many claims about Germany and Germans. Here is a selection of them
Schrandit said “Even though the German Sixth Army was the main body at Stalingrad a quarter of its strength was non-German. Labeling units as German serves no point and is usually incorrect.”
If Schrandit can get German written out of that article, then Schrandit can do what Schrandit likes with this article. Jniech ( talk) 14:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
To Schrandit: Can I suggest you put your comments at the end, as it getting very confusing as I missed some of your comments as they are embedded. Further it maybe worth starting a new section as this one is getting long or even dividing the debate into areas to make it easier to follow.
If a Wermacht unit was half German and half non-German then it is a German unit with a large number of foreign troops. It should be made clear that the crime was not carried out solely by ethnic Germans but Germans were present and had overall control.
Soviet troops simply mean they come from the Soviet Union hence membership of a Soviet is not necessary.
Paul and Schrandit you both appear experienced editors. Do you not agree that Wikipedia encourages article using the same standardises? Now if we can’t call them German in this article, then we can’t in other articles. Does Schrandit plan to challenge the 6th Army (Germany) article as being wrong? The Battle of Stalingrad article? The World War II article? There are thousands of articles on German units that Schrandit claims can’t described as such. If Schrandit doesn’t plan to challenge those articles then why is challenging this article? I repeat that should take this debate to somewhere the debate will involve more editors such as World War II article as would get the input of more editors. Jniech ( talk) 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I am glad if I understand you correctly that you accept that this debate is more than an issue with a single article. Still I want you to name the articles you plan to challenge for using German beyond this article. It must be hundreds if not thousands. I stand by this article being fair compare to other Wikipedia articles and matching sources. There is no way if the rules you want applied to this article were applied to all Wikipedia articles that it would be accepted by the bulk of Wikipedia editors. Jniech ( talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
((In part starting a new section as the old one was getting so long))
Schrandit talked about filing a RFC but unsure still what he plans to ask. Schrandit said “Its not a huge deal and most of the others that I have looked at, like Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles or Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs seem to already have it, in my opinion, right.”. I agree as they clearly use German(y), the same way this articles does
Examples from Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles
Examples from Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs
Can Schrandit explain what those articles got right and this article got wrong?
Further does Schrandit agree that Wikipedia requires consistency? We won’t be allowed to use German unless we are sure it only involves ethnic Germans? For example I take it Schrandit would agree that in the article Germany national football team, all references to German team, German players and the like must be removed as this wrongly implies they are all ethnic Germans living in Germany. The current squad includes many born outside Germany, have non-German parents’, etc e.g.
With there being thousands of articles, e.g. Rape of Belgium, talking about German as if all those involved were ethnic Germans, it would impossible to monitor or enforce the ruling let alone do the work to change the existing articles from German into a neutral form.
Further to ensure consistency will the same standard be set for non-German articles? For example the article on Guantanamo Bay says it “is a detainment facility of the United States” but not all those involved in the war were American, not all those who work at the camp are American, not all Americans support the war, etc. If the ruling enforces that German become Nazi then should we not change American to say Republican? Will it change as the President is now a Democratic? Will the ruling mean we change the massacre at Jedwabne so it simply reads Nazi collaborators rather than Poles? What about the Boer wars it claims it was between the Boers and Britain but other countries such as Australians, Canada and New Zealand sent troops, what will that be changed to?
If what you want is to be consistently applied across Wikipedia, it basically means rewriting most of the articles. Jniech ( talk) 11:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn’t means to put words in your mouth. I thought I understood your argument then applied the logic beyond this article.
Please explain what the following sentence means as clearly I got it wrong. “Its not a huge deal and most of the others that I have looked at, like Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles or Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs seem to already have it, in my opinion, right.” Thanks in advance for your help Jniech ( talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
In the main I support your last posting which does seem fairer than when we started this debate (i.e. not just Nazi vs. German but a general discussion of naming units). I do see it as a positive move forward hence thank you. I still have a few issues and thoughts which I hope you will consider.
First why are we limiting it to World War Two? Should it not be consistent across different wars? This issue equally affects the Boer Wars, First World War and Second Gulf War for example. Likewise if there is an issue naming German units then the same is true of anything using German such as for football teams. Hence I don’t see it as “spinning purposely illogical” to raise these issues as I did. Still limiting it to war related, can you please explain why we should limit it to WWII? Personally any modern war, say inside the last 130 to 150 years, should be covered.
Second can you explain why you limited it to units? What about the issue of who occupied a country. We could end up with a German occupied Poland where Nazi carried out atrocities. Any comments on this?
I have no interest in writing a proposed solution as such. I will ask on the WikiProject Poland page to see if any of them would care to take part if we go down this route.
Finally as you appear to know much more about how Wikipedia works than I do, could you comment on this. Without seeing your proposal I can’t be sure but I feel your proposal will either fail or make editors lives impossible as data on the ethnic make-up of most units is unavailable. Would it be simpler to put a disclaimer on articles e.g. the usage of ethnicity/nationality, e.g. German, doesn’t necessarily mean all were that ethnicity/nationality. Please reword as you see fit if you see any mileage in this. Jniech ( talk) 18:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Very busy but here are some initial thoughts which I hope answer your questions.
1 – In agreement. I would even suggest we limit it further initially. As this comes out of a discussion in Poland during WWII, we could limit it to units normally called Polish, Russia/Soviet and Nazi/German in WWII but make it plain this is with a view to expanding well beyond this before starting alternating Wikipedia.
2 – I don’t agree with titles such as Nazi as not all those involved were Nazis. Still I agree it better to widen the discussion beyond just units.
3 – I disagree at present but it seems to have some merit. You're going to have to explain it more before I would support it. Some Germans fought for their country not for a belief in Nazi policies. Further you appear to be making all Germans supporters of Nazi ideology which they were not. What about the British as they were basically fighting for their country not for a political idea? What would Polish units be at the start of the war, middle and after the war? What happens if units fight those with the same political views? Perhaps a few examples will help make it clearer.
4 – I accept it more neutral than focusing only on Nazi vs. German but I don’t support it at present but if you want willing to listen to further arguments from you. Alternatively raise a RFC as you previously suggested or some other action to get more editors discussing it.
5 – How do we avoid this being original research? I know German/Nazi are both used but not really seen anything than Polish. Any comment on this? 17:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
← Archive 1 (2004–2008) • Archive 2 (2008–2010) • Current discussion →
Why does this page even exist? Isn't Wikipedia a compendium of facts?
This page is the very definition of POV, because to call something an atrocity is to define it within one's own moral view point. Unless someone can come up with a rigid and unambiguous definition of atrocity, this page should be deleted.
Not only is this page not NPOV, but I was reading over the articles on "Original Research", and I think some of this qualifies.
"Origin of this policy: the opinion of Wikipedia's founder
Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows...
An article that 'makes no new low-level claims', but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one. ... I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" (WikiEN-l, December 6, 2004)."
Non-standard interpretation of history? Makes no new low-level claims? That sounds just like half of these incidents to me.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to espouse their own theories, no matter how accurate they may be, because Wikipedians do not have the specialized knowledge necessary to verify theories. If the theory is not widely accepted by the community most capable of falsifying it (in this case, academia), then it has no place in Wikipedia. If you want to keep this article, I suggest that you redefine it in a sense which clearly labels it as interpretation, or that removes the interpretation from it. If this article doesn't receive some attention soon, I'm going to begin the process of deletion. -- 72.240.124.125 11:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in objective honesty! This page purely is propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.171.3 ( talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the connection between the Kaunas pogrom and Poland? I believe that the link should be removed, the same the other one about Kaunas. Xx236 ( talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It was a German organized maasacre rather than a pogrom. Xx236 ( talk) 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JewsandPoles/message/111 Xx236 ( talk) 14:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
We make an effort to say Soviet terror rather than Russian terror as many of the perpetrators were non-Russian and to say "Russian terror" would imply the will of the Russian people. Should we lend the same consideration to the crimes of the Nazi state? - Schrandit ( talk) 14:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The article accurately reflects the references, which are many. If you any concerns then say which and I will double check source but from memory they state German not Nazi hence the article reflects this. Jniech ( talk) 08:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Editor of Wikipedia are meant to reflect the sources not their personal views. This article reflects the sources. The change you want appears too simply be to match your personal views.
Further the argument doesn’t hold as Soviet doesn’t mean Russia. Nazi however does mean the government of Germany. Therefore Nazi is associated with Germany and Austria only but Soviet is associated to 15 different modern day countries.
Put it another way, it was the army of German which attacked Poland and carried out many of the atrocities it wasn’t the Nazi army. It wasn’t the army of Russia but the Soviet Union which invaded Poland. The article reflects this. Jniech ( talk) 08:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The article already has sections for Soviet, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian and Lithuanian crimes. If a crime can be put down to a particular group then it should be done in this article. If/when I find crimes by French SS volunteers in Poland then they will appear as such.
You basically want to write out Germans from this article which means those who were primary victims such as Jews and Poles have to face up to their crimes but the Germans can hide behind the word Nazi.
If you disagree with the article then change it PROVIDED you put enough references to support. I used almost two hundred to support the work I did on the article and stand behind it as fairly reflecting their views expressed in the sources used. Jniech ( talk) 18:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
If you check the article prior to my first edit, then there were no sections for any crimes beyond German/Nazi. I added all the sections on crimes by Soviets, Poles, Jews, etc. Tell me which crimes you plan to say were German as I doubt you plan any which means Soviets, Jews and Poles who suffered at the hands of the Germans will be named but you plan to hide German crimes behind the word Nazi. I accept non-Germans committed crimes but the bulk of the crimes were by Germans.
Anyway edit the article BUT please ensure you put sources to support changes. I stand by this article fairly reflects the sources used. Jniech ( talk) 19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
What I think has no bearing on this article as editors of Wikipedia must simple use existing work NOT try to do original research.
Answering your question merely in the hope we can move on, it is impossible to say.
German crimes are simpler as it was the German government which authorized it making Germany ultimately responsible. Further the bulk of the crimes were done by the German army, police and similar. Collaborators such as Polish, Jewish and Ukrainians were generally kept separate such as the Blue police and Ukrainian SS units. This makes it easier to separate their crimes into sections.
The Soviet leadership authorised crimes such as Katyn massacre on behalf of all the republics which I believe make up 15 modern day countries. I don’t know that much about the make up of Soviet armed forces but apart from a few units such as the Polish army, the Soviet Union appears not to have this division.
Put it this way, the gulag were set-up by the leadership of all Soviet republics, the camps in occupied Poland by the German authorities not on behalf of others such as their allies Finland and Hungary.
Still in my personal writing I do say Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia BUT this is out of line with standard writings hence I don’t use it when editing Wikipedia.
Anyway back to the issue. If you have proof of crimes committed by Slovakia for example then start a section. If a crime is currently reported as German but you believe Russia collaborators did it then you should challenge. Currently there is nothing about Slovakia crimes as I unaware of them. Crimes by collaborators are stated e.g. in the Warsaw Uprising atrocities section it states “In Ochota district, civilian killings, rapes, and looting were conducted by the members of Russian collaborators from SS-Sturmbrigade RONA.”
To my knowledge the article fairly reflects sources but I am happy to check any individual source you feel maybe wrongly used in the article. Jniech ( talk) 08:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
In 1939 the Polish army under the Polish government control defended Poland. The fact it was made up of Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Belarusian and others likely including some ethnic Germans, does not stop it being the Polish army. The fact the pre-war government was authoritarian does not stop it being the Polish government. The fact parts of Poland were claimed by others and modern day Poland has different borders, does not stop it being Poland.
It doesn’t matter if we agree or disagree, as your and my views are not important. What is important is what can be shown as original research is banned on Wikipedia. Please do edit the article BUT ensure you put sources to support any changes. I stand by this article fairly reflecting the sources used. Jniech ( talk) 10:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You claim “Many, if not most of the sources say Nazi, “. Remember these are your sources. I had a quick read and they appear to use German far more often than Nazi.
For example ( http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/wwii/special.studies/katyn.massacre/katynlrc.txt)
You pick up “the Nazi government, whose troops occupied” which simply mean Nazi Germany in my mind. You completely ignored
It a long article hence I may have missed some but I made it 8 references supporting the idea the German occupied Eastern Europe to 1 for Nazi occupation. That hardly seems to support your case.
If you like we go over each of the example you think support your case. Like us start with
( http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005473)
Let see what support your case for using Nazi:
That seems to be 6 points to you.
That’s 10 points to me.
It clear to me that you must accept that using German for the occupation, crimes, etc is fully supported by your references but occasional they abbreviate Nazi Germany to Nazi. The alternative is these articles make no sense as they claim both Germans and Nazis occupied the same land, both the Germans and the Nazis had contempt for Poles, etc. Jniech ( talk) 14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You don’t have to change my mind, merely show proof that your case is valid. Using the reference from the article was silly as they were always going to say German more than Nazi.
Please keep all editors informed of any debate of this page.
Further please note that Nazis are referred in the article e.g. Nazi Germany, Nazis' goal, a Nazi secret program, Nazis in occupied Poland, Nazi terror, Nazi leadership. Nazis upon the city's population, and the end of the Nazi crimes are all in the article. This is done when the sources support the Nazi not German. Jniech ( talk) 18:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/Archive 2 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: Another disclaimer: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This opinion is one of that kind. I don't think that the exact terminology used by the sources is important unless there is clear evidence in the source that the author was specifically making the distinction, in the context in which the work is cited as a source, between the two terms in question. If that is not the case, then I don't think that it's any more original research to change the term for consistency or clarity than it would be to use the alternate term to reword the source to avoid a copyright violation. That being equal, I think that the name of the national government involved should be used, i.e. Germany or Soviet. I know that some of those countries would now like to distance themselves from the acts of groups within their governments during that era, but who they were is who they were. Consider: Would we refer to the Republican Party seizure of Baghdad in 2003? No, we'd refer to the US seizure. The fact that the Republican Party was in control of the US government at the time would not make any difference. The same would be true for any war crimes perpetrated by US forces during that seizure. If a government was a puppet government, such as the Vichy or Lublin governments, I would usually make that distinction clear, especially if there was a government in exile elsewhere. If the crimes were perpetrated by some specific ethnic group or foreign nationals unambiguously working for a government and the fact of their identity was relevant to the context in the article and was supported by the source, I would make that distinction too, making clear both the identity of the individuals and for whom they were working (if not important to the context, I would merely refer to the government for which they were working). But I would not use, for example, Nazi for German simply because there were some Germans who weren't Nazis or merely because the Nazis were a subset of the German government or German people. |
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.— TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 19:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
My thanks to TransporterMan for taking the time to comment on this issue. I would like to discuss your views on original research on your talk page if that would be alright.
I take it by Schrandit reply this has not gotten us further forward?
Regarding the photos that Schrandit has added, the short answer is no it wouldn't be correct and has not been done in this article to my knowledge. The first is a unit made up of Indians called the Indische Legion shown in France. To my knowledge were never in Poland hence couldn’t have committed an atrocities there. The second photo I have no knowledge of. Still both appear to be non-Germans hence if they have carried out atrocities in Poland then I would refer to them as such like I did for the SS-Sturmbrigade RONA to make it clear that unit wasn’t German.
The simple answer to this problem is for Schrandit to say which units were made up mostly of non-Germans, which atrocities they were involved in and those non-Germans inside German units (rather than foreign units) show these non-Germans took part as Hilfswilliger were generally used for supplementary service (e.g. drivers, cooks, hospital attendants, ammunition carriers, messengers) then we can correct the article or add the information. Jniech ( talk) 10:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
My answer to Schrandit would be the number is at the time of the atrocity not at all points of the war. The amount is not important as if you have the details, we can work it for each atrocity e.g. let assume you find out that 50 Germans and 5 Poles took part it in a massacre we could be worded the German unit with a few Poles in their ranks carried out the murders or even simply put the numbers.
There is no way to change the descriptions like with the Soviet army. You can’t use Nazi as not all of them were Nazis (15 million served in the various German forces during WWII, 8 million in the Nazi party assuming ½ were elderly, woman, other non-combatants then somewhere between 1/3 and ¼ of the German forces were Nazis). We can’t use Axis as not all of them took part in atrocities in Poland. There is no word other than German.
Let try a different route. Over at the World War II article it makes many claims about Germany and Germans. Here is a selection of them
Schrandit said “Even though the German Sixth Army was the main body at Stalingrad a quarter of its strength was non-German. Labeling units as German serves no point and is usually incorrect.”
If Schrandit can get German written out of that article, then Schrandit can do what Schrandit likes with this article. Jniech ( talk) 14:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
To Schrandit: Can I suggest you put your comments at the end, as it getting very confusing as I missed some of your comments as they are embedded. Further it maybe worth starting a new section as this one is getting long or even dividing the debate into areas to make it easier to follow.
If a Wermacht unit was half German and half non-German then it is a German unit with a large number of foreign troops. It should be made clear that the crime was not carried out solely by ethnic Germans but Germans were present and had overall control.
Soviet troops simply mean they come from the Soviet Union hence membership of a Soviet is not necessary.
Paul and Schrandit you both appear experienced editors. Do you not agree that Wikipedia encourages article using the same standardises? Now if we can’t call them German in this article, then we can’t in other articles. Does Schrandit plan to challenge the 6th Army (Germany) article as being wrong? The Battle of Stalingrad article? The World War II article? There are thousands of articles on German units that Schrandit claims can’t described as such. If Schrandit doesn’t plan to challenge those articles then why is challenging this article? I repeat that should take this debate to somewhere the debate will involve more editors such as World War II article as would get the input of more editors. Jniech ( talk) 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I am glad if I understand you correctly that you accept that this debate is more than an issue with a single article. Still I want you to name the articles you plan to challenge for using German beyond this article. It must be hundreds if not thousands. I stand by this article being fair compare to other Wikipedia articles and matching sources. There is no way if the rules you want applied to this article were applied to all Wikipedia articles that it would be accepted by the bulk of Wikipedia editors. Jniech ( talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
((In part starting a new section as the old one was getting so long))
Schrandit talked about filing a RFC but unsure still what he plans to ask. Schrandit said “Its not a huge deal and most of the others that I have looked at, like Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles or Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs seem to already have it, in my opinion, right.”. I agree as they clearly use German(y), the same way this articles does
Examples from Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles
Examples from Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs
Can Schrandit explain what those articles got right and this article got wrong?
Further does Schrandit agree that Wikipedia requires consistency? We won’t be allowed to use German unless we are sure it only involves ethnic Germans? For example I take it Schrandit would agree that in the article Germany national football team, all references to German team, German players and the like must be removed as this wrongly implies they are all ethnic Germans living in Germany. The current squad includes many born outside Germany, have non-German parents’, etc e.g.
With there being thousands of articles, e.g. Rape of Belgium, talking about German as if all those involved were ethnic Germans, it would impossible to monitor or enforce the ruling let alone do the work to change the existing articles from German into a neutral form.
Further to ensure consistency will the same standard be set for non-German articles? For example the article on Guantanamo Bay says it “is a detainment facility of the United States” but not all those involved in the war were American, not all those who work at the camp are American, not all Americans support the war, etc. If the ruling enforces that German become Nazi then should we not change American to say Republican? Will it change as the President is now a Democratic? Will the ruling mean we change the massacre at Jedwabne so it simply reads Nazi collaborators rather than Poles? What about the Boer wars it claims it was between the Boers and Britain but other countries such as Australians, Canada and New Zealand sent troops, what will that be changed to?
If what you want is to be consistently applied across Wikipedia, it basically means rewriting most of the articles. Jniech ( talk) 11:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn’t means to put words in your mouth. I thought I understood your argument then applied the logic beyond this article.
Please explain what the following sentence means as clearly I got it wrong. “Its not a huge deal and most of the others that I have looked at, like Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles or Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs seem to already have it, in my opinion, right.” Thanks in advance for your help Jniech ( talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
In the main I support your last posting which does seem fairer than when we started this debate (i.e. not just Nazi vs. German but a general discussion of naming units). I do see it as a positive move forward hence thank you. I still have a few issues and thoughts which I hope you will consider.
First why are we limiting it to World War Two? Should it not be consistent across different wars? This issue equally affects the Boer Wars, First World War and Second Gulf War for example. Likewise if there is an issue naming German units then the same is true of anything using German such as for football teams. Hence I don’t see it as “spinning purposely illogical” to raise these issues as I did. Still limiting it to war related, can you please explain why we should limit it to WWII? Personally any modern war, say inside the last 130 to 150 years, should be covered.
Second can you explain why you limited it to units? What about the issue of who occupied a country. We could end up with a German occupied Poland where Nazi carried out atrocities. Any comments on this?
I have no interest in writing a proposed solution as such. I will ask on the WikiProject Poland page to see if any of them would care to take part if we go down this route.
Finally as you appear to know much more about how Wikipedia works than I do, could you comment on this. Without seeing your proposal I can’t be sure but I feel your proposal will either fail or make editors lives impossible as data on the ethnic make-up of most units is unavailable. Would it be simpler to put a disclaimer on articles e.g. the usage of ethnicity/nationality, e.g. German, doesn’t necessarily mean all were that ethnicity/nationality. Please reword as you see fit if you see any mileage in this. Jniech ( talk) 18:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Very busy but here are some initial thoughts which I hope answer your questions.
1 – In agreement. I would even suggest we limit it further initially. As this comes out of a discussion in Poland during WWII, we could limit it to units normally called Polish, Russia/Soviet and Nazi/German in WWII but make it plain this is with a view to expanding well beyond this before starting alternating Wikipedia.
2 – I don’t agree with titles such as Nazi as not all those involved were Nazis. Still I agree it better to widen the discussion beyond just units.
3 – I disagree at present but it seems to have some merit. You're going to have to explain it more before I would support it. Some Germans fought for their country not for a belief in Nazi policies. Further you appear to be making all Germans supporters of Nazi ideology which they were not. What about the British as they were basically fighting for their country not for a political idea? What would Polish units be at the start of the war, middle and after the war? What happens if units fight those with the same political views? Perhaps a few examples will help make it clearer.
4 – I accept it more neutral than focusing only on Nazi vs. German but I don’t support it at present but if you want willing to listen to further arguments from you. Alternatively raise a RFC as you previously suggested or some other action to get more editors discussing it.
5 – How do we avoid this being original research? I know German/Nazi are both used but not really seen anything than Polish. Any comment on this? 17:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)