Talk:Battle of Węgierska Górka/Archive 1

7 soldiers
This article does not comply with the Wikipedia quality standards. It simply restates biased sources of dubiuos qualitiy (which could be called "propaganda"). Some statements are simply ridiculous, e.g. '"Waligóra" was manned by 7 soldiers from a routed unit and continued to fire at the Germans after the original crew withdrew. However, they were armed with their personal rifles only and had no ammunition left, which forced them to capitulate soon afterwards. All of them were subsequently murdered by the Germans.' If none of the Poles survived, how could we possibly know that? 141.13.8.14 11:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what the source says. I'm not in a position to speculate on that. Also, take note that it all took place on a relatively small area, so it might've been visible from the nearby town or other bunkers.  // Halibutt 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just in case Jadger wanted to remove the reference again - and then claim the remark is unreferenced - I'll give the exact citation here, feel free to add it to the article's footnotes if you please:  Do tej listy należy doliczyć poległych: 7 żołnierzy na „Waligórze” z obsługi ckm-u rozstrzelanych przez Niemców (...) (To that list one should also add the seven soldiers of the HMG crew executed by the Germans). The word rozstrzelany is used in Polish exclusively to mean execution by shooting, so there's no chance of a mistake here. But the matter is pretty well known, so there would be no problem with finding also book sources to elaborate on the crime, it was simply easier to find an on-line one.  // Halibutt 22:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

then why wasn't that referred to in the first place? rather than a reference that doesn't state that at all? perhaps you could provide a reputable source that is peer-reviewed, so we can try to make wikipedia as professional and well researched as possible.

--Jadger 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an exact translation of a quote from a reference you removed. Why did you remove it is another question, but let's just forget it and move on, shall we?  // Halibutt 09:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

that is not the same page I removed, it may have been a different page on the same website, but you must remember we are on the English wikipedia here, we need something that is accessible by english wikipedia users.

--Jadger 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the very same web page you removed, dear. Simply a different sub-page, but the entire site was used in preparation of this article and the entire site is used as a reference. Unfortunately I know of no English language monographs of this battle, but Polish ones are ok. Better to have such a reference than have no reference at all, although apparently you are of a different opinion.  // Halibutt 08:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * my opinion is that a article should be properly researched with reliable resources that are peer reviewed and open to all users of the English Wikipedia to understand. Anyone can write anything online, wikipedia is a prime example of that, what makes that random webpage good? it's poor layout? it's rather lacklustre use of html coding? As for it simply being a subpage, that was my point, how is a english user supposed to find information from a subpage that wasn't cited?  That is like if someone was to delete the claim of murder, because another website on WWII did not mention it. Then they would link to that WWII webpage that doesn't have it on it to prove that it didn't exist.  What makes this reference so great?


 * --Jadger 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * English speaker who does not know Polish would not be able to use that source anyway. Which doesn't make it any less legitimate (WP:VERIFY). As to the rest of your comments - sorry, I'm not interested. Neither the HTML nor the hypothetical scenarios you present above are interesting to me and relevant to this issue.  // Halibutt 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

well, if you are going to claim a source is authorative, you should atleast be cooperative and provide a peer review of the article, as all reliable sources should have a peer review. Or perhaps atleast translate it for those of us unlucky enough not to know Polish. And as it is obvious that this reference is amateurish, perhaps you could provide it's sources cited page so that others may see. I assume good faith, but I do not have blind faith.

--Jadger 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Timing
The plan was accepted on July 24 and the construction at Węgierska Górka and Korbielów started almost immediately, in early July. Did the begin construction before it was approved? That's what is implied by the sentence... Liamdaly620 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * June 24, my bad.  // Halibutt 19:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Result
Most Battle Boxes have a result that is less weaseling than the current one. The conclusion of the article clearly states who won this battle, and I have made the appropriate change. Dr. Dan 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)