Talk:Ciepielów massacre

Untitled
Maybe it would be helpful to simpy translate the German article onthat topic. It is far larger and the literature is already copied from it. -- Memnon335bc  02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Page name
A minor thing, but "Placename massacre" would be standard Wikipedia naming as seen in Category:Massacres by country. The current one probably comes from Polish. --Pudeo (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a technical WP:RM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You leave me guessing here. An objection or no objection? Heh. --Pudeo (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot the crucial word, go ahead :) PS. If you'd pinged me I'd have replied sooner. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Most infamous
Is it necessary to repeat the words "most infamous" four times in the text? Perhaps once would suffice (assuming there's a source). Four times smacks of bias on the part of the author and melodrama/sensationalization. Besides that, if one specifies "most" infamous, it implies measurement of and a ranking system for such events, which I don't believe exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throgmo (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point, those unsupported superlatives have been removed. Gulbenk (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Twice should be enough, once in text, once in lead. But this is how it is described in the most in-depth scholarly work I've found: : "Najbardziej nagłośniona została anonimowa relacja żołnierza niemieckiego i dołączone do niej zdjęcia dowodzące zbrodni popełnionej 8 września pod Ciepielowem"; "Jak wspomniałem, najbardziej znaną zbrodnią niemiecką z okresu Września 1939 r. jest mord na żołnierzach polskich w lesie pod Ciepielowem." Here's an English source that calls it "the worst, through very far from isolated, occasion of this kind", referring to "mass execution in defiance of army regulations". In the Zambrów massacre (pl:Zbrodnia w Zambrowie 1939) there were approximately 200 fatalities and 100 wounded, so it is pretty comparable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining; I'd generally recommend discussing this on talk. I am all for neutrality, but in this case it is not a controversial view, so I don't think it needs attribution in text. It's not unlike some claims in lead like 'father of sociology' or 'most popular' or such that generally just need a reference. The Polish source I used, I think reliable scholarship, makes the claim that in the literature review this event became 'most infamous'. I don't think it would be non-neutral to say this. But I am open to rewriting the text further. Maybe change 'became known' to 'has been described'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Piotrus and thanks for your prompt response. I think "has been described" is a move in the right direction. But this opinion, expressed in the article as universal, seems to be limited (in fact) specifically to Polish sources. I can not find anything in the english language archive (other than translated from Polish or written by a Polish author) that makes this claim. Unfortunately, many events in recent Polish history have been distorted for political reasons. It wasn't that long ago that the Soviets re-wrote Polish history to serve their political objectives. The Katyn Massacre is probably a prime example of that, where Soviet propaganda shifted responsibility from the Soviets to the Germans. I don't know, to what extent, Polish academic writing has fully recovered from that. Without being able to read the original source, and ascertain the tone and context, it is difficult for most english Wikipedia readers like myself to know the veracity of these statements. So, I think that a clear indication that certain specific Polish sources have characterized this event as "most infamous" is not too much to ask. Gulbenk (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * With regard to superlatives, there are many such examples in Wikipedia. We try to fix them when we find them. But using one wrong usage to justify another wrong usage is a weak argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. Someone may voice the opinion that something is "most popular" and we may even work that into an article as an opinion of the source. But we never use the voice of Wikipedia to state that something is "most popular", when we can (instead) say something based in (verifiable) fact, like "highest ticket sales", "largest capacity stadium", "longest winning streak", etc. I hope you see the difference. Your "most infamous" phrase may indeed reflect a widely held belief within Poland, but we can't know that simply from you saying so. And in any case, it is not a universally recognized opinion outside of Poland. If a reputable institution in Poland uses that phrase, and you wish to quote them (with attribution) that is perfectly fine. But using the voice of Wikipedia to state it as fact is just another "wrong". Gulbenk (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * First, could I ask you to copy this entire discussion to the article's talk? I think it is better to discuss this there.
 * Second, Polish historiography has recovered well, but last few years saw some government pressure, you can read criticism of IPN in its article. But this shouldn't fortunately affect this particular article.
 * Third, it is common for such events to be primarily discussed in Polish sources only, since, let's face it, non-Poles have little incentives to study such events (true for any language/nationality).
 * Fourth, I don't think we need to attribute things unless they are controversial or would sound fringe/strange. Of course, inline references are another thing, everything should be referenced. But anyway, in this case, I don't think it is controversial or fringe to say this is the most infamous war crime of the Sept'39, UNLESS we find sources that describe another event in such a way. If we cannot reach an agreement on this (relatively minor issue), perhaps we could ask for a WP:30 or such? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Piotrus. Thanks for your thoughtful comments regarding this issue. A reduction in the number of times "most notorious" is used is a step in the right direction. I think I understand the Polish perspective on this (and other WWII issues) and appreciate your candid appraisal of that. If this happened to be a Polish language article, for primarily a Polish readership, I would not raise these concerns. I still believe that the phrase requires direct attribution within the sentence, to clarify that it represents the event's impact on the Polish people... rather than letting it hang as a statement of universal fact. But I hardly think it is worth fighting about, nor would I wish to bring in third parties to review this when there are bigger issues to resolve. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, and would suggest that you might consider adding a wider perspective in your future articles touching upon this particular subject matter. It would be more educational for readers with little knowledge of Polish history, to show where Poland was torn apart by both the USSR and Germany, at the same time, with atrocities taking place on numerous fronts nearly simultaneously or in rapid succession. That broader perspective would highlight the desperation of those times, and place each separate event within the greater context. Gulbenk (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is true and you can copy it here, of course, although we have to note that the Soviet crimes took place about a year later. Germans killed POWs during the fight, but not after. Soviets likely did both, through at this moment I am blanking on whether there were any larger incidents of this type during the invasion itself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)