Talk:Prisoner of war/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Prisoner of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090722074317/http://academic.sun.ac.za/mil/mil_history/scientia%20militaria.htm to http://academic.sun.ac.za/mil/mil_history/scientia%20militaria.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130510234107/http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/Robert-C-Doyle.aspx to http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/robert-c-doyle.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070203194602/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/ww2peopleswar/categories/c1204/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/categories/c1204/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Water colour sketch of "Dusty" Rhodes, done in 3 minutes by Ashley George Old
Ashley George Old is one of the many FEPOW artists I have researched in depth. These artists only survived by making rapid drawings in hostile conditions. To be observed meant torture or death. Furthermore, I have had sight of the original work and accompanying documentation and can confirm the notation '3 minute sketch' is genuine.Tomintoul (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem, User:Tomintoul, is that none of this is independently verifiable. Please find a verifiable and reliable source. --Yaush (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Another editor has conducted 'original research' but stating that in his/her view the annotation '3 minute sketch' is forged. There is no verifiable and reliable source to support this claim – the fact I know the annotation is correct is irrelevant. The onus is on the claimant of forgery to prove his/her point.Tomintoul (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The tallest of the tall tales. — Being a professional artist, I know more than well what can, and what cannot be done in 3 minutes. The WP:CAPTION was a classic WP:REDFLAG for me, therefore I looked closely at the artwork in question. And ... this is what I saw. The note about the quote-unquote: "3 minute sketch", written with a different colour pen, has been added by an undisclosed hand at a different time, because the author's real signature, done with a watercolour brush is right above it, easy to compare. It is written in a completely different style of handwriting. By the way, writing notes on other people artwork usually decreases the value of the original dramatically. That's why only an idiot would ever deface the original artwork in such a way. In the end, it is a Wikipedia issue of the complete absence of basic WP:VERIFIABILITY of the claim made by an online user.  Poeticbent  talk 14:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Everything you have said is YOUR OPINION and hence original research, not allowed by Wiki. And as you say, why would anybody deface a piece of original art?Tomintoul (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is your preposterous personal assumption that "the earth is flat", because the forged little note under the watercolour says so.  Poeticbent  talk 13:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to propose a somewhat radical solution here: The article is not about Dusty Rhodes. It is not about Ashley George Old. There were many other works of art produced by many FEPOWs. Substitute one of them, which does not have an issue with possibly being defaced with an inaccurate claim, for this image in this article. --Yaush (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support.  Poeticbent  talk 13:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not simply delete the picture, which is out of place alongside the others and has litle if any relevance to the article's content? Bjenks (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)\
 * The inclusion of an example of FEPOW art improves the article, but not crucially. It would be okay without it. --Yaush (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The image enhances the article and is the only example of its type. I am perplexed as to why Poeticbent has become obsessed with his personal theory. Why would anyone deface such a work? This arist is one of many FEPOW artists I have researched and while my opinion may not be verifiable, Poeticbent's theory certainly isn't. Tomintoul (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is a good time to remember that the original dispute was not over whether to include the portrait, or whether the three-minute notation on it is accurate or when it was placed on the portrait, but whether the Wikipedia caption for the picture in this article should repeat the claim that it was painted in three minutes.


 * That claim is disputed. It cannot be verified. It should therefore not be repeated in Wikpedia as a fact.


 * Any of the following would be acceptable resolutions for me:


 * Leave the picture but do not mention the three-minute claim in the caption.


 * Leave the picture and change the caption to state that it was allegedly completed in three minutes. This is verifiable the case, since the allegation is there on the picture.


 * Find a verifiable source substantiating the claim and properly cite it.


 * Substitute a different FEPOW art work. Tomintou says he has studied many FEPOW artists. Prove it. Find us another example suitable for this article that does not raise a debate.


 * Omit the art work entirely. It adds to the article, but not in any critical way.

The best resolution, in my opinion, is to find a verifiable source for the three-minute claim. Of course, that requires some effort. I'm not going to do it because I'm unfamiliar with the sources, am not that invested in having this picture in the article, and am lazy. So I'm guessing we'll pick one of the other resolutions. The one resolution I will not support is to leave the picture and the three-minute claim without a verifiable source cited to validate it. --Yaush (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I will attempt to verify the claim in due course. Meanwhile, in the interests of harmony I am content that the picture remains but without the three-minute claim, as suggested byYaush Tomintoul (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the three-minute claim as long as it is qualified as alleged. That much is verifiable. --Yaush (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry. The three-minute claim is not "alleged" ... It is a blatant act of forgery and a preposterous lie. However, even forgery needs a reliable third-party source by Wikipedia's core policy guidelines. Namely, description of how that forgery occurred in the first place. However, I'm by no means obsessed with it, only stunned by the level of ignorance displayed by User:Tomintoul.  Poeticbent  talk 20:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need that kind of vindictive and unverified assertion. At the 1951 Festival of Britain, I watched a sketch artist named "Quen" produce many lightning sketches, including one of my mother which is still in the family. At age 11, I had no stopwatch to put on the production, but three minutes would not be out of the question, and that is definitely not a "preposterous lie". Bjenks (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Tomintoul has offered to leave the picture, without mention of the three-minute claim in the Wiki caption, while he researches a verifiable source for the three-minute claim. That seems like a reasonable resolution for now. Any disagreement? --Yaush (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * These are words from the introduction to the Major Moon Collection catalogue, which featured many of Old's works: Old, with his high skill in realistic portrayal, commitment to accurate detail, and ability to create high art from scenes of suffering, executed forty-four of these works. I suspect the annotation '3 minute sketch' was added by Old himself as he wouldn't have been satisfied with the quality of the work and wanted to make it clear it was a quick sketch. Tomintoul (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Prisoner of war. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120509195352/http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/TheQueenandtechnology.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/TheQueenandtechnology.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

especially many Polish and Soviet POWs who suffered
Polish POWs generally survived, the exceptions included September 1939 massacres, 1st Army POWs massacres in 1945, Warszaw Uprising. Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Deaths in Japanese POW camps
The statistics concerning POWs who died in Japanese custody are contradictory. We see death rates of 27,33, and 40 percent cited -- and the sources for some of these stats are not very good -- an interview with an ex-POW by a New Orleans newspaper, for example. I'll see what I can do to fix this section. Smallchief (talk 00:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of the scholarship related to the roughly half of the second Sino-Japanese War that is considered part of WWII, the proportion of deaths by surrendering Chinese combatants is likely well above 50% with academic estimates of up to one million Chinese POWs dead. There is a difficulty in establishing an exact dividing line between Second Sino Japanese War nd "world war II".Explainador (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Prisoner of war. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524213405/http://repository.liv.ac.uk/17893/1/WickhamJ_May2014_17893.pdf to http://repository.liv.ac.uk/17893/1/WickhamJ_May2014_17893.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330210330/http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320223821/http://gpw.tellur.ru/page.html?r=facts&s=losses to http://gpw.tellur.ru/page.html?r=facts&s=losses
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219031006/http://www.historynet.com/historical_conflicts/8556717.html?featured=y&c=y to http://www.historynet.com/historical_conflicts/8556717.html?featured=y&c=y
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216171614/http://www.wajszczuk.v.pl/english/drzewo/czytelnia/michael_hope.htm to http://www.wajszczuk.v.pl/english/drzewo/czytelnia/michael_hope.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330210330/http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_2/3037296.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Numbers of German POWs dead in Allied custody?
I could not help but notice this: The WW II section very clearly states numbers of Soviets dead in German POW camps, of Germans dead in Soviet POW camps, and of Allied troops dead in German camps. The section about Germans in Allied POW camps, however, is suspiciously void of numbers. I don't want to swing the POV mallet here, but it's a curious coincidence. Anybody cares to rectify this? -- DevSolar (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a gap which needs to be filled - do you have any reliably sourced figures which can be added? Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not on my bookshelf, no. Perhaps someone has better books (or more time to Google)? -- DevSolar (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps copying some of the numbers from Rheinwiesenlager? -- DevSolar (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nazi Germany and the Western Allied nations honoured the Geneva Conventions whereas the Soviet Union did not hence there were comparatively few Western Allied and German deaths in German and Western Allied POW camps while Germany and Russia treated their POW's from each other less well.


 * Generally, Nazi German honoured the Conventions but the Soviet Union had rescinded all its international obligations and treaties that had been signed by the Czarist regimes upon the Communists taking power after WW I. Thus Western Allied and German POW's were protected by the Geneva Conventions in the West but the Soviet Union's and Germany's POW's in the East were not.


 * Japan's military government also rescinded their signatory-ship of the Conventions in the 1930s which meant they were also under no legal obligation to treat their POW's humanely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

WWII POWs table, Japanese POWs left out
Section 5,first table. There is no mention whatsoever about Japanese POWs in the table, although the POWs HELD by the Japanese are mentioned in the death count. This doesn't seem exactly neutral, regarding the fact that there was a considerable amount of Japanese POWs, and their death toll percentage was substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.93.219.160 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Most Japanese soldiers would die rather than surrender so there were comparatively few prisoners to take until late in the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

3,000 British WW 1 internees in Switzerland?
In the section Release of prisoners under WW 1, it stated in the first sentence that:


 * At the end of the war in 1918 there were believed to be 140,000 British prisoners of war in Germany, including 3,000 held in Switzerland.

What were 3,000 British POW's doing in neutral Switzerland? If those 3,000 Brits were internees -- including civilians -- it might be believable, but 3,000 British military internees seems unbelievable. The Swiss border is 100's of kilometers from the British WW 1 areas of operation in northwestern France and Belgium. Does anyone have any insight into this situation? Possibly escaped POW's from German camps?--TGC55 (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Switzerland was a preferred landing zone for damaged Allied airplanes.Ekem (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You must be talking about WW 2 in which your statement was certainly true.--TGC55 (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparatively few British and Commonwealth personnel ended up in Switzerland during WW II as most preferred to get home. What few of these personnel there were in Switzerland were those civilians interred upon the outbreak of war and those few who had successfully escaped from German POW camps and had managed to cross the border into a neutral country.


 * Most RAF and other Commonwealth aircraft that had landed or come down in a neutral country did so in Sweden as that was closer to the routes the aircraft used to fly. Usually this was due to the aircraft being too damaged and/or a lack of sufficient fuel to make it back to the UK. Such aircrew were then usually surreptitiously transported back to the UK after a decent interval with the knowledge of the Swedish government. The total number of aircraft that landed in Sweden amounted to only a handful, around 20 or so, mostly Lancasters and a few Mosquitoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)