Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:47, 1 February 2006

I delete this huge quote part. An encyclopedic article should concentrate on facts. This is not a collection of quotes. Volkerfreund 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Volkerfreund, a sourced quote from an eyewitness describing a massacre in the article certainly seems encyclopedic. It is not part of a collection of quotes, and you are not apparently arguing with its veracity. What is the justification for deleting it? --Goodoldpolonius2 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The facts are encyclopedic, so please stick to them. Quotes of alleged eyewitnesses are lurid and NOT encyclopedic. --Volkerfreund 19:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The eyewitness was examined before a comission that invistigated German crimes in Poland, and his statements are used to this day in respectable publications such as IPN research. --Molobo 19:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. There is no need to bring quotes of eyewitnesses into a encyclopedia. Bring the facts and that's it. Volkerfreund 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether the IPN is so respectable and trustworthy especially when it comes to German soldiers is another question. As I read now the IPN was founded in 1998 so there was quite some time between the war crime and their publication about it.--Volkerfreund 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please give a source claiming that it is questionable that IPN is respectable and trustworthy towards its research.Are you claiming the quote was falsfied ? If so-what are your sources. --Molobo 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As I read now the IPN was founded in 1998 so there was quite some time between the war crime and their publication about it It was founded on the old Chief Commission for investigation of Nazi War Crimes-which worked from 1949 and was founded on earlier Commission. --Molobo 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They are tonns of articles with quotes in Wiki, and it is a normal procedure to insert them. --Molobo 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. It's not about quotes in general but about quotes of alleged eyewitnesses of crimes in specific. Please show me any important article about a crime like Massacre in Jedwabne or the Holocaust which uses quotes of eyewitnesses in the article. --Volkerfreund 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That just doesn't make sense, quotes of eyewitnesses are used in scholarly publications all the time, and in encyclopedias -- they are just another source of primary facts, just as documentary evidence is. If their veracity is questioned, then they should be examined, but why on earth would we delete valid primary information? You are making some sort of statement about encyclopedia policy that seems to be ideosyncratic, it is not the policy of Misplaced Pages, at least. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It's a source, but shouldnt be part of the article itself. Do you see the difference?--Volkerfreund 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be part of article ? Several articles have quotes. Why shouldn't this article have quotes ? --Molobo 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, quotes of famous statesmen et.al. See the difference? --Volkerfreund 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) No not really-witness statements from events are quite suitable. Why shouldn't they be ? Anyway this statement is recorded in scholary research on murder of civilian population by German soldiers during September Campaign, thus suitable for article about the unit that took part in the campaign and engaged in atrocities. --Molobo 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because they make the article lurid and manipulative. But if there are so many articles with quotes of eyewitnesses, please show me some comparable articles with such quotes.--Volkerfreund 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please present the source claiming that the witness is alledged --Molobo 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "alleged" is the wrong word. I'll use "supposed" now.--Volkerfreund 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please give source claiming that the witness is supposed. --Molobo 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Because they make the article lurid and manipulative In which way does it make it manipulative ? May I know what are you claiming ? --Molobo 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The report of an supposed eyewitness is inevitably POV and thus makes the article POV, too.--Volkerfreund 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The eyewitness is seen as reliable by professor Witold Kulesza Prosecutor of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN)- Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation. The quote is from his article in IPN bulleting-article "Zbrodnie Wehrmachtu w Polsce-wrzesień 1939" or "Atrocities of Wehrmacht in Poland-September 1939". Now can I have your source that contradicts Professor Kulesza's article (using the quote as reliable reference)? --Molobo 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And just because youre professor Kulesza who seems not to be especially well-known uses this quote, it is proven that everything in this quote is right? I don't think so. Furthermore I'll delete the quote again, if the changes Kmf164 suggested won't be made. -- Volkerfreund 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless you find a quote contradicting Professor Kulesza from respectable and objective source the quote will stay. --Molobo 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's jump four speech bubbles back, to where Volkerfreund labels the disputed statement POV. Molobo then assures him that the quote is reliable. Reliable in what way? Neutrality? And if we are not immediately swayed by this assertion of Molobo, we have to "find a quote contradicting Professor Kulesza from respectable and objective source"? Do what?? No one has to disprove that the quote "represents all sides fairly" if you can't prove it does. Even if the source coming from the governmental IPN in which the quote is embedded is objective, then it still doesn't necessarily mean that it would not make wiki's article biased when you cherrypick that quote, rip it out of the allegedly objective source's context and put it into the context of that Wiki article. So let's check on whether the wiki article represents views fairly and without bias.

How many participated in that atrocity? 10 soldiers? 20? Maybe even 50? I can see no numbers of soldiers in this infantry division but according to Infantry division, a division is "usually consisting of around ten to fifteen thousand soldiers." Even if you think that 100-150 soldiers were ordered for the massacre in this little village, they would account for only 1% of the division. So to imply that the whole division was just a bunch of murderers is to exaggerate unscrupulously and how can you call that an unbiased evaluation of the division? I have the misfortune of not being able to read Polish and can only assume but not know for certain whether or not the IPN's source is an objective source or just a morbid dramatized view reduced to only warcrimes. Even so, the other source, this one in English, seems unaware of the divisions atrocious behaviour or simply doesn't consider it atrocious on the whole. In conclusion, I don't think the quote should be deleted because if every unfair representation was quickly deprived of some statements for balance reasons, wikipedia might almost just as quickly end up without information at all. I'll therefore just add a warning against POV to the article. Sciurinæ 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Source citation

Where did the quote come from? It's important to reference the quote with proper citations. I'd suggest using a footnote that tells me where I could go verify the quote. Also, I think it would help enormously to give much more context of the massacre, which should probably be in a separate article? Right now the quote just seems out of context and cherry-picked. With the right context, a shorter excerpt of the quote might be okay. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If the reference listed at the end of the article is where the quote is drawn from, please make a footnote to it from the quote. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And is Janina Modrzewska's testimony originally in English or in Polish? Is this quote a translation? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did it come from? The quote is from Institute of National Remembrance bulletin, article about Wehrmacht atrocities in September 1939.The article was written by professor Witold Kulesza who uses the quote as reference .He is the Prosecutor of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN)- Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation. --Molobo 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If the reference listed at the end of the article is where the quote is drawn from, please make a footnote to it from the quote I am inexperienced user-don't know how to make footnoes.I added the article and the bulletin in links:Polish IPN Bulletin, Issue 8-9(August-September) 2004.

Is this quote a translation? This is a direct translation. --Molobo 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I found the quote. Though I don't know Polish (with the help of online translation), your translation sounds reasonable. Still, it's my opinion that the quote needs much more context. What are some other sources about the massacre? And, perhaps this article isn't the best place for it. Maybe this specific massacre needs it's own article, and to be put into context of the Polish September Campaign? I just added a link in the article, though from reading this, I don't still don't understand how this massacre fits into context of the Polish September Campaign.

As for the footnotes, look at Misplaced Pages:Footnotes for instructions. Basically, you need to put {{ref|Kulesza}} after the quote, and put {{note|Kulesza}} in the references section, before the citation. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)