Talk:4th Panzer Division/Archive 1

More references needed

For the apparently controversial paras below. Please discuss your edits here instead of engaging in the revert war. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

^Talk 04:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Throughout its existence, the division was responsible for a number of war crimes, most notably against Polish citizens during the Polish Defensive War of 1939. Probably the first violation of the international traties happened on September 1, 1939 when the division used civilians as human shields during the battle of Mokra. On September 3, when a Polish airplane was shot down and its crew taken prisoner. The pilot, after being brutally interrogated and tortured was executed. On September 6 yet another Polish prisoner of war was executed in the village of Czermno. In Mszczonowo eleven Polish prisoners (8 in uniforms and 3 in civilian clothing) were shot in public view by the soldiers of the division. As the division progressed towards Warsaw, on September 8 in Nadarzyn a captured Polish major was ordered to dig his own grave for execution. During an escape attempt he was recaptured and trampled to death by a group of soldiers.

The following day in the village of Ludwikówka additional two Polish prisoners of war were executed. The last major war crime in that campaign happened on September 18 in the village of Śladów, where the entering German forces have executed and drowned in Vistula approximately 300 people, including roughly 150 prisoners of war.

• Janusz Gumkowski, Kazimierz Leszczynski. Okupacja hitlerowska w Polsce. Polonia, 1961. +
• Datner Szymon, Zbrodnie Wehrmachtu na jeńcach wojennych armii regularnych w czasie II wojnie światowej, Polish Ministry of Defence, Warsaw 1961. +
• "The Knights of XX century.Atrocities of Wehrmacht and SS" [1] A short summary of a group of atrocities committed by German forces at the beginning of September Campaign in Poland.Polish historical site.

I civilized the list of sources a tad and re-added the paragraph. I also contacted Shauri on his/her talk page and asked for some arguments and/or sources against it. Halibutt 06:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Halibutt, I know Shauri well, and I can assure you that her removal of information in this case is based solely on past experiences with Molobo who has testified to a lack of judgment in his choice of sources, when he does not simply assert things. It is a good faith edit trying to keep unreliable information away from the article. Thank you for finally getting involved.--Wiglaf 06:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The tendency of Molobo to selectively quote sources to push his own personal views (like other well respected Polish editors have expressed), the dubious quality of some sources he uses (again, pointed out by other users of the same nationality), as well as his precedents of posting inaccurate/false information on these subjects (like here, which proved to be an error by other users and by this page, ironically provided as source by himself), led me to temporarily (I wish to make that clear) remove his additions to this article until a more solid referencing work had been provided. To all Polish editors interested in this issue, I invite to check the discussion through the history of Molobo's talk page. As you will observe, I approached him in a civilized and friendly manner, even praising the referencing work he provided at another article and requesting for a similar one here. This was also motivated by a request in that sense raised by Ansbachdragoner, which had gone ignored by Molobo by simply saying that the sources were two books he had in his possession (providing no quotes nor translations), and a website of non-scholar appearance entirely in Polish (the reason of being written in a foreign language has been wielded by Molobo himself to dismiss other websites provided by other users as unacceptable on other ocassions). Molobo's reaction was to immediately start to question my motives and my good faith, instead of working together to find a suitable agreement as I was proposing. Had he provided at that point merely a short paragraph quoting said books, instead of immediately attacking me without the will of reaching a solution as was being offered, all the wikistress and the long and futile discussion would have been completely avoided.

Like most of you, I've been involved in a few disagreements in the past with certain editors who had an understandable sensitiveness regarding particular issues due to their nationalities, be it Polish, German, English or other. In all cases, I've seen a receptive attitude and a will to collaborate towards a more adequate solution that was of the liking of both parts... until I contacted Molobo. All it would have taken was to provide a very brief sourcing, and I would have praised him and thanked, and moved on, as I've did on every other ocassion. Regarding Molobo's claim that I hold anti-Polish views, I'd also want you to take note that I've been able to work together with no hassles whatsoever with every other Polish editor I've encountered, like Space Cadet, Witkacy, Alx-pl or Lysy. Unfortunately, the case of Molobo is very different, as he immediately takes all positive criticism as a) a personal attack and b) an anti-Polish bias.

To finish this summary, I'd like to reassure that it was never my intention to occult any information over an ideological issue. Molobo suggested that, and even layed suspicion of antisemitism over me, ignoring my part Jewish heritage and the fact that I have relatives who died at the concentration camp of Rivesaltes. What I did, was in good faith, trying to defend the best interest of WP, doublechecking the veracity of the submitted contents from an user who's not exactly known for avoiding controversies. As these arguments have been endorsed by Halibutt, for whom I hold great respect, I consider this matter settled, although I would have preferred a more constructive and less confrontational approach from the user who provided them in the first place. Shauri smile! 18:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Again Shauri you mislead. 1- Regarding Molobo's claim that I hold anti-Polish views Please cite me on this.Where did I said you held anti-Polish views. 2-Molobo's reaction was to immediately start to question my motives and my good faith, instead of working together to find a suitable agreement as I was proposing. Untrue.I asked you why do you believe that the unit didn't committ atrocities.Your answer was to attack my person. 3-Molobo suggested that, and even layed suspicion of antisemitism over me, ignoring my part Jewish heritage and the fact that I have relatives who died at the concentration camp of Rivesaltes. Again you hide the fact that you accused me of having an anti-German bias while I have German ancestors. Also please cite where I call you antisemitic. 4-like other well respected Polish editors have expressed) Thorsten-a user that held very unfriendly views to Poles and almost every post of his was personall attack is believed by you to be well respected ? 5- contents from an user who's not exactly known for avoiding controversies. Indeed mentioning German war crimes, or murder by Rommel of prisoner did evoke controversy in certain editors.Have they been able to prove me wrong ? After all Rommel did confess to executing a French prisoner. And where is that information in article on him ? Certainly nowhere to be seen besided statements of chivalric attitude. Also what do your comments have anything to do with the article ? --Molobo 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

And to your information.I had the quote on the unit all the time.What I wanted was a rational answer why do you doubt its crimes.No answer to that was given by either you or other people that attacked me.Had you did you would receive an answer. --Molobo 21:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A very short reply to your points.

• To your point 1: you did here.
• To point 2: refuted by this unprovoked reaction of yours after kindly explaining why quotes would have been apreciatted.
• To point 3: you acussed me of "agreeing" ideologically with the statements of another user here, which I never did, as I've grown weary of stating at your Talk page. I still await the apollogy you promised me, though...
• To point 4: the fact that you don't respect him, doesn't mean that many people do. I've only seen you two in interaction shortly, but I never saw him mistreating you or otherwise not respecting you or his interlocutors in any way. And even if you or someone else doesn't respect him, the issue pointed out by him remains, and has been endorsed by many other editors.
• To point 5: yes, they have proved you to be wrong on many, many ocassions - you just never recognise it. As to the point of my statement above at this page, it serves the purpose of explaining any users interested in the matter, mainly those of Polish heritage, the reason of the temporary removal of the information you posted at the article. It is specially directed to Halibutt, who requested in a civilized and kind manner an explanation, and thus I hope he's able to observe the good faith behind my actions and my legitimate concerns towards your sources. It is only due to his intervention and his knowledge of the subject that I hold the matter closed on my part, not because of any activity from you, which could have been easily done since you straight forward concede that you had the quotes with you all the time. I also take note that you haven't questioned many of my concerns towards your editing activities above - among them, the quality of many of your sources, which is the reason why I objected them at this article in the first place.
• Finally, to your addendum: I hope you realise all the wikistress, the grief and the frustration you could have spared all of us (including yourself) with five minutes of typing said quotes, an ISBN, a page number. The rationale was kindly explained to you: to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have no idea why you chose the hard way.

This discussion is over, and it could have been over right at its beginning, had you put just a very little bit of good faith and will to avoid conflicts, instead of stirring one out of nowhere. I am always willing to concede second chances to everyone, and that includes you (you may have noticed my respect to your version at History of Germany in the last hours). I hold no expectations that you will actually take it, since I have already given you such chance, which you never cared for - but it's in my nature. No more personal arguments on this matter will receive reply from me. All that was needed to say, has been said; and if you or any other user has any kind of concerns towards me, my beliefs or my editing, I'll be happy to address them at my Talk Page. Regards, Shauri smile! 01:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

GREAT, Shauri! That information will come in very handy during the apparently inevitable Request for Comment on Molobo!--Wiglaf 02:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I was warned about RfC the moment I added the fact about Rommel executing a French prisoner.You aren't the first one Wiglaf :). Perhaps however you will finally say what policy I broke that allowed you to block me.

Molobo, you constantly insinuate ever avoiding to write out in plain words your personal attacks, knowing how much you hurt people. One day, you be before the RfC and I and many many others will rush to it.--Wiglaf 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

out in plain words your personal attacks, knowing how much you hurt people I hurt people by adding information on atrocities made by German units ? What are you talking about ? --Molobo 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The comment is about your interactions with other users.--Wiglaf 07:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted you, as per Revvar.--Wiglaf 23:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

So what's wrong with the above sources? Do we have any sources to the contrary? If we have a source A saying X, and nothing but our own opinion that it is wrong, I am afraid source has a precedence over our own opinions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Piotr, as per Revvar, I don't think it is acceptable with scholarship produced under a communist dicatorship. I know far too much about governments' influence over scholarship, even in democratic countries, to consider cold war scholarship reliable. Please, if the information is so trustworthy, it should be no problem for you to give references to scholarship produced after the fall of the communist dictatorship.--Wiglaf 02:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Piotr, I suggest you to read my concerns above. All we can verify is a website of highly dubious scholarship in a language that me and most people here can't read, and a written reference that we cannot check. We merely asked a "quote", for God's sake, just to be sure - nothing impossible nor difficult to provide, I think. Considering the concerns that many people have expressed regarding this user's work on sourcing, originated in factual errors comitted by him in the past, it was exactly in accordance to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, as I said, I hold this issue closed after Halibutt's own referencing. Shauri smile! 01:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is acceptable with scholarship produced under a communist dicatorship. If you have any reasons to believe that that particular work is biased state them, furthermore in 1961 we hardly had any "communist dictatorship".I see no reason to consider work on World War 2 discounted simply because it was done under socialism.If you have any evidence that the book is untrustworthy, was manipulated or is discredited by historians-be my guest provide such sources. --Molobo 02:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, it does not matter whether a dictatorship is Communist or Nazi. State dictated scholarship is not limited to dictatorships, but dictatorships make the case worse and works in highly political

Molobo, it does not matter whether a dictatorship is Communist or Nazi. The socialist authoritiarian government in Poland of 1961 isn't compareble to Nazi regime in its control over political research or studies. State dictated scholarship is not limited to dictatorships Again Poland was an authoritiarian regime but certainly not a dictatorship.Scholary works rarely were influenced by the state unless they dealt with the history of party in Poland.Do you have any proof that this particular research was done on behalf of Polish government for propaganda purpouse ? --Molobo 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A very short reply to your points.

• To your point 1: you did here.

In responce to your accusations that I have antigerman bias because I put information on Rommels execution of prisoner. To quote

"but with your confessed anti Germanism, which is the omnipresent underlying issue here."

Seems from begining the interest wasn't about the facts but about name calling those who put them. --Molobo 02:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• To point 2: refuted by this unprovoked reaction of yours after kindly explaining why quotes would have been apreciatted.

Refuted by your claims that Polish books that I gave are nothing more then personal blogs. --Molobo 02:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• To point 3: you acussed me of "agreeing" ideologically with the statements of another user here, which I never did

Of course you did by saying : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erwin_Rommel Another comment from Cadorna (this time comparing Jews to Klu Klux Klan and Nazi units to oppresed minority) : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend&action=history "(Serious sources only, please - using www.jewishlibrary.org as a source on this matter is like quoting the KKK on the Black Power article)" --Molobo 16:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading thru the discussion, and I think that rather than a comparison, he was merely offering an example of what an unneutral source is. On the other hand, you, Molobo, have much more to answer for. Shauri 17:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Again-what I had much to answer for was puting a simple fact that Rommel executed a French prisoner. --Molobo 02:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

as I've grown weary of stating at your Talk page. I still await the apollogy you promised me, though... As said :Shauri defended a user comparing Jews to KKK and Nazis to opressed minority. The same user said Yad Vashem and Jewishlibrary aren't neutral sources.Shauri agreed with that.Perhaps my wording was inaccurate.Treat this as one. If Shauri doesn't believe so, then she just needs to confirm that Yad Vashem and Jewishlibrary aren't compareble to KKK and are respectable resources.I will gladly apologize to her if I was mistaken and she didn't support that users views.--Molobo 15:47, 31 October 2005

• To point 4: the fact that you don't respect him, doesn't mean that many people do. I've only seen you two in interaction shortly, but I never saw him mistreating you or otherwise not respecting you or his interlocutors in any way. And even if you or someone else doesn't respect him, the issue pointed out by him remains, and has been endorsed by many other editors.

the issue pointed out by him remains, and has been endorsed by many other editors. Interested in German topics-I can't argue with that.

• To point 5: yes, they have proved you to be wrong on many, many ocassions - you just never recognise it.

In which way was I wrong ? --Molobo 02:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Writing that you can not understand is not an excuse in this matter. You can ask your friend Piotr to read and explain to you henceforth.--Wiglaf 07:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about Wiglaf ? --Molobo 10:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)