Talk:Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz

• ... that while the 1940 Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz (pictured) affected both Poles and Polish Jews, a number of sources have incorrectly described the victims as only Jews? Source: http://www.archiwum.wyborcza.pl/Archiwum/1,0,4679829,20060715KR-DLO,Yad_Vashem_sie_myli,.html , http://olkuscyzydzi.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Olkusz-Zaglada-i-pamiec.pdf
  • ALT1:... that during the 1940 Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz (pictured), all male inhabitants of the town, Poles and Jews alike, were subject to hours of abuse by the German soldiers? Source: virtually any source

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Norman K. Risjord

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC).

• Review. The article is new enough, long enough and well cited throughout. Copyvio is clear. QPQ is done. It is quite a shocking read - which hasn't been translated to the hooks. I can give you some ideas as starting points "on July 16 the SS arrived, gathered up 20 people and executed them" or on "July 31 Jewish inhabitants were stripped naked, stomped upon, forced to recite Christian prayers and to stone one another". Maybe you have your own reasons not for writing harsher hooks, in which case I will OK the ones above. Desertarun (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Desertarun, I couldn't think of making this fit within the word limit, but I am open to reviewing and "adopting" any ALT hooks you could craft yourself? Regarding the 16 deaths, they were arguably not part of the Bloody Wednesday. It's a bit weird how the day that is remembered is the one with fewer casualties - maybe it's the case of collective memory, the victims of the 16th were killed, but most of the victims of the 31st survived... anyway, that's why I think the events of the 16th are a 'background' and it's harder to work them into a hook, despite arguably 20 casualties being more significant than 1-3 related to the 31st. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've added a couple of alts below, I will strike them if you prefer yours above, it is difficult finding the right words. Desertarun (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Alt2 ... that a photo of Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz (pictured) was taken during the occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany, and is "known to everyone in Olkusz"?
• Alt3 ...that during Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz (pictured), Jewish inhabitants were stripped naked, beaten and forced to stone one another?

• Desertarun, Regarding the ALTs, thank you for the ideas, but with all due respect I think mine are better. Here's why: ALT2 simply describes the picture, plus it unlikely the readers will care the photo is said to be known to everyone in the small Polish town they likely never heard of. As for ALT3, it perpetuates the incorrect description of this event as something that affected only the Jewish inhabitants of the town (reminder: out of 23 known casualties of summer 1940 in Olkusz, 1 has been identified as Jewish, 22, as far as I can tell, were gentile/ethnic Poles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I'm a bit out of my depth with the material, so I've stuck my alts and lets go with your above. Desertarun (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Piotrus, I went to promote this, but I have concerns about your separation of "Poles" and "Polish Jews". Surely the latter were Poles too! Would "... that during the 1940 Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz, all male inhabitants of the town, non-Jews and Jews alike, were subject to hours of abuse by the German soldiers?" be acceptable? (Or "Gentiles and Jews alike", perhaps...). Can you please ping me and let me know? MeegsC (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• MeegsC Fair point! I am fine with either of your proposed changes, but in this case we need to add "in occupied Poland" (following the Bloody Wednesday), as we are losing the information that the incident involved Poland/Polish, people. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Okay Piotrus, incorporating your suggestion, I settled on "... that during the 1940 Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz, all male inhabitants of the occupied Polish town, Jews and non-Jews alike, were subjected to hours of abuse by German soldiers?" Please let me know if that doesn't work for you! MeegsC (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

List of victims

I don't have strong feelings here, just noting it was removed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bloody Wednesday of Olkusz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 22:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "31st July 1940" 31 July
• "on July 14. On July 16" repetitive.
• "The victims of those events were Polish citizens, both ethnic Poles as well as Polish Jews," you already said that?
• "fatalities were gentile Poles.[1]:212" that ref there for a good reason? Can just be linked when it's covered in the main body.
• "during the German invasion of Poland" during "their" invasion to avoid repeating German.
• Ah, the lead called the initial perp a "bandit" but the main body calls him a "burglar". I would stick with the latter.
• "interpreter).[4][8][5]:18–19 Shortly" ref order.
• "ethnicity.[4][5]:19 [1]:71[8]" likewise.
• "possibly - accounts vary - regular" en-dashes.
• "another.[6]:95[5]:20–21[9]:176–179[11] " order.
• "he stomped" stamped rather than stomped.
• "Rabbi Moshe Hagerman the Dayan was photographed, and that photograph..." maybe "A photograph of Rabbi... one of several" to avoid the current repetition.
• Forgive my ignorance, what is meant by "the Dayan"?
• "Poland.[12]:37, 40[13]:107[10]" order.
• " shot.[6]:95[12]:57[10] Two" order.
• "Olkusz in 1961. In 1982, at" repeitive.
• "Since the war ended, the local..." avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
• "while they were ethnic Poles" I think you already made that clear.
• " (2012)[19][16] and again" order.
• "Polish WWII history" World War II.
• What is USHMM?
• "of this to the Wikipedia article on" this is navel-gazing.
• Non-English sources should be tagged with language=.
• Consistent date format required in refs.
• Check ref titles for spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.

That's it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Nice seeing you again. Mostly done. Few comments:

• "stomped upon" vs "stamped upon" - aren't both correct? Also ping User:Nihil novi.
• re the Dayan. Good question, I didn't know myself and just copied this from some source. Beth_din#Officers_of_a_beth_din suggests its a religious/legal title. I am honestly not sure what is the best way to word this. Maybe change "Rabbi Moshe Hagerman the Dayan" to "Dayan and Rabbi Moshe Hagerman" and link Dayan to the link above?
• re "Polish WWII history" World War II. -> I changed it to "with regards to history of Poland during World War II"
• USHMM -> linked (USHMM)
• this is navel-gazing -> well, they did specifically mention this article... what's the harm?
• hope I fixed all the dates and dashes. Is there a script for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The verb "to stomp" is a variant of the verb "to stamp". "To stomp" is to "to trample heavily", "to severely beat someone physically or figuratively", or "to crush grapes with one's feet to make wine".

As usual with synonyms (words that are close in meaning), "stomp" and "stamp" tend to be used in somewhat different contexts – each occupies its own "ecological niche".

To my ear, in many contexts, "stomp" is the more colloquial expression.

I could offer a more informed opinion about the use of "stomp" vs. "stamp" in the article, if the article were accessible to inspection.

Best,

Nihil novi (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It's no big deal. In BritEng, stomp is a little colloquial, stamp is more neutral in tone. But it's horses for courses. So, I'll leave it to the nom to decide, and I'll promote in the mean time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)