 | A fact from Destruction of Kalisz appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,533 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editFor now that is it. But the article will be expanded. There is a lot more to cover.--Molobo (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I find it a rather confusing account that doesn't adequately explain why the German commander chose to shell the city. I'm not going to put a POV tag on it, but I do think you need to make clearer exactly what motivated the commander to do as he did. At the moment, it reads almost as though he chose to destroy the town for no reason at all, which seems unlikely. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I also notice that this account completely contradicts that at the Kalitz page itself, which says there was heavy Russian resistance in the town. Gatoclass (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I will remove then that information, remember that Wikipedia is not used as a source for itself and that info was not sourced in Kalisz article.
As to the page of the city itself: http://www.kalisz.pl/_portal/118950927446e6789aba3d8/History_of_the_city.html World War one left its tragic stamp on Kalisz. In August 1914 Prussian army obliterated and burnt the town. 95% of old-town buildings laid in ruins.
At the moment, it reads almost as though he chose to destroy the town for no reason at all, which seems unlikely. The stated reason was an exchange of fire in the night, to learn why-see Schrecklichkeit--Molobo (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
i noticed that this article is based on one single source, which seemed a bit onimous. when i followed the link to the source i found that it wasnt active anymore; it leads to a dead end. does anyone have a solution? there seem to be no other sources to verify this incident. 87.171.99.80 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
POV
editI removed this sentence from the introduction because it seemed too POV: "The act was committed on a defenceless, open town with a rich historical tradition and monuments of mediaeval architecture; which the Russian army had left without fighting." The more correct thing to do would be to attempt to change it, so feel free to try and do so if you plan on restoring it. -Noha307 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Further added a POV lead tag to the top of the article, seeing as the problem is a bit more extensive than I previously noticed. -Noha307 (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Which quoted word is POV? Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the POV should be removed because: it was put here in January 2013, the person who put it did not specify what exactly was POV, did not reply to Talk, the article went through many changes since then, and, most importantly, it does not seem to warrant the POV tag currently. Tandrasz (talk)