Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre

Murphy Report

I have spent some time to find definite evidence of what can be read in that "Murphy Report". There is NONE!! Yet there is the slight chance that Lt. Murphy was talking about photographs he had been shown and misinterpreted one of them and wrote his error down in those two handwritten lines below the official type written report because he obviously had forgotten to remember this most dramatic content when he pinned down his memories on several paper sketches on which basis the official report was finally put together. His grand son, a Ministery of Justice laywer, and professor, made a big deal out of it, failing to check where his grandfather had actually been under Resistance fighter's shelter who had taken the responsibility for the arrangements to fly him back to England. He also failed to locate that "Gerbeau farm" where his grandfather waited for his flight; and he failed to check the distance beteween that farm in the Cher départment and Oradour in Haute-Vienne: 113 miles on German-controlled roads, leading through at least three départments of France. How could Lt. Murphy cover "by bicyle" within a "four-hour drive", as he himself wrote, that distance?? Not speaking a word of French, what did he want in "Oradour" of which village - not town as can be read - he didn't even mention the name? He wasn't on vacation in France but the navigator of a shot down B-17 bomber who had to struggle to get back to England and not driving around with an old bicylce for sightseeing purposes, apparently without any accompanying resistance fighters who had better things to do. To put an end to all this "sensational news" and this "the only American witness of the Oradour massacre" stuff in several articles in US web journals caused by believing in unchecked tales, or in a fancy interpretation of two handwritten lines the basic irreality of which could have been easily found out by a short look at google maps, here is a link which puts an authoritative endnote to that "fairy tale":

https://www.lepopulaire.fr/oradour-sur-glane-87520/actualites/oradour-la-rumeur-du-bebe-crucifie-sur-la-porte-de-l-eglise-relancee-par-slate-fr_11039618/

For those who don't read French: Robert Hébras, the last surviver of the Oradour massacre striktly dismisses the story of the "crucified baby" as an old legend which is not based on only the slightest truth. The short note was published already in 2014. Will somebody, please, erase this hoax from the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.70.88.41 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This will not be done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Murphy would not have known who crucified the baby or when it was done. If anyone thinks the French partisan groups were all gentleman patriots, they have much reading to do. They were not averse to fighting each other as they were not a homogenous organization. Republicans, monarchists, communists, fascists, all were represented in the ranks of the various paramilitary groups in France. If editors of this article are convinced that this dead baby existed, fine, but there is no reason to believe, as the article infers, that the Germans did it. Talk about gilding the lily.174.0.48.147 (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, considering the fact of the German massacre, there is every reason to believe that the Germans did it, and no evidence whatsoever that partisans did. Not done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

8 September 2022

User:Beyond My Ken there is no reason for "carefully selected image sizes" on this page than on any other page. Please reinstate my edits. Mztourist (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course there is. Layout and presentation are very important aspects of every Wikipedia article. Further, there is absolutely no requirement or policy which mandates that images be presented without being sized appropriately. 20:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Beyond My Ken (talk)

@Beyond My Ken: Mztourist's version looks markedly better and easier to read on my machine. Please bear in mind that article layout will look different for various readers for a number of reasons and that the default is default for a reason. I agree the Mztourist version should be restored. VQuakr (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I strongly disagree with your assessment. In particular, the maps are virtually unreadable in MZT's version. Beyond My Ken (talk)

I've taken another look at the article with these comments in mind, and I generally still think the standing version is better than MZT's - however, I've made some adjustments to it which I believe improve the presentation of the article for the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You say "I am aware of that", but are you? Because then you say "the maps are virtually unreadable in MZT's version" in the same reply even though that is going to be a different result on every person's machine. You're frankly edging on WP:OWN territory here with the attitude that your way must be superior. VQuakr (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing OWNy about it. Your objection that an image size violates IMAGELOC is untrue, please read the guideline -- which, by the way is a guideline, and not a policy, and therefore not mandatory. The version before MZT's edits was in the article for quite a while, so there's no evidence that readers found it objectionable, aside from the two of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Le sigh. It would be easier if I could show you the way your version looks on my screen since you don't seem willing to believe us that what you're doing (which I'm sure looks great from your end) doesn't work for others. Silence is the lowest level of consensus and doesn't give you the right to dictate the layout to multiple other editors who, now, are objecting. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Also I think you're mistaken; it appears the move of the map to the left was a recent change, [1]. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr. The default layout should be applied uniformly across all pages. Beyond My Ken you have not presented a valid reason why my version should not be adopted, there is nothing unique about this page that requires different image sizing from any other page, the maps are unreadable either way and you would need to click on them to view them properly. Unless you can bring in other Users who agree with you we are the consensus. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "the default layout", that's a made-up thing. There are default sizes, but these are not preferred sizes, they are simply what the software defaults to if nothing else is specified.

I challenge you to provide a link to any Wikipedia policy -- or eve a guideline-- which says that "The default layout should be applied uniformly across all pages." You wont be able to, because it's not a thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There's also a reasonable expectation that that default should work in most cases, or else something else would be the default. So if something looks congested, reverting the overrides back to the default is a reasonable first step. BMK, a possible contributing factor is the large number of images. Maybe the evasion report should be removed? It doesn't add much, as an image, to the article. VQuakr (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Going back to first principles, we should worry more how this improves the article and aids readers in understanding it. I did some tests in mobile view and desktop view on small mobile devices, and while there is no significant difference between the two in desktop view (both are illegible), in mobile view, the larger one fills the screen width, and although you still have to click through to read the fine print, it gives a better view of what you're clicking on. In mobile view however, the larger one seems better, although you still have to click to read the fine print. In the case of laptops and other larger devices, the larger image is better; if you're myopic or have 20/20 closeup vision, the larger one is just barely large enough to read the fine print, whereas in the smaller one it isn't, although clicking through makes sense in either case. Given that you pretty much have to click through in either the smaller or larger one to read it comfortably, I don't know that it makes that much difference which one we use. That said, it's a dramatic image, and it draws you in, and the larger version gives it more impact.

Given that the image more or less summarizes the most important features of the entire article, I can see an argument for using the image at full page width size. This would be unusual, to say the least, but not unprecedented, and may make sense in this case. Note that in small mobile devices, viewers would see no difference at all, because it would be resized to the small screen width, and look exactly like the image does now. The only difference would be on larger devices, where the image would fill the screen width, and become completely legible.

Sample look of a page-width version of the image

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Sequence of events by the SS at the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre on 10 June 1944 Fusce convallis, mauris imperdiet gravida bibendum, nisl turpis suscipit mauris, sed placerat ipsum urna sed risus. In convallis tellus a mauris. Curabitur non elit ut libero tristique sodales. Mauris a lacus. Donec mattis semper leo. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vivamus facilisis diam at odio. Mauris dictum, nisi eget consequat elementum, lacus ligula molestie metus, non feugiat orci magna ac sem. Donec turpis. Donec vitae metus. Morbi tristique neque eu mauris. Quisque gravida ipsum non sapien. Proin turpis lacus, scelerisque vitae, elementum at, lobortis ac, quam. Aliquam dictum eleifend risus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam sit amet diam. Suspendisse odio. Suspendisse nunc. In semper bibendum libero.

This would be a dramatically different look on the page (for those using laptops or large screens), but I think it might be justified in this case. Given that it's rather a large departure from the norm, I'd rather see it discussed by more editors than we have here, before implementing something like this. But to my way of thinking, it's a clear improvement for the reader, as it isn't just "decoration"—as many images frankly are—it tells a major part of the story in itself, which makes it justifiable in my book, and worth considering. In the same way as we know that most readers never read past the lead of an article, I think having this image fairly soon after the lead, would focus the attention of a lot of readers who have no intention of reading the whole article, but they may spend some time on the large image, and actually learn a significant portion of the whole story. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a standard photo size and layout adopted across most pages, but for some reason BMK thinks this page warrants different treatment. We don't adopt this approach for the My Lai Massacre, Massacre at Huế, nor any other similar event that I'm aware of, so why should this page be any different? Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "standard photo size", that's a delusion, there is only a default size, which is -- as I explained above -- not intended to be a preferred size. Nor is there a "standard" layout. Each article is somewhat different depending on its content, the number of photos, graphs, table, etc. What should be standard for every page is not ticking off boxes in some imaginary list of standards called for, but instead making sure that the presentation of the article is the best possible one to provide the information that the reader needs. If a map is too small to be seen, make it bigger, if an image has no impact at the default size, give it a size which allows the reader to see it comfortably. If the elements of the article are out of balance, do something about it. No article is exactly the same as any other, so robotic guideline-checking is not called for, intelligent editorial judgment is.

My thanks to Mathglot for checking the article under numerous conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Those pages could be helpful in analyzing this situation. I looked at the pages you linked, and all of the images on both articles are decorative; nothing much would be lost by eliminating them. They serve to break up what would otherwise be walls of text and make the article more visually appealing. Don't get me wrong—that is a valuable function, as a more appealing page is more likely to be read.

The image in question here, is of a different nature. It is in itself, a narrative of events, in at least three dimensions: geographically (two dimensions) and in time (the third). In addition, the labels identify the important locations of the massacre, and the numbered circles and the callouts identify a sequence of events in time, "telling a story" of what happened that horrible day. That is very different from all the images in those two articles, and some might say that that deserves a different treatment. If the Huế or My Lai pages had detailed images of this nature, maybe we would be talking about adding them at those articles, as well.

But let me ask you a question: you said, "why should this page be any different?" Am I correct in assuming, that you set great stock by consistency across pages with respect to their use of images? Because other than consistency, I don't see where "a standard photo size and layout adopted across most pages matters at *this* page. Or is it something else? Because, I'm not sure that there's a policy or guideline that covers "standard photo size", and in the absence of such a guideline, I think we are free to do whatever makes this particular page most useful to our readers. I'm sort of toying with the idea that it might be, a full-page width image. I'm guessing you wouldn't support that, given your opposition to a 1.6x image, but if not, why not? Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me try a different approach, more at an emotional, or gut level: if we had that image at full page-width, it would be a bit shocking, because readers are not used to seeing that at Wikipedia. But in a way, that echoes the "feel" of these events, which are extremely shocking, and far out of the ordinary. Maybe only one in a thousand articles should have a full-width image, but if that's true, which articles would they be? I'd argue, this is one of them. The events at Oradour-sur-Glane were so irretrievably shocking, that if we shock our readers with a full-width image that they are not used to encountering at Wikipedia pages, this will give them a gut punch worthy of the facts of the story, and perhaps induce them to read on. I realize I'm stretching the boundaries of policy and guidelines with an approach like that, but it's what I feel, when I read the incredibly sad and cruel story of the events that happened there. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Any massacre is shocking, there is nothing more shocking about Oradour than any other massacre and so there is no basis for treating this page any differently. Consistency across pages is important. There should be a uniform look to pages, Oradour should not be different from other pages. Mztourist (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, one could possibly argue that having this page look different than, say, My Lai, gives it undue weight based on its location and victims (Western Europeans). If this article is adjusted to create "shock" value, then My Lai and Hue should also be adjusted. If that's not the goal, then this page should be similar in look and feel to those. Intothatdarkness 13:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no intent to create "shock value" - there are many more things that could have been done if that was the goal. The only intent is to present the best possible page for the reader. As for other pages, well, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST - perhaps those pages are overdue for a visual overhaul. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, though, it comes down to your opinion of what the best possible page happens to be. Objections have been raised to that opinion. My mention of shock value was in response to Mathglot's comment above. Intothatdarkness 18:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Perpetrator flag

@Beyond My Ken: The massacre was perpetrated by SS Division Das Reich, which, as a Waffen-SS division, would be identified with the SS flag. The SS was obviously an apparatus of the Nazi state, and it's unlikely that readers would not know this. Would it not be more appropriate to use a more specific SS flag in the infobox, as opposed to the broader Nazi flag? CJ-Moki (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:FLAGS. It's bad enough to subject the reader to the fag of Nazi Germany, but that's germane since the unit was a part of that polity's military. It's overkill to add the SS flag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This Wiki article is very sketchy and needs improving and only one website sets out the real events and has existed for 23 years

https://www.oradour.info/ 2A00:23C4:1486:D001:E540:66C3:1462:97C0 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)