Talk:4th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

message: I would like to put this argument about the idea of the Germans using a "human sheild" as a war crime. they did not do such an act, if one is to research common WWII frontline practise u would know that all land within 8 miles of the front lines were evacuated as quickly as possible.  That is what happened here, the civilian population was being forced out of the area as to common military practises, and they were to go back to their own nation's lands, not the foreign forces side.Jadger 08:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a request for supporting citations to the "human shields" claim. --Lysytalk 08:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Shield

message: Several of the sources in the War Crimes section do not confirm precisely what the article states, which is inexcusable. Secondly, (granted, the Anglo world and any other ethnic community is no stranger to its own biases and manipulative focus) if you are unable to find your "facts" represented to a similar extent in other, non-domestic sources, maybe you should check the sources that your Polish source cites. The printed paper era was not flawless, but academic standards went a long way - unlike the internet, that is a third complaint. As for the content, I do not doubt for a second that atrocities took place, but that is to be expected, regardless of Nation or era, and few other alternative army-related articles go into such explicit detail about the crimes committed within that certain country's ranks (for some reason, you found any broad mention of Soviet related atrocities disputable on the Free City of Danzig page). However, I will assume good faith, as I also agree that the Free State article would benefit from exact citation (by the way, I own a Time-Life source which explicitly mentions German women being nailed to barn doors and raped, beaten and so on and so forth. Another source you might want to check out is Eye for an Eye).--Hohns3 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources and More

message: ::Space Cadet, how is including a picture of executed persons in a trench, who may or may not be associated with the 4th Panzer Division's expedition into Poland, pertaining to a NPOV edit? Secondly, you have removed the wikipedia article advisory warning without addressing your point of view or making any changes. I can't wait to hear the explanation for this one, though I doubt it will ever come. --Hohns3 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The advisory warning removal was an honest, human mistake. And I corrected the edit summary into "restoring historical truth". Thx, Space Cadet 20:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely understood. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. As for the matter at hand and for the sake of illustration, perhaps you should examine the segment on Soviet war crimes in the Red Army article. Germans and Eastern Europeans know better than to brand their oppressors as those "fun loving Rus", but even then the article uses key words such as "revenge" and stresses a refutation of Army leadership complicity, arguably POV pushing in the opposite direction (killing civilians is revenge for an army-related atrocities?). While the article is careful not to break down the supposed "good guy" and "bad guy" distinctions within the Allied and German units themselves, its brief overview is sufficient simply because 1)absence of giant pictures of raped and beaten victims lining the page 2) no absolute denial of the crimes themselves. This article reaches new heights of unacceptability, going overboard with descriptions as well as graphic depictions of atrocities that may or may not be assoicated with this specific grouping. As I mentioned before, I do not doubt atrocities took place, but a brief generalization would be sufficient unless we're going to start to go into excess about the crimes of every nation's army in each division's wikipage, because heinous brutality in war is timeless. Fair is fair and though you may get emotional because it involves "your" people, you'll just have to trust me when I say its all been done before - just not at the same overall scale (thank you scientific racism and war industry-related technology). --Hohns3 04:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV?

message: The image :Image:Warsaw siege4.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Warsaw siege4.jpg

message: Added sources on atrocities in 1939, Polish history books are perfectly RS sources of information per Wikipedia. Also governmental sites can be used. Note that Szymon Datner is expert on the subject.--Molobo (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when they are from Polish sources. They cannot be verified, so dubious and fact tags have been added. Englsh literature sources are needed here. That's all I have to say. I am not going to get into a debate with you because of past problems. Dapi89 (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They can be verified - I don't see your point. If the sources are scholarly and reliable, that's all that's needed. And Dapi89, please be civil to other editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? It is obvious that I have not been uncivil. Please stop being untruthful. Dapi89 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at Molobo's log I can see you are his most ardent defender. Therefore I don't think you can be relied up to deliver neutral arbitration. So I would request other authorities, other than you, to deal with this. And I want an apology for your false accusation. Dapi89 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "am not going to get into a debate with you because of past problems." You are clearly being uncivil, and violating WP:NPA ("discuss articles, not editors").--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. It's away of avoiding yet more unpleasant accusations by this editor. It is the exact opposite. Dapi89 (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What accusations? The only ones I see come from you. I have warned you about incivility; now, please, discuss the article, not the editors. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you won't talk down to me, so keep your phoney warnings and threats to yourself. Your accusation is simple: you said I was uncivil, this is false. Dealing with the main issue, you are engaged in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You are claiming that these authors are being truthful without question. It is customary to use "claim" or "claims" in regard to obscure "historians" or writers. What they say may not be the truth or correct. There needs to be an English speaking source - that way obvious bias and falsehoods can avoided. For example, who was this airman? What unit was he from? Who were these POWs, what unit were they from? It lacks detail, and is suspect. 21:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said: Consider yourself warned; further violations of NPA will be dealt with accordingly. Your edits in the mainspace are violating our policies: words like "claim" violate WP:WTA/WP:WEASEL; Polish sources are acceptable per Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources (English sources are of course preferred). If you want to argue that the particular books or authors are unreliable, you have to present evidence supporting your claims. I've looked into all of the cited authors, and they seem reliable, and well cited. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said: Consider your erroneous threats ignored. And no, "claim" is not a weasel word - more nonsense. It is obvious you cannot be relied upon to unbiased, so neutral arbitration is needed. Dapi89 (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: For now, until I get my sources ready, I have removed the dubious tags. But where the use of "claim" is - there is no violation as far as I can see. So I would request third party arbitration. Dapi89 (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you mean mediation. Although a WP:RFC may be simpler. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added sources 

message: Gumkowski and Leszczynski are historians not writers. The two professions of course are different, a historian is a scholar.--Molobo (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A moot point. The distinction was made already. Dapi89 (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight correction 

message: The current article mentions a battle of Orel in 1942. It links to a Battle of Orel that describes a conflict that took place in the Russian Civil war. 
I am not aware of any such battle in 1942. There was a battle in 1943 after the failure of Kursk, where the soviet armies forced the Germans out of the orel salient, 
this was called Operation Kutuzov (talk) 29 September 2013  —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it comes about three years late but I have now removed the link to the civil war battle. Calistemon (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Orel