Talk:Bombing of Wieluń

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: I am currently working on a translation of this article for the German Wikipedia, the event is at present covered by a few sentences on Wielun history in the article about the city. Unfortunately, the introducing sentences state that the attack started at 04:40 h, which would make it the first assault in WW2, minutes before the shelling of the Westerplatte. OK, I am ready to accept this, providing some sort of citation. The next citation mark is the Nomination Letter for Nobel Peace Price, which is not at the specified location (Wielun local government site). Not a single word in the following article text confirms this early time of attack, but the Ju 57-B "started from Nieder-Ellguth airfield at 5:02 am". Jet lag??? I could imagine that Poland was simply in another time zone, but around 40 minutes from start at Nieder-Ellguth to the attack of Wielun seems to be a lot of time. Anyway, the article should stick either to attacker's time (some time after 05:02 h means after Westerplatte shelling), or to victim's time. Could somebody with access to reliable sources check this, please? --Cimbail (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact time of attack 

message: this sentence is incorrect.
"Journalists Sylwia Słomińska and Joachim Trenkner state that there were no military or industrial targets of note in the area,[5][6] except for a small sugar factory in the outskirts of the town. According to the two journalists, German bombers also destroyed the historical gothic church."
firstly journalists are not historians and neither military experts.
secondly a german and a british historian argue otherwise.
so this in nonsense and not encyclopedic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Journalists aren't as good a source as historians, however they are not unreliable sources. Their opinion is shown with the correct WP:WEIGHT, since it is pointed out that they are only journalists. (Hohum @) 19:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted

message: the sentence "It is considered to be one of the first terror bombings in history and first in Europe in this war.[1]" is wrong.
the definition of terror bombing is "Terror bombing is an emotive term used for aerial attacks planned to weaken or break enemy morale." as you can find it if you follow the link in this very article.
since the bombing of wielun was never planed as such and surely not to weaken or break the enemy morale, it's not terror bombing and absolutely nobody considers it to be the first terror bomb attack in history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.114.46 (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The dozen or so University professors of law, political science, history and philosophy who endorsed the letter, which I have relinked to, don't seem to agree with you. (Hohum @) 19:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: terror bombing

message: this is not the first terror bombing in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bombing#Terror_bombing
Swunt10 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's not a terror bombing because terror bombing is something completely different, as you can read in the wikipedia article or any other encyclopedia. you can't just pretend something is a terror bombing even if it's clearly not. so make an effort and stop reverting my changes or come up with a source (and not a dead link again, I'm sick of deleting this nonsense link to nowhere) that is clearly based on more information than 3 expert historians who studied this incident and published their work.  Swunt10 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

text: The supporting source says otherwise. Your personal opinion on what constitutes a terror bombing isn't relevant. (Hohum @) 15:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted per WP:BRD. Please gain consensus before trying to make your changes again. (Hohum @) 15:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  terror bombing 

message: There were infantry and cavalry divisions in the town. (213.122.111.142 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: German intelligence thought they were there but it's not known if they were really there. It's possible some units were stationed there in peacetime.--Denniss (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The thread started here is a long-term ban evader and troll Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wieluń was a legitimate military target 

message: It's misleading to say there were no military targets when there were reports of an infantry division and a cavalry brigade. That is what the Luftwaffe was sent to bomb. (EmileMeyer (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have a report about German sockpuppets of the same value.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavalry and infantry 

message: :Hans-Erich Volkmann: Wolfram von Richthofen, die Zerstörung Wieluńs und das Kriegsvölkerrecht. In: Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift 70 (2011), S. 287–328. Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The German page is more anti-Nazi than this one.Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  German sources  

message: Polish historian Jerzy B. Cynk, author of "The Polish Air Force at War: The Official History 1939-1943", wrote about the events: "Numerous direct support missions were also flown, with the heaviest attacks directed against the Polish cavalry and troop concentrations at Wielun. (213.122.111.175 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ISBN and page number? (Hohum @) 12:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  There were military targets 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bombing of Wieluń. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222154840/http://www.historiawielunia.gazetawielunska.pl:80/1_wrzesnia_1939.html to http://www.historiawielunia.gazetawielunska.pl/1_wrzesnia_1939.html
*Added  tag to http://www.france24.com/en/20090818-world-war-ii-where-did-combat-start
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bombing of Wieluń. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317212148/http://schron.szczecin.pl/files/artykul-wielun.pdf to http://www.schron.szczecin.pl/files/artykul-wielun.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105195335/http://www.historia.wielunia.webpark.pl/1wrzesnia2.html to http://www.historia.wielunia.webpark.pl/1wrzesnia2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Germans actually bombed the Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade. To say there were no military targets is 100% false, and I am Polish. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:1C24:9114:F4FD:7959 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The author has been blocked.Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade 

message: Removed from Further reading. Pls see de.wiki article: Cajus Bekker. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cajus Bekker 

message: The article recounts the POV of Horst Boog (with a supporting role by some Peter C. Smith, publishing with non-academic publisher Classic publications, and some apparent hearsay about some Jerzy B. Cynk). The article fails to make use of :de:Hans-Erich Volkmann: Wolfram von Richthofen, die Zerstörung Wieluńs und das Kriegsvölkerrecht, in: Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift (2011), vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 287–328. In this article, based on numerous primary and secondary sources, Volkmann comes to the conclusion that commanding officer Wolfram von Richthofen ordered the attack on the town to try the effectiveness of the Ju 87 in combat. Boog is a respected historian and his opinion is certainly relevant, although he has chosen to publish in the collection of essays Kriegsverbrechen in Europa und im Nahen Osten im 20. Jahrhundert, a publication with a partially revisionist outlook, which has received very poor reviews. But Volkmann's article adds importantly to the knowledge about the attack. I do not have Volkmann's article at hand right now, so I leave this note.--Assayer (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of historiographical research 

message: By whom?Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''This is still disputed'' 

message: Relevant (in Polish): . "12. Śledztwo w sprawie zabójstwa przez lotników niemieckich w dniu 1 września 1939 roku, podczas bombardowania miasta, 32 pacjentów Szpitala w Wieluniu oraz kilkuset Polaków i Żydów, którzy zginęli w innych miejscach podczas bombardowania miasta, to jest o zbrodnię nazistowską stanowiącą zbrodnię wojenną (S 10.2004.Zn)." (Long title). Summary of key points: 1) identified German units and commanders involved 2) there were no Polish military units on 1st Sept or in the prior day in the town or its vicinity 3) number of fatalities is estimated at "few hundred". Cited number 1,200 is incorrect and exaggerated (our article gives 1,300...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No military unit in city - was this checked just +/- 1 day from the actual attack? The german intellicence report (claiming a unit there) may have been older as the initial attack was planned for August 26 but then delayed to September 1. Given the current polish government how reliable is this report ?--Denniss (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The IPN (from 2016 it is better than 2018, but still "cloudy") - should be used with great care. I will note that the IPN actually may be lowballing the casulty number - as they look at this from the point of view of a criminal investigation - they tend to stick to 99%+ confirmed estimates - leading to low "at least" estimates (sources looking at this from a non-criminal POV will often include likely casulties (e.g. 50%) in their estimates). It is also a PRIMARY source. It is best, in this case, to rely on SECONDARY sources from mainstream historians from an uninvolved party - and per NOENG preferring English sources of the same quality over non-English ones.Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm afraid, having tried to turn it into a more neutral, objective article, it's now been skewed again with heavy use of a IPN sources, exaggerated claims ("historians claimed categorically", "historical research decisively concluded") and emotive language ("Nazi propaganda", "terror bombing"). It's difficult, because there aren't many sources and they appear to be biased, but we could at least handle them more objectively in the text as I tried to do before. I've reverted the latest series of edits by  and encouraged him to discuss them under the WP:BRD rule, but he's ignored that, reverted my reversion and ploughed on. I'll place a neutrality tag on the article until this is sorted out. Bermicourt (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

text: First, unless we have sources saying that the Nazi Germans made the attack based on reports older than one day or such, this is OR speculation. Second, IPN is still quite reliable, because again, criticism of it is primarily OR. I am not fond of the current Polish government, but I am not aware of any serious academic criticism of IPN reliability. Also, IPN is an historical research institution and its findings are about as secondary as anything else published by an academic publisher. I don't have an opinion on the possible neutrality language issues mentioned above, but frankly, if there are issues here, they generally tend to relate to German Nazi apologetic trying to justify war crimes. Some Polish sources may have exaggerated casualty count, and here the IPN's lower estimate serves as a nice example that they are trying to be objective, not pushing some POV.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a c/e of the article, verifying what I could with the refs; some are not online/linked or are in German. The only NPOV issue remaining seems to be the use of the term "terror bombing", but this is sourced to an (online) German book, and I don't read German, so I can't comment whether this is the accurate term/translation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

text: I will expand the article further during next few days, as I have acquired more literature on this subject.IPN is a highly reliable source towards Nazi atrocities.For the record Muller and Boog have highly fringe views, Muller states that Nazis respected Hague convention in Invasion of Poland, Poland should have agreed to become Nazi puppet state, and that Allies were "perpetrators" in air war while Germans victims.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2017 IPN research 

message: I've read a number of sources, and I don't think there's much else (except the 2009 book by Janusz Wróbel, ed., that's not available online or anywhere near me in the library). As such I think the article is now comprehensive and reasonably neutral. I'd invite User:Volunteer Marek, User:Nihil novi and User:Poeticbent, all interested in Polish WWII issues, to give it a read for prose/etc. Of course anyone else is welcome to comment/edit. I think we can nominate this for WP:GAN in the near future? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article? 

message: This article's lead gives the percentage of the town's buildings destroyed as "75-80%".  The article's "Events" section cites "70%", then "75%".  It might be well to harmonize the numbers, or to state and substantiate a range.  Nihil novi (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Percent of buildings destroyed

message: Under the Purpose section the last few sentences in the second paragraph are not cited. Djmaschek (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Do you think this is up to B-class standards now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think that the article "is not comprehensive and well written" consider putting in a request for a copy edit at GOCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: B class Review

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: This article has the German side led by men of wing commander and group commander rank. While they undoubtedly led the attack, the town was bombed because of orders at air corps and air fleet level. Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen would have issued the order, for StG 77 was under the command of his corps. Dapi89 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with that argument, through I am unsure if WP:MILHIST has some MoS-level recommendations for this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaders