This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
I agree with your restore. Yes, this is one of typical examples mentioned in the article by Grabowsky. Assuming this is all reliably sourced, I would certainly keep such content. But is it really a malice by GizzyCatBella or just removal of content that is arguably undue on the page? This a page about city. Yes, the atrocities by Nazi should be mentioned (as she did), but should they be described on a half of the page? Is this city so famous specifically for the German atrocities? No one objected to this removal. Such edit would never be as a reason for sanctions, for example on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
My problem is actually more with removing the source than removing the content, if they'd just reduced the content and kept the same sources we wouldn't be having this discussion. How do you remove the best source in the article on due weight grounds? AGF would say thats carelessness, incompetence, or stupidity, to get to malice you have to not AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
In other words, someone (Icewhiz) is inserting huge sections about Nazi atrocities into pages about every Polish town. Is not that POV-pushing? Personally, I do not object it, but maybe that's because I have a similar POV? My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Such content should be split into a subarticle if it is too long and independently notable, but here, I don't see a particular problem with it remaining. Although eventually this event should likely have a dedicated subarticle, as it does on pl wiki: pl:Pogrom w Rajgrodzie. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
