Talk:Witold Pilecki/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza

The website of Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza is not a reliable source.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Media i Społeczeństwo

Media i Społeczeństwo is a peer reviewed journal and the article is available in English. This is a good source on the popularization of Pilecki.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, except you shamelessly tried to misrepresent what the source says. Twice. You made it seem like Pilecki’s daughter’s statement was directed at the Polish government rather the far right parties it really was directed at. You cherry picked couple throw away non important asides from the article.

What was it Icewhiz said on twitter? Oh yeah. “Just add a respectable looking ref, doesn’t matter if the text matches, no one ever checks”. Volunteer Marek 08:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

After discussion, WP:APLRS

After this discussion, the page was updated in accordance with WP:APLRS.--Bob not snob (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You just gutted the article. That is NOT what APLRS or the discussion at RSN recommended. I also notice that you are an account created in November 2019, shortly after the conclusion of the relevant ArbCom case, and that you began editing this topic area immediately after passing the 500 edit restriction imposed by ArbCom. WP:DUCK. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of the sources you deleted were fine. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bob not snob: Can you list the sources you see as problematic (other than Fairweather and Fleming's review, for which there's no consensus ATM)? François Robere (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And here you are FR, on yet another article that you've never edited before, showing up immediately after me. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The source in question was discussed at RSN, so it's natural to look up the page that prompted the discussion. If there's an issue with editor behaviour, please use ANI or AE. This is not what article Talk pages are for. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you've removed an academic source (Fleming 2019) and replaced it with a newspaper article for the volunteering issue. I was about to add Fleming 2014, who also addresses this. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide the exact diff you're referring to? If you're talking about the article by Timothy Snyder then yeah, I think that's a better source than an off hand comment in a book review. Volunteer Marek 01:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't an offhand comment. Fleming is a specialist on how information about Auschwitz came to be known. He discusses Pilecki in his book about that issue (Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust, Cambridge University Press, 2014) in the text and in a lengthy footnote. Pilecki was "pressured", as Fleming put it. Pilecki himself said he was "not all that thrilled", according to Fleming's translation. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'll look in Fleming's book but so far all that has been provided was his book review. At the same time we have several major works dedicated to Pilecki that expressly state he volunteered. In addition to Snyder and Fairweather, we also have a Patricelli who also wrote a book on him. Volunteer Marek 01:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

And as Cuber points out the word "volunteer" is not just due whether he "volunteered" for the mission or was ordered to go but also due to the fact that he "voluntarily" let himself be arrested, which Fleming also acknowledges. Volunteer Marek 01:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

M. R. D. Foot also, iirc, states he volunteered. Volunteer Marek 01:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Snyder is a newspaper article; the Fairweather book is also journalism. The article should be based on scholarly sources wherever possible. He let himself be arrested, which was part of the mission; no need to add an extra word in there. According to Fleming, Major Jan Włodarkiewicz "volunteered" him for the mission. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Fleming (2014, p. 406, note 49) writes: "In Poland and Polonia (that is, amongst the Polish diaspora), there is a hagiographic discourse about Witold Pilecki, claiming both that Pilecki came up with the idea for getting into Auschwitz and that he volunteered for the mission. In actual fact, the circumstances of Pilecki ending up in Auschwitz are somewhat more complicated." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

And Patricelli, Foot, Snyder, Szumilo, Davies, and many other historians disagree. Nota bene we are not writing here that he came up with the idea. Fleming's contention that he did not "volunteer" is the one that is outside of mainstream here. Volunteer Marek 02:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A scholarly source is not an historian writing in a newspaper, especially when it's outside his area. Fleming is a specialist in precisely this area: who knew what about Auschwitz. Which scholarly sources say he volunteered? Please cite them here. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Two of them are in the article - Szumilo and Patricelli. We can certainly include Fleming's view and the details in the article itself, but there's no reason why his view should be the one to dominate the lead. Volunteer Marek 02:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(also I wouldn't say that this is outside of Snyder's area). Volunteer Marek 03:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Patricelli, Marco (2010). Il volontario. Laterza. pp. 53–268. ISBN 978-8842091882. Can you give a page number, please, and briefly summarize what he says? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the title of the book is “Il Voluntario” which I think is quite clear as to the authors’s views. Pilecki is described as voluntarily getting sent to Auschwitz in the Introduction, on pages 10 and 17 and then again on page 88. On page 90 it states that Pilecki volunteered to organize a resistance organization in Auschwitz. Volunteer Marek 04:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. From another source in the article, Cuber-Strutyńska, Ewa (2017). "Witold Pilecki. Confronting the legend of the "volunteer to Auschwitz"". Holocaust Studies and Materials. 4: 281–301:

• "It appears that Pilecki was not, as it has become customary to think, the initiator of penetrating the camp. Therefore it is more accurate to consider the mission of 'Witold' to be rather an instance of obedience to his superiors' orders than voluntary sacrifice" (p. 287).
• "Regardless of the discrepancies concerning the place and circumstances of his arrest, all versions have one common element, and on the basis of this element historians (and not only them) decided that Pilecki let Germans capture him with the purpose of reaching Auschwitz. As a result of later interpretations and simplifications, it has been commonly assumed that Pilecki was a 'volunteer to Auschwitz'.
  "It is difficult to determine the author of this expression. In 1976, it appeared in the title of the French edition of Garliński’s book (Volontaire pour Auschwitz: La Résistance organizée à l’intérieur du camp). In Poland, the definition was popularised by Wincenty Gawron, who entitled his memoirs from the camp (in a large measure devoted also to Pilecki) Volunteer to Auschwitz. It was soon borrowed by Pilecki’s biographers. The neat and meaningful expression has thus become established due to the publications of Adam Cyra (Volunteer to Auschwitz, 2000) and Marco Patricelli (Il Volontario, Rome 2010) and The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery (2012).47 It resulted from the tendency to present people and events in a simplified way, from insufficient source criticism or its complete absence and from failure to notice contradictions in factual documents. As a consequence, in the case of the 'volunteer to Auschwitz', the commonly used expression only partially corresponds with the facts" (pp. 293–294).

SarahSV ^(talk) 07:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

we can certainly include Cuber’s views in the article. In fact I’m pretty sure they’re in there. That doesn’t change the fact that the majority of reliable sources refer to Pilecki as having volunteered. I mean, she pretty much says “that’s what all other sources say, but I disagree” right there - which clearly indicates that this is a minority view. Volunteer Marek 08:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The heroic biographies are not good sources, their goal is at best to sell books not to be accurate historically. Myth needs to be separated from fact.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

right, right, only sources which say negative stuff about the subject are allowed. Volunteer Marek 08:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Majority of sources state that he was a volunteer. The above seems to be a minority fringe view not represented in mainstream research.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The source you added doesn't cite its sources. Fleming (2014) does, and it says that Pilecki was volunteered by Major Jan Włodarkiewicz of the Secret Polish Army. The sources are Pilecki himself and interrogation notes from 1947. Fleming also cites Cyra, A. (2000). Ochotnik do Auschwitz: Witold Pilecki 1901–1948. Oświęcim: Chrześcijańskie Stowarzyszenie Rodzin Oświęcimskich, pp. 61, 172. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Also see the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum, "Polish military resistance movement at Auschwitz. New exhibition in the Google Cultural Institute", 2015:

When in the summer of 1940, several members of the Polish Secret Army (TAP) were deported to KL Auschwitz, Maj. Jan Włodarkiewicz decided to send an officer of TAP (Polish Secret Army) to the camp to create a clandestine military organization and examine the possibility of freeing the prisoners. The execution of this dangerous mission was entrusted to Witold Pilecki, who for this purpose voluntarily allowed himself to be captured by the Germans during a round-up in Warsaw.

SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that Fleming relies on the statements Pilecki made in his interrogation after torture. This is why other sources have discounted this statement or at least don’t take it at face value. I’ll look into the Cyra source (without looking at it I don’t know if it meets the sourcing requirement).

There’s two issues here. What to say in the lede and how to describe this in text. The second issue should be easy to resolve - we just attribute what various sources say. Volunteer Marek 04:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw, my understanding is that in addition to working with two PhD historians, Fairweather, the author some people want to just throw away, also worked with the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum on his book. Volunteer Marek

WP:APLRS v2

I undid many of Volunteer Marek's changes as they removed academic sources, removed page numbers, and added sources that are impossible to verify (no page numbers) as well as failing WP:APLRS. In particular:

1. Snyder in the New York Times: a book review of a non-academic book. Is not a scholarly source.
2. Il volontario: A non-English title, APLRS says English titles should be preferred and they are available here. Further, this is a mass market non-scholarly book.
3. Rising '44: "The Battle for Warsaw": Again a mass market book, non-scholarly. Also lacking page numbers.
4. Tchorek in The Times: Not a scholarly source.
5. Escaping Hell: The Story of a Polish Underground Officer in Auschwitz and Buchenwald: Non-scholarly, memoirs of a Polish officer.
6. Garliński 1975: Old source, lacking page number so impossible to verify.
7. "The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery: Published by Aquila Polonica, not a scholarly source.

Volunteer Marek, please gain clear consensus on compliance before putting more material that is not APLRS.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Snyder is a historian and most certainly reliable and meets the requirement. 2. Petricelli is a historian and most certainly reliable and meets the requirement. 3. Davies is a historian and most certainly reliable and meets the requirement. 4. Tchorek is not needed. 5. Borderline 6. Garlinski is a historian and most certainly meets the requirement. 7. Davies, again is a historian and most certainly reliable and meets the requirement. Michael Schuderich is the Chief Rabbi of Poland and his opinion is notable.

Stop trying to gut the article. Stop trying to WP:GAME the restriction by removing clearly reliable sources that obviously qualify. Stop making over the top POV edits that are clearly meant to be provocative. Stop trying to hide behind “obtain consensus”.

And disclose your previous accounts. Volunteer Marek 07:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

1. As I stated earlier, I don't think we should be using reviews outside the context of reviewed pieces, with exception to our own "internal" discussions.
2. Doesn't seem like a contentious claim, so an English source should be available.
3. There's been objections to using "mass market" books on a related discussion at RSN. If this is another "mass market" book, then I don't see why you'd want to push it absent a new RSN discussion, or even an RfC.
4. -
5. WP:PRIMARY, not "borderline".
6. Garlinski was a well-respected historian, but the book is 45 years old. That said, I'm not sure the claim itself is in any way contentious, so we should be able to find a newer source.
7. See above.

François Robere (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Fleming quote

Buidhe, you are once again completely ignoring WP:BRD and trying to force your way on yet another article via brute edit warring. Your edit has been challenged you, you should make an attempt to discuss it.

And I agree with GCB. That quote doesn't really add to the article, it's kind of just dropped there for no apparent reason (less apparent reasons? Perhaps), it doesn't really relate to anything else in the article, it's sole purpose appears to be to just include something "negative" about the subject. It's clearly UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 07:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And the way it's phrased - yes, it is a quote, but a cherry picked one out of context - insinuates to the casual reader that the fact that Pilecki was "imprisoned in Auschwitz" was a "myth". So not just UNDUE but... misleading. Volunteer Marek 07:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone is going to be mislead by that since the article states clearly what Pilecki actually did. The Auschwitz Volunteer book is a mass-market not scholarly source which doesn't meet article sourcing requirements, similar to most of the content in the article. Fleming, who is a respected historian, says that "volunteer" is not the right word and that you have to distinguish facts from myths when it comes to Pilecki. Not sure why you are trying to remove that. PS I also added content about "Wallenberg myth" according to reliable sources to Raoul Wallenberg article a while back. I think both Pilecki and Wallenberg should be appreciated for what they did not what they didn't do. Having the word "volunteer" in the lead without proper context *is* misleading. (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, I agree, the text you added is misleading, cherry picked and WP:UNDUE. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The quote however doesn't really make much sense and it comes from a book review. The book itself meets the requirement of having been published by a reputable institution, by a award winning author, and has won prestigious awards. Volunteer Marek 08:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply looking at the edit by Buidhe, it does look to me problematic.

1. What is the difference between "volunteered" and "agreed to infiltrate"?
2. What exactly Michael Fleming implies? This is not clear. That Pilecki simply acted by the order? If so, that would be fine (that was a war), but the wording is misleading ("coercion, pressure, manipulation, and bullying". Order by whom, exactly and when? That must be said. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

But in any event I agree that info by Michael Fleming can/should be included to this page. The only question is how exactly (and why) his story is different from the commonly accepted story that is currently described on this page. The edit by Buidhe does not say or explain it at all. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Historian Michael Fleming is a better source than www.doomedsoldiers.com. Fleming and others say this was exactly volunteering, he was forced to "volunteer".Laizx (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Is “doomed soldiers” being used in this article? Volunteer Marek 03:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• As I've commented on RSN, Assessment from professional historians is better than a mass market book. Saying he "volunteered" is not the view of academic sources. Doomedsoldiers, and material taken from it, is not acceptable.--Bob not snob (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Is “doomed soldiers” being used in this article?” Volunteer Marek 03:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure. But what exactly this professional historian tells on that subject? Who gave the order? Who decided that he goes? He or someone else? Did the subject dispute the order and someone "bullied" him, as this historian tells? Bullied? How? By threatening whom? I know nothing about this subject and would like to learn. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It is clear who gave the order, he had one superior officer and he was in a feud with him. Fleming is a superb source.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a book review and the quotations that are pulled out of it are confusing without the context. This has already been brought up.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of the existing 500/30 restriction in this topic area]. Volunteer Marek 09:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fleming is an RS, but I would avoid book reviews in this TA unless on books' articles. That said, as stated at RSN I would also avoid this book, as would most other editors who commented there. In either case this argument is unnecessary, since we already have scholarly sources stating what was claimed (p. 287 onwards here). François Robere (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I see no problem in quoting or discussing reviews on Talk. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: Fairweather actually agrees with Fleming (see Sarah's comment at RSN). This is how he describes the meeting between Pilecki and his commander:

Then Jan turned to Witold. The tension between the two men was palpable.
“A great honor has befallen you,” said Jan.
... [Rowecki] needed someone to infiltrate the camp, gain intelligence, and, if possible, raise a resistance cell and stage a breakout.
“I’ve mentioned your name to Rowecki as the only officer capable of doing this,” said Jan.
Witold struggled to hide his shock. He knew that he was being punished for his refusal to back Jan’s ideology, but he wasn’t going to give him the satisfaction of a reaction...
But given the risks, Jan couldn’t order Witold to take the mission.
He needed him to volunteer.
Witold’s mind raced... He weighed [the] risks against the fact that he had pushed Jan to accept Rowecki’s leadership. How would it look if he balked at the very first request Rowecki gave? He was trapped.

Not taking in any way from his bravery - if at all, just adding to his humanity - but it seems like he was put under personal duress. François Robere (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Along with 1705 other prisoners he reached Auschwitz between 21-22 September 1944 and was assigned prisoner number 4859 under the name of Serafiński.

You may change 1944 to I suppose 1941, seems more logical to me.2003:C9:F72F:2B5A:599D:3DA6:4F55:3CC (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC) 2003:C9:F72F:2B5A:599D:3DA6:4F55:3CC (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: The given source has the year 1940, so that's what I've changed it to. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 22:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Along with 1705 other prisoners he reached Auschwitz between 21-22 September 1944 and was assigned prisoner number 4859 under the name of Serafiński.

You may change 1944 to I suppose 1941, seems more logical to me.46.114.1.170 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC) 46.114.1.170 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: See above duplicate request. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 22:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency?

The "Witold Pilecki" lead states that "In 1940 Pilecki volunteered to allow himself to be captured by the occupying Germans in one of their street round-ups, in order to infiltrate the Auschwitz concentration camp."

The article's "Auschwitz" section says: "He was caught at the flat of Eleonora Ostrowska at Wojska Polskiego Street."

On the face of it, that seems like an inconsistency between the two versions, as street round-ups were performed in the streets, not in apartments.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Marek placed the street roundup in the lead, along with many non-APLRS sources that mythologize the Pilecki cult, dropping page numbers from citations, and adding citations to non-APLRS books in Italian with a page range of over 200 pages. An APLRS source writes: "Pilecki was caught in the already-mentioned flat of Eleonora Ostrowska at Wojska Polskiego Street 40a flat 7 in Żoliborz." Cuber-Strutyńska quotes a description of the manhunts: "The manhunts took place early in the morning, at 5–7 am. They were organised as follows: they surrounded houses and then made a round of all the flats, which required use of much police force […] All men aged 18–45 were arrested as a result of the searches conducted very carefully in all flats, all toilets, etc. […]. They also took the chance to check officers’ registration certificates. --Bob not snob (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not what I did and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t attempt to misrepresent my edits. I’d also appreciate it if you provided a sensical explanation for why you vandalized the article with a false edit summary [1]. This is a very strange edit and I’m at a loss as what could explain it. Volunteer Marek 06:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You placed that text. As explained to you, I made a mistake at 07:20, reverting to this 06:54 version by GizzyCatBella who introduced all these errors. I corrected my mistake at 07:24, reverting to the correct version without the unreliable sources.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Bob not snob - The source of Ewa Cuber-Strutyńska you are referring to and you included in your comment above supports her work on Patricelli's (page 283). The same Patricelli you previously claimed is "unreliable". "3.k Patricelli Marco Il volontario / The Volunteer - not APRLS" - [2] Could you try to be consistent here? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Patricelli is a mass market book of mythology, not history. It is not APLRS. Cuber-Strutyńska specifically points this out: "With the passing of time, it took the form of a legend with new “facts” added. The best example of that process may be found in the description of Pilecki’s arrest provided by Marco Patricelli." And later: "The neat and meaningful expression has thus become established due to the publications of Adam Cyra (Volunteer to Auschwitz, 2000) and Marco Patricelli (Il Volontario, Rome 2010) and The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery (2012).47 It resulted from the tendency to present people and events in a simplified way, from insufficient source criticism or its complete absence and from failure to notice contradictions in factual documents. As a consequence, in the case of the “volunteer to Auschwitz”, the commonly used expression only partially corresponds with the facts. Patricelli's book is an example of light reading, simplified heroic history for a naive readership.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Noooo... -- this is what Ewa Cuber-Strutyńska references to Patricelli (page 283) "In 1931, he married Maria Ostrowska. One year later, Pilecki celebrated the birth of his first born son Andrzej and in 1933 – of his daughter Zofia. He remained active in the military and social sphere. He initiated the establishment of the ‘Krakus’ Military Horsemen Training (Konne Przysposobienie Wojskowe ‘Krakus’), composed of military settlers in the Lida County, after which he was appointed the Commander of the 1st Lida Military Training Squadron, placed under the command of the 19th Infantry Division in 1937. As a founder of a farmers’ association and chairman of a dairy he established himself, Pilecki was active also in his local community. In 1938, he received the Silver Cross of Merit for his diverse activities. During the Polish-German War of 1939, Pilecki as a reserve second lieutenant fought with the 19th Infantry Division of the Prusy Army and then with the 41st Reserve Infantry Division, in which he met Major Jan Włodarkiewicz, the division cavalry commander, and became his second in command." ---- Sorry, I'm having a hard time grasping your way of thinking..so the source you declare reliable uses (according to you), an "unreliable" reference for what's written there, but is it, despite that, reliable? Okay...-GizzyCatBella🍁 07:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Patricelli is a mass market book of mythology, not history" <-- this is ridiculous and a gross misrepresentation of a source. Patricelli is a professional historian and this work is widely cited. Unlike Cuber-Strutynska, which, afaik, is not cited by anyone. This isn't a slight on Cuber-Strutynska, she's a younger scholar. In fact I'm pretty sure this paper was written before she got her PhD. As far as Patricelli goes, you're getting close to a BLPVIO here "Bob not Snob". Volunteer Marek 16:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I read her paper and it is pretty good, but yes, as far as I can tell it is not cited anywhere yet. And I am not sure she finished her PhD yet either. Her bio here suggests she is still a PhD candidate. This is not intended as a slight, to repeat, I found her paper well written and argued - but WP:DUEWEIGHT has to be kept in mind. Back to the topic in hand, her paper does provide a good answer to Nihil novi's question about why there are two narratives concerning the arrest; simply put, that's not an error - there are just two versions of this, both based on reliable accounts (although IIRC she does prefer one over the other, but her view is not the prevailing consensus - although it may become one in few years or decades). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bob not snob, thank you for the above quotation.

If I remember correctly, the mention of "street round-up" was interpolated by me, based on my then understanding of the incident.

I apologize for my error.

It might be well to introduce into the article some of the above details that are not yet present.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a Roundup (history), just not literally a street one, they surronded flats and rounded up most of the men. --Bob not snob (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Removal of uncontroversial content

Were there compelling reasons to remove details of Witold Pilecki's childhood and of his participation in the September 1939 Campaign, and about monuments to him erected since 1989? Even if some sources may have seemed dubious, surely it would have sufficed to insert "fact" requests at appropriate places in the text?

Nihil novi (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Nihil novi, Indeed, I am puzzled as well. PS. I noticed that even a purely technical section on 'Bibliography and further reading' was removed. It doesn't even cite any references (which are not required for such sections anyway). Removal of such informative and uncontroversial content borders on being disruptive. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

@Bob.n.s - If you have concerns about specific sources, please respect WP:BRD and explain yourself on talk. You questioned only a single source (Patricelli). Still, you removed many others, as well as large, uncontroversial masses of text, which appear referenced to sources meeting WP:APLRS. You also undid many other copyediting changes, code fixing, typos, and more. Please respect other editors and discuss matters first before performing the significant content replacement. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There has been a discussion on this page and at WP:RSN. It is you who today entered material sourced to non-reliable and non-WP:APLRS complaint sources, while removing scholarly sources. In your your latest edit, you:

1. Entered content not in the citations: "There is some controversy whether memory of Pilecki is subject to appropriation or usurpation by right-wing nationalists", the citations do no write on "some controversy" but state this as a fact.

2. Removed content on the opposition by Pilecki's family to the narrative pushed by extremists, covered in scholarship.

3. Introduced several unreliable or non-APLRS sources:

3.a https://twitter.com/sabaton/status/1132239925527621632?lang=en - not APLRS

3.b http://realscreen.com/2013/04/25/history-uk-orders-heroes-of-war-from-sky-vision/ - not APLRS

3.c http://www.capitaljfilms.com/products/against-the-odds/ - not APLRS

3.d https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/in-pileckis-footsteps-the-story-behind-the-book-the-volunteer-6661 - not APLRS

3.e https://filmpolski.pl/fp/index.php?film=524105 - not APLRS

3.f https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-mon-awansowal-witolda-pileckiego,nId,1022059 - not APLRS

3.g The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery, Aquila Polonica - not APLRS

3.h Beadle, Jeremy and Harrison, Ian (2008) Firsts, lasts & only: military. Anova Books - not APLRS

3.i https://biogramy.ipn.gov.pl/bio/wszystkie-biogramy/106001,Rotmistrz-Witold-Pilecki.html - not APLRS

3.j The Volunteer: One Man's Mission to Lead an Underground Army Inside Auschwitz and Stop the Holocaust by Jack Fairweather - not APLRS

3.k Patricelli Marco Il volontario / The Volunteer - not APRLS

3.l Adam J. Koch. A Captain's Portrait Witold Pilecki - Martyr for Truth Freedom Publishing Books, Melbourne Australia - not APLRS

Please explain why you are not following APLRS, and why each of these sources meet the APLRS criteria.--Bob not snob (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

All sources meet APLRS outside the legacy section which uses newspapers for recent developments which one of the very experienced editors in the area (SV) told me should be okay[3] --> - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note in passing: I didn't say that. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I am catching up on this discussion. It is interesting, as APLRS states that "all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland". Since much of the Holocaust article is relevant to Poland (territory, Polish Jews as victims, etc.) a broad interpretation of APLRS suggests that there should be no exceptions for the entire article. You replied to GCB by saying that the newspaper she asked about is not about Poland. This is a reasonable point, but the remedy does explicitly allow for exceptions. In the context of the discussion here, the question is relevant with regards to whether we can use lower quality sources (newspapers and such, see 3a-3f above) for the legacy section (which is about post-war events such as monuments dedicated to the subject, so it does not meet the temporal scope of the remedy, just like your argument defends the newspaper used in the main TH article by noting it is used for content outside the geographical scope of the ban). For example, the content that was removed was about uncontroversial issues such as that about a monument dedicated to Pilecki or that he was a subject of some book, documentary, or that he received a posthumous medal or award, or that a street was named after him and so on. If we can use a newspaper in TH article for a claim not related to Poland, I think we should be able to use it here for a claim not related to the WWII timeframe (such as the fact that decades after the war ended a monument was build or a book was published). Also, common sense wise, the remedy was intended to prevent abuse of sources for controversial claims (such as to prevent usage of a claim by a nationalist historian who challenges some inconvenient facts in a niche newspaper) and not to prevent us from referencing uncontroversial details such as "a monument dedicated to the subject was build in Towny X in year YYYY", for which there is no reason to demand highest quality sourcing which likely doesn't exist and for which newspaper level articles and like should suffice). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

::: There are plenty of scholarly sources covering recent developments. Volunteer Marek removed scholarly sources on recent developments.--Bob not snob (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed some cherry picked out of context trivia that you plucked out of a source which effectively misrepresented the source. What we are discussing here however is a different issue - you removed info about the Order of White Eagle and other relevant material, apparently for no reason except to gut the article. Volunteer Marek 19:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

3.g through 3.l most certainly meet APLRS. The other ones, I guess it depends on what they're being used for. Volunteer Marek 18:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

3g through 3i are not scholarly sources and do not meet APLRS.--Bob not snob (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. They are, with the possible exception of Fairweather (where discussion is still ongoing). These are professional historians. And published by "reputable institutions". These easily qualify. Volunteer Marek 19:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

1. The sources aren't APLRS-compliant.
   1. 3g is from Aquila Polonica, a "hands-on" publishing house ran by finance attorney Terry Tegnazian.[4]
   2. 3h is from Anova Books (renamed Pavilion in 2014), which specializes in "illustrated books for the UK and all international markets", with a core of "specialist lists such as craft, cookery, children’s and textile art."[5]
   3. 3i is from the IPN, the highly-criticized Polish institute. The page is not dated, but I'd be wary of anything coming from the institute in recent years.
2. Regarding "cherry picks":
   1. The first ref. to Memory politicized does not accurately represent the source. Instead: "Pilecki's memory is an example of the politics of memory in Poland: stressed by the government and media in defining Poland's ethos, only to be adopted by right-wing extremists." The second ref. is okay.
   2. Mass grave exhumation should be rephrased, as it's cited accurately enough to risk plagiarism. François Robere (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, ArbCom remedy only stipulates that the publisher has to be reliable. Nothing in Aquila Polonica suggests they are not. In general, non-reliable publishers are the ones that specialize in self-publishing like lulu.com. I don't see any evidence that Aquila Polonica is an SPS outlet. Ditto for Anova Books. As for Institute of National Remembrance, it is a reputable academic institution - and the fact that it has been subject to some politicizing and criticism in recent years doesn't change the fact. If you would like to argue otherwise, I suggest starting a discussion about those outlets at RSN. Crucially, none of those sources have been used for any REDFLAG or UNDUE claims, so why has the content been removed, rather than just the references (which could have been replaced by a {{fact}} or amended by {{better source needed}}? We may want to improve some references here, but there is no consensus (nor any reason) to remove a third if not more of the article's prose content, is there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus:

1. The exact phrasing of WP:APLRS is "high quality sources... specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions". For a publisher to be "reputable" it has to be well known in some sphere of reference, in addition to reliable. Aquila Polonica has no reputation to speak of - it's a one-woman operation ran by a lawyer[6] who's also a budding playwright,[7] whose raison d'être seems to be eyewitness accounts of Polish heroics[8] ("Aquila Polonica"? That's "Polish Eagle" in Latin). This sort of stuff is exactly what APLRS was meant to filter out.
2. Re: Pavilion ("craft, cookery, children’s and textile art") - could you please look up their peer-review policy?
3. IPN hasn't been subject to "some" politicizing - its mission statement has literally been changed to accommodate current political agendas, its director is an appointee of the Sejm who ran on a revisionist platform (see Bevernage and Wouters, The Palgrave Handbook of State-Sponsored History After 1945 (2018), p. 267), and it possesses prosecutorial powers - government powers. So yes, it's doubtful that it's an objective research institution like one would hope we'd use here.
4. These are two separate issues. I don't object to restoring the claims with {{cn}} tags for the time being. François Robere (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The IPN law was amended in 2018. The source being used predates that [9]. So EVEN IF you had a point about IPN "being changed" it doesn't matter. Nice try though. What's an "objective research institution"? "Objective" according to who? And where is that in either WP:RS or WP:APLRS? Oh. It's not in either. Hmm.

As far as Aquila Polonica goes, the book has been widely reviewed and cited. And we are not using the main text, we are using info from the introduction from prominent historians and commentators (like the chief Rabbi of Poland). So again, no, but thanks for trying. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

But Szarek was appointed in 2016, and politicization has been going on for much longer (as discussed by Kornas, Śliwowska, Michnik, Goddeeris, Fedyszak-Radziejowska, and others).

Perhaps, but I bet most of them cite the translated body (which is WP:PRIMARY), not the introduction. Regardless, I don't recall similar articles having this sort of prose in the lead; surely we can cite any number of scholarly sources if we want to state that he's a national hero? François Robere (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Szarek being used as a source? No? Then what does this have to do with anything? Or for that matter the other names you list as if they were supposed to prove something (what exactly?) What do any of them have to do with this article? Volunteer Marek 00:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

what exactly? We're discussing politicization of a publisher, so presumably you're aware of scholarly critiques (by Kornas, Śliwowska, Michnik, Goddeeris, Fedyszak-Radziejowska, and others) of said publisher as political.

Is Szarek being used as a source? Szarek is essentially the publisher, so yes. François Robere (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ummmm... "scholarly critiques" of IPN by... Fedyszak Radziejowska? Really? I'd love to see that one. Are you sure know what you're talking about here? Perhaps this is a language thing.

And no Szarek is not "essentially the publisher". I'm not sure what you mean by "essentially" here, but he was not even in IPN afaik when this source was published. Volunteer Marek 16:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. Regarding Szarek - as I said, if it's 2009 it's probably fine, but anything from the mid teens onward should probably be regarded as questionable. François Robere (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, The IPN biography by Świerczek dates to at least 2009, which is way before the PiS era (that's when it was added to Wikipedia, the article may in fact be even older but it is hard to pinpoint the exact date). Anyway, if it is used to support any REDFLAG claims you are more than welcome to discuss them here. Can you tell us if any of the removed fragments struck you as requiring double-checking due to unlikely or non-neutral claims being made? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Very well. 2009 is not entirely before the PiS era - they were also in power 2005-2007, and the IPN saw some change back then too - but at that point the institution still had a reputation with regards to scholarly activities, so unless the page saw significant revision since then, I'll accept. François Robere (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, That's appreciated. Now, in the spirit of good faith coop, I'd invite you to check all claims sourced to this ref and let me know if you think anything is dubious or undue (you can see them in the older revisions from few days ago). I see GCB restored some information from early life and I think it's all fine, and we should restore other removed uncontroversial information. In the long run, of course, it would be good to use an even better source. On that note, which of the monographs on Pilecki do you think unquestionably pass APLRS? Just for future reference in case, we decide to improve this article back to FA again one day. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There's still so much work to be done I'd rather not deal with hypotheticals, but I'd be more than happy to chip in when we've something concrete. François Robere (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

1. François Robere, Minor, specialized presses are considered reliable as they meet WP:RS; the burden of proof lies on you if you want to show that this press doesn't have a peer review. or is considered heavily biased or such. Do you have any proof that the sources cited meet WP:QUESTIONABLE ("Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions")? Anyway, referring to what RSN actually says is good. It recommends that we use the following metric: "One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received". A quick check at Google Scholar shows that works by Aquilla Press and IPN are hardly ignored, and in fact are cited and reviewed. Here, for example, is an academic review (guess what, positive) of the book on Pilecki published by them. Here's another. There are academic reviews of some other works published by them, and of course citations. Including Cuber-Strutyńska, for example, who is one of several scholars who cite Aquila Polonica's book on Pilecki, without any indication that she considers it a problematic source. So, IDONTLIKEIT aside, we have zero proof that AP is seen as low quality source, and on the contrary, we have evidence it publishes works that are well reviewed and cited in academic discourse.

   As for IPN, I doubt it is a good idea to try to resurrect Icewhiz's crusade to portray it as a biased source. It has some minor problems in recent years, but it doesn't affect the bulk of research it publishes, some of which is better, some of which is worse, and all of which is reliable. A few scholars have criticized it but this is hard from serious or uniform. Ex [10] (2017): praises IPN " While securing an academic position is hard for everybody, the IPN offers an alternative. It allows many contemporary history specialists to work as professional historians without being recruited in an academic institution" while also noting it has some limitations "The IPN is far from producing a critical approach to history, one that asks its own questions and is methodologically pluralistic" and concludes that "While this kind of institute ]IPN] is not an unusual endeavour in central Europe, the resources at its disposal have made it unrivalled as a research centre in the academic world. Yet in recent years, its work has somewhat diversified as its administration has taken note of criticism on the part of academics." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'm okay with small specialized presses, but not with minor ones. WP:RS and WP:QUESTIONABLE are merely the starting point here; for WP:APLRS we need a guarantee of high quality, expert peer review, and in a press like AQP that just doesn't seem to exist. Per Policy the burden is on you to prove that such a mechanism exists, not on me to prove otherwise.

We indeed often use citation counts. Their inaugural book, The Mermaid and the Messerschmitt, has only two citations. Their 303 Squadron: the legendary Battle of Britain fighter squadron - three. Some of their books, including Garliński's 1975 Fighting Auschwitz (70 citations), aren't even listed. In fact, going through their entire short catalogue,[11] they seem to be no book other than Pilecki's (a translation from an acclaimed Polish source) which garnered more than three citations.

IPN can hardly be ignored, but that does not in its case guarantee reliability - it's a major Polish publisher with a budget that far exceeds any academic WWII research institution, it has the support of government etc.; but it's also more often and and more fiercely criticized than anyone else, and one can hardly deny their academic prestige is on a rapid decline. François Robere (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, Small versus minor is splitting hair. You say this press is minor, I say it is small. As for the burden, I proved it is reliable by showing their work is being cited, as required by RS. Now the burden is on you to show a reliable source that calls them unreliable or biased.

As for IPN, the solution is simple. If any work they publish contains questionable claims, then we see if they are contradicted by other scholars and discuss what to do in that particular example. No need to reinvent the wheel and waste time beating the dead horse here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hardly. There are a lot of specialty publications that are known for quality and impact - which is to say they're not "minor" - despite being relatively small.

Summary of AQP:

1. Self-admitted hagiographic single-purpose publisher
2. One book - translation from a Polish RS, not in-house creation - much cited. They're now turning it into a play
3. Eight other books with <3 citations each, some with none at all, 2-3 not even listed on GS (including one whose 1975 original has 70 listed citations)
4. One-woman show, and that woman is not a historian but a finance lawyer (and budding playwright - see #2)
5. No evidence of peer review

I really don't get why we keep having these arguments when we have perfectly good sources from established academic presses and the like. François Robere (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, First, that's your summary, WP:OR (but hey, that's allowed on talk pages). Now, let's look at what published sources say about AQP. 1) a (positive) review of the book in Tablet magazine [12]: " Aquila Polonica, a British-American boutique publishing house that specializes in bringing obscure and tasty Polish curios to the Anglophone worl". 2) an article at culture.pl, a respect website dealing with Polish culture, states [13] "Aquila Polonica Publishing, an award-winning independent publisher based in Los Angeles, specialising in publishing the Polish WWII experience in English. The company is a member of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the Independent Book Publishers Association (IBPA). ". 3) Reid in his academic review [14]: ". By honoring Pilecki’s words as written, Aquila

Polonica Publishing places the reader inside Pilecki’s thoughts and decisions as they unfold." 4) a reviewer for the Michigan War Studies [15] "The small specialty publisher, Aquila Polonica,". Hmm. So let's try this again. Do you have a single reliable source that suggest this publisher is not reliable or reputable? All I see is praise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, "when we have perfectly good sources from established academic presses and the like". Great! I would be happy to defer to a better monograph about Pilecki. I am not picky, please tell me which book about him do you consider better, given "we have perfectly good sources from established academic presses". By all means, point me to them. I will be waiting here, virtually, for your overview of those better sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, digging up positive reviews for "tasty Polish curios" (which doesn't sound very academic) isn't OR in the least. Also, that's for their one book that got >3 citations.

And just so you know, "culture.pl" is just quoting AQP's own PR blabber. You know who else is a member of the Association of American Publishers? Riverdale Avenue Books, an "award winning, innovative hybrid publisher" of LGBTQ+ erotica.[16] And they also publish on Communist Poland![17] I bet there are some "tasty Polish curios" there as well...

I would be happy to defer to a better monograph about Pilecki "I can't find a better source" does not a good source make. And it's not even "about" Pilecki but "by" Pilecki, making it WP:PRIMARY and problematic even by WP:RS standards - presumably the reason only the introduction is used to source a quote from Poland's Chief Rabbi. François Robere (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, Or the introduction by Davies, both of which seem quite reliable. (I agree on PRIMARY, however do note that SPS does allow us to quote such works, attributed, for topics about the subjects...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Really bad edit, false edit summary

Bob Not Snob, in this edit you used the edit summary The returned content does not meet WP:APLRS). However, that edit DOESN'T EVEN edit anything related to sources! All it does is introduce a bunch of mispellings and bad formatting. It:

1. Changes "Wilno" to "WIlno" with two cap letters in front
2. Changes "underground" to "undeground"
3. Removes "]]" brackets from several wlinks for some reason
4. Changes "Report" to "Rapport"
5. Removes the word "equipment" making the sentence not make any sense

I'm not sure what happened here but this looks like either WP:CIR or just vandalism. I guess it could be some kind of accident but since it's all over the place in the article I'm having a hard time seeing as it could be. And this is with a completely false edit summary to boot!

Please stop. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I clicked on the wrong version at 07:40. I fixed it at 07:44. I could not change the old edit summary, but I stated what I did at 07:44, four minutes later. I hope this clears this up.--Bob not snob (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that explanation makes absolutely no sense. The "wrong version" you claim you clicked is EXACTLY the edit that I'm bringing up here for consideration - the one where you introduced numerous mis spelling and messed up the formatting. That is the edit that looks like straight up vandalism of the article. How can you justify this edit by ... linking to the edit itself?

And no, you did NOT "fix it" in the second diff edit [18]. The misspellings and bad formatting are still there. Well, a few of them are gone but only because you simply gutted the article removing 11k worth of text altogether. Volunteer Marek 19:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

As explained to you, I made a mistake at 07:20, reverting to this 06:54 version by GizzyCatBella who introduced all these errors. I corrected my mistake at 07:24, reverting to the correct version without the unreliable sources.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you did not. You re-inserted this error "Wilno" to "WIlno" (for example) with this edit[19] and you never corrected it in your next edit [20]. The error I previously corrected but YOU reintroduced STILL remains in the article in the “Early Life” section.(as of 7:44 March 4th, 2021) [21]. Seems to me that you did’t even carefully read what you are reverting. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: I've looked at the bot version from 14:01, 2 March 2021 (immediately after Bob's changes) and I can only find two errors: "WIlno" instead of "Wilno", and "Rapport" instead of "Raport". These are relatively minor mistakes that seem to result from fast typing and inattentive use of a spellchecker, not something that on its own should raise the prospects of WP:CIR or WP:VANDALISM. François Robere (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Then look again. These were not the only bad edits made in that edit as I've already enumerated above. Also, I think "Bob Not Snob" can address this themselves. Volunteer Marek 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure he can, but on Wikipedia the more eyes the better, so I checked it for myself. I can't find the other errors in the revision immediately following Bob's edits,[22] which suggests that they were fixed at some point in between. François Robere (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Inmate 4859

Should an addition be made under "Legacy" to include the Sabaton song "Inmate 4859" from their album, Heroes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.152.161 (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't it already mentioned there? In either case, if you have a reliable source for this, please do so (WP:BEBOLD!). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't find any mention in the article. Would track commentary be sufficient? 37.249.96.31 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It depends in the reliability of the commentary. Who wrote (said?) that commentary? Written and independent sources are much preferable, could you locate one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

In the External Links section, please add a link to the BBC video on the life of Witold Plecki: https://www.bbc.co.uk/reel/video/p0b711n3/the-man-who-volunteered-to-be-imprisoned-in-auschwitz Quantile (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Already Enough Links LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

parameter v. perimeter

I think this article's single occurrence† of the word parameter should be the word perimeter".

can someone make this change?

†On the night of 26–27 April 1943 Pilecki was assigned to a night shift at a camp bakery outside the fence, and he and two comrades managed to force open a metal door, overpower a guard, cut the telephone line, and escape outside the camp parameter

[last paragraph before "Outside Auschwitz" section head.] sabellsmith (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

I think the single occurrence of the word "parameter" in the article should instead be the word "perimeter".

Assuming perimeter is the correct word, can someone with 500+ edits make this change?

 On the night of 26–27 April 1943 Pilecki was assigned to a night shift at a camp bakery outside the fence, and he and two comrades managed to force open a metal door, overpower a guard, cut the telephone line, and escape outside the camp parameter.

[First sentence from the last paragraph before the "Outside Auschwitz" section head.] sabellsmith (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to report this here, I've fixed this. Hope you can get 500+ edits soon to be able to do such edits yourself. Unfortunately, Polish-Jewish history has been targetted by a particularly vicious troll who has been disruptive to numerous articles necessitating a high level of protection. One person has the ability to do much good on Wikipedia - but sometimes, also much harm... Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Would someone with edit rights change "Captain, Cavalry Master" to:

"Rotmistrz (Cavalry rank equivalent to Captain; cognate with German "Rittmeister", Swedish "Ryttmästare", etc.)

Ta! 184.56.8.140 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)