Talk:Grojanowski Report
Appearance
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Is there a reason for the "x" in the deathcamps.org URL and the notice about how to access? -Etoile (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- The reason was that for some reason that URL was blacklisted, so this was a simple workaround. This was a couple of years back, perhaps things have changed. Crum375 (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- The problem was that there was a big argument between the owners of two different websites (one of which is the one whose URL is mentioned above). To settle things, we blacklisted both their sites' URLs. DS (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge proposal
[edit]Szlama Ber Winer (Bajler) is notable only for writing the Grojanowski Report. On the other side, the article Grojanowski Report sorely misses the background about its author (who he was, when he was captured, how he escaped, what happened later). The report contents are more or less duplicated in Ber Winner article. To read the whole story, the reader would be best served by a single article about the report, which would contain its author's biography and background in a single section, and devote the rest to the report's contents and accounts. No such user (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hard to say, because both entries are more-less developed into start size articles except that Szlama Ber Winer was on the front page of Wikipedia on 16 March 2014 and therefore has been peer-reviewed and community-approved with reference-checking and everything else under the WP:DYK criteria. The Grojanowski Report entry is far less developed. It can be found in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust without Winer's real name. The readers would probably look for the report before realizing Grojanowski was his pseudonym. My personal preference would be to keep both articles. Poeticbent talk 00:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- But merging is supposed to preserve the information and quality of both articles. As a matter of fact, I agree that the Ben Winer article is much more complete, and the Report article currently reads much like its CFORK, so the Ben Winer article could be used as the basis for merge. But that is a technical issue, I'm more interested in best presentation for the reader regardless of current state of the articles. No such user (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)