User talk:Szmenderowiecki/sandbox/Warsaw concentration camp

Bogusław Tadeusz Kopka, who authored the monograph on the concentration camp

This tells us nothing, of course he wrote about it, we are using him as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't repeat the edit summary. If you have something to address from my edit summary, go for it; otherwise continue your work on the following paragraphs, as you wanted to check 'em all. I'm not going to wait for long. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat it here because you seem to think readers will not know this. This was my objection to this from the off, too much-undeeded detail that really tells the reader nothing useful. As well as we need to thrash out this, and every objection (ohh and read WP:ONUS, it's down to you to make a case as to why this is needed).Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just describe him as Polish historian and move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, as I said, I'm not going to wait for long until the you finish your review, which, after a week of your checking (if not more, given that the link has been first published back in mid-September), stopped on the lead section only. Apparently, most of the problems are in the body (or so it seemed from your objections), and you seem to be very active on the site, almost every day (if not every day). You have one week to finish the review of the article. I think this will be more than enough time to check it whole, given that you're editing Wikipedia almost everyday and spend an hour or two daily, if not more. 5 hours should be more than enough to make a thorough review. We will then compare the two versions - one which is yours (as posted as of midnight 21/22 Oct GMT) and the other which I originally posted, which will be submitted to the talk of the original article. Users will then determine which paragraphs are more adequately represented, worded etc. Any other flaws/inconsistencies will then be repaired when the article is in the open. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather you did, as we are still discussing one sentence. Do you accept this change? We need to discuss each objection before moving on to the next, it makes it easier to arrive at a consensus, and do not give me deadlines, I am not paid to be here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't paid here (and neither am I), but I'm not going to wait for months until you decide to review it whole, either. In fact, if there's no response for some time, WP:DRNC advises a total period of one week (in fact, that's 3 days waiting + 3 days waiting after the ping). We already have one week past (at the very least, counting from the time I last posted the link) and I give you another week, which is more than twice as much time. If you aren't able to articulate what's wrong with the article/article's passage within that timeframe, it means that the edit is all right and is held back for no apparent reason, or you think it's fishy but you can't say why, though the problem is, I'm not supposed to, and can't, guess your thoughts (don't say you don't have time, as your contribution timestamps show that the opposite is more likely).

After some thought, it would be best for me not to interfere in the process, because establishing consensus each time I disagree will be too slow (so yes, even if I don't fully agree with that removal of info, I'll let it go, particularly as this is a minor detail), and anyway other editors will also review the whole text after you edit, so it's a duplication of efforts. The best expression of your objections here is making edits you find necessary. They will be subjected to (wholesale) review as described above. If no further edits are made, that means we will only compare the lead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it is clear I was not even aware of this, as I had not seen the link. But fine you want mass deletions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to check your spelling and grammer.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly there is no way this should be replacing well written content.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think mass deletions is a good way to go, but if you so insist and if other folks agree when the text comes to their scrutiny that wiping out content in the way you do will be better, what can I do with it? Just bear in mind that it was supposed to be promoted to at least GA status, so make sure that you aren't letting out important details.

Also, please do not replace text from here to the publicly available article, as this text is supposed to be a complete rewrite + expansion and as such is incompatible with the version now available. I haven't started from the English version, I took the the one translated from Polish as the basis for replacement, and added some info from the English version absent in the Polish version. But of course, do the article until you believe it to be fine, but don't stretch this process for too long, OK? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not finished yet. I do have other things to do.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem, it is a bad translation, that you want to replace well-written content with. As I say below, do not do a mass revert, add one or two paragraphs to what we already have. I will not copyedit a huge wall of text, not when we already have perfectly serviceable contentt.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, it seemed that you don't seem to know Polish, so it's a rather interesting thing to hear about the quality of translation from a person who doesn't know the language the text is translated from.

Even if you did know Polish, judging the translation word-by-word is also misleading as I wasn't doing that (and that's not how the translations are often done); and the content that is now in public is not well-written as it omits quite a lot of pertinent details, and repeating the same claims in the same section (see e.g. History section, last two paragraphs: Kopka writes about 20,000 prisoners killed, and coincidentially so does Żaryn, but that's because Żaryn actually wrote the preface to Kopka's book, which happens to be IPN's publication, where Żaryn worked).

To conclude, what I did was not a mass[ive] revert, it's a massive expansion. You did a massive revert of my expansion, and now you're working on the article here because of that. But if you're not going to copyedit a huge wall of text, not when we already have perfectly serviceable content, I have two things to say for that: first, just because you believe something is good doesn't mean it can't be better (that's how articles on Wikipedia evolve), second, it sounds like you don't want to continue checking the article. To this I'd like to say, though, that perfection, while desirable, is not required, and I did try my best to get the content as accurately as I could. If you give up checking it, though (on which I don't insist), I submit the current version with the one we have now for review. If not, please continue checking. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not know Polish, I know English and know that this page contains a number of errors (which is what I meant by well written, I.E. not grammatically incorrect). If you are not going to copyedit this version, it has to be rejected.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be the person to reject it, as it's not as though you were granted veto power over the expansion (if anything, the community will). EDIT: Copyediting is actually a minor thing to do, but for the peace of mind, I've done it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until this is gotten into a fit state to replace already well-written content I am going to stop. It might be best if instead of a mass replacement smaller paragraph are added to the existing article that will make copy editing easier.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just in the lede " place for execution" should be " place of execution" " Polish political prisoners, Jews who were caught on the "Aryan side" as well as whoever was rounded up on Warsaw streets were also shot to death en masse." I am unsure the also is needed. "died in the death march out of the camp" should be "died during the death march out of the camp". Now to be fair, none of these are major, but this is just from a cursory glance at the first few paragraphs. I have said this here before. This needs far to much work to be of use. Rather use our current article and add one paragraph at a time to it (of the material you think it needs) so it can be copyedited.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to write it, but I think all information is needed and pertinent there, sorry (otherwise I wouldn't have included it in the first place); but I give you the possibility and the tools to influence the content of the article as well as which details it omits. You don't need to explain every edit to me, as I said I wouldn't interfere. Just present it well when you're done with the article, I will present my points I believe should have been preserved, and the other folks will discuss who of us makes the better case. Adding paragraph-to-paragraph, as you propose, will make an imbalance of article content in the interim, which I don't want. I have prepared a ready-to-go product; I don't want to disassemble it again in order to get the very same product. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You already know I object to some of the stuff you intend to add back.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]