Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Witold Pilecki

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Witold Pilecki

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Piotrus (talk)

Witold Pilecki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently passed a detailed GA review, and I think it is ready for the next step. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by

[edit]

Well, firstly, some of those missing page numbers need to be resolved. Secondly, why are there all those citations in the lede? See MOS:LEADCITE. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

Article repeats debunked myths about the subject. (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Buidhe: Could you elaborate for our benefit? I'm only mildly familiar with the subject. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, what do you mean Buidhe, please elaborate. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Indy beetle A key issue is that the article says as a fact that "In 1940 Pilecki volunteered to allow himself to be captured by the occupying Germans in order to infiltrate the Auschwitz concentration camp". This narrative (at a minimum) is contested in Reliable Sources (including two cited in the article: Fleming and Cuber-Strutyńska; the latter states that "the commonly used expression [volunteer] only partially corresponds with the facts", especially considering "the form and circumstances in which Pilecki was assigned the task did not give him many possibilities of refusal"), so it should be rephrased or presented as disputed. The legacy section mostly just lists a bunch of works about him, without going into other issues that should be covered, such as myths and falsehoods promoted by admirers, how he became famous, etc. (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This claim raised earlier by a sock-puppet of a banned user has been discussed and debunked [1]. Anything else? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Indy beetle A single scholar (Cuber-Strutyńska, cited in the article) questioned whether Pilecki can be called a volunteer (it is a description of him widely used in 99% of RS), later, IIRC, a similar question was raised in the book review (Fleming). It's a valid question to what degree he was pressured to volunteer, actually, which is why this is already discussed in the article ("Pilecki had been nominated to infiltrate the Auschwitz concentration camp... Włodarkiewicz said it was not an order but an invitation to volunteer, although Pilecki saw it as a punishment for refusing to back Włodarkiewicz's ideology. Nevertheless, he agreed, which subsequently, years later, led to Pilecki's being described in numerous sources as having volunteered to infiltrate Auschwitz."). As GCB pointed out, this was discussed before, on article's talk page (Talk:Witold_Pilecki/Archive_2#After_discussion,_WP:APLRS, note that the discussion was significantly tainted by involvement of said sock of, sigh, Icewhiz). The consensus, per vast majority of the RS, is that it is common to describe him as a volunteer. I mean, several of the monographs dedicated by him are even explicitly titled The Auschwitz Volunteer, The Volunteer (book), Il volontario, and Ochotnik do Auschwitz. It's a pretty fringe POV to say that he didn't volunteer, and to claim that a POV of a single, academic article 'debunks a myth' is quite unfair, to say the least. We have dozens of academic sources which call him a volunteer, and two minor ones which discuss if this is correct (only one in depth, IIRC). As for "myths and falsehoods promoted by admirers, how he became famous", I think we do discuss the latter (Garliński's work and subsequent, even summarized in th lead and discussed in the Legacy section in more detail), and don't think the former is discussed in depth in any reliable sources I've seen, but if they exist, anyone is welcome to link to them and preferably improve the article using them. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Indy beetle - the article does not repeat any "debunked myths" GizzyCatBella🍁 13:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the current reputation of the Institute of National Remembrance in the scholarly community? I remember some kerfuffle from a few years ago about it being politicized. Can we trust it as a source? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you can. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indy beetle I think the article on the Institute is up to date and discusses the 'keruffles'. It has been politicized and received some criticism, it was IIRC discussed at RSN too, and the current consensus is that it is still reliable. Realistically, most criticism is related not to what it does but what it doesn't do (i.e. that it is not doing much investigation of the crimes committed by Poles on the Polish Jews). That's unfortunate, but as to research it does there is not much criticism I am aware of (again, outside of people saying 'but you should research more important topics like x'). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the article is stable and has been stable for months (it was disrupted few month ago by a now-banned sock). If it had big problems, it wouldn't be stable enough to pass the recent good GA review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Buidhe, just checking to see if your oppose still stands? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard for putting something in wikivoice is not "it is common to describe him as a volunteer". The standard is "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." The assertion is clearly a seriously contested one and to put into wikivoice means the article does not comply with wp:npov. Buidhe public (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:UNDUE, if 99% sources (ok, by count used, maybe 95%, I'll go as low as 90% even) call him volunteer, and one or two at most dissent and question this - no, I still do not see a problem. The minority viewpoint is not ignored, it is mentioned in the article body. To give it more weight would violate NPOV. In particular, since you quoted policy, this is very much NOT a "seriously contested assertion". Not a single work has been dedicated to disputing this; two scholars made a passing (few sentences a paragraph or two, at best) comments along the lines of "calling him a volunteer is not exactly correct" (IMHO, a fair point, I agree), but their point hasn't generated much traction. This minor critique does not warrant going against a very common, estabilished and generally not questioned way of describing him. What you are suggesting would very much violate NPOV, giving UNDUE weight to a very minor viewpoint. Again: we have entire books, plural, calling him a volunteer, vs. a few sentences of "maybe not". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The majority of RS's call him a volunteer - I don't see any issue here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You literally cite multiple sources in the article that explicitly disagree with said proposition, so I don't see how you can argue that it's not seriously contested. Unless your argument is that Michael Fleming is not serious? Why do you expect a source that is written explicitly to debunk this particular claim (ignoring the fact that two of the cited sources make this a major aspect of their argument)? That's a strange standard I've never heard before, what backing for it is there in the P&G? If you think it's the majority view, find a source for that or simply write "often considered to be" to avoid having Wikipedia take a side in this dispute.
      GCB the standard for wikivoice is not "majority", it's "seriously contested". If you don't like that you need to petition to change the NPOV policy.
      Local consensus cannot override a fundamental Wikipedia policy. Buidhe public (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Having read Cuber-Strutyńska, am I correct is saying that the issue here is not that he volunteered for the mission (in the sense that the old sergeant major used to use the word), but that the nature of the mission was not appreciated at the time? Which is to say that the readers will know what the participants could not in 1940, namely that Auschwitz was to become an extermination camp, and that this was little better than a suicide mission? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's part of it. The second part is that volunteering in the military often has some strings attached (superiors "volunteering" subordinates, peer pressure). We do touch upon this in the article, to the extent that sources cover this very minor issue. Vast majority of sources don't really discuss this, and just call him a volunteer, with no qualifications. I honestly don't see what else we can do, given UNDUE, which is very much a fundamental Wikipedia policy. PS. I'll note that Buidhe accuses the article of repeating "debunked myths"; first, they never provided evidence of more than one myth (the issue of volunteering), second, it's hardly debnked (two scholars made passing remarks suggesting this term might not be fully correct in their papers), third, we don't ignore them and in the article body, we do acknowledge their critique. Trying to give their critique UNDUE weight would be, well, UNDUE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Kges1901

[edit]

I'll start reviewing this one.

  • In the Early life section, suggest mentioning that his being sent to Orel was a result of the war, and that the move from Olonets to Wilno was due to parental desire to preserve Polish culture as this is mentioned in the sources
  • Was the Self-Defense militia actually aligned with the Whites more so than being Polish nationalist? AFAIK the Whites didn't have much of a cooperative relationship with the Poles because of conflicting nationalism.
  • Krakus seems like it was more of a training program or movement than a training school, Paliwoda describes it as a program
  • Received the Silver Cross of Merit for his activism - Not sure activism is the best word in English to describe his activities. The sources mention his management of a dairy and landowning activities or work with the reservists during this period, could this be phrased more specifically since it seems that the award was for his contributions to either the reserves or farming activities?
  • 'First's, Last's and Only's' is a trivia book. Why is this necessary or reliable as a reference?
  • Could the origins of the different versions of how he got arrested be elaborated on? Kges1901 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901 1) Done (content added). 2) Removed claim about aligned to the Whites, not in sources. 3) changed "school" to program, added ref to Paliwoda, nice find 4) changed activism to activities 5) No objection to removing First... It's probably there b/c it may be more easily accessible for the English reader than the other cited source (a Polish book). 6). Sadly, I didn't find any more in-depth treatment of the arrest (I assume you mean the WWII era event), then what's discussed in [2]. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Pilecki gave Mrs. Newerly - Change to Barbara Newerly, sounds archaic to refer to women only by their husband's last name
  • it has been said that "it is likely that Witold arranged for his execution - does Fairweather or any Polish source give more details on who reported this, or does it need qualification
  • Kedyw's Chrobry II Battalion, Warszawianka Company - Could sound better as the Warszawianka Company of Kedyw's Chrobry II Battalion
  • Was the company he commanded the 1st Warszawianka Company or just Warszawianka Company?
  • Are there more details on his activities during the Warsaw Uprising?
  • Pilecki was reassigned Cuber-Strutynska says that he joined the II Polish Corps rather than being assigned there. I'm guessing that he wasn't under any command structure since the Home Army had been suppressed by then?
  • relations between the government-in-exile and the Soviet-backed regime of Boleslaw Bierut deteriorated AFAIK the government in exile never had a good relationship with the Lublin Committee
  • Pilecki's diary was translated into - Clarify that it was his Auschwitz diary or report
  • Could the Legacy section be expanded to include Polish works and assessments on his legacy?
  • Has the Pilecki House Museum opened yet, that section should be updated
  • Are there other key details in the Polish books cited in the further reading? I'd suggest using those more than the English works since I assume that the English-language authors might not speak Polish and are relying on more detailed Polish accounts or previously published accounts such as Garlinski Kges1901 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kges1901 Done (see c/e). Regarding Warszawianka Company, the sources I see do not give it a numeral. Regarding additional details, nothing substantial in the sources I have access too. We do cite the recent English works, the Polish works are a bit older. I doubt there'll be much in them, although probably a few tidbits could be found. Regarding expanding the Legacy, I think this is already discussed there? Regarding the museum, seems like its opening has been delayed (source: local radio, is this worth adding? Their official website states they are "in preparation for opening", but do invite people to see a temporary exhibition in the garden...). Presumably when it is opened there'll be more coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Disclaimer: I usually stay far away from anything to do with Eastern Europe.

  • Early life: I get a bit confused here. His family was Polish speaking? (You also later mention a family estate in Belarus.)
  • General Władysław Wejtko -> Major General Władysław Wejtko. Same for Józef Kwaciszewski. Władysław Anders should be a Lieutenant General
  • "retreating German troops" I wouldn't describe them that way. Since the war was over, they were returning to Germany?
  • "By the end of the conclusion" Suggest simply "By the conclusion"
  • "Following the war's end," We already said this. Suggest deleting this phrase.
  • Wilno is linked twice, as is World War I. So too is Polish II Corps, which is also called Polish 2md Corps. Recommend standardising on the Roman numeral form.
  • "promoted to the rank of plutonowy (corporal) and was designated as a non-commissioned officer" Aren't all corporals non-coms?
  • He is not listed in the Polish Underground Navbox
  • "how the Germans ran the then-new camp, which was thought to be an internment camp or large prison rather than a death camp" And they were correct; it would not be a death camp for another year.
  • "the Germans were inciting Polish hatred against the Jews as a diversion from their own crimes" I think the motive was to encourage cooperation.
  • Link Gestapo, SS-Untersturmführer, fall of communism in Poland
  • " Pilecki was ordered by General Anders" Drop "General" after first mention.
  • lieutenant colonel Jan Hryckowian. Captalised "lieutenant colonel"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 Good point re early life, I've added a source and some more details. His origins are a classic EE confusion story (Polish or Polonized nobility, living in what was then called Lithuania, now Belarus, see Grand Duchy of Lithuania for context, deported to Russia as a punishment for opposing the Russian occupation).
Anyway, all done, outside your comment about "being correct" (not sure how to act on that). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CPA

[edit]
  • Due he was born in the Russian Empire far away from Poland I think the Eastern Slavic naming customs should apply here.
  • Citations in the lead are mostly unnecessary due the info is mostly mentioned in the body.
  • "He was a descendant of a Polish-speaking noble family (szlachta)" So is he then Polish or was he a Lithuanian who spoke Polish?
  • "January 1863–64 Uprising, for which a major part of their estate was confiscated.[10][1][11]" Re-order the refs here.
  • There's a clear MOS:SANDWICH here.
  • There are four howevers maybe reduce them?
  • "ancestral estate, Sukurcze, in the Lida district" District needs an upper case.
  • "Pilecki received the Silver Cross of Merit for his activities." I assume you mean that he got it because he organised the Krakus Military Horsemen Training program?
  • Per MOS:DATETOPRES use "German forces on the night of 5/6 September".
  • "sources as having volunteered to infiltrate Auschwitz.[2]: 66 [3][4][5][7][14]: 85" Reduce the citations here per Wikipedia:Citation overkill
  • "liberated on 29 April 1945.[7][9] [20]: 213" There's an unnecessary space between the citations.
  • "one of their recipients was Polish prime minister Józef Cyrankiewicz" Prime minister needs upper cases.
  • There are sentences where there are more than three citations maybe reduce them per Wikipedia:Citation overkill
  • There are a lot of sources which have a Polish title maybe translate them?

As a Pole I'm happy to see another Polish nomination however I think there are some issues here to be addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5 I am unsure which parts of the article do you think should follow Eastern Slavic naming customs, could you elaborate?
Due he was born in a country where Eastern Slavic naming customs are used i.e Russia, we should use his patronymic name instead of a middle name since that's what official documents would tell us.
That is never done for Polish people, nor by any sources cited. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations in the lead are there due to some editors in the past seeing some claims as controversial and requesting them there.
Sources universally call him Polish, as I believe we do in the article. But see also my reply to Hawkeye7 above, and the sentence you mention was expanded due to his comment.
I am sorry, I do not understand the concept of MOS:SANDWICH. If you have any suggestion show to fix it, please say so. I don't think we should be removing any images and they are in correct sections. We could remove the 'Location of Białystok in the borders of 1920 Poland' map, which admittedly is not very relevant. would that help?
Both File:Drużyna harcerska z Orła n. Oką 1917 Witold Pilecki Witold Ferchmin.png and File:1920 Bialystok map Poland by Henryk Arctowski BPL 10105.png are MOS:SANDWICH issues because we should try to avoid sandwiching tekst between images and images or infobox. Personally I'm not sure how to fix this to be honest. @Gog the Mild: do you have an idea?
Nobody came up with a solution so I suggest leaving things s they are. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced howevers by one, as one was not needed.
Fixed District.
Regarding the medal, I think the sources do not provide specific reason outside something like "extra activity/activism in the field related to civic and military responsibilities" etc.
Changed to 5/6 although frankly I don't think MOS version is more clear. But meh.
Citations for volunteering are important as this part was heavily contested in the past and edit warred over, so numerous citations are there to prevent someone claiming this not the dominant, established narrative.
Capitalized Prime Minister (should we linked it to Polish Prime Minister?).
Good point let's link that.
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I counted two places with 4 citations (aside of the volunteer case mentioned above) and reduced the number to 3 or less.
I will add translated titles to references soon.
Thank you for your review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5, not sure if you sam my final replies - is there anything you'd like me to address or are we GTG? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Some issues to resolve. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 I corrected the first image licence to PD, and I removed the last one as mostly unnecessary and yeas, possibly a copyvio issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Source quality looks fine
  • All sources are correctly formatted.
  • Spot checks: 3, 6, 9, 14, 24, 30 - all good.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article meets our standards. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Witold_Pilecki&oldid=1109495178"