Talk:Schutzmannschaft Battalion 202

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Couple of Questions[edit]

The article states that it was a "police battalion". Yet, it claims it was destroyed in combat. I didn't think most police were engaged in combat. Not typically anyway. Also, was every last man killed in combat? Not one survivor? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've slightly expanded the article to address some of your concerns. Thanks. --Lysytalk 20:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At its height (before the desertions), how many troops were in the battalion? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know at its height but according to Motyka, the battalion had three companies, of 120 people each. It was commanded by a volksdeutsch officer. --Lysytalk 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. According to Polish wiki, it had 583 people in August 1943, but I don't know their source. --Lysytalk 23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More questions[edit]

When user:Lysy originated this article over eight months ago, it was designated as a "volunteer" organization. So it remained unchallenged or corrected until some of my recent edits. Now we are told by user: Molobo, that this is not the case but that they were forcefully drafted. Which is it? Please, no whitewashing or spinning of the historical reality. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check don't feed the troll. --Lysytalk 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was easy, and frankly I expected better. Live and learn. Perhaps someone else can give a better explanation. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers[edit]

The article lacks numbers. Surely there has to be a reliable source confirming the number of Poles who were part of this unit. Some exact numbers would be preferable to any WP:Weasel explanation of this travesty. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable[edit]

As of now, not a single source is being listed for the online confirmation of any of the claims. I traced half of this article to an anonymous message forum with a single anonymous posting devoid of active links [1] copy-pasted into this article in defiance of WP:COPYVIO. Meanwhile, one of the hopelessly unverifiable sources (G. Motyka) listed in "Bibliography" is being challenged online anyways, as totally unreliable. Please translate from Polish the only traceable source available online or risk having this article listed for deletion. --Poeticbent talk 19:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Poeticbent, Motyka's article is a perfectly valid source. Why do you think it's "hopelessly unverifiable" ? Motyka is a known and qualified historian of Polish Institute of National Remembrance, I don't see a reason why should you challenge him. --Lysytalk 19:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cleanup. This is not about Motyka per se, but rather about his source, Lew Szankowśki, and his source, the anonymous account published thereafter as „Relacja policjanta.” Please take a look.[2] I have trust in your final judgement. --Poeticbent talk 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the text from "Głos Kresowian" at the link you provided and checked it against the article in Karta 24. My opinion is that the "Głos Kresowian" text is either a manipulation or is written by someone who has problems understanding what Motyka wrote. Mind that our article never mentioned the "Malina pacification". Motyka did not make a definite statement about it in his article. --Lysytalk 20:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds convincing. Thanks. Can you find anything online for Karta 24? It would make the article look grounded. --Poeticbent talk 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your trust. I've added ISSN of Karta. I don't think it's freely available online but hey, most of the published research papers are not either. Karta 24 itself is 10 years old, Motyka's short article was probably the first publication on the battalion. I wonder if there is any newer research of the topic published since then. --Lysytalk 06:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Poeticbent, you've added a tag claiming that you dispute the article's neutrality. Can you please elaborate ? --Lysytalk 19:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK now, with your last edit. I'm removing the tag. Cheers. --Poeticbent talk 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Schutzmannschaft Battalion 202. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Schutzmannschaft Battalion 202. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is believed ...[edit]

This is an encyclopedia.Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

involuntarly collaborationist[edit]

According to Collaborationism.Xx236 (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schutzmannschaft_Battalion_202&oldid=1210272399"