Talk:Debbie Schlussel

I have archived the discussion that was here
I have archived the discussion that was here because it was overall quite hostile and negative to the subject of this biography. I remind everyone that whatever your personal feelings about various topics may be, we are here to write a thoughtful neutral encyclopedia, not to catalog outrages and complain about controversial personalities. The subject of the article complains that it is biased against her and I am awaiting further information, which I will share here to the extent that I can. Please do not tolerate insults on this discussion page - let's focus solely on improving Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please revert the change from 02:00, 29 June 2012,
Please revert the change from 02:00, 29 June 2012, done by AniMate, who deleted the fragment about Schlussel views on Poland and German Nazi Death Camps. The claim presented as reason of deletion was lack of independent references. Due to the matter of the situation (controversive US blogger writes about other nation) there is not a lot of coverage in non-polish media. However, all references needed were included in deleted text..

No real evidence?
"Poles murdered millions of Jews, they maintained several death camps, and they wiped out almost all of both sides of my family, as well as those in hundreds of thousands of other Jewish families", although there is no real evidence to support this.

The role of the Polish public in aiding the Nazis in the murder of Jews is very well-established. It would be hard to quantify the exact numbers, but the "no real evidence" phrase implies that there is no real evidence for the role of Poles in the murder of Jews during the Holocaust. In fact, there is such good evidence of this that no citations are really needed.

During the 72nd anniversary of the first deportation of inmates to the Auschwitz concentration camp numerous Holocaust survivors referred to Schlussel's commentary as "slanderous" and appealed to president of Poland Bronisław Komorowski to prosecute Schlussel for the "Auschwitz lie", which is a criminal offence in Poland.

These are almost certainly non-Jewish Holocaust survivors, and should be specified as such. Not making this distinction implies that Jewish Holocaust survivors would argue that the Poles had no role in the murder of Jews during the Holocaust--which is unlikely.

This part of the article seems intentionally misleading.

Likeshistory (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)likeshistory

From Wikipedia's "History of the Jews in Poland": With the influence of the Endecja party growing, antisemitism gathered new momentum in Poland and was most felt in smaller towns and spheres in which Jews came into direct contact with Poles, such as in Polish schools or on the sports field. Further academic harassment, such as the introduction of ghetto benches, which forced Jewish students to sit in section of the lecture halls reserved exclusively for them, anti-Jewish riots, and semi-official or unofficial quotas (Numerus clausus) introduced in 1937 in some universities halved the number of Jews in Polish universities between independence and the late 1930s. The restrictions were so inclusive that, while Jews made up 20.4% of the student population in 1928, by 1937 their share was down to only 7.5%.[79]

Although many Jews were educated, they were excluded from most of the relevant occupations, including the government bureaucracy. A good number therefore turned to the liberal professions, particularly medicine and law. In 1937 the Catholic trade unions of Polish doctors and lawyers restricted their new members to Christian Poles (in a similar manner the Jewish trade unions excluded non-Jewish professionals from their ranks after 1918). A series of professional and trade unions, including those for lawyers and physicians, enacted "Aryan clauses" expelling Polish Jews from their ranks.[80] The bulk of Jewish workers were organized in Jewish trade unions under the influence of the Jewish Labor Bund, which recognized the special cultural needs of the Jewish population, as well as special conditions arising from official discrimination against Jews in certain professions.[81] Jews were virtually excluded from Polish government jobs during this period.[82]

Complex and long history shaped Polish attitudes towards the Jews and Jewish attitudes towards the Poles, but the anti-Jewish sentiment in Poland had reached its zenith in the years leading to the Second World War.[83] Between 1935 and 1937 seventy-nine Jews were killed and 500 injured in anti-Jewish incidents.[84] National policy was such that jobless Jews, who largely worked at home or in small shops due to discrimination in employment, were excluded from welfare benefits.[85] ... The main strain of antisemitism in Poland during this time was motivated by Catholic religious beliefs and centuries-old myths such as the blood libel. This religious-based antisemitism was sometimes joined with an ultra-nationalistic stereotype of Jews as disloyal to the Polish nation.[88] On the eve of World War II, many typical Polish Christians believed that there were far too many Jews in the country and the Polish government became increasingly concerned with the "Jewish Question". Some politicians were in favor of mass Jewish emigration from Poland. ... Holocaust survivors's views of Polish behavior during the War span a wide range, depending on the personal experiences of the person. Some are very negative, based on the view of Christian Poles as passive witnesses who failed to act and aid the Jews as they were being persecuted or liquidated by the Nazi Germans.[135] Poles, who were also victims of Nazi crimes,[136] were often afraid for their and their family's lives themselves and this fear prevented many of them from giving aid and assistance, even if some of them felt sympathy for the Jews. Emanuel Ringelblum, a Polish-Jewish historian of the Warsaw Ghetto, wrote in 1944 in his Polish-Jewish Relations during the Second World War of the indifferent and sometimes joyful responses in Warsaw to the destruction of Polish Jews in the Ghetto.[137] 69.118.3.165 (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Are we afraid ?
Are we afraid to call particular traits, deeds, ideas, persons behind these ideas, etc. by their real names !?!? Woman is high profile commentator of political, social, cultural and public affairs, although with extreme and radical comments and ideological background that spew hatred with such ease, using malicious attacks and offensive inflammatory language, we all categorize as hate-speech in any other case - except when that person is a lawyer with connection among right wingers and is very popular among far right conservatives and their media minions (which is in a fact a source of her "high profile") !--Santasa99 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone is afraid; its more a matter of needing reliable sources that call a spade a spade, and to minimize any biased editors seeking to make the spade a rose.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed line
I removed one line due to the link being dead and finding no independent confirmation of what it says. Additionally, the subject is concerned (among many other concerns about the article) that this particular reference and claim is unfair without further explanation of ADC's support for Hamas and Hezbollah I don't know anything about that, but I do think that the the source should be carefully considered and discussed here before re-introduction to ensure that it is BLP-compliant. That's assuming it can be found anywhere in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Improving referencing
In many cases we seem to be linking only to someone critical of a column or blog post of Schlussels, but not to the original. I've added links to two of the originals and in the process found some minor errors. (Slightly incorrect quote, date wrong). I also found one major error which suggested that she wrote a column mainly criticizing one WNBA player, but the entire column, and the response to the column, shows that she was making a more broad critique of the league as a whole, and that one player was just one of several examples. I think this discussion can still be improved, but for now I'm going to move on to other sourcing issues. Any help would be appreciated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Views on Poland and the Holocaust
I have concern that our opening paragraph overstates her position on Polish complicity in the Holocaust. We say "Her columns are often provocative and controversial, specifically those accusing Poles for the Holocaust and denying the Polish aid for the Jews," but both of those points seem imprecise at best. Having read the relevant article there is of course no question that it is provocative and controversial but it is oversimplified to say that it accuses Poles for the Holocaust, which makes it sound like she says they did it *rather than* the German Nazis. But what she actually says is that they were complicit and participated in the Polish camps.

On the second point, the question of Polish aid for the Jews, I think the issue is more difficult. And the article doesn't seem to me to completely deny Polish aid for the Jews, although of course it does minimize it: "Yes, there were a few righteous gentile Poles who saved Jews. A very tiny few. The majority were all too happy for the Judenrein, especially in the way it took place." Given that scholarly estimates (according to our article on the subject) are that over a million Poles were involved in rescue efforts. So she is certainly denying that, and claiming that the majority were "all too happy" which is outrageous. I'm not certain how to word it, but I think we can have a more refined and accurate presentation of her views.

I recommend that we update to this: "Her columns are often provocative and controversial, specifically those accusing Poles of widespread complicity in the Nazi-led Holocaust, and accusing "the majority" of Poles of being "all too happy for the Judenrein". This approach, by directly quoting her own words, strikes me as a useful way to avoid oversimplification.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not so happy about having quotes in the lede; that's imo to detailed for the lead which is after all meant to summarize the body of the article. But the quote could well be inserted in the body; and the lede should be softened somewhat and made less definitive in wording. As an aside; I don't really like that you call her views "outragageous" on the talk page; because Wikipedia's rules for neutrality and BLP applies also to talk pages. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In my dictionary, the second meaning of 'outrageous' is 'very bold, unusual, and startling'. I meant it in that sense, and I don't see how that is a BLP issue.  Certainly the fervor of response against the remark suggests that most discussion of the claim found it to be exactly that.  The first definition is "shockingly bad or excessive".  It is that, as well, and this is not a comment on the person, but on the argument.  It's relevant to discuss this in order to think through the right way to characterize it in the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article titled "The Holocaust in Poland" says "It is estimated that hundreds of thousands, or even a million Poles, aided their Jewish neighbors." That article could be improved by indicating how many non-Jewish Poles were living in Poland at that time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have edited that article accordingly, adding this: "To put these numbers in perspective, three and a half million Jews lived in Poland before the war, out of a total population in Poland of about 27 million people." Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with what Iselilja said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, are you sure that we should decide one million people out of 25 million is more than a tiny few? If 50 people are passengers on an airplane, and only two of them are awake, would someone obviously be wrong to say that only a tiny few of the airplane passengers are awake?  Maybe it would be wrong, but I think we'd need a reliable source to say so rather then us making the call.  And surely it would not necessarily be shockingly bad to say that more than 25 were snoring, right?  Anyway, could you please rephrase your proposal without quotes, per what Iselilja suggested?  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that I think we should decide that? Of course I don't think that.  My proposal is no longer relevant (as per the lede) because the new version neatly sidestepped the issue.  We still have to think carefully about how to treat the issue in the main body of the article, of course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you mentioned above that scholarly estimates (according to our article on the subject) are that over a million Poles were involved in rescue efforts, and you concluded that Schlussel "is certainly denying that". I would rather that a reliable source would make that conclusion instead of us, that's all.  But thanks for the reply.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I understand the misunderstanding between us now. I generally think it is important to try to understand the subject matter of articles as deeply as possible when editing, and the talk page is a good place to chew on the facts to try to reach that kind of understanding.  That doesn't imply that everything we end up understanding should go into the article, but rather that it can and should inform our editorial decisions.  This is part of what I mean when I say that we aren't just "transcription monkeys".  The more we understand, the better our writing will be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. A dissatisfied IP has already changed the lead, and so I don't think we'll really be able to have the lead sidestep the issue.  Therefore, I rephrased what the IP inserted, but in an NPOV manner.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. This current version looks okay to me, regarding this issue in both the lead, and in the main body of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the inference/link that the "Auschwitz lie" was "Holocaust denial". I couldn't find any connection between the two, and in fact it appears to be the exact opposite.  I think it's incontrovertible that Polish Jews suffered tremendously in World War II and it's minutae/trivia to foment anger at Debbie Schlussel in any way.  In that sense, her opinion of fault is not the controversy, rather we should not minimize the tragedy by making the issue about her.  Along that vein, it's best to minimize or even remove these references.  She certainly doesn't dispute the deaths, rather she disputes culpability and in the end, all the Nazi's are dead and both Poland and Germany are different countries.  Considering the size of the tragedy, her personal, familial view is a huge WP:UNDUE problem that WP shouldn't propagate.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:DHeyward, I have removed some of the Nazi stuff due to poor sourcing, and corrected the rest to track the sources. I don't think we minimize the tragedy by describing her comments here.  If we were to describe her comments in a Wikipedia article about the holocaust, that would be another matter entirely than doing so here in this "non-Nazi" article.  ArbCom is presently considering whether mentioning Nazis in non-Nazi articles is verboten, and my opinion is that it's compliant with policy if done carefully and accurately, notwithstanding Godwin's Law.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose deletion of sentence
The wikipedia article now says: During the 72nd anniversary of the first deportation of inmates to the Auschwitz concentration camp numerous Holocaust survivors referred to Schlussel's commentary as "slanderous" and appealed to president of Poland Bronisław Komorowski to prosecute Schlussel for the "Auschwitz lie", which is a criminal offence in Poland.[27] The footnote contains a dead link, and running it through www.archive.org does not recover it. I assume that the article was the same as this one which does not seem to mention Schlussel (here is the English translation). Here is what our footnote presently says:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed this material from the Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an English translation of another version of the article, this time mentioning Schlussel, so I will soon restore the material, using this source instead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, this new link (mentioning Schlussel) seems to be from Wirtualna Polska, and I'm not sure that's a reliable source. Any thoughts about it?  Our Wikipedia article says: "In April 2009 France Telecom and Wikimedia Foundation signed an agreement, which enabled Wirtualna Polska to use the logo and name 'Wikipedia' and downloading the up-to-date articles directly from Wikimedia Foundation."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Anythingyouwant" seems to have an obsession with negatively portraying Debbie Schlussel and giving one sided presentations on Schlussel's work on the Holocaust, and should therefore be forbidden from editing the entry about Schlussel. There is clearly an agenda there, not objective facts and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.70.74 (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Jill Carroll material
The Wikipedia article says: During and following the captivity of American journalist Jill Carroll, Schlussel said that Carroll hated Israel and America, and implied that she sympathized with her captors.[9][10] When objections were raised,[11] she responded to her critics as "blind worshippers of Jill Carroll" in need of "LASIK."[12] Every last one of these footnotes is to Schlussel's blog, except for footnote 11 which is to a Boston Globe column by Jeff Jacoby:

As far as I can tell, Jacoby did not mention (or even allude to) Schlussel, and likewise Schlussel did not mention Jacoby. If we remove the Jacoby footnote, all we have left are Schlussel's blog posts, and I have difficulty seeing why that's significant enough for us to mention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This item from CBS News might be an adequate alternative to the Jacoby source. I have restored the material, but switching the source from Jacoby to Geraghty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Tech material
This Wikipedia article says: When the Virginia Tech Massacre occurred on April 16, 2007, the police told the press that the shooter was an “Asian male.” Schlussel was quick to tie it to Muslims, saying in [sic] that "Pakis are considered ‘Asian,’” and that it could be “part of a co-ordinated terrorist plot by Pakistanis.”[1] [1]Media Matters for America: April 17, 2007. Accessed on 5/10/2010 http://mediamatters.org/research/200704170006 The link to Media Matters leads to the wrong content, and the correct link to the Media Matters content is here via Archive.org. And here is the original Schlussel blog post with several updates by her, again via Archive.org.  Schlussel subsequently removed her blog post, as she indicated here (“I've removed this entry, mostly because I am spending too much time monitoring the slimy comments from the Nazi-infested Media Matters for America cretins").

The Wikipedia article misquotes Media Matters, which actually quoted Schlussel as saying: "Were there two [shooters] and was this a coordinated terrorist attack?" Our Wikipedia article also turns that question into an affirmative statement. Schlussel's blog post was dated April 16, and she updated it on April 17 to say "The shooter has now been identified as a South Korean national, who is a permanent resident." I don't think that the initial blog speculation that Schlussel corrected the next day — in a blog entry that she later removed entirely — is significant, and there are so many errors in our coverage of the Media Matters piece (which is itself an advocacy group that only criticizes "conservative misinformation") that I will remove the paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Google Books
She gets quite a few hits at Google Books. That type of source would undoubtedly improve this article. I'm all done for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I came back to this, and added some of these books as references. Done for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes in the headlines in view of Schlussel's commentaries regarding Poles and Muslims.
Debbie Schlussel's commentaries seem to be somewhat antipolish and islamophobic. Speaking about the Muslims, she once said: "1 down, 1.8 billion more to go" - this "1" meant Osama bin Laden, and "1.8 billion" stands for the approximate number of all Muslims in the world, the number actually represents whole Muslim population (you can check it if you wish). Nevertheless, Debbie Schlussel seems to be particularly antagonistic towards the Poles and has some accusations towards the whole Polish nation (the descendants of people who were the victims of the Holocaust along with Jews and Gypsies). She states that "Poles murdered millions of Jews", which in Poland is classified as the "Auschwitz lie" and it is treated as part of the Holocaust denial (it is penalized by law). I study law and so I know that very well. She accuses Poles for the Holocaust, she does it openly and with no remorse. She does not regred it or feel sorry. She means what she says. This is why I think some main facts should be stated at the second of the main columns in that article. The words: "The latter columns emphasized (and allegedly over-emphasized) the support that certain Poles provided to the Nazis, as compared to the Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust" are distorted facts. Poles never supported the Nazis, while the Nazis were their murderers. That's why you can not "over-emphasise" something that didn't even exist. Of course, there were some very very few individuals who were collaborating, but there are rats in every nation on this planet. You can never say that Poles supported the Nazis, because it's like saying that there was quite a remarkable support, it's like stating that "Himmler over-emphasised the Jewish support for the Nazis"... well, there was the "Jewish ghetto police" as you might know. But they were only just a tiny bit of the whole Jewish population. And so, the statement in the introduction to the article should look like this:

Many of her columns have been controversial, particularly those criticizing Islam, American Muslims, illegal immigrants, liberals and “faux-conservatives”, as well as those columns accusing Poles for the Holocaust in German-occupied Poland, and diminishing the importance and the scale of the Polish aid for the Jews at the time.

To the "wide-scale" deleted from the article in the context of protests - I don't know if you know that, but the Schlussel case was discussed in numerous Polish media and Poles organized a wide-scale internet protest, which Schlussel subsequently called a "cyber-pogrom" referring to the pogroms of Jews organized by the Nazis. What is more, she uses the term "Nazis", but never says "German-Nazis" or "Nazi-occupied Poland" (she denies this by accusing Poles for cooperation), however she tends to say "Polish murderers" in this context, which is the same thing as saying "many Blacks supported the KKK", or "most of the Jews cooperated wihth Hitler". Whouldn't this be controvrsial and fake? Now that's the same thing with slandering the Poles by mrs. Schlussel and her denying or dimisishing the scale and importance of Polish struggles, Polish resistance fights against the Nazi occupants, rescue of Jews organized by Poles, Poles being described as "subhumans" by the Nazis, and death of over 2 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles during the Holocaust.

DO NOT DELETE MY TALK INPUT - I want to discuss the content of the article in view of some clear evidence that can be easily found all along the internet! I edited the title of this thread and modified the content, so now it is not against the Wikipedia rules and any attempts of deleting it will be seen as vandalism. 91.218.158.26 (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've read the two references, links to her articles, and she clearly states that 10,000s of Poles help round up Jews. I don't know the stats but it seems unfair to say she is accusing all Poles of aiding the Nazis. I can't read the Polish references so I can't comment. From what I see in the sources that I can read, putting this in the lead is undue weight and perhaps it is questionable to have it in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IP91, if you want this article to say that there were "wide scale internet protests" against Schlussel, then we need a reliable source that says the protests were wide-scale. This Wikipedia article already says that she claims her web site was hacked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Schlussel states: "Someone needs to remind Mr. Tusk that his people were the ones doing the hurting and the turning over to the Nazis and the mass murder of at least half of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust, some of them from my family. You are “hurt” by calling Nazi death camps, “Polish”????" - Donald Tusk is the current prime minister in Poland. She clearly said that Poles murdered at least 3 million Jews our of total 6 million of the Jewish Holocaust victims. This is a pure defamation. I can not believe in what I'm reading. I am sorry to say this, but mrs. Schlussel seems to manipulate the facts by some distorted "semi-facts" about the Holocaust, she does not say a word about the Polish Righteous among the Nations, the Polish resistance movement in World War II and I wouldn't be surprised if she denied that Poles were called "subhumans" by the Nazis and if she didn't know that Poland was actually attacked and occupied by Nazi Germany at the time. Anyway, the article must contain her main views in a clear, brief, neutral and objective way (even using a few quotations by Schlussel). You can not omit this like if she didn't say nothing wrong. 78.8.121.141 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not omitted. World War II was a long long time ago, but some people very understandably still get quite worked up about it.  Happily, peace in Europe has been durable, antisemitism has decreased, and everyone is free to express their opinions.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have grave reservations about our coverage of her comments on alleged Polish complicity. We have 12 lines and a 6 line footnote devoted to the topic. It is almost completely original research. There is a brief condemnation by Polish authorities but little analysis. Our analysis is used instead. Take the footnote. It says she makes her claim "... without giving a particular number of Poles who she believes were collaborating with the Nazis to kill Jews." Actually in her article she says, "It was tens of thousands of eager Poles and more." Thus, she alleges these Poles, not all Poles, were complicit. The one Polish reference that isn't a dead link has a sentence or two dismissing her remarks without providing a detailed analysis. We really have very little besides her allegations of complicity by some 10,000s, general antisemitism by a large part of the population, dismissing the aid given by Poles as minor, and a personal testimony of her family on this matter. Of the Polish side we have a dismissal of Schlussel's remarks in strong terms. Thus, we have about two sentences of content. Given that this isn't a recurring theme of her work and we have little analysis by secondary sources, we should reduce the 12 lines to about two sentences. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My goal with the footnote was to have stuff there so that it wouldn't be in the main text, but we have an IP who wants the main text to summarize her blog post in some detail. I agree with Jason that it would be much better for the stuff in the main text to be briefer.  It's more about WP:Undue than WP:OR I think.  Us summarizing her blog post is not necessarily OR, although describing stuff that she did not say is admittedly a sketchy thing for us to be doing.  Anyway, Jason, if you'd like to draft up a couple sentences, that would be fine, or you can insert them directly and see what happens.  At a minimum, the end result has to be accurate, but beyond that I'm very flexible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. Let me start with this draft: "Schlussel claimed that “tens of thousands of eager Poles” were complicit in the Holocaust by aiding the Nazis in the slaughter of millions of Jews. She alleges that most Poles were antisemitic and supported the persecution. She dismisses as insignificant the “few righteous gentile Poles who saved Jews.”[23] Polish Parliament's Foreign Affairs Commission Grzegorz Schetyna called her commentary a pack of lies.[26] In its daily news release, the Polish government-affiliated Institute of National Remembrance dubbed Schlussel's commentary as defamatory.[27]"We have to describe her views to some extent if we are to explain the reaction. This minimum should give a sample of her main points. I'd leave in the sentence supported by a "dead link" until we (or someone Polish) can supply it or an alternate. I don't think we need to go into Obama's comments and why this comes up now. It's about her remarks regardless of what prompted the occasion. And we have a whole article on Polish Death Camps. Comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some quick comments....Where's the dead link? I thought I fixed all of them.  Also, can we have some wikilinks for people who want to learn more?  I think the word "insignificant" would need some justification; perhaps you mean "insufficient".  Also, "supported the persecution" suggests actual physical support, and I think you mean "approved of the persecution".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see ref [27] isn't a dead link anymore but does it support the sentence? Yes, absolutely add the wikilinks, the more the better. Yes, when I wrote support I was worried about the ambiguity. Your suggestion of "approved" coveys her thought more exactly. Her exact words, "happy for," seems too casual for an encyclopedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, ref 27 says: Paszkwil na blogu - amerykańska dziennikarka Debbie Schlussel skrytykowała na swoim blogu Polaków za reakcję na słowa prezydenta Obamy o „polskim obozie śmierci”. Schlussel napisała, że „oburzenie na pseudo-gafę Obamy jest śmiechu warte, bo Polacy wymordowali miliony Żydów”. Schlussel w przeszłości drukowała w „New York Post”, „Wall Street Journal” i „Washington Times”, ale od pewnego czasu redaktorzy z rezerwą podchodzą do jej tekstów. Poza Polakami dziennikarka nienawidzi muzułmanów, gejów i lewaków. Radio Zet, 5 czerwca."
 * Google translate gives: Lampoon on the blog - Debbie Schlussel American journalist criticized on his blog Poles react to the words of President Obama's "Polish death camp". Schlussel wrote that "the outrage on pseudo-gaffe Obama is laughable because the Poles murdered millions of Jews." Schlussel in the past, print out the "New York Post", "Wall Street Journal" and the "Washington Times", but for some time the editors of the reserve approach to the texts. In addition to the Poles journalist hates Muslims, gays and lefties. Radio Zet, June 5.
 * This mistranslates the first word "Paszkwil" as "Lampoon". Actually, it means "libel" in this context.  If you're willing to stick around and help maintain it, please feel free to insert your text with "insignificant" and "supported" removed.  Or we can wait and see if Jimbo or the IP or DHeyward or anyone else would like to chime in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't notice that "lampoon" was supposed to be "libel." Thanks. Let me give others time to respond and I'll check back tomorrow. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

My friends, listen. Mrs. Schlussel clearly said that the Poles (meaning ALL Poles, the WHOLE Polish nation) were happy for the Holocaust. This what she clearly specified. What is more, she said that it were not the Nazis themselves, but the Poles who murdered the Jews in Poland, and that they murdered over the half of the total 6 million. This would mean, that according to mrs. Schlussel it's the Poles who murdered vast majority of Jewish victims, or even that the Poles were the Nazis, and Germans were just their non-significant "helpers". She has absolutely no knowledge that Hitler hated Poles nearly as much as he hated the Jews. She doesn't know that beside the Jewish 6 million, there were 2 million of gentile Poles who were also killed in the Holocaust (Gypsies and Serbs were on the 3rd place in the process of extermination). Schlussel is openly aggressive towards Poles and what she does is "hate-speech" and defamation in the purest form. What scares me is that she does not want to educate herself and has no remorse while pushing her personal antipolish opinions as "facts" by saying that "anyone who says otherwise is a fraud." It should not be omitted that she CLEARLY DIMINISHED the scale of the Polish aid for the Jews from many thousands to "a very tiny few", creating a picture of Poles as killers and murderers of Jews. What she says is a one large "pack of lies" as Schetyna described it, and her opinions are deeply hurtful and highly unfair. The article should briefly but precisely describe her statements confronting them with facts. 78.8.173.175 (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with your concerns and I hope the current edit works. Hopefully my changes are an accurate summary of her views, neither watering down nor exaggerating her excesses. And we have both condemnations still in place that were there before. Since this article is about her, I don't think this is the place for a discussion of history. However, the wikilinks directs the reader to wonderfully written articles on the various topics. Holocaust will bring the reader to The Holocaust in Poland. The wikilink on collaborating will bring the reader to the section on Poland in the Collaboration during World War II article. Death camps in occupied Poland brings one to the article on German camps in occupied Poland during World War II. The words, few righteous gentiles, goes right to Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. We mention Jan Karski explicitly. Thus the reader can explore Wikipedia's vast coverage on the Nazi occupation specifically in Poland that we could never do justice to in our article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jason, thank you, but listen - the collaboration of Poles during the WWII was so minor, that there vere in fact some "very tiny few" of so called "folksdeutsche" literally meaning "parts of the German nation". These people never killed no Jew! They at most snitched on other Poles who were hiding Jews. Poles, even those who signed the "Folksdeutsch list", NEVER KILLED JEWS during the World War II. The only killers were Germans, with some minor support of Austrians, Ukrainians, Czechoslovaks, Croats, Italians, and even some few Arabs (Free Arabian Legion). The only controversy about the Polish input in killing Jews was the Jedwabne pogrom. There is a wide discussion if some Poles were involved in this, however numerous investigations show that probably no Poles were involved while: 1) Poles had completely no access to gasoline 2) Poles never shot noone in the back of the head (Polish soldiers were too proud to shoot someone from behind like Germans). Anyway -- I reverted your contribution, while you do not actually confront Schlussel's claims with the facts. Someone who will read this article on Wikipedia about Debbie Schlussel will automatically believe all her views if it will be written like this. That is why I think it should be clearly stated WHAT MADE SUCH A LARGE CONTROVERSY IN POLAND and among POLONIA in the USA. Her quotes are extremely important, and please do not choose only those that are less controversial.
 * This section should look like this:


 *  On May 30, 2012 Schlussel wrote a blog post in which she commented about a mistake made by President Barack Obama in a speech regarding his use of the phrase "Polish Death Camps" for Nazi death camps in occupied Poland. Schlussel said Obama should not apologize for his remark. In Schlussel's May 30 commentary, she described Poles as "complicit in the Holocaust", "happy for the Judenrein" and in "willing cooperation with the Nazis", without acknowledging the Nazi crimes against the Polish nation, and also diminished the importance and the number of the Polish Righteous among the Nations by stating that only a "very tiny few" gentile Poles aided the Jews. Her commentaries provoked a wide-scale protest in Poland and among the American Polonia. In response, the chairman of the Polish Parliament's Foreign Affairs Commission Grzegorz Schetyna called her commentary a pack of lies. In its daily news release, the Polish government-affiliated Institute of National Remembrance dubbed Schlussel's commentary as defamatory.  For her part, Schlussel says that her blog post led to hate mail and hacking of her web site, and she is supporting the making of a film on the controversial subject of her blog post. 
 * To make the article reliable it has to contain her main views on Muslims and Poles. She said all Muslims should die, sharing the fate of Bin Laden (1.8 billion is the exact number of world's Muslim population at the time she said it), and she also said that Poles murdered most of the Jews and that the vast majority of Poles sympathized with German Nazis which is a filthy lie. It hurts alot, especially because it is not true. These are her main claims, not mentioning her derogatory commentaries on illegal immigrants in the USA, that she aimed at the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Please, i'm begging you, do not wipe these information. If you want it so brief, wipe this long quotation by Schlussel, but do not wipe the text, as it's sources, reliable and true. 78.8.173.175 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not an article about Poland during the war. We have several good articles on the war years and they confirm the facts that Poland proudly fought and not collaborated with the Nazis. Her views are what this article is about. It's not the place to correct her views but to confirm that reliable sources refute and condemn them. After reading her other views prior to the end of the article, I doubt that readers are going to take her at face value. If there is a controversy in Poland about her specifically, that is very strange since she is almost unknown here. However, provide us with more links so we may read about it. As she is mainly known for her views on Islam, the Middle East, and Israel, this topic shouldn't take such a large part of her bio. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing to keep in mind is that most of the collaboration was apparently by Poles who were ethnically of German descent. So that fact can lead to a lot of confusion, and maybe Schlussel was referring mainly to them.  Anyway, quotes from Schlussel's blog post aren't needed because we provide a link to the blog post plus we summarize the quotes.  If quotes are included, I think the best place for them would be in the footnote.  IP78, do you think that Jason accurately summarized the quotes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to argue with you guys, agression is not my point at all. I am peaceful and always try to understand other people's views. Nonetheless, the views of mrs. Schlussel are unacceptable. I understand your opinions and appreciate your input. @Jason - I know that this article is not about Poles, but you can't disagree that Debbie Schlussel is really involved in the topic of "Polish death camps" being Polish, as she seriously involves in some anti-Polish movies. What is more - the Holocaust is much more sensitive and important topic than her views on Muslims, which are also exaggerated. This is why i think her commentaries about Islam and Muslims should be put on equal importance level as her highly controversial views on Poles as the main Jew-killers. @Anythingyouwant - I think the article is OK at this particular moment that I'm posting this message. Let me ask you guys a question - if Schlussel was Polish (meaning non-Jewish gentile Poles = ethnically Polish) and if she spread some anti-Semitic propaganda, would it be required to be described so briefly and vaguely in the Wikipedia article? I don't think so. There would be some thick, long columns and tons of quotations about her statements. Anti-Polonism should be regarded as the same evil as anti-Semitism or any other racial, ethnical or cultural prejudice. Now to the point: The article can't omit her accusations towards Poles in view of facts, and can't omit that there was a wide-scale protest, not only in Poland and the Polish media, but also on the internet (another provocation by Schlussel calling it a "cyber-pogrom" which refers to pogroms organized by Germans to kill Jews). The wave of protests and constarnation also appeared among the Polish-American diaspora (called "Polonia"). Her words hurt the feelings of millions of people, and there are still some elder Poles living, who remember the war and know exactly who was the executioner, and who was the victim. In the news I've seen an elder Pole crying after someone translated him what mrs. Schlussel is publishing, and he said: "I am a Pole, and I'm proud of it." - he started to cry a bit more and said: "My family was killed by the Nazis, I still have shivers while hearing the German speech, it's so deep inside my mind. Why is this lady so cruel? why is she slandering my family and my country?". I remember his words as it was always touching to me when I saw an elder person crying and suffering. As you see words can hurt like weapons. And I know that the Wikipedia article has to be sourced and neutral. I think the lines presented by me in my previous post are perfectly objective, neutral and specifically touch the problem. That is all. 78.8.173.175 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your justifiable outrage at this injustice. I'm no stranger to the viciousness of the Nazi regime. Indeed, I often quote a figure of 10 million for the total number of Slavs (Poland and beyond) killed by the Nazi regime. See R. J. Rummel's book page 13. Prof. Rummel spent a good part of his career documenting mass slaughters of the 20th century and his figure is well respect. Furthermore Hitler's plan for Lebensraum included the deliberate removal of Slavs as well as Jews. If I remember correctly Poland had the largest per capita death rate of about 1/3. That would make this level unseen in Europe since the Thirty Years War. So my sympathy and full respect knows no bounds (especially if we add the leading role Poland played in topping of Communism.)


 * That being said, we just can not insert a mini article about Poland in Schlussel's BLP. I had included that maximum number of wikilinks to our vast treasure trove of every facet of Poland's occupation. This is a subject for another article. We have to write the article to accurately describe what Schlussel says as cited by those who select what they (and not we) find notable. We're editors, not originators of research. We convey what's out there. There is no disrespect to the truth or the Polish people by summarizing her opinion and the criticism it has evoked. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the criticism, these opinions wouldn't even be in Wikipedia. I hope you look at our other articles and appreciate the care editors have taken with their coverage of Poland in WWII. If they miss the mark you might be a good person to help them correct it. No one is coming to Schussel's bio to learn about WWII. What exactly do you object about my summary: Does anyone else object? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think what's in the article now is awful, but Jason's version is more encyclopedic. Schlussel has written lots and lots and lots of stuff at her blog.  The only way that we can pick out stuff to describe here in this Wikipedia article is to look at other sources besides her blog.  The problem with writing this Poland material is that we don't have a lot of sources that pick out particular things she said.  One source says she lied, another that she libeled, but neither gives detail.  It's not really enough for a Wikipedia editor to say something she said is unacceptable; we need a reliable source to indicate such feelings.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

An undue weight or conciseness issue
This Wikipedia article quotes her as saying: "This wasn’t just the Nazis. It was tens of thousands of eager Poles and more." Then the Wikipedia article quotes her as saying that there was "Polish complicity in the Holocaust and willing cooperation with the Nazis". The latter is redundant, and the former is more precise, so I will remove the latter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * She stated that tens of thousands of Poles KILLED Jews, which is classificated as an "Auschwitz lie", and the Polish Anti-Defamation League already took care of this lady. Poles never hurt no Jew during the holocaust, some extremely small groups of "Volksdeutsch Poles" only showed Germans which Polish families are hiding Jews, that's all from the bad things about the Polish citizens. Poles were the main non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, and Schlussel is denying this by portraying the Poles as murderers, not victims. This is a filthy lie. 78.9.142.97 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Victim and oppressor are not mutually exclusive terms. If Polish Gentiles had such peaceful intentions in regard to Jews, why did the Kielce Pogrom occur?

"The Kielce Pogrom was an outbreak of violence against the Jewish community centre's gathering of refugees in the city of Kielce, Poland on 4 July 1946 in the presence of the Polish Communist armed forces (LWP, KBW) which resulted in the killing of 42 Jews.[1][2] Polish Communist courts later tried and condemned nine people to death in connection with the incident.

As the deadliest pogrom against Polish Jews after the Second World War, the incident was a significant point in the post-war history of Jews in Poland. It took place only a year after the end of the Second World War and the Holocaust, shocking Jews in Poland, Poles, and the international community. It has been considered a catalyst for the flight from Poland of most remaining Polish Jews who had survived the Holocaust.[3]"

75.173.115.35 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter
Under controversies, there should be a separate section on her ill-wishing of Jimmy Carter following his cancer diagnosis (right now it's only mentioned in the introduction). She's gotten significant media attention because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.101.86 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Schlussel is not "best known " or "most well known" for a tweet about Jimmy Carter. This is an unsubstantiated opinion with no proof behind it. She's best known as a conservative commentator who frequently appeared on FOX News and Howard Stern. The tweet is a minor event in her history. It should not be in the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.70.74 (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Link to Splitting
The link to 'splitting' (a psychological term about a particular cognitive bias) should be removed.

An encyclopedia is a not a place for original research. If an independent psychologist published a paper demonstrating this concept using Schussel, a link to the specific article may be appropriate.

A link to a generic article (as we see here) is biased and an insidious form of criticism.

Also, there is plenty of evidence that many Polish citizens willingly collaborated with the Nazis in harming Jews, Communists and other victims of the Concentration Camps. It is easier for Polish citizens to ignore this than to admit to Polish Anti-Semitism. If the Polish Gentiles had such positive relations with Jews, why did the Kielce Pogrom occur?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom

75.173.115.35 (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Debbie Schlussel. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006868

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In my view Southern Poverty Law is not an appropriate source
This is a BLP and the subject of the article is controversial. This statement, "In 2011, she was listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as one of 10 people in the United States' "Anti-Muslim Inner Circle" uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source. The Southern Poverty Law Center is for Islamic immigration and is anti-conservative, so I don't think there an objective source. It would be like using the John Birch Society as a source for an article about Obama. I think we should try to find a more neutral source. If we must include SPLC as a source then its ideological agenda should be stated. Schlussel is very Anti-Muslim, so we could probably just use her own writings as a source for the fact that she is Anti-Muslim, that would carry more weight and be less of a BLP problem. RandomScholar30 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You could get feedback on that view at WP:RSN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Debbie Schlussel. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302015315/http://ipn.gov.pl/wydzial-prasowy/media-o-ipn/przeglad-mediow-6-czerwca-2012 to http://ipn.gov.pl/wydzial-prasowy/media-o-ipn/przeglad-mediow-6-czerwca-2012

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hannity Dust Up
Would it be appropriate to include a reference to the issue?

What do you call a person who advocates for the extermination of an entire group of people?
"1 down, 1.8 billion to go".

If the same comment was made about Jews for example, it would be considered far worse than "antisemitism".

The individual would probably be arrested and imprisoned.

Blatant hypocrisy and double standards aside, what do you call someone who advocates the killing of an entire group of people?

A genocidal maniac?

Please consider this question so the label can be added to her list of titles.

If you feel like this very relevant topic shouldnt be discussed (on the talk page no less), provide a reason. A deletion isnt acceptable and will be reverted. Disestablishmentarianism 09:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary-source opinions
Most of the Professional life and views section is sourced to Schlussel's personal website, including her claims about BLP subjects. This content should either be supported by secondary sources or removed from the article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy edits are biased - his pro-Palestinian propaganda permiates his Wikipedia "edits"
Nableezy's edits are biased and one-sided. His other edits on Wikipedia show a very strong pro-Palestinian/pro-Muslim bias and he supports Islamic terrorism, calling it "resistance." His propaganda edits on this page must be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40B:8500:5E9:B890:7C3A:E866:8257 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Im the one calling living people "a Palestinian political activist and hip-hop artist" with no sourcing, and adding a bunch of other bullshit to this article. Cool.  nableezy  - 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * by the way, since you're hoping across a few IPs, you may not edit material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, and any reverts I make enforcing that restriction are exempt from any edit-warring claim. Additionally, adding material about living persons sourced to self-published works is also prohibited, and likewise reverts to enforce that are exempt from edit-warring claims.  nableezy  - 19:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully we can get a moderator to resolve this issue, but still, I 100% agree with Nableezy. IP person is giving no sources whatsoever and calling Nableezy a terrorist. IP person is most likely assuming bad faith, calling people terrorists for no reason. Sans9k (Talk) 19:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)