Talk:Hessy Levinsons Taft

legendary
it is in YAD VASHEM now the old magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:19A:59C0:2CB1:8B45:FD72:2D14 (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

at that time where she went public with the case she was already 80 years
i dont think that she was professor with 80

she is a former chemistry professor but she did not work with 80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:19A:59C0:8C09:30BE:C260:D6D9 (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

issue number of SONNE INS HAUS
unfortunately she did not say which issue of that magazine it was — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:19A:59C0:8C09:30BE:C260:D6D9 (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Needs a better source

 * 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.

The only real source for this article is her own account. Looking at the Telegraph article she is clearly not the same person as the baby. Yes this is original research but I think it means we should be skeptical of her claim until other evidence can be provided. Erik10293802023 (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources for this article are a major museum and three national-level newspapers from three different countries. Erik10293802023, a single-purpose account, appears to not want to believe that the Nazis could have been fooled in this way, and is making up theories about how people's looks change when they age in order to justify that nonbelief. This is not worthy of much discussion. Verifiability, not truth appears very relevant here, in particular "Editors...may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if you're going to accuse me of being dishonest because I created a new account since I lost my old one years ago I could just flip the argument and point out that because you have a Jewish surname you want this story to be true. Neither of these are real arguments. The only evidence we have is an interview with a museum (i.e. not evidence at all) and three news articles that have no sources except for her interview either. The default positions should always be that the story isn't true and that there needs to be evidence that the story is real. There is literally no evidence whatsoever that she is the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik10293802023 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The default position should be that when reliable sources write that something is true, we take it as true unless there is strong reason to contradict it (and not merely to be skeptical of it). Here I see no such reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Why we should be skeptical of it: There are no sources for the story other than the woman herself. The "reliable sources" are just news articles regurgitating her story, they did nothing to verify her story and they should be ignored completely. Either way we need a third party individual who doesn't have a biased position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik10293802023 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You aren't reading what I just said. Being skeptical of it is irrelevant. Do you have any published evidence that actually contradicts her story? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they have a reputation for fact checking other stories but this is literally a puff piece where and there's no verification whatsoever. As far as Eppstein's analysis that's not an argument either. You are supposed to be skeptical of stories, that is literally the default state you should always be in. Not one of the sources does anything to provide any evidence whatosever for her story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik10293802023 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Include as it is covered by multiple reliable sources that have a reputation for fact checking, the opposution is just opinion Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Include - due to inclusion of reliable sources and the fact that the only opposition seems to be unfounded skepticism and accusations of Jewish agenda, which should obviously be ignored. OP hasn't presented a single shred of evidence to support his claims (other than the "clear proof" that an old woman doesn't look like a baby), yet somehow expects the burden of proof to be on the other party. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is wrong. First I never accused anyone of having a Jewish agenda, you just made that up. Next it's not on me to find sources debunking this story. If you just look at the evidence for this story you would realize it's fake. Erik10293802023 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)--Erik


 * Include - RS check out as mentioned here. I don't understand the problem? This would make a good DYK. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

-- I mentioned what was wrong with it. Erik10293802023 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)--ErikErik10293802023 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Include – snow close this time-waster of an Rfc. Erik10293802023, you can stanch the pain and avoid the wasted time of other editors, by withdrawing this Rfc. This is going absolutely nowhere. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Then just remove it. 22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik10293802023 (talk • contribs)
 * , I removed parts of two of your comments that were purely personal attacks. Address the subject, not the other editors. In sufficiently persistent or egregious cases, you may be blocked for your personal attacks. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.