Talk:History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II/Archive 3

Restarting old disputes
Re this revert by Gitz6666 - the consensus is summarized in Z1720's comment on talk page from 17:44, 12 June 2021 and 02:44, 19 June 2021 and my comment from 04:27, 19 June 2021. VM -  Volunteer Marek   06:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There was a consensus on I support inclusion of the citation to Zimmerman page 213, but not page 361. As far as I can see everyone would support p.213 being included, so consensus might be found by cutting p.361 from this RfC (Chumchum7 at 12:28, 12 June 202). Buidhe and Z1720 agreed to remove Zimmerman 361. However, if I'm not wrong, Buidhe and Z1720 did not agree on removing Zimmerman, p. 213.
 * To referesh your memory, this is the quotation from Zimmerman, p. 213:
 * which suppors the text:
 * Although the text was covered by consensus, it was never restored until my edit yesterday, which VM reverted.
 * Moreover, I don't see a consensus for removing the text based on Farkash 2014, 67:
 * Finally, I believe that the June 2021 consensus was achieved through edit war and bludgeoning: it was not a real WP:CONSENSUS but rather exhaustion. I read the t/p discussion and don't see any reason why we should drop Zimmerman, p. 361, supporting
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion was an exhausting and stressful affair that I do not want to reread. I am neutral to this source/statement's inclusion because I do not have time to assess the situation. I would only engage if editors agreed to limiting their arguments to one, short response on why something should or should not be included, or if there was a neutral mediator involved to help organise the discussion. I am also mindful that there is currently an Arbitration Committee case about this topic area and I do not have time to get involved with anything prolonged that might be covered in that case. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Finally, I believe that the June 2021 consensus was achieved through edit war and bludgeoning: it was not a real WP:CONSENSUS but rather exhaustion. I read the t/p discussion and don't see any reason why we should drop Zimmerman, p. 361, supporting
 * Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion was an exhausting and stressful affair that I do not want to reread. I am neutral to this source/statement's inclusion because I do not have time to assess the situation. I would only engage if editors agreed to limiting their arguments to one, short response on why something should or should not be included, or if there was a neutral mediator involved to help organise the discussion. I am also mindful that there is currently an Arbitration Committee case about this topic area and I do not have time to get involved with anything prolonged that might be covered in that case. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @User:Gitz6666. First, please discuss content not editors. Specifically your comment that I believe that the June 2021 consensus was achieved through edit war and bludgeoning: it was not a real WP:CONSENSUS. It doesn't really matter what you believe as this "tactic" of calling any disagreement with one's POV "bludgeoning" is played out and wasn't much of an argument to begin with. WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, not a policy and anyone can always self-servingly claim that anyone who disagrees with them is "bludgeoning".
 * Second, if you want to put back the sentence sourced to p. 213 that's fine.
 * Third, no, there was no consensus for the text which was supposedly based (but not accurately) on p. 361.
 * There was also, afaict, no consensus on Farkash since that was by a graduate student and hence does not meet the extra sourcing requirements.
 * User:Z1720 I 100% sympathize with not wanting to go through this again and I think you deserve multiple barnstars for the mediation you did back the first time around.  Volunteer Marek   07:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First, I'm happy that you acknowledge that "the sentence sourced to p. 213", which you have removed from this article at least six times, enjoys consensus.
 * Second, your claim "no consensus on Farkash" has no basis in prior discussions. As far as I can see, you are the only one who objected to using this essay (which fully meets WP:APLRS since it qualifies as "article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals") as a source:
 * Piotrus raised concerns in Dec 2019 (Farkash is a bit problematic ... she was a PhD student when she published this article), which were addressed by rephrasing the text, using attribution ("Survivors recalled...", "According to Farkash") and not calling her a "historian" . Piotrus himself modified the text and Buidhe accepted (here at 04:44, 28 December 2019). Piotrus didn't raise the issue again at FAN, so he was probably satisfied with the way his concerns had been met.
 * The issue of Farkash's qualification was discussed during the GA review and Harrias said I can't see the objection to "Israeli historian" myself; she graduated in 2016, and is now a fellow. Even at the time she wrote it, irrespective of being a student, she was clearly a historian (12:15, 6 March 2020).
 * You raised issue on 19 May 2021 by removing the text and on the t/p at 02:07, 24 May 2021 and at 23:14, 24 May 2021, when you didn't provide any argument (The problem with Farkash are different and we can return to that later). Buidhe argued Farkash paper is peer-reviewed and a reliable source. I tried to come to a compromise above, but clearly you aren't happy with any compromise. Z1720 said that Farkash is high-quality (04:22, 24 May 2021) and If editors propose removing Farkash, I would like a separate discussion about that (preferably in a new section) (20:55, 26 May 2021). Buidhe also said I believe Farkash' source is a high-quality RS because it was published in Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust (later renamed The Journal of Holocaust Research) an established, peer-reviewed journal associated with the University of Haifa and published by Taylor & Francis. (23:48, 26 May 2021) and Neither of you have addressed one of Z1720's main concerns at all; that is, the removal of Farkash source without discussion (07:08, 28 May 2021). In fact, no one argued against using Farkash as a source, not even you and certainly not GCB and Chumchum7. During the 19 May-27 May 2001 edit war, you and GizzyCatBella repeatedly removed the text and the source, but you did not provide any argument on the talk page. Chumchum7, however, said I didn't remove Farkash (08:00, 28 May 2021). The possibility of having an RfC on Farkash was mentioned by GCB and Z1720, but eventually no one opened the RfC and there was no community discussion on Farkash either here or at RSN.
 * So, alongside the text based on Zimmerman p. 213, @Volunteer Marek, you should also restore the text based on Farkash. Since no one objected to Farkash, and the only one who wants to remove it is you (and perhaps GCB), your claim "no consensus on Farkash" is groundless. If you doubt Farkash is reliable, please open a thread at RSN.
 * Finally, with regard to the sentence based on Zimmerman, p. 361 (The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants), I stand by my opinion: the June 2021 "consensus" was achieved through edit war and bludgeoning, and was not a real WP:CONSENSUS but exhaustion. Unless you feel personally touched by my remark, I don't understand why you accuse me of discuss[ing] content not editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged, regarding According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants. . Can someone link those two pages from Google Books or IA or such, so we can double check what's in the source before rehashing this?
 * As for Farkash, the issue of her credentials is interesting as recently we had a number of discussions about several other PhD students, whose book reviews were removed (and I think remain removed). To be fair, in those discussions I was opposed to their removal, and so from today's perspective, I would not be opposed to restoring Farkash - but only IF someone can explain to me why it's ok to use one PhD student's work here but not another PhD student's work there? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The two pages from Zimmerman can be read here.
 * As far as PhD students in general are concerned, my view is that their reliability depends both on the journal where they publish and on the type of research product they publish. A 20-page essay, citing primary and secondary sources, published in a peer-reviewd, high-quality academic journal is a RS even if its author doesn't have a B.A., let alone a PhD. I'm not an expert in the field, but I understand that "Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust" (now "The Journal of Holocaust Research") is highly regarded, thus I wouldn't doubt that this article is a RS. I'm not in a position to assess the reputation of "Sarmatian Review" (published by the Polish Institute of Houston), but I note that this is a 2-page review of a book - doubting the reliability of the source seems legitimate to me even if, to be honest, in The Forgotten Holocaust the main point seem to me be due weight rather than reliability. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding Zimmerman, I would like to point out a compromise wording I suggested a while back, with the note that the word "band", while used by Zimmerman, is not something I endorse (per previous discussions here), and we could use a neutral term groups or such. Perhaps we could simplify it even further. What do you think about: Reports of the Home Army from that time often described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jewish groups which stole food from Polish peasants
 * As for Farkash, I am ambivalent. If I have time, I will think about this more. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could also simply use "Jews" without specifying either "fugitives" or "groups". Alternatively, and I think this would be better, we could use "Jewish bands" in inverted commas, since this is the expression used by the primary source (HA reports). However, we should add that that hostility was not only reported by the HA but also shared by some of its elements - not all of them, as we know, not the whole force: Zimmerman himself speaks of "reports of the local Home Army that touched upon the Jews ... One example is".
 * This could perhaps be achieved by rephrasing as follows: (sorry for my defective English; if the concept is shared, please improve the rendering).
 * Note that this formulation is WP:IMPARTIAL because it is relatively more restrained than Zimmerman's, who uses expressions such as "decidedly hostile", mentions the Jews being labelled as "local elements of little value", and says that "harsh, anti-Jewish sentiment was present in Polish society even to the point of approving the German extermination policies". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd put a full stop after "and occasionally shared such lack of sympathy for Jews". The reminder seems repetetive. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you, I removed the "and occasionally shared such lack of sympathy for Jews", as you suggested, and published this . I have also restored Farkash, p. 67  - if you don't agree, please revert, but note that the contentious claim (from the source: Wenkart allowed a group of Jewish partisans to enter the camp to seek refuge from persecution by the Armia Krajowa (AK)) is supported by five primary sources (35YVA 0.3/9295, testimony of Topolsky, p. 17; YVA, 0.3/2951, testimony of Eckhaiser, pp. 23–24; Daitsher, pp. 482–483; Perelmuter, p. 502; Wenkart, pp. 60–61) and is not presented by Farkash as uncertain or merely probable. Finally, the content I restored is attributed to the source:  (my emphasis) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 I think that's fine (I remain ambivalent re Farkash in the context of book reviews, but I'd ather restore all content then see it all of it gone). I do think the sentence needs a bit more copyediting, as the part about "and occasionally shared such lack of sympathy for Jews" concerns the reports, not the peasans, but the sentence is currently not worded very clearly. How about changing, and occasionally shared such lack of sympathy for Jews to ; said reports, according to Zimmerman, therefore can be seen as occasionally lacking sympathy for the Jews? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like your version better and I'm also fine with attributing the assessment to Zimmerman. Perhaps, since we attribute the assessment, "[decidedly] hostile to" would be closer to Zimmerman's text than "occasionally lacking sympathy for". Please modify the text as you see fit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 Please see my recent edit, I decided to follow your advice and used some direct quotation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PS. And I hope we can remove the npov template that has been plaguing this article for the last two years? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, if nobody objects we can remove. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666 Removed, since nobody objected here for 2 days. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)