Talk:History policy of the Law and Justice party

Title
I suggest moving this to Historical policy of the Law and Justice party as it isn't clear what is is about until you click through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a technocality, but PiS (Law and Justice) is not a monolith, and the Polish government has been a coalition of PiS and some smaller offshots. See Second Cabinet of Mateusz Morawiecki for example. So are we really takking about "Historical policy of the Law and Justice party" or "Historical policy of the Law and Justice party and its allies", said allies being United Poland and Agreement (political party), for example? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable point but all the sources refer to PiS specifically, not any of the other parties. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead rewrite needed
Per WP:LEAD, lead should not contain new content not present in the body, and should be of adequate size. This lead contains a lot of unique claims, and forms a third of the current article size. Simple solution is to expand the article by moving parts of the lead into the body, some of it can be duplicated per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE of course. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
The article is sourced exclusively to critics of the current conservative govt and the overall tone is deeply negative. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

According to this narrative, Poles were exclusively victims and heroes during World War II and the Communist era, -- This kind of wild exaggerrations are good for polemic articles, but not for encyclopedia. I am not touching the touchy WWII subject, but come on... only heroes during Communist Era? That's bullsitting. Open the freaking textbooks. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am not returning to this article (because I am not going to play "devil's advocate", because I disagree with recent polish politics myself), so don't ping me. Staszek Lem (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with Staszek on all counts. I am not very interested in defending the current Polish government, but the article is hardly neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The statement is supported by sources, for example Sadurski writes, "the [2018] law clearly resonates with a nationalistic government rhetoric, under which Polish history is comprised exclusively of heroic acts and undeserved victimhood, and never of criminal deeds." If it is just one sentence that is objected to, then applying neutrality tag to the entire article is inappropriate; I've removed it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one doubts that many Poles were victims and/or heroes, but what differentiates this from a more balanced view of history is that the party rejects any more nuanced views (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But this is just one side of the story, that of its critics. We should make sure to present views of both sides. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources discuss this historical policy from a pro- perspective? (I could not find any in English). And how much weight do they have? Davies usually fits into the conservative camp but he is against this. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's try this. Which reliable sources discuss this policy from any perspective? In-depth, not just mentioning it in passing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is the major topic in Michlic's, Zuk's, and Hackmann's peer-reviewed papers. The plwiki has an article on this at pl:pedagogika wstydu. But, I do not think that is a great article title because it is a propaganda term. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree the Polish term, while related, is not about the same topic. But hmmm. What is historical policy? That generic phrase needs a redirect or a stub, to start with. This suggests that in addition so some neutrality issues, we may be dealing with OR-ish definition of the topic scope. And since you mentioned Zuk: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I have added some info to the article based on it. I think that the scope is pretty clear, and the article title could be considered a descriptive title (WP:NDESC). What is unclear about it to you? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH
I removed two sections because to connection is provided with "histotical policy" nor with the L&J party. In particular the Holocaust stuff started well before L&J, heck, before even Polish re-independence. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, please do not revert without discussion. This is a sensitive subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of research in Poland of what you call "disgrace", especially which is related to Communist era. The narrative of this article is based on ample overgeneralizations. Yes, there are several topics which are being shut, but there are plenty of villains in Polsih history nobody attempts to cover up. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Staszek Lem here, the article seems like a mix of completely unrelated texts attacking PiS completely unrelated to any actual historical policy the party might or might not pursue.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The only article I could find on ""Historical policy of the Law and Justice party" is on a Russian propaganda portal


There's virtually zero other sources. Is this in any way relevant to Wikipedia? The article seems to be mix of statements and unrelated events thrown into one WP:SYNTH. I really think this has no merit, and probably should be deleted. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please open AfD if you believe it is not notable. I have already quoted ample sources on the article and in various other places which show that scholars analyze it as a coherent overall topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed falsification of a source!
"The Law and Justice party rejects researchers' conclusion that Poles were responsible for the 1941 Jedwabne pogrom in which hundreds of Jews were murdered, attributing it exclusively to Germans.[1]" This is sourced to At the Crossroads’: Jedwabne and Polish Historiography of the Holocaust

It says absolutely nothing like what the Wikipedia article claims. It does not say that Law and Justice "attributes Jedwabne pogrom exclusively to Germans"

According to Michilic the "two historical narratives" of PiS are 1) emphasizing the suffering of Poles and 2) emphasizing the rescue of Jews by Poles. One can disagree with these narratives, one can disagree with Michilic's characterization of these policies etc., but there is nothing in here at all that says that Law and Justice "attributes the pogrom exclusively to Germans"

That is pure fabrication by the Wikipedia editor who inserted that text.

And I WILL report this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually Michlic states:
 * "According to the politicians, historians, and journalists representing PiS’s ideological position, Jedwabne and other events that cast a negative light on Polish national identity must be revisited and retold for both Poles and the West. In their eyes, Jedwabne is a key sign of ‘all the lies voiced against the Polish nation,’ and is understood as the ‘central attack’ on Polishness, Polish values and traditions, and Polish identity (understood in an ethnic sense)... According to PiS’s historical policy, two major historical narratives defined as ‘true and patriotic’ are utilized to oppose Gross and Anna Bikont’s accounts of the Jedwabne pogrom and its long aftermath, as well as other dark aspects of Polish–Jewish relations during and after the Holocaust."

It states nothing of the sort of the claim that was inserted, mainly that:The Law and Justice party rejects researchers' conclusion that Poles were responsible for the 1941 Jedwabne pogrom in which hundreds of Jews were murdered, attributing it exclusively to Germans.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how else it could be interpreted to call Jedwabne a "lie", or an "opinion", (since the fact that Jews were killed is not usually denied). Other Polish historians call this a form of historical denial which has now become mainstream. Nevertheless, I have revised the caption to more closely follow sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Tags
Please do not remove tags until issues are resolved. Please do not revert withjout discussion in talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the piece which does not show connection to "historical policy" Please do not restore without providing this connection in the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. in your edity summary you wrote "Add analysis if you like, but don't remove content". No, I am not going to add any analysis. It is your claim of relevance, you have to prove it, not me. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

:Relevance" tags
Every paragraph must explicitly provide information that this is part of "historical policy" not just a collection of conservative factoids. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean? All aspects covered in this article (including those that you removed) are part of the topic according to reliable sources. Therefore, they are relevant and belong in the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If sourcfes say they are part of the policy, then you have to say this in our article too. I am releating countless times: without such explicit statements the article looks like a random collection of events in Poland, i.e., WP:SYNTH / WP:COATRACK. YOu are deep in the subject and do not see it. An indepentent observer like me sees this right away.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here I am giving you an example how to introduce the relevance into the article. The rest is yours. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Spurious, obviously relevant. Kasha lover (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Actual historical policy of PiS, from its program

 * POLITYKA HISTORYCZNA

Prawo i Sprawiedliwość od końca 2015 realizuje świadomą politykę historyczną obejmującą wiele konkretnych zadań i programów. Polityka ta wymaga w dalszych latach systemowej kontynuacji i rozwoju. Jej podstawowe założenia obejmują: obowiązek realnego mecenatu państwa nad kulturą i dziedzictwem narodowym; dbałość o instytucjonalizację pamięci; ochronę zabytków i polskie dziedzictwo zagranicą oraz dziedzictwo utracone; właściwe upamiętnianie ważnych dla Polski rocznic i postaci; aktywną politykę audiowizualną i medialną oraz aktywną politykę edukacyjną w zakresie tożsamości kulturowo-historycznej.

This must be the first section of this article. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Since the end of 2015, Law and Justice has been implementing a conscious historical policy that encompasses many concrete tasks and programs. The policy must be systematically continued and developed in the following years. Its basic cornerstones include: the duty of real patronage of the state over culture and national heritage; care for the institutionalization of memory; protection of historical monuments and Polish heritage abroad, as well as the lost heritage; proper commemoration of anniversaries and persons important to Poland; an active audiovisual and media policy and an active educational policy in the field of cultural and historical identity.

Staszek Lem (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By "first section", I assume you mean the lead. I don't think a long quote would be WP:DUE weight in the lead, since it would give undue prominence to what the party says about itself. If you would like to add a body section "Party platform", please go ahead. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, first section means first section. and I am not talking about quote. I could have copied the quote myself. There must be discussion of it someehere. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will open a RFC to resolve this. Kasha lover (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup tags
Several cleanup tags have been applied to the article. But I have yet to see: As stated in the relevant guideline, "Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Any source that you say is unreliable
 * Any content, for which reliable sources do not support a connection to the overall topic (keeping in mind that this is a descriptive title for an overall phenomenon that reliable sources support the existence of, per WP:NDESC)
 * Any concrete statement in the article that is claimed to be POV, or reliable sources that have a different opinion of the article topic
 * Actual deletion discussion where notability concerns could be decided
 * The discussion is in progress. Colleague, you are too quick on removing tags. Slow down. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the notability tag, because I found (and added) the ref which directly indicated at "historical policy" in the program of PiS. I see no tags about source reliability. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutralityu tag stays because the lede contains directly false statement, namely about "Communist times". This blatantly contradicts the widely publicized decommunization policy in Poland. What is more important, it does not describe the "histgorical policy" from the point of view of supporters, only from the point of view and from the (unfriendly) mouth of opponents. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide an alternative wording that is, like this one, supported by reliable sources. Then we could discuss which is best. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am feeling free to point at the inadequacies of the article. I am not at all going to be the mouthpiece of PiS. But it is as clear as a glass of Wyborowa, that this side is absent from article, hence the tag. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Reliable sources may be sadly mistaken, you know, especially when they have an ax to grind. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability, not "truth" (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are reliable. The tags just express dislike of reliable sources and are spurious. Kasha lover (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: PiS program from its website as first section
Should the following text, copied from the website of PiS, be inserted to the article as the first section? Text: "Since the end of 2015, Law and Justice has been implementing a conscious historical policy that encompasses many concrete tasks and programs. The policy must be systematically continued and developed in the following years. Its basic cornerstones include: the duty of real patronage of the state over culture and national heritage; care for the institutionalization of memory; protection of historical monuments and Polish heritage abroad, as well as the lost heritage; proper commemoration of anniversaries and persons important to Poland; an active audiovisual and media policy and an active educational policy in the field of cultural and historical identity." Kasha lover (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC) <--- — Kasha lover (talk&#x20;• contribs) see below Single-purpose_account -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is the mirror website of the far-right PiS party. Discussion of PiS's policy needs to be based on reliable third party sources. Kasha lover (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC) <--- — Kasha lover (talk&#x20;• contribs) has made 23 edits in total, already familiar with RFC and few or no edits outside this topic area. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not the website is not independent of the subject, per WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * False interpretation of WP:RS policy. An author is an RS about themselves. Another issue it that it is WP:PRIMARY, therefore usually its citing is used only as a support its coverage in secondary sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed RfC tag as far as I can tell there is no need for an RfC as there is no dispute (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weird RFC and weird opinions. I did not request to copy the policy here. I requested its coverage.Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved: Consensus is that changing the title would significantly change the scope of the article. (non-admin closure)   Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 06:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Historical policy of the Law and Justice party → Historical politics in Poland – This is not simply a policy of a single party, although it is the ruling one today. This is the whole conservative trend in Poland for quite some time. Institute of National Remembrance was established well before Duda came to power. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the sources currently cited specifically discuss the policies of this particular political party, which does meet GNG and is an encyclopedically valid topic. Oppose the proposed name, as it is ambiguous with Political history of Poland (see Political history). I would not oppose a merge into a broader article such as "Politics of history in Poland", but it would have to go along with expansion of other aspects of that broader topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually no. In particular the idea to put an end of "pedagogy of shame" ("pedagogika wstydu") was before Duda. "Ambiguous" is not an argument, but I would not object to Politics of history in Poland. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that Duda invented these ideas? Law and Justice was also in power in the mid-2000s and they applied similar policies then. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is correct, here is a brief article by historian critical of PiS describing elements of political history before the party was elected to power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs) 00:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one said that they invented the concept of politicizing history. Actually the article you cite supports the notability of the current article subject because it is almost entirely devoted to post-2015 policies applied by PiS. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  the concept of politicizing history. I am talking about historical policy, not about politicizing history though.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, sources are about the policy of PiS, which predates Duda, Kasha lover (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is about a policy of the specific party, not "historical politics in Poland". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's enough material for a separate article on the Politics of memory in Poland, from which we can link here. François Robere (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the xenophobia of Law and Justice is a separate topic from Poland as a whole.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC) strike sock
 * Comment. Hmmm. This article would need to be expanded to fit the proposed new name first. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:30, 28 October 2020 (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.

Transcript of extensive debate between scholars, activists, historians and journalists with Polish President on Strategy for Historical Policy in Poland
 --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Jo Harper
There is consensus for inclusion by User:François Robere and I. It was removed by Volunteer Marek who blurted out posterior anatomy terminlogy along with a claim this isn't in the source. I factchecked this edit summary, and I rate it pants on fire. The content in the article is: This direct quotation (with ... omissions) is in the source at page 29: This pants on fire edit summary is inexplicable.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)  sock puppet of banned user-  GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How did you ever find this article brand new account following my edits?  Volunteer Marek   05:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I edited the article first, reverting the vandalism only indeffed block account Masdafizdo at 06:35 two days ago. You then reverted me at 06:57 with your first ever edit to this article. Or was it your first ever edit? You admit to be running Masdafizdo or another account above.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)  sock puppet of banned user-  GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, you’re right you edited the article first. Still leaves open the question of how you found this article out of the blue. And you really need to stop making WP:NPAs.  Volunteer Marek   12:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

VM, why do you say it's not in the source when it is? François Robere (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the part that’s not in the source. The Jo Harper quote is but it’s outdated and has nothing to do with any “policy”.   Volunteer Marek   12:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an analysis of PiS's agenda after its first stint in power (2005-2007). We can move it to #Background along with another source from 2011. François Robere (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Other than WP:ASPERSIONS and deletions, do you have any constructive commentary? You've had ten days to comment on this in this thread, you've chosen not to, and now you're attacking in an edit summary? FYI, that content was my addition, and you're the one repeating the edits of an indef banned user. François Robere (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven’t responded because I don’t see a point in responding to comments by Icewhiz socks (which comments have been even struck). I didn’t see your comment but I guess it figures. Anyway, my explanations in the edit summaries are more than adequate so if you wish to address them I can respond then.  Volunteer Marek   15:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't "figure", and your summary isn't "adequate". If you're going to PA people at least do them a courtesy of following the discussion, and maybe - just maybe - checking the page history before making such bad-faithed allegations. Now, do you have anything to say on-topic, ie. on putting Jo Harper in the #Background? François Robere (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn’t make any PAs and please keep in mind that falsely accusing other editors of making personal attacks is itself a personal attack. As to Jo, I’ve stated my reason - the material is outdated and is not actually about the topic of the article. It’s not about any “policy”. Proposing to put it in “Backgrounds” on the basis of some amorphous IJUSTLIKEIT looks like an attempt to WP:COATRACK the article.  Volunteer Marek   16:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So what exactly is this edit summary - other than false, seeing as that text was my addition, and you're the one restoring edits by an indef-banned editor?
 * Harper writes on PiS's "historical discourses" and historiographic "agenda", including specific examples such as Katyn and Jedwabne. Harper herself ties "discourse" with "policy" (pp. 31-32), which suggests to me that this is an integral part of the discussion. François Robere (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean the indef banned editor that was trying to Joe-job me? Like I said, this is way outdated and is not even about any “policy”. WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include and currently there’s no such consensus. And Coffman, you’ve never edited this article, you’ve never bothered to comment on talk, so... how did you pop out of nowhere to edit war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)
 * Since when do veteran editors like K.e.coffman require your kind approval to edit any topics that they might find interesting? They edit plenty of articles related to fascism, nazism, far-right politics etc., i.e. things that are directly connected with the PiS. Why so hostile then!? I thought only "brand-new accounts" and "Icehwiz/Miacek/Kaiser" socks were forbidden from touching topics you personally own here on Wikipedia? Potugin (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t recall addressing you, nor do I see that you’ve ever edited this article before. You seem to have followed me here for some reason. And you also seem to know a whole lot about esoteric Wikipedia disputes (like account of common names for sock masters in this topic area) for a brand new account. Cuz you a “lurker”, right?  Volunteer Marek   04:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually it's quite simple. Minor, irrelevant issue really. I checked Francois's edits, because he's a good editor who seems to be facing unjustified hostility these days and I landed here. There is no rule that would disallow me from commenting on disputes. Like here or there. It's not like I'd be following someone to blindly revert them. I'd suggest you kindly stop this "brand new account" talk, I've been registered since February, created some articles and add plenty of kBytes of stuff from time to time. I spotted this Żaryn dispute some weeks ago and now that one of your opponents (but not like all of them who you were subjecting to your outbursts) got banned for one reason or another one would have hoped that folks could move forward and you'd be more co-operative. As you weren't, well, I finally left a comment there. Take it or leave it. I'd just advise you to be more co-operative in the future and stop various insinuations against your perceived opponents. Potugin (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. You’re excessively familiar with my editing. You just happen to show up when another brand new... sorry, created in “February”, account just got banned. You follow me to a whole bunch of articles. You follow another editor in this topic area and show up to their talk page. You know the ins and outs of who is who in this topic area. And you happen to edit the same obscure articles as similar accounts. Just drop it man.  Volunteer Marek   05:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Care to stop WP:EDITWARRING and casting WP:ASPERSIONS? There seems to be a consensus for inclusion as a piece of timely, background information. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , please WP:AGF with other editors. It seems to me as if there is a problem with WP:OWNERSHIP here. If this discussion cannot remain civil, we will need an admin involved. Courtesy ping to who has been mentioned above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You see how a whole bunch of text is struck above? Do you know why? You’re asking me to pretend that I’m stupid and don’t see what’s right front of my face.  Volunteer Marek   15:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging coffman though, I sure would love to hear an explanation of how they came to this article.  Volunteer Marek   15:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be entirely honest, I am struggling to discern the actual substance of this dispute and I am willing to have an open mind as to who, if anyone, is in the right on the substantial issue. This thread is virtually impossible for uninvolved editors to understand, and therefore to help resolve. I am, however, seeing a number of apparently unjustified personal attacks on other editors which can never be justified. Everyone should calm down and try to focus on the content dispute. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because it's not a "standalone" dispute, but a longstanding affair with ongoing discussions on three other pages (WP:ANI, Talk:Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 and Talk:History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II). François Robere (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * “Ongoing discussion”? You JUST escalated the disagreement at the talk pages of these articles to make it look like “ongoing discussion”. Reality is that you followed me to several articles and edit warred/reverted me and now are trying to pretend that it’s a “longstanding affair” (sic) because... you. Just. Commented. There. That’s not a “longstanding affair”. That’s just you stalking my edits and then trying to rationalize it ex-post.  Volunteer Marek   21:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, ffs, I *just* thanked another user and complimented them on the good job they’ve done on trying to resolve disagreements on the Deblin and Irene article, only to have you jump in, pour gasoline on the fire there  and then come here and claim that this is part of some series of disputes. Uh, yeah, it is, if you’re following my edits around and trying to escalate every disagreement. But that’s on you, and whatever brand new accounts show up to support it. Not me.   Volunteer Marek   21:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I fear none of this is helpful. I have asked an admin to take a look at this dispute. Again, I emphasise that this bickering is almost impossible for uninvolved users to understand. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't much to understand. A now banned sock puppet of a globally banned user jumped in to revert me and started this section with personal attacks on me. Then Francois Robere jumped in to defend the sock. Then when the sock got banned another new account showed up immediately after, as well as another editor who has never edited this article before and who still yet has to explain how he came here. It sure is sketchy af. But there's nothing complicated or hard to understand about it. Another day on Wikipedia. Same ol' same ol'.  Volunteer Marek   18:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that I was here before you arrived, and you reverted one blocked editor to another? François Robere (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)