Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2015/June

B-class review
This article is pretty close, but I am seeing some unreferenced sentences. Those would need to be ref'ed before this is B-class. There are also some NPOV concerns raised above, through not backed by specific sources so far, so not very serious of a concern for this review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinions presented as if fact
There is a claim in the article that the number of people recognised as "Righteous among the nations" is a small fraction of the total who deserve to be. No matter how much anyone might agree with this, it's pure opinion. Presenting it as a fact contravenes NPOV.

At least two people seem to think that the mere fact of appearing in a book or magazine means that something must be included in the encyclopaedia (, [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust_in_Poland&diff=595232630&oldid=595133860]). I could find any number of outrageous statements from revisionist historians and put them in the article as if they were facts, and add a reference tag, and I guess you'd just think "oh well, it's sourced - we must include it". 200.120.73.176 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. Revisionist historians aren't a reliable source. The Journal of Holocaust Education, AFAIK, is. If I'm wrong on the latter, then please, educate me, or better yet bring it up at reliable sources noticeboard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Marek, you are missing the point, I'm afraid. Opinion presented in a reliable source is still opinion. Drmies (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an estimate by a scholar. If that is "opinion" then so is 90% of what's found in reliable sources which we use throughout Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was an opinion presented as if fact. This is a really simple thing to resolve.  A statement that "the number of Poles recognised by Yad Vashem is certainly only a small fraction of those who aided Jews during the holocaust in Poland" is objective, simple, and so obvious that it hardly needs stating.  A claim that "1 to 10 percent of deserving cases were recognised" is an utterly unverifiable opinion, absurdly over-specific as you can tell from the language in the source you cited.  You gullibly rendered the descriptive "twenty, fifty even a hundred" as a percentage, as if it was a precise estimate and not a descriptive statement.
 * Now, considering the sick and vile accusation made against me by User:Poeticbent, that is the last time I will be in any way cooperative here, until an apology is forthcoming. I'll improve the article in whichever way it needs to be improved, and if you don't like any of it, that will be your problem.  200.120.73.176 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A claim that "1 to 10 percent of deserving cases were recognised" is an estimate made by an author in a reliable source. It is no more "utterly unverifiable" then the claim that there are 318,892,10 people in the United States. Actually, it's quite a bit better since it gives a *range*. 1% to 10% is quite an interval, and is *not* "absurdly specific". The actual quote is *not* "twenty, fifty even a hundred", it is 20, 50, perhaps even 100 times higher. That "times higher" is important - it already *is* a percentage. If you want to insist we can change the wording to the exact quote of "twenty, fifty, even 100 times higher".
 * And however you feel about Poeticbent's comments, you can't get out of the fact that you need to be cooperative on this article, whether you like it or not. And it's not like you've actually been very cooperative so far, so I'm not sure what exactly you are threatening here. More of the same?
 * One more time. You need to buttress your claim that this statement is "POV" or that it fails "verifiability" or that it is not "encyclopedic" with something more than just your own opinion. You need to provide sources which contradict it or you need to argue *specifically* on the basis of policy why this shouldn't be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're too stupid to tell the difference between a quantitative estimate and a descriptive statement, you're not intelligent enough to be editing wikipedia. If you think that "times higher" means that something is a percentage, you're not intelligent enough to be editing wikipedia.  If, once you've mistaken a descriptive statement for a quantitative estimate, you think that "twenty times higher" is equivalent to 10 per cent rather than 5 per cent, you're not intelligent enough to be editing wikipedia.  And if you fail to condemn the vile insults used by User:Poeticbent, well, then you're just a cunt.  200.120.73.176 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Enough edit warring and removing. Let the IP's insults stand: those of you who disagree with it can just consider that an insult given by someone you don't respect isn't worth anything. This is not your resume. To the IP--I tried mediating between all of y'all, but you're not helping and you probably lost any credibility that you had with them. I'm giving up on this and will let you all stew in your own juices. I don't care who started--I note that a valid point was cut short, that an IP editor used some pretty foul language, and that a registered account made the most ridiculous accusation I've seen in some time, that someone, for removing a name redundant in the main text, is accused of "historical revisionism". Poeticbent hasn't taken that back. I don't do civility blocks gladly and I won't do it here, but I have no respect for someone who makes those kinds of claims and sticks by them. I salute the IP for their initial efforts to get things started and Marek for in the end picking it up as a real, valid argument. Now, go revert and blank and whatnot and make everyone look silly. I have some other things to do, things that are much more rewarding. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note two things. Firstly, that User:Poeticbent made a truly disgusting accusation for a truly ridiculous reason, and that this accusation was implicitly endorsed by User:Volunteer Marek and User:Piotrus.  Second, none of those three bothered to comment on my specific suggestion for a revised wording.  I think that tells us all we need to know about the maturity and motivation of these three users.
 * I too am going elsewhere. There is no shortage of articles with basic mistakes which need correcting.  Let me assure you that I'll be back here in due course though.  200.120.73.176 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You're talking nonsense. Poeticbent misunderstood your initial comment. Maybe because you have a ... certain way with words, which is not exactly conducive to understanding, never mind rational discussion. Maybe if you didn't go around calling people "cunts" and "stupid" etc. people would read a bit more carefully what you have to say. Second, I never "endorsed" any view that you were a historical revisionist. Third, I don't even know why you're bringing User:Piotrus into this as he hasn't even commented. Stop trying to portray yourself as some kind of victim, when in fact you've been the one dishing out all the abuse and vile.
 * Finally, you are simply edit warring on the article and refusing to discuss your edits. Calling people names or saying "you're stupid!" is not discussion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My initial comment was "redundant". Exactly what did Poeticbent misunderstand?  In what way was that "not exactly conducive to understanding"?  He made his repulsive accusation specifically on the basis of this edit.  You have implicitly endorsed the vile slur against me by failing to condemn it.  User:Piotrus also did this by removing my response from the talk page.
 * As for discussing edits, here are all the edits I've made in which I gave reasons for what I was doing: ,,,,, , , , . , , , , , , , . You have never given any other reason except "it's sourced", even entitling your talk page section "removal of sourced content".  If you think that the mere appearance of something in an external document means it must be included in the encyclopaedia, you haven't got a clue about some very fundamental aspects of the project.  200.120.73.176 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

<-- I thought you were going to go away. Anyway, Piotrus, like Drmies, like myself, simply removed your little screed of insults from the talk page. And like I said, the above links are not "discussion" they are insults mixed in with you endlessly repeating your assertion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly what did Poeticbent misunderstand, that led him to make his nauseatingly inappropriate slur? In what way was the word redundant "not exactly conducive to understanding"? Do you endorse his statement, or do you reject it?  200.120.73.176 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
Re:. This edit involves removal of sourced content apparently on the basis of just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

The edit summary: ''Look, there are vast numbers of things you can find in "reliable sources" which nevertheless cannot be included in the encyclopaedia. "sourced" does not trump "verifiable", "neutral" or "encyclopaedic"'' suggests an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's policies (WP:V, WP:RS. On the other hand, a mention is made of "verifiability", "neutrality" and "encyclopaedic...citity"

Look, the content is sourced, hence verifiable. There is nothing non-neutral about it. It is pertinent to the topic and of interest to readers, hence encyclopedic. Please don't remove sourced text unless you can obtain consensus, by convincing other editors that there are issues of neutrality or verifiability actually involved here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "...apparently on the basis of just WP:IDONTLIKEIT." - clearly you did not bother to read the summaries, nor what I wrote immediately above. "sourced" is not the gold standard for inclusions.  Presenting opinions as if they are fact is contrary to the core policies of the encyclopaedia. 200.120.73.176 (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly I did since I quote your summary exactly above. "Sourced" is a basis for inclusion. If there's a specific, legitimate reason for why this info should not be included, given that it is sourced, it is up to YOU to present it. And all historical info is in some sense "opinion" rather than "fact". This is a false distinction (unless you got a time machine at home you can let us all use). If it's an "opinion" found in reliable sources then it's verifiable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You might also want to take a look at the three revert rule since you've already violated it on this page. Discuss more, revert less. Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion, and it does not trump NPOV. As I have said repeatedly, you are not allowed to present opinion as if it is fact.  It's not hard to grasp so I don't know why you're having such trouble with the concept.  Perhaps if I put in some "sourced" claims from published holocaust deniers you'd get the point.  200.120.73.176 (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What is POV here? And it is not your, or Wikipedians in general, job to decide what constitutes an "opinion" and what constitutes "fact". If we tried doing that most of the content would be gone (since most stuff published in reliable sources is really someone's "opinion"). The comparison with holocaust deniers misses the point, which is simple enough: those aren't reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, it is my and everyone else's job to decide what constitutes an opinion and what constitutes a fact. That's the very heart of encyclopaedia writing.  It astonishes me that you apparently don't know the difference between subjective and objective statements.
 * The claim you are edit warring to keep in the article states numerically what proportion of "deserving" Poles have been recognised by Yad Vashem. This is utterly subjective.  It's a guess, based on that author's personal opinion.  If you wanted to be objective, you could say that only a small fraction of all the people who assisted Jews during the holocaust have been recognised for doing so.  It's pretty obvious and hardly even needs stating, but if you really want to, go ahead.  Specifically regurgitating the "one to ten percent" claim is ridiculous.  200.120.73.176 (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No it is actually not. If a researcher, an academic, says "I estimate X to be Y", it's not up to you to show up here and decide "that's just an opinion, I, as a random anonymous Wikipedia editor proclaim it so and remove this!". We really don't need Wikipedia users to be going around reinterpreting reliable sources to their liking - see original research.
 * Btw, "one to ten percent", in my opinion, looks like an interval that admits lots of uncertainty. Maybe you'd have a point if the source claimed it was 7.4345537% or something, but not in this case.
 * And like I said, you've more than violated the three revert rule on this article. The only reason I haven't reported you is because I'm assuming you're new and not aware of it. But you really shouldn't be accusing others of "edit warring" (which actually suggests that you are in fact aware of the rule).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually impossible to discuss this rationally with someone who doesn't know the difference between subjective and objective. I wait for someone else to comment.  200.120.73.176 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry, but you're gonna have to discuss it with me. One more time. The statement comes from a reliable source. It's not up to you to determine whether it's true or not, whether it's "opinion" or "fact", whether it's an "objective" or "subjective" statement. If a source says "the Earth is 4.54 billion years old" is that a "subjective" or "objective" statement? (I'm really not interested in getting into a discussion on epistemology here). You claimed the statement violates NPOV. How? You haven't specified that, just made a claim. You claimed the statement failed verifiability? How? The source is right there. You claimed it wasn't encyclopedic. How? Etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a zero track record User:200.120.73.176, therefore I cannot tell why you keep on reverting legitimate and well-sourced information in mainspace, and speak of Holocaust deniers in talk, as if you knew something. However, I'm more than familiar with the school of thought that most of Holocaust data is based on (quote-unquote) opinion rather than fact. When a seasoned historian makes a comment based on research about issues such as estimated numbers, his conclusions cannot be classified as "utterly subjective" contrary to your claim. The numbers might be inconclusive, but we don't delete them. We are not in court, and we don't need irrefutable evidence. By the same token, the answer to how many millions of Jews have been murdered exactly is not an opinion, neither is the debate about how many rescuers attempted to help them. You are free to call it an opinion rather than fact (you can do whatever you want on your own time),  but a scholarly debate based on research becomes encyclopedic by default. Poeticbent talk  15:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum. This talk page edit would indicate that User:200.120.73.176 is a throwaway account of User:83.223.124.17 blocked for abuse of editing privileges, foul language and battleground mentality. Now we can see why this IP doesn't have a track record. Poeticbent talk 21:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Now, some of this may have been addressed in the section above, but I don't think we've made much progress there beyond the "it's verified". Personally, I'm somewhat neutral, though I think the comment is a bit on the vague side and I don't see how it strengthens the article, but I'm no expert. Carry on, and please do so courteously, without cusswords and without incorrect claims of vandalism and evasion and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, I'll play devil's advocate again, for both sides. Poeticbent, this isn't the first time I ran into the editor who is here as IP 200, as you may have seen. Let me clear up a couple of things--some of them are pretty much indisputable facts, others are my opinion/judgment/experience.
 * One cannot simply say such edits were based on IDONTLIKEIT: an argument was presented, and AGF dictates that you have to accept that. Saying IDONTLIKEIT because you don't like their edit/edit summary is really an act of bad faith, and a personal attack.
 * There is no throwaway "account" since there is no account; it's quite simple. You cannot assume that since the one is blocked this editor is using the other (block evasion). Besides, that block has run out. Technically, of course, if that account were still blocked I could block this one too, but that's simply not the case. Poeticbent, I don't know why this editor has two different IPs (well, he's used a ton more), and it's really not our business to speculate.
 * This particular IP does have a track record, albeit a short one. The editor has a lengthy track record (they've probably been at it for years), but it's spread out over many IPs, so for us it would be impossible to compile. At any rate, there isn't much point to figuring out that record--though I'd like to put a name to it, just for the sake of communication.
 * As to the matter here, the IP obviously needs to make the argument, since they remove what appears to be sourced content. This is why I reverted them, and invite them to make their case (again). Let me lay out a few of Drmies's rules.
 * Not everything that's verified is necessarily to be included. It's as simple as that. So, "it's verified" is not a sufficient rationale for re-instating it; content needs to be relevant.
 * This is, and should be, a judgment call. The question is, is the comment (properly verified, I assume) worthy of being included. A possible answer is "yes, because it's an important statement and it comes from a source worth noting". Another possible answer is "no, because even though published in a reliable source, it's the opinion of a single author and not otherwise confirmed to be a general opinion". An opinion published in a reliable source is still an opinion. A related question is, does the comment do anything for the article, and if it does, is it neutral and helpful. Again, a judgment call, to be answered by someone who knows the source, the subject matter, and a bit about writing.


 * Sometimes the most difficult thing is to call a spade a shovel, luckily I learned soon enough that the IP range has the skin of the whale so I don't have to worry anymore about hurting his darn feelings. He engages in Holocaust revisionism first by removing a direct link to historian Anna Poray who found solid proof of 30,000 rescuers, and then he removes the quote from Gunnar S. Paulsson who confirms in his own way that the number of rescuers far exceeds the number of awards according to evidence he looked at. The IP who's been obstructing his true identity from all of us lied through his teeth in summaries about making esthetic improvements to the so-call grammar, while blanking out historical research. Can you read the writing on the wall? Poeticbent talk 02:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's not so difficult, really, though it's not always advisable. Removing a "direct link", well, the IP gave a reason--an editorial reason. Same with the "direct quote" (there were no quotation marks, by the way). You can agree or disagree with those edits, but to call that Holocaust revisionism is prima facie ridiculous, and I consider it a personal attack. Then, you call him a liar about the edit summaries, as if you can see in his soul--wait, you saw the writing on the wall. Sorry, I don't have your gift for clairvoyance, and neither do I have a cup full of bad faith. The IP isn't blanking anything and your mene tekel has a bit of a desperate ring to it. You don't have to worry about his feelings, but what you should worry about is a heap of Wikipedia policies. Now, the IP, in this and other incarnations (drop this nonsense about "true identity"--On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and you are no more a "Poeticbent" than I am a meaningless sequence of three consonants, two vowels, and another consonant), probably hasn't made many friends, but that doesn't mean that you can shout "historical revisionism" when he does something you don't like--speaking of IDONTLIKEIT. There's a few options here. The IP is a troll, in which case you just stooped to his level with your false accusations. The IP is a gadfly, in which case you have made all of us (the victims of his jabs) look incredibly silly. Or the IP has a point and you're pulling out all the stops to avoid saying anything of substance. There is no case in which you come off looking good. If you want to look better, address the substance. After all, they say the truth will set us free. A bunch of yelling doesn't. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Drmies, above you state that One cannot simply say such edits were based on IDONTLIKEIT: an argument was presented. This is incorrect. No *argument* was presented. An *assertion* was made. Not that the same thing. An in fact that is actually the essence of IDONTLIKEIT.
 * IP 200 claimed that the text violated:
 * 1. Verifiability. How exactly? It's well sourced.
 * 2. Neutrality. How exactly? I'm having a hard time even figuring this one out. It's from the Journal of Holocaust Education, which appears to be a reliable source.
 * 3. Encyclopedic-ness. How exactly? The info is pertinent to the subject of the article. It is from a reliable source. It's not badly written or anything.
 * Like I said, this is the essence of IDONTLIKEIT. I show up to some article, remove something I don't like and run around screaming about NPOV, Verifiability and Encyclopedicity, without ever explaining how these policies apply.
 * And then, when pressed on the issue and asked to explain, the IP did the standard "I'm not going to engage in a conversation with you" trick.
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Marek, if you want to split those linguistic hairs, then all I have to do is say that you are simply making assertions and therefore you display the essence of IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not going to make the IP's arguments for him; I don't know if I subscribe to what I think his arguments are. But doing away with them using IDONTLIKE it and "throwaway account" and "user has been blocked before" doesn't cut it in adult exchanges. Besides, no one ran around screaming--that's another attempt to use rhetoric instead of an argument. If there is screaming, it doesn't come from the IP (or from you, so far). Drmies (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please put more attention into who said what next time. You have repeatedly claimed above (three times) that I used WP:IDONTLIKEIT clause, which I never did. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was talking to all editors. I didn't address you specifically saying "you used etc". I did say that you charged someone, incorrectly and ridiculously, with "historical revisionism", a pretty serious claim. It would be nice if you addressed that point. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You addressed me personally with this made up claim on 05:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC), at the end of the second paragraph. Please don't do it again. Poeticbent talk 01:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Accuse someone else again of "historical revisionism" based on such flimsy evidence as their removal from the main text of a name and I will block you for personal attacks. Don't passive-aggressively "please don't do it again me": your commentary is out of bounds and your accusations toward the IP ridiculous. You and Marek may well have a point about the content, and it's something that can be discussed--but the two of you have shown little more than a huge amount of bad faith and low-down namecalling. Poeticbent, the comments you point at are directed at both of you. English can do that, you know. Now, if you like, here it is: I, Drmies, acknowledge that you,, did not accuse the IP of editing via IDONTLIKEIT. Happy now? You said much worse, in fact. If you want to be taken seriously you're going to have to start by no longer falsely claiming that someone is lying when they're not, that they're "hiding a true identity", et cetera. And you know, the IP editor is laughing his ass off all this time, because he sees those who reverted and insulted him making themselves more foolish every time they deny what is plain to see: two registered accounts thinking that no one will notice if an IP is reverted and not taken seriously. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I haven't name called anybody, so back off there Doc (and congrats on getting your tools back I guess).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, if I had "not taken the IP seriously" I wouldn't have started this discussion, would have I? So back off a little more. Though I understand where Poeticbent is coming from since this is precisely the kind of article that is likely to be subject to regular anon IP shenanigans (and if we had flagged revisions like more sensible Wikipedias do, this wouldn't be even be an issue).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And freakin' a, Poeticbent is perfectly right, this does explicitly show that this IP just got blocked for battleground behavior elsewhere. And you are perfectly aware of that, having posted to their talk page. But you're getting on Poeticbent's case for pointing out that this IP just got blocked for battleground behavior elsewhere? How does this make sense? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I never lost my tools, thanks. If anyone's edits are to be judged by how and why they got blocked, then they are more reliable than you, given your block log. I mean, I don't judge you on your log. Note also that I am the one who blocked them last time, Marek. It's fine if you disagree with the editor, but it's not fine if all kinds of wild accusations are thrown at them: your opening statement here was "This edit involves removal of sourced content apparently on the basis of just WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Now, I'm glad you started something, but come on Marek, you know better than that; you've been here long enough.


 * I didn't say you lost them, though I thought you gave'em up a while ago. And apparently, you do judge me by my block log (which is half errors, and half blocks for interaction ban violations, nothing to do with content, btw) else you wouldn't bring it up.
 * And look, I'm getting sick of this. You said I was "name calling" the IP. I wasn't. You said I wasn't "taking the IP seriously". I was. I started this discussion. I've been discussing it with them to the best of my ability. My opening statement was perfectly fine and described the situation accurately (it criticized the action, not the editor). To the extent the discussion wasn't productive, that's ... well, that's because the IP editor does not appear to be particularly interested in productive discussion, either on this article or any other they've been involved in, either with me, or anyone else they've encountered.
 * And now, instead of backing off, and apologizing for accusing me of things I didn't do, you see it fit to lecture me. Drop it. You've been here long enough as well and you should know better yourself. Go wave your admin pistol around in somebody else's face.
 * (and yes, I am completely puzzled as to why you decided to appoint yourself as some defender of this IP user, and what exactly you think you are accomplishing by it.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Marek, you're a poor reader. I didn't judge you on your block log. I said you shouldn't be judging others on their block log lest you be judged on your own. Mote and beam, you know. Pot and kettle. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And FWIW, I appreciate your engagement with the IP editor, above. I'll stay out of this. If you're wondering why I'm "defending" the IP editor (if that's what I'm doing...), well, it comes with the admin hat. I don't defend everything they're doing, and I've blocked the editor before. But if I'm defending them, I'm also defending you and Poeticbent from yourselves (you to a much lesser extent). Drmies (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Drmies has never defended me. He's only ever consistently and staunchly defended the policies of the encyclopaedia, something you are plainly uninterested in, Volunteer Marek.  200.120.73.176 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)