Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2016/January

Problems
Here are the problems with the article that my recent edit fixed.


 * In every practical sense, the "Jewish civilization in Europe has been brought to an end".
 * 1. The grammar is incorrect, it should be "was", not "has been".
 * 2. It's about the Holocaust in general. This article is about the Holocaust in Poland.
 * 3. Lifting text verbatim from sources like this is basically never acceptable. See WP:COPYPASTE.
 * Solution: removed.


 * The Poles honored by Yad Vashem likely represent a fraction of the deserving cases, with the actual number who qualify being "20, 50, perhaps even 100 times higher".
 * 1. It's not likely, it's certain. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can understand that.
 * 2. The source gives a descriptive statement, not a quantitative estimate. Reproducing it verbatim is extremely credulous.
 * 3. Lifting text verbatim from sources like this is basically never acceptable. See WP:COPYPASTE.
 * Solution: rewrote: The Poles honored by Yad Vashem certainly represent only a fraction of the true number of cases of Poles assisting Jews


 * The occurrence of such rescue effort is "one of the most remarkable features of Polish-Jewish relations during the Holocaust", because ethnic Poles themselves were the subject to capital punishment at the hands of the German Nazis if found offering any kind of help to a person of Jewish faith or origin
 * Lifting text verbatim from sources like this is basically never acceptable. See WP:COPYPASTE.
 * The grammar is incorrect in the bit that isn't copied.
 * Peacock words
 * solution: rewrote: This rescue effort occurred even though ethnic Poles themselves were the subject to capital punishment at the hands of the Nazis if found offering any kind of help to a person of Jewish faith or origin

There are plenty more examples of the direct lifting of text from sources. This is a) lazy, b) copyright violating, even if sourced. No fair use provision applies when you can easily, straightforwardly incorporate the meaning of the text. c) against policy. But a bunch of you editors here seriously seem to believe that if any text appears in a source, then it must be included in the article.  I suggest you learn the policies a bit better before doing any more editing.  200.120.73.176 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be a good idea to revise and rewrite this article, based on the above concerns? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems
The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is, and links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead. But apparently a few of the squatters here know better. Please do explain why you believe these guidelines should not be followed here. 200.83.84.155 (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I propose that the opening statement be further improved. The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland was not "part" of the Shoah. It was its center-point (!), because over half of all Jewish people who perished in the Holocaust were exterminated in the German-occupied territories of the Second Polish Republic invaded in 1939 without a declaration of war. The subject of this article is a subtopic of genocide of the Jews. Per Wikipedia:Summary style (quote): "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own ... Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article." I propose that the lead section of this article be reinstated in a way that would sound (quote) "similar to the summary in its parent article" per our manual of style. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 05:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Obviously, no-one ever bothered to give a reason for this article not to comply with straightforward encyclopaedic standards. This is because there is no reason. Obviously, they prefer to simply revert among their little cabal of squatters. Why do they want to keep this article in a poor state? Stupidity, or malice? It must be one or the other. 186.9.135.1 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * These kinds of comments are not exactly going to help resolve any disagreements. So, first, drop the personal insults. Second, please refer to the specific policies you have in mind.   Volunteer Marek   23:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you look up, just a couple of inches on your screen, you'll see the reason for making this change. And you encouraged vile personal attacks against me, so if you don't think they should happen, condemn them when you see them even when it's your pals making them.  Now, I have explained my edits plenty of times in clear edit summaries and on this talk page.  You've never once bothered to explain why you are undoing them.  How about you start now?  186.9.135.1 (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "If you look up, just a couple of inches on your screen, you'll see the reason for making this change." - in other words, you're user who was banned before for edit warring on this article. "you encouraged vile personal attacks against me" - I have done no such thing and I do not appreciate the accusation.  Volunteer Marek   03:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Refrain from making highly offensive personal attacks User:186.9.135.1, because it will not be tolerated. The consensus is against you according to Wikipedia policy guidelines. You also need to distinguish between the difference of opinion, and verbal abuse in your behaviour.  Poeticbent  talk 03:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the same highly offensive personal attack against you that you made against me, so it's funny to see you spit the dummy now. You haven't bothered to give any reasons why you think the article should start by talking about a different topic instead of, as the consensus embodied in the entire definition of the project as an encyclopaedia composed of articles requires, covering the topic defined by the title.  Do you understand the concept of an article?  186.9.135.1 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected for the next 3 days to prevent edit warring. I urge all parties to resolve your differences on the talk page. Please also remember that editors can be blocked for making personal attacks under WP:NPA. Karl Dickman talk 04:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you could block the IP for this edit summary. It is clearly above and beyond anything acceptable by WP:NPA, and anyone who throws such edit summaries around should not be welcomed here. With the IP gone, there will be no edit warring here. PS. Update - considering, what we need here is WP:SEMI, and possibly a permanent one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a contentious issue, and I think everyone would be better off if all parties can avoid using terms like "troll" and "nazi sympathizer." I'm not interested in punishing every violation of the rules, but rather in cooling the temperature down to where we can have a reasonable discussion. Karl Dickman talk 07:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Although anon's edit warring and personal attacks are not helping, I do think that s/he makes a valid point - the lead of this article should explain what Holocaust in Poland was, not what Holocaust was. I'd support the anon's version, including the removal of peacock word heroic from. One thing, however, is that I do not support the removal of the "was a genocide officially sanctioned and executed by the Third Reich during World War II" which should be incorporated back into the lead's first sentence.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't make personal attacks against me
 * "the implementation of German policy of systematic and mostly successful destruction of the indigenous Polish-Jewish population" has much the same meaning as "a genocide officially sanctioned and executed by the Third Reich during World War II". But if you prefer a particular wording, then simply edit the article accordingly.  186.9.134.92 (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)