Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02 History of the Jews in Poland

Who are the involved parties?
,, , , , , , , , ,

What's going on?
Ongoing content disputes with the above editors centered on the issue of the extent of antisemitism in Poland, particularly in the 20th century. Disputes concerning validity of sources.

What would you like to change about that?
request monitoring of the article by uninvolved mediators to give opinions on the disputes and diffuse edit wars.

Mediator notes

 * A rathor interesting request, not sure if this is a mediators job but I'm happy to do it informally and to request page prtotection and discuss disputes where required.
 * After seeing the article history and talk page I think this is definetly a mediators job :=)  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm kindly asking all participants to cease discussion until I get on tomorrow. I mean, it's not an imperative, but I fear that the discussion will just kind of go... downward. Or something. I dunno. Something to consider. I'll be back on later :-) 71.82.149.155 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Courtesy of an unlogged-in xavexgoem
 * Sorry, I missed this one earlier. --Lysytalk 06:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guess what! My ISP dropped me! AND they rewired my entire house to work with coax, which my new ISP can't do anything about (that is, without paying them outrageous service costs). So I'll be away for quite a bit. Sorry about this! Xavexgoem (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Get yourself a coax adapter/converter ! --Lysytalk 06:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, a guy came in and did it for free :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi Guys, Im glad that you have come to mediation, would you mind stating your acceptance (of mediation) for starters  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC) (mediation requester)
 * Comment. I see no point in discussing anything with an editor whose idea of civil discourse consists of sending editors emails with comments like "you are a dick" and accusing them of various misdemeanors and never, ever admitting do having done anything wrong (see diffs I linked here for small selection oh his attitudes). I could see a point in mediation if Boody would apologize for his offensive emails and messages on Wikipedia, and promise to respect WP:CIV in the future. Otherwise, I will stick by WP:DFTT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I truly apologize for my rude email and will respect WP:CIV. I do request that Piotrus and others refrain from truly false accusations such as outrageous claims that I believe "all Poles are evil" as he wrote here and that he make an effort to curb the beliggerent edit warring practices, rude and often Jew-baiting comments of his colleagues in the future. Frustration with the endless barrage of abuse and obstinacy from a half dozen editors working in concert was no small part of the impetus for my unacceptable remarks. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The apology is accepted. I have no control over other editors (accusations of being a leader of Polish cabal aside), but I never condone any edit warring or Jew-baiting remarks (I don't recall seeing them anyway). If Boody would agree to assume good faith when it comes to Polish editors - who are just trying to build an encyclopedia, and are not particularly anti-semitic or fond of edit-warring and such from my experience - we wouldn't have much of a problem. That means, no accusations that other(s) are out there to get you, that they are unethical, baiting, revert warriors, and such. I provided a diff above to a post where I've collected some of your posts that assume bad faith w/ regards to Polish editors. If we don't see such attitude again, it will be a big help to everyone. And in the end, please remember WP:CABAL: if half a dozen editors work against one, it is likely because 1) one is so wrong it is apparent to many and 2) by accusing them of acting in concert, you bring them closer together, as they have to defend against such an accusation. Self-fulfilling prophecy, in other words :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Boodlesthecat, if you are writing about yourself, Mordoor, Malik Shabazz and Jayjg, then I totally agree with you. Tymek (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys seriously, give the inuendo and attacks a rest  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Accept. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept, although I'm not sure if I'm a party here. --Lysytalk 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. The anti-Polish sentiment among some of the Wikipedia pro-Jewish editors troubles me a lot and unfortunately, the sheer scope of articles affected goes far beyond the History of the Jews in Poland. It includes a quiet disrespect even for the official Jewish sources such as the Israeli War Crimes Commission regarding the Holocaust, and all-out attacks on everything even remotely positive about the Jewish-Polish relations. The traditional voices of reason are out the window. I do not foresee an answer to what is happening, but I will gladly accept the Prom3th3an willingness to, at least, address the issues in the open, if you dare. --Poeticbent talk  20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes I am aware that history is by far one of the biggest problem causes, I have already requested a second mediator as I agree that if we want to get to the core porblem, we are going to have to address more than just this article.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it, if you'd like :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Why was this downgraded at FAR is my question?
 * Offer accepted  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Location Where do you want base the discussion? we can do it here, on the article talk page or on my mediation page take your pick  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I choose the site, you choose the weapon ? Nice try, Prom3th3an ;-)
 * But seriously, chances are that this is going to be a long run so a dedicated (and simple) page could be a good choice. --Lysytalk 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this site is probably best. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This one, once a featured article, and several other historical articles, dealing with Jews in Poland and Holocaust in Poland, have been littered recently by inserting findings based on quasi-scientific references by Jan T. Gross and Klaus-Peter Fridrich (there may be more), who rely their "research" more on communist propaganda than on original records. I don't mind an article about Gross or Friedrich and their works exists in Wikipedia, since politicaly inclined press found them notable - you read it breathlessly ... (Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz), but it's no basis for any historical article, which should depend solely on confirmed scholarly research. My comment regarding this activity you can find here; about the editors responsible for this suspected trolling there. My advise is: 1. unprotect the articles in question so someone may clean it, 2. ignore the editors in question even if they edit on Your Talk Page, 3. follow closely any frivolous edit in the space of the article(s) and act accordingly. Actually, I would go back to the day this article was still a featured article and take it from there. Would save a lot of work. greg park avenue (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be Jan T. Gross, Norman B. Tomlinson '16 and '48 Professor of War and Society and Professor of History at Princeton University. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - greg park avenue's comment above--which is an example of the position advocating outright dismissal and removal of material drawn from fully reliable sources based solely on the editor's personal dislike of these reliable sources is a perfect example of why I have asked for mediation on this page. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for coming in late... am I correct in assuming that this is as much about NPOV as V? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair characterization of the dispute. Part of the POV dispute involves the question of which sources are reliable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is part of the problem. For the Polish-Jewish relations subject one can find sources supporting almost any hypothesis one could possibly think of. The problem is not only reading but understanding and careful selection of the sources. This is difficult when the parties of the dispute are heavily biased with their POVs and may not even be aware of this. --Lysytalk 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe a step back is all that's needed, then? No harm in that, I suppose. I imagine everyone is in agreement that this should be brought back up to FA status (and that's very hard to achieve if we can't get along, even if that's somewhat begrudgingly :-) ) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. However I am afraid that some editors are less concerned with FA quality than with "proving the truth" (i.e. their POV). See my post below.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, is Gross 100% reliable? Simply having published in academic outlet does not guarantee reliability! It has been shown over and over again that although Gross is notable, he is controversial, and his claims/findings have been criticized by many. Of course, notable POVs should be noted - per WP:NPOV - but we should pay attention to due weight. The problem is that some editors treat the most controversial sources (estimates, claims, etc.) as gospel. That concerns both sides, of course (ex. claims "no Poles collaborated with the Nazis" vs "one million Poles collaborated with the Nazis"), which leads the discussion to deteriorate along the lines "all Poles are evil anti-semites" vs "all Poles are heroes but for some reason all Jews hate Poles". The goal of the mediation should be to determine which editors have fallen for those extreme POVs, rein them back, and facilitate a compromise. There is a ton of less controversial (and of course, less known) reliable and undisputed research, but as long as some editors will concentrate on proving their points with the most extreme estimate/claims they can find (and putting them in leads and as many articles as they can), the situation will not improve.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that user Jacurek, once he is unblocked, should also be included here. The referenced, valid information, provided by him in the article, was removed by some users present here, plus administrator Jayjg, who claimed that since Jacurek is banned, this information is not valid (sic!) This kind of argumentation was something I had never experienced before on Wikipedia and it shows the level of prejudice presented by some, who disliked some info and went out of their way to remove it. Tymek (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tymek, could you point to where Jayjg "claimed that since Jacurek is banned, this information is not valid."? I'm not seeing it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * all of them are edits made by a banned editor, added by a banned editor, inserted by banned editors in this article. I did not know that once an editor is banned, his work can automatically be deleted. Seems like some admins have their own rules. Tymek (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Jayjg has a valid reason (likely, there's a connection between the added info and his block). I'll ask him when I have time, just to clear the air. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * has a problematic edit history - seems he was edit warring, and after block, using proxies. We are probably better off without him. But Jayjg reverts of all of his edits were over the top (I discussed this with him some time ago, part is at User_talk:Piotrus/Archive_24, part is at his talkpage archives - I cannot find where).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What it shows on the talk page is Jayjg saying "It was unsourced material added by a banned editor who had been banned for adding exactly this kind of polemical material to articles, including this one." That quite a bit different from saying that "since Jacurek is banned, this information is not valid." Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I thought Jacurek was banned because he broke 3RR - now you are saying he was blocked because some admin disagreed with his POV? Interesting, indeed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The block/unblock notes on his page have quite a history. He's free to appeal. For now, I'd rather focus on the matter at hand, if that's alright with everyone. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter why he was banned. The point is that the record shows that Jayjg never said "that since Jacurek is banned, this information is not valid" as Tymek is claiming. Mischaracteriztion of other editor's comments has been an ongoing problem, so it is useful to pause and point it out when it continues to occur. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah well, accidents happen. Let's move on :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Boodlesthecat, I presented a simple answer to your doubts, and there is nothing else to it. Please note that deleted material had a reference in it, too. Tymek (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Obvious problems
Here's the impression I'm getting. There are two groups of editors: Which is respectively appearing as: Is this a valid impression/connection? Does anyone disagree? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC) If you agree, how can I convince you otherwise? :-)
 * Information is valid, should be included
 * Information is invalid, should not be included
 * Editors are anti/pro-whatever
 * Editors are anti/pro-whatever-else


 * I appreciate the effort to make sense of it all, but to me that's a bit too abstract/overgeneralized. There are probably more than 2 groups of editors, but rather than attempt to enumerate and characterize them all, perhaps we can assume there is one type of editor--those who feel that their edits are honest attempts to have these articles accurately portray their subjects in an encyclopedic fashion, adhering to all Wiki guidelines and policies (since this is no doubt how all editors would describe themselves). From there, we can look at concrete specifics/examples of bones of contention, e.g., (since it has been mentioned in this discussion thus far) the validity of source materials referenced above by greg park avenue, Tymek, and Poeticbent. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that it was too general (look at the small print. Oh well ;-) ) But my broader point was that maybe we're not all on the same page. Yes: let's assume - rightly - that everyone has the best intentions for improving the project and this article. But I wanted to address some of the thoughts above, namely that some editors are blind to their biases or that we're dealing with factions and cabals (which I think the above summary represents), any of which make it difficult to come to a compromise because we'd be assuming the worst in each other. If this were not true to some extent, then there'd be no need for mediation.
 * So I'm thinking that it's partly bad assumptions. More often than not we're more blind to the process (consensus, BRD, DR, whatever) than our biases (for instance). So we need to think up a way to garner consensus. We can start with the reliability of the sources, and/or their placement and strength within the article, but there needs to be a process for that first (just to keep things running smoothly). I'll think about it, but I encourage others' opinions. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Ideally, the page is unprotected and we deal with this sanely on talk... but do you trust each other enough to do that? :-)


 * Oops didnt see the fine print! Have pity on the aging eyes \o^o/ In any case, I would also like other's opinions. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Xavexgoem, As I explained above, that's correct to some extent - but also, a potentially misleading simplification (albeit one for which I may be a bit responsible). I am not aware of any Poland-related editor who is still active and who pushes some extreme Polish view, on the other hand one editor (Boody) seems to be responsible for majority of edits seem by Polish editors as controversial. Take the Gross issue. Gross' works are notable. His POV should be noted. But I disagree that Gross views represent the only POV that should be included, nor do I agree his controversial view represent any kind of majority consensus. But some editors insist on rewriting the articles to indicate so with weasel words (Gross "proves", his opponent "allege" or "claim"), and include his claims as facts in leads, summaries and other prominent places w/out mentions that he is not representative. So I'd rewrite your bullet points as follows:
 * Information (Gross and other sources that portray Poles in a negative way) is the truth, should be included and stressed
 * The above information is controversial, should not be included (less reasonable) or included with caveats per WP:UNDUE (more reasonable)
 * Which is respectively appearing as:
 * Arguments that (mostly Polish) editors who disagree with Boody are an anti-semitic Polish cabal
 * Arguments by (mostly Polish) editors that Boody is biased
 * Add to it Boody's past incivility, which led to much bad faith, and you have two camps forming (or, rather, formed), with bad faith between them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't like incivility in my cabalish domain, so hopefully we won't have to worry about that. That said, Gross seems to be one of the larger (largest?) points of contention, so let's start there, editor particulars notwithstanding. What's the best way to go about this, do you think? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said above: follow WP:UNDUE. Cite him were appropriate to show his POV, and don't mistake his works (despite the media storm they caused) for the final word (or a neutral summary) on the history of Polish Jews.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. In essence: attribute Gross explicitly? Any thoughts, anyone? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that Piotrus has yet again let loose a rant pointing out how my own failings are the sole cause of any problems here, let me ask: Can you give an example of where Gross is used inappropriately? Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A diff would be nice. Can we cut back on the personal attacks too, please? Contributions, not contributors. Thanks. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gross is an important source and cannot be neglected. However, I second that since he is a controversial author, his views should be explicitly (and properly) attributed. Possibly in a neutral way if you know what I mean. --Lysytalk 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Can you give an example of where Gross is used inappropriately? Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he was being general. Damn indent levels! ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Boodle, the same applies to any controversial yet notable author, not only Gross. (sorry for the indent, I'm trying to indicate whom I'm addressing) --Lysytalk 21:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gross
First issue on the table is apparently Gross, and how to fit him in the article. Boodlesthecat has requested where he has been used inappropriately as a source. It seems most folks are OK with him being used as a source, but the question is how much weight he should be given, and how his information should be presented. Where and how is it appropriate and inappropriate to use him? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, both his recent books (the "Neighbors" and "Fear") are very different in nature. In Neighbors, he researches some primary data and tries to reconstruct what happened in Jedwabne, while Fear is rather an essay (a very good and important one) mostly citing other books. So the citations from Gross have to be used with due weight. Do we all agree on this so far ? --Lysytalk 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I am just trying to determine if there are or have been any problems thus far in which Gross has been inappropriately used. To my recall, most of the fuss about Gross has taken place at articles about him and his books. In those, there are plenty of issues with sources, for example, here, where the Polish activist Jerzy Robert Nowak is quoted attacking Gross with some unseemly Jew baiting criticisms. That seems to be an issue of inappropriate citation with respect to Gross. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is with Gross being used as a source within the article being discussed. It's not a matter, atm, of how that source was used, but how the source should be used, or if everything is OK right now. It's an issue, though, isn't it? :-S (is this the wrong place to start?) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my assumption of our course here. --Lysytalk 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Gross being inappropriately used, I wouldn't know. But he is a very good case here as I believe we all here had read at least the two books, so we know what we're talking about. As for Nowak, I would not quote him at all in any serious context other than to ridicule him. While Gross may be example of a controversial source, Nowak is not a reliable source at all. That's an example of what I meant by careful selection of sources before. (sorry I didn't know where to paste it or how to indent due to an edit conflicy with Xavexgoem) --Lysytalk 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All this talk about Gross is a red herring. Gross is used as a source only two times, but Boodlesthecat is frequently accused of using him as a source. See this as an example. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen that. Hmm... Xavexgoem (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither had I but this explains Boodlesthecat's questions. Anyway, I only mentioned Gross as a convenient example, and I don't think I "accused" Boodlesthecat of using Gross as a source. In fact I believe Gross makes a good source, if quoted reasonably. --Lysytalk 22:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I mentioned earlier that Gross is not the main problem. He is a symptom, not the disease.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * err... so, what's the problem? There's a sourcing dispute, but the biggest source didn't warrant much discussion. Are there larger issues at hand, here? Does the page need to remain protected, in your (anyone's) opinion? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I told you my view earlier: it is the incivility and edit warring of a single user that led to this problem. Everything else is within normal wiki standards... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<---I can't say yet whether it should be unlocked. There are complaints from at least four different editors above about information and sources in the article, presumably concerning edits that I had made. Yet it is strangely silent, and as Xavexgoem points out, the Gross issue turns out to be a non starter (although I have plenty of complaints about the articles about Gross and his work, if we get to that point). So I can't tell what other editors intentions are at this point; e.g., are thye simply going top go back to the status quo if the page is unprotected. I would prefer that they identify whatever issues they have, and whatever changes they would like to see made now, in this forum. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem statement
Maybe we need a fresh start and Boodlesthecat would state the problem, as he is the original requester for the mediation. Apparently he sees the problem elsewhere than I do. --Lysytalk 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's silly to respond to myself, but I see another problem with the article, if I may. The article is about the History of the Jews in Poland. It's not about antisemitism, which has a separate article of its own. While these two topics may be and in fact are very interrelated for about fifty years (1918-1968) why does the article discuss Poles and their alleged "virtual antisemitism" in modern Poland ? --Lysytalk 00:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question, imo antisemitism should be in the antisemitism article.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it would sort of be like an article about African Americans without discussing racism. Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland -- perhaps the defining issue and not just the period 1918-1968. Thats not just my opinion; it's copiously documented. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be presumptuous, but I was wondering if possibly this is a source of contention within the article. If I may hazard a guess from both sides, is this article A) too heavy on the antisemitism aspects, or B) not focussed heavy enough on the antisemitism aspects? I understand that this a strange mix of statements to make... (sounds kind of, I dunno, nonchalant; I sincerely apologize in advance if that's the case :-/ maybe it was implied from the beginning; I dunno)
 * It's a potentially hard question to answer, I suppose. But I'm hoping we can cut through a few of this stuff before we're led down the wrong road :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I consider all answers past this point to not imply that because of Side X, I'm on Side Y, and vice-versa. IMO, the only abstraction relevant over "human sitting in front of computer" is "editor". OTOH, maybe I'm being too cautious ;-)


 * "Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland". Maybe that POV is the source of the problem and the misunderstandings between the editors ? Would you say that your edits to the article are motivated by your desire to promote such opinions ? (oops, sorry, edit conflict with Xavexgoem again)--Lysytalk 00:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've nailed it down, Lysy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that some editors are interested in minimizing Polish antisemitism, including the role of Christian Poles in the Holocaust, sometimes to the point of denying it. The idea that antisemitism in Poland was an issue in Jewish-Polish history for "about fifty years" is an example of that tendency. Other editors are accused of exaggerating the influence of antisemitism and the role played by Christian Poles in the Holocaust. In Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, a source that cited a range of Polish collaborators (7,000 to 1 million) was replaced by a source that only mentions 7,000. I think that conflict is typical of this dispute. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Malik, I initially opposed the 1 million and asked for quotation (to support such a controversial estimate). Since it was not provided, I read the 20+ pages article myself and I posted my analysis few days ago at Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Poland. I have also noted there that I don't oppose the 1 million estimate, but it has not been proven to be a universal, consensus-among-academia estimate. It can and should be cited in any detailed analysis of the number of Polish collaborators; but it should not be made to appear as a universal, commonly accepted number (especially not in leads, like it was done with History of the Jews in Poland) or even as an upper bracket (I've also pointed out that the article could be used to support the argument for 3 millions - interesting, how nobody yet accused me of anti-Polonism...). We need to research and agree on what is a common estimate or range to be used in summaries, and where to post a detailed analysis of the numbers. Unfortunately, it seems that my post got ignored. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it seems we've got it here. We've made a full circle and we are back at my comment 2 days ago, when I wrote that the parties of the dispute are heavily biased with their POVs and may not even be aware of this. Do you think it would help the mediation if each of us briefly introduces himself, that is explains his bias ? --Lysytalk 01:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) To Lysy: I thought we agreed to not ascribe motivations to other editors; one editor has repeatedly and harshly accused me of doing that; indeed, its central to his effort to have me blocked. So I would find it more constructive if other editors -- many of whom have been extremely active editing this article and quite vociferous in their criticisms of (using myself as a punching bag once again) some of my edits -- would use this opportunity to point to just what exactly they find problematic in any of those edits (Malik gave a hint in the 7,000 to 1 million example, which just a few days ago was the source of much heated criticisms...but now, silence.) Specifics please. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not "ascribe motivation to other editors", I simply asked you and hoped you would answer. But since you requested this mediation, and you don't agree with my attempts to define the problem, maybe you would try to state it more explicitly ? --Lysytalk 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it may be better to understand our POVs, to some extent, or at least acknowledge that we do have strong feelings. These can be reconciled with compromise. Not a bad proposition, imo :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I hope I'm not asking for too much... I think we may find out it isn't as black and white as we assume?
 * All right, since I think I started it, let me briefly present my possible bias. I'm Polish of German descent, living in Poland. I'm not Jewish. I used to mix with Polish Jews in the past and I still have some Jewish friends. I believe that those propagating the POV of "Polish intrinsic antisemitism" are Jews who live outside Poland and extrapolate the historic experiences to modern times. I sincerely frown at such generalizations. This said, I'm of course aware that there are antisemites in Poland, as in any other country, but this is different to claiming that "Poles are antisemites". Anyway, I believe this particular article should focus on the history of Jews in Poland and discuss antisemitism only where it's relevant. --Lysytalk 01:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All info about me are freely available on my userpage. I find it interesting that the editors who make accusations of "Polish anti-semities" and "Polish cabal" base them on the information about their nationality volunteered by certain editors; those same editors hide under a cloak of perfect anonymity. Further, those editors deeply misrepresent WP:NPOV ("All editors and all sources have biases"). It is expected that a Polish editor will have a Polish bias. I believe that the Polish editors I know, including myself, do a good job controlling for it in our edits. It is difficult, however, to deal with anonymous editors who don't admit they have any bias - after all, they speak for the "truth"... I have always said that the biggest challenge is not a POVed editor (since we are all POVed); the biggest challenge is a POVed editor who refused to acknowledge that he is POVed. Such an individual will refuse to back down and it is impossible to compromise with him (you can either agree with him or be condemned as a heretic/heathen/anti-x/troll/etc. since you go against his "truth"). PS. I endorse Lysy's POV as described above. PSS. I also doubt very much that those anonymous editors will reveal anything about themselves or stop claiming to be defending the "truth". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything anybody needs to know about me, except for my name, is on my Userpage. (If there's something you want to know that isn't there, ask me.) My POV is that antisemitism is a historical and contemporary reality. At the same time, I'm not the sort of person who sees an antisemite behind every tree.
 * My POV is that some editors have a tendency to white-wash antisemitism, or to blame it on the Jews. One editor laid the blame for post-WW2 Polish antisemitism at the feet of Jewish communists; the same editor wrote (based on his grandfather's recollections) that the Jews greeted the Soviet invaders in 1939 with flowers and kisses.
 * I don't agree with Piotrus that Polish editors should be expected to edit with a pro-Polish bias, nor that Jewish editors edit with a pro-Jewish bias, etc. Personally, I'm not interested in putting down Christian Poles or promoting Polish Jews; I'd like the article to reflect what reliable sources say. If, for example, a source says that the number of Polish collaborators was between x and y, I think the article should say that. I don't think the Talk page should become a forum about whether these were Polish citizens or ethnic Poles, or what definition of collaboration is used, etc. Nor do I think we should cherry-pick a source that only supports x. And unfortunately, that's exactly what happens. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<---Ok, if we are going to discuss this, then let's be honest and not distort reality. Show me anywhere in a Wikipedia article where it says "Poles are antisemites" or where Polish antisemitism is discussed without thoroughly reliable sources. Show me, Piotrus, where I claim to be "speaking for the truth," rather than for input that is backed by reliable sources. Let's not make accusations that we can't back up please. And Lysy, please pay attention to what others say--I said, just minutes ago, that "Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland"--I did not say anything about "Polish intrinsic antisemitism" as you claim. Entirely different meaning. This misinterpretation based on changing words seems to be an ongoing problem. For example, just moments ago elsewhere, in this instance, what I clearly characterize as "fringe speculations" in an edit summary gets transformed into "fringe magazine," entirely changing the meaning. My POV, if I need to describe it, would be to get this article closer to mainstream scholarship and mainstream media understanding that anti-semitism is a key part of the History of Jews in Poland. My own complaints would include Wikipedia articles that quote minor authors to insert claims such as "some 3500 to 6500 Poles died in late 1940s because of Jewish denounciations or were killed by Jews themselves"--claims you generally won't find in standard reference works, but do appear in Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Boody, you've accused Polish editors of antisemitism (for example, Greg, here). You claim that your POV is "to get the article closer to mainstream scholarship." That's not a POV. I and Lysy explained what POV means, and that you refuse to admit you have one is a big part of the problem. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is not a "minor" author. He is a well estabilished, reliable author, who unfortunately does not support your POV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus-- 1. I stated my POV--please don't accuse me of refusing, simply because it doesn't conform to your version of my POV. AGF and all that, huh? Or am I supposed to say "Yes yes, I'm a JEW, and henceforth, like all Jews, I cannot be impartial because of my Jewishness"? 2. Greg's inflammatory statements have been continually criticized, and others have taken note of his Jew baiting comments in the past. Shall we dig them up? 3. On a substantive matter, rather than this endless sniping you cant seem to stop instigating--here is Holocaust scholar Antony Polonsky on Chodakiewicz' claims:"Second, although Chodakiewicz stresses that all Jews cannot be held responsible for actions of Jewish communists, he sees the conflict as one between two communities and also exaggerates the Jewish presence in the new government. It is very difficult to take seriously the argument that General wierczewski, General Berling, or General Spychalski were Jewish. Chodakiewicz also fails to take into account the widespread character of antisemitism in postwar Poland and seems, in spite of his disclaimers, to hold all Jews responsible for the crimes committed by the communists, whether of Jewish origin or not. What is one to make of the statement 'We have estimated that perhaps between 3,128 and 6,625 Poles were victimized by Jewish perpetrators' (p. 223)?"Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So Antony Polonsky does not hold Chodakiewicz book in great regard. So? Scholars criticize other's work; note that Polonsky disagree's with it but is quite civil and makes no personal attacks on Chodakiewicz (like calling him a "minor" scholar). Perhaps you could do us a favor and stub Antony Polonsky so we could compare them? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And we are discussing the articles, not editors. So again: Show me anywhere in a Wikipedia article where it says "Poles are antisemites" or where Polish antisemitism is discussed without thoroughly reliable sources. My actual requests for documentation about complaints by other editors about the articles seem to never get answered, other than with complaints about me. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Boodlesthecat, if people are complaining about you, have you ever wondered why ? "My POV, if I need to describe it, would be to get this article closer to mainstream scholarship and mainstream media understanding...". Oh, it seems you have a fairly neutral POV. Why am I not surprised ? How about "I want everybody to be rich and happy" for a POV ? "...that anti-semitism is a key part of the History of Jews in Poland." How can it be if the concept of nationalism did not exist before late 19th century ? But seriously, have you ever spoken to any Jews in Poland ? Or is it your purely theoretical belief ? You see, the problem may be that your POV does not occur to you as one, but rather as "the truth". --Lysytalk 02:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia goes by what the reliable sources say, not my conversations with Jews in Poland. Feel free to point out any edits I have made that were not supported by reliable sources. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Boody, here's a question for you. If I was to state my POV as "to improve this encyclopedia", would you say anything is missing from it? Also, do you believe that antisemitism is part of Greg's POV? Do you think that any other editors involved here are also guilty of antisemitism? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to assume good faith and move on to a discussion of the articles. greg has in the past made nasty Jew-baiting comments to me, and in general, for which he has been reproached. I'm willing to move on. Likewise for unkind things other editors may have said. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does it mean you are willing to apologize for all of your offensive remarks and promise not to make any personal attacks in the future? Likewise, I am sure all editors here would in turn promise to apologize for any uncivil comments they made about you and not to make them in the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland. Well, Boodlesthecat, have you ever wondered why so many Jews lived in pre-1939 Poland? Why Poland was the biggest home for Jews across centuries? If I were Jewish, I would not like to live in a country where antisemitism is intrinsic. Yet millions of Jews, perhaps they were blind not to see this intrinsic antisemitism, have lived in my country for 700 years. Tymek (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * paradisus Iudaeorum... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tymek, this page, like article talk pages, is not a place to debate the subject. Although I would add that by 1939, the Polish government was actively seeking a way of ejecting all 3 million of the Jews in Poland from this paradisus Iudaeorum. It was the German invasion that interrupted the plan. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you messed it up a little, as these were right-wing parties, as well as some Jewish organizations, which were seeking a way of ejecting Jews in Poland, i.e. moving them to Madagascar, Uganda, Yemen and finally Palestine. A little negligence, I would say. BTW, ever heard of Ephraim Fischel Rotenstreich? Tymek (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that you wanted to discus the subject and controversial statements here? I am confused. Anyway, care to cite a source for the allegation that "by 1939, the Polish government was actively seeking a way of ejecting all 3 million of the Jews in Poland"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See Hagen, Wynot, Heller etc refs in that section of the article, or any source discussing the plans to expel Jews to Madagascar etc. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See also here and here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There were Germans plans to expel Polish Jews from Poland, yes. I see nothing about Polish plans (although I am sure there were some fringe politicians who would argue for anti-semitic policies...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in the sources I mentioned. In any case, its peripheral to this mediation for now. Boodlesthecat Meow?

Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland
OK, it seems we have the problem defined, finally. It's the belief that "Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland". Would you agree that "Philosemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland" is true as well ? --Lysytalk 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will also ask for Boody to elaborate on the difference he claims exists between ""Antisemitism is intrinsic to History of the Jews in Poland" and "Polish intrinsic antisemitism". If antisemitism facing Polish Jews did not come from Poles, were did it come from? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue of antisemitism being an intrinsic part of the history of Jews in Poland is a well received bit of common knowledge supported by at least a century of scholarship and writing on the subject. "Polish intrinsic antisemitism" would imply that Poland, or Poles, or Polishness is by nature anti-semitic, a position/POV I would strongly not support being a part of any article. As to "philosemitism" being intrinsic to the history of Jews in Poland, I have no idea what that questions means, so I cannot comment. Although I would guess an interest in, respect for, and appreciation of the Jewish people, (outside of from within the Polish Jewish community itself) probably isn't considered by most sources as being a central theme in the history of Jews in Poland. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Boodles, I'm not asking about what is considered by sources. I've asked if this was your POV and if you were aware of it, for a start. --Lysytalk 09:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have much to discuss, as long as Boody refuses to admit his POV. As I wrote above - it's hard to negotiate with "perfect" editors.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am eager to discuss specific issues with the article. All we need to do is to assume good faith and move forward. These repeated denigrations of my character and motivations are unconstructive and serve the purpose of filibustering this mediation. Can we move forward? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's up to you. I'm sorry but for now my impression is that you are the one obstructing all the mediation attempts. Since you seem to reject most of the proposals so far, why don't you try to state the problem and explain your expectations yourself ? --Lysytalk 16:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What have I rejected? A mediation is for participants to present their views and for a mediator to assist in sorting it out. I have presented my views. I've rejected nothing. It's others who are expressing an unwillingness to participate, using specious complaints about me as an excuse. Trust me, it's transparent to an outside observer, and I recommend that it stop. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, let me remind you then. I'm pasting the response to the section. --Lysytalk 14:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An average reader can understand this article as: If you don't mean it, please rewrite the article.Xx236 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * there was growing antisemitism in Poland
 * next - there was The Holocaust.
 * so the Poles designed the Holocaust.


 * No, the article says (to oversimplify)
 * there was growing antisemitism in Poland
 * next - there was The Holocaust.
 * It does not say "so the Poles designed the Holocaust." If you see any part of the article that says anything remotely resembling so the Poles designed the Holocaust please point out exactly where and I will insist the article be unlocked to change it. The fact that the Holocaust followed chronologically immediately after the sharp rise in anti-semitism in Poland is a matter of historical record. Short of altering the space-time continuum of the past century, not much that can be done about that fact. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Holocaust was not related to Polish antisemitism, the Germans were not interested in Polish feelings toward the Jews, they had their plan and they carried it out, same in Poland as in Holland or Hungary. Boodlesthecat, you did not answer my previous questions. Any reasons why so many Jews for so long lived in Poland, and their population was steadily rising. Why they did not live in Italy or Spain? Any suggestions? Tymek (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your question is irrelevant to the purpose of this mediation. Is there a specific sentence or passage in the article that you feel is problematic? If so please indicate where and a proposed solution, if applicable. Thanks. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh this question is totally valid. Speaking about history of Jews in Poland, we should also determine why so many of them decided to settle in this country, not in France or Sweden. Since you have been engaged in this article more than anybody else, I would expect you at least to try to find an answer, instead of constantly dodging questions that you dislike. Answering would help in this meditation, too. Main problem IMO is your assertion that Poles are antisemites, and trying to get deeper into the subject would help you overcome preconceived notions, which would help us reach some agreement. Tymek (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A) Point to where I ever said "Pole are antisemites." Fabrications such as that are sabotaging this process. B) This mediation is to discuss and resolve specific issues with the article. You can help by listing a specific problem, rather than make false claims about other editors. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Agreement
History of the Jews in Poland has been fully protected indefinitely until we sort this dispute out make reaosnable progress due to the edit warring that was occurring, however out of concern to other editors I which to propose a edit agreement to all the parties listed, the only stipulation is that you do not remove, edit or add material that is presently involved in this dispute, I trust you will use common sense. If an edit is controversial, and another partie raises it here, the article will be reprotected. What do you guys think? Or would you prefer to keep it protected?  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I propose to keep it protected until we sort out what the disputed areas are. Piotrus above commented that "one editor (Boody) seems to be responsible for majority of edits seem by Polish editors as controversial." I've pleaded that editors who have raised such objections in the recent past bring those concerns--with specific examples--here, to no avail. I am not comfortable unprotecting the article until serious discussion takes place here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think a protection is needed. First, look at history of the article. There was no edit warring in the days immediately preceding the protection (August 1-2). Second - yes, there was some edit warring earlier, but I believe it was for the most part resolved. In any case, the edit warring involved "Boody against everyone else", and as such protection of the article benefits only one editor - who otherwise would be reverted and would leave this article for others to edit in peace (or would get blocked again for 3RR violation). Note that our guidelines on protection are clear: if only one editor is responsible for most of the edit warring, the solution is to deal with him, not to lock the article from majority of constructive editors. Hence, if the mediators can convince Boody not to edit war, there will be no need for protection. I would further support a voluntary 1RR on this article if unprotected (but would Boody?).
 * There is one small issue that pushed Boody to 4RR last time that is still present in the article and that apparently needs to be resolved in a mediation: I've tried to discuss it with him, but despite it being a clearly minor issue about an error in a source, he waged a revert war on it (see discussion on his talk page, and this is his 4RR). Gazeta Polska was never an "organ" of Polish government, it was a newspaper with pro-sanacja POV (sanacja = dominant faction of pre-war Polish gov't). Organ implies an official institution; definitions include "a government agency or instrument devoted to the performance of some specific function". Gazeta Polska was no more an organ of a Polish interwar gov't that Fox News is an organ of modern US gov't. It was an independent newspaper that happened to be supporting a political faction currently in power (from 1925 to 1939). Hence the description of it as an organ is incorrect; instead we should point out it was an independent pro-sanacja newspaper. I've tried to explain to Boody that no matter what a source states, if it's a clear mistake, we should not cite it. Unfortunately, he refused, and went as far as 4RR on that minor issue... If the mediators would kindly convince Boody that organ is not the best word here, I see nothing (in the current article) that is likely to lead to revert warring. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement that Gazeta Polska was the organ of the Polish government in the late 1930s is supported by a reliable source. Your reverts of that reliably sourced statement, plus another reliably sourced statement was indeed how you provoked the 3RR complaint. Now, for the purposes of this mediation, do you have a source that contradicts the reliable source used in the article? You saying that "it's a clear mistake" is not sufficient. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a newspaper, Boody. Do you want me to provide a ref for that? Sure. Here you go. Newspapers are not organs of the government. I've defined what an "organ" is above. It doesn't matter if you have a "reliable" source for a mistake, we don't include mistakes in our project. Sigh. PS. I don't deny that GP was an important publication, but it was not an official organ as Boody's sentence implies. PSS. I've stubbed Gazeta Polska (1929-1939). Boody, would you stub the article I requested above in exchange? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PS--Piotrus' ridiculous claim that "the edit warring involved "Boody against everyone else", and as such protection of the article benefits only one editor" is prima facie ridiculous and contradicted by the article edit history. A single editor wreaking such havoc would have been banned long ago. So I am through for the night countering various and sundry absurdities. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your block log speaks for itself, Boody. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, your incessant personal sniping here is entirely at variance with the presumably agreed upon spirit of this mediation, and is doing little to support your case with respect to problems with the article, and does not reflect well on your position as a Wikipedia administrator. At the very beginning, I apologized for past instances of incivility I may have engaged in as a prerequisite to moving forward. That in no way was an invitation to submit to being your personal whipping boy, and to give you and others license to launch an orgy of personal vindictive attacks. Let us know when you are ready to be serious. Good night. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough guys, for starters Piotrus and Boodlesthecat please dont be condecending, don't comment on editors, dont take the bait, block history does not gain here and also note that this is not a vote.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) First, I find it astonishing that anybody who has lived under a Communist government would argue that a newspaper can't be an organ of the government. Second, the determination by some editors to verify independently what reliable sources say ("It doesn't matter if you have a 'reliable' source for a mistake, we don't include mistakes in our project.") is a prime example of WP:OR. It does matter what reliable sources say, and if Gazeta Polska was independent of the government, find reliable sources that say so. The insistence by one or more editors that a reliable source is mistaken is not an acceptable way of documenting Wikipedia articles. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Malik, it was not about "a newspaper" but a very specific one, and not about Communist regime but interwar Poland. As for the more rigid selection of sources, see my proposal below. --Lysytalk 11:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There exists Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) article. Why don't you discuss there? Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That article didn't "exist" a few hours ago, Xx236. The issue concerns usage in this article. I have no problem changing "government organ" to "government newspaper" if that seems less confusing, although in general usage they are pretty interchangable. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't "pro-government" be more appropriate ? --Lysytalk 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the source in the article and the sources Piotrus supplied indicate a semi-official to official government organ/newspaper. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Owned by the government or how else ? --Lysytalk 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats a level of research that goes beyond what is needed for a reliably sourced characterization in this article, but would be suitable for the expansion of the Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Government organ" or "government newspaper" suggest that it's owned by the government. You dismiss "pro-government" and you are not interested in any deeper "research". What would you suggest then ? --Lysytalk 15:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was obviously not government-owned. Pro-government suits me just fine, although we should include a link to sanacja, I believe. Here's an entry from a Polish encyclopedia, that makes it quite clear it was an organ of a political faction, not of a government.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources
So far we've failed to acknowledge our biases, bad sign, as it could help a sincere discussion. Maybe we could agree to a higher standard of "reliable sources" for the purpose of this article ? The article is about history, so how about admitting only published peer-reviewed research papers by historians ? (no prose, media commentaries, reviews, books by non-historians etc). Can we agree on this maybe ? --Lysytalk 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * and no reply to - as far as I am concerned Boody is not willing to make a single concession. As expected, most editors are willing to discuss, negotiate, and try to reach a consensus - but one is not. Since all but one get along fine without the mediation, we have a problem, Huston. So - nothing has changed despite 72kb of pointless talk. I will wait for mediators to offer some comments, but I see no point in further discussion until then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not going to spend this entire mediation apologizing. What "concession" are you asking for? We did not "all get along fine" without a mediation; there was consistent edit warring, including by other parties to this mediation, to the point the article needed to be locked. You all now have a chance to delineate your complaints about the article, my edits, what ever in full detail. I recommend you do that, rather than enage in these filibustering maneuvers. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to make special rules; the reliable sourcing guidelines as used in Wikipedia articles across the board are sufficient. If there are questions or disputes about a source, we can discuss it here or in the proper forums. And for the purposes of mediation, all we need to do is to assume good faith and avoid proviocations and pointless insults like the one below. Confessions of "biases" are not required or necessary. We are, I assume, all adults. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's not sufficient for a controversial article like this one. Otherwise we would not be trying to find a solution here. As I said before, for the subject of Jews in Poland one can find many sources, apparently fulfilling the RS requirements, that would support potentially any idea, including that Poles collaborated in the Holocaust or quite the contrary. What I'm calling for is that either we agree to limit to a higher quality academic sources or we agree on how to appropriately use the RS in a given context. That's what I've tried to hind in the Gross thread but you seemed not interested. --Lysytalk 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have achieved nothing. It is impossible to describe a history of Jews in Poland, when some editors have taken it for granted that Poles are antisemites. Or perhaps we can start the article by stating that Jewish greed is intrinsic to the History of the Jews in Poland. Makes sense? In other words - we will never solve the problem, if our actions are dictated by prejudices. Tymek (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than post offensive diatribes, why not list one or two specific problems with the article (e.g., a problematic sentence or paragraph) and a suggestion for how to improve it? Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, since you have called for the mediation, try to explain what do you expect. In a mediation process the parties can eventually achieve some compromise. Can you explain what compromise would you be ready to accept, because I'm getting lost with you. --Lysytalk 15:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of specific article issues
A number of discussions of article issues are currently underway on the articles talk pages. Please bring those discussion to this page, with specific issues cited.
 * Go ahead Boodlesthecat, it's you who asked for mediation after all. State your problems. --Lysytalk 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A number of editors participating in this mediation, including you, Lysy, have raised specific problems on the article talk pages since this mediation began. As well, there is a history of issues being raised by editors other than me. All I am suggesting is to bring those issue--starting perhaps with the ones currently being discussed on the article talk pages, to this forum, since we all agreed to mediation. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about answering my question about Gazeta Polska above, for a start ? --Lysytalk 18:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Gazeta Polska characterization
Reliable sources describe it as "the governmental Gazeta Polska", the unofficial organ of the Sanacja regime, the semi-official Polish newspaper Gazeta Polska and Gazeta Polska, the organ of the Polish government. With a number of sources describing it as an official or semi-official government newspaper, "pro-government" seems weak and inaccurate. Given what the reliable sources say, what are other editors recommendations? Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that "pro-government" is weak and inaccurate ? --Lysytalk 18:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ALso this one: the main organ of the ruling group, Gazeta Polska. Response: Because there are thousands of pro-government newspaper/organs throughout the world, only a smaller percentage of them are actual newspapers/organs of governments or ruling parties. Gazeta Polska, according to the sources, clearly falls in the latter category. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, we have sources that claim it was "unofficial" or "official". Which do you prefer ? I've tried to explain to you before, that the careful selection of sources is the key here. Just "Reliable Sources" is too weak, as you can usually find some to support any POV. We're not getting anywhere this way. --Lysytalk 19:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also: "The government newspaper the Polish Daily (Gazeta Polska)", "The official government Gazeta Polska (Polish Gazette)" (this by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz). Given this preponderance of descriptions of the newspaper as a government one, I suggest we change "In July of 1939 the Gazeta Polska, the organ of the Polish government[33] wrote..." to In July of 1939 the Gazeta Polska, which at this time represented the views of the Polish government[33] wrote..." Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should be strict here, but the sources differ. Some describe it as "unofficial", others as "semi-official" or "quasi-official". I'd stick to "unofficial" as the best characterisation. However it can be easily contested with any other of the sources you mentioned. How about simply "Gazeta Polska" ? Then if the reader is interested in more details, he can go to the article on the paper. --Lysytalk 20:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The orientation of Gazeta Polska in 1939 is important to the article. It makes quite a difference if a quote is coming from a newspaper representing the government view. As you can see, the majority of sources clearly describe Gazeta Polska as representing the views of the government, whether officially (the majority view) or semi/quasi officially. Why would we suppress this information? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to suppress anything but it's also not that "the majority of sources" describes the paper in the same way. First you've found a source that says Gazeta was "unofficial", then you searched for "official" and also found something. None of these sources really discusses the Gazeta Polska itself, though. You did not like describing it as pro-government "because there are thousands of pro-government newspaper throughout the world", all right, then I suggest using the word "unofficial" which is used in one of the fist books you've found. --Lysytalk 07:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that we could even add a qualification like "key" or "important" pro-government newspaper. But it was not an official organ.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've demonstrated with the sources above (all quoted were found by yuours trully...), the sources are somewhat contradictory. The only source focusing on the newspaper, the Polish encyclopedia I cited above, make's it clear it was pro-government, but not offcial. Case closed; do note that all the editors but one agree on that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that seven reliable sources quoted above (including one by Chodakiewicz, whose virtues Piotrus was recently extolling) define the paper as an official, unofficial or semi-official organ of the government. Please not also that 2 editors having one opinion and one editor holding a different opinion is not a statistically significant difference. We are not holding straw polls (and certainly not with a sample of 3 editors). We are presenting content disagreements for a mediator to assist with. We are not here to hold a vote. And please refrain from using misleading phrases like "do note that all the editors but one agree on that" when only 3 editors have weighed in. That is unnecessarily confrontational and contrary to cooperative discussion. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

While the sources cited concerning Gazeta Polska all agree that it served as a "mouthpiece" for the government, they seem inconsistent concerning its exact relationship with the government. From what I can tell, I think the description at Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) is probably the most accurate: it "was seen as a semi-official news outlet of the sanacja-dominated Polish government". That's hard to condense into a few words, so I think the proposal — "pro-government" with a link to Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) — is probably the best solution. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I could go with "the semi-official pro-government newspaper Gazeta Polska." Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi-official is consufing and weasely. While this should be discussed in more detail in a subarticle, I don't think it tells the reader anything useful - just confuses him (how do you define "semi-official"?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummmm...isn't "semi official" the description you used when you created the Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) stub? Do you have a less confusing way to put it? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a reason we have a separate article on the newspaper: this is so the more confusing terms and statements can be expanded upon and clarified there. There is no room to do so at HotJiP, and thus the description of the newspaper there should be kept short (and non-confusing).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really find ""the semi-official pro-government newspaper" to be terribly confusing. This is an example of where an opinion by a mediator/outside observer would be helpful. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In "Polish Press Reporting About the Nazi Germans' Anti- Jewish Policy, 1933-39," by Anna Landau-Czajka of Polish Academy of Sciences Historical Institute, the author describes Gazeta Polska from this time as "the main organ of the ruling group" (p 423). Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of the oligarchical Sanacja/colonels' group faction running the government. But not of the government. Not officially. As I explained previously with the Fox News example, let me make another one: if Bush had a blog, his blog would not be the official organ of the US government, despite the fact that he is running it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Selection of sources
The above discussion of Gazeta Polska may seem a petty thing, but it illustrates well our problem with the careless selection of sources, that I mentioned already earlier, when we discussed Gross (or at least tried to). Boodlesthecat claims that "the majority of sources" clearly support this and that. This is not the case. Finding a couple of random unrelated books with google keyword search and claiming that some of them are "the majority of sources" is a misconception. I'd suggest we use common sense, but if an editor insists that it's more important that it's supported by sources, he should find an indeed relevant source, in this case a publication on "Gazeta Polska" explaining its character, so that we have no doubts here. The fact that someone published a diary in which he mentioned the paper and called it "semi-official" is not helpful here. Also, the way Boodlesthecat selects his sources illustrates what I meant when I said that this way it's possible to find a source to support almost any claim. With his first search he found a historical dictionary of Poland, that described Gazeta Polska as "unofficial". Probably dissatisfied with this result, he then explicitly searched for the "official" keyword, and found a completely unrelated book on Spanish Carlism. We don't even know in what context the Gazeta is mentioned there, as the content of the book is not available online. But it seems enough to proudly present the book as "the source" only because it was displayed in the result list in a search for the "official" word. See what I mean ? If we want to be serious about writing an encyclopedic article, we should use reasonable and related sources, and not just something that popped up in a google search and happens to have the keywords matching our agenda. --Lysytalk 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okey so your trying to speculate in a round about way that you can pretty much find something that says what you want it to and that Boodlesthecat was acting in a biased manner to intentionaly find the evidence that supported his facts? I think speculation is somewhat unhealthy, especially when your trying to predict a contributors thought of mind. I would like you to clarify what your trying to get at here?  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not accusing Boodlesthecat, though I'm pretty aware of what he's doing. What I'm saying is that the procedure of finding random sources that contain one or another keyword is not productive. If we are talking about "Gazeta Polska", we should be using a source explicitly discussing "Gazeta Polska", not Carlism. Since you're asking o be more specific, as for predicting thoughts, if you look at the chronology of the dispute, you'll see that Boodlesthecat first found a source using the word "unofficial", and then obviously was not happy with that, as he added the keyword "official" to his next search, which howeved did not lead to a specific citation he could quote. But that's not the point. I'm not trying to attack other editors, as I could find myself doing the same. I'm only trying to persuade that in a situation like this, with the multitude of sources, we should pay attention to what sources are cited and in what context. This is not a fringe article, where any single source is valuable enough to be noted. My suggestion here was to act differently. Instead of google searching for keywords supporting one or another theory, we should look at the publication on the subject, and where possible try to use scholarly peer reviewed works. If you take a closer look at the above discussion on "Gazeta Polska", you'll see that it only demonstrates where the more general problem is. --Lysytalk 12:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Other editors are really going to have to cease speculating on motives and states of mind if this is going to be productive. to clear up one misconception, I was summarizing sources found by both myself and Piotrus, the bulk of which describe the paper as more than a "Pro-government" newspaper. If Lysy truly believes I am being devious, I wuold suggest that he keep his opinions about me to himself, and instead do some research and find the best sources to resolve this question. Merely sitting on the sideline and sniping about my motivations and complaining about the information I supply and making accusations is truly UN-WP:CIVIL and unacceptable. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I just explained above, my intention was not to attack you but to illustrate the problem with poor selection of sources. Let's try to focus on this instead of personal issues. --Lysytalk 14:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The way to proceed is for you to discuss the sources, maybe provide some of your own, and completely refrain from making accusations of other editors manipulating the sources (which is doubly offensive when you yourself dont supply any.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once more, the problem is not lack of the sources but the selection thereof. You need to learn to use the source related to the subject we are discussing. It's not enough to google. --Lysytalk 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediators: Some ground rules please
I am getting truly fed up with having to incessantly respond to an unabating slew of accusations with practically every post emitting from a group of editors. I insist that the mediators please supply some clear ground rules for behavior, and that they be enforced from this point on. As I mentioned before, this is a mediation. It is not an anything goes forum for me to be a punching bag for an angry group of editors. I am refraining from content discussions until this is resolved. Thank yuo. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Second that. The purpose of the mediation is not clear to me. I have repeatedly asked Boodles to state the purported goal but to no avail. I assumed good faith but now I tend to believe that the only reason is to keep the article protected. --Lysytalk 14:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to talk. Here is my response to Boodles' earlier question, summarising why I think this is hopeless.

I'm sorry but if it continues to develop that way, I'm inclined to agree with Piotrus that any attempts to mediate with you are a waste of time. Once more, please, try to think why have you requested the mediation, what do you expect of it and if you are ready to admit that your POV may not always be the only right one, even if you find a source to support it. --Lysytalk 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I think one of the problems we are facing here is the careless selection of sources. I've tried to negotiate the way we select controversial sources but you were not interested (see the Gross section).
 * 2) I've tried to explain that the topic of the article is about the history of Jews in Poland, not antisemitism. You've responded that no, antisemitism is intrinsic to the topic of the article.
 * 3) Then I assumed that probably the difference in POVs is the source of the problems and, despite I value my privacy, proposed that we disclose our biases in order to better understand these differences. You were not interested again.
 * 4) Xavexgoem suggested that we might acknowledge our POVs in order to better understand where we start from. You ignored it, and in the response pictured yourself as a perfectly neutral editor.
 * 5) I've made another attempt asking you if you were aware that your POV was that "Antisemitsm is intrinsic to history of Jews in Poland". You've responded that this was "denigration of your character".
 * 6) I have repeatedly asked you to state what your problem was. You never did.
 * 7) Prom3th3an asked if we agreed to unprotect the article. You were the only one refusing this and asking to keep it protected "until we sort out what the disputed areas are". Since you were the person requesting mediation, you are the one who should know the answer.
 * 8) On a very specific issue of how to characterize the Gazeta Polska newspaper, you've rejected my suggestion to call it "pro-government", offered no explanation, but also did not propose any other reasonable description when I asked you.
 * 9) I've suggested agreeing on a higher standard of sources for the article. You refused, saying that it's not needed.
 * 10) Finally, I've asked you for some reflexion on for what compromise you'd be ready in the mediation but again got no answer.


 * In reponse to each of your points, which illustrate the problem quite well:


 * 1) Gross is a non-issue, a red herring. He is barely used as a source (and used quite acceptably). It's a pure diversion from discussing substantive issues.
 * Yes, antisemitism is intrinsic to the topic of the history of Jews in Poland. That's the clearly established academic view.
 * 1) I've stated my perspective clearly, including my opposition to branding Poles as anti-semites (which was ignoed and for which I am still falsely charged with propagating). That should be more than sufficient. I'm here to discuss content, not for group therapy.
 * 2) Same
 * 3) ""Antisemitsm is intrinsic to history of Jews in Poland"" is not my "POV." It's a well established historical fact.
 * 4) The problem is the edit warring. The mediation is an attempt to address it by discussing content disputes like adults. How we doing?
 * 5) I have as much right to voice an opinion on that question as anyone else. You seem to equate my having a different opinion from you as being a problem.
 * 6) Simply and utterly false. I stated my reasoning clearly. Again, you equate disagreeing with yuo to some shortcoming of mine. You need to get over that.
 * 7) Again, my opinion. Why is my having an opinion problematic. And no, I don't believe this article needs "special" rules; follwing basic Wiki guidelines for historical articles would suffice. Give it a try before you reject it.
 * 8) Don't know what you are asking. I would like to proceed to a opint by point discussion o0n content issues, not endless abstract discussions. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, where are the mediators? I think I made my case clear above: it's impossible to mediate with Boody (which is why we need external, neutral moderators) because he think he is 100% right. Thus he refuses to back down. No compromise can be reached if the only solution acceptable to him is for us to agree with 100% of what he wants to do. I would welcome if the moderators/mediators would point out what concessions we could do to appease him that we haven't tried, but it takes two to tango... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where have I refused to compromise? What I see are differences of opinion, which hopefully mediators can help sort out. It seems that you and Lysy equate "not agreeing with you" with "not compromising." Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, you write that Gross is a pure diversion from discussing substantive issues. Let me ask you once again. What do you think are these substantive issues ? --Lysytalk 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again (I've said this a few time). there are numerous complaints/issues with the article that have been raised on the article's talk page (some currently under discussion even as we speak) and by some heated editing and reverts by the editors I initially invited to this mediation. So again, I am requesting those those active content issues be brought here to be discussed, with the help of the mediators, on a case by case basis. (Gross was not one of the issues, so there seemed to be no reason to discuss it here). Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. And why do you think there are so many issues ? What I'm aiming at, all the time, is curing the cause, not the symptoms. Otherwise we'll soon find ourselves in the same place again. --Lysytalk 16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Repeating from above). So again, I am requesting those those active content issues be brought here to be discussed, with the help of the mediators, on a case by case basis. The "cause" of this is continued resistance to actually proceeding with having those those active content issues be brought here to be discussed, with the help of the mediators, on a case by case basis. My answering endless questions is not necessary or useful. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you still do not understand, I'm afraid. I was asking about the reasons for the contention, so that they can be addressed. Why are you avoiding this, all the time and answering questions that were not asked ? --Lysytalk 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasons for coming here have been ongoing disputes and edit wars leading to the article getting locked. That is why we should (yet again) be having those those active content issues be brought here to be discussed, with the help of the mediators, on a case by case basis. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR
Here's a substantive issue I raised earlier.

When editors insist on judging the validity of a reliable source's definitions, that's WP:OR. As examples, when a source refers to "Polish collaborators", it's WP:OR to decide questions such as were Polish collaborators ethnic Germans?, and what is the definition of collaboration?, and what are the implications of one million collaborators?

It's appropriate to cite the source and, if necessary, the source's definition. If you find another reliable source with a different number of collaborators, or one that contests the first source, then cite them both. That's how WP:NPOV works. Not by editors insisting that they are the personal judges of the veracity of a reliable source's research. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is not OR, it's WP:UNDUE. As Lysy noted, we can have a reliable source to prove anything. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of (POVed) facts. We have to determine the weight of the fact and its relevancy to the article. Thus the biggest problem is people pushing their favourite POV, equating it with truth, and for example trying to white (or black) wash Poles (or Jews, or Germans, or Russians, or Martians...) in lead of semi-relevant article (with the obvious goal of 'I have to make sure every article makes it clear my POV is the truth).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you (or anybody) discuss the specifics here without reference to and judgments about other editors motivations? That makes it impossible to discuss actual content issues. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cherry-picking one's sources
Here's another substantive issue I raised earlier.

When a reliable source gives a range of widgets from x to y, it's appropriate to mention in the article that the number of widgets has been estimated from x to y. It is not appropriate to write that the number of widgets is x.

It's especially egregious when the source (call her Mary) says that Charles says x and James says y, and an editor replaces Mary with Charles as a source.

Cherry-picking one source out of a group of sources, especially to replace a range with a point, is another form of WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When 10 sources give x, and one gives y, the WP:UNDUE comes knocking.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, then lets discuss specific sources in specific sections. In the Gazeta Polska section, where the vast majority of sources describe the paper as an official or semi official government organ, it is being argued to use the characterization of a small minority of sources. Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources as shown above are contradicting and unclear. There is certainly no consensus among them to support your "official organ of the Polish government." Me and Lysy has suggested a reasonable compromose: "important pro-government newspaper." This version is also supported by the only source we have which discusses the GP in more detail (the Polish encyclopedia). So far, we had not heard your response to that proposal... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

More mediators ?
I think, maybe we need more mediators ? I feel sorry for you, Prom3th3an, having to read through all this. --Lysytalk 17:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ^Agrees, I will draft a few ground rules also however at this time I am starting to see that informal mediation may not solve the issues at hand because there is little probability of compromise due to certain parties not behaving in a civil and objective manner that is further complicated because are many underlying issues that are being coupled with this case. Perhaps formal mediation and WP:RFC may be required not to far down track.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions Drawn so Far
Okey well heres the underlying message im getting. The dispute is primarily about a minoritys groups POV on History of the Jews in Poland, justifying it with 1-2 questionable sources. Whilst the majority of sources and contributors say/think something else? Wikipedia is a concensus and from what I can see here there is a consensus to do it one way, however the minority are sticking to thier guns. I could be drawing the wrong conclusions and I'm interested in what you guys think? I'm going to finish this paragraph after people comment on it.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't quite fully comment given some undefined terms, such as "minority group"/"minority groups POV", "questionable sources", "consensus to do it one way", "the minority", "sticking to their guns". At this point, though, I'd identify the issue thus far as an inability to begin discussing the outstanding content issues (which are still being and/or have very recently been actively discussed on article talk pages but seem reluctant to move here), and instead an incessant focus on editors, rather than content. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While there are some problems with WP:UNDUE, as I've explained above, the problem is the inability of one party to compromise their position even a little bit in order to reach a consensus. I am not going to repeat the details of who and why, particularly under the new "ground rules". But this case will not be solved until this issue is dealt with, as I - to speak just for myself - refuse to admit I am 100% wrong and that editor is 100% right. Consensus requires both party to make sacrifices to reach the neutral POV. So far, one side has done so, one hasn't bucked at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At the risk of breaking the ground-rules, I respectfully disagree with the summary of the underlying problem. Let's call a spade a spade. The problem is a group of tag-team editors who push their POV that Polish antisemitism and the role of the Poles in the Holocaust have been greatly exaggerated. Whenever possible, they counter any negative statement about Polish culpability with statements about Righteous Poles, as if the virtues of the one group cancel the sins of the other. Through their actions, they're trying to drive away editors who don't share their POV. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Components of a "consensus statement"
 * A consensus statement must ideally be made immediately at the moment you make an action, and explain why you took that action.


 * A consensus statement ideally has 4 components. These can be explicit, or they can be woven into the style of your reply (might be nice to make it nearly invisible). Sometimes not all are needed, though people should be able to ask you about any of these elements if you skipped them. Make sure you know the answers to all these components before you hit "submit"
 * The components are:
 * A personal reason why you are in support of the action you are taking
 * What would theoretically needs to be said or done to make you reverse that position
 * A reason why you think others (will) support you (ie, why is this likely to gain consensus)
 * What likely would need to be said or done to reverse the position of the community.


 * If you don't give the person you're reverting a reason that can be potentially disputed or agreed with ... [then you are not discussing]               --Father Goose
 * Here is a good place to start. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I have basically followed the spirit of the guidelines thus far--for example, here, where I cite the fact that seven independent fully reliable sources support the view I am representing, in response to an opposing viewpoint which cites one single source, and concludes, in favor of their own viewpoint, "case closed". Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the "case closed" part was a bit heavy - no doubt this is a frustrating dispute - but Piotr did provide reasons in the second diff you provided. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC) And here's a good essay on consensus (WP:SILENCE), which works well with a 3-editor dispute. Don't know why I'm providing it, it's just a good read :-p.
 * Yes, he did indeed give a reason--that a brief entry in an online Polish encyclopedia trumps seven reliable sources. "Case closed" is not simply a bit heavy; it's an announcement that further discussion on the matter is ended. And that was followed by an additional claim that "all editors but one" agree with him, which is a rather deceptive and disingenuous (to say the least) way of characterizing the fact that I disagree with him and another guy. In any case, I wasn't focusing on Piotrus' comment other than to indicate that I consistently document any claims/positions etc that I put forth--despite the (continued!) claims of my "inability " to compromise (how do you "compromise with "case closed"?) and insistences that we cannot move forward until my supposed intransigence (hmm, hard to top "case closed") is "dealt with." Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 7 sources - we haven't discussed their reliability, you are just calling them that - are in fact contradicting each other. While my and Lysy's proposal ("imporant pro-Sanacja government newspaper") fits them, yours ("official government organ") does not (and let's not forget the definition of a government organ I've cited some time above, that fits almost none of those 7 sources). Cherrypicking sources is not a good editing policy. PS. Another possible solution is to leave out any attempt of describing what GP is from the HotPJ article, and instead try to expand the Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) article I've created.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes a difference if as newspaper is any old newspaper, or if it is one that speaks for the regime. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, speaking for a regime does not make it an "official organ". Fox News does not speak for the current US regime and is not the US gov't official organ, no matter how much pro-gov't propaganda one sees in it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a viable comparison--no reliable sources call Fox news a gov't organ. A number of reliable sources describe late 1930s Gazeta Polska as one. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear mediators: I give up. And I think Lysy did so, earlier. This is pointless. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what Ryan Postlethwaite says "If I was you, I'd just ignore him. The guy's obviously trolling and looking for a response - no need to feed him IMHO". greg park avenue (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DFTT, you mean? I don't like calling other editors trolls, it can be seen as uncivil. And for the record, I don't consider Boody a troll, he has done constructive edits in other areas of this project. But troll name-calling aside, I agree that the spirit of this policy should be considered for this discussion, which seems to lead to no constructive results, only good editors (Lysy) getting disappointed with the project (why are we wasting time talking about something that's obvious?) and leaving.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How nice of you to say this about Boody, but even you have found further discussion with him pointless. What a pity about Lysy, but leaving is not the best way to deal with suspected trolls or no-trolls. A little too theatrical as in that song If You Could Read My Mind by Gordon Lightfoot - She walked away like a movie star. I still go with Ryan's advise - ignore the guy(s) in question, discuss the issue on Talk or here with serious oponents only. I have already asked for unprotection of the protected, obviously for all the wrong reasons, article(s), when it occurs would make slow reverts of its content littered by controversial, based on communist propaganda, sources; if littering persists, would bring the case one level higher, Digwuren or something like that. It'll take months, but there is simply no other way. greg park avenue (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ground Rules
Sorry guys, but im going to have to be firm.


 * 1) Any remark that puts down another editor in a uncivil way will result in a personal attack warning (on your talk page) starting at level 3 because your all regulers. This will refect extremly poorly on anyone, dont let it happen you.
 * 2) Comment on the sources, policy and article. Not editors or motives.
 * 3) Dont speculate at all.   « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. First of all, I’d like to express my deepest sympathy to our Jewish Wikipedians for having to deal with outburst of actual real anti-Semitism on Talk and in Main-space. Such instances make them justifiably hard-line and unwilling to consider a difference between political extremism represented by some internet sources and examples of critical analysis by rational thinkers on the other hand. Everything is being thrown into the same basket as a result: bitterness, hysteria, anti-Polish sentiment, personal grievances, hearsay, fallacies, fantasy, groundless accusations, as well as findings of Yad Vashem and the Israeli War Crimes Commission with no differentiation made between them, as if there was no difference between rational thinking and hate propaganda, especially with regard to the Jewish Holocaust in Poland. The old animosities result in virtually every single article on Jewish-Polish relations being turned into a mockery of science. Communist swindlers and fraud artists are being presented over and over as the so called reliable sources and defended against quote-unquote cherry-picking, while being cherry-picked for the monstrosities they allege. Understandably, many Polish Wikipedians are offended and eager to do something about it. How do you intend to conclude this discussion? How do you define speculation in such environment? What smear campaign do you include as verifiable and how do you make others not freak-out as a result? --Poeticbent talk  17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said. Most users edit in good faith, but with increasing amount of mud flying around, good faith is good and camps form, unfortunately with good editors being lumped together with radicals. I've seen that happen too often all around. How to break it? Rein the radicals, and compromise. I can only speak for the few Polish editors involved here, who I believe have tried to offer compromises. If there are any 'radical' Polish editors, please point them out and we will do our best to police them. Again: it takes two to tango, and a compromise does not mean one side winning ("we were right all the time"), and other loosing ("you were wrong from the beginning"). Unfortunately, I have seen precious little will to compromise from the "other side"... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Jew-baiting rants on article talk page
You can see the latest examples of the sort of Jew baiting nonsense and one has to put up with on these articles hereand here. The cause of this particular outburst? Because I supported the view that the Polish expression "Don't be a Jew" just might be anti-semitic. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I have not interacted with, accusing one of being a Jewish nationalist is not anti-semitism (albeit it is not the best way to address another editor, and that user should be reminded to stick to discussing edits, not other editors). Anyway, that user is not part of the mediation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The second post I listed is a litany of antisemitic claptrap. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And your response to it is no better. But both are outside the scope of this mediation anyway, so why bring them here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My response was appropriate---remind him of WPCIVIL and indicate I could care less about his anti-semitic rants. Apparently this is an editor who was banned on Polish wiki who has some issues. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what this particuler incident has directly with the mediation, however I can see that your coping some flack here and there. I think allot of it cant be acted upon and that you will have to accept some critism, for not all critism is a personal attack. I myself have to put up with low level niggling at school for instance, but I woudnt say that it was a personal attack ;-)  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bring told that my statements confirm his moron friends antisemitic caricatures seems a bit more than "criticism," but whateva. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Objectives
Lets go back to basics


 * request monitoring of the article by uninvolved mediators ✅
 * give opinions on the disputes
 * diffuse edit wars ✅

Ok, list the disputes below in simplest form.

...  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dispute 1
 * Dispute 2
 * Dispute 3
 * Dispute 4
 * Dispute 5


 * There are a number of different disputes currently active on the article talk page. Since we can't seem to get past the first one listed here, I'll just list that one for now, in the hopes are mediators can help secure an agreement:


 * Dispute 1: Characterization of Gazeta Polska circa July 1939 (the date that the newspaper is being quoted from in the article). The article currently describes it as an "organ of the Polish government", and a reliable source is given for the statement. Other reliable sources also use this characterization, while other describe it as "semi-official", "pro-government" or as the newspaper of an important faction of the government (one that had become increasingly influential by July 1939). Which characterization should be used? (Note: this seemingly minor point is important because it impacts on whether the quote in the article is a view of the government, or just of one of the factions.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Such discussion should be moved to Gazeta Polska (1929-1939). Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Gazeta Polska was controlled by the Camp of National Unity, not by the government.Xx236 (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dispute 2: The extent of Polish collaboration with the Nazis. Related to this is the issue of whether certain sources are reliable, how to judge which sources are more reliable than others, whether it's appropriate to replace a source that describes a range of values with a source that mentions only the low end of the range. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned at least once: see Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Poland. Still no reply anywhere. Complaining that something is not being discussed when it is being discussed is not helpful.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. I have noted repeatedly that issues are indeed actively being discussed elsewhere, and have requested that we move those active disputes to this central location. Boodlesthecat Meow?


 * Dispute 3: Possibly the worst instance of political propaganda is featured in a review of a book on postwar anti-Jewish violence in Poland. Special prominence is given to facts long corrected by Yad Vashem i.e. the inflated number of victims, however, Yad Vashem findings are not being mentioned (because they’re not a part of the book). The impression is being created that the writer was merely presenting undisputed facts, which is false. The same article features hysterical words of empty praise flying in the face of WP: Peacock. --Poeticbent  talk  02:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific on this one--specify which article you are talking about, where exactly the problem is, where the article indicates the author stating undisputed facts, where are there hysterical words of empty praise etc. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the expression “You read it breathlessly” ring a bell? It belongs to Fear, an article heavily edited by Boodlesthecat amidst a wave of POV reverts. The article is stuffed with outbursts of hate propaganda in the form of citations which have no informational value whatsoever. Worst yet, the article (technically fronted by this portal) is equating Polish people with the Nazis with messages like “the Poles were as bad as the Germans” (this one, disguised as a citation from a trade magazine) or accusing Poland en masse of “false claims to the smug, easy virtue” (this one, by an American-Jewish reviewer who considers himself “a casualty of Poland”) I'm surprised Boodlesthecat asked, than again, all disputes listed here ought to kept in the open including the preceding one by Malik Shabazz. --Poeticbent talk  03:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If not because Boodlesthecat asked, Be more specific as to the article because im asking now. In future just answer a reasonable question...  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for book reviews, see here, and we are talking about a non-controversial author, historian and diplomat Norman Davies. What about a controversial author Gross? All Wikipedia articles about his books and books about editorials about his books as in Neighbors Respond contain reviews, reviews of reviews and even blurbs ONLY. How one can treat this as a source of reference to a historical article? Beats me! greg park avenue (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the question was unnecessary at first, because the preceding comment was equally vague. Dispute #2, as I see it, refers to the Holocaust in Poland, article which is now locked (don't ask me why) with an assertion challenged in Talk as a communist monstrosity. --Poeticbent talk  16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dispute 4: What is Poland - Any text about History of the Jews in Poland has to include the definition of Poland for the given period.Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you indicate where this is an issue/dispute? It would seem that, just like in a discussion of any country, whenever "Poland" is mentioned, it would be the Poland that existed at the time being discussed. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So the sections about the period 1918-1945 lack informations about relationships of the minorities (about 20%) toward the Jews, e.g. Germans toward Jews 1933-1939 - were the illegal German Nazis in Poland anti-semitic or not?Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this a dispute with respect to the article? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Objective (2): Protocol for listing disputes
Can we please follow the clear and simple instructions provided by the mediator "Ok, list the disputes below in simplest form.


 * Dispute 1
 * Dispute 2
 * Dispute 3
 * Dispute 4
 * Dispute 5"

and not use that space to immediately start arguing any particular side of the dispute(s)? It seems like a simple task, and if followed, it can provide a framework for actually making some progress on the disputes. thank you. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Boodlesthecat, I did ask for it to be in simplest form and i did not ask for views or opinions. Basically all i want is a WHAT and WHERE  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll begin a new clean list of current disputes below; I'm copying the first two from above because they seem pretty straightforward. Please add additional ones following the basic WHAT and WHERE format. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

List of disputes

 * Dispute 1: Characterization of Gazeta Polska circa July 1939 (the date that the newspaper is being quoted from in the article). The article currently describes it as an "organ of the Polish government", and a reliable source is given for the statement. Other reliable sources also use this characterization, while other describe it as "semi-official", "pro-government" or as the newspaper of an important faction of the government (one that had become increasingly influential by July 1939). Which characterization should be used? (Note: this seemingly minor point is important because it impacts on whether the quote in the article is a view of the government, or just of one of the factions.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mediator input requested by both parties at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02_History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland (and can we get rid of this annoying yellow bar that prevents anchors from working?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe just the Gazeta Polska section can be moved here; there is merit to collapsing a lot of the rest of the discussion. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dispute 2: The extent of Polish collaboration with the Nazis. Related to this is the issue of whether certain sources are reliable, how to judge which sources are more reliable than others, whether it's appropriate to replace a source that describes a range of values with a source that mentions only the low end of the range. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is not related to the HotJiP article and this mediation! I've just recently (yesterday!) asked you to look at the relevant part of Wikipedia: Collaboration_during_World_War_II, and so far that section has not seen any edit warring or discussion! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The dispute over the range of values covers more than one article, including the HotJiP article and seems appropriate to this mediation. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I attempted to engage in dialogue over this several times here (see Dispute 2 in the section above), was ignored all the time until recently (thanks for finally replying at Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Poland), I am slightly irked that editors spent more time complaing about that issue than trying to discuss it. I hope it changes; in any case I've said all I wanted at Talk:Holocaust_in_Nazi-occupied_Poland and I intend to continue this discussion there (why split it?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it is a dispute at more than one article, including the one that this mediation covers, why not have the discussion here? Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dispute 3: Usage of non-neutral quotes in evidently non-encyclopedic tone: a recent example. This was mentioned earlier by Poeticbent and greg.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dispute 3a: I believe Dispute 3 above is more accurately stated as follows: Can reliably sourced quotes which state or discuss the thesis of a somewhat controversial book be used, even if some editors object to such inclusion based on their own dislike of the authors views that are being presented, backed by reliable sources. The issue clearly isn't the usage of "non-neutral quotes," as claimed above. A simple perusal of the article's history will show that the earlier versions worked on extensively by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Poeticbent, greg park avenue and others opposed to quotes presenting Gross's views are not opposed to "non-neutral quotes," as the version they produced earlier contained almost entirely strongly negative attacks on the book and its author. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dispute 4: Is there a need to monitor the possible sanctification of sweeping, derogatory terms such as anti-Semitism in relation to all of Poland at any given time, and ethnic slurs, such as Żydokomuna? The latter article can easily be rewritten under a more neutral title such as the Polish Jews in the communist movement with the term Żydokomuna placed lower down as a separate subsection noting its harmful ideological connotations inspired by wartime destruction of Poland. Similarly, disparaging terms used indiscriminately such as "Polish anti-Semitism" (a countrywide blame), have a ring similar to Polish Nazis and Polish death camps (in relation of World War II) and could be replaced with more neutral and balanced language acceptable to all readership. I realize that it takes two to tango, and that one cannot be dealt with without the other. --Poeticbent talk  19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The anti-semitic myth of Żydokomuna is a notable phenomena, one of many Antisemitic canards with its own history and notability. A separate article on Polish Jews in the communist movement could be feasible (there is at least one notable book on the subject), and it can be a place to move the POV forked sections on that subject currently in the Żydokomuna article. As it stands now, the history digressions in the Żydokomuna article merely serve as justifications for the canard. The myth of Żydokomuna is not a subset of Polish Jews in the communist movement--it is an antisemitic concept developed by Poles based on a bigoted myth that Jews were out to destroy Poland. The fact that there were Polish communists is no more relevant to the Żydokomuna myth than the fact that there were wealthy Jewish industrialists is relevant to Hitler's antisemitic theories. These cherry picked facts are used to justify the theory--the theory is not based on the facts. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - Żydokomuna is a myth or fact similarly like the part of this article which describes the Jewish life in Poland as growing antisemitism. As Henryk Sienkiewicz has written - when I steal a cow, it's O.K., when you steal my cow, it's wrong. My myths are academic truths, your myths are prejudices. Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - The escalation of anti-semitism in the interwar years in Poland is a copiously documented historical fact. The laughable claim that a handful of Jews are responsible for enslaving 30 million Poles under communism is a vicious anti-semitic conspiracy theory; the psychological instabilities extant in those holding such perverse sensibilities have been investigated now and then, but that is beyond the scope of this mediation. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * - Jewish life in Poland is a copiously documented historical fact. Selecting some aspects of it and ignoring others is propaganda, not editing. BTW I'm not claiming there was no antisemitism in Poland. Don't go too far, please. Please assume that I'm not a Nazi idiot, is it too much? Xx236 (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * - I certainly nowhere at no time assumed you were a Nazi idiot. In any case, for the purposes of the mediation at hand here please note the interwar period of the article contains these sections:


 * 5.2 Jewish and Polish culture
 * 5.3 Growing anti-Semitism


 * So it seems that Jewish life in Poland in those years and the well documented rise of anti-semitism in that period are covered in the article. So please indicate what exactly the issue is, what you feel is being "ignored," etc.. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The facts are - there are three sections:
 * Independence and Polish Jews - mostly about pogroms and abuses
 * Jewish and Polish culture - quotes 3 references
 * Growing anti-Semitism - the longest one, quotes 15 references.


 * BTW - what about Jewish economy?


 * I have written more than ten times listing subjects ignored or underestimated in this part of the article in Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. An interesting ignored subject - the Jews in the movies and Polish language press.Xx236 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are all good suggestions for additions and improvements, but they don't seem to be "disputes." I'd be happy to see additional material on Polish Jewish culture. A defining issue at the time of Polish independence in 1918 was the wave of anti-Jewish pogroms so it seems reasonable that this would be in the article. However, if you have additional good sources for what else the onset of independence in 1918 meant for Polish Jews, feel free to recommend it. However, this section, as you can see above, is List of disputes, so please try to focus on issues that are actually disputed, rather than undispouted suggestions for improvement (which can be easily discussed on the talk pages.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that. Going back to what I said, the number of Wikipedia articles that mention "Polish anti-Semitism" in a form of a conspiracy theory (as if there was anything specifically Polish about it) is considerable. The codeword "Polish" is used as a political label pretty much indiscriminately against all Polish non-Jews. It is a loaded question, a myth "virulently pervasive and persistent" (as noted in The Washington Post) brought into Wikipedia along with the anti-Polish sentiment. --Poeticbent talk  03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Washington Post didn't note that Polish antisemitism a myth; what you are citing is a 1993 letter to the editor in the WP by Andrzej Jarecki Counselor, Cultural Affairs Embassy of the Republic of Poland. A week later, the Washington Post printed some letters in response to Jarecki, under the heading Polish Antisemitism: Hardly a `Myth', so we can say both perspectives were "noted in The Washington Post." But letters to the editor are hardly reliable sources one way or another. More to the point of your complaint--can you indicate the "Wikipedia articles that mention "Polish anti-Semitism" in a form of a conspiracy theory"? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't be serious about these kind of comparisons. On the one hand you have a statement made by a Cultural Affairs Counselor at the Embassy of the Republic of Poland, and on the other, a hate-ridden chat laced with sorry Polonophobic stereotypes such as that "most of Polish society has... a glaring and appalling record of rampant antisemitism" and that Poles "betrayed Jews in hiding." I repeat, there's nothing uniquely Polish, or different by definition about the true or alleged anti-Semitism of some Poles from any marginal group anywhere else in the world, and yet, the phrase is used indiscriminately in virtually all articles mentioned in this discussion. Polish anti-Semitism does not exist as a Wikipedia article (don't mind the redirect), so why is it being disseminated as a code phrase in articles about our history. Is it, because, according to Conspiracy theory article: "In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part"? --Poeticbent talk  04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think this would be obvious, but once again, let me point out to you that it is well nigh impossible to address problems or disputes in articles if you will not provide specific examples of the problems you reference, even when asked directly to do so. So I'll again ask you to clarify your complaint. You said above, and I quote:"Going back to what I said, the number of Wikipedia articles that mention 'Polish anti-Semitism' in a form of a conspiracy theory (as if there was anything specifically Polish about it) is considerable"I'll repeat the question. Can you indicate the "Wikipedia articles that mention "Polish anti-Semitism" in a form of a conspiracy theory"?


 * By the way, who is the "notorious Polonophobe" you reference above? The writer of the letter published in the Washington Post that you refer to as a "notorious Polonophobe" was a member of an elite WW2 British commando group, participated in the invasion of Normandy and the final invasion of Germany in the war to liberate Europe from Nazism. Do you have any sources which describe him as a "notorious Polonophobe" ? Struck per Peoeticbent's withdrawal of characterization; still await examples of dispute.Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems to be taking an unexpected turn. I think we need to define our terms of reference before we move any further. Perhaps the best definition of what constitute the core issue of this dispute can be found in the Letters from Freedom written by Adam Michnik, Irena Grudzińska-Gross and Jane Cave (excerpt, below). --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  16:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relations between Poles and Jews are still burdened by two stereotypes--one Polish and the other Jewish. According to the Polish stereotype, there has never been any anti-Semitism in Poland, and the Jews were never so well-off as they were there. In this stereotype, each critical voice condemning anti-Semitism is considered an expression of the anti-Polish conspiracy on the part of international forces who are filled with hatred for Poland. There is also a Jewish stereotype, which says that each Pole imbibes anti-Semitism with his mother's milk; that Poles share the responsibility for the Holocaust; that the only thing worth knowing about Poland is just that--that Poles hate Jews.
 * The Polish stereotype produces among Jews, even Jews well disposed toward Poland, an instinctive dislike of Poles. This stereotype makes any calm and clarifying debate on the history of Polish anti-Semitism impossible. On the other hand, the Jewish stereotype immediately arouses a sort of "secondary anti-Semitism" among Poles, because people who are completely free of anti-Semitic phobias feel accused of sins they've never committed. And having been accused of being natural anti-Semites, they feel hurt and perceive ill will on the part of Jews; and such feelings tend to preclude an honest dialogue with Jews about the past and the future.


 * What would be more helpful (and you've been asked this at least half a dozen times, to no avail) would be for you to provide specific examples of problems with the article. Since you've been requested to provide specific examples repeatedly, and since you consistently don't provide them, it would seem that one can only conclude that you cannot provide specific examples, and/or you simply want to use this mediation, as you did with the AfD process, as a venue for soapboxing and complaining rather than as a way of making concrete improvements to the article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What would be more helpful if you read what I have written. I have given plenty examples of lacking informations in the Talk:History of the Jews in Poland. The biggest problem is the definition of Poland and Poles. Either Poland was the state with its borders, so ethnic Poles consisted about 2/3, not all of them Roman Catholics or the article is about ethnic Poles, not about Poland. Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What would be even more helpful when posting to a section titles List of Disputes would be to examine the meaning of the word dispute. A dispute is different from a feeling that something is lacking. You can add information that is lacking. A dispue is where other editors are actively disagreeing with you. I would think that if you are involved in a dispute, it would be fairly simple to list it clearly and simply. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ARe you sure you try to cooperate? Or rather prove tham I'm a dumb Pollack?Xx236 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made about a dozen requests for you to clearly list any actual disputes (as opposed to vague references to what's "missing.") You seem unwilling to supply any actual disputes. And although you are trying to play the role of a victim here (rather than respond to a simple request), please note that making ungrounded charges of bigotry towards other editors (such as your accusation against me above) is a form of incivility. Please desist from making such false, unsupported defamatory charges. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A break in the discussion
A number of the most active participants in the mediation seem to be on breaks, so I suppose we will resume on their return. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The desire to go on has to be reinforced by examples of good will, otherwise this discussion will slow down to a halt not because of breaks, but because of a sense of pride and exhaustion. – Boodlesthecat, why did you copy-paste an entry by Malik Shabazz including his signature? Maybe he would prefer to do it himself, don’t you think? Besides, he made an oddly suspended statement requiring guesswork and further explanation by others. So, why did you repeat it in its original form rather than pinpointing the problem in your own words? The fact that the article Holocaust in Poland has been locked for so long with your inflammatory edit in it, is not a sign of good will. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Poeticbent . I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to regarding "copy-paste an entry by Malik Shabazz"--could you please point this out, and what the problem was? As for the article being locked, I obviously have no control over that (and it was locked in no small part due to your edit-warring), so it seems a bit odd to cite that as being "not a sign of good will"  on my part. As to being exhausted, you are again welcome and encouraged to discuss content dispute issues here, in a civil, straightforward and clear manner so we can collectively resolve some of these disputes (which is what will get the article unlocked). You kight find this less exhausting and less a blow to a sense of pride then spending an unnecessary amount of time filing a futile AfD that was unanimously rejected on the basis of WP:SNOW and a recognition that you were using the AfD process as a tool for edit warring. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have the right to your own opinion about any old propaganda piece that needs to be re-written from scratch to meet the criteria of balance and objectivity noted by some respondents at AfD. Hate mongering has to be taken care of first and foremost, especially the conspicuously prominent outbursts of anti-Polish sentiment with no informational value whatsoever. Anyhow, by restarting the list of disputes (above, which I find rather confusing) you also copy-pasted someone else's signature here. On a separate note, can we please keep it civil from now on, without accusations and mudslinging? --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved Malik's and other dispute listings to a new section (with no complaint from Malik) largely because other editors (mainly you, Poeticbent, as can be clearly seen above) were peppering the lists with unconstructive rants. And it's a bit disingenuous of you to innocently request discussion "without accusations and mudslinging" after you return to this page accusing me of lacking good will, inflammatory edits, inappropriate moving of content--all in one post! So whenever you as well are ready to follow your own pleas about civility, we can continue. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Until mediators propose solutions to disputes 1-3 listed above, I see no reason not to be on a break from this mediation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be good as well if mediators could indicate that they are still involved. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes were still here, just been spectating for awhile. Mediation put on hold.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any suggestions/recommendations on how to proceed? Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-Opened: As for how we proceed I have a few ideas though I think this will end up being escalated to medcom who will probably escalate to arbcom.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Your Dispute
Ok guys, in regards to the article above, I want you (in groups if you wish) to take a copy of the article and make it the way you would want it in regards to the disputed content. In other words make a proposal.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm content to proceed with the article as is. My purpose in initiating this mediation was to circumvent the edits wars wherein sourced content gets serially reverted based on some editor's personal dislike of the material (and I think that reality is confirmed by comments made by a number of the reverting editors sprinkled in the morass above, in which they clearly indicate they are unhappy with the tone of sections of the article but consistently--despite pleadings--fail to cite specific examples). My initial request was to try and proceed, as I noted in the filing of this medcab, with "monitoring of the article by uninvolved mediators to give opinions on the disputes and diffuse edit wars." Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok well, im happy enough to kepp an eye on that article and stop edit wars. If you wish for third-opinions see WP:RFC or WP:THIRD. Other than that there is not much we can do here.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be worried about proceeding only because there is no agreement to not return to the practice of arbitrary deletion of well sourced material (rather than using the talk page) that was a problem before and which wuold start the edit warring. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the protection was counterproductive. There was little rv warring before it, and I think we should give unprotection a try and see where it takes us. Several articles (HoJP but also Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland) have now been protected for a month - that's way too long, particularly if it pleases only one editor.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, please refrain from making derogatory, bogus statements such as "particularly if it pleases only one editor" simply for dramatic effect. I never asked for protection of the articles; and if you have a diff indicating that I did and that protection "pleases" me, please supply it. It was in fact the unwarranted, serial removals of well sourced material on the part of you and yu like-minded editors that got the articles locked. So kindly refrain from posting self-serving rewrites of history. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All I want is to unlock the articles for normal editing. Then we can see if any revert wars resume, and if they do, how many people are reverting. That way we can also easily identify the real issues that led to conflict (which sentences/paras/etc. are getting reverted).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment this mediation seems unproductive. Let's try unprotecting the article and identifying conflicts as they occur. We can ask for protection again if a revert war starts. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we can see a revert war (specifically, unilateral removal of reliably sourced material) being unleashed as we speak ,, . Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The situation is quite simple to me. Boody believes he is 100% right. An impartial mediator should agree with him in 100%. Since you didn't, and you even dared to criticize him and agree with his opponents, you are not impartial. I wonder - how many mediators will we burn through? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, no Piotrus, I raised my issues about Prom3th3an's impartiality a month ago when he was sending you wink wink, messages showing a clear bias towards one side of the dispute. He assured me that this wasn't favoritism, but rather he was somehow being diplomatic. I assumed good faith and took him at his word; foolishly it turns out, judging by his latest biased attack on me on the arbitration. So thanks for your self serving comments yet again Piotrus, but as usual, they bear little relationship to reality and are, as usual, distorted and self serving. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you too, Prom3th3an, now refuse to address actual content issues and instead engage in ad hominen attacks on me, you will fit right in with the team you have chosen. Would have been nice if you had stated that you are in league with Piotrus from the start rather than pretend to be a mediator. Please note that you are now also declaring yourself in league with another of Piotrus' tactics--threatening to use admin powers and 3RR as a tool for edit warring, rather than discuss content. Welcome to your team, dude. Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If I am on thier team, you have made me that way. Also note that I wanst on thier team from the start, up untill now I tried to remain neutral however your disruption has gone on long enough that I am now throwing my weight around.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you confirmed my point exactly. You are joining the side that does little more than engage in one-sided ad hominen attacks rather than openly discuss content issues ("your disruption has gone far enough"), and, like Piotrus, you feel have a right to openly misuse authority to further disputes (with your warnings that you are going to "throw your weight around.") And all this sudden anger at me is for what, Prom3th3an--because I responded publicly to your thoroughly-inappropriate-for-a-mediator, contentless ad hominen attack on me in an arbitration? Again, enjoy your new team; keep in mind that currently six arbitrators are eager to look into the allegations of Piotrus' abuses. This gang edit warring team you are joining is now being examined in the light of day, and I find it no surprise that there's some kicking and screaming. Food for thought when you threaten to start "throwing your weight around." Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an, I'm glad you noted on your own account that you should no longer be mediator to this case. A comment like "Boodlesthecat wants the protection to stay because it protects his version of the article (which is also the minority revision accoridng to what I can gather.)" at RFP in conjunction with "You will be most pleased to know that it has been un-protected." to Boodlesthecat paints a very poor picture of your respect for Boodles. Same with "As for being uncivil, I hardly call mentioning the truth uncivil, you do have colourful blocklog, its a fact you will have to accept in due time. Out of curiosisty, How would you describe your block log to a blind man?". And for your information, your "weight to throw around" makes one think you're misunderstanding your role here. You're a self-appointed informal mediator, not part of the Mediation Committee or anything. And no, I'm not criticising the mediation cabal just now because I know in general it tries to do good, but if the mere fact of being part of the med cabal should guarantee anything, one should know that User:Bonaparte, too, was one such volunteers (and got a medal until someone realised that mistake). Sciurinæ (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)