Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) & Evidence summary — Analysis & Arbitrator Questions (Talk)  — Proposed decision (Talk)

Frequently asked questions (including details about the summary page)

Target dates: Opened • Evidence phase 1 closes 09 April 2023 • Evidence phase 2: 17 April 2023 - 27 April 2023 • Analysis closes 27 April 2023 • Proposed decision to be posted by 11 May 2023

Scope: Conduct of named parties in the topic areas of World War II history of Poland and the history of the Jews in Poland, broadly construed

Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk), Firefly (Talk), MJL (Talk), ToBeFree (Talk); Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk), Primefac (Talk), Wugapodes (Talk)

For questions or requests by the Arbitrators please see this section on the Analysis page.

Summary of evidence involving Buidhe

Holocaust in Poland edits (Buidhe)

Buidhe removed content on 28 January 2021 from The Holocaust in Poland with the edit summary

• 11:19 28 Jan 2021, Buidhe rm content that duplicates other parts of the article (e.g. the rescue section), or is opinion in wikivoice.

Among the text removed was the claim "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence, the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." This claim was cited to Paulsson (1998) and Snyder (2012). At the time, the concern was around stating this claim in encyclopedic voice, but concerns have been raised during this case that these sources might not support that claim. On 29 January 2021 Volunteer Marek restored that claim with the edit summary ditto (though should be in different section), a reference to earlier restorations with the edit summaries:

• 06:17 29 Jan 2021, Volunteer Marek ditto (though should be in different section)
• 06:16 idem ditto - not clear why this was removed
• 06:13 idem ditto (this seems like just removing any use of Paulsson per IJUSTDONTLIKEIT under various pretenses)
• 06:11 idem also relevant, also removed for unclear reasons (end of ditto chain, earlier edits omitted}}

Three hours later, Buidhe reverted Volunteer Marek's changes removing the above claim with the edit summary

• 09:55 29 Jan 2021, Buidhe Restoration of content that fails article sourcing requirements, opinions presented in wikivoice.

Six hours later, Volunteer Marek reverted Buidhe's removal with the edit summary

• 16:47 29 Jan 2021, Volunteer Marek undo blind revert. If your edits are challenged you need to discuss them. If your edits are controversial you need to discuss them. Please do not use misleading edit summaries. Please don't start edit wars.

This version, with the disputed claim above, stood for a week until Buidhe reverted on 5 February 2021 with the edit summary

• 08:11 5 Feb 2021, Buidhe Talk page consensus to work from this version (n.b. see relevant talk page archive)

which was reverted 5 hours later by Volunteer Marek with the edit summary

• 13:38 5 Feb 2021, Volunteer Marek there's absolutely no consensus on talk page to remove Yad Vashem as a source or Journal of Genocide Research or Yale University Press. Please don't use false edit summaries and make claims of "false consensus". This type of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editing, while discussion is ongoing is disruptive.

Summary of evidence involving GizzyCatBella

Beginning in mid-February 2023 multiple editors contributed to the Naliboki massacre article. Edits included changes to the content about Jewish partisans and a summary of the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance. This editing led to an Arbitration Enforcement case which led to TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella receiving logged warnings and Marcelus receiving a 0RR restriction.(/Evidence#Adoring nanny Naliboki)

During arbitration enforcement proceedings while this case was pending, GizzyCatBella went over the diff limit by twice the accepted limit (#Evidence presented by El_C; analysis). This was claimed to have been done in error, and a patrolling admin allowed the diffs to be kept in the case. (#Evidence presented by GizzyCatBella)

Summary of evidence involving Levivich

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported AfD should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded in part Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book.
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus repeated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Summary of evidence involving Nihil novi

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported AfD should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded in part Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book.
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus repeated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Summary of evidence involving Piotrus

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported AfD should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded in part Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book.
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus repeated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Summary of evidence involving Volunteer Marek

During a discussion on Gitz6666's user talk page while this case was pending, administrator El C revision deleted a comment by Volunteer Marek under the Biography of Living People policy. (El C evidence; analysis)

Holocaust in Poland edits (Volunteer Marek)

Buidhe removed content on 28 January 2021 from The Holocaust in Poland with the edit summary

• 11:19 28 Jan 2021, Buidhe rm content that duplicates other parts of the article (e.g. the rescue section), or is opinion in wikivoice.

Among the text removed was the claim "Given the severity of the German measures designed to prevent this occurrence, the survival rate among the Jewish fugitives was relatively high and by far, the individuals who circumvented deportation were the most successful." This claim was cited to Paulsson (1998) and Snyder (2012). At the time, the concern was around stating this claim in encyclopedic voice, but concerns have been raised during this case that these sources might not support that claim. On 29 January 2021 Volunteer Marek restored that claim with the edit summary ditto (though should be in different section), a reference to earlier restorations with the edit summaries:

• 06:17 29 Jan 2021, Volunteer Marek ditto (though should be in different section)
• 06:16 idem ditto - not clear why this was removed
• 06:13 idem ditto (this seems like just removing any use of Paulsson per IJUSTDONTLIKEIT under various pretenses)
• 06:11 idem also relevant, also removed for unclear reasons (end of ditto chain, earlier edits omitted}}

Three hours later, Buidhe reverted Volunteer Marek's changes removing the above claim with the edit summary

• 09:55 29 Jan 2021, Buidhe Restoration of content that fails article sourcing requirements, opinions presented in wikivoice.

Six hours later, Volunteer Marek reverted Buidhe's removal with the edit summary

• 16:47 29 Jan 2021, Volunteer Marek undo blind revert. If your edits are challenged you need to discuss them. If your edits are controversial you need to discuss them. Please do not use misleading edit summaries. Please don't start edit wars.

This version, with the disputed claim above, stood for a week until Buidhe reverted on 5 February 2021 with the edit summary

• 08:11 5 Feb 2021, Buidhe Talk page consensus to work from this version (n.b. see relevant talk page archive)

which was reverted 5 hours later by Volunteer Marek with the edit summary

• 13:38 5 Feb 2021, Volunteer Marek there's absolutely no consensus on talk page to remove Yad Vashem as a source or Journal of Genocide Research or Yale University Press. Please don't use false edit summaries and make claims of "false consensus". This type of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editing, while discussion is ongoing is disruptive.

Summary of other in scope evidence

Naliboki massacre

Beginning in mid-February 2023 multiple editors contributed to the Naliboki massacre article. Edits included changes to the content about Jewish partisans and a summary of the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance. This editing led to an Arbitration Enforcement case which led to TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella receiving logged warnings and Marcelus receiving a 0RR restriction.(/Evidence#Adoring nanny Naliboki)

Summary of evidence involving TrangaBellam

This section will be removed if TrangaBellam is not added as a party to the case

Beginning in mid-February 2023 multiple editors contributed to the Naliboki massacre article. Edits included changes to the content about Jewish partisans and a summary of the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance. This editing led to an Arbitration Enforcement case which led to TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella receiving logged warnings and Marcelus receiving a 0RR restriction.(/Evidence#Adoring nanny Naliboki)

Summary of evidence involving Marcelus

This section will be removed if Marcelus is not added as a party to the case

Beginning in mid-February 2023 multiple editors contributed to the Naliboki massacre article. Edits included changes to the content about Jewish partisans and a summary of the findings of the Institute of National Remembrance. This editing led to an Arbitration Enforcement case which led to TrangaBellam and GizzyCatBella receiving logged warnings and Marcelus receiving a 0RR restriction.(/Evidence#Adoring nanny Naliboki)

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [22][23][24][25][26][27][28].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported AfD should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded in part Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book.
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus repeated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Summary of evidence involving Mathglot

This section will be removed if Mathglot is not added as a party to the case

The Forgotten Holocaust

On February 17, 2023 Mathglot began a discussion on the talk page of The Forgotten Holocaust quoting from Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (Legitimizing fringe academics), mentioning the then open request for Arbitration, and writing I would be in favor of WP:TNT, starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. That same day Marcelus replied to Mathglot writing in part I see no reason to "reboot" the article. It seems to me that the very existence of a long section on the reception of the book indicates that it was mixed.. On February 20 Nihil novi replied agreeing with Marcelus writing in part Poland lost not only 3,000,000 of its ethnically Jewish citizens, but also 3,000,000 of its other citizens at the hands of the Germans... The prevailing view presented in the article's Reviews section is that Lukas has contributed to a truer, more nuanced view of the German devastations visited on all of Poland's inhabitants.. (Background by Barkeep49 to Evidence presented by LEvalyn).

On February 19, Piotrus asked on the WikiProject Books talk page for additional additional perspectives about a comment by Levivich that The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book. (formatting in the original). This request was see by LEvalyn who made seven comments in the discussion on February 28 and March 1: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35].

• On February 28, LEvalyn wrote, I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up.. Piotrus replied to LEvalyn suggesting that those who supported AfD should go to Articles for Deletion.
• On March 1, LEvalyn replied to Nihil novi's February 20 comment writing in part I think the impression you have formed of this book is exactly why the article is troublesome in its current state. to which Nihil novi replied that same day asking Could you please explain why Richard C. Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust, which has been reviewed favorably by persons knowledgeable on its subject, should be banned from Wikipedia articles on pertinent subjects?. LEvalyn responded in part Within the genre of academic reviews... any book that gets an openly critical review, let alone an ongoing debate in a journal, is a deeply controversial and possibly WP:FRINGE book.
• On March 1, LEvalyn attempted to find a recent survey of the field on the book. GizzyCatBella replied The best way to improve an article is to add more references and particulars rather than remove content
• On March 1, Piotrus repeated a belief that according to WP:BOOK more is usually better; hence my concern that we should be careful removing content (instead, adding more is, IMHO, better).

On March 2 an IP left a threat on the talk pages of Flibbertigibbets, Gitz6666, LEvalyn, Levivich, K.e.coffman, and TrangaBellam.(Evidence presented by LEvalyn, with additional information by Barkeep49)

Bibliography

ArbCom access key

• Publisher's version is freely available on the internet.
• An arbitrator has independent access to publisher's version. Ask for access.
• No arbitrator has independent access. If an arbitrator discovers they do have access, please change to blue.

Regarding The Holocaust in Poland

1. Relating to information removed 28 Jan 2021 and restored 29 Jan 2021
   • Paulsson, Gunnar (1998). "The Rescue of Jews by Non-Jews in Nazi-Occupied Poland". Journal of Holocaust Education. 7. doi:10.1080/17504902.1998.11087056.
   • Lukas, Richard, ed. (1989). Out of the inferno : Poles remember the Holocaust (1 ed.). Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
     • Article cites 2013 edition, WorldCat lists the 2013 edition as being an eBook publication.
   • Snyder, Timothy (December 20, 2012). "Hitler's Logical Holocaust". New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on December 7, 2012.
2. Relating to information added in 2018 (is it still there? --Wug, 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC))
   • Smith, David (2000). Moral geographies: ethics in a world of difference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. OCLC 44435516.
   • Lukas (supra)
   • Mirriam-Goldberg, Caryn (2012). Needle in the bone: how a Holocaust survivor and a Polish resistance fighter beat the odds and found each other. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books. OCLC 821177968.
     • Other editions on WorldCat
   • Kwiatkowski, Richard (2016). The Country That Refused to Die: The Story of the People of Poland. Xlibris. OCLC 1124501951.
3. Relating to information added in 2019 (is it still there? --Wug, 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC))
   • Yahad - in unum (n.d.). "Execution of Jews in Koło". Holocaust by bullets. Retrieved 14 March 2023.
4. Relating to information added in 2017 (is it still there? --Wug, 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC))
   • Cherry, Robert; Orla-Bukowska, Annamaria, eds. (2007). Rethinking Poles and Jews: troubled past, brighter future. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. OCLC 85862099.
   • United States Holocaust Museum (December 7, 2020). "Belzec". Holocaust Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14 March 2023.
     • Ealdgyth's nota bene: Belzec/Sobibor/Treblinka are collectively known as the Reinhard camps - for Operation Reinhard which operated those three death camps