This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Formatting
I tried hard to align the indentation of Your cherrypicking is obvious ... with the quote preceding it but failed. Maybe, you or one of your t/p watchers can come to aid? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have no idea how to fix the bullet-indent-{{talkquote}}-next-paragraph bug; I've come across this before as well. For anyone else reading this who cares, if you start a comment with *: (or similar), and then you use {{tq2}}, and you want to put another comment after the tq2, *: leaves the trailing bullet (doesn't continue the list markup in HTML, it's rendered as a new list), and :: won't line it up right (because colons and bullets have different indents), and paragraph breaks don't work after the tq2 for whatever reason, and a <br> after the tq2 (or nothing after the tq2) will make the next line appear as if it's in {{code}}. I have found no solutions to this. Levivich (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will open a thread at VPT and copy your cogent description with attribution :) TrangaBellam (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would if I could but unfortunately I can't get past the paywall today. :-( Yesterday I followed a link on Twitter to the article and no paywall. Today, it's all paywalled and I can't figure out how to get around it... none of my usual methods (privacy mode, reader mode, proxy, come in from an outside link from Twitter) work. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping Der Spiegel puts out an English translation in a few days (Haaretz did the same thing; their initial article was in Hebrew), and that it's not paywalled, because the article was quite interesting to read. And not only because it's a German article about Holocaust distortion written by a guy named Fuhrer.
IPN responded to the Der Spiegel article on Twitter today (assuming the Twitter account is real), denying that they are behind editing Wikipedia articles about the Holocaust [1], specifically denying that they're behind the KL Warschau hoax [2], and calling out one of the authors [3].
At this rate, governments are going to start issuing statements soon. Levivich (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that's now a GNG-notable topic, based on the journal article, Haaretz 2019 and 2023, YNet, JTA, and Der Spiegel. Levivich (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you had any advice for trying to deal with Category:All unreferenced BLPs? I noticed that the category existed quite awhile ago by going through the rabbit hole that is Wikipedia:Backlog. Despite the category name, most of these wouldn't actually fit WP:BLPPROD because many of them have an external link (like Steve Colter, which I found by using "random" in the category). I asked someone else for advice once and they suggested organizing through page views because the ones that are viewed more often are more likely to be notable... but the more I think about it, I'm not sure that's the best way to go about it. Do you have any advice for trying to work through this? Maybe I could try to organize a backlog drive or something? Clovermoss🍀(talk) 18:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be cautious about that category. Checking a few from the beginning of the list: Pablo Acosta (footballer), Russ Adam, J. B. Adams, and Graham Addley are all referenced. Sometimes the references aren't formatted properly (they're ELs or general refs, not inline), and sometimes the references are poor (or non-RS), but they do have at least one reference somewhere on the page; they're not really unreferenced BLPs. I have no idea how many false positives like this are among the 1,815. I also wonder why, if you add up the numbers at Category:Monthly clean-up category (Unreferenced BLPs) counter, it comes nowhere close to 1,815 (or so it seems, haven't actually tried to do the math). I also wonder if 1,815 is a lot for this maintenance category -- it seems that way to me, but then I don't really have a clear memory of how many it had in the past. I'm curious if a lot of these tags are recent.
Anyway, I feel like {{BLP unreferenced}} should only be added for articles that don't have any sources, not for articles that have sources poorly formatted or have general references but lack inline citations; that's for {{BLP no footnotes}}. So I wonder if I'm right about that, and if so, there's probably a technological way (script) to figure out which BLPs have any kind of external link, and then change those from {{BLP unreferenced}} to {{BLP no footnotes}} automagically (if there is consensus to do that). If that's done, then you'll have a smaller set of truly unsourced BLPs, for which a backlog drive could be organized. But I would see about cutting down the list with a script first, if that's possible/would have consensus. Levivich (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: You're the person that immediately comes to mind when I think of scripts. Is this possible? Or do you have other ideas? Clovermoss🍀(talk) 18:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a WP:QUERY to generate a list, then going through it with WP:AWB, might be a good approach. If you're just fixing articles that have the wrong template, that might not need a fresh consensus discussion. If you're looking for articles to BLPPROD, keep in mind that there's some undocumented nuances and it depends on the admin. I once had a BLPPROD declined because it had an authority control template, which the admin considered to be an external link. A good next step might be to think about what kind of list you want to generate (is in category X and has 0 external links, etc.) and then request a WP:QUERY for it. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Novem! I think BilledMammal might have a query recently written that generates a list based on category and external links? Levivich (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you guys are awesome! The results give me pause, I question whether I understand what {{BLP unreferenced}} is for. Like, when would someone use {{Prod blp}} v. {{BLP unreferenced}} v. {{BLP sources}}? It seems to me we should have two such templates, not three? I'm missing something. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that {{Prod blp}} is no refs/genrefs, no external links, {{BLP unreferenced}} is no refs/genrefs, yes external links, {{BLP sources}} is yes refs/genrefs. Doesn't seem like a great system. There is probably room for improvement, although not sure if it's worth the effort. I tried to make a small change to BLPPROD one time and was reverted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be right that that's the current system, and I agree it's not a great system, because I don't see a difference between genrefs and ELs other than what we call the section heading, which seems not a good reason for having two categories. Of the four examples I posted above, Pablo Acosta (footballer) and Russ Adam have genrefs, J. B. Adams and Graham Addley have ELs but those ELs are actually genrefs; all four are in {{BLP unreferenced}} and in my view, none are "unreferenced". They should all be in {{BLP sources}}. Levivich (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is a difference between BLP unreferenced and BLP source it seems most people don't understand the difference - I would support merging them. I note that there are also around 100 articles in BLP unreferenced that include citation templates. BilledMammal (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page watcher here. I find it highly unlikely that there are any BLPs at all who were born in 1815. Are we talking about vampires here? I only read the header. BD2412T 03:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP doesn't apply to vampires and the Biographies of undead people policy proposal was rejected. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This joke actually worked because the link was blue on the app (where I saw it for the first time, so that's something to add to the list of things to tell the WMF). Anyways, merging the templates seems fine to me. My concern was more about the category's broader ramifications in general. It's somewhat bizzare to me that WP:BLPROD seems to have stricter standards than WP:PROD. You'd think that with how important the WP:BLP policy is, a random external link that may or may not even be reliable wouldn't be enough. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 08:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was rereading policy pages to make sure I got that last part right, but I think I did. This is a quote from the introduction to WP:BLPPROD: "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." So, therotically, you could have an unreliable source that supports a statement and that's good enough for a BLP (at least in the "not to be prodded" sense). Clovermoss🍀(talk) 08:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may be explaining something you already know, but BLPs can also be prodded normally. You can also BLPPROD and then PROD again if the first doesn't stick. The advantage to BLPPROD is that it can't be deprodded unless a reliable source that supports something is added. I think this means we're continuing to have extra protection for BLPs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers Well I missed that (on my third reread, I see the note explaining this). Thank you for letting me know. I feel a bit embarrassed now but at least that somewhat makes sense. However, that part I read about "reliable or otherwise" still doesn't fill me with confidence. So I'm still somewhat confused. Is there something else I'm missing? Clovermoss🍀(talk) 18:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they wanted BLPPROD deletion to happen when it's a slam dunk. Poorly sourced BLPs can still be deleted via regular PROD or AfD, and NPPers will frequently draftify such articles if they're newly created. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is "delete it if no one objects". BLPROD is "delete it if no one adds a link". Levivich (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not cite the deep magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written."There's a good reason for that, I'm one of the people who built BLPPROD. For some background, see WP:BLPRFC1 and especially my close of WP:BLPRFC2. Long story short, the community was split on whether the tens of thousands of completely unreferenced BLPs (I want to say there were around 80k?) were not a problem and should be left alone, or if they were a huge problem and should be nuked on sight. One day Kevin and a few other admins went rouge and started mass deleting them to force the community's hand. Dramaboards, blocks issued, desysoppings requested, Arbcom got involved and gave them amnesty, it was a whole mess. The compromise was that we could create a "sticky prod" process that couldn't be removed without a source being added, but it had to be strict like that to avoid being too subjective.
Personally I'd be fine with a proposal loosening it up to apply to BLPs that had only unreliable sources (or even switching the completely unsourced one to CSD) if there's an appetite for it. I came down strongly on the side of nuking them all, and when the implementation process started dragging instead of meeting the timelines I kicked off a second round of mass deletions to force the issue again. If you're interested in an alternative proposal that had decent support at the time and included reliability, there was one at Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. 1,815 unreferenced BLPs. The comma is important! –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I too immediately thought of the final days of what us Americans call the "War of 1812". But to the more serious point, it would be probanly useful but not a panacea to identify the totally unreferenced BLPs as opposed to the poorly referenced BLPs. On the other hand some totally unreferenced BLPs might be easy to reference properly with a brief BEFORE style Google search, and many poorly referenced BLPs may remain poorly referenced until deletion or the extinction of humanity because the references are garbage and the person is simply not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've created two lists that might be helpful; this list contains BLP's that do not contain an external link, do not contain a citation template, and do not contain a reflink template. Most of them will be unreferenced BLP's, but there will be some exceptions like J. M. Marcus Humphrey and Geoff Cooke (rugby union).
This list contains BLP's that do not contain an external link, do not contain a citation template, but do contain a reflink template. Most of them have references, but many are not.
I've tagged a couple from each with the appropriate prods, but there is a probably a better way to address this problem than overloading the prod list. If a list with clickable links would be convenient, let me know and I'll make one. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One option would be to go through both of those lists with a tool like AWB, adding BLP prod's to the ones that have no sources (or using a different deletion process, to avoid the overloading issue), and adding cite templates and reflink sections to the ones that do. After that, we can run the queries every month and easily identify most newly created BLP's that lack sources. BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took out {{refbegin}} from the first one, and got down to 633 [4]. Can we exclude the pages that have == References == or ==References== in them? Levivich (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not; we are unable to access the contents of the article. This is also why we can't directly look for <ref> tags. BilledMammal (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this search. These appear to me to be a list of actually unreferenced BLPs (some false positives). Levivich (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, it does appear accurate; the problem now is how to deal with them? BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the way I see it, if I BLPPROD 500, and you BLPPROD 500, and Clover BLPPRODs 500, by the end of the week, we'll all be TBANed, so we should probably try something else. I bet there are some categories of these that have easy sources... like athletes and stats databases, which we might be able to batch process, reducing the amount that needs manual review. Like a py script that checks names/other strings against soccerway or something like that to find potential sources. In theory it could add the sources as an external link but that might be dangerous. Although it might be a useful thing to develop. Like, any automated methods of processing these could also be used to monitor and guard against new unsourced BLP creations. Wouldn't it be nice if a bot notified you that a new unsourced BLP creation was made and also told you it seems to be a soccer player bio and here's a link to the soccerway page about someone with the same name/team/position. An unreferenced BLP detector that suggests sources. Levivich (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Do we really want to deprive the WP:CESSPIT of the drama that thread would cause?
I think the process has to be us manually process the results to remove the false positives. Once we have those, I can split it by category; sports and similar where we know of database sources we can add ourselves, and for the rest we dump lists in the appropriate wiki-projects. Any that remain unsourced a month after we dump them in the WikiProjects we tag with BLPPROD. BilledMammal (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal I can help out with manually looking at the results if that's something you want to do. Two heads are better than one. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 20:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll produce a list in a more convenient format than the search results for us to go through. It might not be for a few weeks though, as I'm about to be away from my computer for a while and will only edit intermittently, if at all, through my phone. BilledMammal (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I missed some of the earlier threaded discussion here. I wasn't thinking of doing any sort of mass PROD campaign... I'd rather keep my nice clean slate from participation in drama, thank you very much. I was thinking something like more managable chunks (like looking at potential sourcing for one or two articles a day) and hopefully with several people working through the backlog something good could come out of that. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 12:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds plausible, although I have no experience with writing Wikibots - at a minimum, an unreferenced article detector would be very useful. BilledMammal (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ChatGPT is like a cheat code for python. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To write the code, or for the natural language processing? BilledMammal (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To write the code. It makes writing code (at least in py, haven't tried anything else) very easy. You give instructions in natural language, and it writes the code. You get an error, copy/paste the error, it walks you through debugging. It's amazing for this purpose, at least for simple things like web scrapers, APIs, list manipulation, graphing, etc. Levivich (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a better search string with 528 results; I checked the first page (20 results) and found no false positives. Anybody else want to take a crack at looking for false positives? Levivich (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that I could find a better search string but I'll try to manually look through some of these results later today. I'll keep you updated if anything's interesting. :) Clovermoss🍀(talk) 12:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I started manually organizing every article within this search string. I plan to go through everything. Interested parties can see the pending results here. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 22:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: Instead of manually, I was thinking of doing that by script. Like, we could organize them by what kind of infobox they have, or what category they're in, or whatever we think is helpful. If you can suggest some criteria, I can categorize that list pretty quickly. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: Do you know about Petscan and Pagepile? You can put that search query into "other sources" on Petscan, and have it output a Pagepile, which is a list of the articles with a unique Pagepile ID #. You can then use that Pagepile as the input for Petscan, and use Petscan to search those articles in any number of ways (by category, by infobox, a combination), and you can then output those searches into new Pagepiles, which will let you make your categorized lists out of those 528 search results. Levivich (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know about those two things. 528 search results isn't that intimidating to sort through (especially when it's 20 at a time). Maybe I'll try to learn how this works later for future reference, though. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 12:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a half false positive in Roland Claus, first article in search. Sources exist, just not on en-wiki as indicated by articles in other languages. Those probably should be handled with a little extra care. Slywriter (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
partially disregard above, forgot how much garbage we export to other wikis. Claus is the exception since he was also written about in de-wiki. Slywriter (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Track them down? If they're no longer alive then it's not a BLP issue. If they're unreferenced, they're probably not very important. Just WP:STUB the lot. François Robere (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12 short years ago. It's a worthy project, one of the few truly urgent backlogs. Levivich (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely aging myself by mentioning it. The project page does have a number of category breakdowns already in place that could be useful if anyone is interested in tackling the backlog that way.-- Ponyobons mots 20:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1143182781 was a merger of duplicate userboxes, via a WP:BLAR. Leaving a redirect at the merged userbox ensures the merged userbox will match the userbox it was merged into.
Special:Diff/1143229804 was a duplicate userbox that, instead of merging, I turned into a unique userbox. Therefore, I moved it to my own userspace.
I understand making new userboxes, I don't understand messing with other editors' userboxes, but what do I know. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I created the gallery Wikipedia:Userboxes/Railways earlier so I wanted to clean it up a bit. But generally I don't think that changing other people's userbox is necessary. Although there's no rules on mergers/cleanups. - Tbf69🛈🗩 20:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is: just because you made new ones, why are you taking other people's old ones? There can only be one steam locomotive userbox on Wikipedia? Seems a little extreme to me. Levivich (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's somewhat obsessive, but I'd like to make Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rail transport clean and avoid duplicates. I did get the "covered up your tracks" pun BTW 😂😂 - Tbf69🛈🗩 22:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW did you get my joke about "covered up your tracks"? Cuz it's a rail userbox? :-) Anyway, I see you have an inquiry about this on your talk page to attend to, I won't take up any more of your time. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jew with a coin
Elsewhere, Zero0000 and Volunteer Marek said they'd be interested in seeing diffs of people adding/removing content saying "Jew with a coin" is/isn't antisemitic. So as not to spam that page, here it is:
Adding content suggesting "Jew with a coin" is not antisemitic:
Yeah, this is BS. #3 is mine. It says right there in plain language "The practice is widely considered to be offensive, rooted in negative stereotypes, or antisemitic." so I have no idea how you get " suggesting "Jew with a coin" is not antisemitic" out of that. Let me guess - here comes a whole bunch of Wikilawyering about something completely tangential or irrelevant. Oh and is the problem suppose to be with the part cited to Lehrer? The same Lehrer that Grabowski and Klein cite so approvingly? The same Erica Lehrer that works at the United States Holocaust Museum? Let's see, here is the archived version of that source. Fourth paragraph. Perhaps you should write her and accuse her of antisemitism. Volunteer Marek 22:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only glanced briefly at the rest of the diffs since they're not mine edits. And there what you are pretending is "suggests that the Jew with the coin is not antisemitic" seems to be mostly "include information that people who buy these things don't think of them as antisemitic". Again, based on sources. This is some really problematic manipulation you got going on here Levivich. Volunteer Marek 22:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your section on "Removing content suggesting "Jew with a coin" is antisemitic:" also shows absolutely nothing of the kind. What you really did is just linked like every edit that anyone that you or Icewhiz don't like to that article and made a completely gross false misrepresentation of that edit. The objection appears to be that Polish editors edited the article at all. Right. Please keep up these false attacks on others. By all means, please keep doing what you're doing. Volunteer Marek 22:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it's probably futile to ask, but please strike #3 above as it clearly doesn't show what you claim it shows and constitutes WP:ASEPRSIONS at the very least if not a straight up personal attack. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is what do these figurines mean, it really depends both on whom you’re asking, and also on which genre of figurines you’re looking at. So, Polish figurines depicting Jews, they’ve been around for a long time, and their forms have kind of evolved and served different needs at different times—whether as tourist keepsakes or as tokens of this deeply nostalgic, or even sort of political, attempt to reconnect with the Jewish past. Second, as these good luck charms, that are meant to bring prosperity at home or in business. And then, lastly, as these playthings that sort of lightly mock Jewish dress, Jewish facial features, Jewish behaviors, et cetera. And of course, there’s this new genre of figurines where many of these figures now also have a coin. So it’s like one Polish penny—it’s called a grosz—kind of stuck to the figurine. And they raise new questions about, you know, even if the image of the Jew for a long historical sweep has been connected to ideas of magic and plenty and wealth, one can’t understand this without recourse to a history of antisemitic imagery.
To unpack that: what these figures mean (a) depends on who you ask, and (b) on which genre of figures you're looking at. "Polish figurines depicting Jews" have been around a long time serving different needs at different times. She then describes four categories: (1) "tourist keepsakes or as tokens of this deeply nostalgic, or even sort of political, attempt to reconnect with the Jewish past", (2) "good luck charms, that are meant to bring prosperity at home or in business", (3) "playthings that sort of lightly mock Jewish dress, Jewish facial features, Jewish behaviors, et cetera".
Lehrer's fourth category is the new one, "this new genre of figurines where many of these figures now also have a coin", which "raise new questions about, you know, even if the image of the Jew for a long historical sweep has been connected to ideas of magic and plenty and wealth, one can’t understand this without recourse to a history of antisemitic imagery." Jew with a coin is in the new fourth category, about which Lehrer says "one can’t understand this without recourse to a history of antisemitic imagery".
According to Erica Lehrer whocuratedtheSouvenir,Talisman,Toyexhibition,JewswhotraveltoPolandoftenseethefigruesas"inflammatoryandshocking,andmostlyitgetsreadinthecontextofantisemitism". Lehrersaysthatwhileonecannotunderstandthefigurineswiththecoinwithoutreferringthehistoryofantisemiticimagery,thefigurinesarerootedinalonghistorythatismorecomplexthanjustantisemitism. AccordingtoLehrer,the folk artists creating the figurines, especially the older ones, treat the figurines with artistic, sensitive treatment. Oneuseofthecharmsis as tourist keepsakes and tokens of nostalgic or political attempt to connect with Jewish past,whereasasecond use is as a good luck charm bringing prosperity. Lehrer states that the figurines are seen in Polish folk society as innocent and even complimentary towards Jewish people.
+
According to Erica Lehrer the folk artists creating the figurines, especially the older ones, treat the figurines with artistic, sensitive treatment.Lehrer classifies figurines as serving need as tourist keepsakes and tokens of nostalgic or political attempt to connect with Jewish past. Other use is as a good luck charm bringing prosperity. Some the figurines lightly mock traits associated with Jewisness such as dress or facial features, behaviours.Lehrer states that the figurines are seen in Polish folk society as innocent and even complimentary towards Jewish people.
No, I will not be striking #3 from the first list. The "before" version wasn't very good to begin with, but you removed "antisemitism" and added "lightly mock traits associated with Jewishness" to that paragraph in that edit. I think you actually misrepresented the source in that edit, since "lightly mock traits associated with Jewishness" is what Lehrer said about the third category of Polish figurines depicting Jews, not what she said about the fourth category, the figures with a coin. Polish figurines of Jews aren't new; the coin is new, according to Lehrer, and the coin makes it antisemitic. But you took that out and replaced it with "lightly mock traits".
BTW, this is why it takes a 50-page peer-reviewed journal article with 300 footnotes to document this sort of thing. For every edit, you have to look at (1) the source, (2) the before, and (3) the after. There are 66 edits listed above. That's just one article. The JHR paper looked at 25 articles. There are 1,000 or more articles in the topic area. No one will ever go through all the edits. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, predictably Wikilawyering and manipulation. The text "The practice is widely considered to be offensive, rooted in negative stereotypes, or antisemitic." is right there in my edit. What you are doing is trying to argue over the proper interpretation of the Lehrer source. Ok, fine. So no, she is not describing four "genres" of figurines. She is describing four "different needs" they served. And she enumerates them. The idea that these are four "genres" is your own invention which you are using to make false accusations. Likewise she is most definitely not saying that only the ones with the coin are antisemitic she is speaking of the figurines in general which is obvious from her next paragraph, although she also says they are "embedded in a complex set of relationships in the present day". You're also conveniently omitting the fact that my edit was a revert of a whole bunch of changes Icewhiz had made to the article - not just the Lehrer part - with a whole bunch of nasty POV in it. Basically misrepresenting the context.
So, what was that context? Oh, that's right. Icewhiz created that article specifically to troll Polish editors whom he was involved in a dispute with. He stuffed it full of "all Poles are antisemites" kind of nonsense and then tried to DYK it. Even came up with like five different "ALT" hooks all of which were variations on "all Poles are anti-semities" theme (they got rejected).[5] WP:COATRACKED it with other stuff. What was your role in it? Oh yeah, when this came up at the ArbCom case, you were busy running interference for him [6]. And now here you are, four years later, basically doing the same thing.
The reason the article has 300 footnotes is because Icewhiz, and perhaps some others, provided Grabowski and Klein with their AE reports, their "evidence" from the 2019 case, their subsequent reports. I mean, don't get me wrong, collecting 300 "diffs" against your Wiki-enemies is in fact kind of impressive. Chance that Grabowski and Klein found them all by their lonesome? Zero. Just like the chance that they found that one diff from 15 years ago, buried deep deep in archives and page history, with my name in it, a diff I myself completely forgot existed, the diff that they used to dox me while maintaining "plausible deniability" - yeah chance of that zero too. Volunteer Marek 23:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That you did not remove every instance of "antisemitic" on the page in that edit does not change the fact that you removed "Lehrer says that while one can not understand the figurines with the coin without referring the history of antisemitic imagery" and added "lightly mock traits associated with Jewisness such as dress or facial features, behaviours." in that edit. (And if it were just one edit, I wouldn't have said anything about this article at all.)
Re: So no, she is not describing four "genres" of figurines ... The idea that these are four "genres" is your own invention which you are using to make false accusations. Let me show you how Lehrer describes four genres: ... what do these figurines mean, it really depends ... on which genre of figurines you’re looking at ... whether as [first genre] ... Second, as [second genre] ... And then, lastly, as [third genre] ... And of course, there's this new genre [a new genre! a fourth genre!] of figurines where many of these figures now also have a coin [that's what makes them "new", they "now also have a coin", that's what differentiates the fourth genre from the first three].
Re: Likewise she is most definitely not saying that only the ones with the coin are antisemitic she is speaking of the figurines in general which is obvious from her next paragraph, although she also says they are "embedded in a complex set of relationships in the present day". Indeed, and you removed that from the article in that edit.
The rest of your response is just Icewhiz, Icewhiz, Icewhiz, Icewhiz.Levivich (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That you did not remove every instance of "antisemitic" on the page... Yes, this is exactly the kind of wikilawyering I knew was coming. "Oh well you didn't do what I accused you of but you did something else that I'm going to pretend is similar enough".
And reason it's Icewhiz Icewhiz Icewhiz is because this is an Icewhiz article, Icewhiz dispute, and Icewhiz claims. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, thank you for making this list. I didn't look at all them in detail, but I did check that every one of your 23 examples except possibly #23 by the indeffed MyMolobaccount left the statement in the lead that the images draw on an antisemitic stereoype, and sometimes a stronger statement. If something is said twice and someone reduces it to once, is that the same as removing it, or is it just everyday back and forth?
Some of your points are reasonable, but many of your examples don't have the meaning you assign to them. For example, #6: It is of course a standard unsavory trope to associate Jews and capitalism, but this quotation from an unnamed scholar in an article by a Jewish tourist states that Poland does associate Jews with capitalism. That's the opposite of saying it isn't antisemitic; it's more like an accusation against Poles.
Or #7, which I think you misunderstand. The statues with coins are meant to bring good financial luck, based on the myth of Jewish skill with money. This edit just says that half the people surveyed (presumably when asked something like "what are these things supposed to do?") answered that they are supposed to bring financial luck. Others guessed it had a different purpose. Nothing here suggests that the underlying myth is true. If I ran a survey about this in Turkey, I'd be able to write "90% of those surveyed correctly identified the symbol with the evil eye", but you would be not be justified in asserting that I claimed the evil eye is a real phenomenon.
On #8, the source says "Dr. Lehrer sees them as a point of cultural dialogue". I'm not completely sure what that means, but I don't see why we shouldn't report it (provided, as always, that the source is reliable).
Many of these are statements are about public attitudes to the objects rather than about the objects themselves. It's perfectly possible that someone who isn't antisemitic could own an antisemitic object. Out of ignorance, if nothing else. If there is a reliable source reporting that, there is no reason to censor what the source says. When I was young, many children played with a golliwog. It wasn't because those little kids were racist; in my country at that time most kids and their parents had never met a black person. Only in later years when consciousness was raised did everyone come to understand that golliwogs were not acceptable toys. Writing "people didn't consider golliwogs racist" would be completely different from writing "golliwogs aren't racist".
Erica Lehrer's talk at USHMM should have been cited more completely, both the parts that were cited and the rest, as she is clearly an expert on the subject.
In general, I don't agree with your attitude towards article writing. I have never believed that our purpose is to preach to the masses. I think we should locate the best sources and report what they say whether we like it or not. And we should report multiple opinions from reliable sources even if we disapprove of some of them.
In my opinion you did not meet my challenge to justify G&K's assertion about "money-hungry Jews who control Poland" even without the outrageous "control Poland" part. Even if this article fits the bill (about which your argument is weak) it is only one article and it was created by you-know-who for the transparent purpose of provocation.
I don't want to argue those three diffs you point to because the editor who made them isn't part of this discussion and I'm guessing he wouldn't want to join it. Levivich (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's right. For all the talk of people being supposedly "driven off" this topic, it turns out that the only people that have genuinely been "driven off" via extensive harassment and abuse are those that opposed Icewhiz. And of course this here G&K article and the case are just the continuation of the same strategy. You know, some people believe that you have to "get rid of the bad apples first, then bake the pie" or something like that. The guy we're talking about here explained his departure here. Should I quote the relevant part? Volunteer Marek 22:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try but you've got the wrong editor. Molobo didn't make edits 6-8 on the first list. Levivich (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see three problems with such arguments. First, our page does say it is considered as something based on the antisemitic canard, right in the lead, according to such and such sources. Secondly, the current version of the page reflects WP:Consensus, whatever it might be. That was a matter of dispute several years ago, but was settled as soon as the disruptive contributor was site-banned. We are beating "dead horse" here. Finally, there are two different situations. One is a disagreement between contributors who suggest different summary of several sources (making such summaries is very difficult when the sources disagree with each other, as in this case). The contributors are acting in a good faith. That is what was happening here, I think. An entirely different situation is intentional misrepresentation of sources. This is a bad faith action, and it is usually visible, i.e. someone is making things up. That does happen with some contributors, but I did not see this happening with VM or P. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You read all 66 diffs? Levivich (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not 400? It does look like you think that spamming "diffs", which don't show what you claim they show, you hope that the sheer volume will convince someone that "there's something wrong". It's like the "diff wave tactic" on Wikipedia - low quality diffs that keep getting shot down but you just keep throwing more up. To waste people's time and deflect, confuse and insinuate. Volunteer Marek 18:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, only those by currently active contributors, such as [7]. But the thing is: this is something the cited source says, not the contributor. Was such opinion expressed by the author of the publication? If it was, this is just a content dispute, let's AGF. If not, this is a misrepresentation. This is not so simple when someone is trying to summarize several sources that may say something different, if not outright opposite (as happens with this subject). In such cases, an opinionated contributor (I do not mean anyone specific) may indeed create a biased summary, but again, I usually follow AGF in such cases. In fact this is even more complex: one can not judge by any individual diffs because someone is making a series of changes and explains them at article talk page. Simply "diff, diff, diff" approach can be very misleading. It is important that I know editing by specific mentioned contributors on a large number of very different pages, and I know that they try to follow all rules (one them has an issue that was recently addressed on WP:AE), act in a good faith and contribute positively to the content. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same as I said to Zero, the editor who made that edit isn't part of this discussion and I'm guessing he wouldn't want to join it, so I'm going to respect that and not talk about his specific edits.
The second sentence of the source: "Offensive to some and just bizarre to others, the sale of stereotypical images of Jews as good luck charms started in Poland in the 1960s. It closely followed the last large wave of Jewish emigration from the country, where 3.3 million Jews lived before the Holocaust. Only 20,000 Jews live there now."
The third sentence of the source: "Critics believe it is an expression of centuries of anti-Semitic bias in a country whose society and government are famously struggling with the tragic history of Poland’s once-great Jewish community."
"But some are simply fascinated by the phenomenon and its significance beyond its obvious perpetuation of the notion that Jews and money are inseparable." obvious perpetuation in the source's own voice!
In the revision you linked, that source is cited 8 times, but not for those three points, not that I can tell. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. I am looking forward to decisions by Arbcom like "Users X,Y,Z contributed to battleground mentality in this subject area" [diff, diff, diff]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Levivich thinks that the ArbCom will do stuff like "Finding of Fact 1: Editors X, Y, Z did not use the precise sentence from the source that five years later Levivich decided he wanted" Volunteer Marek 22:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weird thing to say about someone who is on record saying that Arbcom shouldn't even open a case. Levivich (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never understood that, considering arbcom cases are battlegrounds. When editors battle too much, we settle it by having a final battle about who battles more. Levivich (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I just noticed there are arbitration pages already. Based on them, they expect participants to bring "evidence" on each other, even though there were no recent and significant conflicts between participants in this area (unless I am mistaken). Well, consider this for comparison. Based on my experience here, I would say: do not bring any "evidence" on each other, exactly for the reason you said: doing so would be conducting a wikibattle that no one needs. Looking from my perspective, no one here deserves to be topic banned. And if someone else brings an "evidence", Let God be their judge, meaning love your enemies. My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there is an evidence that might be helpful in this case. That would be an evidence about G&K acting as proxies of banned user I in their publication. This can be shown by making a comparison of diffs in their paper and diffs previously used by I., along with comparison of specific statements made by them and I. In addition to be an evidence of off-wiki coordination to ban contributors with whom I. had some issues, that would also show that they failed to acknowledge the co-authorship of I in their article. That kind of things can frequently be evaluated by analyzing texts. I remember an interesting book by Benedikt Sarnov where he reviewed an evidence of plagiarism by Mikhail Sholokhov in And Quiet Flows the Don collected by different researchers. After reading it, I had no doubt that the book was written by 3 people, and only one of them (and a minor one) was Sholokhov. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that if two people look at the same data and arrive at the same conclusions, that's evidence that the second person is proxying for or plagiarized the first, is absolutely idiotic. I remember the same tactic being used against the Haaretz piece in 2019, arguing that they just repeated Icewhiz's claims. Haaretz is proxying for Icewhiz, Journal of Holocaust Research is proxying for Icewhiz, Signpost is proxying for icewhiz... pretty soon they're gonna need their own mailing list. 😐 Levivich (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not if these people knew each other, met and discussed the publication. That is what all co-authors do. And this is not about coming to the same conclusion. This is about using same diffs. I am not saying this is proven or a fact, but only something that should be checked. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs are in WP:APL, WP:AE, etc. Of course they're going to use the same evidence. If two historians cite the same primary documents from the same archives, accusing the second of proxying for the first is absolutely idiotic. Everyone is pointing to the same diffs because those are the diffs where the problems occurred. It's like complaining that multiple paleontologists are all studying the same set of dinosaur bones. Levivich (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a complex question. First of all, one needs to politely ask G&K what was the role of I (and other WP contributors they failed to mention, you know there are such) in preparing the publication. Did they provide them data in the form of diffs? Actually, providing data could be just fine from research perspective. But they did not do just research. If they did, they would just publish the paper. By complaining to WMF (which implies banning certain contributors) they started acting as potential proxies of I., in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A weak defense is a most damning indictment. "Icewhiz said it too!" is weak. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a defense at all. It well might be that they acted as proxies but were right about misinterpretation (I am speaking hypothetically). But is it relevant to the case? I think it is. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After looking more, I must agree: this is not Icewhiz, or at least not just Icewhiz. This is something obvious. He is publishing books like Dalej jest noc, and a few guys are editing WP pages about his books and possibly about him (I did not check that page) in a manner he does not like. Now I got it. This is apparently a case of COI. That's why they have submitted a complaint to WMF instead of simply publishing the paper. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mozart
In the RfC, can you please say what kind(s) of infobox? See the discussion for Carl Nielsen, and the discussion about minimal infoboxes on Classical music. Do we really have to make people run into each other three places? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, I think it's better to just have a very brief, very neutral "Should the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart have an infobox?" RFC question. Feel free of course to make a comment in the RFC suggesting a specific infobox or linking to any other discussions you think are relevant. Levivich (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. Did you see the other two discussions, before or now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen them before but I did see them now. For my part, I don't really care about all composers, I just care about the big ones like Mozart. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) to clarify: I don't need more questions about my agenda, when I have tried tried tried to avoid the topic for about seven years, so better don't say a word - see also 2015.
(after edit conflict) For my part, it's the opposite, see 2021. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no I had not, thanks for letting me know. If I had a nickel for every time someone here called me a Nazi, I'd have to declare myself a paid editor. Levivich (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am less concerned about someone calling you a Nazi but - further up in that thread - that a whole side of users to an RfC was compared to the Wehrmacht, a military organization, saying - my understanding - that the "invasion" of another article by an RfC is organised warfare. It discredits all who came, as not coming freely and independently. The myth that I'm behind all this seems not to die. I think that an RfC should be published neutrally to all projects involded, - no idea if by a bot or a person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually most concerned by someone insisting the Wehrmacht weren't Nazis. Levivich (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same kind of going for myths, do you see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching Mozart, still determined to not get burned there, and see that you pinged (2nd list) Jerome Kohl who died, and have Davey twice. - I also watch the CM Mozart, thanks for investigating, but I can't help find Russian military presently an even greater provocation than German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ping in the 2nd list, that was someone else. :-) Levivich (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for support, - flowers further up to not interfere with arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
No idea how I did this. Barkeep49 correctly identified it was a mistake. DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: Well I guess since you said sorry, I won't file that arbcom case request I was drafting... :-D No worries! Levivich (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are now subject to a two-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, with the exception of participation on the case pages of the upcoming Holocaust in Poland case. This sanction will expire at the resolution of the Arbcom case.
You have been sanctioned The back and forth between you two is disruptive to the topic area, and you're both crossing the line into personal attacks. Keep your commentary at the case pages on point, and I suggest you avoid back and forth on the case talk pages.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On what pages has there been disruption that this is meant to prevent? Levivich (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research most recently, as well as directly above. The entire dynamic between you two is doing nothing but raising the temperature in the topic area. You'll have plenty of opportunity to make your case at Arbcom, and until that is done, you'll have to avoid them. The other option is that you'll end up blocked or topic banned for making comments like this. I ask that you step back and think for a bit on if your recent interactions with VM have been in any way constructive. The case it looks like you're aiming to make will be better placed at arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My own user talk page and one Signpost talk page doesn't seem very widespread or long lasting, nor is it disrupting anyone. The guy calls me an icewhiz proxy and all kinds of things for years -- compared me to Eric Trump, saying I was like Icewhiz's son, just yesterday -- and nothing. I make one let-me-tell-you-how-I-really-feel comment and it's a two-way IBAN without so much as a warning even after I've struck it. (Btw, do you have a second example of me saying anything like that? I don't think so.) I'm not making any kind of case, and a whole bunch of you need to stop viewing this as an interpersonal dispute, and start recognizing what the rest of the world sees. Levivich (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those seem like great things to bring up at the upcoming case before the highest tier of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. If you're not interested in being involved in making any kind of case, then making cases about a topic that is currently before arbcom on other pages probably isn't the route to take. The reason the iban is two-way is that neither of you is blameless. The point of the iban is to head off the obviously growing issue and not have to resort to blocks or other severe sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you consider heading off the growing issue by telling me to shut up and not having to resort to sanctions at all? Levivich (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did, yes. I considered it seriously, but seeing the back and forth between you I didn't think that a warning would have been effective. I went with the lightest touch I thought would be effective. A two-way iban until the arbcom case ends seemed like a reasonable way to handle it with no one ending up blocked or topic banned. Short term, time limited, and you can still present whatever you'd like at the case. It will also keep any back and forth between you two isolated to where the root of the issue is being deliberated. I'm sorry if you feel I went too hard and I understand you think I made the wrong call, but believe me, I thought long and hard about this. Things were clearly escalating, and I'd rather cut things off now than risk more severe sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Dude shut up" is all it would have taken. Levivich (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which wouldn't have addressed VM's behavior, who has already been warned. As your interactions were antagonistic back and forth for a month, I didn't figure action against them alone in the form of a one-way iban or block would be the right move. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had you considered trying "Dude shut up" with him? You tried nothing prior to instituting a logged AE sanction, correct? No one else tried anything either? Levivich (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I can see six direct replies to VM from Levivich on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research. I struggle to see how this is unusual or a disruptive "back and forth", especially since they are mostly in a section started by VM about VM's conduct (so most people in that thread are talking to VM). An AE action here, without warning, seems completely out of proportion to me and risks muddying the waters of the upcoming ArbCom case. Please reconsider. – Joe (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about muddying the waters at the Arbcom case, and the interactions above were not the only ones I considered. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then please list the others. Levivich (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it specifically states ...the above only applies to articles and article talk pages. I haven't reviewed all of their recent article and article talk edits to see if they've run afoul of that sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
