This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Icewhiz, can you please do me a favour? In the section below, put several examples of sources that you think are good, and list the reasons why do you think they are good. Then put a several examples of marginally acceptable sources (with your rationale). After that, provide several examples of bad sources (with explanations).
Volunteer Marek, can you please do the same?
Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"Icewhiz's" sources
Good
Most scholars published in an academic setting (journal article (not a predatory one), book (one of the mainstream academic presses)), in English. Exceptions would be scholars profiled by the SPLC and/or whose works have very poor reception in mainstream academia and are treated as extreme or with issues by academic sources and reviews - e.g. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz.
Academic works by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (and similar) when published in an academic setting - so for Chodakiewicz - Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939-1947 would be possible (with alot of counter-balancing) but Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?: Studies on the Wartime Fate of Poles and Jews would be a clear no.
Non-English academic works (same criteria as above). I'm placing these here, as they are harder to verify and inline with WP:NOENG.
non-English language WP:NEWSORGs writing on current topics. (inline with WP:NOENG).
English-language WP:NEWSORGs writing on historical topics.
Newspapers/internet-portals that are either small or non-mainstream, particularly non-English - e.g. Nasz Dziennik, Najwyższy Czas!. For small - e.g diff - www.biznesistyl.pl or www.tokfm.pl.
Self-published works - e.g. Anna Poray, Mark Paul, various web sites.
Figures such as Jerzy Robert Nowak, Ewa Kurek, David Irving, etc. While an exception could possibly be made for some earlier writing (e.g. Kurek's doctoral dissertation published as a book in the 90s), it is best just to avoid all together.
Icewhiz's theory of sourcing relativity
Not all articles are equal. For the Warsaw Ghetto, we can expect sourcing to lie in the range above (and we can rely 99% on English language sources - per WP:NOENG - using German/Polish/Hebrew only to augment recent findings). However for articles such as Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga - nearly all the sources available are nationalist Polish language sources (as they are the only ones who "care" about this formerly Jewish NSZ officer - a "proof" NSZ wasn't antisemitic + his own exploits/heroism in the NSZ). Ostwind is probably borderline AfD material (he's got a shot at passing AfD due to 3rd. class Order of Polonia Restituta - awarded in 2018 well after his death...). Articles on Ostwind probably have to rely on marginally acceptable and even possibly sources unacceptable in most articles (e.g. - I'd still say no to Jerzy Robert Nowak, but www.biznesistyl.pl or perhaps even right-wing media? It's an Ehhh situation). A concession to poor sourcing in such an article (see Talk:Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga#Jew?), shouldn't apply to other articles for which reasonable sources are available.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"VM's" sources
Good
Marginally acceptable
Unacceptable
I'll do this but due to real life business it'll have to wait. However I do want to say that for the most part I agree with Icewhiz's "unacceptable" section. I assume the first one is specifically about Chodakiewicz rather than op/eds and blogs by scholars in general. I also think that there may be some, few, instances where an organization like PLAD can be used, to source official statements they've made, which is in accordance with our existing WP:RS policy - that's a question of WP:DUE not RS. However, I do agree that such organizations should not be used to source statements about historical facts and such.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Nowak, Kurek, Irving... you can take those sources and flush them down the closest toilet.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Also articles by people who aren't necessarily scholars but who are none the less important and notable may also be acceptable in some circumstances. Basically, it depends who exactly we're talking about and what is the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment
Actually, a lot depends on a particular article. Just like our present WP:RS policy specifies, whether source is reliable or not depends on WHAT it is you're trying to source. In this instance there's a substantial difference between purely historical articles, like say Bielski Brothers, where we should stick to historians and scholarship, and articles which cover modern day controversy, even if that controversy has some historical roots. Like the controversy around Grabowski for example, or the recent restitution laws. In that case it makes sense to use sources which cover statements from notable individuals, even if these individuals aren't historians.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure. See below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment by Piotrus
I mostly agree with Icewhiz except:
" Non-English academic works". I think they are perfectly acceptable. Personally I find the online/offline issue more relevant. Language cna be translated, the problem is when a source is near impossible to verify for most editors. Of course, there are better and worse academic journals, etc. But a lot of good historical research is published, for example, in obscure Polish journals. Ex. when I was expanding battle of Westerplatte last year, one of the most useful sources was the Polish milhist journal Przegląd Historyczno-Wojskowy. I don't think anything of value has been published in any English language journal. And to get it to FA, you would need Polish offline (book) sources like Tuliszka (2003) Westerplatte 1926–1939: dzieje Wojskowej Składnicy Tranzytowej w Wolnym Mieście Gdańsku. There is simply no English research on this. Sure, for P-J topics there is more English research, but still a lot of stuff is being published in Polish first, and takes its sweet time before someone translates it to English. Ex. VM made some point about Snyder and how he relies of one of the Polish historians, I think on our page above?
Poray - per User_talk:Icewhiz#A_thought_on_Poray_and_rescuers I think she and similar amateour historians belong to the middle group, as long as there are no redflags etc. (I haven't read the links Icewhiz presented, I will do so soon).
Poray is deep within fringe turf here - she had a clear agenda. As for Grabowski and Gross - if one is mainly criticized by Polish nationalists - and accepted by some of Poland and all of the rest of the world - that is still wide acceptance. In some cases they should be attributed - but only if there is a serious opposing scholar (no, a Facebook post by the ambassador to Switzerland does not count).Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"if one is mainly criticized by Polish nationalists" <-- this is more or less true for Gross, but not true at all for Grabowski who's been criticized by people, including many established historians, from across the political spectrum. Of course this has been pointed out to you half a dozen times already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Guys, I would like to show you the game which I call "naive (ignorant) Wikipedian". I have no idea who is Grabowski, but I am going to check who (Icewhiz or Volunteer Marek) is right in this dispute. To do that, I am going to use Google Scholar and Jstor search. I am doing that in real time (currently I have absolutely no idea on what the result will be). Please, do not wedge any posts after by posts until I finish.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
(i) first, opened Wikipedia article and picked one Grabovski's book. I typed the title into the google scholar, and I got this. It was cited 12 times, and I am going to check all citing sources that are available for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
(ii) Let's look through the refs
L Jockusch - I don't have this book.
M Winstone - unavailable
The Person's article mentions Grabovski three times. First, she notes that "The exception is an article based mainly on literary sources by Joanna Os-trowska, "Prostytucja w Polsce w czasie II Wojny Światowej/przypadek gett," http://www.krytykapolityczna.pl/Teksty-poza-KP/Ostrowska-Prostytucja-w-gettach/menu-id-129.html; and Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski, "Żydów łamiących prawo należy karać śmiercią!" "Przestępczość"Żydów w Warszawie 1939-1942 (Warszawa: Cen-trum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, 2010)". Second, she writes: "As Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski demonstrate in their recent work on the "criminality" of Jews in occupied Warsaw, Jewish women who continued working as prostitutes faced not only accusations of breaking the Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre(The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor) and committing the crime of Rassenschande (Racial defilement), but also, after the closure of the ghetto, of remaining illegally on the "Aryan" side, an offense that from October 1941 was punishable by death.". Finally, in the endnote 53 she writes: " Survival on the "Aryan" side of Warsaw and the ambivalent feelings of those who were abused by those saving them is an extremely complex and sensi-tive topic, and one which only recently began to receive any scholarly attention. See for example Jan Grabowski..."
This source seems to be a PhD thesis of a person who directly collaborated with Grabovski, so I ignore it.
Joanna b. Michlic's "Gender Perspectives on the Rescue of Jews in Poland Preliminary Observations" cite Grabovski several times, and she seem to use him as a reliable source, and he is not a subject of her criticism.
The next ref is a book by the same author, so I doubt there will be any criticism here. Skipped.
"Doing good in bad times: The Salvation Army in Germany, 1886-1946" is a PhD thesis. I found the name of Grabowski's book in the literature section. He is not mentioned in the main text, so I assume it was used as a general source of information, not criticism.
"Memories of Jews and the Holocaust in Postcommunist Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland" is not available to me. But the author Michlich, so I conclide she uses Grobovski as a general source.
This source is a PhD thesis. The author mentions Grabovski in the following context: First, "Jan Grabowski explores the issue of blackmail specifically in Warsaw in his study, Ja tego Żyda znam! Szantażowanie Żydów w Warszawie, 1939-1943 (Warsaw: Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, 2004). ", Second "On safekeeping and retrieval of Jewish property, see Jan Grabowski and Dariusz Libionka, ed., Klucze i Kasa. O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych, 1939-1950 (Warsaw: Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą, 2014)." Third "Many gentile neighbors wanted what they perceived as a share of Jewish wealth, which they saw not as private, but communal property. See Jan Grabowski “Rescue for Money: Paid Helpers in Poland, 1939-1945,” Search and Research: Lectures and Papers 13 (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2008)." And, this is especially interesting: "Various initiatives in Poland and abroad are undertaken to counter the alleged defamation of Poland and Poles and to preserve a Polish national narrative of heroism, martyrdom, and sacrifice. However, researchers have been uncovering cases of denunciation, chases, and murder of Jews by gentile Poles, often without the direct involvement of the Germans. See, for example: Jan T. Gross, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001); Andrzej Żbikowski, “Antysemityzm, szmalcownictwo, współpraca z Niemcami a stosunki polsko-żydowskie pod okupacją niemiecką,” in Polacy i Żydzi pod okupacją niemiecką, 429-536; Jan Grabowski, “Ja tego Żyda znam! Szantażowanie Żydów w Warszawie, 1939-1943 (Warsaw: Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, 2004); and Taduesz Markiel and Alina Skibińska, “Jakie to ma znaczenie, czy zrobili to z chciwości?” Zagłada domu Trynczerów (Warsaw: Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, 2011)." Obviously, the author treats Grabovski as a mainstream source.
other two refs are not available for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Shimon Redlich Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 73, No. 3 (FALL 2014), pp. 652-653. The last paragraph says :"The most problematic aspect of the book is its structure and editing. Out of the 303 pages, only slightly more than a half constitutes the actual body of this work. The appendix of documents and tables is more than 70 pages long. Moreover, Grabowski includes extremely long quotes, most from survivors’ testimonies; the appendix in-cludes additional testimonies. The amount and variety of sources is most impressive, and so are the numerous detailed accounts of survival and loss. At times it seems as though the author intended to prove to his readers that the prevailing Polish opinions concerning denunciation and murder of Jews by their Polish neighbors are completely wrong. Grabowski’s language sometimes betrays an emotional involvement in the subject matter. All in all, Hunt for the Jews should become required reading for schol-ars and students of Polish-Jewish relations, though it is doubtful whether it is acces-sible to the ordinary reader."
David Shneer it's a glitch, this is a previous review on a different book (same page as #1)
Nechama Tec Source: International Social Science Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (WINTER 1983), pp. 12-19 I couln'd find Grabovski's name there. Skip.
Ups. I realised I didn't include author's name there is a new search--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
(continue)
Mitchell Hoffman Source: The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 93, No. 3 (August 2011), pp. 876-887 this ref mentions Grabowski as a source of good data.
This is the article I am familiar with. In his "Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling"", Klaus-Peter Friedrich (Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 711-746) treats Grabowski as reliable source: ". Trybuna Wolnosci, no. 50, 20 February 1944. As to the activities of extortionists (szmalcownicy) who tracked downJews living in hiding, scholars have recently analyzed im- portant source material. See Anita Sosnowska, "Tak zwani szmalcownicy na przykladzie Warszawy i okolic (1940-1944)," Kwartalnik Historii Zyd6w /Jewish History Quarterly, 2004, no. 211:359-74; Jan Grabowski, "Szmalcownicy warszawscy, 1939-1942," Zeszyty Histo- ryczne, 2003, no. 143, "
That's it. What can I say... As I already said, an hour ago, I had zero knowledge about Grabowski (and, therefore, I couldn't be biased), and my neutral and unbiased search provided no information about criticism of his randomly selected work (except a brief mention of criticism in Poland). I am showing that to you guys to demonstrate what I myself do to understand a real situation in literature with some topic that is new for me. I believe a neutral and unbiased search demonstrate Grabowski is quite good source, and he is by no means a controversial author according to international scholarly community. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Someone may disagree with this my conclusion. In that case, I see the following sources of my error.
Incorrect choice of the Grabowski's work. If there is some valid reason that other Grabowski's books or articles are a subject of serious criticism, similar search procedure (like the one I presented above) can be performed with another source.
Poor keywords choice. Do another search using other keywords.
I was cheating, and I lied when I said some sources were not available for me. Find these sources and demonstrate that they criticise Grabowski.
I believe this list of counter-arguments is exhaustive. I also believe that if you will stick with this (or similar) approach, no conflicts of that kind will be possible. I am done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Volunteer Marek, I am addressing to you because the results of my search appeared to support the view of your opponent. Believe me, when I was starting this search, I had NO idea what the result will be. That means this result is close to what ANY neutral and honest Wikipedian will obtain had they decide to figure out a real situation with this scholar. I am not going to question your statement that Grabowski has been criticized by established historians. I am pretty sure such historians do exist. However, to find them, one has to deliberately look for criticism of Grabowski, which already implies some bias.
I devoted more than a hour of my life to Grabowski not because this topic seems too interesting, I just wanted to demonstrate you both how I am working with sources when I want to figure out a real situation with some topic (of author) for myself. All steps in this procedure are transparent, and any other person who will use the same procedure will have to come to the same conclusions. If someone sees a flaw in these conclusions, they may easily debunk them by pointing at the mistake in the procedure, and propose their own modification of it. Such an approach eliminates any seeds of conflicts and that is why it is so important during a work in such a difficult area.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I didn't say Grabowski is unreliable (through he does have an agenda... but there's nothing wrong with that). All I am saying is that a single estimate of his as been controversial and disputed, and the crux of this issue (of him as a source) is not about 99.9% of his research, which is generally accepted as good, but about this single number. Yet some editors have insisted on using it on Wikipedia without qualification. I don't anyone has disputed the use of Grabowski outside a single estimate of his.
Would you mind doing a similar review of Anna Poray? Good news it should be easier as she is not cited as much as Grabowski. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, let me reiterate, that was a totally blind review: I didn't know anything about Grabowski, and I didn't want to go into a deep analysis of the point of view he is advocating. I just formally analyzed how many authors mention his concrete book in a negative and positive context. The conclusion was that any unbiased person trying to get an impression about Grabowski would have concluded that this particular source is widely cited and is seen positively by the scholarly community (except some Poles). Had the subject of the discussion been Grabowski's figures, the approach would be the same: imagine you have zero preliminary knowledge about the figure of ... (actually, I don't know what figure is being discussed), and try to find, using a neutral search keywords, in scholar, jstor, Thompson-Reuter etc., what the sources tell about that. Give more attention to the sources that are widely cited or authored by widely cited scholars, and you will get an answer how broadly this particular figure is being recognized/criticized. Regarding Poray, again, this topic does not belong to the field of my interest (at least, now), my point was to demonstrate what a neutral search procedure is (in my opinion).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I see, but in this case it is an exercise in futility. Nobody disagrees that Grabowski is generally reliable, or that any neutral reviewer will conclude so. Both VM and Icewhiz will surely agree with this. If we are talking about Grabowski, the only issue I am aware that is disputed is a single figure of his, and how it should be mentioned in various articles. If you are trying to help mediate between VM and Icewhiz, it is pointless to tell them 'Grabowski is reliable', as they both agree on that. What they disagree (in my view of this) is to what degree a single figure from his book can be seen as undue, fringe, unreliable, etc. If you are not going to comment on that, than what's the point of talking about Grabowski? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hunt for the Jews (2011 Polish / 2013 expanded and revised English) is probably a more interesting test case - though it also requires much more sifting through sources. The estimate in question is 200,000 Jews killed by Poles in Judenjagd - criticism of which is (per my understanding of the sources) limited to Polish media and certain subset of Polish scholars - who are, however, very vocal. The book has a very large number of reviews (e.g. our article at present has 45 references, a large portion of them being reviews). Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well I can try to do a neutral search, let's see how it works. If you three formulate the exact question, I will try to do a search in next few days. I believe you know that I never edited this topic, and I have not POV on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Two questions: 1. Is Hunt for the Jews a RS? 2. How should we present Grabowski's estimate of 200,000 Jews killed? (omit per UNDUE? place attributed with counter-opinion (whose?)? Place attributed with no counter-opinion? Place unattributed?). Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I am NOT an expert in this field, and I am not pretending to be an expert. Moreover, I even have no opinion on that. I can read something in that subject, and after that I will have some opinion, but I am have no idea why it should outweigh your, MV's or Piotrus's opinion. What I am trying to to is to convince you all that it is possible to develop some transparent procedure, according to which any intellectually honest person have to inevitably come to the some conclusion which will not be dependent on their taste or POV.
I connection to that, I propose you, VM and Piotrus to try to answer these two questions according to some jointly developed procedure which will be universally applicable to all future questions. That will be a good exercise. I also will try to do that independently (following the procedure you will develop), and after that we will compare our answers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The estimate in question is 200,000 Jews killed by Poles in Judenjagd, even Grabowski doesn't claim that 200,000 Jews were killed by Poles, Icewhiz has been made aware of this numerous times[2], this is in fact even on Grabowski's main page.The fact that Icewhiz repeats this claim, although the author himself now doesn't state it, just illustrates the problems with Icewhiz's edits.For more see Ale Historia: Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów", Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 March 2018--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I was made aware of some Polish media reports. Grabowski's written publication, citations of it, and reporting on it in English has continued to use the 200,000 estimate. Gazeta Wyborcza merely clarifies the "directly and indirectly" language (as opposed to direct killing - Grabowski - counts also those Jews handed by Poles to the Nazis who then killed the Jews).Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. Paul, can you find a single item here where Icewhiz is willing to compromise? Do tell me how can one discuss things with an editor who has this mindset, outside of giving up and letting them have their unmoderated say? IMHO it is the frustration of some editors with their opponent(s) not willing to reach for the middle ground that is at the root of the current problem. But perhaps you, as the uninvolved party, can show me where I am wrong? I'd certainly welcome it, because I find myself also out of solutions, where my attempts to create some middle ground are met, again and again, with the view that 'sure, we can compromise, if you agree that I am right'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out the situation with this Grabowski's statement, and I cannot understand something. To the best ob my understanding, the statement that is the subject of the dispute is (I took it from the last Icewhiz's post and re-formulated it):
"Grabowski says that out of 250,000 Jews escaped from Nazi 200,000 were killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles."
Did I understand correct that the disagreement is about this statement (or its variants)? In my opinion, that statement directly follows from the Grabovski's words cited by Icewhiz here. I probably misunderstood something, but this statement allows no double interpretation. In connection to that, to understand what Icewhiz's refusal to collaborate consists in, I would like you, Piotrus and Molobo, to answer the following questions:
(A question number zero: do you believe that I didn't know anything about Grabowski before that case, and that I had no own opinion on that account before this discussion started? If the answer is "no" then the whole discussion is senseless, so you may skip the questions below.)
Was this statement (coloured) distorted by Icewhiz, or he quoted it correctly?
In your opinion, the problem is in this Grabowski's statement or in its interpretation by Icewhitz?
Does this Grabowski's statement contradict to what he wrote elsewhere?
Had this statement been contested by others, and what was criticism?
If this statement was criticised, what was the subject of criticism: the figures or the role of Poles in killing of Jews?
If the figure (200,000 perished escapees) is considered correct by others, what alternative explanation of the death of Jews were proposed?
If the figure (200,000) is considered incorrect by other authors, what alternative estimates are, and how they were obtained?
To avoid fruitless discussion, please, support their answers with quotes and links, because the discussion like ("Grabowski is right" - "No, Grabowski was criticized by many") is a waste of time: a correct format, IMO, must include references and extended quotes that can be independently checked. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
At this point my neutrality ends, and everything below is my POV. You may ignore it if you want.
That remind me a story about 2 million of German women allegedly raped by Soviet troops: all statistics was obtained based on the data from a single hospital: 4000 women claimed that their child had a Russian father. Assuming that 10% of all sexual contacts lead to pregnancy, and that only 10% of raped women decided not to make abortion, and that younger and older women, who were not fertile were raped with the same frequency, and that the rapes occurred with the same frequency in the whole occupation zone, the author concluded that 2 million German women were raped. This bullshit was reiterated by Beevor, and it is currently widely recognized. If Grabowski's data for ten powiatów are correct, the whole conclusion looks much more reliable that the story about 2 million raped German women. I am writing that not because I want to insult Poles, or I am insulted by false accusations of Soviet soldiers: I am insulted by the the figure that is extrapolation-of-extrapolation-of-extrapolation-of-extrapolation, i.e. is a fourth order extrapolation PLUS some important methodological flaws (for example, in occupied Germany, a woman could get abortion only if she claimed she was raped by racially inferior, i.e. "Russian" man; the fact that old woman or young girls were raped does not mean they were raped with the same frequency; the number of Soviet troops was different in different parts of the occupation zone; former Nazi camp prisoners, ostarbeiters and other non-military committed rapes too, etc.). These methodological flaws insult my brain, not my feelings. In that sense, Grabovski's figure may be right or incorrect, but it is the result of just one extrapolation, so it looks much more reliable, methodologically, that widely cited figure of 2 million raped German women.
User:Piotrus, I've re-read your last post, and I can say that I fundamentally disagree with its main idea. What "compromise" are you talking about? In my opinion, a collective work on some topic is not organized like "I want the article to say X", "No, I want the article to say Y", "Ok, I propose a compromise: let it be half X and half Y". In my opinion, that is a totally flawed approach. A correct way would be: "In my opinion, the article should say X, because the source A says B, and the source C says D, and X is a summary of B and D." "No, I disagree, because the source K criticized the main conclusions made in A, and the words D are taken out of context, so the source C actually says F." "I partially agree with your criticism, about A, but the source X supports my intermretation of the source C, so D is correct." - and so on. THAT is a valid way to find a compromise. In contrast, I saw no examples when you are presenting any concrete evidences and quotes, just words, words, words.
Being a new person in this area, I find the figure of 200,000 Jews killed by Poles, directly or indirectly, shocking, and it is hard for me to believe in that. However, my brief search through talk pages demonstrates that you guys provide virtually no counterarguments that are based on more or less reliable sources. What "compromise" are you talking about: Icewhiz's decision to do you a favour and to agree with your POV because you sincerely believe you are right? I am eager to see real counter-argumemts that will demonstrate the Grabowski's figure is questionable and was a subject of a detailed criticism. Please, provide this evidence, of drop a link to some previous discussion where such an evidence was presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Let me repeat: I consider Grabowski reliable, and his estimate of 200,000, also relevant and to be cited here (with attribution). All I am saying here is that as relatively new estimate that generated controversy it should not be cited without attribution. As any recent estimate, it can't be called universally accepted, and it should not be stated as a fact in Wikipedia's editorial tone. Grabowski himself starts by citing Szymon Datner ([3]) and his estimate of 100,000 of Jews who "fell prey to the Germans and their local helpers, or were murdered in various unexplained circumstances." He then presents an argument that doubles that number. So, does Grabowski invalidate Datner? He may make that argument, but IMHO this is for other historians to decide in the years and decades to come. Being recent, Grabowski's estimate generated lots of media coverage, but it doesn't make him the final word of wisdom. So, first, Datner estimate is an alternative (assuming they are talking about the same thing, of course, and agreeing that it is older. Btw, some media sources have attributed the 200k claim to Datner and IPN issued a statement saying this is an error: [4])
Now, as for scholars (not media) who criticized the 200k. I have not followed all the talk discussions, so frankly some other users like User:MyMoloboaccountmay be able to present further sources. But, frankly, I think all good sources are already presented in Hunt for the Jews, through I am not sure if the IPN note I cite above is, but this is really about Grabowski's methodology. Is note on p.248 sufficient for his estimate of 50,000 survivors? Perhaps, but here he quotes 3.3m figure for Jewish population (and 40k survivors), then he talks about "Historians agree today that close to 10% of 2.5m Polish Jewsi who survived until the summer of 1942 trie dto escape extermination", but does not seem to provide a ref for whch historians he refers to. Well, all that said he is an expert, not myself, and to repeat myself yet again, I am fine with this number being cited - as long as it is attributed.
But as far as 'compromise', all I am asking is this. First, Grabowski's claim should be attributed. Second, it should not be added to superfluous articles (but this is not really a major problem).
So, really, what's is this about? Why are we talking about Grabowski? Is attributing his estimate an insurmountable compromise position to ask for? Because as of mid-2019 this is my compromise position on this particular issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying.
As far as I understand, we are talking about Grabowski in a context of Icewhitz refusal to compromise. I have a strong feeling I don't understand something. What concretely this refusal consists in? Its refusal in explicitly attributing this figure to Grabowski? If yes, that seems a minor dispute, and I believe it can be easily resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz's refusal to compromise is illustrated below. It consists of 1) attempts to remove ANY criticism of Grabowski's work 2) attempts to remove the fact that Grabowski himself backed off the 200k figure 3) when all else fails attempts to paint any criticism of Grabowski as "right wing nationalism" even if it comes from left wing sources or neutral historians. In regard to 3) he's gone to great lengths to do this, going to WP:BLPs of various historians and packing those articles with any negative statements he could find on the internet about them. This is particularly obnoxious and a serious violation of WP:BLPVIO as it turns our articles on these historians into attack pages.
BTW, the 200k figure, AFAIK (and I'm pretty sure I know) is based on ONE powiat, not TEN. It also undercounts the survivors in that powiat (when this was pointed out Grabowski claimed he excluded some survivors because they lived "close to the boundary" of the county. Why? No idea).Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can recall - Grabowski's use (and I'll note - the estimate is now backed up by Dalej jest noc - a more extensive study (sadly - currently available just in Polish (they are going to publish an abridged study in English), and it's a 1,640 pages two-tome monster of a study - which makes basing anything off of the source itself WP:OR - for Wikipedia purposes it is possibly even WP:PRIMARYish for most uses (I'm misusing PRIMARY here - but it simply so detailed and full of stats that using it directly as a summary is difficult) - but it will be interesting to see studies and journal papers that are based off of Dalej jest noc in years to come)) has been attributed most places he's been introduced (either by whomever introduced, or shortly thereafter). Inclusion of the estimate has been challenged as WP:UNDUE, and often as a "counter-balance" WP:OR (e.g. what Datner said or didn't say - and Datner is far from an end all and be all in the topic area - he's notable for remaining in Poland in post-1968 and being one of the few Poland-based Holocaust researchers during the communist period - in terms of Polish language historiography he's important - on a global scale less so (though certainly used)) or rather dubious sources (opinion pieces in wpolityce.pl) have been used as a counter-balance - e.g. see this RSN discussion from April 2018 on the use of the Polish ambassador to Switzerland Facebook comments covered by wPolityce. 10:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
A large volume does not automatically implies the source is primary. I am sure each chapter contains some brief summary, and it can be used. Of course, usage of raw data should be avoided, because there is a possibility of taking them out of context.
Regarding the discussion about Grabowski, I am more interested in figuring out what your refusal to find a compromise consists in. Did you refuse to attribute the figure to Grabowski? If yes, imo, that was incorrect, because some sources (they look less reliably, but ...) cast a doubt on his estimates. I would say, not only the figure should be attributed, but some brief explanation should be provided for "directly or indirectly" (otherwise it looks misleading, because, afaik, "indirectly" means mostly denunciation). Also, it should be explained that the figure refers not to documented deaths, but to the population statistics (if I understand it correct).
Well - I did refuse to compromise over inclusion of comments from wPolityce.pl or op-eds from other Polish media on the subject. Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, if Icewhiz described the situation correctly, I see the problem as follows. I agree that the same weight cannot be given to mass-media publications and to a work authored by renown scholar. However, the fact that the figure is being widely criticized in Poland cannot be ignored either. The information cannot be presented as
"According to wrong(refs) setimates made by Grabowski(ref)...", or as
"According to Grabowski, 200,000 Jews were killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles (ref), and according to XX and YY (refs) this estimate is wrong", or as
"200,000 Jews were killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles (ref)".
IMO, a balanced way to present this data would be something like that:
"According to Grabowski's recent study, 200,000 Jews who escaped from Nazi were killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles (ref); this figure was based on extrapolation of the data obtained for ten district, and on the post-war population statistics. The Grabowski's figure has been criticised in Polish media (refs)." Probably, everything after the words "by Poles" can be moved to a footnote.
This is mostly fine, through in fact I wouldn't even insist on the note that it has been criticized (outside of his article/that on this study/book). As long as it is attributed to a particular historian, and not presented in an editorial tone as an undisputed statement of fact (re: your third example), I am fine with that. But there is also the issue of the 'killed directly and indirectly, see below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Well - I did try in Jan Grabowski (historian) introducing peer-reviewed sources covering the media storm, however this was rejected. Quoting:"Since 2000, a series of books, articles, and conference presentations have demolished the myth of Polish impeccable conduct during the Holocaust. Work by Jan Gross, Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, and others has demonstrated how some Poles murdered, exploited, and betrayed Jews during the German occupation.49 The response to this scholarship from some right-leaning Polish historians and others has been as predictable as it has been ferocious. Tired myths of żydokomuna have been repeatedly rehearsed to “explain” or “justify” Polish actions and ad hominem attacks launched on historians who have revealed uncomfortable truths.50 At the same time, conferences and exhibitions have been organized to promote stories of Polish heroism in delivering news of the Holocaust and in rescuing Jews. Recent examples include a conference on Jan Karski at Zamość, which incorrectly claimed in its promotional material that it was through Karski that the “world first learned of the Holocaust,” and an exhibition detailing rescue from the Małopolska region, which failed to contextualize the exceptionality of these rescuers.51"Fleming, Michael. "Geographies of obligation and the dissemination of news of the Holocaust." Holocaust studies 23.1-2 (2017): 59-75.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There are at least four scholarly publications critiquing Grabowski and several articles by scholars pointing out errors in his thesis.
Grabowski himself stated that he no longer claims the 200,000 number and this is just “research thesis”.
See:Tomasz Domański, Korekta obrazu? Refleksje źródłoznawcze wokół książki "Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski" ("A Corrected Picture? Reflections on Use of Sources in the Book, Night Continues: The Fates of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland), IPN, Polish-Jewish Studies, 2019, 72 pp
"Ale Historia: Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów", Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 March 2018: "A więc... ok. 200 tys. Żydów zostało zamordowanych, gdy się ukrywali po aryjskiej stronie?" – "Tak, i na podstawie szczegółowej analizy tego, w jakich okolicznościach ginęli, sformułowałem hipotezę badawczą, że większość – choć nie jestem na tym etapie badań w stanie powiedzieć, czy było to 60, czy 90 proc. – straciła życie z rąk Polaków albo przy ich współudziale."("So... 200,000 Jews were murdered while hiding on the Aryan side?" – "Yes, and based on detailed analysis of the circumstances in which they perished, I formulated a research hypothesis that the majority – though at this stage of research I am not able to say whether it was 60 or 90 percent – lost their lives at the hands of Poles or with their complicity.")
One problem is that by umbrella term Poles Grabowski includes also Ukrainian and Belarussian collaborators who were also hostile to ethnic Poles.
There are various problems with his methodology and he also was forced to admit that he was wrong about Datner.I will add on this later(btw the analysis of the book showed that the approximate number is around 40,000, will give source later.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Molobo, what I am writing is based on what I was able to find in various talk page discussions. I did no independent literature search. In addition, you seem to contradict to what Piotrus says: according to him, there is no problem with the 200,000 figure, the only thing that is required is explicit attribution of it to Grabowski.
In connection to that, I am wondering if you can point at any prevjous discussion where all arguments and sources were presented by you, Icewhitz, VM and other participants are presented in the same place. If no such discussion is available, my question is why nobody bothered to do that (to collect all arguments, pro et contra in one single place, which, in my opinion, would have clarified everything: any good faith person, upon having seen that, will immediatelly see whose position is better supported by sources, and who misenterprets it or gives undue weight to some particular POV), and you decided to resort to a kiddish quarrel instead?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I think this relates to the issue of 'indirect' killing and the discussion on bystanders. The 200k figure refers to Jews who were killed or betrayed while hiding, but, let me ask this to User:Icewhiz directly, as well to you, Paul. First, let's remember that the number 200,000 refers to the Jews killed outside organized Holocaust activities, as in, it is a figure arrived by taking the number of Jews in the area (Poland), and subtracting from it the number of those killed in the camps/etc. as well as survivors. There we arrive at 200,000 Jews who died somehow, which the media often summarize as " killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles". Second. Directly is easy (murder, usually motivated by greed). Indirectly generally refers to a) betrayal (denunciation, like telling the Germans where the Jew is hiding, etc.). But it also raises the issue of bystanders. So, let's consider specific cases.
Case A. If a Jew asked a Pole for refuge, the Pole refused, and subsequently the Jew was killed, does it make that Jew an 'indirect' victim of Poles?
Case B. Do you think this estimate includes some Jews who were found and killed by the Germans, without any opportunity for Poles to offer assistance? For example, let's imagine a Jewish escapee wondering a street and being arrested by a German patrol before they even attempted to ask any Pole for help.
Case C. A Jew asked Poles for help, receives it, then Germans find out about this (without any Pole denouncing it, just by accident). The Jew is killed, possibly the rescuer as well.
Now, consider that in the estimate of 200,000 Jews killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles, there is no room for any other category, i.e. cases A, B and even C are presented above are part of the 200,000. This, perhaps, is the most troublesome part of this estimate, as it effectively lumps together Jews killed by Poles directly, Jews denounced by Poles to the Germans, and Jews who simply did not receive successful help from Poles. Again, let me stress that Grabowski divides the Jews into 'killed in German camps/mass executions', 'survivors', and the '200,000'. So, is it fair to summarize the '200,000' as 'killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles'. Which is why, IMHO, when this estimate is reported, it should not imply that all of those 200,000 victims where killed, directly, indirectly, by Poles. Some perished with no opportunity for Poles to become involved, some perished where the only Polish involvement was an attempt at rescue. Of course, I am not prepared to offer estimates for number of Jews in each category, and perhaps the latter two are much smaller than the others, but without such estimates, to generalize that '200,000 were killed directly or indirectly by Poles' seems like an incorrect and bias synthesis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Starting from the end, "synthesis" refers to Wikipedians. If some author, e.g. Grabowski, makes a conclusion of that type, it is quite ok. The statement about 200,000 direct or indirect killings is not a synthesis per our standards, because it is attributable to a single author.
Second, it seems you missed one more point: the figure of 200,000 is also contested, as far as I know. It refers not to actual deaths, but to population statistics (Jewish population decreased, but it is not clear if all of them were killed, or some of them moved elsewhere, or just left unaccounted). I saw this type arguments in thist discussion, and, although I am not goind to express my own opinion on that, I want all agruments to be collected in the same thread. Again, I believe many accusations and conflicts could be avoided if all arguments and sources from all sides were presented in the same place.
Last, I am less interested in the fate of those Jews than in your conflict with Icewhiz. What is happening on this talk page more resembles a normal and polite discussion than a real conflict. Can you please explain me what prevents you all from collaboration?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus's WP:OR above on the meaning of Grabowski's "indirectly" is not inline with Grabowski's writing and interviews on the subject - my understanding is that by "indirectly" Grabowski is mainly referring to Jews handed over or betrayed to the Germans by Poles. Those handing over the Jews knew full well their intended fate - the killing, however, in the "indirectly" case was not committed by Poles. Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, Paul, I am a bit puzzled about this ArbCom (to which, right now, I am not a party; and I personally find that we can talk things out, even if takes weeks - we have our disagreements, but as long as we are talking and not edit warring, what's the problem indeed?). As I said, the articles are generally improving, there are no major edit wars that have not been resolved through (sometimes lengthy) discussions. There are occasional reverts, but again, I think almost all issues are usually solved through talking. Two DYK nominations I can think of ended up unsuccessful (one was mine, another Icewhiz) but it's hardly something to harbor major grudges for. The only major damage IMHO is the retirement of Poeticbent, but whether one agrees with that or not, it's hardly something ArbCom can fix even if they follow my recommendation and issue an apology to him (and we all know how likely is that to happen). There are some time consuming and occasionally frustrating discussions, but, in the end, I find the articles end up being improved, not damaged. Perhaps Icewhiz has a different take on this, as looking at the ArbCom I can only conclude that in his view, there current status of the content in this topic area is unacceptable and won't improve until some editors (VM?) are topic banned? (Through considering VM doesn't edit content that much, and Poeticbent retired, I am really confused whom he wants to topic ban). Which does raise a concern whether the current proceedings are not a misguided attempt to 'clear the field' from all other editors so one can enforce their POV in peace, without all those pesky editors from 'the other side' meddling around. Of course, this is a gamble, which is why I am worried that ArbCom will just issue some generic statements and/or topic ban everyone from all sides to achieve "peace and quiet" by the usual "banhammer solves all problems" logic (frankly, my view of this entire case is a rol of dice - 25%, ArbCom just makes some useless 'play nice' comments' 25%, they ban editors from side A, 25%, they ban editors from side B, 25%, they ban everyone). As I am not a party to this (yet), my general recommendation to the parties (Icewhiz and VM) would be to try mediation, which you proposed here. IIRC in the past ArbComs have been suspsended/cancelled if parties could cool down a bit. PS. I will also note that it seems this topic, intended as a mediation between parties, i.e. Icewhiz and VM, has been a bit derailed with my involvement. I don't think me and Icewhiz need a mediation :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Re mediation, it seems VM removed himself from this process, because he stopped to participate (which is not good, imo). In connection to that, I think you Piotrus my no means derail the discussion. Grabowski's 200,000 seems to be a very interesting example: it seems to be a very irritating factor for some Poles, and some Jews are advocating it with great enthusiasm. It would be interesting to combine all arguments, facts, references, and quotes together, and come to some common approach to representation of those data which neither side could question without resorting to illogical or emotional arguments.
In connection to that, don't you, Piotrus and Icewhiz, mind to collect everything you have about this 200,000 figure on this talk page? I mean, the sources, including extended quotes and full references, including the sources that support Grabowski and the sources that criticise or debunk his conclusions? If we will be able to resolve this issue, once and forever, that may set a precedent for resolving this type disputes in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
It's actually not a "some Jews" issue. Grabowski (and Gross who predated him) write little that is new to a Jewish audience (in English or Hebrew). Several non-Polish sources go as far as treating the Polish underground as "fascists" hunting Jews and betrayal of Jews by Polish villagers. What's new with Gross (and Grabowski, and the Polish Center for Holocaust Research) - is:
that they are writing in Polish to a Polish audience (subsequently translated to English).
In some, but not all, of their work - they are basing their research on Polish language archives that to a large extent were closed until the 90s. (and in this respect - the research offers new insights). In this respect - Hunt for the Jews is based on archive data and statistics that were unavailable. Contrast the biggest debate (in Poland) - Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland - this was known prior to Gross - e.g. the Yizkor book - Gross did add new research into the event - and he chose to focus on the (then, but no longer) lesser known Jedwabne over Radziłów - but the basic timeline and outline was known (and some were tried in 1949-50 in Polish courts).
So no - this is not a "Jewish" vs. "Polish" source - this is actually an inner debate inside Poland. Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Under "Jews" and "Poles", I means some (presumably) Polish and (presumably) Jewish users, accordingly, and I meant not ethnicity, but their views (Jew-centric and Polonocentric). I am pretty aware that that is an oversimplification, but I don't think I have to be too precise in this case, because it does not seem to be really interesting.
What I am more interested in is to collect all available data on this particular issue and to provide a balanced and neutral description of it. Are you interested in that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please avoid making assumptions on the religion of users.
In terms of sources on Grabowski's estimate - Hunt for the Jews#Reception has a fairly comprehensive literature review (all be it, scraping the bottom of the barrel in some quarters - e.g. histmag.org, and I'm unsure the Polish language sources there adequately represent positive reviews in Polish (I did add some) - but the English section is rather comprehensive) on Grabowski's Hunt.
In terms of discourse in Poland - User:Icewhiz/sandbox#EHESS (a collection of sources on the attack on the academic La nouvelle école polonaise d’histoire de la Shoah held at EHSSS, Paris) - might be instructive. These are first and foremost Polish researchers who held this conference in Paris - and who were attacked by right-wing elements, a Polish state agency being condemned by the French government for its role. Icewhiz (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Icewiz, please, stop being redundantly aggressive: noone is going to insult you here. I always separate "Jewish" and "Judaist". Moreover, judging by a maiden name of my mother, my ancestors belong to some ancient family of European rabbies. However, being (partially) a Jew, I myself have no relation to a Judaist religion, and, as I already wrote, under "Jewish" I mean not religion, and even not ethnicity, but (in this particular case) views. With regard to Poles, I have no idea on how can it refer to any religion.
Regarding sources, thank you for the links, I will read them when time allows. Piotrus, do you find those lists comprehensive, or something is missing?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Let me repeat that 1) I am was not as involved in the discussion of this as some other users. As such, I don't have any lists of sources to suggest, and (without a review), if we are talking about the Hunt... book, I think the reviews on its page are mostly comprehensive. I'd have to spend some time looking for more to be sure. If it's about the 200,000 number in specific, ditto. But 2) I have presented by Case A, B and C question above and I feel that Icewhiz is ignoring the question, which is not making me very impressed, and which illustrates what I feel a potential problem with some of the discussions in this area - when one is presented with evidence/argument one doesn't like, one can simply abandon the discussion. On this topic, please see the discussion at Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Historically,_how_many_Polish_Jews_spoke_Polish?, where I asked a question, Icewhiz criticized some sources, I agreed we can discard them... and then he stopped participating without ever answering the question I posed there, even through I explicitly repeated it several times. Such behavior, IMHO, is not conductive to good faith building and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick note Paul - right now I'm very busy in real life and don't have time to respond in detail. That does not mean that I am not interested in discussing this further and I very much appreciate the effort you're putting into this, especially since you obviously don't have to. Thanks. I wish these kinds of discussions took place earlier. I also hope they can continue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I reverted the text written by Piotrus and started a discussion on the article talk page with an explanation of why the latest changes are problematic. Also, changes to the article should be discussed on the article talk page, not on individual user talk pages. --E-960 (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Col/Res
Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at Bigeez's talk page. Message added 19:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello Paul Siebert (talk), I know its a bit overboard, but better overboard than not. I know you hold great sway in these matters, along with Nick-D. If you think it's content is adequate, let me know; or, if changes need to be made prior to posting it on Talk:World War II. No need to set some readers' teeth on edge yet. But we all believe it's important for readers to see it clearly as it is. Fains I post; without first receiving yours or Nick-D's approval. Edit it in any way you and Nick-D (talk) see fit; or rather, instruct me, and I'll resubmit with said edits. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Grabowski invented 200,000
There is no reason to quote the number as a description of historical facts. It's rather a description of anti-Polish obsession of some biased researchers so it belongs to Anti-Polish sentiment. I happen to know both Grabowski's Judenjagd and its critics and Grabowski doesn't prove the 200,000 .
Even if we accept some number of victims(40,000 ?), we have to explain the context. Eastern Europe and Serbia were the only places where helping Jews was punished with death. Grabowski describes the Nazi terror system in occupied Poland, but later forgets his research and accuses local people,the Baudienst and firemen. It's a chempionship of manipulation to include two completely different visions of the same facts in one book and Grabowski succeds, you believe him (I don't). An intelligent reader should find the contradiction, but if the reader prefers wishful thinking, wants to dehumanize Polish people, he remains blind. Frydel criticizes the book, but he is very cautious, so the facts are described but the reader has to think to understand the text. Some editors prefer to assume that Frydel writes about something different than Grabowski's accusations. About what? Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an example of how the arguments should NOT be presented. Your own opinion doesn't matter: I myself see, sometimes, that reliable sources tell a complete BS, but I have to live with that, because no other sources exist that explicitly refute what they say.
The correct arguments, the arguments I, as well as any reasonable Wikipedian, will accept are: (i) "Grabowski says THAT" (a quote and a full reference) (ii) "His conclusion is cited by A, B, C, X, Y, Z" (references) (iii) "his figures are supported by A, B, C" (quotes and full references) (iv) "his figures are criticised by X, Y, Z" (quotes and references) (v) "the criticism is ...."
Only after that, we can discuss it seriously.
Upon having read your post, I think I understand the roots of conflict: instead of presenting facts, references and quotes, you guys resort to various speculations and inflammatory language. However, that works in both sides.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
You pretty much nailed it on the head, Paul. Sources aren't used properly, instead of reading and digesting a number of divergent views and summarizing them, instead sources are used to argue for one side. While, in theory, that can work if both sides work together, in this case, it's not working. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, indeed, when each party is acting as their own devil's advocate, the whole process is much more efficient, and it produces a much better quality content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Excellent point. I want to believe I have done so on occasion (ex. I created articles like Polish collaboration during World War II or Hunt for the Jews, and have been accused several times of anti-Polish bias myself [5]). But, please see this and the related model which discusses the reverse. If one side is unwilling to compromise, the other will stop doing so. Before Icewhiz arrived in this topic area, me and VM have been trying to keep 'Polish nationalistic POV' (like what can be seen IMHO in the OP comment here) at bay, effectively being, IMHO, said devil's advocate. This has changed, however, as while I think Icewhiz is commendably helping to keep said POV at bay much better than we could, there is a new bias in play - represented by editors who think that saying anything positive about the Poles is the same as whitewashing Polish antisemitism, and if those editors tried to compromise and play their own devil's advocate, forgive me, I can't think of examples for that. I agree that Poles need more education and soul-searching with regards to their (our...) antisemitism, whose extent has and is still minimized in Poland. But this should be done with due weight considerations, and promoting potentially controversial "soundbites" and related statistics (ex. 200,000), or trying to equate research on rescue of Jews in Poland with whitewashing and consequently attempting to censor such information from Wikipedia is not, IMHO, the right approach for anything except antagonizing even the most moderate Polish editors. Extremism begets extremism. But arguments aside, let's go on to the issue at question. I have linked two articles I created, and I can link more, which are clearly about things that portray Poles in a negative light, i.e. playing the Polish side's devil advocate. I would like to see examples of articles created, or even diffs, which portray Poles in a positive light, coming from 'the other side of the debate'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I would say that quoting Grabowski's 200,000 is problematic, because there were legitimate objections by other historians about his claims, for example historian Shimon Redlich stateded that the careless "claim of 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews seeking shelter among the Polish populace", which according to Redlich cannot be extrapolated to the whole country based on one single area or historian Krystyna Samsonowska wrote that Grabowski did not use all available sources, and "gave up" on actual field research; for example, by not trying to contact the families of Jewish survivors from Dąbrowa Tarnowska, or the Poles who hid them. Samsonowska argues that, by using broader resources, she could identify 90 Jews who had survived the war in hiding in Dąbrowa County, as opposed to the 38 cited by Grabowski. Yet, Grabowski is cited as an be-all end-all reference, however the debate about the involvement of Poles and the actual numbers is still going on, Grabowski is just one side of the debate, not the undisputed authority. --E-960 (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
You probably meant Redlich's review on the Grabowski's book (Slavic reviews). In future, please, provide a reference, not only a quote.
In connection to that, User:Piotrus, Volunteer Marek, and Icewhiz, don't you think the correct way to present the 200,000 figure is to supplement it with the explanation of how it was obtained? Something like this:
"Grabowski's detailed research of the statistics of survival of Jews demonstrated that out of the 5,500-6,000 Jews in Dabrowa Tarnowska, 337 managed to escape or hide during the Nazi extermination campaign, but only 51 of those were still alive when the area was liberated. He concludes that the remaining 286 were either denounced or murdered by local Poles. He further extrapolated those data on the whole Poland, and concluded that local Poles are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of ca 200,000 Jews. This estimate was supported by (X, Y, Z), although the validity of this methodology was questioned by Relich (S Redlich - Slavic Review, 2014, 653)"
Paul Siebert, I really question the statement "Grabowski's detailed research" historian Krystyna Samsonowsk specifically leveled hard criticism that Grabowski did not even bother to do field research. Also, Grabowski's own words on page 2-3 in his book show the 200,000 number is speculative "Given the numbers above one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000." Words such as "assume" or "could reach" do not suggest hard facts, but speculation. Also, historian Grzegorz Berendt call the numbers "Hot Air".[1] So Grabowski simply speculated in his book — he should not be cited as a be-all end-all authority, like some editors would like to present him and his views. --E-960 (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
You could do this via Redlich, yes. However Grabowski has repeated this estimate in interviews in 2017-8 - citing Dalej jest noc (or the forthcoming study) on nine powiats as supporting this estimate. Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, the suggested text really amounts to undue weight, Grabowski's 200,000 has been criticized by a number of mainstream scholars, so why would the article spotlight him over other historians? His own wording is speculative. --E-960 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Guys, this is my talk page, so please, respect me and supplement each argument of that type with concrete information: (i) Who said what (the name of the author), (ii) What exactly was said (a quote), (iii) Where it was published (a full reference). If some historian is mainstream, please, demonstrate they are mainstream (a reference to some good source that says that, or a list of citations, gscholar is ok). Otherwise you are just wasting my time and talk page space.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, I think some editors place too much emphasis on Grabowski and his claim, which is at best speculative, below are some of the critics:
More about their statements and the controversy can be be accessed here Hunt for the Jews — so it's clear that the 200,000 is not an universally accepted figure, thus Grabowski and the 200,000 should not be presented as such. --E-960 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
E-960, the list provided by you is is accordance with what many reliable scholarly sources say: the figure 200,000 is widely criticized in Poland. For English Wikipedia, that is not sufficient. In addition, I am pretty sure that if someone wants to find a criticism of some notable author, such a search will be successful. However, that is not working unless you provide a proof that the criticism is much more abundant and widespread than a support. Try to do a neutral search: my neutral search gives different results.
In addition, dropping the links to the book, or providing a list of names in this situation is tantamount to disrespect ("...here is the link to the book, read it yourself if you want and try to guess what exactly did I mean; I am too busy to waste my time explaining all of that ..."). You all guys do not value the time of other people, and that may be a root of all conflicts. A respectful and polite way would be to provide concrete words (an extended quote), and full references.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to object, this is not a valid argument in fact it's a bogus one, that the book is criticized in Poland by academics, and this is an English language Wikipedia — this is an international issue (the subject matter usually involving Polish, Israeli and US academics), and whether you accept this fact or not, Polish scholars have the most immediate access to the sites, citing as an example historian Krystyna Samsonowska from the Jagiellonian University, who after doing 'field research' found that 90 Jews survived in the area while Grabowski stated in his book that only 38 did. Since Grabowski applies his finding form Dąbrowa Tarnowska county to ALL of Poland, it is a serious issue of credibility, since if you take Krystyna Samsonowska finding the number becomes more like 85,000 not 200,000. So, I disagree with you dismissing Polish scholars, these are mainstream academics not some ultra-nationalist pundits. Also, I'm not sure if you realize that the English language academics praised the descriptive analysis of the phenomenon, but stayed clear of actually affirming the estimate, and how could they? Grabowski only once mentions the number in the main text, vaguely stating "Given the numbers above one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000." Grabowski's own words raise uncertainty, yet you want to present this number as a stand-out fact, yet it's only speculation, which is debated and also criticized. --E-960 (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out that the book was first written and published in Polish in 2011, then a translated copy was published in 2013 into English — thus making the argument to exclude Polish academia all the more unfounded, not to mention that Jan Grabowski is Polish himself. --E-960 (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I never proposed to ignore Polish sources, my point was that the sources that summarise criticism do not say the book is widely criticised. They say the book is widely criticized in Poland.
(edit conflict)And, I never proposed "to present this number as a stand-out fact", if you read the text proposed by me carefully (I doubt you did), you probably noticed that I proposed to present as facts the following things: (i) that Grabowski obtained statistics for Dabrowa Tarnowska and demonstrated that out of the 5,500-6,000 Jews 337 managed to escape or hide during the Nazi extermination campaign, but only 51 of those were still alive when the area was liberated (note, I even do not propose to present those figures without attribution, which means the fact I am telling about is that Grabowski made some estimate. Isn't it a fact?) (ii) That Grabowski concludes that the remaining 286 were either denounced or murdered by local Poles, and he further extrapolated those data on the whole Poland, and obtained the estimate of 200,000 killed Jew (Can anybody say the fact that Grabovski made this extrapolation be rejected by anyone? I doubt.) There are two facts I proposed to present. For any intellectual person, it is quite enough to make a conclusion how trustworthy the 200,000 figure is. Moreover, as Icewhiz noted, I overlooked more recent Grabowski's publication where he presents more data. Anyway, it should be obvious to anybody who reads texts carefully that I never proposed to present 200,000 as fact: the fact is that some statistics was collected, and some extrapolation was made. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Paul, if you're looking for a good general overview of the various strands in the history of Jewish-Polish relations during WWII, I would suggest Doris L. Bergen's War & Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust (3rd ed. Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 978-1-4422-4228-9) on pages 154-159. In some ways, Gross (and Grabowski to a lesser extent) are in much the same position as Daniel Goldhagen occupied after he wrote Hitler's Willing Executioners's - while not "fringe" per se, it is still one extreme of the spectrum of interpretations. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree there are some problems with Goldhagen (I saw many reviews where he was criticised.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Just a note Paul that Grabowski isn't criticized only in Poland. Professor Daniel Blatman did write in Haaretz some crtical overview[6],[7].Note that Grabowski responded(in my view in very emotional if not hysteric way)[8][9]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry For trying to bring you in to my oops
I Just want to say sorry for trying to bring you into a dispute that I handled in the endJack90s15 (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
RE
You might find Cała, Alina. "Antisemitism without Jews and without Antisémites." (2006). interesting. And things have only gotten worse since PiS took control - and turned historical policy in a political issue (in most other countries WWII is long dead as a "hot" topic - e.g. Israel, the US, Germany.... In Poland it gets quite a bit of media attention - e.g. our prior discussion on Grabowski - is the sort of issue that has been the subject of several TV shows). Jewish police as collaborators is a common retort to the studies on the Blue Police - and also fits into the "Polocaust" narrative (advanced by PiS and elements well to the right of PiS). In short - you don't need the outgroup in order to out them - if at all it makes outing the outgroup almost consequence free.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Pontius Pilate
Please heed the comments about your edits at the above talk page, especially those after Break 2. You simply don't have consensus and need to drop the sticki. Consider this a formal warning. Doug Wellertalk 12:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller, this is the first time in my wikilife when the discussion in the talk page space where I am presenting well sourced arguments and commit no personal attack or other actions that may be seen uncivil causes a formal warning. I doubt you have a ground for that, especially taking into account that you are cannot be considered an uninvolved admin. Consider withdrawal of your formal warning. If you are acting not as admin, please make it clear, otherwise it looks like you are abusing your admin rights. If you are acting as an ordinary user, feel free to report my behaviour following a standard procedure.
Frankly, I would prefer you to join this discussion instead. It have already lead to some (although minor) improvements of the article, so I have a serious ground to believe this discussion should be continued. Please, join our discussion if you have fresh arguments and sources. :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed you left this post after you have been asked by another user. Whereas I am still believe you, being an involved admin have no right to issue a formal warning, your advice to take it to ANI was good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can leave a formal warning, they do not have to be an Administrator. I don't consider myself involved and your diff certainly doesn't make me involved. Nor does my response to User:Ermenrich on my talk page. And I don't intend to get involved. I've given you what I think is good advice and a warning (although note I didn't suggest it was a final warning). I hope very much I won't have to take Administrative action but your suggesting that I'm abusing my Admin rights isn't going to affect what I do in the future. Feel free to complain about my warning at AN. Doug Wellertalk 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I already understood you were acting not as an admin, so there is no reason for any complains, thanks. I also understand that, since this article is not under DS, your prospective admin action may follow only after the ANI discussion. In that case, I am ready to present my arguments there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't topic ban you, that's true. Admins never need an ANI discussion to block. Doug Wellertalk 16:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Admins are supposed to have a reason for a block, and the only legitimate reason is my lengthy posts. Since I already realized that the participants of this concrete discussion simply don't read them, I see no reason to continue making them, and I'll try other options. There is no other reason for a block, and I am experienced enough to deprive you of an opportunity to block me legitimately. I suggest you to stop this discussion, because this exchange is starting to look like a conflict between two users, which automatically make you a party. Instead, read my last post that I've just made on the Pilates talk page. I am interested to know your opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paul,
Whenever you’re freed up, have a look over on User talk page User talk:bigeez for guidance/input. Many thanks, Cheers, Eli 96.10.123.131 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 96.10.123.131 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Re:Coll/Res
Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at Bigeez's talk page. Message added 04:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello Paul, might have a look/see over on Coll/Res on my talk page, read-on following down through both Coll and Res, hope all's well, Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at Bigeez's talk page. Message added 19:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello Paul, I wished for you and Nick-D to see what's necessary for the World War II site. If you think its apropos for Collaboration with the Axis Powers then so be it also. I you both might have a peek now ... no need to set anyone's teeth on edge along with any ritual humiliation. I believe it's important, however, in its entirety ... but, edit it in any way you see fit; or instruct me, and I'll do it and resubmit. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at Bigeez's talk page. Message added 04:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello Paul Siebert (talk), hoping you and Nick-D might have glimpsed at the writup on Collaboration/Resistance for the World War II site? If you think it's content is ok, let me know, or if changes need to be made prior to posting it on Talk:World War II. No need to set anyone's teeth on edge along with any ritual humiliation. I believe it's important for readers to see it clearly as it is. Edit it in any way you and Nick-D (talk) see fit; or rather, instruct me, and I'll resubmit with edits. Cheers, God save the Queen, Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm writing you about your statement at the Arbitration Enforcement board. Statements from editors are supposed to be limited to 500 words (Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs) and yours clocks in at 552 words using this tool which is used in arbitration cases. I'm not going to ask you to cut your statement UNLESS you decided to add additional content in response to other statements. Should you want to add any responses, please trim your original statement to stay roughly around 500 words. Let me know if you have any questions. LizRead!Talk! 00:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
LizRead!Talk!, following your advise, I added a fresh response and trimmed the old one. It is around 650 words. I hope that is ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Re: updated C/R on your sandbox
Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at Bigeez's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It is with your guidance that we would be most helpful to completing the task, since besides you and Nick-D (talk) there are few and far between who possess the moral compass and are instrumental and measure up to editing my work. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Eli, I am somewhat busy with a nasty AE quarrel and real life problems, may I return to that in early October?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paul, by all means! Leave it be until you are free. Nothing is more important than your own life and family. I'm not sure what "AE" is, but if I can be of any assistance I am at your disposal. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Bigeez: the latter will you learn about AE, the better. It is a nasty thing, but nothing terrible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Thank you @Assayer: Your are doing a great job, and my interference is not required so far (I am the party of the dispute, so I would prefer other users to voice their opinion at that noticeboard).
Just few comments. In the collection of testimonies assembled by Lipkov I found one interesting comment:
"А показания самого Берга, что бы он сам о себе ни говорил, отнюдь не являются доказательствами. Может быть, из него их выбивали точно так же, как он выбивал их в свое время из других. "
Google translates it as:
"And the testimony of Berg himself, no matter what he says about himself, is by no means evidence. Maybe they knocked them out of him in the same way as he knocked them out of others at one time."
In general, all these testimonies are very interesting, and they should be discussed in some article related to Great Purge.
It is also important to note that Lipkov is not a historian. His speciality is cinema. In addition, he neither comments nor analyzes the testimonies, so his book is a just collection of primary sources assembled by a non-professional historian.
I have an impression that some user is going to game a system and eliminate you from a consensus building process. I am going to resolve this problem in a reasonably close future, but, for a while, I recommend you to be cautious in your statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
No pasaran! GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Nosotros pasaremos.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your consistency over the years. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
I first interacted with Paul Siebert editor about 10 years ago (and awarded a barnstar for his/her work at that time) and I believe s/he has, with extraordinary consistency, not only promoted the values of genuine collaboration and knowledge sharing, but remained steadfast in abiding by the principles of Wikipedia. Moreover, s/he has engaged with some of the most sensitive subjects related to Eastern Europe and has consistently shown an evenness of temper and commitment to scholarly, collaborative outcomes. Her/his editing work is first class, but even more noteworthy in my view is the effort s/he makes to diligently engage productively with editors in conflict and seek mechanisms to resolve that conflict. In more than 13 years on Wikipedia I cannot think of an editor I have interacted with more deserving of this award.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
13 year veteran editor. Promotes the values of genuine collaboration and knowledge sharing. Steadfast in abiding by the Principles of Wikipedia. Engages with sensitive Eastern European subjects. Shows an evenness of temper and commitment to scholarly, collaborative outcomes. First Class editing work.
Recognized for
extraordinary consistency and engaging productively with editors in conflict.
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7☎ 13:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@Buster7:&@Goldsztajn: Thank you very much! I really appreciate it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I nominated you back in July, but it took awhile to process ... reading some of the things (hmmm... let me stay polite) you've been involved with (subject to!) since then, I would say it's even more deserving. Congratulations! --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, sometimes, an emotional support is the most precious thing...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
NPOV discussion
At WT:NPOV you said whereas NPOV dispute is seen as a conduct dispute. I believe you meant "content". ―Mandruss☎ 21:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
My bad. Fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement topic ban
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic-banned from everything related to the Eastern Front (World War II) (i.e. the Germany vs. USSR aspect of WWII) for three months. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the reasons for the war, atrocities, etc., and also any continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum, such as AE.
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. Sandstein 19:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Paul, you're obviously very knowledgeable about the Second World War. I look forward to having some Eastern-Front-related conversations in the future. On AI and AE, I think the bar for classifying what is an unacceptable personal comment should be set quite high. I can understand why the administrators there might want not to be troubled by certain types of accusations. On the other hand, they should probably make allowance for the fact that those accusations may be honest opinions being made in perfectly good faith. ← ZScarpia 19:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Frankly speaking, your interference at AE was hardly helpful. From what I understood about NPA, the question that I (and we all) should have focused on was: if there was a ground for the statement I made, so to say "Well, probably, it was an exaggeration to say that Suvorov was ... etc" was not helpful. What you were saying could be a subject of a talk page discussion, not AE page. You raised a good point in an inappropriate place: admins don't need and it seems they don't want to know these nuances. What they needed to know was: some reputable sources support my statement, so I had a right to make it.
By writing that, I am not blaming you in doing any harm, for, as recent events demonstrate, I am the only person who can do any harm to me. When you are getting older, it doesn't mean you are getting wiser.
I will be busy during the next couple of weeks, I'll let you know when I am ready to communicate: you seem to be an interesting person.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Hello Paul Siebert (talk), I thought I'd check in to see if there was any update on the C/R thing, and not to push-in. But I was bewildered and perplexed at the other business. If that was the AE thing you told me about, I could only say humbug. You are the go-to man for WWII, and perhaps with Nick-D, the only ones with the know-how. Our discussions were nothing but helpful and never remonstrative. Your gentleman-like manners and forbearance serve as a reminder and a lesson for all. You do not kowtow to anyone, because you follow through with everything with perfect references. I don't wish to read anything more about it or say more about it. Anyway, please keep up the great work for World War II on your sandbox; some thought the pictures were too colourful? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Paul, you have my sympathy to the extent that, having a similar misunderstanding to the way that AE and AI work regarding personal comments, I could very well be in the same situation. I think it would be better, unless comments are obviously unjustifiable, to ask editors to justify or remove their comments there at the time they are made rather than instantly, or some way down the line, issuing bans.
I realise that you will disagree with me, but I thought that Icewhiz badly misrepresented "Icebreaker", using a very specious argument. The aim of my comment was to neutralise that. If Sandstein's comment is true, statements by non-involved editors made little difference anyway. Unfortunately for Icewhiz, though, his statement, I suspect, probably provided some of the evidence used to ban him.
Before following the request in the previous comment, make sure that anything you write doesn't contravene the bit in the topic ban policy which mentions "user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)."
Again, I don't think you comments had any negative impact, I just wanted to let you know that AE page is probably not a good place for discussions of that kind.
With regard to NPA policy, I am going to return to that in close future, after I resolve a topic ban situation. I already asked a question at the NPA talk page, and the answer is: every statement must be seen in a context. That mean, even a post like "A user X is Nazi" may be not a personal attack if the evidences are provided that the user is a real Nazi.
In my opinion, a declared zero tolerance to Nazism implies two things: (i) false claims that a user is Nazi supporter are considered a serious personal attack, and (ii) all reported cases of real or perceived Nazi support must be carefully analyzed. Actually, many admins seem to be more focused at "i", but they tend to see "ii" as a content dispute. That means a declared goal of zero tolerance to Nazism became a policy of zero tolerance to whistblowers. In reality, "i" is senseless without "ii", and a correct implementation of the declared zero tolerance policy towards Nazism implies two things. First, no sanctions can be imposed on those who accuse others in being a Nazi supporter until evidences have been analyzed. If no evidences have been provided, or the evidences are obviously laughable, the user who throw such accusations must be blocked. If evidences confirm that a user is Nazi supporter, the result should be to ban the accused user. However, a third situation may be possible: the evidences look serious, but they are not sufficient to inequvocally conclude a user is Nazi supporter. In that case, no actions should be taken against both parties. In my opinion, a declared goal of zero tolerance to Nazism cannot be achieved if good faith whistleblowers are punished.
With regard to me, all of that has no relation to my case, for I didn't accused anybody of whitewashing Nazism. My statement was much softer, but all of that is my and Sandstein's busyness (so far).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Paul, why are you skirting the topic ban in Gas van? While the Soviets used them before World War II, Nazi Germany used them in the Eastern Front after 1941. Your topic ban specifically prohibits this. You have made more than 20 edits on the talk page after your ban. @Sandstein: as the admin who placed the block, how do you see this? --Pudeo (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The 1937 events definitely do not belong to the EF topic. The Holocaust (except the territory of the USSR) is also not a part of EF. The usage of gas vans by Nazi has always been beyond the scope of my interest. Asking Sandstein, who already expressed his opinion on that, is senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
topic ban violation
This thread [[10]] could be seen as a topic ban violation, I suggest you drop the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Holocaust in general is not a part of Eastern Front. 1937 events also are not a part of EF. If in doubt, consult with admins. The usage of gas vans in EF has never been an area of my interest, and I am not going to discuss it in that thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Have it your way.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem. By the way, your discovery of Wheatcroft's opinion about Soviet gas van was really helpful. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Please avoid refactoring at AE.[11] Thanks in advance. El_C 16:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
talk page ETIQUETTE
You really should not really add to comments after they have been replied to as you did here [[12]], please revert.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I've just fixed this: you are not supposed to add text into my post, it is a violation of talk page guidelines. I thought it was you unintentional error. If you have done that in purpose, and if you insist that was not a mistake, I can restore that edit, although that would be against the rules.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, I seem to have inserted a comment between yours. My applogise.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations are in order for you. Thanks. Cheers, Eli !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeez (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This is in response to being named "Editor of the Week." I truly hope would hope other editors would learn your sincerity and patience. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure that it will work, but I added my 2cents. Are you sure a format of your request is correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Assayer, as I expected, the format was wrong. Feel free to use fragments of my text for resubmission.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the way the restriction is meant to operate vis-à-visArbitration enforcement is to establish that an individual is not adhering to the sourcing requirements. The standard format needs to also be adhered to. Good luck. El_C 22:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
El_C, in my opinion, this request should not be directed against some concrete person, its goal is to eliminate potential roots of disruptive behaviour. And, frankly speaking, that approach should be applied to a wider range of EE related articles, because many conflicts in that area are caused by attempts of some national POV pushers to use local poor quality sources, which may be acceptable for articles about some low importance local topics, but are intolerable in the articles devoted to important history topics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not see the restriction having been formulated any other way. The final sentence reads: Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action.El_C 23:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
El_C, I think we are speaking about the same thing. What I mean, this concrete request does not imply any immediate actions against some concrete user, although it creates prerequisites for such actions in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you lost me. Either it's a request that involves a concrete individual, or it should not be submitted.El_C 23:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
El_C, I am not sure you are right. This action by NeilN was possible because the topic was under ARBEE. That means DS allow any admin to do the same with Gas van. Therefore, some procedure is supposed to exist that allows us to request for such an action (Arbitration/amendment would be an overkill). I know no other forum where I can request for that. However, if you think there are other mechanisms, please, explain them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know. I already added the AE notice to the article talk page earlier, though it is the standard notice only and does not touch on sourcing requirements. El_C 23:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Give me a sec, I'm looking into this. El_C 23:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I struckthrough my contention that there needs to be an individual editor mentioned in the request — per MVBW, it seems like this was my mistake. But the request was nonetheless still malformed with respect to its actual format. So it may be resubmitted with the proper format (section for comments, sections for admins, etc.) adhered to at any time. El_C 03:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I decided to request sources and revert restrictions from uninvolved admins to establish that the page in question was covered by the recent Arb Case decision and to ensure that all participants were aware of that. It was be easily to be forseen that this would have been questioned.[14]. Therefore, this step was a sort of prerequisite to establish that an individual was not adhering to the sourcing requirements. I wasn't sure, where and how to place my request, so I asked at the Help Desk and did not receive an answer yet.[15] Altbough I realized that the standard format for requests did not fit my purpose, I turned to WP:AE, because it provides to request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions. Maybe the information how to place such requests on that page should be clarified.--Assayer (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Update: I have re-opened the request. El_C 03:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Dismissal of Robert Rialmo
Hello Paul, Would you give me a thumbs up/down on the draft for the article I wrote on CPD Officer Robert Rialmo? An adminstrator (RHorwath) wrote I needed to clean up references. He deleted my first article, "the Shooting of Quintonio LeGrier and Bettie Jones." I know this is a diversion from your normal metier, but still treasure your advice nonetheless. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Who added a notability template on the top of the draft? The page history doesn't tell that. In general, I don't know anything about that story, and I have no time to read it right now, but the article seems to be well sourced, so I would like to read more about RHorwath's objections.
BTW, if RHorwath believes you need to clean up references, they are acting not as an admin, but as an ordinary user: that is a content dispute, not a conduct issue, so RHorwath's opinion has not more weight that yours. Usually, a user cannot delete an article without a serious reason, a normal procedure is WP:AFD. In some cases, admins can bypass the deletion discussion, these cases are described in WP:CSD.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't notice the notability thing, but it is notable since it was the final nail in the coffin for Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Superintendent Eddie Johnson, and of course, Rialmo was the fall-guy for the other politicos and was fired. I will look into it, thank you so very much! Cheers, Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeez (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep on mind that no admin can prevent you from creating this article. If some people believe notability or other criteria are not met, they can start the AFD discussion, and if a decision will be to delete, the article will be deleted (or merged). I doubt any admin has a right to delete your article unilaterally (there are exceptions, but they are exceptions, see above).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Paul, you are a treasure! To be honest, it's probably more my doing than RHorwath's. I left out some quotes where they were required, then we had a brouhaha over FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) from the Cook County District Attorney's Office about what I could quote and what I couldn't, etc., from the shooting of Robert Rialmo. See my user talk page on my article fraft. RHorwath deleted my first article. The title for the article on the "dismissal of Robert Rialmo" was recommended by RHorwath, which I agreeed with. He is what's called a "Wikipedia deletion administrator." No worries, I know he is only doing his job, and a fellow Brit. I will submit the article, thank you for your guidance. Always looking for improvement ..., Cheers Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this malformed RfC, you should not initiate an RfC without having first reached an impasse in discussion. Further, RfCs need to present a crystal clear question. Please read the instructions before you attempt this again. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Chris Troutman, upon having looked at first comments I came to a conclusion that the question was quite clear. And yes, this RfC was inspired by a discussion elsewhere. This is a discussion about our policy, not an attempt to resolve some concrete dispute, and I want to know the opinion of a broader community. Therefore I have an impression your assertion about malformed RfC is wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Let me explicate. I watch that page, which is how I found your RfC. I saw no flurry of edits being warred over. When looking an any RfC, I immediately scroll up to read the preceding discussion; there was none on this question. Your RfC features four different question marks failing to establish a clear binary for consideration. What I would have preferred was a discussion of the inclusion of the word mainstream with attendant talk about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the function of WP:RSN, perhaps ending with an RfC that plainly said either keep the word mainstream or remove. None of those things happened and now nothing good will come of your actions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Chris Troutman, from your comment, I conclude that the question is really not very clear: my question was not about keeping the word "mainstream", but about the criteria that define "mainstreamness". However, this RfC gave a start to a discussion where people expressed some interesting ideas. I am not sure what should I do in that situation: probably, we should wait and then formulate more focused RfC based on the results of this discussion? What do you think?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I point to WP:RFCCLOSE. Maybe give this another day as you're soliciting input and then go to WP:ANRFC to ask for closure. You could withdraw your question sooner unless you find utility in the responses you're getting. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I still would like to see more comments, what about the option #5 in RFCCLOSE?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Well before 30 days pass for the bot to remove the tag, you'll get input from editors summoned by a bot and they might not appreciate an unfocused discussion. It is up to you, unless a third party closes it sooner. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's wait a couple of days and decide, ok?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, that RfC has lead to an improvement of our policy, which seems to be not contested, so I don't think I misused the RfC template. Since the discussion has come to a logical end, I removed the template.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
New Montage for WW2 infobox
Hi Paul, I’d like your thoughts on the proposal for a new montage on the WW2 talkpage Roddy the roadkill (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you take a look and offer an opinion?
You have edited Ukraine-related articles. Would you mind weighing in here? [16]. And stuff like this: [17] and this [18] which is discussed here:[19].Two editors keep deleting referenced info, which is frustrating. It would be great if some other eyes could see this and offer opinions and you have made some valuable contributions.Faustian (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Could you please add an opinion?
I'm sorry if this is a bother, I opened up an RFC on this issue because the other editor keeps reverting, would you mind contributing? [20]? Thank you!Faustian (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I see no problem with canvassing here, because I am not a party in this content dispute, and my opinion is quite neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Ealdgyth. Happy New Year!--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely deserves attention, along with the MRP article, which also needs some serious modifications. Will return to that in 2020 (as you can see, I am not too active now due to some RL business). If you join this work, I would be happy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems the problem has already been resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
AE comments
I'm not sure where this ought to be pointed out, but I think Doug Weller is not an uninvolved admin with respect to the "race and intelligence" article. His edits to the article are listed here [21] and his comments on the talk page are listed on this page. Some of the listed edits, such as this and this, are definitely content edits and not just administrative housekeeping. (The first edit was adding a citation to the Daily Mail!) The results section of the report about Peregrine Fisher says, "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators", so that seems to mean Doug Weller should not have commented in that section.
I approve of the sourcing restriction idea. Most of the sources currently in the article are already compatible with that restriction, so such a restriction would not make a huge difference, but it would help. I also find it very concerning that so many admins are supporting a topic ban for Peregrine Fisher, when almost none of the editors commenting on the report think that's a reasonable action. 2600:1004:B165:9E9:C47A:5E05:FDA6:EB51 (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!
Dear Paul, Wishing you and your family a healthy and happy New Year! Regards, Eli Bigeez (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Eli. Sorry for delayed response, I was not near a computer during the last week. Happy New Year!--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert: No worries mate! If you are up to the task, have a lookk at my sandbox for the C/R thing. Change it up, do what you like. Can you cross out or strike-through what is redundant? or not important? Then ... and only then ... will I submit it under a fresh talk page. And, if it's too long, chuck it out, and I'll start again. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Will do next week.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Eli, I have looked through your text. First, having too many references for one sentence is not a good style. Can you trim the long trail of references and leave no more than two the most essential ones for each fact? Next, I am not sure Petain's photo is relevant: formally, Vichy was a neutral and independent state, and Petain was acting in interests of his state (as he saw them), whereas "collaboration" refers mostly to collaboration between people in occupied territories with an enemy, against interests of their state. I would suggest to replace it with some person like Quisling. With regard to Maquisards photo, the scale and importance of French resistance was dramatically exaggerated after WWII. A photo of Soviet, Yugoslav or Italian partisans would be much better.
I have some ideas on how to make this text much shorter. I can start this work next week. Should I work with your text directly, or I should make a copy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Paul Siebert:, by all means work directly, and so sorry for the delay. I am sure that editing in this fashion will save all of us time and brainpower. And, we can worry about the pix later: they were recommended by E-960 back in September of 2019 in Talk:World_War_II. Thank you. Nice to see you back in the saddle again! Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Paul Siebert: Your suggestions are spot-on. I updated the User:Bigeez/sandbox. Perhaps this might be the best time to see other editors' take on C/R, now that there is a fresh page and all. Shall I place it under a new "topic" on Talk:World_War_II? I will not move forward unless I have the green light. Hope all is well. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Paul
Hello @Paul Siebert:, Eli Bigeez here, just hoping you're well, healthy, and taking some well-needed rest. Keeping you and your family in my prayers, Cheers mate. Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Paul
Hope you're ok mate, cheers and Godspeed, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Paul, thx, you really gave me (& everyone else) a moral boost. Prayed for your health and return. All else is vanity (Ecc. 1:2-3). Take the time you need, don't work too hard, mate, look out for your 6. Glad you're back. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Eli, you misunderstood me: I am totally fine, I am not sick, and never been sick. I have to work hard due to COVID, so my involvement in Wikipedia will be minimal during next several months.
In spite of the misunderstanding, Paul, I'm glad your ok! Cheers! Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Paul Siebert: Paul, I realise it's been a while, but not sure how to finalise R/C subheading in Talk:World War II? I thought I smashed it, but if you see thread, no one seems to care; rather, they seem transfixed on nonsensical minutia (see User:Bigeez/sandbox). Am I doing something wrong? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I am not sure why you decided you need to get an explicit permission from other users to introduce the R&C section into the article. That is not how Wikipedia works. You have done an huge work, you created a piece of a well sourced text, you made good faith efforts to discuss it with other users and did your best to address their comments and criticism. Nothing in our policy and guidelines prevents you from adding this text to the article. I myself can do that for you in a close future, but you can do it by yourself too. There is a non-zero probability that that your edit will be reverted, but that is ok, that is how Wikipedia works. This revert would not mean a veto, that would be just the second part of the BRD cycle, and if your addition will be reverted, that may give a start to the next round of discussion at the talk page. Sooner or later, your changes, mutatis mutandis, will be added.
Frankly, I myself see some problems with your text, but that does not mean anything. If you want, I can explain what, in my opinion, should be changed before adding it to the article. However, I would prefer to do that a little bit later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Paul, thank you for your vote of confidence! I was unsure of the proper procedure. It's daunting at times to read some of these comments, some of which are frankly, very abrasive and uncalled for and not at all proper. If you see my sandbox' talk page, please describe the points, I'll correct it until it's perfect. I'll feel better about submitting it. I know it's not perfect, yet I've whittled it down quite a bit already thanks to some editors. But, then some became thirsty for arguing and went off on some stroll down the Nile! Regards, and cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be clear from the context that "Evil Russians" is a short form of "Evil Russian colonizers", whom I already mentioned in the previous paragraph of the same post (see the same diff). "Russian colonizers" cannot be a racist statement in any context (independently on the adjective before it), because it refers not to the ethnic group as whole, but only to the imperial administration of the Russian empire (in that sense, it is similar to "Russian war criminals", which is a pretty correct statement, because refers just to some concrete representatives of an ethnic group, not to Russians as whole).
I believe other Wikipedia users are as smart as you and I: we both do not infer I am accusing you of any kind of racism, so it would be disrespectful to expect other users may interpret that my post otherwise. Other people are as smart as you, so if you don't see any racism in that statement, why others should see it?
Nevertheless, I agree that "evil Russians" was not completely accurate, and, if taken out of the context, may create a false impression of aggression to some specific ethnic group or nation. I'll fix it and supplement with a needed commentary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Kyiv
You have said that Kiev is more common but at Talk:Kyiv/sources it was proven that Kyiv is much more common. You have that said Kiev is old east slavonic and not russian, but admin has found Kiev is russian and place it in that category at Talk:Kiev. 96.56.82.42 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems you totally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. There is no such thing as "admin" during content disputes. The only difference between admins and autoconfirmed users is that the former have an access to some tools, which are needed to perform technical tasks to maintain Wikipedia. Thus, they can block users who violate Wikipedia policy, they can protect some article, etc. However, admins are not allowed to use these tools in the topics they are editing. That means, when some admin joins a content dispute with me, they immediately became just an ordinary user in this topic. That means, that admin cannot block be, cannot protect the article they edit, etc. If an admin violates this rule, they may be desysopped. Therefore, admin's opinion has the same weight as mine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
mkucr
I will respond after work on Friday. This has been a busy week. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ermenrich (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. El_C 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
