Talk:Rosemarie Koczy

Koczy no victim of the holocaust?

New information has emerged in German media that Koczy had been no victim of the holocaust. She seems to have made her early bio up. See here: http://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/kuenstlerin-rosemarie-koczy-ein-holocaust-opfer-das-keines.1013.de.html?dram:article_id=400095 194.156.7.15 (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Deutsche Presse-Agentur: Künstlerin Koczÿ täuschte Holocaust-Biografie vor. In: monopol-magazin.de, 8. November 2017.
• Regina Völz: Rosemarie Koczÿ täuschte Holocaust-Biografie vor. In: WDR.de, 8. November 2017

January 23, 2018. My name is Emmanuel Yashchin and I initiated the Wikipedia article about Rosemarie Koczy in 2009. At the time, I checked the sources carefully and I did not find any contradictions. I examined the allegations that appeared in the German press in November 2017, and found them groundless. In fact, her husband notified the publications right away that the allegations were false, but for some mysterious reasons he was not given an opportunity to present his arguments. I edited the article and included documents that will help readers to understand why the allegations have no merit.

February 28, 2019. I (Emmanuel Yashchin) saw that the article was edited by an anonymous person at 01:46, 11 October 2018. He inserted a statement "After many years it was revealed that her history was forged" and added a duplicate reference to the November 2017 article in Deutsche Welle. Since this person was presenting baseless allegations as facts, and since the issue of the so-called "forgery" was already adequately addressed in the same section, I posted a request on his talk page to undo this change. This was a month ago, and I did not get any feedback. This person does not have email or address associated with his Id, so there is no way to contact him. I will wait for another five days, and then I will return the article to the original form. Yashchi (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Rosemarie and her parents and her grandparents were catholic, according to church records and civil records. Both of her parents were classified as "deutschblütig" in their civil marriage record in 1938. She appears nowhere in the lists of KZ-camp inmates and NS-victims. The affadavit by her husband can't offer proof to the contrary. All conclusions point towards a fake. I don't want to edit the article, because Yashchi, a personal acquaintance of the artist (see http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/artgallery/Affidavit-2-Koczy.pdf ), seems very protective of the article and I don't want to get into an edit-war with him, but maybe someone with more patiance could do it. --78.55.198.35 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Anybody really interested in the research behind the uncovering of Rosemaries fake childhood bio can buy the following brochure available at the city archive of Recklinghausen: Stadt Recklinghausen (Hg.): Rosemarie Koczÿ. Projektionen einer Identität, Recklinghausen 2018 --78.55.198.35 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

November 26, 2019. I (Emmanuel Yashchin) examined the brochure "Rosemarie Koczÿ. Projektionen einer Identität, Recklinghausen 2018" mentioned by 78.55.198.35. I deeply appreciate the help of its authors, who kindly provided the brochure and related materials, and responded promptly and precisely to my questions. The brochure contains a large amount of information pertaining to Mrs. Koczy's life and work, and the authors invested substantial effort in collecting and organizing it. They mentioned their intent to make it available online, and once it happens, I will gladly include it in the list of references inside the article. In what follows, I will refer to it as Brochure B.

My conclusion is that at this point there is no evidence whatsoever the Mrs. Koczy's childhood story as described in her three-volume memoir is untrue. Several crucial points in her story are supported by witness testimony, and there is no documentary evidence contradicting her account. It is well-known that members of her family were Catholics (probably for several generations) and thus they had their "deutschblütig" and other racial purity documents in order - these were provided based on membership in the Catholic Church. In her memoir, she is describing quite extensively her Catholic background and her first communion. At the same time, her family remained racially / ethnically Jewish, and were known as Jews to the local population. They did not bother to hide it - there is no doubt that the Church people knew about it, and did not care. In other words, for a number of families in Germany, religious integration and racial assimilation were two very different concepts. One obvious barrier to racial assimilation was Racial antisemitism. Another was the strong sense of tribal identity exhibited by Jews as people, over millennia.

Germany was a very liberal and enlightened place throughout history (relative to other parts of Europe), and so it is not surprising that the process of ethnic assimilation was slow and uneven. Everything changed, however, when the Nazis came to power. Jews who were not members of the Church were deported to Riga (in occupied Latvia) in 1942 and promptly murdered there. Ethnic Jews who belonged to the Catholic Church, like Mrs. Koczy's family, found themselves as second-class citizens, at the mercy of the local police authorities. Mrs. Koczy's story describes the life of her and her family and the persecution that they encountered as non-Aryans in general, and Jews in particular. Below are a number of facts:

Fact 1. Mrs. Koczy's family was identified as Jews on both sides of the family by people who knew them well. This was done in the presence of the witness (Mr. Louis Pelosi, her husband), who wrote an Affidavit included in the list of references. Mr. Pelosi is a distinguished composer and highly esteemed member of the community in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, USA.

Fact 2. The municipal police in Recklinghausen, as in every town in Germany, was run by Heinrich Himmler's organization, who also controlled the SS and Gestapo. They were bound by no laws of man or God, and violated the German Law on at least three occasions:

(a) The Kristallnacht pogrom in November 1938 that resulted in loss of life and property, was not sanctioned by any German Law.

(b) Expulsion of Jewish people from the homes they owned and settling them in a four-building ghetto in Recklinghausen was illegal.

(c) Deportations of people to foreign lands (and deportations, in general) were not sanctioned by the law.

Fact 3. The municipal police in Germany was under the command of Kurt Daluege (who reported to H. Himmler), a convicted war criminal, who was sentenced to death by the Nurenberg tribunal.

Fact 4. The town of Recklinghausen archives contain no information on any deportations. The only document indicating that Jews lived there is the list of confiscated property before they were deported to be murdered.

Fact 5. The Recklinghausen police had its own archives. However, they destroyed them before the town was captured by the Allies.

Fact 6. The town of Recklinghausen was a major strategic target and was subject to intense aerial bombings by the Allies. Children were evacuated from there. However, the town has no information on who was evacuated, and to where.

Fact 7. The Dachau sub-camp Traunstein existed, as it is present in the official list of sub-camps. However, list of prisoners in this camp is not available (only eight prisoners are identified by name), and the location of the camp is unknown. The resort that, according to literature, camp inmates were renovating in Traunstein in 1942 - 1943 was just a place of work, not a camp.

Unfortunately, the above facts are not reflected in the brochure B. Accordingly, its conclusions are based on only a limited set of data, and are thus unconvincing. For example, the brochure states "she was neither a Jew nor a victim of the Holocaust..." - but this directly contradicts Fact 1. The authors assume that the municipal police, who were aware both of the Fact 1 and her "deutschblütig" credentials, would choose to overcome their anti-Semitic instincts and leave her family undisturbed. Given facts 2-3, I doubt it. Germany at that time was a police state and criminals were in charge. They could do whatever they pleased, with no consequences. According to Mrs. Koczy's memoir, they chose to "evacuate" her and her mother to a camp for non-Aryans.

During my investigation, I made three attempts to recover documents that could confirm or contradict her account of events, namely: (a) the list of people deported from Recklinghausen, (b) the list of inmates in sub-camp Traunstein of Dachau and (c) the list of children evacuated from Recklinghausen. All three attempts ended in failure, due to facts 4-7. Based on this, I conclude that absence of records related to camps and repressions of the Nazi era is not a rare event.

In light of scarcity of documentary evidence, the question here is whom we chose to believe. For example, Mrs. Koczy claims that in the Traunstein camp, her mother was forced into sexual slavery. Clearly, she was only a three-year-old child and there is no way for her to know this for sure - somebody (maybe her mother?) told her this. Who am I to doubt it? Furthermore, she claims that the divorce of her parents was forced by the authorities based on their race; note that we are talking about divorce of a Catholic couple with two small children - a serious matter. Obviously, somebody told her that - she was not an eyewitness. Again - who am I to doubt it? The authors of brochure B claim that this is impossible because the state had no interest in forcing Jews to divorce. This is not convincing. Indeed, the state did not force the non-Catholic Jews to divorce (these people were designated to be murdered anyway, so why bother). However, people running the police did not want any new Jewish children born on the German soil (Catholics or not) - and so, forced divorces were quite possible, especially given facts 2-3. Such decisions probably depended on the local administration - some townships could be more lenient than others.

The authors of the brochure B tend to be judgmental on what is possible and what is not possible in a police state. For example, Mrs. Koczy mentions that her grandfather on the Koczy's side was shot by the police because he was severely ill and could not be moved. The authors of B point out that the son of the victim obtained a death certificate, and another cause of death was listed there. Whom do we believe? Clearly, Mrs. Koczy was not there, and somebody told her this story (her grandfather?). But if we assume that the story is true, would anyone expect the death certificate issued by a police state to give the real cause of death? Those of us who lived in a police state, will likely agree that such death certificates are meaningless in a dispute of this sort. In general, in police states (from the times of the Roman Empire to present day) the primary objective of archival records is to protect the interests of the ruling class; any archivist or historian who is not aware of that would not survive for long.

The authors also tend to express categorical judgements on what is possible and what is not possible in wartime. For example, Mrs. Koczy describes her witnessing of German planes spraying bullets that were causing death of the local people (by the way, she never claimed that these people were the targets). The authors of B consider this impossible, and ascribe it to a child's fantasy. However, those of us who saw war, would consider such events entirely possible: they are called "collateral damage" and occur even in today's wars. The authors of B consider it impossible that Mrs. Koczy could have seen African-American soldiers in the Ottenhausen area near the German-French border, and present it as evidence of her account being a fake. However, looking at the history of African-American troops in Europe, it appears that one could have encountered them about anywhere, and some were serving under the command of the French Army.

The authors of brochure B try to explain the events described in Mrs. Koczy's memoir as implausible, and due to some child memory issues, war trauma or mental instability. They bring up the case of Mr. Wilkomirski, who wrote a fake memoir of his World War 2 experiences while living safely in Switzerland. I strongly disagree with this position. Yes, it is perfectly legitimate to doubt the reliability of memory of a child in wartime conditions. Yes, many of the described events she did not witness personally. Yes, Mrs. Koczy indeed suffered from depressions. However, most of the time she was a highly efficient, productive and reliable person. I find it remarkable that her memoir, unedited due to her untimely death, written over the course of twelve years in small installments and containing such an incredible number of details, nevertheless, maintains a very high degree of integrity. She was no Wilkomirsky - no doubt she actually lived in Germany during the war and not in Switzerland - and most children in this category saw a lot of really terrible things. I see absolutely no motive in her trying to write a fake memoir in the final years of her life. A comparison with Anne Frank is greatly more relevant. And Mrs. Koczy saw much more of the war than Anne Frank. Her memoir is definitely worth reading.

To summarize, Mrs. Koczy was known in the community here as a person of crystal integrity. She was very generous, donating her time and money to several charitable causes. She was active in the food bank that helped hungry and homeless people. In the evenings, she worked as a volunteer in a nursing home, tending to patients who were mostly bed-ridden. She was a workaholic, until the final days of her life, when she was almost blind and clearly realized that the end is near. She held strong opinions about matters of art. She was a very demanding art teacher, well-known and respected. Her funeral (held promptly after death, in line with the Jewish tradition, on a cold and rainy December day) was attended by hundreds of people. She was undoubtedly one of the finest representatives of the great German Culture, and people of Recklinghausen (especially the Catholic community that played a key role in her life) have every reason to be proud of bringing up a person of this caliber.

Mr. Pelosi established a web site dedicated to her work. I will continue to maintain the Wikipedia article; please do not consider me overly "protective" - I will gladly incorporate material reflecting points of view of respectable researchers, including, of course a link to the brochure B once it becomes available. At this point, however, claims that there exists some "proof" that her memoir is a fake are unsubstantiated, and they do not belong in a serious article.Yashchi (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixing up this article.

I'm removing the tags and adding an Under Construction tag because the original author is intent on bringing the article up to standard, and request for deletion has been denied. I will work on this article today. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to GeorgeLouis for bringing this article closer to Wikipedia standards! I am about to edit it. I believe that these edits address the concerns related to links, citations and missing information. All the references are now cited in the text. I also incliuded two additional photos: one of Rosemary at work, and another of tapestry named "Torah" (the correct name of the painting No 156 is "Untitled"). I changed the opening paragraph (her memoir has actually been printed in September 09, as expected) and added some additional references. I also fixed two typos. I am saving on my computer the original page that includes GeorgeLuis's editorial comments (just as a precaution - I think that Wikipedia does keep the previous version, so that these comments are retrievable). Best wishes, Yashchi (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Images restored

I just restored the following images of her artwork with proper license information:

• File:Rosemarie Koczy Tapestry Torah 1977.jpg
• File:Rosemarie Koczy Sculpture107 2002.jpg
• File:Rosemarie Koczy Painting156 1985.jpg
• File:Rosemarie Koczy Drawing48 Book193 2007.jpg
• File:Rosemarie Koczy Drawing48 Book82 1997.jpg

--Chaser (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored image files: all permissions have been documented with Wikimedia, Ticket# 2010102210012907. Yashchi (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed New Section about Controversy

I stumbled on this Wikipedia-Article and was quite surprised how it portrayed the controversy surrounding Rosemarie Koczys alleged past and her contested status as a survivor of the Holocaust. I understand that the allegations against Mrs. Koczy are hurtful and seem unbelievable for her family and friends, but Wikipedia is not the place to present his own interpretations of the Controversy and of the historical sources its based on. Wikipedia makes it quite clear, that it is no place for original research and rather strives to write its content from a Neutral Point of View. This means it should be based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available and find a balance based on the prominence of the different position, regardless of the Authors conviction. I think this article struggles with that on several points

As far as I can follow Historians now believe Mrs. Koczys life story to be false, which is contested by her husband and friends of the family. The Wikipedia Article itself seems to be used in this controversy, (for Example: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/artgallery/Affidavit-2-Koczy.pdf ) which defies its purpose as an unbiased Encyclopedia. Mails and Statements by her husband and friends do not have the same weight as historical research or Articles published in the New York Times. They`re several instances, were the article is biased:

- Her parents were both Roman Catholics, however they were ethnically / racially Jews,[5] and as such were subject to Nazi persecution. The historical research stresses that they were categorized as "deutschblütig", which refers to their racial status under the Nuremberg Laws (not their religion) and means they were not subject to Nazi persecution. To say that they were "ethnically/racially Jews" and were "subject to Nazi persecution" therefore contradicts the historical research an presents the position of her husband one-sided as a fact.

- The then following paragraphs about her life are based on her Memoirs, which historical authenticity is disputed by Historians

- In November 2017, during an exhibition of more than 100 of her works bequeathed to the city of Recklinghausen, her life story was examined by a local historian and a town official, who claimed that her memoir had been forged.[9] Subsequent examination showed, however, that most of these allegations were false, and the remaining ones were unproven.[10] This claim ist not verfiable, a Mail Correspondence is not a reliable Source

I would propose to remove the parts about her early life and her experience during the Holocaust from the "Life" section and open a new section about the Controversy, were both position can be presented in a balanced way. I would propose the following text:

^{Rosemarie Koczy was known for her many works dealing with the Holocaust and claimed to be herself a survivor of Nazi persecution. According to her memoir, Koczy was deported in 1942 at the age of 3, surviving two concentration camps, first at Traunstein (Dachau) and then at Ottenhausen (Struthof). Fifty years after the war's end she wrote of that time:}

^{We worked in the fields every day. I saw the killings, the shavings, the bleachings, the torture and hunger, the cold, typhus, tuberculosis. Death was all around!}

^{In November 2017, during an exhibition of more than 100 of her works bequeathed to the city of Recklinghausen, her life story was examined by local historians, who didn't find any documents supporting Koczys claim of her and her families persecution as Jews but rather contradicting documents. Records indicate that Koczy's parents both worked for the Reichswehr and were not subject to persecution by the National-Socialist. When they married in 1943 they provided the necessary documents to prove, that they had no Jewish ancestors, as prescribed by the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws. They also found no evidence of Rosemarie Koczy or any of her relatives to ever be deported or imprisoned in a concentration camp. The Traunstein Concentration Camps she claimed to be as a child, was also exclusively for adult men. The Historians, who since published their Research, therefore conclude, that Rosemarie Koczy was not persecuted and fabricated her life story. Koczys widowed husband rejected these claims and reaffirmed her and her parents Jewish identity, which he understands as based on ethnicity rather than religion He also asserts, that the psychological results of Koczy’s trauma were too severe to have been invented. Yad Vashem announced, that it will also examine Koczys identity and Biography but, regardless of their findings, will keep her artworks as a relevant response to the Holocaust.}

Qwerwino (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

November 30, 2021. Dear Qwerwino. First, I (Emmanuel Yashchin) am sorry for not being able to address you by your name, since your ID is anonymous. Your proposal for a new section on the so-called "controversy" is interesting, however I do not believe that it would be beneficial to the readers at this point. The reasons are as follows:

1. As you can see from my November 26, 2019 contribution (the section above), I examined the brochure "Rosemarie Koczy: Projectionen einer Identitat" (reference #3; I referred to it above as Brochure B). Based on the facts presented there, my conclusion was that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that Mrs. Koczy forged her life story as presented in her 3-volume memoir.

This was two years ago, and we did not see an effort by the authors of this work to refute my arguments. It could be that they found these arguments convincing enough. If not, we might hear from them in the future. Whatever the case, considering a section on "controversy" prior to getting the position of the authors is clearly disrespectful to them, especially in the case that they no longer see anything "controversial" about her life story.

2. The newspapers that published the unfortunate forgery allegations, both Deutsche Welle (DW, reference #2) and New York Times (NYT, reference #6), did not endorse any claims of forgery. As we can see from the Affidavit-2 quoted in your text, the DW position is simply that "Our article quotes both sides of the ongoing conflict and otherwise keeps an objective perspective". Since their article presents Mr. Pelosi's assertion that he "rejects all claims of falsification in his wife's memoir", but does not include any of his arguments, it was important to communicate to DW why exactly the claimed proofs of forgery are false. This was done in the Affidavit-2. Now the Wikipedia readers will also have the opportunity to see this information. I must add that I do not see why you consider this mail correspondence "not a reliable source". A copy of the correspondence should be in the archives of DW, and readers who have any doubts about reliability could request validation through DW.

3. The material that you propose for the "controversy" is not only too voluminous, but also factually problematic. For example (your claim is on top, my comments after dots):

(a) the local historians found "contradicting documents".

* They originally thought so - however, what they found was actually described and explained in her memoir.

(b) Records indicate that Koczy's parents both worked for the Reichswehr

* This does not seem correct - please provide a link to these records.

(c) When they married in 1943

* This is not correct. They were married in the 30s.

(d) The Traunstein Concentration Camps she claimed to be as a child, was also exclusively for adult men

* This is not correct - no such information exists. See Affidavit-2.

(e) The Historians, who since published their Research, therefore conclude, that Rosemarie Koczy was not persecuted and fabricated her life story.

* We have no indication that this is their current position, given my Nov 26, 2019 arguments.

(f) He also asserts, that the psychological results of Koczy’s trauma were too severe to have been invented

* This is the opinion of Mr. Pelosi. It does not prove the absence of forgery, and it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. A more important : fact is that the Affidavit-1 gives the names of eyewitnesses who corroborated key points of Mrs. Koczy's story in his presence.

(g) Yad Vashem announced, that it will also examine Koczys identity and Biography.

* This was 4 years ago. They had plenty of time - and they did not report any evidence of forgery. However, once we get their conclusions, they will be quoted in the article.

In summary, there is still no evidence today that supports any forgery claims. So, there is no point discussing any "controversies" in a separate section. As the article shows, people highly influential in the matters of art consider Mrs. Koczy a prominent artist of German origin. People reading a Wikipedia article about her life and work would hardly be interested in wasting their time on speculative allegations. Of course, we need to mention the fact that her biography was examined by historians and that concerns were raised - and this is what the article does in its present form. The provided links and the information in this Talk page cover this issue quite broadly.Yashchi (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mister Yashchin,

as I wrote before, Wikipedia is no place for original research. Please look into the linked Wikipedia guidelines. Your interpretation of the Broschure or how convincing (or rather unconvincing) you found their arguments is therefore as relevant as how convincing I found the rebuttal you posted here (also unconvincing).

1. The Authors of the Broschure published their findings and kept scholary standards by providing their sources in footnotes. Your presented your Counterarguments in an E-Mail and on this Page and provided no sources other than Koczys own autobiography and statments by her surviving husband and yourself. In short, there is an published claim that Koczys forged her life story, which is covered by sources and conforms to scientific standards and an unpublished an uncovered rebuttal. Clearly you must see, that from an Neutral Point of View one of these sources is more reputabel. There is also no reason to assume, that the authors found your arguments convincing. I also looked in the broschure and found that you are even mentioned in an footnote, which states:

Due to detailed queries from Louis Pelosi and Dr. Emmanuel Yashchin the scope of the research was expanded and on the basis of other sources supplemented and more precisely specified.

2. The guidelines on reliable sources make clear: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" They also state, that primary sources like E-Mail correspondence should only be used, when they have been reputably published. Please look into these guidelines.

Also: The Newspapers both reported on the controversy and therefore document, that there actually is an controversy, which then should also find its place on Koczys Wikipedia article.

4. The material for the controversy ist voluminous because I tried to show both positions.

(a) No, they found contradicting documents (like the marriage certificate). I also provided a source for this claim. Do you have a refutable published source (like a Newspaper or a scientific publication) that claims otherwise?

(b) I dont have to provide a link to these records, because Wikipedia is (again) no place for original research The claim is made by one of the articles, a refutable source. If you want, we can strike that passage.

(c) You are correct, it should be 1938.

(d) The claim is made by one of the articles and also in the broschure, where a german source is provided.

(e) We have no reason to assume otherwise. Just because you didn`t found their arguments convincing, doesn`t mean they are disproven. After your statement here I also contacted one of the authors and they stand by their position and see no reason to retract their broschure.

(f) Its the main counterargument in the New York Times Article. I dont think the Affidavit provides "eyewitnesses who corroborated key points of Mrs. Koczy's story" but again, Wikipedia is no place for original research. If you want, we can also strike that passage.

(g) They also didn`t provide any new evidence that contradicts the broschure. Their position, even if its undecided, should be named in a section about the controversy

In Summary: Historian who researched Mrs. Koczys life story came to the conclusion, that Mrs Koczy wasn`t actually persecuted by the Nazis and published their research in accordance with scientific standards. Her surviving husband and you reaffirm the claims made in her autobiography. There a no scholarly publications that share this point of view. The conflict is reported in national and international media. It should therefore also be featured in this Wikipedia-article from an Neutral Point of View. I propose the following section:

^{Rosemarie Koczy was known for her many works dealing with the Holocaust and claimed to be herself a survivor of Nazi persecution. According to her memoir, Koczy was deported in 1942 at the age of 3, surviving two concentration camps, first at Traunstein (Dachau) and then at Ottenhausen (Struthof). Fifty years after the war's end she wrote of that time:}

^{We worked in the fields every day. I saw the killings, the shavings, the bleachings, the torture and hunger, the cold, typhus, tuberculosis. Death was all around!}

^{In November 2017, during an exhibition of more than 100 of her works bequeathed to the city of Recklinghausen, her life story was examined by local historians, who didn't find any documents supporting Koczys claim of her and her families persecution as Jews but rather contradicting documents. Records indicate that Koczy and her parents were not subject to persecution by the National-Socialist. When they married in 1938 they provided the necessary documents to prove, that they had no Jewish ancestors, as prescribed by the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws. They also found no evidence of Rosemarie Koczy or any of her relatives to ever be deported or imprisoned in a concentration camp. The Traunstein Concentration Camps she claimed to be as a child, was also exclusively for adult men. The Historians, who since published their Research, therefore conclude, that Rosemarie Koczy was not persecuted and fabricated her life story. Koczys widowed husband rejected these claims and reaffirmed her and her parents Jewish identity, which he understands as based on ethnicity rather than religion Yad Vashem announced, that it will also examine Koczys identity and Biography but, regardless of their findings, will keep her artworks as a relevant response to the Holocaust.}

PS: I added colons to your post to differiante between the different posts in the thread more

Qwerwino (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Yashchi (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

December 7, 2021. Dear Qwerwino,

In relation to your comments,

1. With full respect to its authors, the Brochure B cannot be considered as conforming to scientific standards at this point. Generally, scientific works are produced by publishers who can ensure the suitable editorial scrutiny and peer-review process. There are few publishers in Germany that have this capability - but the authors did not submit their material there. Instead, they published the brochure within their own narrow organization, which typically guarantees absence of a rigorous review process. The flaws that I pointed out in my November 26 post (in what follows, I refer to it as EY_Nov_26_2019) are obvious, and they would be undoubtedly picked up by any publisher of scientific material. What matters in assessing the material are facts and logic. If the authors or readers have any objections to facts and logic in EY_Nov_26_2019 (one can consider it as a brief review of Brochure B), I would be glad to hear about them.

2. The fact that newspapers reported the allegations does not in itself create a controversy. If a prominent person is alleged to commit some offense, this can be considered "news", and such allegations appear in the press all the time. Many of them eventually get disproved, and nobody mentions any "controversies". My e-mail correspondence with DW (Affidavit-2) is reliably available and verifiable, and so it can be considered as published. The Affidavit-2 clearly shows that the allegations against Mrs. Koczy were never fact-checked and were not endorsed by DW. The same can be said about the NYT article. With most allegations provably false (as was shown in the Affidavit-2) and not a single proven one, there is no point talking about "controversies".

4. In relation to the specific points:

(a) The marriage certificate is not a "contradicting document". As Mrs. Koczy noted in the memoir, her parents were religiously Catholic and they had a valid Catholic marriage. These marriages required "deutschblütig" certificates, and her parents were able to secure them, despite being racially/ethnically Jews. Mrs. Koczy never denied that her parents had these certificates. So, there is no contradiction.

(b) This is not about "original research", but about truth. I saw no evidence anywhere that her parents served in Reichswehr.

(d) It is proven in Affidavit-2 that there is no factual support for the statement that the "Traunstein camp was exclusively for adult men". The sources you refer to are thus misleading. If you want to dispute this point, please provide the certified and complete list of inmates in this sub-camp of Dachau.

(e) There are claims in Brochure B that are not simply unconvincing, but false. For example, the statement "She was neither a Jew nor a victim..." directly contradicts the eyewitness account, as pointed out in EY_Nov_26_2019. The names of the eyewitnesses are Frantz Deskowski and Agnes Pryczybyl, see Affidavit-1. The statement that it was impossible that Mrs. Koczy could have seen African-American soldiers in the Ottenhausen area near the German-French border is likely false too, given what is known about the important role of the African-American soldiers in the European WW2 theater. The authors could establish the status of this statement with the help from the US Army and the French Army. Other statements are too shaky to serve as a basis for any forgery claims.

As far as I know, nobody requested withdrawal of the Brochure B. As noted in EY_Nov_26_2019, the authors have invested considerable time and effort in compiling it, and their work is important, despite the mentioned flaws. I hope that at some point the authors will bring it to a form where it could be considered by a major publisher. The focus of trying to prove forgery is misplaced - I hope that the authors will take a more open-minded view of her story.

(f) The main counter-argument in the NYT article was that the Catholic background of her family is well-known and documented (note that they are also described in her memoir). This dealt a major blow to the forgery claims.

(g) Most likely, Yad Vashem examined the claims and found them not worthy of response.

In relation to your proposed text (your text on top, mine on the bottom, after dots), I will mark your statements with letters a1, b1, etc. to differentiate from your previous proposal.

(a1) "... but rather contradicting documents".

* This is not correct. The fact is that they made claims that they found contradicting documents. Most of these claims were proven false (see Affidavit-2), others were unproven.

(b1) "Records indicate that Koczy and her parents were not subject to persecution by the National-Socialist."

* This is not correct - there are no such records. Their "deutschblütig" certificates prevented them from being murdered, but not from persecution. This is described in EY_Nov_26_2019.

(c1) They also found no evidence of Rosemarie Koczy or any of her relatives to ever be deported or imprisoned in a concentration camp.

* They also did not find evidence to the contrary. Note that deportations were executed under the pretext of "evacuation", as described in her memoir.

(d1) "The Traunstein Concentration Camps she claimed to be as a child, was also exclusively for adult men."

* As proven in the Affidavit-2 and mentioned earlier, this statement is false. Also see comments on (d).

(f1) "Koczys widowed husband rejected these claims and reaffirmed her and her parents Jewish identity"...

* Mr. Pelosi also proved this by providing the names of eyewitnesses in Affidavit-1.

(g1) "Yad Vashem announced, that it will also examine Koczy's identity..."

* See my comment on (g) above.

In summary, devoting a whole section of a small article to debunked forgery claims is disrespectful to the authors of Brochure B, as I noted before. I now believe that the objective of your proposal is to cause harm to the reputation of these authors. You appeared anonymously in this forum and claimed that you "stumbled on this Wikipedia article". Now you claim to represent the opinions of the three authors of the Brochure B. I cannot even be sure that you are not a bot operated from some exotic part of the globe.

Prior to modifying this aspect of the article, I will first need the three authors of the Brochure B to appear on this Talk page (each under his own name) and request the expansion of the part related to their forgery claims. Yashchi (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mister Yashchin, i urge you again to read the Wikipedia guidelines about Wikipedias Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia being no place for original research.

I have no idea how you got the idea that I would be a bot. I never claimed to represent the opinions of the authors of the Broschure because I dont. I also dont know them. You just claimed, that they maybe were convinced by your arguments and that they dont uphold their claim anymore. Even though I saw no reason for that, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt an wrote one of them an E-Mail to make sure, that there are still contradicting claims. I also have no idea, how you got the impression that the authors of the broschure have to appear on this Talk page to justify changes to the article. This is not how Wikipedia should work.

1. They gave credible sources for their claims and conformed to scientific standards even though it is right that the broschure is not peer reviewed. Neither are your Mails or your post here, which aren`t even providing sources. Again, the broschure is a reliable source your Mails are not. The Broschure presents multiple arguments why Mrs Koczy Biography is fake, from missing records (no records of a jewish family by that name, no records of deportees by that name, no mention of members of that family changing their name in 1938 under the antisemic laws of the Nazis, no records of the shop of her grandparents being destroyed during the "Kristallnacht"...) to contradicting records (the "Ariernachweis" of her parents, the proven presence of her parents in Recklinghausen AFTER the deportation of the Jewish population...) to contradictions in her Biography itself. Your only concern yourself with some of these arguments and the arguments presented in your post do NOT disprove the broschure but rather show a insufficient knowledge of the workings of the Nazi-Regime (for example "deutschblütig" refers to the category her parents were seen under the Nuremberg Laws, it means that the Nazis saw them as "Aryan" and not "Jews" in an racial sense and therefore did not persecuted them as such). But as I said before, Wikipedia is no place for original research so its neither the places for a review of the broschure nor for a defence against unjustified critism.

2. Your E-Mail can not be considered published, please read the guidelines on reliable Source The allegations are also not proven false.

a) These certificates prove that her parents were seen as "aryan" and not jewish by the Nazi-Regime under the Nuremberg Laws. The categorizations under the Nuremberg Laws as jewish in different gradations were the basis for persecution and deportation by the Nazis. Its were the Nazis definied who was racially jewish or "aryan" in their eyes. It is therefore of course an "contradicting argument" to the claim of persecution by the Nazis as Jews.

b) I deleted the part about the Reichswehr. At the risk of repeating myself, Wikipedia is no place for original research. You and the authors obviously have different opinions about the "truth". The Article right now doesn`t follow a Neutral Point of View in presenting those different opinions.

d) I will not provide such a list, because I am not doing original research. The affidavit also doesn`t in any way proves that the Traunstein camp was not exclusive for men.

e) Wikipedia is no place for original research

g) This is speculative

I disagree with all your comments on my proposed text. To manage conflicts as these, Wikipedia has developed guidelines which I have referenced to multiple times. You keep claiming that the allegations are debunked which is simply not true and present your own conclusions as facts. An Wikipedia Article should not be based on your opinions. I see no reason to not add my proposed section.

Qwerwino (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

December 12, 2021. Dear Qwerwino,

In relation to your first paragraph, the article currently conforms to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) which is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The claims of forgery are quoted, and the material proving their falsity is quoted too. The Brochure B was introduced by a reader in this Talk page, and so it was discussed here. This brochure is not a reliable source (see definition) - rather, it is a typical example of self-published material that did not see any editorial scrutiny or peer review (as far as I know, EY_Nov_26_2019 defined in my previous post is the only review of this brochure). Since it is not a reliable source and the review reveals serious logical flaws in the brochure, there is no requirement to bring this material into the main article. If the authors wish to have it included, they should directly indicate this, and the place to do it is here and under their own names.

In relation to your second paragraph, you are probably aware that bot contributions constitute a high fraction of material on social media, and Wikipedia is as vulnerable as other sites. The role of these bots is typically to introduce false material, create various "controversies" and control the information flow. These bots can be very sophisticated - so, one should always keep this possibility in mind. Your post claims to convey positions of other people (for example, you state that they still have "contradicting claims"), and thus you claim to represent them. Unless the authors appear here to present their position, there is no way to validate that this is the case, especially if you are a bot. This is how Wikipedia should work.

In relation to the numbered points:

1. I explained above why the brochure does not conform to any scientific standards and is not a "reliable source". My review EY_Nov_26_2019 is also not a "reliable source" - it was presented on our Talk page only because Brochure B was introduced here and I had to inform the readers about its logical flaws.

The "multiple arguments" that you mention are based on the assumption by the authors that Mrs. Koczy's family were unconverted Jews. Based on this assumption, they found what they call "contradictions" (like "no Jewish family by that name", "no records of the shop destroyed", etc.). Their conclusion thus was that her family were Catholics. They considered this to be a proof of forgery. The problem here was that their initial assumption was false: Mrs. Koczy's memoir explicitly describes her family as Catholic. So, the claim of forgery is false. They were not required to change their names in 1938 - as I discussed in EY_Nov_26_2019, they were Catholics for several generations. With all that, they remained ethnic Jews and were known as such, despite their "Ariernachweis" certificates. I suggest to download one of these certificates from the web: they are all based on Church records. No DNA tests existed back then.

So, her memoir describes a family of ethnic Jews with "Ariernachweis" certificates. You claim that they would be safe, and that I have an "insufficient knowledge of the workings of the Nazi regime". However, given what I know about regimes of this type, I believe that families like hers went through hell. I explained the reasons in EY_Nov_26_2019.

Note that Mrs. Koczy did not specify how her grandfather's jewelry business was destroyed. In all likelihood, her grandfather was called to the Police Chief office and told something like this: "We know who you are. You can stick your Ariernachweis in your ear - it was obtained through deception, and we have witnesses. I expect generous regular payments from you, starting this month." This is a more profitable way to destroy a business than simply burning it. You think that this could never happen in a police organization under the control of a convicted criminal?

Regarding proven presence of her parents in Recklinghausen after the deportation of the Jewish population, they were indeed there to sign the divorce papers. As she claimed, this Catholic couple was forced to divorce because of racial reasons. See EY_Nov_26_2019. Furthermore, Mrs. Koczy never claimed that her parents were with her 100% of the time.

In relation to the last line, I am not putting my review in the main article, so there is no problem with Wikipedia rules. I placed it on this Talk page, in relation to one of the users mentioning Brochure B as the source proving forgery. This is what Talk pages are for.

2. My correspondence with DW is considered published under the Wikipedia guidelines, which say: Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Note that electronic publishing is also recognized. In relation to specific points:

(a) You assume that the "Ariernachweis" certificates of ethnic Jews were respected in the post-Kristallnacht police state. As noted above and in EY_Nov_26_2019, this assumption is not credible.

(d) The authors used the statement "Traunstein camp was exclusive for men" as a fact in proving a forgery claim. This "fact" is baseless, so the claim of proof is false. My own knowledge about the status of this statement is irrelevant.

(e) This is not about original research, but about false "findings" that were used in Brochure B and led the authors to faulty conclusions and defamation of Mrs. Koczy. The Wikipedia readers of the Talk page should have enough information to decide for themselves.

In summary, your proposed text contains information that is false as shown in my previous post, and the readers will get an impression that the authors of the Brochure B are supportive of it. This would cause damage to their reputation. As I noted in the beginning, we should not be including such text solely based on request of an anonymous user who could also be a bot. I hope that this post adds to understanding of why the forgery allegations against Mrs. Koczy are indeed debunked. I do not present my conclusions as facts: the readers who disagree with my facts or reasoning are more than welcome to present their views in this Talk page.Yashchi (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Rosemarie Koczy and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

We should limit what we mention in the article to what is covered by reliable, secondary sources and limit the focus given to controversies based on the weight afforded to them by such sources. In this case, I agree with Qwerwino that claims that are sourced only to the CUNY affidavits provided by Yashchi should be removed unless other sources can supplant them. This includes the claims about Koczy's parents racial/ethnic status and the falsity of the Recklinghausen historian allegations. We can replace the later with a short mention of Pelosi's denial, sourced to DW/NYT. I don't agree with Qwerwino that other material in the Life section should be removed or that a new Controversy section should be added, as doing so would give undue weight to the fraud allegations. I have this page watchlisted and would be happy to answer any clarification or follow-up questions. Part of this dispute includes conduct allegations that I won't respond to in my role as a third opinion volunteer. If some time passes before a response, I would appreciate a ping. Firefangledfeathers 03:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

December 19, 2021. Dear Firefangledfeathers

When the forgery claim appeared in DW in November 2017, Mr. Pelosi immediately saw that the underlying logic was faulty. In the NYT article, he indicated that the sensational "findings" were not findings at all, but rather well-known facts. These facts are consistent with her memoir. I initiated my own independent research in 2017 after this web page (which I maintain since 2009) was altered by an anonymous user who presented forgery allegations as facts. My objective was to find out the degree of factual support of the forgery claims made by the authors. In the process, I spent a large amount of my personal time communicating with the authors and other relevant sources, and going through the materials. My conclusions in relation to the claims published in DW are summarized in the Affidavit-2. I found that most of the forgery claims were false, and the remaining ones unproven. In other words, this affidavit contains the proof that the authors of the forgery claims committed libel against Mrs. Koczy. I attributed it to failure of the authors to understand her memoir rather than to a malicious intent - but libel it still was, pure and simple.

The Affidavit-2 is reliably available through the archival system of the City University of New York (CUNY) - one of the largest universities in the world. As I already noted, it also contains the proof that DW did not fact-check any of the forgery claims. The material in the Affidavit-2 can be obtained through DW for independent validation, and I encourage the readers who have any doubts to do so. It constitutes a publication by the Wikipedia standards. The Affidavit form of the proof is important for historical purposes - it makes it easier to track and authenticate the statements and actions of the parties involved. As I already noted, I am open to criticism - if anybody has issues with the facts or arguments that I used, please present them on this Talk page. Note that the authors of the forgery claims, who are alive and in full mental capacity, never disputed any of my findings.

In relation to your comments, you suggest that racial/ethnic status of Koczy's parents should be removed, despite it being confirmed by named eyewitnesses. This makes no sense, because this status indicates that her statement about the Jewish origin of her family had solid grounding. You also suggest to remove my Affidavit-2 and only include rebuttals by Mr. Pelosi. So, published results of my extensive and independent research effort proving that libel was committed against Mrs. Koczy should be hidden away from the Wikipedia readers? This suggestion is reckless and irresponsible, since removing material that provably exonerates an unjustly accused person is an intentional libelous act.Yashchi (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed the articel according to Firefangledfeathers suggestion by adding a part in the life section instead of a new section an removing the claims, that are only sourced by the affidavits. I tried to show both sides and present the conflict from a Neutral point of view.

Dear Mr. Yashchi, as I said before, despite your claims, nether you nor Mr. Pelosi disproved the claims made by the historians. As I said before, the ″Ariernachweis″ her parents provided are the basis for their categorization under the antisemitic Nuremberg Laws. It proves, that her parents were viewed as ″Aryan″ and not in any way ″Jewish″ (as a racist category, not a religous one) by the National Socialist regime. The same can be said for most of the other claims you made, but as I also said before: Wikipedia is no place for original research If you have a problem with the claims made in the broschure, Wikipedia is not the place to voice or debate them. You continue to advocate for original research when you asstert: ″if anybody has issues with the facts or arguments that I used, please present them on this Talk page.″ As I also said before the authors dont have to defend their conclusions on this Talk page to be reliable. Concerning reliable sources I believe everything has been said.

Qwerwino (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Qwerwino, I do support the removals you made, though I don't support adding as much detail as you did to the life section. I think we should attribute Koczy's claims about her childhood without an undue amount of equivocating. I would prefer a version like this one, which include some, but not all of Qwerwino's language. PS: thank you for trying to ping me. When you use a pinging template like Template:u, you need to sign your post or the ping doesn't work. Firefangledfeathers 17:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Firefangledfeathers, thank you for your input here. I would still argue, that some more detail is necessary. Koczy is an artist, that is, as the Wikipedia-Article correctly states "known for her many works dealing with the Holocaust". If her life story is forged, as the historians that examined it are claiming, then is this an important aspect of her biography. As far as I understand the broschure, the articles and Mr. Yashchis Arguments here, as well as the statements by her husband he provided, then this claim was made by historians who published it and is rejected by Mr. Yaschi and her husband. I found no reliable published source that contest the conclusions by the german historians. I think that the best and most reputable authoritative sources available concerning Mrs Koczys life story are the broschure and the articles in the New York Times and Deutsche Welle. A balance article based on the prominence of the different position should therefore not present these claim at the end of the section about her life after before presenting her autobiografic claims unchallenged.

Qwerwino (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how to determine the reliability of the brochure, but my instinct is to proceed with caution. NYT and DW both present the forgery claims as allegations, not facts, though I agree they don't contest the conclusions. I do think we could add a little detail to make clear what is alleged, as the current version doesn't mention that it's her WWII experience that is contested. Firefangledfeathers 22:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Firefangledfeathers,

the broschure consists of three articles by historians and archivist, who follow academic procedure and present sources for all their conclusions. As far as I understand their research is only contested by Mr. Pelosi and Mr. Yaschi. DW originally reported the forgery claims as facts and added an "allegedly" after they have been contacted by Mr. Pelosi and Mr. Yaschi. As the Affidavits Mr. Yaschi provided show, DW refused to retract the article entirely, as Mr. Yaschi demanded (in order to revise this wikipedia article). I therefore see no reason, to question the reliability of the broschure as it is only contested by Mr. Pelosi and Mr. Yaschi. From my perspective the DW and NYT-Article simply show, that their is a controversy surronding Mrs. Koczys WWII experience consisting of the forgery claims made by the german historians and their rejection by Mr. Pelosi and Mr. Yaschi.

My original proposal was therefore to add a section about the controversy, to show these two position in a balanced way. Following your suggestion, I instead tried to revise the life section by removing the claims that are only sourced by the affadivts and balancing the depiction of her life according to her memoir (the existing text) with the contradicting claims by the german historians. I tried to remove any unneccesary facts, but I think some details have to be given:

- her claim to be persecuted as Jews and the contradicting claim by the historians, that she and her parents were not persecuted and not categorized as Jewish by the National Socialist

- her claim to be imprisoned in Traunstein needs to be balanced with the historical research (Traunstein being a camp exclusivly for adult men)

- the rejection of the claims of forgery by her husband and the statement by Yad Vashem (as it shows, that their is still an ongoing controversy)

I think that these points should be made not at the end of the life section, but at the part about her WWII experience. I still think that my revision yesterday portrays the controversy in a balanced way and only adds the necessary details to contextualize the preceding paragraphs based on her memoirs. I tried to rewirte my revision based on your lates suggestion, but I dont think these details can be removed or the controversy should be placed at the end of the life section.

Qwerwino (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

My questions about the brochure are: who published it? Was it peer reviewed? We’re any of it’s authors in a position to enact its publication, leading to it also being considered a self-published source? Firefangledfeathers 15:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

December 22, 2021. Dear Qwerwino,

In relation to your statement: "It proves, that her parents were viewed as ″Aryan″ and not in any way ″Jewish″ (as a racist category, not a religous one) by the National Socialist regime." By your logic, the ethnic Germans who lived on the USSR territory during WW2 were also viewed as Soviet citizen and so protected by the law and not persecuted. Do you really believe in that?

I examined the record of Firefangledfeathers. This is an anonymous id that is currently under "discretionary sanctions" by the Wikipedia. According to their definition, such sanctions are "imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion." His entry in the Talk page appears to be a good example: he suggested to remove my published document that proves that libel was committed against Mrs. Koczy. As I noted in my reply, removal of this document is an intentional libelous act. In most countries, such an act is illegal, even criminal.

Accordingly, I reversed your changes.Yashchi (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yashchi, part of your comment includes conduct concerns that I'll address at your user talk page, as I'd prefer to keep this article talk page focused on the content. Replying in part to your recent comment and the one from December 19: my concern about the affidavit is that it's not published in a reliable source. I suppose we could consider it a self-published document, but the guidelines for such sources say to use them sparingly. The most reliable self-published works are by subject-matter experts, which the policy describes as "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Would your work qualify in this regard?

I would not describe any proposed version of the article as 'libelous'; as Koczy is deceased, 'libel' is inapplicable here, unless you mean it metaphorically. I am concerned about tarnishing a person's legacy with an undue amount of focus on a controversy, and I hope to find a reasonable compromise in that regard. Of the many reliable sources that have covered Koczy's life and work, we have found only two (DW, NYT) that mention the potential forgery, and both are careful to attribute the claims to the researchers in Germany. Yashchi, do you see there being a version of this article acceptable to you that mentions the controversy, Pelosi's rebuttal, and not your affidavit? Firefangledfeathers 18:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Dec 25, 2021. Dear Firefangledfeathers

You consider the article in DW to be a "reliable source". What exactly makes it "reliable"? Three people from a small municipality approached DW and declared that they have documents that prove forgery. One of them is identified as "historian", another is an archivist, third is the local museum director. None of them have any name recognition, particularly in the field dealing with proof of statements. They are not lawyers, not mathematicians - why is their statement of forgery proof considered reliable? The DW did not ask them any questions or perform any fact-checking (basically acting as a tabloid) - so, what is "reliable" about that? The only "reliable" feature of this article is that it can be reliably reproduced.

I decided to check the validity of their statements. This took considerable amount of time. I have expertise in the matter of analyzing proofs and establishing validity of statements. I will make my credentials available if this dispute progresses to a higher level. My analysis led to the conclusion that the forgery proof of the authors was hopelessly flawed. I then formulated my document proving falsity of the claim and communicated it to the authors in a Dec 25, 2017 email. I asked the authors to withdraw their forgery claim. The authors refused, without presenting any arguments contradicting my conclusions. It was at this point that I initiated communication with DW that is encapsulated in Affidavit-2. Affidavit-2 is not simply a publication, but also a legal document pertaining to DW article. It exonerates Mrs. Koczy. Like the DW article, it is reliably available. It should be considered as a document produced by an established subject matter expert.

In relation to your comment on libel, the Wikipedia policy also protects "recently deceased" people, so there is nothing metaphorical about my characterization of a false forgery claim against her as libel. Note that this claim appeared within 10 years of her death. Furthermore, we need to keep in mind that libel is also defined by the law of the land and not only by the Wikipedia policy. In relation to your suggested compromise, I consider removing Affidavit-2 which exonerates an unjustly accused person as an intentional libelous act - so, it is morally unacceptable (by agreeing to that, I would also be breaking the law).

In relation to your question about the Brochure - it is definitely self-published, as already discussed on this Talk page. Note that it was authored by a Deputy Mayor and two employees of a small municipality, and printed by the same municipality. The Brochure mentions me as presenting "detailed queries" - however, I actually delivered to them proof of forgery claim falsity prior to its publication.Yashchi (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Yashchi, I dont really understand in what relation the ethnic background of Soviet citizens is to Mrs. Koczys case. The anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws were the basis for the racist and antisemitic persecution by the National-Socialist. They definied the categories which were subject to persecution (for example people of Romani or Jewish descent) and how to "prove" you didn`t belong in those categories and were "Aryan". Koczys Parents gave those "prove" to the national socialist authorities and were therefore categorized as "Aryan" ("Ariernachweis" means certificate of Aryanhood).

I would appreciate if you wouldn`t try to portray my attempts to bring the Article in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines as "libelous" "illegal" or "criminal". We obviously have different opinions concerning Mrs. Koczys life story and the claims made by the german historians. Luckily Wikipedia as an collaborative encyclopedia doesn`t rely on all their editors to have the same opinion and developed an comprehensive set of guidelines. They clearly state, that an article should be written from an Neutral Point of View, should contain no original research and should be based on reliable Sources. I tried to multiple time to propose paragraphs that follow these guidelines and present the forgery claims and Mrs. Koczys claims in a balanced way. You rejected all of them. How do you propose to continue? Wikipedia provides multiple conflict resolution tools. I already requested a third opinion, which Firefangledfeathers provided. If you want, we can also request outside input from the Original Research Noticeboard or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about the question we disagree one.

Qwerwino (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Dec 25, 2021. Dear Qwerwino,

You appear to claim that known ethnic Jews with "Ariernachweis" certificates were protected by the law and not persecuted - do you really believe it? In EY_Nov_26_2019 I already proved that the Recklinhausen bosses violated several German laws - so, what is the basis of your belief? Would you also believe in integrity of a legal system run by NKVD?

In relation to you activity here, you

(a) pushed forgery claims against Mrs. Koczy that have been debunked 4 years ago. I discussed them one by one on this Talk page, but you are still bringing them up.

(b) claimed to represent the position of the authors of forgery claims without their explicit consent. They are alive, in full mental capacity and are perfectly capable of representing themselves. I proved that the forgery claims are libelous, and libel is a serious matter. The authors have a full right to rebut my facts and arguments - but this should be their prerogative, not yours.

(c) misinformed Firefangledfeathers about my role, claiming that I contacted DW asking them to change the title of the article. My interaction with DW is completely described in Affidavit-2. I only contacted them after extensive research, that convinced me that claim of forgery was false. You mentioned that DW refused to retract the article, but did not give the reason: they claimed that they simply represented both sides of the conflict. Clearly, there was no fact-checking.

(d) edited the article by introducing claims that are provably false and at the same time removing the published document (Affidavit-2) that exonerates Mrs. Koczy. You can pick your own definition for this conduct.

(e) demonstrated no understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. For example, Brochure B is a typical self-published document by a Deputy Mayor and 2 employees in a small municipality - you tried to present it as some scientific publication. Note that the authors were formally informed about falsity of their claims prior to its publication, but did not mention this in the brochure.

(f) demonstrated no knowledge of work, life or art of Mrs. Koczy that would justify your participation in the editing process.

In relation to you question on proposed continuation, you can contact people in Wikipedia dealing with libel. I can see a clear push to smear the name of this prominent artist, and this might be the right time to get them involved in the process.Yashchi (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Yashchi,

I dont "push" any forgery claims and would appreciate if you stopped attacking me personally and insinuate some kind of criminal conduct. I´m only trying to balance the Article based on the most reliable sources and from a Neutral Point of view.

I can only repeat, that your counterarguments here dont "prove" that the claims made in the brochure are false and urge you to inform yourself of the workings of the Nazi Regime. I dont claim that the Nazis system had any kind of integrity but the discrimination, exclusion and persecution of the german Jews escalated in several steps that are well documented. Mrs. Koczys and her family dont appear in any of those documentations and were still in Recklinghausen after the whole Jewish population was already deported.

I can also only repeat, that relevant for the persecution by the Nazis was only the categorization BY the nazis. Ethnicity is a tricky constructs, but we can hopefully agree, that despite the Nazis claiming otherwise, there is no such thing as a "Jewish Race". The Nazis were unable to genetically identify Jews and instead used the verifable genealogical Data they had to categorize their citizens. The "Ariernachweis" and the Nuremberg Laws therefore didn`t protect anybody. They simply show, that the Nazis didn`s saw Koczy or her parents as Jewish. Many of the people that were persecuted as Jewish didn`t indentified themselves as Jewish and often only found out through the Nazi documents (i.e. the denial of an "Ariernachweis") that they had jewish ancestors. Jewish ethnicity, Jewish religion and antisemtic persecution by the Nazi are therefore not the same. I can also just urge you again to not conduct Original Research on this page. If you disagree with brochure you can publish a review or rebuttal, but Wikipedia is not the right place for this.

I´m also not trying to diminish Mrs. Koczys work or art. I never even said anything about it.

Qwerwino (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Sources concerning Koczy life story

After multiple questions about reliable Sources and the nature of the german brochure about Rosemary Koczy, I thought that it may be a clearer an less cluttered to adress these question in an new topic. I found only the following sources concerning Rosemary Koczys life:

– her memoir I Weave You a Shroud, in which she claimed, that she and her family have been persecuted by the Nazis and that she survived two concentration camps

- the german brochure Rosemarie Koczÿ Projektionen einer Identität examining these claims and coming to the conclusion that her biography was forged

- multiple secondary sources refering to the first two

Unfortunately the brochure was only published in german. Because there were multiple questions concerning the nature of the brochure I will try to clear some of them up. The Brochure is published by the City of Recklinghausen and consists of three articles:

- The first short article is by Dr. Hans-Jürgen Schwalm, an art historian and director of the citys museum. In his short introduction he presents Mr. Koczys biography (with only brief mention of her war experience) and emphasizes on her artistic achievements

- The second article is by Georg Möllers, a Teacher, historian and member of the city council and the most important article for us. He first describes the development of the citys memorial culture and the importance of an confrontation with the Nazi past. An important part of this Endeavor is the citys "Gedenkbuch" (Memorial book) where they try to remember the victims of the Nazis and present their life story to give them "their name, face and identity" back. He then describes how the verification of Rosemary Koczys life story failed, when they tried to include her in this Memorial book. Her family name and the name of her mother couldnt be found in any of the list of Jewish familys living in the city, of deportees or victims of the Nazi persecution or on the list of Nazi victims compiled by survivors. He then examines the autobiografic claims made by Koczy and points out several Inconsistencys and contradictions. He describes the failed attempt to contact living witnesses and presents the existing sources concerning her life. He then depicts Koczys biography based on the sources he found (with a little Excursus on the persecution of the Jewish population of Recklinghausen). Based on different sources he comes to the conclusion that the shop of Koczys grandparents was not destroyed in the November progroms, that neither Koczys nor her parents were deported, that Koczy didn`t lived in an campf for Displaced persons after the war and that neither she nor her parents or grandparents were persecuted as Jews. He also presents his research on Koczys extended family and statements by witnesses concerning the status of the family under the Nazi-regime. He also presents Koczys traumatic biography after the war with quotes from her memoir supplemented by the corresponding archival sources. At the end he summarizes why Koczys and her family could not have been persecuted by the Nazis for being Jewish (the main arguments are the "Ariernachweis" of her parents, proving that there were not seen as Jewish by the Nazis, the temporal sequence, that prove that Koczys family lived a normal life, after the Jews of Recklinghausen have already been deported and several smaller contradictions) and points out, that her difficult upbringing and traumatic childhood could be the reason for an unconscious appropiation of an biography as a Holocaust survivor. He concludes: "This historical-biographical study cannot fully clarify the fate of Rosemarie Koczÿ and her family on the basis of the available sources. However, there is no doubt that the construction of her identity as a victim of anti-Semitic Nazi terror is demonstrably constructed."

- The third and last article is by Dr. Matthias Kordes, director of the city's archives. He presents the relevant research on witnesses of the Holocaust and mainly focuses on contrasting Koczy biografical claims with the corresponding historical research (on the specific subcamps, the liberation by the allied forces etc.). He then presents the relevant research on (often unconsciously) faked Holocaust-biographies (Wilkomirski-Syndrom) and points out several concordances with Koczys biography.

The brochure was not peer-reviewed and I dont know if the brochure counts as a self-published source as Firefangledfeathers suggested and Yashchi claims. The professional background of the authors (a least Georg Möllers also seems to have already published books about Jewish history in germany) and the accordance with scientific standards (their present sources for all their claims and refer and cite the relevant literature) led me to believe, that the brochure is the most reliable sources at hand.

I still think that a paragraph in the form that I suggested in December would be the most appropiate. It presents Koczys autobiografic claims in formulation by Yashchi and supplements them by the corresponding conclusions of the german historians, without taking a position itself (e.g. "Koczy faked her biography" "the allegtions are false). I dont want to argue about the content of the brochure itself, which I only presented here for a better understanding of what were dealing with, because I think this constituts Original Research. I posted this case on the Noticeboard on Original Research and think the post there support this assesment. I hope that this post helps in assesing the different sources and the formulation of an balanced article. Qwerwino (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Qwerwino, there's plenty to say about the brochure, but to put it succinctly: it's not reliable. The circumstances of its publication do not suggest reliability, and the fact that other, more definitively reliable sources report its findings as allegations is telling. I suppose WP:RSN would be a reasonable next step if we can't come to a consensus, though I'd prefer to let the WP:ORN discussion complete (or be archived). Firefangledfeathers 02:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Firefangledfeathers, could you give me some insight into why you think the brochure is not reliable? I come to different conclusions surrounding its publication, mainly that it started as a mere formality in a process of honoring Mrs. Koczy and that the city owns many of Mrs Koczys work and has no interest in thoughtlessly casting doubt on such a central part of her life story. I also found that the broschure extensively backs up their results with sources. If we categorize the broshure as self-published, it still fits all of the criteria I can find about Identifying reliable self-published sources. The only negative review I can find is the critique by Mr. Yashchi on this page, that constituts under my opinion (and as far as I can see the opinion of the editors of the relevant Noticeboard as well) Original Research and that the editor of the Deutsche Welle Article rejected (as seen in the affidavit provided by Mr. Yashchi) as "baseless allegations and demands". Concerning the Coverage as allegations I can only cite the New York Times Article, that states:

″After being threatened with legal action by Mr. Pelosi, Deutsche Welle, Germany’s public international broadcaster, amended an article on its website to make it clear that the recent statements about Ms. Kozcy’s past were allegations rather than facts."

I can only come to the conclusion, that the coverage of the claims by the broschue only reports on them as allegations to avoid a costly legal dispute. This is supported by the coverage of respected german newspapers, that allmost all present the claims as facts rather than allegations.

I would also like to point out, that the only other sources available are Mrs. Koczy Memoirs and the Affidavits of Mr. Yashchi. Even if we disagree on the definite reliabilty of the brochure, we still can hopefully agree, that it is the most reliable source we have at hand.

I would also like to point out, that I dont propose to rewrite the article based on the brochure. Even if we disagree on the reliability of the brochure, I still think they`re is no basis to qualify the brochure as "false" and "unproven" as the Article currently does.

In my proposed version I tried to present the claims made by the brochure (and reported by DW and NYT) and the version presented in her memoir as well to show both sides. I also tried to include the rejection of the claims by Mr. Pelosi and the ongoing examination by Yad Vashem to show their is still an ongoing controversy. Sorry for repeatedly bringing this version up again, but I like to reach a consenus on the specific wording, which, under my opinion, doesn`t rely on us all having the same opinion about the brochure and Mrs. Koczys life story. Would a wording that uses more subjuncitve be more adequate? E.g.

Historians who examined her life story in 2017 came to the conclusion that Koczy fabricated her life story and was not subject to Nazi persecution. They found no evidence of Rosemarie Koczy or any of her relatives to ever be deported or imprisoned in a concentration camp.[6] They also argue, that her parents provided the necessary documents prescribed by the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws when they married in 1938, to prove that they had no Jewish ancestors and were therefore not persecuted as Jewish. The current research on the Traunstein Concentration Camps she claimed to be as a child, also believes that the camp was exclusively for adult men.[7] Koczys widowed husband rejected these claims [8] Yad Vashem announced, that it will also examine Koczys identity and Biography but, regardless of their findings, will keep her artworks as a relevant response to the Holocaust.[9]

Qwerwino (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Qwerwino, there are parts of your comment that I agree with, so I'll focus on those first:

• I do think we are at a point in this discussion where it would help to discuss specific draft language proposals
• I do not think the article should describe the claims of the Recklinghausen group as "false" or "unproven"

It's not strictly accurate to describe the NYT and DW pieces as reporting on the brochure, which was published after the journalism pieces came out; they appear to be responding to public comments made by those who would go on to publish the brochure. More importantly, this means that there are no sources that I am aware of that review the brochure, either positively or negatively, except the affidavit (which I do not think we should use) and the German news coverage (which I can't find).

My proposed version has three main points:

• We should present claims about Koczy's biography during the holocaustwith attribution, starting with According to her memoir, she and her parents were persecuted by the Nazis for their Jewish ancestry. Fifty years after the war's end, she described being deported in 1942 at the age of 3, surviving two concentration camps, first at Traunstein (Dachau) and then at Ottenhausen (Struthof) ...
• We should remove all claims that are cited to the affidavit
• We should base our description of the Holocaust controversy on the DW and NYT articles, perhaps something along the lines of:In November 2017, during an exhibition of more than 100 of her works bequeathed to the city of Recklinghausen, her life story was exa mined by local historians and archivists, who wrote that her memoir had been forged. Koczy's widowed husband rejected these claims.

I believe the most reliable sources are NYT and DW, not the brochure or affidavit. I do believe the brochure was self-published, so the question is rests on whether the authors are subject-matter experts. Perhaps you could provide some more info on Möllers? Firefangledfeathers 14:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers makes WP-sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Firefangledfeathers thank you, that actually cleared a lot up for me.

About your proposed version:

• Presenting claims about Koczy's biography during the holocaust with attribution and your proposed version sounds good to me
• I also supporte removing claims cited to the affidavit, in fact I will do it right know because this seems to be strongly supported by almost everybody
• I do support basing the despriction of the forgery claims on the NYT and DW articles, allthough I still have a different assesment about the brochure. My problem with your version here is, that the WP Article in your proposed Version states concrete details from here biography (not as facts, but it does mention them) that have been called out as forgeries. I think that if we mention, that she claimed to have been persecuted due to her Jewish ancestry, we should also mention, that the historians assert that they do not have any indicitation that Koczy has any Jewish ancestors and that she certainly was not persecuted for it. I also think that if we include, that she claimed to have been deported to Traunstein, we should also mention, that according to current historical research there were only adult males (around 20) imprisoned in Traunstein. Both these points are supported by the NYT and DW Article. The research about Traunstein was also published in english (e.g. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, Vol. I: Early Camps, Youth Camps and Concentration Camps and Subcamps under the SS-Business Administration Main Office (WVHA), Part B, Bloomington 2009, S. 552) I think this would make the article more balanced. I would also argue in favor of including the mention of Yad Vashem, as it is also supported by the articles and proves, that the forgery claims to not diminish her artistic reputation regarding her work about the Holocaust. Based on your proposal, my version would therefore read as followed:

  In November 2017, during an exhibition of more than 100 of her works bequeathed to the city of Recklinghausen, her life story was examined by local historians and archivists, who wrote that her memoir had been forged. They assert, that there a no indications, that she or her Parents were persecuted or had any Jewish ancestry, but rather contradicting sources The Traunstein Concentration Camps she claimed to be as a child, was also exclusively for adult men. Koczy's widowed husband rejected these claims. Yad Vashem announced, that it will also examine Koczys identity and Biography but will keep her artworks as a relevant response to the Holocaust regardless of their findings.

Qwerwino (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerwino: thanks for removing the affidavit source. It's now been two weeks since the last comment at ORN, and it's clear we have rough consensus for removal. I made an edit to introduce attribution for her early biography details.

I think it's likely that we can come to a compromise on the forgery claims content. I support much of your proposal, though I'd prefer it to be shorter, based on my loose assessment of what is WP:DUE. How about:

In November 2017, during an exhibition of her works in Recklinghausen, local historians and archivists wrote that her Holocaust memoir had been forged. They assert that neither she nor her parents were of Jewish ancestry, that they were not persecuted during the Holocaust, and that Koczy was never in a concentration camp. Koczy's widowed husband rejected these claims. Yad Vashem announced that it would examine Koczy's biography but keep her artworks as a relevant response to the Holocaust regardless of their findings.

Thoughts? Firefangledfeathers 03:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Firefangledfeathers

I think your proposed version is a good compromise and changed the article accordingly. Thank you a lot for your help. I think I learned a lot about the Wikipedia process.

Qwerwino (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerwino: I am happy to see this come to a consensus! Thanks for your help. Firefangledfeathers 13:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Link to an online version of the brochure "Projektionen einer Identität

There is a link below to an online version of the brochure "Projektionen einer Identität" (English: "Projections of an Identity") provided by the city of Recklinghausen:

https://www.recklinghausen.de/inhalte/startseite/ruhrfestspiele_kultur/Dokumente/Rosemarie%20Koczy_Projektionen%20einer%20Identit-t.pdf

You can copy the text and have it translated automatically, using e.g. Google Translate. In order to get a correct translation of the text you need to reformat the text which is broken into lines into a running text. In doing so you will get a quite accurate translation. Arandiro (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)