Talk:Warsaw concentration camp/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Expansion revert revisited

After a week's silence on the sandbox version of the Warsaw concentration camp proposed expansion (and since almost three weeks have passed since the time when Slatersteven first edited the sandbox version), I feel it's time for the editors to analyse if the proposed changes are worse or better. Here is the original version; the current version, as edited (almost) exclusively by Slatersteven, is here.

I invite users involved in the discussion of the revert to participate again and to assess which edits, starting from the original sandbox version, should be implemented, and which should be reversed. (The previous discussion has established rough consensus that an expansion as an idea is beneficial, though it has been submitted to review to correct any inaccuracies, misrepresentations or other mistakes). @Levivich, Slatersteven, Piotrus, François Robere, GizzyCatBella, and Dreamcatcher25: your comments are welcome.

(Note. As WP:DRNC proposes, the process of addressing potential concerns with the article's version/edit should last about a week, give or take a day. 19 days have been afforded to address any concerns. I don't believe there is any more sense to wait for the edit's publication, and that any improvements may be made while the article is in the open). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to choose between your version and Slater's version as if those were the only two choices. Looking briefly through Slater's edits to your sandbox, they look reasonable to me, but of course I don't know how the revised sandbox version compares to the current version of the article, so I can't say I prefer one or the other. For a third time, I invite you, instead of seeking consensus for a complete rewrite all at once, to simply make the edits you want to make to this article, but to break up those edits into smaller chunks (so not just one big edit but a series of small ones, one per sentence, per paragraph, or per section as the situation may warrant), so that others can simply change the edits they want to change, revert the ones they want to revert, and the rest can be kept as is, and then we can discuss just those changes that need discussion (rather than the entire article). If you and Slater have put together a sandbox version you both agree with, then I'd encourage you (both or either one) to incorporate those edits into the article--again, in small chunks, not all at once--so that others can step through and review them and change what they want to change, revert what they wants to revert, and the rest can be kept, and we can just discuss those changes that are controverted. (Without asking a bunch of people to read several long versions of this article.) Levivich 14:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I would rather they proposed such edits here first, so we can CE them before they are added to the article. There is no need to just do a huge paste job, when suitable material can be added to what we already have.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That's fine with me too, either way. I'm not trying to be obstinate (and if I'm the only one everyone else can ignore me anyway) but I really liked how when I looked at the sandbox history I saw your changes, with edit summaries, which allowed me to efficiently review them (at least a preliminary review). It's the edit summaries explaining the specific changes that are most helpful. (And of course they are, that's why we have edit summaries in the first place.) When all the changes are made in one big edit, we lose that and it becomes a lot more work to manually look at every inline change and sort of guess/speculate/infer why it was made. I don't want to have to ask "why did you change X to Y?" a hundred times, you know what I mean? Edit summaries are awesome. Levivich 15:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The lack of an edit summary, or its not-exactly-detailed explanation, on the other hand, is not a valid reason to revert an edit. True, you are encouraged to make a meaningful edit summary, but what is the edit summary for a 70K edit, which anyone is allowed to do, of course? "Massive expansion" is the best, and the shortest, what comes to mind (I anyway have only 500 characters to describe an edit in an edit summary). There is no requirement for any big addition to be split to smaller edits, which you seem to try to impose, and even if I were to add it in portions, it would mean replacement of whole chapters, which, given the attitude of Slatersteven ("why change some text to an imperfect expanded version if we have perfectly serviceable content", see below), would lead to just the same reverts and similar discussions. Basically, arguing that "I will revert the edit even though I trust it to have been done in good faith" is self-contradictory - either you revert because you believe something's fishy/you don't trust the editor or else you shouldn't revert.

But these, again, are arguments about procedure. I would really ask editors to focus on content. Let's not waste any more time on philosophical disputes on etiquette and simply get the article better. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to share my comments with my own analysis of the version first posted to the sandbox and the final version, but first I'll address some questions/problems that have arisen during the discussion with Slatersteven.

• Slatersteven pointed to some problems connected with spelling and grammar and said they wouldn't copyedit "a huge wall of text when we have perfectly serviceable content". I'd note, however, that copyediting is a minor problem that can be dealt with with a pair or two of eyes. The copyedits should of course stay.
• Slatersteven proposed that we add text paragraph by paragraph, which would essentially mean trying to balance the quantity and quality of coverage of content and watching out for coherence while adding content. Given that the edit is almost 70K bytes large and involves new media, new text and sources, it would take longer to analyse the sequence of additions from the proposed edit than simply check the new proposed version of the article for any defects and replace the old text with the new one. So, answering propositions that I should add info sentence-by-sentence - I don't see it as a viable way of work, though I may reluctantly agree to do that if others insist on doing that (that is, I can, but I certainly prefer the other option). Besides, all of these discussions on how to add text, instead of which text to add miss the whole point of the review: instead of concentrating on any mistakes and inconsistencies and making the article better, we instead clash on the procedures, which doesn't lead us anywhere. Hopefully, we are not the US Senate, so let's discuss content instead of ways of introducing it.

Now, getting to the substance of edits (mainly deletions):

• Lead: Admittedly the original version of the lead was a bit on the long side per MOS:LEADLENGTH, as it was five full paragraphs long (plus an introductory sentence). However, the proposed changes to the lead omit the purpose for which the prisoners were located at KL Warschau in the first place and do not mention the way the camp was actually created, other than Himmler being the author of the idea. Particularly the first piece of information is important for anyone reading the article. What's more, given the exclusively Jewish nature of prisoners, other than the first 300 who arrived in Buchenwald, the addition of information that "at least 7,250 were Jews" in the context provided in the lead would lead readers to think that some 750-1,750 were not Jews, but in fact we are speaking of 300 people only.
• According to Bogusław Tadeusz Kopka, who authored the monograph on the concentration camp -> the original text contained the struckthrough text, which is important given that Kopka is the author of the only available monograph on the concentration camp which follows the mainstream historical interpretation. That's not a change I insist on making, but I find it desirable, as a reader might want to make research using Wikipedia as a starting point (which is how WP is increasingly being used).
• Street names were deleted from the article for whatever reason, which makes the article much less informative. The location of a facility is an important part of any article, and Warsaw being a large city, we have to specify streets. The rationale given was that "unless we have access to the map, it's useless". The access is actually there - just click on the coordinates at the top of the article, and, if needed, choose the map that best suits you. As for the fact that these create red links - actually they are even permitted in FA-class articles, and interlanguage links are not exactly red links.
• Deleted information on a potential gas chamber: with an explanation "Unsure this conjecture is not undue". The thing is, that's what you expect to find in a good encyclopedia: there are sources covering it, but none are certain, so the passage simply reflects the uncertainty.
• Deleted information on the composition of Jewish prisoners here. In fact, the origin of prisoners is present in the articles on Auschwitz, Treblinka (see graph) and Majdanek and is definitely information pertinent to the article (Treblinka and Auschwitz are both good articles).
• Deleted The demolition and salvage work were hard and perilous labor, carried out at a brisk pace with no regard to loss of life of the prisoners, so fatal workplace incidents were commonplace - explained as covered by article extermination through labour, though that's not exactly what the article is about. The linked article is about toiling to death (or rather, being forced to toil to death), while the deleted sentence also contains information about workplace incidents that were not related to exhaustion but simply carelessness on behalf of those organising the work.

In any case, I believe most of the edits made the article worse, and thus should be reinstated.

Answering Levivich's question on which edits I want: I want all of the text to be there, corrected for those changes I haven't mentioned or which relate to copyediting. And no, as you may read from the talk, we haven't agreed on the common version. I proposed to make it a side-by-side comparison, to which Slatersteven did not initially object, until some 3-4 days later, Slatersteven insisted that I should be adding text sentence-to-sentence, which I explained was IMHO not a good idea and a waste of editorial resources. No work has been done on the article since then. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Err, I said paragraphs, not sentences. And threw reason I did not object till 3 or 4 days later is because I had not picked up on those issues. This is why wall of text edits are bad, you may miss subtle werooers (and even spelling errors).Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Levivich's question on which edits I want Huh? I didn't ask any question. Levivich 17:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes regarding new version vs. old (see here):

• Keep "created on the order of..."
• If possible, add a map delineating the premises of the camp to the infobox. If not, keep the verbal delineation in the body.
• Change section name to simply "Terminology".
• Keep "previously occupied by the Ghetto".
• The paragraph on the possible existence of a gas chamber there should only reference WP:APLRS sources. Current and recent affairs, including the conspiracy theory, can reference general WP:RS as well.
• Keep statement starting with "successful escapes were rare".
• The phrase "fatal accidents were common" should be integrated into the first paragraph in "conditions" with an appropriate source.

François Robere (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• UNless you have access to a map the verbal delineation is useless. What we need (and I thought we had) was a map.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  The map is included in the external links. If it is needed on an Openstreetmap layer, you'd have to wait but you'll have it if you really need it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  The map is what we need and all we need. Lets try a test shall we To the north is is bordered by Bull lane, to the west by Websters way car park, to the south by Eastwood road and to the east by King Georgess close and Stile lane. What shape is it, just that what shape is it? Can you tell from that (not its size, just its shape)?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  It is literally mentioned in the text ("of roughly rectangular shape"). As for the images, since WP:F expressly prohibits uploading fair-use maps unless the map is itself subject of discussion, I can't do that (and what's the sense anyway in a 350x300 map whose legend is barely visible. But we can always direct folks to the maps through some text like "(see external links for detailed maps)". Or, yes, we can do OSM stuff, but that will take quite some time.

  As for the hypothetical you present above: alone, without any geographical reference, no one is able to guess. When you narrow it down to a village, town or city (and you additionally have link to coordinates of the object, which we do), you are suddenly able to more or less guess it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  So no then you cant (which is my point, you need to know the area or to have a map to make anything of this information), and a map does not have to be huge. We only need a small map showing its shape. We do not need a detailed map. We are only talking about shape and size, not its internal layout. So a map is of more use to the reader.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  May I ask you about the problem you see with an internal link to external links sections until the svg/OSM file is prepared? Thanks. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have said above what they are I shall repeat it here. They are in Polish., this is the English Wikipedia, so any reader coming here will be able to read English, they may not be able to read polish.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  You said that we are only talking about shape and size, so then the legend is not needed at all, but it's not as if the legend somehow makes it harder for the people to read the shape and size, does it? Say "we need a freely licenced map standing inside the text, whatever its quality", and this will be done. However, insisting that linked maps are somehow deficient is beyond me. They could just as well be in references if you want them to be inline. Btw, what's wrong with this aerial photograph? (Plus WP:RSUE says explicitly that English-language sources are preferred over any other language sources when available and of equal quality and relevance, which they aren't. At least yet). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there any chance that these massive proposed changes could be broken down into more manageable pieces? When I see "(+65,860)" my first reaction is "what???". That's a ton of text and changes to parse through. Volunteer Marek 21:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Considering that you can swipe out 85K of text in a matter of three minutes, basically saying WP:TNT, or another 22K deletion in 10 minutes here, or reducing the article 3x also in a scope of 3 minutes, or, going to the other side of the spectrum of changes, restoring 80K of gradually deleted content in one fell swoop (regardless of the merits of such deletions), all of these in chunks of several thousand or tens of thousands of bytes and with some rather generic edit summaries for my taste (admittedly "massive expansion" is a generic summary, too, but again, assuming that the new text is faulty until properly reviewed is a good way to WP:ABF), it's rather hypocritical to call me out for "abruptness" or "creating non-manageable, impossible to scrutinise edits". The latter is of course bullshit, because all edits are scrutinisable, which is what you do on GA/FA reviews when they are big enough; some just take a little longer to check than the others. Hell, we've been spending more time on talk than is needed to scrutinise the edits.

The answer is actually given somewhere above, if you need it. The other answer is that the fact that the edit is large is alone not a problem; i's the content (or removal thereof) that might be problematic Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That was a needlessly combative response. Levivich 02:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki - That was a piece of wise advice. Your massive suggestions need to be broken down into the smaller, easy-to-manage sections and addressed separately. After one section is dealt with and changes accepted or not, then start another, please. This is too much to go through all of this at once (yet again). - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, if you read the edit summaries and the relevant talk page comments for those of my edits you link, I'm confident you'll be able to figure out the difference. Volunteer Marek 04:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I know it's a bit of make-work, but it can be helpful and a best practice to break a big edit into several (dozens...) of smaller chunks with edit summaries. Which is why I never work in some sandbox, but on live articles, and most of my major edits have some edit summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is easier to revert bad work than to try and fix it. When its this huge (and much of the material seems trivial at best anyway) why are we going to do that? When we can just ask you to fix any problems before adding it. By the way, assuming the text was not faulty and just inserting it was the issue here, not one of ABF, quite the opposite. I assumed you had at least done basic spell checking, you had not. It was only when I started to try and remove (what I felt) was trival details that I came across the spelling, grammer and syntax errors. So if we are at fault it was to wp:AGF too much.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is easier to revert bad work than to try and fix it. It doesn't mean it's recommended, though.

assuming the text was not faulty and just inserting it was the issue here, quite the opposite. I assumed you had at least done basic spell checking, you had not. If you want to imply bad-faith editing, go straight ahead to the administrators' noticeboard, just ping me. The other thing is, in a 5000+ word addition, you will invariably find a few mistakes appearing at random, and that's nothing to shame others about. We are not perfect, though we are trying our best (or so I hope). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You are then one who made an accusation of ABF " assuming that the new text is faulty until properly reviewed is a good way to WP:ABF)". I was responding to that by pointing out in fact I had AGF by assuming you had at least spell-checked your additions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If, in your opinion, spell-checking is determinative of whether any given editor's efforts are good faith, I rest my case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What? That is not what I said. You stated editors acted in bad faith, I pointed out that if anything we assumed good faith too much, it was a response to your accusation. That does not mean that your edits were not made in good faith, it means that I should have not assumed you had even checked your spelling correctly (which then could have been another reason for the earlier rejection of this content). You raised ABF and so forced a defense and explanation as to why it was not an ABF. I really think you need to drop this now as you are making it way too personal.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

We seem to be misunderstanding each other. I don't say editors were acting in bad faith, it's that the attitude which you cited as triggering the whole discussion was an example of ABF. Neither there is such a thing as "assuming too much faith" - either the edit is done in good faith or maliciously. There is no middle option here. In any case and to get to EOT, next time when you revert 65K of someone's work (which is to say, you reject the fellow editor's effort), think twice before clicking the "undo" button, and consider the amount of work one had to do to research the article's topic. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

For some reason I still fail to grasp, editors are in rough consensus that an expansion is beneficial (see previous discussion, which the current discussion did not dispute) but insist that adding it in one fell swoop somehow invalidates the assessment. If that makes your life any easier, so be it. However, when this article's expansion is resolved, I urge all those people who have insisted to split the edit into smaller chunks to codify it in at least an essay, or preferably a sentence in the guideline. Current policy does not forbid making even 65K edits so long as they generally conform to the basic criteria of creating the encyclopedia, even if the editor is misguided in some places (that's where others' input comes). That is the rule you seem to enforce, but you've only done so by pressuring to do that via majority vote, rather than arguing it in defects in content or appropriate conduct guidelines (and I still don't buy the notion an edit, however large, can't be reviewed at all - I've been doing that, you folks seem to have done the same, and even Slatersteven has done that in the sandbox but stopped midway; at most it may be somewhat more difficult to do that). However, to avoid any accusations of uncooperativeness, I will grudgingly produce n consecutive edits (as if what we are talking about is an all-or-nothing approach) in the next hour or two.

As for the actionable edits, the proposals put forward here relate to two matters: the street names and Francois Robere's edits. Nobody contested the latter's proposals, and will thus be implemented. They presume that most of the edits made by Slatersteven are restored. Levivich says they, on the first look, are reasonable, though when provided with the rationale for reinstating the edits, no one intervened or explicitly disagreed except for the streets point (see below). However, since Levivich's rationale was too brief and included no analysis other than a general preference for the edits, it can be anything from WP:ILIKEIT to an argumented analysis which Levivich has not written yet. Since it's Levivich's duty to explicitly address the points if he believes them to be off the mark, I'm not going to second-guess it. This means that the explanation so far has presumed consensus, and thus Slatersteven's edits will get reverted back unless a better rationale is produced, which is when we will return to talk in case of differing interpretations. Noting APLRS concerns, Kopka's book certainly is good enough. As for the Polityka article, the statements are properly attributed to Halina Wereńko, a prosecutor involved in investigating German wartime crimes, and Regina Domańska, a historian of Warsaw (who apparently published an article in 1992 on the topic, but I can't access it). APLRS does not ban such articles so long as there's no RS challenge, which there shouldn't. The challenge was about notability, but that's for another matter.

The street names debate is frankly the least important part of it but editors seem to be at loggerheads there, too. The names will be removed from the lead. As for the body, due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation over how the available non-free maps (or the aerial photograph already in the article) are inadequate to illustrate the purposes for which the map is proposed to be introduced, the names should stay pending addition of its free equivalent, if that is what Slatersteven wants (so it seems from the above discussion).

Please do not revert/change any additions en route to avoid edit conflicts. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have said I see no value in the names, so do not add them. I will revert if I wish, as wp:brd is clear. It is down to you to make a case, and some of what you want to add has already been objected to. I would advise rather post any suggested changes here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Add to what we have, do not just do a cut and paste. If both of these are followed we will not have to copyedit a wall of textSlatersteven (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As an alternative (if this is too onerous for you) add one paragraph at a time to the article, and wait until we have an agreed version before adding another. That will make copy editing easier for the rest of us.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable and constructive way forward. Regarding street names: Slatersteven, I admit there's limited value in names alone, but it is a common way of delineating areas in urban landscapes both in, and out of Wikipedia (including by relevant RS). What's more, such delineation could be used as a guide for preparing or locating a map for the article, RS/APLRS permitting. Given that it's not a lot of text and it does have some use, I suggest we keep it in the body at least for the time being. François Robere (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Or just create the map, if it is so easy to use, use it. In fact if it is just being used as a kind of "place holder" to create a map, keep it in the sandbox.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

An extremely stupid question: if that's so easy to create, why haven't you still done that yourself? I mean, OK, I will do that, but if you find a map useful, you could have just as well sat with OSM layers. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

That map did not seem to contain most of the streets named in the text. By the way, this is why it would be hard for me to do it, I do not even have access to a map of Warsaw to use. You could not find a good one, despite knowing warsaw.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

And to illustat why names a useless and a map is not, I just tried to find them on a map, and it was not easy as they are quite far apart, at least on google maps.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Also is it s Anielewicza Street or Mordechaja Anielewicza Street?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Something like this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warsaw_Ghetto.png, but this is far from acceptable, it is just an example (I.E. it actually shows the area of the camp as a line).Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's very easy. At the magnification needed to illustrate the whole camp's area, we won't be able to see all street names (on Google maps) because a lot of them are local roads. OSM offers a better opportunity. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

So? We do not need to see the street names if the objective is to show its area.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

First, while it is not absolutely necessary, a guide repeating the same information won't hurt and even may help. Remember that images should ideally provided with alt text for accessibility reasons (will do), which the street enumeration does pretty well. There's also this tool (already in external links) that does the job brilliantly. As for OSM map (it's preferred to Google Maps because of copyright and that stuff), I'm doing it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well as I could not even find some of the streets, no it is not a good tool. As I said this just adds words.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've substituted the Google Map for an OSM version. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

We now have a map whose caption contains the same information. We certainly do not need this twice.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually no, because, as has been said, we need alt captions for those who don't allow images to be loaded or can't see them normally for whatever reason. If you don't have the street outline mentioned in text, simply any person who requires appropriate accessibility features (bigger fonts, for example) will not be able to magnify the image because I only have so much resolution on my computer, and neither will be able to get the outline on the maps that will be specially catered to those people, if they want to check it there. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Crud on a stick, which part of "add 1 paragraph at a time and let's work on that before adding another" is hard to understand, one of the objections was having to CE a wall of text. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Numbers

"The Encyclopedia on Camps and Ghettos says that in total, some 8,000 to 9,000 inmates were held there."

"20,000 people died"

Those two do not tally, as one source is claiming that twice as many people died there as were held there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ohh wait, one was unsourced, I shall remove the unsourced estimate. Can users please read wpor and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I am still very concerned we have one source that gives the total number of deaths as twice that of the total number of inmates (especially as lede information) I am going to revert as it seems iffy..Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What is that "against reliable sourcing" you are referring to? The two sources which give authoritative estimates is the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Kopka/IPN, who wrote a monograph which represents the mainstream view on the camp. They differ in methodology (one counts prisoners only while the other figure counts prisoners+folks executed in the walls+others who might have died due to camp-related reasons) but both estimates are used (France24 report on KL Warschau conspiracy theory uses IPN figure). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What does the IPN say, as I find it hard to see how they can say twice as many people died in the camp as it had inmates. Your edit seems to suggest it include people who were not inmates, and were killed in the vicinity, is that the case?Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct. They counted prisoners and non-prisoners alike. You know, the camp had no non-Jewish Polish inmates, so it would be strange if they gave a number of 10K Poles dead where none could die in the first place. Most importantly, IPN does not dispute the number of inmates. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

So were these deaths direclty related to the camp, as in part of its operations. Or just people who were killed in the ruins around the camp?Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the scope of the article is about the camp's prisoners as well as the Nazi execution site operating in the camp, and given that the prisoners and SS-men were both involved in the process (the former in burying the corpses and the latter, apart from normal camp duties, in executing the people, including Poles and those hiding in the Ghetto's ruins), I'd say that yes, it was part of the camp's operations. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it, since when?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the article in its ca. 23KB form contains a section called "Executions in ghetto ruins", which contains the detailed assumptions lying behing Kopka's 20K estimate. The main article is actually a separate one, which is not the scope of the article.

As for when it was introduced in the article, it certainly existed before I started editing the article, and as far as I can track the article's history, the earliest form of such section exists since 4 Sep 2019, when Icewhiz was rewriting the article after blowing it up, when the hoax came to light. The section remained ever since and has not been questioned as to its purpose in the article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

That is 2 paragraphs that linked to another article, in other words, they are related, but not the same. So not this is not really within the scope of the article. You need to read wp:lede.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I read WP:LEDE but I don't see any applicable provision that would argue for exclusion of a perfectly valid estimate by Kopka. Moreover, if it's not within the scope of the article, the content shouldn't be there in the first place; however, no one objected to the section as adequately referring to another aspect of the concentration camp. Since the lede must first and foremost summarise adequately the content of the article, and additionally, because the lead already contains the mention of the execution site in one separate sentence, the estimate surely belongs to the article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of important parts of the article, it is not a newspaper-style leader. This takes up a fraction of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the example in the WP:LEDE actually shows the newspaper lead which is one-two sentences long and contains one death estimate and the encyclopaedic lead which is more detailed and contains 3 (!) death estimates, using different criteria. Compare the Bhopal disaster reporting: Toxic gas leaking from an American-owned insecticide plant in central India killed at least 410 people overnight, many as they slept, officials said today. and The official immediate death toll was 2,259. The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release. Others estimate 8,000 died within two weeks and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases.

If anything, the example provided in LEDE clearly favours introducing more estimates, even if we have to condense them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are estimates of deaths from a specific incident, these are just estimates of death in the area. They are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In a sense, yes, but all these 20K deaths are, according to Kopka, all attributable to the camp's activity. Since the former Ghetto area was a no-man zone, there were only two working facilities: Pawiak Prison/Serbia prison (see the building to the south-east of the camp on the aerial photograph, [1] here), and the camp. According to IPN's estimates, 37K people died in Pawiak, but these folks are not counted to those 20K Kopka says have died. Since no one could live there (the area being essentially a huge construction site, apart from Pawiak/Serbia, which stayed), there's no other factor which would inflate the deaths.

I will quote the passages from Kopka, just wait for some time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Not in the lede, this is not a signicinat part of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Death and prisoner count is certainly important. I'd propose to mention the death numbers in the infobox instead. The one-sentence paragraph looks awkward. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do not, again they are (as far as I can tell) not part of the camp's operations, no other source link them, and adding them only causes confusion. The body covers it well, but it can't be covered by one sentence in either the lede or the infobox. It tells us nothing about the Camp. And again wp:lede is clear the lede is not a leader, it is a summary of significant parts of OUR article, not of the topic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

No other source links 4,000-5,000 death estimate, either. And obviously it does tell a lot about the camp, namely its size and the proportion of survivors. The number of prisoners also does that job too, but then we are speaking of places where people were supposed to die.

I don't understand capitalising OUR, I'm not trying to own the article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Folks, we are at an impasse. Please break it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki and @Slatersteven - please pause editing until ArbCom clarification - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Estimates as to how many died at the camp vary between about 4,000 and 20,000 people. is misleading, as it suggests there are a number of estimates that fall somewhere between 4 and 20k. I don't think that's accurate. There are only two estimates, right? One is 4-5k, and the other is 20k. There are no estimates in between? So we should just say that: one estimate (USHMM?) is 4-5k, and a second estimate (Kopka?) is 20k. If there's only two, there's no reason to suggest there are more when we can just say what the two estimates are. Levivich 22:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There are indeed only two credible death estimates (Trzcińska's be damned). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Warsaw uprising

"The idea of the camp was revived once again after the fall of the Warsaw Ghetto. " seems to contradict (in the lede) "On 5 August 1944, the camp was captured by the Battalion Zośka during the Warsaw Uprising, liberating 348 Jews who were still left on its premises." how could it have been liberated before it was created?Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. The Warsaw Ghetto ceased to exist following the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, when it was totally destroyed (the Ghetto was created in Nov 1940). Warsaw Uprising started in August 1944, so obviously there's no temporal connection. The word "its" refers to the camp and not the ghetto. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If the idea of the camp was revived after the rising, it did not exist at the time of the rising, so could not have been liberated at the time of the rising.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You mistake the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Apr-May 1943) for the Warsaw Uprising (Aug 1944). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I figured that out. But we did not make that clear with the text as you added it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - You figured it out now?! - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as I was not aware there were two.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You didn’t know either!? Hmn..

PS - Can I suggest a book -->(God's playground) that will make it more comfortable to maneuver Poland-related topics? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is why we need to be clear in the article which one we are talking about, as there were two. This article has to be written for people like me, people who do not know. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

True. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In my case I assumed that the two were one and the same (as I know about the latter, and was vaguely aware of the former, but not aware of when it occurred). This is why we need detail, and not vague and imprecise information.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - I understand. Don't be discouraged from editing Poland-related areas. Let me be clear that your input is appreciated. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Gas Chambers (and the issue of one particular source reliability - title edited by GizzyCatBella)

Given that the issue of gas chambers at the camp resulted in what RS has called Wikipedias longest hoax I think we need a source saying they existed to even imply they might have is not enough. Given the propagandising of this page in the past, we need to be extra careful what we include.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I have made clear we are not speaking of the same gas chamber (the original Polish version unfortunately does not make the disclaimer). The one that figures in the hoax is the one purportedly located in the Warsaw West railway station. The one(s) which probably existed (but we are unsure it did, as neither Domańska nor Kopka nor Wereńko say that they have definitively been built) and which, even if they existed, were really minor, was operated on-site. The sources that say they might have functioned are the ones provided in text (themselves basing on reports of NSZ and Wereńko), all from either reputable historians or, in case of Wereńko, a prosecutor who was investigating Nazi crimes just after WWII (until the first investigation was closed in 1947 for political reasons).

So to answer the question: "Did KL Warschau operate gas chambers", the answer is not "no" (as it would have been suggested by the lack of any mention of the gas chamber), but, according to RS themselves, "Maybe, but certainly not the one you have heard of in the news". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And as I said, that is not to my mind good enough, they did not say there was one. We need to be really careful given the history of this page, more so than would be usually the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If we want comprehensive coverage on the camp, we must be mentioning all major details pertinent to the article (and this is certainly a major detail, as gas chambers normally existed in extermination camps and there were such in Majdanek, but not in Płaszów). What you are suggesting here is to dismiss RSes simply because some other guy quoted a bullshit story that no one cared to notice for 15 years. But that's not policy-based reasoning. If the account is reliable and verifiable, it should be included (we have three different people talking of them, so that clearly establishes notability of inclusion). (If you have something against reliability of any of the three people, let me know).

As for Trzcińska's supporters misquoting that passage: let them be damned. Pseudohistory will spread regardless of whether we include the paragraph or not. It is anyway our job to reduce the amount of bullshit in circulation by providing reliable accounts and not by suppressing those that might be misquoted to imply something the text doesn't. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Is an unsubstantiated rumour a "major detail", or a minor bit of hearsay?Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it this way: you are begging the question. If you frame it as an "unsubstantiated rumour", then of course we don't normally need it but the text you've deleted is clear about what were the reasons for speculation on the gas chamber: some witnesses but also National Armed Forces reports claiming it existed and Wereńko's findings about Zyklon B cans found on the camp's premise. Regina Domańska does dismiss it as a rumour without appropriate reliable sources for that. Kopka, on the other hand treats it more seriously and evaluates the possibilities for the existence of the gas chamber, which he says is plausible but, even if it were the case, it didn't kill many people. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is it is a bit undue, as it seems to me we really have no real evidence, and even proposnts seem to admit that. There maybe a justifcation for one line, but really no more than that. But (as I said) given the whole gas chamber farago I think we need to be very careful.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - you wrote[2] --> quote: what RS has called Wikipedias longest hoax. What RS allowed in this topic area claimed that ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

They are in this article already, but OK [[3]], this one just says it was a 15 years hoax [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Article that is not allowed to be used as a source due to the ArbCom ruling, keep this in mind - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

HAs arbcom said they can't be used?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven -->Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations

The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Note - I’m challenging it to be used as a source. (please remove it) The press article (incited by the globally banned user) is not a RS. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

As a source for what? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned not RS is used in the article 3 times. Currently as number 63, 64 and 65. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, 64 and 65 is the same article, so it's now only the same story reported by two different outlets: Haaretz and the Times of Israel. The only thing the story references is: the label of Benjakob (can actually be used in WP:ABOUTSELF manner, and it is attributed), and the fact that it received media attention for having the old version stating 200K Poles died in purported gas chambers. The upcoming expansion also refers to opinions of Grabowski and Dreifuss, which are also appropriately attributed.

Just because the now banned Icewhiz is involved doesn't mean that the sources distorted someone's opinions or that the basic facts (essentially that we let the bullshit stay here for 15 years) stop being true. You might have had a feud with him (and he got banned), but that's not a justification to remove whatever story contains the nickname "Icewhiz". As this challenge was, in my humble opinion, only triggered because Icewhiz, whom you, ahem, didn't particularly like, tipped Haaretz on the story and not on the merits and the accuracy of the factual background of the story (for which we only sparingly cite it, in fact), I say that the challenge does not hold water. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

1. The discussion was closed for being filed in a wrong venue.

2. As for why we cite Haaretz, because it was their scoop. All other stories ultimately refer to Haaretz as the source of the scoop, so it makes sense for us to cite the original article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki --> Note - I’m still opposing the use of article (Haaretz[5]) narrated by a globally banned user as a source. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also look at the top of this talk page if you want a couple more souces.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem not to interpret the ArbCom ruling correctly. It's not that any source that is non-academic is not permitted; it's that if a non-academic source's reliability is challenged, it must not be included until the consensus overrides that challenge. We can reference the Haaretz article for quite a lot of facts and its opinions (Grabowski, Dreifuss), just as we do. We don't quote the Haaretz article for the actual composition of the camp, though, or even for the death toll.

FYI Wikipedia internally categorises it as "Type 4 false statement", and says it's technically not a hoax because the adding of information was probably not to deliberately deceive people about the KL Warschau story, even though the article seems to imply that might be the case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m interpreting it correctly. I’m challenging that source. Please gain consensus before using it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Even though it has been here for ages, it is long standing content. So no, I think you need to get consensus to change long standing consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - Well, you think incorrectly -->..is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus. It does not say when is added. Please remove that article since I’m challenging it as far as it’s reliability - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to quote rules at people, I suggest you read them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you telling me I didn’t read them @Slatersteven? Seriously? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

No I am telling you you have not read them properly.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Okay, I looked again, still came to the same conclusion. @Szmenderowiecki You asked for clarification so let’s wait. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well as I have asked for clarification lets wait and see.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This is why we can't allow rumors and If but and maybe type content.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification at arbcom.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

For convenience: the link is here Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki Thank you, clarification will be helpful. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and @Szmenderowiecki - The discussion has been closed [6] (wrong venue) GizzyCatBella🍁 18:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And I have no idea where the right venue is, maybe an RFC here is all we can do.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - Frankly, I would be surprised if you convinced editors (assuming they will be willing to engage in this) that a story narrated by the banned Wikipedian, therefore full of likely stains is okay to use as a source for the article related to the Holocaust.

PS

There are other sources widely available. GizzyCatBella🍁 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So do you want an RFC or not?Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you maintain that a story narrated by the banned Wikipedian is a RS? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

For me, treating the story as "narrated by the banned Wikipedian" when you have no proof that Mr Benjakob is Icewhiz is a gross misrepresentation of the story and assumption of bad faith on behalf of the journalist in question, whom you imply not to have done any fact-checking of their own before publishing their scoop. It is also my opinion that Icewhiz's participation alone is not enough to render an article unusable. You can of course start an RfC, no problem, but I think that if your purpose is to have the Haaretz article removed, have in mind that IMHO you're facing long odds. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's crap journalism. What do you need it for that you can't use better RSes for? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The better RSes being? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki. The RS's present in the article.

PS - Now @Szmenderowiecki - I would like you to explain why this banned Wikipedian's misleading narrative delivered to the press is so essential to you? Can't you use other sources written by historians? What historical material do you desire to reference using Icewhiz's story? - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There are no RSes present in the article that refer to this particular passage (about 15 years of misstating the nature of the camp) among the other 60 or so, apart from Haaretz and the Times of Israel, which bases on Haaretz's story. If you have another source that tells just the same stuff, I will be happy to consider it. (obviously any of these must be from 2019 or later, when the hoax/false statement/whatever was exposed to light in the press).

Besides, I don't care about Icewhiz's narrative because we aren't citing it. The facts are: we messed up with the article, a now banned editor went to tell that to the press, it verified his claims and published the news story on the cock-up. It sparked interest from other newspapers, which did their own research or based their (more or less sound) opinions on the findings (as in the case of Russian govt Rossiyskaya Gazeta). These newspapers naturally refer to the Haaretz story as the source of their deliberations, so it makes sense to give the original source. Ad fontes, amigos. So when you ask the question of What historical material do you desire to reference using Icewhiz's story?, my answer is: none, because we aren't referencing Icewhiz nor are we referencing any historical material using the article. I hope you don't object to the finding that there was a false fact published here for 15 years, do you? Nor do you object to the fact that Benjakob called it "the longest-standing hoax" (not whether it was a hoax). If you don't contest either of the facts, there should be no controversy.

Piotrus, given that you were rather unfavourably mentioned in the article and since you were contacted by Mr Benjakob for the story (and the author didn't seem particularly convinced by your arguments), it would make sense to distance yourself from this Haaretz article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No, because that was only Icewhiz’s story. Obviously, no historical sources would state that because the knowledge regarding the Camp changed over the years as more information became available. The past development of this article reflects this as well. The original author wrote the article 15 years ago based on the material available at the time. Icewhiz invented the story that the article was written intentionally as a hoax which is not true. That was discussed already [7]. - No, we can't use globally banned "Icewhiz" and reprints of his story you presented above as a reliable source. (I can’t believe this is even being argued here). - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

When the article was written back in 2004, there were quite a few sources available on the topic: Berenstein (1967); Edward Kossoy (published 2004), Rutkowski (1993) and Rajca (1976); none of them mention KL Warschau's gas chambers, or even approach to 200K number. If someone had actually bothered to look for the literature and compare the historians' work here with the newly printed Trzcińska's book (2002), we might have avoided the situation. An editor who would have written an entry rather well would have had second thoughts about introducing a source appearing in one article only.

"Hoax" is indeed how Icewhiz referred to it, but it's really semantics. I don't say it was deliberately entered into WP, so in WP standards, it's correctly described as content that might not be a hoax. But the story itself is a deliberate fabrication. We can easily say that the content based on a hoax (commonly understood, because most of the readers don't delve into internal analyses) stayed there for 15 years. As for the rest, I believe I've made my argument and I haven't got much to add. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have prove that Trzcińska's story itself is a deliberate fabrication ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I've actually read Trzcińska for that matter. If you have to misrepresent sources or dismiss circumstances (i.e. the first Himmler's order, Oct 1942, which Trzcińska said to be the day the camp started existing, regardless of Stroop's recommendation in May 1943 to build one, which would make no sense if the camp already existed by that day) in order to try to get to the preconceived narrative that it's not the Jews but the Poles who suffered the most (I love these who-came-worst-off contests, they are also present in Armenia-Azerbaijan and a few other areas), it has to be deliberate, because any historian that at least has a little drop of self-esteem knows how rational discourse works, and how it doesn't. You may assume one innocent mistake, maybe two, but as these errors accumulate and the misrepresentation becomes more and more gross, and particularly if you are not some random blogger but a prosecutor/judge at a state institution, who has a legal duty of properly investigating matters at hand, taking into accounts all circumstances, the chance that it is sheer (albeit misguided) belief and not deliberate falsification gets closer to 0.

The fact that Trzcińska made these errors to promote a cause, rather than make profits from her dubious historical accounts, is hardly a mitigating factor here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Szmenderowiecki: See previous discussions on the semantics of "conspiracy theory" and "hoax".[8][9][10][11][12][13] François Robere (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Appropriate amount of time to examine sources

@Slatersteven - I'm starting to have concerns with your approach to editing this article. On Nov. 5th, 2021, at 17:04, I performed an edit[14] citing as a source an article by Christian Davies - "Under the Railway Line".[15]. 2 minutes later, at 17:06, you reverted my entry[16] with an edit summary "Which source says 20,000 perished AT the camp?".

The estimated time to read the source is - 12 minutes, 53 seconds [17]. Could you be more cautious and apply a suitable amount of time to properly examine sources going forward, please? Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think Slatersteven is familiar with the article (he's been editing it anyway for quite some time) and he does know where the estimate comes from. Davies doesn't interpret it very correctly though, because 20K is the number of deaths attributable to Gęsiówka, but some of these were shot outside the camp by the camp's staff (for example the ruins of 27 Dzielna street house, picrelated in article) and then the corpses were brought to the camp for further operations (cremation or burying).

For the best understanding of what is 20K deaths, it's best to use the original source (rather than a retelling of the source), which is Kopka's 2007 book published by IPN, pp. 16 and 120. I haven't found a digital version, but I have seen a paper one, which is unfortunately in selected libraries. Dreamcatcher25 seems to have the paper version, so ask them in case you aren't sure. Btw, his quotes will be useful to resolve the dispute of whether to include Kopka's estimate in the lead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki - I'm not impressed hearing from you what you think as to why Slatersteven reverted me without accurately checking the source. I'm also not impressed at all with you performing your own analysis (WP:OR) of the WP:RS and examining Davis's interpretation. No original research is one of three core content policies in Wikipedia and you should know it by now. Information in articles must be verifiable in the references cited, that's how Wikipedia works. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I simply comment on the fact that, even though I disagree with him in a lot of aspects (several open threads of the talk page are only confirming this), I believe that his revert in this respect was sound (though it was provided with a wrong short description, because Davies in general an RS and he uses the words as you introduced them). The reason why the revert was sound is that Kopka's book is simply a better source than Davies's article, and since the 20K estimate comes from Kopka, we should go ad fontes, i.e. instead of stating from third parties what Kopka was writing in his book, we can, and should, quote Kopka for his own words.

As for WP:OR, well, some facts are known, and basic common sense logic still applies (if they were killed on Dzielna street, it was not on camp's premises -> not all of 20K people were killed at Gęsiówka). It's not that I wanted to introduce these two sentences to the article itself. I just say, given my knowledge of what Kopka was talking about, whether Davies accurately reflected his theses, and in this particular case he somewhat misstated them. That does not render Davies unreliable though, just that we'd have to use WP:MEDRS/WP:APLRS-quality sources for specific details of how the camp itself was functioning. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No, we say what RS’s say not your “common sense” @Szmenderowiecki - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In that case, use Kopka not Davies, since Kopka's a better source than Davies. Why hear something through the grapevine if you can get straight news? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

To me both are equally reliable. You are welcome to add Kopka next to Davies if you wish. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki, GizzyCatBella At page 16, Jan Żaryn in his Preface to Kopka's monograph, wrote:

In the years 1943-1944, as it seems, at least 20,000 prisoners died in the camp, including around 10,000 Poles.

At page 120 Kopka himself wrote:

KL Warschau also became a symbol of the extermination of Poles during World War II. In the camp area, as well as in its vicinity, in the restricted zone, inmates of the Pawiak prison, prisoners of the Gestapo detention center on Aleja Szucha, as well as Warsaw inhabitants caught during the street round-ups were executed. Their bodies were burned on open-air pyres and in the camp's crematorium [...] It is estimated that the death toll of KL Warschau amounted to a total of about 20,000 people (these were the victims of the camp itself plus those who were executed in the camp vicinity, and near the camp, in the restricted zone, mostly anonymous).

If you need other quotes from Kopka’s book, let me know.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Haaretz article on errors in WP article about the Warsaw concentration camp

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC centers around whether or not a footnote should remain in the article. This note would serve to give information about a "legend or conspiracy theory" that remained for several years on Wikipedia, and was removed only recently. The contention behind this footnote comes mainly from the source used to verify the information.

Where Wikipedia policy is concerned, two main issues were raised by participants: per WP:APLRS, whenever a source that is not of the highest quality is "added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question", and so an RfC was started to find consensus whether this source is adequate; another point raised, but given less focus, was whether this footnote is WP:DUE or not.

Much of the initial discussion among participants was on the reliability of the source, Haaretz, with those against its usage bringing forth the argument that, since the story is based mostly on the point of view of a globally banned user (one that has a long history of WP:SOCKing in this area) the article is not to be trusted, at least not in this specific topic. Some editors also called for WP:DENY, saying that allowing this source into the article would only further the banned user's agenda. While it's important to consider the damage that user has caused to the project and its participants, the argument against the source's reliability is not a strong one, with some participants reminding that Haaretz is considered a WP:RS and, as such, there is an assumption (that hasn't been disproved by other reliable sources) the article in question was fact-checked and its information (at least related to the footnote) is correct, independent of who was the main source. Keeping in mind all that, I considered there to be consensus that the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable and, as such, WP:APLRS is satisfied.

Later in the RfC, an editor raised the point that, reliable or not, the footnote is not WP:DUE for inclusion in this article, arguing that including information related to Wikipedia in an article that is not about the project should require more weight than the "brief flash-in-the-pan nature of the coverage", when compared to that of the subject. Those who believe the footnote is DUE presented two main pieces of evidence: first, that news about the Wikipedia "hoax" was still being published a year after the initial article by Benjakob, and the article having a section about the "extermination-camp story" shows the relevance between the concentration camp and the "hoax", and having an explanatory note about Wikipedia's relation to this story is useful to readers. I find there to be a very rough consensus that the footnote is DUE, as there has been a considerable amount of coverage by RS and as an aid to the reader.

Part of the discussion also dealt with the usage of the word "hoax". The discussion was sparse, and no policy-based argument was used. I will not deliberate on the usage of that word in this article, which has been discussed multiple times already, as pointed out by a participant, but it's clear that there is disagreement whether this should be called a "hoax" or something else. Right now, the word is attributed to the source, but considering its connection to the banned user its usage will keep leading to issues, so my recommendation as the closer is that editors consider using a synonym to avoid future attrition between editors. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 17:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

---

User GizzyCatBella has challenged, per WP:APLRS, the inclusion of this article by Haaretz, which was the first one reporting on the issue of deep flaws of the article, with the rationale that the press article (incited by the globally banned user) is not a RS. (see also diff for removal of the source from the article and the above sections of the talk page). The "globally banned user" in question is Icewhiz, and they indeed tipped off Haaretz for the story. The discussion of the same source on the APLRS's talk page was closed with prejudice for being started in a wrong venue and was not assessed on the merits.

Is this Haaretz source reliable for referencing the removed passage? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Courtesy pings to @Slatersteven, Piotrus, Volunteer Marek, Levivich, François Robere, and Dreamcatcher25:, who have participated recently on the talk here (though not this particular discussion).

• Yes, absolutely. There are several problems with the challenge to begin with. Given the comments that GizzyCatBella made on the article (that Icewhiz probably co-wrote the story and was the main source for it, and therefore, by the fruit of the poisonous tree principle, we should dismiss the story as well), these would only hold true if we either assume unprofessionalism on behalf of the author of the scoop by not independently verifying information provided by Icewhiz (if anything, extensive linking in the article suggests the opposite) or by assuming that Mr Benjakob is Icewhiz, for which we have no evidence. I would also say that this challenge does not allege any particular factual error made in the article that would disqualify its usage for the referenced passage, in a footnote, so I'd dismiss the challenge based on lack of specified errors. I hope the challenger addresses these points.

At the same time, there are several reasons why this article should be used and should not be substituted, only complemented by others. The Haaretz article was the first one that actually reported the issue, and this sparked the debate over what WP recognises as the longest standing false statement ever written here, and, incidentally, over Trzcińska's claims about 200K Polish deaths in a gas chamber that never existed. It was also reputably published, Haaretz being Israel's newspaper of record. While the author does editorialise somewhat on what happened in the article, he got the facts right, with maybe some minor mistakes that do not influence the overall value of the article.

It would be also relevant to note that GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek were involved in several ArbCom complaints against Icewhiz (or that Icewhiz complained about them), which raises questions, given my knowledge of the history of their relationship, is simply about purging any mention of Icewhiz, however sound, from the project, which is not by itself a legimitate reason for exclusion. My hunch is IMHO confirmed by this edit, where GizzyCatBella deletes press mentions of this article for being excessive and unnecessary references to press outlets that reprinted or summarized the same article (the narrative of banned Wikipedian), though the Press template says nothing about such restrictions (the edit has been reinstated). Also worth mentioning is the fact that the base of this article, before I started expanding it, was made by the now banned user, too, after he blew it up due to the false statement from Trzcińska appearing as fact and being the basis around which the old version of the article revolved. To more or less understand the importance of it, it's like some blatantly antivaxxer content stayed in the HPV vaccine article for 15 years. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A short note for the closer: users implicated (for right or wrong reasons) in this text are: Halibutt (deceased), Poeticbent (inactive), Piotrus (interviewed for the story), Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount. Please consider this information when closing the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Icewhiz's bogus claims published by Haaretz that this article has been deliberately produced as a hoax? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is only for other users' information about the possible reactions of the editors involved here. This note does not answer this question, nor was it intended to do that. As for my opinion on the subject on whether Haaretz is right, you can see it interspersed in the discussion, and I feel no need to repeat the same over and over again. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You missed one person. Let's not forget Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), known for running an army of socks, some of which have become auto-confirmed, operated for over a year, and one of which was even in enough of a good standing to almost win adminship a few weeks ago. His ongoing activity in this TA even led to ArbCom-level restrictions on participation of non-confirmed editors in RfCs and such (WP:APL50030). The closer might want to know this little piece of wiki trivia too... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, but they are indef banned, so I'm not even mentioning that here, as I've already done that in the question to the RfC. I thought it was self-evident I didn't need to single them out twice. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• With regards to the basic questions and not any particular edit: Yes, the source is reliable on this matter. It's been discussed and vetted ad nauseum, as was the hoax, as was Icewhiz, and I've seen no policy-based rationale to revise our coverage of either. As for the rest, I suggest reading Ealdgyth's comments here. François Robere (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki you wrote above - Quote - Given the comments that GizzyCatBella made on the article (that Icewhiz co-wrote the story...Where did I say that Icewhiz co-wrote the story? Strike that promptly. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

a story narrated by the banned Wikipedian, therefore full of likely stains is okay to use as a source for the article related to the Holocaust. and a source that has been written under the influence of a banned user (after he was banned) and quite possibly partially drafted by them is not a RS. (see ArbCom talk).

I will modify the comment to specify that he was probably co-authoring the piece, but the gist of the description still remains true. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki

1 - don’t modify your comments after they were responded to, just strike what I never said or quote what I said exactly.

2 - The author wrote the entire piece based on what banned Wikipedian told him (narrated) therefore wrote under his influence. The author also mentioned in the article that Icewhiz remained anonymous, so quite possible he gave him his narrative in writing. That’s what I meant and I maintain that a story told to the press by the banned Wikipedian is not a WP:RS. It could be mentioned somewhere that it happened as it is on talk page but we should stay away from relying on that article especially because other sourced are widely available. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Re 1. I explicitly warned about the modification of my own comment to better reflect your position, which I did. Because it only consisted of inserting words, there was nothing to strike through. I didn't know about the inserted markup, though, so I'll use it, no worries.

Re 2. Gotcha, though the implication that the article is full of likely stains and the assertion that the article was quite possibly partially drafted by them gives rise to some slightly different conclusions than those you've presented in your explanation. There's a subtle difference between "consulting a source for the article", which is normal and is usually explicitly mentioned in the press article, and "letting them draft parts of the article", which implies some degree of authorship of the article Icewhiz hasn't been credited for. Besides, you allege that the article is full of likely stains, which implies that Mr Benjakob has done a lousy job, but you've presented no evidence of that so far. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn’t say that. "Full of stains" presented by the banned Wikipedian. Stop interpreting what I said your own way please. GizzyCatBella🍁 00:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, so if it's not the article but only Icewhiz's point of view which is at fault here (sorry for misunderstanding), the objection is then moot because we don't cite Icewhiz for facts. The passages we draw the facts from appear in outside Icewhiz's quotes, so it should be presumed Icewhiz had no input there. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, Haaretz is generally considered reliable, with some caution around using it for the Arab-Israeli conflict, but this does not appear to have any relation to that area. That would mean that, even if they used a source that may not have been particularly reliable, we presume that they appropriately verified and fact-checked unless there is actual evidence to the contrary such as clear factual inaccuracies. No such evidence has been presented here. The fact that a banned Wikipedian was interviewed for a news story does not impact the general reliability of the source; journalists deal with potentially unreliable people all the time, and those who write for reliable sources are presumed to know how to properly deal with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• No - absolutely not. A banned Wikipedian who rushed to the press (in this case Haaretz) after he was banned to tell his fabricated story of founding a "hoax" (this article was never proven to be intentionally written as a hoax.[18],[19] That’s Icewhiz’s story) should not be used as a source. Period. There are plenty of trustworthy sources written by historians available. We don't need a tale delivered to the journalist by some Icewhiz to be used as a source. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

PS - Anyway, that's my firm stance as far as this particular source is concerned and I'm extremely unlikely to change my position. This reference delivers absolutely nothing to the history of the KL Warschau but promotes globally banned Wikipedian and his false story. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes It is an RS and as far as I now no doubts have been raised as to the factual accuracy of the story (by RS). It has also been reported (slightly diffently worded) elsewhere that this was a wikiepdia hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  "no doubts have been raised" ? --> [20]. So now you know. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  "...(by RS)".Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  here by RS -->[21] are you gonna tell me that GW is not a RS ? Look, you gonna need a little better than banned Wikipedian telling the Haaretz journalist that this article was created deliberately as a hoax to consider this "news" to be reliable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Who is the author of that article? A professional journalist? A historian? A Wikipedia editor who did not like how he was quoted in the Haaretz article? Does the third one count as an RS? Levivich 13:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  You don’t know? Another Wikipedian who debunks the story told to Haaretz by globally banned Wikipedian. So either booth are reliable or none. So? Which is it Levivich? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  There is a difference between a Wikipedia editor being used as a source in an article written by a professional journalist (Haaretz), and an article written by a Wikipedia editor to rebut the Haaretz article (Piotr's article in wyborcza.pl). The first in an RS, the second is not. No way this article written by an editor meets APLRS. Levivich 13:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  That’s the same thing. The only difference is that one Wikipiedian's story is given to readers by the journalist who repeatedly writes "Icewhiz said" and another is written directly. So which story is reliable Levivich? GizzyCatBella🍁 14:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, sorry, WP:RSOPINION =/= WP:RS. If you insist on quoting Piotrus as a RS because it was published on Wyborcza, we can then just as well quote Icewhiz for facts because he was interviewed for Haaretz (we should do neither, and wpoe do neither).

  The only difference is that one Wikipiedian's story is given to readers by the journalist who repeatedly writes "Icewhiz said" and that makes hell of a difference, unless you can show Benjakob was unduly influenced by Icewhiz. Whether you like it or not, the story got corroboration from professional staff from a reputable newspaper, and Benjakob wasn't writing about WP for the first time. [22]. Piotrus's account is not independent, it's a first-hand account. You try to insinuate Haaretz isn't independent, either, but that demands some proof which would involve not making due diligence (you haven't done that) and not simply disagreeing with an opinion you don't like. Poeticbent and Piotrus are both mentioned in the Haaretz article, so we may only use their opinions as an argument in a discussion if we take into account the fact that Haaretz did not portray them in the best light.

  Finally, a lot of arguments here appear to centre themselves on semantics of internal classification of some incidents vs. some external, more commonly understood one. We don't state for a fact it was a hoax. We state Haaretz's opinion on the subject. That is happens to side with Icewhiz's is totally irrelevant, and any argument tying Haaretz to Icewhiz in that respect is simply showing your disagreement with the opinion and not basing on policy arguments. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  As it is behind a pay wall care to provide the quote where they say this article was not wikiepdias longest running hoax?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Another source [[23]] "15-year fake".Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

One in German [[24]]. And another [[25]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That’s the same thing, reprints of globally banned Wikipiedian' story. No, Icewhiz story can’t be considered by us reliable only because it was reprinted by some other outlet :) Show me a historian who says that Wikipedia article has been deliberetally created as hoax, then we will talk. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I can’t believe we are even having this debate... - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The story is not in his name.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All refer to Icewhiz’s story told to Haaretz (right at the beginning of each reprint ) Every single one. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

They do not have his byline, they were not written by hi (not even the Haaretz source).Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about @Slatersteven? Every single one refers to Haaretz and Icewhiz's fabricated story.

Haaretz shows online encyclopedia since 2004" - [26]

Jahrelang hielten sich im englischsprachigen Wikipedia-Artikel über das Konzentrationslager Warschau falsche Angaben. Die israelische Zeitung Haaretz schreibt - [27]

Es ist das Verdienst der israelischen Zeitung »Haaretz« und des Journalisten Omer Benjakob, - [28] GizzyCatBella🍁 15:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Exaclty "Haaretz" not "Icewhiz" the byline for the Haaretz story is "Omer Benjakob" not "Icewhiz", nonje of these were writen by Icewhiz, you need to stop implying they were.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven :) just stop.. it’s still based on Icewhiz’s story.. :). I can’t believe you are using this as an argument. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Which they (by using their byline) take ownership of, we do not dismiss a sotryy in an RS because we do not agree or have issues with the one of the people involved.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I find your argument illogical but let’s agree that we disagree, okay @Slatersteven :) ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The Haaretz article quotes historians talking about this hoax. Levivich 14:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Quote - The Haaretz article quotes historians talking about this hoax - No, none says it was a deliberate hoax - but you @Levivich are saying this article was a hoax. Right here. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The article isn't a hoax, it's some of the content in the article that was a hoax (about the gas chambers and 200k dead). From Haaretz article:

“It’s fake history,” says Prof. Havi Dreifuss, a Tel Aviv University historian and Yad Vashem’s expert on Poland and the Holocaust, when asked about gas chambers in Warsaw. Other Holocaust historians share her unequivocal position: “It’s a conspiracy theory,” says Prof. Jan Grabowski, a Polish-Canadian historian from the University of Ottawa, when asked about the legend behind the death toll.

That content was in this article; that's the hoax. Levivich 15:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Where do they say this Wikipedia article was deliberately created as a hoax @Levivich? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I swear I've written this about 1,000 times already: Nobody says the article was deliberately created as a hoax. The hoax content was added to it later. The hoax content was about gas chambers and death tolls. See the quotes above for two historians directly saying that these stories -- the stories of the gas chambers and the 200k death toll -- was "fake news" and a "conspiracy theory". The professional journalist who wrote the Haaretz story, that was edited by professional editors, used the word "hoax", in Haaretz's own voice, several times in that article. That's RS saying the "fake news"/"conspiracy theory" content about gas chambers and death toll was a "hoax". The fact that one of the sources in that article was a now-banned user doesn't change that. Indeed, the same article criticized Icewhiz and talked about his problems on wikipedia ("Though Icewhiz has earned a bad reputation on Wikipedia, due to his combative personal style and aggressively pro-Israel position, his claims of an encyclopedic conspiracy are not unfounded...It is exactly these kinds of claims that have turned many in the Wikipedia community against Icewhiz...This is exactly the type of behavior that has caused Icewhiz to lose his standing within Wikipedia...However, the fact that Icewhiz may be guilty of the same sins he accuses the Poles of committing on Wikipedia, does not make his argument factually wrong.") I know you're trying to make it out to be like Haaretz just published whatever Icewhiz said, but that's just not true. The piece covers Icewhiz's problems, too. It's nuanced on that point. It also involves independent investigation by the journalist. The article uses multiple sources, including multiple wikipedia editors, multiple historians, and multiple books, it's written by a professional journalist, and published in Israel's paper of record. Levivich 15:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I swear I've written this about 1,000 times already: Nobody says the article was deliberately created as a hoax. The hoax content was added to it later. Oh bullwinkle! There are certainly people who claim it was created as a hoax. Including you. You and a couple others, following Icewhiz, have been running around Wikipedia claiming that it's "the longest hoax on Wikipedia", have you not? Volunteer Marek 15:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd want to achieve by tying other editors to Icewhiz, but I imagine you wouldn't be impressed if the same comparison was levelled against you or those people who tend to agree with your opinion.

Besides, just for clarification, when saying that it was created as a hoax, what is the "it" you refer to: the article or the content? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

We have other sources available that say "It’s inaccurate, false or conspiracy theory", we don’t need to use this particular article (interview with globally banned user) to source that. To me it looks like a promotion of banned user' fabricated story and I'm unlikely to change my position on that, as I already said. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

To all editors unfamiliar with this topic - you can read the full and precise explanation (with additional reading material) here --> "The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s "Longest Hoax" conspiracy theory invented by a banned Wikipedian" [29] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Poeticbent is also a banned user. Why do you promote the writing of a banned user? :-P Levivich 14:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No, Poeticbent is not a banned user. You are mistaken on every level @Levivich - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, must've been thinking of someone else. Levivich 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• No The article doesn't fulfill ARBCOM formulated criteria for RS on this sensitive topic. Furthermore it seems to be based in part on information given by notorious indef banned user Icewhiz who is infamous for falsfying articles, revisionist theories and waging campaign of harassment against Polish users motivated by intense anti-Polish racism and hatred towards Poland. Icewhiz isn't an objective source of information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The sourcing restrictions should only apply to the Holocaust itself, not articles discussing Wikipedia's discussion of the Holocaust. This story received wide coverage from multiple papers and thus is certainly notable enough to be mentioned here. Icewhiz's having approached the press about it is immaterial.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps they should, but as of today they apply to all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. (Per ArbCom[30]) I'm going to disagree with you, your argument isn't good in my view. GizzyCatBella🍁 16:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEONing much?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Note we did not say it was a hoax, we said "when Omer Benjakob of Haaretz called it "Wikipedia's longest-standing hoax"" we never put it in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly folks - the editor who was, among other, way worse things, banned from Wikipedia for falsely linking other Wikipedians to Holocaust denial[31]. For making negative insinuations about Poland. For making inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments[32]

And most importantly:

Who has a history of interpreting errors by others as deliberate hoaxes (Quote from ArbCom findings - Icewhiz interpreted an apparent error by Poeticbent as a deliberate hoax)[33]

Could be trusted and used as a source only because Haaretz cited what Icewhiz told them? (that this article was also created as a deliberate hoax) No, that's not going to fly, I'm afraid. GizzyCatBella🍁 16:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's complicated, since this RfC question is misleading. Haaretz is in general a RS, but occasionally even RS publish low quality content. The journalist writing this piece has been misled by a banned editor with an agenda, and the article contains a number of errors, from calling an error a hoax (while no deliberate attempt to mislead has been shown to have taken case), to a number of factual errors, as well as quoting me out of context (I was interviewed for that piece). In the end, this is a storm in the teacup: NEWSFLASH, AN ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA HAD AN ERROR!. Wow. End of the world. The only "story" there is that that a journalist was misled and Haaretz de facto published a fake news piece. So, no, this piece does not belong on Wikipedia as a source. WP:DFTT, folks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You wrote a letter to Haaretz pointing out these errors, etc., and they never printed any correction/retraction. [34] So if Haaretz is an RS, we must choose it over the contrary opinion of an editor (you), right? Like by WP:V and WP:OR policy, if Haaretz says "yes" and User:Piotrus says "no", then Wikipedia must say "yes", right? Levivich 21:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

    Thank you for proving the low quality of Haaretz as a source. Since I know for a fact they engaged in misrepresentation of sources and refused to correct it, and we all know they trusted an indef-banned harasser for their story, what more proof do we need to be very careful with them? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    No RS has ever disputed anything in that Haaretz story. RS are more reliable than editors; what RS writes is more reliable than what editors think they know for a fact. Haaretz is more reliable than you are, Piotrus. WP:V over WP:OR, every single time. This is our way. Levivich 14:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

    Not every single time, since we should excercie WP:COMMONSENSE rather than stick to the rules when they are clearly wrong. When a RS makes an obvious mistake, even before it is debunked in other RS, we don't need to repeat it. We cannot say it is wrong - that would be OR - but we are under no obligation to include facts that we know are wrong. Anyone with basic wiki skills can confirm that Haaretz article has plain errors, or otherwise uses clickbait terminology (hoax) instaed of the correct one (error). I've pointed it out in my correction; that Haaretz chose to ignore it is just bad journalism. Crucially, as I pointed out in my rebuke, " There is no evidence of any examination done by Haaretz beyond repeating claims Icewhiz made". Do you have any proof to the contrary? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  FYI the question is very precise: Is this Haaretz source reliable for referencing the removed passage?, so I'm referring to this particular article, regardless of whether Haaretz itself is an RS.

  As for invoking WP:DFTT: we aren't crediting Icewhiz in-text. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Icewhiz who, among other things, was banned for interpreting errors as deliberate hoaxes [35], is repeatedly quoted in the Haaretz article, where he claims yet again that one of the editors in good standing produced a premeditated hoax. This is not going to fly@Szmenderowiecki I’m afraid, no matter how much to try. Icewhiz's story is not RS. I think this will have to go back to ArbCom. Assuming they are willing to spend time on this. I’m ready to address this issue there right now. GizzyCatBella🍁 00:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  As for tying Haaretz to Icewhiz, see my answer a few threads above in this section.

  If you want to escalate this to ArbCom, I have not much against it; however, I think we must first wait with the conclusion of the RfC here, because, as we know, ArbCom is generally an arbiter of last resort and we must use up all remedies to get to Arbcom's ruling. We haven't done that yet. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Szmenderowiecki - Okay, let’s wait for a bit, of course. But please keep in mind that I’m very strongly opposed to using the questionable narrative of banned Wikipedian as WP:RS and I'm extremely unlikely to change my judgment about it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  Re DFTT: " There is no evidence of any examination done by Haaretz beyond repeating claims Icewhiz made". QED. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's not how WP:RS works. And the reporter did contact you and several other editors. François Robere (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  We can revisit this at RSN, but do refresh my memory: what other editors besides me and Icewhiz were contacted? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Per Haaretz, you were "the only editor to respond to a request for comment", ie. there were others. François Robere (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  So you agree that the only source for this story was Icewhiz. QED. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Please don't put words in other editors' mouths. You said that "there is no evidence of any examination done by Haaretz" (etc.), but the fact remains that they verified the diffs (copiously linked in the article body), then approached several editors and two subject matter experts for comments. You may disagree with their narrative, but there's some distance between that and editorial negligence. François Robere (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  What diffs do they have that support the claim of this being a hoax? I mean, it's right there in their title. So where's the proof that someone attempted to deliberately insert information into Wikipedia that they knew was false? Diffs please. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  So you agree there was an examination, you just disagree with the bottom line? Find contradicting sources, then. François Robere (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  A bad examination is not worth of being mentioned in the article. WP:ILIKEIT is not a winning argument. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  So say you, but you presented no evidence to back it up. François Robere (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well, this can go on forever... But since COI was raised, how about we discuss the part where you adapted Icewhiz's essay (User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory, User:François Robere/sandbox/KL Warschau) which got declined from Signpost? Haaretz's article is significantly based on this piece, after all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  So I assume you agree with my assertion that there's no proof of negligence on Haaretz's side? Regarding your attempt at a pivot - if you're going to link to something I worked on, at least link to the right version. Tell me if you find any factual inaccuracies. François Robere (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Proof of negligence of Haaretz? Let's see. I know for a fact they didn't fact-check things properly, misquoted me, chose to believe a person who is a known harasser and manipulator as their primary source and endorsed his views, and ignored my request to set fact straight. Well, it's an excellent venue for Icewhiz, that's for certain. I stand by my view that this piece has no place on Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• No I agree with Piotrus, the source for the article (Icewhiz) is known to be biased with a strong agenda. The other sources are just parroting Haaretz. This minor controversy surrounding this Wikipedia article is not greatly relevant to the article of the camp itself, and should be excluded. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• No Reliability of sources depends on particular circumstances. A specific source may be reliable for some things but not for others. This is the case where a source which may very well be reliable in other circumstances (Haaretz) is most definitely not reliable with respect to this question and in regard to this particular Haaretz article. It's too compromised by Icewhiz being involved and by the journalist, for reasons only known to them personally, taking everything an indef banned user told them at face value (still wondering how that worked). If some piece of information can be sourced ONLY to this source, it's probably bunk. If it can be sourced to other sources... then use other sources. Volunteer Marek 01:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've publicized the RfC at WP:WikiProject Germany.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Ermenrich - Mind to explain why Germany only? GizzyCatBella🍁 15:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: BTW, while we are on the topic, I think it is bad for Wikipedia that there is even no Wikiproject about World War II but there are about non academic and very specific things like Wikipedia:WikiProject Paintball or Wikipedia:WikiProject Katy Perry. Wikiproject about World War II should be on Wikipedia ages ago, there is only Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force. Dawid2009 (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Im not involved in any other wiki projects that would be interested (classics and Middle Ages are unlikely to care).—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Per CANVASS, you can and should notify others who may be interested in this, it's best practices. You are not requied to be a memer of such projects. Do keep this in mind for the future, and please consider following the best practices now and notifying other projects that may be interested in this (milhist, Poland, Jewish history come to mind). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS doesn't require Ermenrich to do anything, it merely prohibits "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". There's no reason to think this was the case here. François Robere (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Since I belive in AGF, I am not saying Ermenrich intended anything wrong, I am just saying what they should be doing per best practices. This RfC is of interest to other groups of editors, and notifying only one of them is not ideal. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note - I asked for input at Reliable Sources Noticeboard [36] and here [37] (@Szmenderowiecki - for now) - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• No Haaretz was given better information post publication (per Piotrus) and they did not correct it. They would rather have an interesting story about a hoax, then a boring story about a mistake. Haaretz is not reliable for claiming a hoax. Curiously Haaretz is doing the same thing Icewiz got banned for. -- GreenC 05:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Yes regarding the fact this content stayed for 15 years. Weaker Yes regarding the specific term (hoax). It's attributed and is only mentioned in a footnote, so no UNDUE weight is given. Probably no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the inclusion was intentional (or not intentional, for that matter) but we are not in a court so this is irrelevant. Haaretz article put it in the general context of of questionable historical claims in the area and calls it a hoax. If someone else writes an article and says it's an honest error we can include it too. Alaexis_¿question? 08:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Alaexis "questionable historical claims" is not the same as a "hoax". This was discussed before one of the issues is that the clickbait-term hoax implies an attempt to deliberately mislead; that was never proven to be the case here - old, fringe and now pretty much discredited theory was added to Wikipdia, yes, but nobody ever found evidence it was ever added or defended by anyone who new it was false (or even challenged). Pretty much once the claim was reveleard as highly dubious, it was removed, and the only thing of interest here is that it survived for so long. It's a long standing error, yes, but there is no evidence it was a long-standing hoax. Remember - calling it hoax is a akin to making a claim of bad faith - that someone added it to Wikipedia with the goal of intentionally mislead others. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the important part is that it stayed for a long time. I think that saying that it was described as a hoax is justified by our policies but even if it's described without using this particular word I wouldn't object. I've made it clear in my vote. Alaexis_¿question? 11:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think describing it as a long-standing error is fanctually accurate and neutral, but that does still leave the issue of whether this is a WP:UNDUE. Well, and also DFTT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• No We know the Haaretz article is in part based on unreliable testimony (and note I said unreliable, not untrue). Taking Piotrus at their word, we also know that the article has a number of other issues. There is no pressing need to have this in the wikipedia article - it adds no real value. All this really does is serve Icewhiz's trolling. Icewhiz isnt unreliable because they are banned, Icewhiz is banned because they are unreliable, they are a manipulative troll who has no problem with using others to serve their own agenda - and this would include good faith journo's at Haaretz. If this was a article about someone else using a different source than Icewhiz, we wouldnt be having this discussion. But we know Icewhiz, we know how he works. We cannot chinese wall that information in our heads because in other circumstances Haaretz is reliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment There is no “Icewhiz exception” to our reliable sources policy. Either Haaretz is reliable or it isn’t. Nor do our policies say that when another Wikipedian objects to the accuracy of a story we follow them rather than the reliable source. Frankly, attempts to remove this information smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: we all know the real objection to its inclusion is not that Icewhiz is a source, but that it is unflattering to certain editors who are participating in this discussion as though they did not have WP:conflicts of interest.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Ermenrich I think this discussion is moot as there are plenty of other sources that eventually say similar things without mentioning Icewhiz? Shrike (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Either Haaretz is reliable or it isn’t. @Ermenrich. No, that's not how RS policy works. The question is always reliable for what and what part. There's no "either/or" here. A source may very well be reliable in some instances and for some kinds of information and unreliable in other. This is RS101.

And yes, the objection to the source IS in fact that Icewhiz was the source. 100%. It really is pass time that some of you stop trying to defend this guy's "legacy" or whatever. For fuck's sake, a sock of Icewhiz just recently almost sneaked through into an adminship. And here we are with some editors trying to cram his nonsense and personal grudges into articles. Give it a rest.

And no, there's no "conflict of interest" here and your insinuations are insulting, false and dishonest. Volunteer Marek 15:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek Its seems that you answer me but you quote and @Ermenrich and replying to his arguments Shrike (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike, my bad, wrong indentation. Corrected. Volunteer Marek 15:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I must say I think Haaretz is bad source with very strong agenda and in general shouldn't be used at all in Wikipedia but as my views is minority and it does considered WP:RS by community we must assume the information in the article is the same quality and have same editorial control as other articles for example regarding I/P conflict so what good for the goose is good for the gander. Also there other articles that discuss this matter without mentioning Icewhiz would it satisfy the opposers? --Shrike (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  You kind of have your answer below, not some of them would not accept it, not mature how many sources reported on it (in their voice, not Icewhiz's).Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Haaretz is reliable on its own. It's kinda hypocritical when Icewhiz' (still unbanned) opponents are using "argumenum ad Icewhizum" to censor Wikipedia. Also see the section below: the fact it was re-reported in other good sources like Der Spiegel just underscores it was a significant controversy. And now before you resort to your fave tactics, you tag-teamer fellas, I'm not Icewhiz, I barely know who he is and am no-one else's sock either.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) see - [38] The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area - Non-extended-confirmed editors (at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits) may use the talk namespace however, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area. Even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. [39]

• Pull the other one, it has bells on it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Haaretz is a generally reliable source. The article in question seems correct. When people are told to stop writing things they believe to be true in the encyclopedia, we tell them to get their information published in a reliable source then wait for someone to include it in wikipedia. This is the process working correctly. Came from WP:RSN. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• NoYes (using Haaretz for footnote) but coming from Piotrus' "it's complicated" stance. (coming from a post at RS/N) I generally agree that we shouldn't parrot what we know was absolutely incorrect content on a rather sensitive subject, even if that is reported by Haaretz, discussed by experts, etc. Let's keep the history of this topic to center on the best known sources reliable for history and keep the nonsense that happened due to Wikipedia out of it for that purpose. That said, given that there is the "Discredited extermination-camp story", I would have a footnote there to briefly state that this had temporary made its way to Wikipedia, and in the footnote point to the Reliability of Wikipedia page under "Other false information" (currently the last para), where more details about the problem are already noted. This is because I can see a reader coming to search about this incident after reading the Haaretz or equivalent story, and this being the best way to link them to more information. --Masem (t) 17:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Masem: That's what we're already doing.[40] The RfC is about sourcing that footnote. François Robere (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  I thought it was about inclusion on the body.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  That was my initial read, but now that I see the diff that it was a footnote, let me be more explicit: you don't need to go into as much detail in the footnote and leave the explaining to Reliability of Wikipedia. But as to the point in question for sourcing a shorter footnote, the Haaretz article is sufficient and reliable for that, as this footnote should be brief and drop the link to explain more. --Masem (t) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Masem: Thanks for clarifying. Could you amend your vote to reflect this? François Robere (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  That’s a great idea about the footnote point to the Reliability of Wikipedia page actually...thank you @Masem. Your input and ideas folks, (coming here from RS/N), are greatly appreciated.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. All I see is a generally reliable source being contradicted by self-published material written by people who were directly involved. The only reason we are considering granting primacy to these sources is because their authors are Wikipedians who are active on this very talk page, and—surprisingly enough—who !vote. How any of this is considered acceptable to anyone is beyond me. JBchrch talk 18:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  You do realize that your "generally reliable source" is significantly parroting claims of a person who was indeed directly involved, and then got themselves site-banned for related harassement and other shady attempts to influence Wikipedia and other places? Heck, they even got banned from Wikipediocracy, and that's not easy. That they succeeded in duping one journalist to endorse their story in an otherwise reliable-ish source doesn't make it gospel. Even reliable sources occasionally publish weak stories that have no place being repeated. DFTT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  I realize all of this but 1) Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and 2) the notion they succeeded in duping one journalist to endorse their story is not currently supported by any reliable source. JBchrch talk 22:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Are you saying Haaretz did not endorse Icewhiz's story? And someone clearly got duped. It was either the Haaret'z journalist or ArbCom + Trust&Safety, which did not endorse it (and instead chose to ban Icewhiz). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom's ban of Icewhiz had nothing to do with them "not buying Icewhiz's story." It had to do with various other antisocial and destructive behaviors he was engaged in. But sure, just blame it all on Icewhiz. Ignore the fact that multiple reliable sources reported on the story.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A, ArbCom ban did not, but lack of ban did. As in, Icewhiz made the same claims about others editors to ArbCom and was ignored. But as those claims sounded newsworthy, they got noticed by a journalist who published them with little fact checking. As for reprints in a few places, well, User:Hemiauchenia called it churnalism just below, and I think that's a fair description - which also reinforces the WP:UNDUE issues at play here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes per JBchrch and per WP:V and WP:NOR and per this edit from 2006 that was reverted by the article's creator with the edit summary "revert vandalism":

  Unfortunately, the below entry on Konzentrazionslager Warschau is highly misleading. No evidence exists of neither the gas chamber in the West Warsaw tunnel, nor of the claimed huge number of victims ...

  At the bottom of the explanation are two links, which are now dead, but are archived: [41] (A 2003 IPN report, the conclusions machine-translate to "findings of the investigation so far do not allow for unequivocal confirmation that approximately 200,000 people were murdered in KL Warschau; do not confirm the categorical position regarding the gas chambers in the area of ​​the Warszawa Zachodnia railway station; do not provide grounds for confirming the thesis that the area of ​​the camp also included the area known as 'Lasek na Kole'") and [42] (a 2002 IPN report). When User:Halibutt created this article in 2004, he may not have known it was a hoax, but by 2006, he knew, or should have known, it was a hoax. Halibutt left the article saying in the lead "According to various estimates some 200,000 people (mostly Gentile Poles) were killed there by the Germans during Second World War" and in the body, "Among those grouped in Warsaw the majority were either shot or gassed in a provisional gas chamber located in a tunnel near the Warszawa Zachodnia train station." This was Halibutt's last edit to this article. [43] Other users later modified this language, but essentially kept the 200,000 figure and the gas chamber thing in there until it was discovered by Coffman I think in 2018. I didn't want to bring these diffs into this conversation before because Halibutt is deceased, but I unfortunately see a number of editors essentially believing editors' version of events instead of RS's version of events. In a factual dispute between an editor and an RS, we should follow the RS, not the editor. This dispute is a lesson in why we have V and NOR policies. Levivich 21:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  We can't speak for the deceased, but the edit he reverted had to be undone, as it was a de facto a forum/talk page post added to the top of the article. Yes, Halibutt could have moved it to talk and replied or updated the article, but maybe he was busy or whatever, didn't read it fully, who knows? The point is that a talk page post has no place existing at the top of an article and that edit should have been undone, per MoS. Halibutt was under no obligation to do anything else, including reading it fully; if I or anyone else would see a talk page post added to the top of an article, we would have reverted it too, whether it's 2006 or 2021. It's basic RCP stuff. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's the spokesperson for Wikimedia Polska reverting that edit with the edit summary "revert vandalism". That edit was not vandalism, that edit added RSes that directly disputed key facts about gas chambers and 200,000 people killed (mostly not Jewish, it was important to point out in the lead). Any editor worth their salt would have (1) not called it vandalism, and (2) at least clicked the links and updated the article, or moved the post to the talk page, or something. You criticize others for "defending Icewhiz" (which nobody actually does) and yet you defend this "revert vandalism" edit summary as "maybe he was busy or whatever". I don't like speaking ill of the dead, but you and the other EEML editors just push and push and push and won't let these sleeping dogs lie. Levivich 22:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  You can twist this in various ways, but nothing changes the simple fact that this was a badly formatted edit that needed to be removed from the mainspace. We can argue about best practices such as using better edit summaries, moving this to the talk page, reading this and replying - but step one is that it needed to go. Which is what Halibutt did, per WP:NOTAFORUM (particularly in the main space). Other steps are optional. PS. And now that you are back to poisoning the well by dragging out the EEML boogeyman from 2010 (a time you weren't even active on Wikipedia...), I feel I won this argument, since you are clearly out of any good ones. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  you weren't even active on Wikipedia... Hmmmmmmm. For someone who supposedly wasn't active on Wikipedia back then Levivich sure brings it up every chance they get even if it's completely irrelevant. The level of obsession with it is kind of eye brow raising. Volunteer Marek 01:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  ...and push and push and push... Levivich 03:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  ... How about: push and push and push and push and push and push and push and push and push and push and push and push and.... etc.

You want to let sleeping dogs lie? By all means! Let them lie. Leave it alone. Why are you so obsessed with including THIS particular source, by THIS particular indef banned editor? Volunteer Marek 05:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

...and push and push and sock push and push and push... GizzyCatBella🍁 05:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Other steps are optional." Haha, like removing the hoax content, that's optional. Admit it, Piotrus, Haaretz didn't issue a correction because they reviewed the diffs and they stood by their version (that Halibutt made Wikipedia's longest-running hoax), and not your version (which I guess isnthat removing the "vandalism" was necessary because it was poorly formatted, but factual accuracy in the article is optional). Levivich 22:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's your choice to speak ill of the dead. I chose not to. I am proud to stand by Halibutt's name. The last time I checked, he was a user in good standing, and I am willing to AGF his actions. Unlike those of Icewhiz. whose standign is rather problematic. But go on, defend him more. It's morbidly entertaining. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Halibutt mentions the IPN trial at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp/Archive 1 in 2004 (where the 2006 edit I quoted above was also posted). I get you want to defend your friend's memory against the allegations in the Haaretz article and I'd do the same for my friends, too, but that's why you have a COI here. You're not looking at this objectively as an editor. Levivich 23:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Setting aside the relevance of this short mention on talk in 2004 to the 2006 edit in question (FYI, I fail to see any), I'll just say that I know I am an oddball around here, but I do like to stick to WP:AGF unless there is a pretty strong evidence to the contrary. Yeah, I know, I am weird, but I am not prepared to use a single out of context diff to agree with the Great Detective Icewhiz that there was (is?) an orchestrated effort by Polish government and its shills here (IIRC Haaretz claimed there was a hundred such editors?), apparently already put into action in 2004 (wow, wouldn't this make it the oldest known government-run conspiracy to take over Wikipedia?), to push this fringe theory by (a 100?) editors who knew it was false but decided to lie about it on Wikipedia. Even through it makes for such a nice clickbait title and an alarming story. Shrug. Maybe one day they'll make a movie out if it too. I have seen worse scripts out there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's such a straw man argument; it's not like the choice is between AGF and 100 Polish government shills. Nobody is (or has ever) suggested putting any of that stuff you're describing in this article or anywhere on Wikipedia. The content you're objecting to is a footnote reading, This English Wikipedia article about the Warsaw concentration camp was initiated in 2004 and for 15 years presented Trzcińska's extermination-camp story as fact, despite it having been discredited by 2007. The story was removed in August 2019 and drew media attention in October 2019, when Omer Benjakob of Haaretz called it "Wikipedia's longest-standing hoax". [44] Levivich 00:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Well, if you are not insisting it is to be described as hoax, that's progress. I am not vehemently opposed to the current version of the footnote, but I am not convinced it is DUE. Plus, DFTT. Taken those two together, my preference not to include this trivial fact. At the very least, I'd end the footnote at "August 2019". The "drew media attention" part is ORish anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I hope you don't need citation overkill, but given the number of articles mentioned in the Press template above, plus the links below, we are justified to call it that way. (+there's a Gideon Greif interview on the topic, but the editors here deleted it because none of us speak Hebrew and apparently no one was able to translate his words from the language; after which whoever inserted citation needed template pretended there's no citation available for this reaction). If this amount of sources is still not enough for you to say "drew media attention", it's hard to imagine what is the threshold you'd demand then.

  As for DUE objection, as far as I could see there was a discussion about it but it seemed to end in rough consensus in favour of inclusion, because the footnote existed for two years and didn't seem to be challenged since until the RfC we have here, on different grounds. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  A few newspapers that parroted a story from the first source is not much of a media attention - that said, we are talking about a footnote, not an entire article dedicated to this, so the bar is lower. IMHO this still doesn't meet UNDUE/FRINGE, and I don't see a consensus to keep this, particulalry in the context of DFTT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would have understood your invocation of DFTT in the context of Icewhiz (or his socks) operating here, but otherwise I see no way this essay applies here. While Icewhiz has done pretty much of some out-of-the-order criticism of fellow editors, plus you may argue if there indeed exist editors attempting to stretch the WP guidelines to promote Polish history as seen by nationalists, the very reason the article appeared is valid.

  I don't see how this article fails to meet FRINGE. You may argue that Icewhiz's opinion on the interaction with other WP users is FRINGE, but we don't cite his opinions as fact. The facts mentioned in the footnote are not really questioned by anyone here (yes, the most notorious element, i.e. the gas chambers and 200K people, was removed in May 2019 but a lot of elements of Trzcińska's narrative, e.g. about four subcamps, none of which existed, was not deleted until August that year).

  As for UNDUE, I think everything was said back then and I'm not willing to rehash the debate on that field. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Szmenderowiecki: See at the bottom of this discussion. François Robere (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes: the source is reliable for the given statement, as the author, Omer Benjakob, has conducted an independent investigation and validated his findings with two academics who are experts on the topic of the Holocaust in Poland. Generally, I don't get the furor over the "hoax" wording. The Warsaw "extermination camp" notion was a hoax perpetrated by a Polish judge, Maria Trzcińska. The hoax found its way into Wikipedia through careless editing, so yes, it's a 15-year Wikipedia hoax. Separately, the various accusations towards Benjakob need to stop, i.e. a source ... quite possibly partially drafted by them (emphasis in the original). They border on BLP violations, as this is defamatory info presented without any basis for such conclusions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

the author, Omer Benjakob, has conducted an independent investigation and validated his findings with two academics who are experts No, he hasn't. And no they aren't (experts on Wikipedia). In fact they make some pretty crazy and laughable claims with regard to Wikipedia. This rationale is just false. Volunteer Marek 15:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not necessary to bludgeon the discussion, especially with wild accusations towards Benjakob and by truncating my statement in a misleading fashion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It does become necessary when you make factually incorrect claims ("independent investigation" "validated findings" - ... no). Also I did not make any "wild accusations towards Benjakob" (all I said was "No, he hasn't" - that is not by any stretch a wild accusation) and I don't appreciate you falsely pretending that I did. Also, there was nothing misleading about the way I quoted your statement. If you don't want me responding to your claims, stop making blatantly incorrect claims for rhetorical purposes or making false personal attacks against me which necessitate a response. In fact, I'd appreciate it if ou struck your personal attack above. Volunteer Marek 17:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay -- done; "wild" is now struck. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman - The author mentioned in the article that Icewhiz remained anonymous and gave him his narrative in writing by e-mail. That’s what I meant. Stop interpreting what I said your own way! - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The exact quote was: "Here are the reasons --> a source that has been written under the influence of a banned user (after he was banned) and quite possibly partially drafted by them is not a RS": [45] (emphasis in the original). partially drafted by them means that Omer Benjakob let a source partially draft an article for him, and then presented this material as his own work. Journalists don't let sources write articles for them; that would be an ethical violation. If you did not mean to accuse Benjakob of this, you might want to correct your statement at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman - Okay - done; struck and reworded. [46] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

🠑 That. François Robere (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Haaretz is very clearly WP:RS material per WP:RSP. Let's not start making baseless OR claims.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, too meta, doesn’t really add anything. This article is about the Warsaw concentration camp, not about how that camp is portrayed in an online encyclopedia 75 years after the fact. Yes Haaretz is generally reliable, no that doesn’t mean we uncritically quote even their most trivial or problematic pieces. Feel free to add to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The same editors trying to remove it here are trying to remove it there.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, given that that’s not an actual article, it seems a little silly to invest so much energy in trying to keep an entry out of it. Whatever, I guess. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No one has attempted to make an article of how the camp is portrayed in the media. In fact, the matter being discussed here is an en passant explanatory footnote sourced to Haaretz, not even a paragraph of its own. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

False statements on Wikipedia are relevant in the context of discussions regarding false statements on Wikipedia, not in articles where such statements previously occurred. — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI, it's not unusual. Several of the entries mentioned in Reliability of Wikipedia#Notable incidents cover their own coverage on Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. First, I'd argue that the editors named by the source have a COI here. It's a bit like Trump calling organisations publishing negative stories about him as "[unreliable] fake news" (c.f. WP:MANDY etc). Similarly, that said editors were interviewed by the source and claim the source didn't present their viewpoint as they would've liked the source to do is not a valid argument. We'd expect sources not to focus their energy on making people happy. Not everyone who is interviewed is enthusiastic about the resultant piece, which has nothing to do with the sources' reliability. Second, the Icewhiz boogeyman stuff is a bit frustrating to see in this topic area. Like, what does Icewhiz's recent adminship run – mentioned above – have to do with the reliability of this published article, other than being a red-herring? The article is not written by a "globally banned editor". A "globally banned editor" may well have been interviewed, but these claims are of no value to this discussion unless editors are claiming Icewhiz is the ghostwriter or that Haaretz (a generally reliable source) republished Icewhiz's opinions without doing any fact checking, claims that would require evidence which has not been presented here. Ultimately, no valid reason has been presented above for why this article is unreliable except a few editors disliking what it says. As such, I'm inclined to fallback on the default position that Haaretz is generally reliable, thus so is this article, absent a specific and valid reason to suggest this article isn't. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Having read the piece more closely, it seems the source does tread carefully between parts which are opinions of individuals interviewed (correctly attributed), and parts it says in its own voice (eg Though Icewhiz has earned a bad reputation on Wikipedia, due to his combative personal style and aggressively pro-Israel position, his claims of an encyclopedic conspiracy are not unfounded ...). This separation is something I'd expect to see from a reliable source, and so I don't really understand the criticism against the source here. Some of the allegations about the source, above, appear to be entirely unfounded and based on complete speculation. Arguably statements that (effectively) say Omer Benjakob let a source partially draft an article for him, and then presented this material as his own work are BLP violations without evidence -- please present the evidence. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong No I would also remove that from section Further reading. Per WP:Content removal this information pretty fits to List of Wikipedia controversies but not here, not in Maria Trzcińska article and IMHO even not in Reliability of Wikipedia. To be fair analogically errors which are mentioned in Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia are not mentioned in relevant articles, for example Kalenjin languages does not include info about that controversial Britannica's error. I would also remove that content from section further reading because of this it is already mentioned in List of Wikipedia contriversies and plenty other places on Wikipedia so far. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• No / Exclude. The RFC is asking the wrong question; it isn't a matter of whether the source is a WP:RS, it's a matter of WP:DUE weight. The brief flash-in-the-pan nature of the coverage, coupled with the conversational / opinionated nature of the piece, makes it undue for inclusion when contrasted with the weighty and sustained sourcing for the rest of the article. The standard to mention a Wikipedia kerfluffle on a page otherwise unrelated to Wikipedia - even in a footnote - is fairly high and isn't remotely met here; if we ourselves weren't Wikipedia, it wouldn't even be seriously considered. --Aquillion (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'd say that the dates of the sources in the Press template suggest more than a "brief flash-in-the-pan" nature. Anyway the news cycle we have makes us really forget about the news happening even a week ago. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To address complaints about "loaded questions", "inappropriate RfCs" etc. - when the RfC was started back in early November, the challenge was about reliability and not about DUE issues, and the policy set by WP:APLRS says that reliable source consensus must be reached. Therefore, the question set in the RfC could not be framed otherwise, given the circumstances directly preceding the RfC start, and the policy wording. Any closer to this discussion, please evaluate this and, when closing it, please assess RS and DUE issues separately. It goes without saying it must be both due and cited to reliable sources to be in the article.

Now, as for DUE question, which I have not addressed, I think: per definition Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources and Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. The depth of detail is a footnote, which arguably is the lowest possible. The story has been prominent enough to be circulated among generally reliable outlets, both in print and on TV, which establishes significance for Wikipedia purposes. Some would object to treating Haaretz and all the following reports as reliable, but, as my !vote indicates, it should be considered as such for the fragment cited, which is not disputed. It is, moreover, odd to cite Daniel Blatman's opinion in the article, which references the Wikipedia controversy we are discussing here just below the headline, but exclude the very article that cast light on it, even if controversial. No one seemed to oppose inclusion of Blatman's opinions - what are we going to tell users then who will enquire about why we didn't write about the what Haaretz called a hoax if we cite an opinion piece which links directly to the story? We either have to remove all mentions of the controversy (including Blatman's, Grabowski's and Dreifuss's opinions on it) - a bit Orwellish for my taste - or man up and tell about it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is an irrelevant and loaded question. The source might be an RS in general, but this is not the issue. I agree with Aquillion that excluding the passage by GizzyCatBella was legitimate (not a violation of any rules), not an example of WP:COI, and fully explainable. Hence my answer to this loaded question would be the same, No / Exclude. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per K.e.coffman, to answer the direct question; many others also gave valid reasons, while Aquillion gave the strongest argument for the other side, as they did for no COI. I have to agree that one side gave the strongest arguments (K.e. coffman, ProcrastinatingReader, Slatersteven) over the other (Aquillion) and I cannot ignore that. But it is not a big deal and I am not going to lose my sleep over it, whether it is re-added in prose, re-added as a footnote, or if it is kept removed. The fact we have a full section dedicated to the discredited story, it makes it relevant, and as I will show below it makes it due as well, though I am willing to change my mind and reconsider Aquillion's comment. In conclusion, the issue should not be about reliability, which is why I find comments questioning that not persuasive and counter-arguments better, but about weight, and only Aquillion gave a good argument for why it is undue. If other users focused on this, I think it may have been better because I consider it to be reliable, and at first glance due as well.

I am bringing this up because it is another controversial in which Wikipedia editors have been mentioned in sources and falsely accused of bad faith

• I can sympathize with Piotrus and Marek, and I do not think, and cannot prove either, they did this on purpose, because a similar situation happened with Mass killings under communist regimes and the AfD nomination. The Telegraph published an article about it, though they did not mention any user directly, unlike the other unreliable sources. The difference is that it is the only reliable source to have written about the AfD nomination, and was picked up by one-sided, unreliable sources, some of it even deprecated, and the panel closure debunked the false claims any of us wanted to deny the events or whitewash them, and acknowledged the one-sided canvassing; on the other hand, this story has been picked up by mainstream reliable sources. No one has attempted to remove it from Criticism of Wikipedia, Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, or ​Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Indeed, I myself edited it to improve the refs cite or add context supported by The Telegraph but initially lacking in prose, and I never attempted to remove it, even though I think it is more undue than this issue and I think it is not due to be at Criticism of Wikipedia or ​Ideological bias on Wikipedia (e.g. neither The Telegraph or Tombs discuss bias of general coverage of Communism, only about the AfD nomination, which Tombs claimed it was due to bias) but it is fine for Deletion of articles on Wikipedia. On the other hand, this has been effectively removed even in articles about Wikipedia coverage; if the issue is about using hoax, I do not think that the article was deliberately created as a hoax, but the controversial stuff was indeed a hoax, fake history, or whatever label is more appropriate. Reliable sources have used hoax.
• The reason why I may support adding coverage of the article at Warsaw concentration camp and not Mass killings under communist regimes is because the first was written in a reliable source (I am convinced by ProcrastinatingReader in this regard) and is due because it was picked up by other reliable sources and in a not so close enough news cycle that makes it undue, whereas the latter was written in a reliable source but was picked up by mostly unreliable sources and in a close cycle (AfD ongoing, no further significant coverage afterwards) that makes it undue to be mentioned in the article itself. Finally, one is about the article's itself and has a "Discredited extermination-camp story" section that makes it relevant, to quote K.e.coffman, "[t]he hoax found its way into Wikipedia through careless editing", the other is about its AfD nomination, even though for the latter it was not even the first time (what changed?), so I think this is an example of false balance, which precludes me from seeing this as either must be added or removed at the mentioned articles themselves; they are clearly not equal. In short, one fits DUE, the other fits UNDUE. Davide King (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Other sources

• The Haaretz story included opinions by historians Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss. It was picked up, among others, by:

1. Corriere della Sera
2. Il Post
3. Kan 11
4. ABC
5. Der Spiegel
6. The JNS
7. Deutschlandfunk Nova
8. Times of Israel
9. Heise online
10. topky.sk

François Robere (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

These aren't "other sources" reporting on the story independently. This is other stories reporting on the story. Nothing from Grabowski or Dreifuss is used in the article nor should it be since they are not experts on Wikipedia and both of them make fairly ridiculous claims about how Wikipedia works (whatever their expertise in other areas). We've been over this. Dreifuss thinks its something astonishing that an infobox text "changed before (her) eyes". Well, yes, that's how Wikipedia works - people change stuff. Grabowski makes the hilarious claim that there's "hundreds" of Polish Government Operatives editing Wikipedia (Lol. There's like... 3? Polish editors that may be active at any time). Really, the fact that the article includes OTHER ridiculous claims, ON TOP of the nonsense that's 100% Icewhiz, doesn't exactly bolster the case for its inclusion. Volunteer Marek 15:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And neither Grabowski nor Dreyfus refer to the Wikipedia article as a "hoax". That's all Icewhiz. Volunteer Marek 15:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

These aren't "other sources" reporting on the story independently They are, actually. None of these is syndicated.

This is other stories reporting on the story Insofar as we're talking about the reliability and notability of the story, it's worth noting that these outlets found them sufficient to repeat and expand upon.

Nothing from Grabowski or Dreifuss is used in the article Actually both of them are cited.

they are not experts on Wikipedia That's not what they're cited for.

And neither... refer to the Wikipedia article as a "hoax". That's all Icewhiz Yet Icewhiz's involvement is used to remove their references as well. François Robere (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Are these just reprints of the story or are they in fact just reporting on the story?Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of them are rephrasing the original story, but I don't believe there is any invtigative journalism there - well, outside Haaretz original story, if you can call repeating Icewhiz's claims, without verification, many of them simply wrong, journalism. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So no then, they are not just reprints, and you are making assumptions about what RS have or have not looked into.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

They're essentially churnalism based on Haaretz's reporting, adding no new original analysis, but merely parroting what was said in the Haaretz story. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia that exactly what they are, parroting what was said in the Haaretz (Icewhiz) story - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella - The Haaretz story was NOT an "Icewhiz story". He merely gave the investigative journalist a hint, and the journalist investigated the issue, published and his piece was later discussed in many other mainstream media outlets.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)see - [47] The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area - Non-extended-confirmed editors (at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits) may use the talk namespace however, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area. Even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. [48]

There is no "investigation" there, just conspiracy theories from Icewhiz. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And we're supposed to take your word on that even though you appear in the article in a negative light? WP:COI.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nah, you are welcome to instead take the word of the site-banned harasser with whom I disagreed. I mean, the journalist who wrote that piece was indeed symphatethic to them, so what does it matter who got site banned for harassment, threats and such, right? All hail the gospel of the RS, which can make no mistakes, and anyone endorsed by it is immaculate (and the reverse is true as well, of course). I stand corrected. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And all the other pieces as well? This is very much all what we are told not to do (by policy) judging RS by our own OR. Do you know (for a fact) these sources did not look at the history of THIS article and come to these conclusions themselves?Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's OR to argue they might have done so if they don't say so explicitly. Plus in addition to the low quality of the source in question, we have OR/FRINGE/UNDUE issues to consider. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No its not, that is what RS is about. They are RS because we assume they fact check. Nor does OR come into it, as these are not Wikipedia users, they are third party RS. As to undue and fringe, this would only come into it is (and only if) they were either low quality sources (many are not) or they went against the prevailing academic or media consensus (they do not, as we only have one source saying they are wrong, that written by a Wikipedia editor, which would fail all of the above).Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And when it is obvious they don't fact check, they should stop being RS. Anyway, I said so (that Haaretz article had some errors) in my article published in a reliable source (Gazeta Wyborcza) here. Here, let me translate the relevant part: [Haaretz] article accused [Wikipedia] that for almost 15 years the entry of the English-language Wikipedia about KL Warschau presented as a fact a niche hypothesis about the existence of a large extermination camp for Poles there. Indeed, more than a decade passed before volunteers became interested in this topic, rewriting it using new, more reliable, previously non-existent sources. Once made, their amendments to KL Warschau were not withdrawn - no "Polish nationalists" defended the old, wrong version. As described in the wikipedia journal The Signpost, one of the anonymous Wikipedians active on this topic, Icewhiz, unfortunately got into a conflict with other volunteers also active on Polish-Jewish topics, arguing that errors in the KL Warschau article are proof that the on the English Wikipedia there is a group of 'Polish nationalists' persecuting him; this allegation was dealt with and dismissed as unfounded by the Arbitration Committee of English Wikipedia (de facto Wikipedia's Supreme Court), which instead found that Icewhiz himself engaged in an unacceptable activity (harassing other volunteers), for which he was thrown out of the project. But it was such a "clickbaity" allegation that Icewhiz got a Haaretz journalist interested in it. The journalist bought this story, and the hoax fake news was born. But we are under no obligation to FTT and include this in our article; in the end, there is no story anywhere here - Wikipedia had an error, it was fixed. The only story in here is how a disgruntled former editor has succeeded to plant a fake news story in the media, and how he has duped some members of the community - something he has done again and again ("The sockpuppet who ran for adminship and almost succeeded "). It's high time to stop being duped and used by Icewhiz - we should not empower him and give him further satisfication. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Problem is, we only have your word they have not fact-checked. And no it was not a "niche hypothesis about the existence of a large extermination camp for Poles there" it was a false story, a hoax, described by RS as a form of holocaust denial.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I could say something about the emails I exchanged with the Haaetz journalist in which he mentions something about being time pressed by the editor to publish ASAP and hence not having enough time to fact-check everything but hey, it would still be just my "word". And I just gave a reliable source for this being a "fringe theory", not a "hoax". So, no and no, but I see you find Icewhiz more trustworthy than me. He said it was a hoax, he got his story published, the holy idol of RS trumps everything, I see. Nothing I can do about this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And that would still only be your word, about one of these sources, not all of them (also "not checking everything" does not mean they did not check the key part (even if it's true they said that)). As to my attitude towards Icewhiz, you might have valid point, if he had been given the byline for all these sources, he has not even been given a byline by one (unlike you, who is the only source for that claim this was not Wikipedias longest-running hoax). Also I am not taking his word over yours, I am taking the word of all those journalists and feature writers who claimed township of this story over yours. So again, it's your word Vs that of RS. And no you are not correct, you can go to RSN and argue all of these sources are not RS because they have not listened to your facts, and I think we both know how much weight such an argument would carry.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers make errors, as outlandish as you may find that claim to be ([49]: "Research on newspaper accuracy has shown that news sources contend that about half the newspaper articles citing them contain at least one mistake", etc.) . I don't believe that unwavering belief that a reliable source is beyond reproach and cannot be questioned is good for this project, but I see we will have to agree to disagree on this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Since when are editorials considered more reliable than plain news stories? While you allege a mistake on behalf of Haaretz (and I agree that RS are "generally reliable" not "infallible"), the alternative, the Wyborcza opinion piece, is a less convincing substitute, particularly when the author of the editorial was party to the dispute. Haaretz's piece is not an editorial from what I'm aware, even though you try to frame it as a disguised editorial by Icewhiz (I'm far from convinced about the integrity of this argument).

Just as an example on why your opinion piece can't be considered RS, in the passage that the editors decided to rewrite the article using new, more reliable, previously non-existent sources, you failed to mention that RSs coming from 2004 and earlier did exist, were available, reliable and quite a few actually. The problem is, the folks who first wrote the article didn't care to find them presumably because Trzcińska's book was more popular and more readily accessible (or simply because they didn't know about them, but should have). Then the niche hypothesis was the rallying cause for Trzcińska's supporters at the time, who actually managed to convince Warsaw authorities to build a commemorative site according to her hypothesis + promoted their theory in Nasz Dziennik, TV Trwam and maybe some other outlets, which is not something I'd dismiss as "niche" = "barely heard of" (as opposed to "fringe" = "bullshit").

I'd therefore suggest to stop touting your editorial as an ace of trumps for whatever information which does not conform to yours exists. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Any argument based on "I am right and RS are wrong" is not valid per policy. No one has an "unwavering belief that a reliable source is beyond reproach" if this was one RS reporting this that might be a valid point. Nor does the idea that they can be wrong mean they are wrong. We have to have RS (and not OR) say they are wrong for us to say they are. Anything else violates any number of policies.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has yet provided any evidence that anything in the Haaretz story is in any way incorrect. Piotrus is claiming it's incorrect but providing nothing to back that up. (Except "Icewhiz!") Levivich 11:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Tu quoque... I cited a RS which says that I am right and the other RS is wrong, which you dismissed... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You wrote the "RS" you cited. Are you saying you're an RS for this? Anyway, what was your evidence of error? Levivich 11:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The tiny detail that ArbCom reviewed his claims about evil Polish cabal manipulating content on Wikipedia, including in KL Warschau article, dismissed them entirerly (never sanctioning me), and banned Icewhiz, not me... after which Icewhiz duped a journalist into publishing an article that states "Well, maybe Icewhiz was right?" based on the evidence limited to "Icewhiz said this and that". Which is how a garden-variety of an error got turned into a hoax perpatrated by a a gang of 100+ Polish nationalists which apaprently owns this TA on Wikipedia and chased the poor lone defender of it, Icewhiz, out of this project. Good story, as I said, maybe someone should try selling movie rights to it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As above, you wrote that it is not by a third party.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Right, which takes us back to "you prefer what Icewhiz said over what I am saying". Nothing I can do about this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No, as none of these sources are in Icewhiz, and this is not getting wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you denying those sources are not based on his story? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not know what research they did, I am not them. Nor does it matter, they wrote in their names, not his. The only source for your claim is in your name. Again they are RS so we assume (unless we have very good (RS backed) evidance they have fact checked, you are not that).Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

We know what research they did, it's right there: [50]. "The person who first discovered the scale of the distortion – and is now arguing to have it recognized as Wikipedia’s longest hoax – is an Israeli editor dubbed Icewhiz"... "According to Icewhiz... the disinformation only continued to spread with the help of Polish editors"... "Icewhiz admits he can be a bit obsessive, and over the past year and a half he has documented almost fanatically what he claims is a systematic attempt by a handful of editors to rewrite the history of the Holocaust." "[Icewhiz] names..." "Icewhiz claims"..." Icewhiz describes"... "Icewhiz points"..."Icewhiz claims" (again), " Icewhiz’s increasingly quixotic battle against the group of Polish editors" (links to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence), "[Icewhiz] editorial crusade is documented on the back pages of Wikipedia", "There, the Israeli editor has spent hours upon hours arguing with what some on Wikipedia call “Team Poland.” A review of Icewhiz’s claims...", "Icewhiz says that he brought his story to Haaretz because he has all but lost the battle against Polish revision on Wikipedia. Having a respected newspaper vet his claims and publish the story of the hoax plays a key role in his attempt to defend history. By reporting on Polish revisionism on Wikipedia, the facts being purged by Polish editors are preserved as true by a verifiable source, granting him ammunition for his last offensive in the footnote war"... "He presented his findings to Wikipedia’s top arbitration body...Wikipedia’s top panel ruled against Icewhiz"." The article makes it pretty clear that is based on Icewhiz's claims, primarily his evidence page at ArbCom (it spells it out and gives no indication any further fact-checking or independent analysis was carried out). Said evidence was reviewed by the community and discarded as insufficient to merit any action outside banning Icewhiz, but a sympathetic journalist took his side and presented his story, despite it being discarded by ArbCom. That's all the evidence we have and need - and if you want more evidence, well, there's plenty that Icewhiz hasn't given up and is still fighting his war against "Team Poland" and/or Wikipedia in general (which for him has apparently been taken over by this evil "Team Poland"..._. And what we don't need is to have his story on Wikipedia, giving him more "ammunition for his last offensive". WP:DFTT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You are aware, we are not talking about haaretz here?Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately ArbCom can't override sources and neither can we. If you want to do this, the proper way would be through a policy change that allows the community to function as an overriding WP:RS in WP:ABOUTSELF matters. François Robere (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see Break and proposal section below -->[51] - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Plea

The discussion among the main participants of this dispute is already very unwieldy, hard to follow, and going nowhere. When I woke up this morning I saw what appear to have been upwards of 20 new posts, all from the same three or four people. This may have already scared off other editors. I suggest we all take a step back and allow more uninvolved editors to comment.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me; it doesn't appear likely any of the "regulars" here is likely to be convinced by the "others", and I have better things to do myself than to play "last word" game here. If anyone wants me to comment, ping me, otherwise, have fun. In the end, this is just a footnote that next to nobody reads, Icewhiz's real victory is to waste time of several editors on discussing technicalities here, when we could be improving Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich and @Piotrus - Read my proposal below - [52] - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just on a more positive note I wanted to say that Szmenderowiecki's recent additions to the article are all excellent and informative. That's the thing to do here - focus on improving the factual info in the article rather than get bogged down over what is at the end of the day Wikipedia-specific drama (in a footnote!) Volunteer Marek 19:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Related RfC

A related RfC was started today at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory. François Robere (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned both RFCs at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and Haaretz Levivich 00:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Closure

I put in a request for closure, which is long overdue. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does anyone actually posses Kopka's book?

Or are all the statements sourced to him based on Google Book snippets? I am quite open to obtaining the book from library when time allows it and expanding the article based on it. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I've got it.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will obtain the book, but have two questions-does Kopka mention events regarding liberation of the camp and fate of the liberated prisoners, also he mentioned in the interview that Nixon visited site of KL Warschau to commemorateits existence. Is this also mentioned in the book?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount The whole chapter six is dedicated to the story of camp’s liberation but I would not call it particularly informative, especially regarding the fate of liberated Jewish prisoners (it is mostly the compilation of various quotes, if I may say so). I suggest you to use also the sources which I used in the article Wyzwolenie KL Warschau on pl.wiki, especially “Żydzi w powstańczej Warszawie” by Barbara Engelking and Dariusz Libionka. Regarding the Nixon visit I did not find any mention in Kopka’s book from 2007.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't. We are in the process of discussing the expansion I have begun to do, which got reverted then held for no apparent reason for quite some time and now there's this tempest with the Haaretz source. If you want to save nerves and time with haggling with other editors, I'd think it might be best to start from this version, if anything is absent there. The translation provided these is based on pl.wiki version. It's not to discourage editing the article (you should if you have a good idea. it's just to warn you that you might get stuck in the talk for quite some time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Break!!! and proposal

Because of the insane disorder the above discussion turned into and mostly involved editors commenting I propose:

All involved on both sides (you know who you are) and those who actively edited this page to step back and allow %100 uninvolved editors to comment. Start fresh. Formulate the question again, once agreed on the content, post it again. This time only, I repeat - only uninvolved are allowed to discuss.

- GizzyCatBella🍁 16:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

We can't have two active RFC's on the same question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Close previous one and open a new one with the outlined conditions (and sorry @Slatersteven, you and me will not be allowed to comment) - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

So go to Reqaust for close and ask for it to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In order to close any discussion in the way you propose it, you should be able to show that the RfC is compromised beyond repair. I have not heard any pleas to reformulate the question to make it more neutral, which I believe it already is, there is no massive sock assault from what I'm aware (the only candidate got struck out anyway), and besides, previous participation in a discussion does not prohibit commenting in this one. The problem is more about too much comments from a few editors, including me, probably, but that's a question of letting others have the stage for their ideas and not dismissing insights of the editors.

If anything, the highest risk here is about editors who comment here and who are mentioned in the article, but it's not as if the closer will not take this into account. There's also the fact that even if the editors might have an apparent COI, it's not as if their insights become automatically worthless, it's just they in general should be treated with a grain of salt. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It might help if those of us who have already commented there more than a few times, stopped. We do not need a close and fresh start, if we all agree to stop posting there for a bit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How do you expect someone to read all that cluster? No, this needs a fresh start with all the old involved popping up here out. Let's fresh and uninvolved editors sort it out. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How about we who have said a lot already just stop posting on this page. Your signature appears 63 times on this page. Let others deal with the RFC closure, etc. I'll do the same. Levivich 17:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think so. Uninvolved editors should discuss that among themselves without the influence of the involved from both sides. That’s the only way to have the outcome objective and unbiased. PS - did you add up your signature count @Levivich? Do you want to know? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've made 29 comments, including this one. You're up to 69 now, far more than anyone else. You've been bludgeoning this discussion, repeating the same points over and over, and when the numerical !vote count tipped against your preferred outcome, you suggested re-starting the RFC because it's been bludgeoned. That's kind of transparent: you wouldn't have suggested restarting the RFC if you were in the majority. Levivich 15:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Neee, I truly believe that's the right approach as explained in my comments and 29 is an impressive number. (even smaller text --> good to know what else is patrolled, thanks) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think we need a new RFC. We just need to let uninvolved editors post and leave things alone.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

How will the poor brave soul attempting to close the former RfC know who was involved in the "Icewhiz show" and who was not? The only way to have this resolved properly and with no biases is to start fresh, all involved shut up and let others decide. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

What the hell is the "Icewhiz show"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Search ArbCom archives. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

That seems to me unworkable, as how is anyone going to know who they are, if they comment? Hell I am unsure if I was ever part of the "Icewhiz show".Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved, in this case, would be editors who never had anything to do with Icewhiz and this article. It's simple. And yes, you and I would be considered involved. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, why does it even matter?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It matters in order to achieve an unbiased result. I strongly believe that having that questionable Haaretz article as reference is totally unnecessary, brings nothing to the article other than the promotion of banned Wikipedian false claims. But I have my biases and I'm conscious of that. So are you. You were rather always on the other side of the fence and you have your own biases (don't you @Slatersteven :)) that's why I believe you, I and a sweeping majority of others should be out of this conversation and let uninvolved decide. GizzyCatBella🍁 15:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we please let others chip in?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Levivich: Icewhiz is by far the most prolific contributor to this discussion, with 146 mentions (but remember - WP:DFTT!). François Robere (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  147... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

B-class?

While the article may possibly be B-class, I don't think it is best practice for one of the main authors do carry out the assessment themselves: [53]. I'd suggesst asking for a review at a place like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poland/Reviews#B-class_reviews (sadly, mostly forgotten but I still have it watchlisted, and all it takes to reactivsate it is for someone else than me to start using it...) or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Germany/Assessment#Requests_for_assessment (still active) or the very active WP:MHA#REQ. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Submitted requests for reassessment to the two active WikiProjects: [54]. [55] Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, although I am a bit sad you don't want to engage with WP:POLAND :< _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I will consider that, but there's no use for leaving something for review sections if the articles stand there unassessed since 2012. I will, however, review the submitted ones. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do review any articles listed there by others, but obviously I can't review my own submissions, and sadly, nobody else monitors that page :( Btw, it's always good to remember the wikiQPQ - if you ask for a review, consider reviewing someone's else's request. Just another nod towards best practices. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Why Haaretz?

I have read most of the foregoing debate, which seems to revolve around Omer Benjakob's 4 October 2019 Haaretz article, "The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia's Longest Hoax, Exposed".

So far as I am aware, the Wikipedia "Warsaw concentration camp" article does not now refer, as a "hoax", to erroneous allegations about a wartime German death camp in Warsaw, equipped with a crematorium accommodated under a pre-existing road bridge.

Nor does this Wikipedia article use, as a source, Mr. Benjakob's Haaretz article, which appears only in the "Further reading" section.

Does the Haaretz article offer documented information about the Warsaw concentration camp that is not already in the article?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

[56] Levivich 07:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The Haaretz article is used (now) as a source for one sentence (Warsaw_concentration_camp#cite_ref-FOOTNOTEBenjakob2019_120-0 -> "Havi Dreifuss, Jan Grabowski, and Gideon Greif related the gas-chamber story to the current Polish government's historical policy and dismissed the account as a conspiracy theory (Grabowski) or fake history (Dreifuss).") that mentions opinions of two scholars (Havi Dreifuss, Jan Grabowski) about the "Discredited extermination camp story". Overall, this is a step in the right direction, as Icewhiz's narrative has been almost totally minimized. Given that there is consensus in academia (Polish and international) and here that Trzcińska account is incorrect, I am not sure we need that particular sentence at all (is the passing criticism by those two scholars really due? Would removing it weaken the reader's perception her theory is wrong?). I'll also note that Greif is referenced to a YouTube video ([57] in Hebrew]) and this reference is not very useful for majority of our readers. I'd support removing this sentence, to end this matter one and for all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A solution where you get all of your own way and have removed an article that is critical of you specifically? How magnanimous of you.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The flip side of that is that it seems that the only reason some editors are so adamant on including this source - which is not even needed - is simply because they want to “stick it to Piotrus”. I think it’s very clear that insistence on this particular, very flawed and unnecessary source, is to both grief Piotrus (and some other editors) and at the same time “protect Icewhiz’s legacy” or something like that. Frankly, both the source and the whole story of how it came to be a huge freakin’ embarrassment. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A strange motivation indeed, given that no one seemed to be supporting the source just to spite Piotrus. Or I've missed something? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no interest in “sticking it to Piotrus”, but I view the attempt to remove this article as an attempted cover up, and it makes my blood boil.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"cover up" of what exactly? Prior to October 2019, when this whole thing got written up in the Haaretz-Icewhiz piece, Piotrus made exactly ONE edit to this article. Here it is [58]. Ooooooooooooooo. So horrible. So please, tell us, what exactly is being "covered up" by excluding this troll-source that you, who apparently have no interest in "sticking it to Piotrus", are so adamant on including here? Volunteer Marek 23:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There's another aspect of this that's worth mentioning, which we haven't discussed earlier (and I can only conjecture as to why): both pieces tie what's happening in real-world politics with what's happening on on Wikipedia. Given that many of the clashes in the TA were around contemporary political issues (Ełk riots, LGBT-free zones, Institute of National Remembrance, Jan Żaryn and Property restitution in Poland, to name a few), removing these sources would only serve editors who wish to conceal their tendentious editing under a guise of naively following policy... if such editors exist, of course. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but incredibly bad faithed comments - which are even off topic! - like these which are just thinly veiled personal attacks which make false insinuations are not worthy of a response. Stop making personal attacks and trying to amplify the WP:BATTLEGROUND on this topic area please. Volunteer Marek 23:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll just put this here: [59]. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ummm, ok? No idea what this has to do with anything but if you want to "just put this here" then I'm glad that you had the chance to just put it there. Volunteer Marek 23:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I will not comment on the Haaretz source in the context of the Warsaw concentration camp story, which is what I've started the RfC for, but as for the Hebrew source - it is a valid reference and those who understand Hebrew will find it useful. Of course, if someone knows Hebrew, a quote from Greif would be germane, but just because we don't know the language doesn't mean the reference is impossible to verify. You may ask available translators for help if needed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

See here. François Robere (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh ffs. The IPN is the one who was the first to DISPROVE this false claim of a death camp. So how you gonna get “this is IPN being bad!” out of that is beyond me. Volunteer Marek 23:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't relate to the argument about the Hebrew source in question, and the diff cites Greif's opinion on the subject, not Francois Robere's, and even though AFAIK the user seems to agree with it, that's not the point of adding the interview. Please don't try to score political points on talk. (Francois Robere - the same concerns you. The place for accusations of tendentious editing is at ANI or ARBCOM, not on talk). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We have an RFC, any discussion of this needs to be there.

And can we please let new voiced chime in?Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

KL abbreviation

Just a quick note but in German the usual abbreviation of Konzentrationslager is "KZ", not "KL". See for instance the title of the German version of this page, de:KZ Warschau, or the German article on concentration camps, de:Konzentrationslager: Der Begriff Konzentrationslager (KZ) steht seit der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus für die Arbeits- und Vernichtungslager des NS-Regimes. (The term "concentration camp" (KZ) has referred to a work and extermination camp of the Nazi regime since the the Nazi period). I'm not sure where the abbreviation "KL" is coming from; it might be Polish rather than German.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Polish sources rarely use KZ Warschau, but KL Warschau seems to be a pretty standard reference among them. Even Germans (see Oswald Pohl's letter in Genesis section) seemed to use KL not KZ when referring to the camp, and anyway both abbreviations mean more or less the same, with the latter name perceived to mean harsher conditions. I will add KZ to the text though. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the German wiki page the official abbreviation by the Nazis was KL but it’s not what’s used in German anymore, including in scholarly sources.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

From the sources available in the article, Lehnstaedt and translation of Kopka's book use KZ, while Mix uses KL + the Nazis regularly referred to the camp as KL Warschau. These are the only works that I am aware of that are in German. You may substitute "some works" to "often refer to" or something to that tune (while specifying the Nazis were using KL), but certainly not "not used anymore". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

According to de:Friedemann Bedürftig's "Taschenlexikon Drittes Reich" ("Pocket encyclopedia Third Reich"), Konzentrationslager was "officially abbreviated 'KL', but better known and feared under the token 'KZ'" (my translation).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hob Gadling (talk • contribs)

Hob Gadling, I have no access to the source you mention. Could you please edit the relevant section about the names and insert the ref (better with the quote in German) please? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Kasyno dla esesmanów

@Szmenderowiecki you obviously don't know what the word kasyno means in Polish when it is used in military surroundings. Do you?[60] GizzyCatBella🍁 18:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC) @Szmenderowiecki You read Polish correct? --> [[61]] that’s what kasyno dla essesmanów is. Not casino. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted myself. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Cites to Trzcińska 2002

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Independent sources, the article should not be citing this source directly. I recommend removing it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I'm not exactly sure if deletion is the best course of action, but I've referred this to the specialised noticeboard for clarification. I don't believe WP:FRINGE is violated (see my 7:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC) comment), but I will abide to whatever they say on the noticeboard. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

She is not an RS, for anything but here own claims, attributed to her.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am with Steven on this one. What claims are referenced to her that are uncontroversial and cannot be referenced with more reliable works? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Szmenderowiecki: the discussion at the fringe noticeboard has largely run its course, and there's no support for using Trzcińska: permalink. Please also see my last comment. There's no need for Trzcińska in the article, while commingling a fringe source with reliable ones is not a good idea. Please remove Trzcińska. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)