User talk:SlimVirgin/February 2021

Dev Joshi

There were repeated efforts to create an article on this child actor in 2013 and 2014, but it has been cut down to a redirect, and you then fully protected it due to repeated re-creation. There is now a draft on this teenage actor. I tried to tag the redirect as a redirect with possibilities, but discovered the full protection. Seven years is a long time for full protection, during which the actor has grown up and had new roles. I have not yet reviewed the draft. What I am requesting is to change the protection of the redirect from admin to extended-confirmed (which did not exist when you protected it). If you aren't actively working on such requests, I will make the request at RFPP. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer to leave this to RfPP, but thank you for checking with me first. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Holocaust § RfC - First sentence in lede

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Holocaust § RfC - First sentence in lede. warmly, ezlev. talk 17:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:GameStop short squeeze on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust victims

The following discussion 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.

---

Hi Sarah -- While I agree with the tag about clarifying the one sentence, which was poorly written in the opening (I corrected to reflect what I think the author intended based on the article contents), I have always understood that the opening (lede/Summary) for articles do not require citations. Has that changed? --Obenritter (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There has never been an exception for leads. See WP:LEADCITE. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Well evidently, I have been misinformed for years then. Nonetheless, I can point to dozens upon dozens of articles where that is the case. BTW -- thanks for being profoundly terse, it's really appreciated.--Obenritter (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What you say is true about other articles, but you're writing about the Holocaust. If you were writing a medical article, you would use medical sources. When writing a history article, please use history sources. Also, see the tag at the top of the talk page about another ArbCom case. High-quality sources are required at every point throughout the text. The truth is that this is a very poor article that was copied over from an old version of the main Holocaust article in or around 2006. I don't really want to get involved in it, but I was trying to make the lead less counterfactual. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Funny that you'd tell a professional historian about citing a history article. Let's overstate the obvious that "this is a very poor article"...which is why I was going to start cleaning it up, like I did Responsibility for the Holocaust; one among many, many, articles where I have added content from RS sources throughout, using only top-notch scholars in the field. Namely since I have in my personal library some 300+ academic volumes gathered from a lifetime of study on this subject. My concern was about citing the lead, which I wrongly believed was not required from having worked with many editors, some of whom are also Admins on articles, where we merely summarized the article contents in the lead. Nevertheless, you immediately assumed the worst from me and then sent me a "cautionary" warning about this subject. Don't worry about me messing with that article now, you've sufficiently distanced me from it.--Obenritter (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to have a discussion about what you do in real life, because I don't know, and I don't know what you mean by "professional historian" or what area of history. I did notice that in Responsibility for the Holocaust, you used a secondary source from 1975, something Holocaust historians would avoid because so much changed once they had access to the archives in Eastern Europe. What we need is for Holocaust articles on Wikipedia to reflect mainstream Holocaust historiography and to use standard definitions of the Holocaust. That's it. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Some background to these articles, which may help: some or all of the early drafts of certain Holocaust articles were written by an editor who is an historian. He wrote them in sandboxes without sources, and gave us permission to carry them over into mainspace. Some went to the main Holocaust article, some to the responsibility article, and I forget where else. After that, several of us began adding sources. You are likely to find out-of-date sources in these early efforts. Since then, the main Holocaust article has been rewritten (completely or almost completely) with different sources, but some of the others may carry the traces (or more) of those old articles. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

−

In this case, the 1975 work is from Lucy Dawidowicz and very little of what she wrote years ago appears on that page. Nonetheless, she was considered among the foremost experts and where she's quoted is not especially debatable. Furthermore, her opinion would still be respected by contemporary historians, many of whom cite her in their work. Anyway, if you are attempting to challenge content based solely on newer sources, find an RS that disagrees with what she wrote on that particular issue and edit away. One may find that the new source is often citing somebody like her--plenty of modern works cite her, as well as Jehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg, Leni Yahil, and David Cesarini. Where there are changes and differences of opinion based on new discoveries, that is another matter altogether. Incidentally, European history is my area of expertise. My primary concentration was Romano-Germanic contact but my secondary ones are intellectual history and modern Germany. As an aside, I have also done some post-grad work on strategic studies and conflict, using statistical modeling against known outcomes. Anyway, I am not here to have a drawn-out debate about Holocaust historiography, when our difference of opinions was essentially about leads requiring or not requiring citations. You've established that they do for sensitive subjects. Now do I have permission to remove that "cautionary" post from my Talk Page or is there an established time period for such things when posted by an Admin, even if as I would argue, was premature in this instance. --Obenritter (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said on your page, I didn't give you the alert as an admin, but as an editor. You can remove it, yes. The point of it is simply that you've been alerted; the ArbCom requires this before we can complain about someone's editing under the discretionary-sanctions system. You should follow some of the links on the template to inform yourself about this.

Thank you for explaining your background. My preference is to source Holocaust articles to reasonably up-to-date specialist Holocaust historians. Please do look at the tag at the top of Talk:Holocaust victims. There is more than one ArbCom remedy in place; high-quality sourcing is a requirement (not optional) at those articles for anything related to Poland. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to close this now. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 5 February 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.

Misogyny

I have opened a section on the talk page. Please have a look. Love, 46.221.87.49 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a holocaust denier that is trying to put Neo Nazi websites as sources Can something be done about this?

They are posting links to sources such as, HOLOCAUST DEPROGRAMMING COURSE – Free yourself from a lifetime of Holo-brainwashing about “Six Million” Jews “gassed” in “Gas Chambers Disguised as Shower Rooms https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pink_Swastika&diff=1005035677&oldid=1004876187.78.92.85.246 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see they've been blocked. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ummm...

You want to explain this edit summary? BOTH parts of it please. Volunteer Marek 22:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCOI: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, if you're ever wondering why I made an edit I made, as apparently you are here, then the simplest way to find out is to ask me. I'm not sure why you have to make that query with the words "perhaps an admin could ask them". As to the matter at hand, the answer is straight forward, the text Buidhe wishes to add is based on a sentence which doesn't even mention the topic of the article, hence it's a simple matter of WP:SYNTH. In regard to your assertion that "this is bog-standard Holocaust history" that is not true either. It's interwar history. For example, here is Yad Vashem's article on basically the same subject [1]. The "background" is:

"Jews lived in Poland for 800 years before the Nazi occupation. On the eve of the occupation 3.3 million Jews lived in Poland – more than any other country in Europe. Their percentage among the general population – about 10% – was also the highest in Europe.

After the conquest of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union in September 1939..."

Notice that there isn't anything in there of the sort that Buidhe wants to SYNTHesize into the Wikipedia article? I don't know about you, but personally I consider how YV organizes their article a pretty good template for ours.

Speaking of Yad Vashem, somehow you haven't brought up the fact that the MAIN problem with Buidhe's edits to the article is the massive removal of 23000k worth of text, text which is based on reliable sources. Buidhe is removing Yad Vashem as a source. Buidhe is removing Yale University Press as a source. Buidhe is removing Holocaust and Genocide Studies journal. Etc. I did mention this four or five times but I guess it escaped your notice. Perhaps an admin could ask Buidhe why they are removing these reliable sources from the article? Or maybe you could ask Buidhe that?

Thanks! Volunteer Marek 07:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Continuation of my response to you at AE

Did you give trouble to look at this conversation[2]? I'm trying to discuss the background section with Buidhe; I asked Buidhe to wait for me to compose the background that I aimed to post on the talk page first so we could further review it together. And what Buidhe does? Buidhe restores her preferred version into the main space[3], claiming... "talk page consensus to work from this version" Do you have anything to tell about such conduct? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

To VM and GCB: The Holocaust in Poland is in poor shape, including close paraphrasing in the lead from a source (a source copied from another article), and no mention in the lead or background of Polish antisemitism. It appears in a dedicated section with nothing about pre-invasion pogroms; emphasis on the rescuers but no mention of how they were scared their neighbours would find out they had helped Jews. Buidhe is trying to fix the article. It would make sense to give her space, instead of repeatedly reverting so that she can't even get started. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. However this does not address any of the issues raised. Buidhe is removing reliable sources such as Yad Vashem, Yale University Press, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and other reliable sources from the article. I'm not clear how that constitutes "fixing the article". Unilaterally removing 23,000 bytes of text without discussion then edit warring to keep the changes is also usually not considered "fixing the article" nor does it constitute a collaborative approach to editing. Same goes for trying to force their way through on an article despite lack of consensus by filing spurious AE reports on flimsy pretexts (AE is not a substitute for engaging in good faith in discussion and seeking compromise). Volunteer Marek 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The sophistry is really unhelpful. She's rewriting, so sources are being removed and others are being added. The article needs a rewrite to make sure it reflects current mainstream scholarship. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I've taken care to reply to your comments in as polite and collegial manner as possible and in doing so I've chosen to ignore your insults, false accusations and personal attacks that you've recently made. These are especially troubling coming from an administrator and they constitute "conduct unbecoming". For whatever reason you've chosen not to do me the courtesy of reciprocating in kind. Your comment referring to my attempt to answer you in good faith as "sophistry" is just more of the same. If you wish to have a serious conversation about this matter then you will need to cut that out and treat your fellow Wikipedians with respect and courtesy that is required by our policies. This is a minimal standard of conduct, especially for an administrator.

The "sources are being removed" by Buidhe are high quality reliable sources, such as Yad Vashem, so ... yeah, it's a problem. Last I checked publications like Yad Vashem and academic journals dedicated to the topic of Holocaust studies ARE in fact "mainstream scholarship". I fail to see how removing such sources from the article is helping the article "reflect current mainstream scholarship". If anything, it's doing the opposite. And that's the crux of the matter here, which you have repeatedly side stepped or deflect addressing. Volunteer Marek 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your first paragraph spoils your second. Please speak to me as though we're both adults.

Yad Vashem is a mixed bag, as are all the museum sites. You would have to show me which page you say reflects mainstream scholarship. This is one of Poeticbent's pages. Whether it has been rewritten since then, I don't know, but it wasn't based on the scholarship then, and in any event scholarship moves on. These articles have to be updated. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am speaking to you as one adult to another, and I am being as courteous as one can under the circumstances (specifically, after being personally attacked and insulted by you). You are unfortunately making sure to include at least one personal attack or swipe or false aspersion (like insinuating that I am not "speaking to you as an adult") per each of your comments. Let's remember here that YOU are the administrator, so really, YOU are suppose to set the example. So why am I the only one being civil here?

And I'm sorry, but if you're going down the road of insisting that Yad Vashem is not reliable, then you're the one who's left "mainstream scholarship" behind and are walking down that WP:FRINGE highway. Volunteer Marek 02:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You see the problem? I wrote: "Yad Vashem is a mixed bag." You summarize that as "going down the road of insisting that Yad Vashem is not reliable". This is why I had to stop editing in this area in May 2020. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're trying to justify removal of text sourced to Yad Vashem. Calling it a "mixed bag" is kind of like trying to say they're unreliable without having to use the word "unreliable" because it's obvious that calling it unreliable outright would be a fringe view. Volunteer Marek 13:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

the material at Yad Vashem; it is not only a memorial, but also a collection of documents of different origin, often reminiscences years after the fact, often contemporary accounts, and not all of these are in exact agreement with teach other. I knew people from the same shtetl who have contradictory accounts of the same pogrom. That's part of the purpose of YV--to be a repository of souices for further analysis. And many of its publications do have a somewhat confusing POV, officially that almost nobody supported the jews, but a great many did. As analogy, the best accessible sources for American radical history in the 20th center are those of the Hoover Institution, They were collected for the purpose of fighting left wing tendencies , ranging from communism to trade unions. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is true but in this case the source is a Yad Vashem article, not primary sources. I don't think anyone would argue that they're not reliable. Volunteer Marek

SlimVirgin, the "poor shape" of the article is just your opinion you have the right to hold. Others might not agree with you as far as that "poor shape" of the article. Do others have the right to not agree with you Sarah? I believe they do. What strikes me in your reply is that you don't mention anything about Buidhe's improper behavior. Your onslaughts against other editors, including hard-working administrators, were out of line. You offended your fellow editors but you seem not to incline to even slightly apologize for it. That's not okay. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek, honestly, I also would recommend that maybe you both give Buidhe some space, as in a fighting chance. I mean the whole thing about the "150 localities," etc. — if that is what that Cambridge University Press work is saying, then, to me, that comes across as critical context. It's important that genuine scholarly views are not drowned by numbers. That the discussion proceeds in a manner which represents prevailing views among the best sources, with arguments to that effect taken to their logical conclusion, truly. El_C 21:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing in that article needs work, and the citations aren't written clearly. Current references. It makes sense to let Buidhe see what she can do with it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, GCB, Sarah offended me, but I know it came from a place of genuine pain — yes, I realize she said "frustration," but I'll be less understated by putting words in her mouth and say "pain." Anyway, I think the best thing moving forward is to approach this from a place of healing. My feelings are not as important as the body of work that the project features on this key subject. Obviously, Buidhe finds it challenging to collaborate. And obviously, both of you and VM are formerly banned editors who are actively editing the subject of your former respective bans. It's all rather tenuous. It shouldn't be about who slips first, but about ensuring that editorial work in this area is bar none. That it rivals any top-tier university or research institute. Again, I'm a dreamer. El_C 22:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for speaking about you, even though you're here and this is your talk page, Sarah! El_C 23:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That's okay. I find this whole thing exhausting. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, apologies for the belated reply, but I feel I need to stress that I did mean frustration. The editors complaining about this situation are frustrated that we can't edit these articles like any other history article, namely by summarizing the best history sources. That's it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Sarah. Emphasis noted. Obviously, your fortitude greatly exceeds mine in this area. //Out. El_C 05:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Also noting that I have created the WP:APLRS redirect earlier today. Hope that helps, even if only in a small way. El_C 05:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Mass POV pushing /source removal by Volunteer Marek on the Institute of National Remembrance page

Just wanted to let you know.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institute_of_National_Remembrance&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.198.213 (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Green for hope

Lenten Rose

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerda, thanks for this. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lezama

Hiya. Just though I'd give you a headsup that the Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier page has been recreated as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xabier_Lezama You know I was on the "other side" but more than anything I want a resolution to the tug of war over a minor figure, so you may wish to wade in :) Be well. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)