Current text of this article was revised to address concerns that it followed too closely on the pdf [1]. Some of the original language carries over. That text was contributed by User:Poeticbent. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Every single quote, fact, and passage in this article is culled from a single source--Wartime Rescue of Jews, edited and compiled by fringe right wing writer Mark Paul, and published by a non reliable source, the Polish Educational Foundation in North America. This article is essentially a summary of that non-reliable source, authored by a fringe author. The 40-odd references in this article are all culled from the same single Mark Paul essay, giving this Wikipedia article the false appearance of a well sourced encyclopedia article, rather than a summary and plagiarism of a single fringe source. It is being tagged appropriately. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I resent this highly inappropriate and deeply misinformed accusation based on a political agenda of a single user known for his inflammatory and confrontational attitude discussed by the community at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence.
Special effort has been made to check and double-check the extensive online references provided thereafter. They are all in plain sight and available for confirmation via simple Google search. Not a single source has been omitted or misrepresented. The article might have been inspired by a couple of big pdf files, but that's a far cry from any copyright breach. Please keep you cool, Boodlesthecat. Your claim in not only unsubstantiated but also void of a single proof of actual non-adherence to Wikipedia policy guidelines. There's nothing wrong with supplying large size article with numerous citations. All of them are easy to find online. --
Poeticbent
talk
01:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Every single Wikipedia article is based on sources per policy guidelines. Does wp:no original research ring a bell? And please don't accuse me of personal attacks, because this is a matter of your attitude more than anything. I checked the sources, they are all good. -- Poeticbent talk 02:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It would’ve been a lot more helpful, Boodlesthecat, if you were to work with me on this one. We both know that the concept of this article is not mine. It is not supposed to be original per Wikipedia policy of course. However, the fact that the article is based on an existing compilation of readily available sources does not discredit the idea of having something like that around here. Please, try to be more specific with regard to how you would like to see it being laid out? Nothing is written in stone around here, nevertheless, do know that it took me considerable effort to make sure that the facts, and the names of settlements mentioned are all confirmed in Holocaust literature. Time permitting, I’d like to continue checking on everything. – The true fact is that after writing over a dozen articles on the subject of Holocaust rescue, it occurred to me that there’s a need to have it summarized. The Polish Righteous or the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland was not the right place for any of this. The article was badly needed, and I hope that it can be perfected with sensible contributions by other experienced editors. There’s no such thing as the risk of plagiarising any important subject in this matter. -- Poeticbent talk 16:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and any problems in regard to referencing or focus can easily be adjusted when editors work together for a common editorial goal. The subject matter of this article warrants attention, not erasure, and I can say that I am glad to see it put forth for consideration and review. In regard to the expression of concern on its contents, I would invite people to join with its original author to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia editorial standards. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is culled from the writings of a fringe right wing writer, Mark Paul, and is simply a watered down version of his POV grafted onto to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to summarize a work by a fringe right wing writer with uncomfortable connections to anti-semitism, place it here, complete with his one sided POV, copy his references, and call it an encyclopedia article. This is what Poeticbent has done. Just some quick spot checks:
Mark Paul writes: "A 9-year-old Jewish boy by the name of Wintluk (Wintel), who had lost his mother and three fingers when shot at by Germans while escaping, was taken in by a poor Polish family in Mulawicze near Bielsk Podlaski and then cared for and protected by the entire village who took pity on him:"
Poeticbent writes: In Mulawicze near Bielsk Podlaski the entire village took responsibility for the survival of an orphaned 9-year-old Jewish boy named Wintluk (Wintel).
Mark Paul writes: A teenaged boy and his mother, who lived in a damaged, abandoned house in Drzewica where he openly played with village boys, survived the war despite his Semitic appearance."
Poeticbent writes: "Another teenage boy lived openly with his mother in Drzewica despite their Semitic appearance."
Mark Paul writes: Ludwika Fiszer was one of three women who escaped naked from an execution pit where Jews from the Poniatowa labour camp were taken by Germans and their Ukrainian henchmen.
Poeticbent writes: Ludwika Fiszer who escaped naked—with two other women—from an execution pit in Poniatowa had to move from village to village while receiving assistance.[20]
Mark Paul writes: Alfreda and Bolesław Pietraszek sheltered several Jewish families consisting of 18 people on their farm in Czekanów near Sokołów Podlaski for a period of two years
Poeticbent writes: For two years, Alfreda and Bolesław Pietraszek sheltered several Jewish families consisting of 18 people in Ceranów near Sokołów Podlaski, relying on assistance from neighbors for feeding that many souls.[19]
Mark Paul writes: The case of Doctor Olga Lilien, a Holocaust survivor from Lwów with a very marked Jewish appearance, who lived with a Polish family near Tarnobrzeg, is another example of solidarity among the Polish villagers
Poeticbent writes: Doctor Olga Lilien, a Holocaust survivor from Lwów (with strong Jewish looks) who lived with a Polish family near Tarnobrzeg recalls that in the village of two thousand no one denounced her despite the fact that the German gendarme offered two hundred deutsche marks as reward. He was told by the village Wójt that she was Polish.[1}
Mark Paul writes: Faiga Rosenbluth, a penniless teenage Jewish girl from Kańczuga, roamed the countryside moving from one village to the next for some two years; she helped out by very many peasants and was not betrayed, even though she was readily recognized as a Jew.
Poeticbent writes: Faiga Rosenbluth, a penniless teenage Jewish girl from Kańczuga easily recognized as a Jew, was moved from one village to the next for two years, and not betrayed.[9]
Mark Paul writes: Jewish partisan Gustaw Alef-Bolkowiak identifies the following villages in the Parczew-Ostrów Lubelski area as ones where “almost the entire population was actively engaged in helping fugitives from the ghettos”
Poeticbent writes: but another Jewish partisan, Gustaw Alef-Bolkowiak, identified several villages in the Parczew-Ostrów Lubelski area where "almost the entire population was actively engaged in helping":
Mark Paul writes: Jerzy and Irena Krępeć, who were awarded by Yad Vashem, sheltered and otherwise assisted a number of Jews on their farm in Gołąbki259 near Warsaw. Their son, a 14-year-old boy at the time, recalled: “the fact that they were hiding Jews was an open secret in the village. At times, there were 20 or 30 people living on the farm.
Poeticbent writes: Between 20 and 30 Jews (with visitors) were sheltered in Gołąbki at the farm of Jerzy and Irena Krępeć, which was "an open secret in the village [where] everyone knew they had to keep quiet [and] helped, 'if only to provide a meal'."[14]
Mark Paul writes: Zygmunt Srul Warszawer hid for 26 months moving from place to place among numerous villages, such as Wielki Las, in the triangle formed by Łaskarzew, Sobolew, and Wilga, “visiting every farm because he figured that if everyone helped him no one would turn him in—to do would mean self-destruction.” No one turned him away empty handed during those 26 months: “‘No one ever refused to help you?’ ‘No, not food!
Poeticbent writes: "No one ever refused to help you?" recalls Zygmunt Srul Warszawer hiding in the village of Wielki Las among other places. "No, not [only when asked about] food! In twenty-six months, not once."[24]
Poeticbent writes: Like many Polish Jews, Tema Rotman-Weinstock from Lublin was publicly baptized in Kajetanówka by a Catholic priest for her own protection similar to Franciszka Aronson in a village near Mińsk Mazowiecki.[30] In Ożarów, Ignaców, Szymanów, and Grodzisko near Leżajsk, the Jewish children were cared for by Catholic convents and their entire villages. "Not one traitor was to be found" among the locals; furthermore, the Christians did not take their children out from the schools Jews attended, solidifying their cover.[31] All taken directly from Paul, p 260.
Mark Paul writes: In the same area, in the Polish village of Okopi [sic], some tens of Jews were saved thanks to two special individuals… the Catholic priest [Rev. Ludwik Wrodarczyk]...The priest was burned alive in his church.”
Poeticbent writes: In Okopy village a Catholic priest was burned alive in his church for saving tens of Jews from Rokitno.
Again, Wikipedia is not the place to summarize a work by a fringe right wing writer with uncomfortable connections to anti-semitism, place it here, complete with his one sided POV, copy his references, and call it an encyclopedia article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as an obvious copyright violation. Also, regarding the citations used in the article, please review Wikipedia:Citing sources#Cite the place where you found the material. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
[outdent]There's a difference between treating a situation seriously and telling a good faith user "don't touch this page again." ~ L'Aquatique! talk/ stats 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and while it is significantly based on one source, it seems to me to be sufficiently rewritten (paraphrased) not to be a copyvio. There were a few sentences that were too similar, and they have been rewritten. I see no reason for further copyvio tag.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It's lifted entirely on one source (And that source is a fringe right - wing writer who specializes in producing website articles that cherry pick "facts"--e.g., documenting Jewish hostility to Poles and Christians). A quick check of this article shows Poeticbent apparently lifted 41 of the 42 reference citations directly from the Paul article (all but ref 38, which he supplied). Not only that, in the instances where the ref cits contain multiple references (e.g., refs 14, 21, 23, 36, 41 etc), he apparently took those bulk cits directly from bulk cits in the Paul article, so its more like 50 out of 51 lifted from the website article. In many instances, the order of examples given followed the same order of examples that the Paul article does. I did a check earlier and stopped checking after the first half dozen or so random checks showed almost identical recountings of incidents, with the exact same sources cited as the website uses. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, it needs to be pointed out that Poeticbent's defense above that he is being targeted by a "highly inappropriate and deeply misinformed accusation based on a political agenda" and "a politically inspired overkill by a Jewish tag-team member" is the most reprehensible form of ethnic baiting bordering on the antisemitic in response to it being pointed out the overwhelming evidence cited above. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
My view is that this article relied too much on a single source. Regardless of whether it was a copyvio or not, more sources were needed to balance things out. A single source is rarely a good basis for an article. A general comment I want to add is to ask where disputed copyright and plagiarism issues should be discussed? If the article here gets deleted, the talk page will go with it. Really, just as deletion discussions are preserved, this debate should be preserved somewhere as well (minus the BLP comments about the author of the paper in question). So should there be a place to discuss such things? Is WP:AFD suitable for disputed copyvios and plagiarism accusations or not? See Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright problems (where I saw this listed). Those are the closest I can find to relevant pages. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent for text problems to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio requires some element of cut-and-paste, which is explained in Wikipedia:Spotting_possible_copyright_violations. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of this, as everything appears to have been re-worded to some degree. Martintg ( talk) 12:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
From what I saw, at least at first glance, this article was not a copyvio when it was so tagged. A rewrite, yes, but not a copyvio. It was not substantially similar in organization or approach, in my view. I'm no expert on this topic but there seem to be a fair number of sources out there. ( this may not be the best search but it seems to have found quite a few) Instead of sparring about the use of one source exclusively, why not expand the article by using the other sources as well, instead of edit warring over what the article is or is not? That advice applies to all parties. That said, I'd be inclined to remove the copyvio tagging, because I'm not seeing it. ++ Lar: t/ c 13:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to many negative stereotypes found in Holocaust literature, a considerable number of Polish settlements under the Nazi German occupation of Poland in World War II took part in collective rescue of Jews during the Holocaust.
Can we remove the copyvio notice and restore the article? It seems to me that neutral reviewers agree that the article is not a copyvio (marting: "There doesn't appear to be any evidence of this"; Lar: "From what I saw, at least at first glance, this article was not a copyvio when it was so tagged"; Ecoleetage: "This article is clearly not a work of plagiarism" ). We can discuss whether the article deserves a {{ onesource}} or AfD, but this is a different issue. What needs to be done is to restore the article (which is not a copyvio) and allow editors to further expand/rewrite it (it is likely that if not for the IDONTLIKE copyvio template freezing the article for the past few days the article would already have progressed beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not a copyvio already).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
←After reviewing the lead and opening section and comparing with the source, I believe there is substantial copyright violation within the article. Since this is disputed, I plan to point out the areas where I see concern. Rather than putting quotation marks around the text I'm copying from our article, I'm going to italicize it. This will make it easier to identify where material has been copied verbatim from the source without proper notation. Lead:
Section 1:
Given this examination of the first two sections, I think the article very likely needs to be rewritten from scratch. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust/Temp. Please help to point out parts that are copyvio so that they can be removed/rewritten/etc. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You know something, folks...what do you say that we all step away from this for some time? At the moment, there is no common ground among the two sides, and we don't seem to be making any headway. What I would propose is having those who want to rewrite/edit the article work on it offline. When the article is completed, we can bring it back here for review and discussion. Is that fair? Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note: I am in the process of finishing a complete revamping of this article. The Mark Paul references have been expunged from this version, due to concerns raised in this discussion on the reliability of this source. I have also rewritten every single sentence, too, in order to wipe out any possibility of inappropriate paraphrasing. I have also changed the order of the paragraphs, specifically stating the numbers of people involved earlier in the text, in order to put the depth and breadth of this subject within the proper context of wartime Poland. The work should be finished soon, and I hope that we can have a pleasant discussion on this article. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 21:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Are the first and second picture depictions of the execution of Poles specifically for assisting Jews? References are needed to that effect. as forthe third picture, I don'ts see how it relates to the topic at all. DGG ( talk) 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with this photo? Seems on-topic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
What are the grounds for accusations of Mark Paul of "fringe right wing writer" with "uncomfortable connections to anti-semitism"? This seems to me like a WP:BLP violation and groundless slandering of a person because it has a POV somebody doesn't like. I cannot find out much about his academic credentials, but neither I can find anything about him being a far-right anti-semite; assuming good faith it seems to be he could be described as an "amateur historian" at worst. He has published books Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust: The Polish Minority and Jewish Collaboration in Soviet-occupied Eastern Poland, 1939-1941 and A Tangled Web: Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland ; the first of those is cited (if briefly) by scholar Marek Chodakiewicz in this review and in this book; here he is cited by other reliable scholars ( Robert D. Cherry, Annamaria Orla-Bukowska); here by Tadeusz Piotrowski ; here/ [2] Peter D. Stachura cites him and calls him a "scholar"; he is also cited in this work (no snippet available); his work is reviewed here. Overall, he seems like a minor scholar with unknown academic credentials, possibly not notable for his own article, but there is no indication of his unreliability, and certainly nothing to support slanderous statements about "right-wing" or "antisemitism".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
At BLPN, neutral reviewer have concluded calling Mr. Paul names is a BLP violation. At RS, a neutral reviewer agrees that if he is cited by reliable scholars, he is relatively reliable himself. QED.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP was intended for the subject of an article, not for discussions regarding a source's reliability. A rule requiring multiple sources before making any assertions regarding a source's reliability is silly and would cause a chilling effect on these type of discussions. I'm not saying that we can go around calling sources nazi-fascists, but I am saying there should be healthy discussions about source's reliability.
Regarding the underlying issue, WP:BURDEN requires that those adding material prove its legitimacy with a source. Obviously, this burden applies to establishing the legitimacy and reliability of the added material's source. The burden here has not been met. We know nothing about this pseudonym-sounding person. The few cites, which are a bunch of "see also's", do not establish reliability. Especially for this contentious issue, a more established source is needed. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's the relevant excerpts, and all the comments on "Mark Paul"; emphasis added by me to highlight where Paul is directly discussed, from Sonia Misak, East European Jewish Affairs, Volume 28, Issue 2 Winter 1998 , pages 114-116:
The first volume focuses on the history of the town of Bransk as interpreted by local enthusiast Zbigniew Romaniuk, the second on the Lithuanian town of Ejszyszki, an account written by Mark Paul. Romaniuk states: 'Unearthing the past in its most minute detail is really exciting. My forte is an aptitude for finding documents and people and my non-commercial approach to the subject'(vol.1,37).' And although, according to the book's subtitle, both volumes are an examination of Polish-Jewish relations during and directly after the Second World War in their respective towns, it is difficult to extract a clear picture of the subject from either...
Going against the grain is also a major theme in volume two. The raison d'etre of this book appears to be two-fold. First, it disputes the account of events in war-time Ejszyszki as put forward by Holocaust scholar and educator Yaffa Eliach.3 Second, in countering Eliach's version of her family story and putting forward an alternative, Paul disputes 'common assumptions' in the work of 'Holocaust historians'. He endeavours to take a fresh look at Jewish- Polish relations in Ejszyszki and its environs under Nazi and Soviet occupation, the operation of the partisan movement and, specifically, Jewish involvement in the Soviet occupation.
Eliach's argument rests on the inaccuracy of certain accounts of the wartime period. Paul's concern is that not only is Eliach's version of events not supported by historical documentation, but that she tells not one consistent life story but a variety of embroidered tales. He provides other examples of conflicting testimony about the Second World War. In his exercise of mythbusting, Paul uses phrases such as 'The truth of the matter is . . . ' (vol. 2, 93) and, on the subject of testimony,'... what is one to think when crude statements like the following, which show a complete inability to grasp historical reality, pepper these and other such memoirs?' (vol. 2,65). Yet what is not clear to the reader is the difference between the sources he says are 'right'—and therefore truthful—and those which are 'wrong'—and therefore represent 'Jewish propaganda' (vol. 1,80). The pitfalls of oral history and personal testimony have been well documented, as have the positive uses of this medium in education and social science.4 Yet, it seems that in 'setting the record straight', the author falls into the trap he accuses the 'Holocaust historians' of laying. Although Paul's work is obsessively footnoted, some of his sources are questionable. ...This fact, together with the general tone of Paul's writing (occasionally crude), leaves the reader unconvinced by his argument. Also, it is not helpful that his biography, and therefore credentials, are absent from either volume. In his essay in vol.1 Paul states that 'The [reviewed] book lends itself to use in Holocaust and modern history courses at the high school and college levels, as well as journalism and media courses' (149). This seems unlikely. Although these volumes are as fascinating as they are bizarre, they cannot be recommended for a general readership. Though I may yet be proved wrong. Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the pdf in question as carefully as I am able, and all infringement concerns that I could locate have been thoroughly addressed. As this involved a thorough review of the pdf, I have also made some suggestions regarding accuracy/neutrality, which have been addressed. Prior to archival, my review is available here. I have no opinion on the reliability of the author of the pdf, with whom I am unfamiliar outside of this context, but infringement concerns seem amply addressed. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Current text of this article was revised to address concerns that it followed too closely on the pdf [1]. Some of the original language carries over. That text was contributed by User:Poeticbent. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Every single quote, fact, and passage in this article is culled from a single source--Wartime Rescue of Jews, edited and compiled by fringe right wing writer Mark Paul, and published by a non reliable source, the Polish Educational Foundation in North America. This article is essentially a summary of that non-reliable source, authored by a fringe author. The 40-odd references in this article are all culled from the same single Mark Paul essay, giving this Wikipedia article the false appearance of a well sourced encyclopedia article, rather than a summary and plagiarism of a single fringe source. It is being tagged appropriately. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I resent this highly inappropriate and deeply misinformed accusation based on a political agenda of a single user known for his inflammatory and confrontational attitude discussed by the community at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence.
Special effort has been made to check and double-check the extensive online references provided thereafter. They are all in plain sight and available for confirmation via simple Google search. Not a single source has been omitted or misrepresented. The article might have been inspired by a couple of big pdf files, but that's a far cry from any copyright breach. Please keep you cool, Boodlesthecat. Your claim in not only unsubstantiated but also void of a single proof of actual non-adherence to Wikipedia policy guidelines. There's nothing wrong with supplying large size article with numerous citations. All of them are easy to find online. --
Poeticbent
talk
01:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Every single Wikipedia article is based on sources per policy guidelines. Does wp:no original research ring a bell? And please don't accuse me of personal attacks, because this is a matter of your attitude more than anything. I checked the sources, they are all good. -- Poeticbent talk 02:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It would’ve been a lot more helpful, Boodlesthecat, if you were to work with me on this one. We both know that the concept of this article is not mine. It is not supposed to be original per Wikipedia policy of course. However, the fact that the article is based on an existing compilation of readily available sources does not discredit the idea of having something like that around here. Please, try to be more specific with regard to how you would like to see it being laid out? Nothing is written in stone around here, nevertheless, do know that it took me considerable effort to make sure that the facts, and the names of settlements mentioned are all confirmed in Holocaust literature. Time permitting, I’d like to continue checking on everything. – The true fact is that after writing over a dozen articles on the subject of Holocaust rescue, it occurred to me that there’s a need to have it summarized. The Polish Righteous or the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland was not the right place for any of this. The article was badly needed, and I hope that it can be perfected with sensible contributions by other experienced editors. There’s no such thing as the risk of plagiarising any important subject in this matter. -- Poeticbent talk 16:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and any problems in regard to referencing or focus can easily be adjusted when editors work together for a common editorial goal. The subject matter of this article warrants attention, not erasure, and I can say that I am glad to see it put forth for consideration and review. In regard to the expression of concern on its contents, I would invite people to join with its original author to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia editorial standards. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is culled from the writings of a fringe right wing writer, Mark Paul, and is simply a watered down version of his POV grafted onto to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to summarize a work by a fringe right wing writer with uncomfortable connections to anti-semitism, place it here, complete with his one sided POV, copy his references, and call it an encyclopedia article. This is what Poeticbent has done. Just some quick spot checks:
Mark Paul writes: "A 9-year-old Jewish boy by the name of Wintluk (Wintel), who had lost his mother and three fingers when shot at by Germans while escaping, was taken in by a poor Polish family in Mulawicze near Bielsk Podlaski and then cared for and protected by the entire village who took pity on him:"
Poeticbent writes: In Mulawicze near Bielsk Podlaski the entire village took responsibility for the survival of an orphaned 9-year-old Jewish boy named Wintluk (Wintel).
Mark Paul writes: A teenaged boy and his mother, who lived in a damaged, abandoned house in Drzewica where he openly played with village boys, survived the war despite his Semitic appearance."
Poeticbent writes: "Another teenage boy lived openly with his mother in Drzewica despite their Semitic appearance."
Mark Paul writes: Ludwika Fiszer was one of three women who escaped naked from an execution pit where Jews from the Poniatowa labour camp were taken by Germans and their Ukrainian henchmen.
Poeticbent writes: Ludwika Fiszer who escaped naked—with two other women—from an execution pit in Poniatowa had to move from village to village while receiving assistance.[20]
Mark Paul writes: Alfreda and Bolesław Pietraszek sheltered several Jewish families consisting of 18 people on their farm in Czekanów near Sokołów Podlaski for a period of two years
Poeticbent writes: For two years, Alfreda and Bolesław Pietraszek sheltered several Jewish families consisting of 18 people in Ceranów near Sokołów Podlaski, relying on assistance from neighbors for feeding that many souls.[19]
Mark Paul writes: The case of Doctor Olga Lilien, a Holocaust survivor from Lwów with a very marked Jewish appearance, who lived with a Polish family near Tarnobrzeg, is another example of solidarity among the Polish villagers
Poeticbent writes: Doctor Olga Lilien, a Holocaust survivor from Lwów (with strong Jewish looks) who lived with a Polish family near Tarnobrzeg recalls that in the village of two thousand no one denounced her despite the fact that the German gendarme offered two hundred deutsche marks as reward. He was told by the village Wójt that she was Polish.[1}
Mark Paul writes: Faiga Rosenbluth, a penniless teenage Jewish girl from Kańczuga, roamed the countryside moving from one village to the next for some two years; she helped out by very many peasants and was not betrayed, even though she was readily recognized as a Jew.
Poeticbent writes: Faiga Rosenbluth, a penniless teenage Jewish girl from Kańczuga easily recognized as a Jew, was moved from one village to the next for two years, and not betrayed.[9]
Mark Paul writes: Jewish partisan Gustaw Alef-Bolkowiak identifies the following villages in the Parczew-Ostrów Lubelski area as ones where “almost the entire population was actively engaged in helping fugitives from the ghettos”
Poeticbent writes: but another Jewish partisan, Gustaw Alef-Bolkowiak, identified several villages in the Parczew-Ostrów Lubelski area where "almost the entire population was actively engaged in helping":
Mark Paul writes: Jerzy and Irena Krępeć, who were awarded by Yad Vashem, sheltered and otherwise assisted a number of Jews on their farm in Gołąbki259 near Warsaw. Their son, a 14-year-old boy at the time, recalled: “the fact that they were hiding Jews was an open secret in the village. At times, there were 20 or 30 people living on the farm.
Poeticbent writes: Between 20 and 30 Jews (with visitors) were sheltered in Gołąbki at the farm of Jerzy and Irena Krępeć, which was "an open secret in the village [where] everyone knew they had to keep quiet [and] helped, 'if only to provide a meal'."[14]
Mark Paul writes: Zygmunt Srul Warszawer hid for 26 months moving from place to place among numerous villages, such as Wielki Las, in the triangle formed by Łaskarzew, Sobolew, and Wilga, “visiting every farm because he figured that if everyone helped him no one would turn him in—to do would mean self-destruction.” No one turned him away empty handed during those 26 months: “‘No one ever refused to help you?’ ‘No, not food!
Poeticbent writes: "No one ever refused to help you?" recalls Zygmunt Srul Warszawer hiding in the village of Wielki Las among other places. "No, not [only when asked about] food! In twenty-six months, not once."[24]
Poeticbent writes: Like many Polish Jews, Tema Rotman-Weinstock from Lublin was publicly baptized in Kajetanówka by a Catholic priest for her own protection similar to Franciszka Aronson in a village near Mińsk Mazowiecki.[30] In Ożarów, Ignaców, Szymanów, and Grodzisko near Leżajsk, the Jewish children were cared for by Catholic convents and their entire villages. "Not one traitor was to be found" among the locals; furthermore, the Christians did not take their children out from the schools Jews attended, solidifying their cover.[31] All taken directly from Paul, p 260.
Mark Paul writes: In the same area, in the Polish village of Okopi [sic], some tens of Jews were saved thanks to two special individuals… the Catholic priest [Rev. Ludwik Wrodarczyk]...The priest was burned alive in his church.”
Poeticbent writes: In Okopy village a Catholic priest was burned alive in his church for saving tens of Jews from Rokitno.
Again, Wikipedia is not the place to summarize a work by a fringe right wing writer with uncomfortable connections to anti-semitism, place it here, complete with his one sided POV, copy his references, and call it an encyclopedia article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as an obvious copyright violation. Also, regarding the citations used in the article, please review Wikipedia:Citing sources#Cite the place where you found the material. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
[outdent]There's a difference between treating a situation seriously and telling a good faith user "don't touch this page again." ~ L'Aquatique! talk/ stats 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and while it is significantly based on one source, it seems to me to be sufficiently rewritten (paraphrased) not to be a copyvio. There were a few sentences that were too similar, and they have been rewritten. I see no reason for further copyvio tag.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It's lifted entirely on one source (And that source is a fringe right - wing writer who specializes in producing website articles that cherry pick "facts"--e.g., documenting Jewish hostility to Poles and Christians). A quick check of this article shows Poeticbent apparently lifted 41 of the 42 reference citations directly from the Paul article (all but ref 38, which he supplied). Not only that, in the instances where the ref cits contain multiple references (e.g., refs 14, 21, 23, 36, 41 etc), he apparently took those bulk cits directly from bulk cits in the Paul article, so its more like 50 out of 51 lifted from the website article. In many instances, the order of examples given followed the same order of examples that the Paul article does. I did a check earlier and stopped checking after the first half dozen or so random checks showed almost identical recountings of incidents, with the exact same sources cited as the website uses. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, it needs to be pointed out that Poeticbent's defense above that he is being targeted by a "highly inappropriate and deeply misinformed accusation based on a political agenda" and "a politically inspired overkill by a Jewish tag-team member" is the most reprehensible form of ethnic baiting bordering on the antisemitic in response to it being pointed out the overwhelming evidence cited above. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
My view is that this article relied too much on a single source. Regardless of whether it was a copyvio or not, more sources were needed to balance things out. A single source is rarely a good basis for an article. A general comment I want to add is to ask where disputed copyright and plagiarism issues should be discussed? If the article here gets deleted, the talk page will go with it. Really, just as deletion discussions are preserved, this debate should be preserved somewhere as well (minus the BLP comments about the author of the paper in question). So should there be a place to discuss such things? Is WP:AFD suitable for disputed copyvios and plagiarism accusations or not? See Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyright problems (where I saw this listed). Those are the closest I can find to relevant pages. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent for text problems to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio requires some element of cut-and-paste, which is explained in Wikipedia:Spotting_possible_copyright_violations. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of this, as everything appears to have been re-worded to some degree. Martintg ( talk) 12:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
From what I saw, at least at first glance, this article was not a copyvio when it was so tagged. A rewrite, yes, but not a copyvio. It was not substantially similar in organization or approach, in my view. I'm no expert on this topic but there seem to be a fair number of sources out there. ( this may not be the best search but it seems to have found quite a few) Instead of sparring about the use of one source exclusively, why not expand the article by using the other sources as well, instead of edit warring over what the article is or is not? That advice applies to all parties. That said, I'd be inclined to remove the copyvio tagging, because I'm not seeing it. ++ Lar: t/ c 13:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to many negative stereotypes found in Holocaust literature, a considerable number of Polish settlements under the Nazi German occupation of Poland in World War II took part in collective rescue of Jews during the Holocaust.
Can we remove the copyvio notice and restore the article? It seems to me that neutral reviewers agree that the article is not a copyvio (marting: "There doesn't appear to be any evidence of this"; Lar: "From what I saw, at least at first glance, this article was not a copyvio when it was so tagged"; Ecoleetage: "This article is clearly not a work of plagiarism" ). We can discuss whether the article deserves a {{ onesource}} or AfD, but this is a different issue. What needs to be done is to restore the article (which is not a copyvio) and allow editors to further expand/rewrite it (it is likely that if not for the IDONTLIKE copyvio template freezing the article for the past few days the article would already have progressed beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not a copyvio already).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
←After reviewing the lead and opening section and comparing with the source, I believe there is substantial copyright violation within the article. Since this is disputed, I plan to point out the areas where I see concern. Rather than putting quotation marks around the text I'm copying from our article, I'm going to italicize it. This will make it easier to identify where material has been copied verbatim from the source without proper notation. Lead:
Section 1:
Given this examination of the first two sections, I think the article very likely needs to be rewritten from scratch. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Rescue of Jews by Polish communities during the Holocaust/Temp. Please help to point out parts that are copyvio so that they can be removed/rewritten/etc. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You know something, folks...what do you say that we all step away from this for some time? At the moment, there is no common ground among the two sides, and we don't seem to be making any headway. What I would propose is having those who want to rewrite/edit the article work on it offline. When the article is completed, we can bring it back here for review and discussion. Is that fair? Ecoleetage ( talk) 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note: I am in the process of finishing a complete revamping of this article. The Mark Paul references have been expunged from this version, due to concerns raised in this discussion on the reliability of this source. I have also rewritten every single sentence, too, in order to wipe out any possibility of inappropriate paraphrasing. I have also changed the order of the paragraphs, specifically stating the numbers of people involved earlier in the text, in order to put the depth and breadth of this subject within the proper context of wartime Poland. The work should be finished soon, and I hope that we can have a pleasant discussion on this article. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 21:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Are the first and second picture depictions of the execution of Poles specifically for assisting Jews? References are needed to that effect. as forthe third picture, I don'ts see how it relates to the topic at all. DGG ( talk) 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with this photo? Seems on-topic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
What are the grounds for accusations of Mark Paul of "fringe right wing writer" with "uncomfortable connections to anti-semitism"? This seems to me like a WP:BLP violation and groundless slandering of a person because it has a POV somebody doesn't like. I cannot find out much about his academic credentials, but neither I can find anything about him being a far-right anti-semite; assuming good faith it seems to be he could be described as an "amateur historian" at worst. He has published books Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust: The Polish Minority and Jewish Collaboration in Soviet-occupied Eastern Poland, 1939-1941 and A Tangled Web: Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland ; the first of those is cited (if briefly) by scholar Marek Chodakiewicz in this review and in this book; here he is cited by other reliable scholars ( Robert D. Cherry, Annamaria Orla-Bukowska); here by Tadeusz Piotrowski ; here/ [2] Peter D. Stachura cites him and calls him a "scholar"; he is also cited in this work (no snippet available); his work is reviewed here. Overall, he seems like a minor scholar with unknown academic credentials, possibly not notable for his own article, but there is no indication of his unreliability, and certainly nothing to support slanderous statements about "right-wing" or "antisemitism".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
At BLPN, neutral reviewer have concluded calling Mr. Paul names is a BLP violation. At RS, a neutral reviewer agrees that if he is cited by reliable scholars, he is relatively reliable himself. QED.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP was intended for the subject of an article, not for discussions regarding a source's reliability. A rule requiring multiple sources before making any assertions regarding a source's reliability is silly and would cause a chilling effect on these type of discussions. I'm not saying that we can go around calling sources nazi-fascists, but I am saying there should be healthy discussions about source's reliability.
Regarding the underlying issue, WP:BURDEN requires that those adding material prove its legitimacy with a source. Obviously, this burden applies to establishing the legitimacy and reliability of the added material's source. The burden here has not been met. We know nothing about this pseudonym-sounding person. The few cites, which are a bunch of "see also's", do not establish reliability. Especially for this contentious issue, a more established source is needed. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's the relevant excerpts, and all the comments on "Mark Paul"; emphasis added by me to highlight where Paul is directly discussed, from Sonia Misak, East European Jewish Affairs, Volume 28, Issue 2 Winter 1998 , pages 114-116:
The first volume focuses on the history of the town of Bransk as interpreted by local enthusiast Zbigniew Romaniuk, the second on the Lithuanian town of Ejszyszki, an account written by Mark Paul. Romaniuk states: 'Unearthing the past in its most minute detail is really exciting. My forte is an aptitude for finding documents and people and my non-commercial approach to the subject'(vol.1,37).' And although, according to the book's subtitle, both volumes are an examination of Polish-Jewish relations during and directly after the Second World War in their respective towns, it is difficult to extract a clear picture of the subject from either...
Going against the grain is also a major theme in volume two. The raison d'etre of this book appears to be two-fold. First, it disputes the account of events in war-time Ejszyszki as put forward by Holocaust scholar and educator Yaffa Eliach.3 Second, in countering Eliach's version of her family story and putting forward an alternative, Paul disputes 'common assumptions' in the work of 'Holocaust historians'. He endeavours to take a fresh look at Jewish- Polish relations in Ejszyszki and its environs under Nazi and Soviet occupation, the operation of the partisan movement and, specifically, Jewish involvement in the Soviet occupation.
Eliach's argument rests on the inaccuracy of certain accounts of the wartime period. Paul's concern is that not only is Eliach's version of events not supported by historical documentation, but that she tells not one consistent life story but a variety of embroidered tales. He provides other examples of conflicting testimony about the Second World War. In his exercise of mythbusting, Paul uses phrases such as 'The truth of the matter is . . . ' (vol. 2, 93) and, on the subject of testimony,'... what is one to think when crude statements like the following, which show a complete inability to grasp historical reality, pepper these and other such memoirs?' (vol. 2,65). Yet what is not clear to the reader is the difference between the sources he says are 'right'—and therefore truthful—and those which are 'wrong'—and therefore represent 'Jewish propaganda' (vol. 1,80). The pitfalls of oral history and personal testimony have been well documented, as have the positive uses of this medium in education and social science.4 Yet, it seems that in 'setting the record straight', the author falls into the trap he accuses the 'Holocaust historians' of laying. Although Paul's work is obsessively footnoted, some of his sources are questionable. ...This fact, together with the general tone of Paul's writing (occasionally crude), leaves the reader unconvinced by his argument. Also, it is not helpful that his biography, and therefore credentials, are absent from either volume. In his essay in vol.1 Paul states that 'The [reviewed] book lends itself to use in Holocaust and modern history courses at the high school and college levels, as well as journalism and media courses' (149). This seems unlikely. Although these volumes are as fascinating as they are bizarre, they cannot be recommended for a general readership. Though I may yet be proved wrong. Boodlesthecat Meow? 06:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed the pdf in question as carefully as I am able, and all infringement concerns that I could locate have been thoroughly addressed. As this involved a thorough review of the pdf, I have also made some suggestions regarding accuracy/neutrality, which have been addressed. Prior to archival, my review is available here. I have no opinion on the reliability of the author of the pdf, with whom I am unfamiliar outside of this context, but infringement concerns seem amply addressed. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)