Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
::::Dr. Dan, you titled this section WP:Plagiarism. You asked "some of the contributing editors" to review their edits under this heading. The clear implication is that somehow the Wiki policy on plagiarism was violated. And then you were asked to specify how supposedly this breach occurred - if it did, we're all interested in correcting the error. Did the plagiarism occur in the monument section? Or is that unrelated? So. Can you please state clearly, precisely, and succinctly where you think this particular violation (of plagiarism, not something else, plagiarism, since you titled the section "plagiarism") occurred in the edits to this article?[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
::::Dr. Dan, you titled this section WP:Plagiarism. You asked "some of the contributing editors" to review their edits under this heading. The clear implication is that somehow the Wiki policy on plagiarism was violated. And then you were asked to specify how supposedly this breach occurred - if it did, we're all interested in correcting the error. Did the plagiarism occur in the monument section? Or is that unrelated? So. Can you please state clearly, precisely, and succinctly where you think this particular violation (of plagiarism, not something else, plagiarism, since you titled the section "plagiarism") occurred in the edits to this article?[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::Radek, prior to thinking about it a little and writing this reply, you wrote: ''"While we're at it, can I ask you review some of your edits?"'' Can you please state clearly, precisely, and succinctly, what you meant by this question? [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 23:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Picking on the image == |
== Picking on the image == |
Revision as of 23:43, 7 April 2009
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Polish Participation
As it stands the article makes no mention of Polish participation in the pogrom. Was this the case? Were the thugs, hooligans, looters, and "bandits" (mentioned in the Jewish references), who preyed on these hapless people, all imported from Ukraine, Belarus, or Lithuania? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please check the referenced source on Apolinary Hartglas (another source indirectly implies that Jabotinsky shared this view) by Sarah Bender (I assume that would fall under your definition of "Jewish references"). The information's already there if you just look with a modicum of good faith.radek (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have much more than a "modicum of good faith." What I don't have is an ability to see an issue from one perspective, and one perspective only. What I also don't have is the ability to allow sources to be "twisted" to fit a biased POV agenda based on weaseling and denial. What I also don't have is the patience to allow a continual bashing of other nations, while historical crimes are perpetually explained away, if they concern Poland. Wikipedia has the inherent ability to inform and educate its readers. Unfortunately it also has the ability to skew and twist information in the hands of those, who not only edit without a "modicum of good faith," but with an obvious agenda to promote a one sided picture of historical events. The reversal of the edits made by me in the last several hours stand as irrefutable evidence of my contention. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dr. Dan, is there a specific instance in this article that "bashes other nations"? No? Is there any info you object to that is not properly referenced? Russian, Jewish and Polish sources all pretty much agree on what happened with this pogrom. As a quick look at the included sources would indicate. The fact that these sources report something other than what you wish to be the case might be unpleasant for you personally, but it is what it is. Your edits were reverted because you obviously did not read the sources provided before you started making your (agenda based) edits.radek (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I read the English and Polish references thoroughly. I'm sure that both you and Jacurek did too. Inspite of the reference clearly stating that "the Poles" destroyed the "Pillar of Sorrow," monument, you changed it to "some Poles" (adding the blather that the Polish nation didn't destroy it). The reference didn't claim that the Polish nation did it either. Jacurek upped the ante a notch by removing any reference to Polish culpability in the post Holocaust Polish vandalism. I think the basis for his edit was explained with something suggesting that a claim to Polish participation cannot be substantiated (my extrapolation). So what's the bottom line? Simply that the information from the referenced source was first "changed" and then "removed." Seen it done over and over again. These mind games are beginning to become all too obvious to neutral participants in this project. It might be time to back down. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dr. Dan, is there a specific instance in this article that "bashes other nations"? No? Is there any info you object to that is not properly referenced? Russian, Jewish and Polish sources all pretty much agree on what happened with this pogrom. As a quick look at the included sources would indicate. The fact that these sources report something other than what you wish to be the case might be unpleasant for you personally, but it is what it is. Your edits were reverted because you obviously did not read the sources provided before you started making your (agenda based) edits.radek (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dan, obviously "the Poles" (who is that? all of them?) didn't vandalize the monument but possibly some individuals of Polish ethnicity did. How is correcting ordinary grammar "whitewashing", particularly since the source is a translation from Yiddish (so it's not surprising that the definitive articles got mixed up)? And seriously, this is a really really minor aspect ("the" vs. "some") of the article and you're nit picking here. It seems as if you are desperately trying to find a place where you can put in something anti-Polish. Unless you really think that it was ALL the Poles who vandalized the monument, can you explain why it should be "the" and not "some" (if either)?radek (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Radek, it's now a moot point, "the" Poles, "some" Poles, are gone. Maybe you'll someday add that "possibly some individuals of Polish ethnicity did (vandalize the monument)." Incidentally, are you inferring that my ability to read the original source (in Yiddish) is as faulty with definitive articles as some of your colleague's is in English? Don't bet on it. All I can say is I appreciate your surprise that this article was not even stubbed prior to your starting it. So now that it's here, I'm sure it's early flaws will be improved upon. Hard as it might be for you to believe, I had no idea that the Pinsk massacre ever happened , or that the concept of Żydokomuna existed. Wikipedia is not only a vehicle for teaching but for learning. Over and out! p.s. Good luck with the Siedlce pogrom! Dr. Dan (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dan, first, I don’t appreciate you accusing me of whitewashing, o.k ? Second, if your edits are so unbiased and in good faith as you endlessly claim, so please explain why are you so sure that the people who destroyed the monument but were never caught were ethnically Polish and why you insisting on having “the Poles did it” in the sentence even if it does sounds (YES IT DOES) as it was the Polish Nation that did it. ...and please don’t hide behind “because this is what the source says” B.S.
- Radek, it's now a moot point, "the" Poles, "some" Poles, are gone. Maybe you'll someday add that "possibly some individuals of Polish ethnicity did (vandalize the monument)." Incidentally, are you inferring that my ability to read the original source (in Yiddish) is as faulty with definitive articles as some of your colleague's is in English? Don't bet on it. All I can say is I appreciate your surprise that this article was not even stubbed prior to your starting it. So now that it's here, I'm sure it's early flaws will be improved upon. Hard as it might be for you to believe, I had no idea that the Pinsk massacre ever happened , or that the concept of Żydokomuna existed. Wikipedia is not only a vehicle for teaching but for learning. Over and out! p.s. Good luck with the Siedlce pogrom! Dr. Dan (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
<-- Actually now that I'm looking for more sources I find several that state that the monument in the Jewish Cemetery that stands there today is the same one that was raised before the war. For example this: [1] and this: [2]. It may be the case that the original monument got vandalized right after the war in all the chaos but was then rebuild thereafter. Without further, more detailed, sources it's hard to say.radek (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask some of the contributing editors of this article to review some of their edits. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? While we're at it, can I ask you review some of your edits?radek (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Plagiarism is a very serious allegation. Could you point out the source of the alleged plagiarism? Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Malik, I asked some of the contributing editors to review their contributions, and the WP policy concerning plagiarism; some have asked me to review some of my edits. Don't remember making any allegations. In any case you might want to read the sub-section regarding the Pillar of Sorrow monument, the references, and the edits. On another matter you might also want to check the sources as to whether it states the vandals who destroyed the monument were "unknown". Dr. Dan (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dr. Dan, you titled this section WP:Plagiarism. You asked "some of the contributing editors" to review their edits under this heading. The clear implication is that somehow the Wiki policy on plagiarism was violated. And then you were asked to specify how supposedly this breach occurred - if it did, we're all interested in correcting the error. Did the plagiarism occur in the monument section? Or is that unrelated? So. Can you please state clearly, precisely, and succinctly where you think this particular violation (of plagiarism, not something else, plagiarism, since you titled the section "plagiarism") occurred in the edits to this article?radek (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Picking on the image
If anyone feels like making a constructive contribution, the book that the image comes from is "Rok 1905" by Feliks Tych and is attributed to Henryk Nowodworski [3]. It is available in some major university libraries, unfortunately, not mine. Here's a list: [4]. If someone has easy access to these places then a short trip could quite potentially and simply clear up this 'alleged' business. From the image description it sounds like in scanning the image the caption simply got cut off, hence the 'alleged'. Hence the drama. (and BTW, that is very clearly a Tsarist cap).radek (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- No drama. If the image depicts the Bialystok Pogrom, then it does. If it allegedly does, then it shouldn't "claim" that it does depict the BP (other than allegedly). As far as it being "clearly" a Tsarist cap, dunno, if you told me it looked like a cap from the Imperial Germany army, I'd have the same problem. Even though it does resemble one. Just the same, WP is still an encyclopedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)