Jump to content

Talk:Ghetto benches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On distinction between " well referenced and relevant info" and WP:SYN

[edit]

Apparenly we have disagreement what is "well referenced and relevant info" and what is WP:SYN

Let's look deeper in to it.

We have this text now:

In the third week of October 1939 there was a liquidation meeting with NKVD directed by lieutenant-colonel Jusimow, during which communist Jewish activists recognized pre-war Polish members of an anti-Semitic organization from their college and pointed them out to NKVD officers. All four were taken out, beaten and shot in the hallway while the NKVD orchestra was performing inside. Their names were: Henryk Różakolski, Jan Płończak (from the student Bratniak organization), Ludwik Płaczek, and Józef Obrocki. The meeting was terminated, shocked people left the hall walking past their murdered colleagues.[26][27]

We have sources that this incident happened. Fine, no one is denying it. What we do not have is source linking this incident with the topic of this article, ghetto benches that is. Source number 26 does not even mention ghetto benches, link 27 is a dead link, which previously referenced that ghetto benches activists were persecuted under Soviets, but what is important, it does not talk about this particular incident. So we have perfect example of WP:SYNTHESIS here. Regards. M0RD00R (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree; note that previous attempts to remove this OR synth have been met with edit warring. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
#For the record Poeticbent clearly noted that the references do note relation to ghetto benches.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have exact quote which links NKVD incident with ghetto benches, because I'm having trouble to find it. Or is it too much to ask? As far as I know WP:VERIFY is still a policy, and WP:Poeticbent clearly noted isn't. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a textbook example of WP:UNDUE. To call the "aftermath" of this episode the retaliation against some of the purported perpetrators of the antisemitic Polish actions against Jewish students, when the actual aftermath was the murder of 3 million Polish Jews which Polish antisemitic legislation helped lay a groundwork for is an amazing twisting of history. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polish legislation was made to create Holocaust ? I suggest backing that up, as it seems serious allegation.--Molobo (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr asked me to provide my opinion. The first question is: what is the topic of the article? The "ghetto benches" considered narrowly, or "Discrimination against Jews in education in Poland" It seems to me to be the second. "Ghetto benches" being used like Jim Crow in US literature. As far as I can tell, from what Piotr points to in Poeticbent's statements above #For the record, the references do support connection of this incident as revenge for anti-semitic discrimination in education and even the "ghetto benches" in particular. One can argue that Polish discrimination in education was an effect of Polish antisemitic legislation, and perhaps that the latter was an indirect and minor cause of the murder of 3 million Polish Jews, but relating, without a source, educational discrimination to murdering 3 million seems to be OR. Whatever material one has, there is usually a good article to put it in; doing this, not putting it in the fashionable article du jour usually avoids pointless wrangling. Both the material about "Polish independence was ushered in with a wave of fierce anti-Semitism ..." and the more recent material about Max Bodenheimmer have serious OR / SYN problems in my opinion. The quote from Melzer, only found in the footnotes "In fact, ever since the attainment of independence, the universities in Poland had been strongholds of Endejca supporters and centers for anti-semitic agitation.” seems to be a non-OR, without major "synthesis" objections, replacement for some of this. Regards to all,John Z (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain my point again. There are two sources: one cited by Poeticbent (Chapter For the record of this talk page), that mentions persecution of Ghetto benches activists (but does not mention this execution). And there is another source about NKVD execution - it has all the fancy stuff, that is repeatedly inserted here by Piotrus and Poeticbent (like "orchestra playing" etc) BUT IT DOES NOT MENTION GHETTO BENCHES AT ALL. That is the problem. I ask to provide sources linking this particular incident (not persecution of ghetto benches activists in general) to ghetto benches, but time and time I get the WP:SYNTHESIS of both sources.M0RD00R (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Głównie Żydzi okrutnie mścili się za getto ławkowe". [1]. This seems pretty clear to me that this refs "connects the dots" without any SYN/OR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It connects nothing. This particular NKVD execution we are talkin about is not mentioned in this source. Your reply is another fine example of WP:SYN I was talking about. M0RD00R (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Rabinowicz article, "The Battle of the Ghetto Benches," cited in the article numerous times has it's own conclusions on he aftermath:

"With the measure wherewith a man measures, shall he be measured", say the rabbis.47 Those who resort to violence become victims of violence. A wave of anti-German feelings swept through Poland six months before the outbreak of World War II, following the attacks on Jewish students by Danzig Nazis who tried to force Polish students to occupy "ghetto benches" at the Polytechnic.48 The writing on the wall was not read. Poland was weighed in the scales and found wanting.46

Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) This is problematic largely because of language. I don't know Polish, and am having a bit of trouble. A long time ago when the non-English source policy was being developed, I argued vehemently for liberality and AGF using other languages. So it is only justice that it comes to bite me on the ass! :-). So bear with my errors. I found it not too easy to understand exactly what is at issue, exactly who says what, and I think there are accidental errors of footnoting on this talk page, where people ascibed material in one source to another! I am entirely confident that no one here would mistranslate. So I recommend that people at least very clearly label the sources at issue by name, and then say what the source says in English, and say what it is being used for in the article, and that we continue to all use the same identifying name. The Polish original can be helpful, and links would be good, but those are secondary. I've tried to write this so another non-Polish-speaker could find it helpful.

The two sources are:

M0RD00R brings up a sensible point, that we should beware of synthesis of the two sources, call them ZP and PL for short. PL "mentions persecution of Ghetto benches activists (but does not mention this execution)" , although it mentions the killing of Jan Naborczyk (and is so long that google only translates half of it for me), while ZP mentions the NKVD executions of four university antisemitic activists, but does not have the phrase "ghetto benches."

The question of what this article is about comes up here too. See my last response in the section above. The important thing is that we decide once and for all, for the whole article. If we use one definition in one place and one in another, chaos, editwarring, accusations and bad feelings are inevitable. For example "during which communist Jewish activists recognized four pre-war Polish members of an anti-Semitic organization from their college" - which is in the article now and comes from ZP, could be acceptable if we use (c) above, in which case PL isn't really necessary, else probably not. On the other hand, if we use definition (a) it seems M0RD00R is right. We have to decide whether "ghetto benches" is necessary in a source, or only discrimination in universities, or antisemitism in universities. Hope this helps. Need to get some sleep! See you all tomorrow.John Z (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a creator of this article I must say that it was never intended to be a summary of discriminatory policies in Polish educational system. It covers (or rather covered) one specific policy - system of segregation known as "Ghetto benches". Here we have good example how this article should look like and what topics it should cover [2]. M0RD00R (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed most of the apologetic nonsense. Unless a source explicitly ties the material to the ghetto benches, it doesn't belong, per WP:NOR, and it will be removed. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

This source [3] has been repeatedly used in the article. My question is who is the author of the article? Do Wikipedia policies authorize sources with no authors? Tymek (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am repeating the question again, unverified and unreliable sources are subject to deletion. WP:RS is still valid. Tymek (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Site is maintained by Adam Mickiewicz Institute, so reliability issue is not the concern. M0RD00R (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the author of this article? Please answer, we do not want Wikipedia to be based on amateur historians, such as, say, Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski. Thank you in advance.Tymek (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this thread started going off-topic, please, state what exact statements referenced by this source you are finding unreliable CITING relevant policies, you might think, it might be in breach with, and citing reliable sources denouncing claims made in Adam Mickiewicz Institute website, otherwise I'll consider this topic closed. Cheers.M0RD00R (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policies - WP:RS and WP:V - require that unless you can prove who is behind this source, all references to it will be removed from our project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Adam Mickiewicz Institute? How reliable is it, compared, to, let's say, Piast Institute? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I hold your skills of finding information on Google in high regard. I'm confident that you'll find the answer to the question "What is the Adam Mickiewicz Institute?" by yourself in quick and easy manner. M0RD00R (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mordoor please be polite, WP:CIV is still valid and do not leave the debate closed before it has been settled. I am not questioning statements, I am questioning the whole source. We do not know who wrote it, and I am sticking to the topic as much as I can. Since you provided this source, please answer the question. Tymek (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me cite the policy "Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles". It is preffered that article would be sign but is not a must. I'm still waiting for answer to my question "what exact statements referenced by this source you are finding unreliable CITING relevant policies, you might think, it might be in breach with, and citing reliable sources denouncing claims made in Adam Mickiewicz Institute websiteM0RD00R (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy you are citing? Per WP:RS you have to prove that Adam Mickiewicz Institute / Diapozytyw is a reliable source; currently its reliability is dubious (as of any random webpage).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm citing WP:RS policy. And since You, Piotrus, introduced Diapozytyw webstite to this article [4] it would be very helpful if You put some effort into establishing of reliability of this source as well. Currently I'm a little bit busy in my real life, so a little help from You would be very appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance. P.S. Still waiting for answer to my question "what exact statements referenced by this source you are finding unreliable CITING relevant policies, you might think, it might be in breach with, and citing reliable sources denouncing claims made in Adam Mickiewicz Institute website. M0RD00R (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have not seen evidence of reliability of this source per WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY policies. It is up to the provider to present referenced evidence of the reliability of this source. Please present evidence that this article is reliable. Otherwise the information will be deleted. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident Piotrus will provide evidence of reliability of website that he introduced to this article. Just give him enough time , please. In meantime Tymek, would you care to answer the question I'm asking for the fourth time: "what exact statements referenced by this source you are finding unreliable CITING relevant policies, you might think, it might be in breach with, and citing reliable sources denouncing claims made in Adam Mickiewicz Institute website. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am repeating myself again. I find this whole source unreliable, unless of course I see referenced evidence that states otherwise. I do not mean Adam Mickiewicz institute, this is not webpage of this institution. I mean this whole text. Tymek (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is clear to me. Now let's wait for Piotrus. I'm confident he will provide evidence that Diapozytyw is a reliable source. There is no rush, I think we can wait as long as it takes him. In this case, personally I do not think it would take him long, because this is pretty clear case. Let's wait OK?. M0RD00R (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we understand each other. If there is no evidence, the information together with the source will be deleted. Tymek (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have great confidence in Piotrus, so I don't think we'll need delete anything. M0RD00R (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe anti-Semitic original research has no place in this or anyu article

[edit]

What on earth does the statement

Afer Central Powers lost First World War, and the idea promoted by Jewish politician Max Bodenheimer of establishing of German dominated state on Polish inhabited territories where Jews would play decisive factor lost the chance to succed[7

have to do with this or any article? This is fringe, Jew baiting, offensive original research designed to blame Polish antisemitism on a arbitrarily chosen, largely unknown Jewish figure. This violates WP:OR and is offensive POV pushing of the worst kind. Please explain what relevance this has to this article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, I was going to ask the same question about this anti-Polish fringe original research. Polish independence following World War I was accompanied by a wave of pogroms and discrimination against Jews. What does it have to do with the article? This is anti-Polish offensive POV pushing,which clearly shows that some editors are not free from hatred. Tymek (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Max Bodenheimer was one of the main figures in German Zionism, not arbitrarily chosen, largely unknown Jewish figure. Tymek (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit you are putting it in to prove a point. But, Polish independence following World War I was accompanied by a wave of pogroms and discrimination against Jews is a well sourced fact relevant to an article about a sad episode in the extremely well documented history of Polish persecution of Jews, while this nonsense about Bodenheimer appears nowhere in any one of the narratives concerning Polish Jewish relations in general, or the ghetto benches in particlar. Again, it just a sad and offensive attempt by a coteries of biased editors who insist of defiling articles on Wikipedia by whitewashing the documented record of Polish antisemitism. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not admitting anything and I do not want to prove any point. It is rather you who has been going out of your way to prove your offensive anti-Polish stance. Bodenheimer and his extremely well documented concept is relevant to the article, as it shows Jewish stance against Poland. Please do not call facts nonsense, do not change history according to your dislikes and prejudices. Tymek (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bodenheimer is only a small piece of a puzzle much to large for this article. As long as the unfair simplification discussed here is gone, let's not complicate the issue by adding such material. I do think this should be discussed in the history of Jews in Poland and other articles, of course.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only in Poland and only against the Jews?

[edit]

Didn't similar discrimination of students occur elsewhere? Ex. against Jews in Germany, or blacks in US? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Racial segregation, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, and Racial segregation in the United States for starters. In general, education in the United States was segregated; Blacks and whites had separate schools, as opposed to separate seating within the same school. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps segregation -- the first link in the article -- should indeed be to racial segregation? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The racial segregation article are broader in scope than just education. I wonder if there was a similar discrimination in education elsewhere? In other words, should this article be globalized, or is it correctly describing the phenomena that existed only in Poland? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they at least got to go to the same schools in Poland. I can't think offhand of any examples of segregation that allowed for receiving the same education; in the US, of course, the black schools were almost always inferior and underfunded. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ghetto benches existed just in Poland, just as apartheid existed just in South Africa, and the Nuremberg laws just in Germany, and Jim Crow just in America, etc. So yes, this is obviously a facet of a broad phenomena throughout history, but the Ghetto Benches are distinct enough within that to merit its own article. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And apartheid walls only in Israel. greg park avenue (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus you are guessing it right. The quota criteria for Jewish students existed in United States as well. See Jewish_quota under United States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerus_clausus#Numerus_clausus_in_the_United_States--Molobo (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines on archiving

[edit]

Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained 24.2 KB Gregkaye (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ghetto benches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghetto_benches&oldid=1207412914"