Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/Archive 1

Attribution history

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)

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Moonriddengirl for taking the time to help address the copyright issues. An intensive effort was made to rewrite the article, and I am glad to see that this situation is behind us. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is culled from a single non-reliable source

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)

Any confrontational attitude would be highly inapropriate

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)

No, you summarized a fringe online source, copied all the quotes verbatim, all the facts identically, and simply transferred the references used in that fringe source to this Wiki article. Your responding with a personal attack does not change that simple, transparent fact. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:10, 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)

You lifted the entire article from the fringe website. It's obvious. Every single quote, verbatim, is taken from that website, every single incident cited is taken from that website. You then transferred the references he used to here. It's simply a summary of his article, complete with it's biases, one sided POV. Since you keep removing the tags, I'll put it up for AfD and let the community decide if you plagiarized or not. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:11, 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)

The article is fundamentally flawed, not to mention offensive from the first ridiculously POV sentence: "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."

Do you think Wikipedia is the place for articles presenting Mark Paul's (and perhaps your own) personal POV that "Holocaust literature" (ie, JEWS) are responsible for "negative stereotypes" of Poles? This is simply a POV fork (not to mention a massive plagiarism) designed to present a fringe, Jew bashing POV which is "countered" with cherry picked quotes and anecdotes to support the POV thesis. My suggestion is take it down, and if you are really interested in writing a serious article about rescue, create an article that discusses the full picture of Poles and Jews during the Holocaust, not simply a biased, seriously flawed POV puff piece. I will file an AfD otherwise. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just bare with me. The article is not a "puff piece" by any means. If you put your mind to it without the usual preconceived notions, it can be improved. The full picture of Poles and Jews during the Holocaust is not necessarily the same thing as the Wikipedia article about rescue. The article, of course, is meant to focus on the subject of rescue as such. If you see anything there that is inappropriate, please point it out again. --Poeticbent talk 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing articles

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)

The issue is that the article appears to be plagiarized from a single source, and the multiple references appear to be all culled from that same source. It is merely a summary of that one single fringe source, including the viewpoint of that source.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is plagiarized? From first word to last? May I please recommend working with the author before putting it up for Speedy Deletion? I've collaborated with the author on several occasions and the results were quite satisfactory. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the entire article summarizes that single source. Take any quote and any fact in this article and you will find it nearly verbatim in the fringe source it was culled from That includes every single quote used. If I summarized a single book that had dozens of sources, and merely transferred those sources to my article, it is still plagiarism. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism is a very strong accusation, and clearly the project is not well-served by having plagiarists in our midst. If you feel the article's author is a plagiarist, I might recommend making a report to the appropriate administrative board and opening a discussion therein. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have the author at least be able to provide his response before doing so, but that is the likely next step. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is simply a quasi-plagiarism lifted from a fringe right wing writer--examples

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).

First, please remove blatant WP:BLP violations from the introduction to this section if you want me to participate in this discussion. Second, for as long as your tag-team members keep stabbing from the back, the discussion will be crippled anyways. I just started searching for the sources listed next to examples provided. The above mention of a boy named Wintluk (Wintel) originated at Beata Budzik, warsztaty w ramach projektu „Ja Wam Pokażę” w dniach 17-18 lutego 2007 r. Translation from the Polish: the farmer with 4 children of his own took the boy in as his. He stayed for two years, and survived. When a German chief came, the boy left for a week and than returned. After the war, his aunts in America sponsored him. – I think the sentence can be rephrased with the above source included. Poeticbent talk

Please cite the "blatant WP:BIO violations". I see not a one.65.95.28.88 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Good you noticed, I meant WP:BLP of course, not WP:BIO. To call a researcher "right wing" in Wikipedia from under the cover of anonymity is a serious matter. --Poeticbent talk 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I add to this that according to your translation the source does not support your claim that " the entire village took responsibility for the survival of an orphaned 9-year-old Jewish boy named Wintluk".65.95.28.88 (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not used to talking to blank walls, but I already said above and I repeat that "the sentence can be rephrased". --Poeticbent talk 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

---

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."

I checked the primary source and I think this mention can be safely removed as insufficient. I'm very busy in real life right now. Will continue later maybe, if the article is still there. Poeticbent talk

---

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]

The primary source is The Testimony of Ludwika Fiszer (escaped from the grave). Quote: "After crawling dozens of meters on hands and knees I met up with two other naked women I joined them — and after a harrowing experience — everything went as planned. We arrived in Warsaw without further misadventures." The brief mention in the article seems appropriate regardless of how it is phrased. I’d like to acknowledge also that the good people often live next door to people who need to be avoided at all cost, nonetheless, I don’t think it is necessary to speak of them in the same breath in this article. Poeticbent talk

According to your translation, the source doesn't support your statement that Fiszer and two other women moved "from village to village while receiving assistance."65.95.28.88 (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Acquiring" assistance would be a better word according to the above source. I agree, this can be improved. --Poeticbent talk 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

---

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]

The primary source is (Awards for the Righteous) "Odznaczenia dla Sprawiedliwych," Magazyn Internetowy Forum, September 26, 2007. (translation from the Polish). See Wikipedia article Alfreda and Bolesław Pietraszek for further specifics. Poeticbent talk

---

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}

The primary source is DOCTOR OLGA LILIEN TELLS HER STORY at TO SAVE A LIFE. Quote: "The population of the village was about two thousand. They all knew there was something "wrong" with me. Any one of them could have sold me to the Germans for two hundred Deutsch marks, but out of two thousand people nobody did it. Everybody in that village protected me." (Olga Lilien) Poeticbent talk

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "strong Jewish looks"? And where in your source is the mention of the "German gendarme" and "the village Wójt"? 65.95.28.88 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's from another sentence in the same source. "German was looking for a man in Tarnobrzeg who he wanted to hang...he looked at me and said, "Oh, but this is a Jewess." The head of the village said, "Oh no..."" etc. --Poeticbent talk 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also lifted from the website, p 212. This entire article is lifted from that website.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

---

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]

The primary source is Hidden By Fay Walker, Leo Rosen, Caren S. Neile. Quote from Faiga Rosenbluth who was "depending on good feelings toward my family to keep me safe... clomping down these village roads in these big old peasant boots..." – We can rephrase it any way we like. Poeticbent talk

---

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)

A few - and only a few (three) - of the above sentences were a "bit too similar". I have rewritten them, let's move on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as obvious COPYVIO

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)

Please note: the blatant violation of WP:BLP by Boodlesthecat above, labelling whomever he wants with codewords like "right wing fringe author" without a single proof of any wrongdoing. The article includes 42 citations and additional 6 points of reference with links leading to works by Holocaust scholars and survivors. The primary source was a compilation of them, that's why the article can easily stand based on those sources alone with direct links and their detailed descriptions. It is a work in progress nevertheless, and the links are being checked as we speak. However, to blank the article with a CV tag is clearly a politically inspired overkill by a Jewish tag-team member who's never interested in participating in our discussions anyway except for brief notes to himself. --Poeticbent talk 17:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The source is accurately described as "a fringe right wing writer". Where is there a claim of "wrongdoing"? In what way is this description a "blatant violation of WP:BLP"?65.95.28.88 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

An obvious copyright violation? Few sentences may benefit from more rewriting, but it's hardly a copyvio.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is copied, in its entirety, from one source, every sentence, every source, every quote. Modifying a few words won't fix that. Don't touch this article again, or remove the COPYVIO notice. Feel free to write an entirely new article, in your user space, using (not copying) multiple reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the above threats, like: "Don't touch this article again" or statements based in the apparent lack of understanding of copyright law could warrant some kind of outside intervention. This is not the way to talk to your peers, Jayjg. --Poeticbent talk 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO is not a joke, Poeticbent. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If a single source is significantly paraphrased, it's not a copyvio.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine for a couple of sentences. However, it will not do for an entire article, especially if the entire article comes from a single source, replicates every single source used by that source, every quote, etc. This article is a barely re-worded copy of an entire paper. And that doesn't even get into the issue of the reliability of the paper itself, or its author. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So you admit it's not a copyvio? If you think the subject is not notable, or the source is not reliable, AFD is the correct venue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I "admit it's not a copyvio"? Where did I do that? I've pointed out the exact opposite, that it's an egregiously obvious copyvio. Please don't play games on this Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[ex x2]Copyright infringement isn't a joke, but it's not the end of the world, either. And, as far as I know, significantly rephrasing does fix copyvios, although I must say finding a few more sources would be the ideal solution. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 02:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability but also create legal issues. Significantly rephrasing might help, but it wouldn't solve any of the other problems. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 3 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)

Changing a half dozen words and then removing a COPYVIO notice is not acting in good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? Are you actually saying that you believe Piotrus was purposefully trying to harm the encyclopedia? That's pretty dangerous thinking right there. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 03:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, guys, which "single source" are you taking about from the forty two citations listed at the bottom of the article? The article was inspired by a couple of pdf files which would’ve been insufficient without serious research on my part anyways. I wrote over a dozen sister articles to make it stick. I searched for real names of settlements and revised a number of disambiguation pages accordingly. I’m asking, what difference does it make what was my actual point of departure? And, why would I ever want to engage in original research by writing anything like that without some kind of base? --Poeticbent talk 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Every single one of those "forty two citations" was taken from the original article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you actually prove any of your preposterous allegations? Sorry, but I’m going to have to disappoint you Jayjg. You’re wrong! A fair percentage of those citations are mine and only mine. I know what I wrote, because it took me several days to put it together. --Poeticbent talk 03:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Poeticbent, but a quick check shows that you lifted 41 of the 42 reference citations directly from the Paul article (all but ref 38, which you supplied). Not only that, in the instances where the ref cits contain multiple references (e.g., refs14, 21, 23, 36, 41 etc), you took those bulk cits directly from bulk cits in the Paul article. In many instances, you followed the same order of examples that Paul did. The evidence is overwhelming, Poeticbent, so please stop the coyness and denials. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, perhaps not every citation was taken from the original paper. Can you list which of "forty two citations" are not found in the original paper at all, but are found in this article alone? I don't mean citations that come from the paper, and which you subsequently "checked", I mean citations which are completely unique to this article alone. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Would Wikipedia:Plagiarism be of any help here? It is still only a proposal, but a fair amount of work has gone into it, and there is extensive discussion on the talk page over what the distinction is between a copyright violation and plagiarism. Note that there is a tricky balance to strike between rewriting things in your own words, quoting from sources, accurately representing the sources, avoiding original research, and avoiding relying excessively on a single or a few sources. Those opposed to the need for a separate plagiarism guideline say that all this results naturally from WP:V and WP:COPYVIO, but some think that a separate guideline would help. Does it help here or not? Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this article a copyvio?

Statement by party against the copyvio tag

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)

That was only a sample of the duplicated sentences. Also, every quote and every source was taken from one paper. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by party for the copyvio tag

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)

General comments

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)

• I agree that this article is unacceptable. This technique of plagiarism is unfortunately all too common in the POV-pushing business. I've been known to speedy-delete articles like this before; I'll do so again unless I see some very serious improvment starting soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 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)

That is a guide for "spotting violations of the Wikipedia copyright policy that are simple cut-and-pastes from other websites." It isn't a comprehensive definition of copyvio. US Federal Courts utilize a "substantial similarity" test to look for violation arising from too-close paraphrasing. McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property notes about this, "Exact word-for-word or line-for-line infringement does not define the limits of copyright infringement." (Part of this source, including that quote, is available online here). This concept is divided into two: "fragmented literal similarity" and "comprehensive nonliteral similarity"—where the same language may not be utilized but the derivative work copies the basic form and structure of the original. Substantial similarity is generally tested in courtrooms through two questions: first, does a paraphrase borrow enough from the source to constitute a "substantial taking" from the original (representing a significant portion of that work, for instance, or a key element of it)? If it does, does the use of the material meet the test of fair use? If the answers to these are yes and no, then you've got copyright infringement. Even if the answers are no and yes, however, you may have plagiarism.

There is a useful publication here aimed at medical professionals which gives a succinct overview of how to tell when paraphrase crosses the copyright line: this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I should note that I'm "self-plagiarizing" with this comment. A similar question was recently raised at WT:CP, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 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)

There are several things going on simultaneously here, so let's separate them accordingly. (1)Plagiarism is an extremely serious charge and it should not be thrown about like New Year's confetti. This article is clearly not a work of plagiarism. Yes, there are passages that were inadequately paraphrased in a manner that did not represent pure independence from the source text. However, anyone possessing Editing 101 skills can easily fix that. (2)The opinion that the main source for this article is a corrupt outlet is, strictly, an opinion. This main source is not blacklisted by Wikipedia -- if someone believes it should be, there are proper ways to address this. (3)Some people keep forgetting that Wikipedia articles are, by their nature, works in progress that can easily be expanded or slimmed down as additional information is obtained. I consider the demands for and threats of speedy deletion to be inappropriate -- the article can be fixed and it should be fixed with all due speed. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good analysis. So can the tagging be removed and the article restored then, in order to enable further work? ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Ecoleetage's is by no means a "good analysis". (1) Yes, plagiarism is a serious charge, and I stand by it in the full sense of the word, this is plagiarism. And no, it is not easy to fix, because the whole premise, outline and POV drift of the text is 100% that of the source. Actually, the POV problem is already in the choice and definition of the topic. The author picks out incidents (whose veracity I won't doubt) and weaves them into a coherent story, obviously with a view of insinuating that these incidents form a coherent, representative pattern. For the representativity of this pattern, we have only this one source to vouch for it. What is adding more sources going to help here? (2) The second argument is of course a pure red herring. What has being blacklisted to do with anything? The charge is that the source is biased. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never said I was offering a “good analysis” – I was just putting in a two cent deposit. However, I might offer these comments. (1) If anyone here feels that the article’s original author is a deliberate plagiarist, then please take your accusations to the proper admin noticeboard and have the situation reviewed by neutral parties within the community. (2) As for a POV problem, I am assuming this means that the article is representing a distorted picture of Polish history during World War II. If I am correct, anyone possessing Editing 101 skills can easily fix this problem to put the article into proper historical perspective. If my analysis is incorrect, however, I would appreciate an explanation of what this POV concern is about – this will enable all of us to be on the same page in order to save the article. (3) The problem with the Mark Paul source is not a red herring – there is no ruling by the Wikipedia community disallowing this entity as a reliable source for articles. The opinions expressed on the reliability of this source are strictly opinions. Again, if anyone feels the Mark Paul source is illegitimate, there are appropriate means to having this source and its URL banned from being cited in future articles. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage, contrary to what you claim, this article is not "not substantially similar in organization or approach." Its exactly similar in organization and approach. See the evidence compiled above. The only actual wording the originator of the article contributed himself was the (now removed) inflammatory opening sentence:

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.

That sentence was merely a reframing of the thesis propounded by this "Mark Paul" (no information on who he actually is or if he even exists can be found anywhere, beyond his byline) in all of his online postings: That Jews (i.e., producers of "Holocaust literature") are responsible for "negative stereotypes" of Poles. What "Mark Paul" does is produce website articles that cherry pick quotes to propound a particular POV--that Poles were saviors of Jews during the Holocaust, that Jews killed Poles during the Holocaust years (see also here, as well as another online publication that provides justifications for the killings of Jews (ostensibly due to their perfidious collaborations against Polish Christians during WW2).

Suffice it to say that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. To violate that guideline by having an article that is simply a cut and past rehash of the revisionist views of a fringe (and probably pseudononymous author) with antisemitic overtones would be a disgrace to this encyclopedia. One does not fix a fundamentally flawed article with "Editing 101 skills."Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (1) Plagiarism needn't be deliberate plagiarism. Most plagiarism happens through lack of writing skills and lack of independent thinking, on Wikipedia just as elsewhere. That doesn't make it less bad. (2) Putting the article into historical perspective may be possible, but it will not be easy, and most certainly not something "anyone possessing Editing 101" could do. In order to work out what significance these individual events had within the larger whole of Polish-Jewish relations and how representative they were (and of what), and whether or not it makes sense to package just this section of reality into an article as if it was a self-contained whole, we would need careful and intelligent reading of (hopefully existing) high-quality academic literature, not the kind of editing that has gone on in most Easter-Europe-related history articles. (Wikipedia is crap at writing history.) (3) It baffles me how you could expect that in order to disqualify a source there'd have to be a prior "ruling by the Wikipedia community". What kind of ruling would that be? No, there is no such process. Sources are discussed and, if necessary, dismissed, where and when they come up. That is, here and now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay…so if this is not deliberate plagiarism, then why aren’t we assuming good faith that the article’s author (who recently received a medal for 25 DYK articles) obviously did a poor job in paraphrasing the source(s) of this article, rather than deliberately violating copyright laws? How about if we stop using the loaded word “plagiarism”?

As for the information in the article, let me ask – if this doesn’t work as a standalone article, is there an existing article on Wikipedia where the information (or at least part of it) can be plugged in? If there is, we can fix the text and merge it into the pre-existing article. That is an intelligent option, and I am glad Future Perfect offered it.

Also…the disagreement on the legitimacy of the Mark Paul source is not reflective of Wikipedia consensus. There is precedent for disallowing certain sources in articles (IMDb is not used as a primary source in film-related articles, for example), but that is not the case here. If there is a serious problem with this source, then it needs to be addressed in a wider setting.

I should also add that I abhor confrontation. Clearly, this article has issues that need to be addressed. If the subject is completely beyond salvaging, then it needs to be removed. But if an effort can be made to present this information in a properly referenced manner that adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:RS, then how about everyone here working together for a common goal? This will take time, of course, but it can be done. Because that is what Editing 101 is really all about – if something is wrong, fix it. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not had an opportunity to review the source, so my comment above is simply on the meta-issue of what may constitute a copyright violation. But I did want to add, still "meta", that plagiarism and copyright violation are not necessarily "mens rea" issues. :) Many people infringe on copyright with perfectly good faith, just a lack of awareness of the specifics of copyright law (which can be labyrinthian). Plagiarism, too, can be committed with the best of intentions. Sometimes it may be important, though, to reflect on those facts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Moonriddengirl's similar point) Eco, the author's intentions are irrelevant. If, as you say "so if this is not deliberate plagiarism", it is still plagiarism. You seem to be positing that if we assume good faith that it is not deliberate plagiarism, (and I am not at all convinced that it isn't, given the veteran status of this editor--in fact, it seems a deliberate effort was made to (unsuccessfully) conceal the plagiarism by grafting the 50 odd references from the plagiarized website onto this article, as discussed above), then somehow it isnt plagiarism. Plagiarism isnt defined by intentions. The fact that this article is a clear plagiarism of whatever intentionality, plus the serious POV issues (again, discussed above) seems to make this article a clear candidate for speedy deletion. Any editor is welcome to include relevant info into appropriate article, but this one is fatally flawed. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

And there are other reviewers who have expressed serious issues with the article as is, including inclinations to delete it. For you, Piotrus, to say "neutral reviewers agree that the article is not a copyvio" is a serious distortion of this discussion and a semantic subterfuge (when obviously the correct statement would be "some neutral reviewers agree that the article is not a copyvio". And I don't know if I would quite call Ecoleetage a "neutral reviewer. So please stop trying to gloss over the very serious issues that have been raised here regarding this article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely neutral and I have the advantage of having some small professional knowledge of copyright. I believe that an article in this sort of situation would be considered a copyvio, specifically a derivative source, if it is effectively a rewrite of an original published source. However, this is something that could fairly readily be resolved by doing some proper research - not simply drawing on a single source - and writing a rounded article, based on multiple reliable mainstream sources, to present a neutral overview of the topic.

I suggest one of two possible options: either 1) Piotrus should start over, preferably in his user space, and then copy the resulting article to mainspace when it's in a reasonable shape; or 2) this article should be reduced to a stub and rebuilt from the ground up, using multiple sources as stated above. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I started rewritting the article in the temporary subpage as specified by the template, but it was deleted soon after I started to work on it. I am not interested in wheel warring, so I haven't restored it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But your temporary subpage duplicated the infringement. We can't place copyrighted text in any space on Wikipedia, as I reminded below. It needs to be written from scratch. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you oppose if I were to post a version that hopefully addresses all the issues you identified below? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that could be a problem, as I only examined the first two sections. Given the number of concerns there, it seems likely that there are problems in subsequent sections as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, could you then examine other sections? I have already rewritten the article, plus some expansion, I'd hate to see it go to waste.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit of a time consuming process, and I've only just finished today's fresh batch of copyright problems. I'd be happy to take a look at it, if it's required, though, but I'm wondering: if you rewrote the article, is there reason to compare the old version? If you rewrote it, isn't it all new text? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some old text was preserved, since MUCH of the old text was not a copyvio in the first place. I reordered a lot of stuff for logic, did some NPOVing, added some stuff from other sources... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Preserving old text can be a problem for GFDL concerns, as I noted below. If we delete the old versions of the article, there will be no record who wrote that material. If we don't delete it, we run the risk of infringement being inadvertently restored. This is why the template indicates the material needs to be written from scratch, rather than merely modified. There haven't been that many contributors to this article, but there are enough that I'm curious how you're addressing the matter of GFDL attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sure poeticbent and ecoteelage will not have problems with making some further edits and will be in the GFDL attribution soon after the article is rewritten. Alternatively, a note of contributors can be easily made in the first edit summaries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Highlighting the first sections, concerns

←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:

• Source says: "With rare exceptions, these rescuers have not been recognized by Yad Vashem." Article says, These mostly anonymous groups of people have not been recognized by Yad Vashem (with rare exceptions). (areas of concern bolded)

Section 1:

• The article says, "If we were to thank everyone—said Abram Jakub Zand, a tailor from the village of Bolimów, than—whole villages would have to visit me." Quotation marks are in the article, but this is a violation of copyright as it does not conform to WP:NFC. It is all copied from the source, but it is not copied in form & order from the source; quotes must be taken verbatim. The source says, "When Abram Jakub Zand, a tailor from the village of Bolimów near Warsaw, “stole back to his village; the local peasants welcomed him back, and he was passed from house to house, working a week or two in each. … ‘If I were to thank everyone, whole villages would have to visit me.’”"' (Also note that "I" has been misquoted to "we". Similarly, the article says "most Polish Jews". The source does not say that.)
• The article says, Another Jewish woman who survived in a village near Lublin (harbored by everybody) confessed: "I left the village and shall never return." When asked why she would not want to revisit those who saved her life, she said: "Because I would be beholden to the entire village. So I left, and won’t return." The source says, "I left the village and shall never return there.” When asked why she didn’t want to see the people who saved her life, she replied:' “Because I would be beholden to the entire village. So I left and won’t return.” (The bolded section is duplicated in our article, but is not in quotes.)
• The article says, In the village of Osiny, "the peasants arranged among themselves that each would hide a Jewish girl for a certain period so that 'everyone would be guilty and no one could inform'." The source says, "In the village of Osiny, “the peasants arranged among themselves that each would hide a Jewish girl for a certain period so that ‘everyone would be guilty and no one could inform.’”" (the bolded section is duplicated in our article, but is not in quotes.)
• The article says, Faiga Rosenbluth from Kańczuga, easily recognized as a Jew, was moved from one village to the next for two years, and not betrayed. The source says, "Faiga Rosenbluth...from Kańczuga...moving from one village to the next for some two years...was not betrayed, even though she was readily recognized as a Jew." (I've cut intervening words to show duplicated more readily; I don't regard this as the most serious infringement here, but close paraphrase in context with other material seems worth noting to me.)
• The article says, Solidarity among the villagers who were harboring Jews, without any money in return, was insurmountable in the village of Czajków near Staszów where Jews were offered kind words, apart from money, loaves of bread and boiled potatoes. The source says (and it is directly quoting a source): "From them we often heard some kind words, quite apart from the money, loaves of bread and boiled potatoes they gave us from time to time.”
• The article says, Two men were moved between farms in Zdziebórz near Wyszków before being accepted into the Home Army; the source says, "Two young Jewish men were passed from farmer to farmer in the village of Zdziebórz near Wyszków and were eventually accepted into the Home Army." (This is definitely "substantial taking.")
• The article says, Jewish partisan, Gustaw Alef-Bolkowiak, pointed out to villages in the Parczew-Ostrów Lubelski area where "almost the entire population was actively engaged in helping": Rudka, Jedlanka, Makoszka, Tyśmienica, Bójki, and Niedźwiada near Opole Lubleskie,. The source says, "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”: : Rudka, Jedlanka, Makoszka, Tyśmienica and Bójki." (Our article incorporates as well two additional villages where the source does not support that reading; in those villages, the population looked the other way.)
• The article says, 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] This one is a bit confusing, as the quote incorporates what seems to be original text in the source as well as material it is quoting from another side, and the material again seems to have been rearranged, which is not in compliance with WP:NFC. "At times, there were 20 or 30 people living on the farm. Many of the visitors were urban Jews who spoke Polish with an accent....‘The neighbors knew. ...But everyone knew they had to keep quiet—it was a matter of life or death.’” In fact, many of the Krępeć’s Polish neighbours helped, “if only to provide a meal.” Not sure where the "open secret in the village" text comes from. Perhaps the cited source? But, if so, it's perplexing that this text picks up words from this document "quiet" is from the other source; "helped" is from this one.

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)

You are kidding me, in the example above, bolded parts are only a small proportion of the text, why would it need to be re-written from scratch? Martintg (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the only way to safely paraphrase material, to avoid copyright infringement, is to write from scratch. Such problems occur when people attempt to revise piecemeal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but the proper way to deal with this is to rewrite the article (unless no editor shows interest in it). In this case several editors are ready to rewrite the article, so it should be possible to be edited in the subpage.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

True enough, as I noted below, but it does need to be built from the ground up. Copyrighted material can't be placed on any space in Wikipedia, including talk/temp pages, unless it meets WP:NFC. This can be a challenge for paraphrasing here, but I tend to deal with it when I rewrite articles by making liberal use of my computer's clipboard, temporarily storing sections on my computer that haven't been redone on Wikipedia while saving incrementally. There are also GFDL concerns about copying articles from one space to another. Unless the temp page is merged into the existing article, when the original article is deleted to make way for the new, the contributors of any original material from the infringing version will not be credited as required by GFDL. When you rebuild from the ground, you don't have that problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The temp page history can be rather easily merged, I think I miss the point here. All of this dramu could have really been easily prevented by allowing editors to edit the article for a day or two, coupled with deletion of too similar sentences (but not of the entire article, who contains, as far as I can tell, mostly original writing - barring perhaps a few too many (but clearly identified as such) quotes of personal testimonies). I really don't understand why the article (or parts of it) cannot be restored under the understanding that it has to be quickly (but collaboratively) rewritten. PS. I have emailed the author of the website with the allegedly copyviolated materials, asking for her input and/or releasing the materials under a free license. I wonder why nobody has done that so far? Being constructive is more fun than not, I'd like to think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If we merge the page, we run the risk of inadvertent restoration of copyrighted material. That's why we usually don't merge the pages, but delete older version. That's explained on the template now blanking the page. It's "standard operating procedure." We don't allow editors to work on an article for a day or two when a copyright problem is strongly suspected because Wikipedia has chosen to take a strong line against copyright violation. Knowingly publishing material that infringes on another source puts us at risk of accusations of nonfeasance in the event that we are ever called on the carpet for cv. As it is, we can demonstrate that we are proactive and diligent about addressing such concerns. As far as writing the author, did you provide him or her with the information at WP:Permission? Written authorization has to go through the Communications Committee so that it can be tagged OTRS. From my own personal experiences at WP:CP, I know that if the author's release is not complete according to Wikimedia's requirements, that OTRS tag won't be provided. It can take quite a lot of time to clear that up! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, who apparently persists in his intentions of attempting to revise the existing document rather than rewriting it, has requested that I continue to locate copyright infringement for him to address. I am uncomfortable with reproducing line by line the entire infringement that I may locate, as that is essentially pasting copyrighted material into another Wikipedia page, which is still a violation of copyright, even if for the purposes of identification. For that reason, I'm going to abbreviate. I cannot guarantee that I'm catching everything, note. Where there is unusual text to search for, this job becomes easy. Where there is not, it isn't. The source is vast. And while I'm reading this article word for word, comparing to the source, I figure I might as well note if I see any other issues, though I trust it'll be clear where those aren't related to copyright.

Looking at the next section, I've already told him that the sentence beginning "Doctor Olga Lilien" is infringement. The sentence that begins "The villagers of Głuchów" infringes on the PDF. If you want to see the original, search for "Głuchów near Łańcut". The sentence that begins "In Mulawicze near Bielsk" is infringement, including literal duplication of text. To find this, look for "Wintluk (Wintel)". The next sentence, beginning "The village administrator", is almost word-for-word duplication of the source. (The next sentence does not infringe, but as an aside does not accurately reflect the source. Compare by searching for "Drzewica". Only the boy is described as appearing Semitic, and the source does not say they lived openly, but that the boy played openly.) The sentence beginning "Alfreda and Bolesław Pietraszek" follows closely enough on the source (with rearrangement) that I would rewrite it if I were revising this one. (Those names are the search points.) (Aside again, since I am closely comparing: The sentence beginning "Though mostly undeterred" does not seem to be supported by the text. The source does not indicated that the Polish farmers were mostly undeterred or that they preferred sheltering Jews for any set period of time, but more nebulously that three particular refugees "received various forms of assistance, even though the peasants were clearly terrified of Ukranian retaliation." The next sentence, which begins "Ludwika Fiszer" contains literal duplication of phrases from the source. For example, "who escaped naked...from an execution pit in Poniatowa had to move from village to village", cf. "...who escaped naked from an execution pit...Roaming from village to village". Moving on to the next section, the sentence beginning "Lendowo in Brańsk" violates WP:NFC, as it does not present text within quotation marks in the order of the source. Attribution is inappropriately inserted into the middle of the sentence. (Look for the author name to see where.) (Another aside, vague references such as "Jews actually felt loved" would be improved by specificity--this refers to one family of five.) (The sentence beginning "Leon Kahn" needs to end an ellipses. Although implied by the period, it is not complete.) The block quote violates NFC as it varies words and punctuation. This seems to have been innocent error to me. (adds a comma, changes the word "he" to "one") (The next sentence can be misleading: "Some farmers had openly threatened an occasional village anti-Semite". Perhaps what's intended here is to suggest that the villager so threatened was only occasionally anti-Semitic, but it implies there were several. In fact, Chava Grinberg-Brown describes one instance where a Pole who wanted to turn her in— (whether or not he was anti-Semitic is not discussed—is threatened and stopped from bothering her.) (This sentence seems like an overstatement: "In another village near Warsaw, a thug who called the police causing a killing had to flee in fear for his own live, chased by the villagers" This "thug" is identified as a farmer, and the source does not indicate any chasing or specify the degree of reprisal that the farmer feared.) (The sentence that begins "Like many Polish Jews"--the source does not seem to indicate that this is true of many Polish Jews. It doesn't say that her baptizing was public, and I don't see anything to indicate it was done specifically for her protection, although the priest evidently did defend her. The article says this was "similar to Franciszka Aronson", but the source doesn't indicate that Franciszka Aronson was baptized, only that she was taken in by nuns.) With respect to the next passage, referring to Jewish children being cared for by convents, the section around the quote refers to one convent only, so I'm not sure if the rest of the pdf supports the various.

That's all I have time for now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Temporary article subpage for further reworking

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)

Piotrus, I made the first edit in the article's intro. Who wants to follow? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait til the substantive issues get resolved, given the article could well be deleted due it it being a massive plagiarism. Also, I'd suggest not continuing to source claims to "Mark Paul," (and the whole opening para is currently sourced to him, despite the additional sources lifted directly from his website article) since its pretty clear that he will not survive a WP:RS challenge. And that opening paragraph is a simple blatant POV nightmare. ("have not been formally documentedand recognized "--yet Wikipedia is documenting and recognizing them? "It has been determined there were cases where entire communities worked together in the rescue of Jews" determined by whom? Mark Paul? etcBoodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it. This is not how to fix an article which is plagiarised throughout. It needs rewriting, starting from scratch. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when are articles speedy deleted because of plagiarism? Wikipedia:Plagiarism is not policy or even a guideline yet. Martintg (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already saved the article offline. For those who are serious about fixing the article, contact me via Wikimail. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No plagarism / copyvio has been proven, all that we see here are baseless accusation. The article should be restored.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have demonstrated substantial infringement within just the first two sections above, documenting even instances of literal duplication of material from the source to this article, where text has been copied verbatim without being noted. I have also documented several cases where quoted material has been rearranged. As WP:NFC notes, "Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)"." Non-free text cannot be duplicated from external sites unless it meets NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict again) Substantial evidence, including detailed examples by myself and Moonriddengirl, has been presented here. To call those "baseless accusations" is not only a rude and uncivil denial of the very facts extant on this talk page, it's a baseless accusation to boot. If you cannot approach this without repeated instances of belligerence, Piotrus, perhaps you should step away for awhile. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:24, 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)

Rewriting the article is not only fair, it's the way it's supposed to go if there's infringement. I donate a good portion of my wiki time to addressing matters at WP:CP, and I've had to rewrite many an article when original contributors did not choose to. However, let me note that there are several reasons why it's supposed to be written from scratch...not only to avoid carrying over copyright problems, but also to avoid GFDL infringement. One of the problems with composing offline is that attribution history can be lost. You'll want to be careful to keep track of who composed what, or to get consent of all contributors to such a version to generalized credit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am in full agreement, Moonriddengirl; the article needs rewriting -- I think that is the one thought we all share. But it is impossible to rewrite this article online in full sight if there is going to be endless criticism and bickering, or if someone is going to swoop down without any warning and delete the work while it is progress. This way, those who want to keep the article can concentrate on getting it done without distractions -- and those who are critical of where it stands today will be able to revisit the article as a whole and not a piecemeal put-together kit. Thanks...and, everyone, be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a bad mistake was made creating this article in an apparently unfinished condition. Why don't you work on it at a Sandbox page, taking advice from collegiate fellow editors, until it's in a fit condition to be turned into a regular article? What's the rush? PR^talk 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision coming

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)

qy about picture

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)

I support the removal of pics 1 and 2 as they don't indicate their relation to the subject; the second is relevant (people executed for sheltering Jews).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:35, 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)

Reliability of Mark Paul

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)

So what can you tell us about Mr Paul? Academic background? Scholarly publications? University affiliations? Other relevant information that would qualify him as a source for an encyclopedic history article? And I must admit your rationale that "lack of unreliability = reliability" gave me a chuckle. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

He is cited by reliable scholars, that makes him reliable. And you forgot to justify (or apologize for and refactor) your claims that he is a fringe antisemtitic far-right writer.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, you are welcome to take your concerns to the BLP board. But seriously, what can you tell us about Mr Paul? Academic background? Scholarly publications? University affiliations? Other relevant information that would qualify him as a source for an encyclopedic history article? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, while you have asked Piotrus a question, I have a question to you. What makes you think that Mark Paul has uncomfortable connections to anti-semitism, besides the obvious fact that you dislike his works? Tymek (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tymek, while you're here--what can you tell us about Mr Paul? Academic background? Scholarly publications? University affiliations? Other relevant information that would qualify him as a source for an encyclopedic history article? We're discussing his credentials as a reliable source for a history article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Boodlesthecat. Since I have asked you first, I would like to get an answer from you. Tymek (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark Paul appears to be essentially completely unknown, aside from the website he runs. I'm not even sure Mark Paul is his real name; it looks much more like a pseudonym, perhaps someone's given names, or even names of books of the Christian gospel. It's really hard to tell; could you please provide some biographical information about "Mark Paul", so we can ascertain his bona fides? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, please tell us: based on what we know about him now, is it justifiable to call him a fringe right wing writer uncomfortable connections to anti-semitism? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The material he publishes on his website appears to be dubious victim blaming apologetics. However, and more to the point, do you have any information about him that might be helpful in determining his bona fides? Is "Mark Paul" even his real name? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's some Mark Paul "scholarship" on Jews during the Holocaust period:

• In Uscilug, on the River Bug (Volhynia), local Jews organized a pro-atheist spectacle in which a horse was dressed in Christian liturgical vestments and paraded around town.
• The Christmas season presented an opportunity for a Jewish teacher in Derazne, near Kostopol, to tear religious medallions off the necks of Christian children and to forbid them from wearing them.
• The first Christmas under Soviet rule was marred by Adam Wazyk (Wagman), a Jewish literary figure in prewar Poland, who railed against the Catholic clergy in the communist daily Czerwony Sztandar, for spreading religious propaganda ... around the Christmas tree.

• Jewish shops in Dzisna remained closed and goods were not allowed to be purchased until the new Soviet authorities arrived. The Jews thereby left their Christian neighbours, their long-time clients, to fend for themselves.

Just some Jew-baiting garbage, from what I see. I'd write him an angry letter, if I knew his real name. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the cited text cannot be true, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey you're perfectly free to believe noxious apologetics for anti-semitism. Free country. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, what if all these examples about Wazyk, Uscilug and other stuff are true? Poles living in Kresy still remember these events. Tymek (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Tymek, what can you tell us about Mr Paul? Academic background? Scholarly publications? University affiliations? Is there an actual Mark Paul, or is it a pseudonym of some sort? Other relevant information that would qualify him as a source for an encyclopedic history article? We're discussing his credentials as a reliable source for a history article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time I looked at policies like WP:BLP they did not say: "until proven innocent, we can call people names". And he has been cited by reliable historians.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, the BLP board is where your worries about "name calling" are being addressed. On this page we're discussing his credentials as a reliable source for a history article. What can you tell us about Mr Paul? Academic background? Scholarly publications? University affiliations? Is there an actual Mark Paul, or is it a pseudonym of some sort? Other relevant information that would qualify him as a source for an encyclopedic history article? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the "citations" are all fairly trivial references, the first two links you provided appear to be works by the victim blaming sociologist. As far as the anonymous and brief "review" goes, it's uncomplimentary, describing the book as "predictable" and stating "editorial mistakes detract considerably from its credibility." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What's this if not dubious victim blaming apologetics? "killed while trying to prevent a bulldozer ... destroying a Palestinian home" became "killed while obstructing a bulldozer", all mention of "destroying" and "home" disappears from entire section. (But I'll not expect the real name of the editor doing this!) PR^talk 09:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In regard to Jayjg's comment: "I'm not even sure Mark Paul is his real name; it looks much more like a pseudonym, perhaps someone's given names, or even names of books of the Christian gospel." For the record, there are no "books in the Christian gospel" with the title of "Paul." I believe the conversation would be enriched if people presented arguments backed with facts. And speaking of the absence of facts, I have yet to see any independent source presented by Jayjg or Boodles that confirms Mark Paul's published works are viewed by the academic community as being shoddy or anti-Semitic. The onus is not on Poeticbent (the article's original author) or the article's supporters to defend Mr. Paul and his work. If anything, the onus is on Jayjg and Boodles to present clear-cut evidence that Mr. Paul is not taken seriously by his peers in Eastern European historical scholarship. I have seen zero evidence put forth that Mr. Paul is viewed as a "fringe" writer by anyone with unimpeachable academic, publishing or even socio-political cred. And the straw dog argument that "Mark Paul" may be a nom de plume is rich with hilarious irony, given that his critics here do not identify themselves with their real names! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the hilarious irony is that editors are trying to claim a source is reliable and not fringe because there isn't a consensus by the scholarly community that they are fringe. This delightful definition unfortunately does not pass WP:RS scrutiny. The basically self published "MArk Paul" source is fringe precisely by virtue that it is by and large IGNORED by the scholarly community, other than perhaps for nominal and inconsequential citations by conservative/right wing writers like Chodakiewicz and Stachura. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The basic fact remains that Mr. Paul's works are, to date, being condemned by a grand total of two Wikipedia editors -- no one in the field of Eastern European historical scholarship has echoed these opinions. Absent of condemnation by unimpeachable sources within academia and/or publishing about Mr. Paul and his work, the argument against Mr. Paul's credentials do not hold water. When solid evidence is produced that Mr. Paul and his books are considered "fringe" or unreliable by the recognised leaders in academia and publishing, then we can have a serious conversation about excluding him as a source of information. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget this logic: "It's wrong because it doesn't correspond to my POV."--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:31, 7 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)

Piotrus, you have a seriously disturbing habit of making distorted claims about what outside reviewers say, as well as a seriously uncivil habit of quietly shopping for support for your views (as you did at BLPN and the RS board) without notifying relevant parties about those discussions (you have done this countless times). Suffice it to say, as usual your interpretations of what was said at those boards is seriously skewed and distorted to support your lobbying effort. Let us know when you want to participate in a serious discussion about sourcing rather than play games. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposition I believe we are facing a stalemate, and I would like to propose taking the issue of Mark Paul and his published work to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for debate with neutral members of the community. Perhaps that will help us achieve genuine consensus on the reliability of the author and his work? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage, Piotrus alrady brought it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (see his comment above) and outrageously, based on a SINGLE RESPONSE in which the source wasn't even directly discussed, Piotrus then outrageously declares the issue closed (see his "QED" claim above). So again, when Piotrus agrees to participate in good faith in a discussion on neutral forums, and stop trying to achieve his ends through transparently deceptive subterfuges and outright false claims (to put it mildly) should let us know. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that this living person has been nastily libelled, in very likely breach of BLP. Even more astonishingly, despite repeated requests, the editor concerned has provided nothing to justify the accusation. I'm not sure where we go from here, other than to look for urgent administrative intervention. PR^talk 18:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help, PR, since you are so concerned. We haven't been able to determine if "Mark Paul" is an actual person. Can you provide any assistance? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to get into a discussion on whether Boodlesthecat is an actual person. If the project no longer considers BLP a policy of the project, or has been turned into a free-fire zone to smear people as antisemitic, I think an announcement should be made. PR^talk 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For the last time: if any evidence can be presented that Mark Paul is a "fringe" writer and that his work has been denounced by the leaders in academia, publishing and Eastern European historical scholarship as being shoddy and anti-Semitic, then please present that evidence here. When that evidence is presented, we can confirm the problems with Mr. Paul and agree not to cite him. Not that it matters here, as the restored article makes absolutely no mention of him whatsoever. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If the sources on his website (which is likely not a reliable source, which additionally precludes its use here) are incorporated into the rewrite with no COPYVIO, there is no need to cite him. Again, note that one doesnt have to be described as fringe by reliable sources to be fringe--being almost entirely unknown and operating on the fringes of publishing is enough to make that determination. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between being less-than-famous and less-than-credible. Mr. Paul is less-than-famous, and that is not open to debate. The argument that is he less-than-credible has yet to be made. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that there even is an actual Mark Paul? It's not clear that there is. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:42, 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. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Judging by previous rulings from administrators, BLP applies on TalkPages as well. Have a look at this. (Although, in that particular case, the community decided that calling Benny Morris "right-wing" and "in favour of ethnic cleansing" doesn't amount to a smear of this otherwise very well-regarded Israeli historian - it was aimed at judging his reliability, very much as we're doing over "Mark Paul").

However, accusing someone of being antisemitic, as has happened over this source, is a far more serious accusation, and really needs a policy determination. PR^talk 20:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The usual way of determining the nature of the contributions of an author of controversial books, is to try to write an article on him. It is., needless to say, almost impossible to search "Mark Paul" directly in google, but I'd like to follow up the suggstion that it might be a pseudonym. With respect to the book, Neighbors..., I see from WorldCat it is in a total of 1 academic library, even though published as far back as 2001 [3]--it is not in the Library of Congress. The publisher is Pefina Press, which is not an academic publisher . I cannot find a web page for them, but they appear to be the publishing arm of the Polish Educational Foundation in North America, which I have not yet looked at, but the name does not rule out the possibility of a POV. As for Paul's other books, I see by searching for the press in google "Tangled Web: Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland (Toronto: PEFINA Press, 2003) " I can find no holdings of any of this works in any library in the US, including the Library of Congress. However, it appears to be, from the pdf version on the web, a revised version of "an essay that appeared in The Story of Two Shtetls, Brańsk and Ejszyszki, Part Two ed. by Marian Marzynski, published by The Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 1998" [4] . Finally we have something, for that book is held in a number of libraries. [5]. I'm sorry to reject a meaty source, but my conclusion from this is that the book Neighbors... is not an academic work from an established publisher. I do not see how it can be used as a reliable source for anything, unless there is some way to establish the author as being an authority. It absolutely cannot possibly be used for BLP. The only work of his that might conceivably be used as an RS for any purpose is the essay in Two Shtetls, The collection was reviewed in " EAST EUROPEAN JEWISH AFFAIRS, 28, no. 2, (1998): 114-116" by S Misak. I would be grateful if someone could find a copy of that review; I do not know if it discusses his essay at all. The next step is to follow up on Marzynski. [6] She appears to be primarily a video producer.

Calling anyone anti-semitic is not a good idea though, unless a quote can be found, but I don't see the phrasing quoted above in the section here amounts to that exactly. Frankly, I think fringe is a pretty good approximation. It is not an insult. An author whose major books are in no libraries is fringe. . DGG (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good summary. I wouldn't cite Mark Paul to support highly controversial claims, or criticize established scholars, but arguing that he is unreliable as "far right antisemtitic" writer and removing refs to all of his works is going rather too far, I'd think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, you put ""far right antisemitic" in quotes, implying a direct quote. Where is that direct quote? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 06:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what DGG said "The only work of his ["Mark Paul"] that might conceivably be used as an RS for any purpose is the essay in Two Shtetls". This article is not that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of Mark Paul/Two Shtetls in East European Jewish Affairs

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)

Per the above review, it looks like Wikipedians were not the first to note that this "Mark Paul" seems to be a writer without a biography; the reviewer noted the same problem ten years ago: "Also, it is not helpful that his biography, and therefore credentials, are absent from either volume." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, an author whose major books are in no libraries needs a publisher with a better distribution mechanism. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's probably an indication that no publisher has been interested, which is apparently why these are self published by the organization that uses the byline of "Mark Paul". And note that the characterization of "major books" is yours--I'm not sure how self published tomes that have negligible distribution can be characterized as "major books." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Infringement concerns

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)

Thank you for your help.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)