Content deleted Content added
TrangaBellam (talk | contribs) →Drobnicki: Reply |
→Arbitration case, and Legitimizing fringe academics: Serious allegations of advocacy editing based on fringe academics; arbitration case brewing. |
||
Line 72:
::::And - are you aware that [[WP:BLP]] apply to talk pages also? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 15:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::I assume that after raking in about nineteen thousand odd edits — primarily, in quite controversial topics on S. Asian History — with an unblemished block-log, such vague allusions to BLP do not have much appeal for me. if you are concerned, BLPN is a nice venue; I won't mind. Since Marcelius is aware that {{tq|[Drobnicki] has published a number of works on Holocaust-denial literature}}, he ought to be aware of their content; I do not see how else he can have that knowledge! [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 15:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
== Arbitration case, and Legitimizing fringe academics ==
According to a recent article published in the Journal of Holocaust Research,<ref>{{cite journal |date=2023 |last1=Grabowski |first1=Jan |last2=Klein |first2=Shira |title=Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust |journal=The Journal of Holocaust Research |doi=10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939}}</ref> this Wikipedia article may have been strongly influenced by advocacy from a group with an axe to grind about the historical record. The journal articles lambastes Wikipedia for systematic distortion in articles specifically about the Holocaust in Poland, including this article, which is mentioned by name in the section "[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939#S003-S2004 Legitimizing fringe academics]".
Excerpt from the journal article:
<blockquote>Take ''The Forgotten Holocaust'', a 1986 book by the aforementioned Richard C. Lukas that borders on Holocaust distortion. Lukas attempted, without any reference to historical evidence from the Polish, Israeli, or German archives, to broaden the definition of the Holocaust in such a way as to also include the killings of ethnic Poles by the Germans. As soon as The ''Forgotten Holocaust'' came out, David Engel, one of the most eminent historians of the Holocaust, wrote a thirteen-page scathing critique of the book in the journal Slavic Review, where he charged Lukas’s research with ‘distortion, misrepresentation and inaccuracy.’Footnote104 Engel demonstrated in detail that Lukas had made sweeping generalizations, invented facts, disregarded archival sources, and displayed a complete lack of familiarity with secondary sources.<p></p>
Despite Lukas’s clear weaknesses, the editor User1***** has written him a glowing Wikipedia biography.Footnote105 User1****** trivializes Engel’s critique by juxtaposing it with multiple enthusiastic appraisals of The Forgotten Holocaust. ‘It has received a number of positive reviews, and a single dissenting critical review,’ wrote User1***** in Richard C. Lukas’s biography on Wikipedia.Footnote106 Indeed, User1***** created a new article dedicated solely to ''The Forgotten Holocaust'', where he quoted from the positive reviews in detail. A close look reveals that the laudatory evaluations were written by scholars with far less expertise on the topic than Engel (one of them was a graduate student who never went on to publish in the field; several others were not historians), and most were only one or two pages long. By portraying Engel’s opinion as a lone dissenter in a sea of praise, User1***** massaged the Wikipedia article to show Lukas in a positive light. Another editor called User2****** tried to temper the article’s praise for Lukas, but User1***** reverted him immediately.Footnote107 With 92 percent of the page’s content authored by User1*****, Wikipedia’s article on The Forgotten Holocaust continues to celebrate Lukas.Footnote108</blockquote>
See the arbitration case request at [[WP:ARC#Holocaust in Poland]].
Editors of good faith should read the article and draw their own conclusions. As always, the article should reflect the best secondary sources available. Given the seriousness of the allegations, I would be in favor of [[WP:TNT]], starting by reducing the article to as single, uncontentious paragraph about the details of the book. If the article was fine as written, we lose nothing by starting afresh, and building it back by [[WP:CONS|consensus]] bit by bit, possibly even to exactly the point where it is now if that's what the sources support, although I suspect that that is not the path it will take.
If people are shy to take a step in such a charged atmosphere, I understand if no one replies here, and I would not have any qualms about considering a [[WP:BOLD|bold edit]] on my own reducing it to a paragraph, but I would prefer to hear from other editors first. If there is nothing here in a few days, I will likely take that step. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 01:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
=== Refs ===
{{reflist|title=}}
| |||