Talk:History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Draft text for an RfC

I have started this new section to determine the language for an RfC, as previous discussions were becoming too large. Below is a draft text for a proposed RfC. Once multiple editors have approved the proposed draft, it will be sent to RfC to generate comments from the wider Wikipedia community. This discussion is not where editors express a preference for which text they want in the article. Rather, this is to ensure that all sides approve of the RfC that will be conducted. Proposed text is below:

Title: RFC on proposed text

Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the sources?

The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman and Farkash:

"In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"

"One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”

"For example, following one such collective deliberation in the winter of 1943, Wenkart allowed a group of Jewish partisans to enter the camp to seek refuge from persecution by the Armia Krajowa (AK)"

The two proposed texts are:

Proposal A

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants. According to Farkash, in 1943, Wenkert allowed a group of Jewish partisans seeking refuge from a hostile unit of the Polish Home Army resistance group into the camp.

Proposal B

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.

Proposal C

A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.

Proposal D

In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.

Proposal E

According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.

Proposal F

Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.

Proposal G

Zimmerman writes: "In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"

Proposal H

None of these texts should be included, and the source should be excluded from the article.

References

Please indicate below if you approve of this text going to RfC, or would like to modify the text. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, It's a good idea, but I think we need more than just versions A and B. For example, my version has been omitted. There should be also an option of not mentioning this at all as possibly undue/not relevant (although I don't think it's the best, it should be included in the vote). My proposed version was "A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants".

And the vote should be separated for each of the two sentences. I.e. the first should be on whether include the sentence about the report, local populace, communists, and food. The second should be about the group of partisans seeking refuge from the Home Army. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I added your proposed text as "Proposal C". I didn't add references because I was unsure about which sources and pages you were citing. Would you like to add those references to your proposal? As for multiple RfCs, I would agree to do that. Just to clarify: are you suggesting an RfC on the text cited to Zimmerman, and a second RfC on the text cited to Farkash? Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I’m afraid we are going in circles here. There is more that these two versions of yours proposed (see section) [1]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The version of Proposal A in this section is the only version I am proposing for the RfC. If people who have supported my proposals have issues with my proposed text, I will discuss possible changes below. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

We already discussed it here[2] and I have the proposal opened including your version there. You opened a new section omitting proposals of others. I’m not impressed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal has not been posted to RfC, and I do not see evidence that anyone who has supported my proposals has endorsed your proposal. If there is missing text from the draft above, please post it below so it can be added. An alternative is we can approach WP:DRN and ask a mediator to help us create this RfC. Z1720 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope. My proposal has been composed above by another editor earlier and later posted by me again with a bit of tweak. At least one other editor supported it, so I’m afraid you are mistaken here. I assume a lot of text may be confusing. But perhaps instead of me posting the proposal here yet again in yet another section you opened talking about the same thing, maybe it's better to continue in the unfinished section. What do you think? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Mediation might be necessary; thank you for suggesting that. Otherwise, I’m afraid we will have to use direct quotes in the article. This is not going anywhere as of now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think it is best to start with Z1720's version and propose changes to it as desired. (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, buidhe, does your above comment state that you support an RfC using my draft language? Also, would you participate in WP:DRN if it was proposed? Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

    Z1720, Yes to both. Thanks so much for your contributions here. (t · c) buidhe 02:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your response buidhe, I will wait until tomorrow to open up a DRN. My response to DRN's question of "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" will be: "I hope a mediator will help us create an RfC that accurately reflects the material all sides want to include in the article, and possibly post the RfC on our behalf." I will also include everyone who has been part of the above discussions since May 19, when the material was first removed from the article. If any editors have concerns about my plan, please comment below. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Afaia Wikipedia policy and guidelines would not support treating RFC as place to invite outside comment on an editor's preferred choice of two versions of content, which omits at least a third version of content recently rejected by the same editor.
• Separately I'm not certain that Wikipedia policy and guidelines would support Wikipedia referring to a primary source in its own voice (in this case a Home Army report) when it does not have access to that source and is in fact citing a secondary source (Zimmerman) citing the primary source. As far as I'm aware guidance would ask us to attribute the information to Zimmerman referring to the Home Army report.
• Thirdly I would appreciate if someone could point me to where Zimmerman supports the content "the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people" because for some reason I can't see it. This phrase means that every single local person who was not a Jew was hostile to Jews, and is the sort of generalization that we normally eschew on Wikipedia - and particularly in the WP:ARBEE time pit. Moreover, WP:NPOV asks us to balance what one secondary source says with what other secondary sources say: none of them have a monopoly on truth.
• For the record, recent scholarship shows that tens of thousands of Poles murdered tens of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust; that shame is difficult for Polish nationalists to handle, and it's also an estimate that less than 1% of the Polish population murdered Jews. How the rest of the Polish population behaved towards Jews is a matter of secondary source debate. For example, Gunnar S. Paulsson has said the majority "were passively protective" - and like Zimmerman, he has no monopoly on truth.
• If we can all agree on quoting Zimmerman directly, that should fix this absurdly long discussion here and now. -- Chumchum7 (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 - You nailed yet again! Your wisdom, knowledge, and experience are appreciated here. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Neither of you have addressed one of Z1720's main concerns at all; that is, the removal of Farkash source without discussion. Furthermore, saying that popular attitudes were one way or another is not a form of collective guilt because it does not remotely imply that every single person agrees. Since attitudes differed from place to place I'm not sure why you are quoting something that has nothing to do with this particular location. (t · c) buidhe 07:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, do you agree to quote Zimmerman directly instead? After all, the original disputed text - "..the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jews" you composed and wrote into our article citing Zimmerman[3]. As said earlier already, your voice is as important. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not what I wrote originally, that was a later proposal. Originally it stated "Jewish fugitives". (t · c) buidhe 07:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This diff indicates otherwise True, you wrote "to Jewish fugitives" [4] Who wrote that then? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove Farkash. I worked on Zimmerman first. There is nothing stopping Farkash being worked on next. Meanwhile I maintain what I raised in my last message, and still wait for it to be addressed. That said, I am getting closer to WP:DISENGAGE because in my 12 years experience of the WP:ARBEE area this discussion is looking a lot like something that will end up with administrator intervention. --Chumchum7 (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe, You later changed to "ethnic Polish" population was hostile to Jewish fugitives.[5] Where does that source say that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm about to WP:DISENGAGE as well. I have no more energy for this. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: I see above that you wanted to disengage from the topic. I don't want editors to think that I am ignoring your concerns, but I also want to respect your desire to disengage. If you are still interested in creating an RfC, I hope editors can work together to find a solution. If there's no response, I will take that to mean that you want to stay disengaged, I apoligise for the ping, I won't ping you again.

In answer to some of your above comments: I'm in favour of having multiple proposed texts in an RfC. Should the draft also add options like "None of these texts support what is described in the source" and/or "the text should be removed"? Re: comments about Zimmerman referencing a primary source, and whether we should quote Zimmerman directly: this is an option that we can add to the RfC. Would you like to propose some text below? For comments on analysing the sources ("if someone could point me to where Zimmerman supports the content") I acknowledge that editors don't think this question has been answered, but I think it has been, which might be contributing to frustration from multiple editors. I don't want to get into a discussion on the merits of proposed texts; those discussions and questions can happen at the RfC. I hope this section will compile a draft that we can bring to RfC and get more editor's input. Do you endorse having an RfC to determine Wikipedia's consensus is on what text (if any) should go here? Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I see your concerns that the removal of Farkash has not been addressed. My interpretation of the above discussions (in multiple sections) is that this has been put on hold for now and might be discussed later. I would be in favour of having two separate RfCs: one to address the text quoted to Zimmerman, the other to address text quoted to Farkash. I don't want to discuss the merits of Farkash here. Would you also be in favour of creating two separate RfCs? Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, Two separate RfCs is fine by me if you think it would work better. (t · c) buidhe 15:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 Is there any particular reason you, while finally adding a short version of another editor, skipped to include mine again? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I thought that Proposal B above was your proposed text. Do you have different text you would like to propose? If so, post it below and I'll add it above. Also, whose text is Proposal B? Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the proposed texts, I see that the first two sentences are the same. Clearly, I missed a proposal somewhere. Sorry about that! Should I replace Prop B with your proposed text below? Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

My original proposal -

In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.

Chumchum7’s proposal with my tweaks:

According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella Which version would you like to include in the RfC? Also, can this version replace Proposal B? (I think what happened, and it was an immense mess-up by me, was I thought Prop B in your straw poll was your proposed text. So can we replace this RfC's Prop B with your actual proposed text?) Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, note WP:TALKO and WP:TALK#REPLIED. Because it appears "Proposal C" was inserted into Z1720's first comment in this thread some time after my reply to it refers to Z1720 having made two proposals. I don't have time to go through the diffs to check when in the discussion it was inserted, and who by. The guidelines advise us not to edit our own comments after they've been replied to, because it only adds to confusion. Guidelines advise us to contribute to the bottom of the discussion if a reply has already been posted. The guidelines also advise us not to edit others' comments, it is disruptive. -- Chumchum7 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: The text at the top is a draft, and it is going to go through changes. It's easier to keep all the information in one place. If you'd like, I can move the draft to its own page, if it would make it easier or I can add a note saying when Prop C was added. Proposal C was text proposed by Piotrus and added by me here: [6] If anything is to be removed, I will strike out text instead of deleting it. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 - Please include both proposals, I like Chumchum7 which I tweaked even better but would like to have mine taken into consideration also.. since I spent about 11 hours of my soon ending life here already. Also, please remove Farkash from this RfC and make two separate RfCs, Zimmerman first which is this one and Farkash later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC) @Z1720 And if current proposal B is to be excluded is not up to me; I didn’t write it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GizzyCatBella for your prompt reply. Since multiple editors either desire or endorsed a separate RfC for Farkash's information, I have struckout Farkash as one of the sources quoted at the top of the draft. I also removed Proposal A, since the first sentence is the same as Proposal B, and the second sentence is sourced to Farkash, which will get their own RfC. I have added your two proposals as "Proposal D" and "Proposal E". GCB, I did not add references since I did not know which pages from Zimmerman should be cited or where they should be placed. Can you add the references to your proposal, or post below where you would like them to be placed? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Z1720. So you were confused; I can see that clearly now. As far as citations for Zimerman - they are the same as they are there now.

Recap so we are clear here:

Buidhe used below citations while writing the article: The citations read:

In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.

One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”

She then wrote this text into the article (see first diff)[7] based on the citations above. Following suggestions at FAC, Buidhe added to her text word "ethnic" before word "Polish" [8] for final version to read as below. (Note added after: Buidhe does not support addition of the word ethnic anymore but supports the below text without that word (see conversation below).Text remained in article until challenged on May 26th, 2021 [9]

"According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants.

After protests and inauguration of this discussion, you (Z1720) added offered the full text of below citation from page 361 on top of Buidhes already given citation from page 213:

"One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”

And you (Z1720) came up with this proposal:

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.

Then I (GCB) proposed this based on the same citation:

In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.

Then came Chumchum7’s proposal based on the same citation:

According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division said communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He says that according to a Home Army report, while the local population had rather favorable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups who took their food and resources.

Then Piotrus proposed below based on the same citation:

A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants. Am I correct here Piotrus , is this your proposal?

Then I (GCB) tweaked a little Chumchum7’s proposal adding “some”, “rural" etc. to read like this:

According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.

Note: There are also proposals raised to quote Zimerman directly and to remove that text all together.

Thank you for your attention. (13th hour now!) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References:

@GizzyCatBella: I think the information above is correct. I don't think there's been specific proposed text on how "to quote Zimmerman directly" would be worded in a proposed text. I hope someone who supports this solution will post the suggested text below, and I will add it to the draft. I think the last "proposed text" in the RfC should be to remove that text. Once everything is proposed, the final draft wording of the RfC can be posted below and editors can say if they endorse opening up the RfC. I'll also note that the Farkash source, while part of his discussion, will be included in its own separate RfC which will be created at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I believe we are getting somewhere now.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, amazing progress was made today. It was mentioned above that this would be posted to DRN, but I don't think that's necessary anymore so I won't post there. Z1720 (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As long as everyone has their proposal included in the RfC, I think everyone should be happy - well, not necessarily with the outcome, but that's for the wider community to discuss. I see my proposed sentence has been added there. Let's wait maybe 48h to make sure everyone active here had the opportunity to add their version there, if they want to, and then RfC should end this one way or another. Might be a good idea to ping some folks. @Buidhe, Volunteer Marek, Chumchum7, François Robere, and Chipmunkdavis:. I think that's everyone? Feel free to ping anyone I missed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• GCB's discussion above contains some inaccuracies. For example, both pages in Zimmerman were initially cited, not just the first one. The changes to "ethnic Poles" languages was made because it was requested at the FAC, not because it was my initial version. I prefer that Z1720 post the RfC since I haven't noticed them making any errors and it's important to get things right. (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• The point made by @Volunteer Marek: and others about whether or not to include this citation in the first place should come first in any RFC list of options. It is the most fundamental issue, not sufficiently discussed here. It's like we've been nitpicking for years about which type of nuclear power plant our country should go for, thereby distracting ourselves from whether we're better off making do with natural gas and renewables. Afair VM refers to it as a WP:CHERRYPICK; I don't yet have a view on that either way, but I am satisfied that Wikipedia's core aim of article stability has not been served well by this citation - and that alone makes a very strong case for Wikipedia to question whether it should be included at all.
• Given that instability problem, the second place in the RFC list should go to direct quotation, possibly in a box, with inline citation to Zimmerman: So Zimmerman writes: "In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”" --Chumchum7 (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 It is reasonable to consider leaving this sentence out, but if so the next sentence to Farkash should be retained, since it is directly pertinent to the town/airfield camp. I'm not sure what article stability has to do with the inclusion of content, and it certainly isn't a "core aim" of the project. WP:Article stability is a redlink. (t · c) buidhe 10:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe, please do not modify other people comments as you did here [10]

This is against policy. If you are disputing that you wrote that text into our article and can prove it, I'll be happy to strike that for you myself. But let's take a look again before I do that.

On January 1st, 2020, you composed[11] this text based on the quote from Zimmerman and recorded it into our article:

"According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The organization itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from Polish peasants."

On September 9, 2020, you expanded it [12] adding "ethnic" to the word "Poles" "Polish" utilizing the same Zimmerman's reference for text to look like this:

"According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The organization itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from ethnic Polish peasants."

The text you composed and wrote remained in our article until May 19, 2021 [13] till an editor challenged the text you wrote as not pairing with reference you added. [14].

• Beetwin May 19 and May 26th, 2021 you defended that exact text by performig 5 reverts:

• 1 - [15],
• 2 - [16],
• 3 - [17],
• 4 - [18]

and finally on May 26th

• 5 - [19]

If you can find any mistakes in what I just wrote please point it out and I’ll correct it. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• It's incorrect to attribute this change to me since it was proposed at the FAC by another editor. I would consider it inaccurate what you write above since you said On September 9, 2020, you expanded it when it would be more accurate to say, "According to the suggestions at the FAC, it was edited". No, I did not edit anyone else's comment. (t · c) buidhe 07:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  I also request that you change the version attributed to me to the one I actually support. When I receive reviewer comments, I often make them even if I'm neutral on or don't have a position on them specifically. (t · c) buidhe 07:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now, so you made additional changes without double-checking the reference but relying on advice given to you at FAC. I understand mistakes happen; we are all humans, but it's a good lesson for the future. I'll make those changes for you. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. (t · c) buidhe 10:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@User:buidhe, in reply to your comment higher up the page: FYI article stability is one of the six specified criteria for Good Article status at WP:GACR, it's also encouraged by policies WP:CONS, WP:WAR and others. When all else fails, sometimes leaving out troublesome content has contributed to stability. Especially in the notoriously febrile WP:ARBEE space, where editors are routinely blocked for fighting over content instead of working collegially towards a stable consensus. Back to the task at hand, I submitted my proposed content higher up this thread. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: It's generous and gracious of you to say you made a mistake earlier, and this has straightened some things out. I am finding the changes to the top of this thread confusing, and do think it best to stick to WP:TALK#REPLIED. Generally I'd appreciate it you could follow the guidance there to add to the bottom of the thread. We now appear to be working on two chunks of Zimmerman, while my proposed content (and possibly others) was based on only the first one - so I'll have to compose another content proposal below. A couple of things that remain front of mind for me are that (i) "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands" ≠ "people are decidedly hostile to Jews" and (ii) I don't see that Zimmerman is implying it's necessarily a slur for the Home Army report to say these Jewish groups were communist; I see he's simply saying the Home Army said much of the local population didn't get along with these groups. Let's remember that according to secondary sources, many Jewish groups surviving outside the camps and ghettos proudly self-identified as communist (e.g. the nearby Parczew partisans and more famous Bielski partisans). All of these tactically cooperated with the much larger non-Jewish, Polish communist Gwardia Ludowa and Armia Ludowa (ethnic Polish communists heavily outnumbering Jewish communists) and/or Soviet forces. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: What is the proposed text that should be in the article? I will add your proposed text to the draft. Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: While I appreciate that you say "I haven't noticed them making any errors and it's important to get things right." I would have to disagree: I've made some errors here. This is why I'm going to post a "Final draft version" of the RfC below once everyone has contributed for everyone to check and ensure that it's what we want posted to RfC. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Z1720, with regret I'm now struggling to see how Wikipedia policy/guidelines would support inclusion of the second chunk of Zimmerman. This article is about an extraordinarily specific subject, the Holocaust in one small town, Deblin (current population 16,000) and its even smaller neighborhood of Irena. Per WP:NOTABILITY, if this article deserves to exist, then it needs to be about this town. The second chunk of Zimmerman doesn't mention Irena or Deblin at all - it mentions other towns in the wider area, which are not what this article is about.
• Could you let us know what "One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943." is referring to? One example of what? This may have a bearing on User:Volunteer Marek's point about WP:CHERRYPICK.
• This brings up a further problem that several of us here, myself included, do not have the whole book to hand and so cannot see the excerpts in their context - this is not best practice at Wikipedia and the problem would only be exacerbated with an RFC.
• For the citation to the first chunk of Zimmerman, I can propose another option: Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.
• Boiled down to the most basic problem, which people without the book can comment on, the question is whether or not the phrase "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands" in the context of this excerpt means "people are hostile to Jews". Personally, I don't believe it does. --Chumchum7 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Chumchum7: As I stated at the top of this section, I don't want to discuss the merits of each proposed text here. Instead, this section is trying to determine the language of the RfC, which will be posted once endorses opening the RfC. I read that you do not believe the quoted source supports that "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands". I disagree; I think the quoted prose from Zimmerman does support this and it is within Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I am hoping that an RfC will determine consensus on which proposed text best supports the information in the sources. If the Wikipedia community doesn't think my text is supported by policy and guidelines, it will be rejected.

• If you do not think an RfC is the best option, then how would you like to solve this dispute? I don't think more talk page discussions among ourselves is a workable solution, as that has led to the impasse we are currently experiencing. I would also accept a WP:DRN. If you would like to proceed with the RfC, can I add "Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups." as Proposal F? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to draft the RFC below, including my recent proposal as option F, but per above I don't think you can include the second chunk of Zimmerman. I do think you need to start the RFC with the option of not including the citation at all (i) with VM's cherrypick concern and (ii) ARBEE article stability in mind - with an indication of what an arduous Talk page discussion this has been. Who knows, they might hand out medals, with the best one for you, for maintaining courtesy. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 I have added your text as Proposal F. I want to include the second quote from Zimmerman (the things quoted from page 361) because I did consult that source and this text when crafting my text. Furthermore, the text that was originally removed on May 19, which is the beginning of this chapter of this dispute, included page 361 as a source.[20] I understand that some editors think the quote is cherrypicking, and that should be brought up in the RfC. Should I only include a reference to Zimmerman 213 next to your text?

Chumchum7 and GizzyCatBella: Proposal E was suggested by GCB, who mentioned that it was previous text suggested by Chumchum7 with tweaks by GCB. Longer RfCs are less likely to receive comments from neutral editors. In the interest of having as few proposals as possible, would it be OK to strike out Proposal E and not include it in the RfC? Also, GCB mentioned that there were proposals to just quote Zimmerman directly. If that is still supported by an editor as the preferred option, can someone post the text they would want that proposal to say? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please remove the proposal E (Chumchum7’ proposal tweaked by me) thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as a solution for Proposal F you can just cite the first chunk. There have been calls to incorporate the option of not adding anything at all, NB see WP:NOCON: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. As to direct quotation, here's what I posted higher up the thread: Zimmerman writes: "In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”" Exclusion and direct quotation ought be options (1) and (2) as they are so fundamental. --Chumchum7 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I have struck Prop E. The direct quote has been added as Prop G. References have been added to Prop F and G. The exclusion option has been added as Prop H: please check the text to ensure it reflects what the option entails. When I post the final draft below, I will move the direct quote as the first option. I think the exclusion option should be the last one, because it entails a "none of the above" aspect that is formatted better as a final option. Thoughts?

Also, if anyone else would like to add a new proposal, please do so below. Piotrus would you like Proposal C to be cited to Zimmerman pg. 213, Zimmerman pg. 361, or both? GizzyCatBella would you like Proposal D to be cited to Zimmerman pg. 213, Zimmerman pg. 361, or both? Z1720 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal D to Zimmerman pg. 213, yes please. (thank you for doing all this Z1720). - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Added. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Z1720, you are the best. Piotrus, your proposal is missing, do you want to add it to the list or you are happy with what it is now? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Forget it Piotrus, it’s there, I missed it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think p. 213 is sufficient, although I wouldn't object to citing both pages if anyone thinks it's better. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I discovered more slips between the sources and text written into the article, but let's not worry about it yet. Let's get this issue behind us. This is an excellent article written by Buidhe who worked hard to produce it. Thank you Buidhe for writing it. If we could fix those errors (stamina granted - I'm running out), this article deserves the best status for sure. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, please change Proposal H None of these texts should be included, and the source should be excluded from the article to None of these texts should be included, per WP:NOCON and/or WP:CHERRYPICK. There's no rationale for excluding the high-quality source, Zimmerman, from the article altogether. -Chumchum7 (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, also I suggest instead of 'texts' that it should be 'incidents'? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The purpose of a RfC is to present the options, while reasons for supporting any proposal, including Proposal H, are to be discussed during the RfC. If these texts are removed, so will the source as it's not used to cite anything else. Perhaps None of these texts should be included? Very concise. (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 WP:NOCON is not great to cite in an RfC because the RfC's purpose is to develop consensus; if the RfC returns a "no consensus", we can decide what to do then. Also, citing reasons might exclude someone from choosing that option, as they might want to select Prop H for different reasons than NOCON and CHERRYPICK. I think keeping it open, and letting the editor explain why they chose Prop H, is better, and you can cite NOCON and CHERRYPICK in the comments as a reason someone might want to choose Prop H. Piotrus I don't support changing "texts" to "incidents" because the options are presented as "Proposed text". Since this would be the first use of the word "incident", editors might not know what is being refered to. Would both of you support buidhe's suggestion of None of these texts should be included? Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If text refers to what we write, that's fine. I thought it implies particular references. By incidents I mean, well, incidents discussed (such as a particular report, or another event). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:GizzyCatBella, there should be unwavering conscientiousness in reproducing the excerpt accurately - suggest you show the correction right away. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 I’ll post it in a new section below, should be easy to fix - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720, I was still giving proposal E some consideration before GCB agreed for you to strike it. I've come to the view that it has a very useful nuanced difference to Prop F that could be the very point where WP:CONS may be found. That's on whether or not to use the last sentence of text to emphasize the said groups' alleged or actual ideology and ethnicity. I believe there may be some hope of RfC coming up with some variation on these two proposals, and maybe others, which accommodates our multiple interpretations of Zimmerman. For these reasons, please 'unstrike' it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have unstruck Prop E. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes indeed I'm not exactly clear about what Piotrus means by incidents. Yes I can accept None of these texts should be included. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, Chumchum7, and Z1720: Thanks for the ping. I'd like to note the context of Zimmerman's quote, without commenting on any particular proposal: pp. 210-212 discuss the growing Soviet threat; p. 212 discusses Polish antisemitic stereotypes and the way German propaganda exploited those stereotypes; and pp. 212-213 discuss the Polish response and the underground's focus on "the question of Jews and communism" and "communist activity among local populations" - the report on Dęblin is brought as an example of that focus. Throughout the section Zimmerman is subtly critical of the underground's attitude, noting a mixture of a) real concerns about the Soviets; b) real concerns about Jews' safety, and c) internalized prejudice against them - with the latter two sometimes appearing in the same report. We should be careful not to leave this context out of the RfC, lest we risk not only the use of WP:CHERRYPICK but also a violation of WP:APLRS through the use of a biased WP:PRIMARY source. I leave it to you to consider what's the best way to do this. François Robere (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft text for RfC (seeking final approval)

Below is a cleaned-up version of the RfC draft above, with changes that include: 1) removing all struck out text 2) moving proposed text G to proposed text A, per the request at this diff, 3) renaming Proposed text H as Proposed text G 4) Changing the wording of Proposal G to "None of these texts should be included" as suggested and approved by editors above. 5) Adding a page 213 reference to Proposal C and E, D and F, as I do not think users expressed which page number should be cited.

Subsequent changes: 1) Proposal G has been added, which causes the "None of these texts" option to become Proposal H. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Subsequent changes, 2: 1) Proposal G, buidhe's added text, has been placed in the Proposal C slot, with the other proposals moved down a slot. I also crossed out C and E above, as they have become Proposals D and F in the move. If there are any questions, please comment below. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

At the bottom of this section, please post if you approve of this RfC draft text, if something should be added or removed, and/or if there are any concerns. Please do not post which proposal you prefer or the merits of a proposed text, as this will be discussed when the RfC is officially opened.

I am pinging all editors who have been part of this discussion so far. If you are not listed, you are also invited to comment or approve the text. If I missed anyone, please ping them here or below. Pinging: buidhe, Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, François Robere, Chumchum7, Volunteer Marek, Chipmunkdavis. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Title: RFC on proposed text

Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?

The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman:

"In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"

"In contrast to the sense of extreme alarm and urgency revealed in the letters of Polish Jewish leaders...reports of the local Home Army that touched upon the Jews during this time reflected the eerie distance of mere observers. One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943. Rather than sympathy, it expressed concern about the supposed communist orientation of Jewish partisans, condemning their actions. At the end of 1942, it stated, the presence of communists in the region was minimal. That had significantly changed with the creation, it continued, of “Bolshevik and Jewish bands” in such places as Lubertów, 15 miles north of Lublin, and in Włodawa, some 62 miles northeast of Lublin as well as in Puławy, 30 miles northwest of Lublin. In these locations, the report maintained, the leaders of Jewish bands made every effort to become subordinated to the Bolsheviks, “robbing, along with them, and beginning to cultivate communist agitation.”

The proposed texts are:

Proposal A

Zimmerman writes: "In Dęblin, a town 43 miles northwest of Lublin, the Home Army anticommunist division noted the presence of communist bands that it claimed consisted primarily of Jews. These bands, according to the report, stole food and resources from farmers: “In general, relations of the local population to communism is [sic] rather favorable. But the same people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands.”"

Proposal B

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.

Proposal C

According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives. The Home Army itself accused Jews of joining Communist partisan groups and stealing from local peasants.

Proposal D

A report of the Home Army from that time described the local ethnic Polish population as hostile to Jews, and that "communist bands consisting primarily of Jews" stole food from Polish peasants.

Proposal E

In 1943, the Home Army reported the presence of communist groups mainly consisting of Jews who, according to the report, stole food and resources from peasants. The report noted that some local population, somehow favorable to communism in general, was intensely hostile to these Jewish communist groups.

Proposal F

According to Zimmerman, a Home Army anti-communist division reported communist groups around Dęblin primarily consisted of Jews. He writes that according to a Home Army report, the local rural population had relatively favorable views of communism but some were hostile to communist Jewish groups who stole their food and resources.

Proposal G

Zimmerman writes that a Home Army anti-communist division report said communist groups around Dęblin mainly consisted of Jews. It said they stole food and resources from farmers; while the local population had rather favourable relations with communism, they were hostile to these groups.

Proposal H

None of these texts should be included.

References

• Z1720 What about your proposal? I think that should be included as an option. (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Mine is proposal B. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Note: since buidhe added a Proposal G, the "None of these texts" option has been move to Proposal H. Changes have been noted above, too. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Z1720 - Proposals B and G are the same besides for one word (people <--> fugitive). Perhaps move G right below B or vice versa for easier identification of the difference? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Proposal G has been moved to Proposal C, and the other proposals have been re-lettered accordingly. Changes have been noted above, too. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There is lack of logic in Q: "Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?" and A: "None of these texts should be included.". I'd suggest amending the first sentence to "Assuming the issue(s) should be mentioned at all (otherwise see Proposal H), which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?" _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hats off to your patience and perseverance. Some of the proposals purposefully don't reflect the second excerpt at all, and would automatically get thrown out by the phrasing of the question: "Which proposed text best reflects what is stated in the source?" This wording assumes it's a given that both excerpts are applicable to the article. Because the second excerpt doesn't mention the distinct subject of Deblin or Irena at all, that is highly questionable per WP:SYNTH and WP:VNOT. The second excerpt would clearly be applicable to articles about the specific locations it mentions, or a more generic article about the Holocaust in the Lubelskie region (which would include the Soviet-backed Parczew partisans and the postwar pogrom by Polish partisans in Parczew), and possibly an article about the Holocaust in Poland in general. So to accommodate this, the question can be adjusted to: "Are both texts applicable to this article? Which proposed content best reflects the excerpt(s) that is/are applicable to this article?" Also, it would be a waste to reduce the question to a blunt multiple choice; there may be a 'eureka' moment when a fresh pair of eyes creates an all-new proposal, so we can also add: "Would any other proposal work better?" -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

References

@Chumchum7: I am sorry that I did not respond sooner; real life has been busy. I am not sure what to do about Zimmerman 361. Multiple editors have concerns about Zimmerman 361's use in this article. I am mindful that longer RfCs usually cause editors to ignore it, and RfCs usually consist of one question. Would it be better to pause this RfC draft and have a separate RfC for the Zimmerman source first? Or is there consensus to remove Zimmerman 361 altogether? Questions for buidhe: How and why was Zimmerman 361 added in the article? Were there were concerns about this source at the article's GAN or FAC? If so, what were the conclusions of those discussions? Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No concerns were raised during GAN or FAC discussions. Reason for citing the second page as well was that it refers to Pulawy county to which Deblin belonged at the time, although administrative borders have since changed and it is in a different county now. The neighborhood of Pulawy is the same place as the neighborhood of Deblin/Irena. Parczew on the other hand is 50 miles distant from both. (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait...let's see something here...that source starts with: One example is the Polish Underground..., so it's written in the context of something else. One example.. of what? Anyone with quick access to this source? What is the context, example of what? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I found it.[21] Buidhe??? Could you explain how the second source while talking about the letter sent by Jewish Combat Organisation to Komorowski supports part - According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives.? Why did you bring that part that talks about something else even though in the very same book in the NEXT page (362) Zimmenrman quotes Skorczyński "...summary of Poles' attitudes in general: There is certain symphaty for the Jews.." Zimmerman writes that "...local Poles were involved in aid to the Jews..", "...Jewish individuals able to escape from deportations and go into hiding were able to find Poles willing to help..", "..they were able to find Poles willing to provide shelter.", ".. people of Jewish background hiding among Christian population". Based on Zimmerman, how on earth you wrote that "the local Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives". For Christ sake what's going on here? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how that's related? It doesn't mention anything about Deblin or nearby areas. (t · c) buidhe 22:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll explain. So even though the second source cited by you talks nothing about the attitude of ethnic Poles to Jewish fugitives but talks about cooperation between Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa and Home Army; Then on the following page 362, Zimmerman describes the attitude of Poles in encircling areas toward Jewish fugitives as assertive and helping the Jews who escaped the Ghettos, YOU came up with "According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local ethnic Polish population was hostile to Jewish fugitives." and you see nothing wrong with it? Do I understand you correctly? No-slip on your part? None? Do you still claim that the source says that? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(And here Buidhe, you removed part of my comment yet again[22] please be careful, this happened before already[23] - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC))

I think you're the one getting mixed up, and the aggressive tone is not helpful. If you actually read page 361 it ends the discussion about the Jewish Combat Organization and starts a separate paragraph on Home Army reports, which is where the comment about Pulawy is found. On page 362 it's discussing reports on a different part of Poland which I don't believe is relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, your statement that Zimmerman describes the attitude of Poles in encircling areas toward Jewish fugitives as assertive and helping the Jews who escaped the Ghettos is inaccurate. He actually says that in this part of Poland, "local Poles were involved in aid to the Jews", citing a few individual examples. Additionally, as you acknowledged above, I wasn't the one who came up with the language of "ethnic Poles" so I'd appreciate if you didn't put those words in my mouth. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The big problem is that few individual examples are all we have, both for aid and for hostility. We need to be careful to avoid unfounded generalizations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: and here is the question you should ask yourself. (see my above comment addressed to Buidhe) Please read page 362 and ask yourself if you still support the proposal According to a 1943 Home Army report, the local non-Jewish population was hostile to Jewish people and if this even should go to RfC. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a tad concerning. I already specifically asked Z1720 on 29 May, "Could you let us know what "One example is the Polish Underground report from the Lublin district on the period ending December 1, 1943." is referring to? One example of what? This may have a bearing on User:Volunteer Marek's point about WP:CHERRYPICK." The reply came: "I don't want to discuss the merits of each proposed text here." and then "I read that you do not believe the quoted source supports that "people are decidedly hostile to the Jewish bands". I disagree; I think the quoted prose from Zimmerman does support this and it is within Wikipedia policy and guidelines." Now another editor has volunteered the answer to my question. That answer makes me even more convinced that faithful representation of the source would show it is saying the Polish attitude to Jews was rather more nuanced or complex and indeed paradoxical than merely "hostile". Moreover, I don't see Buidhe's case in saying Pulawy and Deblin/Irena are the "same place" because Buidhe says the two places were in the same county. This article is on the town of Deblin/Irena only, not a county. Deblin and Pulawy are about 14 miles apart, so they are not the same place; this is also why we would not include the excerpt from the next page of Zimmerman that says "local Poles were involved in aid to Jews", because the example he gives is under 30 miles away in Garwolin. I hereby concur with VM's concerns about WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRY and confirm my opinion that the second excerpt should be excluded. In general am starting to wonder how familiar everyone here is with how Wikipedia works; for example the sudden hard reverts by the hardly-used account Virus Swatter. This account made its first edit in January 2020 and then slept until September, since when it has slept again only to appear in the middle of this content dispute in the area where special discretionary sanctions apply. In my experience this sort of behavior often indicates WP:SOCK. If anyone here is in breach of that policy, it would be better for them to own up to it now than for a WP:CHECK investigation to prove it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chumchum7: Two editors (myself and buidhe) have looked at the WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRY arguments and believe Zimmerman 361 should be used as a source. I respect that multiple editors disagree with my conclusion. I don't think debating about this on the talk page will not resolve this and will just result in walls of text. This is why I asked here if we should put this RfC on pause and instead open a different RfC on the merits of Zimmerman 361. I've already spent way more time than I expected discussing this issue; I want to hear from new, neutral editors.

I acknowledge that I am biased in this discussion, but my goal is to figure out where there is consensus and, where there is not, to figure out how to resolve the disagreements. I have been doing much of the preparation and management of an RfC, and one way I have tried to manage this discussion is to limit conversation on preparing a draft RfC. If editors do not like my management of the RfC, I encourage them to file a WP:DRN so a neutral editor can help us resolve the numerous disagreements. Editors can also ask me to file at DRN. Furthermore, WP:SPI is where editors should file sock puppetry reports and I don't think accusations of socking will help this discussion. If editors don't want to file at DRN, I still have the question of "Should we put this draft RfC on pause and instead create an RfC on Zimmerman 361's inclusion in the article?" Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a new editor, but no, there should not be a separate RfC on a single source page. Such an RfC would be of little benefit without context. Unless the source is deeply unreliable, the question of its use is inherently linked to its specific utilisation (or not) in the article. The specific utilisation in question is dealt with in the RfC above. CMD (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720, I'll say it again - I enormously appreciate your efforts which are obviously motivated by the best intentions. As a matter of fact I have not accused anyone on this Talk page of sock-puppetry. Yes, am well aware of WP:SPI, having worked for 12 years in this battleground WP:ARBEE topic area where special sanctions apply for disruptive editing. Opening a case at SPI is an escalation; I am offering an opportunity for de-escalation through self-disclosure for anyone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works in this regard. There is always space for a first mistake, learning, change and forgiveness. For the record, I am ever closer to WP:DISENGAGE and going back on long Wikibreak and semi-retirement. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@CMD, you are entirely right. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Please add the following sentence at the start of the second paragraph (from p. 361 of the source): "In contrast to the sense of extreme alarm and urgency revealed in the letters of Polish Jewish leaders... reports of the local Home Army that touched upon the Jews during this time reflected the eerie distance of mere observers." François Robere (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. It has been added to the beginning of the quote, because that is where it appears in the source. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It has been a couple days since anyone has commented on this draft, so I am going to assume that everyone is OK with the draft's language. If there are no major concerns with the draft's language in the next 24 hours, I will post this to RfC. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

My only concern is that there’s too many choices which can “dilute” the vote or make it hard to judge consensus. Some of the wordings are pretty close so maybe combine a couple of them? Volunteer Marek 01:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

(i) As explained before, my position is that there is no justification for the second excerpt. By asking newcomers to comment on how best to represent it with article content, it can give the impression that there is consensus that the second except should be included. There is not consensus on the matter. (ii) Were we to expand the scope of the article to the Holocaust in the wider geographical area, a WP:NPOV of sources including Zimmerman would show the Polish record was more mixed than mere 'hostility' to Jews - it would include both salvation and murder. Chumchum7 (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I agree that there are a lot of choices, but lots of editors have different opinions on the best text. If editors would like to combine any of the texts, please post below.

@Chumchum7: in the above discussion, I asked if we should have a separate RfC on Zimmerman 361, and you agreed with CMD that an RfC was not required. If there is not consensus on Zimmerman 361's inclusion, what would be the best path forward to determine the consensus? Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I had thought you said we could have a separate RfC on including Zimmerman per se, which indeed I think shouldn't be necessary because it's obviously a reliable source. I support inclusion of the citation to Zimmerman page 213, but not page 361. As far as I can see everyone would support p.213 being included, so consensus might be found by cutting p.361 from this RfC. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: you used Zimmerman pg. 361 as a source during its FAC, and included it in your proposal for this text. Chumchum7 has expressed concerns above about its inclusion in this article. Do you consent to remove Zimmerman pg. 361 from the article? Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, I do think its relevant, but if you think it's best to run with just the original page, I guess we can do that. (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: My opinion is that the page does refer to the Deblin and Irena region, but it is not crucial for it to be in the article. If consensus on this talk page is to take it out of the article, I will remove it from the RfC and, regardless of the proposal that receives consensus on the talk page, Zimmerman 361 will not be used as a source (but Zimmerman 213 will probably still be used). If some editors still want to include it in the article, we will probably have to do an RfC for Zimmerman 361's inclusion or post on WP:RSN before starting this proposed RfC. I encourage all editors to post their thoughts on Zimmerman 361 below to help determine consensus. Z1720 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Sorry to ping you again, but do you consent to remove Zimmerman 361, or do you want to have a separate discussion about its inclusion? Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, as I said, please do what you think is best. (t · c) buidhe 02:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Since there was no objection to it, I have struck Zimmerman 361 from the RfC. I will wait at least 24 hours before posting this RfC to see if anyone else would like to make changes or post other concerns before this RfC is opened. I am also mindful of Volunteer Marek's concerns above about the number of proposals; I think my proposed text, Proposal B, is no longer necessary as I have decided to strike it. In the RfC, the proposals will be re-lettered accordingly.

If anyone has any concerns or changes they would like to make, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No, looks good, thanks for all the hard work. Volunteer Marek 04:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: One thing that's been nagging me and I've commented on before,[24] is that the quote was taken out of context. This can be addressed with the following changes to the intro:

1. Before the quote, replace The proposed texts below draw upon the following quotes from Zimmerman with In his book "The Polish Underground and the Jews", while surveying reports from the Polish underground of alleged Jewish-Communist activity, Joshua Zimmerman notes the following:
2. After the quote, add this: This follows several discussions on the anticommunist division's "preoccupation with the Jews and their alleged pro-communist affinity" (pp. 119, 140, 149, 188, 208).

François Robere (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere: I think the footnote at the end of the quote informs the reader of where the quotation is from. In the interest in using as few words as possible in the introduction (as shorter RfCs are more likely to get responses) can I add a footnote to the citation at the end of Zimmerman?

For your second point, there's information on Zimmerman 212-213 that speaks about the Polish Underground's concerns with "the question of Jews and communism". In my opinion, this section is more likely to put the quote in context, rather than sections from various parts of the book. I don't think I can quote it all here, due to copyright concerns (it's a couple paragraphs long). Do you have access to the book and can take a look? Maybe we can summarize the preceding paragraphs into a sentence or two which will give the quote some context. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

They're both the same point, really, but yeah - another footnote will do, and I do have a copy of the book. Would something along the lines of my "for internal use only" summary be sufficient?[25] François Robere (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)