Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:54, 6 December 2009

Neutrality and factual accuracy disputed

This article was created by the WP:EEML with the stated aim of misrepresenting facts (see EEML-archives available to Arbcom), and was at least in substantial parts, if not as a whole, written by banned users and proxied by Radeksz whose topic ban is already agreed on and whose site ban is discussed (see oversighted diff 22:26, 3 December 2009 and EEML arbcom/pd). It needs to be revised thoroughly. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was not written by the WP:EEML, it was written by me and Molobo. It was created by me. It was not written with "the stated aim of misrepresenting facts" and there is nothing in the any archive which states that. This is completely false and Skapperod is simply lying here (I'm saying this per ).

According to Misplaced Pages policy it is fine to post on behalf of banned user as long as one takes full responsibility for the edits which I of course do. . Specifically: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them.. I verified the changes and I've been thinking about writing this article myself for a long time. Molobo wrote portions of it and suggested sources.

In fact here is an example of an administrator doing exactly that for a banned user: on Embassy of Russia in Copenhagen and even giving that user DYK credit.

Finally, the article is neutral, a lot of hard work was put into it, it is extremely well sourced and all sources are available online and are in English so the information is easily . Please note that Skapperod is discussing editors rather than content and in so doing he is engaging in a personal attack, while trying to get rid of an article that doesn't fit his POV.radek (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so other than IDONTLIKETHEEDITORSWHOWROTETHISARTICLE do you have any other arguments justifying tagging this article and claiming its neutrality and factual accuracy is disputed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I probably agree that Skapperöds true motivation to slap the article with several tags was similar to what Piotrus suspects. But at least it motivated me to read the original source by Robert Moeller, and I am dismayed to see that the article is far from being neutral.

The article says very little about the commission and the report itself. Instead it concentrates on two members and the controversial aspects of their life before the commission in the Nazi era. That of course is an effective way to discredit the commission and their results.

It should be noted that the source mentions some of these controversial aspects, but also makes it clear that the commission was an accomplished and distinguished group (page 58) and that they followed scholarly standards (see for example page 60). Whereas the source positively emphasizes that the German occupation was described in two volumes (page 59), this article emphasizes the same fact in a negative way („however, only the volumes….“).

I could go on, but you get the general idea of why this article is highly problematic and worrying. I am particularly concerned about the section Goals and work of the commission because according to the source these are rather the conclusions and not the goals of the commission. Pantherskin (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive response. I am not sure if I agree with all of your conclusions; for example the comment about "following scholarly standards" is clarified on p.61 that it is based on how... Schieder described his own work (sic!). Regarding "Goals and work of the commission", pages 62-63 describe how this "scholarly work" was intended from the very beginning as a propaganda tool. That said, you are probably right that the current article is biased towards criticism of the commission. How about you try to rewrite the article to address those issues? PS. My suggestion to all editors: try to use individual page numbers in refs, instead of ranges. A 30 page range is not very helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pantherskin, thanks for constructive, specific criticism. Starting from the end of your comment:

• Changing "goals" to "conclusions" might be fine. The thing is those were the goals of the commission. The volume they produced was the "conclusions". I guess you could say that these are "Conclusions" of Moeller "in regard to the commission".
• page 59 - sure you can rewrite that. How about getting rid of the "however" and rewording the previous? Would that address the issue?
• page 58 - the source says, as is clear from the source, that at the time they were doing their work Conze, Schieder and others were regarded as a "distinguished group". This was before their Nazi past came to light. This can of course be included in the article.
• page 60 - the source says they tried to follow what they regarded as "scholarly standards". It also notes that these standards were quite different from standards in historical research at the time. This can be reworded also for clarity. Any suggestions?
• the article follows the sources - the sources focus on the composition of the commission quite extensively, it also links up their Nazi-era activity (like proposals for "dejewification" of Poland and Belarus, or their scholarly activity at Kroningsberg) with their participation in the commission. The sources are pretty explicit about the fact that Schieder tried to choose fellow-ex Nazis who shared his "goals".

Pantherskin, please make appropriate edits or further suggestions. Believe it or not, these are very welcome.radek (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've split up the Moeller reference so that the cites are to individual pages. Hopefully this will make raising specific criticisms and issues easier.radek (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Radel, could you update us on what issues raised above have been addressed? I am wondering if a WP:RFC for that article may be useful, to attract some truly neutral editors who could comment on whether the NPOV is observed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)