| Revision as of 03:09, 5 April 2009 editVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,171 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:44, 5 April 2009 edit undoDr. Dan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,342 edits →Polish ParticipationNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :::Dr. Dan, is there a specific instance in this article that "bashes other nations"? No? Is there any info you object to that is not properly referenced? Russian, Jewish and Polish sources all pretty much agree on what happened with this pogrom. As a quick look at the included sources would indicate. The fact that these sources report something other than what you wish to be the case might be unpleasant for you personally, but it is what it is. Your edits were reverted because you obviously did not read the sources provided before you started making your (agenda based) edits.] (]) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | :::Dr. Dan, is there a specific instance in this article that "bashes other nations"? No? Is there any info you object to that is not properly referenced? Russian, Jewish and Polish sources all pretty much agree on what happened with this pogrom. As a quick look at the included sources would indicate. The fact that these sources report something other than what you wish to be the case might be unpleasant for you personally, but it is what it is. Your edits were reverted because you obviously did not read the sources provided before you started making your (agenda based) edits.] (]) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Sorry, I read the English and Polish references thoroughly. I'm sure that both you and Jacurek did too. Inspite of the reference clearly stating that "the Poles" destroyed the ''"Pillar of Sorrow,"'' monument, you ] it to "some Poles" (adding the blather that the Polish nation didn't destroy it). The reference didn't claim that the Polish nation did it either. Jacurek upped the ante a notch by ] any reference to Polish culpability in the post ] Polish vandalism. I think the basis for his edit was explained with something suggesting that a claim to Polish participation cannot be substantiated (my extrapolation). So what's the bottom line? Simply that the information from the referenced source was first "changed" and then "removed." Seen it done over and over again. These mind games are beginning to become all too obvious to neutral participants in this project. It might be time to back down. ] (]) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:44, 5 April 2009
Polish Participation
As it stands the article makes no mention of Polish participation in the pogrom. Was this the case? Were the thugs, hooligans, looters, and "bandits" (mentioned in the Jewish references), who preyed on these hapless people, all imported from Ukraine, Belarus, or Lithuania? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please check the referenced source on Apolinary Hartglas (another source indirectly implies that Jabotinsky shared this view) by Sarah Bender (I assume that would fall under your definition of "Jewish references"). The information's already there if you just look with a modicum of good faith.radek (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have much more than a "modicum of good faith." What I don't have is an ability to see an issue from one perspective, and one perspective only. What I also don't have is the ability to allow sources to be "twisted" to fit a biased POV agenda based on weaseling and denial. What I also don't have is the patience to allow a continual bashing of other nations, while historical crimes are perpetually explained away, if they concern Poland. Misplaced Pages has the inherent ability to inform and educate its readers. Unfortunately it also has the ability to skew and twist information in the hands of those, who not only edit without a "modicum of good faith," but with an obvious agenda to promote a one sided picture of historical events. The reversal of the edits made by me in the last several hours stand as irrefutable evidence of my contention. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dr. Dan, is there a specific instance in this article that "bashes other nations"? No? Is there any info you object to that is not properly referenced? Russian, Jewish and Polish sources all pretty much agree on what happened with this pogrom. As a quick look at the included sources would indicate. The fact that these sources report something other than what you wish to be the case might be unpleasant for you personally, but it is what it is. Your edits were reverted because you obviously did not read the sources provided before you started making your (agenda based) edits.radek (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I read the English and Polish references thoroughly. I'm sure that both you and Jacurek did too. Inspite of the reference clearly stating that "the Poles" destroyed the "Pillar of Sorrow," monument, you changed it to "some Poles" (adding the blather that the Polish nation didn't destroy it). The reference didn't claim that the Polish nation did it either. Jacurek upped the ante a notch by removing any reference to Polish culpability in the post Holocaust Polish vandalism. I think the basis for his edit was explained with something suggesting that a claim to Polish participation cannot be substantiated (my extrapolation). So what's the bottom line? Simply that the information from the referenced source was first "changed" and then "removed." Seen it done over and over again. These mind games are beginning to become all too obvious to neutral participants in this project. It might be time to back down. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dr. Dan, is there a specific instance in this article that "bashes other nations"? No? Is there any info you object to that is not properly referenced? Russian, Jewish and Polish sources all pretty much agree on what happened with this pogrom. As a quick look at the included sources would indicate. The fact that these sources report something other than what you wish to be the case might be unpleasant for you personally, but it is what it is. Your edits were reverted because you obviously did not read the sources provided before you started making your (agenda based) edits.radek (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)