Talk:Debbie Schlussel

message: I have archived the discussion that was here because it was overall quite hostile and negative to the subject of this biography.  I remind everyone that whatever your personal
feelings about various topics may be, we are here to write a thoughtful neutral encyclopedia, not to catalog outrages and complain about controversial personalities.  The subject
of the article complains that it is biased against her and I am awaiting further information, which I will share here to the extent that I can.  Please do not tolerate insults on this
discussion page - let's focus solely on improving Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have archived the discussion that was here 

message: "Poles murdered millions of Jews, they maintained several death camps, and they wiped out almost all of both sides of my family, as well as those in hundreds of thousands of other Jewish families", although there is no real evidence to support this. 
The role of the Polish public in aiding the Nazis in the murder of Jews is very well-established.  It would be hard to quantify the exact numbers, but the "no real evidence" phrase implies that there is no real evidence for the role of Poles in the murder of Jews during the Holocaust.  In fact, there is such good evidence of this that no citations are really needed.
During the 72nd anniversary of the first deportation of inmates to the Auschwitz concentration camp numerous Holocaust survivors referred to Schlussel's commentary as "slanderous" and appealed to president of Poland Bronisław Komorowski to prosecute Schlussel for the "Auschwitz lie", which is a criminal offence in Poland.
These are almost certainly non-Jewish Holocaust survivors, and should be specified as such.  Not making this distinction implies that Jewish Holocaust survivors would argue that the Poles had no role in the murder of Jews during the Holocaust--which is unlikely.
This part of the article seems intentionally misleading.
Likeshistory (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No real evidence? 

message: Are we afraid to call particular traits, deeds, ideas, persons behind these ideas, etc. by their real names !?!? 
Woman is high profile commentator of political, social, cultural and public affairs, although with extreme and radical comments and ideological background that spew hatred with such ease, using malicious attacks and offensive inflammatory language, we all categorize as hate-speech in any other case - except when that person is a lawyer with connection among right wingers and is very popular among far right conservatives and their media minions (which is in a fact a source of her "high profile") !--Santasa99 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we afraid ? 

message: I removed one line due to the link being dead and finding no independent confirmation of what it says.  Additionally, the subject is concerned (among many other concerns about the article) that this particular reference and claim is unfair without further explanation of ADC's support for Hamas and Hezbollah  I don't know anything about that, but I do think that the the source should be carefully considered and discussed here before re-introduction to ensure that it is BLP-compliant.  That's assuming it can be found anywhere in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed line 

message: In many cases we seem to be linking only to someone critical of a column or blog post of Schlussels, but not to the original.  I've added links to two of the originals and in the process found some minor errors.  (Slightly incorrect quote, date wrong).  I also found one major error which suggested that she wrote a column mainly criticizing one WNBA player, but the entire column, and the response to the column, shows that she was making a more broad critique of the league as a whole, and that one player was just one of several examples.  I think this discussion can still be improved, but for now I'm going to move on to other sourcing issues.  Any help would be appreciated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving referencing 

message: I have concern that our opening paragraph overstates her position on Polish complicity in the Holocaust.  We say "Her columns are often provocative and controversial, specifically those accusing Poles for the Holocaust and denying the Polish aid for the Jews," but both of those points seem imprecise at best.  Having read the relevant article there is of course no question that it is provocative and controversial but it is oversimplified to say that it accuses Poles for the Holocaust, which makes it sound like she says they did it *rather than* the German Nazis.  But what she actually says is that they were complicit and participated in the Polish camps.  
On the second point, the question of Polish aid for the Jews, I think the issue is more difficult.  And the article doesn't seem to me to completely deny Polish aid for the Jews, although of course it does minimize it: "Yes, there were a few righteous gentile Poles who saved Jews. A very tiny few. The majority were all too happy for the Judenrein, especially in the way it took place."  Given that scholarly estimates (according to our article on the subject) are that over a million Poles were involved in rescue efforts.  So she is certainly denying that, and claiming that the majority were "all too happy" which is outrageous.  I'm not certain how to word it, but I think we can have a more refined and accurate presentation of her views.
I recommend that we update to this: "Her columns are often provocative and controversial, specifically those accusing Poles of widespread complicity in the Nazi-led Holocaust, and accusing "the majority" of Poles of being "all too happy for the Judenrein".  This approach, by directly quoting her own words, strikes me as a useful way to avoid oversimplification.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so happy about having quotes in the lede; that's imo to detailed for the lead which is after all meant to summarize the body of the article. But the quote could well be inserted in the body; and the lede should be softened somewhat and made less definitive in wording. As an aside; I don't really like that you call her views "outragageous" on the talk page; because Wikipedia's rules for neutrality and BLP applies also to talk pages. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In my dictionary, the second meaning of 'outrageous' is 'very bold, unusual, and startling'.  I meant it in that sense, and I don't see how that is a BLP issue.  Certainly the fervor of response against the remark suggests that most discussion of the claim found it to be exactly that.  The first definition is "shockingly bad or excessive".  It is that, as well, and this is not a comment on the person, but on the argument.  It's relevant to discuss this in order to think through the right way to characterize it in the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia article titled "The Holocaust in Poland" says "It is estimated that hundreds of thousands, or even a million Poles, aided their Jewish neighbors."  That article could be improved by indicating how many non-Jewish Poles were living in Poland at that time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited that article accordingly, adding this: "To put these numbers in perspective, three and a half million Jews lived in Poland before the war, out of a total population in Poland of about 27 million people."  Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree with what Iselilja said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo, are you sure that we should decide one million people out of 25 million is more than a tiny few?  If 50 people are passengers on an airplane, and only two of them are awake, would someone obviously be wrong to say that only a tiny few of the airplane passengers are awake?  Maybe it would be wrong, but I think we'd need a reliable source to say so rather then us making the call.  And surely it would not necessarily be shockingly bad to say that more than 25 were snoring, right?  Anyway, could you please rephrase your proposal without quotes, per what Iselilja suggested?  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get the idea that I think we should decide that?  Of course I don't think that.  My proposal is no longer relevant (as per the lede) because the new version neatly sidestepped the issue.  We still have to think carefully about how to treat the issue in the main body of the article, of course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you mentioned above that scholarly estimates (according to our article on the subject) are that over a million Poles were involved in rescue efforts, and you concluded that Schlussel "is certainly denying that".  I would rather that a reliable source would make that conclusion instead of us, that's all.  But thanks for the reply.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think I understand the misunderstanding between us now.  I generally think it is important to try to understand the subject matter of articles as deeply as possible when editing, and the talk page is a good place to chew on the facts to try to reach that kind of understanding.  That doesn't imply that everything we end up understanding should go into the article, but rather that it can and should inform our editorial decisions.  This is part of what I mean when I say that we aren't just "transcription monkeys".  The more we understand, the better our writing will be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

text: P.S.  A dissatisfied IP has already changed the lead, and so I don't think we'll really be able to have the lead sidestep the issue.  Therefore, I rephrased what the IP inserted, but in an NPOV manner.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

text: P.P.S. This current version looks okay to me, regarding this issue in both the lead, and in the main body of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the inference/link that the "Auschwitz lie" was "Holocaust denial".  I couldn't find any connection between the two, and in fact it appears to be the exact opposite.  I think it's incontrovertible that Polish Jews suffered tremendously in World War II and it's minutae/trivia to foment anger at Debbie Schlussel in any way.  In that sense, her opinion of fault is not the controversy, rather we should not minimize the tragedy by making the issue about her.  Along that vein, it's best to minimize or even remove these references.  She certainly doesn't dispute the deaths, rather she disputes culpability and in the end, all the Nazi's are dead and both Poland and Germany are different countries.  Considering the size of the tragedy, her personal, familial view is a huge WP:UNDUE problem that WP shouldn't propagate.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:DHeyward, I have removed some of the Nazi stuff due to poor sourcing, and corrected the rest to track the sources.  I don't think we minimize the tragedy by describing her comments here.  If we were to describe her comments in a Wikipedia article about the holocaust, that would be another matter entirely than doing so here in this "non-Nazi" article.  ArbCom is presently considering whether mentioning Nazis in non-Nazi articles is verboten, and my opinion is that it's compliant with policy if done carefully and accurately, notwithstanding Godwin's Law.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I have removed this material from the Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an English translation of another version of the article, this time mentioning Schlussel, so I will soon restore the material, using this source instead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further review, this new link (mentioning Schlussel) seems to be from Wirtualna Polska, and I'm not sure that's a reliable source.  Any thoughts about it?  Our Wikipedia article says: "In April 2009 France Telecom and Wikimedia Foundation signed an agreement, which enabled Wirtualna Polska to use the logo and name 'Wikipedia' and downloading the up-to-date articles directly from Wikimedia Foundation."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Poland and the Holocaust 

message: The wikipedia article now says: 
The footnote contains a dead link, and running it through www.archive.org does not recover it.  I assume that the article was the same as this one which does not seem to mention Schlussel (here is the English translation).
Here is what our footnote presently says:
Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this material from the Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an English translation of another version of the article, this time mentioning Schlussel, so I will soon restore the material, using this source instead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further review, this new link (mentioning Schlussel) seems to be from Wirtualna Polska, and I'm not sure that's a reliable source.  Any thoughts about it?  Our Wikipedia article says: "In April 2009 France Telecom and Wikimedia Foundation signed an agreement, which enabled Wirtualna Polska to use the logo and name 'Wikipedia' and downloading the up-to-date articles directly from Wikimedia Foundation."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose deletion of sentence

message: The Wikipedia article says:
Every last one of these footnotes is to Schlussel's blog, except for footnote 11 which is to a Boston Globe column by Jeff Jacoby:  
As far as I can tell, Jacoby did not mention (or even allude to) Schlussel, and likewise Schlussel did not mention Jacoby.  If we remove the Jacoby footnote, all we have left are Schlussel's blog posts, and I have difficulty seeing why that's significant enough for us to mention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This item from CBS News might be an adequate alternative to the Jacoby source.  I have restored the material, but switching the source from Jacoby to Geraghty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Jill Carroll material

message: This Wikipedia article says:
The link to Media Matters leads to the wrong content, and the correct link to the Media Matters content is here via Archive.org.  And here is the original Schlussel blog post with several updates by her, again via Archive.org.  Schlussel subsequently removed her blog post, as she indicated here (“I've removed this entry, mostly because I am spending too much time monitoring the slimy comments from the Nazi-infested Media Matters for America cretins").  
The Wikipedia article misquotes Media Matters, which actually quoted Schlussel as saying: "Were there two [shooters] and was this a coordinated terrorist attack?"  Our Wikipedia article also turns that question into an affirmative statement.  Schlussel's blog post was dated April 16, and she updated it on April 17 to say "The shooter has now been identified as a South Korean national, who is a permanent resident."  I don't think that the initial blog speculation that Schlussel corrected the next day — in a blog entry that she later removed entirely — is significant, and there are so many errors in our coverage of the Media Matters piece (which is itself an advocacy group that only criticizes "conservative misinformation") that I will remove the paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Virginia Tech material

message: She gets quite a few hits at Google Books.  That type of source would undoubtedly improve this article.  I'm all done for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I came back to this, and added some of these books as references.  Done for now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Books

message: This Wikipedia article quotes her as saying: "This wasn’t just the Nazis. It was tens of thousands of eager Poles and more."  Then the Wikipedia article quotes her as saying that there was "Polish complicity in the Holocaust and willing cooperation with the Nazis".  The latter is redundant, and the former is more precise, so I will remove the latter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  She stated that tens of thousands of Poles KILLED Jews, which is classificated as an "Auschwitz lie", and the Polish Anti-Defamation League already took care of this lady. Poles never hurt no Jew during the holocaust, some extremely small groups of "Volksdeutsch Poles" only showed Germans which Polish families are hiding Jews, that's all from the bad things about the Polish citizens. Poles were the main non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, and Schlussel is denying this by portraying the Poles as murderers, not victims. This is a filthy lie. 78.9.142.97 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: An undue weight or conciseness issue

message: Under controversies, there should be a separate section on her ill-wishing of Jimmy Carter following his cancer diagnosis (right now it's only mentioned in the introduction). She's gotten significant media attention because of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.101.86 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy Carter

message: The link to 'splitting' (a psychological term about a particular cognitive bias) should be removed.
An encyclopedia is a not a place for original research. If an independent psychologist published a paper demonstrating this concept using Schussel, a link to the specific article may be appropriate. 
A link to a generic article (as we see here) is biased and an insidious form of criticism.
Also, there is plenty of evidence that many Polish citizens willingly collaborated with the Nazis in harming Jews, Communists and other victims of the Concentration Camps. It is easier for Polish citizens to ignore this than to admit to Polish Anti-Semitism. If the Polish Gentiles had such positive relations with Jews, why did the Kielce Pogrom occur? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom
75.173.115.35 (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Splitting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Debbie Schlussel. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006868
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is a BLP and the subject of the article is controversial. This statement, "In 2011, she was listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as one of 10 people in the United States' "Anti-Muslim Inner Circle" uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source. The Southern Poverty Law Center is for Islamic immigration and is anti-conservative, so I don't think there an objective source. It would be like using the John Birch Society as a source for an article about Obama. I think we should try to find a more neutral source. If we must include SPLC as a source then its ideological agenda should be stated. Schlussel is very Anti-Muslim, so we could probably just use her own writings as a source for the fact that she is Anti-Muslim, that would carry more weight and be less of a BLP problem. RandomScholar30 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You could get feedback on that view at WP:RSN.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In my view Southern Poverty Law is not an appropriate source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Debbie Schlussel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302015315/http://ipn.gov.pl/wydzial-prasowy/media-o-ipn/przeglad-mediow-6-czerwca-2012 to http://ipn.gov.pl/wydzial-prasowy/media-o-ipn/przeglad-mediow-6-czerwca-2012
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "1 down, 1.8 billion to go".
If the same comment was made about Jews for example, it would be considered far worse than "antisemitism".  
The individual would probably be arrested and imprisoned.  
Blatant hypocrisy and double standards aside, what do you call someone who advocates the killing of an entire group of people?
A genocidal maniac?
Please consider this question so the label can be added to her list of titles.
If you feel like this very relevant topic shouldnt be discussed (on the talk page no less), provide a reason.  A deletion isnt acceptable and will be reverted.  
Disestablishmentarianism 09:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you call a person who advocates for the extermination of an entire group of people?  

message: Most of the Professional life and views section is sourced to Schlussel's personal website, including her claims about BLP subjects. This content should either be supported by secondary sources or removed from the article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary-source opinions 

message: Nableezy's edits are biased and one-sided.  His other edits on Wikipedia show a very strong pro-Palestinian/pro-Muslim bias and he supports Islamic terrorism, calling it "resistance."  His propaganda edits on this page must be blocked.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40B:8500:5E9:B890:7C3A:E866:8257 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Im the one calling living people "a Palestinian political activist and hip-hop artist" with no sourcing, and adding a bunch of other bullshit to this article. Cool. nableezy - 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

text: by the way, since you're hoping across a few IPs, you may not edit material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, and any reverts I make enforcing that restriction are exempt from any edit-warring claim. Additionally, adding material about living persons sourced to self-published works is also prohibited, and likewise reverts to enforce that are exempt from edit-warring claims. nableezy - 19:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully we can get a moderator to resolve this issue, but still, I 100% agree with Nableezy. IP person is giving no sources whatsoever and calling Nableezy a terrorist. IP person is most likely assuming bad faith, calling people terrorists for no reason. Sans9k (Talk) 19:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nableezy edits are biased - his pro-Palestinian propaganda permiates his Wikipedia "edits"