Talk:An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945

message: She has a biographical article at de:Lola Potok. The subtitle does not appear on the titlepages of all editions.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lola Potok 

message: To Tom Harrison. I am starting to get the impression that you are following me around wikipedia and in the process perhaps demonstrating your own 'slant'. Anyway to the point here: WP:ALLEGED and WP:WEASEL.  The following is an explanation of why I have reverted your undo. Please do me the courtesy of not edit-warring and instead responding here first if you disagree.
The book's position is not "arguing" as if that is in some doubt. The book is instead stating certain details as if of fact. Do you agree? Whether that is correct and these details are accurate would be a different discussion. We are only concerned with providing 2ndary sources with accuracy and neutrality. Using the word "arguing"  casts doubt on the books details and therefore represents in this context a weasel word. Therefore  replacing "...arguing that some Jews" with "...detailing how some Jews" is in line with wiki policy regarding neutrality of tone. 
Similarly "...claiming the criticism was demonstrably untrue" is designed to give the impression there is doubt about his claim. Whereas writing "Sack responded that the criticism was demonstrably untrue" I think is a more neutral way of saying the same thing and is also more factual. 
Finally the citations needed tags were added in 2009 AND sources for both tags are in the first cited reference. Therefore they were unneeded. Thus I deleted them. You appear to be undoing my edits without any familiarity with the article or its contents but are just undoing whatever contributions are from me. I therefore ask you  to consider that you are perhaps  hounding me by deleting my edits without initiating a discussion. Please show some good faith. I'm a reasonable chap. Just talk to me. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are presenting as fact disputed claims. As such, "claimed" or "alleged", is more appropriate. Also, you are synthesizing the two statements of "Jews in Eastern Europe took revenge on their former captors" and "Sack estimates that 60,000 to 80,000 people died in these camps", which insidiously suggests that Jews were responsible for these deaths. No source links the two and I have removed this original research.Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  But I am doing nothing of the kind. This is taken from a secondary source. I didn't create this article. It already existed. You appear to be giving undue weight to a minority view of the book according to the cited secondary source. A minority  CRITICAL view.  So that would both a WP:NPOV and WP:OR infringement. We don't allow WP:ALLEGED or weasel words in a subject like the Holocaust. E.g. Words like "alleged" and "claimed" for six million deaths would NEVER be tolerated even though they are also disputed by historians. Why then do you allow it for the same period and same history, when the atrocities were being perpetrated the other way against Germans by Jews? The synthesizing you mention appears to me to be in your own interpretation and perhaps explains why you are trying to spin the article and now even have it removed. Can you see how that looks like censorship and perhaps betrays a bias. Why have you got involved here if your motive was never to improve the article nor expand the database of Wikipedia but to remove it? Otherwise, if you want to fix this article in line with wiki policy why not do some research and improve it yourself?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me that neither of you is up to much good. Stop your pov-pushing, both of you. Zerotalk 10:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words & Expressions of doubt 

message: The single reference to Sack's own website is not an RS and cannot be used to make any claims without attribution. It would be constructive if more refs were added.Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Umm, why are his views worthy of inclusion? Maybe Irving also has something to say on this matter?Ankh.Morpork 14:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doug Collins 

message: (I wonder if I am the only editor of this article who actually read the book.  Probably.  But anyway:)
* What Sack wrote (1st edition, p40): "about three out of four of the officers—two hundred rowdy boys—in the Office of State Security in Kattowitz were Jews"
* What Goldhagen claimed Sack wrote: "his claim that 75 percent of those in the Office of State Security in Silesia were Jews"
* What Kevles claimed Sack wrote: "Sack...distorts the numbers of Jews employed by the Polish Office of State Security; he suggests that 75% of the factotums were Jews"
Note how Sack's specification "officers" disappeared altogether and even became "factotums", and how his geographical limitation "Kattowitz" got expanded to "Silesia" (which is not so severe, for technical reasons) and then to all of Poland.  So the "refutations" that Goldhagen provided, and Kevles copied in distorted form, are refutations of strawmen. Sack in fact never made the claim being refuted. None of this is OR since I am merely reporting what Sack says in the notes for his 4th edition (though I tracked down a 1st edition to make sure he is telling the truth), so all of it could go into the article. In fact since Sack's book is a reliable source for its contents, it would be fine to note exactly what claim Sack made, plus the fact that the sources he names were three high-ranking officers of the Office of State Security in Kattowitz including the Secretary, all of them Jews, and that, according to him, recently discovered documents support him. But what is the use of repeating a false charge by a reviewer with no relevant qualifications only to immediately tear it down?  The only effect would be to discredit the reviewer.  We don't need it.  Goldhagen's claim should be present along with Sack's reply, because Goldhagen had relevant qualifications and his review was notable. That would be an adequate treatment of the subject. Zerotalk 10:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 75% and 1.7% stuff 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945. 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.ipn.gov.pl/ftp/pdf/Aparat_kadra_kier_tom%20I.pdf
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 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945. 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/20040416034715/http://www.johnsack.com:80/dictionary_of_literary_biography_an_eye_for_an_eye.htm to http://www.johnsack.com/dictionary_of_literary_biography_an_eye_for_an_eye.htm
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) 05:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified