Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia

This is not the page to discuss whether a source in an article is reliable.
	If you want to do that, go to WP:RSN or the talk page of the article in question.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

May I change Nancy O'Neill to Nancy O'Neil. In this scenario, the last name has one 'l' not two. EmmaleeN30 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Per source, Nancy O’Neill, principal librarian for Reference Services at the Santa Monica Public Library System, says ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

BRD trivia

Just in case anyone feels like wasting time discussing this on yet another talk page: I agree with VM that fthis is irrelevant, undue trivia. And as discussed earlier, this story empowers an indefinetly banned harasser, so per DFTT the fewer places it is in, the better. There are dozens of other examples found at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes that could be used here instead - and frankly, very few if any should be, since trying to discus reliability using such random examples is quite ORish. This page should be based on academic sources, not trivial news. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich::

1. You never edited this article before you popped out of nowhere to revert my edit [1]. That suggests you're stalking my edits. Please stop.
2. You keep making false accusations against other editors which have been repeatedly debunked. I know I've posted, said, pointed out this a million times already but let me do it again. Here is the actual WP:COI policy. Read it. Nobody here has an "external relationship" with the subject. Nobody is being paid, works for, is in a relationship with or has any outside connection to this issue. The only connection is that, as you well know, this whole non-issue, faux-hoax, was originated by a now indef banned user as a means of harassing his WIki opponents, and then, for some reason, even after this guy was banned, his on wiki-friends tried to "protect his legacy" by spamming this info into numerous places. There is no COI, and if there is, it's whatever connection these editors have to Icewhiz. Please stop making false attacks on other editors in your edit summaries and false accusations which are unsubstantiated by either facts or policy. This has reached a point where your intransigence has gone way past normal disagreement and into harassment and griefing of other editors.
3. The text itself is UNDUE. Only reason here is because of Wikpedia conflicts between Icewhiz's faction and those he targeted. It is not in any way significant in the big scheme of things.
4. On that note, the text in this particular instance is EVEN WORSE presentation of this issue than in other places where you guys spammed it. It says "Media sources dubbed it...". NO. There was a single source basically ghost written by indef banned User:Icewhiz, and then reprinted in several places, more or less as is. That's not "media sources". That's "one editorial based on stuff a guy who was harassing others said".
5. You've violated 3RR (no one else has) and yet you're the one who is accusing others of "edit warring"? How does that work? Again, like with the other points here, you seem to have it backwards.
6. You follow all that up with threats of ArbCom. Really? You think that ArbCom doesn't have better things to do than look at the editors who are still essentially meat puppeting for Icewhiz?
7. Oh and of course you urge others to "discuss"... right after you threaten them with ArbCom. Do you honestly believe that threatening ArbCom is a way to bring about a fruitful discussion? Doubtful. Just like your "it's longstanding" rationale, this "let's discuss" thing just appears to be a stalling/obfuscating tactic. In light of your threats and personal attacks it's difficult to believe that you are actually interested in a meaningful discussion.
8. In light of above it's hard to avoid the impression that your "Happy Thanksgiving" after your tirade of personal attacks just seems like sprinkling some passive-aggressive "ha ha I reverted you and threatened you with ArbCom so you won't revert me back"
9. Start an RfC if you must (sight).

Volunteer Marek 19:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a topic ban from everything relating to the Haaretz article cocnerned is due for these 2 users and GizzyCatBella as well or which ever their name was. In fact, this would be a pretty efficient means to enforce the non-negotiable WP:COI rules, I'd guess.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You’re in violation of the 500/30 restriction. Ever since your recent arrival on Wikipedia you’ve been following certain users and acting disruptive. And now you jump in to edit war and amplify drama. WP:DUCK. Volunteer Marek 19:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have >500 edits. Also, some decent article work, too. Unlike some others, who name themselves "regulars" for some reason.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Volunteer Marek 19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring over this particular article, potentially adds to the claims that Wikipedia is un-reliable as a source of information. It's like arguing with each other, over whether or not we argue with each other. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The text is longstanding and relevant. Veracity and misinformation on Wikipedia is clearly covered within this article, which the text refers to. That said, editors are free to gain a new consensus to remove it, may I suggest, from an RFC. starship.paint (exalt) 07:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether it’s “longstanding” and whether it’s relevant is debatable. Did it have widespread coverage in sources? No. There was ONE source, written on the basis of ravings of an indef banned editor, and a couple sources which reprinted it. That’s not enough coverage to include here. Moreover, the text misrepresents the one source that it relies on. There’s no “media sources reported” in there. Volunteer Marek 08:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint Can you start RFC, please? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - I was about to say no, but you were polite. starship.paint (exalt) 08:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Btw, here’s the irony of the situation. People are justifying their reverts by saying that this is “longstanding” material, yet the story that’s being added is how an error remained in Wikipedia for long time and no one removed it because it was… “longstanding”. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"ONE source, written on the basis of ravings of an indef banned editor", "basically ghost written by indef banned User:Icewhiz" - Volunteer Marek is now making allegations not only against (mostly anonymous) fellow editors, but a real life person: Omer Benjakob, the author of this article in Haaretz. The story of which got repeated by many other mainstream sources of various countries. This comes close to the WP:BLP territory. Or does he have reliable sources proving his allegations against Benjakob's integrity? Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thats enough Miacek. Go start your next sock puppet account. Volunteer Marek 09:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure all your opponents must be either Icewhiz, Miacek or both. The last bunch of edits from this particular banned account don't even show any particular similarity with my editing style.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, because, as you well know, Miacek was indef topic banned from anything related to Poland before he was indef banned from Wikipedia completely. I know YOU think you’ve been sneaky but it’s obvious as hell who you are [2]. Just give it up man. It’s ridiculous. Good luck with your next sock puppet. Volunteer Marek 10:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

(I mean, ffs, if you were a new account you wouldn’t know who Miacek is and wouldn’t make sarcastic comments like “VM thinks all his opponents are Icewhiz or Miacek”. Jesus, at least put some effort into hiding the sock puppetry) Volunteer Marek 10:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, I thought it was you who first mentioned the username "Miacek" and even graciously provided a link to his editing history. It would be a bit odd for anyone accused of sock puppetry to not even take a cursory look as to whose sock he is said to be. Besides that, your team's tactics of labelling each and every "new" user account not to your liking of being either Icewhiz or connected with him is notorious, are you gonna say my awareness of this basic fact is indicative of some evil?
So could you now finally answer my question: do YOU have reliable sources proving your allegations against Benjakob's integrity?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Not gonna play your games Miacek. Go get going on that new sock puppet account. Volunteer Marek 18:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Look, you either initiate an IP scan for checkusers or whatever it is or you stop these accusations complertely and finally, OK? Stop pestering me with these "sock" accusations. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Irony doesn't apply unless this story is a hoax too, but what I'm seeing is WP:UNDUE arguments.

starship.paint (exalt) 09:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory

Should the below text, present in the article Reliability of Wikipedia since October 2019 [3], be removed or kept? The section it is in are Notable incidents, then Other false information. starship.paint (exalt) 08:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Warsaw...

• Keep - (1) the content is relevant - this article covers the veracity of Wikipedia + misinformation on Wikipedia, and the content is clearly related to this. (2) The content is verifiable - sources are above. (3) The content is significant - time length of the hoax is clearly raised by sources. (4) In terms of sources, Haaretz is clearly a top Israeli source, then there's the Times of Israel as well, and that story has picked up attention in the United States (cited above), in Germany [4][5], and in Italy [6]. (addendum from 27 November - even the Russian government took notice [7]) starship.paint (exalt) 09:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not even a hoax (according to the definition of the concept...). Please familiarize yourself better with the context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm going with what the sources said. Haaretz called it a hoax (...their longevity within Wikipedia are what turn the extermination camp at KL Warschau into the longest-running hoax ever uncovered on the online encyclopedia. CJN called it a hoax (The false facts pertaining to the death-camp hoax included real facts associated with concentration camps.). Der Spiegel called it a hoax (diesen Hoax in der Wikipedia 2019 aufgedeckt zu haben), Corriere della Ser as well, if the translation is correct (La bufala di cui scrive Haaretz riguarda la pagina in inglese di Wikipedia sul «campo di concentramento di Varsavia... Furthermore, in 2006, concerns about the misinformation were raised, with sources, but were removed by the original misinformation-adding editor as "vandalism" [8]. starship.paint (exalt) 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Starship.paint, Hoax definition, per WP:HOAX and any dictionary, is a deliberate attempt to mislead. No evidence that the editor who added it knew there were any concerns have been presented. As for the diff you cite, it was a talk page comment added erroneously to the top of the mainspace, starting with "!! Unfortunately, the below entry on Konzentrazionslager Warschau is highly misleading." Perfectly fine on talk, but subject to instant removal from the mainspace. And so the editor who wrote the article removed it as vandalism. We don't know if he read it - it is not uncommon for people reverting vandalism or what appears to be one (as in, adding talk page posts in bad style to mainspace) not to read them. Ideally, Halibutt should have read it, moved it to the talk, and replied to it (and it obviously was not vandalism, just talk page in mainspace), but to imply Halibutt was a hoaxter because he didn't read it/copy it is pretty bad-faithed. If there is a hoax somewhere, a new editor posts his analysis in the mainspace in bad style, and a recent changes patroller or someone who watchlisted this article reverts them without reading because of bad style, it's not like they became hoaxters. And anyway, this was never a hoax. Bottom line, this was an error - a fringe theory, now discredited, that persisted on Wikipedia for many years after it was called fringe in academic sources (here's an academic source that calls Trzcińska's view a fringe theory - in Polish, lit. an extreme point of view - "skrajne" - [9]. There is no academic source that calls it a hoax that I know of, and nobody has ever accused Trzicińska of inventing lies, only of being gullible and building a theory on poor evidence, from what I've been reading - a single interview). But there is no hoax anywhere, except in Icewhiz claims repeated in the article that this error is an example of a deliberate attempt by Polish nationalists on Wikipedia to promote their narrative. (Now, to make this more complex, some Polish nationalists still cling to this fringe theory, even after it has been called out by all historians, even including the more "nationalistic" ones associated with the IPN... but there is no evidence that User:Halibutt, a respected Wikipedian in good standing, now deceased and unable to defend himself, did anything wrong, except getting duped himself into believing this fringe theory was correct when he first heard about it and decided to include it on Wikipedia - note that back then Trzcińska's monograph was the only monograph on the Warsaw's camp; it was not until 2007 that a new academic monograph dedicated to this topic was published, debunking Trzcińska's fringe theory. Oh, and even if Halibut was to read the post added to mainpage that he removed, and follow the links (neither of which he was under any obligation to do, as removing a malformatted talk page post from mainspace is a simple rvv type of action), said links did not say Trzcińska was wrong. In 2006, which is when the diff you cite was reverted, link 1 [10] from 2003 effectively said that this issue is still under investigation and it cannot be conclusively confirmed that this theory is correct, and link 2 [11] is even older, fro 2002, and just states that the issue is being investigated). Sadly, the good faith SPA editor who spotted the error in 2006 did not know how to use the talk page and added his essay to the wrong place, and Halibutt didn't read it or didn't find it convincing and sadly did not copy it to the talk page for others - hence the error persisted for the next decade, even when better sources became available. To say that Halibutt at any point became aware that there is an error in the article but decided to suppress that information is a violation of WP:AGF. Yes, he added an error, and he restored it, but per AGF and common sense, when he added it, he didn't know it was an error, and when the SPA editor tried to bring to our attention this was an error, he did so in a way that plausibly Halibutt did not notice (again, we can't ever know if he read the malformatted text he reverted or not, and if he read it, what did he think about it). That's it, a simple error that evaded attention, no misdoing anywhere - well, outside of the campaign by the indef-banned harasser (Icewhiz) to smear his opponents, which sadly spilled into a few newspaper articles after he conned a journalist into believing his story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Entfernen Sie -The story is based on the dishonest narrative of a banned Wikipedian then echoed by some other newspapers of various countries. The Wikipedia article was not an intentional hoax. (unlike the above commentator Starship.paint said - quote --> ..length of the hoax is clearly..) - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove. Until this is discussed in academic sources, what we have here is a news story by an indef-banned editor who duped a journalist into believing him, full of errors, that got nonetheless repeated in a reliable source (and then picked up and reprinted by few other outlets). But when reliable source prints out a bad story, we are under no obligation or common sense requirement to cite it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove — a fairly trivial point wrapped up in a narrative pushed by a banned user. Not exactly a notable reflection of unreliability, unless picked up by scholarly sources. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a prime example of Wikipedia being vulnerable to false content, on account of many factors, its size probably being one of them. The subject lemma is about this situation specifically, the "reliability of Wikipedia", a point driven home time and again across all fields here. And the fact that "this is an old story" is irrelevant. It's well sourced and serves its encyclopaedic purpose. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Piotrus, Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount, who were explicitly mentioned by the source, have been trying to remove it from multiple articles (see edit warring at WP:HOAXLIST[12][13] and ongoing RfC at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp). Haaretz is a reliable newspaper (see here and here), as are the ten+ sources that mentioned the story (not including syndication), and until and unless someone can produce evidence that isn't the case, we are to assume reliability per WP:NEWSORG. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As this is a direct accusation, made by an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The inclusion is being contested by people who have a vested interest in not having this content included anywhere on Wikipedia, as several of them are mentioned by name in the article.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove This should be moved to List of Wikipedia controversies. The section is way too bloated for a simple 'examples of wikipedia being unreliable'. A couple examples would be sufficient to show that there is content that is unreliable on wikipedia. The content itself is obviously from a reliable source and notable and would rather it stay here then disappear all together. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep until it can be found here. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Entfernen Sie This whole thing is here simply because a banned editor and his friends and a bunch of sock puppets went and spammed this incident into as many articles as they could as a form of “revenge” for the fact that said editor got side banned from all WMF projects (Icewhiz, for harassment, doxxing and death threats). There was coverage in one source - which relied on the testimony of that editor (oh, and to boot used hate sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reliable source for its info). It was then reprinted in a couple other sources. Then, after about a week, everyone except certain people on Wikipedia forgot about it. This is a pure example of internal Wikipedia politics determining content rather than policy or actual coverage in sources. The whole thing is UNDUE and badly sourced. Volunteer Marek 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  a banned editor and his friends and a bunch of sock puppets; oh, and to boot used hate sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reliable source for its info -> ; please specify the friends involved.

  Then, after about a week, everyone except certain people on Wikipedia forgot about it. In fact, everything started when GizzyCatBella said they would not recognise the source as reliable, so if there's anyone who's not forgotten about its existence, it's some of the editors who wanted it out (and TBH also me, but that was involved with my expanding the article, so I had to know one way or another what the article was talking about).

  This is a pure example of internal Wikipedia politics determining content rather than policy or actual coverage in sources. As far as I could see the conjecture could be applied to you, too. The coverage in sources is there, you simply don't agree with it. Big deal. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. A banned former Wikipedia editor, Icewhiz, presents a usually reliable newspaper, Haaretz, with disinformation, which the newspaper accepts at face value and publishes on 4 October 2019. Then that newspaper is cited as a reliable source on whether a debunked hypothesis (described as such in the Wikipedia article in question) concerning the World War II German Warsaw concentration camp was a "hoax". The most prominent author of the debunked hypothesis, Maria Trzcińska, had simply been ill-advised and gullible, not a deliberate hoaxer. Wikipedia is supposed to present the public with true information based on reliable sources. An unreliable article in a usually reliable newspaper (Haaretz) has no place as a source on Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - relevant to the article's topic, and sourced to a reliable source. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock
• Keep per nom and Slater. It's directly mentioned by multiple RS, it's WP:DUE. Noting also that I've mentioned this RFC at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and Haaretz. Levivich 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove There simply hasn't been enough critical, widespread coverage of the issue separate from people who were just writing churnalism based on the Haaretz report. There are serious issues including that the main source for the article is a globally banned user, who was found to be misrepresenting by ArbCom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Entfernen Sie. Having this at List of Wikipedia controversies would be sufficient. If we would gather all cases where the reliability of Wikipedia was questioned, we would write a thick book.--Darwinek (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • About an hour after !voting "remove" here, GCB removed the entry from List of Wikipedia controversies [14]. Levivich 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    Less than an hour after filing a conflict of interest case at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard[15] Levivich comes here to cast keep !vote [16] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    So what? Are you implying that something that Levivich did is improper? AlexEng^(TALK) 09:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. If the editors who say "remove" could point to some factual inaccuracy within the fragment (other than Haaretz's attributed opinion), I would have even considered an abstention. The only objections I have heard so far is that a) it's Icewhiz, so it's shit and b) it's not notable, mention it at some obscure webpage nobody cares (and where the info could still be removed, just look at the talk of List of Wikipedia hoaxes). To point a): it is totally irrelevant because we don't source Icewhiz's opinion as fact - we simply state facts as they were (and no one said that the facts themselves were wrong - just that the person who tipped off Haaretz for the story was suspect); b) given that I've read the same argument on multiple pages already (the Warsaw concentration camp, WP:HOAXLIST, etc.), I think the argument will still spread from article talk to article talk until some guy wiser than us closes the discussion, so this remedy will likely not help. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: Although List of Wikipedia controversies can be considered as further part of Reliability of Wikipedia (article on Reliability of Wikipedia has +200 000 bytes, still too overhemingly more than recomended size despite two articles), these two pages are two diffrent things in terms of WP:Content removal, reliability of Wikipedia is higher importance, and bit more close to core coverage. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the "Reliability of Wikipedia" article is supposed to list the most notable incidents of falsehoods staying on Wikipedia (section "Notable incidents"), with any less notable ones going to the List of Wikipedia controversies. The very fact that this article is extensively discussed by us 2 years later and the fact that the Warsaw concentration camp got substantial press coverage from various countries (and the fact that the falsehood persisted for 15 years) suggests that it is notable enough for the mention; other articles, however, may be less important to be mentioned on the page and as such might be moved to the article you suggested or, in case of a really minor incident, deleted altogether. This for sure isn't minor, as can be seen by the amount of effort some editors have put against mentioning this article at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Combinetly Reliability of Wikipedia and List of Wikipedia controversies cover 408 000 bytes. Per WP:SIZERULE it is at least eight times larger than "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" and at least four times larger than "Almost certainly should be divided". Note I did not !vote and especially I do not oppose remove "all info about that sruff" from List of Wikipedia controversies (I simply do not want be involved in that stuff) so far but I am not impressed how it was promient. There were accidents on Wikipedia when article got more hits due to criticism but things are not notable enough and should not be to be mentioned anywhere [17]/[18] vs 10 000 views (I of course do not say "analysing hits" is better measure than "analysing soures" but I am using it as one of factors and just explain why I would argue that this stuff about WCC more fits to list of Wikipedia Controversies than to "Reliablity of Wikipedia" which is closer to core). And to reffer your discussion with Piotrus around, what you two do think to go into NPOV noticeboard and ask someone unilvolved: does it would be worthible to create new essays (I am saying WP:essays to avoid misunderstanding, not WP:Policy per se): WP:not aware error, WP:Intentional error, WP:Do not create fringe theories, WP:outdating sources etc. as we have only WP:Do not create hoaxes, essays are ususally created by WP:Bold without discussion. In the very most inclusionist case personally I think more info better fits to Wikipedia controversies but "short info about error in Wikipedias for years which raised media controversy" would be sufficient in article with "High-importance for Wikiproject:Wikipedia" - that article on Reliability of Wikipedia, at current form too much details in last sentence there is if we have list of Wikipedia Controversies. Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The very fact that this article is extensively discussed by us 2 years later (...) suggests that it is notable enough for the mention Absolutely not! The reason it's being discussed 2 years later is because some editors, friends of Icewhiz, can't let this shit go, and they're using the existence of this article as a form of "revenge" against other editors they don't like it. That's it. That's all there is to it. It's only "notable" in terms of internal Wikipedia politics and in-fighting it's not WP:NOTABLE.

the fact that the Warsaw concentration camp got substantial press coverage from various countries Except IT DIDN'T. It got covered in an article in Haaretz based on info provided by an indef banned editor, and a couple other outlets reprinted the story. That's it. Volunteer Marek 18:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason it's being discussed 2 years later is because some editors, friends of Icewhiz, can't let this shit go Let's remind you of the story of how the discussion about the Haaretz article began: I was arguing with User:Slatersteven about whether to include the info about a possible gas chamber operating in the camp that had nothing to do with the alleged gas chambers mear Warsaw West Station (this was in the Polish version, and I believed the information about the uncertainty belonged in the article). Two hours after Slatersteven started the section, GizzyCatBella intervened and objected to the word "hoax" used by Slatersteven, claiming that it was not backed up by RS. After Slatersteven provided the link to Haaretz, GCB declared they wanted to challenge the reliability of the source and removed it, which prompted me to start an RfC because that's more or less what WP:APLRS says when disagreements exist as to whether include the challenged source. That's how all hell broke loose. So, if anything, it all started with GCB - hardly whom you'd say is a friend of Icewhiz, and who seemed to be particularly sensitive over the semantics of the word, and who wouldn't let it go. BTW, I'm still waiting for the list of those supposed "friends".

they're using the existence of this article as a form of "revenge" against other editors they don't like If you can provide the proof to the conspiracy theory you are trying to assert exists here against some of the editors (including you, presumably), I will be grateful. Since this would most probably warrant ANI/AE/ARBCOM intervention, please don't post the proof here, just throw a link to the started case (with proof) on any of the venues I noted. Repeating this opinion over and over without proof doesn't lend you more credence.

Except IT DIDN'T. It got covered in an article in Haaretz based on info provided by an indef banned editor, and a couple other outlets reprinted the story. If that's "reprinted", it should be a word-for-word translation or copying. The problem is, the other articles (except for Cleveland Jewish News, which I deleted from the Press template because that was indeed the case where the outlet essentially reprinted the article) are anything but. Corriere della Sera, for instance, has contacted an unrelated historian and a journalist for interia.pl; Der Spiegel article was written by a German Wikipedian active since 2004; Rossiyskaya Gazeta simply based on the info to make stretched, to put it mildly, claims about the Polish govt; there also has been a polemic on Haaretz about the topic (Blatman is cited there but Christian Davies also wrote his editorial in response to Blatman's), and the Israeli TV also talked about this. It's akin to saying "well, the reports on the new Omicron variant are all more or less the same, therefore it's churnalism", which is wrong. It simply was a bombshell story. You hardly ever have 7 articles in a Press template, all of which might be basing on one incident but each covering from a slightly different perspective. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The only reason it was a "bombshell" (and a very weak one at that, all of the coverage just repeats Haaretz piece with some rewriting for copyright reasons - do tell us what "new facts" any of them find?) is that a simple case of "an error on Wikipedia persisted for 15 years" - hardly anything special - was twisted into a conspiracy theory that "this error was intentionally added and defended by Polish nationalists", a story that sells well in Israel, where bashing Polish nationalists is quite trendy (not that I can blame them, as they are hardly nice folks). I am all for bashing Polish nationalists - but there are plenty of real crimes or offenses committed by them (all well covered in Haaretz, ex. recent story from two weeks ago). No need to invent fake news about an alleged army of Polish nationalists trying to take over English Wikipedia (the Haaretz article implies they succeeded very well, are in alliance with powerful factions in the Wikipedia community, took over of duped Arbcom, and got the last honest editor, i.e. Icewhiz, banned - hence the Haaretz piece, as it iself clearly admits, is a "call to arms" to Icewhiz cause). The power of mass media is not to be underestimated, but at the same time, Wikipedia has a good history of keeping fake news out. Let's not allow this one to sneak in. Haaretz may be usually reliable, but this is a terrible piece of journalism, with terrible fact checking, controversial main source, misquoting interviewees, etc. that has no place being cited anywhere. Ps. Ironically, Icewhiz's original title form his essay - "How Wikipedia promoted Holocaust distortion for 15 years" - was better than what Haaretz run: "The fake Nazi death camp: Wikipedia's longest hoax, exposed". Since it was not a hoax - first fact-checking error, right there in the very title... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

No need to invent fake news about an alleged army of Polish nationalists trying to take over English Wikipedia (the Haaretz article implies they succeeded very well, are in alliance with powerful factions in the Wikipedia community, took over of duped Arbcom, and got the last honest editor, i.e. Icewhiz, banned - hence the Haaretz piece, as it iself clearly admits, is a "call to arms" to Icewhiz cause). The power of mass media is not to be underestimated, but at the same time, Wikipedia has a good history of keeping fake news out. Let's not allow this one to sneak in. -> Two things out of it: first, Haaretz is not uncritical of Icewhiz, so it's misleading to portray this article as an endorsement of Icewhiz's actions by Haaretz, secondly, we aren't citing the 'powerful factions', taking over ArbCom and other stuff you mention as fact, so this point is really irrelevant. We are only citing the part about the hoax (or however you wish to call it) that persisted and that's it.

I'm not discussing the semantics of the word "hoax" anymore. Let's agree to disagree. Anyway this fragment is attributed, and you don't remove opinions simply because you believe they are misguided - you report them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

First, Haaretz is obviously much more sympathetic to Icewhiz or not. Their criticism is limited to a passing comment or two that Icewhiz might have ben "overzelous", but every second sentence he is justified in editorial tone. His misdoings are "alleged", and his opponents evil motivations are never cast in doubt. It's a classic David vs Goliath narrative. So yes, I find the piece very biased.

Second. Re "We are only citing the part about the hoax (or however you wish to call it) that persisted and that's it.". Please stop calling it a hoax. It's a fringe theory or an error. Here's an academic source that calls Trzcińska's theory fringe (in Polish: [19]). While this takes us back to the Warsaw's article, I strongly suggest you try to use academic sources instead of newspapers. Who needs to quote a historian speaking in news or being interviewed in newspaper, when we have a reliable academic paper? Trzcińska's theory is discredited, academics see it as fringe, there is nobody outside unreliable fringe far-right outlets like Radio Maryja who still give it any credence. No need to repeat the same criticism using a bad journalism that empowers site banned harassers. Cite a peer reviewed paper linked, and move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

To the first paragraph: even if that were the case, why is this not enough to cite the fact this article hosted content for 15 years that you describe an error? I get your opinion about this content being WP:UNDUE (though I don't agree with the notion), but you also suggest it's not reliable to state the fact the hoax/error/mishap/whatever existed, because that's the only thing we cite the article for. What you say are errors or manifestations of bias are elsewhere in the article.

Now to the second paragraph: a "fringe theory" label does not contradict a "hoax" label - it simply still is a fringe theory because Trzcińska's followers won't drop the stick. As I said in the original discussion, I believe that Trzcińska had acted in bad faith; but again, I promised not to discuss it - let's agree to disagree. As for your opposition, for some reason, to quote Dreifuss and Grabowski, severability applies: you might not want to cite what you believe are bad parts of the article but instead we only quote the ones which should not be controversial. Instead of killing the cancer patient altogether, remove the tumour. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

We have to balance this with the UNDUE, WP:NAVEL and WP:DFTT. Perhaps a compromise would be to cite a more removed piece, one that does not repeat any errors (such as using the word hoax or promoting Icewhiz's conspiracy theory/narrative that this error is proof of Polish nationalsit cabal). If one of the other media sources fulfills these conditions, link it and I'll opine. I'd prefer academic source to any media ones, however, but I don't think any exist. Anyway, the ideal solution would be to quote a source that doesn't include any errors. Any chance their comments were reprinted elsewhere? The error may be worth mentioning here and there, but we need to untangle this from the Icewhiz's hate narrative. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It could have worked were it not the case that WP:APLRS does not allow to host sources which have had a reliability challenge, and some of the colleagues here don't want to hear about anything remotely resembling something that cites the Haaretz article. By extension, if the source gets removed from the article on the camp, it is bound to be so there, too, because the text we cite is more or less the same. My opinion is that we should cite the original report; but if a retelling of the story is more preferable and everyone is on board with that, I will not oppose it.

My Google Scholar search has not unfortunately yielded anything, nor was the Google Books/Library Genesis query successful; but I believe it is only a question of time before this appears. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Remove Primarily because it is a malicious act by long time abuser, which is more akin to a form of fraud, that what you would call a traditional hoax. Because it is not a traditional hoax, all it can say, or indicate is that Wikipedia is particularly prone to these types of fraud. It doesn't indicate how reliable it is, because it is total outlier. The consistant results over years, is that Wikipedia is reliable, extremly reliable, 96.7% accurate is a figure I saw several years ago, so it's an absolute outlier. Personally I think whole lot of work should have been erased, when it was found out that he promulgated it; and everything else he produced. It worries me that this abuser is still dominating conversation almost two years to the month, since he was blocked. Work needs to be done to look at how it can limited, so that manipulation isn't there, or doesn't prsent itself. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? The person who discovered the hoax is not Icewhiz. And what is the difference between a "hoax" and a "form of fraud? Levivich 12:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Primarily because it is a malicious act by long time abuser, which is more akin to a form of fraud, that what you would call a traditional hoax. What is the "malicious act" you are referring to? The fact that they tipped off Haaretz? Because Icewhiz was not the person who started the false content in the article in the first place.

It doesn't indicate how reliable it is, because it is total outlier. A lot of mentions in the "Notable incidents" section are not indicative of the overall reliability - it lists the most notable mishaps (or, at least, it should). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it is completly wrong. Ignore it. That is what you get when it your half asleep. scope_creep^Talk 16:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep I don't think you were completely wrong. Icewhiz was one of the editors who noticed this error (not a hoax, hoax implies it was added as a deliberate attempt to mislead the readers - we have zero evidence of that) was added to Wikipedia (I think this is the news story that started all of this: [20]) and he removed it (so far so good). Then he decided this error needs to be advertised on- and off-wiki as proof for his claim that "Polish nationalists are dominating the Wikipedia discourse", so he added this error to the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes [21] (which is incorrect since it was not a hoax - although we don't have a Wikipedia:List of errors, so some confusion is understandable), wrote a short essay at User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory that was declined from SIGNPOST (since he didn't finish it before getting banned and becoming rather toxic), but in the meantime he did sell his story to Haaretz, hence the article we are discussing (full of malice and errors, but of course build on the kernel of truth, as in - yes, the error persisted on Wikipedia for ~15 years, it's just that no, there is no cabal of Polish nationalists defending it and related narrative... Icewhiz presented his claims about them - us, I guess, since I am one of his enemies - to ArbCom and got topic banned for his efforts, shortly before getting site banned for off wiki harassment, of which the Haaretz piece is his crown jewel of achievements, persisting in spreading his poison, unlike his Twitter and such which got deleted for ToS violations etc.). See also the essays written by User:Poeticbent (disclaimer: according to Icewhiz, another member of the Polish nationalist cabal), as well as the neutral Signost coverage at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media, written by uninvoled editors. Anyway, the simple summary is that yes, an error persisted on Wikipedia for 15 years, and a few media outlets wrote about. But it was an error, not a hoax, and since no academic sources discuss this, IMHO this is UNDUE here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• The scope and definition of this and related articles are unclear - I'm going to sidestep the hoax vs. misinformation business, the COI business, and whether the involvement of a now-banned user is relevant. I'm mainly thinking about this question: should an article about the reliability of Wikipedia (if such an article is to exist) include various independent examples of when Wikipedia has been wrong, with sourcing which does not treat them as part of a systematic study? There are, as we all know, an awful lot of examples of when Wikipedia has been wrong, including many instances which have received a good amount of press coverage. Even some random acts of vandalism have received extensive coverage. Do these, on an individual level, say anything of significance about the reliability of Wikipedia? Surely the phenomenon of vandalism and that Wikipedia gets things wrong are relevant, but when is it right to get into specific examples? The present lists of examples seem like they should be in some other List of times Wikipedia has been wrong which covers specific examples which get some high degree of press coverage, and then summarized in whole, rather than listed out, in an article about the larger topic of reliability. There's also the question of when "Wikipedia being wrong" fits into this article vs. criticism of Wikipedia vs. one of the various X bias on Wikipedia (like the perma-coatrack, ideological bias on Wikipedia) vs. one of the other related articles. Better defining what it means to be included in this article would be a lot more helpful than deciding whether to include individual examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhododendrites (talk • contribs)

• This is a splendid suggestion by Rhododendrites. I'm not changing my one suggestion but I think we can safely all fall back to the investigating this more thoroughly (hard work, harder than taking part in an RfC). -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep largely per Starship.paint's well-reasoned stance. I'm not seeing the relevance of Icewhiz's ban to whether or not this statement should remain in the article. That seems to be the only substantive argument presented by those arguing to remove it. Even those assailing the credibility of the sources seem to be leaning on the Icewhiz affair to make a point. It's not germane to the discussion. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Compromise I don't know how you'll want to do it, but I think it'd beat keeping or deleting. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, but really, the entire subsection should be removed, and the entire section should be drastically trimmed. It's an indiscriminate list of random articles which barely discuss the reliability of Wikipedia directly, whose purpose is to argue the reliability of Wikipedia via anecdotal examples. This is WP:SYNTH / WP:OR. The article should instead rely on sources about the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole; the standard for inclusion of any specific incident ought to be whether it is mentioned in at least one high-quality source discussing the reliability of Wikipedia specifically, in which the false information is an example rather than the primary focus. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - topically relevant and the length of time is the significance. Haaretz is an acceptable RS, and it does not matter how they got it or if accurate as this is the portrayal WP has. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Kommentar: does anyone advocating removal contest the basic facts—someone added sourced information about a concentration camp; the initial source was debunked; the information wasn't removed on Wikipedia until a decade later? If not, then we can discuss the finer points of the wording, but I'll support "keep". — Bilorv (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll take that as a "no" then. Keep mention of the topic in some form, without commenting on appropriateness of the current wording. — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

    @Bilorv But the same story happened many times, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes. Why use this example, given that it promotes the narrative of a sitebanned harasser? There are less controversial examples that can be used. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

    @Piotrus: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Give me an example not covered in mainspace that has reliable secondary sources. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

    @Bilorv Sure: [22], [23]. There are more. All uncontroversial, third party confirmations of errors or intentional hoaxes on Wikipedia, none intended to spread fake news about non-existent on-wiki conspiracy theories and serve as "calls to arms" in a personal vendettas of a site-banned real life harasser. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

    To be honest, I'm happy that this Warsaw concentration camp was not a "hoax" in that it wasn't intentional, concretely known as false when written etc. So I'm happy that these fit into the category of "examples not covered in mainspace". I hate to be a word pedant, but I did ask for an example that has reliable secondary sources, plural. The Deacon opinion column is fair enough but written by Deacon and not covered elsewhere by mainstream media. Atlas Obscura is a good read but it doesn't really make any commentary on Wikipedia, which is just one piece of the story there (and note that they're covering a story about themselves). When NPR covered the story, Wikipedia is not mentioned, indicating that it is not significant for a page about Wikipedia.

    With your assertion "There are more" unsubstantiated, I'm really not impressed by your response. It has the appearance of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, and not finding much to begin with. I won't respond further because it appears to me that you can't engage in this conversation at your usual excellent level of discourse, understandably, because of the connection this story has to a vicious criminal who has harassed you. The facts in this case, however, are not harassment, or a case of Icewhiz "winning". — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Entfernen Sie, the text is misleading, Trzecińska's theory was finally debunked only in 2017 Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes and no. I wouldn't say that 2017 was the definite cutoff. There were other works, the earliest dating back from 1967 (Berenstein), where the account was already different than Trzcińska's, and by 2007 we already had Gabriel Finder (2004), Andreas Mix (2003, 2004 (not cited), 2005), Edward Kossoy (2004), Czesław Rajca (1976), Piotr Matusak (1973) and Regina Domańska (1992, not cited in the article because the info she had was outdated) with their works + a whole book (Chaim Goldstein, 1970) being a survivor's account about KL Warschau. None mentioned the giant gas chambers, and if anyone mentioned other subcamps, it was only in the context of casting doubt on them. At least based on the body of scholarly literature available at the time, we could say quite well that the theory proposed by Trzcińska was probably not debunked in the sense that only Mix directly addressed the supposed 200K Poles figure (and said it was implausible), but lack of corroboration by other scholars would still imply it was fringe and therefore should not have had any place on Wikipedia. Walkowski's testimony was simply a nail in the coffin. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Trzcińska published her book in 2002, so in what way works predating it were debunking her findings? Also there were historians who claimed that KL Warshau never existed, and that it was only a labour camp. Today we know that they were wrong too. Also the existence of gas chambers in KL Warshau was afaik mentioned by Norman Davies in the first edition of Rising '44: The Battle for Warsaw, so even respectable historians at some point believed it was at least plausible. Marcelus (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: I was actually the person who first paid attention to the bizarre contents of the article in question. In 2019, while perusing articles on the Holocaust in occupied Poland, I was stunned to discover that the Polish capital was the site of an “extermination camp”, this one targeting ethnic Poles. An especially sinister part of the camp, the Vernichtungslager, in the article’s terminology, housed an improvised gas chamber in a “tunnel [that] would have been large enough to kill up to 1,000 people at one time, using poison gas like Zyklon B or carbon monoxide”: 2019 version of the article. The notion of another Nazi extermination camp, hereto apparently completely unknown to genocide scholars, would have been ludicrous, had not the myth so easily found its way into Wikipedia. If Norman Davies fell for this conspiracy theory, then that perhaps speaks to his credibility. The story of the article is a blot on Wikipedia's reputation, and we should not sweep it under the rug. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Even the version of the article posted by you mentions that the existence of the extermination camp there is very controversial (exact wording) and clearly put an emphasis on the IPN historians findings, and only mentions Trzcińska theories as existing. Not so long ago it was believed that abour 360 thousands people was killed in the Majdanek concentration camp (postwar estimates were talking about couple millions even), today (since December 2005) we know it was about 78 thousands. But Wikipedia still mentions other estimates, is that a hoax? Marcelus (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  @K.e.coffman - This is a perfect analogy!

  Estimated deaths in Majdanek:

  Wikipedia 2003:

  The estimated number of deaths is 360,000 -->[24]

  Wikipedia 2021:

  The official estimate of 78,000 victims -->[25]

  This is exactly what happened with the Warsaw Concentration Camp. New data came to life and the judgments changed. Alle you discovered K.e.coffman was just a piece of outdated information. Get over it already. Norman Davies didn't fall for any conspiracy theory either, he was relying on data available at the time. End this nonsense invented by the banned Wikipedian, okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  One can catch how assessments transform over the years here:

  [26]

  That's what happened at WCC article. There was no hoax or other intentional misinformation delivered to Wikipedia that would make Wikipedia unreliable. K.e.coffman found outdated data and banned Wikipedian flipped that into an intentionally planned misinformation, which was not true. [27] That's all to it. This should be removed from this article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hear, hear. Errors and their correcting happen all the time in science, including history. The article was updated and verified, that's it. Happens every day on Wikipedia in hundreds of articles. I myself around the same time corrected likewise outdated and somewhat nationalitically biased informations in a number of articles, some higher profile (WWII and linked from it) that WWII in Europe begun with the battle of Westerplatte and bombing of Wieluń. The difference is it never crossed my mind to look for some nationalist conspiracy responsible for promoting these narratives, nor to run to a newspaper to try to spread fake news about such conspiracies. Fringe theories were added without sufficient qualifiers, I fixed this with newer sources. Other editors did it for KL Warsaw. Nothin more, nothing less, regular day on Wikipedia, move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  You guys have made your position in previous responses to "Keep" comments; there's not need to repeat them again. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

@Starship.paint - please note (polite again) that the 3 references are the same. All revolve around Omer Benjakob's 4 October 2019 Haaretz article - story based on the tale of banned Wikipedian. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - they're based on the Haaretz article, yes, but they aren't duplicates. It's a conscious effort of the CJN and the TOI to feature the content. starship.paint (exalt) 09:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

More sources? [28], in Der Spiegel, [29] in Deutschlandfunk Nova, [30] in Il Post. starship.paint (exalt) 09:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the same thing, all revolve around 4 October 2019 Haaretz article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint - yes, in some sense this is “longstanding”, but so what? That’s not a policy based argument. Frankly, all those instances of this controversy, all of them based on this single Icewhiz source, should have been removed immediately after he was indef banned by WMF from all Wikimedia projects. Especially since these got spammed into all these various places either by him, his sock puppets or his meat puppets. This is just cleaning up a mess that should’ve been cleaned up long ago. Volunteer Marek 09:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and @Starship.paint @JPxG - It is kind of comical seeing these entries produced all over the place [31] by stale, brand new accounts with 20 edits to their credit [32]. Hey, but that might be just a coincidence. I'm just saying that's entertaining. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Dawid2009 - Regarding your edit summary[33]. It is already included in List of Wikipedia controversies here --> [34] where is most likely WP:DUE - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Dawid2009 - That being said - the note there ([35]) should be extended.

It should tell that the story was based on the tale of a banned Wikipedian. The certain controversy. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this the Icewhiz thing? This is the goddamn Icewhiz thing, isn't it. jp×g 09:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s the goddamn Icewhiz thing. Volunteer Marek 09:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG - l.o.l. yes - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

And that's probably is a good place for it. It was a controversy. Although it also should be a Haaretz controversy (how a newspaper got tricked by an indef banned editor...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

…because Haaretz should care about whether Icewhiz is indeffed? Does the fact you’ve been desysoped for organized attempts to promote particular views about Eastern Europe, and that the people arguing for the removal of this article were almost all part of those efforts, not affect YOUR credibility??—Ermenrich (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich this might violate WP:NPA since it's an argument Ad hominem. I would strike that if I were you. Up to you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A lie – if published in a usually reliable newspaper such as Haaretz, and echoed in any number of other outlets – is still a lie. Nihil novi (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Gentleman, could you please explain a bit more: what is a lie in the Haaretz piece? In so far as I understand these matters, they caught Wikipedia lying. So, who exactly is lying? Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Give it up Miacek [36]. Volunteer Marek 19:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't !voted, but it's confusing what exactly is being opposed here. Is it just the "hoax" claim? The article is about the overall reliability of Wikipedia, and how false information can linger for a long time unnoticed or unchallenged. This was false information that lingered for 15 years, and no one seems to be disputing that fact. In addition, the content in question is not just some minor detail or fact. It was a bold claim, much more bold than other lengthy hoaxes or false claims listed at WP:HOAXLIST. Regardless if it was an intentional hoax or not (and I'd be fine with removing that part in the absence of an academic source), the notion that it happened seems pretty relevant to this article. What am I missing? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)