This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article was accepted on 6 October 2014 by reviewer
78.26 (
talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The only real source for this article is her own account. Looking at the Telegraph article she is clearly not the same person as the baby. Yes this is original research but I think it means we should be skeptical of her claim until other evidence can be provided.
Erik10293802023 (
talk) 20:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The sources for this article are a major museum and three national-level newspapers from three different countries. Erik10293802023, a single-purpose account, appears to not want to believe that the Nazis could have been fooled in this way, and is making up theories about how people's looks change when they age in order to justify that nonbelief. This is not worthy of much discussion.
Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth appears very relevant here, in particular "Editors...may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)reply
I mean, if you're going to accuse me of being dishonest because I created a new account since I lost my old one years ago I could just flip the argument and point out that because you have a Jewish surname you want this story to be true. Neither of these are real arguments. The only evidence we have is an interview with a museum (i.e. not evidence at all) and three news articles that have no sources except for her interview either. The default positions should always be that the story isn't true and that there needs to be evidence that the story is real. There is literally no evidence whatsoever that she is the same person. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Erik10293802023 (
talk •
contribs) 14:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The default position should be that when reliable sources write that something is true, we take it as true unless there is strong reason to contradict it (and not merely to be skeptical of it). Here I see no such reason. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Why we should be skeptical of it:
There are no sources for the story other than the woman herself. The "reliable sources" are just news articles regurgitating her story, they did nothing to verify her story and they should be ignored completely. Either way we need a third party individual who doesn't have a biased position. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Erik10293802023 (
talk •
contribs) 02:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Include as it is covered by multiple reliable sources that have a reputation for fact checking, the opposution is just opinion
Atlantic306 (
talk) 16:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Maybe they have a reputation for fact checking other stories but this is literally a puff piece where and there's no verification whatsoever. As far as Eppstein's analysis that's not an argument either. You are supposed to be skeptical of stories, that is literally the default state you should always be in. Not one of the sources does anything to provide any evidence whatosever for her story. (
Personal attack removed) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Erik10293802023 (
talk •
contribs) 23:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Include - due to inclusion of reliable sources and the fact that the only opposition seems to be unfounded skepticism and accusations of Jewish agenda, which should obviously be ignored. OP hasn't presented a single shred of evidence to support his claims (other than the "clear proof" that an old woman doesn't look like a baby), yet somehow expects the burden of proof to be on the other party.
PraiseVivec (
talk) 14:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)reply
This is wrong. First I never accused anyone of having a Jewish agenda, you just made that up. Next it's not on me to find sources debunking this story. If you just look at the evidence for this story you would realize it's fake.
Erik10293802023 (
talk) 22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)--Erikreply
Include - RS check out as mentioned here. I don't understand the problem? This would make a good DYK.
TeeVeeed (
talk) 20:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Then just remove it. 22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)~~ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Erik10293802023 (
talk •
contribs)
Erik10293802023, I removed parts of two of your comments that were purely
personal attacks. Address the subject, not the other editors. In sufficiently persistent or egregious cases, you may be blocked for your personal attacks. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.