Talk:Jan Grabowski/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Sourcing policy

Regarding the use of Polish-language sources for contentious issues, the article should comply with WP:V, the sourcing policy, which states (at WP:NOENG):

English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. ... If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. ... Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people.

Editors can use the template {{Request quotation}}. The editor adding the material should ideally also explain on talk what kind of source it is, in terms of quality and reach. The aim is to make sure we're using high-quality mainstream sources. This is difficult to judge, and sometimes impossible, for editors who don't read Polish. The onus is on the person who adds the text and source to demonstrate that it's appropriate. Also bear in mind that the readership has to be able to judge reliability, not only other editors. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is mostly a localized topic, where most sources will be non-English, and thus we won't find many English ones that would provide complete cover of the topic.I am happy to provide quotes where requested.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Far from so. Grabowski lives in Canada, is covered in worldwide English press, and widely reviewed in academic journals in English. Holocaust studies are not a localized topic. As we aren't lacking high quality English sources, we should per NOENG, avoid non-English sourcing for anything contentious.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Gontarczyk and a number of other historians (at least one of them from Cracow University) Grabowski manipulates numbers and misquotes his sources. English knowledge doesn't make a historian. Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but no, Grabowski publishes a lot of his statements in Polish and about Poland, and debates involved are mostly published in Polish language, including acadamic journals or scholarly institutions like IPN.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, thanks. Because of the disputes on this page, it's reasonable to ask that everyone adding non-English sources for anything likely to be contentious should supply a translation of the relevant text, either in a footnote or here on talk, and an explanation of what kind of source it is. At the moment, the onus seems to be on other editors to work it out, but the sourcing policy places the onus on the editor who adds the material.

See WP:BURDEN (part of WP:V): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution." Where this is in doubt, the editor adding the source has to show that it's reliable and that it directly supports the text. See WP:ONUS (also part of WP:V): "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." SarahSV ^(talk) 15:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) IPN is a government agency, not used anymore much in academia. The response in Poland to Holocaust studies in general and Grabowski's work in particular is a topic covered in depth in academic sources in English. We do not need to insert into this article the latest "shock" NOTNEWS items from Poland if they haven't been covered in English yet - if they have any lasting significance - there will be English sourcing which is far from lacking (and in terms of academic journals - far more extensive).Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"IPN is a government agency, not used anymore much in academia". I am afraid you are incorrect. IPN publications and authors are considered scholarly by Polish Ministry of Education and Higher Sciences and rated as such in its index of scored scholarly journals."We do not need to insert into this article the latest "shock" NOTNEWS items".Nobody is doing this-we are inserting academic journals and statements by well established historians.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin - there's no problem supplying any translations on request. There IS a problem with declaring that all Polish sources should be banned because... "Poland is similar to Iran and North Korea".

IPN is perfectly reliable, all the writers are professional, published, credentialed historians and it has been used extensively on Wikipedia and whenever it came up at WP:RSN the consensus was along those lines. Icewhiz, or yourself, are always welcome to bring it up there again, but you - or actually Icewhiz - do not get to unilaterally declare sources unreliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

And here is the ironic thing as pointed out by Dr. Blatman, [1] just like IPN is government funded, so is the Polish Center for Holocaust Research, which Icewhiz loves citing and which Grabowski is a part of (indeed, if you believe Blatman some of the acrimony between researchers from the two institutes is simply a turf war over funding, hence the hyperbolic attacks). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either both are unreliable or both are reliable. And going by our criteria, both are reliable.

This should also put to rest any nonsense about "Poland is like North Korea and Iran" in terms of free speech, since right here we have the "nationalist" (sic) Polish government funding an institute which is deeply critical of Polish history (and the government itself). Like, this shouldn't be even an issue, the notion is so absurd to begin with, but the discussion has degenerated to a point where you kind of have to address these notions, as ridiculous as they are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Censorship regarding Holocaust complicity on media in Poland , due to the "Holocaust Law", is real and well covered in mainstream sources. The punishment, with a fine, is similar to Russia - Saying that the USSR and Nazi Germany jointly invaded Poland is a crime in Russia, WaPo oped, 2016. If IPN people publish in reputed mainstream journal (preferrably in English) it is one thing (possibly usable), if they say something in the media or on their own website it is another (probably not).Icewhiz (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Lies. But yes, there is a problem of reviewing texts in Poland. The Center doesn't inform if their texts are reviewed at all and a former IPN worker complains, that his book has been rejected after internal reviews, but he confirms that generally IPN texts have been reviewed by independent rewiewers.Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. It is very telling that in your attempt to support your claim that "censorship in Poland is real" you have to link to an article.... about censorship in Russia. How stupid do you think we are? I guess comparing freedom of press in Poland to Russia is a little bit better than your earlier cockbrained comparison to Iran and North Korea, but not much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"In February 2018, parliament passed a law criminalizing claims of Polish complicity in crimes committed during the Holocaust, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to three years. Following an international outcry, the government softened the law, making it a civil offense punishable by fine but not incarceration." ... "The ruling party has sought to discredit academics who challenge its preferred historical narrative, particularly in regard to the events of World War II. The new “Holocaust law,” though it includes a clause exempting academic work, was widely regarded within the academic community as an attempt to discourage research into and discussion of World War II–era Polish crimes against Jews. In March 2018, two PiS senators issued a statement criticizing the Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw after it held events marking the 50th anniversary of antisemitic purges in Poland, accusing the museum of making false claims about antisemitism." per Freedom House 2019 report. Comparisons to Russia (in particular in regards to government led history policies) are fairly widespread and made by writers less "cockbrained" than myself - e.g. Poland’s Historical Revisionism Is Pushing It Into Moscow’s Arms, Foreign Policy, 12 Feb 2019, Mateusz Mazzini.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, first Freedom House is not a be-all-end-all determinant of reliability. But if you do want to go with that then note that according to Freedom House, Poland's score is 84 out of 100 and, for example, Israel's is... 78 out of 1000, lower than Poland's (United States is 86 out of 100, only 2 points higher than Poland's). So if you are going to propose using FH as a criteria for disqualifying a country's sources en masse from reliability, then perhaps you should insist over in Israeli-Palestinian topics, where you are so active, that Israeli sources get disqualified en masse from I-P topics. Obviously I would oppose that there as I oppose that kind of silliness over here.

Annyway, as always I find myself compelled to remind you that the place to make your arguments about reliability is at WP:RSN, so go over there. Of course you won't because you do know how ridiculous your proposals are. So stop wasting our time with these over here, because it gets in the way of productive discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on you VM. While Poland is generally still free - as Freedom House notes - there is a very particular problem with reporting on Holocaust history, which is what we're discussing here. Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it is NOT up to me to demonstrate that an entire country's sources should NOT be declared unreliable because... Icewhiz thinks that judging and excluding sources on the basis of their "ethnicity" is acceptable practice on Wikipedia. ONUS only applies to non-ridiculous notions. This proposal of yours is just as farcical as if someone proposed that we shouldn't use Israeli sources on Israeli-Palestinian topics because Freedom House notes some concerns. Israel ranks lower than Poland on their index of freedom. In terms of free media, they both get 3 out of 4 points. Again, please try going to WP:RSN with this crap - you know, and I know, that you'd be laughed out of there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I would be cautious with recent IPN publications. It's a government agency, and perhaps should be treated as WP:PRIMARY source. When governments attempt to legislate history, I have concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"It's a government agency..."' - so is the Polish Center for Holocaust Research. Like I said. Both are reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

See below. François Robere (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment:IPN is largely independent and a reliable source. I note that it receives funding from governement just like Grabowski's Centre For Holocaust Research.It is a similar to Yad Vashem or Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Germany. "if they say something in the media or on their own website it is another (probably not)".Again a personal opinion without any sources. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not true. The IPN law is not the same as for similar institutions in other countries (eg. Yad Vashem), as it clearly specifies "protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation" and investigating crimes by "Ukrainian nationalists" - but not nationalists of other ethnicities, eg. Poland - as goals, and provides means by way of court action. Doesn't sound like an agenda-free research institute. François Robere (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

investigating crimes by "Ukrainian nationalists"'There's no such statement in this law, so please cut it with your unsourced accusations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

" as it clearly specifies "protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation" and investigating crimes by "Ukrainian nationalists" - but not nationalists of other ethnicities, eg. Poland - as goals, and provides means by way of court action. Doesn't sound like an agenda-free research institute" And that's why there is no such law in Poland in effect in Poland, plus Poland isn't ethnicity. All crimes are investigated by IPN, be it carried out by Germans,Russians,Poles, Jews when in Polish territory on Polish citizens irregardles of their ethnic background.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's the original, read for yourself. I should note that the Ukrainian part was struck down by court relatively recently, but AFAIK the rest is still in place. François Robere (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You are posting a proposed version accepted by the Senat, which isn't the actual law, and which btw isn't about "Ukrainian nationalists" but about "Ukrainian nationalists cooperating with Third Reich".Again you are confusing the project and design with the actual law.Please in future read the actual material on the subject instead of posting strong views without backing them up, I do remember we had similar issue when we discussed what General Government was.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Also here you seem to be claiming that 200,000 Jews were mass murdered by Poles[2]? Feel free to correct me, as I asked you to clarify if this is what you are stating.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You haven't brought any citations to the discussion, so I can't comment on what you think may be the law.

I've commented on Xx's off-topic comment. I don't think any clarification is needed. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I fully support any request to add quotations, which in case of non-English sources should be added in original, as well as in English. I am pretty sure there are cite template parameters supporting that. Per cited policies, foreign language sources - Polish, German, Hebrew - are acceptable, but quotations are very helpful. Controversial/extraordinary claims that fail to be backed by quotations, particularly if they are offline and hard to verify otherwise, may be removed. With regards to the quality of IPN research, I agree that the institution is becoming more politicized, but there are on indications it is too politicized to be reliable. Until there is consensus in academia that IPN is not reliable, it is just another outlet, with some POV. Per WP:NPOV, all sources have their POV. Grabowski has a POV, so do his supporters and detractors. Ditto for IPN , Yad Vashem, USHMM, etc. No person or institution is perfectly neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Just before I read the above suggestion by SarahSV that information drawn from Polish-language texts should be accompanied by those original Polish-language texts, I was myself about to suggest that the latter be placed in the notes where the sources are cited. This procedure has often been used in the past and has enabled bilingual editors to verify the accuracy of the English-language versions and, as necessary, to improve their accuracy and comprehensibility. It would reduce the loss of useful material that is currently (and not unreasonably) being deleted because it makes no sense to a Polish-language-challenged Anglophone. And perhaps, last but not least, it could help reduce the logorrhea now burdening our talk pages.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The answer to POV concerns is NOT to make the article even more slanted

I've undone Icewhiz's recent edits. The content and changes were so over the top slanted and WP:TENDENTIOUS that at the very least they need discussing. Putting aside the issue of the delegation to Israel member Wildstein being discussed above, the edits try to cram in more negative information and remove any positive information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust Studies journal vs. BLPPRIMARY use of Dobrego Imienia and biznesistyl.pl

I was surprised to see this revert. This revert is a BLP vio, as www.anti-defamation.org is a WP:BLPPRIMARY source (of a nationalist,[3] or right-wing[4] nature) generally forbidden per BLP policy. Regarding - biznesistyl.pl - this seems like some local internet portal and not a source fit for BLPs, and it doesn't mention Grabowski anyway - so use of it is rather clear WP:SYNTH. There is clearly no consensus for Wildstein. The revert removed academic journal articles in the peer reviewed Holocaust Studies journal published by Taylor & Francis. The authors of the pieces are Dr. Zofia Wóycicka (presently at Zentrum für Historische Forschung Berlin), Jolanta Ambrosewicz-Jacobs (Director of the Center for Holocaust Studies at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland), and Michael Fleming (historian) (presently at Polish University Abroad). Generally, publications by such authors in such a journal would be reliable on Wikipedia and preferable to biznesistyl.pl, Polish League Against Defamation, or a right-wing journalist speaking on radio. Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason for the revert was explained above. You made large scale very controversial and POV changes. You inserted ridiculous, non-encyclopedic language like "ferocious response". You stated claims in Wikipedia voice as if they were facts. You engaged in WP:SYNTH original research violations to construct highly POV text. You removed well sourced material. I also have trouble believing that you were "surprised" that you were reverted since it's obvious you knew that there was no support for these changes and since your edit itself was so full of over-the-top POV that any reasonable editor would expect it to be undone.

As for the primary source, yeah there's a link to it, but that's because the text is discussing the original document. It's properly attributed so there's no issue here, BLP or otherwise. Now, are you going to provide a source for your attack on Bronislaw Wildstein where you claimed he was a McCarthyite? No? Then perhaps you shouldn't mention BLP out loud. It's kind of cringe worthy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY is policy - linking and sourcing content from the website of a nationalist organization is a BLP vio. All 3 academic sources discuss Grabowski (so not SYNTH) - "ferocious" was used in the cited source, and if at all I toned down the POV present in Holocaust Studies. We generally follow the POV and tone of academic sources such as Holocaust Studies . We generally avoid right wing figures speaking on obscure internet radio stations.Icewhiz (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case, if you're going to insist on it, we should simply remove the entire text, as it's kind of UNDUE anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And you're misquoting WP:BLPPRIMARY. What it says is that you can't use primary sources to support claims of fact. You can use primary sources for WP:V to show that so-and-so made some claim, as long as you properly attribute it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References

UNDUE, FRINGE, NOENG

Per FRINGE and UNDUE I removed content sourced via a bareurl to a figure whose work has been described as "a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation"".[5]. The individual is not tenured, and is mainly covered in English RSes for these sorts of views. Wikipedia is not the place to promote these sorts of views - there are other online forums for this sort of material.

Per WP:NOENG, I introduced higher quality published English sources (English and Polish with an extensive English abstract, the content contained within the abstract). diff. Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this amount of detail belongs in the article on the work, not here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: - trimmed heavily - leaving methodology and importance in one sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You didn't trim. You EXTENDED content. All you did in your two edits, is remove well sourced material on spurious grounds which didn't match your POV and then added EVEN MORE UNDUE material which did match your POV. That's not "trimming". And the proper response to people raising POV issues on talk is NOT to make it EVEN MORE POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ealdgyth - there may very well be too much detail about the work in this article. But Icewhiz is trying to use your comment as an excuse to remove a single, concise, short sentence from the article that is critical of Grabowski and calls that "trimming". Since he's been trying to remove this from the article for awhile now, it's pretty clear that the reason behind it is not "trimming". This is also evident in the fact that he simultaneously packed the article with EVEN MORE text about the book.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. "Not tenured" is not and has never been a criteria for whether something is reliable. Are all the other folks you're trying to use in this piece "tenured"? Stop making up nonsensical rules to justify your edits. And the Michilic work has been addressed already. Using it in the way that you want to use it amounts to a BLP violating smear. Stop falsely implying that Gotarczyk has anywhere called Jews a "an alien and harmful nation". These kinds of false attacks are just disgusting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Not remotely a RS, and please avoid introducing FRINGE material into a BLP. Gotarczyk work has been described as "a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation"".in an academic source (and other sources abound). What's next - Alan Sabrosky in 9/11 as a source?

Please stop trying to derail discussion with some ridiculous references to whoever Sabrosky is. What the freakin' fudge does 9/11 have to do with any of it???? Stop smearing authors you disagree with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I note that while claiming to remove Gontarczyk, Icewhiz has removed critical review by historian Tomasz Domański as well.Of course both sources are reliable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

An Polish state propaganda organization ("political history") employee, publishing in the open access, and quite dubious, Glaukopis. Lets perhaps find aithors that are not working for organizations (IPN) accused of being complicit in antisemitic attacks on Holocaust researchers? source - Le Monde. Stating this study has received "negative reviews" when said "reviews" are from quarters outside of normative scholarship - is not neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop making shit up. There is no "propaganda organization". IPN has been discussed to death. They are a reliable source. You've tried before to unilaterally declare them unreliable because of your own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and that didn't work. You are always welcome to raise it at WP:RSN but like with all your other ridiculous notions ("all Polish sources after 2018 are unreliable because I said so!") you won't, because you know you'll be laughed out of there. Stop making these absurd, inflammatory and extremist pronouncements. All they do is serve to make constructive discussion impossible. What's next? Insane claims that Polish media is "similar to Iran and North Korea". oh wait!.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

" Polish state propaganda organization" Please cease with ethnic based attacks, thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing ethnic here - the PiS regime (and media and state institutions under its controĺ) is separate from the Polish people. As for the nature of Holocaust discourse and propaganda under the present regime, this has been covered in depth in RSes - Atlantic, Feb 2018, Poland’s Historical Revisionism Is Pushing It Into Moscow’s Arms, Foreign Policy, 12 Feb 2019, Mateusz Mazzini.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"PiS regime"-I suggest you tone down with the political comments and inflammatory sentences and concentrate on the subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Holmgren, Beth. "Holocaust History and Jewish Heritage Preservation: Scholars and Stewards Working in PiS-Ruled Poland." Shofar 37.1 (2019): 96-107. I suggest you do not introduce inappropriate sourcing the a BLP. The revisionist situation in thost institutions controlled by PiS is well studied, and introducing sources rejected by most of the academic world in this topic area has no place on Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"PiS regime" - lol. Another comment which illustrates why you should not be allowed in this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Used in mainstream academic journals: ". In order to stress the authoritarian nature of the PiS regime, KOD sometimes called it “demokratura”, a “portmanteau of democracy” and “dictatorship”, depicting Polish authoritarianism with a democratic window-dressing." Author is "Karolewski is a Professor and Chair of Political Science at the Willy Brandt Center for German and European Studies of the University of Wrocla" - expert in the topic area.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Wildstein translations

Bronisław Wildstein. His son Dawid is also active, so please be careful. Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wildstein za eskalację napięć między Polską i Izraelem obwinia też "siły, które głoszą nonsensy bez żadnych podstaw naukowych". Przywołał przy tym przykład Jana Grabowskiego [6]

"Wildstein also blamed "entities which promote nonsense with no scientific basis" for the increase in tensions between Poland and Israel. He gave as a example Jan Grabowski

(On Grabowski) Trochę nieoficjalnie lansuje on tezę, że to Polacy zamordowali 200 tys. Żydów. Równocześnie w Izraelu przekonuje, że nie wolno badać pomocy Polaków dla Żydów, dopóki nie pozna się ciemnych stron naszej historii [7]

"Somewhat unofficially he promotes the thesis that Poles murdered 200k Jews. At the same time, in Israel, he argues that it should be forbidden to study the help Poles gave to Jews until the "dark pages" of Polish history are known first"

Mam nadzieję, że wspólnie z Żydami przezwyciężymy nienawistników w rodzaju Grabowskiego czy Grossa, którzy deformują historię i manipulują ją

"I hope, that along with the Jews, we can overcome the hate-mongers (better translation than "haters" currently in the article - VM) like Grabowski or Gross who deform and manipulate History"

ale też odejdziemy od tych lukrowanych i opowieści o tym, że ponad milion Polaków pomagało Żydom, bo to oczywiście nieprawda i to jest nonsens. Bo to świadczyłoby, że jesteśmy narodem aniołów. Wielka szkoda, ale nie jesteśmy. Dojdziemy do prawdy. Ta prawda nie jest dla nas zła.

"But (I also hope) we leave behind these sugar coated stories about how more than a million Poles helped Jews, because that too is a falsehood and nonsense. It would mean that we (Poles) are a nation of angels. It's too bad, but we're not. We'll get to the truth. That truth is not bad for us." Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE - no reason to think Wildstein's opinion voiced on Polish radio carries any particular weight. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, first it's "please provide translations" then it's "undue" and then it will be... ? Bronisław Wildstein is most certainly notable and his opinion (I have no idea what radio has to do with it - you keep bringing up "radio" as some kind of disqualifier which is just weird) is very noteworthy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a clear rationale why this random opinion carries any particular weight. Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not try to falsely discount this person's views by calling it a "random opinion". It's not. Your comment is another borderline BLP violation. And if you want to know why it's notable, then please read the Bronisław Wildstein article which I already linked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT objection appears to be particularly WP:TENDENTIOUS seeing as how you've tried to stuff this and other articles with truly random opinion pieces and articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(I mean, on another article in this topic you actually tried to use a ... what was it, a "fashion journalist"... wait, no, a celebrity gossip journalist who couldn't even get basic facts about WW2 right, as a source and never even tried to provide a "clear rationale" for that one).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

His background in anti-communist "vetting" in the post-communist era and activism and controvesy in this regard (leading to dismissal from his job at a right-wing newspaper in 2005) while perhaps reminiscent of a certain US committee, are not an indication of any particular expertise regarding WWII history. UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Another WP:BLP smear, insinuating (because you don't have the courage to say it outloud) that Wildstein is a McCarthyite ("certain US committee"). So more ridiculous nonsense. Stop. Attacking. BLPs. And none of this makes him UNDUE. He is a prominent publicist, a widely respected former opposition activist and widely published writer. That would make him DUE. It would certainly make him way more DUE than some celebrity gossip columnist you tried to use as a source. What is it that McCarthy was asked? "Have you no shame?"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Any idea what he refers to by claiming G. advocates not studying help from Poles to Jews? François Robere (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's referring to various editorials Grabowski has written. But you'd have to ask Wildstein. To whom we attribute the text properly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Undue: many notable people have opinions; there's no indication that this one is particularly authoritative or merits inclusion. WP:NOTPUNDIT. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"member of an official group working for dialogue with Israel" <-- yeah, that merits inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Undue. The previous paragraph represents the view of around 180 historians, including some of the world's most prominent Holocaust historians. It's the very definition of UNDUE to follow that with a paragraph offering the view of one Polish journalist, especially one that calls two BLPs "haters". SarahSV ^(talk) 01:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Sarah - I think it's clear that one side has dug in here and no matter what kind of support is presented, will engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and yell "UNDUE!" just to keep this out of the article. I think it's also clear that Wildstein is a very notable and important source - especially given his membership in the delegation to Israel. I don't think you're one of these people. I think you're a very good and reasonable editor. So can we please try to work out a compromise here? Do you have any constructive suggestions as to how we could address the concerns about this being UNDUE while at the same time acknowledging that this is an important part of the relevant discourse? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: thank you for the kind words. I appreciate that. The problem is that I can't see the sources and don't know how to judge the impact. The sources are:

• Kubica, Piotr (6 March 2018). "Wildstein: Polska nie ma problemu z antysemityzmem". TokFM.
• Skowroński, Krzysztofa (18 April 2018). "Wildstein: Mam nadzieję, że wspólnie z Żydami przezwyciężymy nienawistników w rodzaju Grabowskiego czy Grossa, którzy deformują historię". wPolityce.

In the second source, he seems to be saying only that extreme views of Poland during the Holocaust, whether good or bad, are unhelpful. If I were writing this article, I would reduce his input to something like that (not using the word "haters"), and I'd place it elsewhere, or I'd leave it out, depending on how notable I felt Wildstein's views were compared to others. I'd rewrite quite a bit of the article, and I'd give only a few examples of the positive and negative views. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically what he's saying though the relevance to this article is that he sees Grabowski as one of the extremes. We can paraphrase the relevant passage and avoid the word "haters" (actually "hate-mongers"). As pointed out Wildstein is a very notable former dissident (one of the key organizers of the first Solidarity movement, and of Workers' Defence Committee in the 1970s. He is - and his statement that is being discussed was made in the context of - a member of the delegation to Israel to foster dialogue on this very question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

He's not just ANY journalist, he's, I don't know, comparable to Charles Krauthammer - i.e. one of the MOST WELL known Polish journalists, in due part to the fact he was also a famous dissident. It's perfectly DUE and in fact, it's kind of required, per WP:BALANCE. And BLP only applies to Wikipedia editors, like Icewhiz, not to notable personas making statements. As long as it's properly attributed there's no issue here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The historians' statement was in response to the Polish League Against Defamation criticism and the 134 scientists. So we have that, followed by the historians, but now followed by more criticism from one Polish journalist. No matter how well-known, he's one person and he's not a Holocaust historian. You'd have to do a lot of research to know whether what Grabowski says is both correct and fair. (Also, the citations aren't written properly. When I hover, all I see are numbers; no indication as to what the source is.) WP:BLP applies to everything on the page; this is contentious, so it should be removed until there's consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I am not objecting to the inclusion of the historians' statement. So I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. As far as Wildstein, yes, he's one person, but that is also irrelevant - a person being one person does not disqualify him from being notable or due. In fact, when it comes to prominent people we use their statements on Wikipedia all the time. So again, I'm not clear on what the argument is. Likewise there is no requirement that we include ONLY Holocaust historians. A prominent public figure and a very well known journalist obviously qualifies for DUE as well.

As far as BLP and consensus goes, if you are genuinely concerned about BLP then perhaps you could mention it to Icewhiz to tone it down with the BLP attacks on this talk page, since they're really getting out of hand. In terms of the article itself... look, anything can be made "contentious" by anyone by simply engaging in obfuscation and obstruction on the talk page + constant reverting. I know that's not what you in particular are doing, but by setting this standard up, you enable other, less good faithed editors to engage in this kind of practice. In fact, precisely because the subject and his research is so extremely controversial and contentious we HAVE TO include negative reviews of his work, per WP:BALANCE, otherwise we mislead the readers (by making it seem like these ideas are non-controversial when that is not the case).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Every single assertion I made about a BLP (suggested as a source here) - was backed up with sources - and discussing sources is what we do on Wikipedia. What is lacking here is respect to our BLP subject here - inserting dubious and extreme sources is a BLP issue. As for Wildstein - it seems he's primarily notable for a scandal: "A journalist, Bronislaw Wildstein, has admitted copying the list from the archives of the institute and has been sacked from his paper, Rzeczpospolita, but he denies posting the list on the internet, saying he gave it only to a few trusted colleagues." .... "Prosecutors are also investigating whether someone at the institute helped Mr Wildstein copy the list, which was available only to researchers and others cleared for access." Guardian. or "The National Remembrance Institute (IPN), which holds the archives where Wildstein secretly photographed the list, has said it received "an avalanche of requests" for access to records and will have to take on more staff to cope with the sudden surge in interest. Wildstein has been sacked from his job at Rzeczpospolita since admitting last week that he had copied the list. SMH (AFP reprint). None of the arguments presented thus far on Wildstein suggest he's due for inclusion. The notability for the 2005 scandal is a rather big WP:REDFLAG. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"Every single assertion I made about a BLP (suggested as a source here) - was backed up with sources" <-- NONSENSE. Like your insinuation that Wildstein was a McCarthyite? No, you didn't provide any source for that. And then you double down on the BLP violations. No, he's not "primarily notable for a scandal". That's FALSE and another BLP violation which you DO NOT support with sources. He was notable long before the "list". Like, for, co-founding Solidarity, for investigating the death of Stanislaw Pyjas (at the hands of the communist secret police), for organizing Workers' Defence Committee and generally for his work as an investigative journalist.

Please provide a source that Wildstein is PRIMARILY notable "for a scandal" or strike your BLP violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I qualified my assertion with "seems" - per coverage in English sources - quite a bit of coverage of this communist "vetting list" (e.g. Secret Agents and the Memory of Everyday Collaboration in Communist Eastern Europe, page 42) and his sacking from the right-wing Rzeczpospolita newspaper. Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"I qualified my assertion with "seems"". Lol. See WP:WEASEL. It "seems" you made a (another) BLP violation. If you don't know what he's notable for, then ... don't make false accusations? Not that hard. Now, since it "seems" you acknowledge your error, how about striking your BLP attack above? Also, how about that source supporting your contention that Wildstein is a McCarthyite? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wildstein's sacking from the right-wing Rzeczpospolita newspaper is widely covered. His involvement in "anti-communist vetting" is also significantly covered - and I provided sources. What is lacking here, so far, is any compelling argument why this random opinion by a right-wing journalist (https://books.google.co.il/books?id=uk5GDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&dq=%22Bronis%C5%82aw+Wildstein%22+%22right+wing%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMgPO8n4vhAhWF16QKHfpHCb8Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Bronis%C5%82aw%20Wildstein%22%20%22right%20wing%22&f=false) is due for inclusion. It seems Wildstein was recently covered in the context of the right-wing WSieci’s plwiki issue with a cover of "rape" of Europe - in which he wrote a piece titled "Does Europe Want To Commit Suicide?".SMH. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a source about Rzeczpospolita. I didn't ask for a source about lustracja. I asked you to provide a source to support your WP:BLP smear which you made above that Wildstein was a McCarthyite. Your continued refusal to do so, your refusal to strike the offending comment and your apparent doubling-down on the smears and attacks in the comment right above against this person perfectly illustrate why you shouldn't be allowed nowhere near this topic area, or BLP topics in general. Every time a source or an author is provided you happen to disagree with, you vehemently and, um, "ferociously", attack them, turning articles and talk pages into attack pages. You're doing this to Wildstein, you did it to Gontarczyk, you did it to Musial, you did it to Krakowski, the list goes on and on and on and on. The fact you're allowed to get with these constant WP:BLP smears just highlights the dysfunction present on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could research Bronisław Wildstein's role in the 2018 Polish delegation to Israel? Was it an official or semi-official Polish-government-sponsored delegation? If so, that might make his views notable or at least semi-notable.

Also, could someone provide the bibliographic information concealed behind those source-citation "numbers"?

Thanks.

P.S. Poles tend to be less rigorous in their source citations than Anglophone authors. A noted Polish historian expressed surprise on learning that "B. Tuchman", author of the best-selling The Guns of August, cited in a Polish publication, was Barbara Tuchman, a woman.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point too and another reason to include him. I'm not sure what distinction between "official" and "semi-official" you have in mind, but yes, he was part of an "official" delegation [8] and it seems Grabowski's name was brought up during the talks [9]. Info from these sources could also be used in this and related articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Undue, as per SarahSV. François Robere (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to draw attention to SarahSV's comment above about the citations needing to be formatted properly. I've done this in the past as examples, so could someone else do that cleanup please? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I removed the text in question as there clearly is no consensus to include this material. François Robere, K.e.coffman, SarahSV, and myself have voice opposition, while Volunteer Marek seems to be the sole supporter of this on the talk page. Please gain consensus prior to reintroducing this. Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This is another false claim as there are several users here who clearly support inclusion (MyMoloboaccount, NihilNovi). Hell, I'm not even the one who added it. Furthermore, the "undue" claims are specious. First the argument was "provide translation". When that was done the argument switched to "undue". Wildstein is clearly notable and significant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sourcing comment the Wildstein quotes (ignoring SYNTH unrelated to Grabowski) is sourced entirely to the right-wing portal wPolityce.pl[10] quoting an interview on the internet radio station Wnet and a second piece on the Tok FM radio station (2.5% market share in Poland, 6th listened in Poland) - more or less the definition of undue on source quality alone (as well as doubtful for being a RS for BLPs).Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what the market share of Tok FM has to do with anything. And there is no SYNTH. Stop making things up. Or at the very least please bother explaining what is SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wildstein is notable and influential journalist-his statements should remain. I see no consensus on talk page for their removal.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Current consensus

• There's currently no consensus for including this material. I've removed the content; preserving here by providing this link. Just because someone is notable, or a member of a government delegation, does not make the opinion DUE. This looks more like an an attack on the BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Relevant criticism of the subject by a prominent individual who is part of a delegation on the very topic which is the subject of of the guy's work is very much due. Criticism is not an attack. The cries of "no consensus" are spurious since they seem to merely justify WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removals with the offending parties merely endlessly repeating "undue undue undue" but without ever bothering to explain or justify why it's undue. The WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of such practice is also evidenced by the complete absence of the willingness to compromise or propose constructive alternatives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments on a small radio station (+ internet radio) do not amount to much, and should not be used directly. We could add information on Grabowski from coverage in reputable academic sources:

1. Wóycicka, Zofia. "Global patterns, local interpretations: new polish museums dedicated to the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-25.
2. Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, Jolanta. "The uses and the abuses of education about the Holocaust in Poland after 1989." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-22.
3. Fleming, Michael. "Geographies of obligation and the dissemination of news of the Holocaust." Holocaust studies 23.1-2 (2017): 59-75.

I'll note these sources demonstrate that well regarded English language peer reviewed academic journals publish papers by Polish scholars. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The above sources do not cover extent of debate by scholars in Poland by Grabowski. And these are notable as Grabowski published an extensive reply towards criticism of his claim and there is a whole section of the Centre dedicated to this.In addition to being published by reliable sources, the dispute has been covered widely by mainstream media.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

IPN's statement about exhibition

https://ipn.gov.pl/en/news/1537,Statement-concerning-the-exhibition-on-Poles-saving-Jews-presented-in-Ottawa-and.html Xx236 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Xx236. I thought this link would make an interesting addition to the article's "External links", and entered the following:

• [Polish] Institute of National Remembrance statement concerning Ottawa, Canada, exhibition on Poles who saved Jews during World War II. [11] According to the statement, Professor Jan Grabowski, of the University of Ottawa, sought to prevent the exhibition from taking place, and gave an interview published under the title, "Polish diplomacy engaged in a nationalist Kulturkampf". (Downloaded 19 March 2019.)

It was deleted by an editor, with the comment: "Not needed here." I would think Professor Grabowski might welcome an opportunity to comment on the Institute's statement.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'm following: "I would think Professor Grabowski might welcome an opportunity to comment...". Article's ext links sections are not designed for the subjects of the articles to take note and comment. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if you object to the inclusion of this as an external link, why are you removing OTHER, well sourced material? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I object to the other material as well; otherwise I would not have removed it. Specific to the ext link, these sections are not spots to promote official statements from various orgs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"I object" - can you at least try and explain why? Or is this gonna be another one of those "discuss!" "no consensus!" "because undue!" things? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This section is about the ext link to IPN's statement. Why was it restored? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please explain in detail your reason for removing scholarly material published by historians on which Grabowski has officially has commented and which is covered by mainstream media.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski's actions against the exhibition should be described in the page. This anti-righteous action is notable.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Absent any coverage in Canadian sources (where this exhibition took place), this is rather clearly WP:UNDUE. All we have is a statement from a " quite controversial" organization,[12] recently criticized by the French government for its role in serious disturbances in a conference in Paris.[13] The IPN is furthermore a side to the dispute - Per the IPN itself it organized the disputed exhibition (in cooperation with the Polish Embassy), and it discusses the actions of IPN employees in Canada - so beyond not being an appropriate source for BLPs, it is also clearly not WP:INDY.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In the entire interview he says not a single word against the Righteous. Your interpretation here is bordering on defamation of character. François Robere (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The assumption that this would be an "interesting addition to the article's 'External links'" assumes this critique is objective, which it isn't. The only place for it would be in the article body coupled with a discussion, and even that only if it was relevant - which it isn't - it's just a PR in response to an interview. If you want, you can put it in the IPN's article, but not here. François Robere (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Jewish-Polish journalist Bronisław Wildstein

The lead of "Bronisław Wildstein" doesn't say Jewish. Any sources? Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"Life" section: "His father, Szymon Wildstein, was a Jewish military doctor and communist in the Second Republic of Poland. His mother Genowefa Wildstein was an anticommunist peasant and member of the Home Army."

Nihil novi (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't prove that B.W. is Jewish. He doesn't declare to be Jewish in any meaning of the word, his mother wasn't Jewish, he is (I believe) Roman Caholic. Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What does this has to do with this article? François Robere (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to streamline the article

I would like to see, in this article, more discussion of the hard merits of Professor Grabowski's scholarship, in lieu of a competition over who can garner the greater number of signatures on letters of opposition or support; and in lieu of the Professor's more peripheral obiter dicta.

I would therefore propose deleting the article's "Statements in opposition and support" and "Views" sections.

The articles dealing with Professor Grabowski's individual publications might benefit from more specific summaries of their contents, by published authors who have read them.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The support of Holocaust scholars for Grabowski has received significant international coverage. As have his views - which are DUE in his own page. Furthermore - some the 3 journal articles in Holocaust Studies above refer to his view points.Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

hard merits of Professor Grabowski's scholarship The problem here is that most of these discussions center on particular works and, under the pretext that they're "undue" have been removed or moved-then-removed to different articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Has any supporter verified misquotations of Grabowski? Apparently not, they believe Grabowski is fair. If Grabowski cheats, his supporters have a big problem. Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK. François Robere (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

His views deserve a section. The "supporters" etc. I don't like as a separate one - would rather we have a section on substance (including, say, any major scandal), where we note others' opinions. Part of the mess here, however, stems from some editors repeated attempts to defame G. by adding any possible critique, relevant or irrelevant. François Robere (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"for deconstructing political myths and propaganda that partly still persist in Polish history, journalism, church, and politics"

An academic admits that an academic institution uses Polish tax money to "deconstruct [Polish] myths" and to influence "journalism, church, and politics". I would prefer that think tanks carry out such tasks rather than "academics" who are financed by people who don't care for such biased deconstructions. Why only Polish myths are deconstructed? Why not Jewish, Israeli, French, British? Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. François Robere (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Academic lies

The “blue” police has thus become the only militarized and armed Polish formation which the Germans allowed to continue in occupied Poland. - how a new formation may continue? The blue police was not a Polish state police. It was a set of local units commanded by Germans. But auditors obey - don't ask questions, praize the genius of the lecturer. Please explain how a police is militarized? Gendarmerie nationale in France is miliarized.Xx236 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC) The lecture is available in a more readable form here [14].Xx236 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski and his co-authors requested

As far Grabowski and his co-authors took money from the Polish government and the quality of their work is controversial. They have to prove they are academic. Who reviewed the book before publishing?

Grabowski's co-author attacked Gontarczyk using a portal [15], inviting him to answer, even if he wants to publish a whole book. Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

with three other Holocaust historians

Leociak is an expert in literature. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I've amended the text to reflect this.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Agnieszka Haska a isn't a historian, either. http://magazynkontakt.pl/author/agneiszkahaska Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So noted. Nihil novi (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Many Holocaust historians or scholars have advanced degrees in fields other than history - closely related fields. Holocaust studies is a multidisciplinary field. Listing the credentials of each one here (e.g. literature historian) is a tad too particular though it does exhibit that the section really is not about our BLP subject.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Many Holocaust writers lack historical background. They use emotions rather than facts.Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK. François Robere (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Troubling sourcing....

The statement being edit-warred over: "Historian Piotr Gontarczyk has accussed the 2018 book co-edited by Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, and published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research, in Warsaw, Poland, Dalej jest noc: losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski [Night Continues: the Fates of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland]" is being referenced to "Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, eds., Dalej jest noc: losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski [Night Continues: the Fates of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland], Warsaw, Poland, Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów [Polish Center for Holocaust Research], 2 volumes (1,640 pp.), 2018, ISBN 978-8363444648 OCLC 1041616741" but this is bad sourcing because you cannot source Gontarczyk's "accusation" to the book he's objecting to. I kinda see what is meant here, but it's bad and should be fixed. And of course, there's typos that keep being introduced - "accussed" and other MOS errors. Can we get the correct sourcing for this information and not imply that Gontarczyk's accusation is contained within Engelking and Grabowski's work? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed this fragment and added numerous reliable sources describing the situation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you also like .. use periods and spaces and a spellchecker please? Also format your citations? Too much hurry is going on towards trying to make sure that the edit warring continues and not enough worry about trying to make the information readable and grammatcal ... the world will not end if more care is taken with additions/subtractions. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Due to the Polish Holocaust law, which applies to Polish media, Polish media sources from 2018 onwards (as opposed to published research) can not be considered reliable on the topic of Polish Holocaust complicity as the law applies to this topic in media publications - journalists writing on the topic facing potential civil sanctions.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"Due to the Polish Holocaust law, which applies to Polish media, Polish media sources from 2018 onwards " This is complete and utter nonsense and Icewhiz has repeatedly been warned about engaging in ethnic discrimination and his propensity to evaluate sources on the basis of racial criteria. This kind of approach is odious and disgusting and very much against Wikipedia culture and policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not ethnic based - the issue here is the Polish government outlawing writing about the complicity of the Polish state or nation in media publications. As the media is muzzled, by law, it is not reliable on the topic since these restriction came into force - similar to the Iranian or North Korean media being unreliable on their respective supreme leaders.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the Polish government did no such thing, and comparing Poland to Iran or North Korea is crackbrained, as you well know. Please stop trying to taunt and provoke other editors with extremist and inflammatory statements. And yes, you have tried to exclude sources based on their ethnicity from these articles previously, and you are trying to do the same, except this time you came up with an absurd excuse (Poland is just like North Korea!!!!). If you're not going to be serious, then you won't be taken seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"In February 2018, parliament passed a law criminalizing claims of Polish complicity in crimes committed during the Holocaust, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to three years. Following an international outcry, the government softened the law, making it a civil offense punishable by fine but not incarceration."Freedom house 2019. In light of government repression on media discourse on the topic of Polish complicity (and academic sources abound on this law) - Polish media can not be considered reliable for the rather narrow topic of WWII history (for which we should be using academic sources anyway, and per WP:NOENG prefer English.Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Go to WP:RSN. Ask there. Try it. If you're so damn confident your silly notions have any merit you'll do it. But you know they don't, so you won't. Otherwise, stop bluffing. And for god's sake, stop it with the offensive comments and insulting comparisons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include - and in this case beyond the RS issues due to Polish legislation, we have WP:NOENG and use of media (as opposed to scholarship). Using sources which, by law, have to comply with the "right version" of history won't fly at RSN. Russia has very similar legislation to Poland in this regard (though enforcing a different version of "right history") - See HRW - "In June 2016, a court in Perm convicted Vladimir Luzgin under the provisions of the rehabilitation of Nazism law for “falsifying history” by reposting an article saying that the Soviet Union shares responsibility for starting World War II and that the Soviet Union and Germany attacked Poland simultaneously. The court fined him 200,000 rubles (US$3,312), which was upheld on appeal. or this source - "The obvious rationale for the amendment is a defence of the traditional narrative of World War II as the only ‘right’ version of history". As journalists can not write on this topic freely in Russia and Poland, media sources from those countries are clearly unusable. Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Go to WP:RSN. Try it. ONUS is NOT on those who follow Wikipedia policies. Again, what the hell does Russia have to do with any of it and why do you keep bringing it up? Stop talking nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, the copy edit of the other paragraph has gone again and the problematic text is back. [16] There is no point in editing like this. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

One thing that would help is if people adding material about the book have it in front of them. Then there won't be uncertainty about whether the book contains the disputed text. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the book in front of you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Gontarczyk's extensive review of the book is available online here[17]

Other reviews are available here[18] However I believe most of this should be moved to article about the book itself.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also a much more extensive(over 70 pages) and detailed review by doctor Tomasz Domański is available here as part of first publication of the scholarly journal Polish-Jewish studies[19]. It contains a lot of interesting analysis and some examples of other factual errors.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski's opinions are stable, the same problems exist in Judenjagd, Polish Police and Dalej jest noc. Undefined county (powiat), thesis that German administration was Polish (Cuban politicians in Miami don't make Florida Cuban). Grabowski misquotes numbers of Jewish victims and reighteous. As far noone has verified the Judenjagd if Grabowski correctly quotes his sources.

Generally the new school assumes that if a Jewish and Polish account collide, the Jewish one is correct. However sometimes Jewish accounts are contradictory and accounts of the same Jew are contradictory. Xx236 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem with this. As you can see on p. 67 of his review, Domański cites Mark Paul, which as you know not only isn't an RS,[20], but not even a real person.[21] As for his argumenst - Grabowski's center put out a detailed rebbuttle,[22] which I trust anyone adding Domański's text will review. François Robere (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, can we drop Glaukopis already? This supposedly "scholarly, peer reviewed publication" is a nationalist haven[23] publishing a pseudonymic writer whose hobby is perpetuating antisemitic myths, who isn't published anywhere else. That's not exactly Slavic Review, is it? François Robere (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We are not basing sources and policies on links to statements by Wikipedia editors. Glaukopis is listed as reliable by Polish Ministry of of Education and Higher Studies, and Domanski is a renowned,notable scholar, and we are sourcing statement to him not any other source that he might have described or found useful.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Polish Ministry of of Education and Higher Studies" is not a RS nor an indication of academic acceptance of a source, and the PiS controlled ministry has made some very questionable statements on pogroms by Poles as well as other aspects of Holocaust history: "The Ministry of National Education of Poland officially endorsed the most bizarre distortions of facts" per academic source. Is Domanski a "renowned,notable scholar"? Note that "Tomasz Domanski" is an extremely common name and the IPN person seems to be someone else than "Professor Tomasz Domański, currently the dean of the Faculty of International and Political Studies at the University of Lodz"[24]. While I see that the Lodz professor is well published, I have found very little on the IPN's Domanski - care to provide sources backing up your assertion? Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not about any editor's comments, it's about GK being centered around a cadre of right-wing academics with a stated revisionist goal, some of whom routinely make questionable comments on Polish-Jewish history, which in addition is the main SPS home for an antisemitic pseudonymic writer. That is not how academic scholarship works.

As for Domański - it seems to have been added with minimal attention, or the Paul mention would've been caught. I would like to think editors read text before they add it. François Robere (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Chodakiewicz claims that Mark Paul is a real person, who is afraid of attacks. So your belives aren't any better than Chodakiewicz's claims. [25] Chodakiewicz maintains, that Mark Paul has been quoted in academic texts including "Zagłada Żydów". Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There aee several types of revisonism, eg. moving responsibility for the Holocaust from Germans and Austrians to Eastern European nations, especially Poles. Such revisionism is frequently left wing.

Dalej jest noc should be verified. We don't know as far the name of the academic reviewer. Neither your opinion about the IPN nor anout Domaski nor Gontarczyk doesn't solve the problem. Critics of the book started last year

• https://dzieje.pl/aktualnosci/maria-koc-podczas-likwidacji-getta-w-wegrowie-polacy-pomagali-zydom
• https://wolnosc24.pl/2018/05/30/tylko-u-nas-dalej-jest-noc-czy-dalej-jest-bzdura-lokalny-historyk-przylapal-grabowskiego-na-klamstwach/

Please name anything supporting Leociak's academic position outside history of literature.

Grabowski is an expert in history of Canada. If he is an expert in history of the Holocaust in Poland isn't obvious. He has obvious problems with facts - compare the numbers in the "Judenjagd". Has he corrected his false numbers in the "Hunt..."? He probably corrected his description of Dabrowa synagogue, perfectly renovated. Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Domanski's books https://ipn.poczytaj.pl/a/tomasz-domanski Xx236 (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

40,000

https://www.rp.pl/Plus-Minus/305179916-Pogruchotana-pamiec-o-Zagladzie.html Even Grabowski's book doesn't support the "200,000" story. Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The 22 February 2019 Jerusalem Post admits that Szymon Datner never accused the Poles of having killed 200,000 Jews. https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editors-Notes-The-anatomy-of-a-diplomatic-crisis-581441. Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

"The Polish Police"

The "Blue Police" has now become "the only militarized, armed Polish formation" which the Germans allowed to continue operating in German-occupied Poland. – Another fairy tale from Jan Grabowski. The police wasn't a "formation", much less a "military formation". It was a number of local police departments totally controlled by German police. "Armed" is an exaggeration: a handgun with 5-20 cartridges is hardly impressive. Xx236 (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Where was he baptized?

Please explain your joke. Jan Grabowski studied at Warsaw University, this information is in the text, so it may be present in the lead. If you don't like the form, please edit the text.Xx236 (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"Dispute with Daniel Blatman"

I removed the section "Dispute with Daniel Blatman" -- this is original research, cited to the pieces that the authors exchanged. If the dispute were notable, there would have been secondary coverage of it. Preserving here by providing this link. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't know but you remove. Lack of knowledge helps to patronize.

https://oko.press/spor-o-muzeum-getta-warszawskiego-w-izraelskiej-prasie-listek-figowy-pis/Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

http://wyborcza.pl/7,75399,24326745,ambasador-polski-w-izraelu-jestesmy-jedynym-panstwem-w-europie.html Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/the-israeli-scholar-who-s-a-poster-boy-for-poland-s-distortion-of-the-holocaust-1.6768946 Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Haaretz is a co-authored piece with 4 named authors. The other two are mainly on Daniel Blatman (mentioning Grabowski/Engelking/Haska/Leociak + Dreifuss's separate letter as background). This might be suitable for Blatman's article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How is this any different than the inclusion of claims from Grabowski, sourced to Grabowski interviews, or inclusion of Fleming's opinion (sourced to Fleming), the statement from the Centre (primary source) or Chraboszczynski's opinions (sourced to Chraboszczynski)? If the Blatman source is "primary" then so are all of these. If you remove one, then remove the others please. Otherwise it's WP:CHERRY-picking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And frankly, this dispute is a lot more notable than some of the other stuff in the article, seeing as how Blatman is a "professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem" and "chief historian at the newly-formed Warsaw Ghetto Museum". This clearly shows that it's not just "Polish nationalist" which are critical of Grabowski's work as some people like to pretend. Someone looking at the edit history could get the impression that that's why this is being removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it more notable? From what I see, we have an op-ed by Blatman in a newspaper (something, you might notice, has been challenged quite a few times for non-English media as well) - not an academic journal (Chraboszczynski or Fleming). Furthermore, the op-ed in its English version doesn't even mention Grabowski - it mentions the center Grabowski is associated with. Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is. And we have other sources [26] which mention Grabowski and Blatman together.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Another op-ed in Haaretz, by: "Albert Stankowski is the Director of the Warsaw Ghetto Museum". It seems more relevant in Warsaw Ghetto Museum (and maybe Blatman if we had an article), and to a lesser extent Polish Center for Holocaust Research (with which all of these co-authors are associated with). Is there any non op-ed coverage here? Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• This section is undue in this BLP. Note that "Dispute with..." is original research; if this indeed were a dispute worthy of inclusion, then there would be sources covering such dispute. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Judenjagd was the German search for Jews who had escaped from the liquidated ghettos in Poland

A very interesting truth.

• There was no Poland at that time, so rather occupied Poland.
• The Germans searched for Jews not only in occupied Poland.
• Occupied Poland was multiethnic, but only ethnic Poles are described.Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Polish Police - sources

• Grabowski's text is alraedy linked.
• Critics of Polish Police name is in Korekta obrazu by Domański. Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize

If you have questions, you may always read the text and prove that the biased book by Grabowski is neutral and the readers don't need to be informed about an academic description of the context lacking in Grabowski's book. Anti-Polish bias is always welcome, academic, neutral, isn't it? Who needs facts? Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

he believes 200,000

• Are such speculations due?
• Why a Summary doesn't summarize the book, which describes German terror machine, but mostly quotes Grabowski's speculations not connected to the county? No serious academicians builds a theory on one county. BTW numbers in his book (Polish edition) are false.

Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the trash. If you believe it should be quoted in another part of the page, please restore it there.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Were Judenjagd and Dalej jest noc given expert review pre-publication?

In Tomasz Domański's 72-page article, "Korekta obrazu? Refleksje źródłoznawcze wokół książki Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski" ("A Corrected Picture? Reflections on Use of Sources in the Book, Night Continues: The Fate of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland")," in the Institute of National Remembrance periodical, Polish-Jewish Studies (2019) [27], footnote 213, p. 72, reads: "It is worth asking whether the book [Dalej jest noc] underwent [pre-publication expert] review. Customarily, reviewers' names are placed on the page that gives publication information. In Dalej jest noc, reviewers' names are not given, as is also the case with other major books bearing the Polish Center for Holocaust Research imprint. See Prowincja noc...; Zarys krajobrazu...; B. Engelking, Jest taki piękny...; J. Grabowski, Judenjagd..." [Domański's footnote was translated by Nihil novi.] Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Frydel is due

Frydel describes subjects omitted in the book. He is a co-author of Dalej jest noc.06:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a review. Where's the review? François Robere (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The truth isn't important according to you. Your bias should win.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a reference to Grabowski in the paragraph you added to the "reviews" section. If it's not a review, then it's out of place. François Robere (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious that Frydel criticizes the book. I don't know why does he peretend he doesn't. Perhaps academic world is wild?Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Dalej jest noc, edited by Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, accuses Edward Malinowski, wartime sołtys of the Polish village of Malinowo, of having been responsible for the deaths of dozens of Jews who were in hiding from the Germans. His 94-year-old relative Filomena Leszczyńska is suing Grabowski and Engelking in Warsaw court for defaming Malinowski, who—on the contrary—had heroically assisted Jews, at the risk of his own life and the lives of his family.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Polish League Against Defamation

I've reverted anon (possibly an open proxy of an indef banned editor), but I have to say that I am unsure if the paragraph attributed to Polish League Against Defamation is fine (WP:UNDUE, WP:PRIMARY). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Can probably be shorter. Some of it is outright irrelevant, for example the Righteous bit. François Robere (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Far right hate should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.154.103 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski's opinon about his own article

In a recent social media commentary (hard to link facebook comments) he called his biography here 'terrible' and 'scandalous'. Perhaps someone would like to some copyedit and maybe fix any perceived problems (he did not specify any exception mentioning old and gone vandalism from last year, but personally I think the section about the Hunt... book is too detailed). Ping User:SlimVirgin who worked on this before and is the most prolific contributor this bio (and whose neutrality I think nobody would question). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. On what page or profile was this commentary published? François Robere (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, one version I can somewhat vouch for is 3 October 2018, although it was written that way to help stop the disputes, and it incorporated material that was there when I began editing it. This is the version before my first edit. I'm less familiar with what has happened since. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I would switch out the Bogdan Musial's critique for the more measured critique of Dariusz Stola. Musial has controversies of his own so better to stay with neutral critiques if there are only going to be two. Should probably move the interview content to the book page if it is kept at all. Its usually better to use secondary sources to put interviews in context anyway. The Blatmen content should be removed unless a secondary source can be found. Its probably against BLP to use a opinion article that doesn't even mention Grabowski to comment on his actions. Its not hard to read between the lines but Blatmen was careful to not use certain specific names in his editorial so we should probably not as well. Sorry if I am wrong and missed in the editorial where Grabowski was specifically mentioned, it was rambling and could have used an editor. To be honest though 'scandalous' seems like a bit muchAlmostFrancis (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, some of the content has long been problematic, see for example the thread that I started: Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)/Archive 6#"Dispute with Daniel Blatman". The content related to the Polish League Against Defamation is certainly undue, unless it's put into proper context. This is just at a quick glance. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Further reading vs external links

Errr, re [28], I don't think YouTube videos make good further reading. Ping User:François Robere. I think fr section is for works about the topic, like if someone publishes a book or article about him we don't cite. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Not technically, no, but I read the section as "for your enrichment", so I don't see "written" as a strict requirement. You can move the clips back if you prefer; I do think the Time piece belongs there. What's the policy on "Further..." vs "External..."? François Robere (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to add those links. Piotrus, given Grabowski's article naming you, and your response to it, you should stay away from edits about him, including on talk pages. See WP:BLPCOI: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." SarahSV ^(talk) 16:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Verdict in Poland

Shouldn't the latest verdict in Poland be included in the article? It has been widely commented, see eg

• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55996291
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-holocaust/future-of-polands-holocaust-research-hangs-on-court-case-academics-say-idUSKBN2A91M7
• https://apnews.com/article/poland-europe-warsaw-13f643d34b511cce0f2bcf2f933d4698

basically:

"A Polish court has ordered two Holocaust historians (Jan Grabowski & Barbara Engelking) to apologise to the niece of a dead village mayor(=Edward Malinowski), for having accused him of collaborating with the Nazis in World War Two. Despite finding them guilty of defamation in a book (=Dalej jest noc), the Warsaw court did not order them to pay damages.", Huldra (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the section to add this info to [29]. That woman sued Grabowski and Engelking for the events detailed in that book. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

August 2021 edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "left out the statement from Engelking & Yad Vashem PR link -- the rest are not self-published sources, but CBC, Guardian and AP". The coverage in international media establishes due weight. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

At least the part from POLIN is cherry picked from the source. Volunteer Marek 21:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thats not what "cherry picking" means at all. POLIN made a statement which is detailed in the source. Quoting from a source is not "cherry picking". Dead Mary (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The same source points out that the suit was a private one, the government had nothing to do with it and no public funds were used. But this information is all kept out. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Erm what? I am not sure how this is related. You deleted a well sourced statement by POLIN about this case. The fact that this was a civil suit is already mentioned in the article. Dead Mary (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)