Talk:Jan Grabowski/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

At the moment the article isn't neutral

At the moment the article isn't neutral, as it lacks information about nature of criticism by historians and when such information was presented it was either deleted or reduced. Currently the presentation is focused on praising the figure in question, however in discourse, Grabowski has been much critized. The current impression of the article is that this irrational and consists of death threats, but there was serious historic debate about him, questioning his research. This needs to be included for neutral point of view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And is present. Reviews in peer-reviewed publications are present. As are the Polish League Against Defamation's allegations, and we even have a Polish historian who published his opinion in an op-ed (not in a peer reviewed publication).Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

We currently have 9 lines (in one paragraph) for 5 positive reviews (on the more current and expanded 2013 book in English) - all published in peer reviewed journals of some weight.

In contrast we have 22 lines (in multiple paragraphs) for 2 negative reviews + 1 op-ed in response to a newspaper feature - Bogdan Musiał writing in Dzieje Najnowsze (an open access Polish journal), Łukasz Męczykowski in histmag.org (which is popular audience website in Polish) and Grzegorz Berendt in an op-ed (that is not about the book, but in response to Haaretz's feature on "jew hunting" which also included an interview with Grabowski). Męczykowski has no basis for inclusion (insignificant author - PhD grad in non-peer reviewed setting), Berendt is a journeyman academic in an op-ed (in response to a feature) - highly marginal for inclusion, and Musiał is somewhat notable (all be it with a few strings attached) writing in a venue that might merit inclusion.

So if there is a POV problem - it is the amount of weight and space given to the less significant negative reviews. If we're scraping in histmag.org - there are plenty of positive reviews in popular publications.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Berendt is a journeyman academic"' - ummm, what? Berendt is a historian who specializes in the topic! He's published numerous works on the topic, is a faculty member at the University of Gdansk and works at the The Jewish Historical Institute . Your false and unfounded assertions sort betray your bias here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Look at his h-index, citations, and publication list - I did not say he was not a professor at the university of Gdansk (and the Jewish institute, and the IPN). You added an IPN bulletin to his opinion - which is still not a peer reviewed journal.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It's good to see a section of criticism, balance is needed. The length of each section is not that relevant, both can be expanded further if more material is deemed relevant. I thought about reviewing some of the publications you mention for and against, but I cannot find relevant sections. I'll just confirm that Biuletyn IPN does not appear to be peer reviewed and is classified (on pl wiki) as a historical magazine. I'll note, however, that his book 'hunt for Jews' is likely notable, and it should be only briefly summarized here. Relevant content should be split there. This article needs only a short paragraph on it. (Will I have do do another split...?). Ps. Grzegorz Berendt seems like a normal reliable academic, don't understand what makes him a 'journeyman' (weird use of this term, IMHO). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I said nothing otherwise about Berendt. I think the 3 negative reviews should be summarized to a reasonable length (say 4-5 lines in total), and I would omit the review in histmag. Most of the content relating to hunt for the Jews here, excluding these long negative review summaries, are directly related to Grabowski - criticism of him personally (including death threats and calls for his sacking), as well as shoews of support.Icewhiz (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid the article still requires work. For example the criticism isn't only in regards to his book or inflated nuber. And there is over-emphasis on supposed death threats without describing scholarly criticism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The death threats are sourced to multiple top line RSes, who covered this at length and over a period of time. Scholarly criticism, which is favorable, is described - from five different peer reviewed journals. If we have a problem it is the overemphasis on FRINGE/highly-biased views such as Musial and the review on histmag.org a website/blog, which are UNDUE. Do you any specific concerns other than general statements?Icewhiz (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Do any of the sources state outright that the death threats are corroborated by any relevant authority? Is there an inquiry in this case, material evidence? No? Then it is a claim, a plausible claim but as yet unverified. I will also note that the article currently ties these alleged threats with even more claims of harassment, and both with the boycott by Polish organizations: however stupid, the boycott is not the same as a threat or harassment, and it is terribly POV, and terribly bad writing, to put them all in one phrase. Dahn (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Several top-line RRS state in their own voice that he received death threats. They do not say that he said he has received death threats. They also report that the campus has beefed up security.e.g. see AP [1] "Since then Grabowski has received several death threats, leading to security patrols in his department.". Reporting on this hails back to 2013 at least, and is done in the RS's voice most of the time (not a problem to find multiple such accounts). Considering these threats are probably mail, email, or phoen (recorded) - these are fairly easy to verify 3rd party. RSes report on the threats and harrassment together, e.g. CBC "His research has brought death threats against him and his family and angry letters to his employer demanding he be fired."[2], or JC "He has suffered death threats and is boycotted by the Polish community in Canada, where he lives today."[3]. RSes report jointly - so we follow the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Precisely because they are easy to verify, and yet there is no talk of legal action, we should not use wording that states this is a fact: the RSes you cite either attribute the claim ultimately to him or use vague language -- they are journalists in the business of journalism, which involves taking sides, we have our own guidelines. Increased security need not be based on actual evidence of threats, but can simply reflect his claim, just as well -- I mean, they are under contract to protect him at even the slightest allegation, them doing so is no evidence that the threat exists or is credible. This also goes for how journalists conflate two issues: not only is there no requirement to parrot them on phrasing, and several reasons why we would not (for instance, they can easily be made to retract or taken to court by people they arguably smear with such conflation), but it simply makes no narrative sense that we should do so -- what point can this "following the sources" serve, other than suggest that boycotting him is somehow the same as sending him threats? Dahn (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

RSes report this in their own voice - not attributed to Grabowski -attributing this to him would be WP:OR - it could have come from someone else, e.g. a campus official or police report copy. We do not usually write "according to the BBC, CBC, New York Times, Washington Post, AP, and Reuters X has Y" - which is basically what you would have to do here. When multiple RS say something in their own voice - we do not attribute. I will not intepert to why RS report boycotts and threats jointly. They do. If you want to separate this out to a separate paragraph you could. I think it would be clunky, but I have no strong opinions on the matter.Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: No, beyond the headlines several of those sources don't report "in their own voice", they actually attribute the claim back to him -- for some reason, you omitted citing them as sources here. Here's BBC: "Some of that anti-Semitism ends up in Mr Grabowski's mailbox. In the past it was sent anonymously, he said. Now it is signed, and it includes threats against his family." See also CBC's other report. AP and the like report that he received death threats, but this already contradicts the more detailed accounts -- they could all simply pass on Grabowski's claim as fact, which we have seen routinely happen in this day and age of activist journalism and unabashed bias. That said, there's nothing wrong or unusual with stating that "according to multiple reports, he has received threats" (we neither take on the claim as our own, nor imply that it is fringe -- we simply state what we mean, namely that multiple RSes believe it to be true); I mean, when we have a person who actually confesses to a crime, we still call him "suspect" or "alleged perpetrator", yet here a claim with absolutely no substantiation is The Truth. For the rest: my comment was not about why they do it (we can only speculate about that), but about why we would do it as well; I mean, we both see the risk here now, and we both seem to agree that we can at least separate the alleged (and criminal) threats from the documented (and nonviolent) boycott. I refrain from editing the article at all, but maybe you can incorporate this suggestion in your edits. Dahn (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The ones I quoted above were in their own voice (without attribution) - dating back to 2013 and through 2018. The BBC report you quoted did attribute part of the stmt to Grabowski (on threats being signed) while attributing to AP that antisemitism in Poland is on the rise and saying in its own voice some of that antisemitism reached Grabowski's mailbox. We typically do not place "accordning to multiple reports," prefixes in such situations - the refs at the end of the sentence are typically enough (which is why they are there - per BLP policy and policy in general for such stmts) - we usually trust non-tabloid news orgs to do their job properly (particularly when we have several such reports). I do not see a need to separate the boycott from threats - but do not object if you maintain cohesive flow. As for your claim this is a claim - that is not borne out by the RSes reporting this who do not treat this as a claim. Instead of ORing how the multiple news orgs verified this (police report? Look at the mail themselves?) - when you have multiple strong sources it is usually correct to assume they verified it.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I rearranged the boycott / threats blurb so that they are not in the same sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thanks for accepting the objection. Concerning the other one: in the absence of any quote from any report by any authority saying that these threats actually happened, and where the only source for the claim that is actually mentioned by any secondary source is Grabowski himself, it strikes me as entirely unnecessary to parrot what journalists say and not attribute the claim to them. This is not OR; OR would be saying that "we know they picked it up from campus police", or "we don't know if they picked it up from campus police". I have suggested a wording that would neither interpret reality, not coach the read into who they are to believe. I believe this is quite consistent with WP:IMPARTIAL and reflects what those source which go into any level of details actually say. Dahn (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, this issue of death threats is mentioned twice in two separate points of the article, for no apparent reason. The second time it has a section of its own, with "threats" as a component of the title, but in both cases it is only mentioned with one sentence, and citations that also mentioned the supposed fact only briefly (even when they make a headline of it). It's really looking like WP:UNDUE: surely one coherent mention, with all the sources put together, will do. Even with more details, and quotes if need be, but not repeated over and over in the text. Dahn (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dahn: While I disagree on some points (particularly on the UNDUE point - most historians are not subjects of continuing international news coverage, particularly not of death threats - and here we have coverage spanning 6 years) - I have toned this down.Icewhiz (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thank you, I appreciate that. I will note that the simple repetition of a claim does not make it more reliable: what would've been more reliable would've been a statement by a(ny) mandated authority in these years where harassment supposedly took place. Dahn (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, as I we were discussing this, Main Page included a link to Woozle effect. Dahn (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Little details

There was no county Dąbrowa Tarnaowska under Nazi occupation. It's impossible to read the book and ignore such basic fact. The former county belonged to Kreis Tarnow.Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

additions to "Works"

Generally, since this is the English Wikipedia, it doesn't make sense to add non-English language works to the "Works" section unless they are of particular significance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Also we generally avoid long quotes from sources as that violates WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. We're currently giving UDNUE weight to a teacher writing in histmag.org (a website or blog). Regarding works - we actually often have a list of notable works on academics (set by some criterion - e.g. number of citations), regardless of language.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What does the kettle have anything to do with it? At best your response is WP:OTHERSTUFF (or whataboutism) and fails to address the issues raised.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If only one editor reads Hebrew, noone is able to verify his Hebrew sources. Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I for one don't see a problem with long quotes from sources. If they're only there for fluff, the reader is quite likely to see that for her/himself. I mean, for instance Snyder's positive "review" isn't much of a review, just a blank endorsement and, as noted by another user here, does not address the controversy -- just states that the jimmies getting rattled is a necessary thing, and implies that all who disagree with Grabowski do so because they had imbibed communist theses (whatever merit this last point has, it defies logic on at least one issue: the bias of Polish authorities is largely about protecting the honor of the Polish Underground State -- wrong or right as it may be, that position is prima facie incompatible with communism).

However, there is no reason to remove his quote from the text. It's an empty praise, sure enough, but anybody is likely to note that much by going over the quote. Maybe at some point someone in the West will actually look at Grabowski's claims and produce a substantial argument defending or opposing them. But now the state of the controversy is detailed criticism vs generic blurbs, and I see nothing wrong with the text reflecting that particular record. Add a million blurbs, if you will, as that would certainly reflect the sheer number of positive reviews, and therefore the state of scholarship; it will incidentally also reflect that none of the blurbs focus on the issues brought up by critics. Dahn (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Important update on numbers by Grabowski

See here [4] [5]

I am just reading the articles and this will need a much longer description but the article states that the number of 200,000 Jews supposedly murdered were taken on basis of estimating surviving Jews in Poland at 20,000 from a book by historian , a figure that was estblished based on registered Jews by June 1945 in Central Jewish Committee in Poland, and assuming that anyone Jewish that didn't register by this time in this organization was murdered. According to the article, this number was then doubled by Polonsky(historian Grabowski uses for basis of his estimate) as the author believe it isn't reliable(that's what the article states). According to the article Grabowski took the number of 250,000 fleeing Jews from Ghetto from Szymon Datner's estimates but rejected his estimates about numbers of survivors. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Also this article states that Szymon Datner never stated that 200,000 were murdered by Poles, and the article says that the number of 100,000 Jewish deaths by Datner includes people who died but weren't murdered(for example from famine or cold during winter while hiding in the forest, etc)[6]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Also there is an official statement by IPN on the 200,000 number [7] Never, in any of his works, did Simon Datner mention any number of 200,000 murdered Jews, nor did he ever describe such a number of victims as the result of crimes perpetrated by Polish people in the occupied territories. Imputing these statements to Datner amounts to falsifying the scholarly record of this undisputed authority on Holocaust studies. Datner differentiated between the actions of German State officers and armed German services and the attitudes of civilian people in all occupied areas. Some of the participants of the current debate ignore such distinctions, either due to lack of knowledge or intentionally --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The Polish IPN has its own opinion (which we cover via IPN member Grzegorz Berendt - who basically says what you posted in the links above). Most international scholars, writing in peer reviewed journals, disagree. Note that statements from 2018 and onwards in Poland are problematic due to Holocaust law wields a 'blunt instrument' against Poland's past, BBC, which hampers speech on the subject in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Most international scholars, writing in peer reviewed journals, disagree" - this is completely false and is unsupported, unsurprisingly, by any citations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on Holocaust research in Poland, besides Holocaust Denial, just like in many other countries.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It would seem the WP:RSes do describe limits beyond what is in "many other countries", including per DW "Poland has passed a law criminalizing suggestions the country was complicit in the Holocaust" or per the WSJ "Law mandates fines or imprisonment for people who accuse the Polish population of responsibility or complicity in war crimes".[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not spam this talk page. If you want to discuss Polish laws on holocaust denial there are seperate pages for this.It has been explained countless times that the law is not banning any research into Holocaust--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm strongly trying to resist the urge to close this as another poor attempt at WP:SYNTH (exactly how I predicted it, see here). Anyway, the source does not explicitly discredit the Grabowski (or Datner number). At most, it casts some small doubt on it's accuracy, but neither Grabowski nor Datner say "the death of exactly 200 000 Jews was caused as a result of Polish collaborationism [again, caused as a result, not directly]" (hell, it's clearly described as an "estimate"). Anyway, 200 000 technically has only one significant digit, and so by writing "200 000" what is actually meant is "some number around 200 000 (technically, between 150 000 and 249 999, but this isn't of much importance here), rounded so as not to create false precision".

Quoting the above (I don't understand Polish, so no way to check except Google translate, and we all know how reliable that is) - and ignoring whether it actually accurately represents the source or whether we are missing some details: somebody who has access to the original book by Datner should check - "a figure that was [established] based on registered Jews by June 1945 in Central Jewish Committee in Poland, and assuming that anyone Jewish that didn't register by this time in this organization was murdered. According to the article, this number was then doubled by Polonsky ([the] historian Grabowski uses [as the] basis of his estimate) as the author believe it isn't reliable." Unless you can find a reliable academic source to support your claims, don't argue based on your personal opinion because you are not a reliable source, per WP policy. Personally, and again not being an expert, I don't see any obvious fault with the above estimate - the number of false positives (i.e. number of persons falsely thought as being dead) wouldn't be large enough to seriously affect the accuracy of the "200 000" number, significant digits taken into account.

And, sincerely, stop attacking straw men. Icewhiz said the law "hampers speech on the subject in Poland", not that it "[bans] any research into Holocaust". And, the Polish laws might be better discussed (in-depth) on more specific pages, but they are also strongly related to this page's subject. Don't try to discredit statements on technicalities: the BBC is a reliable source and if it says the law restricts research on the Holocaust (even mentioning this author's book directly!), then we must report what the BBC (and other reliable sources say), not what you (established above: not a RS) think, per WP:NOR. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what a 'significant digit' is suppose to mean in this context. That appears to be an attempt to use some fancy sounding, but meaningless, terms to appear to be legit, when in fact, it's just blowing smoke. At the end of the day Grabowski does indeed claim that close to 200k Jewish escapees from the ghettos were killed by Poles. This number is simply impossible since the overall number of Jewish escapees (according to established literature and sources) was between 50k and 100k (roughly 50k in the countryside and 50k in Warsaw, with some double counting going on). You can try to obfuscate as much as you can but this is what the whole thing comes down to; that. number. is. just. logically. impossible.

And that's putting aside other issues such as 1) the way Grabowski calculates the number assumes that all escapees who were killed were killed by Poles, rather than Germans, Ukrainians, Belorussians or other non-Poles. 2) He bases it on an extrapolation from a single county which was very unlikely to be representative for a whole host of reasons. 3) He cherry picks and fudges the sources to arrive at his % of people killed in that county anyway, to make it as high as possible.

Now these last three (which are also discussed in sources) are also deeply problematic but they are ADDITIONAL problems, on top of the fact that his number is impossible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

May I also interject (repeating myself, but because I'm made to) that the IPs claim according to which Grabowski "rounds up to 200,000" is apparently contradicted by Grabowski himself, when he says (as the article currently quotes him) that 200,000 is a "very conservative estimate"? Dahn (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

All not impossible hypothesis (though they all bring into question the integrity of a (respected) scholar's work), however, lacking WP:RS which clearly say why it is inaccurate (not some newspaper or politically motivated or legally constrained institution simply saying "the number is inaccurate"); there are just that: slightly far-fetched hypothesis not supported by a source. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There are several sources saying not just that it is, but why it is inaccurate. And they're only formally less reliable than the sources who simply repeat the claim without investigating it. Historians who react to a claim with newspaper articles are no less historians; and "claims made buy newspapers" doesn't seem to work at all for the various claims made by the plethora of newspapers cited in Grabowski's favor. Please, let's be consistent here.

Not that this was about accuracy, this was about his own claim, quoted in sources added to support his claim. And right there he says that he uses 200,000 as his benchmark, not as an estimate which could be much lower. That was not to address whether the number is or isn't reliable, it was to note that your claim is inaccurate: as you can see, he does not in fact go lower than 200,000 ("technically, between 150 000 and 249 999"), only higher. Dahn (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're saying. What is a "slightly far-fetched hypothesis not supported by a source"? Grabowski's numbers? Well, then it's not just "slightly far-fetched", it's downright impossible (according to sources). If by "slightly far-fetched hypothesis not supported by a source" you mean the criticism of a number then no, you're wrong. The criticism is not a "hypothesis", just a logical observation that it is impossible to kill 200,000 escapees, when there were only 50,000-100,000 escapees to begin with. And yes this observation is backed by sources which say exactly that, for example Grzegorz Brendt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What is slightly far-fetched is your hypothesis in your previous comment "And that's putting aside other issues such as ...". The number by Grabowski is "supported by sources" (his book, to begin with, and all the positive criticism of it). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's own book cannot be a source for itself. That's ridiculous. And it's not "my" hypothesis, this is what other reliable sources state. "Positive criticism" (an oxymoron) do not validate his number in any way. If you know of any independent studies which confirm this result, by all means cite them. And you still haven't bothered to address the simple logical impossibility of this result.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that raw IPs can close debates. If you're an admin, please identify yourself. Dahn (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Not an admin, however, applying Template:collapse top (and bottom) tags (or even actually closing the thing) is possible by anyone in good-standing (and uninvolved, which is why the sentence about closing was metaphorical, since I'm clearly involved) - this isn't AfD. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And as an uninvolved editor under that definition, I would simply reopen the discussion, because clearly it was not given time to be resolved. Also, how you're uninvolved and also commenting taking sides is beyond be, but let's leave it be.

To your claims and point, let's note that this is currently in the article: "according to Grabowski his estimate of 200,000 Jews killed by Poles is very conservative, as he did not include victims of the Polish Blue Police". Now, leaving aside the point that people killed by the Blue Police were in fact killed by the Nazis (the Blue Police had no agency of its own), or that killing many hundreds of thousands of Jews is not proof that there were many hundreds of thousands of killers (which would be a semblance of an argument about collective responsibility), let's note that, if true, this directly contradicts the claim that he's only talking about "some number around 200 000". "Conservative estimate" and "some number that could be 150,000" don't go together. Dahn (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said he rounded up to 200 000. Maybe he got a higher number (which seems to be what he implies with "conservative estimate"), then carefully analyzed it and concluded that there could be some false positives, and rounded it down. Anyway, I clearly said the thing about significants digits was only from a technical point of view. If you don't know what "significant digits" are, see the linked article in my previous comment. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You keep using these phrases "significant digit" and "false positive" in a context where they don't make sense and in a way which shows you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't regression analysis. This isn't statistical analysis. We're not discussing whether the true number was 200,543 or 200,547. Indeed, there was hardly anything "technical" about how Grabowski came up with this number (basically he made it up). Basically what he did is the equivalent of multiplying (a miscalculated) number of apples by the acidity of oranges and then claiming you've measure the length of a banana.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You have said that the number could be lower or higher than 200,000. As you can see, Grabowski himself does not accept that it could be lower, and uses 200,000 as the minimal estimate. His minimal estimate is already viewed as implausible by other historians (those who bother to check his numbers, that is). That is the substance of the controversy. Dahn (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Anon IP:Wikipedia uses non acacemic sources, they are perfectly acceptable and this doesn't violate RS. IPN is an academic institution and extremely reliable source. Secondly Grabowski here uses the number 200,000 on basis of Szymon Datner's[21]Większość nie mogła nawet o tym myśleć - byli głodni, zmęczeni, zaszczuci, nie mieli ani znajomych Polaków ani pieniędzy, żeby im zapłacić. Historyk Szymon Datner oceniał, że około 10 proc. populacji Żydów podjęło walkę o życie. Rachując zgodnie z tym założeniem, otrzymuje się liczbę 250 tys. Żydów, którzy szukali podczas okupacji schronienia na terenie Polski. Większość badaczy zgadza się z szacunkiem, że 40 tys. z nich przeżyło wojnę. Odejmując jedną liczbę od drugiej otrzymujemy dane podane (w pierwotnej wersji tekstu "Złotych żniw" - PAP) przez Jana Tomasza Grossa - nie wiemy, co się stało z 200 tysiącami ludzi, którzy próbowali przeżyć okupację na terenie Polski" - powiedział Jan Grabowski I can translate it later. Third-the article mentions that IPN responded to Grabowski's claims of 200,000 that were repeated in the media. Fourth-the unreliable nature of counting Jews by June 1945 was stated by Polonsky hence arbitrarily he doubled it, the criticism was that it was arbitrarily, you could just as well triple it, this wasn't based on any factual data. Anyway, this shows that there is much to be covered in the article-there was extensive criticism of Grabowski's claim of 200,000 Jews, and this happened seperate from his book as far as I understand.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Point of order. We will not resolve here what the correct number is or whether Datner's calcalus is relevant or accurate. What we do have is various Polish sources calling this inaccurate on various grounds. Conversely we have non-Polish sources treating Gross, Grabowski, and Engelking as leading figures in contemporary Polish Holocaust research. The article should reflect the crticism and praise - attributing where it has come from.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"What we do have is various Polish sources calling this inaccurate on various grounds. Conversely we have non-Polish sources " - I've repeatedly asked you to stop judging sources (and editors) on the basis of ethnicity. You've repeatedly ignored that request. If I'm not mistaken, you are aware of discretionary sanctions in this area. If you persist with this practice, which violates Wikipedia policy and is abhorrent on its own, then this will wind up at WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Any notable criticism of the number should appear (no, it doesn't have to be in peer-reviewed publications or any other artificial criterion) as should any notable praise (also not limited by artificial criteria). Dahn (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to caution however against labeling sources "Polish" and "non-Polish", if that is what is being suggested. We should assume intellectual independence on both sides, and prepare for at least the hypothetical scenario that the numbers are/will be questioned by sources outside Poland; just as there are already sources from within Poland that express praise for Grabowski. Everyone has a bias, but it's not immediately apparent, nor particularly honest to imply, that they have bias X because they're Polish, and bias Y because they're not. This is a debate carried out in a civilized setting, where both sides actually have the same assumptions about what is evil in the Holocaust and the participation of various Poles in it as perpetrators. It's not, as is implied in some newspapers (and is frankly getting disgusting), a battle between decency and antisemitism. Even if we suspect the Poles of holding on unreasonably to their national pride, and not simply of having a point: it's a pride that incorporates the basic notion that the Holocaust happened and was evil, which is at least theoretically incompatible with antisemitism. Dahn (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A very important point. Ad nationem arguments should be avoided. Thank you, Dahn. Nihil novi (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If I may (slightly) object - if the majority (read: almost all) of sources which currently (not "potentially" - that's WP:CRYSTAL - we are interested in what is currently in reliable sources, not what they could eventually say) criticize Grabowski are from Poland (i.e. hence Polish, in the geographic sense) and it is described as such by sources (including the BBC calling it "a product of the current political moment in Poland"); then that information need be included too. The "academic sources" criterion isn't artificial. Of course, newspapers can (and usually, are) be reliable. However, per WP:SOURCETYPES, academic sources are usually considered the most reliable, and should take a bit of precedence over newspapers, which are subject to many kinds of pitfalls to which peer-reviewed sources are not, or are but to a much lesser extent. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Some fair points, however: there is simply no necessity of constructing sentences such as "Polish sources say that" and "sources from outside Poland say this, but the Poles etc."; the sources represent themselves, unless they're on an official basis -- and in the latter cases it would be inevitable that we mention who they represent. Institutional affiliation or even mention of nationhood per each individual involved ("Polish historian XY argues that") is of course a neutral wording, but blanket claims about "what the Poles say" are quite unacceptable. I mean, it might be tempting to signal to the reader the assumption that there's a nationalist bias or a collusion or a groupthink -- but imagine for a moment if someone were to theorize that all Israelis or Jewish historians need to be labeled on the other side of the debate, on the assumption that their ethnicity or location has shaped their viewpoint, that they don't say what they say because it makes sense, but because their collective belonging orders them to. If you feel the article needs points about the political current in Poland (and always those that reflect commentary by the BBC, not by, say, the Spectator), you can quote what the article claims and attribute the claim to its author; its existence doesn't authorize us to transfer such inferences into the realm of fact, and BBC is certainly not without bias. (And btw, you can match any claim about groupthink in Polish institutions with claims about collective bias in Western academic institutions. Not that I advocate reflecting that in the article, but as a general point about biases.)

Invoking CRYSTAL is pointless here, because I wasn't suggesting writing in the article "be sure there's going to be more negative commentary published at some point" -- I was simply stating, as one more reason not to label sources collectively, that the entire qualifier may become pointless the moment someone publishes a critique that is not "Polish". (Also, are praises of Grabowski by Polish authors not equally "Polish"?)

I also wasn't making a point about which sources should be given priority, nor do I claim that newspapers are more, or as, reliable. In fact, I wasn't even commenting on reliability, but on exposure: if a divergent viewpoint has so far only been covered in newspapers, the claim that it should be quoted more briefly or removed from the article is baseless. If you feel that some criticism of Grabowski is overdetailed, it is sterile to point out imagined flaws and artificial criteria such as "the newspaper is not peer-reviewed"; you should add more content from the sources you cite in Grabowski's favor, let all sides of the debate be present with what they say, and every reader will have ample material to decide what is and isn't the more truthful story. For now, let's note that as many academic sources praising Grabowski we add, not one of them seems to have looked at his numbers critically, to either reject or endorse them after processing them; the empty praise that they lavish on him can of course be repeated ad nauseam (like similar praise for Foucault or Piketty in various academic publications), but the substance of any argument about his numbers would not be lost under the sheer weight of words. So by all means, quote the praise, and quote the criticism -- readers will note how one is already substantially different from the other. Regardless of which one is ultimately right, one currently says "I looked at his numbers, and they don't make sense", the other says "oh he's such an erudite". Dahn (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is that both sides should indeed be included. However, per WP:UNDUE, we shouldn't spend more time negatively criticizing the book if the majority of sources actually criticize it positively. What I am saying is not "oh he's such an erudite", rather "I (nor anybody else in this discussion) do not have the expertise necessary to criticize the numbers. Therefore, we should stick to sources. If there are more sources which describe the book positively, then have more content on those, per WP:UNDUE. If there are sources which describe the criticism as being mostly from Poland, then write that too, per WP:NOTSYNTH. If there are sources which criticize the book, then yes write that too. However, saying "I looked at his numbers and I don't think they make sense because of (own arguments)" is not acceptable and we cannot include it". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

We are largely in agreement. In fact, I also agree that positive commentary should be covered more extensively -- and we can easily achieve that simply by quoting the sources with what they say, and we will inevitably quote more of them saying positive things about him -- because there are more of them. I also don't object to quoting sources saying "his critics are mostly Polish"; I object to us taking that notion as fact and running with it -- the only way that sort of observation can stay in the article is if it is attributed. Now, personally (you don't have to agree) I believe that doing that would actually expose the very nature of the debate as it currently is: on one side, generic accusations or empty praise, with a systematic refusal to address the point, and, on the other, a rather serious critique of the numbers of Jews supposedly killed by Poles. So there's even less reason to object to a more thorough presentation of the debate, in which one side, the "Polish" side, will take up less space, but will make its pertinent points. The other can be quoted at length with its, well, chaff about how "illuminating" the book was etc. Dahn (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I made a few changes in my comment, they seem to have been caught in an edit conflict. This diff is essentially what I wrote. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the solution to UNDUE is to add more from the sources that praise him, not to suggest that we should chop into the negative ones to where we can't see the exact point they're making. Three--four paragraphs of negative commentary is not by any definition excessive in the overall article, and you can easily "dwarf" them by adding more to other sections. This proportion works even if the "Polish" side adds more content, and will work in perpetuity, or at least until such time as Western academia begins being critical of Grabowski's claims, if ever. Can you see my point here? Dahn (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Searching for English language usage of the 200,000 figure, one generally finds favorable use of it:
  1. Covered in news media favorably: e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].
  2. Academic books: [28]
  3. Journals: Janicka, Elżbieta. "The embassy of Poland in Poland: The Polin Myth in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ) as narrative pattern and model of minority-majority relations." Studia Litteraria et Historica 5 (2016).].Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That "Academic Book" is an essay by a ... PhD candidate. And right below you're trying to exclude a source by someone who does actually have a PhD. And that "favorable use of it" consists of the author saying "no definitive numbers exist" (which actually isn't true, he's just not familiar with the literature) then mentioning Grabowski's number.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And your link in #3 to a pdf doesn't work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As for Polish censorship, it would seem that "Polish authorities tried to censor the speech of an Israeli mayor.".[29] The Polish authorities specifically were unwilling to accept the 200,000 figure: "“We received the speech last week,” Ferenc said. “Unfortunately, some of the content was historically unproven.” He said that among other things, Dukorsky’s speech included the claim that “Polish farmers killed 200,000 Jews during the war, and that of the six million Jews who were murdered, 200,000 were killed by Poles.” “It was impossible for me to accept this,” he added."[30]. Quite a bit of coverage of this. If speech on the 200,000 estimate is actively censored and suppressed in Poland, use of recent sources from within Poland in regards to the estimate is questionable.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The claim that there is censorship of free speech in Poland defies common sense. Even that particular allegation refers to the number being invoked during an official function, organized by the Polish authorities, meaning that whoever states it in that context effectively forces the authorities to accept and practically endorse a controversial number. What you call "censorship" is an official position, expressed by official means, not a clampdown on people publishing the number by independent means. If someone were to go on stage at an official function and declare his equally questionable theories that Poles killed no Jews whatsoever, you and I would applaud anyone for "censoring" him. Similarly, try getting official EU exposure, let alone EU funds, for propagating a belief that the "EU is like the Soviet Union"; try getting the US government to publish Chomsky's rants about America's foreign policy; etc. The freedom to say anything you believe is not the freedom to have government endorse everything you say, and, conversely, your point of view not getting official exposure is not the same as it being upublished or repressed.

This is the fabricated brouhaha I mentioned: no effort made to be reserved about labeling the actions and positions of the opposing side, no effort to understand and weigh their motivations, just never-ending sensationalism and allegations accumulating faster than they can be verified. If the Polish authorities are indeed preparing something dreadful, this setting is the perfect crying wolf scenario. Dahn (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Israeli mayor told what he wanted, strange censorship. Poles refused to hear his lies. (Try to visit Israel and present Polish nationalistic opinion.) The mayor's family comres from Volhynya, where Ukrainian nationalists murdered Jews and Poles. Radomsko was situated in GG, local Jews were imprisoned in the ghetto and transported to a death camp by Germans, not by Polish mob. There is no "censorship" in Poland and certainly a mayor doesn't have any tools to censor anyone. Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We have WP:RS labeling it as such - "Polish authorities tried to censor the speech of an Israeli mayor.".[31] (as well as several other sources).Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Even that label, if it's in any way relevant, doesn't mean what you construe it to mean: again, not getting official imprimatur for your opinions may be a kind of censorship in the loosest sense, but it doesn't mean that "you can't publish these ideas in Poland". You can, just not through official channels. Anywhere in the world there is a corridor of opinion in and for official settings, and only for Poland does this get called actual censorship. And then there's your editorial commentary on top of that, which is that "then it must mean that the number can't be published at all in Poland" -- do you have a source validating that exceptional claim? Dahn (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean seriously, these allegations are remarkably like the logic behind "Holocaust revisionism": "you won't publish any number I come up with, therefore you are censoring me and hiding the truth". Just like the attempt to label all adversaries as "Polish sources" acting under unified command unwittingly replicates the logic of "a number of Jewish authors say this about the Holocaust, but". It's the riskiest aspect of this Polish affair: keep endorsing that sophistry, and you'll validate antisemites who are dying to muddy the waters in the same way. Dahn (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, are the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz—which you cite as your sources about this in another article—examples of "peer-reviewed journals" such as you have been insisting on as sources for Wikipedia articles? Nihil novi (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

For current events, Wikipedia uses WP:NEWSORGs which are considered WP:RS. Jerusalem Post and Haaretz are considered RS. I think Gazeta Wyborcza is as well (though this hasn't been tested in RSN following the new Polish legislation) - and it also seems to report on censorship. [32]. My understanding of Wikipedia policies is that peer-reviewed sources are preferred for history, and this is definitely a useful inclusion criteria via-a-vis reviews - however Wikipedia does use NEWSORGs extensively for more current events and for other topics.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hosts define some limits for guests, eg. they don't allow to urinate on memorials.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Strange summary of Musiał-Grabowski discussion

Musiał answered Grabowski in the same volume.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A short reply from the subject of the article was DUE - given that he replied to this attack (and was published in the same publication). If you want to add (briefly) the reply to the reply (which seems to reject the reply based on the same arguments in the original) - you could, I did not see that it added anything (beyond the obvious - that Musial disagrees with Grabowski which goes without saying).Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In another words - it's OR. You decide which text by Musiał deserves to be listed. Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the man just said he's open to citing more from Musiał's replies, even if he won't do it himself (which is his privilege). Let's be reasonable here. Dahn (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Official position?

Speakers of Polish, could you please clarify what, if any, is the official position of the government on the number of Jews killed by Poles during the war? A google search through English terms yields all sorts of chaff about "the dangers of etc. in Poland", and only sources I was able to find only briefly mention that the Polish government criminalizes the attempt to make the nation/state responsible for those crimes and clearly accepts that some Poles were responsible (and so on). But does it advance any number of victims/perpetrators, and does it have any clear position on the agency of crimes? I think that, if this position exists and is not reported in English sources (which wouldn't surprise me), it would need to be cited in the relevant articles, and could be cited here as the official position that Grabowski contradicts. Dahn (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's such a thing as "official government position" and I'm not sure why there would be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

For the same reason that there's an official government position on the number of Jews killed in the entire Holocaust? I mean, if the government defines 200,000 as an exaggerated number in the Poles-killing-Jews category, surely if could also produce a more reliable estimate or range that it stands by. And I don't see why it would be wrong to have a position, as long as it is the/a standard of historiography -- for instance, a government recognizing the Armenian genocide is taking a (decent) position. The act itself would not be controversial. Dahn (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hunt for the Jews - summary

The book describes Nazi German terror in occupied Poland. Only later Grabowski describes behaviour of peasants in inhuman conditions of the German terror. Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Judenjagd

I have the Polish edition, so I don't know what was added to the English language one.

My book informs about German Nazi terror in occupied Poland. The reviewer ignores basic facts and quotes idiotic text from Haaretz. As far as I know Ringelblum has written someting other - he means the total number of Jews rather deported to death camps than killed by the police. [33] Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski studies crimes committed by Polish civilians, not by the Blue Police, because there was no Blue Police stations in villages. To write about the Holocaust in Poland one should learn basic facts. It was mostly German Gendarmerie (part of Ordnungspolizei), who opressed peasants and hiding Jews. Grabowski describes it in his book. Xx236 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The majority of Jews who run away from towns and were catched or murdered by peasants, weren't any neighbours. Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Baudienst - the Polish book doesn't say almost anything about the Baudienst. Does the English edition contain new material? A basic question - were Baudienst members uniformed? Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Some [34] - some 9 pages (121-129) are devoted to Baudienst (which is also in the cited source which covers this in a secondary manner (the review by John-Paul Himka ).Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please remember you have access to academic sources, eg. Himka. Do you find our discussion symmetric?Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Baudienst drafted young Poles and punished any opposition. The boys were oredered to destroy Jewish houses, they should have striked, shouldn't they? Oh those antisemitic Poles...Xx236 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's quite clear that the book does refer to crimes by the Baudienst -- from the excerpt, I can note that the only substantiated cases the author cites are those in which the Baudienst collected corpses and helped to strip Jews of their belongings (the sort of argument which would invite in similar claims that the Romanies who robbed Jewish corpses after the Iași pogrom, or the Sonderkommandos, were "kind of like Nazi war criminals"). He also apparently refers to Baudienst being spotted by victims among the killers of Jews, never clarifying how many (some surely were!), but immediately implying that only "some" refrained from being criminals, which is certainly a tremendous claim not supported by the argument he himself makes. In short, he uses proof that some Baudienst members were involved in murders, conflates it with claims that others/the same Baudienst members were involved in (Nazi-organized) looting, and concludes from this that virtually all Baudienst members were murderers. However, let's please not use as a standard of why Grabowski is or isn't reliable our own inferences from his text -- that is expressly against WP:RS, and is also besides the point. If his position on the Baudienst or any other topic is objectionable, some quotable author is likely to have brought it up, or is likely to do so in the future. Stating one editor's own objections to the book don't really add anything to the debate -- just like claims about what is and isn't "censored by Poland" don't. Dahn (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

http://www.fpnp.pl/info/pdf/baudienst.pdf Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Anything in that link specifically about Grabowski's claims? No? Then it's WP:SYNTH. Doesn't mean I find Grabowski's claims about the Baudienst more likely (I have said why I don't find them likely), but it means that this sort of original research can't go into the article. Dahn (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You can view Grabowski's book online - [here. And Hikma's review is available online here, containing a synopsis of what is in the book on the subject (possibly not a full one).Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Hikma's review isn't available for many readers.Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The book, vividly describing Judenjagd (German for "Jew hunts") in Poland

• Poland suggests there existed Polish state, coresponsible for German Nazi crimes.
• The book describes one small rural county, not Poland.
• As Snyder writes in the quoted review - some of the peasants didn't consider themselves to be Polish. Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

These are quite valid objections. The line should be modified to reflect the exact location and exact territoriality, as well as Grabowski's extrapolation from province to country -- otherwise, it is as if we endorse his extrapolation as valid (it is "about Poland"), when we should simply describe his method. His sampling may be entirely correct and compelling, and you may strongly believe that, but the book still isn't about more than one county, taken as the sample. The issue of ethnic affiliation among the perpetrators can, and perhaps should, be detailed where we cite Snyder, if he indeed states that point specifically to nuance Grabowski's conclusions.

I also take issue with the literary commentary inserted in passing: it's not our business to describe what is and isn't "vivid". Take the fluff out. If any reviewer mentions the book's literary merits, they can be quoted with that in the particular context where we cite their opinions. Dahn (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Misusage of Snyder's words

Snyder generally approves Grabowski's opposition of nationalistic Polish historiography, byt Snyder doesn't discuss any details and Snyder doesn't know the subject of Dąbrowa Tarnowska region.Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Snyder's review describes seven books. One of them Gross' Harvest is based on unproven assumption thet a picture shows Polish criminals. Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Snyder reviewed a cross-section of Holocaust literature, and was favorable to Harvest (Gross), Such a Beautiful Day (Engelking), and Judenjagd (Grabowski) - which he connects together in one thread (and he's not the only one to do so). Harvest has been reviewed positively in peer-reviewed settings and elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have written that Gross' book is based on the undefined picture. I'm sorry that Snyder prizes the picture, it's below his level. Please don't misuse Snyder's error.Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Not to be blunt, but unless you find a source which says that "Snyder is in error" or that "Harvest is based on unproven assumption that a picture shows Polish criminals", those statements are only your opinion, and not a reliable source and not a valid rationale to remove the content cited to Snyder. As I have said multiple times, on WP we say what is written in the sources, we don't judge it (we can, in some cases, judge sources to be unreliable or outdated, but we don't judge the content of the sources, and in this case the review by Snyder is certainly not outdated or unreliable - it might be controversial, but it's not blatantly false or published by an organisation which has a reputation for blatantly disregarding the truth, example: Daily Fail). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

http://www.rp.pl/artykul/629682-Reszka-i-Majewski-o-Zlotych-Zniwach-Grossow-.html Xx236 (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

An article in a conservative Polish newspaper. Was anything published in a notable peer-reviewed journal? The reception I see out there for Harvest is generally positive (or even beyond that).Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Sigh. An article being published in a conservative Polish paper (if "conservative" is the only charge you can bring up against it) is by no means disqualifying, just like the left-wing bias at BBC at BBC or Haaretz is not a disqualifying attribute. Your claim that we should only cite peer-reviewed sources for the positions you dislike is an invented criterion, and I urge users to ignore it.

That said, @Xx236: The article in RP doesn't appear to be mentioning Snyder at all, so you're inviting in WP:SYNTH when you suggest we should use the claims stated there against Snyder's. I understand that there may be serious concerns about the photograph and the research that went into identifying those in it, but, on one hand, if Snyder accepts it and you want to question that, you need to bring up someone specifically saying "Snyder is wrong" (see WP:COAT); and, on the other, WP:TRUTH. Dahn (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should apply a uniform criteria for inclusion - for positive and negative critiques. If we are to consider popular coverage - there is quite a bit of English popular coverage (NEWORGs, websites, and blogs) for both Gross (and Harvest) and Grabowski. If we are to judge the RSness of Harvest (not clear why this is an issue here - seems to be a SYNTH connection between Snyder approving of Harvest as a disqualifier for his reception of Judenjagd) - we should do so based on reception by holocaust and general historians - which has been favorable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We should not include blogs on either side, because they're below the threshold. I don't see any problem with including more of the positive reviews, as I have made it clear before: if you want to emphasize that most of the reviews are positive, by all means cite more of those positive reviews. Yes, they can be from newspapers and online magazines, where the scholars themselves routinely publish their reviews. Dahn (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Samsonowska's critics of the Polish edition of Judenjagd

The paper isn't free, but its summary in GAzeta Wyborcza is [35] - the number of survivors was higher than Grabowski believes, the same the number of local righteous.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael Fleming

Can someone provide the relevant quote from Michael Fleming's review to verify the text that is being added? The source is here but only the first sentence is visible [36].Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Response of BLP subject to serious accusations

BLP concerns cited in this blanker revert. Typically, when a BLP subject of any article has issued a response denying serious allegations (e.g. Musial's allegation that Grabowski made mistakes, doesn't know the relevant literature, and several attacks on Grabowski's method) - it is WP:DUE to include the subject's response. Note that inclusion of such attacks requires that Grabowski be WP:WELLKNOWN (possibly met here) and be covered by multiple sources (not clear Musial or Berendt opinions were) - however per WP:WELLKNOWN "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." - @Volunteer Marek: - your removal of Grabowski's published denials (in the same publications as the original opinions) - is a violation of BLP policy, I suggest you self revert or at least formulate this in a manner you see fit leaving in the denial. It also unclear one what grounds Timothy D. Snyder, a notable historian and Yale professor, is UNDUE while Łukasz Męczykowski - a teacher (with a PhD) writing on a website/blog (and making some rather serious allegations on the professionalism of a BLP subject) merits inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I endorse that: the blanket removal of Grabowski's answers is certainly uncalled for, particularly in the one article where his counterclaims are supposed to be most aired (BLP would even allow us to cite his replies if he had published them on a blog -- the only exception to WP:PSTS). I think that the claims he makes about the various scholars questioning his work, as rude and deflecting as they might appear, should be present here, though I think they need to be clearly attributed to him, and preferably rendering quotes, more than summaries of his positions. The one BLP concern here would be if we don't cite a reply, knowing it exists. I too politely urge VM to revert his edit. Dahn (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The text really just illustrates, although not in the way the author probably intended, what kind of a "researcher" Grabowski is - instead of addressing the actual scholarly issues raised by Berendt, he attacks him with ad hominems (" who has yet to author his first book on the Holocaust" <-- that's most definitely a BLP vio even if Grabowski said it, for one thing not all scholars communicate through books but rather through journals) and basically falsely misstates what Berendt actually said (Berendt is NOT "dismissive" of Datner (in fact he's heaped a lot of praise on him), he just points out that Datner's guess has been revised by subsequent research (he did write that in 1970!). This is coupled with obviously non-encyclopedic language ("dismissiveness of Datner's claims is galling") and not-so-subtle character assassination and insinuations that the reason for Berendt's (fake) dismissal of Datner has something to do with Datner's Jewishness (except that Berendt is Jewish as well, iirc). No way you can put that in without violating BLP. In that respect Grabowski's attack constitutes a WP:PRIMARY source, so no go. The stuff about "directing his indignation" is also another attack (who said Berendt was "indignant"?) and a red herring. While Grabowski may have said these things, you need a secondary source for this, you need to write it in a neutral and encyclopedic manner and you need to avoid violating BLP. We don't publish smears and character attacks just because someone said it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There's also other sources which note that Grabowski falsely misrepresents Datner. Basically Datner said that about 250,000 Jews managed to escape from the ghettos (this is the number that according to Berendt has been revised by subsequent research). Datner then goes on to say that about half of them survived thanks to help from Poles and about half perished at the hands of occupational authorities (i.e. Germans, although possibly - though Datner doesn't say this - with the help from Polish collaborators). Grabowski instead claims that only 50,000 survived (so it's actually Grabowski who's being "dismissive" of Datner) based on... not sure what exactly, another thing he just made up, and attributes ALL of the remaining 200,000 as deaths at hands of Poles. Because you know, there weren't any actual Germans in Poland at the time or something. Or Ukrainians, or Byelorussians, or Volksdeutsche, etc. It's sort of twisted for Grabowski to accuse Berendt of "being dismissive" with regard to Datner, when it's actually Grabowski who falsely presents what the guy said (and then to attack Berendt for having the temerity and scholarly honesty to point that out).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Actually (and again:), WP:PSTS (or PRIMARY) do not apply to claims made about oneself (in this case, in defense of allegations). I agree that his allegations are incoherent personal attacks, and I actually think that airing them in full is ironically the best way for readers to see that. Either way, his response to criticism needs to be present, and this is the best, probably the only, article where they should be featured. Dahn (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

But he's not making claims about himself, he's making false claims about someone else. We can't repeat these as if they were true. That's a BLP vio and in that respect it is a primary source. There *might* be some neutral way to present this, if a secondary source can be found, but the text added by Icewhiz is over-the-top POV, UNDUE and yes, a BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you self revert - you are in violation of BLP policy - both in your edit, and in your response here. Grabowski's stmt on authorship might actually be correct (did you check? I do not see a holocaust book in Berendt's selected publication list), galling was used by Grabowski himself - it is his response. Berendt attacked Datner's results (which are accepted by others) and Grabowski countered with additional contemporary research, as well as saying that his number is not based on Datner (which Berendt asserted). Note that Berendt, Gontarczyk, Męczykowski, and Musial all make extremely serious BLP accusations regarding Grabowski - attacking his professional credibility - if you are unwilling to include a response (that in part used the same sort of language and line of attack in the original attack on Grabowski) - perhaps you should remove the attacks (including one posted the histmag.org website by a non-notable author)? Note - saying they are "false" is another BLP vio, and Grabowski's response was clearly attributed to Grabowski - not to us.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Please stop trying to make that canard about histmag happen, just let go of it, nobody cares at this point -- and your persistent attempt to remove criticism of Grabowski does not really make your case, not to mention that there's absolutely nothing in there that could be construed as a personal attack. Dahn (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Berendt did not "attack" Datner's results. Stop making stuff up, while using language which violates BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: He is primarily defending himself, and in the process issues accusations against his critics. (I don't know if they're untrue, I suppose they could be, but that's taking a stand and I will avoid that. It suffices to say that it doesn't matter if they are.) I agree, and have repeatedly said, that the way to present them could use rewording. I personally favor using direct quotes from what he says, and certainly dropping the editorial voice which muddled his allegations with something that suggested objective facts. Dahn (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that Grabowski's saying Musial previously attacked others does have some WP:RS coverage. Namely - Włodzimierz Borodziej [37][38][39] and Zygmunt Bauman [40][41][42]Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the sort of argument you yourself were defining as WP:SYNTH in these threads. Dahn (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And, um, what does Musial have to do with any of this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(but whatever Musial has to do with this, that is another WP:BLP vio by Icewhiz - the part about "attacked others" in particular).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We include a long attack piece by Musial - attacking Grabowski's credibility - to which Grabowski responded (saying Musial has attacked others - which I repeated here attributed to Grabowski + with RSes showing this is not a "false claim" per your assertion above) - and you removed the response in the blanket revert in violation of BLP policy. The response you removed, is here: Rżnięcie nożem po omacku, czyli polemika historyczna a la Bogdan Musiał, Dzieje Najnowsze, Jan Grabowski, 2011Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, we don't include any "attack pieces", by Musial or anybody else. And if you continue using such false and BLP violating language I'm simply not going to take you seriously. You really need to stop it with the disruptive WP:TENDENTIOUS edits and comments. (you also didn't show anything, you just made another false accusations against a living person). And this discussion is about Berendt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As I opened this discussion - this discussion is about Grabowski's responses to Berendt (in Haaretz), and to Musial (Dzieje Najnowsze) - as well as the removal of Timothy D. Snyder. You reverted all three. BLP responses to accusations against them - are included per policy.Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but the indentation of your comments makes it look like you're trying to change subjects (from Berendt to Musial) after it's been pointed out that your edit with respect to Berendt was a BLPVIO.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: Is it an acceptable compromise that you might revert yourself and then tone down the relevant portion of text to reflect your objections about BLP/POV? Dahn (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP issue, it would have to be the other way around. We can come up with neutral and non-BLP violating text here first, then we can include it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The pieces against Grabowski, which are of a similar if not more serious tone besides being lengthier - should be removed on the same grounds if this is what you are asserting, as well as the omission of the response.Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not written in the same tone. They are scholarly criticisms. How Grabowski chose to respond is his problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

They are not of the same tone by any standard. They object to his method, he objects to their character and qualifications. While personally I agree both can be featured, any literate person can see a difference between one and the other. Now please do stop soapboxing, it's tiresome and convinces me that you're not being in the least fair. Dahn (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It amounts to the same. You can always present your version here -- I was thinking you could simply edit it in directly. Dahn (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see any BLP issue in Grabowski response to Berendt. Lack of authorship of a book genre does not seem pejorative in any way, nor does Grabowski's attributed opinion that actions are "galling". Grabowski's opinions on Jedwabne pogrom,Kielce pogrom, and Museum of Poles Saving Jews in Markowa are not a BLP issue. Note that Grabowski's response, in the same venue as his detractors, is a scholarly response - being an "eminent Canadian historian"[43] himself.Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I fully agree with you on that, and in general about preserving that section. I do insst that the claims made by Grabowski need to be quoted, not paraphrased, and clearly attributed -- for instance, his claim about (the relevancy of) Berendt not having authored a book on the topic should not be presented as a fact, but clearly identified as an opinion. The ambiguous phrasing ("In response Grabowski wrote that Berendt's, who has yet to author his first book on the Holocaust, dismissiveness of Datner's claims is galling.") clearly needs to go. Dahn (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, the format of the phrase ("In response Grabowski wrote that Berendt's, who has yet to author his first book on the Holocaust, dismissiveness of Datner's claims is galling") is not just ambiguous, suggesting an editorial voice between the commas, it is also against the MOS: "has yet" depends on the moment in time of Grabowski's reply. Dahn (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid long direct quotes - we can however just direct quote all these points - it will increase the length.Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to quote them in extenso, just as long as you reduce the paraphrasing and anchor the text in his actual words, with quotation marks -- which would clarify the difference between what he says and what is established fact (the same goes for Histmag, btw). The length issue is a non-issue: WP:NOTPAPER. Dahn (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and what I have done. The removal of the content by Volunteer Marek came out of a good idea, but was a bit extreme. Furthermore, it seems to me that with this edit, Marek removed all substance to this positive review and left only the "superficial" part of it, which is not an accurate representation of the content of the article, which seems to actually describe some of the faults (which in that author's opinion, are only minor - faults of omission, not faults of fact - and do not discredit the research done by Grabowski). I agree, as I said, that removing excessive quotes is a good idea, however if we spend a whole paragraph explaining in detail the negative criticism of the work by Musial (and by others), then we should also hold ourselves to the same standards when describing positive reviews. As can be seen above, the consensus was not to "remove negative content" or shorten it, but to add more positive content to restore the balance. If you now think there are too much "positive reviews" (I beg to differ, but nevertheless), hold yourself to the same standard and add more "negative reviews" by reputable sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, most of the content still violates BLP. And the use of block quotes, which are to be avoided in general, is another way this is being done. Yes, you can source the attacks on Berendt to Grabowski but quoting these attacks at length is an obvious attempt to push a particular POV and give them UNDUE prominence. The way that you guys are trying to insert this text, with all the unnecessary commentary ("galling", "hasn't written a book", etc.) is being done with a pretty obvious intent of suggesting to the reader that Grabowski's response has merit. Whereas in fact it is more or less an equivalent of Wikipedia's [[WP:NPA}|personal attack]] which "discusses the person, not the content", rather than a genuine scholarly reply.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And because this IS a BLP issue, any changes really need to be discussed here first. My proposed version is currently in the article, which notes that Grabowski rejected or dismissed the criticisms. You want to add other stuff you need to justify it here and explain why it doesn't violate BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You are against consensus here. However, since you removed Grabowski's response, which is required per BLP policy, I removed Berendt & Musial as BLP violations - since by omitting Grabowski's counter-claims (e.g. regarding Datner's research and his alleged use of said research) - we are violating BLP policy. I suggest you suggest a formulation that is BLP complaint on the talk-page, that includes Grabowski's response to allegations made against him and his research methods.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Negative/positive review

I find the two sections as separate unbalanced POV sections as per CSECTION. A merged version of the two sections is much more desired. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly agree. Please note however that at the moment there is disagreement about what content there should be in the article overall, so that there is then compromise on what to merge. Eventually, the division of the text should follow topical issues, not generic stances. I also want to bring up some lesser issues regarding how text was arranged -- in particular that the headings are whimsical and not mutually exclusive, so it's not immediately apparent why something would go into section A and not section B. Dahn (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agree on the same grounds as Dahn. The sub-sections should be merged under the neutral title "Reception" or something similar ("Criticism" has too much of a negative connotation (Merriam-Webster describes it as being "usually unfavorable"), but I'm open to other variants). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agree, however the positive and negative reviews should be interleaved and presented in an order congruent with their significance. I BOLDly did so given the wide agreement here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. And Berendt and Musial are the specialists here, so they need to be presented first. Also because their criticisms is most substantial and specifically discusses the quality of the research (rather than making attacks on author(s)). Himka is not an expert. Likewise I'd favor removing some of the vacuous one line reviews which more or less just say "it's an important book".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Reviews in mainline peer-reviewed journals should come before op-eds. As for so called "vacuous one line reviews" - these are 1 line summaries (as opposed to long tracts) of full reviews in peer reviewed journals.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of arguing about which should come first. It really doesn't matter, particularly in a comparison between one-liner summaries of blurbs and authors making an actual point. If Berendt etc. have any merit, this is surely immediately visible no matter where you put them in the text. It's more important that their point not be removed, and that it be cited to where we understand what they say. Where it goes in the text is really a nonissue. Dahn (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)