Talk:Jan Grabowski/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Recent edits

Please follow WP:BRD. This edit duplicates criticsm already present in the next paragraph. It also uses the weaselly attribution of "several historians" instead of specifying who specifically has done the criticizing - which we should either name (which we do in the next paragraph) or alternatively describe as they are described elsewhere as a group - e.g. "has faced much criticism from some Polish historians"[1]. This edit removed well sourced and well covered information on attempts to get him fired - which is not "editorializing". This edit with the summary "can't say this stuff in Wiki voice" also removed sourced content on Grabowski's position on what the exhibit should've displayed, as well as adding double attribution in the middle of each sentence that was already attributed at the beginning of each sentence (e.g. the rather amazing - He believed that it should have provided what he believed was information). Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please do discuss, rather than edit warring in a version that duplicates the criticism of 3 named historians (who are already named and covered properly in the next paragraph).Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: - you are usually one with an for copy-edits (better than myself) - why are you reverting a duplicate sentence in. First of - several - when this is three (and actual RS describe this as "some Polish historians") - is inaccurate. We current have in two paragraphs with the same citations:

1. several historians have pointed out methodological flaws in the estimate; the fact that the 200,000 number of Jews supposedly killed by Poles claimed by Grabowski exceed the overall number of Jews who had escaped the ghettos, Grabowski's failure to analyze witness statements, German statements and archival documents which contradicted his thesis, and his failure to properly identify the true number of survivors by "giving up" on "field research" once he arrived at his desired conclusion.
2. The book was criticized by historians Grzegorz Berendt, Bogdan Musial, and Krystyna Samsonowska particularly for its estimate that Poles were either directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of 200,000 Jews during the Holocaust.

These three historians are cited twice - for the same criticism - in two adjacent paragraphs. Note that if we include such individual criticisms - we would have to balance NPOV by including the much more significant amount of laudatory reviews. The version you are pushing also contains "methodological flaws" in our voice (not clearly attributed to the historians) - which is a rather big no-no - given that this isn't a generally accepted position - this has to be attributed to the criticizers clearly.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right, there is duplication between the two paragraphs. We can skip paragraph 2, delete "methodological flaws" from paragraph 1, and attribute each critique in paragraph 1 to its respective author. Nihil novi (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note regarding this and that: The article I'm referring to is the obviously the book's, which is the "main" article for that section - that's the place for criticisms of methodology, not Grabowski's biography. Also, that whole thing belongs in the "controversy" section. François Robere (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the paras several historians have pointed out methodological flaws in the estimate ... & The book was criticized by historians belong in the article on the book. This extensive content is undue for the bio. Should be condensed to a couple of sentences; the details are covered in the main article (on the book). --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The book is described in great detail. If we are going to include lots of details then we also need to include both the good and the bad. I'd be fine with cutting everything starting from "Grabowski describes an entire mechanism ..." up to "...once he arrived at his desired conclusion", since arguably all that stuff could be in the article on the book, not the man. But if you are going to say this much about the book, even quoting Gabrowski at length (despite the fact we're suppose to void block quotes) then the other stuff belongs in there too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

We should have coverage of the book - as it has been widely covered in conjunction with the BLP. However, crticism from "some Polish historians"[2] - has mainly been relegated in WP:RSes as a mention alongside Polish government (and quasi-government) criticism. While we are currently cherry-picking quotes from the very few negative reviews (repeated TWICE), our coverage of the overall positing reception is limited to two brief sentences In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and a large group of international Holocaust scholars published statements in defense of Grabowski. In 2014 the book was awarded the Yad Vashem International Book Prize. - both of which are much more significant from this criticism coming from very particular quarters. There is no lack of positive reviews, published in peer-reviewed academic English language peer reviewed journals from which we could provide balancing quotes.Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference. The historian critics address specific weaknesses of the book. The mentions of all Grabowski's colleagues coming to his rescue in solidarity, and the Yad Vashem stamp of approval, are really just puffery – and certainly don't address the critics' points. Nihil novi (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The parallel of methodological criticism is methodological explanation, and we're not explaining his methodology in this article. It's a level of detail that's simply undue in a biography, unless it's repetitive (ie. flaws or biases that are repeated across publications and so characterize the person itself). François Robere (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

What is reference 8?Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The statement No, Poland's Elites Didn't Try to Save the Jews During the Holocaust should be put into historical context. Did the Polish elites try to save ethnic Poles? The Warsaw uprising proves they didn't, they wanted to preserve the state.Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Zimmermann summarizes the politics of Poland and Allies - to win the war against Germany [3].Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

References

200,000 anti-Polish propaganda

Icewhiz, please stop. You repeat lies you don't understand. Grabowski misquotes Datner and doesn't have any idea about numbers. An estimate of the recent book gives 40,000. Icewhiz, you have proven you don't have any idea about basic maths, please use emotional propaganda but don't try numbers and other mathematical ideas (growing). It's probably too late to learn maths.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The article describes critics of the 200,000 story and the solidarity with Grabowski, but not with the 200,000 . I'm not sure what is the connection between the two informations. The same facts are described twice. Please edit.Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

All 3 named historians (as well as others such as the Polish government) have criticized more than just the 200,000 estimate. Musial's review is a 12 page cited document - he also questions Grabowski non-use of a local history by Musial's uncle (Grabowski, in response,[4] said this was unscientific and the uncle's view on Jews was evident from the intro which discussed Jewish commemoration at Auschwitz). Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean the phrase The book was criticized by historians Grzegorz Berendt,[14][15] Bogdan Musial,[16][17] and Krystyna Samsonowska[18] particularly for its estimate that Poles were either directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of 200,000 Jews during the Holocaust. You are free to make the text better.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hunt for the Jews

Icewhiz, at 08:54 on 4 July 2018, in this article's "Hunt for the Jews" section, you deleted the first of the two paragraphs regarding historians' criticisms of the book, and reinstated the second of the two paragraphs, which omits specific criticisms and plays up puffery by Grabowski's defenders. Do you believe this to be honest editing? Nihil novi (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nihil novi: - it is neutral since we omit the numerous positive reviews, however in the spirit of compromise - see this edit - which reinstates what each of the 3 said. Note however that we are only including named critiques from the negative side now - and there have been several positive reviews - which probably should be partially included as well (summarized) if we have the negative.Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed per BLPREMOVE

I reverted per WP:BLPREMOVE (and a side of WP:CLAIM) as the cited source wpolityce is the "right-wing wPolityce.pl news website"[5] which is not appropriate for WP:BLP, and the cited piece - [6] - appears to be an opinion piece (hard to distinguish on the site - but this is an outside writer (employed at Sieci) - and it reads like an opinion piece). Furthermore I'll note that the source doesn't quite say Grabowski said this in an interview. Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a news magazine (what it's politics are is debatable, but also irrelevant) and it's just as appropriate as Haaretz. Note that the cited pieces from Haaretz are also opinion pieces. If one is good, so is the other. Can't invent double standards by some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The info is also relevant and pertinent - whether or not Datner actually said what Grabowski claims is sort of central.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Not all news sources are the same - this is a dodgy website - akin to Breitbart News. Furthermore, the information isn't attributed and is used to make a stmt in our voice on something that Grabowski did (allegedly said in an interview - which is not in the source) - which isn't an appropriate use of an opinion piece. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not "akin to Breitbart News". You made that up. Stop making things up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"right-wing"? How do you measure right versus left? How a leftis press may be a source of such knowldge? The phrase "right-wing" is a biased political tool. PiS is similarly "right-wing" even if it is socialist. It is probably "right-wing" because it's pro-Israeli and left-wing Europe supports Palestinians.Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

What about Haaretz? Is it a right-wing unreliable Polish nationalistic rag? [7]Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Where and when does Grabowski quote Datner's text? Isn't rather his obligation to quote his source rather than my obligation to prove that Grabowski doesn't quote but invents things? Xx236 (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

[8] Dziennik isn't "Right-wing".Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The piece in Dziennik is clearly marked as an opinion piece.Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You quote Grabowski's opinions, but you reject opinions about his opinions. Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The page should be edited

Samsonowska - continuation

Wiez has published a text by Grabowski and further one by Samsonowska. [9] Xx236 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Strange proportions

About 50% of the page describe his book The Hunt..., a subject of separate page. His other works aren't described in details.

Grabowski is a historian of Canada, of Poland and a propaganda writer/speaker. The three roles should be described here. Xx236 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The page is biased, it describes Grabowski as a historian of Poland only. His media/propaganda activities (200 000) should be isolated from his academic works. Grabowski is also a historian of Canada.Xx236 (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the length of the section of "The Hunt" and therefore trimmed the reception section. (I disagree with the assertions above - e.g. the 200,000 estimate is published scholarship). Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not what Xx236 was writing about. He is fairly active on political views too, and this section should be expanded, rather than removing criticism of his highly controversial book.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Haaretz and the Center

Haaretz is an Isareli newspaper. How is it a reliable source regarding the Warsaw Center?

I'm unable to find anything about the Center in the Haaretz article.I'll remove the misquote. Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Haaretz is about Grabowski's expertise. Haaretz is a top notch publication - a paper of record - and is definitely reliable for assertions on Grabowski's expertise. It is also reliable regarding Holocaust research - a topic it covers quite a bit (throughout Europe and elsewhere). Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Polish-Canadian professor of history at the University of Ottawa

What is Polish-Canadian professor of history? Are there such positions at Ottawa?Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

200 000 repeated

The fake news 200 000 is mentioned twice in different places. Please unify or remove one instance.Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's an estimate by the subject of the article - a quite notable estimate - there's nothing fake about Grabowski making and publishing this estimate (with others).Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski denies, now you admits he says it. It's difficult to lie, because sometimes one is catched.

It's not an estimate, it's a fake news pointing Datner.

The information is still in two places. Please remove one.Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Icewhiz-Grabowski has since withrdawn from claiming the figure 200,000 is correct and this should be noted in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Are false statements acceptable in this Wikipedia?

The statement There are no Polish bystanders in the Holocaust - is obviously false. Polish babies were bystanders.

Nazi language

Who were the Polish? Grabowski's father was Polish, does it make him a non-bystander? The Germans defined him as Jewish, do we accept Nazi German POV? If we accept Nazi language, it means that this Wikipedia is Nazi.Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Polish Blue Police

Polish Blue Police is an example of biased language typical for Grabowski. The police was German, the Germans dissolved the Polish state police in 1939 and created Polnische Polizei subordinated to local German SS and police commanders. In several Western countries their police was preserved after the surrender. Polnische Polizei is Nazi language, like Endlösung der Judenfrage or Jüdischer Wohnbezirk.Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Night Continues: the Fates of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland

The book exists in Polish only, does the context explain that the English title is a translation?

The book contains many errors and manipulations, so yes, let's offer them to Polish schools to learn how to read between the lines.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid making unfounded assertions on this generally well regarded piece of scholarship. I added the Polish name in parenthetical. Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid attacking me. It's a Wikipedia, not a battle place.

There are at least 5 reviews pointing errors in the book and the center will answer in the future. When they answer, you will be able to repeat your story about scholarship, now stop.Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Reception of the book

I find the level of detail here excessive since there's a separate article on the book: diff. This needs to be summarised better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And less cherry picked - e.g. almost all English and German language reviews have been somewhere between mildly positive to glowing. The length here is excessive.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Historical views aren't based on ethnicity or language Icewhiz.I don't see much value in pinpointing ethnic background of reviews.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't related to ethnicity. The Polish reviews mainly relate to the Polish version of the book - an earlier and different work (which had a more limited audience). The English reviews are (mostly) on the later English language book (larger audience, also won a significant prize). Some of the English reviews are by quite notable academics and are in top quality journals (which, as English has become lingua franca of science, tends to also be the top publications worldwide). We also have WP:NOENG which has us preferring English sources. The current selection of reviews is both overly long, and does not represent the reception of this work. For the reception and internal debate we have English sources relating to the debate in Poland - and we could stick to those English language sources.Icewhiz (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why reviews in Poland which is the subject of the book should be excluded, in fact this is quite a shocking proposal, considering that many are by highly renown scholars, academics and historians. As per WP:NOENG: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Since most of the reviews from Poland present aspects not covered in English based sources presented here, removing them you would disturb the NPOV --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Available sources in Polish are of higher quality and greater relevance - there is no need for lower quality English sources that often contain errors and wrong information. Furthermore, most of the Polish reviews are written by experts on the subject - and incorporate nuances and aspects not found in English sources.Removing Polish based sources would constitute severe breach of NPOV and limit geographical coverage of the subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed the discourse that belongs in the article on the book; preserving here by providing this link. The level of detail is excessive, including details about calorie intake, 38 vs 90 Jews, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a {{Further}} link to the section with detailed reviews in the article on the book: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit and I struggle to understand why deem as appropriate to remove all Polish sources and leaving only German and English ones.Especially important parts about false claims by Grabowski regarding Datner have been removed.I can understand trimming certain parts to make it more readible, but removing ad hoc all Polish sources seems not not only excessive but also POVish.It also severely undermines the quality of the article as they were written by top notch academicians and scholars--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not looking at this in terms of "Polish" or "English" sources, although I do note that Musial is "German-Polish". I also reduced the "English" source: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

m not looking at this in terms of "Polish" Then why have you removed all of them? As a gesture of goodwill, could you restore them and I will trimm some of the information while leaving the essential stuff? Then you could see if you want to remove some more. The current removal really looks POV--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please complete this damaged sentence: "According to Bogdan Musial, a German-Polish historian writing in 2011, Hunt for the Jews failed to examine material that contradicted Grabowski's thesis, including Polish witness statements, German statements, and archives from the Polish resistance that."

I concur with MyMoloboaccount's above suggestion, in the interest of securing a neutral point of view in this article.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for Polish language sourcing, as top-tier English language sources already address views in Poland. For instance, William W. Hagen in the Holocaust and Genocide Studies journal writes in 2018:

1. "Right-wing journalism in today’s Poland has harshly attacked Grabowski, charging that he aids Nazi-apologists in Germany by allegedly suggesting that the Holocaust was a joint German Polish enterprise. In response, Grabowski in 2016 won a libel suit against the nationalist-Catholic antisemitic website Fronda. His voice remains influential in current debates on the controversial amendment to the law governing the state-administered Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), which in February 2018 criminalized on pain of three years’ imprisonment allegations that “the Polish Nation or Polish State” participated in the Holocaust.
2. "Widespread cooperation in capturing Jews is not reducible to German coercion.... If it were, Polish nationalist objections to historians’ exposure of Polish Christian Holocaust complicity would be less vehement than those evidenced in rebuttals, both scholarly and journalistic, to Jan Gross’s explosive arguments in Neighbors (2001; Polish 2000) and subsequent writings, as well as to Grabowski’s own analysis as set forth in the 2011 Polish-language version of Hunt for the Jews."
3. "As in pre-Holocaust explanations for the incontrovertible existence of aggressive, violent, and criminal antisemites in Poland, so still today historians convinced of a fundamental national innocence identify murderers and collaborators as “scum” such as, regrettably, any society inevitably harbors. But that Poles—in Grabowski’s study, Polish villagers in Da˛browa Tarnowska county in former Galicia—should view protection of their Jewish neighbors from Nazi murder as sin and crime challenges national self-understanding in ways highly threatening for many Poles."

[10] Should amply represent the stance in Some Polish circles from a top-tier WP:SECONDARY source - you can't get higher quality than Hagen in Holocaust and Genocide Studies - which is far superior quality wise to other sources here and should be preferred per WP:NOENG. Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Poor Profesor Musiał, it seems that Hagen doesn't accrept his reasearch. Does however Musiał accept Hagen?

Hagen doesn't have any idea about the subject. There was no Da˛browa Tarnowska county during the war. Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding him wouldn't balance the article, we already have English based reviews.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur, that's why I created the article for the book. Let's keep reviews, controversies, and such there, and limit the content here to a short summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Dąbrowa Tarnowska County

I have removed false link. Please verify what do you link.

I have added alleged because there was no such German county. The real power was the Kreishauptmannschaft Tarnow.Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Revised 200,000?

This is sourced to a March 2018 media source in Poland, which due to the Holocaust law being in force at the time can not be considered reliable for Holocaust reporting (criminal culpability for "insulting the Polish nation" in regards to Holocaust complicity). That being said, subsequent sources in English continue to refer to the 200,000 - [11][12], as well as a direct quote from Grabowski from Nov 2018: "From among the approximately 250,000 Polish Jews who had escaped liquidations of the ghettos and who had fled, about 40,000 survived. We have thus more than 200,000 Jews who fled the liquidations and who did not survive until liberation. My findings show that in the overwhelming majority of cases, their Polish co-citizens were – directly through murder, or indirectly by denunciation – at the root of their deaths." UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA HOLOCAUST HISTORIAN SUES POLISH GROUP FOR LIBEL, CJN, 22 November 2018. @MyMoloboaccount: - per WP:NOENG, please provide quotations + translations of said quotations (and if possible - a URL as well) for these two edits: [13][14]. Per later English RS sourcing (esp. the Nov 2018 quote of Grabowski himself) - the claim of retraction seems somewhat dubious. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That Grabowski contradicts himself in interviews is noted in some sources, I will gladly add them.If you believe media in Poland are in general unreliable, feel free to start an Wikipedia wide policy on the subject, as it was advised you many times before.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS on you to establish reliability in face of Poland criminalizing certain types of expression. Regardless of that per WP:NOENG - please provide quotations in Polish and translations to English of said quotations supporting your insertion to the article (which are present - seems to contradict later sources). Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The 2018 Amendment to Poland's Act on the Institute of National Remembrance explicitly exempts, from prosecution, "research, discussion of history, or artistic activity." The argument that all research conducted in Poland is automatically suspect is specious, and is a red herring meant to prevent consideration of research conducted in Poland that is not to the liking of some parties outside Poland.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Most Holocaust researchers say this affects research. Furthermore media reports (the source here), are not exempt from the law.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Name one example od the affecting. The story is a political tool to attack Poland in general and the currient government. As far many pieces of the reasearch contain fabricated numbers and manipulated quotes. Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount - the quotation you added does not support any revision by Grabowski, merely that when he spoke with Gazeta Wyborcza he was non-commital whether majority was 60 percent or 90 percent. It would seem that per the CJN quote from Nov 2018 he stands behind "overwhelming majority". Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

My findings show - the findings in "Hunt for the Jews" and "Dalej jest noc" are unreliable. In the "hunt" Grabowski underestimates the number of survivors and the number of helpers (including the number of the Righteous, which is a mastership). His findings in the recent book aren't explained. Academic data have to be verifiable. Neither his detailed findings nor the 200 000 fabrication aren't verifiable. He says - I'm the grat academician, you have to believe me. It's not academy, it's a cult. Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski's different versions of the numbers, and fact that he admits they are just hypothesis that likely is going to be contradicted by other scholars is simply far too important to be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Researchers make hypotheses and estimates. What you inserted is WP:OR not in the interview. Furthermore - if this important - where is the SECONDQRY coverage of this in English? Grabowski is fairly widely covered - this has not been picked up by any mainstream reporting as significant.Icewhiz (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That may show the biases and slipshodness of some renowned scholars and mainstream publications outside Poland.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

fringe far right organization

• Sources, please regarding "fringe far right organization".
• Both sides of the case should be described, not "goog Grabowski" against "evil right".
• Mathematics isn't "left" or "right". If Grabowski formulates fringe theories using false numbers, he is "fringe", not his opponents.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  Grabowski is an accepted mainstream (as it is defined in most of the world) Holocaust scholar. As for the league - per Minkner, Kamil. "Polish contemporary art to the anti-semitism of Poles and its political significance." Review of Nationalities 6.1 (2016): 195-221. it is one of the "full-of-fears fundamentalist" organizations that fought against the Oscar winning Ida (film) - a "right-wing organization" that makes various public petitions.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Many Jewish organisatiojns do exactly the same. But they are reliable, beacase they aren't Polish.

"Ida" is ahistorical, so many Polish people can see rewriting of history rather than a piece of art. As far noone dared to rewrite the history of the Holocaust the way Polish history is rewritten. Even a realistic film about Litzmannstadt ghetto would be impossible.Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A Jewish historian is against "Ida". https://natemat.pl/80843,ida-pelna-antysemickich-stereotypow Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a blog - not a reliable source. And Ida is off-topic here - I brought a source for the league (Ida was incidentally one of the prior kerfuffles that elicited commentary on the league). Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

First you mention "Ida", next the subject is off topic. Please don't open problems you don't know. Helena Datner has criticised Ida in Gazeta Wyborcza and Krytyka Polityczna, so you unreliable blog doesn't work.Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Right wing organization" (which they arguably are) is not the same as "far right organization". Regardless, unless something comes out of the lawsuit, the info is WP:UNDUE overall.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski has been accused by several historians of manipulating numbers and quotations. His moral blackmail makes any discussion difficult. https://www.wiez.pl/czasopismo/;s,czasopismo_szczegoly,id,563,art,15550 Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Are Grabowski's opinions notable?

Anyone biographied on Wikipedia has thousands of opinions about food, beverages, President Trump, and climate. We select only notable opinions. Grabowski isn't competent to criticize the Polish government. It is obviously democratic; it was elected and is still supported by many, compared, e.g., to Mr. Macron, who is unpopular in France. This hate speech is typical of Grabowski. He is described here as a historian, not as a Kardashian, so his media excesses aren't notable. This biography, however, ignores many aspects of his work. Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please strike the un-sourced assertion above. Hard to argue a BLP's position are undue on a BLP's own bio page - particularly when said positions are widely covered and discussed by reliable sources. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I;m sorry, but you totally ignore my logical position and claim that trash is notable, which is absurd. The world doesn't care what Grabowski thinks about Kaczynski. Grabowski is an alleged historian, not a politician, Kaczynski is a politician. Similarly Kaczynski's or Morawiecki's opinions about Grabowski or about the Holocaust don't deserve to be remebered. If someone quotes Grabowski as a source about democracy in Poland, so he is an idiot. It's simple - the government doens't like Grabowski, so it's undemocratic, fascist. If th enext government will distinguish Grabowski - the government will be democratic and progressive. It's a world of children in a sandbox, not of adult people. Protests agisnts the government have been sighned by hundreds of professors. Wiil you include such fact in hundreds of BLPs? In 10 years noone will care about 2016 government of Poland. Summarizing - you hate Poland and Polish people so you collect any filth to throw on Poland. Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's more than just WP:BLP: Academics are expected to apply their studies to policy questions, and would abdicate their responsibility if they didn't. As a major scholar in his field, Grabowski's opinion is WP:DUE not only in his bio, but on related articles as well, like those on commemoration and historiography of the Holocaust. François Robere (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

If a Pole criticizes a Jew or Israel, it's antisemitism, and musn't be published. If Poland is criticized in a childish way, it's notable, and academic. Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Nihil novi, can you say why you're editing someone else's posts? [15] SarahSV ^(talk) 03:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

At the request of that person, who cited his imperfect command of the English language.

Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nihil novi, thanks for explaining. In future, please don't edit posts once someone has responded, and if you have to for some reason, please note after the original signature that you've edited it. See WP:REDACT. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nihil novi, where was this request made? The one on your TP is a week old and refers to the article itself.Icewhiz (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Xx236's self-described "obvious errors" have continued in the five days since he made the request. I am willing to occasionally burnish his English, as I sometimes do yours in articles.

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV - This page is to discuss Jan Grabowski (historian), not my poor English. I would be happy to only read this Wikipedia, but I don't accept errors and bias, so I have to protest, compare eg. the definition of The Holocaust.Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I asked anyone for help regarding my English already two years ago. I have thanked Nihil Novi at least twice for his corrections.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Not The Dark Ages but dark years

Dear English experts, Haaretz wrote "dark years", but it didn't explain the phrase, please don't manipulate. [16].

The interview is one year old. Poland and Israel have later signed an agreement and no serious research confirmed the alleged anti-Semitism in Poland. The historical context of Grabowski's interview should be mentioned. Lack of it makes the information biased. Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

[17][18][19] François Robere (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please respect the subject. dark years not The Dark Ages (whatever it means).

I'm not sure if it's the right place do discuss Polish antisemitism. The facts are obvious - rifles in France to defend Jewish buildings versus Poles selling pictures of a Jew with a coin. Yes, there are people in Poland professionally fighting antisemitism, you don't quote Pankowski, he is a jewel. Also Zgliczyński. Pure truth and academy. They are able to find antisemites in Israeli government. No antisemitism, no projects, no money.

Bilewicz has recently published his reasearch, that liberal Poles hate conservative ones more than vice versa. So yes, such obsession may generate antisemitism. If you spit on people, someone may react. The only antisemitic attack in Poland has been committed by a mentally ill person. I have tried to find English language information about the ilness but failed. [20] In Israel obsessed anti-Poles rule or will rule - Katz, Lapid. Their excess are known in Poland. Netanyahu attacked Polish people in Warsaw, during the anti-Irani confrence. No more pro-Isareli conferences here. Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You can quote whoever you want as long as they're notable and relevant. François Robere (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent additions

The recent addition that Volunteer Marek restored reads like a BLP violation. Because the sources aren't in English, most of us can't judge whether it's appropriate. Per BLP, it ought not to be restored until there's consensus on talk. Also, please explain what was wrong with this material and why it was removed as the other was restored. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Piotr Gontarczyk's comments were made on one of his regular radio shows ([21], [22]) which is far from a reasonable source. A published 35-page review (with a 1+ page detailed English abstract) by a tenured professor - plwiki - review online should be preferred. Piotr Gontarczyk (who page was purged of nearly all coverage of him in academic soruces - diff) is a figure with rather unusual, possibly even WP:FRINGE views. Including Gontarczyk without context is WP:UNDUE. Beyond critical coverage of Gontarczyk in Polish (Gontarczyk writes mainly or only in Polish AFAICT) - he has been covered thus in English RSes:

1. "Gontarczyk's work represents 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"".[23]
2. According to historian Henryk Samsonowicz "Gontarczyk’s scholarship brings shame to Polish historical scholarship". Assessing Gontarczyk's article on the 1968 dissidents, historian Karol Modzelewski said that it places him "among the communo-fascists." According to literature historian Michał Głowiński "Gontarczyk’s writing resembles not only texts from Nasz Dziennik but one can also hear the tone of "Moczar’s press" from the late 1960s". available online here, published in Yad Vashem Studies, volume 36.1: 253-70. (for context - Nasz Dziennik is far-right publication. Moczar is Mieczysław Moczar, known for 1968 Polish political crisis#Emigration of Polish citizens of Jewish origin).

Including a holder of such viewpoints - from a radio show - is clearly UNDUE and possibly quite a bit beyond just UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Gontarczyk is a professional historian who specializes in this very area. I am not sure how there is any BLP vio's here, except for Icewhiz's continued and persistent attacks on historians he disagrees with (by cherry picking quotes from people that have had arguments with Gontarczyk) Michilc's work is atrocious, per BLP standards, since she pretends that the phrase "alien and harmful nation" was made by Gontarczyk (by putting it in quotes) whereas he did not say anything like that (I think she's pulling that quote from somewhere else). So yeah, there are BLP problems here but not in the way that you pretend. Samsonowicz specializes in medieval history and has no expertise here (unlike Gontarczyk). The fact that Gontarczyk made the statements on radio is irrelevant, as is his ethnicity and in fact referring to him disparagingly as "radio historian" is an insult and a BLP violation, something that Icewhiz has been repeatedly warned about.

At the end of the day, Gontarczyk may be WP:BIASed, which is why the statements need to be attributed directly to him, but he is still WP:RS and notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you're engaging in blind reverting to Nihil novi's version, ignoring any edits in between. At 16:21, 13 March, in restoring his edits, you also removed Icewhiz's addition, including a link to the book. At 19:52, 13 March, in restoring Nihil novi's edits again, you also removed my copy edit of a different paragraph, once again removing a link to the book. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sara, I restored a previous version, just like you did, and you not only reverted me but also another user. The difference was that I used a very detailed and specific edit summary, while yours was vague ("reads like" - what does that mean?) and non-constructive. If I made a blind revert then yours was even blind...er. As for the copy edit, I would have reinserted the subsequent copy edit but I was reverted pretty quickly so I didn't get the chance. And as far as Icewhiz's additions goes, he can always separate out his additions from his reverts rather than trying to sneak in the removals. Then it wouldn't be a problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) VM - Your personal opinion amounts to little. Michlic is a published expert in histiography - and this was written in a published setting on Polish histiography - a RS on Gontarczyk. As were the quotes in the Yad Vashem piece. Gontarczyk's extensive radio (and op-ed) output is factual - the cited piece you inserted is from Polskieradio. Any basic review of sources on Gontarczyk in English show several REDFLAGs regarding his use - particulary him speaking radio and non-academic newspaper op-eds.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

And Gontarczyk is a published expert in history, and in this topic in particular, and has written and been published as well. And the "REDFLAGs" are going up in yoru imagination. Spare me the stuff about radio and newspapers since you yourself often seek to employ such sources. What matters is that Gontarczyk is a credentialed scholar and expert in the area, which makes him RS, and widely published which makes him notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's historiography, not histiography. FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 20:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Gontarczyk is highly notable author, and certainly widely cited, even if he has his own biases. He now published the critical review in two seperate publications.One in Glaukopis(a scholarly magazine), the other in W Sieci. His discovery regarding the alleged replacement of Jewish ghetto police with supposed Polish policemen is now very widely covered in Poland. Among sources covering it are

• TVP Info-Main state television news channel.
• Onet.pl-one of three largest news portals in Polish internet
• Dziennik.pl-one of the main newspapers in Poland
• Uwazam Rze-a notable magazine in Poland
• W sieci-conservative magazine in Poland

However the fragment discussed is not by Grabowski. As such I suggest to shorten it and move the main part of it to the article about the publication itself. Lastly I am crticial of using Michlic-this seems a very fringe author accussing several notable and reputable scholars of quite high caliber in terms of scholarly acknowledglements.I am not aware of other scholars making such extreme accussations as she does and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It should stay out until there is consensus to include it - it's been removed by a number of editors - and I also agree that it appears to be entirely too much detail (leaving aside the typos, and sourcing issues pointed out below - along with other typos and grammatical errors that I haven't pointed out as well as repeating the information about the publication details of the work in two different paragraphs. It's a scholarly work - we should be using other scholars publishing in scholarly publications to critique it - not newspapers. Let's try to respect WP:BRD and the other editors and not edit war and discuss instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it "includes to many details". The matter is really simple. Gontarczyk makes two related claims: 1) That GrabowskiGrabowski's book says that it was Polish Police which helped the Germans liquidate the Bochnia Ghetto but that 2) it was actually Jewish Ghetto Police which participated in the liquidation and there was no Polish police presence. Both of these claims are WP:Verifiable. Does Grabowski say it? And the liquidation of the Ghetto is pretty well documented so not really subject to debate either. And if Gontarczyk is right then this is indeed a very serious breach of scholarly standards, which makes the criticism notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The version I was referring to had "In 2018 Grabowski and Barbara Engelking edited a two-volume study, Dalej jest noc: losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski ("Night without end: The fate of Jews in selected counties of occupied Poland")." in the first paragraph of "Dalej jest noc" and then in the second paragraph "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]," which is duplication and too much detail - we don't need to know in the second paragraph where the work was published nor who the publisher was ... Also, in that diff, the two references at the end of the sentence "with alleged Polish policemen" are the exact same reference. That whole sentence states "In his article published by W Sieci magazine as an example of the book's alleged inaccuracies, he said that in description of the events in the Bochnia Ghetto in wartime German-occupied Poland, the author of the books section, Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska, replaced the units of Jewish Ghetto Police searching for hiding Jews(together with German police) with alleged Polish policemen" but it doesn't reference the magazine W Sieci, instead it's to a radio interview or is it a newspaper? We should at least reference the actual magazine article, not an interview done about the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, those are legitimate criticisms of the text and can be easily addressed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading MyMoloboaccount's comment above, I think it is better to include this specific info in the article on the book itself. The book is edited by Grabowski but this particular piece of material is from another author. However, Gontarczyk's dedicated review of the article by Grabowski should be used in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) No, not really. Even if you could by ypur OR "prove" an error on one detail, errors on minor details are to be expected in a 1600 page work. What matters here is mainstream academic reviews - as opposed to fringe opinions. Gontarczyk has a record of attacking established scholarship in the field - e.g. Gross - his position delivered via Polish media carries little weight.Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, actually whether it was Polish Police or Jewish Police which participated in the liquidation of the ghetto is not a "error of minor detail" (and Gontarzyk actually outlines many others) - it's kind of central since it addresses the main thesis of the book. It is also something which is a pretty straight forward, easily verifiable issue, so whether or not Grabowski's book made false claims here says a lot about the general quality of this um, "scholarship". As for your comments about Gontarczyk - stop. violating. BLP. If you're gonna accuse a living person of "having a record of attacking established scholarship in the field" you need to provide that with sources and diffs, otherwise off to the drama boards we go (again). I suggest you either do that - provide citations for "attacking" (not just being critical of) - or you strike your BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid introducing WP:FRINGE content to BLPs - this article and others. Gontarzyk comments on Gross (an established scholar, whose works are probably the most widely cited in the field in the past two decades) and use of said comments in "extreme right-wing nationalist press" is well established - source. This has actually become so notorious that mainstream historians, such as Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe see this as an endorsement: "However, the fact that historians arguing along more nationalist-conservative lines, such as Piotr Gontarczyk or Bogdan Musiał, have reacted to the studies reviewed here with a pronounced phobia for the facts of the Holocaust, is an indication that these volumes have advanced the state of research and successfully interrogated further political myths." source. Beyond the shock or outrage value, there's little weight to these media interviews / op-eds by Gontarzyk. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You made a claim about a living person. Quote: "Gontarczyk has a record of attacking established scholarship in the field". Unless you can support that with sources and diffs that's a direct BLP vio. Attempts at deflection and obfuscation about "some other stuff" do not count. Either you can support your WP:BLP attacks or you can not. Sources please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I provided sources above - for Gross, and for prior (award winning) work by Engelking and Grabowski.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No you didn't. Stop lying. You did. Not. Provide. A. Source. Which supports. The Notion. That. "Gontarczyk has a record of attacking established scholarship in the field". You provided a source that... "nationalist press" might have cited ... somebody somewhere. Stop. Lying. You've violated BLP. And now you're doubling down on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a couple more: "Piotr Gontarczyk, for example, has accused the author of, among other things, tampering with facts, presenting untruthful interpretations, “contriving things absent from the documents and describing irrelevant and inconsequential episodes,” “overlooking that which is much more important.” Generally speaking, of elementary incompetence as a historian and the propensity for exonerating criminals"Wołowiec, Grzegorz. "The PRL in Biographies: Preliminary Remarks." Teksty Drugie 1 (2016): 144-151. ". In the discussion following the publication of Neighbors, some historians mocked not only Gross’s account of the events in Jedwabne but the institutions which collected testimonies. Piotr Gontarczyk remarked: ‘After the war various historical commissions collected testimonies, which were concerned with various political and propagandist interests more than with the truth.’10 His position – the demand for balance, context and professional distance of the scholar – served to defend a particular vision of Polish Jewish relations. Gontarczyk’s strategy has been aptly termed ‘objectivizing historical thinking’. [pargraph break] While Gontarczyk can certainly serve as a rather extreme example ... in Natalia. "Survivor Testimonies and Historical Objectivity: Polish Historiography since Neighbors." Holocaust Studies 20.1-2 (2014): 157-178.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I re-removed the content; preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "This content has been challenged and removed; pls achieve consensus at talk". Add: the material, as included, was WP:UNDUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The rationale "the content has been challenged" is neither policy based nor meritorious. Anyone can "challenge" anything, and of course some editors simply challenge any content which doesn't fit in with their POV and then sabotage consensus building on talk. Significantly, none of the editors who are edit warring with edit summaries of "get consensus!" or "take it to talk!" (it ALREADY HAS been taken to talk) are actually bothering to make policy or source based arguments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• All I am asking is to respect the BRD cycle; it's not BRRRRRR... In any case, I don't see a current consensus to include this material. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, anyone who's been editing in this area for the past year, knows very well that as long as some editors are present the hope of achieving any kind of "consensus" is nil. They will hold "consensus" hostage. Some editors will always object to material that doesn't fit their preconceived extremist narratives and they won't very hard on talk to derail discussions and sabotage productive dialogue. In light of this kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, we go by what policy says - rely on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no consnsus to quote Grabowski called the Polish government "undemocratic" and "nationalistic" and said that the alleged antisemitism in Poland resembled "the Dark Ages". Xx236 (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Paweł Jędrzewski criticizes political usage of antisemitism accusations in Poland. https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/1394266,pawel-jedrzejewski-polski-antysemityzm-wywiad-mazurka.html Xx236 (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

ZH

Am I correct is assuming that this citation "Dawid Golik: Nowatorska noc. Kilka uwag na marginesie artykułu Karoliny Panz, "Zeszyty Historyczne WiN-u" nr 47/2018, s. 109-134" is to this publication? Is there an online version for verification purposes? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Glaukopis

If I'm reading this badly formatted citation correctly "Tomasz Roguski: Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski, red. Barbara Engelking i Jan Grabowski, "Glaukopis" nr 36, pages 335-356" - it is referring to this publication? If so, it appears from my limited ability with Google translate that they only have 35 volumes ... so can someone please direct me to the place where number 36 is located to verify the information, please? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There certainly is number 36[24]

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

So a properly formated citation would be <ref>Roguski, Tomasz "Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski, red. Barbara Engelking i Jan Grabowski",''Glaukopis'' volume 36 pp. 335-356</ref> - but it needs a publication date also, which is also lacking in the citation as given. I'm not just being anal here - proper formatting with the various italics and stuff is how you tell what parts of a citation are what - the quotes tell the reader that it is an article, the italics give the base publication (in this case - Glaukopis) ... thus making things easier to find, especially when working with a language that is not familiar. It is a vital part of scholarship to know how to find things - and when citations are not formatted as normal, it becomes much more difficult. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Totally different discussion not related to the above at all

(ec) this in their homepage - it is open access, all online. It was launched by an individual, who possibly due to events covered by the SPLC, was unable to publish in mainstream journals anymore. Note the byline at the bottom (google translate) - "By rejecting political correctness, we present topics that have never been explored and are often controversial." The books they promote [https://glaukopis.pl/index.php/book-reviews here) (e.g. Poland for the Poles) is also instructive. I only see 35 volumes. 36 would be the forthcoming one.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Again - I didn't bring up anything other than attempting to find the source from the badly formatted citation. Please don't derail conversations. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"It was launched by an individual, who possibly due to events covered by the SPLC, was unable to publish in mainstream journals anymore" Seems like pure conjucture? Any source to support your claim? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Not just pure conjecture but also a WP:BLP violation. Another one by Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Glaukopis is officialy listed as scholarly journal by Polish Ministry of Education and Higher Education that is given a score and it's usage is permitted to be used by universities for research [25]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Icewhiz, believe it or not but appearing on the radio does NOT disqualify one from being a reliable source as you appear to absurdly claim in your edit summary [26]. That is also NOT what the author is known for. He is known for the numerous academic works he's published on the subject as a PhD scholar. So please - once again - stop trying to smear living person just because they don't agree with your POV. You're racking up WP:BLP violations left and right (I notice you are also hell bent on including the other smear as often as you can).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with source...

this source is listed as "Ukazały się kolejne trzy recenzje IPN na temat publikacji "Dalej jest noc" Dzieje.pl 21.02.19" or (according to Google translate) "Three more reviews of the Institute of National Remembrance have appeared on the subject of the publication of "Dalej jest noc" Dzieje.pl 21.02.19" - this is not supporting the information it is attached to which is "The book received a number of critical reviews, with criticism addressed towards its use of unreliable sources, ignoring the context of German occupation and policies, alleged personal egagements of some of the authors, selective treatment of witness statements(scrutinizing Polish witness statement, while taking at face value witness statemements in line with author's thesis),and presenting rumors or gossip as actual proven events." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The IPN is a state propaganda outlet, in the past decade or so mainly known for promoting "political history". Recently, the French government protested against the complicity/support of the IPN for an antisemitic attack on a Holocaust conference in Paris - Lemonde. The IPN's (and its employees) publications are no longer used in mainstream science - exceptions being when they are very clearly attributed or when the IPN itself (memory politics) is under study.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the problems with the IPN, the point I made was that the source does not support the information given in this article. Let's not drag other issues into that problem, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I can more quotes and statements if you wish from these sources, unless you want to do it first as I assume you know Polish?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I can use Google Translate to get close enough. This particular link is to what appears to be a portal site - the only text of consequence on it is listed above. If you are trying to use the three reviews that the portal site mentions - you need to actually use those reviews, not link to them through this portal site, because any link that is put into a citation should actually contain the information that is being sourced. By placing the portal site as a citation - the implication is that the portal site supports the information - if it doesn't, it isn't helpful at all to have this link there, because it's useless for actually verifying the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It lists some examples of criticism by Gieron, Golik,Roguski. IE: "Na stronie IPN dostępne są także niewielkie fragmenty recenzji Gieronia i Golika, który zarzucił jednej z autorek "Dalej jest noc" Karolinie Panz m.in. brak dystansu do badanej materii i silne przeświadczenie formułowanych wniosków."

Or "W recenzji Roguskiego, który analizował badania prof. Jana Grabowskiego, czytamy, że jego monografia powiatu węgrowskiego "przedstawia obraz wydarzeń z czasu II wojny światowej wyrwany z kontekstu historycznego". "Los Żydów został ukazany jako wyekstrahowana z wojennej rzeczywistości gehenna, w której większości Polaków została z góry przypisana rola współsprawców" - napisał Roguski." I can translate this if you wish.I wanted to present a brief summary, but if you insist on expanding the section with more quotes and sources, I am willing to do this. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Again - do those quotes occur on this exact page. I've looked at the sidebars and I do not see the quotes you just gave above on that exact page I just listed. Just to be safe, I did indeed use the find function on the page to look for several of the words - including "Na stronie" and "Golika" and "Karolinie Panz" .... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes these quotes are on this webpage,perhaps try a different browser? I can upload a partial screenshot if it continues to be a problem for you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

With the third browser (Chrome) it finally showed up. Strongly suggest that that website might want to fix their coding if its that problematical. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And we are considering this website/portal (dzieje.pl), which does not seem to name its editors or process, as a RS suitable for a BLP becuase..... Any policy based reason? RSN or BLPN discussion? Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

the first task is to find and verify the source. It’s useless to worry about anything else until you can confirm that the source exists and that it contains the information it’s supposed to. And there are other less than ideal sources in the article...an obituary or this which appears to be a student assignment. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Those are not negative, in one case attributed, and in the other merely the name (relevant as they co-wrote one study together and both are notable). They could be cut out. Let me re-iterate this clearly, @Ealdgyth: - we are using IPN employees writing "reviews" in somewhat dubious sources to call a scientist's integrity into question. The same IPN (red flags abound) - was condemned by the French government in its role in an antisemitic attack on Holocaust researchers in Paris (a venue chosen, in part, due to troubles in Poland in this regard) Lemonde source - one of those attacked was Grabowski.[27] And this - on a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether the information is negative has no bearing on whether it should be used in a BLP - WP:BLP has no statement about "negative information" - it says "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." ... As for the Polish language sources, I'm still investigating them - but in reality - this is STILL too much detail in this article when there is an article on the work itself. This discussion of the problems with a particular work (where some of the issues appear to be, in part, with sections of the work written by other researchers) should be ... in the article on the work. However, I've given up on reason breaking out in this area of wikipedia and am settling for at least being able to FIND the sources and not having gross grammatical and typographical errors present in this article. As an aside - I'm (in my non-copious free time that isn't devoted to trying to buy property, work on my own off wikiprojects, and move) trying to get up to speed on the whole contentious area of Polish-Jewish historiography relating to the Holocaust, but ... frankly, everytime this sort of crap errupts on my watchlist (and everyone note that I am NOT saying that it is only one side or if its both sides or even taking sides - everyone could be pure as the driven snow but its still not a pleasant area to edit in) ... I lose desire to try to help out. It's not a freaking battleground and if everyone would stop treating it as such ... you might actually find people like Sarah (SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) courtesy ping) and I contributing more. At the moment, I have no desire to be a punching bag for others and trying to make me into that isn't going to make me stick around. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP does have an exception for interviews with the subject - which this is. As for the topic area - things would be easier if we stuck to high quality sources in English (which for Grabowski are plentiful) - will make things easier both in terms of NPOV (and there are, BTW, also mainstream voices in Poland - as opposed to fringe denialist discourse - what is bandied about here isn't even mainstream in Poland) and V (I have several times in the past few months caught random Polish language citations that failed verification - but verifying Polish is harder than English and fewer editors are willing to do so).Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's Le Monde not Lemonde, and no IPN was not organizing any antisemitic attacks, in fact it actively researches genocide of both Jews and Poles during Second World War.The only thing French minister stated was that "you get the impression Polish government is supporting these events, because IPN representative present didn't condemn them" and later criticized the conference so your claim is rather weak. A large part of the conference was recorded and it had people with especially strong views, it was reported that Grabowski stated Poles killed more Jews in villages than Germans in concetration camps, and other lecturer stated that "Jewish bodies will be replaced by stones in graves" to hide atrocities in Poland. Anyway it isn't the topic of this article.But it certainly wasn't a neutral conference.[28].Other articles name it as a dispte between historians[29]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

RSes, unlike right wing media in Poland subject to the Holocaust law, disagree. I cited a source for French governemnt criticism for IPN's involvement/support in this attack. Instead of using these dubious sources - how about trying to bring forward mainstream scholarship ?Icewhiz (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Tags

Tags are being added to the page with limited justification. There're enough page watches that an RfC may be more profitable instead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

More than half this page is justification. That is not limited. Just because some editors refuse to actually address these justifications does not mean you get to remove the tags.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

And your continued attempts at removal of the tags unfortunately only serves to sharpen and inflame the dispute rather than help to resolve it, and as such is WP:DISRUPTIVE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• They seem to be more of "tags of shame". What add'l content do you propose to be included? Or any other changes? Just applying the tags and hoping that issues would work themselves out does not seem productive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "they seem" to means. They're not tags of shame. The actual problem has been explained above. Icewhiz has been trying to remove any negative reviews from the article and replace them with only positive ones (and he's been doing this while violating BLP left and right by smearing various authors). After MyMoloboaccount's edits the article is a bit more balanced but it is still missing several notable reviews that have been removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz has been trying to remove... -- if you have a grievance against a particular editor, please use an appropriate admin noticeboard or other means of dispute resolution. Railing against said editors on article Talk pages is not what they are here for. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Since THIS is the article from which he has been "trying to remove", THIS is the appropriate place to raise it, particularly since you requested that I do so. You can't ask a question, demand an answer and then complain that your question was answered (specifically - the content removed by Icewhiz should be in part or in whole be restored).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

We reflect, on Wikipedia, mainstream sources. Our goal here is not to reflect right wing Polish media which carries very little weight other than shock value (Polish newspaper runs front page list on ‘how to spot a Jew’, Independent). There is a POV problem in the article in that these primary attestations are being used directly from unreliable right-wing sources. The vitriol in Polish media is of some significance and of relevance in terms of deconstructing myths - however this is best covered by using mainstream source who frame this righ-wing discourse in these sources in an appropriate manner (and where possible, in English per NOENG) - as opposed to using such sources directly.Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

For all your talk about "mainstream sources this, fringe sources that" NOT ONCE have you actually bothered to go to WP:RSN and ask outside editors for their opinions. Wikipedia does not work on the unilateral opinions of a guy named Icewhiz.

And frankly your behavior here is outrageous and thoroughly dishonest. We are discussing a specific person, an academic with a PhD and a published expert in the topic. And what do you do? You link to AN UNRELATED newspaper story about some shitty ass anti-semitic rag that no one in Poland has ever heard of, which does not mention the person we're discussing OR the subject of this article, with the not-so-subtle but completely false insinuation that somehow the subject of discussion is connected to this rag (not at all) or that this is some source which someone is trying to use. NOBODY IS FUCKING TRYING TO USE THIS SOURCE!!!!!! This source HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT!!! Stop the bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Focus on content. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I did focus on content. Specifically the removal of content by Icewhiz. But his talk page behavior and dishonest stunts like the one right above, where he's linking to something completely irrelevant and pretending that it's somehow related to a living person is beyond outrageous. You went to my talk page and complained about my "tone". Where is your concern for Icewhiz's behavior? On this talk page alone he:

1. Claimed that Poland is similar to North Korea and Iran in terms of reliability

2. Linked to a story about a (marginal) anti-semitic newspaper and pretended with a straight face that somebody is trying to use this in this article. Which is a straight up lie.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Behind a paywall...

This is restricting my access (I appear to have read too many articles this month or something) to the information so it hasn't been checked for accuracy against the content in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have access at the moment. The text reflects the article accurately it seems. Is there anything specific you want checked? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nah, I just wanted to make sure folks knew that although I fixed typos/grammar/etc in the stuff sourced to it, that I wasn't able to verify it, as I was able to with the earlier source. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Dispute with Daniel Blatman, Israeli historian and professor of Modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

I added a short summary on dispute with dispute with Daniel Blatman, Israeli historian and professor of Modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.This is initial edit, as always it can be modified,expanded or reformed based on suggestions. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The ethnic labelling above is off color. As for the content - hardly a dispute - a single letter or call co-signing with a bunch of other authors. Probably more relevant in Blatman's page or the musuem that was the target of criticism - UNDUE here as Grabowski was tangential here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That's how he is described in sources[30], and on Harvard profle[31]. It is my understanding that Israeli denotes citizenship, not ethnicity, and Arabs,Jews and others can be Israelis. In any case I agree that ethnic labelling is unecessary. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Some academicians are exteremely biased. Authors of Dalej jest noc are of different ethnicities, but at least some of them are extermaly biased, who manipulate their sources. So yes, ethnicity isn't important, bias is.Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)