Talk:Jan Grabowski/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Misrepresentation of sources

Icewhiz restored the "well received" sentence [1] and added this source as if it supported the claim. It doesn't. Grabowski is mentioned, very briefly, but it does not say his book was "well received". This is a straight up dishonest misrepresentation of a source. Like I said, it's long past time Icewhiz was topic banned from this topic, and these kinds of edits are exactly why.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Nihil novi (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

See consensus in the "Blanket revert" section above. I misplaced politifact - it was used for the public debate, not for well received. Saying the book was criticized by several historians while ignoring the praise - from several more historians, is a NPOV violation.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Politifact doesn't support the claim of "public debate" either, so your explanation doesn't really hold water, does it? But nice try.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Both Times of Israel and Haaretz support the existence of a public debate, and the same probably goes for other sources that are already cited in the text. If Icewhiz wants to cite sources for the existence of a public debate, what's the holdup in not using those he already cites for other facts? Dahn (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Politifact says .. In 2013, Polish-born Canadian historian Jan Grabowski published the book Hunt for the Jews, which attributed responsibility for the deaths of at least 200,000 Jews to Poles. These narratives clash with the history most Poles grew up learning. ... Kassow said. "When historians like Grabowski or Gross say their research shows Poles probably killed more Jews than Germans, people are furious and see it as slander, as invalidating their suffering, as impugning their national honor. Nobody is denying Polish suffering and nobody is denying Poland’s struggle for independence, but there are people who are looking for an honest look at their own history." which seems to cover the public debate. It also seems there is no lack of sources describing a public debate, vigorous discussions in Polish media, etc. in the context of this book - are you truly challenging there was a controversy about this book in Poland?Icewhiz (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, so there's nothing in there about a public debate. You're now making up desperate explanations for the fact that you've tried to misrepresent a source ("oh I put it in the wrong place" "wait, no it sort of says what I claimed") Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And there's no visible consensus in the "Blanket revert" section, contrary to your claim.

So let's see:

• You claim your reverts where consecutive when it's easily verified that they weren't
• You claimed that a source you added supported the contention that the book was "well received" when it's easily verified that that is not true
• You are claiming that a source you added supported the contention that the book caused a "public debate in media" when it's easily verified that that is not true
• You claimed in an edit summary that you were just "attributing" something when it's easily verified that you were actually removing pertinent information
• You claim that there was consensus in a section above when it's easily verified that the section is a bunch of controversy with very little agreement

You're not exactly inspiring others to assume good faith towards you. Especially when you make it so obvious and transparent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's quite clear that the article does mention something about the controversy, though it's rather oblique. Again, the way to approach this is to find at least one source saying clearly it was a controversy, and to produce the exact quote from it. Dahn (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed the way to approach it, but that is not the way Icewhiz approached it. Instead he... misrepresented a source to make it seem like it supported his POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Radio interview

Apparently the Gontarczyk interview can be picked and quoted directly from the source transcript, published by national radio. That I was able to find this in under 2 minutes shows two things: that one side in this conversation is being unreasonably and counter-productively "cautious" with sources and statements; that the other side simply won't get itself on the level where they actually research the matter and produce the most reliable sources -- and this also means that there are likely other sound and relevant critiques of Grabowski that editors simply didn't bother finding. Dahn (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I would assume there is positive Polish language coverage as well - e.g. from Barbara Engelking and related figures - however it is difficult to locate these without good Polish. Attributing to Polskiradio directly would be much better than the internet portal selective quotations of the longer interview.Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course there are positive reviews as well, and anything in between; I did not mean to say there aren't. The problem here is that even editors with a bias against Grabowski's claims, who will go looking for sources on their POV (something which is not objectionable, though not necessarily the most productive approach) seem uninterested about finding the most reliable coverage. Dahn (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I want to fix this, but I'm not able to find the wpolityce quote, in the that interview. The two quoted sections in wPolityce are not there (he does discuss Grabowski, the Holocaust center, and Gross - but not with the some quotes that wPolityce are attributing to him).Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably because he did not say that on public radio, and Wpolityce was unclear about that, or some other such. Anyway, it looks like the claims he makes about Grabowski on national radio are even more serious and specific than that, and should be summarized/quoted here. From what I could read in automatic translation, he questions Grabowski's expertise (note how the detail on Grabowski's original academic specialization is not present in our text, which goes straight to how he founded the Center), he ridicules the Center, and he accuses Grabowski of not having translated correctly his sources; also, he makes a general point about how the claim of collective responsibility is unacceptable. I think all this belongs in the article, and quite frankly I think it contextualizes, or even refutes, Grabowski's claim that he's battling "nationalism". Dahn (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Many historians write on more than one topic - I actually had Grabowski's main publications (included the 2001 book on Canada) listed in the Life section by year (got moved by someone else to the bio) - he's written extensively on the Holocaust - making the switch over to the Holocaust by the early 2000s at the latest (his first book is on Canadian history - all the rest seem to be around the Holocaust). I do not think Gontarczyk speaking on the radio merits inclusion at all (but I was going to remove the attribution to wPolityce if there was a transcript of the original - wPolityce doesn't match the link you found (per my, possibly flawed, reading) - but he might have spoken on a different occasion) - and I'm really unsure on what to take from this. I do think Gontarczyk has actually written on the book (behind the paywall - [2] [3] Gontarczyk , Musial, and a response by Grabowski) in a non-peer-reviewed setting - which would be better in my opinion for use if we were to include him.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again with that double standard. The man is a historian, who has an official public function, who went on public radio, and got the most exposure for his claims that any Polish media could provide; this appears to be perfectly equivalent with similar claims made by Grabowski against his critical colleagues, in some cases through channels with less standing. That Gontarczyk is right or not about his Grabowski claims is utterly irrelevant (haven't we covered this?), and readers should be left to assess this on their own; and as long as Grabowski doesn't like others questioning his expertise, perhaps he should've shied away from questioning his critics' expertise. Let me highlight this: just because it's a BLP, it don't mean it's a shrine to Grabowski. Dahn (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Dahn - I was suggesting something he wrote (and provided a link to one) - as opposed to a radio interview (and definitely a summary of a radio interview by wpolityce) - would be a better source for whatever we do source from him.Icewhiz (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

They're both equally good sources. How would you react if someone were to suggest removing all the claims Grabowski made in interviews? Dahn (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hard to argue that a BLP subject's positions are UNDUE on the BLP subject's article. However I think we are in disagreement over whether written sources are preferable to TV or radio. I prefer a written source, preferably not an interview, all things being equal.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Noted. If you can render the written source, perhaps it can be argued that citing the interview as well is excessive. But having the interview in, in the absence of that, is by no means a problem. Dahn (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nationalists

Icewhiz, on this talk page you have referred to some Polish-language authors as "nationalists". What do you mean by this expression? And are you applying it to those authors on the basis of their having been so described in peer-reviewed journals? Nihil novi (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, it doesn't matter what he believes, and for his private opinions he's not required to justify himself using peer-reviewed sources; just like my belief (that I won't edit into the article) is that Grabowski advances claims he cannot prove and uses them in a political debate, and that his adversaries were remarkably incompetent in addressing his claim, need not be based on reliable sources. No need to hound him. Dahn (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth: the more relevant part here is that "nationalist", "Catholic", "right-wing", "conservative" are not disqualifying attributes, contrary to what left-wing sources have set themselves out to prove, in what is visibly an effort to tip the scales; conversely, "Europeanist", "secularist", "left-wing", "liberal" are not disqualifying attributes either. Somebody claiming against sources they disagree with simply that they are "nationalist" or "liberal", and expect them to be removed from the article based on that claim, can safely be ignored on that point -- unless they're doing it in an attempt to canvass and dog-whistle similar-minded wikipedians, to affect consensus, in which case they should probably stop. Dahn (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Musial has actually been described as "ethno nationalist" in several RSes (journal articles or academic publishers) on Holocaust histiography. But I was referring in my previous comment to the way this criticism has been described by English NEWSORGs who described this - usually adding some qualifier (nationalist, right wing, or something else) to say this is not universal but limited to some segments - but always (or nearly always) framing the nationality of the critics.Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Citations needed. I have found John-Paul Himka, ‎Joanna Beata Michlic, who attack Tomasz Strzembosz, Piotr Gontarczyk (anticommunist).Xx236 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Those are still opinions; and in fact so is the claim that Musial's definition as an "ethno nationalist" would be disqualifying (plenty of "ethno nationalists" rescued Jews in the 1940s; plenty of the Jews killed or rescued were themselves "ethno nationalists"). What matters if is if he has a point or not. As for the notion that the article should reflect that most of the controversy happened in Poland, there is nothing wrong with rendering that as an attributed claim -- "according to". And preferably anchor it to a timely reference: when was the claim made? This would spare us the effort to update it should the controversy become visibly more international at any point. But to state our own inference that most of his critics are Polish, and that Poles are nationalists (yes, that describes Gazeta perfectly...), that's unacceptable. Dahn (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that was in itself a disqualifier. Nothing wrong with being an ethno nationalist. If we were to exclude Musial (and there are grounds for doing so) it should be on the basis of the recpetion of Musial's work and activity - take a look at what has been written about him.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I did take a look, and noticed that the most inflammatory/discrediting allegations against him follow the obscene path of "he's an ethno nationalist (or I can say that he is one), therefore he's antisemitic", and that there's a detailed discussion about his statistics on a somewhat unrelated matter, with the sort of scrutiny, "careful" to the point of being pedantic, when no such attention is given to Grabowski's own estimates in similar reviews of his work. The willingness of so many scholars to engage in a defense of the mass-murdering Soviet Union, while treating all defense (if defense is what it is) of nationalist Poland as problematic, is perhaps telling of what biases are at play here. Dahn (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

But there's nothing new here. In a more famous debate involving the same circles, Bauman's claim that hatred of the Jews was merely instrumental was never treated as relativistic (though at long last, there has been at least some debate, these past years, about Arendt's original claims in this respect, and how they enforced Holocaust relativism on the left), questions about his past within a criminal institution have been framed as "antisemitic", and proof of his plagiarism has been attacked with all sorts of ridiculous epithets. Dahn (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, you may honestly argue that there's nothing wrong with being an ethnonationalist (I'm not sure "nothing wrong" describes it -- it's of course not wrong in the sense that it's nothing necessarily wrong for anything relevant to this discussion on the Holocaust). However, here's the deal: many of the scholars and commentators you cite work with, and openly state, the assumption that ethnic nationalism, and even civic nationalism, are in the immediate vicinity of Nazism, and corridors toward Nazism. This inherently left-wing ideological point (be it Marxist or Popperian liberal) is the logic that frames some of the most ridiculous critiques of Poland's government, of Polish conservatism, and of Polish nationalism -- none of which is beyond critique, surely, but all of which can be spared unreasonable critiques. So simply stating "but so many found X controversial" is not really a definitive point: does he deny the Holocaust? is he an actual Nazi? do many of his colleagues stand by assertions that he's an actual antisemite, rather than insinuations that he has a POV which "may lead" to antisemitism or whatnot? that's the sort of thing that discredits views, not simply the accumulation of more or less consistent allegations about him among equally biased peers, among clear defenses of his work by other equally biased peers. Dahn (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And incidentally, though we're getting way past the point: presuming it is correctly rendered, Musial's argument that the collaboration of some Jews with the Soviet authorities did make some Poles feel that their persecution was validated is not that scandalous, and has been stated before by Norman Davies (not to mention that it was one of the topics of criticism against communist Jews by the Jewish anti-communist right and moderate left -- something which Grabowski's cherrypicking doesn't address). It is probable that this enhanced Polish antisemitism to the point where, in some notorious cases the Germans were able to push selective communities into organizing pogroms, or said communities acted out on their own wishes. This is not to say that "antisemites are justified", and probably there's not a single line in Musial or Davies that would imply that; it's to say "as one of their many crimes (which included deporting Jewish elites to Siberia), the Soviets also irresponsibly encouraged antisemitism among the Poles they terrorized". And it might not even be an accurate argument, but it surely isn't, on the face of it, an ethically objectionable argument. And the logic that says "it's redolent of antisemitism, so let's bury it in epithets" can be equally deconstructed, using the same logic, as an attempt to minimize Soviet (ir)responsibility. This while knowing full well that the Soviets and assorted cronies went on to organize their own pogroms at Kielce and elsewhere, their own brand of Holocaust relativism (when they deemphasized the racial nature of Nazi killings), their own mass murder of Jewish Zionists and their own version of the Holocaust in the early 1950s (when only Stalin's death put a stop to it), and their own national-communist antisemitism from the 1960s on. Dahn (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

On this, basically if you're studying Soviet partisans in Poland, it's an issue which comes up and you have to address it, which is what Musial did. It's silly to accuse him of "nationalism" simply because he discusses the matter. Here is the Jewish Virtual Library, a project of American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, on the subject and Musial's work: "Detailed research carried out by Bogdan Musiał over the past few years has resulted in a more nuanced understanding of Jewish involvement with Soviet occupation forces. Musiał has been criticized for suggesting that Jews in eastern Poland were over represented in the Soviet administrative and police apparatus, but after examining numerous eyewitness reports taken from the inhabitants of eastern Poland, including Jews who survived the German occupation, Musiał found that in many cases Jewish militia members directly participated in mass arrests and deportation actions. (...) Other leading scholars of the "final solution" in the occupied Soviet Union have corroborated Musiał's conclusions. Yitzhak Arad, for one, writes (...), Dov Levin has similarly concluded (...), Jan Gross himself wrote in 1983 (...), It is worth noting here as well the findings of Ewgienij Rosenblat (...)" - the ellipsis here represent lengthy quotations which support Musial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As a general guideline for this editorial discussion and how we go about writing the article:

Editors who believe Grabowski is right should understand that wikipedia cannot, and will not, represent Grabowski's claims as an absolute truth; editors who believe Grabowski is wrong should understand that wikipedia cannot, and will not, make their point of view more representative than it actually (currently) is. Dahn (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

We should atribute all claims.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There exists a series of academic works by US historians Kopstein and Wittenberg [4]. As far as I understand they are not about racism or antisemitism.

1941 pogroms took part in several countries [5], but the ones in Poland seems to be more important to many writers.

I'm not sure the latter point is accurate or particularly relevant. There has been for instance significant and voluminous scholarship on the pogroms that took place in Romania-proper and Bessarabia in 1941 (though some of it is confined to Romanian and Hebrew sources). The problem with the pogroms in "Poland" (loosely defined) is that the amount of scholarship, or at least its claim to have uncovered something significant about Polish agency, fails two important issues: it cannot manifestly prove any official involvement by Polish authorities, because, roughly put, there were none; it cannot extend its (always risky) claim of collective responsibility to more than, let's say, some tens of thousands of Polish civilians. Tens of thousands is a minuscule percentage -- when compared to the overall Polish population, or when held against the number of Poles massacred by the Nazis. By contrast, Romania had official agency and state authorities directly involved in pogroms, not to mention the deportation that completed pogroms; it also had no instances of Romanians being persecuted by the Nazis. Not a single rant and self-victimization by those who claim to have uprooted "Polish myths of innocence" can obscure that, which, I'm guessing, is probably why they avoid the topic altogether and focus on shouting out incoherent things and baiting opponents. Dahn (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Musiał is a German academician - German degree, German papers and books. Xx236 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Another false edit summary

...by Icewhiz. Here. The edit summary claims that the edit, quote, "attribute to where this was published". While it does mention the the name of the journal - not magazine - where it was published, it also removes the fact that Samsonowska is a historian who specializes in Polish-Jewish relations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz also broke 3RR on the article [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I performed precisely 2 reverts in the past 24 Hrs. Consecutive edits - are one revert. Conversely - VM is at at least 3 reverts - [10] [11] [12]. Samsonowska specialty was not sourced, per her home page she specializes in education and Polish culture as well as in the history of the Jews in Poland - but not in Jewish-Polish relations. In any event - we do not describe other, rather eminent, historians at this length. Wiez is a Catholic quarterly (and it used to be a monthly when this was published).Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The four diffs provided ARE NOT consecutive edits. You know it's trivial to check this, right?

Samsonowska's specialty is the history of Jews in Poland. Her publications explicitly deal with Polish-Jewish relations.

What does the "Catholic" have to do with anything?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's also make sure to label Haaretz as the voice of the Israeli left, that's sure to be constructive here. All sources have biases, but such biases are irrelevant for the points they're publishing; they're only relevant if they disqualify them from being cited at all, in which case you wouldn't label them, but simply not use them. Can we please stop with the charades? Dahn (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

How is Catholic relevant? Ask Wiez - they describe themselves as such Wiez about in the opening paragraph (as do several other sources describing them). What is relevant - is that it is a magazine, not an academic journal.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The guesswork about bias is not relevant unless we go on identifying all biases in the article (something I must strongly urge both sides not to attempt, as it would reduce the article to a laughing stock). I see no problem with saying it's a magazine, nor do I get how Icewhiz imagines this would affect the issue. Opinions in prestigious magazines obviously aren't in any way against WP:RS, are a traditional vehicle for scholarship (though not the most formal one), and are often much more neutral and professional than stuff that gets published in academic journals were all the peers reviewers adhere to one single viewpoint. The hypothetical journal Studies in Working-Class Liberation or Papers of Feminism is not in any way more neutral just because articles in it have been "peer-reviewed". Dahn (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiez is actually pretty left wing and has published articles by Jan Gross, Elgenking and IIRC, even Grabowski. This is just more WP:TEND efforts by Icewhiz to poison the well.

And that edit summary is still false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems that Icewhiz cannot shake off the assumption than any Polish source is suspicious of something, that public debate in Poland really is controlled by government, and that people who publish ideas contradicting his POV do so not because they genuinely believe his POV to be nonsense, but because they have some insidious agenda. This is probably the effect of Grabowski having preemptively claimed that Poland=nationalism and that nationalism is out to get Grabowski. Please let go of that, you're wasting everyone else's time. Dahn (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not believe all sources in Poland are controlled by the government (at least not prior to 2018) - I do think we should avoid over-emphasis on opinion within Poland regarding Holocaust history. I actually added the public debate in Poland following Dahn's suggestion of adding public debate. In Times of Israel - “When it was first published in Polish in 2011, Grabowski’s book was followed by a vigorous discussion in the mainstream Polish media, showing that his writing can effectively break through a purely academic canon and affect widespread social perceptions of this crucial chapter of Polish and Jewish history,” the judges wrote in their remarks.[13]. In macleans When an earlier Polish version of his book was released in 2011, Grabowski’s findings deeply polarized public opinion in that country. In media interviews and debates, his was the face for a hot-button topic: a re-evaluation of Polish actions during the Holocaust. Poles have long, and rightly, perceived themselves as victims in the Second World War, at the expense of exploring their involvement in the Holocaust..[14]. I think that several other sources are available for this.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's constructive. Also, I do commend this sort of editing. It's always good when editors venture outside their POV and look into what people actually say, good or bad as it may be, about the topic at hand. Dahn (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz: "I do not believe all sources in Poland are controlled by the government (at least not prior to 2018)". Dahn: "Okay, that's constructive.". No, it's not. It's insane and illustrates the fundamental problem with Icewhiz editing this page. He's not here to write an encyclopedia but apparently to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and those "WRONGS" exist only in his head. To say that all sources in Poland are "controlled by the government", before or after 2018, is utterly ridiculous. Icewhiz, you either sincerely believe that nonsense, in which case you have no business editing this topic, or you're just saying that in order to discredit Polish sources a priori for POV reasons, in which case you have no business editing this topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:Eh, 1. Icewhiz says "I do not believe", 2. discussion about misconduct should go to WP:Dramaboard and not be used to discredit one's "opponents". Furthermore, it only makes for a more toxic conversation and shows a lack of willingness to compromise - WP is not a battle and you're not here to "win" or to "lose" but to make the article better. Calling others insane obviously isn't making the article better (in fact, so far I see, despite the unprecedented attention this article got in the past week, mostly nothing has been improved - maybe time to retarget the discussion to content and not to editors or petty disagreements about details such as possibly mis-interpreted edit summaries, which again go to WP:Dramaboard and not here, since they only make the situation worse. If one musts, vent off the steam at Dramaboard and then get back to serious consensus building here, or just vent off the steam by editing something less controversial until things calm down). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, he says "not" and then qualifies it with "at least prior to 2018", which in addition to stating that ALL Polish sources after Jan 1, 2018 are "controlled by government" (which is ridiculous) suggests that "most" sources prior to 2018 were (which is insane). I think my characterization of both Icewhiz comments and his approach to editing this article was actually more than fair (and don't try to pull off a fast one - I didn't call him "insane", I called his claim "insane", because it was). And I'm still waiting for you to disclose your other accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To be clear - It my view, sources in Poland between 1989-2018 were not controlled by the government. Following recent, widely commented and reported, legislation in Poland (per this BBC News report for instance), use of sources from Poland on the narrow topic area (and not on other topics which as of yet do not have similar legislation) raises more than a few questions (though not "government control") - that probably should addressed at RS/n when relevant. In any case - this article is about Grabowski, who is a BLP Canadian historian, and whom we should cover in a respectful manner per BLP policy, and at the moment we do not have a source that is challenged on grounds previously mentioned, so this discussion is rather off-topic. We should avoid BIAS/UNDUE in terms of properly reflecting worldwide sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As for me, I did not argue that Icewhiz's POV is constructive (that's really not the point of this conversation), but commented that his approach to editing and his proposals are. If his personal belief is that there's honest-to-God state censorship in Poland, is his business; the important fact is that he leave it out of the article and that he consider that, with or without this claim being true, there is and would be reasonable criticism of Grabowski's claims. He apparently does both, so tackling his private opinions is really past the point of any relevancy. The important thing is not that editors renounce their biases, but that they keep them in check and verify them by neutrality standards. Word to the wise. Dahn (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to look for Polish language sources - it seems to me (e.g. from reviews mentioned at the Publisher and snippets I see elsewhere) that reception in Poland has not been as negative as we currently present it in the reception section - and that there was(is?) a two-sided debate here. However many of these are paywalled.Icewhiz (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's first of all an objection to bring up against Grabowski's claim that he stirred up nasty feelings among nationalist Poles. I mean look at it: the review you added recognizes that Grabowski's microhistory is relevant (I don't think there's anyone actually disputing that -- even the response from the IPN was that the IPN has conducted similar research), but basically disputes any of the claims he advances on the basis of that research. This is presumably a more likely descriptor of the average Polish reaction, even the negative one: "it's always good to know more about those crimes, but your claims about what those crimes mean are not quite believable." Dahn (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have an inkling - this review by Dariusz Stola is more positive that some of the ones we currently have in. In any event - we should reflect what the sources say (and it seems this elicited responses by the Polish right, middle, and left - which all should be covered without UNDUE weight vs. international reception). The "nasty feelings" bit is sourced beyond Grabowski claiming so - RSes are saying so - but clearly international RSes are covering this more than a "some reservations, still valuable" type of response.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously his claims about Polish nationalism should stay, and attributed sources arguing the same can stay also -- but I would like to caution you, in what concerns your readiness to believe them, that they also have a POV, and that they don't in fact substantiate the allegation -- and that, even if evidence perhaps exists that nationalists vituperated against Grabowski, their reaction is probably blown out of proportion and used to infect other negative reception of Grabowski's work. Part of my effort here is to make both sets of editors abandon their prejudices about the other side, so that we may move forward in a more relaxed manner. Not because it is my hobby to spend my time on this, but because you guys started from awfully entrenched positions, at the level where we have to relearn that not all allegation is fact. Dahn (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is not a case of political bias, "right, left, middle". Authors with whatever bias, as long as they pass RS, represent primarily themselves -- we don't collect their opinion and divide them into camps, then judge representation of each. If they pass the reliability threshold, they're quotable, and the "numbers" are likely to arrange themselves. A right-wing author may in fact formulate their critique in purely methodological terms, and a left-wing author may invoke praise formulated only in ideological terms; and vice-versa -- this is again, a generic observation that to label with "right-wing" or "left-wing" or "Catholic" of whatever would not disqualify anyone from having a say in the debate, now would it matter, in itself, for how much exposure they get. Dahn (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I note that an overview of the Polish debate on the Righteous Among the Nations and how representative they are appears in Rafał Paweł Wierzchosławski, "Antinomies, Multiple Realities and the Pasts" in Towards a Revival of Analytical Philosophy of History, published by Brill. It takes a mildly critical view of both perspectives, calling Grabowski's approach a "pedagogic of shame and disgrace" (as opposed to "glorious and innocent" on the other side); Wierzchosławski also calls Gross' displays "performative" in that they have more relevance for the present, and mildly criticizes him for using the Holocaust to make a point about recent immigration -- in fact, it seems to me that he hints that Gross was trolling people. Either way, the study is a valuable and balanced source, maybe you should check it out and use it here. Dahn (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

County name

@Nihil novi: this edit looks rash and confused. According to Kraków Voivodeship (1919–1939)#Cities and administrative divisions, it really was Dąbrowa Tarnowska county. Dahn (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Dąbrowa County describes the current county, nothing about the pre-1939 one.Xx236 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not saying anything about the merits of the edit, but WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case, we already had Grabowski and all reviews going into that sort of detail calling it by the two-name component, so this really was only to check if we call it that. Grabowski's book refers to archival sources for Powiat Dąbrowa Tarnowska, and this name is also present in other sources (search "Powiat Dąbrowa Tarnowska" on googlebooks). I'm sure someone who can read Polish can go and verify this from the official sources of the Second Republic, but I think it's quite pedantic that we would exercise that sort of caution with this evidence of usage. Dahn (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not the most relevant result, but the first one I could find that shows the name being used in the 1930s: Partia Razem commemorating something. Corroborated with the rest, this should additionally clarify that such was the name of the county in the interwar. Dahn (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski states the powiat (or county), however it was unclear to me whether the modern powiat is the same (e.g. border changes or any other major changes) in relation to the interwar or wartime powiat, so I left unlinked. The town the powiat is named for, Dąbrowa Tarnowska, is the same town.Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is whether, depending on editorial precedent in Polish articles, the link should be piped to [[Dąbrowa County|Dąbrowa Tarnowska County]] or be rendered as "Dąbrowa Tarnowska County (Kraków Voivodeship)", or be created from the redirect Dąbrowa Tarnowska County (the latter seems to me the worst option, since it would really be excessive to have standalone articles for the smallest defunct administrative divisions, particularly if they're roughly the same as current divisions on which we have articles; I would loathe the option of having individual articles on each Romanian plasă). Dahn (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There are dozens of "Dąbrowa"s (please click) in Poland. In cases when two cities bear the same name, an adjective (such as "Tarnowska", formed from "Tarnów") is sometimes added, to distinguish the city in question—thus, "Dąbrowa Tarnowska". Another example is Mińsk Mazowiecki, in Poland, which has the adjectival form of "Mazowsze", "Mazowiecki", added to distinguish the Polish Mińsk from Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Maybe that is what is happening here with a certain "Dąbrowa"; I hope someone will be able to find out. Nihil novi (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The Polish name was powiat dąbrowski [15], but the page Dąbrowa County describes only the current county. The same problem exists in Polish Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC) There is no need to add Tarnowska, because no other Dąbrowa is a county town now. Xx236 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

On restructuring content

Here's another sketchy suggestion I would like both sides to consider -- not necessarily now, as this is still a give-and-take process, and seems quite open-ended; but when content turns a little more stable, and it's rather more clear what all relevant sides have to say.

At that point, we should consider structuring content by topics addressed, rather than by blocks of text (or annoyingly short paragraphs) reflecting the views of X reviewer. I'm not entirely sure how that would look at this moment, but let's assume a subsection on "Representativeness" -- where we list all arguments made in whatever source about the issue of "but how representative where the killings for the overall mass of Poles?" (this seems to be a subject touched in several reviews, though, annoyingly, not one author seems to have taken out an abacus for this issue, they all work on thin air, either pro or against Grabowski). This would mean several citations to the same source, and some mixing of opinions that currently appear as segregate blocks -- "X said this, then Y said that". (Another topical chapter that emerges is one on Grabowski's work being seen as one of a larger school -- treated alongside Gross etc.; a discussion of that would give quotes from authors who see the books as similar. whether as a casual remark, a pro, or a con; and authors who note why Grabowski stands apart.)

And when you apply this, you'll note something: the whole issue of "which review should go first" will logically sort itself out: it would largely depend on the context and the content -- "Y said that" would only make sense if it follows an assertion by "X". Whenever I write on controversial topics, I try and adhere to this principle, and often the end result is appreciated by all sides -- it informs on all their ideas, and has a narrative flow rather than a mere, and somewhat repetitive, accumulation of opinions. Dahn (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I'm fine with User:Parkwells recent moving of the paragraphs in the section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Berendt

Per BLP policy (and just common decency) we include responses by BLP subject. At present, we present Berendt's claims about Grabowski's assumptions (which Grabowski did not quite advance in the same words himself) - after after repeated edit-warring (against consensus again - citing wiki voice on a statement that is clearly attributed to Grabowski ) - we're at "Grabowski did not accept Berendt's statements about Datner's research", which is not an adequate summary of points Grabowski raises in two paragraphs: That claim, coming from a historian who has yet to author his first book about the Holocaust, is simply galling. Berendt should know that Szymon Datner acquired his statistics firsthand – first as a Jew under occupation, later as a fighter in the 1943 uprising in the Bialystok Ghetto and, finally, after the war, during more than 40 years of work as a historian. But Datner was not alone in demonstrating the scale of complicity of certain segments of Polish society in the extermination of the countrys Jews. Emanuel Ringelblum, the founder of the Oneg Shabbat, the underground archive of the Warsaw Ghetto – estimated the number of Jewish victims of Polish policemen alone in the hundreds of thousands. Sadly, Ringelblum did not conduct as thorough a study as Berendt would have liked – he was caught by the Polish Criminal Police hiding in his bunker, in Warsaw, on March 7, 1944, 73 years ago, and was subsequently shot to death by the Nazis. Furthermore, were Berendt up to date with the current scholarship, he would know that Datners numbers have been corroborated by recent research, which takes account of studies and documents produced by the Polish resistance during the war. [16]. Could we come up with an agreed upon wording that summarizes all of these 4 points by Grabowski (Berendt's credentials in Holocaust research, Datner's credentials as a historian, Ringelblum's estimate, corroboration by modern research of Datner)?Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What you do here is OR.Xx236 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If this part of the article keeps getting removed, I announce that I will support an RfC against whoever is removing it. Dahn (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Which part? The part about publishing a book has no place in the article. The part about Datner and Ringelblum simply cannot be state in a way which suggests to the reader that Grabowski is quoting and relying on them accurately (he's not) while Berendt is not. (and freakin' a that's one helluva assholish and disingenuous response by the author to legitimate criticism which focuses on content).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, please make proposals as how this info should be included in a neutral manner before cramming it into the article. Right now "Grabowski did not accept Berendt's statements about Datner's research" succinctly summarizes Grabowski's response. We're not here to make the article re-litigate the dispute between Grabowski and Berendt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit further and comment on Icewhiz's comment "Could we come up with an agreed upon wording that summarizes all of these 4 points by Grabowski (Berendt's credentials in Holocaust research, Datner's credentials as a historian, Ringelblum's estimate, corroboration by modern research of Datner)":

1. Berendt's credentials as a Holocaust researcher are not in question and to suggest otherwise is a BLP vio. Indeed, Holocaust and Polish-Jewish relations are Berendt's area of specialty, whereas Grabowski's area of specialty is... French Canada.
2. Berendt's isn't questioning Datner's credentials as a historian, and to use the text to suggest that is dishonest and a BLP vio. Berendt just says that Datner's numbers have been updated by subsequent research.
3. Ringelblum's estimate - this particular one, which even Grabowski himself admits is a "metaphor" - is cherry picked. In places where he gets specific and talks in facts not "metaphors" Ringelblum says "tens of thousands" not "hundreds of thousands", and he goes on at great length about the help that Poles rendered to Jews during the German occupation.
4. Modern research has not corroborated Datner - we can't present this claim by Grabowski as if it were true, even if we're just quoting him. He does not actually mention which "modern research" supposedly does this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You have repeatedly run by us your theory that "X has no place in the article", and all of us have repeatedly rejected it. The rest of your comments, likewise, are editorial guesswork formulated from the position where you know the WP:TRUTH. Icewhiz has agreed to move on from his own version of the TRUTH, time you considered doing the same. You really are against consensus here, and I really feel you need to simply accept that and move on to another issue; it's already the third or fourth day when we're still stuck on this, and only because of you and your unsupported views. As you were told before: consensus doesn't mean until VM agrees, this is not a liberum veto. Dahn (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

First, who's this "all of us"? It's pretty much Icewhiz, with you taking a middle stance, AFAICT. And like I said, I'm fine with *some* version of this info in the text, but it needs to be worded carefully and in a neutral manner - rather than presenting Grabowski's claims as true, without the proper context. I think my last change, which noted that there was disagreement on Datner, satisfies that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Me, Icewhiz, the editor who edits as an IP, and others who have contributed to this page and have stated clearly that the replies would need to be quoted. you are the only one still peddling the notion that they should not. Now that we've clarified that, quote the relevant policy that you feel should stand before consensus. Dahn (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not make editoral decisions based on what editors believe is "true" - if Grabowski made the point, it goes in. Ringelblum wrote over a period of time (in which Jewish deaths increased) - and referred differently to direct killing and indirect via responsibility for the death vans - the quote from Ringelblum is fully verifiable (page 135 IIRC) - not that it matters, as Grabowski saying so is enough in an attributed quote. By the logic presented above we should summarize Berendt-Grabowski in one sentence - "Berendt criticized the book, Grabowski rejected the criticism" - as it possible to reject Berendt's words on the exact same grounds.Icewhiz (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski has recently ctiticized Grabowski and you heroically defend Grabowski. It's better to verify your idol before you offer your credibility.Xx236 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

IPN about Datner [17] Xx236 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviews - inclusion criteria and ordering

In his recent edits, VM:

1. placed all or most of the reviews from a certain national origin and with a certain view point on top. I note that several of the views pushed to the bottom are from notable Holocaust historians in notable journals.
2. removed 2 journal reviews by notable scholars - the reviews themselves are not one-liners - these are full length reviews, at present they are summarized as one liners.
3. removed a review by Jack Fischel in the Jewish Book Council. Fischel is a professor emeritus of history, and has studied and authored about the Holocaust extensively, and the Jewish Book Council is a respected organization. Interestingly, we are still including a histmag review by a PhD student (at the time it was written), a Wiez magazine review, and an op-ed by a less published historian in Haaretz.
4. tagged as peacock a faithful summary of a review in The American Historical Review by a Holocaust researcher.

I propose we set a uniform inclusion criteria - historians publishing a peer reviewed journal - but if we set the bar lower - then it must be uniform. Also, ordering of opinions should be by significance - generally publications in international journals are more noteworthy than publications in local journals with a limited audience (3rd presently), local magazines (2nd presently), or op-eds (at top presently). Professional accomplishments of the writer of the review (and his acceptance amongst his worldwide peers) could also be a criteria.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed ordering the reviews by topic they take into account, which would have spared us much of this "what goes first" inanity. In the absence of that, I endorse putting positive reviews first, as this seems to be the standard wherever this is applied, and, again, those fearful that their POV will not get exposure if it's more to the bottom need to stop holding this article ransom to their beliefs. It really is an absurd haggle.

I also condemn any removal of reviews that are clearly notable and relevant, namely those referred to by Icewhiz. On that note, I would also like to see the Gontarczyk interview used as a source, at it was clearly a prominent source with prominent exposure. Dahn (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum - I also have an inkling that some of the Polish sources presently do not represent the cross-section of reception in Poland - e.g. this review in historia.org.pl (which seems on par quality wise with histmag.org - I wouldn't include either) - rates Jugenjagd as 10/10 (with quite a bit of praise). Regarding Gontarczyk (which at present inclusion level merits inclusion probably, I wouldn't include per my proposed bar of inclusion) - I suggest not using wPolityce (which partially covers an interview in Polish radio, providing selective quotations) - but rather using a full interview (e.g. [18] which is a different interview or at least doesn't contain the quotes attributed in wPolityce) or his writing in rp [19] to which Grabowski responded.Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with these points, obviously. Dahn (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Dahn, Icewhiz whose idea was it to write 15 paragraphs of reviews...for a biography? Since I originally accessed the DYK, I was curious if any improvements have been made and am afraid someone is missing the point of a biography. I can also see someone likes overkilling the phrase "According to..."--14 times to be exact. I have never seen any articles (good ones at least) on authors/historians with more notable works than Grabowski so I fail to see the benefit of bludgeoning our readers with countless reviews...in a biography.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, perhaps at some point the book should be made into its own article. But now we're writing the article as if it stays all in one place (particularly since moving content around would only ramify the debate we're having here and push it back into incoherence). Also, below I have made a note on how to reduce and ratioanlize content, but we would have to get to that point. As a general point: no, it is not excessive on the face of it, it's just that the other sections are rather small by comparison. Even if we do move content to the article on the book, we wopuld have to decide on what to summarize from it here, and for that we need to have stable content; ideally, if we get an article on the book, its lead section would be probably the same as the summary we will use here. But currently this appears miles ahead in the process. Dahn (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick:. The inclusion criteria (originally - this was brief summaries of reviews in English language peer reviewed journals - which was a rather short section - 215 words to be precise, in one and a half paragraphs - this version) has been significantly widened - this has led, to NPOV issues (which to me - is of paramount importance in a BLP) due to selective use of sources which were described at length, and counter-balancing additions (though with a tighter inclusion criteria - nothing like histmag.org) to a very long section. My view is that the selection criteria should be significantly tightened (e.g. back to peer reviewed journals) - however I think that the material added will not go to waste as it probably makes sense to spin-out an article for Hunt for the Jews (assuming we can come to some sort of sembelence of reasonable criteria for reviews here, and review length) - I agree with Dahn that we should reach consensus here prior to a spinout. Note that short summaries of peer-reviewed journals were removed on the grounds of "remove some one-line reviews as UNDUE - this isn't a contest". Regarding all the "according to"s - some editors, e.g. this diff have been removing content due to "no, this still presents Grabowski's claims about Datner and Ringelblum as true, and Berendt's as false, in wikivoice" - which has led to quite a bit of "according tos" - see the section "Response to Berendt" below. In short - I do support a more tighter section with clearer inclusion criteria.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviews should be ordered by depth of their coverage and analysis. Putting one-line cherry picked reviews up top first is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I generally think we should remove such one-line reviews from the article. First, they're superficial, second they're obviously cherry picked by Icewhiz who seems to have combed the whole of internet with a fine... comb, to find every single instance of a positive review.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz did nothing wrong here. They're published in impeccable sources, and that's all that should matter here -- they're also not "one-liners" in themselves, they're rendered as short statements here, probably because the bulk of any review (as I'm sure you know) is reviewing the actual contents of the book, and only part of the review actually expresses commentary; and that commentary goes into more or less detail, as authors feel they should do. I would like to know which section of UNDUE validates that reading of yours.

For the third time: the order is not an issue, but neither can this article be held to ransom by your claim that they should necessarily be in the order you best imagine them. I have proposed that eventually they should be arranged by topic and the authors cited for what they have to say on each topic -- this would make the whole issue of "but what order" utterly irrelevant. Dahn (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Putting up one line cherry picked reviews first because they favor a particular user's POV is "doing something wrong". The reviews that address the issues directly - which in this case is Berendt, Musial and Samsonowska - should go first. Not because they're critical but simply because they have the most depth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not particularly relevant how you have decided to call them, repeating that they are "cherry-picked" adds nothing. I will as you again: which paragraph of policy validates this claim of yours that they need to be in this order or the other? Quote it, please, or let go of this soapbox. Dahn (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Berendt, Musial and Samsonowska do not have any particular depth (though they were summarized verbosely) in regards to many others. They should be tucked towars the bottom - as we have more notable academics writing in major international journals. In terms cherry picking - if at all, the initial slate of Polish language reviews added here was all to one side of the spectrum- ignoring positive, neutral, and reserved reviews in Polish.Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is yet another false statement from you. All three address the methodology and the contents of the book while most of the ones you've added just make generalist and frankly, unsubstantial, platitudes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Positive reviews (in general - not just here) tend to accept the methodology (at times with some reservation or two) give a few words of praise to the author and his method, and discuss the contents of the work and its impact. Negative reviews (in general - not just here) tend to attempt to list flaws in the method. One form is not not significant to the other (if it were, we would always lead off with negative reception - as an "I agree" review will focus on impact, not method) - what is significant is who the reviewer is and in what venue this is published.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe some do, but the ones you've added don't say anything about it. Like I said, these are just one-line generalist statements which are close to being substance free.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Then the correct thing to do - is expand the coverage of the multi-page journal review to more than one line - not remove it.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Then do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's views

Most of this section has to do with his reactions to events of the last few years as Poland undergoes continuing battles over memory (as the US continues to do). I added a sentence describing part of the Ulma museum complex to add more context to his remarks about his thinking the authorities are using this to suggest that Polish rescue efforts were more widespread than they were. The display itself is factual - naming the 1500 towns where the 6700 Polish Righteous came from who have already been recognized by Yad Vashem. I think we need to provide such facts, so that the article is not just quotes about Grabowski's interpretations. I wonder about the value of so many lengthy quotes by him, which are based in the same news conference, with different sources quoting him at that one conference, such as the trip to Israel in 2018. Do his recent quotes about Poland's new anti-complicity accusations law add to our understanding about his concerns that were not obvious in his previous works? I'm concerned that the level of detail to follow every current turn will load the article down in Presentism, although I am aware these issues are being hotly debated. He is also concerned about the law's potential for discouraging academic research, but that was not quoted - only his comments about the crimes of Poland in the past.Parkwells (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Context will help, yes. Note he was not claiming the display was not factual - his criticism was about ascribing the heroics of the few to the whole when per his view most of the whole persecuted the brave few. This section could use expansion (including views on inhibiting research) - much of the content dispute has focused on describing the reception of his 2011/3 book - while other aspects (such as his family (it seems he has one - per threat coverage - but I was not able to find much more beyond basic mom/dad background, I also think he co-authored one of his Polish books with a relative (father? Would make sense) per joint family name on the title - but I was not able to find a source commecting the dots), earlier research - in the 90s he mostly did Canadian hostory) have been relatively neglated and should be expanded - a personal interview (not around the Judenjagd or Holocaust) - would do wonders here in terms of sourcing and filling in the blanks.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

the heroics of the few - millions of Polish citizens (including Jewish ones) fought Nazi Germany in many battles 1939-1945. More than 500 000 participated in organized resistance. Millions were imprisoned or enslaved. A form of the slavery, the Baudienst, Grabowski describes as collaboration.

Now you reduce heroism to helping Jews. It seems that no American was heroic, because the USA didn't help Jews. Those who control the language (Grabowski, you) are powerful, but unreliable.Xx236 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski committed some errors and refused to correct the errors. Insrtead he creates 200 000 propaganda and now I have never told 200 000. Xx236 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To be clear - I was referring specifically to rescuers, not other forms of heroism - as that is what the musuem is about. I also represented Grabowski's views above, as I understand he stated them - not my own.Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk · contribs) has trouble distinguishing editor's opinion from what is relevant to wikipedia, in both his assessment of what others say and his belief that we would have to read through his personal polemic with Grabowski. Moving on. Dahn (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Are my problems any worse that Icewhiz'?

Has this discussion any structure, rules? Do all editor obey them?

Wikipedia articles should inform about the context, becase without the context they are biased or ununderstable.

Heroism is heroism, not only helping Jews. If the context isn't obvious, it should be explained. Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you should spend some time familiarizing yourself with these two cornerstone policies: WP:NPA, WP:HAR. Also be aware of the discretionary sanctions mentioned at the top of this page -- that is one of the rules that this discussion does indeed have (here's another one you definitely should read: WP:FORUM). The next time I see you hounding Icewhiz over his opinions or his use of words, I will personally report you to WP:ANI. Now, comment on content, not contributor, and preferably also spare us your more generic ideas on current politics. Dahn (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Puffery - "Historian" - for grad student writing a review on a website

Having a PhD is not sufficient for being labelled as an historian. It is even less sufficient when the PhD is awarded on March 2015 (per a rather primary source - [20]), and the review in question was written in January 2012 - more than 3 years prior - on a website. So we have a doctoral student writing a review on a website - an historian this does not make.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a nonsense claim. First of all, we don't even need a citation for that fact, per the same WP:SYNTH: we don't conduct our research into whether he is or isn't one, and inform the reader of our finds. Secondly, his description as a historian does not depend on him being a PhD (Masters will do), let along on him being one at that exact date -- that's your personal theory, and the article should not be held ransom to it. Dahn (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The cited source does not say he is a historian - it says he was awarded a PhD. Nor does his histmag.org profile (which says his occupation is a teacher).Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Is he or isn't he (also) a historian? Regardless of whether or not the source specifically says that -- it's not expected to cater to your wishes. Dahn (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have an article were you cite, Ida know, Chesterton or Jules Verne through a secondary source quoting them, you can describe them as "writer", even if the source won't bother describing them as anything than "Chesterton" and "Verne". You're being remarkably nitpicky here -- I'm guessing you have stopped caring about resolving the issues the article has, and ready to guess that you are now just interested in wasting our time. Dahn (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Dahn (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dahn on this one, and IMHO citing everything is a symptom of either excessive/abusive POV concerns or a very real POV problem (and I think it's more of the former than the latter). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Icewhiz here, in order for someone to be described as an historian, they should either hold a position in a history dept of a univ/similair academic or research institution, or should have published history books. The description is unnec and puff-ish. Of course if he isn't a professional historian, why is his criticism included at all? Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP subject views

The following - was removed, in this diff By way of example, he produced a 1936 Warsaw newspaper article which described a Jewish woman having been ejected from the University of Warsaw campus by Polish-chauvinist thugs. As she was being ejected, she exclaimed, "Polish animals!", and she was beaten up. But the police arrested her, not her assailants, and she was imprisoned for two months for insulting the Polish nation. This has been widely reported - [21], [22], [23] as a statement by Grabowski. Additional editorial input requested on inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is an unimportant incident not related to Grabowski. Are you going to post a daily record of events in interwar Poland? GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly not, however when the subject of the article receives coverage for his views in a number of continents and by way of illustration produces a (widely reported on a number of continents) example of the similar historical anecdote (being a historian) to what he claims are present day circumstances - we should follow the coverage and include this as well.Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Poland's National Democrats annually organized a "Day without Jews" on some university campuses. If true, this would be something to take up in an article on prewar Polish-Jewish relations, rather than here. Nihil novi (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Guys, again we're confusing our own assessments of what antisemitic incidents are ir/relevant and what claims Grabowski makes about them being relevant. It's quite clear to anyone somewhat familiar with Polish interwar history that he's wildly cherrypicking (mentions this tragic encounter, not involving any single official authority and only a handful of committed imbeciles on the extreme right of Poland's spectrum, but not, for instance, the friendly rapports between the Polish political mainstream and Betar). But he makes the point, thinks it's relevant, it is picked up by relevant sources, and therefore it is relevant to the article. Doesn't mean he is right. And it is quite easy for the reader to see that his claims are contested if other parts of the article already make it clear that he's criticized for cherrypicking and unrestrained allegations -- as even the sources added by Icewhiz clarrify he is. Can we focus on this principle? Dahn (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

But as we continue including every detail Grabowski's page will be too long (already is getting there). Is that part so crucial? I don't think it is. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PAPER -- there esentially is no "too long", and we we ever get to it we can create a separate article for the book. Not to mention that that quote is from a section that is rather short (and has a bizarre title: it really should be "Other polemics" or something -- everything in the rest of the article is also about his "Views"). The only length concern here is for that one section which is growing out of proportion, as compared to the rest of the article, but that's something to address if and when we have stable content. "Overexposing" one's political views in an article about oneself is really not a concern, and it seems to me like this "but is it essential" tactic is sneaky POV-pushing. Also, the risk of taking it up is what we see here: you take out his "unnecessary" views, then someone else takes out criticism of Grabowski as "unnecessary". And we dance, and we dance... Dahn (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It can be "too long" from a reader's perspective, not the publishers (us), which is what we should keep in mind.Volunteer Marek (talk)

Can be, but even then it is addressed by sectioning content into manageable portions, something which can't really be done until you have a notion what content it is supposed to have. Dahn (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What I do find excessive were the parts of the blurbs that were clear advertisements: not the "this should be mandatory reading" kind, but the "go and buy this book" kind. I think we can do without those bits. Dahn (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup. And some of the other one line reviews are pretty much along the same lines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Not at all. You've stated this view repeatedly, we get that you have it, it is however not rooted in any policy. Dahn (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• It might be that the description of the incident could be reduced to reflect his point. It appears worthy of mention, but it can be viewed as rather wordy. consider this: Grabowski referred to an incident in 1936, during which a Jewish protester female student was beaten up by antisemitic thugs; she was imprisoned for calling her assailants "Polish animals", whereas they were never prosecuted. The other details really seem extraneous to the narrative. As a side comment, note how this is (a) based on reports in the press, which may indicate that there was outrage about the incident, (b) not supported by an argument as to whether the written law really allowed authorities to act differently in 1936. Also, it appears that this was under during the complex period in which Poles were desperately seeking to appease Nazi Germany -- though, at the exact same time, the Polish authorities were also friendliest toward Jabotinsky and right-wing Zionism (this being just one of the aspects conveniently missing from Grabowskian narratives). Dahn (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

  Agree this could be summarized down. I wouldn't say "Jewish protester" - this was a Jewish women on campus, and I would mention "insulting the Polish nation" which was the crime she was convicted for. For Grabowski's credit here, he was referring to narrow example of laws against insulting the Polish nation - this was a very particular context.Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

  You're right, my description of her as a "protester" was erroneous. I think it's redundant to state the "crime" (nor am I sure this is intended as the verbatim descriptor -- it might be, but it may also be Grabowski's editorializing), once we specify that she was arrested for her remark -- this already shows that it was that she was arrested for, and any rational person can identify the problem in that. This is of course my suggestion, and it is motivated by the attempt to make the quote brief, not vague; if you feel that any detail I left out belongs in, and that some reductions would trivialize his point, I won't stand in your way. But what was in the text, indeed, was probably overdetailed for readers to actually see Grabowski's point, so some middle version between that version and my reduction will probably work for everyone. Dahn (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting how many readers know basic facts about pre-war Poland, 1%?. Poland was ruled by Sanacja 1926-1939. Polish nationalists were oppressed by the Sanacja. Leaders were imprizoned, some of them sent to infamous Bereza Kartuska prizon. Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sanacja was itself nationalist, at least in a broader definition (and fact is in every small Eastern European country of the interwar, the number of parties and movements that were not at least "some kind" of nationalist is likely to be terribly small); ironically, the Underground State, on whose shoulders the brunt of Grabowski's allegations is expected to fall, were mostly center-left. Presumably, the current government in Poland is not a direct heir to any of those movements, though perhaps it has an indirect connection with the Polish Underground State (or at least models its values on it), making Grabowski's accusations appear even more outlandish.

As for the immediate context of ca. 1936: again, the more salient aspect there is that Grabowski and others don't seem to have anything to say on the cooperation between Sanacja and right-wing Jews; when this is treated at all in literature, when anything about Betar and the Jewish right is even published, it is generally to make even more absurd claims about how Betar was playing into the hands of antisemites etc. At least one part of this underlying debate is not "Jews vs Poles", it is "left-wing vs right-wing" (where "right-wing" now includes some of the interwar or wartime center-left, and evidently at least some Jewish voices who take a critical view of the Jewish left, or of any other left for that matter). Dahn (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

US historians Kopstein and Wittenberg describe Sanacja BBWR as a tool of integration of Polish Jews. Unfortunately Sanacja degenerated after Piłsudski's death, but the final years don't destroy the period after 1926.Xx236 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Also in the link I gave above, if you get past the author's relativistic verbiage, you'll notice clear references to, for instance, Betar singing the Polish national anthem during its brawls with left-wing Jewish youths. I would love to see what the theoreticians that gave us "Poland always on the brink of antisemitism etc." make of such facts -- were the Betar self-loathing? or will they go into the spiel about how Betar was also fascist etc.? I think you're right that the current polemic relies on the expectation that people are entirely ignorant of the Polish interwar. (There also seems to me that while talk ramifies into all sorts of nonsense about supposed Polish guilt, with no precise agency, and about how Musial is antisemitic for discussing how the Soviets manipulated communist Jews, not a peep is heard about what the Soviets and their left-wing cronies did to the Jewish right, even before the Holocaust. Those lives are not important, you see: they're reactionary.) But anyway, we're way past the point here. Dahn (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Poland was an overpopulated agricultural land and had no source of money to industrialize. Many people emigrtaed from Poland. The government preferred to keep Polish peasants in and supported Jewish emigration to Palestine.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Himka notes that the Polish men of the Baudienst"

I don't have access to Himka (at least not now), so I can't verify his exact phrasing. I think we need to be careful and say exactly what he says, because Grabowski's claim, no matter how vague, does not implicate all the Baudienst men, but groups of young men -- when it comes to calling out the killers, he almost always uses the yunaki, not the Baudienst (whose members could be aged up to 60). The phrasing currently in the article suggests that Himka extends this claim not just to other Baudienst men, but simply to all other Baudienst men -- it's not even "notes that Polish men of", it's "notes that the Polish men of". This appears to extend the claims advanced in the book, beyond their scope. If Himka indeed uses that logic, right or wrong as you may argue it is, it stays in (WP:TRUTH). However, if that paraphrase doesn't reflect the quote on that issue, if the editor rendering it has slipped into his own inference (it happens), I would urge him to look over the text again and eliminate the possibility for error. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Himka does write yunaki (and 20 year old) in some of his mentions, but does not make it clear there were non yunaki in the Baudienst.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Workers of Baudienst were young. There were Polish teamleaders, but I don't know how many and which levels were dominated by Germans (including Volksgermans).

Himka is an expert in Ukrainian matters. Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Other than this endless cruft of irrelevant personal observations, do you have anything to add to this talk page? Dahn (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I do want to note that Himka is an expert in Western Ukraine and Galicia (Eastern Europe) (including the Holocaust), which besides being adjacent to modern Poland was also partially in the Second Polish Republic (and parts of Galicia are in post-WW2 Poland), making his narrow area of expertise actually quite relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's of course irrelevant and pointless to answer to a wikipedia editor's personal theories about Himka's qualifications. Himka doesn't even need to be specialized in that narrow field, and it would be absurd to expect all historians to have that exact specialization for them to comment and review books. Xx236's proclamation can be weighed against the simple fact that a journal let Himka review the work. Let's stop with this nonsense already. Dahn (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And please, enough of the irrelevant halftruths about Baudienst's recruitment base, in particular as you seem to be shooting out nonsense you fabricated on the spot. To begin with, the recruitment base went up to 60 or so, which means that "the Baudienst were young" is an absurdity: some were, some were not; the very point of my intervention here is that all the authors who refer to the Baudienst actually refer to the youngest cohorts, who were specifically referred to by their Jewish victims as the yunaki -- and, let me spell this out clearly: not one of them actually evidences that even all the yunaki were involved in murders (nothing of what Grabowski says can lead to that conclusion). Your claim that they were mostly young is not just absurdly wrong, but irrelevant: lying about the Baudienst will surely not help your point. And in fact Germans were not recruited for forced labor, but Ukrainians were (time to remind everyone that the General-Government, during the entire history of the Holocaust, was about half-and-half Polish/Ukrainian, in terms of territorial coverage).

But here's a more salient point that stands out and you should assimilate it, instead of wasting our time trying out new, exotic, groundless defenses of the yunaki: any number advanced by researchers such as Grabowski is likely to be statistically irrelevant. Assuming there were 100,000 Baudienst in all (there weren't even 50,000, but assuming), assuming they were all Polish, assuming they were all murderers, assuming, therefore, the most idiotic scenario that probably no one advances or believes: 100,000 people from about 9,960,000 ethnic Poles in the General-Government (not throughout Poland) means exactly 1% of the population. Bringing up that fact should quiet down both Grabowski's lamentations about collective responsibility and inept attempts to deny the undeniable about the demented behavior of some yunaki. Enough now, let's please everybody move on. Dahn (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As the BBC noted, this was a "blunt instrument" in efforts to control the study of Poland's past.

• Unsourced.
• The law says it doesn't apply to academic research.Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Source is available (it is cited in the article elsewhere) - this BBC report. The law itself is a PRIMARY document, we use SECONDARY coverage such as the BBC.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You have plenty SECONDARY coverage, but you select this one, which misinforms.

This exactly phrase comes precisely from Prazmowska.

This page is a BLP and you write here about the Polish law. Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually did not insert that blurb - merely pointed out where it could be sourced. Considering we have wide international coverage (coupled with possible censorship issues) - we should use top-line international sources and what they say. Grabowski's research, per the sources, seems to have been one of the reasons this got legislated to behind with. He is often mentioned in conjunction with the law, and it would seem this law would possibly inhibit the BLP's future research and if not that - the publication or discussion of said research. I think the sentence as placed there (by someone else!) is relevant, should be sourced and context added.10:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Xx236 (talk · contribs), if you believe that BBC coverage on this issue is wrong (it probably is, but out guesses don't go into wikipedia articles), find a secondary source explicitly saying that the law and the reaction to Grabowski's claim have nothing to do with one another, then cite it. The two claims will then appear side by side: BBC claiming a connection, and X source noting a different thing. Why is this so hard to grasp? Dahn (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Icewhiz (talk · contribs): you would really need to duplicate the citation for that tidbit, when the article gets unprotected. Dahn (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Our text says "As the BBC noted, this was a "blunt instrument" in efforts to control the study of Poland's past". Actually it is not the BBC, it is "Anita Prazmowska, a professor of Polish history at the London School of Economics (LSE). "It is a blunt instrument."

Since this article is about Grabowski, rather than the Polish law, the content probably does not belong here. There is reaction to the law from Grabowski, but it isn't very usable since he has made clearer statements elsewhere I believe. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring whether the law is directly relevant to the article or not, here is another source (Barbora Černusakova, writing in the TIME magazine) which clearly states "Poland's Holocaust Law Is a Dangerous Threat to Free Speech [24]. Another article (Times of Israel) mentions "Israel and other critics, however, fear that the law — which is in any case unenforceable outside of Poland — is really aimed at trying to stifle research and discussion within Poland into anti-Jewish wartime violence, something that casts a shadow over Polish wartime behavior that was otherwise mostly honorable and marked by profound suffering." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there has been widespread disquiet over the new law, however it is only relevant here in as far as it involves Grabowski directly. Pincrete (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's new claim

In this interview he says that he never claimed that 200,000 Jews were killed directly by Poles, but that he claimed Poles are responsible or co-responsible for deaths of "majority of these people" even if "part of them were killed by Germans"[25][26].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Already discussed. In all of Grabowski's statements he said "directly and indirectly killed by Poles" (or alternatively responsible for) - Jews killed by Germans after being delivered to the Germans by Poles would presumably be an "indirect kill". He never said "Poles killed 200,000" without such a qualification.Icewhiz (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Already extensively discussed (using those same "sources") at Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian)/Archive_2#Grabowski_retracts_the_200_000_number. WP:DEADHORSE 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)}}

Sharfman

providing evidence of the important role of the Poles in aiding the Nazis. Sharfman writes that any student of the Holocaust will find the testimonies and excerpts in the text useful - the text suggests that the testimonies and excerpts describe crimes committed by Poles. The book contains many testimonies of German mass crimes.Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Does Sharfman say that the book is only important because of what it documents on the Nazi crimes? No? Then what, if any, is your point? Dahn (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• The first sentence informs about evidence and the second one testimonies and excerpts. Generally if a sentence says something, the nect sentence is about the same subject or should define the second subject. Many testimonies aren't evidences of Polish aid.

This example belongs to the general problem that the Judenjagd is described as a book about Polish crimes. The book is about Nazi terror in Poland, which controlled Polish peasants. Some Poles collaborated and some robbed and murdered Jews illegally (the Nazis didn't accept Polish robbery of Jewish goods). Xx236 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 - I don't understand your point. Are you saying that our text misrepresents Sharfman? That Sharfman misrepresents Grabowski? Or that Grabowski misrepresents history?Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 brings up often thought-provoking points, but occasionally I have no idea of in the hell he is speaking about. Language barrier? GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 is under the impression that his objections to published scholarship should be the basis for writing articles. In this case, he appears to be telling us why Sharfman is wrong to be saying what he's saying -- something which is not only utterly irrelevant to this discussion, but actually counterproductive, because it makes us all waste time on his wild goose chases. He doesn't seem to understand how wikipedia works, and in instead of humoring him you should point out to him: WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:TRUTH. And then move along to something of actual relevance. Dahn (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It is absolutely counter-productive for Xx236 to argue against every source he dislikes, and every statement of Grabowski's that he disagrees with. Maybe it is time to seek the aid of an administrator to educate him about Wikipedia workings, as he seems to ignore the comments of editors on this page. The point of this article is to accurately represent sources that discuss Grabowski's life and this major work, not to argue whether the sources cover all history according to his views. Unlike some other editors, though, I think it is time to move the discussion of the book to another article, as it totally has weighed this one down. I think Jan T. Gross's book about the Jebwadne massacre, Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland, actually caused more of a stir in Poland and internationally in terms of overturning received ideas about the actions of Poles in Poland during the war than Grabowski's, but his article is relatively short. It may be a model for us. There is also a separate article on his book, published in 2001. There has been re-examination of Polish history going on for more than 20 years, including at grassroots levels. See the documentary Bogdan's Journey (2017), for the story of Bogdan Bialek, who has been working in Kielce to bring people to terms with a Polish pogrom that killed 40 Jews in 1946 who had returned to the city, some planning only to be there temporarily.Parkwells (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)