Talk:Jan Grabowski/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Dariusz Stola's review

Dariusz Stola's 2011 review of Jan Grabowski's 2011 book, Judenjagd (added to this article at 13:20, 2 April 2018), has been deleted. Can anyone say why? It included essential information not previously considered in "Jan Grabowski (historian)". May we look forward to its restoration?

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I support inclusion. I do suggest summarizing it down a bit + adding his conclusion at the end (summary the last paragraph or two). There are a few other content removals yesterday that should be restored - Grabowski response to Berendt, various points raised by other reviewers about Musial (who grew up in the county covered by the book (which mentions individuals with the surname a few times) - something he admits to (in the opening paragraph of his review!) and who also in his review pushes for the use of a highly questionable tract by his uncle - Adam Musial (who died in 2006 - not a BLP) - other reviewers have noted this in Musial's review as well as seeing his negative review as an endorsement - indicating the weight this received). Reviews by Witold Mędykowski, Piotr Weiser, and Ingo Loose were also removed yesterday (and I might be missing a few more) - and should be returned.Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of this and all other reviews that were arbitrarily removed. Dahn (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I just reverted the whole page because I only looked at the reverts and the only substantial new thing I noticed was the new content in the lead (which I removed since I assume that it would lead to another long discussion about how much weight it should be given, etc..., so when in doubt removed until there's a consensus for how to do it). But yes, sorry for the removal and of course it should go back in.

We should maybe also try to find a way to rewrite the section so that the text is more natural and isn't simply a listing of what every single reviewer said. There's a lot in common (amongst positive, mixed, and negative reviews) and there's really no advantage in repeating it 5 times - this will also reduce the portion of the article currently used for the book and it's criticism, which might avoid having to make another article just on the book. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Content under discussion ishere Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pincrete: It is actually quite wider. Content is as follows:

1. diff - Dariusz Stola
2. diff Witold Mędykowski at Sehepunkte.
3. diff Piotr Weiser at Sehepunkte.
4. diff Ingo Loose at Sehepunkte. (Sehepunkte ran a trio of reviews for a trio of related Polish books released in 2011. One reviewer is Polish-Israeli, one is Polish, and one is German. The three books come from different angles to the same general conclusion about Polish complicity (which is a challenging issues in Polish society), and the 3 writers are affiliated (e.g. Grabowski wrote Gross's intro. Grabowski and Engelking are closely affilated - both are founding and leading members of the Polish Center for Holocaust Research) - might be worth mentioning the connections in the article (as they are often treated jointly by detractors and by those who praise).
5. There were also a number of others removals - Grabowski's response to claims made about his use of Datner, Rossoliński-Liebe seeing Musial and Gontarczyk criticism as an endorsement that this "successfully interrogated further political myths", Grabowski's response to Musial..Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems you have an another version of the book (Polish complicity) and Wesier has another one (logic of annihilation).

• Partial support, the content is overlong and we only need note that the review was also of two other books - not name the other books/authors". IMO the final 1/3 is the most substantive comment, from "Weiser describes Grabowski's approach as positivist, taking the seat of a neutral observer, and notes that Grabowski's …… understands what Jean Améry called the logic of annihilation, describing how the Germans rewarded antisemitism. Weiser concludes by saying that all three texts are important contributions to a counter-narrative that rivals the heroization of Poles in the context of the Holocaust." Pincrete (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Poles existed in the context of their lives, not only in the context of the Holocaust. I believe that the heroization of Poles who wasn't heroic is wrong, but the same reducing Poles to Holocaust participants is extremely biased, you dehumanize Poles, see them as a soil in which Jewish community grows.

Ingo Loose believes that Grabowski accuses Polish gendarmerie. I haven't found such information in Judenjagd. Is ignorance reliable?Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see why we should OR critique Loose's review ourselves (and Loose credentials seem noteworthy), however he himself clarifies his usage - "und der Gendarmerieposten bzw. die polnische, sogenannte Blaue Polizei, oftmals die nächsten Exposituren der Besatzungsmacht." - saying the the Gendarmerieposten are the so-called Blue Police - he appears to favor this term over the Blue Police (or Navy-Blue Police) - which is a term based on uniform color.Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe your translation is wrong, bzw. means here or, he lists here the closests outposts of the occupational power. It would be absurd to use the name of a different formation (Gendarmerie) for the Blue Police.

I meant polnischen Gendarmen in the text, not the phrase you quote.Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe he clarifies his terminology in the blurb I quoted, and then uses it. In any event, this seems to be due to Polish/German language and nomenclature differences - he does not use the Polish nomenclature in the German language review.Icewhiz (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You impose your translation here.

German language nomenclature was Polnische Polizei. It's strange to use the Polish popular name to inform Germans about German occupation of Poland. German academic translation is marineblau [2]. Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"bzw." can mean a lot of things ([3]). However it is irrelevant since the quote unambiguously refers to "the Polish, so-called Blue Police, [die polnische, sogenannte Blaue Polizei]". The source you mention (given in the linked page as "Hempel, Adam: Pogrobowscy klęski. Rzecz o policji „granatowej” w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie 1939-1945 [Die Hinterbliebenen der Niederlage. Über die „marineblaue” Polizei im Generalgouvernement 1939-1945]. Warszawa 1990.") is Polish, and the given German title seems to simply use a direct translation of the Polish term ("granatowej" meaning "navy blue", at least according to Google Translate [I don't speak Polish]). One source (and then, only a translated title) is not enough to determine authoritative usage. Anyway this is a debate about the wrong issue, whether the "polnische Polizei" is properly called the "marineblau" or the "Blaue" Police in German litterature is of no interest to this English-language article.

The real "debate" (and again, not really) is whether Loose is a reliable source or not, and the answer to that is a qualified and certain yes, no matter what you may think of it or of some tendentious detail about which name is used for the "Blue Police".

@Xx236:Finally, I suggest you also take a look at WP:OR, which states, in the very first paragraph, that "to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that [...] directly support the material being presented." This does not seem to be the case here, I have yet to see a source criticizing Loose in the manner you do above. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Nihil novi:, @Dahn:, @198.84.253.202:, @Pincrete: - An edit returning what seems to be supported in this section was reverted with a bit of acronymed profanity in the edit summary - your comments/edits are welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It was reverted because:

You didn't just add Stola, you added a whole bunch of other stuff. Trying to use one, maybe agreed upon, piece of text, to sneak in your other POV edits, is WP:TEND and dishonest.

The amount of space given to Stola, as well as to the others, was UNDUE.

You placed it in front of the reviews of by Berendt and Musial. Since you've been trying to remove these authors, and then when that didn't succeed move down to where no one would notice them, for weeks now, this appears to be an attempt at getting your way in a roundabout but disruptive way.

You also tried to reinsert, again under cover of adding legitimate text, the controversial quote that from Rossolinski-Liebe that people have objected to.

So tell you what. Rather than trying to sneak your POV into the article, make proposals for each part here on talk and we'll discuss. But regardless, please refrain from trying little tricks like that again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above - was for all 4 reviews - and included support for all of them. The 2nd edit was also discussed (though, to assuage your objections - I removed names from Rossoliński-Liebe's quote) - with the sole objection coming from you. The talk page has been open since 3rd April - you hadn't bothered to comment up until protection of the article expired. The edit summary - clearly included a reference to the talk section. Your support for the ordering of Berendt and Musial is opposed by most other editors on this talk page - in any case - if you thought a reordering was due - then do that - not a blanker revert. Finally - you are confused - you do not OWN this article - acting against the clear consensus of other editors on the talk page is a no-go - it seems you took a wikibreak from the discussion on this article while it was protected (during which discussions should take place) - and then returned to blanket revert when editing resuming (actually - a bit after protection expired - the template remained there a few days longer - wasn't removed by bot for some reason). I strongly suggest you self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This comment is one false claim after another. No, there was partial support. Indeed, *I* partially support it as well - but not in the form you've added it to the article. We can check back in article history for the Rosslinski-Liebe quote, but I'm not seeing any support for it on the talk page. Likewise, the ordering of Berendt and Musial seems to be supported by at least a few other users. No, it is not "opposed by most other editors". Like I said, one false claim after another. I never claimed to "OWN" this article or anything of the sort. In fact I've had no problem with edits by several relatively uninvolved editors such as Pincrete and Dahn. I've mostly had problems with YOUR edits - because they are in fact problematic and contrary to Wikipedia policy. That sort of suggests that you're the one with the ownership problem since you relentlessly and tendentiously keep trying to do the same thing over and over and over and over again. I'm not the only one who's reverted your edits or object so please stop pretending that that is the case, because that is simply false, as this whole freakin' talk page readily attests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Return of the sourced material, in peer reviewed journals, was supported by: Dahn, 198.84.253.202, and Icewhiz. Pincrete supported return of one of the reviews (Weiser), suggesting it be trimmed a bit - and didn't take a position on the others (including Stola) - misreading what was in question. Nihil novi supported return of Stola and didn't address the other reviews. Xx236 addressed a translation or nomenclature issue from German, without making an opinion on inclusion/exclusion. In short - 3 editors supported full restoration (of all 4), 1 editor supported returning Stola (without addressing the others), 1 editor supported returning Weiser (without addressing the others), no one voiced any objection on the talk-page - prior to Volunteer Marek at 06:49, 15 April 2018 - some 12 days after this talk section was opened - and you are still in the minority here - clearly editing against consensus. Nor have you advanced any rationale to exclude content from peer reviewed publications.Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As for the prominence of Musial/Berendt in the article and length devoted to them (and if all you are disputing is ordering - a blanket revert is not in order) - @K.e.coffman:, @Pincrete:, @198.84.253.202:, @Dahn:, @Parkwells:, @Markbassett:, and myself - have all opposed your assertion this is the correct order.Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Where? Provide diffs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

In the RfC above. There is no consensus for your persistent re-ordering of the reception section lately here - placing the more negative reviews on top, when the balance of reviews in peer reviewed journals does not reflect the ordering.Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Diffs, quotes, specifics not "oh, it's above". You're lying - see below.

(edit conflict) And it's trivial to check you're making shit up. Markbassett has commented only once on this talk page, at 23:24 on April 12 [4] and has never made an edit to this article. (I'm also wondering what he's doing here, but nevermind) Their comment - as can be easily checked - says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING "correct order". THIS is precisely why it's impossible to have a rational discussion with you or take you seriously. You make false claims repeatedly in order to try to "win" the dispute and force your way on the article rather than approaching the controversy in a fair and balanced manner. Anything other false claims you want to make? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Just checked K.e.coffman. Says nothing about "correct order", only that Musial gets too much space. Another one of your false claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

They have both commented on the lack of balance in the amount of space given to negative reviews which does not reflect the actual sources, K.e.coffman addressing the over-emphasis of Musial. Your preferred order (which seems to be enforced, by you, each time another editor introduces content to the page) has not received support on the talk-page.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"has not received support on the talk-page.". Lol. So first it was you claimed that seven users "have all opposed your assertion this is the correct order". Then I pointed out that that claim was actually a lie you've switched to this weaselly "has not received support". Again, diffs!!! Where has it not received support? And not "well, something else didn't get support, so that means that anything I claim is the honest truth!" but actual objections. Why do you do this? Why do you keep making stuff up that is so easy to verify? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Jan Grabowski's book Hunting the Jews be given its own article, as it is now on the point of capsizing this one. Perhaps we could transfer the book's discussion, laurels, and critiques there rather than re-cluttering this "Jan Grabowski" article?

Nihil novi (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a good idea, although I think the reviews which actually cover the book and its methodology in depth also would belong here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Long term - yes. Short term - no. As this content dispute will simply devolve into two separate pages instead of one.Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

In regard to the text - we're suppose to avoid blockquotes. Right now the Stola thing is one big block quote. It needs to be summarized.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP Vio?

@Volunteer Marek: - please explain how this direct quote from a review by a notable historian, which you removed in this diff is a BLP issue.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It attacks living persons and is not representative of general assessment of their scholarly work. This should be obvious. It's also not necessary for the topic, and is just another instance of you trying to poison the well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

By those grounds we should remove Musial opinion of Grabowski as his opinion does not reflect scholarly consensus. This is not an attack, and it is directly quoted.Icewhiz (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Did Musial call Grabowski names? I don't think so. The difference is that Musial criticized Grabowski's research methodology and conclusions, rather than attacking him personally. You know, just like on Wikipedia we "discuss content not editors". Hence, once is a BLP vio, the other isn't. If the guy said "Musial is wrong in his conclusion because x, y, z", that'd be a different matter. But that's not what this is. So no, the "grounds" are not the same.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Signing protests by unverified people isn't scholar consensus. It's rather censorhip. When a student wrote his thesis about Lech Wałęsa, the minister of higher education threatened Jagiellonian university. The author was oppressed in Poland. Musiał is a German academician, who publishes motly in Germany. You can't cancel his status using only Polish propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I cannot even begin to see how the attributed quote is a BLP violation, nor am I familiar with the idea that one historian may not characterise the views of another, unless their opinion is "representative of general assessment of their scholarly work". Their may be other good reasons for excluding the opinion (it's not madly enlightening about the book), but BLP violation it isn't IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I also do not agree that the attributed quote is a BLP violation - he is describing Musial and the other's work, suggesting their views result in their overlooking facts about Polish history.Parkwells (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

He is labeling Musial as a "conservative-nationalist" (which, if you know anything about Musial, is pretty ridiculous, but nevermind). If this label does not reflect consensus among historians - which it doesn't - because it's cherry picked - which it is - then yeah, it's a BLP vio because of UNDUE weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Musial has been described in similar terms in RSes covering historiography - [5][6][7], he's been recently covered in English in this piece - [8] - so saying this stmt is out of line of others is not congruent with coverage in RS. Regardless, if Musial's views bear inclusion, so do the comments of others on Musial's comments which were published in a peer reviewed journal.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, first, you know that we can see the google books search you're doing in your links, right? Which said search clearly shows you're cherry-picking like hell here. Sort of gives away the fact that you've looked high and low for any source that says what you want and ignored any that didn't. Second, um.... you've freakin' pasted the SAME SOURCE THREE TIMES to make it seem like it's three sources, whereas it's actually the same source over and over again. Like I've asked repeatedly - why do you do this? Why do you try to pull these little stunts when it's so easy to check that's it's just bullshit? Third, I've already provided a link to a balanced source - the Jewish Virtual Library, a project of American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise - which discusses Musial and notes, several times that his research and views have been echoed and confirmed by several prominent Holocaust researchers, including Israeli ones. So please drop this smear tactic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

And this isn't an article about Musial, so no, this quote is neither necessary nor in accordance with policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Musial as a "conservative-nationalist" (which, if you know anything about Musial, is pretty ridiculous, but nevermind). According to this article Musial was one of the professors who got fired from UKSW for supporting PiS when PO was in power: Kolejnym wyrzuconym za propisowskie sympatie okazał się prof. Bogdan Musiał – historyk i autor wielu cenionych publikacji historycznych, który również publikował w prawicowych tygodnikach. https://warszawskagazeta.pl/kraj/item/4081-profesorowie-sympatyzujacy-z-po-wyrzucali-z-uniwersytetu-kardynala-stefana-wyszynskiego-naukowcow-o-innych-pogladach-politycznych And then PiS appointed him to the board of Muzeum II Wojny Światowej. And here he is condemning "Israeli hysteria" and pointing out that the Nazis were actually leftwing. http://www.pch24.pl/holokaust-religia-zastepcza-dla-judaizmu--prof--bogdan-musial-o-histerii-izraelczykow,58174,i.html NPalgan2 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

VM - you brought up whether this quote was inline with consensus of Musial - I actually do not think that is relevant - but your claim that this is is pretty ridiculous - is not borne out by the examples above which at least illustrate some other academics do not see Rossoliński-Liebe description as "ridiculous". The 2 sources I brought (I copy pasted one twice) both involve the same author, but one is with a co-author. Regardless - if Musial is DUE for inclusion, then criticism (by a notable author, in a peer reviewed journal) of Musial's criticism of this BLP are DUE for inclusion as well.Icewhiz (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobility

Verbatim from Hareetz:

Grabowski was born in Warsaw into a mixed family. His father was Jewish, from a Krakow family that assimilated well into Polish society, survived the Holocaust by hiding in Warsaw and took part in the 1944 uprising by the Polish underground there, which cost the lives of some 200,000 Poles and resulted in the city’s near-total destruction. His mother is Christian from a veteran, noble Polish family.

So, stop tag bombing. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I missed that information in the reference, don't call it vandalism 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:880C:C22C:32FA:359C (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It's hard not to when the article itself stated "According to Haaretz, [...]" and when a quick reading of the source confirms it (I'll accept WP:AGF, but "I missed that" is a bad excuse, especially given it's an easily available internet page and it's easily searchable [using Ctrl+F and looking for, say "noble" or "mixed family" or something like that]). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not an excuse, it's what happened. Drop allegations ok and careful with "vandal" slander.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:90B1:2F6E:3A6B:9F79 (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There are no Polish bystenders in the Holocaust

There was at least one very respected. "Ponary Diary, 1941 — 1943. A Bystander’s Account of a Mass Murder." by Kazimierz Sakowicz. Edited by Yitzhak Arad. Foreword by Rachel Margolis. Yale University Press: New Haven and London 2005. [9] Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic marking of sources and implied doubt

Bella made these two edits [10][11], which a) mark a source by nationality, something I object to on principle; and b) adds a redundant "according to", which is bad style when used too often, and doesn't actually suggest subjectivity (there are other, more subtle ways to do so, such as "says", "recounts", and "suggests"). Opinions? François Robere (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Haaretz is a well-regarded WP:RS and does not need attribution, especially not given that basic bio information on the father and mother of the subject should not be contentious.Icewhiz (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If there fact is not controversial it doesn't need to be attributed, simple as that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Methodology

@Volunteer Marek: You asked why this was removed. I noted in the edit summary that this number goes into G's methodology, which the article doesn't otherwise explain. Without a "methodology" section (which doesn't really belong here), the number doesn't make a lot of sense. We can instead write that he "challenged" the number, or claimed it was exaggerated, or something along these lines that will relieve the text of the non sequitur without changing the overall impression. François Robere (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

But "going into methodology" is precisely what a good review should address and what the article should discuss. Indeed, the main problem is the plethora of substance free reviews that have been crammed into this article. And no, a "methodology" section is not necessary and this sentence is self-explanatory. It's not like you need a PhD in the subject to understand what he's saying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but not in this article. Propose starting a dedicated page for the book if there isn't one already. François Robere (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And what do you think is "vague" or "euphemistic" about the phrase "anti-semitic agitation"? That seems pretty straight forward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What's "agitation" exactly..? Propaganda? Pogroms? Kristallnacht? What does it mean? If it's something specific - let it state so; otherwise, and assuming it's a correct translation, we should put it in quotation marks. François Robere (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The "Reception" section should not be reduced, via removal of substantive critique, to a claque of unconditional admirers.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What specifically is questionable about the English translation of Dariusz Stola's review of Judenjagd? The editor's 21:26 21 April 2018 edit summary says: "Pretty bad translation, with multiple ellipses and brackets". Nihil novi (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please find below, for comparison, the original English translation, with minimal "ellipses and brackets"; and the present, slightly edited version that appears in the article's "Reception" section.

The book Judenjagd shows how much we do not know about the Polish village—about its complex structure under occupation and about that structure's connection with hunts for Jews.... A key role was played by the institution of hostages—village residents... who would be punished for the unsatisfactory carrying-out of German orders [by the community]. Sometimes the hostages themselves were charged with visiting homes and calling their neighbors to participate in the round-up. In this way, [the community's] solidarity with the hostage... was placed, by the [German] occupier, in the scales against the Jewish fugitive's life. This diabolical mechanism in a certain measure explains the hostility, registered in many rural communities, to persons who harbored Jews: they could bring disaster not only on themselves but on others." [After a somewhat turgid statistical discussion, Stola registers] two reservations. First, the author assumed, after an earlier work by Szymon Datner, that the number of fugitives seeking shelter came to about 10% of the number of Jews on the eve of the deportations. It is hard to say whether that was acutally the case. That 10% is not, strictly speaking, an estimate but rather a "guesstimate," as the English say, even if it comes from a person well acquainted with the subject. Secondly, a pall of ignorance to a considerably greater degree enshrouds the histories of the ghetto escapees who were not murdered but died [of malnourishment, exhaustion, exposure, or disease]. We will not find information about their deaths in postwar court records. Judenjagd speaks not only about the killing but also about the sheltering of Jews (sometimes by the same persons), about various kinds of aid tendered [to Jews], about the Righteous—the disinterested rescuers who risked their own lives to save people who were hunted like animals....

Dariusz Stola, a history professor at the Polish Academy of Sciences, reviewed the book's original, 2011 Polish-language edition. "Judenjagd," he wrote, "shows [that] a key role [in the hunts for Jews] was played by the [taking of] hostages—[designated] village residents... would be punished for the [community's] unsatisfactory carrying-out of German orders. Sometimes the hostages themselves were charged with... calling their neighbors out to participate in the round-ups. In this way, [the community's] solidarity with the hostage... was placed, by the [Germans], in the scales against the Jewish fugitive's life. This diabolical mechanism in some measure explains the hostility, observed in many rural communities, to persons who harbored Jews: they could bring disaster not only on themselves but on others." Stola had two reservations about the book. "[T]he author assumed, after an earlier work by Szymon Datner, that the number of fugitives seeking shelter was about 10% of the number of Jews on the eve of the deportations... That 10% is not... an estimate but rather a "guesstimate".... Secondly, a pall of ignorance [largely] surrounds... ghetto escapees who were not murdered but died [of malnutrition, exhaustion, exposure, or disease]... Judenjagd speaks not only about the killing but also about the sheltering of Jews... about various... aid tendered [by] disinterested rescuers who risked their own lives to save people who were hunted like animals."

Would the editor like to try his own hand at rendering Stola's review? Nihil novi (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I will momentarily. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The first half of the paragraph seems redundant, as it repeats G's findings, though with some interpretation. Would it be correct to summarize it with "he largely agrees with the findings", or "agrees with the findings, but disputes their interpretation"? Then we can move on to his actual reservations.

BTW, do you recall what his statistical discussion was about? Specifically, if it corroborated or refuted G's estimate? François Robere (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Made edit [12]. François Robere (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I think it's high time we let this bio cool down a bit, his book is clearly notable and much of what is being discussed here should go there. I guess I'll try to take care of this, expect to see Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland. Hopefully then we can agree on a short, non-controversial summary here, and discuss things such as methodology of a specific book at the article about the book, not the author. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC - Neutrality and how to fix it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a prolonged dispute between various editors about the neutrality (or lack thereof) of this article. Given the impasse the conversation has reached presently, and the fact it's limited to a relatively small group of editors, this RfC seeks to get the opinion of more, ideally not previously involved, editors on the following matters:
Question 1: Does the article in it's current state violate WP:NPOV?
Question 2: If there is indeed a neutrality problem, how should it be adressed? 02:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• 1 - POV - too much weight for UNDUE/FRINGE Polish nationalist views, 2 - removal of Męczykowski (on a website devoted to popular history [13]!) and Gontarczyk (coverage of his comments on Polish Radio 24 on the right-wing internet portal wpolityce.pl) + contextualizing Musial per coverage of Musial in mainline RS. Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC) [!vote by another editor copied from the below discussion for clarity] 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Q1: Yes, I think there are some neutrality issues, but not insurmountable.
• Q2. Some suggestions:

1. Create a new article for Hunt for the Jews and shift much of the content there. Having two articles is preferable since the content / controversy is really about the book, while we can leave a brief summary here. It seems easier to criticize the book vs the person.
2. In this new article, reduce opinions by non-notable individuals (i.e. Łukasz Męczykowski), keeping the criticism from those with wiki pages. This removes the questions of “why is this person being quoted at length on this contentious subject?”
3. Reduce the amount of space dedicated to certain opinions, i.e. Bogdan Musial receives 10 lines. I think his opinion can be condensed and summarized better.
4. Remove the word “condemnations” from the section name. This seems like loaded language.

These are just some thoughts on helping make the presentation a bit more balanced. I'm open to other suggestions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• POV? Maybe Firstly I endorse the suggestions of K.e.coffman above. Secondly, reading the discussion above, there is way too much trying to establish whether the book is 'true' or not. That isn't our job, the book has been published and contains certain claims, some of those claims have been fiercely contested and we need to record the reasons why they were contested. To that end, it might better serve the reader for the 'Reception' section to begin with a paragraph or two of 'general' reviews, it does appear from discussion above that the reception was generally positive, even among those who questioned some aspects of the book. At the moment reception starts off with a 'hit' by Berendt, is he SO notable that he should be summarising reception? The criticisms of Grabowski's conclusions might be better expressed and more easily condensed in a sub-section 'criticism' or somesuch, AFTER the general appraisal. The present approx. alternating ++ and -- reception doesn't make for very coherent reading of either the virtues or claimed faults of the book. Apart from the usual constraints of WEIGHT, it would aid readability if the criticisms were better ordered as to the nature of the criticism (the figures, the methodology etc). At the moment it reads too much as A said this, then B said that. At times I have no idea why content is there at all eg "Historian Piotr Gontarczyk writes that Grabowski's media activities show a similar approach to that of Jan T. Gross, in many respects incompatible, in Gontarczyk's view, with classical standards of scientific scholarship. I've no idea what this means, (that Grabowski is too much of a media 'baby'?), but it doesn't tell me a lot about the book and doesn't seem to be a 'response' to it, if it is, then it isn't a very enlightening one, but rather borderline ad hominem. Pincrete (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC) … … ps the whole 'response' section seems to be written in the present tense. Past tense seems more apt. Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, Berendt is not providing a summary, he's speaking for himself. But it's not a "hit", it's just a negative review. And Berendt, along with Musial are the two specialists in the topic here who offer in depth analysis, unlike all the other one-line reviews that Icewhiz crammed into the article. We could do a summary ourselves, but wouldn't that be a bit OR without proper sourcing? And sources will agree on the overall summary as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

(I agree on the unnecessary stuff from Gontarczyk).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a response to a book, I realise that some of the response has been very heated, and crucial to this book will be to what extent further study vindicates/refutes the book's conclusions. We manage with other books/films to summarise response, which often means putting more positive responses first, before the more negative, except where the overwhelming response is negative. I only read some of the responses, but the impression I gained was that there was much "valuable contribution", response, even from some who questioned the detail. Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the positive reviews are just generic one-liners ("it's an important book" kind), while the negative reviews, which are from specialists in the area, tend to go into detail and address the substance of the book - how Grabowski got his numbers, which sources he consulted and which he ignored, which authors he relies on or misrepresents etc. So yeah, these are longer and because they are more detailed should have more WP:WEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this your opinion or is this the opinion of some reliable source which says that all positive reviews of Grabowski are "one-liners"? Could this be the result of this kind of edit? Sources which are 4 pages long (ex. "Ray, Larry (Winter 2014). "Review". Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture & History. 20 (3): 204–208.") hardly seem like "it's an important book" one-liners. The reason behind WP policies like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS (in addition to having accurate content) is to exactly avoid this kind of debate where editors judge sources for reason x or y - either a source is reliable(a much more objective measurement) and can be included or it's not reliable and cannot, QED. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I probably unwittingly validated that assessment of "one-liners" with an earlier statement I made. However, I never meant to say that the sources themselves are one-liners, but that the bulk of their significant coverage is a one-liner, in the form it is rendered here, and probably in any form, because this is likely all of what those sources say that is substantial. It was a general comment regarding, indeed, the quality of treatment by sources, expressing my editorial annoyance that none of the lavish-praise reviewers seems to have bothered with tackling Grabowski's claims. I stand by that statement, though I do not want anything in the article to be based on it; I have also argued that we should in fact render those "one-liners" in the article, because (from a generic and principled position) it's the right, neutral, thing to do (however shoddy, this coverage was the most significant, and this is what dictates content), and also because (from my biased perspective) intelligent readers are likely to notice the same problem with such commentary if they see it rendered. Dahn (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

But here's a thing. As I wrote somewhere below, several sources already used for the article are not milked for all of the relevant things they say. This includes pieces by the Times of Israel and The Forward, both of which say that there was a lively controversy about the book in Poland. Also below, two other editors are discussing a somewhat more somber review of Grabowski's book, as carried by Gazeta Wyborcza. Presumably, this means that many more Polish sources, including academic and peer-reviewed, including non-"right-wing" (though the latter attribute is really irrelevant for dismissing sources), have probably covered Grabowski's book. Instead of arguing about the removal of content you dislike, you could try and find more coverage that's not an encomiastic one-liner. Who's in a better position to do this than speakers of Polish? Dahn (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• POV - 1) yes; 2) suggestions for correcting POV - I agree with suggestions of Icewhiz and Pincrete above. The question that is not asked is if this article is unbalanced due to the great weight given to the book and related reviews and controversy. I believe it overly dominates an article that is ostensibly about a person. I understand the controversy dominates what is being written about him now, but this article should have some distance from that. What does anyone know about responses to his earlier works? The book should be treated as a separate article. In terms of creating more neutrality, I agree that the criticisms/reviews would better serve readers by addressing topics or questions in the book, rather than the summary responses one after another. I agree that the "Reception" section for the book should not begin with an OpEd piece, but a summary of material from journal reviews. It might also help to provide more context of the two books that were often reviewed together with Grabowski's, as they have been part of revisionist history of Poland during the war. If the book is treated in a separate article, discussion in the Grabowski bio article about the controversy around the book should include the actions of the Polish government in passing a law against "slander" and how it may have affected the discussions. I think it is relevant to the current political environment there and in Canada, and to the reception of Grabowski's book.Parkwells (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• POV - move book content to its own article

1) Yes it's heavily negative and I'm seeing a higher proportion in positive or neutral reviews than this reflects so the WP:BALANCE is wrong.

2) I like the idea to split off the book content to its own article Hunt for the Jews. The amount of detail for book critics seems too much non-biographical material for a BLP, both WP:UNDUE and WP:OFFTOPIC as well as off-balance. These quotes are not presenting something he did or something that really affected his life so just do not belong as half of his biography. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• 1 - POV - too much weight for UNDUE/FRINGE Polish nationalist views, 2 - removal of Męczykowski (on a website devoted to popular history [14]!) and Gontarczyk (coverage of his comments on Polish Radio 24 on the right-wing internet portal wpolityce.pl) + contextualizing Musial per coverage of Musial in mainline RS. Grabowski is an eminent Canadian historian,[15] who is generally well-respected by international WP:NEWSORGs,[16][17][18] whose work won a major holocaust scholarship award,[19][20] and is generally positively reviewed in major peer-reviewed journals. While Grabowski has been criticized by Polish nationalists, coverage of said criticism in mainline Western sources is limited to its extreme manifestations (such as death threats or calls for Grabowski to be fired from his workplace) and other scholars defending Grabowski.[21][22][23] The opinions of Polish nationalists (and lest I be accused for singaling out a nation - the same is generally true of Russian, Ukrainian, American, or any nationality nationalists) are for the most part WP:UNDUE, out of WP:PROPORTION, and possibly WP:FRINGE in the scope of scholarly discourse on Holocaust history. The measures taken by the Polish government, in recent years, further complicate use of Polish sources due to WP:BIASED and possibly also WP:RS concerns in this narrow topic area.[24][25][26]. At present we include comments by Męczykowski (who is per his author page on histmag.org a school teacher) on a Polish website devoted to popular history, and comments by Gontarczyk on Polish Radio 24 (covered via right-wing internet portal wpolityce.pl) - both of these are extremely UNDUE and should be removed. We also include a long tract by Bogdan Musial in a Polish publication. However, we do not include context for Musial (who has been covered, as a topic, in academic WP:RS) - e.g. his general position on the Holocaust in Poland,[27][28], reception of him as a historian which exempting his very early spotting of an error in the Wehrmachtsausstellung exhibit has been complex (his entry on the German Wikipedia (having lived there for many years before relocating to Poland in 2010) - dewiki entry is telling, particularly the "Controversial publications" section),[29][30][31][32][33] his previous stmts regarding scholars, books and movies,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40] or his recent comments on Jewish religious beliefs.[41][42] While Musial's criticism should probably be in the article, we should contextualize Musial per coverage of Musial in RS, condense said criticism to a shorter form, and allow ample space for Grabowski's detailed response.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Męczykowski is a PhD in history, and the source where he published his claims against Grabowski clearly passes WP:RS, regardless of your labeling of it as "nationalist" (nationalism, if that's what it is, is not fringe, btw -- neither is the left-wing bias at Haaretz; please learn to separate between your dislike of the source and its actual standing). To the UNDUE claim: his entire argument occupies no more than one paragraph in the text, and anyone can already see that most reviews of the book are positive. Dahn (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at histmag.org's about ([43]) it is not clear to me they are RS, nor do I see a RSN discussion about them - however they probably are RS for the attributed opinions of their writers. As for including opinions of PhD holders - if we were to include the opinion of every PhD published on the web - that would be a very wide inclusion criteria. Nationalism, as a movement as a whole, is not fringe. A specific flavor of nationalism (in this case - Polish nationalism) - is a small minority in wider historical scholarship.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I beg to differ about histmag. Of course, it is not an academic journal and doesn't have as much weight as the other articles. However, entirely excluding it solely because it is not an academic journal is not in line with policy, which says that academic journals are preferred, not the only reliable sources. Whatever the reason the criticism is in a popular magazine and not in an academic journal, we are not fit to judge that and should simply report the statement, not as an unquestionable fact but as a well-attributed opinion. "Histmag" might not be a peer-reviewed publication, but unless there are sources which clearly describe it as inaccurate in this particular matter or not otherwise reliable, we can't remove it (per policy). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We can and should include opinions by PhDs taken up in reliable sources, and I don't think there's anything preventing us from doing just that. this seems to be entirely about your ambition to have criticism of Grabowski's book taken out of the article. As for your earlier claim that we should "contextualize" Musiał, it's a double standard: just above, you were arguing for taking out Snyder's comments on Harvest (and I tend to agree that they're irrelevant), yet here you want us to add a whole paragraph of text that doesn't mention Grabowski at all, to induce the notion that Musiał is unreliable when he talks about Grabowski. Remarkable. Dahn (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to avoid adding too many opinions to the reception - if the inclusion criteria is a PhD - there are many more out there. As for Musial - I am not suggesting a paragraph of introduction (I did provide context in my !vote as to why contextualization is due) - it is my view we should describe him for context in a few words or up to a sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER. Instead of theorizing here that there are many more opinions and reviews and blurbs, you could cite them in the article, and any reader will then be able to see how many there are. On one hand, you argue that we should reflect that Grabowski received mostly positive reviews, on the other hand you claim that you don't want "too many opinions" (never mind who decides what is "too many"). If there are many opinions, then it means the content actually should be expanded to reflect that, because it would accurately reflect coverage of Grabowski by sources. And no, my other comment was not all about the size of that claim about Musiał, it was simply that you're promoting the addition of extraneous stuff when it suits your POV, while inventing new and elaborate criteria for simply removing things that disagree with your POV. Readers can click the link and follow the (quite recentist and fluffy) case made against Musiał's various claims, none of which relate to this article; they can also find the reputable authors defending his positions, or at least saying they're innocuous. Dahn (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Musiał is formally a German (Western) historian. It makes him critical toward opportunistic Polish academy, educated under Communist censorship. Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This is basically a request to remove reliable sources per the proposer's WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. There are NO "fringe" or "nationalist" sources in the article and to label respectable historians as such is simply a WP:BLP violation by Icewhiz (yet another one) and a smear. Icewhiz has proposed on several occasions using ethnic criteria to include or exclude sources (basically he appears to think that no Polish sources should be use used in article about Polish history. Funny how no one ever makes such absurd suggestions on articles on, say, French history, or Italian history). And this is a part of long standing WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, which, as I've said before, a topic ban for Icewhiz is really the appropriate remedy here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And whatever one thinks of the recent law passed in Poland (I think it's very stupid and wrong) that is utterly irrelevant to this topic. Indeed, some of the over-the-top POV pushing on these articles seems to be some kind of "revenge" for the law being passed. Which is not a way to write a neutral encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion about other editors, try to keep it out from the discussion (which is about content not contributors) and discuss the issue at the appropriate place (WP:Dramaboard in this case). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't expressed any opinions about other editors. I've expressed opinions about their editing behavior - which IS discussing content not contributors. But you want an opinion about editors? Sure. Anon IPs with fly-by-night accounts created only in January shouldn't be allowed to edit controversial articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I agree with your general proposition (above) that drawing attention to the nationality/ethnicity of sources is a BAD idea if they are in good standing in their fields. However, minor correction, the section under discussion is not about Polish history, it's about a book, which is itself about Polish (and Jewish) history. The distinction is important. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

When RS call out the nationality of the critics - we should follow the sources. Every English language source has specified the nationality of the criticism. Some of the included criticism, e.g. Musial, can not be described as "in good standing in their fields" @Pincrete: - read up about Musial. Besides the early photo exhibit error he spotted, it has all been rather one sided.Icewhiz (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A passing reference to nationality is neither here nor there. Of course N.American/UK/Israeli sources are going to refer to the nationality of someone or an institution or paper based outside their country, but refer to locals solely by their university/name/position (ie Stanford historian/Oxford academic/The Guardian/Haaretz etc). Unless the nationality is discussed as a factor, I don't see what highlighting it in respect of individuals adds. That reaction has been especially hostile among some Poles may be worth saying, but highlighting nationality all the time simply detracts from substantive issues IMO. Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Information about Musial's answer to Grabowski has been removed. The answer has been published in an academic journal. Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed close

I propose this be closed as the consensus suggestion has already been implemented. Anybody has any reservations? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you please summarize "the consensus suggestion"?

Nihil novi (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

To create an article about the book? Which has been done. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 200,000 story

In another discussion it was said that Grabowski didn't say 200,000. Do we describe here Grabowski's opinion or confused media fake-news?Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

He did say 200,000 - directly and indirectly. This was falsely reported as "directly" responsible for 200,000. Grabowski recently said "directly and indirectly" as a clarification - yet again.Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Parents - names

@Nihil novi: - re this diff, I suspect the father might be Zbigniew Grabowski (chemik) (plwiki) - but I don't have a RS connecting the dots. The bio details of Zbigniew (born in Krakow to an assimilated Jewish Family, moved to Warsaw) - do fit with what Haaretz describes the father of Jan Grabowski. If you could look for a Polish source - I'd be much obliged.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

“Came from a family of Polish nobility”

Nothing but one Haaretz article does reinforce nobility. I was looking for other sources unsuccessfully. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus, against "according to", was already clear in Jan Grabowski#Ethnic marking of sources and implied doubt and Jan Grabowski#Nobility as well as multiple editors reverting various permutations of attributions. Haaretz is a well-regarding WP:RS and doesn't need attribution - particularly not for trivial details such as family background.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, if he comes from a Noble family, there should be a better source that Haaretz newspaper article. What is his family coat of arms? Please provide a reference. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Haaretz is a well regarded RS. This is a trivial piece of biographical detail, as for a coat of arms - if you have a source for that I suppose it might merit inclusion, I don't see how sourcing what coat of arms is associated with his mother's family is relevant here.Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why it states "according to Haaretz." There is no other source confirming his nobility and Haaretz journalist Ofer Aderet who wrote the article [44] does not say where he got that info and what documents Grabowski's Nobility. Please contribute at least one separate independent source reinforcing Nobility to remove ---> "according to Haaretz."GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the mention of the family's "szlachta" status could be omitted pending documentation, including appellation of the coat of arms? (In any case, reference to a currently living person's szlachta status seems a bit archaic in the 21st century.) Nihil novi (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having "according to Haaretz.". I couldn't find other sources confirming his Nobility. He doesn't claim it either but if Haaretz declares that, then keep it what they claim. If you remove Nobility claim altogether, it is fine with me also.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And why is the "nobility" bit (not of himself - of his mother's family) require additional sourcing beyond His father was a Jewish Holocaust survivor from Kraków and who took part in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising; his mother, a Christian - which we're sourcing to Haaretz too? Haaretz is considered a WP:RS (per several discussions in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - going back many years) - This repeated challenge is becoming tedious - I'm taking this to RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It is only necessary to attribute for contentious opinions or statements which might have further legal implications. Something as non-contentious as one person's parents does not require attributing, and doing so makes the prose harder to read. Thus, and given the Haaretz is definitively a WP:RS, I do not see how attributing the statement does anything but put a non-existent (i.e. false) cloud of doubt over it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd support removal of this. This is marginal, and newspapers are not best sources for this kind of information. Considering his family history stated here, well, half of Polish people - if not all - can claim to be related to nobility. Szlachta, after all, composed something like a 10th of Polish population few centuries ago. Honestly, I think it would be a challenge to find a single person in Poland, now, who doesn't have a drop of noble blood. It's one thing to talk about nobility for the few people whose families are indeed notable (Category:Polish noble families). pl:Grabowscy is now, however, a major noble family, as the disambig page on pl wiki shows. Unless better sources are found, I would not support such a claim for any Poland-related bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I also support removal of the whole ancestry/nobility thing on those grounds (i.e. not relevant or notable information), but nevertheless, if they had been kept, it should not have been necessary for them to be attributed as they are non-contentious. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Were the Blue Police Polish?

Polish is the Nazi name. We don't accept Nazi language here, do we?

The police was controlled by local SS and police commanders, not by Poles.

The Polish underground had several police organizations, which were really Polish.

Both the London government and PKWN considered the Blue Police a criminal organization. Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [45] and Grabowski[46] are calling this "Polish" (in various permutations - "Polish Police", "Polish ‘Blue’ Police", "“Blue” Polish Police") - we follow what the sources say (and it seems other sources call it "Polish" as well).Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing - anti-Polish sources and the Nazis name the police Polish. Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is "anti-Polish"?Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's say "biased". [47]Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Musiał

"Information about Musial's answer to Grabowski has been removed. The answer has been published in an academic journal. Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)" Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Another critics: http://www.kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/Grabowski-Hunt-Critique-6.doc Polish-Jewish Relations in Dąbrowa Tarnowska County A Much Needed Corrective to Jan Grabowski’s Hunt for the Jews by Mark Paul Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul of the Canadian Polish Congress... That would be UNDUE and require quite a bit of context.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

We could certainly mention that Musial states he is a native the county and his criticism that his uncle's book, Adam Musial, was not used by Grabowski - points picked upby thoe who responded to Musial.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Academic review in English [48]. Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Prof. Grabowski's father

The date of death of Prof. Grabowski's father, as stated in the obituary now cited in the article, appears to be just 3 days off (28 January 2017) from that of Zbigniew Ryszard Grabowski (chemist), in the Polish Wikipedia. Are they one and the same person, and is that person Grabowski's father? Nihil novi (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same person (Zbigniew Ryszard Grabowski - aka Ryszard Abrahamer)GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't the references be balanced? Let say 30% against, 70% pro?Xx236 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The references should reflect the coverage in BLP grade reputable RS - which has almost all been positive or neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

For what, against what? Nihil novi (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Popular press articles are O.K.,an academic opinion isn't. Xx236 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That is directly against WP:SOURCETYPES. Also, criticism of the book should first be decided in the article about the book itself, and then summarized here, with whichever appropriate references there are supporting the facts/opinions we mention. 70%/30% is an absurd and arbitrary criteria. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

70%/30% is sarcastic, I don't expect neutral summary of opinions, so I demand limited bias.Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a BLP

Pleasze don't add other subjects.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The 200 000 story

• Grabowski has claimed that Poles killed directly or indierectly 200 000 hiding Jews. His opinion has been distributed by popular media, number of their readers is obviously much higher than the number of readers of the book.
• The number is obviously false. Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Does the Controversy subsection belong to the Hunt... section or is it general?Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The Controversy section is about Grabowski generally (e.g. the e Polish League Against Defamation attacking him, or libel against him by Fronda.pl) - and not the book - though it seems to have been instigated by the book and subsequent interviews. As for the 200,000 number - it is widely quoted in the international press - gNews 200,000 grabowski - and with the exception of some Polish right-wing outlets there is very little criticism of it. Used by the BBC, CBC, Politifact, AP, Tablet, Guardian, etc. (as well as academic citations) clearly show this is a mainstream estimate and not a "story".Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"Rzeczpospolita"[49] - certainly not "far right" - says 40 000 on the basis of the recent book by Grabowksi and Company. Please don't discuss the subject, becasue you commit an ethical suicide.Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The BBC has a name Joel Gunter and he quotes Grabowski. One hundred quotes of Grabowkss doesn't produce a second source. There was a time whe journalists verified their sources, now they quote without elementary undrerstanding. Who needs any knowledge if we have experts?Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

CBC it's Derek Stoffel, who quotes Grabowski. Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

POLIFACT is Manuela Tobias.Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

AP quotes The Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw.Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, - Polish Center for Holocaust Research - of which Grabowski is a founding member - and which had endorsed this estimate (which I think originally was from a work of someone other than Grabowski in the center) - I should've mentioned that - but this just indicates that this estimate has wider acceptance among researchers (as do multiple citations in scholarly works).Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Who exactly from the Center repeats the lies?Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No need for such labels for serious research. I think this was actually first stated in the 2011 Zarys krajobrazu - but I don't have that text. In any event - AP is attributing to the center (multiple times, also - here), and also TOI [50]) - so it seems they made this estimate official.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are just prime example of bad journalism: "Holocaust scholars estimate that Poles might have either killed or helped Germans kill as many as 180,000 to 200,000 Jews". No, not "Holocaust scholars", only Grabowski. This is why we have to make sure that Wikipedia, a source many of those journalists use instead of bothering with scholarly source, doesn't repeat this mistake. This number is Grabowski's estimate, nobody else's, and it is not universally accepted by 'Holocaust scholars'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, Grabowski said over 200,000 (though he had said in 2017 this was very conservative, not including victims of the Polish "Blue" Police). It would seems that the recent release, based on microhistories from a number of other counties, has revised this number upwards to well over half a million Jewish Holocaust victims who died as a result of the actions of non-Jewish Poles - this with the backing of most/all Holocaust center (they were all co authors).Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, sometimes it's better to keep silent. You go into my trap further and further.Xx236 (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Trap? What trap?Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You are in the trap. Please remeber your stories will survive forever. over half a million Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Serioius research? Unfortuantely Grabowski prefers politics and media rather than serious research.Xx236 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

TABLET quotes the book, p. 172. But the book says that 200 000 died, not that the Poles killed them. Try to survive a cold Winter in a forest. Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski, as discussed previously, has been using the "directly and indirectly" or "responsible for" - the 200,000 estimate was never for the, rather irrelevant, measure of who pulled the trigger.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2018 2-volume study, edited by Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski, Warsaw, Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą, 1640 pp. (in 2 volumes), ISBN 978-83-63444-60-0, comprises 9 sections, each by a different author and each covering a single county. It is hardly a comprehensive study of the entire country. Nihil novi (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It would definitely allow a more accurate estimate using these, with appropriate weighting, as a reprrsentativr sample.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"esimate was never for the, rather irrelevant, measure of who pulled the trigger"

Common sense does indicate that in every legal system and research, it is actually very important who does the actual killing.It would be very perplexing to claim otherwise. In any case the book has been criticized heavily and the estimate questioned.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

POV tag?

Sorry, I've not followed this page in detail; are there NPOV issues still? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've c/e-ed the article and I don't see anything here that merits a POV tag. Some of his views are controversial, findings disputed, but we do say that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:FRINGE view of Berendt, Musial, and Samsonowska is given a bit of WP:UNDUE weight - and we don't properly qualify who thery are (particularly Musial). Polish media pieces - e.g. [51] feel the need to qualify Musial Bogdan Musiał nie znosi "niemieckiej propagandy historycznej triumfującej w Polsce", a Marek Chodakiewicz twierdzi, że to Polacy byli po wojnie ofiarami Żydów, a nie na odwrót. ("Bogdan Musiał hates the "German historical propaganda triumphant in Poland", and Marek Chodakiewicz claims that Poles were victims of Jews after the war, not the other way around.") (that's the summary up top - there is then a quite extensive box on him in the bottom). But I agree - the POV tag could be removed.Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I would describe Musial as "fringe", on par with IHR, for example. I'd say "controversial" is a better descriptor. IIRC, his book Counter-revolutionary Elements are to be Shot received mixed to unfavourable reviews, i.e. [52]. I'm not familiar with the others; if anyone has info to share, I would appreciate it. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Historians supporting political factions that we disagree with (I don't particularly appreciate the crowd Chodawkiewicz seems to 'hang out' with) is not relevant to their reliability. Musial, Chodakiewicz are as 'controversial' as Gross, it is just that they are less or more so depends on who is talking (writing), and which side (left/right, Fooian of Booian, etc.) they tend to symphatize with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Musial's dewiki article is quite telling regarding the degree to which he is controversial [53]. As for Gross - in most of the world, with the exception of Poland, he is seen as a groundbreaking, award winning historian - criticism of him is mainly by Polish ethno-nationalists - a phenomena that has been studied by RS in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The "controversial" descriptor does not seem to apply to Jan T. Gross in the commonly understood sense of the word. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Gross is very controversial in Poland. The article is about the Polish history. Therefore it is apparent that Polish (and Jewish) historians are the most engaged. Jewish historians do not represent “the rest of the World.” It just happens that most of them operate in English.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. "Jewish historians" - I guess that explains the attempt to use sources clearly described as anti-semitic in RS. Gross is well regarded in this topic area - not just by "Jewish historians". His book (with hundreds of citations each) are among the most influential publications in the pas two decades in Holocaust history, and are described by many as groundbreaking and seminal (extending past the academic community to even media outlets like the BBC and the like). Poland is not a large country, and its academic footprint is not large either, furthermore history in Poland seems to have become something that is managed by the government. It would seem that Polish denialists, who deny Poland's complicity in the holocaust, and attempt to propagate various myths (the latest was a proposal to open a "polocaust" musuem displaying Poles as the main victims of the Holocaust) do not like Gross. Their position is contested even within Poland and carries close to nil weight outside of Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is the rhetoric posted above aimed at my persona Icewhiz? Are you suggesting that I’m an anti-Semite? Clarify right now.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that. I have commented on your decision to label various historians as Jewish (including non-Jewish ones) and on your repeated use of some rather dubious sources.Icewhiz (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me explain something to you. The topic area of Jewish history which is a significant part of a Polish history as well interests Polish and Israeli (or historians of Jewish descent) the most. These two groups of historians are engaged in this work the largest. This is undestandable. It occurs that Polish narrative clashes with Jewish account that is why we having problems coming to the agreements editing this topic area. However, both sides viewpoints have to be taken to account. One can not reject work of the historians from Poland simply because they collude with work from Israel.GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a well studied and published area. We should reflect the balance that appears in strong academic sources. We should not reflect fringe blogs, self published works, or outlets controlled by a government that censors/cotrols publications on the topic area. If you do not have a top notch source - then whatever you are trying to insert does not belong. As for "clash of narratives" - outside the Polish blogosphere and far-right fringe - there is very little disagreement on the Polish role in the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

“Polish role in the Holocaust” -> elaborate on this one. What was the “Polish role in the Holocaust” in your view? GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The role described in mainline reputable academic publlications as opposed to self published or fringe Holocaust denial or distortion literature or propoganada.Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

So who is producing that fringe Holocaust denial or distortion literature and propoganada? Can you be more specific? (names, institution etc.)GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Jan Grabowski has produced fringe numbers of victims and contributed to anti-Polish propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

present themselves as Holocaust experts

There is no formal definition of a Holocaust expert. An expert is a person accepted by some experts. Ewa Kurek, a PhD in history, isn't a Holocaust expert. Jacek Leociak, a literary historian, is an expert, uczy o Holocauście na UW [54]. Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Dąbrowa, a rural county

It was a pre-war county or a post-war one (I don't know if they were identical). There was no such county under Nazi administration. Such name suggests that there existed a Polish administration of the county. Dabrowa (German name) belonged to Kreishauptmannschaft Tarnow. Dabrowa Tarnowska County was abolished, Germans created the so-called Local Office of the Commissioner (Landkomissariat), writes Grabowski. Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)