Talk:Jedwabne pogrom/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Stachura in Glaukopis

The article currently includes:

Stachura took exception to their letter. History declined to publish his reply; instead, it was posted on the website of Glaukopis, a right-wing Polish journal.Stachura, Peter (6 February 2008). "Jedwabne: A reply to Antony Polonsky & Joanna Michlic" (PDF). Glaukopis. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 May 2017.

References

Glaukopis is a problematic publication, whose web site moreover only hosts the letter, after History declined to publish it. Finding this statement to be undue, I suggest it be removed. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Entirely agree. "Glaukopis, a journal which caters to, and is led by, the Polish extreme nationalistic right. Its long-time editor-in-chief, Wojciech Muszyński (an employee of the IPN), openly praises the ONR, one of the most militant, rabidly antisemitic organizations of prewar Poland." There's no place for use of publications associated with anti-semitism as secondary sources on Wikipedia, and this one would almost certainly fail a WP:RS review. Any editors who disagree, I invite them to take it up at WP:RSN for community discussion. In the meantime, I am WP:BOLD removing it as a matter of urgency. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. When I initially encountered this, I thought this was an article published in a reliable outlet. Forward a decade, I concur this has issues with BLP / RS and does not meet our modern standards. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasten to add that the quote I used above is from the widely respected Polish chapter[1] of the International Council of Christians and Jews, their website publication of Jan Grabowski's controversial essay, "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". In that essay he makes wide-ranging allegations against Wikipedia that AFAIU Wikipedia has contested in part and responded to. Still, I treat his opinion about Glaukopis as a noteworthy mainstream-academic observation, one that crosses our threshold for source reliability and minority view concerns. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, however I was wondering if Glaukopis should also be removed from other articles where it's used as a source and/or listed in the biography (here below in the collapse box). Obviously removing the quotation is not enough: the supported text should also be checked. Shall we have a discussion at WP:RSN on this?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I answered myself. The discussion at RSN is here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Yes, I fully support total removal of the source across Wikipedia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Number of victims

We have now in the lead "At least 340 men, women and children were murdered, some 300 of whom were locked in a barn and burned alive". On this, we are relying on the findings of the IPN investigation (Ignatiew 2002, 2003). However, Stola 2003 says estimates vary from 300 to 1,600; he also says that estimates ranging from 400-800 seem much more plausible than those above 1,000. The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, vol. 2, part A, 2012, p. 900, reports the following:

Some set the number of victims at 2,000, including 230 Wizna Jews, and others at 1,400, including refugees from Wizna and Radziłów. Until recently, the most widely accepted death toll was 1,600, likely drawn from the testimony of Szmul Wasersztejn.7 However, the Soviet population figures and an incomplete and controversial forensic investigation in 2002, which estimated 300 to 400 people perished in the barn, have led some to argue the fire claimed fewer lives. The number of survivors also varies, with Rywka Fogiel (Rivka Fogel) remembering 125 and Menachem Finkelsztejn, a Radziłów survivor, mentioning 302

On the basis of these sources, I suggest adopting Stola's non-committal formulation about estimates ranging btw 300 and 1600 and possibly providing more information on the number of victims in the article body. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Stola's range of should be given more weight vs the "340" number (due to the incomplete exhumation) and the "1600+" numbers which I believe is widely considered too high today. Perhaps along the lines of: 400-800 victims, with a note in re: incomplete investigation confirming 300-400 bodies + estimates of up 1600 victims and higher having been put forth as well. Something like this.

Note: my comment refers to the infobox, which states, in this version of the article, "At least 340 Polish Jews[1]". --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. I wouldn't object to having the "400-800 victims" figure also in the lead, if this information is supported by the sources (Stola, Crago) and supplemented by the quotations now in footnote 5. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)