Talk:Marek Jan Chodakiewicz

Edits by User:71.163.198.132

I've reverted the recent edits to this page by User:71.163.198.132. To my reading they are not NPOV(edited by me at 06:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC), changed link from WP:POV to WP:NPOV), and phrases like "others view this as a classic case of character assassination" and "this ideologically motivated smear campaign against him is intended to silence and de-legitimize a bona fide scholar" are not encylopeadiac and contain Weasel Words. Especially when they are unreferenced, phrases like this cannot be put in a BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear's Fool (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Removals of well sourced text

User:Poeticbent www.splcenter.org is very much accessible and verifiable source. Second Jan T. Gross is a well known Polish historian as is Piotr Wróbel. Soutern Poverty Center is a well known human rights and racism monitoring organisation.--Tritomex (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Re: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/winter/night-at-the-museum

You can't see the forest for the trees User:Tritomex. The attack piece was not written by Jan T. Gross and neither by Piotr Wróbel. It was written by one Larry Keller in a lowbrow sort of way. Perhaps you would you like to write an article about him, but regardless, in Wikipedia we have fair and square policy guidelines to follow about this sort of thing. Self-employed freelance writer, owner of http://www.larryakeller.com/ ... Server not found ... (says LinkedIn), is not a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center. You were misrepresenting the source right in the opening line by saying that the the Southern Poverty Center "considers Chodakiewicz views controversial". You have no quote for that. – By the way, this is not the first time I have run into your partisan stabs at editing and disruptive removal of references from articles related to Poland, based on either the lack of knowledge, or just plain ignorance. I suggest you stop right here. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: [including] Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Poeticbent talk 06:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent The article is an official publication of Southern Poverty Law Center called intelligence report published by this NGO. Intelligence report is "the Southern Poverty Law Center's award-winning magazine. "The quarterly publication provides comprehensive updates to law enforcement agencies, the media and the general public. It is the nation's preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S."[1]. The title of the article is called "Historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz with Controversial Views Serves on Holocaust Museum Board" so the first sentence is a direct quote and not any misinterpretation. Third, you accused me of partisan "stabs at editing and disruptive removal of references from articles related to Poland," which is a very serious accusation. The truth is that I removed a claim sourced with Yad Vashem official publication where the claim written at WIKI did not exist in source, nor anything similar to the claim existed in Yad Vashem publication. In fact, I saw many other similar cases regarding the HoLocaust in Poland when claims not existing in original sources have been used. Further I do not understand what your accusation of "partisan editing" against me actually means.I do not do partisan editing, nor I have any personal interests regarding Poland, I strictly adhere to Wikipedia polices of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and exactly because of this I feel the need that others also must adhere to this principles regardless of the edited subject. Finally, I find inappropriate your suggestion for me to stop editing subjects regarding Poland. Now are you claiming that Southern Poverty Law Center official site is not WP:RS or that I misinterpreted what has been written there?--Tritomex (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522015921/http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/detail/marek-chodakiewicz to http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/detail/marek-chodakiewicz
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227191719/http://www.iwp.edu/ to http://www.iwp.edu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041212223528/http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.128/news_detail.asp to http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.128/news_detail.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050413164410/http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.103/news_detail.asp to http://www.iwp.edu/news/newsID.103/news_detail.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718034701/http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html to http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041125200115/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.3/br_156.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fahr%2F109.3%2Fbr_156.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230759/http://www.forum-znak.org.pl/index-en.php?t=przeglad&id=1415 to http://www.forum-znak.org.pl/index-en.php?t=przeglad&id=1415

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

right wing ties

there's nothing here about his right wing affiliations and views, this content should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.51.202.192 (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050415030504/http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/earhart_foundation.htm to http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/earhart_foundation.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041125200115/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.3/br_156.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fahr%2F109.3%2Fbr_156.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Genocide claims

I removed a claim that states he wrote about genocide of whites. It references to an article in which he clearly writes "there is no genocide clearly". Other claims will need to be checked if they have been falsfied as well. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't he warning about an ongoing process of genocide of Whites (Boers) in SA? He does state that the genocide hasn't started yet - but is warning of current violence and atmosphere leading to genocide, no?Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Activist

Per Newsweek - DID A POLISH FAR RIGHT ACTIVIST HELP DONALD TRUMP WRITE HIS SPEECH IN WARSAW? - Chodakiewicz is a "historian and far-right activist". This can easily be corroborated by his participation in Ruch Narodowy events such as a speech at a rally, his own publications in dorzeczy, and coverage in several Polish language publications detailing various aspects of this activism. This was described in our article as "political activist" (avoiding the far-right label in our text), but has been challenged by an IP [2][3] on the grounds of - "Give me the source that says he is “ a political activist". What would be the correct course action? Call him a "far-right activist" in our voice? Attribute the description to Newsweek? Leave it as political activist (saying that far-right is political does not seem to be OR)?Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Far-right individuals profiled by the SPLC generally have this information added to the lede of their bios. It's supported by a reliable source.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

it is indeed quite rare to non-existent for such information to be missing from an individual profiled extensively by the SPLC, particularly when such profiling is then repeated by the 3rd party RSes (e.g. NEWSORGs) in their own voice. The SPLC by itself, per consensus at RSN, as considered an expert source for far right politics. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Why did you revert this? François Robere (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's undue for the lede. It's not what he's notable for. Volunteer Marek 14:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently in the West it is. François Robere (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

He's a western academic and he was notable before he supported Trump or whatever. It's fine in the article itself, but in this case it's UNDUE in the lede as that's not what he's primarily known for. Volunteer Marek 14:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In mainstream WP:NEWSORG coverage in English, it is more or less the only thing he is known for. Being the main topic of two separate SPLC reports (one - in 2009 - well prior to trump being a political thing) is a rather "big thing".Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Not undue -- SPLC is reliable for their identification of right-wing activism. And that's what the subject is known for, at least recently. Appropriate for the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• It is undue in the lead for two reasons. First, SPLC is an advocacy group. We should not promote their views/advocacy here, even if we want to mention their view in body of the page with appropriate attribution. Second, I do not think it is appropriate to post a negative view on a living person in the lead based on the attribution to a single advocacy source (or even a couple of biased sources). That could be done only if he is described as such in a large number of third-party RS, and this is clearly a "majority view". My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• How many RS can you count in the "reviews" and "criticism" sections that state the same? François Robere (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Summarizing content of the "reviews" and "criticism" sections is difficult because of the mutually excluding/contradictory claims in these sections. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but how many of them state that he writes from a nationalist perspective reflective of antisemitic stereotypes? François Robere (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I must tell that text of this page is terrible. A. said this. B. said that. And so on. Looks like The Squabble between Polish historians. Personally, I would remove 80% of this meaningless "debate" from the page, but unfortunately, finding a consensus for that would be very difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That's because of BLP considerations and others' insistence that everything be attributed, but the criticisms themselves are legitimate and important. François Robere (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure, care to do an analysis? We have to be careful with possibly offensive / biased claims in lede, due to WP:BLP, you know. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (lasted RSN) - the SPLC is a generally a reliable source for. Chodakiewicz, when covered in mainstream English media, has the SPLC designation attached. I will further note that his political activism is a large chunk of his coverage in Polish language media - though much of said coverage is in fringe far-right Polish media. As for histiography - this is not a "squabble between Polish historians" - Chodakiewicz's historical writings - when noted in an academic context are often noted as being on the extreme edge of historiography. Icewhiz (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll also note, that this recent paper (authors being experts in the European far-right) - Marlene Laruelle and Ellen Rivera, “Imagined Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. The Concept of Intermarium,” IERES Occasional Papers, no. 1 (March 2019) - Chodakiewicz is covered at length as a major propoenent of Intermarium (an irredentist concept which in this version advocates for the "return" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - and that in this particular instance fits with an eastward NATO expansion). "One of the IWP’s most important advocates of the Intermarium is Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, who, besides having authored a book on the subject,96 has spoken on the topic at several IWP conferences.97". The SPLC designation is of course covered as well - "His appointment was criticized at the time by various organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC), which summarized allegations that he held anti-Semitic views.100 In a long dossier, SPLC revealed Chodakiewicz to be a frequent commentator on right-wing Polish media, such as the weekly Najwyzszy Czas!, “the magazine of the Real Politics Union party, a fringe, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-property rights, anti-income tax group,” and the far-right Polish website Fronda.pl.101 In July 2008, Chodakiewicz was among those who accused Barack Obama of having been a Muslim and a communist associate.102. Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Allegations date back years. They led Chodakiewicz not being appointed in the University of Virginia - and to the closure of the Kosciuszko Chair of Polish Studies at Virginia - the chair was then re-established in IWP by donations from Polonia activists.[4][5]. Chodakiewicz himself has addressed the SPLC a number of times (in Polish) - e.g. here in 2010, or here in 2019 - where he also describes how "neo-Stalinsts" have sabotaged his academic career since his PhD studies - and concludes with "Ja robię swoje stale, z otwartą przyłbicą. W PRL pod sowiecką okupacją moja rodzina uczyła mnie, aby się nie bać, przecież nie będę się bał w USA. Na razie nie wsadzają do więzienia, jak mego ojca, choćby za Solidarność, czy dziadków za AK, jak i PSL. Mam neostalinistów i innych lewaków oraz – ogólnie – siły zła w nosie pod każdą szerokością geograficzną." - google translate - "I do my work constantly, with my visor open. In the Polish People's Republic, under Soviet occupation, my family taught me not to be afraid, I will not be afraid in the USA. For now, they do not put in jail, like my father, even for Solidarity, or grandparents for AK and PSL. I have neo-Stalinists and other leftists and, in general, the forces of evil in the nose in every latitude.". Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Critiques that appear in our article (my own summary in parenths):

• Gross: ideologue of the far right, antisemitic
• Wrobel: visible political agenda, doesn't like Jews
• Polonsky: clichés of old-fashioned nationalist apologetics
• Michlic: ethno-nationalist historiography, attempts to erase the "dark past" by showing only a "good past", prejudicial views towards Jews and other minorities
• Kaminski: doesn't accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom
• Roider: (presents right wing narratives), "conspiracies everywhere"
• Weinbaum: "pseudo scholarly screed", "contextualizes" (justifies?) Polish violence against Jews
• Katz: nationalist polemic, implicitly calls for disenfranchisement of Russian-speaking minorities, comes out again “homosexual frolic” and feminism, disguises Polish nationalism and anti-Jewish sentiment as objective historical research
• Janowski: (ideologically-motivated writing)
• Pankowski: denies Polish responsibility to antisemitic attacks, claims Jews were responsible for the hostility of their Polish neighbours, repeatedly connects Jews with Communism

François Robere (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I came here only because someone posted a notice on BLPNB. After looking at this, I think that Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is not really an important/notable historian (but deserving a WP page). Therefore, this page should be 3 to 5 times shorter than it is right now, something comparable to pages about other Polish historians with whom he has disputes. Speaking about the lead, I think it is generally not advisable to include summaries of complex controversies/disputes to the lead. There is simply no way to summarize them neutrally in a couple of phrases. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, do tell that to the rest of the gang... François Robere (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Chodakiewicz has been criticized for his reluctance to accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom

Polish responsibility? Would you describe responsibilty of Jewish politicians and police officers for their crimes as Jewish?Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

March 1968 was a protest of Polish students against communist rule.

Not only students, but also young workers and schoolchildren [6][7].Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ząb

Ząb was pl:Leonard Zub-Zdanowicz. I believe that young Chodakiewicz knew Ząb's widow, who may have influnced his opnions about the NSZ.Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

A large chunk of source text was removed since "portraying him as bad because he's "socially conservative" and similar is just POV and UNDUE". Chodakiewicz's social conservatism is amply sourced and given his political activism as well as strand of writing is certainly relevant to the bio. Descriptions by 3rd independent parties are clearly relevant for us to portray this individual in a balanced and NPOV manner.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall any of the removing editors making similar objections to adding a dozen such "chunks" to Jan Grabowski. Why is this article treated differently? François Robere (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Who added this absurd sentence about Michnik ?

" Chodkiewicz's publication was reviewed positively in the Polish Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper, whose editor Adam Michnik had previously called Eliach's account as an insult to Poland.[14][15]" First of all the statement by Michnik is I believe from 1996 long before this publication. Second of all it has nothing to do with Chodkiewicz. Third of all Eliach has been criticized by so many historians that I fail to see this as important, even Israel Gutman harshly condemned her. Fourth of all, did the editor who added this even checked who Adam Michnik is? One of the most prominent Jewish figures in Poland, a liberal thinker, who harshly condemns nationalism and anti-semitism. So the sentence is absolutely absurd and seems like a terrible SYNTH to imply that Michnik is some Polish nationalist attacking poor Eliach, which is as absolutely far from the truth. Who added this terrible sentence ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Gutman did not "harshly condemn" Eliach. If we are to include a positive review, we should mention the position of the body making the review. Furthermore, the Gazeta piece itself covers the 1996 piece by Michnik and Chodakiewicz's analysis of it - "Są jednak w tej pracy momenty, w których autor obiektywizm porzuca. Trzeba niesłychanej ekwilibrystyki umysłowej, by odczytać odpowiedź Adama Michnika prof. Eliach pt. "Bezrozumny fanatyzm" ("Gazeta" w 1996 r.) jako "głos afirmujący". Michnik pisze: "Dobrej woli prof. Eliach najwidoczniej zabrakło. Nie jest to relacja o ejszyskiej zbrodni, jest generalnym oskarżeniem pod adresem wszystkich: AK i obecnych władz polskich. Oskarżeniem bezpodstawnym". Chodakowski udowadnia, że potępiając Eliach, Michnik ją popiera. Zdanie: "Nie umiem powiedzieć, na ile ta relacja jest ścisła", w którym Michnik odnosi się do ustaleń Michała Wołłejki prowadzi to tezy: Michnik całkowicie odrzucił wersję Wołłejki." - the last 3 paragraphs of the not too long Gazeta piece are about this.Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Back to my question-was it you that introduced this sentence? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Surname spelling

We have three names:

• Chodakowski
• Chodkiewicz
• Chodakiewicz.

Please do your job correctly. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I fixed Chodkiewicz (diff). Where do you see Chodakowski? Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Above, green letters. Still Chodkiewicz - the same place. My comment belonged to the above thread.Xx236 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Xx236 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - I thought you mean the article (in which there was also one Chodkiewicz). Chodakowski (green letters) is in a quote from the Gazeta Wyborcza - they spelled it that way in that paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Chodakiewicz about Icewhiz

https://tysol.pl/a29491--Tylko-u-nas-Marek-Jan-Chodakiewicz-Icewhiz-i-inni Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Funny! Also sad. Does he seriously think Israeli military intelligence runs editors on Wikipedia..? François Robere (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

---

So, @Volunteer Marek: It's perhaps the first time you argue against including something by Chod. Why is it? WP:SELFSOURCE/WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS allow this, as it's about Chod.'s own opinions. François Robere (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No they don't. What are you talking about? BLPSELFPUB clearly disallows this.

Also, please provide evidence that this is "first time etc" or strike the claim. It's actually not true. More generally, discuss content, not editors.

You should also at least spell the guy's name out as your little abbreviation can be interpreted as an attempt at insulting a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected.

I've used abbreviations with other sources as well, where it suited me. You're free to interpret them as you wish.

The way it's phrased ATM doesn't make any claim against a clearly identifiable third party, only a statement regarding Chod's beliefs, so WP:BLPSELFPUB shouldn't apply. François Robere (talk)

And how many times have you argued for quoting him as a source, Francois? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps as few as none! I'm sure he's not an RS on most things, except in this case it's about his own ridiculous beliefs, so why not? If he wrote a whole blog post about what toothbrush he's using, we might've had to find a place for that too! François Robere (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Rafał Pankowski as a source

Rafał Pankowski is a radical leftist fighter. Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Pankowski is cited as an expert by news orgs - e.g. BBC, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post (" a leading expert on Poland's radical right"), Washington Post.... And the list really could go on and on. A sociologist (just the right field for study of fringe political movements), he holds an appointment in Collegium Civitas. He is furthermore extensively published in an academic setting. On what basis are you challenging him? Any sources backing up the assertion above? Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Polish Reviews of Hearts of Gold

The book had a Polish edition (Złote serca czy złote żniwa, 2011). Reviews:

• [8] (in Polish daily Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) ) seems neutral/positive
• [9] (in Polish popular history, non-academic magazine Histmag) seems very positive. Regardless, it also provides a rough analysis of what chapters/authors publish in the book.
• [10] this minor academic source just mentions the book briefly noting that "Rytualną kontrnarracją negującą tezy Grossa są natomiast książki autorów, którzy aktywnie krytykowali już jego poprzednie prace: Złote serca czy złote żniwa?"

I couldn't find any academic review in Polish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

None of these are academic - that some Polish right wing elements were positive here is of little note. The 15 page academic journal article on ceeol on the controvesy generated by this publication (a-historical claims, polemic, a whole chapter calling most of US academia neo-Stalinist) was published in Polish and then translated to English.Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

What journal article are you referring to? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

this was translated from Polish. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have access to this. Would you mind emailing me a copy of this, in either language? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-relevant, list of authors in Hearts: Chodakiewicz. Piotr Gontarczyk. Teresa Prekerowa. Mark Paul. Ryszard Tyndorf. Paweł Styrna. Waldemar Chrostowski. Tomasz Sommer. John Radziłowski. Barbara Gorczycka-Muszyńska. Mark Paul (again). Wojciech J. Muszyński. Sebastian Bojemski. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Prekerowa was dead for a few years when this came out - this was a reprint of her earlier work - so not quite an author that agreed to this.Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"defunct positivist view of historiography"

Yes, I know what positivism is and what the criticism are. Here basically means that the authors try to use actual evidence to back up their assertions. Apparently that's a "defunct" approach. That says more about the author than the targets of the criticism. Regardless, this WP:CHERRYpicked source is essentially off topic and it's basically a BLP attack on BLPs who are not even subjects of this article. Why do we even need to address the positivist-historicist debate here at all? Oh, because we're trying to shove as much negative shit into the article as possible, collateral damage to BLPs be damned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No, we are actually trying to cover our subject as he is covered in independent reliable sources. We try to reflect the balance present in the sources - which in this case seems to be mostly negative.Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Surely, the texts by Musiał, Gontarczyk, Chodakiewicz and other opponents of Gross who stress his factual and technical mistakes, do really correct some errors, do turn our attention to some real contradictions in the source material, and in this sense they augment our knowledge of the Jedwabne crime. At the same time, no especially deep hermeneutic devices are needed to notice the ideological engagement of their authors. This engagement stays in obvious contradiction with their declared attachment to the objectivist model of history, free from any emotions or personal partiality of the researcher. (It can be added that the above authors profess very radical version of the model of history as exact science, reducing in fact the work of historian to the so called “craft”: few people believed this even in the times of 19th century positivism, and since the anti-positivist turn of the 1890s this model has been universally questioned.)" (Janowski, 2012, pp. 73-74) François Robere (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is completely different from what you tried to put in the article. Also, it should be noted that this is one particular view in historiography and science of thought and I see no reason to make this article a battleground for the positivist vs. historicist debate. Like I already said. It's pretty much UNDUE and it's really UNDUE given the BLP-vio aspect of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

VM - repeatedly asserting BLP-vio without backing it up with policy based arguement does not fly. We have a published academic RS, capable of making these observations - where is the violation here? Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't, but if you wish, I'll be more than happy to include the critique in full. As for the historiographic debate - not really. The concept of the historian as a subjective observer is more or less the dominant view these days, which is why debates about narratives rather than truth are so common in areas of contention. And at any case it's not your call - an RS states it, and we should use it. If you wish to support Ch.'s views you can do it by citing a source to that effect. François Robere (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I've re-introduced Janowski - diff - with language more closely matching the source as well as adding that Chodakiewicz (and others in this camp) actually did find some errors. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You keep removing some of the critiques, including the above, claiming BLP and UNDUE. Can you explain why Janowski's and Michlic's critiques of his (and others') bias, and Goska's critique of his treatment of his critics, are BLP or UNDUE? François Robere (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Most of this text is simply non encyclopedic in addition to being UNDUE and violating BLP. For example "his book received two negative reviews". What? Like do we keep score for other authors? This is almost information-free content. And it is clearly a transparent attempt to pack as much negative info into this article as possible, no matter how trivial or inane (hence a BLP vio). Other goofy stuff is the "there were errors in the index" criticism. Same kind of silly bullshit. "Let's put in anything negative we can find on the internet in this article".

The purpose of Wikipedia is NOT to construct hit pieces on authors you disagree with. Note that I've left most of the detailed and extensive criticism - the kind that's actually encyclopedic rather than just stupid - IN the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

But I didn't restore these two [11] and I'm not asking you about them, am I? I'm asking about Janowski's and Michlic's critiques of his (and others') bias, and Goska's critique of his treatment of his critics. Are these UNDUE or BLP-violating? As an aside, you should really assume more good faith on behalf of your interlocutors - this "everything you do is biased so why bother with discussion when I can just revert you" attitude isn't productive. François Robere (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll note that Michlic isn't a critique or opinion, but rather a definitive RS on historiography in the topic area which could actually be used unattributed. VM's arguement above is nothing except WP:IDONTLIKE. The article isn't at the point where we should be pruning. If VM thinks more "positive" coverage of our subject is required - VM should make a case that such coverage is actually present in the RSes. I'll note that in my search for more coverage on our subject, I came across Libionka, Dariusz. "The National Military Organization, the National Armed Forces and the Jews near Kraśnik: A Picture Corrected." Holocaust Studies and Materials 3 (2013): 79-121.[12] - Dariusz Libionka explores a rather severe error or falsehood in one of Chodakiewicz's early works (that actually convinced several scholars at the time - including Libionka) that according to Libionka: "Surprisingly, in the meantime Chodakiewicz secretly began to withdraw his theses.21 It would be useless to wonder whether it was an example of extreme ignorance or ill will and manipulation since, let us say it right away, the archival materials unambiguously settle the matter of our interest. The course of events in the Zamość fee tail (Ordynacja Zamojska) forest near the village of Rudki and a few other episodes in its vicinity is far more interesting than wondering why the technical standards were breached by the representatives of that milieu, who for years have been shocking readers with pseudo-methodological platitudes.". This is a full length journal article - some 44 pages - exploring both Chodakiewicz's wearly writing on the subject (which are in extreme error or perhaps even manipulation per Libionka), and the events themselves in Rudki. This should perhaps be incorporated here as well. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"definitive RS on historiography in the topic area" - actually, it's not. At best it's an idiosyncratic view of one person who is known to have been criticized and been engaged in disputes with the subjects.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

And feel free to email me the Libionka article if you want me to take a look at it, though at first glance I'm unclear as to what exactly it has to do with this article. I am not going to just take your word for it since I've been burned before and WP:V is policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: So, again, how exactly is it UNDUE or BLP-violating? François Robere (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Mr. Marek ^^ ... François Robere (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Michlic's view

"Joanna Michlic characterizes Chodakiewicz..." I think Michlic's view should be kept here - as long as we allow similar descriptions by other academic of her in her bio. Peter Stachura noted that "both Polonsky and Michlic are perceived in certain academic circles as being uncompromising advocates of a tendentious interpretation of Polish-Jewish relations in the modern era" (Stachura, Peter (6 February 2008). "Jedwabne: A Reply to Antony Polonsky & Joanna Michlic" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 April 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The two are not comparable. Michlic's research findings on Chodakiewicz (and other historians) are for starters not a viewpoint, but historiography research. They were also published by a multitude of reputable publishers (academic presses, mainstream peer reviewed journals) - and I say a multitude, as the she's published over five of these (books and papers - different studied sub-fields, updates over time, etc.) that address different aspects of (also) Chodakiewicz. In contrast - you are suggested we place an unpublished letter, which was rejected by the editor of History (who refused to publish it), and is hosted on a website of not great repute. If we have published material (either reviews, or historiography research) on Michlic - then it can be placed on Michlic's page.Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

pl:Glaukopis is not "a website of not great repute" but an academic journal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Not quite academic (as evident by the cover art or mission statement), and it's reputation - well - it is notorious if anything. And in this case - this wasn't event published in this fringe journal - it is (or was for a transitory point in time - as the weblink is dead) hosted on the website. Using this material would be a BLP violation vs. the alleged author - the PDF contains for instance "Jewish-funded annual publication" or referring to a Polish newspaper editor as "former Marxist of Jewish extraction" - it quite obvious why (if this is authentic) this was rejected by History (journal).Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, what you quote here Haaretz, Jerusakem Post, JTA frequently publish lies. Why do you criticize Glaukopis? Please prove it's less reliable than your propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts at smearing what you might consider "Jewish" newspapers, Haaretz is a widely cited newspaper of record which has been in continuous publication since 1918. Its reporting is considered top notch, and its opinion pages host a wide range of publicists from all across the political spectrum. Unless you can actually back your libelous claims, I suggest backing off. François Robere (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

In some previous discussion I noted that mission statements like "we are particularly interested in the unknown aspects of the history of Poland and the world. By rejecting political correctness, we present topics that have never been explored and are often controversial. Free from pseudointelektual fashion, we strive to discover the Truth about our past and present" are often euphemisms for "fringe theories" and "conspiratorial thinking". Coupled with regular contributors like Mark Paul (the problems with which you already know) and Ryszard Tyndorf (who has a really low citation count), I doubt we should use it for this sort of critique. François Robere (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Both Stachura and Chodakiewicz serve on Glaukopis's board, so it's not exactly an independent opinion, but if you want to quote it let's first find which "academic circles" he's referring to. I suspect it's the same circles she and the rest of the western world criticize. François Robere (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

" Not quite academic (as evident by the cover art..." - What? I'm sorry, but... what??? The... "cover art" is what ... makes it ... not quite academic? Where did you come up with this ridiculous notion? "... or mission statement)" - the mission statement that says "Glaukopis is a quarterly scientific journal"? Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I restored the critique by Michlic; I don't see any issues with it. Please see diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Part - but not all - of the problem is that the text also attacks several other historians, and since Michilic's views on these guys are pretty fringe (they're all very respected historians), you can't put that in there, at least not without presenting opposing viewpoints. That's what makes it a BLP vio. And we're not going to have a polemic about, say, Strzembosz or Stachura, in an article that is not about them. Note that for WP:BLP, you need strong WP:CONSENSUS to restore the material. You don't have it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is easily solved; I removed the names of the other BLPs: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Please do mind BLPTALK - Michlic's research is generally mainstream, not "fringe" - please avoid making unfounded and unsourced statements on a BLP. Other authorities on historiography say the same on other historians in this school.Icewhiz (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• I do not understand. The quotation from Michlic tells: "This interpretation serves two purposes: one is to neutralize anti-Jewish violence by making it "guilt free"...". Did she mean "to promote anti-Jewish violence" rather than to "neutralize anti-Jewish violence"? My very best wishes (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding (of multiple journal articles and books by Michlic on the topic) is that she generally means "justify", not "promote". (Nor could one promote actions 70-100 years ago.... What is past is past - I don't think Michlic has written on our subject's present day political activism - she addresses writings on the past).Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "justify" it is, this is probably just a poor translation. Those are very critical reviews though, saying he "winds up praising the Ukrainian Nazi groups that actually helped perpetrate the Holocaust". That is bad. My very best wishes (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of anti-semisitm

This is a serious aspersion, particularly in the lead. Please keep in mind WP:BLP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Reported by a RS - Newsweek, and Southern Poverty Law Center - which multiple discussions have concluded is reliable for far-right figures. We generally include SPLC designations in ledes of BLPs and organizations. Objections here are not inline with Wikipedia's policy and are a serious NPOV issue.Icewhiz (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please link those RS. One news magazine and one NGO do not seem IMHO sufficient to violate WP:BLP with a serious accusation in lead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation - it is properly attributed, and most definitely DUE - SPLC is generally lede DUE. SPLC 2009, SPLC 2017, Newsweek. I do however think that mentioning just accusations of antisemitism is not sufficient, as his views on gays and other subjects have also been scrutinized. Other academics also see fit to mention this when discussing him - e.g. see here. Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It's also stated by several scholars, as quoted on this page and the BLPBP discussion started by the OP... François Robere (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

We already discussed it at WP:BLPNB... François Robere (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not think this is an outright BLP violation, however, I think including this to the lead is undue (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise we can discard the SPLC source, even though I think it's good enough. However, we're left with multiple academic sources that are lead-due and would read more or less like this: "He and his writing have been variously described as politically or ideologically motivated (Wrobel, Weinbaum, Katz, Janowski), nationalist (Polonsky, Michlic, Katz) and biased towards the right or far right (Gross, Roider), prejudiced against Jews and other minorities (Gross, Wrobel, Michlic, Katz, Pankowski), and conspiratorial (Roider)." François Robere (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

It was telling "according to the Southern Poverty Law Center he has a "long history of right-wing activism and controversy surrounding anti-Semitism." in the lead. But saying something like "nationalist" would probably be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you prefer the first..? ([13]) François Robere (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC designation is lede due - it is included almost universally on Wikipedia in every BLP and organization profiled by the SPLC. If the contention is the contents of the profile (not that there are so contentious), we do something such as - "He was the subject of Southern Poverty Law Center reports in 2009 and 2017, covering ...". "..." - up to you. Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Based on such logic, one should look at the listings of all people and organizations classified as "extremist" by SPLC and other similar advocacy organizations (that one also comes to my mind) and include this info to the leads of BLP pages for all such people and label them as extremists. I believe that would be against our BLP policy. Yes, such info should be included to the lead, but only if that was supported by multiple 3rd party sources (like the claim about nationalist historian here). My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Not all of them would be WP:NOTABLE, though. François Robere (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree to the first half. Single source for "conspiratorial" is not sufficient. Would like to see quotes for "prejudiced against Jews and other minorities ". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

All of these sources are cited in the article, most with quotes. You can see the summary here and on the BLPNB discussion. François Robere (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The current lede is fine. The quotes from Gross and Wrobel are UNDUE for a BLP particularly since they're through a teritary (or even further removed) source. It's basically SPLC quoting Pankowski quoting Gross (or Wrobel). If there is any proximate sources that would bolster the case for including these in this BLP. They certainly do not belong in the lede, and the lede should not be written so as to focus on them. The very long Michilic quote is also undue and goes against MOS:QUOTE Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Kielce pogrom

The sentence "Other critics have criticized Chodakiewicz for his reluctance to accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom." is cited to to this work. To the extent I can access parts of it, I'm not seeing it in this source. Can we have a quotation from this source which supports the text? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This also raises WP:REDFLAG as I can't think of a single published person who doesn't "accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom". Perhaps such exist, but I don't think that the pogrom was carried out by Poles is at all controversial and I have trouble seeing Chodakiewicz "being reluctant" here. Perhaps this is meant to refer to Jedwabne? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The source given above (Reflections on the Kielce Pogrom p. 130.) says something rather different: "Another example of marginalising the anti-Semitism factor in the Kielce events is Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's book" Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems an older version of the article was more accurate [14].Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait, no, scratch that, that's a different part of the article, where the "Kielce pogrom" part is cited to a Newsweek article which doesn't even mention the Kielce pogrom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk, interview or debate?

François Robere, it was between talk and interview. You can see talk here: [15]. Sommer and Chodakiewicz sat at table. Short intro of both. Then Sommer speaks for four minutes. Then Chodakiewicz speaks uninterrupted for forty minutes. Sommer then lets audience ask questions, and mostly Chodakiewicz responds. More lecture than interview, but Chodakiewicz was sitting not standing. Chodakiewicz talks of Debbie, who worked at San Francisco Children's Hospital, and the hamster in the rectum at minute 7. AstuteRed (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC) - blocked sock puppet of Icewhiz

TMI. Also, nurses aren't certified for such invasive procedures. François Robere (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have serious concerns whether we should be covering this, per WP:BLP. A brief mention of the book and interview controversy may be warranted, but I think our coverage is too indepth (WP:UNDUE) and slanted (BLP issues). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We can probably trim some, but I think it's the right order of magnitude. As I suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death, I think it's important to cover it. MJC is preoccupied with gender and sexuality (there's more on that under "reviews and critical assessment"), and this is his most significant text on the subject. The book's detachment from reality does not mean it isn't DUE here; rather, its importance within MJC's repertory means it should be covered in reasonable length on his article. François Robere (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I also think that this gerbil business is (WP:UNDUE) and slanted (BLP issues). Zezen (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the sources being used in this section. Are any of them blogs, gossip sites, etc? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zezen: ping for my question above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: back.

The sources are legit RS (e.g. Gazeta Wyborcza - a respectable Polish newspaper of record), but still it is UNDUE here. His was a flippant, off-the-cuff remark, which was not included in the book itself. Making a mountain out of a molehill, or the vulgar shitstorm spring to my mind.

-> Let us prune most of this partisan section.

This page is not on my watchlist, and I will not comment here further.

Zezen (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:BLP. Not every controversial (stupid, offensive, whatever) comment by a person that gets coverage in RS needs to be mentioned in our biographies. They should be mentioned only when they are actually relevant, and not for the reason of mocking/discrediting an individual. We can keep some of those sources and mention that he made homophobic remarks or such, no need to go into disgusting details at length, not unless this becomes a pattern (as in, he keeps repeating such comments again and again, and media write about again and again, i.e. not WP:ONEEVENT type logic). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I reduced the related contents and combined the section into "Political and sexuality-related views". --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

typing/grammar mistake

"and his attitude towards minorities have been widely criticized" --> has been — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.229.13 (talk) 04:30, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutral?

I have concerns whether this article isn't too negative. The subject is certainly controversial and has been criticized, but to what degree this criticism should be present in the lead? Particularly concerning is the "Critical assessment" section, which seems to made of cherry-picked critical opinion of the subject, added mostly by a now indef-banned User:Icewhiz. If you look at the reviews about his books they are mixed, some positive, some negative, and so on, but this section is very one-sided. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add positive reviews if there are any of equal significance to the negative ones. buidhe 05:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether such sources exist, we have to be mindful of WP:BLP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about BLP says we should censor enyclopedic and relevant criticism and therefore breach NPOV. buidhe 05:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific about what you think is undue. Most of the criticism is sourced to scholarly journals. buidhe 05:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Excess detail from reliable sources can be undue and create a bias, particularly if it is cherry-picked to represent one POV. Whether it is excess here, I am not entirely sure, but the fact is that this section in particular reads like a WP:ATTACKPAGE (albeit, sourced).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus that it is UNDUE, partisan and thus not neutral.

Zezen (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't. If you think there are positive reviews that we're missing, then bring them on. Otherwise, we're not going to censor legitimate criticisms. François Robere (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Some attention is clearly due

Placeholder. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)