Talk:Nortom

A translation of the article about this particular publisher from the Polish wiki using Google translate. Materials are related to the current discussion about Polish Ukrainian relations Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-15/Polish-Ukrainian WWII disputes --Bandurist (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why deletion?

It's a significant publisher whose works editors are trying to place in wikipedia. Readers ought to know about it. Any reason to delete it?Faustian (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's some racist circle-jerk, not reliable and not relevant. One of hundreds. 188.146.95.32 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

About the publisher

The source is online here. "The MW is linked to the Stronnictwo Narodowe (National Party – SN), whose ideology derives from that of the pre-war antisemitic Endecja (National Democratic) movement led by Roman Dmowski. The SN in its present shape was created in April 2000 out of a merger of two previously rival nationalist parties. It is now led by Boguslaw Kowalski, who served as spokesman of former President Lech Walesa in 1995. The SN supported General Tadeusz Wilecki, former chief of staff of the Polish army, as its presidential candidate. Wilecki demanded, inter alia, that all other candidates prove their Polish ancestry to the fifth generation and praised the housing policy of Adolf Hitler. Despite high expectations he received only 0.16 percent of the vote." And then "antisemitic, Holocaust distorting, as well as Holocaust denying, books published by Rekonkwista, Rachocki, Nortom or Antyk can often be found on the shelves of respectable bookshops. After intervention by the anti-fascist Never Again Association, antisemitic publications of the Nortom publishing house were removed from the official Polish exhibition at the international book fair in Frankfurt/Main in November 2000. Nevertheless, Nortom’s books are still regularly exhibited at numerous book fairs organized in Poland. In December 2000 Norbert Tomczyk, owner and director of the publishing house and one of the leaders of the SN, was re-elected a member of the Board of Control of the Polish Chamber of Book Publishers."Faustian (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me one name Holocaust denying book by Nortom--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to give an academic source that states that NORTOM is not a publisher of anti-semitic, anti-German, anti-Ukrainian books, and states that it is a respected and reputable publishing house. --Bandurist (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We have two Reliable Sources claiming that it does. Pawel wants us to do Original Research to prove it.Faustian (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Source didnt mention about books titles with holocaust-denying. You have to prove that. NORTOM havent anti_Ukrainian books, but anti-ukrainian nationalism. This is not the same. --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this particular publisher has crossed accepted boundaries of scholarship and is including, producing, and disseminating Hate literature against a number of different people, inciting young impressionable patriots by using, distorting and manipulating materials and facts --Bandurist (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me examples, did you read any book? For sure there is no hate and manipulating materials and facts in Siekierka's book, at the end we can find many sources. You even arent able to name the one book about Holocaust denying form Nortom. --Paweł5586 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Since we aren't in Poland nor speak Polish this is irrelevent. Reliable sources say so and we repeat what reliable sources say.Faustian (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

here is an amazing anti-Ukrainian book published by Nortom. LUDOBÓJSTWO UPA NA LUDNOŚCI POLSKIEj. Dokumentacja fotograficzna Aleksander Korman at here. Depicting children allegedly killed and wrapped around a tree with barbed wire by UPA. It has been proven to be false - a photo from 1920's of gypsy children killed by their mother. Despite the falsified photograph the book is still on sale. Does not attest to high moral ethics of Nortom's at all. No this is Hate literature designed specifically to distort the minds of the youth. No better than the Communists. --Bandurist (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet Paweł5586 keeps pushing Nortom books onto several Polish related wikipedia articles.Faustian (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

1 wrong picture didnt mean that book is anti-Ukrainian. Its ridiculous. Did you see more pictures from this book? They were published in other books. About Holocaust-denying - maybe source made mistake? I dont find any Holocaust denying book in Nortom, and any Polish source for that. In Poland we dont have such things its obvious.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A reputable publisher would remove the book immediately. If the contents were deemed true, he may republish the work with a different cover, however, this publisher did not do this. What is the reasoning? Just go on selling materials that have been proven false. The reason to sell such publications is not to deseminate truth, and historic memory, but to build up hysteria in the Polish population by hate. The reputation of the company would have been elevated if they had announced, that despite the cost, they were removing the publication from sale, because recent research has shown that the materials in the publication were fabricated, or false. They would have had some egg on their faces, but their reputation would not have fallen below the floorboards. Now, because they continue to publish and sell known and proven lies and fabrications, there is no guarantee that anything they publish is true. They have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. This does not only apply to Ukrainian topics but also to all topics including German and Jewish ones. Once you have lost your reputation, it is extremely difficult to regain it.--Bandurist (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are saying about lies and fabrications but you cant even name a one example of books with that. One case with wrong picture allows you to telling such things?--Paweł5586 (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, actually Korman and another author published by Nortom Prus are known for their distortions. Look at the Polish wiki page here or Google translated here. Yale historian and expert on Eastern Europe Timothy D. Snyder writes of Prus [1] here: "The propagandistic publications of Edward Prus are indefensible in this regard."Faustian (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider stuff published by Nortom reliable. See for example here [2]. I would certainly not consider Nortom a reliable source for any strong claims. I would not like to see works from similar publishing houses of other countries used on Wikipedia either.radek (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should Book by Nortom Be treated As Unreliable Source for Wikipedia Purposes?

A small number of Polish editors insist on citing books on Polish and Ukrainian history published by the private publishing house Nortom, based in Poland. The authors cited are not historians. This publisher is controversial. Should books published by Nortom be treated as reliable sources or not? The RFC is here because the Nortom books have been cited across several articles, such as here where numbers provided by writers in Nortom books are placed alongside numbers given by, for eample, Yale historian Timothy Snyder. Is this acceptable or not? The small number of Polish editors have not been convinced, so other voices would be appreciated so we can try to reach a consensus.Faustian (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Faustian

This discussion page and the article itself give us a good idea about the nature of this publishing house and the objectivity of the work contained but I will repeat info here.

Relevant Policies and Guidelines

Wikipedia:Reliable sources states in this section: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications." WP:SOURCES tells us:

Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations directing the reader to those sources are needed to give credit to authors and publishers, in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is."

The section on extremist or fringe sources here states "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals."

All about Nortom

Now let's look at Nortom. Unfortunately we don't info about each and every author published by Nortom. However we have info about many of them. The Nortom catalogue is here. It reads almost like a catalogue of the Polish National Democratic movement that between the world wars was responsible for discrimination against Poland's Jewish, Ukrainian and German minorities. Some authors published by Nortom (facts without links here are referenced in the authors' biographies, just follow the wikilinks):

• Roman Dmowski head of the interwar anti-semitic Polish National Democratic Party (see here for more details about his antisemitism)
• Janusz Dobrosz, Polish right-wing politican
• Jędrzej Giertych, political ally of Roman Dmowski who was in Spain on Franco's side during the Spanish civil war who was expelled from a Polish emigre [politcal party due to his extremism and antisemitism
• Maciej Giertych, the son of the guy above, a right-wing Polish politican who created a scandal due to his antisemitic writing
• Feliks Koneczny a Polish political theorist who proposed that Jews were plotting to destroy "Latin-Christian civilization" and that Nazism was actually a form of "Jewish civilization."
• Roman Rybarski, an economist from the National Democratic Party
• Edward Prus, a Polish anti-Ukrainian writer. Polish historian Rafał Wnuk of the Institute of National Remembrance in Lublin wrote here that his works belong to a trend that is "of no scientific value. Their authors play freely with historical facts. They appeal mostly to the reader's emotions. Their use of sources and researchers' findings does not contribute to historical discoveries. Instead it is used to make their "true" version of events credible. It is often only politically involved publicism, not historical work. Edward Prus, Aleksander Korman, and Jacek E. Wilczur are followers of this trend." Yale historian and expert on Eastern Europe Timothy D. Snyder writes of Prus [3]: "The propagandistic publications of Edward Prus are indefensible in this regard."
• Aleksander Korman, another Polish anti-Ukrainian historial writer. See comments above.

Nortom is privately owned by Norbert Tomczyk. According to the The Steven Roth Institute for the study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism at the University of Tel Aviv. (you can read this online here) Norbert Tomczyk is "one of the leaders of the SN" (political party) and that the SN's "ideology derives from that of the pre-war antisemitic Endecja (National Democratic) movement led by Roman Dmowski. The SN in its present shape was created in April 2000 out of a merger of two previously rival nationalist parties. It is now led by Boguslaw Kowalski, who served as spokesman of former President Lech Walesa in 1995. The SN supported General Tadeusz Wilecki, former chief of staff of the Polish army, as its presidential candidate. Wilecki demanded, inter alia, that all other candidates prove their Polish ancestry to the fifth generation and praised the housing policy of Adolf Hitler. Despite high expectations he received only 0.16 percent of the vote."

The controversy section of this article states "In 2000, Nortom was forced to withdraw its 12 controversial titles from the Frankfurt Book Fair by the Polish Ministry of Culture representative Andrzej Nowakowski overlooking the Polish exposition. Nortom was accused of selling anti-German, Anti-Ukrainian and antisemitic books, especially the following titles: Być czy nie być by Stanisław Bełza, Polska i Niemcy by Jędrzej Giertych and I tak nie przemogą. Antykościół, antypolonizm, masoneria by his son Maciej Giertych. As a result of the above request, the president of the Polish delegation Andrzej Chrzanowski from Polska Izba Książki decided to penalize Nortom by removing it from the 2000 book fair altogether." (all facts are referenced in the article).

According to this aticle by the Roth Institute of the University of Tel Aviv, "antisemitic, Holocaust distorting, as well as Holocaust denying, books published by Rekonkwista, Rachocki, Nortom or Antyk can often be found on the shelves of respectable bookshops."

Faustian's Conclusion

In summary, I suggest that Nortom books be treated as unreliable sources. They are not written by academics, Nortom is not an academic press, moreover it is a press devoted to fringe or extremist politics. I and most other editors are unable to verify the content of each and every book published by Nortom (I do not live in Poland) but we should not have to. The pattern of work published by Nortom is quite clear and if a fact appears only in a Nortom book and is not

I agree with Faustian. Let me remind all Polish users here - I am 100% positive that none of us would like to see radical Ukrainian or German sources used in Wikipedia, so if we demand some standards from others, we should also obey those standards ourselves. Tymek (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure how much you know about publishing business, probably not much. I have been dealing with publishers extensively. By design, publishing houses are run as commercial ventures servicing a broad range of clients who submit cookbooks, memoirs, popular history and what have you. The simple aim of the publisher is to attract enough writers and sell enough copies to stay in operation. However, only the biggest book manufacturers get to decide what to print, and what to reject. The smaller publishers usually don’t have that option. They print what is offered to them. --Poeticbent talk 02:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it is a coincidence (or convenience) that Nortom's owner is a leader of a far-right fringe political party and that Nortom just happnes to publish a bunch of antisemitic, far-right literature because the publisher doesn't have the option of choosing?Faustian (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, my main point here is that if we want the others to use unbiased sources, it is fair that the others expect the same of us. On the other hand, I also agree with you. What matters the most is an author, not a publisher, and to automatically dismiss somebody just because his book was published by Nortom, would be an exaggeration. Tymek (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what matters is the credibility of the author when dealing with historical research, because even some of the biggest publishers in the world print books about conspiracy theories and Freemasonry, including Doubleday. These sort of books are the fastest selling books in the Western World nowadays. Nortom has published at least one title on the Grand Lodges but it’s a small potato in comparison with The Da Vinci Code or The Lost Symbol. Let’s suppose you wrote a serious book about genocide. You’re not a professor; so, you don’t have access to university presses. Who do you think would publish your book? A publisher of your choice? No, I don’t think so. Because on average, serious books are rejected by most commercial book publishers. By the same token, the owner of Nortom, being a controversial figure, needs to be approached with caution, however, he never published Mein Kampf, nor The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He holds many valuable titles, among controversial ones. And, about the Frankfurt 2000 Book Fair. Many years have passed since then, and Nortom has not been rejected again. Mind you, I myself would not approach this publisher with my own manuscript on the history of Volhynian genocide. That’s why, my manuscript would remain in the drawer; nothing ventured, nothing gained. --Poeticbent talk 14:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nortom based on its owner (see above, I think a comparison to someone like David Duike wouldn't be inappropriate) and its comprehensive pattern of authors is hardly comparable to Doubleday or someone who publishes many works, including a few controversial ones. While Poland doesn't have an equivalent of Mein Kampf (Polish antisemitic nationalist Roman Dmowski was no Hitler) the works of Nortom come as close to it is Poland can get. With respec toto author - yes, an unknown will have trouble having his work published in an academic press. But without academic scrutiny reliability becomes a big issue. This is made quite clear in wikipedia reliability policy. This brings us tot he bottom line, which is that manuscripts written by unknowns/nonacademics which are published not by an academic press but by one as controversial as Nortom are not reliable and should be treated as unreliable on wikipedia. Faustian (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If the event or fact is credible and can be verified it will be found in an appropriate academic source. There is no need to use books by this publisher which include numerous unfounded or incorrect allegations which cannot be checked and tarnish the hard work done by reputatable Polish scholars. using such publications in Wikipedia causes more harm than good. --Bandurist (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Faustian and Bandurist here. It's better not to use stuff published by Nortom. Letting it be used would set a dangerous precedent, and might potentially invite the use of questionable sources in other topics and articles. And Bandurist is right that if the info is legit it should be possible to find something about it in other publications - which might entail more work but it preserves standards.

Just to quibble a bit though - while Dmowski was anti-Semitic, it's inaccurate to describe all of Endecja as such. It was a broad party characterized mainly by other things which attracted a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons - it's sort of like the Republican party in the US in the, I dunno, the early 1970's; there were definitely people in it that could be described as racist but you still wouldn't call the 1970's Republican party as a whole "racist".radek (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo

Unreliable ; Should have gone to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which is included in the History wikiproject via the B-class criteria is relatively clear. If Nortom is publishing on historical issues, Nortom books should be treated as non-RS for anything but the opinion of Nortom / its authors, unless the Nortom work has been reviewed favourably by a book review in a relevant peer-reviewed academic journal of history. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• User Fifelfoo who never – not even once – showed up on Polish-Ukrainian radar, most likely took this opportunity to get back at me for voting here. I'm sorry your long and time consuming reply was of no use. --Poeticbent talk 06:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the abject hostility! It brightens my day, and makes providing consistent analyses of source reliability according to agreed community guidelines through the automated project request system, like History RFCs, so much more rewarding! Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about Polish-Ukrainian stuff, it is about wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning reliable sources.Faustian (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Have any publications by Nortom been 'reviewed favorably by a book review in a relevant peer-reviewed academic journal of history'? Do any of Timothy Snyder's works cite any Nortom publications? EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the answer to both these questions is "no". I think Pawel's contention is that one book published by Nortom is cited by Motyka, who is a reliable historian but it's not clear exactly where (thought maybe I missed it where it was stated). I would go with not using Nortom - too much questionable baggage there, even if they might have published something somewhere that wasn't 100% crazy.radek (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lysy

Nortom is a lousy publisher, notorious for printing books of Polish extreme nationalistic, right wing conservative Catholic authors. Their publications lack proper research methodology, and are usually not considered serious by Polish historians. They only exception is when they are sometimes cited for documented facts like witness testimonies etc. Therefore, they would have to be used with extreme caution on wikipedia, which is usually not practical due to the highly controversial nature of the related articles, and due to the resulting POV struggles. Of course there are exceptions and individual authors should be considered separately. For the practical reasons, I support that they are excluded as RS from the historical articles, as a rule, unless clearly attributed and presented to illustrate their respective authors' views. --Lysy^talk 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Paweł5586 statement

All books should be considered separately. One event in 2000 shouldnt cross out all books. I am using only one book from Nortom. Siekierka and Komański - Ludobójstwo ukraińskich nacjonalistów w woj. tarnopolskim. It is a wide source for events in Eastern Galicia. This book was written about 10 years and published in 2006. It is well referenced and based on recollections people who survived. The recollections have been publishing for several years in Karta Center. This book was reviewed by two historians and was used by Polish historians as source e.g. Grzegorz Motyka. I dont find any reason to reject this book.--Paweł5586 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the Massacre of Poles in Volhynia article has two other books by Nortom - they are listed as Stanisław Żurek, UPA w Bieszczadach (Wrocław 2007) (Polish) and Stanisław Jastrzębski, Ludobójstwo nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach na Lubelszczyźnie w latach 1939 – 1947 (Wrocław 2007). Funny how whoever put the references in, refused to state that the books were published by Nortom. In that article Siekierka and Komański's book is used to push numbers of murdered Polish civilians that are higher than those of actual reliable historians such as Timothy Snyder.Faustian (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Paweł, could you help me by providing the exact place (book title + page number) where Motyka cites them so that I could see the context for myself ? Thanks. --Lysy^talk 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an example of finding a source obscure enough (unlike, say, the well-known Prus) that it has escaped real scrutiny.Faustian (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be a fairly recent publication, 2006. I would be really interested to see where exactly Motyka cites them. --Lysy^talk 23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is that series of books that include that photo of the Gypsy children slain by their psychotic mother from 1926 which they falsely acredit to Polish children slain by UPA during the war. Garbage scholarship. --Bandurist (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this was a book by Korman, not Siekierka and Komański. --Lysy^talk 22:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Are they part of the same series?Faustian (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What series ? --Lysy^talk 22:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The amazing thing is that they have not withdrawn this outright falsification even after it became well known in Poland that it was an outright falsification and they still continue to stock it and sell it. At least change the cover, rewrite it, update it. No they continue to disseminate lies and hate literature. --Bandurist (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I even intended to get a copy of Korman's book myself (and I have a couple of books by Prus). However Paweł is addressing a different book. --Lysy^talk 23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Lysy. I will provide you tonight. About this book Motyke wrote in prelude in the Ukraińska Partyzantka book. He recognized it as good source.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of Siekierka's book

The book LUDOBÓJSTWO DOKONANE PRZEZ NACJONALISTÓW UKRAIŃSKICH NA POLAKACH W WOJEWÓDZTWIE TARNOPOLSKIM 1939-1946, Henryk Komański, Szczepan Siekierka was reviewed by prof. dr hab. Bernard Janusz Albin and ks. prof. dr. hab. Józef Mandziuk. This is notes from historians (in Polish):

Z recenzji prof. dr. hab. Bernarda J. Albina: „Zbrodnie nacjonalistów ukraińskich na ludności polskiej zamieszkującej południowo-wschodnie Kresy II Rzeczpospolitej w latach II wojny światowej, mimo upływu od tamtych tragicznych wydarzeń sześćdziesięciu lat, wciąż pozostają stosunkowo słabo opisane i zbadane […]Recenzowana praca dokumentalna [….] przygotowana do druku przez Szczepana Siekierę i Henryka Komańskiego, niewątpliwie wychodzi naprzeciw tym potrzebom. […]Nieczęsto spotykana tak znaczna objętość dzieła wydaje się tu jednak uzasadniona, zważywszy na jej wysokie ambicje dokumentalne oraz to, że odnoszą się one do dość rozległego obszaru wybranego województwa i w zasadzie nie mają, poza książką W.i E. Siemaszków traktującego o Wołyniu, odpowiednika w literaturze naukowej […] Mimo pewnej jednostronności jest ona swoistym pomnikiem upamiętniającym nazwiska tych mieszkańców województwa tarnopolskiego, którym odebrano życie tylko dlatego, że byli Polakami, w imię obłędnej i zbrodniczej ideologii ukraińskiego integralnego nacjonalizmu. Jest ona przestrogą dla młodych Polaków i Ukraińców i zarazem cennym wkładem do rozpoczynającego się dialogu polsko-ukraińskiego oraz budowy podstaw do rzeczywistego pojednania, które może nastąpić poprzez obnażenie całej prawdy o współczesnej przeszłości […]

Z recenzji ks. prof. dr. hab. Józefa Mandziuka: „Nie można bowiem budować stosunków między narodami, zwłaszcza sąsiadami, na kłamstwie i niedomówieniach. Jednak temat zbrodni popełnionych przez Ukraińców na polskiej ludności kresowej nadal był konsekwentnie pomijany i przemilczany. Prezentowane dzieło oceniam bardzo pozytywnie. Posiada ono najwyższą rangę w naszej bibliografii i z pewnością spełni pokładane w nim nadzieje w przyszłych stosunkach z Ukrainą. Uchroni od zapomnienia tych, którzy ponieśli śmierć z rąk Ukraińców […]--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pawel, this is the English-speaking Wikipedia. You should provide translations when you cut and paste things.

Also, was either review peer-reviewed or published by a university-press? Your reviews are clipped; what parts have been left out? In particular, the parts you bolded that are positive are framed by "...". I hope you weren't snipping the context. Any links to the reviews? Where were they published?

The first reviewer, Bernard Janusz Albin, is a historian but there is nothing in his bio page indicating experience dealing specifically with Ukrainian-Polish issues or issues directly relevent here although his listed research areas are in "Problems of Polish Minority abroad" and "Social and political transformation in Central and Eastern Europe." The academic department where he works "deals with current political phenomena and problems in East European countries as well as international relations within this region with special respect to Polish foreign policy towards East European countries." There are people in his university's department who deal with issues involving Ukraine but he is not one of them. He has written book about Poles in Yugoslavia and another one about Poles in Latvia. He states (I'll translate what Pawel pasted) "Crimes of the Ukrainian nationalists of the Polish population living in south-eastern Borderlands of the Second Republic during the Second World War, despite the passage of those tragic events of sixty years, still remain relatively poorly described and tested [...] reviews of the documentary [....] Prepared for printing by Stephen Sikiere and Henry Komańskiego, certainly meets those needs. [...]" What was written before and after the fragment you quoted? The end of your review fragment states "Despite a one-sidedness, (my emphasis added) it is kind of a monument commemorating the names of the Ternopil region's population, deprived of life just because they were Poles, in the name of the crazy and murderous ideology of Ukrainian integral nationalism. It is a warning to young Poles and Ukrainians, and also a valuable contribution to the beginning of the Polish-Ukrainian dialogue, and building the foundations for genuine reconciliation, which may occur by denudation the whole truth about the modern history [...]" We don't know what was written next. Were criticisms left out? Who knows? While this review seems positive - with reservtions because the book is described as "one-sided" we don't know the full story about what was said. Book jackets tend to stated the positive but leave ou the negative aspects of reviews. Moreover, this is the opinion of a historian who doesn't specialize in the topic. It's a start, but I would think we need more before we include info from this book, particularly info that contradicts what legitimate recognized experts say. Please provide the full quotes from Motyka's book about this source, that would be more helpful.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The second reviewer is more problematic as a source. According to his web page (English-speaking editors can use google translate this page), is a priest whose specialty is Church history. Nothing on that page indicates any experience or expertise with World War II, Polish-Ukrainian conflicts, or anything remotely related to this subject whatsoever. He is head of the history department at a small University founded in 1999, a former theological seminary, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw. I have no idea if Mandziuk belongs to this group and do not imply that he does, but keep in mind that Nortom is associated with nationalist and extremist Roman Catholic circles and the notorious antisemitic Radio Maryja (see this section).Faustian (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are repeating same things, you didnt read the book. Historians wrote about book sources, about book's documentation. Motyka are basing on this book in his "Ukraińska Partyzantka" on pages 381, 382, 383, 384, 386, 387, 388, 389. In prelude Motyka mention about Siekierka's book as good and interesting source describing events in the Tarnopol Voivodeship.--Paweł5586 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide quotation from Motyka where he claims that the book as a whole is accurate (or something like it) and I will be satisfied. The fact that apparently some facts are correct doesn't make it a reliable source. Historians use all sorts of sources - for example even stuff written by UPA - which doesn't mean they consider the source to be accurate.Faustian (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pasha: Your missing the point. I understand and admire you patriotism, however you need to answer the questions specifically and to the point. --Bandurist (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

References

POV

In this article are only negative facts about authors, its looks like pov:

• Dmowski's political ally Jędrzej Giertych, Polish war correspondent during the Spanish Civil War,[7] expelled from emigration party Stronnictwo Narodowe because of his extremism and antisemitis. He was also soldier, Attaché, worker of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland). Why we dont mention about that
• Maciej Giertych, who created a scandal with his antisemitic writing. He was also a member of the Sejm, member of the European Parliament
• Feliks Koneczny, who claimed that Jews were conspiring to destroy Latin-Christian civilization and that Nazism was example of Jewish civilization type. He was also a Polish historian and social philosopher

I dont like and dont support The National-Democratic Party but this short biographs are biased.

I have question for Polish editors with big experience in Wikipedia any many very good articles (which I admire). Why do you allow to write such things in this article. Its clear that is article is prepared away from NPOV and only to depreciate Siekierka & Komański books which describing UPA crimes. --Paweł5586 (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Giertych was also on Franco's side during the civil war. This isn't mentioned either. Yes, Giertych is a member of the European parliament who created a scandal weith his antisemitic writing, Koneczny is a "Polish historian and social philosopher" whose social philosophy proposes that Jews were conspiring to destroy Latin-Christian civilization and that Nazism was example of Jewish civilization type. The details you mention don't change anything. The RFC ends in a couple of days and then, per wikipedia community consensus, Nortom stuff will be removed from articles.Faustian (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lacking information about election (He was supported by many people) to European Parliament is detail? The detail is information about his claims. All this informations should be erased. Only list of authors should stay.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that got votes doesn't erase the fact that he wrote antisemtitic things. First you said that the aticle was biased because it didn't include information such as the fact that one of the antisemties was voted into parliament. When I added that infromation, you once again placed the POV tag because now you complain that there is any information about Nortom authors in the book.

Thanks for admitting that you want to remove or blank out information about Nortom authors' antisemitism and extremism. I guess that is inconvenient for you. Removing information about Nortom authors just because that information states the fact that they are extremists and antisemtiic is like placing a POV tag on the Hitler article because it mentions that he was an antisemite. Faustian (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)