Talk:Institute of National Remembrance

An entry from Institute of National Remembrance appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 April, 2007.

Wikipedia

Criticism

The IPN has been criticized by many, often being characterized as an organization created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts.

First, many is a WP:WEASEL word. It has been criticized by some, but unless we have a source that states 'majority', some - politicians and journalists - is more adequate. Second, none of the sources state it was "created simply to carry out politically motivated witch hunts". It is the Polish govenrment which is criticized for trying to use it for that purpose; the sources are critical of Polish government but not of the Institute (which has been created in 1998, a good 8 years before the current government started to try to use it for its purposes - note the critical refs are from 2006 and 2007). Let's take a look at the refs. Guardian criticized Polish government, but the Institute is only mentioned as the institution which analzes 'the archives of Poland's communist secret police'. Newsday similarily notes "independent Institute of National Remembrance will scrutinize the files ... and declare them clean or guilty of past collaboration." Sure, "Many in Poland loudly condemn the law as an excuse for a political witch hunt" - but this is a critique of the law and government, not the IPN, which - as its chairman states - is only carrying out a legitimate research. Similiarly Chicago Tribune makes no criticism of IPN, but only of the controversial law and government motivation. Thus, we should correctly note that it is only a small part of recent actions of IPN that are criticized, and primary criticism is against the Polish government which may be using IPN findings in political games, not against academic research carried by IPN itself.--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

many is not a weasel word when it is followed by 3 sources :P

--Jadger 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is, just read WP:WEASEL which specifically advises against the use of "many" (How many people think that? How many is some?).--_{ Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"how many people think that" is >=3, as I have provided 3 sources. It advises against using it as a weasel word, but when it is used in conjunction with multiple citations it is not a weasel word.

--Jadger 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Instead of using 'some' or 'many' - unless they are uncontroversial, which is clearly not the case here - we should list specifically who is saying what. Your version created the misleading impression that IPN is an highly controversial institution, which is certainly not the case. It is a respected research institute and we should take care not to misrepresent it (per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how Pan Piotrus could complain for Weasel words, when he uses term "academic research" for the activities of the Institute? Why then committee of the Institute is called "Committe for prosecution"? "Prosecution" and "academic research" are two different terms, indeed. However, if Piotrus desires other sources - I would add Russian sources in support of "politically motivated witch hunts". Vlad fedorov 03:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is all well explained in the article. Please mind WP:NPA - or can I call you 'tovarishch Vlad'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First. I certainly mind NPA. On Polish language "Pan Piotrus" or "Panie Piotrusie" is pretty polite reference or something has changed in Polish language since the year 2000 - when I graduated from UW? On Russian language the thing like "tovarishch" is different and could count to personal attack. Second. You complained that Criticism section contains many weasel words. I suggested helping you to source these "Weasel words" with reliable russian sources. Your inclination to look for personal attacks in my posts is pretty ridiculous, however, you may call me "spadar Vlad", because I consider myself mainly Belarusian, not Russian. Vlad fedorov 12:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of valid sources

I believe that deletion of Russian criticism by Piotrus is an example of Tendentious editing WP:TE. There are no applicable policies and guidelines in Wikipedia precluding from adding valid existing criticism. Even further, Rusian criticism is analogous to Guardian in comparing IPN with McCarthyism, Russian sources cite Italian newspaper "La Stampa", cite Polish journalists and cite Polish sources on the scandals surrounding the existence of IPN. Vlad fedorov 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Russian criticism from this article is like deletion of non-fascist criticism from articles on fascism. Russia is a party invloved, and her POV should be presented here as notable and deserving coverage.Vlad fedorov 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Iwould like also to pay attention that article on Internet brigades is completly irrelevant to this article, despite Piotrus mentioning. However, I could also regard it as a personal attack on me by hinting, Piotrus, please, explain why have you mentioned Internet brigades article in your edit summary. I cite reliable sources (TV channels, and notable russian magazines) which have respective articles in English Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that deletion of Russian criticism by Piotrus is an example of Tendentious editing WP:TE. There are no applicable policies and guidelines in Wikipedia precluding from adding valid existing criticism. Even further, Russian criticism is analogous to Guardian in comparing IPN with McCarthyism, Russian sources cite Italian newspaper "La Stampa", cite Polish journalists and cite Polish sources on the scandals surrounding the existence of IPN. Vlad fedorov 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the info is totally valid. Not that it would be easy to keep it here. I will try to research the matter. For now, I can only assure that all the sources cited are as mainstream a press as there can be. I am somewhat skeptical about using press publication for the historic article but since this is a current politics and society issue rather than a historic one, the mainstream press is certainly acceptable. We should just make sure how representative each of the points being brought up is. If the point is not widely discussed and universally agreed, the disclaimed "According to..." or something similar should proceed every statement. At the side note, I see nothing outrageous or unexpected in this kind of information. Witch hunt is not uncommon upon the regime change and institutions tasked with such investigation, even in good faith, will always be involved in similar controversies. Lustration, even when warranted, may never be fully fair. So, I do not approve the removal of information.

Vlad, please do not repeat past mistakes re revert warring and discussing editors. Concentrate on content. --Irpen 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"prepare the documents for charging the Russia of invasion on September 17th 1939" Whom they should charge ? Not Soviet Russia but Soviet Greenland ? Absurd.

And this is said about occupied by Poland Western Belarus (!!!). But, "Invasion" article would be dealt with later. It is very interesting that here in Wikipedia liberation of occupied by Poland Western Belarus is called invasion. And receiving of Czekh Czeszyn region by Poland from Nazis is called acquisition. But this is just a taste of things to come. If Soviet Union here in Wikipedia is considered Nazi ally before 1939, then what Poland which acquired due to Hitler Czeszyn region would account for...??? Vlad fedorov 03:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand ? Are you saying Bialystok belongs to Belarus ? --MarekZob 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of IPN by Russian sources

I am not sure about the sources. But the inclusion of this section creates undue weight to promote certain POV. This article included already "Criticism" and "Reply to criticism" sections, which were of approximately the same size. The "Criticism" section included "McCarthyism", "smear campaign", etc. The section about Russian sources only repeats the same claims second time and create the undue weight. Therefore, I must agree with deletion of this segment by Piotrus.Biophys 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ageed with Biophys. I have also merged the sections (elections, Kuron and Wielgus affairs, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to merging all criticism under a single section. It only makes sense. --Irpen 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. First of all I have chosen not right name for the sub-section "Russian sources", because these are actually not only Russian, but also Polish and Italian sources. Second, of course we could shorten criticism section, but also we have to shorten response to criticism section and introduce in the opening paragraph information about contraversial nature of this institution, I mean "political police" first of all. We also should note that response to criticism covers not all questions which are asked by critics.Vlad fedorov 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the criticism should be in one section. Russian, Italian, British, whatever. In my earlier days I made similar mistakes: having something to add to the article, I pasted it to the new section I created. New sections may be sometimes needed, but more often than not, they are not. This approach disrupts the text flow. Keeping the overall integrity of the article takes more effort than to inject a point you'd like to make but this effort pays off bit in article quality and in reduction of revert wars. The more serious your entry is, the less people there would be around to revert you. Some will always revert what does not suit their POV as there are always editors who see the WP as a tool to advance some agenda. But such editors are only a minority, while a loud one. --Irpen 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have incorporated facts into other sections and added shortened Russian criticism to Criticism section. Vlad fedorov 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sections which were arbitrarily deleted from the article

I reinsert that section for evaluation of readers.

Criticism of IPN by Russian sources

Journalist Albert Akopyan of analytical journal "GlobalRus" points that "lawyers of IPN" and not researchers or academics, "prepare the documents for charging the Russia of invasion on September 17th 1939". IPN, according to Akopyan, also censured popular in Poland movie "Four tankmen and a dog", was searching for Soviet agents, "turning itself into something like McCarthy commission on investigation of antiamerican activities".

According to NTV Russian TV channel, IPN is more often called "unofficial political police".

Journalist Victor Polyakov of APN (Agency of Political news), described IPN as "unique scientific institution (as it could learned from its name), having in its staff special prosecution office which investigates crimes against Poles".

Russian magazine Ogonyok reported that IPN is a governmental, and not academic, organization which "performs criminal prosecution functions" and "rewrites history". Ogonyok described IPN as "Ministry of Truth" referring to George Orwell "1984" novel, "factory of vengeance". According to Ogonyok there is no public access to the archives of IPN. This access is restricted only to individuals "authorized by the authorities". Some of the documents in the archive may conatin forgeries made up by secret services in order to coerce people into cooperation. Current lustration by IPN is obligatory for all teachers, journalists, diplomats, ministers, members of parliament, public notaries, local government officials and judges. Each year IPN issues 40 000 certificates for individuals confirming their status as individuals "which never cooperated with secret services". In January, 2005, the rightist journalist Bronislav Vildstein copied from IPN computer the list of 240 000 individuals and published it on the internet.

Elections of new IPN president in December 2005 also were accompanied with discolsure scandal. Janosz Kurtyk, current IPN president, was rivaled by Andrzej Przewoznik, also historian from Krakow Jaggielonian University. But Przewoznik was discredited by suddenly appeared documents which were confirming his connections with secret services. The scandal was aggravated by the fact, that these documents were coming from Krakow IPN unit, which was headed by Przewoznik himself.

A number of distinguished Solidarnosc movement memebers, like Jaceck Kuron, were convicted by IPN, including most recently archbiscup Stanislav Velgus nominated for Warsaw Mithropolit.

According to Ogonyok, IPN was named by Italian newspaper "La Stampa", "a factory of national vengeance".

Some of Polish journalists, Ogonyok reported, are even more radical in their evaluation of IPN. Helena Luczivo of Gazeta Wyborcza maintains that "The use of state security dossiers to discredit and defame political opponents is not a new method. The same weapon was used by communists Gomulka and Gerek and during martial law period in Poland"..

I have verified and improved the above claims with more reliable Polish sources (original article is better then article about translation of an article...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, do not distort the meaning of my texts. These are Russian, Italian and Polish opinions on IPN, not translations. I don't understand how you could verify something, because earlier you wrote you can't read Russian. I am amazed at your progress in studying it. However, your sources do not depict IPN as political police. So your your sources are single-sided at least. Moreover, your version contradicts to Polish legislation, since the Law on IPN describes it as a lustration institution. You deny facts. Vlad fedorov 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"and "rewrites history"." Examples ?

Example is an article about Soviet invasion of Poland. Western Belarus was occupied by Poland in 1919 and was liberated by Russian army in 1939 from Polish occupation. But these are my edit plans on history of Belarus. Vlad fedorov 18:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a state called Western Belarus ? Territories regained by Poland from Russian Partition of Poland there were accepted by Soviet Union at Riga. Soviet Russia invaded and occupied Bialystok, is it in "Western Belarus" ? Lublin and parts of Warsaw region were to be occupied by Soviet Russia also when it invaded Poland. Is it "Western Belarus" also ? --MarekZob 18:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Typical Polish historic propaganda. Learn the history, not partition of Kingdom of Poland, but partition of both Polish Kingdom and Grand Duchy of Lithuania (together referred as Rzecz Pospolita). It is very typical of Poles to present our Confederation as joining of Poland by GDL. However it is equal to joining by the US of Gonduras. Kingdom of Poland was a tiny state in comparison to GDL, and Poles were minority in GDL. Poland had nothing to do with the lands of Grand Duchy of Lithuania including Western Belarus. There was a state Belarusian People's Republic (BNR - Bialaruskaja Narodnaya Respublika) which claimed its Independence a lot earlier before Polish occupation of 1919 and Western Belarus was a part of it. Poland conspired with Soviet Union making Riga Treaty. So, actually, for us - Belarusians, both Poles and Russians are basically occupants. Here is the map of BNR http://litvin.org/glavy/zm140.jpg. Vlad fedorov 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confused-is Bialystok claimed by Bialorus as well as Warsaw region and Lublin which Soviet Union wanted to take as written in MR treaty ? Do you want to tell us Belarus belongs to Lithuania ? Also: Learn the history, not partition of Kingdom of Poland By Third Partition - Poland. Constitution of 3rd May united GDL and KP into a single country. And what does it have to do with IPN ? Please tell us. --MarekZob 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read even Polish POV on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_May_3,_1791 "The May 3rd, 1791, Constitution remained in effect for only a year before being overthrown, by Russian armies allied with the Targowica Confederation, in the War in Defense of the Constitution". So even Poles recognize it was in force for one year. Moreover, which relevance this Constitution has to the fact that independence for Poland in 1917 was given by by the decision of Russian Interim Government of March 1917 and by the request of Leo Trotsky? And what relevence this has to the Declaration of Berausian People's Republic independence?

By the way there is no single word in Brest-Litovsk Peace treaty about independence of either Poland or Belarus and their borders!!! So Russian acts govern this issue.Vlad fedorov 03:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should Russia have any say about Polish borders ? Russia didn't exist then in any reckognisable form as it was torn apart by civil war, and it couldn't decide about Polish borders, it didn't even occupy whole Poland, because Kraków or Poznań were outside its occupied territories.--MarekZob 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the subsequent borders of Belarus were established in Declaration of Independence of Belarussian Peoples Republic, by virtue of our right to self-determination. These borders are shown here http://litvin.org/glavy/zm140.jpg. To put it short, Belarusians, legally said good-bye to Poland, and Poland in 1919 answered with occupation. Vlad fedorov 03:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Poles occupied Belarussian territory because some unreckognised nationalist declared Polish territories theirs ? What does it got to do with IPN ? --MarekZob 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are right. It is the other way around. Poles did not occupy W. BE and W. UA because some recognized Polish nationalists declared them "theirs" and the other one foretold that they can "get away with this" and acted accordingly. --Irpen 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmowski was reckognised by international powers as representative of Poland. Poland itself was seen as future state. Who represented those Belarussian nationalists on world stage and did Belarus have the same reckognition ? What does it have to do with IPN ? Is Belarus claiming Bialystok ? I really don't understand what is going on ? --MarekZob 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• "According to NTV Russian TV channel, IPN is more often called "unofficial political police"." - by whom? I have never read such name.
• "The 4 tankists" is Communist propaganda. What is the connection however between the IPN and the series? Xx236 12:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what is the opinion of Russian media about internal matters of Poland? If such text will be included I'm for writing of "Criticism of Vladimir Putin by Polish sources". It's the same logic. What about "Monaco's opinion about Monetary politics of Argentina"? Xx236 12:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Xx236 are you suggesting to censor Russian sources? Without Russian sources any Polish article is POV. Vlad fedorov 03:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Any article in this Wikipedia informs (or at least should to inform) about the subject of it. Generally articles about internal Russian matters don't contain quotes from Polish media, eg. "Gazeta Wyborcza" criticizes Mr Putin or Rzeczpospolita supports Khodorkovsky. I have already explained my point of view above your comment. Would you please respect Wikipedia rules?Xx236 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes in translation of Polish texts

Ok, I've read the source on "List w "obronie historyków z IPN". I have corrected previous translation made with mistakes, omitting words.

Original:

"Według sygnatariuszy listu, "historii opozycji antykomunistycznej i 'Solidarności' nie mogą zaszkodzić ani naukowe badania źródeł, ani wynikającej z nich poszerzanie wiedzy o przeszłości".

Translation before my corrections:

"History of Solidarity and anti-communist resistance in Poland cannot be damaged by scientific studies and resulting increase in our knowledge of the past".

Translation after my corrections:

"History of Solidarity and anti-communist opposition in Poland cannot be damaged neither by scientific studies of sources, nor by resulting from it increase in our knowledge of the past".

Czekam na komentarze Panstwa!! Vlad fedorov 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Czekam na państwa komentarze is correct form. Could you stop, its annoying and hurts the eyes. Your sentence would be translated as "I am waiting for comments by the State".--MarekZob 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, strange. Why did Piotrus translate "opozycja" here as "resistance" but below translates "opor" as "oppostion" while vice versa is correct? "zaszkodzić" is more like "to harm" than "to damage". "poszerzanie" is "widening" rather than "increase". Or is my inferral of the meaning of the Polish words largely based on my knowing of Ukrainian and Russian incorrect? I would be willing to stand corrected. --Irpen 05:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Or is my inferral of the meaning of the Polish words largely based on my knowing of Ukrainian and Russian incorrect?" Rather incorrect. I don't know Russian and Ukrainian as they are not really interesting languages and worth the effort like English, but I think you need to know more about synonims in Polish. http://www.dict.pl/plen?word=resistance&lang=PL opór resistance

Opozycja is used when addresing legal political parties and their actions, not people's movements against dictatorship, occupation etc.--MarekZob 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New mistakes!!!!

Original:

"Dzieje antytotalitarnego oporu są własnością milionów Polaków, a nie jednej, towarzyskiej czy politycznej koterii, uzurpującej sobie prawo do decydowania, które wątki narodowej przeszłości należy upowszechniać, a które przemilczać".

Translation before my corrections:

"History of opposition to totalitarism belongs to millions of Poles and not one social or politicial group which usurps the right to decide which parts of national history should be discussed and which forgotten."

Translation after my corrections:

"History of antitotalitarian opposition is a property of millions of Poles and not of one social, or politicial group which usurps the right to decide which parts of national past should be disseminated and which should be silenced."

Ponownie czekam na komentarze dotyczace poprawnosci przekladu. I also would like to note that the last sentence was also grammaticly incorrect, since somebody forgot to insert "of" to link the additional phrase. Vlad fedorov 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Vlad-your knowledge of Polish is very basic, you confused the text about IPN with the text about veteran's organisation. Your translation isn't so good. Silenced isn't the same as "przemilczac" Silenced is "wyciszyc" and means something done by force. Przemilczac is made by ignoring something. Just an example.

IMO, as far as the second translation is concerned, the substitution of "history" by "past" is necessary as these are not one and the same. Also perhaps "resistance" is better to use here than "opposition" for "opor" as these are not the same. Finally, "upowszechniać" is not exactly "to discuss" but indeed "to disseminate". And "przemilczeć" is "to conceal" (silence) and not to forget. I hope this was an exception and we can trust other Polish sources brought by this editors. --Irpen 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave synonyms and translations to native speaker, and your bad faith commentaries off wiki. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have so far and I did not the possibility that some of the native speakers would rig the translations of the non-English sources. The possibility of this just did not cross my mind. I must confess, I am surprized even though I thought nothing already can surprized me coming from certain quarters. If you are saying that correction by Vlad and cross-checking by me are false but rather your original translation is more exact, please say so and be specific. If not, desist and don't do this ("adjusting" in translations) again. --Irpen 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could read Russian or Ukrainian as well as you read Polish. That said, you need to improve your fluency in Polish more before you can make completly accurate translations. I will see if we can incorporate some of your suggestions into the text. Thanks,-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I would incorporate my sources myself, thanks to Polonicum Institute of Polish Language and Culture of the University of Warsaw.Vlad fedorov 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you dispute my translation which introduces words left in English translation we may refer to third party translation. I would respectfully note that you are unable to evaluate my fluency of Polish, because it could be evaluated by talking. Anyway thank you for your attemtps of WP:NPA in regard of my Polish fluency, but this article is not about Vlad fedorov's fluency of Polish, may I note. Alas, would we proceed to translation request? Vlad fedorov 03:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of undue weight and excessive detail

I appreciate Piotrus' unexpected change of the view towards the concept of undue weight as well as excessive detail and I hope the progress of many articles will go now much easier. In connection to this, may I ask to explain what is the relevance (and weight) of the detailed list of signatories to a certain letter in defence of IPN. Also, note that the section devoted to a letter is about the letter and not the "response to criticism" since response usually comes from the body being criticized. This is simply a letter issued by some sho take a different POV. "Letter" is a correct name for a section, not "response". If there are other incidents of similarly notable public praise of IPM, we can add it and rename the expanded section.

Also, do I understand correctly that the removal of the material on lustration (performed twice [1] [2] implies that IPN's lustration function is irrelevant? Less relevant than not only the letter itslef but even the lengthy list of its signatories?

If the deletions are resumed, please explain them at talk. --Irpen 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The letter - and related articles - are addressing most of the issues raised in criticism, and contains statements of IPN officials. It is certainly a response to criticism, and much more reliable source than most of the newspapers sources (particulary foreing).

Lustration primary problem is that the Polish legislation on it is still being tweaked and its a rather fluid arena; IPN has gained perogatives to officially deal with it in October last year, till than it was just a library for related documents. To reference anything from foreign newspapers is mixing history with speculation, and sources which speak about "Ministry of Truth" and "political police" are certainly not something we should be using. Lustration is not IPN's 'main' area of activity - it is not listed as such on any official website; and those have much more reliability than some newspapers (unless you agree that we can use a random newspaper to add 'main areas of activity' to articles on let's say government of Russia and such? Further, lustration is a political concept and to list it among well documented research areas as it currently is as much a joke and as censorship. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As it follows from the source, the letter was written in response for criticism of IPN actions in Kuron affair. Using of this letter as a response to overall criticism is the original research by user Piotrus. Vlad fedorov 04:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lustration function is vested with IPN by the Law -

A teraz najglowniejsze...

http://isip.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/index.html

©Kancelaria Sejmu s. 1/37 2007-03-19 USTAWA z dnia 18 grudnia 1998 r. o Instytucie Pamięci Narodowej - Komisji Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu

Art. 18. 1. W Instytucie Pamięci tworzy się: 1) Główną Komisję Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, zwaną dalej „Główną Komisją”, 2) Biuro Udostępniania i Archiwizacji Dokumentów, 3) Biuro Edukacji Publicznej, 4) Biuro Lustracyjne. 2. W oddziałach tworzy się: 1) oddziałowe komisje ścigania zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, zwane dalej „oddziałowymi komisjami”, 2) oddziałowe biura udostępniania i archiwizacji dokumentów, 3) oddziałowe biura edukacji publicznej, 4) oddziałowe biura lustracyjne. 3. W delegaturach mogą być tworzone wydziały udostępniania i

Rozdział 5a Funkcje lustracyjne Instytutu Pamięci Art. 52a. Do zadań Biura Lustracyjnego należy w szczególności: 1) prowadzenie rejestru oświadczeń lustracyjnych, o których mowa w art. 7 ustawy z dnia 18 października 2006 r. o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944-1990 oraz treści tych dokumentów, 2) analiza oświadczeń lustracyjnych oraz zbieranie informacji niezbędnych do prawidłowej ich oceny, 3) przygotowywanie postępowań lustracyjnych, 4) sygnalizowanie odpowiednim organom o niewywiązywaniu się organów pozasądowych z obowiązków nałożonych przez ustawę, 5) przygotowywanie i publikowanie katalogów zawierających dane osobowe osób, wobec których zachowały się dokumenty: a) wytworzone przez daną osobę lub przy jej udziale w związku z czynnościami wykonywanymi w charakterze tajnego informatora lub pomocnika przy operacyjnym zdobywaniu informacji, b) z których treści wynika, że dana osoba: - była traktowana przez organy bezpieczeństwa jako tajny informator lub pomocnik przy operacyjnym zdobywaniu informacji,

Piotrus, the Law on Institute of National Remembrance says that lustration functions are performed by IPN. I would translate it on English and publish on the article. If to speak about "jokes and censorship", your deletions of facts supported by current Polish legislation are ridiculous. Czesc. Vlad fedorov 08:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation of Polish legislation on Lustration functions of IPN is ready

Ale, kurde, po co ukrywac to?

According to the Chapter 5a of the Law of December 18, 1998 "On the Instutute of National Remembrance", Lustration bureau of the Instutute of National Remembrance performs the following Lustration functions:

1. maintains the register of lustration statements;
2. analyzes lustration statements and collects the information necessary for its correct assesment;
3. prepares procedure of lustration;
4. notifies respective bodies about non-perfomance by non-judicial bodies of obligations in accordance with this Law;
5. prepares and publishes catalogues containing personal data on individuals, against whom there are saved documents:

a) produced by this individual or with its participation in connection with its activities as a secret informator or assistant in operative colleting of information
b) from the content of which it follows that this individual was regarded by security services as a secret informator or assistant in operative colleting of information.

Current lustration by IPN is obligatory for 53 categories including all teachers, journalists, diplomats, ministers, members of parliament, public notaries, local government officials, judges, prosecutors, tax advisers, attorneys, all academics (pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyzszego). Each year IPN issues 40 000 certificates for individuals confirming their status as individuals "which never cooperated with secret services". In January, 2005, the rightist journalist Bronislav Wildstein copied from IPN computer the list of 240 000 individuals and published it on the internet. . Vlad fedorov 10:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided is not working. Note that the original act you cite has no such provisions ([3]). Those provisions were added in Dec 2006 (live March 2007), per documents here. I think we can keep your translation of the relevant legal acts, thank you. However Ogonyok speculations are not reliable; for starters, how do they know IPN issues 40,000 certifiactes a year when they just started doing this last month is something I'd like to know... The categories should be verified with official documents, too. No need for foreign newspaper speculations when we have the original docs. And again, please leave speculations about Ministry of Truth out (as for censorship of "Czterej Pancerni i Pies", please provide more reliable source, I never heard of it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User Piotrus is not an ultimate judge of sources reliability. I would write what conforms to Wikipedia policies, not what conforms to user Piotrus. Vlad fedorov 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooo.. and you forgot about "a factory of national vengeance" by Italian La Stampa. Vlad fedorov 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added Lustration bureau to the structure of IPN

I would like to note that structure of IPN published on IPN website does include Lustration bureau see here http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/pl/6/2262/. The direct page of Lustration bureau is http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=399&id=4961. I hope that text which was earlier in the article wasn't an example of WP:TEND or WP:OR. Vlad fedorov 10:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Polish and English pages of IPN website contain different information

Current English version of IPN website "About the Institute" page doesn't has Lustration Bureau, unlike its Polish version. Other pages may contain the information censored by IPN translators. Beware of this fact!!! Vlad fedorov 11:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Censorship by IPN translators"? Vlad, please keep such bad faith speculations to yourself. It is a common occurence that websites of an organization in different languages will have different information, tailored to that organization image and amount of relations with that language; it is not suprising that lustration pages have not been translated yet; they are after all Poland's internal issue.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Again I would like to remind user Piotrus that reading of WP:AGF is very necessary for him. This text is not so complicated as Prawo Polskie or website of IPN. Vlad fedorov

Lustration of "Four tankmen and a dog"

Because some Polish readers are ignorant or deny the existence of this matter, I publish here Polish press:

http://www.trybuna.com.pl/n_show.php?code=2006040102

Zarzuty IPN dla gen. Jaruzelskiego

Śledztwo w sprawie wprowadzenia stanu wojennego IPN wszczął w październiku 2004 r. na wniosek związanego z Radiem Maryja egzotycznego Porozumienia Organizacji Kombatanckich i Niepodległościowych. Wcześniej ta struktura wsławiła się m.in. apelem do byłego prezydenta Aleksandra Kwaśniewskiego o rezygnację z przeprosin narodu żydowskiego w Jedwabnem, wezwaniem, by Żydzi przeprosili Polaków za zbrodnie stalinowskich funkcjonariuszy Urzędu Bezpieczeństwa pochodzenia żydowskiego i żądaniami zakazania wyświetlania w telewizji publicznej „Czterech pancernych i psa".

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:skyY9SvTPUAJ:www.trybuna.com.pl/n_show.php%3Fcode%3D2004110607+IPN+pancerni&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

Do grobowej deski

W lutym br. skierowali do prezesa TVP Jana Dworaka protest przeciwko zapowiedziom emisji serialu „Czterej pancerni i pies". Ich zdaniem, serial „ogłupia społeczeństwo" i jest „wysoce wychowawczo szkodliwy". „Dopóki rządy w Telewizji Polskiej sprawowali ludzie pokroju Kwiatkowskiego, Czarzastego i Pacławskiego, trudno było prowadzić z nimi jakąkolwiek rzeczową polemikę, ponieważ ich zideologizowaną wizję historii najnowszej trwale ukształtowały przygody psa Szarika i podporucznika Borewicza" - pisali do Dworaka kombatanci z POKiN.

http://bohdankaras.blog.onet.pl/2,ID165734658,index.html

Inwkizycja i polityczny odwet zamiast pojednania. Niezadowolenie rośnie. Politycy majstrują przy prawie prasowym.

http://lewica.pl/?id=11253

TVP - Rewolucja kulturalna PiS

Wielu miłośnikom tych przygód będzie to musiało wystarczyć na długo. Starszy ode mnie o 2 lata kombatant z Krakowa, 51-letni rzecznik Porozumienia Organizacji Kombatanckich i Niepodległościowych, Jerzy Bukowski zapowiedział triumfalnie, że uzyskał wreszcie to, co chciał. Szef publicznej telewizji Bronisław Wildstein zapewnił ustami Daniela Jabłońskiego z biura rzecznika TVP, że „nie będą emitowane w najbliższych miesiącach seriale zakłamujące naszą przeszłość historyczną, m.in. »Czterej pancerni i pies« i »Stawka większa niż życie«”. Nie wiadomo, czy zaledwie kilka miesięcy obiecanej przerwy zadowoli Bukowskiego, ale wiadomo, że cieszy się on, przede wszystkim (cytuję za „Superekspressem”), ze „zwycięstwa nad Jankiem Kosem i jego załogą”. „Jest skandalem, że w największym medium niepodległej Rzeczypospolitej do znudzenia lansuje się kłamliwą wersję dziejów rodem spod ogona psa Szarika” – napisali w liście do kierownictwa telewizji publicznej krakowscy kombatanci, z uporem godnym lepszej sprawy zwalczający Klossa i załogę „Rudego”. Swoją drogą, na marginesie: to ciekawe, dlaczego „Czterej pancerni” budzą większą niechęć kombatantów z Krakowa, choć są emitowani znacznie rzadziej od „Stawki”?

http://www.trybuna.com.pl/n_show.php?code=2004110607

Katowicki oddział Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej wszczął śledztwo w sprawie wprowadzenia 13 grudnia 1981 r. w Polsce stanu wojennego. IPN przychylił się do wniosku związanego z Radiem Maryja egzotycznego Porozumienia Organizacji Kombatanckich i Niepodległościowych. Wcześniej ta struktura wsławiła się m.in. apelem do prezydenta Aleksandra Kwaśniewskiego o rezygnację z przeprosin narodu żydowskiego w Jedwabnem, wezwaniem, by Żydzi przeprosili Polaków za zbrodnie stalinowskich funkcjonariuszy Urzędu Bezpieczeństwa pochodzenia żydowskiego, żądaniami zakazania wyświetlania w telewizji publicznej „Czterech pancernych i psa", a także innych seriali z PRL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vlad fedorov (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

You don't know Polish very well. Its not about IPN, but about veteran's organisation that is writing to the IPN. The organisation is called Porozumienie Organizacji Kombatanckich i Niepodległościowych, I don't think it is notable enough to have an article but you can try to write it of course. It isn't even mentioned that they wrote to IPN about that, but that in the past made statements against showing of that Soviet propaganda movie.

Thank you for your abusive comments on my personality (i really appreciate this edit of yours) but just read the last source: "IPN przychylił się do wniosku związanego z Radiem Maryja egzotycznego Porozumienia Organizacji Kombatanckich i Niepodległościowych"... "żądaniami zakazania wyświetlania w telewizji publicznej „Czterech pancernych i psa". I perfectly know what I am talking about. Moreover, there are lots of Russian sources on TV prohibition of this serial on Polish TV. Czesc. Vlad fedorov 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no abusive comments other than yours here, Vlad. "Przychyli sie do wniosku..." can be translated as "Supported the petition..."; certainly this does not support your claim that "IPN censored the TV" - but it indeed supports the idea that your translations, particulary from Polish, are not very reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And the petition was about Martial Law not the movie.--MarekZob 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

e this [4] edit" I forgot to add something to the word and corrected it, what's the problem ? As to the rest: You are completely wrong because you are merging two different sentences that aren't connected to each other. It only says that IPN has decided to take favourable stance regarding the organisation's demand for invistigation into martial law. It isn't about the series. Please don't spread false information. The article first writes about how IPN responded to one matter, then describes the organisation that made the case to IPN. You would be well advised to use more neutral sources though-Rzeczpospolita is fairly neutral-Trybuna is a radical left-wing newspaper by post-communists. "Thank you for your abusive comments on my personality" Where ? I never commented your personality, however you insulted Polish users "Because some Polish readers are ignorant or deny the existence of this matter". Ironic-considering it showed somebody ignorant in language he uses ;)

Dear anon - please consider registering.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Been before, but forgot password. --MarekZob 17:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lustration in post-communist countries

Lustration was made in Czech Republic and Germany. Was lustration done by Russia or Belarus ? Article now claims "most countries" from former Soviet block have done so. If Russia and Belarus hadn't then it put Poland in the same group unlike Germany and Czechs who got rid of people representing Soviet interests in the country. It should be mentioned--MarekZob 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly biased Original research introduced with the aim to acquit Polish legislation. There are three countries having lustration - Poland, Czechia and Germany. There is certainly no lustration in Belarus, Ukraine or Russian Federation. I could tell it as a lawyer. Vlad fedorov 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read this academic article used as a reference. The scope of lustration laws varies from country to country, but even Russia has adopted some related legislation; the article notes that only Central Asian Republic and Belarus had no lustration laws at all (as of 1996). Several is acceptable. Vlad's bad faith accusations are not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you ever mind WP:AGF, Piotrus? Could you site me reliable Russian sources on lustration, as you asked me for sources on Poland? If you couldn't do so, please stop spamming the page by irrelvant texts produced by trans-atlantic countries and presenting amercian biased understanding of what the law is. We've seen it more in Iraq... Vlad fedorov 19:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am AGF. You are not, with almost every one of your statements having an accusation like "biased Original research introduced with the aim to acquit Polish legislation" or "spamming the page by irrelvant texts produced by trans-atlantic countries and presenting amercian biased understanding of what the law is". Like it or not, article published in academic journal like Law and Contemporary Problems is much more reliable then your claims from Ogonyok. On that note, Irpen, I am looking forward to your discussion of Ogonyok "illustrated magazine" reliabilty... :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus you're talking hilarious things, could you bring us citation from this US journal that lustration laws were adopted in all Soviet block countries in support of your fantastic original research statements? I've read this article and found out, according to this article, that lustration laws were not adopted in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Albania (32 former Comminist officials sentences were overturned by Supreme Court), Slovakia, as to Latvia and Estonia (they have not lustration laws, but requirements for citizenship - not really lustration), Romania (not adopted according to the article), Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, countries of Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan (member of OSCE and CoE), Armenia. So, perhaps, you should read the article before supporting your original research by it? Vlad fedorov 04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess we will need a third opinion on that, as while I agree the lustration laws in those countries were very weak, they were some - as in they passed some laws addressing the issue of whether and how abuse of power by former authorities and their collaborators should be investigated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"However only in Poland lustration is used as a political instrument for internal and foreign politics." Foreign politics ? Please explain. --MarekZob 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Explain and reference that exact statement if you want us to take such claims seriously, Vlad. And lustration was criticized in many countries (see article above, see here for Czech one, German Vergangenheitsbewältigung...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vergangenheitsbewältigung is not a lustration institution. If you are not afraid of Germans - go there and try to write it in the article. Otherwise stop waving you emtpy slogans. As for political police and "factory of national vengeance" descriptions, please see this in reliable Italian, Polish, English, Russian criticism which you have deleted form the article. Vlad fedorov 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:V for our policies on such "quotes". WP:BLP comes to mind, too. We don't use such language on Wikipedia, unless there is no reason to doubt such cases. There is certainly much here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked a little through the source provided by Piotr. This is indeed very scientific and interesting publication. It does mention some rudimentary attempts to introduce lustration laws in Russia. But it also says about anti-lustration laws in Russia (!). See: "The Russian parliament did adopt several laws making it a criminal offense to identify KGB collaborators.". All of that probably belong to lustration article.Biophys 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Great Biophys!!! Anti-lustration belongs to lustraton. Antifascism belongs to Fascism! Occupation belongs to union! You and Piotrus really have the point :) Vlad fedorov 03:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. My short sentence was an attempt to note that lustration issue came up in most post-communist countries, but certainly the approach varies from heavy lustration through light to indeed some that even can be desribed as 'anti-lustration'. In any case, this proves that Vlad's assertion that lustration is a controversial topic only in Polish politics is quite false.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor Yuri Shchekochikhin. He wrote a book about KGB collaborators ("Slaves of KGB"), but did not mention anyone of them by name. He probably knew about this "anti-lustartion law". That did not help. He was poisoned regardless to any laws, but perhaps for investigating something else.Biophys 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Piotr, I think this book about KGB collaborators would be very popular in Poland. It definitely worth translation from Russian.Biophys 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OT on Russian language in Polnad

You are late Biophys, this book is already on sale in Boleslaw Prus ksiagarnia which is opposite of the main entrance to Warsaw University on Nowy Swiat. Sorry to dissapoint you. And by the way, most Pole students and pupils take Russian as a foreign language because it's a lot easier than French, English, German an so on. So there is no even need for translation. Vlad fedorov 03:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"And by the way, most Pole students and pupils take Russian as a foreign language because it's a lot easier than French, English, German an so on." 75% take English, 17% take German, only 6% take Russian. Where do you get all of this false information ? --MarekZob 13:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

O... You composed personally this pasquille? Your source below tells that 7% Polish pupils took exams on Russian, 1 % increase from previous year. Everything else in your statements is a deliberate distortion, commonly referred to as "propaganda". Vlad fedorov 06:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. If so, you wouldn't mind telling us how the book name is after the translation - linking to some Polish online edition, perhaps?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Boleslaw Prus ksiagarnia sells not only Polish titles. You should really visit Boleslaw Prus kisagarnia at least once. Vlad fedorov 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I had, many times. And very few young Poles learn Russian - not because it's easy to understand (beacuse it's not), but because it's not very useful in modern world. So I doubt the book sells well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see some pride in the last statement. Good go. --Irpen 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus!!! That's exactly why your Cracow University of Economics, from which you have graduated, is a low rate university in Poland. See here http://www.agh.edu.pl/komunikaty/ranking/tabela1_PR.jpg and here for 2006 http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/dodatki/praca_060419/praca_a_2.html Vlad fedorov 16:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA, discuss articles, not editors.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

May I note, that it was User Piotrus who started this flame by false claims that Russian is not popular in Poland as a foreign language? Szkola Jezykow Obcych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego ma wiecej studujacych Jezyk Rosyjski nawet teraz, niz innych jezykow. Takie sprawy sa rowniez w SGH i w Politechnikie. Ja personalnie dowiedzialem sie tego, kiedy studiowalem jezyk francuski. Bardzo pan Piotrus myli sie. Chyba ze liczy ze wiekszosc obcekrajowcow tutaj w Wikipedii nie wie co sie dzeje w Polsce i nie moze czytac wiadomosci polskie. Oczywiscie Wa-wa nie jest miastem popularnym do wycieczek latem. Jest to dziwne je Piotrus ktory nigdy nie studiowal w Wa-wie, przemawia tu za cala Polske. Vlad fedorov 07:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"May I note, that it was User Piotrus who started this flame by false claims that Russian is not popular in Poland as a foreign language?" http://www.egzaminy.edu.pl/content/view/36/9/ Number of students taking russian at national exams in 2006- English 75,09%, German 17,89%, Russian 6,28%. Please use English, your polish sentences are hurting me as native user, as they are so full of errors. You should use english and mainspace as it is english wiki. And I am sure foreigners have access to mainstream news from Poland, treating extreme left-wing newspapers made by former Soviet administrators of occupied country(Trybuna) as curiosity. Can we get back on topic ? --MarekZob 13:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User Marek couldn't understand what is the difference between school graduate (maturzysci) and university graduates? Your article doesn't disprove my statements. It says 6.28 % of Polish school graduates take school graduation exams on Russian. And your comments about "so full of errors" should be evaluated having regard to the accuracy of your interpretation of the article on school graduates taking graduation exams. May I note that school graduates in Poland take exams not for all subjects they studied at school? Huh? So your article is a bit irrelevant. Have you ever been at Polish school, Marek? Even more in the year 2005 only 5.2% took Russian exam, and in the year 2006 6.28%? Kinda tendention is clear? Vlad fedorov 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlike you who fail to provide any reference, Marek's point that only 6% of Poles study Russian (compared to 76% English and 17% German) is a very good proof of Russian unpopularity in Poland (for the reasons mentioned in our posts). I do have to say I am surpised by French being only at 2%...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

C'est la vie. User Piotrus couldn't even read Polish newspapers. He couldn't differentiate between 'exams which maturzisci are taking" and 'subjects which maturzisci are studying", with former being mentioned in the source article and the latter fantasized by user Piotrus. Vlad fedorov 05:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Only a very small part of Polish population is studying. I believe the percentage of languages they study is similiar, you can correct me if I am wrong. "Have you ever been at Polish school, Marek?"-No, I am a bot written by Polish government :P "Even more in the year 2005 only 5.2% took Russian exam, and in the year 2006 6.28%? Kinda tendention is clear? " Yes,Russian is irrelevant in Poland. The dominant languages are German and English. What's your point ? The numbers exist mostly due to Belarussians and Ukrainians in Poland from eastern parts of country who know Russian.--MarekZob

Again you are both wrong and can't provide sources in your support. Belarusians and Ukrainians do not talk Russian. Marek tell us which university you graduated from? I would ask you few questions to check the truthof your statements, of course. Vlad fedorov 05:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Marek, please note that in every Poland university, graduate is required to learn at least two foreign languages. And that is why so many Poles study Russian, because it's an easy slavic language. I understand that you never been at the university, but nevertheless just for your attention. Vlad fedorov 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Marek, please note that in every Poland university, graduate is required to learn at least two foreign languages." No, again you have false information. "And that is why so many Poles study Russian, because it's an easy slavic language." Actually not. Its a lot easier to learn English and German, you don't have to learn different alphabet and most young people know English from their lives already. "I understand that you never been at the university, but nevertheless just for your attention." I never have been outside my wood cabin as well. Thank you for showing me the world :P --MarekZob 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I briefly commented above, but to add a little more, I am surprised that some here express not knowing and not learning the language of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky with pride. I understand the time constraints but being "uninterested"... Our friend Halibutt here, not only knows but loves Russian and I admire that in him. I wish I knew Polish and I only regret I don't and can only read with a good degree of difficulty. But to enjoy Adam Mickiewicz more I made an effort that was within my ability. Instead of reading the Russian translation I had at home, I went to the store and bought the excellent collection of Mickiewicz' poetry translated into Ukrainian by Maksym Rylsky to read the poetry in the language at least somewhat closer to the original. Seeing this taking pride in one's own ignorance puzzles me, I must confess. --Irpen 06:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian was the langugage of the occupier not long ago, most Poles then made it a sport to learn it as badly as they could to annoy teachers. When I started learning I could choose another language as times were changing, I am glad I did, since Russian is mostly useless language when compared to english, after all we are talking here in it rather then russian :) Besides to Poles it is very difficult language when compared to English. If you want to learn something difficult its better to learn Chinese as it has more use and more future then Russian. --MarekZob 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In Soviet Union, however devastated by the war, knowing German was never considered shameful. I think there is a difference in not knowing something and taking pride in one's ignorance. Especially to make it a sport to complete whose knowledge is worse. The latter situation is guaranteed to be more lasting. But keep enjoying it as you do. --Irpen 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Shameful, perhaps not. Dangerous and deadly, yes. May I recommend this reading on German language from Language Policy in the Soviet Union. This is OT, but you should know that after German invasion of Russia not only German immigrants but practically anybody who showed some connection with Germany (studies, research) was persecuted. So please, don't compare Poland to Russia :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not comparing anything to anything. All I am saying is that taking pride in one's own ignorance of something is something I will never understand. --Irpen 20:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kuroń and Wielgus affairs

• Is the connection between the Życie Warszawy article and IPN so strong to write about it here? You can write in Jacek Kuroń or Lustration in Poland. What is the connection between Kuroń and Wielgus to put them together?~I don't see any so I would edit the paragraph to "Wielgus affair".
• The part beginning with "Similar documents" should be divided from the Kuroń and Wielgus paragraph.Xx236 12:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably moving this part to Jacek Kuroń is a good idea.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Any Piotruś' puppets here?

Are there any Piotruś' puppets here? Xx236 12:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the strings are like on that particular model, but people like to call me a puppet. [If they actually met me in the flesh they might not immediately recognise my muppet like qualities. (When I lived in Japan, many locals visibly paled, flinched and moved to the opposite end of the bath when the hairy Gaijin entered the public bath...)] Here's a picture of another (deceased) member of my (puppet?) family: Image:Portrait of Micheál Ó Coileáin.jpg ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 12:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Please note that accusation of WP:SOCK can be seen as violation of WP:NPA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Don't worry, Piotrus, it was just a silly response I made to highlight the offensiveness of the original question. If you wish me to fax my passport, etc, just drop me an e-mail....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 01:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, Geimhreadhan, I indented my post wrongly - it was a reply to xx236, not you (refactored).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm quoting the accusation as a joke. If you are looking for an enemy, find who has accused you, certainly not me. Maybe the problem should be cleared? Xx236 06:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. In the future, try to indicate joke or sarcasm more clearly to avoid such confusion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And also Xx236, when accused of NPA, especially by an editor who is in the habit of bringing such accusation all too frequently, you may want to check back WP:NPA and verify the original statement against the policy page whether such accusations are (as frequently) out of the thin air and has any relation to the WP:NPA page. If not, you don't need to explain or even respond. --Irpen 05:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, encouraging other editors to ignore WP:NPA is only going to help them get blocked at some point; please stop such disruptive "advice".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you misconstrue me deliberately, Piotrus? Just reread what I said. I advised to read WP:NPA and not ignore it. What I advise to ignore is wildly brought up accusations of NPA unwarranted by the past statement and the policy itself. Deliberate misrepresentation of NPA is called "gaming the policy", attempt to misrepresent the content disputes as the policy ones and/or switch the subject of the discussion. Your arbcom is in great deal devoted to those issues. Also, I advise the editor to ignore the block threat in your last post. I suggest you reread WP:NPA and WP:BLOCK one more time. There is no blocking provision in NPA and WP:BLOCK except for extreme cases and for a good reason. The policies are written to make it difficult to use them as a weapon in content disputes. This is exactly why WP:PAIN and WP:RFI saw their demise to the wide approval of the community despite your fierce opposition. The majority of Wikipedians were disgusted by seeing these boards used as a weapon in the disputes that had nothing to do with them. So, I repeat my advise to the editor, to actually read WP:NPA and not take your misrepresentation on what it says. --Irpen

illegally removed from IPN archives

The list was copied from a computer. Can any native speaker confirm that such usage of removed is right?Xx236 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then perhaps something like "...which was illegally copied from IPN archives in 2004..." would indeed be more accurate phraseology? [My first language was Irish but I learned to read in English at age 5 (in my puppet masters class, of course) more than half a century ago.]...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 12:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, too. If you can provide some citations, we can correct the word accordingly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias of the article

The article is very critical, instead to inform which is the idea of the Wikipedia. There is an anti-lustration media camp (GW, Tygodnik Powszechny, Przekrój, Polityka) and the pro-lustration one (Wprost, Gazeta Polska, Nasz Dziennik). I'm not sure if Rzeczpospolita is more pro- or neutral. It should be remebered that some anti-lustration activists used to work for the Communist police or were Communist activists. Xx236 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the criticism and defence section mirror stuff on Polish Wiki. Of course, due weight has to be taken - the section should not be overbloated and certainly there is no need to cite non-neutral phrases and speculations from foreign journals - but the key issues should be mentioned. While there is certainly room for tweaking the criticism secetion, and much room to expand on primary research/education issues, I don't see much bias in the current version of the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Biased article?!!! Have you ever seen this pl:Instytut Pamięci Narodowej - Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu? I think the article should be translated as you surely have specific preferences in translation from Polish article original. Vlad fedorov 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no law forcing someone to literally translate articles from the Polish Wiki. There is a very interesting selectivity in reading the Polish Wiki - nationalistic biased articles aren't translated but GW POV ones are. Truth I love, but I love my Bias more. Yes, I see much bias in the article. Read other articles in this Wikipedia or in German one.Xx236 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I don't care if Poles were abused by German or anyone's else POV. Why abused Poles decided to fight it back on Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians - that is a thing beyond my understanding. Vlad fedorov 16:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, would you please be more specific? I don't know what are you writing about. Xx236 06:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't understand what you wrote on 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC). You earlier wrote that you "love" to violate WP:NPOV. Playing the fool actually doesn't give you a credit. Vlad fedorov 06:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian bias

Vlad wrote "Untill Russian sources would be incorporated into the article [the article's neutrality is disputed". I don't understand why Russian sources would offer any specific insight on what is Polish internal matter. However, in this context, it's worth mentioning (source: short Polish, longer English) that recently Russia seems to be using Polish lustration issue in foreign policies as a 'counter' to discussions of human rights abuses in Russia - per the traditional And you are lynching Negroes stratagem. This might be worth mentioning once we have an article on Lustration in Poland and Polish-Russian relations, but it is irrelevant here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Because "political police" and "factory of nationalist vengeance" referes not to Lustration in Poland, but to IPN acitivities. With the same corrupted logic, you could suggest to remove all criticism from Adolf Hitler to Fascism. Vlad fedorov 06:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The only one whose logic is corrupted here is you, as you consistently fail to address points you find inconvinient and than build straw men. Such tactics will not convince anybody of your POV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Typical "my mom is better" approach demonstrated by the invloved in edit warring Polish user. Vlad fedorov 06:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

Piotrus, please explain you reverts. --Irpen 00:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not reverting anything, I am just streamlining the article - no nead to repeat ilink to lustration several times in the lead, no need to single out Wisła Operation twice in the article as it is listed in research, etc. If you have any specific changes that you'd like to made and that disappeared in my copyediting, please let us know here. PS. 2 refs indeed got lost, I restored them. There should be no significant differences between our versions now. If there are, please point them out here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I am still waiting for the information why are you restoring your version with excessive details in the purpose section.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of things in the version you keep reverting to that need correction.

For some reason you insist on only the crimes committed against Poles in the top section moving crimes committed by Poles (against Ukrainians and Jews) to the bottom of the article. Why so?

Second, you introduce a nonsense concept of "communist crimes" which does not even exist and impossible to define. What is this? Crimes committed by the members of some communist party? You probably mean the crimes committed by the authorities of the states committed to the ideology of Communism. However, there is no definition of the communist crime to be just that neither in WP nor in the academia. I simply wanted the article to be clear and replaced nonsense "communist crime" term with "Crimes of the authorities of the USSR and PRL" Reverted for no reason.

Next, the intro was misleading as it defines IPN as the research institute. While it is also a research institure (true enough and my version said that), such definition is grossly incomplete as IPN's role is defined by legislation and RL practice to be much more than that. Firstly, its functions are uniquely defined by the special national legislation, not very usual for some research institute. Secondly, it takes over many functions normally given to the law-enforcement authorities, that is the role in the prosecution and lustration. My version first defined IPN as not a "research institute" but the PL gov affiliated institution and in the very next phrase elaborated on its functions, including that of the research institution.

Persistent and unexplained revert warring will not be tolerated. In such conditions I will have no choice but to tag the article. --Irpen 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"For some reason you insist on only the crimes committed against Poles in the top section moving crimes committed by Poles (against Ukrainians and Jews) to the bottom of the article. Why so?"

Chronological order. I think any other attempts to list atrocities would be questioned. If we go along chronological order it would be the best. 1939-Soviet and Nazi atrocities on Poles and Jews, and so on...

--MarekZob 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not about any rights or wrongs. The purpose section is based on two sources: list of "main areas of activity" from [5] (a Polish governmental project, see pl:Ośrodek Przetwarzania Informacji - I guess another article going on my 'to translate' list :)), and IPN mission statement/about ([6]). Those are official statements what IPN goals are. If IPN does not deem it it necessary go go into some details, and does deem it necessary to go into others, it is their choice, and the article should reflectit. The room for all detailed cases, their descriptions and such is in the 'activities' section and its subsections.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Second, you introduce a nonsense concept of "communist crimes" which does not even exist and impossible to define" Communist crime is a term used often in Poland. We need to translate Polish Wikipedia article: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbrodnia_komunistyczna The concept of "communist crime" is a legal term defined by law in Poland from 19 December 1998 and is related to actions of officials of communist state on territory of poland from 17th September 1939 to 31st December 1989 and involves repression, violance, torture, violation of human rights and laws of Poland.Its very detailed in the article(law terms). --MarekZob 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Marek, I have added Zb. kom. to my translation 'to do list', but if you could go ahead and translate it it would be appreciated (as you can see I have a backlog of projects there).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Third, the intro. I hope the current version is a possible compromise; it states that it is a research institution "with the unique standing defined by the Polish legislation".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the chronological order. There are two lists: list of main activities on top and list of examples at the bottom. You move all byt the crimes against poles to the examples list as if these are less important.

Polish concept of communist crime cannot be translated to the English article titled as such as the latter needs to be about a concept wider than the defined by the Polish law but rather as accepted by the western scholarship. The article in question should be translated as Communist crimes as defined by Polish law or Polish concept of communist crime or smth along these lines.

Since my objections are reverted on the spot by Piotrus and yourself, I am tagging the article. I have more interesting things to do that running sterile revert wars. --Irpen 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"You move all byt the crimes against poles to the examples list as if these are less important." If judging who is more important starts then it will never end. Using chronological order of atrocities is-I think-the most fair solution. --MarekZob 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Marek (and Irpen), you are both missing the point: it's not about chronology: it's whether IPN listed those crimes in its short summary or not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed?

Could you also provide reasonable explanation for your reverts of totallydisputed tag, Piotrus? Vlad fedorov 07:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you present your reason for adding it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't pretend you don't understand. (I am writing in to you in poetic language). Here is the reason - [Talk:Institute of National Remembrance#Deletion of valid sources] Vlad fedorov 03:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, instead of changing the subject, can you answer the question? Appleseed (Talk) 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, reasons for my reverts of the totally disputed tag are explained in #Russian bias.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for record, you have discussed my personality but not the reasons for deleting the totallydiputed tag. Vlad fedorov 17:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, you are mistaken, I commented on your logic only after you started building a straw men with your Hitler comparison.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for record, there is no any text on Hitler at the place you pointed to #Russian bias. There are only comments on some mythical tactics and personal comments on me. Vlad fedorov 18:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case, anybody can look at that section and see your Hitler comments for themselves.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Poetry is excessive but the point is made clearly indeed. --Irpen 05:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

logical?

Currently as I write this (and this seems to be very hot article with constant changes) a sub-section of the criticism section of our article says:

"In 2006 and 2007 the use of IPN by the Polish government - primarily by the ruling Prawo i Sprawiedliwość party (PiS) - came under criticism by some journalists and politicians. One of the major policy changes of PiS was to raise the issue of unresolved crimes from the times of the communist People's Republic of Poland. Critics of the government noted the abandonment of the thick line policy which previously obliged all politicians, civil servants and others in positions of public trust to undergo a background check by the IPN.[20] Since the results of those background checks are public, it is alleged that the motive of the PiS government is not justice but a smear campaign on their opposition."

Surely this is the opposite sense of the actual? My understanding of our article on the thick line policy is that pre-1989 events would not be exposed to further inquest. Surely that policy would NOT have "obliged all politicians, civil servants and others in positions of public trust to undergo a background check by the IPN"?

I have, therefore, changed our article to read instead:"In 2006 and 2007 the use of IPN by the Polish government - primarily by the ruling Prawo i Sprawiedliwość party (PiS) - came under criticism by some journalists and politicians. One of the major policy changes of PiS was to raise the issue of unresolved crimes from the times of the communist People's Republic of Poland. Critics of the government noted that this abandonment of the thick line policy would oblige all politicians, civil servants and others in positions of public trust to undergo a background check by the IPN.[20] Since the results of these background checks are public, it is alleged that the motive of the PiS government is not justice but a smear campaign on their opposition."...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 14:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; good call.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of a list of professions for which lustration is obligatory

I guess, for POV issues Polish friends delete the information about professions which undergo obligatory lustration in Poland.

This passage was deleted by user Piotrus unwilling to read the sources with following comment "adding your old sentence with a new ref is amusing but please don't do it: quote on talk sentences from this new ref which support it".

Current lustration by IPN is obligatory for 53 categories including all teachers, journalists, diplomats, ministers, members of parliament, public notaries, local government officials, judges, prosecutors, tax advisers, attorneys, all academics (pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyzszego).

I find it amusing that user Piotrus censors and hides the truth from the readers misleading them about current situation in Poland and doesn't give clues as to why Polish history article in Wikipedia are so POV for rest of the Wikipedians.

USTAWA z dnia 18 października 2006 r. o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944-1990 oraz treści tych dokumentów (dokument w formacie PDF) (wersja - na potrzeby wewnętrzne IPN)

Art. 7. 1. Obowiązek złożenia oświadczenia, dotyczącego pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z tymi organami w okresie od 22 lipca 1944 r. do 31 lipca 1990 r., zwanego dalej "oświadczeniem lustracyjnym", mają osoby, o których mowa w art. 4, urodzone przed 1 sierpnia 1972 r.

Art. 4. Osobami pełniącymi funkcje publiczne w rozumieniu ustawy są: 1) prezydent RP; 2) poseł, senator, poseł do Parlamentu Europejskiego; 3) osoba zajmująca kierownicze stanowisko państwowe w rozumieniu ustawy z 31 lipca 1981 r. o wynagrodzeniu osób zajmujących kierownicze stanowiska państwowe (DzU nr 20, poz. 101, ze zm.); 4) członek Rady Polityki Pieniężnej; 5) członek Zarządu NBP; 6) członek Kolegium IPN; 7) prezes Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia i jego zastępcy; 8) prezes Zakładu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych i jego zastępcy; 9) prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego i jego zastępcy; 10) przewodniczący, zastępcy przewodniczącego oraz członkowie Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego; 11) osoby wchodzące w skład służby zagranicznej w rozumieniu ustawy z 27 lipca 2001 r. o służbie zagranicznej (DzU nr 128, poz. 1403, ze zm.); 12) osoby powołane lub mianowane na podstawie przepisów innych ustaw na inne, niż wymienione w pkt 3 - 11 i 14stanowiska przez prezydenta RP, Sejm, Prezydium Sejmu, Senat, Prezydium Senatu, Sejm i Senat, marszałka Sejmu, marszałka Senatu lub prezesa Rady Ministrów; 13) prezes sądu; 14) sędzia i prokurator; 15) kierownik powszechnej lub wojskowej jednostki organizacyjnej prokuratury; 16) radca i starszy radca Prokuratorii Generalnej Skarbu Państwa; 17) organ i członek organu jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, organu związku jednostek samorządu terytorialnego oraz organu jednostki pomocniczej jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, której obowiązek utworzenia wynika z ustawy; 18) rektor i prorektor publicznej lub niepublicznej szkoły wyższej, członek Rady Głównej Szkolnictwa Wyższego, Państwowej Komisji Akredytacyjnej i Centralnej Komisji do Spraw Stopni i Tytułów; 19) członek rady nadzorczej, członek zarządu, dyrektor programu i jego zastępcy, wydawca lub autor audycji publicystycznej lub informacyjnej oraz dyrektor terenowego oddziału i agencji Telewizji Polskiej - Spółka Akcyjna, Polskiego Radia - Spółka Akcyjna, a także członek Zarządu, członek Rady Nadzorczej oraz członek Rady Programowej Polskiej Agencji Prasowej - Spółka Akcyjna, dyrektor oddziału, dyrektor biura, redaktor naczelny Polskiej Agencji Prasowej - Spółka Akcyjna oraz członek rady nadzorczej, członek zarządu, dyrektor i jego zastępcy w spółce radiofonii regionalnej; 20) członek zarządu lub rady nadzorczej osoby prawnej, która uzyskała koncesję na rozpowszechnianie programów radiowych lub telewizyjnych oraz osoba fizyczna, która uzyskała taką koncesję; 21) członek zarządu lub rady nadzorczej wydawcy, wspólnik spółki osobowej będącej wydawcą lub osoba fizyczna będąca wydawcą w rozumieniu ustawy z 26 stycznia 1984 r. - Prawo prasowe (DzU nr 5, poz. 24, ze zm.), a także redaktor naczelny w rozumieniu ustawy z 26 stycznia 1984 r. - Prawo prasowe; 22) dyrektor generalny NIK oraz pracownicy NIK nadzorujący lub wykonujący czynności kontrolne; 23) członek organu zarządzającego, nadzorczego lub kontrolnego podmiotu podlegającego nadzorowi Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego; 24) pracownicy urzędów państwowych oraz członkowie korpusu służby cywilnej, zajmujący kierownicze stanowiska: a) w urzędach organów władzy publicznej, w tym naczelnych i centralnych organach administracji państwowej: dyrektora departamentu lub jednostki równorzędnej, jego zastępcy oraz naczelnika wydziału lub jednostki równorzędnej, b) w administracji rządowej w województwie: dyrektora i jego zastępcy, kierownika zespolonej służby, inspekcji lub straży i jego zastępcy, kierownika w organie administracji niezespolonej i jego zastępcy; 25) osoba zajmująca wysokie stanowisko państwowe w rozumieniu ustawy z 24 sierpnia 2006 r. o państwowym zasobie kadrowym i wysokich stanowiskach państwowych (DzU nr 170, poz. 1217 ze zm.), inne niż wymienione w pkt3, 7, 11 i 24; 26) pracownicy Urzędu Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego zajmujący stanowiska dyrektora pionu i jego zastępcy, dyrektora departamentu lub jednostki równorzędnej i jego zastępcy oraz naczelnika wydziału lub jednostki równorzędnej; 27) pracownicy NBP zajmujący stanowiska dyrektora departamentu lub jednostki równorzędnej, jego zastępcy oraz naczelnika wydziału lub jednostki równorzędnej, jego zastępcy oraz doradcy prezesa, terenowego koordynatora inspekcji, głównego specjalisty kierującego zespołem, kierownika zespołu, kierownika sekcji i głównego specjalisty; 28) pracownicy IPN; 29) członek Rady Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia, dyrektor i zastępcy dyrektora oddziału wojewódzkiego Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia, dyrektor i zastępcy dyrektora departamentów (komórek równorzędnych) w centrali Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia oraz główny księgowy Narodowego Funduszu Zdrowia; 30) dyrektor (kierownik) komórki organizacyjnej w centrali Zakładu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych, dyrektor oddziału w Zakładzie Ubezpieczeń Społecznych i ich zastępcy; 31) dyrektor biura centrali Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego, dyrektor oddziału regionalnego Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego i ich zastępcy; 32) skarbnik województwa, powiatu lub gminy oraz sekretarz powiatu lub gminy; 33) prezes, wiceprezes i członkowie samorządowych kolegiów odwoławczych; 34) pracownicy regionalnych izb obrachunkowych zajmujący stanowiska: prezesa, członka kolegium, naczelnika wydziału oraz inspektora do spraw kontroli; 35) dyrektor generalny Poczty Polskiej i jego zastępcy oraz członek Rady Poczty Polskiej; 36) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej banku państwowego; 37) dyrektor przedsiębiorstwa państwowego, jego zastępca oraz osoba zarządzająca przedsiębiorstwem na podstawie umowy o zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwem państwowym; 38) osoba sprawująca zarząd w spółce powstałej w wyniku komercjalizacji przedsiębiorstwa państwowego, której sprawowanie zarządu zlecono w oparciu o art. 17 ust. 1 ustawy z 30 sierpnia 1996 r. o komercjalizacji i prywatyzacji (DzU z 2002 r. nr 171, poz. 1397, ze zm.); 39) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej spółki handlowej z udziałem SP, w której udział SP przekracza 50 proc. kapitału zakładowego lub 50 proc. liczby akcji; 40) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej w spółce handlowej z udziałem jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, w której udział jednostki samorządu terytorialnego przekracza 50 proc. kapitału zakładowego lub 50 proc. liczby akcji; 41) członek zarządu, członek rady nadzorczej spółki o istotnym znaczeniu dla porządku publicznego lub bezpieczeństwa państwa w rozumieniu art. 8 ustawy z 3 czerwca 2005 r. o szczególnych uprawnieniach SP oraz ich wykonywaniu w spółkach kapitałowych o istotnym znaczeniu dla porządku publicznego lub bezpieczeństwa publicznego (DzU nr 132, poz. 1108, ze zm.); 42) osoba będąca przedstawicielem SP w radzie nadzorczej spółki handlowej innej niż wymieniona w pkt 39; 43) osoba będąca przedstawicielem jednostki samorządu terytorialnego w radzie nadzorczej spółki handlowej, innej niż wymieniona w pkt 40; 44) pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego: a) pracownik naukowy, naukowo-dydaktyczny lub dydaktyczny zatrudniony na stanowisku profesora zwyczajnego, profesora nadzwyczajnego, profesora wizytującego, docenta, adiunkta lub starszego wykładowcy, b) osoba zajmująca w publicznej lub niepublicznej szkole wyższej, w PAN lub w jednostkach badawczo-rozwojowych stanowisko kierownika lub zastępcy kierownika podstawowej jednostki organizacyjnej, w szczególności dziekana albo prodziekana wydziału, c) osoba zajmująca w publicznej lub niepublicznej szkole wyższej, w PAN lub w jednostkach badawczo-rozwojowych stanowisko dyrektora instytutu, wicedyrektora instytutu, kanclerza, kwestora, prezesa, wiceprezesa, sekretarza naukowego; 45) dyrektor szkoły publicznej lub niepublicznej; 46) dyrektor Centralnej Komisji Egzaminacyjnej i dyrektor okręgowej komisji egzaminacyjnej; 47) adwokat, radca prawny, notariusz; 48) komornik; 49) biegły rewident; 50) doradca podatkowy; 51) audytor wewnętrzny w rozumieniu ustawy z 30 czerwca 2005 r. o finansach publicznych (DzU nr 249, poz. 2104, ze zm.); 52) dziennikarz w rozumieniu ustawy z 26 stycznia 1984 r. - Prawo prasowe; 53) członek organu zarządzającego, organu nadzoru lub organu kontroli wewnętrznej polskiego związku sportowego lub spółki kapitałowej zarządzającej ligą zawodową w rozumieniu ustawy z 29 lipca 2005 r. o sporcie kwalifikowanym (DzU nr 155, poz. 1298 ze zm.). Vlad fedorov 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Careful please. Wikipedia must be cautious to avoid providing incorrect legal advice. I would be very careful about translating any of the above terms into English (some are quite complicated). A link to the text of the law in the External Link sections would do the trick.

Just to illustrate the problem, it was claimed that "all teachers" fall under lustration. Why? I do not see any such category among those listed above. Did I overlook it? Balcer 04:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Vlad misinforms.Xx236 10:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel is considered as personal attack in Wikipedia, Xx236. If you once again would lie about me, I would report you on admin noticeboard. Besides, you could meditate over the meaning of 44 paragraph of article 4. Vlad fedorov 12:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We could indeed write which professions in Poland have obligatory lustration. Find other arguments for not including them apart from your logical fallacy in labelling my citation from law as "legal advice". Legal advice, at least, as I was told at many universities including Warsaw University, presents what in Wikipedia is called original research. Citation of law is neither "legal advice", nor "original research". Vlad fedorov 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel is considered a personal atatck in Wikipedia, Vlad. You have written "all teachers". I don't know why you have written, it's your problem. When informed you are wrong, you attack me. You misinform the readers of the article (see below). Why is the IPN your hobby if you lack knowledge? Xx236 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, you are the one who starts every second post with accusations that your opponents are falsifying, censoring, deleting, lying or whatetver - so please, if you have nothing else to say, go ahead, report this incident and we will see who will get blocked.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, before we trust your skill in translating Polish legal documents, could you please kindly explain to us how you made the "all teachers" mistake? What was your reasoning, and which category above led you to believe that? It would be very helpful. Balcer 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pan Balcerowicz :-), previously words "all teachers" was sourced with Russian journal "Ogonyok" article. There is no place for reasoning here in Wikipedia, but just sources. Vlad fedorov 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that when you made the "all teachers" edit[7], you specifically referenced it with a link to the Polish law. Do you admit then that you have not even read it? Surely you must understand that if you make a claim and support it with reference A, that claim must actually be present in reference A, and not in some other reference B that you are not citing.

Also be aware that name-twisting is an activity for elementary school students. Are you operating on that level? Balcer 18:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, neither "all academics" is better. Note that point 44 (pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego) is split into subpoints listing which of the "academics" are affected: some professors (note it excludes pl:Profesor uczelniany and pl:Profesor tytularny, nor professor emeritus (yes, Polish professor ranks are confusing)), and while it includes "directors" and some lower academic ranks, it doesn't include "lektor" and "instruktor" (see pl:Pracownicy uczelni for the Polish academic ranks). So saying "all academics" is confusing, and all teachers was completly wrong (as teacher applies to below-high education level). So yes, Vlad, please don't spice the articles with your translations (or with those from Russian newspapers) - especially after we have pointed out the errors in both.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Friends, Romans and Non-Countrymen (sheepish grin): It is obvious to all who read and write here that many of us sincerely hold disparate views as to what the facts are, how they should be emphasised and what should be included or excised.

However, we need to focus on producing a more informative article for our readers so that they can make up their own minds. All relevant sourced facts should be included - the difficulty comes in deciding what is relevant.

My ignorant (I do not read any slav languages) opinion is that if it is relevant to include Lustration in the article (and there seems to be a clear consensus that Lustration is an important function of the institution) then it almost automatically follows that we must attempt to accurately illustrate the scope, procedures and effects (`good and bad') of the Lustration process.

I think there are enough people here with good Polish to provide an accurate English translation so that Vlad does not feel aggrieved?

Then, armed with this translation, we can discuss what is relevant?...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, although I'd strongly suggest adding details to lustration article, Poland's section, and only summarizing key points here. Lustration, while important, is only one of the several functions of IPN, its newest one and arguably not the most important (although perhaps the most controversial). My quick reading of the documents shows no support for "all teachers", briefly it may support "all politicians, all civil servants and all lawyers", as for educators, "some professors and directors (rectors, etc.)", but I'd be careful with generalizations (the texts names quite a few very specific and small categories (like "director of Polish Post" or "employees of IPN" and I am not sure if its not missing anybody who belong to general groups of politicians, civil servants or laywers). A reasonable compromise would be "many politicians, civil servants, lawyers and high-ranking educators)", perhaps? PS2. I find the current version with "Lustration by IPN is currently only obligatory for 53 categories of people born before August 1st, 1972 and holding positions of significant public responsibility" quite satisfactory, with the exception of word "only" (sounds weaselish).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think, Vlad?

Could you provide a contracted list giving the flavour and scope of the compulsory lustration `victims'/subjects for inclusion in this article and another (larger and more extensive) list for the lustration article?

It would be wonderful if we could actually agree the text of both lists here first before any unilateral editing/revertion/deletion occurs on the article pages! (I'm getting a bit fed up at having to keep re-doing the translations into better English only to see them whapped by mistake...)...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that I am the only one here making translation from Polish so far amid a horde of Poles criticizing my "bad spelling" ;-). Roll on your translation then, just to keep the spirit of competition, Poles. I have already revised translation of Piotrus with Irpen to find out that "resistance" and "opposition", according to Piotrus, are actually the same thing (c) Piotrus. I have published the relevant texts for transalation. Vlad fedorov 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Vlad, it's always easier (in the short term) to delete and revert rather than to discuss, improve and keep moving forward. That's why I think we need not be so hasty on editing the article pages. Obviously neither of us can force anyone to provide a better translation here on this page but assume good faith! Many editors here genuinely want to make a better article and we should give them time - at least 3 or 4 days...

Meanwhile, it would be nice if you present your two lists here; one should be the most abbreviated and concise one you think is reasonable for the main article and the other one can be more comprehensive and detailed for the lustration article.Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have an article about Lustration in Poland - write it. This article is about the INR, which has 5 divisions.Xx236 07:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

all academics (pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyzszego),

• certainly not all pracownicy
• it's an English Wikipedia, not a Polish one.Xx236 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: "scientists and employees of higher education instututions". Vlad fedorov 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With qualifier some/certain, since as seen above, it doesn't affect all of them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Piotrus, it seems that your Panegeric (I hope you know ancient Greek) on "confusing Polish professor ranks" just persuades to divert attention from the real problem. My "opiekun naukowy" - both professor emeritus and prof. tytularny - direktor of Instytut Prawa Miedzynarodowego UW, so I perfectly understand what Polish Law on Lustration means. It means that all professors actually working at academic institutions are subject for lustration. 'cause we have emeritus professors who've got their degree for some achivements either before the institution or society and not teaching students at the unversity. It seems that Polish Law on Lustration persuades obligatory lustration of all professors teaching at the universities. And that's a bottom line. Anyway, I would translate 44 paragraph of 4th article. Vlad fedorov 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is that there are academics exempt from lustration, thus we cannot state or indicate it affects all.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The bootom line is that non-teaching academics are exempt from lustration, but not working ones. And that is a reason to disregard Polish sources on history as a POV. Vlad fedorov 07:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Lektors and instruktors are certainly teaching (working) academics, and they are exempt. And I have no idea what led you to the opinion about disregarding Polish sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Lektors and instruktors"? Piotrus, I have been studying at UW, and I never heard about such employees in the Polish academic institutions. We had only profs for lectures and magisters for czwiczenia magisterskie. Are you going to count "charwomen" as academics? Is your Krakow Academy - academic institution? Magisters are not teaching, only professors are reading the lectures.Vlad fedorov 06:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)