Talk:Jan Żaryn

RFC on François Robere's second proposal: Views and lead

First question: Should a Views section with diff (author is User:François Robere, I copied it), using Prof. Dariusz Libionka in Holocaust Studies and Materials, Prof. Kate Korycki in East European Politics and Societies, Polityka and Gazeta.pl as sources be included in the article?

Second question: Should charges of downplaying antisemitism and a-historical viewpoints be present in the lead?VikingDrummer (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Poll

• First yes, second yes. Żaryn's views are discussed in good sources like East European Politics and Societies and Holocaust Studies and Materials as well as media sources. This is a central part of his political and historical activity.VikingDrummer (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Second question is moot and must be stricken down for now. Per Wikipedia rules, the lead is a summary of the text body. Therefore the answer is plain and simple: if the article has a considerable coverage of some stuff, not just a couple of blurbs, then its summary goes to the lede, otherwise not. In any case, the question may be reopened in a separate RFC, if it will be unclear after the dust settles with the first one. Lembit Staan (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• First:no. Historians and politicians are bickering all time. See "Discussion" for detailed arguments. Lembit Staan (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not until the English article is expanded Yes to first, pending expansion. I agree with Volunteer Marek's objection that consecrating half an article for criticism is excessive. First translate it from Polish, then probably introduce the criticism section. I personally don't mind the Polish version, after pruning from obviously unrealible sources (Sputniknews), and neither do I mind the version proposed by François Robere, as reposted by Viking Drummer. I don't agree with Lembit Staan's analysis in that per RSOPINION we can include opinions (preferably by subject-matter experts) if they are attributed and published in RS, and the proposed text does not break the rule. Also, the some of the sources omitted were RS, despite VM's assertions to the contrary; at least both Wyborcza and oko.press have a favourable precedent on RSN, which I endorse and would have voted in favour, too. "Impartiality" as defined by inclusion of rebuttals is good for inclusion if Żaryn publishes them in RS or academic papers, but if there is no rebuttal of his, that is not a problem at all. EDIT: Edited vote second time because the article is expanded, so the conditional approval is now moot. (Edited 08:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC))

Concur with Lembit Staan's opinion that second question should be answered later. Let's concentrate on the first one, and maybe afterwards decide on the second question. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the misleading part of how the RfC is framed. I don't think anyone is objecting to inclusion of some stuff from these sources (Libionka and Korycki) as long as WP:DUEWEIGHT is observed. But FR's proposal would basically turn 90% of this article into a hit piece giving undue weight to these opinions. That's why it's a no go on BLP grounds. "Viking Drummer" account's proposal makes it seem like agreeing to include *some* Libionka is equivalent to agreeing to the overall FR proposal. Volunteer Marek 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

VM, I think you're misreading WP:DUEWEIGHT. According to the policy, neutrality requires that [articles]... fairly represent all significant viewpoints... in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (emphasis mine). In other words, determining what's "due" and "undue" is done by the sources, not by us - we just summarize what others have published. In this case it seems the majority viewpoint regarding those aspects of Żaryn's activity that we covered is not positive, and we can't under-represent it precisely because it will be a violation of WP:DUE. François Robere (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry but making 90% (or even 50%) of the article all negative based on two cherry picked sources is not representing anything “in proportion”. Quite the opposite. Volunteer Marek 06:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

a) Please strike out your comment on "cherry picking", it's out of place; b) You're still arguing your own preferences - or perhaps some other policy that you're not citing - but not WP:DUE. If we're not misrepresenting the proportions of opinions in published sources (ie if Żaryn isn't secretly well-liked and we're hiding it), then DUE isn't a problem (and recall our previous discussion lists three papers and seven articles); c) see my response to Szmenderowiecki below - there's a lot of articles where the views / public image / criticism sections take a third or more of the article (eg. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Avigdor Lieberman; Marjorie Taylor Greene has more than half), so that's not unusual. That said, this can be easily resolved by voting for inclusion pending expansion - if all you're worried about is proportions, then vote for that. François Robere (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yes to both, pending expansion. See explanation in the discussion below. François Robere (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, if the article is expanded Rationale for both is articulated well enough above. BSMRD (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• First question - no. I can not evaluate 1st (Polish language) source, but 2nd source [1] I think was misinterpreted. See text starting from "Meanwhile Polish Jewish relations deteriorated...". The point by author is not that he supports the Jewish Bolshevism canard, but that such canard was widespread in the Polish society, and he mentioned some reasons why it was widespread in his opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Second question - no. Do we have a section in the body of the page about him "downplaying antisemitism"? This is a significant accusation for an academic. I do not see it. Hence, no, this should not be included to the lead. If there will be a large well sourced section about it in the page, then it can change. In other words, you people should first decide your WP:Consensus on the body/main content of page. I do not know what your consensus here might be, but new materials, and especially of defamatory nature, should be included to BLP pages only based on consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Users "VikingDrummer", "BSMRD", and user "CPCEnjoyer" are all brand new accounts dating from April of this year (January in case of VD). Putting aside how strange this "coincidence" of them all showing up and voting the same way here is, they are in violation of the ArbCom 500/30 restriction [2]. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  The statement above is false in all parts. The linked restrictions is on articles and not talk, I have more than 500 edits, and the publication on the Azov page (a similar far right topic) brought editors.VikingDrummer (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I prefer the first one, but the second one is ok too. As written in the other discussion, the article should however first be enlarged with information on his biography.--Mhorg (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• For the first I am fine with Libionka, but the others are IMHO still undue. For the second, I am not sure if this is due, but I am fine the current lead of the expanded article stating "His views and commentaries, however, have sparked significant controversy." It should be "some views", btw, I don't think everything he says or writes is controversial? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to both, emphasizing the second paragraph citing this journal article [3]. I would add that other views of Żaryn should be added if they can be found and reliably sourced. The text in question and article as a whole require copy editing. -Darouet (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Note on article expansion: the article was (significantly) expanded earlier today, with the efforts of Szmenderowiecki, with content from pl.Wiki.[4] François Robere (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to both, I haven't seen any proper arguments, which haven't been refuted, from the opposition. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• VikingDrummer. Putting aside the fact that you have 661 edits and your account is just a few months old and yet somehow you have a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies and know how to start and advertise an RfC to multiple projects, your RfC is not neutrally worded which is a requirement for a proper RfC. Volunteer Marek 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Which part do you believe is non-neutral? I have to say I fail to see it. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see the 500/30 restriction, which applies to you as you are a brand new account with just a few edits [5]. Volunteer Marek 19:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, but I can't see how this article falls under the [...] articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Furthermore, even if the article were to fall under such criteria (probably doesn't), according to the amendment you sent, I am able to participate in discussion, provided I am not disruptive. Which I do not believe was/is the case. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.

Feel free to correct me if that is wrong. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• (arguments for opposing based on WP:BLP) Scolars, politicians, etc. are bickering all the time.
  1. "WP:PRIMARY: clause: Their opinions about each other are basically primary sources about their opinions, unless these opinions are not their individual ones, but reflect some level of consensus, to ensure that the added information is of due weight. But to this end we need secondary sources, who summarize various opinions about Jan Zaryn. Lembit Staan (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. "Argumentative" clause: I briefly browsed the suggested section "Views" and it contains only judgement statements kind of "Żaryn does not understand the relevant sources", "unwittingly recycles many Polish anti-Semitic tropes" etc., without proof to be verified. So basically this is nothing but a name-calling, a no-no for WP:BLP. In this form they may suit at best for sections "Views" of the corresponding critics, but WP:BLP regarding Jan Zaryn will work there as well. Lembit Staan (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  3. "Uncontested" clause - There is no answers of Zaryn to criticism. Hence WP:BALANCED. Clearly, answer and counter-answers can go lengths. Therefore, again, we need seconsary sources to summarize this (possible) bickering Lembit Staan (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  4. "Importance" clause - If we cannot find secondary sources that summarize the described controversies, it means that the issues are not that inportant, hence WP:UNDUE again. Lembit Staan (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That's hogwash. The sources cited are all secondary sources. These aren't "opinions" by scholars, but published matter in East European Politics and Societies and other publications.

Korycki, Kate. "Memory, Party Politics, and Post-Transition Space: The Case of Poland." East European Politics and Societies 31.03 (2017): 518-544.[6]

is not primary, argumentative, or contested. It is an important publication, in an important journal, that has a secondary analysis of Polish politics and memory. VikingDrummer (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not hogwash. That's an analysis of the current state of the proposal. If you fix the problems I listed, it will be great. Lembit Staan (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I was asked by Lembit Staan to look this over. The RfC should specifically identify all the references, ideally with some information about their quality. Given the lengthy discussion in April, a short summary of the arguments there would be helpful as well. --Hipal (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal:, I recently joined this dispute and was struck by the lack of arguments for inclusion. The Polish Wikipedia (using google translate) has a whole section called "Statements, controversies and criticism" that begins with

Numerous statements by Jan Żaryn have been recognized by journalists of Gazeta Wyborcza , Polityka and NaTemat.pl as nationalist , anti-Semitic , chauvinistic and historically false

using Polish journalists as sources ([7],[8],[9],[10],[11]). It then goes on to discuss the specifics of outrageous a-historical statements (wrong statement on a pogrom from 1941 and events in 1968, Calling Committee for the Defence of Democracy's actions "treason", and praising the fascist National Radical Camp) of this church historian turned politician, using a total of 15 different sources, all in Polish. The proposed text above uses two sources that are in the Polish Wikipedia: [12], [13]. It also uses:

Libionka, Dariusz. "“Truth About Camps” or the Uneventful 1942." Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały Holocaust Studies and Materials (2013): 579-589. [14]

and

Korycki, Kate. "Memory, Party Politics, and Post-Transition Space: The Case of Poland." East European Politics and Societies 31.03 (2017): 518-544.[15]

The statements of this right sector politician about, well, just about anyone who is not a Polish "patriot" are well documented and constitute the bulk of the coverage of this right sector politician.VikingDrummer (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal: FYI: we are not discussing the sources. Some of them are good. Neither we are discussin that a section of this type must be included. We are discussing a specific text to be added (should a Views section with [diff]..). And I explained why I think it is horrific. Be it "should a Views section..", I would have no objections at all. It so happens that yesterday I edited "Double-barreled question" - a type of informal fallacy, and "Question 1" of this RFC is the case. In fact, it is the case of more offending fallacy: "the buttered-up double-barreled question", in which the first part is perfectly acceptable, and hence the focus on the second, a sinister part, is lost by a happy answerer. Lembit Staan (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(There is a good communist joke, not exactly about this fallacy, but close: Stalin proposes at a congress: "Shall we paint the Lenin Mausoleum blue and shoot the current Politburo?" - one deputy, scared, asks "why would we paint it blue? - Stalin answers: "I knew that there will be no objections to shootin"). Lembit Staan (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

A proper RfC should clearly identify the verifying references. The diff isn't enough, as some of the refs there are bare links. This is a BLP. If it isn't clear that we're working from BLP-quality refs, nothing else matters. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: I don't agree with Lembit Staan's analysis in that per RSOPINION - I am perfectly OK with RSOPINION, but please read again my "Argumentative" clause: if the opinion is nothing but a piece of denigration (which basically amounts to "Zaryn is an ignorant" or "Zaryn is a falsifier", only stated politely), it has no place in WP:BLP. Lembit Staan (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

First, I was addressing concerns from the previous discussion, which I have reviewed and rated accordingly. Second, there is no such regulation put in the policy. To analyse whether a recognised scholar's opinion is substantiated or not based on merits is OR. The only criterion that may apply is whether than opinion is representative of a siginificant part of the scholarly community (that is, via the WP:DUE lens).

Criticism is meant to be unpleasant, and no regulation says that we cannot include harsh criticism of someone as published in RSOPINION, preferably by a subject-matter expert, so long as it is not libelous or invade someone's privacy (and the sources certainly don't). If they say Żaryn doesn't know the subject and state examples - that should not be ignored. If some other scholar says they are lying and not blushing, I have no problem with that, either, the only problem is what to quote and how to convey it to conserve NPOV. Again, DUE questions arise, but AFAIK Libionka is not alone in his opinions on Żaryn, and the source states very specific passages of Żaryn's work Libionka objects to (ditto for other sources mentioned). To be clear, what you cite is basically WP:ATP, to which I said that I will only approve inclusion if the article is expanded first, so when that happens, the point will be moot.

Also, you say that "But to this end we need secondary sources, who summarize various opinions about Jan Zaryn". I'm not aware of any policy dictating that criticism be summarised in a secondary source before inclusion. In fact, by SYNTHNOT we can summarise these four opinions in a short sentence ourselves. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• The proposed text is mine, and followed some discussion on Talk. I would've preferred if the discussion had continued, but I can see why VD would opt for an RfC.
  1. Volunteer Marek and Lembit Staan are trying to paint this as "bickering" between academics, but Żaryn isn't just an academic - he's an administrator, politician and public intellectual, and most (perhaps all) of his work on Polish-Jewish relations is in those contexts, while his "purely academic" work is actually on the Church and the ONR. As a public figure he's open to more criticism (and renown) than he would were he to stay in the relative shade of academy, and we should treat him as such.
  2. Szmenderowiecki is concerned that "half an article for criticism is excessive", but about a third of this is Żaryn's own words, which is what you'd usually expect in a "Views" section. There's a lot of articles where the views / public image / criticism sections take a third or more of the article (eg. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Avigdor Lieberman; Marjorie Taylor Greene has more than half), so that's not unusual. That said, this can be easily resolved by voting for inclusion pending expansion - say, by 100-200 words (the entire article is just 234 words) - so we can discuss the text on its merits without worrying for proportions with respect to the rest of the article.
  3. In terms of sourcing, both Dariusz Libionka and Kate Korycki are experts in their field (Libionka in particular is a superb source), and there's a plethora of Polish sources on Żaryn's public comments (seven [?] are mentioned in the discussion; VD claims double that are cited in pl.Wiki), so that's really a non-issue. François Robere (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  To be sure, I agree with points 1 and 3, in that both are experts and "bickering of academics" defense is not an excuse to exclude criticism.

  As for point 2, there is a difference between an article that is reasonably long with a long criticism section and a stub that has a criticism section of the same length as the rest of the article, even if 1/3 of the volume is Żaryn's quotes (which are actually being cited to prove a point of Żaryn's critic). I believe that a reasonable outside editor will consider it a violation of WP:NPOV in that the criticism section is too prominent for a person whom an average English reader would consider hardly notable based on the info as presented now in the article (that is not to say he is not, it is just the impression could be that he is not, though by the nature of his job, a senator is already noteworthy).

  I will change my vote as you propose (pending expansion), and I believe I will be able to translate it shortly. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• This RFC feels premature, I was brought here from the Azov page, but quickly scanning over the pages recent history this seems to be more of a WP:DUE issue than a WP:BLP one. I suspect that were the article longer this could be added without much challenge, but because of how lacking the article is the information comes across as overly focused on and potentially libelous. The sourcing seems good but absent larger context the proposed version of the article would seem to only consist of negative information. BSMRD (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Moved from #Vote, follows Volunteer Marek's comment of 19:31, 5 June 2021. François Robere (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• • I've filed for PP. Actually, I'm not sure. Insofar as we're discussing his positions and/or work on post-war issues (including current affairs), then that doesn't apply. Perhaps a split RfC? François Robere (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Quote: " using Prof. Dariusz Libionka in Holocaust Studies and Materials" <-- it most certainly applies to this part, no? Volunteer Marek 03:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
      • It does, but not necessarily to popular sources or to Żaryn's opinions on other historical periods. François Robere (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
        • “Other historical periods” would be what? 1968? I guess you could argue that it doesn’t apply to that part but frankly, this supposed “controversy” where Zaryn said that communists were responsible for the 1968 expulsions is a manufactured one - that assertion is not in any way controversial. Volunteer Marek |
          • For example, but that specifically isn't being discussed at the moment, since per your request I removed it from the second draft. François Robere (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hogwash, I have more than five hundred edits. Also not relevant, as what you link to only applies to articles, not talk. The relevance of this article to the Holocaust is dubious, just because Zaryn also made offensive comments on the Holocaust does not make him a Holocaust topic. Furthermore, this is not a coincidence, as I published this RfC at the Azov Battalion page. I published this RfC there because both cover far-right politics in Eastern Europe.VikingDrummer (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

  • First, you need to strike your BLP violation you made - there’s nothing even in the critical sources which says that he “made offensive comments on the Holocaust”. That’s a reportable offense and other users, which you may or may not be familiar with, have gotten topic banned for such. Second, please stop calling other users comments “hogwash” and being WP:UNCIVIL. Third please read what you just wrote - you’re actually claiming with a straight face that someone making statements about the Holocaust is not related ... to the Holocaust. Fourth, yes, you have more than 500 edits. Barely. And somehow you started editing this topic right after hitting those 500 edits. Volunteer Marek 06:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh and WHY did you publish this RfC at the Azov page? How in the world are the two topics related? Volunteer Marek 06:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Azov and Zaryn are both far-right topics in Eastern Europe, so related editorial topic. Just because a far-right figure says a few things on the Holocaust does not make him a Holocaust topic, and anyway this is the talk page. According to this:

Jan Zaryn, who was also listed as attending the event, is a far-right parliamentarian who introduced a resolution denying most Polish responsibility for the 1968 purges, and has called for the prosecution of the Princeton Holocaust historian Jan Tomasz Gross

Also Zaryn is covered multiple times in Clerical Fascism in Poland 2015-2020. A Brief Case Study of Modern Fascism in Central Europe as far-right.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

How about you stop the wikilawyering and strike your BLP vio? Volunteer Marek 07:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

And huh, Ewa Kurek? Wasn’t that exactly the BLP subject that got Icewhiz topic banned? Volunteer Marek 07:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also that’s an unpublished “draft” so not RS. Volunteer Marek 20:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually that's also true. Per WP:APL50030 editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive; I'm not sure they're eligible to vote, though. François Robere (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that the vote also contains a constructive comment, I do not see why not. I feel like it would have been specified if it was disallowed, no? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• A have a suggestion how to overcome my "Argumentative" clause objection and keep the article readable. As I said, currently the Criticism looks like a stream of name-calling. But we have a practice to move some text into quotes from sources. In fact, I saw articles its 1/3 content in quotes, both in wikipedia and in scholarly articles and books :-). E.g., "Żaryn does not understand the relevant sources" - if there are examples of this in the source cited, put these these into the footnote (may be summarized; if there are none - the statement is out, per WP:BLP. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. if there are examples of this in the source cited, put these these into the footnote... if there are none - the statement is out, per WP:BLP I don't recall BLP saying that we should second-guess sources, especially ones as established as this one.
  2. That said, since Libionka is the established source that he is, he does give relevant examples. I assume you've read the quotes in #Other sources; if you want the whole section, it starts on p. 583 of the source. François Robere (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am now translating the Jan Żaryn article, please don't rush doing so, too. It should be ready in an hour or two. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, Thank you. Expanding the article is the best solution, this also makes it possible to discuss any controversies at longer lengths, since the concerns over undue proportions are a bit less relevant in longer articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have finished translating the article (it took way longer than originally thought), with some reshuffling of info and its general rearrangement to make a coherent reading (I must admit that the Polish version is far from ideal, but at least it was better than a stub, so I hope I made it even better. Forget these annoying red links :)). DO NOT REMOVE the NPOV template until RfC is decided. I have translated the Polish section as is, as I have said that I generally see no problems with its inclusion, but I am willing to abide by consensus. Do not remove materials unilaterally to prevent edit-warring - let's better discuss it here first, what is due and what is not.

Since I believe the article is now sufficiently expanded, I change my vote the second time to exclude words "pending expansion", as the article has been expanded, so that point is moot for me. I approve of inclusion of Francois Robere's criticism; we may want to discuss which of the rest of the criticisms and views to retain.

PS. Please place a grade for the article other than stub - proposing C for now - it's not great but at least people will get a quite good understanding of who this person is, and remove the stub template. I don't want to do that so that the process stays independent of my biased view of the quality of the article. Good night. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the way you rewrote is mostly fine. The lede already notes that he's been subject of controversy. Volunteer Marek 05:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Szmenderowiecki, thank you for the expansion. The text however is somewhat promotional and is based on Żaryn's websites and interviews and less on independent sources.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Text based on Żaryn's websites and interviews and less on independent sources

@VikingDrummer - Which text you[16] are referring to? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The irrelevant early life text you restored to the lead [17], has an employer, an interview on a local station, a profile, and an appointment list as sources. I can't see where it says he was born into a "family of intellectuals" in those sources, but maybe he says that in the audio. There are poor sources throughout, like this statement by an employer. Where there is a source, like this about being dismissed from his position in the institute, it isn't used for that, and the text in the article follows the employer's statements. There there is use of janzaryn.pl which is not independent, or his defunct profile at an employer.VikingDrummer (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, so you argue that text sourced to Żaryn's interviews and employer's statements should be removed, correct? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Addressing your concerns: An architect and a lawyer are clearly intellectual occupations. At least if you asked the question "Czy to jest rodzina inteligentów?" (Is this a family of intellectuals?), the answer would be unanimously yes, so I believe it doesn't need sourcing as such. Also, it was a classification existent at the time of his birth, so I don't think this statement is in any way flattering.

I admit I had to source a lot to statements to his employer and biography (which was a general bug/feature of the Polish version), but I stand by my translation. A local radio station is good enough, it should stay. BIP catalogue of IPN is not an employer profile - it is a profile that lists documents that the Polish secret services have made on people surveilled in PRL, with a short description - and this is definitely a good source for such descriptions. (Note. The employer profile is here)

Autobiography - well, it can be discussed, but I considered it acceptable per WP:BLPSELFPUB, so I have sourced some info to that (though I tried to limit its usage whenever possible).

Profile was included for diversity of sources - it actually lists his scholarly works and his theses, so I believe it belongs there.

TVN source - I think it is in the relevant controversy (which I thought to include the main body, not criticism, but thought it would be more appropriate to move it to criticism) - add if absent. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Recent text deletions (topic separate from RfC)

I have not much time to dig into who and when was deteting which fragments, but just a few of my comments for discussion, I won't make unilateral changes.

a. Article's refs 2, 13, 14 and 49 do not display correctly since someone has deleted the defining refs. It is only mentioned to be attentive when deleting whole paragraphs.

b. "Some of his views" - though I agree not all of his views are necessarily controversial, those that he is known for and have been more or less his defining feature (commentary about Jews, far-right and nationalist militant groups, political) are.

c. A paragraph in the lead has been deleted which has, I believe, summarised key points of his scientific career, which is how he got prominent in the first place - definitely good for MOS:LEAD IMHO. I drew inspiration for lead partly from Ted Cruz and partly Mary Margaret O'Reilly to craft the leads to the article. (GizzyCatBella has since reverted the edit, but I'll still put it on discussion).

d. Since someone (presumably Volunteer Marek) has deleted the passage on contested regulation (which I thought was sourced well enough but I can find more sources both for controversy and for the resolution itself), the "Lest than two weeks later" suddenly loses sense, because this was meant to be two events one after another, but in a common theme.

Sources include: for the resolution itself: [18]; for the controversy: [19], [20], [21].

Also, these sources are good for inclusion for his being controversial: [22], [23]

Other than that, thank you all for correcting my grammar mistakes, greatly appreciated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the lead (this version) is irrelevant as it is early life details that do not make him notable. It is also with puffery ("Born in Warsaw into a family of intellectuals") and with non-independent sources (employer, an interview on a local station, a profile, and an appointment list). This information belongs in the body of the article, not the lead.VikingDrummer (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you've done some good work, and so have other editors with subsequent CE. I'm not happy with these removals by Volunteer Marek, however[24][25][26] - I don't think they're justified, and I think doing them on his own when we're in the middle of a discussion and an RfC is contentious, and invites WP:EDITWARRING. François Robere (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out several times already, in regard to this removal [27] (and rest) NONE OF THE SOURCES actually call him these things, which makes this a straight up BLPVIO and misrepresentation of sources. And this was restoration of text, "in the middle of RfC", which had already been removed so it constituted WP:EDITWARRING itself, although buried in a slew of numerous other, legitimate, edits. BLPVIO is BLPVIO. It goes. Volunteer Marek 12:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This was translated for us from pl.Wiki by Szmenderowiecki, and you deleted it less than an hour after they finished,[28] with <2 minutes between removals.[29][30][31] You want to tell me you actually read the sources with a view to what this edit states?

As pointed out several times already... NONE OF THE SOURCES actually call him these things Actually, OKO.press says he's a nationalist, GW states that his work is "representative of Catholic nationalism", and naTemat quotes Jacek Leociak as saying that his 1968 resolution draft is "saturated with nationalism". With a total of six decent sources, I fail to see how this is a "BLP VIO".

This is considered an RS by several editors, as discussed several times before. You know it might fail WP:CONSENSUS, so why didn't you take it to Talk instead of removing it?

All three sources here are well known (Newsweek, GW and Polityka), and they quote two historians who are themselves notable. That's not "weak sourcing". François Robere (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The new source here was Newsweek and yes I read it. But the thing is, as I already said, this was already discussed before. See above. WP:ONUS is on editors who want to restore text which was removed for BLP reason. This was same text that Mhorg tried to add originally [32] and it was removed for a good reason. Why are you trying to pretend that this is something new, when it's just the same ol' same ol'? Volunteer Marek 13:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

And EVEN IF you could source the "nationalistic" part based on some dubious sources like oko press which is most certainly NOT reliable for a BLP, there's still the other serious allegations that are being included in that text so why are you pretending that "nationalistic" is the only one which is in dispute? Come on man! Volunteer Marek 14:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just not clear on why I should be justifying a fairly well-supported addition word-for-word, when you don't even bother reading the sources before deleting them. François Robere (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m not clear on why I should reply to a statement that consists of personal attacks and false accusations. How about you strike that part and then we’ll talk? Volunteer Marek 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, after your retract your accusations of canvassing,[33] trying "to turn the article into an attack page"[34] and "cherry picking".[35] François Robere (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Dude. It's. The. Same. Exact. Text. And. Sources. as added by Mhorg more than a month ago. Yet you, for some reason, think that I could not have possibly have had time to "read the sources" ... ... even though we've been discussing exactly this text and sources for more than a month. You accuse me of "not bothering to read the sources" based apparantly on the belief that it's not possible to read three or four short newspaper articles over the course ... what, 48 days? Maybe I'm a slow reader, but not that slow. Volunteer Marek 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm doing that based on the fact that you deny that they say what they obviously do, then demand others prove it to you instead of going through them yourself and helping to reach a compromise.

As pointed out several times already... NONE OF THE SOURCES actually call him these things Polityka criticizes Żaryn for denying antisemitism, and for a lack of empathy towards Jewish victims of pogroms and blackmail; Gazeta.pl: "resents the Jews" and "defends anti-Semitic rituals"; na:Temat: "should Holocaust survivors who accuse Poles of complicity in the extermination of Jews be similarly prosecuted? Żaryn thinks so. 'A lie is a lie,' he said." François Robere (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The language used by Polityka (I've seen several its articles) is absolutely inadmissible in our bio articles. Period. They do have some neutral parts that describe facts, but when it comes to opinions they just don't hold their tongues. Indicating severe bias. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The question isn't what language they use, the question is whether the statement VM removed is supported by the sources - and the answer is yes. François Robere (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere: Which piece are talking about? (The talk page became huge. ) I will double-check, whether is is supported and whether the sources do not put a spin or twist. I the diff is large (some really are), please describe the disputed piece. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan: See the {{tq}} quotes and my replies above; my first message in this thread lists VM's relevant edits. François Robere (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Bias =/= reliability. Opinionated sources are admissible in BLPs, so long as they can be considered generally reliable, and Polityka can be rather well described as a Polish counterpart of The Nation, which itself is RS. It should not be "inadmissible", but there might be a need for increased caution on evaluation of DUEness of opinions. At least to the extent as these opinions represent the liberal side of the political debate, Polityka is certainly due. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, there is different level of bias. Of course people have political views. But in modern times journaliasm is screwed up mightily. My "inadmissible" refers to language. I already wrote that pure facts are reported by Polityka faithfully, but they have no problems to twist someone's words or to speak in overgeneralized ways, to enhance their agenda. In short, when reading their articles you have to have a clear understanding where is journalism and where is propaganda. So, when I see "resents the Jews", I smell propaganda. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Gazeta.pl, not Polityka.

Żaryn had said that Jews manned high-ranking positions in the Communist regime, and that Kielce was a response to that; that Jews leaving Poland were co-creators of a "dark legend" that hurt its reputation; that, to the extent that they blame Poles for persecution, Holocaust survivors should be prosecuted; that the Israeli ambassador should be expelled for commenting on the rise of antisemitism in Poland, and so on. "Resentment" seems like a fair characterization of his attitude. François Robere (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Where exactly did he say these things? Volunteer Marek 08:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

(I thought that on Kielce he said that the Russians were behind it?) Volunteer Marek 08:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is all covered by the sources you deleted (usually by more than one sources), and all but one have already been mentioned or quoted elsewhere on in our discussion (see Talk:Jan Żaryn/Archive 1#Other sources and #Recent text deletions (topic separate from RfC)). What exactly are you unfamiliar with? François Robere (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Because we now have a >2000 word article, and your main argument - that it will "turn the article into an attack page" - is moot. François Robere (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Text unsupported by sources used to attack a BLP subject is still a BLPVIO. How many words there are in the article is irrelevant. BLPVIO is BLPVIO. You’re confusing a different argument regarding a different matter. Volunteer Marek 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is "unsupported"?

You’re confusing a different argument regarding a different matter No, I'm not. You made three claims: a) that the statement isn't supported by the sources (which is at least partially false); b) that most of the sources aren't good enough (which seems ridiculous given that some are high profile publications, and others cite subject matter experts); and c) that the proportion of criticisms in the article is too high (a misreading of WP:DUE, which is at any rate irrelevant now that the article has been expanded almost ten times over). François Robere (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to hear the arguments of Volunteer Marek for why oko.press shouldn't be considered a reliable source. This seems to me like a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer our discussion remained confined to WP:SPI. Volunteer Marek 14:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for listing your preferences but that was not entirely the subject of my question. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

From my reading of the sources, while they indeed did not say "Mr X has repeatedly made chauvinist remarks", their nature is described there in detail (and appropriate adjectives are used, though not often in conjuction with the word 'remarks'), so they could be reasonably summed up as such, without violating WP:SYNTH; moreover, I understand that the first sentence as written there is meant to be a sort of a lead sentence inside the chapter; and they have been described in media critical of Żaryn as such (though).

I also take issue with your deleting sources like oko.press (which I believe have a distinct bias, but are nevertheless reliable). If you insist on it being declared unreliable despite the precedent, I'd suggest you post an RfC on reliable sources noticeboard, because otherwise I feel that an edit war may erupt over the source, which I would like to avoid.

Moreover, I don't buy your explanation as concerns the diff in link 49. Three links, or even two links (if you insist on excluding oko.press) are enough to establish the fact a controversy exists. Let me put it this way: which sources would you not object so that we could source to a controversy that happened some time ago? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That part was same text as Mhorg was trying to add here [36]. Perhaps because you both copied it from Pl wiki. Either way, it's a BLP vio and it can't go in and there's certainly no consensus to include. Also, Szmenderowiecki, the 500/30 restriction applies to you as well, since you're a new account as well so you really shouldn't be editing this article at all. Since *most* of your edits were constructive I let it slide but in the future please restrict yourself to making proposals on talk. Volunteer Marek 13:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

And... I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "despite precedent" regarding oko press. What precedent? And how would you know about it? Volunteer Marek 13:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps because you both copied it from Pl wiki. I don't know about "both", I know that I considered it notable enough to be included in the article, as I haven't made a word-for-word translation but I rather sieved out some excessive info, so I translated that sentence as is from the Polish wiki, finding it reasonable enough to be included. I am not responsible for Mhorg's actions and neither are they of much interest for me, for now.

Either way, it's a BLP vio and it can't go in and there's certainly no consensus to include. As far as I can read from the conversation, you were the only person to object to the phrase, and consensus isn't overturned by opinions of one editor (and generally it is assumed that editors do their best). On the other hand, no one so far has tried to establish it much, so let's do it - probably more people will say no, it's just I haven't seen it yet.

Also, Szmenderowiecki, the 500/30 restriction applies to you as well, since you're a new account as well so you really shouldn't be editing this article at all. I am afraid this confirms my suspicions that you are willing to apply 500/30 restrictions not on the people who are may be reasonably considered as disruptive or obviously violating WP rules (as the rules should be applied) but on those whom you don't agree with. It might be that my edit count just slipped away from your attention, but the fact that you only reveal it now that I have opposed your edits, and not the day before yesterday when you first saw my !vote, speaks volumes.

I also remind you that there are formal steps that must be made to allow enforcement of sanctions, read WP:AC/DS thoroughly (hint: as of today, only CPCEnjoyer could be theoretically struck out of conversation because he was properly notified (and by that I don't mean linking to the ArbCom decision) and the others were not; by presumption of innocence, other editors should be so far treated separately, SPI investigation notwithstanding). But that's OT. If you want to discuss it, do so on my talk page - this is not the place to address concerns about each other's behaviour.

I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "despite precedent" regarding oko press. What precedent? And how would you know about it? I've linked to the RSN discussion in my !vote. As for how I got to it, I simply checked it in RSN archives to see whether your arguments in the previous discussion for exclusion of oko.press (which I considered not brilliant but fair enough for Wikipedia) have been endorsed (and they were largely not). But again, you may want to launch an RfC on the reliability of the outlet. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No I was not the only person to object to this text. And sorry but even local Consensus (by a bunch of brand new accounts who are in fact restricted from editing this article in the first place due to extensive sock puppetry in this topic area) doesn’t override WP:BLP. The sources simply doesn’t support that text.

And damn, for a brand new account you sure know a lot about how AC/DS works. But actually you don’t have to be formally notified of these. You just have to show that you’re aware they exist. Which, you know, you just did. Anyway, 500/30 is separate from that. Editors who are not auto confirmed shouldn’t be editing these articles or voting in RfC. Volunteer Marek 16:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As for opposition to the phrase, Lembit Staan seemed to oppose not the sentence you deleted but the RfC formulation of the proposed "criticism section", arguing it has not had a secondary source summary, most of criticisms sound more like an attack than valid criticism and that there are no responses from Żaryn. Recently, they tagged one sentence for clarification, which I suspect they don't agree with, but that is a different one. Anyway, you know my position, you may want to hear more from other users, and I'm open to discuss improvements.

The rest of my answer is on your talk page, as I consider it unwise to have the discussion on policy here, but we may want to continue it elsewhere. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This "brand new account" just translated a whole article from Polish, which is more than what most "old" accounts have done in almost two weeks of discussion. François Robere (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect they don't agree with - I neither agree not disagree. I didnt know about this guy until I saw the request for RFC. And I don't know (and don't want to know) anything beyond refs actually cited (because I want to focus on the article, not on this guy). Therefore please believe me, I have absolute clean view. The sentence is question is devoid of any information. Not to say that the phrasing views on the interaction between Jews and other nationalities sounds like a hint to his general-purpose anti-Semitism rather than his view on Jewish-Polish relations. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

there are no responses from Żaryn - not necessarily from Zaryn himself, but from his side. I understand that Żaryn is not that big political figure, so that there are may be neutral analytical articles about him. Of course, being a staunch conservative, he stirred much controversy in the liberal media, and most of them are written in a dismissive-accusative tone.

[ An example of this tone from a Polityka article suggested by Szmenderowicki to me:"Szmalcownicy? "It was a profession created by the Germans in the pathological part of Polish society." - I dont see much wrong in this statement: every society has its fair share of slime and thugs, and Germans did gave them a rich opportunity for predation, and one may figuratively say that Germans did create this profession (of course, out of willing individuals). I have no idea in which context Zaryn spoke about this.] :Hence we have to be careful in selecting what to put into an encyclopedia.

Now that the article is reasonably fleshened, I suggest we stop the general-purpose discussion and focus on statements about Zaryn one by one, better in separate sections. I think this will be more constructive. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Statements about Żaryn - separate section

KOD

@Lembit Staan - Let’s start with this one:

In a 2016 interview to Nasz Dziennik, a clerical daily newspaper, Żaryn stated that calls of the Committee for the Defence of Democracy (KOD) to engage in massive civil disobedience were tantamount to advocating overturn of the Polish state and were approaching dangerously towards the betrayal of the national interests.

What's this all about? Sourced to the interview with Żaryn seems to be original research of whoever entered this into the article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Views of a person, summarized from their interview are valid sources, if the wikipedian did the job with due diligence and if there are no neutral sources to do this summarizing. I see this in Wikipedia all the time: the whole philosophical books are summarized by a wikipedian. There must be a clearly visible line: summarizing someone's view in a neutral or biased way. Lembit Staan (talk)

The interview source should be replaced, there is independent coverage. Zaryn's claim was also fact checked as FALSE.VikingDrummer (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

OKO press is not a good source for BLP’s. Second it talks entirely about something else - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

OKO is fine. And the piece is about Zaryn's interview in 2016 to Nasz Dziennik in which he called KOD civil disobedience as "rubbing against betrayal".VikingDrummer (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, no it's not. And you know this. Volunteer Marek 20:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside the question of whether summarizing primary sources is WP:OR or not, which part of the interview is this suppose to summarize? And why this particular part? In that interview he says lots of stuff about KOD. He accuses them of "protecting" former members of the Communist Secret Police for example (like this Col. Mazgula guy). Most of the interview is about the fact that he, like many Poles, is kinda not happy about former Communist Secret Police (for non-Poles reading this, basically the Polish version of Stasi) receiving high pensions while their victims were repressed and oppressed. Volunteer Marek 20:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Zaryn's claim was also fact checked as FALSE -- bull. This is a typical abuse of "fact-checkers", which begin to produce more fake facts than original fake news websites. They are not arguing against facts presented by Zaryn, and their all-caps shouting "FALSE" merely means that his views disagree with theirs. And I fail to see why their opinion is better: who the heck are they? Lembit Staan (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked up the interview and I see that our wikipedia text is a good piece of quoting out of context. Oko insinuates that Zaryn is confusing "state" with "gov't (panstwo vs. wladza). Reading the interview: he is not. Here is the whole piece, summarized: <<|Protesters also appeal to police [to join them], which is close to the treason of national interests. In democratic states police is supposed to be apolitical; they are supposed to guard the interests of the state. Therefore this appeal [to police] amounts to the destruction of the state.|>> -- And I have to agree that there is a grain of truth. Our wikipedia defines " state is a polity under a system of governance with a monopoly on force." And we did see what happened with the USSR when the gov't lost the monopoly on force: the state collapsed! In other words, in this part he speaks not against the disobedience per se, but about the attempt to involve the police. Whether he is right or not, OKO is FALSE by boomerang. (the exact same "sleight of hand" is in the source cited in pl-wp) Not to say that higher in the interview he expresses an opinion that <<|the protests are the result of the frustration of the losers in the democratic elections who could not win in a "normal democratic procedure".|>> - I would disagree with him, but I would not call this opinion scandalous, nor particularly original or prominent.

Therefore I am in favor of throwing out this piece, because (a) it is unfaithful summary; (b) the issue is neither particularly controversial (if read in context), and (c) nor a major point of his views. The major point would be a general statement of his disapproval of KOD. On the other hand, summarizing the whole answer (about the call to protests) the way I piecewise outlined above would look reasonable. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Oko press is a highly partisan tabloid something like a cross between The Jacobin and The Intercept back when it was under Glenn Greenwald’s control. It’s primary if not sole purpose is to publish hysterical hit pieces on politicians they don’t like. If you want a right wing analogy, they’re somewhere between The Federalist and Breitbart. Not outright “fake news” but skirting that line pretty close by manipulating quotes and presenting stuff out of context. Volunteer Marek 16:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

What information have they manipulated and what have they presented out of context? Can you give some examples? You can't just say a source is unreliable because you do not like it and make claims like this without any proof. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Stan just gave an example right above. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I honestly cannot understand this aversion to Oko.press. In Italy it is widely quoted by the largest center-right[37][38] and center-left[39][40] newspapers. Quite unlikely to be an unreliable source.--Mhorg (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know about Italian sources. I do know that all they publish is opinion pieces and most of them are hit pieces and that the tone is extremely hysterical and over the top. Volunteer Marek 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Jedwabne

Then this one:

• Żaryn assigns most of the blame for the Jedwabne pogrom on Germans, arguing that Germans were provoking Poles to commit the crime and that the Nazis were acting behind the scenes and commanded the people who murdered Jews.

Same as the above, sourced to the interview with him. What’s going on here? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Same as above. Is the summary decent? Did Zaryn assign "most of the blame" or he "shared the blame"? I didnt read and dont want to. I'm just giving an example of what to look for. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, here "most of the blame" is definetly POV original research. He does say that the Germans tried to "provoke" the Poles (which they did) into committing these acts and that in general they "directed" the murders. This sentence would be mostly fine if the "most of the blame" part was removed or rewritten since that is not an accurate description of the source. Volunteer Marek 20:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, once you remove the "most of the blame" OR, the rest of the statement isn't really "controversial". The Germans most certainly did try to provoke the local populations to commit pogroms and they most certainly were in charge of the events in general. There are probably some other "controversial" statements in that article but these two claims aren't. Volunteer Marek 20:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I've seen an opinion that summarizing from a primary source is original research. In is no more original research than summarizing from secondary sources. I've seen plenty of twisted summarizing of secondary sources. The central issue is Verifiability: is the summary a faithful representation of what was written or not? Again: a wikipedian usually cannot judge whether the source cited says truth (unless there is a clear contradiction; also we may always judge whether the source is biased), but it is a job of what we all do all the time: verifying whether the wikipedian correctly renders the source. Of course, WP:BLP has more stringent rules about sourcing (e.g, we have to recognize when the self-source is biased towards themselves), but what I said is the basic answer to your question.Lembit Staan (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan - I understand that you see it all the time BUT here is the policy WP:PSTS:

Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

and

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

and

Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

We should follow to the policy especially for BLP's. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Please tell me where I said otherwise. I was talking about faithful summarizing. As for "evaluating", people are often confusing "evaluation in the article text" and "evaluating in the talk page". The former is a no-no, the latter is our daily job. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As for "Żaryn assigns most of the blame <...>, the correct wikipedia text must be In this interview Żaryn assigns most of the blame <...>. - to make it clear that it is not a synthesis from several sources. - It may be followed e.g., by: "Prof. Browarski sees this as an example of Zaryn's disagreement with an established consensus" or something. (And the established consensus is, hopefully, presented in our wp-article.) This is what I was talking about in my "Argumentative" clause in the RFC above. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan - Oh yeah, I miss-read you, sorry. Yeah, I agree. Also, why those parts were chosen from the interviews, he talks about other things as well. I find this cherry-picking problematic; it's like notifying the readers that he was saying something inaccurately right off the bat. How do we know that he is not right in his statements? We don't, and if we don't, why is that in the section? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan, @GizzyCatBella: the sentences I have provided are contained in the original Polish wikipedia article. The fragments from the original text that supported the phrases are the following:

Jedwabne

1. Jedwabne: W propagandzie niemieckiej tego okresu obecna była interpretacja, według której narody uwalniane spod sowieckiej okupacji, mające być beneficjentami nowego niemieckiego porządku powinny oczyszczać z „żydokomuny” podporządkowane Niemcom ziemie. Taka interpretacja w kontekście rzekomego udziału narodu polskiego w projekcie niemieckim jest powtarzaniem kłamliwej goebbelsowskiej propagandy, wzmocnionej po wojnie niektórymi procesami – zbrodniami sądowymi czasów stalinowskich – opartymi na oskarżeniach z dekretu sierpniowego z 1944 r. „o wymiarze kary dla faszystowsko-hitlerowskich zbrodniarzy” winnych zabójstw i kolaboracji z III Rzeszą. Fakty są takie, że Niemcy próbowali prowokować Polaków do takich działań posiłkując się stanem ich rzeczywistych emocji po okupacji sowieckiej i dążyli do wprowadzenia ich w krąg nienawiści budowany przez oddziały Einsatzgruppen. Formacje te były rzeczywistymi reżyserami każdego z kilkunastu tragicznych zbrodni z czerwca i lipca 1941 r., począwszy od wydarzeń w Białymstoku, poprzez Wąsocz, Radziłów, na Jedwabnem kończąc. Wszędzie tam Niemcy próbują przymusić Polaków do uczestnictwa w tych mordach, co w większości wypadków się nie udaje, a jeśli to jedynie w formie biernej. Oczywiście w Jedwabnem znajdują folksdojczów i osoby spoza tej miejscowości, które przychodzą tam razem z Niemcami. Wszystko jednak dzieje się pod dyktando niemieckie. Loosely translated: In the German propaganda of that period, there was an intepretation according to which the people who were liberated from the Soviet occupation and who were to be profiting from the new German order were to clean the conquered lands by Germans from "Żydokomuna". The interpretation, in the context of the alleged participation of the Polish people in the German project, is repeating deceitful Goebbels propaganda that was amplified after [WWII] by some processes - [namely], the judicial crimes of Stalinist times - that were based on accusations [coming] from the August 1944 decree "On the terms of punishment for the Fascist-Hitlerite criminals" who were guilty of murders and collaboration with the Third Reich. The facts are such that Germans were trying to provoke Poles to such activities, making use of the state of their real emotions after the Soviet occupation, and were striving to introduce them to the circle of hate that was being developed by the Einsatzgruppen. These formations were the real directors of each of the [dozen - used word for 11-19] tragic crimes of June and July 1941, starting from the events in Białystok, through Wąsocz, Radziłów and finishing in Jedwabne. In every place, Germans try to force Poles to participate in the massacres, which does not happen in most cases, and even if it does, only in the passive form. Of course, they find the Volksdeutsche in Jedwabne [as well as] people from outside the settlement who come there with the Germans. All that happens, however, under German instructions.

From which text I made the following conclusions: 1. Żaryn states that he considers Germans as the directors and arguably the principal perpetrators of the crimes in summer 1941 in Podlasie 2. That Germans were provoking Poles to participate; 3. That Żaryn doubts that Poles have actually taken part in the massacres.

KOD

2. KOD: – W tej sytuacji z jednej strony te środowiska i ludzie wymienieni przez pana redaktora nie potrafią się pogodzić z demokratycznym werdyktem Narodu Polskiego, a jednocześnie z drugiej strony przekraczają granice, za którymi trudno się doszukiwać dialogu. Ponieważ ten apel dotyczy np. polskich obywateli, którzy mają zapisane w swoich obowiązkach wynikających z zawodu, jaki uprawiają, a więc wprost lojalności wobec interesu własnego – czyli polskiego państwa. Z tego, co wiem, ten apel jest adresowany także do służb mundurowych, a to już jest zjawisko, które ociera się o zdradę interesów narodowych. Ponieważ w tradycji demokratycznego państwa istnieje założenie o apolityczności służb, które mają chronić nasze bezpieczeństwo – służb, które mają bronić najżywotniejszych interesów państwa polskiego. Jeżeli środowiska KOD-u apelują o to, żeby nieposłuszeństwo było powszechne, to znaczy, że apelują o to, żeby nie było państwa polskiego. Translating: In this situation, on the one hand, these organisations [from the opposition] and the people whom Mr Editor has named [Wałęsa, Frasyniuk, Schetyna, Petru - my note] have not been able to come to terms with the democratic verdict of the Polish People, while on the other, they cross the lines beyond which aiming for dialogue is difficult. That is because the proclamation [of KOD] concerns e.g. the citizens of Poland, who have written in their duties of the job they have, that is, loyalty towards their interests - i.e. of the Polish state. From what I know, the proclamation is addressed i.a. to the uniformed services, and that is a phenomenon that dangerously approaches the betrayal of national interests. That is because in the tradition of a democratic state, there is an assumption that the services that are tasked with protecting us are apolitical - the services which are to protect the vital interests of the Polish state. If the organisations affiliated with KOD ask the people to adopt universal civil disobedience, that means they are arguing for [the dissolution] of the Polish state.

From which text I make the conclusions as presented in the sentence. Per WP:PSTS it would be advisable to substitute the resource, but again the one that analyses it is oko.press, which is contested, while quoting such large passages might be, well, inconvenient.

PS. The section is named "Views and controversy" - you may want to divide it into Views, and Controversy, but the Polish article did not make such differentiation (it only said "controversy" where some of the fragments were clearly views that might be considered controversial - or at least the sourcing did not indicate a scandal). As concerns the quotes, I believe I have summarised their main points, which is risky but could nevertheless be handled properly. At the time, as it was late in the night, I was tired of looking for new sources, but I can find some more now. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

So what’s so scandalous or out of the ordinary in what that scholar discusses? Is he saying that the earth is flat? To me this is an WP:UNDUE original interpretation of a primary sources on top entered in the wrong section. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively. I’m going to remove that right away since it’s a WP:BLP article and must adhere strictly to Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V) and no original research (WP:NOR). Please keep in mind that the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

So what’s so scandalous or out of the ordinary in what that scholar discusses?

A debate on the issue of whether Poles were in any way coerced to commit the massacre is still happening after the publication of Sąsiedzi, and he is on the side of those who believe that Poles were coerced (cf. citation of Michlic and Hackmann in the article, who criticise the general attitude of trying to exonerate the Poles). For instance, this article from Univ. of Łódź opines that "if IPN organises a conference on Polish-Jewish relations,b then the people who will be admitted could be Marek Chodakiewicz, Jerzy Robert Nowak or Jan Żaryn, while Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski or Dariusz Libionka will be disqualified, because their participation would be a blunder*" *-alluding to an earlier quote of Jarosław Szarek. Libionka himself states in Żaryn's generally negative book review that he is one of the greatest opponents of the view pitched by Jan Tomasz Gross. Since the topic is controversial and Żaryn has made extensive comments on Jedwabne in general, his POV on Jedwabne should be included, and at least a mention of his strenuous opposition to Jan Tomasz Gross. See also [41], [42].

In other words, change the source; don't change the sentence much.

As for KOD and his declaration about "betrayal" - I don't see your argument at all. Is this info verifiable? It is - it has even been published in two media resources, of which I cited Nasz Dziennik as the original one and not the analysis by oko.press, as was in the original. Has it been published in a reliable source? I stand by the previous discussion, in which both you and Volunteer Marek have voted against, but most other editors were in favour. There is one more problem - as I have noted in the translation, he regularly publishes in conservative publications and seldom outside them; unfortunately, I see great reliability issues with most of the right-wing Polish media, which he favours to publish in and speak to (exception: some Catholic journals are good enough, but certainly not Nasz Dziennik). That said, his political views, particularly since he was a senator at the time of publication, certainly belong to the article.

Has this been original research? Rewriting source material in your own words, while substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research.

I may propose to divide the chapter about views and controversies into two parts (political views; controversies) if possible. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki - quoting you here -->Since the topic is controversial and Żaryn has made extensive comments on Jedwabne in general, his POV on Jedwabne should be included, and at least a mention of his strenuous opposition to Jan Tomasz Gross. Are you planning to add the fact that Żaryn is one of these scholars that dispute Gross's findings in the dedicated controversies section[43] of Jan Tomasz Gross's article? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Could be, if determined notable enough. No objections for that. The quotes are provided in the sources; in Żaryn's article, we could essentially copy the fragment. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If according to you it's notable here, then it is notable there as well, don't you agree? - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. But I don't know if it is notable enough in the first place. I think I could introduce a paragraph or a couple of sentences for evaluation before copypasting it here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Szmenderowiecki, thanks for providing these quotes, that clarifies which part of the source they're supposedly based on. Here are the issues:

1. Żaryn states that he considers Germans as the directors and arguably the principal perpetrators of the crimes in summer 1941 in Podlasie 2. That Germans were provoking Poles to participate; 3. That Żaryn doubts that Poles have actually taken part in the massacres. 1 is fine in the part where Zaryn says he considers Germans "as the directors". It is not fine in the part where it says Zaryn considers Germans "principal perpetrators". You yourself seem to be aware of that since you add the word "arguably". If it's "arguably" then it shouldn't be in here since this is a BLP. It's also a flag that this part is WP:OR

2 is fine. 3 however is NOWHERE in the source. Zaryn simply does not say anything like this. Not even close. In fact he obviously acknowledges that Poles took part.

So this is, like 1/3 ok and 2/3 original research. Remove the WP:OR BLP violating parts and it may be fine. Volunteer Marek 02:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

On the second one, the obvious issue is that particular statement by Zaryn is NOT referring to "KOD". You had to add that in yourself. See how you " [of KOD]" in there. Rather he is referring specifically to the individuals mentioned, who signed some letter (Walesa, Frasyniuk, etc.). I don't know if these are all KOD people. Who's Walesa affiliated with these days? Not sure? Himself, maybe? Anyway, that part is OR

More troubling is the fact that the text in Wikipedia grossly misrepresents the source/interview. It claims that Zaryn says that KOD's (or whoever) call for "civil disobedience" were "tantamount to advocating overturn of the Polish state and were approaching dangerously towards the betrayal of the national interests". NO. What Zaryn says is that calling ON THE POLICE AND THE ARMY to disobey the democratically elected government of Poland is "tantamount etc etc"

Which is far less controversial. Imagine if Trump called on the US Armed Forces, the National Guard and the police forces across country to engage in "disobedience" against democratically elected President Biden. And some democratic politician/historian stated in an interview that this was "advocating overturn of US's democratic election". Guess what? That democratic politician would be exactly right.

The text that is being put into Wikipedia alters what Zaryn says to make it look like something fringe or extreme, but all the dude is saying is that if certain politicians are advocating for the armed forces to engage in "disobedience" against duly elected government then you don't really believe in democracy.

BTW, I met Frasyniuk (one of the people Zaryn is criticizing here) when I was a kid when he hid out, on the run from the communist authorities, in our apartment. Volunteer Marek 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Part 1. Please review other links that state Żaryn's view that Germans were principal perpetrators of Jedwabne (from 4 scholarly sources), that may change the proposal.

Part 2. On the second one, the obvious issue [...] part is OR.

Come on, you could do better than that - it's just I didn't want to manually translate the whole quote. The question specifically asks: Among others, Wałęsa, Frasyniuk, Schetyna and Petru have signed a proclamation that urges people to deny obedience to the legally elected government in Poland. What, in your opinion, are [these] call[s] to mass protests, particularly on 13 December*? * - Martial law in Poland anniversary. All four names appear on the document and the mass protests were scheduled on 13 December, so they clearly talk about KOD and its proclamation and they understand each other on that, even if they don't state it explicitly. The interviews do not exist in a vacuum, they discuss contemporary events, which at that time could be understood without uttering "proclamation of KOD" - it was all in the news.

More troubling [...] then you don't really believe in democracy. Admittedly it did so. oko.press and Żaryn interpret the declaration from different political standpoints: Żaryn in the literalist sense of the word (civil disobedience of the military -> eliminating of one of the pillars of govt -> anarchy), while Leszczyński looks on that from the other perspective (civil disobedience as a means to defend civil rights). These are two parallel perspectives and are affected by political bias here and not reliability issues (I would say that, in a way, they are talking past each other). Since obviously a person affiliated with PiS is against KOD, I believe the sentence could be dropped altogether per Lembit Staan's suggestion of it not being notable by itself, and oko.press is the only source discussing the interview. This might be the proper conclusion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

What other links? The text being inserted is based on a single primary source. If there’s some other source please provide it. Volunteer Marek 05:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

And on the 2nd part, am I understanding correctly that we can simply drop this part? Volunteer Marek 05:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Correct. After analysis, I came to the conclusion it was not salvageable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Ok, see, it can be difficult and contentious but we can work it out. In the first part, if we can change the wording appropriately then we'll have taken care of that as well. Volunteer Marek 13:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Szmenderowiecki, the arguments against are empty and with no merit other than disliking the content.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Your comment is content-free. There’s a detailed explanation of what is wrong with the text being inserted. It simply is not backed by sources. And this is a BLP. Volunteer Marek 05:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek and Szmenderowiecki: Żaryn's own words, for reference: [44][45] François Robere (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed the interview that is being discussed in this section. Volunteer Marek 20:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Just quote him:

Żaryn believes that the perception of Poles during WWII as antisemitic and xenophobic is a "false stereotype", that is contrary to the nation's Christian identity.

Żaryn believes that "Germans tried to provoke Poles to [acts of violence against Jews] by taking advantage of their emotional state after the Soviet occupation... in most cases they failed, but when they didn't, [the Polish participation] was only passive." He blames the Jedwabne pogrom on Volksdeutsche, "outsiders", and German direction; and has stated that "even if some of the Polish locals participated in this 'spectacle' under duress... the majority looked on in disgust at what the Germans did...". Żaryn has supported the efforts to exhume the bodies of Jedwabne's victims, led by Ewa Kurek over objections of the Jewish community, for both scientific and political reasons.

François Robere (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, Assuming this is accurate, I think quoting him is acceptable. Although is the word "believes" neutral? Maybe "states" would be better? As an aside, Erving Goffman said that we can never be sure what one truly believes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Outspoken views

Now, where this --> Jan Żaryn is known for his outspoken views on the interaction between Jews and other nationalities.^{[clarification needed]} comes from? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

See User_talk:Lembit_Staan#Jan_Żaryn_edit_-_clarification here. I didn't throw it out right away, because it looks harmless per WP:BLP, and maybe it will attract an attention of someone knows something. But if not expanded in 1-2 days, it is out. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is where François Robere's sources should enter if approved. I propose to remove the sentence pending RfC resolution. If approved, we should use the sources provided by Robere. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As it stands now, the RfC is basically a cluster fuck of brand new accounts brigading in violation of an ArbCom restriction. Oh and it’s also not neutrally worded. I doubt we’ll get much resolution out of it. Better path is to try and work out a compromise here and then if there’s still disagreement redo the RfC properly. Volunteer Marek 05:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a summary of sources covering these outspoken views. Zaryn was a bit in the spotlight after calling for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador who complained about rising antisemitism in Poland. Looking at his media profile, he gets spurts of coverage for his outrageous statements and not much else.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@VikingDrummer are you aware that WP:BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)