Talk:Jan Żaryn

Template:BLP noticeboard 

BLP vio

This [1] edit attempts to turn the article into an attack page. From the sources given the only one which comes close to being RS is Polityka [2] and even that is an opinion piece which is not suitable for a BLP (main difference is that article manages to avoid the hysterics that others do). But even that doesn't say what is being claimed in the text. Furthermore that source does in fact have some notable and pertinent information about the subject - such that his family rescued Jews during the war and were recognized as Righteous Among Nations, or that his mother was arrested by the Nazis but released with intervention of the same Wehrmacht officer who saved The Pianist - but that is completely ignored. These are straight up POV edits and they violate our policies. Volunteer Marek 20:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

These are excellent sources, including oko.press. Commentary covers some of this in English, [3] (free copy: [4]), stating that Żaryn pushed the myth of "Jewish participation in the mass extermination of Poles."V.A. Obadiah (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you ask for the review of this addition at WP:BLPN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I don't think this is a BLP vio. Attack pages are "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone", and that part was well sourced with at least 2 RS, Gazeta Wyborcza and Oko.press, that were already defined "Reliable".[5] If you want to add what happened with the family of this man, it is good, but has nothing to do with his statements section. And I'd like to point out that the only reason this guy is known internationally is because of his pro-nationalists attitude,[6][7] it would be strange to omit those informations. Balance: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone", so where is the "balance"?--Mhorg (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

BLP requires better sources than hit pieces in tabloids or websites that are ideologically opposed to the subject (and no, these sources were not “defined as reliable”). I don’t like the guy myself but you just can’t use his Wikipedia article to attack him. There’s nothing in there even close to a “disinterested tone” (aside from the Polityka source). And once again, you’re posting things like opendemocracy, which is simply not RS. Volunteer Marek 11:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please, why are you avoiding the counting for the reliability of these sources? I also made a recap in another thread, could you answer?[8] About "opendemocracy", I didn't use it on this article, I was only showing that international media talk about this guy just for his pro-nationalist attitude. About the BLP rule, the need of "disinterested tone" is referred to the text in the article, not to the text in the sources. And yes, that text was neutral, and, for each criticism, the subject who made it is reported: "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. He attributes the responsibility to the Germans for provoking Poles to commit the pogrom in Jedwabne. He praised the activities of the pre-war fascist organisation National-Radical Camp (ONR). A journalist from Gazeta Wyborcza, Paweł Smoleński, regarding Jan Żaryn, said: "A man who happens to whitewash Polish fascism under the sign of ONR and NSZ.". I would like to point out that these statements are present also on the article in Polish.[9]--Mhorg (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Dude. What does this sentence even mean: "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"???? "recognized"??? What? Huh? All these are opinion pieces and they're either not reliable (NT) or they don't say what this text claims. Volunteer Marek 15:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Insofar as we're discussing a politician then seven mainstream newspapers and magazines should be enough, though we should quote and attribute everything. François Robere (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no "seven mainstream newspapers and magazines" here and that's putting aside that some of the sources being included don't actually say what the text claims. Volunteer Marek 15:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

And really, the whole question of reliability is 100% irrelevant as simply none of these sources support the text that is being inserted. This is pretty close to being sanctionable disruptive editing by Mhorg as it's a straight up misrepresentation of sources. Volunteer Marek 15:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, Mhorg, it's pretty clear from this comment you left at FR's talk page (an indirect form of WP:CANVASS) that you don't even have access to some of these sources, hence you have not even read them. Why are you putting in BLP VIOs into the article based on sources you haven't actually read? Volunteer Marek 15:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I answer all your allegations:

About the use of "recognized", sorry, maybe my English could be misunderstood... but the meaning I think is clear: "those journalists consider those statement to be false..." and so on.

Please, if you read those sources, they clearly speak about "nationalist, anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false" claims. For example this article accuses him of an anti-Semitic discourse,[10] while this article is incentrated to his "mythological" (historically false) view of the past in a nationalist\chauvinistic way.[11] What is perhaps wrong is that they are all merged (we could separate each accusation made by each newspaper/journalist) but the accusations are practically these and nothing written is false. The phrase should be adjusted.

About your accusation of canvassing, that was an old discussion with François Robere dated 20 March 2021 about Greniuch, and then I asked him how to read the entire article that links Greniuch to Zaryn, so it was pertinent to our discussion. And no, it wasn't canvassing, I talked about Greniuch-Zaryn in the Institute of National Remembrance discussion togheter with you and François Robere in 22 April 2021. Every Wyborcza article needs the subscription, but something can be read, and if you want with Google snippet you can read more (which is a time-consuming practice).--Mhorg (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Which of these seven newspapers and magazines aren't mainstream: Polityka, OKO.press, Gazeta.pl, Wyborcza.pl, na:Temat, DZIEJE.PL or POLITYCZEK.PL?

El C and here VM accuses someone of "indirect canvassing" for asking for help accessing a source. François Robere (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you do this? Your WP:AE is still open and you can't help but try to escalate. Why you do always do this? It's pretty obvious he went running to your talk to bring you here. Did I report him? Did I threaten to report him over it? No. I was just pointing it out. Now, what may indeed be reportable is the fact that those sources don't say what he's claiming they say. That source does not "accuse him of anti-Semitic discourse", although I guess if you really read into it you could say it insinuates it. Which is not enough for a BLP. Same for the rest. Seriously FR, drop the constant WP:BATTLEGROUND. Everyone is sick and tired of it. Volunteer Marek 01:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(Same goes for using sources in a BLP to attack the subject without actually having read them). Volunteer Marek 01:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please stop these accusations. If I had wanted to act as a "gang" I could have intervened in that AE request, which I have been aware of for days, and sided with François Robere... but I have not, because I'm not that type of user and you should stop offending me (I also showed how I was talking about the links between Greniuch and Zaryn in other discussion with you and François just days ago, but you clarly prefer to be blind). As for your accusations of not reading the sources, first of all I asked François for information on another article, which has not yet been included here, and then, I repeat, Wyborcza's articles are partly readable even without subscription. And yes, from what you can read (without subscription) from that article, that I inserted, it speaks of a nationalist reinterpretation of the facts of the 1968 Polish political crisis. As for the insinuation on an anti-Semitic discourse, that's right, that's exactly what the journalist means. I'll make a summary.

Politika 1: Accuse of nationalistic views\historical false: "About March [1968] anti-Semitism, although 'pathological', it 'did not represent the will of the nation, but only of Moscow.", anti-semitism "The Jews did something for themselves by filling the highest stools in the communist repression apparatus. The Kielce pogrom is, of course, a provocation." and homophobia: "he was able to write about Jerzy Zawieyski and Jerzy Andrzejewski as "sick people, sex addicts" (probably referring to their homosexual orientation)"

Oko.press: Anti-Ukrainian discourse: "The Polish side is doing everything to civilize the Ukrainian nation - the Ukrainian side is doing everything to leave this European civilization and still have claims against Poland, so that we can defend the interests of the Ukrainian state.", accusation of praising ONR: "A man who happens to whitewash Polish fascism under the sign of ONR" and much more inside the article.

Wiadomosci.gazeta.pl: Anti-semitic discourse: Zaryn "argues that any claims on the part of the Jewish community are "the will to destroy our [Catholic] religiosity" and so on "the Polish government decided by law to deny the crimes that Poles had committed against Jews. [...] Żaryn [...] throw accusations from his trenches of destroying the image of Poland and defend the anti-Semitic rite."

Wyborcza: Accuse of nationalistic views\historical false: "In his draft resolution for the 50th anniversary of the events of March 1968, PiS senator Jan Żaryn tries the impossible - at the same time he wants to apologize to the Jews and cleanse the Poles. We wrote about the resolution by Żaryn yesterday in "Wyborcza". Half a century after the last Jews were expelled from Poland, the senator apologizes, but blames everything on the communists."

natemat.pl: Accuse of nationalistic views\historical false: "Jan Żaryn claims that Poland is not guilty of the campaign against the Jews, as a result of which tens of thousands of people emigrated from the country. [...] This is a resolution that distorts the recent history of Poland. The purpose of this resolution is not to commemorate the events, it is not about historical memory. PiS wants to use this anniversary for historical policy purposes. And there is such a difference between historical memory and historical politics as between heaven and earth. [...] the resolution is scandalous also because the communists were miraculously separated from the Polish nation: - The content is soaked with nationalism. The authors sanctify the Polish nation, always innocent."

dzieje.pl Accuse of nationalistic views\historical false about the responsabilities of Poles in the Jedwabne pogrom: "Zaryn: The facts are that the Germans tried to provoke Poles to such actions"

So, please, could you please tell me if all this stuff is reliable or not? I think it is. I think it is also due and could balance the article.--Mhorg (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In the text itself we should avoid strong value judgments like "accuses", and opt for neutral terms like "states" or "writes" (or at most "criticizes"). Similarly, we should be careful with terms like "antisemitic", unless they're repeated by several RS. Perhaps the best way of handling this would be to quote the sources, or Żaryn himself as quoted by them; as long as the quotes are representative of the sources (not "cherry-picked"), this should be okay. François Robere (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't know. For example, if an historian goes against international historiography, I think it is right to point this out (I'm talking about the use of "accuses")... or not? Because in this case we are talking of historical revisionism (or completely historical false). I don't know if I managed to explain properly. --Mhorg (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, but it has to be stated by the source that that's what they're doing, otherwise it's WP:OR. If it's not stated in those words exactly, or if the message is more nuanced, then you'd do better to quote instead of paraphrase. François Robere (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg. You're actually proving my point.

When Polityka writes: "O marcowym antysemityzmie tyle, że jakkolwiek „patologiczny”, to „nie reprezentował woli Narodu, a jedynie Moskwy”. " ("regarding "March 68" antisemitism <Zaryn> states that it was pathological but it didn't represent the nation but rather policy from Moscow") (because it was organized by the Polish Communist Party which didn't do anything without approval from Moscow - VM) where exactly does this say "Zaryn has been recognized as engaging in nationalistic/historically false discourse"?

What's going on here is that YOU, you personally, believe this claim to be "nationalistic" or "false" (WP:OR) so you impute that to the source, even though the source doesn't say anything like that. That is precisely the misrepresentation of sources that I am referring to. Volunteer Marek 16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"Oko.press: Anti-Ukrainian discourse: " Same thing here. Source - which IS unreliable, as can be easily fathomed from the hysterical hyperbolic tone - doesn't EVEN say this is "anti-Ukrainian". That's YOUR invention. (For context, Zaryn is sour-graping over fact that Poland supports Ukraine's entry into EU and NATO but Ukrainians still celebrate Bandera - VM). Volunteer Marek 16:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The rest is the same, and it's pretty blatantly obvious that none of the things you've put into the article are actually in the sources. I assume you're acting in good faith and are just not aware of the fact that just because YOU disagree with those statements personally, and consider them to be XYZ then it's obviously the case that this is true even though the sources don't actually say that. Volunteer Marek 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg is not actually wrong in perceiving these as nationalistic Polish perspectives - we have plenty of sources that establish that that we've already discussed in other venues. However, we cannot inject our own knowledge to articles without RS, so the fact that we believe that Żaryn has nationalistic beliefs doesn't matter unless we can find a source that states it in those, or in reasonably close terms. François Robere (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Some of these may be "nationalistic perspectives" and some of it ain't (for example, the fact that it was the Communist party which organized the anti-semitic campaign in 1968 is not controversial). Some of it is just a particular editor's perception. Either way, you need a source. A reliable source. Volunteer Marek 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

But that's not what he's saying: he's saying that it wasn't "the will of the people", but "Moscow's" - ie cleansing Poles of moral responsibility, while shifting the blame to Russia. That's not exactly the accepted narrative. François Robere (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You really need to watch BLP here, since it applies to talk pages as well as articles. I have no idea what “cleansing Poles of moral responsibility” even means in this context. Is this one of those “the Poles are xyz” things were the assumption is that all Poles are identical? And there’s no need to “shift” anything. It is where it is. I’m also not sure why you’re linking to the 1968 Polish political crisis article as if that proved something? Or as if it disproved something. You can write “accepted narrative” all you want but in this case that seems to be not much more than some narrative that you hold on to.I.e. your own WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 02:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is something we've already discussed in the context of several historians, the IPN and PiS, and is also stated in these terms by Mhorg's sources. There's no BLP issue here. François Robere (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Have we? You'll have to remind me where since we've discussed a lot of things. And it is most certainly NOT "stated in those terms" by the sources. That's part of the point here. Volunteer Marek 18:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If you want to avoid escalation, then don't assume bad faith and accuse innocent people of foul play.[12] Don't "point out" anything - address the content, not the person. François Robere (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh. Volunteer Marek 16:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg:: Just as an example, using your first and third citations:

Żaryn's approach to Jews and antisemitism has been criticized by various authors. Journalist Rafał Kalukin writes that 'according to the professor, antisemitism doesn't exist'. Wiktoria Beczek quotes Żaryn's response to statements from the Jewish community on the Pruchnik Judas ritual, calling them "wishes to destroy our [Catholic] religiosity'".

François Robere (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is a BLP, I don't think it's appropriate to include Kalukin's opinion about what he thinks is inside someone else's head. He doesn't cite or source that claim. OTOH, if it's something that's verifiable then we could maybe use Polityka for that. Volunteer Marek 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Having read your arguments, although in some articles there are open criticisms (Volunteer Marek, you cannot deny it), I realize that other articles have certainly been written in a polemical and derisive tone towards Zaryn (because his positions are obviously inadmissible and anti-historical, and journalists show their opposition in that way) but there are no clear-cut positions that can justify the sentence as it was written at the beginning by me. At this point I think that the solution proposed by François[13] may be acceptable, together with other criticisms made by journalists/historians towards Zaryn's statements (as reported by François in the "Other sources" section below). I think that this work can and should be done, because it fits more comprehensively into the criticisms related to the politicization of the Institute of National Remembrance. And I think at this point it is also noteworthy to show the connection between Zaryn and Greniuch, talking about the "nationalist circles" in the institute. Taking about Politika's article, I think it would be interesting to report this part about the "myth": "There are two rules. First, Poles as a nation are innocent. Secondly, even if this or that compatriot has something behind his ears, the responsibility is solely as an individual. Usually led astray by enemies. Such a pattern can be found in most of the texts of Jan Żaryn, PiS senator [...] Who says about himself that his task is to create "positive myths" about Polishness."
Apart from this discourse, I would like to understand how these Wikipedia's mechanisms work, if a vote has deemed as reliable two sources (which we could use both here and on the Institute's article), such as Oko.press and Wyborcza, and a user refuses to acknowledge that vote, as it is happening now again, how does it work? I ask you because I have been gaining experience just in these months.--Mhorg (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg, I concur that solution proposed by Francois is good practice - quote and attribute what other say. The only thing remaining for us to consider is whether such quotations would be due or undue. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

For a vote to become binding it has to be as part of an RfC. Then the votes are tallied "formally", and if an editor refuses to abide by the results then they can be subject to sanctions. François Robere (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: Are there other news sources that you'd like to see included? François Robere (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on the voting mechanisms. As for the sources, I would like to be able to read the full article on Greniuch-Zaryn link on Wyborcza,[14] but I am having problems paying the subscription. I'm talking to their support team. I hope soon to be able to conclude. However, I did not understand if this Greniuch thing has already been blocked on the Institute article.--Mhorg (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There were some issues with mentioning Greniuch on the other article, but I don't think the discussion is over yet. Regardless, where the circumstances are different a decision on one article should not necessarily impact another. François Robere (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I found two interesting part about Zaryn, maybe they could be used in the article.
Wojciech Czuchnowski, Wyborcza[15]:"Żaryn devotes a large part of his resolution to the attitude of the Church at the time. In his opinion, it was glorious. This is also not true. The Church did not stutter on words in defense of Polish Jews. From the pulpits there were no words of caution against the faithful, no condemnation for the persecution or sympathy for the expelled. [...] Almost no one helped them, almost no one defended them. Many were happy, many - including those who were far from communism - backed the government at that time."
This is the entire part in Polish: "Obszerną część swojej uchwały Żaryn poświęca ówczesnej postawie Kościoła. Jego zdaniem była ona chwalebna. To też nieprawda. Kościół słowem się nie zająknął w obronie polskich Żydów. Z ambon nie padły słowa przestrogi wobec wiernych, potępienia dla prześladowań ani współczucia dla wypędzanych. Rok 1968 to w dziejach Kościoła ciemna karta. Wierzę, że Żaryn ma dobre intencje, ale nie chce lub nie potrafi zrozumieć istoty Marca. A jest ona taka, że niespełna ćwierć wieku po wojnie w kraju będącym cmentarzyskiem milionów Żydów ostatni ich przedstawiciele musieli po raz kolejny przejść przez piekło. Prawie nikt im nie pomógł, prawie nikt ich nie bronił. Wielu się cieszyło, wielu – w tym również ci, którym daleko było do komunizmu – poparło wtedy władzę. Tego właśnie nie był w stanie zrozumieć cywilizowany świat. I za to trzeba przeprosić."

Jacek Harłukowicz, Wyborcza[16]:"One of the reviewers of Tomasz Greniuch's work was prof. Jan Żaryn, former PiS senator, today director of the newly established Institute of National Thought Roman Dmowski and Ignacy Jan Paderewski. In his extremely positive review, Żaryn wrote: “The author is a young historian, but already recognizable among researchers who have been dealing with the national movement for years. His interest in this - mainly due to ideological reasons - a once neglected research area is combined with the simultaneous passion of a regional historian, publicist and social activist ”. This belies the alleged unawareness of the political involvement of Greniuch, who was one of the main ideologists of the ONR during his doctoral thesis."
Entire part in Polish: "Jednym z recenzentów pracy Tomasza Greniucha był prof. Jan Żaryn, były senator PiS, dziś dyrektor nowo powołanego Instytutu Dziedzictwa Myśli Narodowej im. Romana Dmowskiego i Ignacego Jana Paderewskiego. W swojej niezwykle pozytywnej recenzji Żaryn pisał m.in.: „Autor jest młodym historykiem, ale już rozpoznawalnym wśród badaczy od lat zajmujących się ruchem narodowym. Jego zainteresowania tym – głównie z racji ideologicznych – zaniedbanym niegdyś obszarem badawczym łączą się z jednoczesną pasją historyka regionalisty, publicysty i działacza społecznego”. Zadaje to kłam rzekomej nieświadomości na temat politycznego zaangażowania Greniucha, który w czasie swojego przewodu doktorskiego był jednym z głównych ideologów ONR."--Mhorg (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg, Volunteer Marek, and Piotrus: Much of the discussion above was about rephrasing news media. Putting that aside, are we okay with attributed quotes instead? We have plenty of sources and I'd like to wrap it up. François Robere (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, The only issue here is whether the quotes are due or not. The idea itself is sound. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'll make an edit later and we can work from there on specific objections. François Robere (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to the two Wyborcza sources above then again, I think this is UNDUE. The first one gets into an academic debate about role of the Catholic Church during the 1968 crisis and veers off topic. Including this would require us to provide more context to this debate and that would make the article about something else. Kind of same for the second one.

Either way, we really shouldn't be using opinion pieces from outlets with an ideological axe to grind unless there's something particularly notable or significant about these pieces (this is why I'm probably ok with using the Polityka article - because it's at least comperhensive).

So no, "attributed quotes" can be NPOV vios just like any other text, per WP:UNDUE for example. Volunteer Marek 18:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, while right at this moment I don't have access to the first Wyborcza article because paywall, even reading the part that is visible suggests that the article itself is more balanced then Mhorg presents above. The subtitle says "his intentions are good but he does not understand..." Second paragraph says that given the politics he represents Zaryn's text on the 1968 events is "pretty brave" (or "courageous"?). So right of the bat it looks like the above is just a few cherry picked quotes plus an editor doing WP:OR. Same problem as with the previous suggestions. Volunteer Marek 18:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: We can state he's been defensive of the role of the Catholic church in the 1968 crisis under "Beliefs", with a link to the main article - no need to expound beyond that. We can also state he's ties to "controversial historian TG", with possible link to the BLP (if we'll have one) - again no need to expound further. We shouldn't have a problem using those for simple factual statements liket these, given that by itself the possibility of "bias" is not a grounds for excluding a source.[17]

What do you think about quoting Żaryn himself from the Wiadomosci.gazeta.pl bit, and do you have any objections to using the experts quoted below? François Robere (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere: I'm ok with your proposal. Could you please add your text here to check it togheter?--Mhorg (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: See below. François Robere (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft

Draft for a new section - "Views":

Dariusz Libionka writes on Żaryn's belief that Polish-Jewish "tensions" in the pre-war years were "primarily on economic grounds", stating that Żaryn does not understand the relevant sources, and that his text is "frightfully general", "horribly awkward" and "imprecise and informatively useless". He states that Żaryn "clearly read some studies but departed from the truth when he was summarizing them", and that he "does not know basic facts" about the subject. Libionka writes that: "considering Jan Żaryn’s ideological sympathies and inspirations, it is not really surprising that he is particularly interested in Jewish issues... his publications devoted to Polish-Jewish issues... often treat the Holocaust subject matter instrumentally – to say the least. Making matters worse, as IPN Public Education Bureau Chief he created historical policy. [Żaryn] is responsible for the withering of the IPN research on the Holocaust...".[ref]

Żaryn had stated his belief that "a significant proportion of Jewish individuals either supported the communist authorities or else simply joined their ranks", blaming Jews for "censorship and propaganda, slandering the memory of [Polish World War II underground organizations], and deceitfully remaining silent about Soviet massacres." He believes this "intensified anti-Semitic attitudes", which led to "uncontrolled impulses" - namely the 1946 Kielce pogrom. Żaryn's narrative has been criticized by Kate Korycki, who writes that it "unwittingly recycles many Polish anti-Semitic tropes and in so doing, ties Jewishness to communism, making both doubly foreign and odious". She adds that Żaryn "[uses] a description of the post-war pogrom in Kielce, perpetrated on Jews by Poles, [as] an opportunity to blame the Jews".[ref] Rafał Kalukin writes that "according to the professor, antisemitism doesn't exist."[18]

Żaryn had defended the role of the Church in the 1968 political crisis that led to the emigration of Poland's Jews,[19] and had claimed that the outburst of "pathological" antisemitism during that time "did not represent the will of the nation, but only of Moscow."[20].

Responding to criticisms of the Pruchnik Judas ritual - an event where an effigy of Judas Iscariot that resembles an Orthodox Jew is vandalized in public[21] - made by Jewish organizations, Żaryn stated that they are "wishes to destroy our [Catholic] religiosity".[22]

François Robere (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dude, this is a no-go. You’d make the “criticism” section much longer than rest of the article itself, including long block quotes. And as stated before most of this undue. Volunteer Marek 20:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Also obvious SYNTH and OR. Just no, this is way over the top and a huge BLP vio. Volunteer Marek 20:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

About a third of this is Żaryn's own words, which is what you'd usually expect in a "Views" section of whatever length. But nevertheless, feel free to trim, as well as to expand the rest of the article as you see fit.

What's SYNTH/OR here? François Robere (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

First two paragraphs seem to be both OR and UNDUE. Last two paragraphs are just UNDUE. “Żaryn had defended the role of the Church...” - like, who cares? This isn’t notable. It’s off topic. There may be some esoteric academic controversy about this issue but given that the “role of the Church” was practically nil (at best “the Church” at the time, subject to repression by communist authorities itself, could at most express its opinion, and even that was limited) this seems like just an excuse to COATRACK stuff into the article.

Look. The major concern with this article was that it was being turned into a BLP violating hit piece. The kind of stuff that got Icewhiz banned. That’s what most of the concerns voiced above are about. Your current proposal is... to turn it into even more of a BLP violating hit piece? How does that work? Volunteer Marek 23:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Your second paragraph is a gross misrepresentation of the given source since it says nothing like that. For example, the two sentences on the Kielce pogrom in the source say absolutely nothing like what you claim they say. Volunteer Marek 23:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The major concern with this article is you forcing your POV against consensus, Marek.Trasz (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and make an effort at constructive discussion. Volunteer Marek 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit too long. More than just a bit. I'd suggest limiting this just to academic sources. Quoting random stuff he said (or that was said about him) in a newspaper here or there is cherry-picking. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and Piotrus: Żaryn was head of the Public Education Bureau at the IPN; now he's a Senator for PiS, and in my understanding is one of the party's intellectuals. Given his interest in Polish-Jewish relations, I think his stances and their criticisms matter a great deal for his BLP, and when properly sourced are in full compliance with WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK and WP:G10. Mind there are two kinds of criticisms here, albeit intertwined: as an historian, and as a politican. As a historian, this is subject to APLRS; as a politician, we can use popular media as well.

Second draft:

Żaryn had written that Polish-Jewish "tensions" in the pre-war years were "primarily on economic grounds". Dariusz Libionka writes that Żaryn does not understand the relevant sources, and that he had "clearly read some studies but departed from the truth when he was summarizing them". Libionka further stated that Żaryn "does not know basic facts" about the history of the war. Libionka writes that "considering Jan Żaryn’s ideological sympathies and inspirations, it is not really surprising that he is particularly interested in Jewish issues... [but] his publications devoted to Polish-Jewish issues... often treat the Holocaust subject matter instrumentally – to say the least." On his role in the IPN, Libionka writes that "[Żaryn] is responsible for the withering of the IPN research on the Holocaust...".[ref]

Żaryn had stated his belief that "a significant proportion of Jewish individuals either supported the communist authorities or else simply joined their ranks", blaming Jews for "censorship and propaganda, slandering the memory of [Polish World War II underground organizations], and deceitfully remaining silent about Soviet massacres." He believes this "intensified anti-Semitic attitudes", which led to "uncontrolled impulses" - namely the 1946 Kielce pogrom. This narrative has been criticized by Kate Korycki, who writes that it "unwittingly recycles many Polish anti-Semitic tropes and in so doing, ties Jewishness to communism, making both doubly foreign and odious". She adds that Żaryn "[uses] a description of the post-war pogrom in Kielce, perpetrated on Jews by Poles, [as] an opportunity to blame the Jews".[ref]

Żaryn has been criticized for disregarding antisemitism in Poland.[23][24]

François Robere (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Have we discussed whether Korycki is an expert here and her criticism is DUE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ph.D, post-doc, faculty. François Robere (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what François Robere proposed, it is neutral and also due. Just a note, before inserting this part perhaps the biography should be enriched a little, to balance the general content of the article.--Mhorg (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: Comments? You can compare the proposal with the source quotes below if you're concerned with accuracy. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

While I could quibble about the expertise of "Department of Gender,Sexuality, and Women’s Studies" here, social science is pretty interdisciplinary, so, ho-hm. That said, she doesn't address Zaryn's directly, just between-the-lines. Right now I'd support including criticism from Libionka, but I think other parts are UNDUE/SYNTH. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Libionka can be included as long as DUE weight is observed. Academics criticize each other’s work all the time. Including lengthy quotations from an academic spat is clearly a BLP vio. One sentence which conveys the fact that Libionka doesn’t think much of Zaryn is enough. Volunteer Marek 06:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Marek, but trying to display this as an "academic spat" is simply misleading. 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. Mind this is in full accordance with WP:BLP. François Robere (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Right, but her training is in political science and sociology ("comparative political sociologist"), and she's been writing on Poland for a while, so I think that defines her as an RS for this purpose. The text itself names, quotes and comments on Żaryn, so I'm not sure why you're saying it's only "between the line". François Robere (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• This all should be in, leaving it out is a whitewash of the far-right.Nulliq (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, this is covered by sources and is the way this person is described by them. User:François Robere, I am copying your proposal to the article.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Other sources

Kate Korycki, Memory, Party Politics, and Post-Transition Space: The Case of Poland, 2017:

Korycki writes on some of Żaryn's writing:

Soviet people (a political category) [are] contrasted with Poles (a national or ethnic category). This pairing of confused categories is a second instance, which foreshadows the process of making communism coincide with Jewishness.

She then quotes Żaryn:

...both the official Jewish organization (the Central Committee of Jews in Poland—“CKZP”) and a significant proportion of Jewish individuals either supported the communist authorities or else simply joined their ranks. Many worked in the UB... and also in censorship and propaganda, slandering the memory of the PPP, the AK, and deceitfully remaining silent about Soviet massacres... This intensified anti-Semitic attitudes which—with clear support of the UB—could have led to the uncontrolled impulses toward the pogroms. Such was the case, especially in Kielce. On 4 July, 1946, after rumours had spread through the town of a Polish child being kidnapped, riots occurred in which over 40 people died.

And comments:

I reproduce this lengthy quote because it unwittingly* recycles many Polish anti-Semitic tropes and in so doing, ties Jewishness to communism, making both doubly foreign and odious.

* I say “unwittingly” as Poles do not think of themselves as anti-Semitic and, more importantly, do not want to appear that way. My point is that anti-Semitic myths are foundational to this narration, and yet they are not seen as such.

She then follows with an analyses of the antisemitic components of this POV, which she summarizes as follows:

Thus, a description of the post-war pogrom in Kielce, perpetrated on Jews by Poles, becomes an opportunity to blame the Jews.

On the broader connection to PiS's political agenda, she later comments that:

The most salient point of the narration is to make communism essentially anti-Polish. This source of evilness—the existential enmity to the Polish nation—is the party’s foundational belief and a source of its enduring political identity. PiS cultural entrepreneurs establish their foundational belief as truth, by narrating the past so that communism appears equal, and indeed worse, than Nazism. They then make it coincidental with Jewishness, rendering it doubly foreign and hostile. The party then launches this moral weapon against present-day political adversaries, who, on this telling, become unworthy of being members of national community, not to mention worthy of rule.

Kate Korycki, Polticized memory in Poland: anti-communism and the Holocaust, 2019:

On the same quote from before:

This remarkable paragraph recycles many, if not all, of the anti-Semitic tropes; it brings into full view the previously suggested judgment of communism as worse than Nazism; and it discursively ties such a forcefully repudiated system to Jewishness. In other words, relying on the Nazi Nuremberg criteria, it makes communism as if racial... Communist connection to Jewishness was also hinted at before, in the narrative of Jedwabne, in which the 1941 murder was placed in the justificatory context of allegedly pervasive Jewish sympathy toward communism, and allegedly genocidal communist crimes against the Poles. In the paragraph above, the explicit Jew-the-Communist emerges with full force, reportedly ‘planning bloody orgies’ and presiding over the security apparatus of the second occupier. The report makes the post-war period into a time of the (communist) Jewish rule of Poland and then it uses this construction to explain, or justify, the 1946 pogrom of Jews by the Poles.

François Robere (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dariusz Libionka, “Truth About Camps” or the Uneventful 1942, 2013:

Reviewing an IPN website, part of which was written by Żaryn, Libionka states the following:

Żaryn repeats the ritual formula that the Polish-Jewish “tensions” intensified at the end of the 1930s “primarily on economic grounds.” It shows that the author understood neither the texts... [of several authors] and by hundreds of their imitators nor articles from the nationalist press. The Polish right-wing did not hate Julian Tuwim because he owned a factory in Łódź, just as the specter of a wave of conversions from Judaism to Catholicism, which kept Zofia Kossak-Szczucka awake at night in 1936 and which she thought tantamount to finis Poloniae, was not based on economic grounds. Anti-Jewish writers and leaders of anti-Semitic organizations would surely have been surprised if they had heard that they reduced the “Jewish threat” to economic considerations. Żaryn is also guilty of misrepresentation when he writes about Polish-Jewish relations. In fact, the attitudes toward Jews and the “Jewish question” were diverse. One does not learn from his text that the main advocates of the radical solution of the “Jewish question” were nationalists of every description supported by the Catholic Church... He also makes a controversial statement that Poles who actively participated in pogroms of Jews (which should actually be called “massacres”) in the summer of 1941 were “inspired or forced by the Germans.” Many months of research conducted by historians and the IPN prosecutor did reveal German inspiration in certain instances. But other murders were spontaneous. The theme of German coercion appeared in testimonies of those accused of crimes against Jews and should be treated more as a defense strategy.

He calls various parts of the text "highly general", "frightfully general", "horribly awkward" and "imprecise and informatively useless", and states that Żaryn "clearly read some studies but departed from the truth when he was summarizing them", "does not know basic facts" and "could learn from that very IPN website".

He ends his criticism of Żaryn's text as follows:

Considering Jan Żaryn’s ideological sympathies and inspirations, it is not really surprising that he is particularly interested in Jewish issues. While his texts on other topics often constitute valuable historical literature, his publications devoted to Polish-Jewish issues (disregarding their content-related level) often treat the Holocaust subject matter instrumentally – to say the least. Making matters worse, as IPN Public Education Bureau Chief he created historical policy. He is responsible for the withering of the IPN research on the Holocaust and for the total fiasco of the Index program created to describe and analyze instances of repressions for aiding Jews. Consequently, he is to blame for wasting human energy and public money. Being a reviewer of that program, I am surprised that such a partial person with such obvious political sympathies (Żaryn is a member of a committee of support for the Independence March [Marsz Niepodległości] organized by radical right-wing circles on 11 November) was once again designated to protect Polish raison d’état. Why was not somebody like Adam Puławski from the Lublin IPN Branch Office asked to write such a text? Puławski is an internationally-recognized historian and co-author of the 2005 IPN educational set on the extermination of Polish Jews. That choice remains yet another mysterious aspect of the said institution’s functioning.

This is also interesting in the context of the IPN. As we know (and previously stated in the article), Adam Puławski was forced out of the institute in 2018.[25]

François Robere (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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 [26] 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 [27]. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 5 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)

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 [28]. 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.[29]

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 ([30],[31],[32],[33],[34]). 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: [35], [36]. It also uses:

Libionka, Dariusz. "“Truth About Camps” or the Uneventful 1942." Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały Holocaust Studies and Materials (2013): 579-589. [37]

and

Korycki, Kate. "Memory, Party Politics, and Post-Transition Space: The Case of Poland." East European Politics and Societies 31.03 (2017): 518-544.[38]

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[39] are referring to? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The irrelevant early life text you restored to the lead [40], 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)

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 Margaret O'Reilly to craft the leads to the article. (GizzyCatBella has reverted the edit since, 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: [41]; for the controversy: [42], [43], [44].

Also, these sources are good for inclusion for his being controversial: [45], [46]

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 here, and so have other editors with subsequent CE. I'm not happy with these removals by Volunteer Marek, however[47][48][49] - 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)