Talk:Jan Żaryn

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn by opener because RFC is moot after Szmenderowiecki's massive expansion.VikingDrummer (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

---

sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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)sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:31, 11 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)sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:31, 11 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) sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 20 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)sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 20 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)sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 20 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)sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 20 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)sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 20 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 Talk:Jan Żaryn/Archive 1#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)sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Closing RfC

Several things have changed since the beginning of the RfC.

• When the RfC started, the more or less stable version of the article was a stub, with around 3 Kb of total article size and was more of a dictionary entry than a proper article. Though much is still to be done on the article and cooperation is needed to make it in an even better quality and fuller, and much is to be discussed, there have been two major expansions of the article, and now (after my last expansion) it is 54 Kb total size, and is a totally different shape from 5 days ago. I don't envy the closer who would struggle to determine comments before and after expansion.
• The form of cooperation as proposed by Lembit Staan (one-by-one treatment of possible BLP violations) is what I see as a faster, less formal and more effective way to get to the proper quality of the article, and anyway most of the activity has gone off-RfC, which is another indicator of better viability of the proposal. Thank you @Lembit Staan for the proposal.
• There is one more problem. The discussion has become extremely decentralised and split over a few header topics. We have to get order in that mess of a talk discussion, and to send the discussions to the archive, and outline issues that are still to be resolved.

I therefore ask for approval to close the RfC as moot, as it no longer reflects the realities in which it was posted originally. I don't think we'd need to ask for an assessment of merits of the inclusion of the two paragraphs as proposed by François Robere, as it would yield basically nothing useful for us. Just a procedural close and let's move on. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: I'm okay with a WP:SNOWBALL close for the two scholarly sources. The lead can be discussed separately, and the media sources are being discussed separately anyway. François Robere (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree! I am removing the RFC tag, it simply is not relevant after Szmenderowiecki's massive expansion. Maybe we will ned another RfC if there is a dispute, but now it is moot.VikingDrummer (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:22, 11 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)

I believe that "intellectuals", especially in encyclopedic context, refers mostly to academics and people who engage in application and development of theories. A quick search through Wikipedia shows that this is usually how we label people intellectuals. Now, I am not saying that lawyers or architects do not do this, however we shouldn't be doing unnecessary puffery, the readers can make up their mind whether they consider them "intellectual". CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

See this part of article and the main article derived from it, here. Could be renamed to intelligentsia if needed, no problem. They were certainly both from inteligencja. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Reading more into it, you're right, though I think intelligentsia would be better. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:52, 10 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)sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:25, 11 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"; naTemat: "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), and all but one have already been mentioned or quoted elsewhere 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)

Well, no. The point of contention is that the sources were being misrepresented. So. Where exactly does he say this? Volunteer Marek 12:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The point of contention is that the sources were being misrepresented In a different text, by a different editor.

Kate Korycki quotes him on Kielce (that's in the RfC you commented on), as does Polityka (which you yourself mentioned [36]).

Both Polityka and naTemat refer to the "dark legend".

naTemat quotes him on prosecuting Holocaust survivors, as I mentioned yesterday in my reply to you on this very subject.[37]

Polityka quotes him on the Israeli ambassador, as do many other sources, one of which was mentioned in this thread just before you replied.

You say you read the sources before removing them? [38][39][40][41][42][43][44] François Robere (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ummm, I've *never* removed anything by Korycki... I couldn't have had since afaik nothing from that source was ever added. It's still being discussed. None of the diffs you got up there show me removing Korycki. Natemat was NOT being used to source anything about any "dark legend" but rather was stuck at the end of a general BLP violating sentence that I removed. Polityka indeed quotes him on the ambassdador but that is also not in any of the diffs you got there. I dont think I ever removed anything about the ambassador.

Now. Can you please drop this insinuation, false WP:ASPERSION, that I haven't read the sources we're discussing? This is the second time you've done it and these are indeed personal attacks. I've obviously read these sources. It doesn't help your case that you say "source A says this and you removed it" then you present a diff where I DONT remove source A but remove a different source B and then on top of that you accuse me of not having read source B. Stop it. Better yet, strike it. Volunteer Marek 14:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

So are we clear now on what the sources say? François Robere (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparantly not since you claim "you removed text based on source A" and I say "no I didn't" and then you say "yes you did" and try to back it up by showing that I removed a completely different source and accuse me of not "readin a source". Can you strike the false aspersions? Volunteer Marek 16:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, we've been at it for a month and a half now (starting with this thread), and all you've been doing is dispute and delete others' suggestions. It would've been helpful, in the interest of constructive discussion, if you had also brought sources, translations, or proposals of your own. François Robere (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed no suggestions, I didn't remove any translations (though sure I edited some). My proposals are pretty clear if you actually read through my comments. Hell, me and Szmender guy just agreed on some text right below. If the resolution of this particular dispute is stalling that's on you. How do we know this? Because {disagreement between VM and a user who is FR --> stalled} but {disagreement between VM and a user who is not FR --> resolved}. What the's difference here? Ah, it's you. Not me. Volunteer Marek 16:48, 10 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 [45]. 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 - 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) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:27, 11 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) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:27, 11 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[46][47] and center-left[48][49] 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)

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)

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 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) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:27, 11 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)

Jedwabne

Moved to Jedwabne 2

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) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:27, 11 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)

Current issues 10.6.21

- The section on the Catholic church and his general Senate tenure is needed. I won't be able to write it soon. - The section on his political/historical views will probably see some controversy. Reverted three deletions:

Deletion with Znak source: the Znak source says: "Niestety, tym razem tak nie uczyniono. Kardynał Stanisław Dziwisz, powołując się na opinię Jana Żaryna i ją akceptując[8], skarcił wydawnictwo Znak za opublikowanie książki Grossa." [Unfortunately, it didn't happen this time. Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, citing Jan Żaryn's opinion and accepting it, criticised Znak for publishing a book of Gross's] (Footnote 8 says: [8] „Dopiero w (..) lustrze stosunków polsko-komunistycznych można przeglądać inne, wrażliwe tematy, takie jak relacje polsko-żydowskie” [Only in (...) the mirror of the Polish-communist relations can we look on other contentious topics, like the Polish-Jewish relations.] That source means that Żaryn is of the same opinion.

Deletion about Jasiewicz: Żaryn's reaction is important here. Jasiewicz's article is only an introduction to the topic.

Deletion about Pruchnik: Comment: "Nothing antisemitic with beating Judas, unless you identify Jews with Judas" - well, that one specifically was described by several sources as suspiciously close to a Jew (including the original article in Ekspres Jarosławski - the anatomical features were made prominent). Plus the reaction of Żaryn to that event is notable, because it sparked itself some controversy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

::User:Szmenderowiecki, thank you for the wonderfully expanded and sourced views section. Your work with Polish language sources is invaluable.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC) sock puppet of banned user-GizzyCatBella🍁 13:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC) @Szmenderowiecki I've read the sources (and I believe Lembit Staan did too) and text you introduced into the article. I agree with @Lembit Staan that it's redundant in encyclopedic text. Would you mind reverting yourself[50] and try to reach a consensus here for that text to be included? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Errm, that "redundancy" comment was marked as the other one, which I have not edited and left as is. But OK, I'll leave the text on hold. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, editors, please comment on this text[51] below. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Relations between Jews and Poles

article:Żaryn believes that the relations between Jews and Poles can only be seen through the lens of the relations between Poles and communists.

• That's complete bullshit. Żaryn plentifully speaks about catholic church having effect on this. "Prawdziwy Polak to katolik". If you don't know this, you better not edit political polish subjects, especially conservative ones. Lembit Staan (talk)

The "real Pole is a Catholic" attitude is already mentioned, with the source of his review of an exposition of WWII museum of Gdańsk, where he states that in plaintext. But the question is the source itself. Whether he elsewhere speaks on that being connected with his view of Polishness is not really relevant, because the text is written as it is. And actually, it is not relevant to the edit at all. "Polak-katolik" and "Żydokomuna" are two separate topics.

If you believe the author was plainly wrong on that account, or has under-/misstated something - whatever you say, but I'm not here to analyse whether he is right or wrong, I only report what RS say (and Znak is one of the best RS that Poland has). Also, the author does not mention Żaryn anywhere else. In short, read the source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I only report what RS say - one of our jobs as wwikipedians is to evaluate the quality of sources. "Polak is katolik" is an explanation why the phrase in question is bullshit whoever wrote it. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I ask you again: have you read the source? You demonstrate once again that either you haven't or you try to introduce fragments that are not pertinent to the source. Either way, that's not a good thing.

Evaluation of sources: Znak is one of the best sources Poland has. It does represent a Catholic standpoint, but otherwise it is very good.

To be sure, Weksler-Waszkinel doesn't talk about "Polak-katolik" but at the very end, not when talking about Żaryn and anyway framing it as a controversial stereotype. I urge you once again to read the source(s), probably use Ctrl+F if you are unsure, and stop asserting something that does not pertain to the source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

And I am answering you again: the statement Zaryn believes... can only be seen through is provably false regardless who wrote it. I don't care whether the author is mistaken or quoted out of context or sloppily mistranslated. And I am not introducing anything: I am deleting everything. :-) Lembit Staan (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Then you might want to read WP:PRESERVE. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

And yes, "the statement Zaryn believes... can only be seen through is provably false regardless who wrote it" is opinionating on the subject based on your own views and not what others say.

Besides, if it is "provably" false - prove it. :) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"opinionating"? huh? I explained why it false, right at the top. WP:BLP trumps WP:PRESERVE. The onus is on you to defend the statements you want to keep. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If you read onus carefully, you will see in a footnote that "Once an editor has provided any source he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.)", which I have done from the very beginning.

You have tried to assert that Żaryn cannot be arguing for what is written in that sentence because he "plentifully speaks about catholic church having effect on this". He indeed has repeatedly underlined their role in saving Jews, but that is ANOTHER and PARALLEL topic, because the book being discussed in the source is Jan Tomasz Gross's "Strach. Antysemityzm w Polsce tuż po wojnie. Historia moralnej zapaści" (what is boldened means "immediately after the war"). You can see the quote provided just below the headline, which directly says what is written in the sentence. I struggle to understand why would you want to make such a long discussion when you have the quote in Polish from the source, my translation to English (so that everyone could understand what is going on) and you could have reached for the source you have deleted, because I have identified the edit that you have questioned and there was 1 (one) source in it - paste the URL and there you go, analyse the source and tell what is the specific problem about it, just as has been done with Oko.press. Just removing a source "because I have read somewhere else he said other stuff", not analysing if it excludes each other, is at the very least wasting my time and resources, which I absolutely do not appreciate.

Besides, if you read WP:PRESERVE, it says "special care" applies for BLPs, but it doesn't mean that the guideline does not apply at all, as you try to say. It would also be useful to see next time which part of BLP (or any other policy) it allegedly violates, because BLP itself is 5000 words long and that takes some time to guess what could probably make you feel not OK about the fragment. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You can see the quote provided just below the headline - OK, maybe I am looking at a wrong ref. this version says: "Żaryn believes that the relations between Jews and Poles can only be seen through the lens of the relations between Poles and communists.[49]" Here 49 is [52], which says nothing of what you say. Nevertheless, but that is ANOTHER and PARALLEL topic - so what? The disputed sentence speaks of the overall position of Zaryn about Jews vs. Poles. Therefore please provide the correct ref and the quote from it. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest pausing this discussion until Żaryn can be quoted from a primary source rather than a tertiary one, and either of these might be suitable: [53][54] François Robere (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

We are not discussing Jan Gross here. I have no objections for the text about Jan Gross. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

In my understanding his comment was in relation to Gross's Fear, as was the open letter that cites it. François Robere (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion about Jasiewicz

talk: Deletion about Jasiewicz: Żaryn's reaction is important here. -- no it not. Also chaotic WP:SYNTH. Also it is ridiculous that here you wrote about Jaciewicz more than in his own bio. And by the way, what was the reaction and to what? Lembit Staan (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any of the accusations. chaotic WP:SYNTH. Where? I don't see any at all. All three sources quote the same thing he wrote. Also it is ridiculous that here you wrote about Jaciewicz more than in his own bio. It is the problem of Jasiewicz's bio being too short and not the event being not notable enough. I didn't know how much was written about Jasiewicz in his article, and neither did I care. And by the way, what was the reaction and to what? Not fully understanding your question, but I'll try to answer the best I can. Jasiewicz was fired in mid-April; in late May, some conservative historians including Żaryn have signed a petition to restore him. This (both the article and the letter) drew criticism from some media outlets including the ones I cited in the article. But it clearly shows his attitude towards what was largely considered an anti-Semitic piece. Not to say he is an anti-Semite, but the reader will make their own conclusions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

And this is called WP:SYNTH and tendentious editing in our book (putting two things side by side "so that readers draw conclusion"). Lembit Staan (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Judas

talk: as suspiciously close to a Jew - do you realize how stupid it sounds? Also you put it into section "Holocaust and anti-Semitism". I don't see who says it is an example of Zaryn's anti-Semitism. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The section is not to allege that he is anti-Semite, the section is i.a. about his reactions to what are considered anti-Semitic attitudes; or at least the name of the section isn't intended to imply anti-Semitism (I provisionally grouped it as "the Holocaust and anti-Semitism" because the content concerned either of the topics, but I'm perfectly fine with the name you chose). do you realize how stupid it sounds? If I didn't read the sources, I would, but since I did and I saw that a large part of media that reported on Pruchnik interpreted the effigy to be looking like a Jew, no, I don't as the question presupposes it being a stupid phrase while in fact it was supported by RS, so it stops being stupid. This question, btw, only proves that you have not read the sources supporting text before deleting whole paragraphs, so the next time I'd kindly suggest you spend a few more minutes on that.

As for who suggests it was anti-Semitic: gazeta.pl source did. Z kolei Żaryn, zamiast przypomnieć sobie o ideach patrona ruchu, który współtworzył, woli ze swoich okopów rzucać oskarżeniami o niszczenie wizerunku Polski i bronić antysemickiego obrzędu. But that is an aside, because it is not intended to imply his being an anti-Semite. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki - Do you realize that this BLP article already doesn't look like an encyclopedic article anymore but more like the collection of trivial details of everything negative one can possibly find googling the internet? Some are not even negative but plain silly... like; who cares about what somebody somewhere said or wrote? People say or write many things...no; this is becoming ridiculous. And it looks like more such things are being advocated to be added. Like, will that ever end? Or will we have 3/4 of the article about what someone wrote something where Żaryn is mentioned? Do you know what such pages are called? - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you realize that this BLP article already doesn't look like an encyclopedic article anymore but more like the collection trivial details of everything negative one can possibly find googling the internet? The question is double-barreled. If I answer no, you presuppose that it is already an attack page but I am not aware of it, but I strenously disagree with the formulation of it being a WP:ATP, or that it somehow violates the spirit of BLP, or in particular, WP:IMPARTIAL.

In fact, the problem with Żaryn is that I struggle to find much positive coverage about him in RS or in scholarship. The sources which are likely to support him (Nasz Dziennik, wPolityce, w Sieci etc.) can hardly be considered reliable; while scholarly sources I had access to (and that went up to the tenth page of Google Scholar), were mostly negative about his coverage. You are wrong to believe I wasn't looking for positive coverage about him, it is that I haven't seen it because it physically hardly exists in the sources I have read.

The definition of an attack page is "an attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced."

First, the article is very well-sourced to either RS or his interviews, which I quote as he originally said it, so it automatically is not an attack page. Second, his views are discussed without distortion, as he says in the interviews or in the books (as quoted by researchers). As a historian and a person widely recognised as a proponent of the current historical policy, his views on Poland, Jews, and virtually any contentious subject related to Poland are relevant, so they are mentioned as is, as he says to the interviewers. I can't help it that Żaryn is a controversial figure and makes controversial statements that are reported by RS, and I simply do the job of summing up the resources I have. However, I deny any allegations that I am trying to cast him in negative light, and, absent evidence, I will treat any similar claims as casting WP:ASPERSIONS.

As for this quote And it looks like more such things are being advocated to be added. No one is advocating here for anything, and particularly absent any evidence of my (or any other person's) illegal POV pushing and non-cooperation to fix the issue, I see it as POVRAILROAD. Sorry. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

tl;dr. Szmenderowiecki, just stop it. Several people are repeatedly telling you that you are wrong about what is allowed per WP:BLP and you continue to misrepresent sources. If you don't see it, you better step back and do not edit things you are passionate about. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Again you cast aspersions, perhaps you should be the one to "step back"? You do not present any "misrepresentation" of the source, you merely claim it exists while the other editor actively disproves your claims.

Szmenderowiecki has done a great job in translating the article and providing sources for it, your claims that it violates WP:BLP are unsubstantiated. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about yourself. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Aside: I don't think there's any doubt that the "Judas trial" includes/is based on antisemitic motifs, but whether and how we mention Żaryn's response to it is a different question. In any case the discussion should be based on WP:POLICY, and editors shouldn't be admonished for making suggestions that comply with it. François Robere (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the "Judas trial" is based on religious motifs. Jesus Christ is a Jewish hero in Christianity. Just the same, Judas is a Jewish villain in Chrisitanity. And if Zaryn argued this way (and I may well believe he did this so), there is nothing antiSemitic in his view. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, antisemitic motifs. What Żaryn argued (implicitly or explicitly) is that it's an acceptable custom;[55] that Jewish critics are trying to insult and malign Polish Catholics,[56] and should mind their own business;[57] and that drawing attention to such events reflects a "wish to destroy [Catholic Poles'] faith".[58] François Robere (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Burning of Judas is an acceptable practice in conservative Catholic places. Yes, it may be considered to be antiSemitic by some (okay, by many). Yes, antiSemites use it as a pretext to demonstrate antiSemitism. Please explain why this episode must be in the article. Your "Zaryn argued" is a non-argument. Over his life "Zaryn argued" a dozen of books and thousands of articles. The analysis of those as a "corpus" by scholarly sources should be the base of a coherent description of his views, not random hype by political opponents. If there is none then probably his views are not that encyclopedic. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying it must be in the article, I'm saying there's enough of an argument for inclusion that one should be able to suggest it without being attacked. François Robere (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Long-standing pattern of tendentious editing

I've been wasting lots of time either fixing the texts being added recently and unfortunately deleting the unfixable. I've spent an inordinate time double checking the source cited, only to find that they've been frequently misrepresented. I have no idea whether this is a "good-faith" misunderstanding of our policies about sourcing and WP:NOR or a deliberate POV-pushing/dirt-digging accompanied with ignorance in may aspects of Poland. I am more and more inclined to file a complaint for a ban of editing this article by some people. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You have my reinforcement; this is unworkable what is going on here. . - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Jedwabne 2

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.

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 [59], [60].

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[61] 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)

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. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek and Szmenderowiecki: Żaryn's own words, for reference: [62][63] 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)

@Piotrus: I'd say that's context-dependent, but "states" or "claims" are okay as well. The only problem is that there's a different precision/conciseness trade-off with "states" vs. "claims" or "believes", so we might end up with a slightly longer text. François Robere (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with the "states" version. Also, accuracy is more important than length. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. François Robere (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait, what exactly is Kurek "leading" and where is that in the source? The exhumation was in 2001 (iirc). And what exactly is "controversial" about this position? Volunteer Marek 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Currently it is in two places. Please collect into one, otherwise difficult to read and understand. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest to restrict the section "Controversy" to isolated events involving him. Criticism of the views is not "controversy". For example Wałęsa and Azari are controversies. Jedwabne is an ongoing subject in his views. Lembit Staan (talk)

Agreed, and done (due Szmenderowiecki). François Robere (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't add highly controversial stuff without getting consensus on talk first. There's explicit opposition if not outright consensus against inclusion of some of this stuff above. Volunteer Marek 14:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As before, VM, other than deleting and disputing others' suggestions,[64] do you have any constructive proposal? You're the last one arguing on what looks like a settled discussion (last comments from five days ago), and deleting everything now is pretty contentious. François Robere (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There was 23k bytes of text added by Szmenderowiecki [65] without consensus for most of it. And no, I'm not the only one who has objected to this text, seeing as how it misrepresents sources or strays into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in a BLP.

And so the account that created the RfC above turned out to be another Icewhiz sock (funny that). And yet somehow, as soon as the account gets banned, the text gets added anyway? How the hey does that work? Volunteer Marek 16:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And btw, I've removed less than half of that no-consensus-addition. Honestly, there is still stuff in there that should go.

Also, you've never replied to my points above (like wth does Kurek have to do with anything and what exactly is she "leading")? Volunteer Marek 16:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's just some basic factual errors in this text (not present in sources) like the claim that his comments about ONR "not being fascist" refer to present rather than the interwar organization (he's wrong on that but we should at least get what he says right). Volunteer Marek 16:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There was 23k bytes of text added by Szmenderowiecki We've been discussing this addition across six threads, there was no reason for you to remove it unilaterally.

And so the account that created the RfC above turned out to be another Icewhiz sock You're welcome to open another RfC if you think it'll change the 6:1 vote in favor of addition.

as soon as the account gets banned, the text gets added anyway The text was added two days prior - there's no connection between the two.

like wth does Kurek have to do with anything and what exactly is she "leading" WP:GIYF: [66][67][68]

Also, there's just some basic factual errors in this text And can you fix them, or at least bring them here? François Robere (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we’ve been discussing it across several threads and there’s been no consensus to include this material. So why unilaterally plop down 20k worth of stuff into the article that’s already been objected to? Volunteer Marek 01:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Also no idea where you pulled this “6:1” thing out of. Not interested in starting an RfC and doing a sock’s job for them right now. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Counting, and you can either accept it or start an RfC of your own, but not both. François Robere (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The addition preceded the discussion, VM, not the other way around. You deleting it while discussion is ongoing (or in some cases after it has settled for inclusion) is exactly the problem. François Robere (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That’s a funny way to “count” (sic). Is that the “new math”? And why in the world should I “accept” an RfC which 1) was started by a sock of an indef banned user (now banned), one who you had an extensive history of collaborating with , and 2) it was withdrawn (!). I’m not following your logic here. Even if we ignore the fact that the RfC was started by Icewhiz, or the fact that good number of votes were from brand new accounts violating the 500/30 restriction, it was withdrawn. Why should I start anything? Volunteer Marek 15:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, right - it's actually 7:2 (earlier I only counted the bold votes):[69]

For: Szmenderowiecki, François Robere, BSMRD, Mhorg, Piotrus (on one), Darouet, CPCEnjoyer

Against: Lembit Staan, My very best wishes

I don't care what you do as long as you don't stonewall well-sourced, compromise additions, that others have worked on for several weeks.[70] Now, I'm asking again: do you have a constructive proposal? François Robere (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere:: Add me to the editors who support inclusion. Feel free to update your list of "votes" accordingly. I follow and occasionally edit Polish topics on Wikipedia and it's clear the article at hand is being subjected to a whitewash by a small number of users. Yes, I've read these articles in Haaretz and Gazeta Wyborcza so it doesn't surprise me at all. And no, I'm not one of these "suspicious brandnew accounts" or "Icewhiz sockpuppets". There's no such rule that newcomers are prohibited from editing articles that Volunteer Marek and his ring wanna treat as their personal playground.Potugin (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This never ends does it? Are you sure you’re past the 500/30 threshold? Volunteer Marek 16:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - feel free to link the relevant guideline, I've heard about it but I don't know what exactly does it mean and how it's relevant here. Talk pages I reckon were exempt from restrictions, I do remember someone said. Also, FYI, the only reason I haven't nominated this garbage: Gestapo–NKVD conferences for deletion yet is indeed the fact that some kind of restrictions on relatively new accounts/infrequent editors are in place. So again, I'd appreciate if you could give a link to an authoritative rule. Potugin (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

No idea what that article has to do with anything. Volunteer Marek 17:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

With regard to this sentence, the problem is with how the info is presented: On several separate occasions, he argued that there existed szmalcownik Jews,[49][50] alongside Ukrainians, the Volksdeutsche, and Germans

It basically makes it seem as if the claim was false (it isn't, Jewish szmalcowniks did exist, though most likely not that many) rather than the fact that the problem with Zaryn is that he *overemphasizes* this aspect of the phenomenon. It also reads like a bit of OR based on primary sources. Volunteer Marek 17:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that actually should go, it states something obvious but is written as if it was not. See page 70 here ---> I’ll remove that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

On the issue of the exhumations at Jedwabne. Why is this notable? Oreven controversial for that matter? You can disagree on this issue but seeing as how Jan T Gross, the guy who brought the Jedwabne massacre to public attention, himself supported exhumations [71] why is this noteworthy? (Answer: it’s not which is why all that we have here is one sensationalist ideological tabloid and a bunch of primary sources). Volunteer Marek 16:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Because: a) we're already covering his stance on Jedwabne; b) this is part of that stance; and c) he's very vocal about it.

Jan Gross supported one exhumation that was done with representatives of the Jewish community and human rights groups; it's not at all clear that he'd support one pushed by Ewa Kurek and Żaryn in a climate of politicized historiography. François Robere (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

without context it’s meaningless though. And as far as Jan Gross goes, no, your statement is completely false. Please actually read the source I linked. Gross argued that the “one exhumation” that you refer to was grossly inadequate and demanded that further exhumations be conducted. Just like Zaryn. I know this is, like, very inconvenient, since then you can’t line up the little pieces on the two sides of the “bad guys” and “good guys” line but this isn’t a Hollywood movie. Volunteer Marek 16:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

What's missing from the context, in your opinion?

p. 456 of your source:

30 May and 3 June 2001 The IPN conducts a partial exhumation... Present at the exhumation are representatives of IPN... Rabbi Menachem Ekstein... [Rabbi] Michael Schudrich... young members of the Warsaw Jewish community... [and] Dr. William Haglund [from Physicians for Human Rights]... The exhumation lasts only five days owing to pressure from various Jewish Orthodox religious groups...

Early June 2001 Jan T. Gross issues appeal to the IPN not to stop the exhumation... [He] estimates that the entire exhumation of the remains... should last many months, if not a year.

François Robere (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

... ... ... Are you aware of the fact that with those quotes you just confirmed what I just wrote and completely contradicted what you claimed earlier? ... ... ... ? Volunteer Marek 17:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The problem is that your statement (with "grossly inadequate" and "further exhumations") can be read in more than one way: that the exhumations were conducted improperly, and that other exhumations should be arranged; or that the exhumations were done properly and should've been prolonged (which is what the source implies was Gross's position). Hence the statement Jan Gross supported one exhumation that was done with representatives of the Jewish community and human rights groups is very much correct, otherwise why would he "appeal" to prolong it?

Anything else? François Robere (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not correct. It is nothing like “correct”. It is the opposite of correct. Words have meaning, usually they don’t mean the opposite of what they do. If a guy says “I think there should be more exhumations” that actually surprisingly shockingly amazingly DOES NOT mean he’s actually saying “I support only the one exhumation that happened”. This right here is the problem with these discussions. When one editor just straight up pretends that if someone says “X” then what they really said was “not X” then I just don’t see how constructive discussion of resolution of the disagreement can take place. Volunteer Marek 22:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

So... anything else? François Robere (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Relocating comments

Szmenderowiecki - Please stop moving my comments around all here is confusing already as it is. Please move them back to their original positions or if now it’s too late because it will generate further confusion, please don’t do it again.- GizzyCatBella🍁 20:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC) THIS I’m talking about - [72]. I’m lost.. don’t do it again please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought Lembit Staan asked to refactor the talk page: "Currently it is in two places. Please collect into one, otherwise difficult to read and understand." If Lembit Staan confirms this is not what he wanted, I will revert to the older version. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about the article; Robere addressed that. The action of Szmenderowiecki here was harmless, so I think let it be. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I got it; I found all now; it’s my old head that resists cooperating if things are moved around. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's all right, sorry for any inconvenience I might have caused by that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Restoring deleted content

User Mhorg restored this edit[73] into the WP:BLP article, likely violating policies WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE that state:

"When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."

The rationale behind their revert was "I think it is interesting"[74] I'm asking user Mhorg to self revert and gain WP:CON following the above policies. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a question I really don't know how to deal with yet. If a user declares something "Undue", what can I answer other than "For me is Due"? The removed part concerns a historian and politician who says a pro-nationalist statement like "the Polish side does everything to civilise the Ukrainian nation", I don't know, if this isn't interesting for a BLP page, what is it? However, having not yet fully understood these rules on revert and consensus, I will auto-revert my restore, waiting for the opinion of some other more experienced colleague.--Mhorg (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: You have the beginning of an answer right there! The other part (cf. WP:PROPORTION) is to cite as much reliable, published material on the subject as you can, to demonstrate that not only you think it's "a thing", but also RS. The better and the more sources you have, the stronger your argument for inclusion will be. François Robere (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Ukraine section

I am against this removal of VolunteerMarek[75], I think a statement like "the Polish side does everything to civilise the Ukrainian nation[, while] the Ukrainian side does everything to distance itself from the European civilisation" is notable for a politician/historian. The user insists that Oko.press is not reliable, yet what is reported and verifiable in the source of radiomaryja.pl. So his motivation does not seem legitimate to me. Also, please avoid using phrases in the edit summary like "oko not reliable despite what Icewhiz socks claim", because in this way the user also accuses several of us of being socks of that user.--Mhorg (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You must realize that WP:BLP bio's are not compilations of comments editors find "interesting"[76]. So no, I also don't think it is notable at all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there any other source here which would indicate this received attention? We can’t have a criticism section which is just “here’s something the guy said that somebody didn’t like”. Volunteer Marek 02:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect Żaryn's general approach to Ukraine might be more notable than any particular quote, if we can source it. François Robere (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, when and if you source it, then we can discuss it. Volunteer Marek 16:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion

To all whom it may concern, there is a case filed at the administrators noticeboard due to an editorial impasse as concerns this article. Users will be notified on their respective talk pages shortly. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no judgement on content, but

1. Any new materials can be included on the page only based on WP:Consensus, and especially in BLP pages. Not by edit war, and not by filing litigious complaints.
2. Just looking at this page editing history [77], the trouble/edit war started from this revert [78]. The previous revert was made by VM per WP:BRD. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

   I respectfully disagree with your second point. While Mhorg reverting Vm reverting Mhorg wasn't the best idea, they didn't break WP:3RR nor WP:EDITWAR. They're a relatively inexperienced editor, and should be shown some leniency as long as they don't cause any disruption (and they didn't). The problem started with this thread: VM took to talk, as he should, but immediately accused Mhorg of "[attempting] to turn the article into an attack page", "straight up misrepresentation of sources" and "an indirect form of WP:CANVASS"; then me of "[trying] to escalate" and "constant WP:BATTLEGROUND" for pinging an admin. What's more, his claims that the sources are being misrepresented ended up being more semantic than substantial.[79][80] Two months and 28 deletions later,[81] and here we are. François Robere (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

his claims that the sources are being misrepresented ended up being more semantic than substantial. Right below you made a proposal to include text which smears the subject of this BLP by pretending he said THE OPPOSITE of what he actually said. If you think that concern is "more semantic than substantial" you really shouldn't be editing this article, or any BLPs for that matter. Volunteer Marek 22:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I suppose you came here by accident and not because you are following me (I don't think there is a lot of international attention on Zaryn, but that's okay...) and trying to attacking me (again[82]). "the trouble/edit war started from this revert[83]" you wrote... please look at the summaries. VM wrote "yeah this is BLP vio (at least part of it) with questionable sources" and I restored the part with this explanation "Please, if "part of it" is BLP vio, delete that "part" and explain why". Where is the mistake in this? Why remove all of a contribution if the user thinks there is only one part that is not right?
Volunteer Marek, currently, you have contested the sources of two lines of that huge proposed text. You are talking about it as if all the insertion made by François Robere and Szmenderowiecki is written by distorting the sources. Which does not reflect reality. I find that your observations were correct, regarding the text I introduced at the beginning. But now the situation is different, could you comment on the parts of the text that simply report what Zaryn declares?--Mhorg (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't part of my proposal, it was part of the existing text. As for the diffs I cited[84][85] - the sources mentioned there ended up either stating or heavily implying what was claimed, as did Korycki (which you removed as "I don't think Korycki says this" [86]) and Libionka (which you claimed was "SYNTH and OR" [87]). It may be that you were right on one or two points (we do have some fresh editors, and training takes time), but by and large your claims of misrepresentation ended up being hot air. François Robere (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. Moreover, there is troubling pattern: some accounts with few edits who never edited this page before (one of them is blocked sockpuppet) suddenly appear only to revert VM and restore disputed content on this and other pages. P.S. I commented here because I saw the discussion on the ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Then rest assured that that's not what happened here, and AFAIK both new users who have persisted in this article have reasonable explanations for how they got here and what they wanted to achieve - not that they any, this being an open encyclopedia. I would think a more troubling pattern is how our "veterans" treat "newbies", and how quickly and often this treatment throws the discussion into a spin. François Robere (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Mmmm, no, it’s exactly what happened here. How is it these socks always show up to these articles, FR? And pretend to be “newbies”? Volunteer Marek 18:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to Mhorg and Szmenderowiecki, then that's not what happened and making those accusations here would not be in your best interest. If you're not referring to them, then how is your message related to mine? François Robere (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

VM please, if you have any doubts about me, open an SPI (if the one you participated in against me was not enough for you) and get a definitive answer. I ask you to stop here with these insinuations that I would be a sockpuppet.--Mhorg (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Concerning this particular article I'm very obviously referring to VikingDrummer who was just literally banned as a sock of Icewhiz. You know, pretending to be a "newbie". Volunteer Marek 22:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolving disputes

The way I see it, we have five ongoing discussions:

1. On the inclusion of Libionka and Korycki (Talk:Jan Żaryn/Archive 1#BLP vio, #RFC on François Robere's second proposal: Views and lead).
2. On Żaryn's expressions of nationalist and antisemitic positions, and...
3. ...his 1968 resolution proposal and comments on the Israeli ambassador (#Recent text deletions (topic separate from RfC))
4. On Żaryn's view on "Judeo-Communism" and its importance for the #Relations between Jews and Poles
5. On Żaryn's view of the Jedwabne pogrom and its aftermath (#Jedwabne 2)

I propose an RfC on this edit (not mentioning these discussions, just the edit), in which I attempted to address these issues. François Robere (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC) (Clarified François Robere (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC))

No, you cannot have a single RFC on several issues. It will be a horrible mess, worse than now. Please file RFC for items already discussed in separate sections, such as #Jedwabne 2. If a certain piece was not discussed, please start a section for it (RFC is called only if there is no consensus by regular editing discussion). Lembit Staan (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

But I can have an RfC on a single edit, which is often what voters ask for anyway. AFAIC that revision captures the state of the discussion at that point in time; I can segment the RfC, but I'm not going to write five separate ones after all the work it took to get to that point. François Robere (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, you can, but I think it would be a terrible idea which will only turn up the heat. Drmies (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If there are five different issues it makes no sense to have a single RfC for all of them. You're basically asking for an RfC to legitimize your edits which is not the purpose of the RfC. Also your presentation of these issues isn't exactly neutral. Volunteer Marek 18:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What are you waiting for? Propose the text which would, in your opinion, be neutral and would account for the sources. Expand the article for once. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

How would you segment it, then? I'm not going to write up five separate RfCs. François Robere (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a single RFC is enough to understand users' views on how to handle this issue. At the most it could be separated into two RFCs, but to expect one to be done for each line of text seems to me only a way to discourage the enrichment of the article.--Mhorg (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

one for each line - that's correct. But not exactly. One for each topic, because some lines may be acceptable or salvageable, and some are not. We are not in American parliament to pass omnibus bills . Lembit Staan (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Right of then top of this text: " antisemitic positions". AFAIU, antisemitism is a punishable offense. If nobody sued him for antisemitism, then any statements to this end are to be immediately defenestrated without wasting time in talk page, per WP:BLP. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The top is only meant for reference in this discussion, not for the RfC (I'll add a clarification). We can, of course, RfC the statement "Żaryn has been criticized for expressing antisemitic positions (ref1)(ref2)(ref3)" or somesuch. François Robere (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

More to the point, if no source says this - and no source says this, Polityka doesn't say it (though perhaps it insinuates it, which is different) - that's straight up BLP VIO and BLP applies to talk pages as well as article. Volunteer Marek 02:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

We already discussed the sources ad nauseum. Would you like to suggest phrasing that you think is more representative? François Robere (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If, as already stated multiple times, no source states this then we simply don’t include anything. I don’t have to propose any “phrasing” or “text”. I propose we don’t misrepresent sources. Thats it. There’s no divine mandate here from high above that we *must* include “something”. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course. The question is what to do with the sources we do have - and we have plenty. If you don't want to make suggestions of your own that's your prerogative, but it's not particularly helpful. WP:TALKDONTREVERT is a thing. François Robere (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Split by sections

Choices: "include", "include part", or "exclude". Where bold text is present, only the bold text is in question. Comments? François Robere (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Section 1

Żaryn is commonly considered a conservative historian promoting nationalist and anti-communist narratives, and one of the main advocates of the historical policy of the Law and Justice party. He views Polish historical policy as a "battle under the banners of sovereignty, justice [and] freedom", with the state exercising it "so that Poles don't mistake where there is good and where there is evil", and his role as a creator of "positive myths" on Polishness. Żaryn perceives Poles as “loving freedom, Catholicism, patriotism and especially being proud of their history”.

Section 2

Żaryn had argued that while Poles are not immaculate as anti-Semitism existed in the Interwar Poland, the anti-Semitism "also had its roots in rational thinking." He argues that the tensions between Jews and other peoples in Interwar Poland were mostly due to economic reasons. Scholars dispute this characterization; Dariusz Libionka writes that Żaryn does not understand the relevant sources and "does not know basic facts" about the history of the war, and that "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."

Section 3

Co-editor of a two-volume monograph on the Kielce pogrom, Żaryn has stated that "a significant proportion of Jewish individuals... supported the communist authorities or... joined their ranks"; he blames those individuals for "censorship and propaganda, slander... and deceitfully remaining silent about Soviet massacres." This, he believes, "intensified anti-Semitic attitudes" that resulted in the Kielce pogrom. His critics characterize these opinions as evoking to the stereotype of Żydokomuna. Kate Korycki writes that this narrative "unwittingly recycles many Polish anti-Semitic tropes", adding that Żaryn "[uses] a description of the post-war pogrom in Kielce, perpetrated on Jews by Poles, [as] an opportunity to blame the Jews".

Section 4

Żaryn has stated that the accepted narrative of the Jedwabne pogrom is a "founding myth" of the "allegedly proven" organized massacres of Jews by Poles, supposedly rooted in inherent Polish anti-Semitism and xenophobia, which he believes is are "false stereotypes" that could be clarified with further research. According to Żaryn, the Jedwabne events were directed by the Germans with the participation of Volksdeutsche and "outsiders" who came from other villages. He adds that "even if some of the Polish locals participated in this 'spectacle' under duress... the majority looked in disgust at what the Germans have done...". Żaryn states that "the deceitful narrative [of Jedwabne] burdens the Poles and Poland with co-responsibility for the Holocaust". Consequently, he 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.

Section 5

In 2018, two controversies arose connected with the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the March 1968 political crisis. In late February that year, Żaryn entered a project of Senate resolution to commemorate the event, an excerpt from which said that "the communist government, by arranging anti-Semitic demonstrations and forcing Poles to take part in them, and also by introducing pathological anti-Jewish sentiments into public discourse, did not represent the will of the People, but only of Moscow and its intra-communist and international interests". The wording has been criticised by historians Jacek Leociak from the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and Piotr Osęka as an attempt of whitewashing Polish history; and it proved controversial even among party colleagues and was therefore abandoned. Two weeks later, a scandal erupted when Anna Azari, Israel's ambassador to Poland, stated that the anti-Semitic events that had happened in Poland in March 1968 occurred nowhere else in the Soviet Bloc. Żaryn perceived this as an attempt to associate the current ruling party with these events and suggested in harsh words that the ambassador should be expelled for such statements.

References
References

@François Robere: - Some refs are broken/missing. PLease review. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware of it, but since the refs were defined elsewhere in the text, I wasn't sure I could add them without risking ref errors later. Now it's fixed. François Robere (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, Szmenderowiecki, Lembit Staan, Mhorg, CPCEnjoyer, Piotrus, and My very best wishes: It just occurred to me that we can shorten this RfC significantly if we trim sections that aren't controversial, specifically #2-4. I'd like to have a rough count of who supports what, and if there are any objections then what are they (in short!). François Robere (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to sections 2, 3 and 4 above? Some of that is most certainly controversial. For example #2 is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 19:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: We'll discuss it in a bit. Anything else? François Robere (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a whole bunch. Onet.pl isn't a reliable source but nevermind that part. The real stinker is the claim that "according to Żaryn, there were no Poles who collaborated with the Germans on the crime scene." This is THE FREAKIN' OPPOSITE of what he says. I can't believe you're actually proposing such a blatant BLPVIO which straight up falsifies what a source says about subject of a BLP. You should really withdraw that, since BLP applies to talk pages as well. Volunteer Marek 20:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

But VM, that's not part of the RfC - the statement in question in that section is about Ewa Kurek. François Robere (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Dude. Stop. It was part of the RfC when I posted my comment (6/22/21 20:48), you just REMOVED IT subsequently [88] (6/23/21 13:57) and are now trying to play it off like “it’s not part of the RfC, what are you talking about”. Why do you do this? How do you expect other editors to engage with you in a good faith manner when you try to pull stunts like these? Volunteer Marek 15:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Please read what you're about to vote on. The intro to the RfC clearly states that where bold text is present, only the bold text is in question. That part of the text wasn't marked in bold when I posted this[89] nor at any time later. It's simply not in the scope of the RfC and never was, since the RfC follows this edit and that wasn't part of it. Me removing that statement was to stop your bickering, otherwise I couldn't care less. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

??? Are you saying that the dispute is only about the bolded text but the other parts everyone agrees on? Nope. This isn’t how RfCs are done. Volunteer Marek 17:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Where's the policy to support this claim, exactly? François Robere (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

More (already pointed out - not sure why this has to be repeated in response to this endless WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) For the "ethnonationalist" claim, the fifth source is this and calls him "right wing" not "ethnonationalist". The second source, this one is a PORTAL of a city. It's nowhere near being RS for such a claim in a BLP nor does it meet the sourcing requirements in this topic area. The fourth source, this one likewise doesn't call him an "ethnonationalist" and AFAICT it's a self published source. The Mink source, the third one [90] also doesn't call him "ethnonationalist" just that he's defended the interwar right wing party. Haven't checked the other one, but so far the track record ain't good. Even if that one last source actually supports the text it's pretty obvious that there are FOUR sources which are being flagrantly misrepresented in order to make the given text look legit. Again, this is straight up misrepresentation of sources that's sanctionable. Volunteer Marek 21:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, Onet is cited for Żaryn's words only, which are verifiable because you have two accompanying videos to that. I'm not aware of Onet ever manipulating videos of interviews. Having not heard the "nie" part (the host was interrupting), I strike out the passage. The rest stays valid. Again, waiting for your text. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not Onet manipulting any interviews - the interview is what it is. It's whoever put the text in the article that manipulated what was said. But AGF I guess, though the track record here is stretching that to the limit. Volunteer Marek 22:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm also unclear as to why you and Francois Robere are editing each other's comments. Volunteer Marek 22:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a work in progress, so I'm okay with it as long as edits are done carefully and I don't miss changes. This one looks reasonable and consensual, and since the text was stricken it was also visible. I've now proceeded to remove the statement and attached source, so this should be resolved. François Robere (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I reiterate my support for all the info that has been deleted (having been its author, which is fairly obvious). However, I am still waiting for whatever proposal VM, or Lembit Staan, or GizzyCatBella (of their authorship) propose for the text that would in their opinion be fine (including his statements on Ukraine and Pruchnik, which were not included here for some reason but were well covered, including in academia, and their exclusion from discussion unnecessarily narrows the scope of his senatorial career under discussion - there may appear no consensus for inclusion but at least we should discuss before dismissing/approving it) + any additional RS that could be found by them to expand the text, and from that we could probably select portions from each of the texts as it may seem most appropriate. If we don't want omnibus bills to be passed, we need to have two versions to compare, and we should take the best of both worlds. Ping me or write on the talk page about the article only after that proposal is published, as I see no further need to comment before this happens. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you reiterating your support for the claim that "according to Żaryn, there were no Poles who collaborated with the Germans on the crime scene."?

My proposal is simply NOT to include text which falsifies sources. That's it. Why should it be something different? Volunteer Marek 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

We just keep going around in circles here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and Szmenderowiecki: Take it slowly, please. I want to address points one by one. François Robere (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• About "ethnonationalist" part, I can't find it in the proposed sources. I don't know if I was wrong in the search. If not, that part simply needs to be removed.
  About "anti-Semitism", in this source[91] already proposed in the text above I find: "Professor Jan Żaryn, ardent defender of the nationalist and anti-Semitic current of "Endecja"". This could be a very interesting part to add.
  About this part: "according to Żaryn, there were no Poles who collaborated with the Germans on the crime scene." if sources have been misinterpreted, we just remove that part. For the rest, if there are no objections, the sources are there and the inserted text explains Zaryn's thought very well. So I am in favor of including the text in the article.--Mhorg (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  Easy as that: Ethnic nationalism, also known as ethnonationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the nation and nationality are defined in terms of ethnicity, with emphasis on ethnocentric approach to various political issues related to national affirmation of a particular ethnic group.

  What is essentially being described in all these sources is exactly attempts to reinforce the narrative of Polishness via positive myths. We have the nationalist side mentioned explicitly, the "ethno" one is described by Zalewski: "he appears as one of the propagators of the positive national narrative, condemning any forme of historical criticism". Mink, in the paragraph where Żaryn is mentioned, described the general historical policy of PiS, and mentions a few people tied to the historical current of the party (briefly described there), including Andrzej Nowak and Żaryn. Behr says essentially the same (nationalist - explicitly), with the "ethno" part also described thoroughly thoughout the text, matching the definition.

  I wonder why Duch-Dyngosz was removed though. She specialises in Jewish studies. Probably it's not the best of the best sources, but just because it is not a scholarly paper doesn't mean they should not be included. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that it would be hard for a reasonable person not to conclude that Żaryn is an ethno-nationalist, but seeing as this is a very contentious TA (and a BLP within it), we should only use a particular descriptor if an RS already uses it (though it doesn't have to be in English, as long as it's easily translatable).

  I removed Duch-Dyngosz for a couple of reasons, one being that it wasn't clear to me that she's discussing "ethno-nationalist discourse" in the context of Żaryn's positions. I may have misread - an excerpt establishing that connection would be useful. François Robere (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, in Italian this term is not used much. The term "nationalist" is enough for us. I don't know, if the word "ethno" is there, then I think it can be used.--Mhorg (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Section 1

@Volunteer Marek and Mhorg:

"Nationalist" or "ethnonationalist": I'm not sure who changed the phrasing from the first to the second. I think the first is better.

1. I'm all for citing OKO.press ("nationalist"), GW (states that his work is "representative of Catholic nationalism") and Jacek Leociak on naTemat (says that Żaryn's 1968 resolution draft is "saturated with nationalism").[92]
2. Frederic Zalewski, Les Marches de l’Indépendance à Varsovie, 2020: "Jan Żaryn... is one of the most active "memory promoters" of PiS and appears to be one of the propagators of a positive national narrative, condemning all forms of critical history. His commitment to the [Independence] March reflects one of the forms of fusion between PiS, which criticizes the "pedagogy of shame" - an expression that... leads, among other things, to a rehabilitation of the anti-Semitic pre-war national right - and the "national" extreme right, which insists on the Polish nationalist political heritage..."
3. Georges Mink, Les historiens polonais, 2017: "...Professor Jan Żaryn, an ardent defender of the nationalist and anti-Semitic current of 'Endecja', which he propagates..."
4. Valentin Behr, Les discussions sur la Shoah en Pologne, 2019: "historians who are very present in the nationalist media, often not specialists in the Shoah (among them Bogdan Musiał, Piotr Gontarczyk, Jan Żaryn and Andrzej Nowak)".
5. Sebastian Łupak and Marta Duch-Dyngosz aren't the best sources for this purpose, so I'll remove them. François Robere (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

One. More. Time. Oko press and Natemat are not RS for claims about BLPs. Please stop it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 14:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oko press and Natemat are not RS for claims about BLPs That's your opinion, not the consensus. Feel free to make an entry regarding oko press on WP:RSN if you disagree. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is no consensus. Examples are given right in this talk page of twists and spins by oko. Therefore it is out of this bio article regardless any consensuses. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are the one claiming oko press is unreliable without providing anything than allegations of "twists and spins", you can't disqualify sources because they disagree with your world view. There is no consensus that oko is unreliable, this is simply a WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Behr appears to be self published. Volunteer Marek 14:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

As for Behr, the header says "La version définitive de cet article est parue in Les Polonais et la Shoah. Une nouvelle école historique, Audrey Kichelewski, Judith Lyon-Caen, Jean-Charles Szurek, Anette Wieviorka (dir.), CNRS Éditions, Paris, 2019, p. 275-290." (The final version of this article appears in %bookname%). CNRS Editions is legit. The chapter is linked as courtesy.

PS. Invoking WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT means that you allege that the editor breaches consensus. There is, however no consensus for (un)reliability of oko.press (as by latest edition by Rosguill, and for which the main point for change of status has not been shown to be true), and certainly not for naTemat, which was not at all discussed in RSN. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

1. We can argue about Oko.press later, it's just one source.
2. Think what you may about naTemat, but it's quoting Jacek Leociak and he is an RS. He was probably quoted elsewhere as well.
3. Have you any objections to stating, based on the other sources, that he supports nationalist positions? If not, then how would you summarize them? François Robere (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

though he denies that it is dictated by the party - this is incorrect interpretation of what Zaryn said in the interview. The quote in question was torn out of context and put at the top of the interview, as a "clickbait", I guess. In fact in this respect Zaryn's argument is four-pronged (in the context of the questioned text): (A) He reasonably indicates that history politics (HP) is carried out by nearly all governments via their functionaries. (B) HP of the state is not the same as HP of a party. (C) these functionaries are, by the election of Polish people, happen to be associated with PiS (D) these functionaries may screw up. -- In other words he "denies" nothing of the sort, only splits hairs. Therefore this sentence must be removed. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, the linked interview clearly says (twice) that the policy is prepared not by the party but by the government (Jeżeli ktoś rzeczywiście tworzy cokolwiek w kwestii nie historii jako nauki, ale w kwestii, którą nazywamy polityką historyczną, to oczywiście nie PiS, tylko państwo polskie i jego urzędnicy and Ta teza w formie zarzutu jest tezą wewnętrznie zakłamaną, bo to nie PiS, a państwo polskie prowadzi politykę historyczną.), so it's not "clickbait" - he addresses accusations of extra-governmental management of HP coming i.a. from the interview with Rafał Wnuk from Sep 2016.

The "he "denies" nothing of the sort, only splits hairs" shows that you don't see a distinction between state HP and party HP, but he does, or at least argues so to defend the party he is affiliated to from accusations.

It could be reformulated that "though he asserts that it is regulated on the government and not party level". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

policy is prepared not by the party but by the government - he didnt say that and there is no document of this kind prepared by the govt . Lembit Staan (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with either solution. Is this better? François Robere (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Once again, no. Wrong summary of his words. " którą nazywamy polityką historyczną, to oczywiście nie PiS, tylko państwo polskie i jego urzędnicy. Tymi urzędnikami stali się decyzją narodu Polskiego ludzie związani z Prawem i Sprawiedliwością, bądź członkowie PiS." - i.e., he says "not PiS, but govt carries it out, but de facto members of PiS carry out this policy. "Pytanie natomiast, czy prowadzi dobrze, czy źle." - i.e. here he weasels out of responsibility. Since you cannot correctly summarize it yourself, you have to find a neutral secondary source which covers this moment. Lembit Staan (talk)

@Szmenderowiecki: regarding Rafał Wnuk: Wnuk speaks of politisation of historians, that they try to suit the interests of a particular party. Therefore the answer of Zaryn focusing on "history politics" being the function of a state is a straw man argument. And once again, this episode of Zaryn's bio must come from secondary sources, because you are right: the answer of Zaryn makes no sense without the "question" of Wnuk, and to cover this "dialog" would be a full-blown original research. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This statement may be too complex, but not important enough to justify the length that would be required to explain it. I suggest we drop it. François Robere (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how many times you have to be reminded that as a rule primary sources must be used only as a corroboration of secondary sources. Wikipedians cannot drastically summarize primary sources because they are not qualified for that. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF. It's his attributed opinions in his article. François Robere (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been explaining all along, taken out of context it makes little sense. Yes, PiS has its policy. Yes, state has its policy. So what? Not to say that your summary "is not dictated by the party" is wrong, if not exactly opposite what he said. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. What do you think of the section after the removal? François Robere (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"Promoting" is still POV. This source - what is it and does it meet sourcing requirements? There's also mistranslation of going on with regard to the word "mit". In English mit --> myth --> implies something false. Here it just means a "story" or "narrative" or "set of shared values". It's false equivocation. So that's also POV. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is POV - he talks about "historical PR" a lot. The alternatives were "holds", which is arguably less encyclopedic; and "advocates", which is basically the same. Other options?

Znad Wilii is a small Polish-Lithuanian outlet headed by Česlav Okinčic with financial support from the Polish gov. The piece covers a public debate between Żaryn and Rimvydas Valatka, organized by the the Polish Institute. It was probably used as a source on Żaryn views on state historiography ("Polish historical policy... is a battle under the banners of sovereignty, justice, freedom. The state should exercise historical policy so that Poles don't mistake where there is good and where there is evil"). I'll correct that.

Not necessarily, but it does carry grand historical connotations that aren't replicated with "story", or even with "narrative".[93][94] Plus, dictionary says that's the correct translation.[95] François Robere (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have to look up a dictionary for the word 'mit', you probably should not translate sensitive things. FYI 'mit' also means "spiced up, embellished, exaggerated story". (Znad Wilii quote sounds correct. BTW any govt can subscribe under this kind of statement. The real issue is how it is implemented. Whitewashing its own history it not a trademark of the Soviet Union.) Lembit Staan (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything other than follow WP:POLICY, and Policy dictates that our statements be grounded in sources. VM disagreed on the translation, so I cited a dictionary. According to the dictionary, "mit" and "mitologia"[96] translate to English cleanly, so I see no reason to change the wording. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm amused astounded by the fact that VM, an advocate of accurate translations and word-for-word quotes throughout these discussions, is suddenly asking that we modify a perfectly good translation because the BLP's choice of words might paint him negatively... François Robere (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If the translation is word for word, there is no reason to object. Furthermore, it seems clear to me that the word "myth" refers precisely to a way of telling the history for political purposes, an attitude that reflects the personality of Zaryn, according to what we read around.--Mhorg (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the second statement, but the logic in "If the translation is word for word, there is no reason to object" is out of whack. Words have different meanings, some of them are not literal and understood only from context. You and I know that the meaning on question is "national myth", but how would the reader of the short wikipedia blurb know that and not conclude that Zaryn suggests to write fairy tales? And this is exactly one of the problems with wikipedian's original research based on primary sources. In fact, even biased secondary sources can grab this opportunity to add some extra smear. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure no one wants to dive into that rabbit hole, so let's just assume Mhorg meant "accurate" and be done with. Also, I suggest we treat our reader as sufficiently acquainted with the material that they're either aware of, or are willing to learn about "national myths" by clicking the link.

Translation alone does not count as WP:OR, BTW (see WP:TRANSCRIPTION, WP:NONENG and WP:TRLA). François Robere (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course Zaryn shoots himself in the foot by using terminology "positive myths", "national mythology", etc. In order to understand what he means, you have to know the context. Let me give you an example from the mentioned article in Znad Wilii, where he speaks about "Cursed soldiers". Their generalized image is what he calls a "positive myth": they did fight the Soviet occupation after all. At the same time many of them were far from being "valiant heroes" and Lithuanians may have a less than positive memories about them as well. But certainly you are not going to teach kids at school that Wojciech "Wolf" Wilczynski burned a house of the chief of the local PGS, together with him, his wife and his gramps. What Zaryn says there is: leave history to historians, but the public historical narrative must be in a positive light. Do we have any neutral secondary sources which discuss this element of Zaryn's worldview? Lembit Staan (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That said, I see no glaring issues with the current state of Section 1: it has no obvious nonsense. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Zaryn has the whole book, "Polska pamięć. O historii i polityce historycznej”, and the source of wisdom about Zaryn's views on history politics must be a neutral review this book, rather than random blurbs from random newspapers. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what he means, and indeed he is shooting himself in the foot. We're not liable for his choice of words, and can't edit translations to suit our fancy. If context is needed, we can link national myth.

The thing is Żaryn is also a public figure, and he lets loose on newspapers and other media often enough that, were we to discard their timely coverage, we'd wrong both him and our readers. François Robere (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with the use of "national myth" wikilink, that's pretty much what Zaryn meant, impossible to get around it.--Mhorg (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@CPCEnjoyer, Lembit Staan, Mhorg, Szmenderowiecki, and Volunteer Marek: Seems to me that we've exhausted the discussion on section 1. The final draft is here. Are there any other objections? Can we move ahead with inclusion, or does this still require an RfC? François Robere (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

All good with me, I think it is fine as it is. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

For me the part is ready to be inserted in the article.--Mhorg (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Section 2

@Volunteer Marek:

Żaryn argues that the tensions between Jews and other nations in Interwar Poland were mostly due to economic reasons. Scholars dispute this characterization.

References

1. Koźmińska-Frejlak, Edukacja czy dialog z cieniami, 2009: @Mhorg and Szmenderowiecki: Could you kindly give us an excerpt from pp. 471-472?
2. Libionka, “Truth About Camps” or the Uneventful 1942, 2013: Extensive quote given at Talk:Jan Żaryn/Archive 1#Other sources: "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... 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."
3. Libionka, W poszukiwaniu miliona Sprawiedliwych, 2015: Don't have time ATM to look for the specific quote. @Mhorg and Szmenderowiecki: Help would be appreciated.

These are all open sources, and links have been provided. François Robere (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is with the bolded part. First, this isn’t “scholars”. This is two authors. Libionka and Kozminsks Frejlak. So “scholars” would need to be replaced with their names. Attributed. However, it’s not two either. It’s really one. Libionka. While Kozminska-Frejlak’s tone seems to be derogatory in her review she never actually “disputed” anything. At least in that part. She just says “Zaryn thinks this. Zaryn says that”.

Separate question is whether this is actually WP:DUE. Is this important? Central to this guy’s BLP? Volunteer Marek 12:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Once this is attributed it may be ok except as VM says above - is this central to him? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it’s not. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

About Edukacja czy dialog z cieniami source, I read: "Konflikt polsko-żydowski – często bardzo ostry w słowach antysemityzm – dotyczył głównie kwestii ekonomicznych” (The Polish-Jewish conflict - often very sharp in words anti-Semitism - mainly concerned economic issues"). So, this part is confirmed.--Mhorg (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Francois Robere

Quotes

Koźmińska-Frejlak: Lektura napisanego przez Jana Żaryna „Wprowadzenia” do Materiałów dla nauczyciela również nie pozostawia złudzeń, że bardziej niż na przedstawieniu faktów autorowi zależało na przybliżeniu stanowiska zajmowanego przez niego w sporach o stosunek polskiego społeczeństwa do Zagłady, a przy okazji na obronie określonej wizji Polski i polskości [...] (detailed explanation of his train of thought) Rozumowanie Żaryna w tej części nieuchronnie prowadzi do wniosku, zresztą wyrażonego explicite, że to sami Żydzi swym postępowaniem kolosalnie utrudnili przyjście im z pomocą w latach próby. Czytamy: „Polonizacja Żydów w czasie okupacji niemieckiej warunkowała szansę ich uratowania, w tym podjęcie przez nich heroicznej decyzji o przejściu na »stronę aryjską«”18. Jak w takiej sytuacji można rozliczać polskie społeczeństwo – chciałoby się zapytać... Żaryn nie stroni także od ukazywania „przewin” polskiego społeczeństwa. Tyle tylko, że zawsze znajduje dla nich na pozór racjonalne uzasadnienie (jak w przypadku numerus nullus), czasem pokazuje, że symetryczne zasady dyskryminacyjne stosowane były także po stronie żydowskiej, niekiedy je po prostu bagatelizuje i zbywa. Libionka (3): remove, have "Truth about camps" text stay. It's anyway the same scholar. Please don't ask for confirmation.

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Besides, for starter, what I have originally written was "though some scholars have disputed this characterisation of Polish-Jewish relations" instead of the bolded sentence, which IMHO sounds more appropriate.

For the "mainly economic reasons", I'd propose citing Żaryn in addition to the sources, in which he claims that the nationalist parties were trying to soothe tensions while trying to appeal to the Polish peasantry and artisans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szmenderowiecki (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki and Mhorg: Thanks for the translation. There's one particular statement there I find outrageous, assuming I read it correctly: "the Jewish minority... was shut off from the needs of the common folk, became competitive and rejected modernization... which under the conditions the economic crisis gave rise to conflicts"...

@Volunteer Marek and Piotrus: The importance of this is twofold: first, it's a form of denial of antisemitism which connects very well with everything else we have on him. Second, as an historian, such harsh criticisms by other historians (who are no less qualified in those areas, to say the least) is notable. We should probably quote more from the sources (with attribution), rather than the approach we took thus far to keep everyone happy - less. François Robere (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No this is not a denial of antisemitism. I strongly recommend you to re-read the antisemitism article (unless it was radically rewritten since the last time (long ago) I edited it. Economic excuses is one of the three (or four) major roots of antisemitism. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

So just to be clear, you are saying it is antisemitism? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added more content to #2 from previous revisions, and removed the highlight. Please review. François Robere (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The stuff on "immaculate" (???)? No. We just went over how you guys were mistranslating the interview to have it say the opposite of what the man actually said. Right above. His quote was falsified. Now you want to use the same source for some other quote. No. This is exactly why we generally avoid WP:PRIMARY sources. Translating such sources is original research even under the best of circumstances. And here we are far from best circumstances as the total misrepresentation of one quote already shows. Volunteer Marek 17:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's WP:ABOUTSELF, and I've no problem adding his exact words in a footnote: "Nie, nie jesteśmy niepokalanym narodem. Przed wojną też był antysemityzm, ale on też miał swoje umocowanie w racjonalnym myśleniu".[97] How would you translate this? François Robere (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: No, translating text is not considered WP:OR, see WP:TRANSCRIPTION. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

When you mistranslated the source to say the opposite of what it says? Yeah I guess that’s not “OR” but even worse. But yeah translating primary sources is indeed OR. Volunteer Marek 19:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not original research, read what I sent. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is WP:OR.- GizzyCatBella🍁 21:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't feed trolls. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Resorting to WP:PA because you can't provide an argument for your stonewalling?

Also @GizzyCatBella: did you not read what I sent? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

People who translate primary sources receive copyrights for their translations. It’s considered scholarly original research. What WP:TRANSCRIPTION is talking about is *faithful* translation of secondary sources. That’s not the case here. Neither the “faithful” nor the “secondary” part. Volunteer Marek 14:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

People who translate primary sources receive copyrights for their translations. It’s considered scholarly original research. Receiving copyrights is in no way "scholarly original research". If you read the terms under which we contribute, everyone who writes here retains copyright, regardless in which language it is published and from which source something is published, so long as we don't violate their copyrights (see WP:C and this). Copyrights are not violated if someone is misquoted, though obviously it is not desired for other reasons. Not that I particularly care about the legalese or the copyright at all, but that's how it looks.

The stuff contributed isn't always perfect (as has been demonstrated), but correcting it to a better translation rectifies the problem. And, again, I have tried my best, and if I misheard something and someone pointed that out and indeed you were right, I corrected it swiftly, and that is how I see the discussion going smoothly.

WP:TRANSCRIPTION and WP:RSUE are two parts of guidelines that expressly permit translating stuff, and, given the not-so-large amount of sources in English, we are forced to do that with Polish. While translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, it isn't true that translations by Wikipedians are not allowed as OR. If you are able to find an RS translation for all these fragments - go and add it, if it is any different from mine. Again, if you aren't fine with the translation given - provide yours. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Are everyone done now? Can we get back to the text? @Volunteer Marek: any objections not addressed above? François Robere (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Same one as before. The stuff based on someone’s clumsy (“immaculate”) if not outright wrong (pretending Zaryn said the opposite of what he actually said) translation of a primary source is a NO. Volunteer Marek 14:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

1. According to what policy? WP:TRANSCRIPTION says nothing about "secondary sources", just "sourced material".
2. WP:TRLA gives a list of Wikipedians who are capable, among others, of "[helping] you with translating reliable sources that are used to support parts of articles". Piotrus is on that list - shall we ping him?
3. Alternatively, you can suggest a translation yourself.[98] François Robere (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

We have WP:PRIMARY. And we *just saw* an instance where an editor tried to translate a primary source and ended up claiming that the BLP subject said the OPPOSITE of what the subject actually said. And then you insisted on including that false translation in the article. Now you’re trying to brush it off as nothing serious (it was quite serious) and are trying to include more user-generated translations from a primary source. And this for something that’s not all that DUE in the first place. How about we learn our lesson and don’t? Volunteer Marek 05:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

1. That "instance" was part of the existing text, not my suggestion,[99] and I did not "insist" on including it - in fact I clearly stated that I couldn't care less.[100] You've read my comment, you replied to it (with yet another claim that isn't backed by Policy [101][102]), and now you're circling back to something you know isn't true?
2. Since we started these discussions the article grew almost seventeenfold, from less than 2.5k to over 39k. There are bound to be errors - you just happen to have found the worst of them, and now you're hanging on to it like the future of Wikipedia depended on it. It doesn't. Multiple policies support this use (WP:TRANSCRIPTION, WP:RSUE, WP:TRLA), and there's no reason not to follow them. François Robere (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

For the later record (June 23, 2021)

Discussed/rejected/explained topics in Archive 1[103] - contrast the current discussions above to Archive 1. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)