Talk:Kielce pogrom

Evidence of Soviet involvement

An analysis of sources:

• Krzysztof Kąkolewski

• Our article says, Kąkolewski was a Polish author, life-long scholar, investigative journalist considered the pillar of the Polish school of reportage, as well as dramatist and screenwriter. Quite a description but being a historian is not one of them.

• Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust

• Not usable. Lambasted by two specialists; the sole admiration is from Cienciala who is a noted scholar but not an expert in the domain.

• Anne Applebaum

• Pop-historians; seriously?

• A primary source from IPN.

• ?

• Aleksander Wat

• Our article says, Wat was a Polish poet, writer, art theoretician, memorist, and one of the precursors of the Polish futurism movement in the early 1920s, considered to be one of the more important Polish writers of the mid 20th century. Undoubtedly a polymath but not a historian.

• Stanisław Krajewski

• Our article says, Krajewski is a Polish philosopher, mathematician, writer, and activist of the Jewish minority in Poland. Admirable but not a historian.

• Jan Śledzianowski

• The pl.wiki bio (Google Translate) says, Śledzianowski was a Polish Roman Catholic priest of the Diocese of Kielce, sociologist, theologian, and professor of theological sciences. None of these make Śledzianowski a historian.

• Michael Checinski

• The pl.wiki bio (Google Translate) says, Checinski was an officer of the PRL military counterintelligence. [..] He worked for the RAND Corporation and George C. Marshall European Center For Security Studies. Some nat-sec guy; not a historian. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What does Jan Grabowski — one of the most acclaimed historians in the field — say?

The theme of Polish innocence resurfaces in the Wikipedia article on the July 1946 Kielce pogrom. The deadliest pogrom in postwar Europe, this event claimed the lives of 42 Polish Jews, the majority Holocaust survivors, when a Polish mob enraged by tales of ritual murder attacked their neighbors. Misleadingly, over a fifth of the Wikipedia article comprises a subsection entitled ‘Evidence of Soviet Involvement,’ which suggests that the Kielce pogrom was somehow planned by the Soviets. This theory has been roundly rejected by all serious scholars and today finds an audience only among fringe Polish nationalists and conspiracy theorists wishing to prove that Communist Soviets, not Polish antisemitic masses, bore responsibility for the massacre.

When the topic is as controversial as this, attracting fringe crackpots, policy guides us to use the highest quality sources which, in this context, equates to works by academic historians. Instead, we have a travesty. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Who are these "fringe crackpots" you're referring to? Anne Applebaum is about as maintstream and reliable as it gets. Volunteer Marek 20:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement that we restrict ourselves to the work of academic historians. Even if we accept that it means we should be using academic sources there is no logic to limiting it to historians (why exclude political scientists, sociologists, etc). Thats not how policy guides us. Anne Applebaum for example is generally reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Who among the above is a "political scientist" or "sociologist"? Obviously, I did not mean to imply that historians — in the narrow sense of the word — have the sole claim over the TRUTH. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The one who you yourself labeled as a "sociologist" perhaps? Volunteer Marek 20:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope because the label is unsourced :-) On a serious note, you need to show that Śledzianowski is considered as a sociologist — than a theologian — by peers. And then establish his repute that will allow his narrative to stand on an equal footing with that of Grabowski, Tokarska-Bakir et al. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So why did you call him a sociology? And is there an established hierarchy here where someone is "first a sociologist, than a thelogian"? I don't think that's how that works. It's just interdisciplinary. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

They didn't, its a quote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok, you didn't seem to disagree with that part though. And btw, I have no opinion on this person or their reliability, I'm just wondering where these criteria are coming from. Is there a wikipedia policy you could link which discusses which one comes first, sociologisticism or theologisticism? Maybe sociologist see it one way and theologists another. Anyway, it'd be useful to know which actual policy you're basing all this on. Volunteer Marek 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Common sense and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - which guides us to not use a theologian or a poet or a mathematician or a lit-critic to push a narrative that has been characterized by half-a-dozen acclaimed (academic) historians, specializing in the topic, as "conspiracy theories" or like. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess "common sense" might cover poets or mathematicians (I'm assuming photographers too) but why not theologians who are also sociologists? Volunteer Marek 21:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Replied below. You have a simple task — show him as equally reliable as two of the most acclaimed scholars in the field to restore part of the now-deleted section. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Good, because that is what I thought you meant and I was like "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?" IMO Applebaum can be used here, with attribution of course if people feel its necessary. I do think you're largely right about the rest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. On restrospection, I should have phrased better - historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and many other disciplines make the cut! But, not theologists or music-scholars for the case in hand! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Will you also allow philosophers? Volunteer Marek 20:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please bring sources if you wish to challenge my deletion; that would perhaps be a better utilization of your time. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are replying to. I'm asking if after having accepted some scholarly disciplines and rejected others, you will allow Wikipedia editors to use philosophers in this topic area? I think I can decide how I spend my time for myself but thanks for that suggestion. Volunteer Marek 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What is "this topic area"? My comments are limited to the niche topic area of "Soviet involvement in the Kielce pogrom", an erstwhile sub-section of this article; ofcourse, there are philosophers who have contributed to our understanding of the Holocaust etc. and are reliable sources. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so if I'm reading that correctly you will you allow Wikipedians to use philosophers as sources in the topic area of "Soviet involvement in the Kielce pogrom". Can you please specify what policy any of this is based on? Also, since we all seem to be agreed that Anne Applebaum isn't a "fringe crackpot" (sic) and that sociologists are acceptable as sources, maybe you should restore them. Volunteer Marek 21:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be led to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? No, I will not restore the "sociologist/theologian". To reiterate, [Please] establish [Jan Śledzianowski]'s repute — as a sociologist — that will allow his narrative to stand on an equal footing with that of Grabowski, Tokarska-Bakir et al.TrangaBellam (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What is this "context" that matters here? All I see is that you personally decided that if a scholar is a "sociologist" then you will allow the use of them as a source. But if they're a "sociologist" AND a "theologian" then you will not allow others to use them. And then you cite "common sense" to support this criteria. This isn't about "equal footing" of anything - it's a genuine concern with what general criteria are used to determine reliability. (and my suggestion you restore some authors was a reference to Anne Applebaum (not a "fringe crackpot") and Jan Gross (sociologist) both of whom you removed) Volunteer Marek 08:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If you do not seek to restore a third-tier source from a theologian/sociologist, why were you waxing eloquent about him all the while? This is not a meta discussion, VM. The particulars matter.

Did I raise any issue about the reliability of Jan Gross? There was no way to maintain a standalone section with only the last paragraph! Which, in itself, was a misinterpretation of Gross' arguments and slyly framed as a coattail to a bunch of fringe revisionists. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I waxed anything or anyone, eloquently or not and certainly not Sledziowski. And yes you did raise the issue of Gross by first excluding all sociologist from the set of sources you were willing to allow. Then backtracked but decided that a sociologist was ok only if they weren't also a theologian. There is a bigger issue here and that's simply that "on equal footing" (whatever that actually means) with Grabowski and Klein is actually NOT a requirement for a source to be reliable. In fact, reading WP:RS in detail I don't see either one of them mentioned there at all. So again the same question returns - what criteria exactly are being used to establish reliability? Because it doesn't seem to be the ones actually articulated at WP:RS. You also never explained who exactly these "fringe crackpots" were that you referred to earlier. Volunteer Marek 09:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Right after HEB enquired about my use of the word "historian", I elucidated to them that I had meant to cover all relevant disciplines in the context of the issue, including sociology, anthropology, etc. That was before you arrived at the thread, so I won't engage with your bad-faith arguments and commentary about how I have backtracked.

I did not have any issues with Gross. If you see carefully, Gross was the only source in the section about whom I had nothing adverse to say. My only opposition is to the misrepresentation of Gross' broader arguments and bad-faith use in support of a set of fringe revisionists.

When domain experts like Grabowski, Tokarska-Bakir, et al. characterise a specific interpretation of events as a "conspiracy theory", an unusually strong word, FALSEBALANCE comes into play for accommodating contrarian narratives. This necessitates sourcing contrarian narratives from equally acclaimed historians (again, in the broad sense of the word). Now, you might believe that the sources, which I removed, are of comparable expertise. That is, they are all experts in the domain or Grabowski and Tokarska-Bakir are no experts; hence, there is no need to privilege Tokarska-Bakir's argument wrt others. Such being the case, please go to RSN.

Barring Applebaum and Gross, I will classify all of the removed sources under the purview of the particular term.

I won't engage with you further. Have the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW, Michael Checinski, that you dismiss as "some nat-sec guy" was a Holocaust survivor, held a PhD, taught at University of Jerusalem and Harvard This information is also in pl.wiki bio. You quoted this part: He worked for the RAND Corporation and George C. Marshall European Center For Security Studies.. Here is the full part: He worked at the University of Jerusalem. He then emigrated to the United States, where he worked at Harvard University and for Rand Corporation (1976-1981). He then worked for George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. I'm not sure why the full quote was not provided. In particular if, for some reason, you choose to skip the middle of a quotation, please use ellipsis (...).

(but since the refs to Checinski don't give page numbers I would suggest verifying everything first) Volunteer Marek 09:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

With regard to the discussion on Anne Applebaum here above, note that she has been selectively quoted if not misunderstood in the article. From this text [1]:

In Kielce, the police and security services not only failed to prevent the riot but actually joined the mob, along with the army: police participation had unleashed the crowd violence (...) In Neither case is there any archival evidence of more careful advance planning, let alone international coordination, as some have alleged. Though Soviet agents and advisers were present in both cities – a Soviet NKVD officer in Kilece was even present at the riots – and despite the fact that these pogroms all took place in the same time period, it isn’t possible, so far, to trace any direct Soviet involvement in their organisation

... the only bit that was taken and quoted [2] in the article is the one where she says

a Soviet NKVD officer in Kilece was even present at the riots.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, why am I not surprised? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent scholarship

• A discussion about the events in Kielce is ongoing and actually from the very beginning it has been living proof of how post-war politics of memory works. Analyzing the Kielce pogrom, various variants of provocation were considered; the alleged agents provocateurs were as follows: Polish communists, the Security Offce, the Soviet authorities, and so on. Apart from high church offcials, this approach was taken by Stanisław Mikołajczyk and it is still popular in various modifcations. The investigation by Poland’s National Remembrance Institute (IPN), the relevant texts of which were published in 2006 (Kamiński and Żaryn 2006), however, did not confrm the conspiracy hypothesis, supporting the concept of a bottom-up pogrom.
  — Chmielewska, Katarzyna (2021), Hopfinger, Maryla; Żukowski, Tomasz (eds.), "Alternative Narratives of the 1940s Versus the Politics of Memory", The Holocaust Bystander in Polish Culture, 1942-2015: The Story of Innocence, Cham: Springer International Publishing, p. 82, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66408-4_3, ISBN 978-3-030-66408-4

• Translation of Joanna Tokarska-Bakir's acclaimed monograph on the pogrom is to be published by Cornell University Press in November but till then, we can depend on this excellent interview and, of course, the Polish original.
• I had read a decent article by Blatman on the subject but cannot retrieve it now.

Ah, ok, so Znak is a reliable source. Volunteer Marek 22:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Towards a new version

Fwiw, this is a notable conspiracy theory and belongs at the article. I welcome others to draft a fresh section on the topic using high-quality sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion as to what exactly are reliable "high-quality" sources given some of the comments in the discussion above. Not sure why, since we have WP:RS etc. but apparently "high-quality" can mean various things to various people. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We should (as I say on my userpage) start by identifying a few of the best sources about the Kielce pogrom (same for all the pages that need TNT). Levivich (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, any suggestions? Above User:TrangaBellam used "Common sense and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS" to justify excluding some sources. Ok. Common sense and the, um, context, would suggest that the Grabowski and Klein source should not be used (at least not for now) since there's, um, "context" here. That context being Icewhiz. You know, the guy who was banned for "using inappropriate sources in BLPs", made "negative edits to BLPs", "post(ed) negative claims or speculations about living scholars" [3] (I think "fringe crackpots" would qualify under this), "made inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments" [4] and " inappropriately and falsely" tried to link editors to Holocaust denial [5]. And who's also indefinetly site-banned for harassment and abuse of multiple Wikipedians. The same Icewhiz whom that article refers to as "defender of historical accuracy".

So perhaps it'd be best to let the Arbitration Committee do their case before we start using G&K as source - and not apparently just using THAT as a source, but also using it as some kind of holy scripture on what OTHER sources are reliable or not (they're right about some being unreliable, but many of those aren't even used on Wikipedia). Let the Arbitrators arbitrate and perhaps we can all get back together later and revisit this question after the case is concluded. Volunteer Marek 22:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please talk about nothing on this page except the content of this article. No icewhiz, no arbcom, no editor conduct, just content. We have lots of other pages for the other stuff. Levivich (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of unavoidable if someone is trying to use the Grabowski and Klein article not just as a reliable source but even as some final judgement on what other sources are reliable. But hey, I'm all for it. Volunteer Marek 22:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Request an injunction from the ArbCom on any use of the Grabowski paper and on success, I will comply. Do note that I have not used the paper to write anything about the motives of Wikipedia editors etc. Btw, Grabowski has made similar claims in other peer-reviewed media excluding the Wikipedia stuff; if you take much umbrage, I can replace the cite. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not even the question of whether G&K are reliable. The issue is that their article is being treated as if it was our WP:RS policy itself - to determine whether OTHER sources are reliable or not. Which is actually contrary to WP:NPOV. Volunteer Marek 06:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Some most-recent, best-authors, best-publishers, about Kielce pogrom, that I can find:

1. Bender, Sara (2019). In Enemy Land: The Jews of Kielce and the Region, 1939-1946. Academic Studies Press. ISBN 978-1-61811-872-1. OCLC 1108570161.
2. Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna (2018). "'The present causes of past effects': The Background Beliefs of the Kielce Pogrom (4 July 1946)". The Medieval Roots of Antisemitism. Routledge. ISBN 9781351120821.
3. Cichopek-Gajraj, Anna; Dynner, Glenn (2021). "Pogroms in Modern Poland, 1918–1946". In Avrutin, Eugene M.; Bemporad, Elissa (eds.). Pogroms: A Documentary History. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190060084.003.0010. ISBN 978-0-19-762929-1. OCLC 1248601302.
4. Apor, Péter; Kende, Tamás; Lônčíková, Michala; Săndulescu, Valentin (2019-11-02). "Post-World War II anti-Semitic pogroms in East and East Central Europe: collective violence and popular culture". European Review of History. 26 (6): 913–927. doi:10.1080/13507486.2019.1611744. ISSN 1350-7486.
5. "The Kielce Pogrom: A Blood Libel Massacre of Holocaust Survivors". Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
6. "Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland After Liberation". Yad Vashem. Retrieved 2023-03-01.

The last two are obvious low hanging fruit. In addition to these sources, the bibliographies of these sources will have others. Anything about Kielce pogrom that is cited by all of these sources is probably a major work on the topic. I haven't examined their bibliographies closely but just from skimming them, I saw some obvious ones, like Zimmerman's Contested Memories and Gross's Fear, but my guess is we don't really need to go that far back (2000s), because there are ample more-recent sources available. Levivich (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Tokarska-Bakir and Yad Vashem are already used in the article. The other ones are also good suggestions. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the sources by Tokarska-Bakir and Yad Vashem alraedy used in the article are different than the sources by them I listed above. I don't think any of these 6 sources are in the article yet. Levivich (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, but if I'm not mistaken, the main point of contention is the description of the conspiracy theory. The general course of events and who participated etc. is not subject of dispute, right? Volunteer Marek 22:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the entire article could be improved by rewriting it using the latest, best sources (same for all articles). Levivich (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are no problems in the rest of the article, why rewrite it? And if there are, point them out and yeah, let's improve it, by rewriting the relevant parts if necessary.

As far as "same for all articles" goes, it's not clear what that is referring to. What "all articles"? Volunteer Marek 22:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if there are or aren't problems in the rest of the article. That's unknowable until after the "best" sources are identified and reviewed. To the extent that what's in the article now differs from what's in, e.g., the sources I listed above (and any others that are of similar quality--best/most-recent scholarship), we should revise the article to match the sources. By "all articles" I mean all articles on Wikipedia--they could all be improved using the same method, it's not just this article. Levivich (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You think all articles on Wikipedia should be completely rewritten? Volunteer Marek 06:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Only the ones I've read. Levivich (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

And I think User:TrangaBellam *just* removed Gross. Volunteer Marek 22:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Who was misrepresented just like Applebaum. Wow much. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: the narrative in the removed section was definitely undue in the then-current form: [6]. I looked at the article a while back but never got around to editing it, it's good that there's a fresh discussion. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that section was way too long. It had like ten different authors, so I think that back like ten years ago it was just a couple of sentences but over the years various editors kept adding snippets to it until it got way too big. Volunteer Marek 05:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• When I checked this page after reading the article by G&K (and I am not familiar with this subject), I had the following question. Was this pogrom organized by security or other services of Polish communist government? The participation of Polish soldiers and police seems to clearly indicate that, but I am not sure. We do know that practically all pogroms were not really "spontaneous" but to some degree organized. If the answer is "yes", then we all know that the communist Polish security services were directly controlled by the KGB (or whatever was their name at that time). As about the section, it is obviously sourced, and some of these sources are pretty good, by experts, not just RS. Hence such section should exist here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Given the quality of your question, my suggestion will be to become familiar with the subject.

  That said, you wrote: some of these sources are pretty good, by experts, not just RS. Barring Applebaum and Gross — who were fatally misrepresented — who are these "experts" from the erstwhile version? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is easy to check:

1. This (ref by Levivich), Among the defendants were the commander of the Kielce Office of the Security Service, Major Wladyslaw Sobczynski, and the Chief of Police, Colonel Wiktor Kuznicki, as well as his deputy, Major Kazimierz Gwiazdowicz; of the three, only Kuznicki received a one year sentence, while the other two were acquitted.
2. This source (another one by Levivich) say "No Single Explanation", One thesis suggests that the communist party was responsible for the pogrom. According to this narrative, the Kielce pogrom was an orchestrated provocation by the Polish secret police and the Soviet NKVD. It was meant to distract the Poles from the falsified results of a referendum held shortly beforehand, that was seen as unofficially deciding that the Polish citizenry supported communism. It then say: According to another narrative, the ruling Polish Workers Party and Polish Socialist Party orchestrated the pogrom for propaganda purposes in order to compromise the opposition party and the armed anticommunist underground resistance., and so on.

• As of note, the source is Yad Vashem, and they list the NKVD version as a possible (although unproven) explanation, not a "theory has been roundly rejected by all serious scholars and today finds an audience only among fringe Polish nationalists and conspiracy theorists". And the scholarly books [7] seem to support Yad Vashem, saying that Soviet NKVD officers were present during this pogrom, but there is no direct evidence it was actually guided or organized by the KGB. This is how that should be described on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)