Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist)

Copyright violation

This article was, until today, apparently a direct copy of Piotrowski's bio at the UNH-Manchester website.[1] As such, it's an obvious copyright violation, being a word-for-word copy of that source. I've cleaned up some, and stubbed the rest. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Gale Biography

[http://www.amazon.com/Biography-Piotrowski-Tadeusz-Contemporary-Authors/dp/B0007SHB8Y This] looks quite interesting. No, I agree that the customer review itself is not very reliable, but the publication itself is another matter. Can anybody access it via some (educational?) database? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Like resume" tag

I've tagged this article as being "like a resume", because it is basically a copy of self-written bios (the main one being Piotrowski's own webpage). "Like a resume" doesn't mean that Piotrowski wrote this article; he clearly didn't. It means that the article is filled with glowing puffery, like this:

Piotrowski is a public lecturer with over 50 talks on the subjects of American ethnic groups, Central European history, Polish minorities, and the Holocaust. He is also a book editor, reviewer, manuscript referee, and a translator. His professional engagements include lectures for public and professional organizations in the United States, Canada, England and Poland.

Please do not remove the tag until this issue is fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP info

Per Wikipedia:Third opinion → Active disagreements
I do not believe that this little article in any way exaggerates or misrepresents the person of Professor Piotrowski. The stub is based on information provided by McFarland Publishing House and the University of New Hampshire homesite; and, not on a personal webpage which he does not have. The bio is linked to over seventy Wikpedia articles on World War II in Europe; most notably, the History, and the Occupation of Poland.[2] The books written by Piotrowski (listed) are all well featured as references throughout Wikipedia, thus confirming his professional stance. He’s not a newcomer, and the mention about his engagements cannot be called a puffery (per above) – which is a clear breach of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guideline. Please suggest whatever necessary to eliminate the POVed flag inserted into this article by User: Jayjg. Thank you. --Poeticbent talk 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is puffery. However, the article does not sufficiently draw out, why this person is notable (which I'm sure he is). Cf. Colin_Talbot. Also the article needs some serious copy editing, at the moment it's rather appalling in style and tone, which does not help to make a good case. 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The article is short enough to be worked on and improved upon in no time at all (rather than flagged). Please explain what you mean by "appalling" – a very strong word for the type of information provided by a university. --Poeticbent talk 15:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My apology for the rather strong words, but: he "conducts courses..." Maybe he is the course coordinator, maybe he teaches... but it misses the point in the first place, because it is not a CV. And why anthropology courses, what is the value of mentioning this, if he is a sociologist? Surely many sociologists teach anthropology and vice versa, but it just looks out of context. Next, is he a professor or a lecturer? A "public lecturer" is this a title? Maybe he as a professor, who holds public lectures; maybe he is a charismatic public speaker... Plus there is no logic in the flow (ie cohesion): "public lecturer", then book editor and what not, then again professional engagements include lectures. I am afraid to say, it is rather a mess this section. Mootros (talk)

This was posted on WP:3O, but I'm not really sure why - there's not enough discussion for me to see a clear dispute here, so I'll take a stab in the dark and see if I can spur some discussion. From reading the article, it looks like the subject does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY as per WP:ACADEMIC, the key stipulation being it must be substantiated through reliable, independent sources. Most of the links to this page are from citations (not actual mentions) in other Wikipedia articles. Inslusion in other Wikipedia articles does not establish notability - other sources (such as news articles, academic papers, etc) are needed. MildlyMad^Contribs 16:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your comment is way over the board here, User MildlyMad, requesting academic papers and news articles (what news articles?) basically to confirm that Professor Piotrowski is alive and well, teaching students, writing books and giving public lectures. This little Wikipedia article does not go any further than that. The article provides the bare bones of his professional career, which is supported by reliable sources (a renown university and a reputable book publisher). I’m beginning to regret having asked for a third opinion with this sort of treatment. --Poeticbent talk 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't give up, dear Poeticbent. User:Mildly Mad raises some important points, but it's worth noting that these are guidelines and not rules. Are there any reliable sources in Polish somewhere? Yours, Mootros (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the word of encouragement, Mootros. Much appreciated. And yes, there are other sources in the Polish language, such as the interview with Piotrowski by Andrzej Kumor made available by polonica.net, with his short bio including information already removed from our article about his place of birth. Here’s the Polish original. And, here’s the machine translation by Google. --Poeticbent talk 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if my comment seemed a little harsh. (I need to work on being more personable and helpful >.< ) I don't dispute that Prof. Piotrowski is "alive and well" (that information is well sourced!). The point I'm trying to make is, the article needs to address why this person is notable outside of just stating the numbers of lectures and books. A good way to establish WP:NOTABILITY is to discuss the impact the subject has had in their field - such as how (or why) they have been cited in academic papers, or if a secondary source (newspaper, etc.) has run a review or critique of a lecture or one of the books. MildlyMad^Contribs 19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So what's the problem? Lack of references for "Piotrowski was born in the Polish eastern province of Volhynia where he lived with his family until August 1943 under both Soviet and German occupations during World War II." ? I don't think that's defamatory (BLP), but it should be referenced - if possible. It had a reference, but badly formatted and now 404: [3]; if it can be properly verified we can keep the useful info. And for the record, the subject certainly is notable (multiple important publications). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, the subject clearly wrote several books, but who says the books are important? There's no justification here (or anywhere else on WP) that establishes WP:N for either the Author or the books. (see WP:AUTHOR) MildlyMad^Contribs 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

From WP:ACADEMIC: "the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work": [4], [5]. Hundreds of citations of just two books make him notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Then that should be stated in the article, along with why he was cited. Did he put forth a particularly revolutionary idea? Is he one of the world's experts on the subject(s)? Then say so - but cite your claim! MildlyMad^Contribs 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If such a claim were made it should be citied, but it is not needed for the article. Notability has been proven, EOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, my hunch is that user Mildly Mad thinks that Piotrowski's books are not important, because he/she thinks they are not important. That is quite interesting way of reasoning. A notable author is the one who writes books, has a university degree, his books are cited and discussed. Is there anything else we need? Or perhaps we are facing a typical case of IDONTLIKE PIOTROWSKI. Tymek (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it comes across that way. (In my defense, my actions really don't follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT - the article isn't even in AfD, and I have pointed at policy in all my posts) I've been challenging the people involved in the article to improve it to conform to Wikipedia guidelines (and it's working!). It's perfectly OK to ask why someone is notable if the article doesn't say so - and up until this diff, it didn't. MildlyMad^Contribs 14:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it didn't come across that way at all. Your questions and concerns were perfectly reasonable, though the responses to them were not. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, your comments here are the perfect illustration of what Tymek wrote above. You don't like what the author is saying, hence this is enough to make him unreliable / unnotable. Please try to keep a more professional distance in such matters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your comments are a perfect illustration of what my comments referred to. Please focus on article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dubious sources ??

I've removed the following sources to the Talk: page for discussion:

1. Stanislaw Zaborowski, ""Treason in the East", Ottawa, April 29, 2009" (PDF).

This appears to be an essay with arguably WP:BLP violating material in it from a person whose notability is not clear. Was this essay published in some respected journal?

• Yet again, Jayjg, you've gone way over the board here. The repetitious nature of your WP:BLP breaches (calling a life of a scientist fluff) makes me seriously wonder about your hidden agendas dating back to WP: Eastern European Disputes and your old Jewish tag-team. Please, snap out of it, for your own peace of mind. You've removed a link to a scientific journal, because it presents a valid and well justified criticism of a highly controversial book by a Polish-Jewish-American writer (not a trained historian by any means) about whom you used to wheel war with Polish editors. You removed the link to Glaukopis Quarterly, one of the most respected journals out there run by a Programming Board which includes: prof. Wiesław Chrzanowski and prof. Wojciech Roszkowski from Warsaw, prof. Peter Stachura from University of Stirling, prof. Herbert Romerstein from Institute of World Politics (Washington DC), prof. Kazimierz Braun from State University of New York, prof. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz from Institute of World Politics (Washington DC), dr hab. Jan Żaryn from Institute of National Remembrance (Warsaw), dr Ryszard Tyndorf from Kanada, dr Zbigniew Stawrowski from Kraków, and more.[6] And, who are you? --Poeticbent talk 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, focus on article content, not other editors. Now, where can I read about Glaukopis Quarterly, and please tell me more about Stanislaw Zaborowski. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is their current (I believe) editorial board [7].radek (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Charles Dundee and Beata Paszyc, The American Institute of Polish Culture, "International Polonaise Ball 2007", Miami

This source appears to be a caption of a picture of people dancing at a ball. Is such a picture caption a reliable or notable source?

For the text it is reffing, certainly. I don't see why a caption would be any less reliable than any other text in the source, provided it used to cite properly what it says.radek (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

3. James Conroyd Martin, Gold medals by The American Institute of Polish Culture, January 27th, 2007

This source appears to be the personal website of a high school teacher and sometime novelist. Is this a reliable or notable source?

Feedback appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with those sources, unless 1) is defamatory or 3) is contradicted by another source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP insists that sources must be impeccable, not just not defamatory or contradicted by another source. Now, please explain how these sources comply with WP:RS and WP:BLP. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the word "impeccable" anywhere in WP:BLP, where is it? I do see that it says "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." - in other words, the policy applies to Wikipedia pages, not sources themselves. Hence this This appears to be an essay with arguably WP:BLP violating material in it is completely irrelevant (assuming that in fact it does contain "BLP violating material", and assuming that it even makes sense to say that outside, non-Wikipedia sources can be said to violate the Wikipedia policy of BLP). Your two other objections don't seem to be based on BLP, correct?radek (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Please review WP:BLP:

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please explain how the 3 links listed above comply with WP:BLP and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about your statement that a particular source violates BLP. Sources can't violate BLP, they're sources, only text in Wikipedia articles (or pages) can violate BLP. And I'm talking about the fact that the policy doesn't say that BLP requires that a source is "impeccable", but rather that the material cited to a particular source adheres to NPOV, V, and NOR. Also, am I correct that for 1) and 2) you're questioning the reliability of the sources?radek (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If a source is not high quality, then it can't be used on a BLP. That's how it violates WP:BLP. Now, please respond to my questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In particular, every piece of text that is cited using the three sources you listed has additional citations - hence the text is well cited, and adheres to NPOV, V and NOR. Since a source can't violate BLP, only article text can, and since the numerous additional citations establish ... impeccably ... that the text does not violate BLP, BLP is not grounds for removal of these references. If you have objections to these sources based on non-reliability, then you should bring it up at RSN and have it discussed there. But you can't claim that "sources violate BLP".radek (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If every piece of text has reliable citations, then there's no need for any unreliable ones to be added. WP:BLP does not allow unreliable sources to be used on BLPs; there is no "but some other source said it too" exception. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP does not allow "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" - can you point to such contentious material?radek (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, please review my previous quotations from the BLP policy, and please respond to the questions asked. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh... what question are you referring to? The "What on earth are you talking about?"? Not sure that that's an unanswerable question but note that I tried, above. I also left two answers to your specific question further above. And I've already answered the "Please explain..." - sources can't comply or not comply with BLP. They're sources. I mean, are we supported to write the authors and say "hey, you're not complying with Wikipedia BLP policy, you better write a different source!". Sources can or can not be reliable - and in that cases the issue should be taken up at RSN. What can comply or not comply with BLP is material in the article, particularly if its contentious. So, now that I've answered your request for the second time, will you please point to what portion of the article is contentious? Thanks.radek (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is, please explain how the sources above comply with the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP and WP:RS. If you have no answer, that's fine too. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I just gave you your answer. Twice. If you'd like to answer my question in turn that'd be much appreciated.radek (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And basically, if you think these sources are not reliable then you should bring it up on RSN as that's the proper place (for what it's worth I actually agree that the 3rd one probably isn't really good - which would be a problem if it was reffing something... contentious ... but it's not.)radek (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of sources can be discussed at WP:RSN. BLP issues can be discussed at WP:BLPN. Not that I see any need to waste more time on those issues; claims are not defamatory, not controversial, and hence fine. EOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest split of Poland's Holocaust

It's a notable book and its reviews should be moved to its own subarticle. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Unlikley that Piotrowski is notable separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boqnoq (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• The length of the article is such that a split is not needed at this point. I reshuffled the sections a bit to address the matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that one review of the book was portrayed here as negative, but actual review was praising highly the book.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation to Judith Olsak-Glass, Sarmatian Review

I'm unable to find who this person is or what her credentials are. Google searches return the review used in the article (source) and then mostly Wikipedia mirrors of this article. Any help? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Worldcat likewise returns nothing: search result for Judith Olsak-Glass. If there are no objections, I plan to remove this citation as coming from an a person of unknown credentials who did not not appear to have published anything else. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The very review in question (in SR) mentions that she is (was) "a doctoral student in history at the University of Kansas". She is mentioned here as a former graduate student who was of much help to the author of this book (Wojciech Materski). Her work (this review) has been cited for example here. While she did not, it seems, pursue any significant career in academia, I see no policy-supported reason her publication should be removed from Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, by citing yet another PhD student; compare with another book on the topic, where an admiring quote from a PhD student was removed: [8] & Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust#Madanay.

The policy-based argument to remove this source is NPOV; by placing a PhD student on the equal footing with recognised scholars in the topic area, we give the article an appearance of false balance. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This can be easily resolved through WP:ATTRIBUTION, and saying in text that such and such is a professor of x and such and such is (was) a doctoral student. There is zero policy based rationale to remove reliable sources. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books clearly states that "Reception — quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. Providing balance is sometimes difficult because some reviews are more critical than others; some reviews may simply state "this book is great" while others may provide detailed analysis about what made the book good/bad. Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations.". There is zero recommendation here that we should be selective ane exclude "PhD reviewers". I would however agree that when it comes to lenght of quotations used or such, we should provide lenghtier arguments from more distinguished scholars. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I am in agreement with K.E.coffman. Removed the review. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, it’s a no policy based rationale. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Why did you remove this without consensus to do so? GizzyCatBella🍁 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The onus of inclusion is on those who propose to have the content included, by policy. Btw, "It's no policy based rationale" is incoherent. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with GizzyCatBella. This is unjustified by Wikipedia principles.

Nihil novi (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Since there are new participants in the discussion, let me review the above arguments in more details:

• This can be easily resolved through WP:ATTRIBUTION... -- the linked Wikipedia:Attribution is an inactive proposal that did not see a consensus for adoption. Perhaps something else was meant here?
• There is zero policy based rationale to remove reliable sources. -- Yes, WP:DUE is such a rationale, especially WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and viewpoints should be given due weight based on their prominence. Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance, as is the case here. The article places an opinion of a reviewer whose other known contribution in the field appears to have consisted of "making helpful suggestions"; "catching grammar and spelling mistakes"; "standardizing references" etc for a book by her professor: [9], vs a review by an author of multiple books.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books clearly states that "Reception — quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. -- This comes into play once the 'dueness' of a review is established.

Lastly, a similar issue was discussed at Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust#Madanay and a review by a PhD student was excluded. What makes this a different case? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: attribution, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution. Re: balance - if a source is reliable, it is due. If something creates a false impression, that's why we attribute stuff. Reviews by professors can clearly say that such and such review was written by a professor of U of X. In the case of Olsak-Glass, we can instead describe her as a doctoral student at U of K. This will give the readers all the information they need to weight the reviews accordingly, and avoid going against wP:NOTCENSORED. As for Madanay, the same should be done there - her review, published in reliable sources, should be restored, with proper qualificaiton stating she was only a doctoral student. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

if a source is reliable, it is due is really the opposite of what WP:V and WP:DUE says. I agree, for the same reason as the other "bottom-of-the-barrel" reviews, that this one is not due for inclusion. We don't place PhD students on equal footing with established scholars in the field; that's DUE 101 ("articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects...An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.") Levivich (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Further, she has not published anything in any peer reviewed medium and even her thesis has not been cited a single time by any other scholar! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This needs to go to RSN. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of WP:RS, it's a question of WP:DUE, so I'm not sure WP:RSN is the right place, which I think is what editors at RSN have been saying about WP:RSN#Hoffman and The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society and WP:RSN#Jewish collaboration in the Holocaust. I don't really object to RSN of course but I think it will come out the same way about Olsak-Glass and Romanienko as it has for the others. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Lisiunia A. Romanienko

I will appreciate some information on the academic background of Romanienko and their academic expertise to review a monograph on aspects of the history of the Holocaust. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd appreciate such information for Klaus-Peter Friedrich. In either case, WP:NOTCENSORED, as long as the publication is reliable, we don't require the authors of the cited works to have particular credentials. And Humanity & Society is a reliable peer-reviewed journal, meeting WP:APLRS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Since you are interested in the "credentials" of KP Friedrich:

• He received his PhD from the University of Cologne on the reception of Nazi regime in contemporary Polish press, in 2002. The thesis has been cited about five times by other scholars.

• The thesis was published by Herder Institute, an institute of repute on E. European matters. A review of the work, published in The Slavonic and East European Review, noted the work to be a "meticuluos" and "extremely detailed" study.

• In 2005, he published an article on Polish colloboration with the Nazi regime in Slavic Review — an immensely reputed journal —, which has been cited about 50 times.

• Two years later, he authored a chapter on the construction of anti-Jewish sentiments in Poland in a volume on trans-European antisemitism during the Nazi era and before, edited by Anne Hilbrenner and published by Brill. It has been cited about 5 times by other scholars.

• Other pubs. include 1, 2 and countless book reviews.

• In 2013, the Yad Vashem, Bundesarchiv, UoFreiburg, and other affiliated institutions entrusted him to edit two of the four volumes on Poland, part of the magisterial The Persecution and Murder of the European Jews by Nazi Germany, 1933–1945.

So, now, what is the credential of Romanienko in the field? From her CV, it appears to me that she works in a totally different domain concerning the sociology of youth in Poland; her monographs are on body-piercing and degradation rituals! Frankly, the book-review is her sole contribution to any discourse on the Holocaust. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman and @Levivich: What say you? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on her CV, obviously not due for inclusion, just like PhD students, polisci profs writing in Kentucky Historical Society, or my cousin who reads a lot of history books... they aren't experts in this field. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam why did you ping Levivich and Coffman only? GizzyCatBella🍁 21:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)