Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

The page should be edited[edit]

Samsonowska - continuation[edit]

Wiez has published a text by Grabowski and further one by Samsonowska. [1] Xx236 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Strange proportions[edit]

About 50% of the page describe his book The Hunt..., a subject of separate page. His other works aren't described in details.

Grabowski is a historian of Canada, of Poland and a propaganda writer/speaker. The three roles should be described here. Xx236 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The page is biased, it describes Grabowski as a historian of Poland only. His media/propaganda activities (200 000) should be isolated from his academic works. Grabowski is also a historian of Canada.Xx236 (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the length of the section of "The Hunt" and therefore trimmed the reception section. (I disagree with the assertions above - e.g. the 200,000 estimate is published scholarship). Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not what Xx236 was writing about. He is fairly active on political views too, and this section should be expanded, rather than removing criticism of his highly controversial book.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Haaretz and the Center[edit]

Haaretz is an Isareli newspaper. How is it a reliable source regarding the Warsaw Center?

I'm unable to find anything about the Center in the Haaretz article.I'll remove the misquote. Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Haaretz is about Grabowski's expertise. Haaretz is a top notch publication - a paper of record - and is definitely reliable for assertions on Grabowski's expertise. It is also reliable regarding Holocaust research - a topic it covers quite a bit (throughout Europe and elsewhere). Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Polish-Canadian professor of history at the University of Ottawa[edit]

What is Polish-Canadian professor of history? Are there such positions at Ottawa?Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

200 000 repeated[edit]

The fake news 200 000 is mentioned twice in different places. Please unify or remove one instance.Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's an estimate by the subject of the article - a quite notable estimate - there's nothing fake about Grabowski making and publishing this estimate (with others).Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Grabowski denies, now you admits he says it. It's difficult to lie, because sometimes one is catched.
It's not an estimate, it's a fake news pointing Datner.
The information is still in two places. Please remove one.Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Icewhiz-Grabowski has since withrdawn from claiming the figure 200,000 is correct and this should be noted in the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Are false statements acceptable in this Wikipedia?[edit]

The statement There are no Polish bystanders in the Holocaust - is obviously false. Polish babies were bystanders.

Nazi language[edit]

Who were the Polish? Grabowski's father was Polish, does it make him a non-bystander? The Germans defined him as Jewish, do we accept Nazi German POV? If we accept Nazi language, it means that this Wikipedia is Nazi.Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Polish Blue Police[edit]

Polish Blue Police is an example of biased language typical for Grabowski. The police was German, the Germans dissolved the Polish state police in 1939 and created Polnische Polizei subordinated to local German SS and police commanders. In several Western countries their police was preserved after the surrender. Polnische Polizei is Nazi language, like Endlösung der Judenfrage or Jüdischer Wohnbezirk.Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Night Continues: the Fates of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland[edit]

The book exists in Polish only, does the context explain that the English title is a translation?
The book contains many errors and manipulations, so yes, let's offer them to Polish schools to learn how to read between the lines.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please avoid making unfounded assertions on this generally well regarded piece of scholarship. I added the Polish name in parenthetical. Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Please avoid attacking me. It's a Wikipedia, not a battle place.
There are at least 5 reviews pointing errors in the book and the center will answer in the future. When they answer, you will be able to repeat your story about scholarship, now stop.Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Reception of the book[edit]

I find the level of detail here excessive since there's a separate article on the book: diff. This needs to be summarised better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And less cherry picked - e.g. almost all English and German language reviews have been somewhere between mildly positive to glowing. The length here is excessive.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Historical views aren't based on ethnicity or language Icewhiz.I don't see much value in pinpointing ethnic background of reviews.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I haven't related to ethnicity. The Polish reviews mainly relate to the Polish version of the book - an earlier and different work (which had a more limited audience). The English reviews are (mostly) on the later English language book (larger audience, also won a significant prize). Some of the English reviews are by quite notable academics and are in top quality journals (which, as English has become lingua franca of science, tends to also be the top publications worldwide). We also have WP:NOENG which has us preferring English sources. The current selection of reviews is both overly long, and does not represent the reception of this work. For the reception and internal debate we have English sources relating to the debate in Poland - and we could stick to those English language sources.Icewhiz (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why reviews in Poland which is the subject of the book should be excluded, in fact this is quite a shocking proposal, considering that many are by highly renown scholars, academics and historians. As per WP:NOENG: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Since most of the reviews from Poland present aspects not covered in English based sources presented here, removing them you would disturb the NPOV --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Available sources in Polish are of higher quality and greater relevance - there is no need for lower quality English sources that often contain errors and wrong information. Furthermore, most of the Polish reviews are written by experts on the subject - and incorporate nuances and aspects not found in English sources.Removing Polish based sources would constitute severe breach of NPOV and limit geographical coverage of the subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I removed the discourse that belongs in the article on the book; preserving here by providing this link. The level of detail is excessive, including details about calorie intake, 38 vs 90 Jews, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a {{Further}} link to the section with detailed reviews in the article on the book: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your edit and I struggle to understand why deem as appropriate to remove all Polish sources and leaving only German and English ones.Especially important parts about false claims by Grabowski regarding Datner have been removed.I can understand trimming certain parts to make it more readible, but removing ad hoc all Polish sources seems not not only excessive but also POVish.It also severely undermines the quality of the article as they were written by top notch academicians and scholars--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not looking at this in terms of "Polish" or "English" sources, although I do note that Musial is "German-Polish". I also reduced the "English" source: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
m not looking at this in terms of "Polish" Then why have you removed all of them? As a gesture of goodwill, could you restore them and I will trimm some of the information while leaving the essential stuff? Then you could see if you want to remove some more. The current removal really looks POV--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please complete this damaged sentence: "According to Bogdan Musial, a German-Polish historian writing in 2011, Hunt for the Jews failed to examine material that contradicted Grabowski's thesis, including Polish witness statements, German statements, and archives from the Polish resistance that."

I concur with MyMoloboaccount's above suggestion, in the interest of securing a neutral point of view in this article.


Nihil novi (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for Polish language sourcing, as top-tier English language sources already address views in Poland. For instance, William W. Hagen in the Holocaust and Genocide Studies journal writes in 2018:
  1. "Right-wing journalism in today’s Poland has harshly attacked Grabowski, charging that he aids Nazi-apologists in Germany by allegedly suggesting that the Holocaust was a joint German Polish enterprise. In response, Grabowski in 2016 won a libel suit against the nationalist-Catholic antisemitic website Fronda. His voice remains influential in current debates on the controversial amendment to the law governing the state-administered Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), which in February 2018 criminalized on pain of three years’ imprisonment allegations that “the Polish Nation or Polish State” participated in the Holocaust.
  2. "Widespread cooperation in capturing Jews is not reducible to German coercion.... If it were, Polish nationalist objections to historians’ exposure of Polish Christian Holocaust complicity would be less vehement than those evidenced in rebuttals, both scholarly and journalistic, to Jan Gross’s explosive arguments in Neighbors (2001; Polish 2000) and subsequent writings, as well as to Grabowski’s own analysis as set forth in the 2011 Polish-language version of Hunt for the Jews."
  3. "As in pre-Holocaust explanations for the incontrovertible existence of aggressive, violent, and criminal antisemites in Poland, so still today historians convinced of a fundamental national innocence identify murderers and collaborators as “scum” such as, regrettably, any society inevitably harbors. But that Poles—in Grabowski’s study, Polish villagers in Da˛browa Tarnowska county in former Galicia—should view protection of their Jewish neighbors from Nazi murder as sin and crime challenges national self-understanding in ways highly threatening for many Poles."
[2] Should amply represent the stance in Some Polish circles from a top-tier WP:SECONDARY source - you can't get higher quality than Hagen in Holocaust and Genocide Studies - which is far superior quality wise to other sources here and should be preferred per WP:NOENG. Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Poor Profesor Musiał, it seems that Hagen doesn't accrept his reasearch. Does however Musiał accept Hagen?
Hagen doesn't have any idea about the subject. There was no Da˛browa Tarnowska county during the war. Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Adding him wouldn't balance the article, we already have English based reviews.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur, that's why I created the article for the book. Let's keep reviews, controversies, and such there, and limit the content here to a short summary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Revised 200,000?[edit]

This is sourced to a March 2018 media source in Poland, which due to the Holocaust law being in force at the time can not be considered reliable for Holocaust reporting (criminal culpability for "insulting the Polish nation" in regards to Holocaust complicity). That being said, subsequent sources in English continue to refer to the 200,000 - [3][4], as well as a direct quote from Grabowski from Nov 2018: "From among the approximately 250,000 Polish Jews who had escaped liquidations of the ghettos and who had fled, about 40,000 survived. We have thus more than 200,000 Jews who fled the liquidations and who did not survive until liberation. My findings show that in the overwhelming majority of cases, their Polish co-citizens were – directly through murder, or indirectly by denunciation – at the root of their deaths." UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA HOLOCAUST HISTORIAN SUES POLISH GROUP FOR LIBEL, CJN, 22 November 2018. @MyMoloboaccount: - per WP:NOENG, please provide quotations + translations of said quotations (and if possible - a URL as well) for these two edits: [5][6]. Per later English RS sourcing (esp. the Nov 2018 quote of Grabowski himself) - the claim of retraction seems somewhat dubious. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That Grabowski contradicts himself in interviews is noted in some sources, I will gladly add them.If you believe media in Poland are in general unreliable, feel free to start an Wikipedia wide policy on the subject, as it was advised you many times before.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:ONUS on you to establish reliability in face of Poland criminalizing certain types of expression. Regardless of that per WP:NOENG - please provide quotations in Polish and translations to English of said quotations supporting your insertion to the article (which are present - seems to contradict later sources). Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The 2018 Amendment to Poland's Act on the Institute of National Remembrance explicitly exempts, from prosecution, "research, discussion of history, or artistic activity." The argument that all research conducted in Poland is automatically suspect is specious, and is a red herring meant to prevent consideration of research conducted in Poland that is not to the liking of some parties outside Poland.
Nihil novi (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Most Holocaust researchers say this affects research. Furthermore media reports (the source here), are not exempt from the law.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Name one example od the affecting. The story is a political tool to attack Poland in general and the currient government. As far many pieces of the reasearch contain fabricated numbers and manipulated quotes. Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
MyMoloboaccount - the quotation you added does not support any revision by Grabowski, merely that when he spoke with Gazeta Wyborcza he was non-commital whether majority was 60 percent or 90 percent. It would seem that per the CJN quote from Nov 2018 he stands behind "overwhelming majority". Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
My findings show - the findings in "Hunt for the Jews" and "Dalej jest noc" are unreliable. In the "hunt" Grabowski underestimates the number of survivors and the number of helpers (including the number of the Righteous, which is a mastership). His findings in the recent book aren't explained. Academic data have to be verifiable. Neither his detailed findings nor the 200 000 fabrication aren't verifiable. He says - I'm the grat academician, you have to believe me. It's not academy, it's a cult. Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Grabowski's different versions of the numbers, and fact that he admits they are just hypothesis that likely is going to be contradicted by other scholars is simply far too important to be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Researchers make hypotheses and estimates. What you inserted is WP:OR not in the interview. Furthermore - if this important - where is the SECONDQRY coverage of this in English? Grabowski is fairly widely covered - this has not been picked up by any mainstream reporting as significant.Icewhiz (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
That may show the biases and slipshodness of some renowned scholars and mainstream publications outside Poland.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

fringe far right organization[edit]

  • Sources, please regarding "fringe far right organization".
  • Both sides of the case should be described, not "goog Grabowski" against "evil right".
  • Mathematics isn't "left" or "right". If Grabowski formulates fringe theories using false numbers, he is "fringe", not his opponents.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    Grabowski is an accepted mainstream (as it is defined in most of the world) Holocaust scholar. As for the league - per Minkner, Kamil. "Polish contemporary art to the anti-semitism of Poles and its political significance." Review of Nationalities 6.1 (2016): 195-221. it is one of the "full-of-fears fundamentalist" organizations that fought against the Oscar winning Ida (film) - a "right-wing organization" that makes various public petitions.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Many Jewish organisatiojns do exactly the same. But they are reliable, beacase they aren't Polish.
"Ida" is ahistorical, so many Polish people can see rewriting of history rather than a piece of art. As far noone dared to rewrite the history of the Holocaust the way Polish history is rewritten. Even a realistic film about Litzmannstadt ghetto would be impossible.Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
A Jewish historian is against "Ida".,ida-pelna-antysemickich-stereotypow Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a blog - not a reliable source. And Ida is off-topic here - I brought a source for the league (Ida was incidentally one of the prior kerfuffles that elicited commentary on the league). Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
First you mention "Ida", next the subject is off topic. Please don't open problems you don't know. Helena Datner has criticised Ida in Gazeta Wyborcza and Krytyka Polityczna, so you unreliable blog doesn't work.Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
"Right wing organization" (which they arguably are) is not the same as "far right organization". Regardless, unless something comes out of the lawsuit, the info is WP:UNDUE overall.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Grabowski has been accused by several historians of manipulating numbers and quotations. His moral blackmail makes any discussion difficult.;s,czasopismo_szczegoly,id,563,art,15550 Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Dąbrowa Tarnowska County[edit]

I have removed false link. Please verify what do you link.
I have added alleged because there was no such German county. The real power was the Kreishauptmannschaft Tarnow.Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Are Grabowski's opinions notable?[edit]

Anyone biographied on Wikipedia has thousands of opinions about food, beverages, President Trump, and climate. We select only notable opinions. Grabowski isn't competent to criticize the Polish government. It is obviously democratic; it was elected and is still supported by many, compared, e.g., to Mr. Macron, who is unpopular in France. This hate speech is typical of Grabowski. He is described here as a historian, not as a Kardashian, so his media excesses aren't notable. This biography, however, ignores many aspects of his work. Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please strike the un-sourced assertion above. Hard to argue a BLP's position are undue on a BLP's own bio page - particularly when said positions are widely covered and discussed by reliable sources. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I;m sorry, but you totally ignore my logical position and claim that trash is notable, which is absurd. The world doesn't care what Grabowski thinks about Kaczynski. Grabowski is an alleged historian, not a politician, Kaczynski is a politician. Similarly Kaczynski's or Morawiecki's opinions about Grabowski or about the Holocaust don't deserve to be remebered. If someone quotes Grabowski as a source about democracy in Poland, so he is an idiot. It's simple - the government doens't like Grabowski, so it's undemocratic, fascist. If th enext government will distinguish Grabowski - the government will be democratic and progressive. It's a world of children in a sandbox, not of adult people. Protests agisnts the government have been sighned by hundreds of professors. Wiil you include such fact in hundreds of BLPs? In 10 years noone will care about 2016 government of Poland. Summarizing - you hate Poland and Polish people so you collect any filth to throw on Poland. Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It's more than just WP:BLP: Academics are expected to apply their studies to policy questions, and would abdicate their responsibility if they didn't. As a major scholar in his field, Grabowski's opinion is WP:DUE not only in his bio, but on related articles as well, like those on commemoration and historiography of the Holocaust. François Robere (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If a Pole criticizes a Jew or Israel, it's antisemitism, and musn't be published. If Poland is criticized in a childish way, it's notable, and academic. Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Nihil novi, can you say why you're editing someone else's posts? [7] SarahSV (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

At the request of that person, who cited his imperfect command of the English language.
Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Nihil novi, thanks for explaining. In future, please don't edit posts once someone has responded, and if you have to for some reason, please note after the original signature that you've edited it. See WP:REDACT. SarahSV (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Nihil novi, where was this request made? The one on your TP is a week old and refers to the article itself.Icewhiz (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Xx236's self-described "obvious errors" have continued in the five days since he made the request. I am willing to occasionally burnish his English, as I sometimes do yours in articles.
Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
SarahSV - This page is to discuss Jan Grabowski (historian), not my poor English. I would be happy to only read this Wikipedia, but I don't accept errors and bias, so I have to protest, compare eg. the definition of The Holocaust.Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I asked anyone for help regarding my English already two years ago. I have thanked Nihil Novi at least twice for his corrections.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Not The Dark Ages but dark years[edit]

Dear English experts, Haaretz wrote "dark years", but it didn't explain the phrase, please don't manipulate. [8].

The interview is one year old. Poland and Israel have later signed an agreement and no serious research confirmed the alleged anti-Semitism in Poland. The historical context of Grabowski's interview should be mentioned. Lack of it makes the information biased. Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
[9][10][11] François Robere (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Please respect the subject. dark years not The Dark Ages (whatever it means).
I'm not sure if it's the right place do discuss Polish antisemitism. The facts are obvious - rifles in France to defend Jewish buildings versus Poles selling pictures of a Jew with a coin. Yes, there are people in Poland professionally fighting antisemitism, you don't quote Pankowski, he is a jewel. Also Zgliczyński. Pure truth and academy. They are able to find antisemites in Israeli government. No antisemitism, no projects, no money.
Bilewicz has recently published his reasearch, that liberal Poles hate conservative ones more than vice versa. So yes, such obsession may generate antisemitism. If you spit on people, someone may react. The only antisemitic attack in Poland has been committed by a mentally ill person. I have tried to find English language information about the ilness but failed. [12] In Israel obsessed anti-Poles rule or will rule - Katz, Lapid. Their excess are known in Poland. Netanyahu attacked Polish people in Warsaw, during the anti-Irani confrence. No more pro-Isareli conferences here. Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
You can quote whoever you want as long as they're notable and relevant. François Robere (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

The recent addition that Volunteer Marek restored reads like a BLP violation. Because the sources aren't in English, most of us can't judge whether it's appropriate. Per BLP, it ought not to be restored until there's consensus on talk. Also, please explain what was wrong with this material and why it was removed as the other was restored. SarahSV (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Piotr Gontarczyk's comments were made on one of his regular radio shows ([13], [14]) which is far from a reasonable source. A published 35-page review (with a 1+ page detailed English abstract) by a tenured professor - plwiki - review online should be preferred. Piotr Gontarczyk (who page was purged of nearly all coverage of him in academic soruces - diff) is a figure with rather unusual, possibly even WP:FRINGE views. Including Gontarczyk without context is WP:UNDUE. Beyond critical coverage of Gontarczyk in Polish (Gontarczyk writes mainly or only in Polish AFAICT) - he has been covered thus in English RSes:
  1. "Gontarczyk's work represents a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation"".[15]
  2. According to historian Henryk Samsonowicz "Gontarczyk’s scholarship brings shame to Polish historical scholarship". Assessing Gontarczyk's article on the 1968 dissidents, historian Karol Modzelewski said that it places him "among the communo-fascists." According to literature historian Michał Głowiński "Gontarczyk’s writing resembles not only texts from Nasz Dziennik but one can also hear the tone of "Moczar’s press" from the late 1960s". available online here, published in Yad Vashem Studies, volume 36.1: 253-70. (for context - Nasz Dziennik is far-right publication. Moczar is Mieczysław Moczar, known for 1968 Polish political crisis#Emigration of Polish citizens of Jewish origin).
Including a holder of such viewpoints - from a radio show - is clearly UNDUE and possibly quite a bit beyond just UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Gontarczyk is a professional historian who specializes in this very area. I am not sure how there is any BLP vio's here, except for Icewhiz's continued and persistent attacks on historians he disagrees with (by cherry picking quotes from people that have had arguments with Gontarczyk) Michilc's work is atrocious, per BLP standards, since she pretends that the phrase "alien and harmful nation" was made by Gontarczyk (by putting it in quotes) whereas he did not say anything like that (I think she's pulling that quote from somewhere else). So yeah, there are BLP problems here but not in the way that you pretend. Samsonowicz specializes in medieval history and has no expertise here (unlike Gontarczyk). The fact that Gontarczyk made the statements on radio is irrelevant, as is his ethnicity and in fact referring to him disparagingly as "radio historian" is an insult and a BLP violation, something that Icewhiz has been repeatedly warned about.
At the end of the day, Gontarczyk may be WP:BIASed, which is why the statements need to be attributed directly to him, but he is still WP:RS and notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, you're engaging in blind reverting to Nihil novi's version, ignoring any edits in between. At 16:21, 13 March, in restoring his edits, you also removed Icewhiz's addition, including a link to the book. At 19:52, 13 March, in restoring Nihil novi's edits again, you also removed my copy edit of a different paragraph, once again removing a link to the book. SarahSV (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Sara, I restored a previous version, just like you did, and you not only reverted me but also another user. The difference was that I used a very detailed and specific edit summary, while yours was vague ("reads like" - what does that mean?) and non-constructive. If I made a blind revert then yours was even As for the copy edit, I would have reinserted the subsequent copy edit but I was reverted pretty quickly so I didn't get the chance. And as far as Icewhiz's additions goes, he can always separate out his additions from his reverts rather than trying to sneak in the removals. Then it wouldn't be a problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(ec) VM - Your personal opinion amounts to little. Michlic is a published expert in histiography - and this was written in a published setting on Polish histiography - a RS on Gontarczyk. As were the quotes in the Yad Vashem piece. Gontarczyk's extensive radio (and op-ed) output is factual - the cited piece you inserted is from Polskieradio. Any basic review of sources on Gontarczyk in English show several REDFLAGs regarding his use - particulary him speaking radio and non-academic newspaper op-eds.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
And Gontarczyk is a published expert in history, and in this topic in particular, and has written and been published as well. And the "REDFLAGs" are going up in yoru imagination. Spare me the stuff about radio and newspapers since you yourself often seek to employ such sources. What matters is that Gontarczyk is a credentialed scholar and expert in the area, which makes him RS, and widely published which makes him notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It's historiography, not histiography. FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 20:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Gontarczyk is highly notable author, and certainly widely cited, even if he has his own biases. He now published the critical review in two seperate publications.One in Glaukopis(a scholarly magazine), the other in W Sieci. His discovery regarding the alleged replacement of Jewish ghetto police with supposed Polish policemen is now very widely covered in Poland. Among sources covering it are

  • TVP Info-Main state television news channel.
  • of three largest news portals in Polish internet
  • of the main newspapers in Poland
  • Uwazam Rze-a notable magazine in Poland
  • W sieci-conservative magazine in Poland

However the fragment discussed is not by Grabowski. As such I suggest to shorten it and move the main part of it to the article about the publication itself. Lastly I am crticial of using Michlic-this seems a very fringe author accussing several notable and reputable scholars of quite high caliber in terms of scholarly acknowledglements.I am not aware of other scholars making such extreme accussations as she does and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It should stay out until there is consensus to include it - it's been removed by a number of editors - and I also agree that it appears to be entirely too much detail (leaving aside the typos, and sourcing issues pointed out below - along with other typos and grammatical errors that I haven't pointed out as well as repeating the information about the publication details of the work in two different paragraphs. It's a scholarly work - we should be using other scholars publishing in scholarly publications to critique it - not newspapers. Let's try to respect WP:BRD and the other editors and not edit war and discuss instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it "includes to many details". The matter is really simple. Gontarczyk makes two related claims: 1) That GrabowskiGrabowski's book says that it was Polish Police which helped the Germans liquidate the Bochnia Ghetto but that 2) it was actually Jewish Ghetto Police which participated in the liquidation and there was no Polish police presence. Both of these claims are WP:Verifiable. Does Grabowski say it? And the liquidation of the Ghetto is pretty well documented so not really subject to debate either. And if Gontarczyk is right then this is indeed a very serious breach of scholarly standards, which makes the criticism notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The version I was referring to had "In 2018 Grabowski and Barbara Engelking edited a two-volume study, Dalej jest noc: losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski ("Night without end: The fate of Jews in selected counties of occupied Poland")." in the first paragraph of "Dalej jest noc" and then in the second paragraph "Historian Piotr Gontarczyk has accussed the 2018 book co-edited by Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, and published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research, in Warsaw, Poland, Dalej jest noc: losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski [Night Continues: the Fates of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland]," which is duplication and too much detail - we don't need to know in the second paragraph where the work was published nor who the publisher was ... Also, in that diff, the two references at the end of the sentence "with alleged Polish policemen" are the exact same reference. That whole sentence states "In his article published by W Sieci magazine as an example of the book's alleged inaccuracies, he said that in description of the events in the Bochnia Ghetto in wartime German-occupied Poland, the author of the books section, Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska, replaced the units of Jewish Ghetto Police searching for hiding Jews(together with German police) with alleged Polish policemen" but it doesn't reference the magazine W Sieci, instead it's to a radio interview or is it a newspaper? We should at least reference the actual magazine article, not an interview done about the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, those are legitimate criticisms of the text and can be easily addressed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading MyMoloboaccount's comment above, I think it is better to include this specific info in the article on the book itself. The book is edited by Grabowski but this particular piece of material is from another author. However, Gontarczyk's dedicated review of the article by Grabowski should be used in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(ec) No, not really. Even if you could by ypur OR "prove" an error on one detail, errors on minor details are to be expected in a 1600 page work. What matters here is mainstream academic reviews - as opposed to fringe opinions. Gontarczyk has a record of attacking established scholarship in the field - e.g. Gross - his position delivered via Polish media carries little weight.Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, no, actually whether it was Polish Police or Jewish Police which participated in the liquidation of the ghetto is not a "error of minor detail" (and Gontarzyk actually outlines many others) - it's kind of central since it addresses the main thesis of the book. It is also something which is a pretty straight forward, easily verifiable issue, so whether or not Grabowski's book made false claims here says a lot about the general quality of this um, "scholarship". As for your comments about Gontarczyk - stop. violating. BLP. If you're gonna accuse a living person of "having a record of attacking established scholarship in the field" you need to provide that with sources and diffs, otherwise off to the drama boards we go (again). I suggest you either do that - provide citations for "attacking" (not just being critical of) - or you strike your BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Please avoid introducing WP:FRINGE content to BLPs - this article and others. Gontarzyk comments on Gross (an established scholar, whose works are probably the most widely cited in the field in the past two decades) and use of said comments in "extreme right-wing nationalist press" is well established - source. This has actually become so notorious that mainstream historians, such as Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe see this as an endorsement: "However, the fact that historians arguing along more nationalist-conservative lines, such as Piotr Gontarczyk or Bogdan Musiał, have reacted to the studies reviewed here with a pronounced phobia for the facts of the Holocaust, is an indication that these volumes have advanced the state of research and successfully interrogated further political myths." source. Beyond the shock or outrage value, there's little weight to these media interviews / op-eds by Gontarzyk. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You made a claim about a living person. Quote: "Gontarczyk has a record of attacking established scholarship in the field". Unless you can support that with sources and diffs that's a direct BLP vio. Attempts at deflection and obfuscation about "some other stuff" do not count. Either you can support your WP:BLP attacks or you can not. Sources please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I provided sources above - for Gross, and for prior (award winning) work by Engelking and Grabowski.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No you didn't. Stop lying. You did. Not. Provide. A. Source. Which supports. The Notion. That. "Gontarczyk has a record of attacking established scholarship in the field". You provided a source that... "nationalist press" might have cited ... somebody somewhere. Stop. Lying. You've violated BLP. And now you're doubling down on it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's a couple more: "Piotr Gontarczyk, for example, has accused the author of, among other things, tampering with facts, presenting untruthful interpretations, “contriving things absent from the documents and describing irrelevant and inconsequential episodes,” “overlooking that which is much more important.” Generally speaking, of elementary incompetence as a historian and the propensity for exonerating criminals"Wołowiec, Grzegorz. "The PRL in Biographies: Preliminary Remarks." Teksty Drugie 1 (2016): 144-151. ". In the discussion following the publication of Neighbors, some historians mocked not only Gross’s account of the events in Jedwabne but the institutions which collected testimonies. Piotr Gontarczyk remarked: ‘After the war various historical commissions collected testimonies, which were concerned with various political and propagandist interests more than with the truth.’10 His position – the demand for balance, context and professional distance of the scholar – served to defend a particular vision of Polish Jewish relations. Gontarczyk’s strategy has been aptly termed ‘objectivizing historical thinking’. [pargraph break] While Gontarczyk can certainly serve as a rather extreme example ... in Natalia. "Survivor Testimonies and Historical Objectivity: Polish Historiography since Neighbors." Holocaust Studies 20.1-2 (2014): 157-178.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I re-removed the content; preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "This content has been challenged and removed; pls achieve consensus at talk". Add: the material, as included, was WP:UNDUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(ec) The rationale "the content has been challenged" is neither policy based nor meritorious. Anyone can "challenge" anything, and of course some editors simply challenge any content which doesn't fit in with their POV and then sabotage consensus building on talk. Significantly, none of the editors who are edit warring with edit summaries of "get consensus!" or "take it to talk!" (it ALREADY HAS been taken to talk) are actually bothering to make policy or source based arguments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • All I am asking is to respect the BRD cycle; it's not BRRRRRR... In any case, I don't see a current consensus to include this material. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, anyone who's been editing in this area for the past year, knows very well that as long as some editors are present the hope of achieving any kind of "consensus" is nil. They will hold "consensus" hostage. Some editors will always object to material that doesn't fit their preconceived extremist narratives and they won't very hard on talk to derail discussions and sabotage productive dialogue. In light of this kind of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, we go by what policy says - rely on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no consnsus to quote Grabowski called the Polish government "undemocratic" and "nationalistic" and said that the alleged antisemitism in Poland resembled "the Dark Ages". Xx236 (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Paweł Jędrzewski criticizes political usage of antisemitism accusations in Poland.,pawel-jedrzejewski-polski-antysemityzm-wywiad-mazurka.html Xx236 (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Troubling sourcing....[edit]

The statement being edit-warred over: "Historian Piotr Gontarczyk has accussed the 2018 book co-edited by Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, and published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research, in Warsaw, Poland, Dalej jest noc: losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski [Night Continues: the Fates of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland]" is being referenced to "Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, eds., Dalej jest noc: losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski [Night Continues: the Fates of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland], Warsaw, Poland, Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów [Polish Center for Holocaust Research], 2 volumes (1,640 pp.), 2018, ISBN 978-8363444648 OCLC 1041616741" but this is bad sourcing because you cannot source Gontarczyk's "accusation" to the book he's objecting to. I kinda see what is meant here, but it's bad and should be fixed. And of course, there's typos that keep being introduced - "accussed" and other MOS errors. Can we get the correct sourcing for this information and not imply that Gontarczyk's accusation is contained within Engelking and Grabowski's work? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed this fragment and added numerous reliable sources describing the situation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you also like .. use periods and spaces and a spellchecker please? Also format your citations? Too much hurry is going on towards trying to make sure that the edit warring continues and not enough worry about trying to make the information readable and grammatcal ... the world will not end if more care is taken with additions/subtractions. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Due to the Polish Holocaust law, which applies to Polish media, Polish media sources from 2018 onwards (as opposed to published research) can not be considered reliable on the topic of Polish Holocaust complicity as the law applies to this topic in media publications - journalists writing on the topic facing potential civil sanctions.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"Due to the Polish Holocaust law, which applies to Polish media, Polish media sources from 2018 onwards " This is complete and utter nonsense and Icewhiz has repeatedly been warned about engaging in ethnic discrimination and his propensity to evaluate sources on the basis of racial criteria. This kind of approach is odious and disgusting and very much against Wikipedia culture and policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is not ethnic based - the issue here is the Polish government outlawing writing about the complicity of the Polish state or nation in media publications. As the media is muzzled, by law, it is not reliable on the topic since these restriction came into force - similar to the Iranian or North Korean media being unreliable on their respective supreme leaders.Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Except for the fact that the Polish government did no such thing, and comparing Poland to Iran or North Korea is crackbrained, as you well know. Please stop trying to taunt and provoke other editors with extremist and inflammatory statements. And yes, you have tried to exclude sources based on their ethnicity from these articles previously, and you are trying to do the same, except this time you came up with an absurd excuse (Poland is just like North Korea!!!!). If you're not going to be serious, then you won't be taken seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"In February 2018, parliament passed a law criminalizing claims of Polish complicity in crimes committed during the Holocaust, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to three years. Following an international outcry, the government softened the law, making it a civil offense punishable by fine but not incarceration."Freedom house 2019. In light of government repression on media discourse on the topic of Polish complicity (and academic sources abound on this law) - Polish media can not be considered reliable for the rather narrow topic of WWII history (for which we should be using academic sources anyway, and per WP:NOENG prefer English.Icewhiz (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Go to WP:RSN. Ask there. Try it. If you're so damn confident your silly notions have any merit you'll do it. But you know they don't, so you won't. Otherwise, stop bluffing. And for god's sake, stop it with the offensive comments and insulting comparisons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include - and in this case beyond the RS issues due to Polish legislation, we have WP:NOENG and use of media (as opposed to scholarship). Using sources which, by law, have to comply with the "right version" of history won't fly at RSN. Russia has very similar legislation to Poland in this regard (though enforcing a different version of "right history") - See HRW - "In June 2016, a court in Perm convicted Vladimir Luzgin under the provisions of the rehabilitation of Nazism law for “falsifying history” by reposting an article saying that the Soviet Union shares responsibility for starting World War II and that the Soviet Union and Germany attacked Poland simultaneously. The court fined him 200,000 rubles (US$3,312), which was upheld on appeal. or this source - "The obvious rationale for the amendment is a defence of the traditional narrative of World War II as the only ‘right’ version of history". As journalists can not write on this topic freely in Russia and Poland, media sources from those countries are clearly unusable. Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Go to WP:RSN. Try it. ONUS is NOT on those who follow Wikipedia policies. Again, what the hell does Russia have to do with any of it and why do you keep bringing it up? Stop talking nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
MyMoloboaccount, the copy edit of the other paragraph has gone again and the problematic text is back. [16] There is no point in editing like this. SarahSV (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
One thing that would help is if people adding material about the book have it in front of them. Then there won't be uncertainty about whether the book contains the disputed text. SarahSV (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you have the book in front of you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Gontarczyk's extensive review of the book is available online here[17]

Other reviews are available here[18] However I believe most of this should be moved to article about the book itself.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Also a much more extensive(over 70 pages) and detailed review by doctor Tomasz Domański is available here as part of first publication of the scholarly journal Polish-Jewish studies[19]. It contains a lot of interesting analysis and some examples of other factual errors.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski's opinions are stable, the same problems exist in Judenjagd, Polish Police and Dalej jest noc. Undefined county (powiat), thesis that German administration was Polish (Cuban politicians in Miami don't make Florida Cuban). Grabowski misquotes numbers of Jewish victims and reighteous. As far noone has verified the Judenjagd if Grabowski correctly quotes his sources.
Generally the new school assumes that if a Jewish and Polish account collide, the Jewish one is correct. However sometimes Jewish accounts are contradictory and accounts of the same Jew are contradictory. Xx236 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Per FRINGE and UNDUE I removed content sourced via a bareurl to a figure whose work has been described as "a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation"".[20]. The individual is not tenured, and is mainly covered in English RSes for these sorts of views. Wikipedia is not the place to promote these sorts of views - there are other online forums for this sort of material.

Per WP:NOENG, I introduced higher quality published English sources (English and Polish with an extensive English abstract, the content contained within the abstract). diff. Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this amount of detail belongs in the article on the work, not here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: - trimmed heavily - leaving methodology and importance in one sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You didn't trim. You EXTENDED content. All you did in your two edits, is remove well sourced material on spurious grounds which didn't match your POV and then added EVEN MORE UNDUE material which did match your POV. That's not "trimming". And the proper response to people raising POV issues on talk is NOT to make it EVEN MORE POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Ealdgyth - there may very well be too much detail about the work in this article. But Icewhiz is trying to use your comment as an excuse to remove a single, concise, short sentence from the article that is critical of Grabowski and calls that "trimming". Since he's been trying to remove this from the article for awhile now, it's pretty clear that the reason behind it is not "trimming". This is also evident in the fact that he simultaneously packed the article with EVEN MORE text about the book.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. "Not tenured" is not and has never been a criteria for whether something is reliable. Are all the other folks you're trying to use in this piece "tenured"? Stop making up nonsensical rules to justify your edits. And the Michilic work has been addressed already. Using it in the way that you want to use it amounts to a BLP violating smear. Stop falsely implying that Gotarczyk has anywhere called Jews a "an alien and harmful nation". These kinds of false attacks are just disgusting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Not remotely a RS, and please avoid introducing FRINGE material into a BLP. Gotarczyk work has been described as "a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation"".in an academic source (and other sources abound). What's next - Alan Sabrosky in 9/11 as a source?
Please stop trying to derail discussion with some ridiculous references to whoever Sabrosky is. What the freakin' fudge does 9/11 have to do with any of it???? Stop smearing authors you disagree with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I note that while claiming to remove Gontarczyk, Icewhiz has removed critical review by historian Tomasz Domański as well.Of course both sources are reliable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
An Polish state propaganda organization ("political history") employee, publishing in the open access, and quite dubious, Glaukopis. Lets perhaps find aithors that are not working for organizations (IPN) accused of being complicit in antisemitic attacks on Holocaust researchers? source - Le Monde. Stating this study has received "negative reviews" when said "reviews" are from quarters outside of normative scholarship - is not neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Stop making shit up. There is no "propaganda organization". IPN has been discussed to death. They are a reliable source. You've tried before to unilaterally declare them unreliable because of your own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and that didn't work. You are always welcome to raise it at WP:RSN but like with all your other ridiculous notions ("all Polish sources after 2018 are unreliable because I said so!") you won't, because you know you'll be laughed out of there. Stop making these absurd, inflammatory and extremist pronouncements. All they do is serve to make constructive discussion impossible. What's next? Insane claims that Polish media is "similar to Iran and North Korea". oh wait!.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
" Polish state propaganda organization" Please cease with ethnic based attacks, thank you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Nothing ethnic here - the PiS regime (and media and state institutions under its controĺ) is separate from the Polish people. As for the nature of Holocaust discourse and propaganda under the present regime, this has been covered in depth in RSes - Atlantic, Feb 2018, Poland’s Historical Revisionism Is Pushing It Into Moscow’s Arms, Foreign Policy, 12 Feb 2019, Mateusz Mazzini.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"PiS regime"-I suggest you tone down with the political comments and inflammatory sentences and concentrate on the subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Holmgren, Beth. "Holocaust History and Jewish Heritage Preservation: Scholars and Stewards Working in PiS-Ruled Poland." Shofar 37.1 (2019): 96-107. I suggest you do not introduce inappropriate sourcing the a BLP. The revisionist situation in thost institutions controlled by PiS is well studied, and introducing sources rejected by most of the academic world in this topic area has no place on Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
"PiS regime" - lol. Another comment which illustrates why you should not be allowed in this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with source...[edit]

this source is listed as "Ukazały się kolejne trzy recenzje IPN na temat publikacji "Dalej jest noc" 21.02.19" or (according to Google translate) "Three more reviews of the Institute of National Remembrance have appeared on the subject of the publication of "Dalej jest noc" 21.02.19" - this is not supporting the information it is attached to which is "The book received a number of critical reviews, with criticism addressed towards its use of unreliable sources, ignoring the context of German occupation and policies, alleged personal egagements of some of the authors, selective treatment of witness statements(scrutinizing Polish witness statement, while taking at face value witness statemements in line with author's thesis),and presenting rumors or gossip as actual proven events." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The IPN is a state propaganda outlet, in the past decade or so mainly known for promoting "political history". Recently, the French government protested against the complicity/support of the IPN for an antisemitic attack on a Holocaust conference in Paris - Lemonde. The IPN's (and its employees) publications are no longer used in mainstream science - exceptions being when they are very clearly attributed or when the IPN itself (memory politics) is under study.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Whatever the problems with the IPN, the point I made was that the source does not support the information given in this article. Let's not drag other issues into that problem, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I can more quotes and statements if you wish from these sources, unless you want to do it first as I assume you know Polish?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I can use Google Translate to get close enough. This particular link is to what appears to be a portal site - the only text of consequence on it is listed above. If you are trying to use the three reviews that the portal site mentions - you need to actually use those reviews, not link to them through this portal site, because any link that is put into a citation should actually contain the information that is being sourced. By placing the portal site as a citation - the implication is that the portal site supports the information - if it doesn't, it isn't helpful at all to have this link there, because it's useless for actually verifying the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It lists some examples of criticism by Gieron, Golik,Roguski. IE: "Na stronie IPN dostępne są także niewielkie fragmenty recenzji Gieronia i Golika, który zarzucił jednej z autorek "Dalej jest noc" Karolinie Panz brak dystansu do badanej materii i silne przeświadczenie formułowanych wniosków."

Or "W recenzji Roguskiego, który analizował badania prof. Jana Grabowskiego, czytamy, że jego monografia powiatu węgrowskiego "przedstawia obraz wydarzeń z czasu II wojny światowej wyrwany z kontekstu historycznego". "Los Żydów został ukazany jako wyekstrahowana z wojennej rzeczywistości gehenna, w której większości Polaków została z góry przypisana rola współsprawców" - napisał Roguski." I can translate this if you wish.I wanted to present a brief summary, but if you insist on expanding the section with more quotes and sources, I am willing to do this. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Again - do those quotes occur on this exact page. I've looked at the sidebars and I do not see the quotes you just gave above on that exact page I just listed. Just to be safe, I did indeed use the find function on the page to look for several of the words - including "Na stronie" and "Golika" and "Karolinie Panz" .... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes these quotes are on this webpage,perhaps try a different browser? I can upload a partial screenshot if it continues to be a problem for you.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
With the third browser (Chrome) it finally showed up. Strongly suggest that that website might want to fix their coding if its that problematical. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
And we are considering this website/portal (, which does not seem to name its editors or process, as a RS suitable for a BLP becuase..... Any policy based reason? RSN or BLPN discussion? Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
the first task is to find and verify the source. It’s useless to worry about anything else until you can confirm that the source exists and that it contains the information it’s supposed to. And there are other less than ideal sources in the obituary or this which appears to be a student assignment. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Those are not negative, in one case attributed, and in the other merely the name (relevant as they co-wrote one study together and both are notable). They could be cut out. Let me re-iterate this clearly, @Ealdgyth: - we are using IPN employees writing "reviews" in somewhat dubious sources to call a scientist's integrity into question. The same IPN (red flags abound) - was condemned by the French government in its role in an antisemitic attack on Holocaust researchers in Paris (a venue chosen, in part, due to troubles in Poland in this regard) Lemonde source - one of those attacked was Grabowski.[21] And this - on a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Whether the information is negative has no bearing on whether it should be used in a BLP - WP:BLP has no statement about "negative information" - it says "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." ... As for the Polish language sources, I'm still investigating them - but in reality - this is STILL too much detail in this article when there is an article on the work itself. This discussion of the problems with a particular work (where some of the issues appear to be, in part, with sections of the work written by other researchers) should be ... in the article on the work. However, I've given up on reason breaking out in this area of wikipedia and am settling for at least being able to FIND the sources and not having gross grammatical and typographical errors present in this article. As an aside - I'm (in my non-copious free time that isn't devoted to trying to buy property, work on my own off wikiprojects, and move) trying to get up to speed on the whole contentious area of Polish-Jewish historiography relating to the Holocaust, but ... frankly, everytime this sort of crap errupts on my watchlist (and everyone note that I am NOT saying that it is only one side or if its both sides or even taking sides - everyone could be pure as the driven snow but its still not a pleasant area to edit in) ... I lose desire to try to help out. It's not a freaking battleground and if everyone would stop treating it as such ... you might actually find people like Sarah (SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) courtesy ping) and I contributing more. At the moment, I have no desire to be a punching bag for others and trying to make me into that isn't going to make me stick around. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
BLP does have an exception for interviews with the subject - which this is. As for the topic area - things would be easier if we stuck to high quality sources in English (which for Grabowski are plentiful) - will make things easier both in terms of NPOV (and there are, BTW, also mainstream voices in Poland - as opposed to fringe denialist discourse - what is bandied about here isn't even mainstream in Poland) and V (I have several times in the past few months caught random Polish language citations that failed verification - but verifying Polish is harder than English and fewer editors are willing to do so).Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's Le Monde not Lemonde, and no IPN was not organizing any antisemitic attacks, in fact it actively researches genocide of both Jews and Poles during Second World War.The only thing French minister stated was that "you get the impression Polish government is supporting these events, because IPN representative present didn't condemn them" and later criticized the conference so your claim is rather weak. A large part of the conference was recorded and it had people with especially strong views, it was reported that Grabowski stated Poles killed more Jews in villages than Germans in concetration camps, and other lecturer stated that "Jewish bodies will be replaced by stones in graves" to hide atrocities in Poland. Anyway it isn't the topic of this article.But it certainly wasn't a neutral conference.[22].Other articles name it as a dispte between historians[23]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

RSes, unlike right wing media in Poland subject to the Holocaust law, disagree. I cited a source for French governemnt criticism for IPN's involvement/support in this attack. Instead of using these dubious sources - how about trying to bring forward mainstream scholarship ?Icewhiz (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


If I'm reading this badly formatted citation correctly "Tomasz Roguski: Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski, red. Barbara Engelking i Jan Grabowski, "Glaukopis" nr 36, pages 335-356" - it is referring to this publication? If so, it appears from my limited ability with Google translate that they only have 35 volumes ... so can someone please direct me to the place where number 36 is located to verify the information, please? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There certainly is number 36[24]

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

So a properly formated citation would be <ref>Roguski, Tomasz "Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski, red. Barbara Engelking i Jan Grabowski",''Glaukopis'' volume 36 pp. 335-356</ref> - but it needs a publication date also, which is also lacking in the citation as given. I'm not just being anal here - proper formatting with the various italics and stuff is how you tell what parts of a citation are what - the quotes tell the reader that it is an article, the italics give the base publication (in this case - Glaukopis) ... thus making things easier to find, especially when working with a language that is not familiar. It is a vital part of scholarship to know how to find things - and when citations are not formatted as normal, it becomes much more difficult. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Totally different discussion not related to the above at all[edit]

(ec) this in their homepage - it is open access, all online. It was launched by an individual, who possibly due to events covered by the SPLC, was unable to publish in mainstream journals anymore. Note the byline at the bottom (google translate) - "By rejecting political correctness, we present topics that have never been explored and are often controversial." The books they promote [ here) (e.g. Poland for the Poles) is also instructive. I only see 35 volumes. 36 would be the forthcoming one.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Again - I didn't bring up anything other than attempting to find the source from the badly formatted citation. Please don't derail conversations. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"It was launched by an individual, who possibly due to events covered by the SPLC, was unable to publish in mainstream journals anymore" Seems like pure conjucture? Any source to support your claim? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Not just pure conjecture but also a WP:BLP violation. Another one by Icewhiz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Glaukopis is officialy listed as scholarly journal by Polish Ministry of Education and Higher Education that is given a score and it's usage is permitted to be used by universities for research [25]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Icewhiz, believe it or not but appearing on the radio does NOT disqualify one from being a reliable source as you appear to absurdly claim in your edit summary [26]. That is also NOT what the author is known for. He is known for the numerous academic works he's published on the subject as a PhD scholar. So please - once again - stop trying to smear living person just because they don't agree with your POV. You're racking up WP:BLP violations left and right (I notice you are also hell bent on including the other smear as often as you can).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


Am I correct is assuming that this citation "Dawid Golik: Nowatorska noc. Kilka uwag na marginesie artykułu Karoliny Panz, "Zeszyty Historyczne WiN-u" nr 47/2018, s. 109-134" is to this publication? Is there an online version for verification purposes? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Tags are being added to the page with limited justification. There're enough page watches that an RfC may be more profitable instead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

More than half this page is justification. That is not limited. Just because some editors refuse to actually address these justifications does not mean you get to remove the tags.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
And your continued attempts at removal of the tags unfortunately only serves to sharpen and inflame the dispute rather than help to resolve it, and as such is WP:DISRUPTIVE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • They seem to be more of "tags of shame". What add'l content do you propose to be included? Or any other changes? Just applying the tags and hoping that issues would work themselves out does not seem productive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what "they seem" to means. They're not tags of shame. The actual problem has been explained above. Icewhiz has been trying to remove any negative reviews from the article and replace them with only positive ones (and he's been doing this while violating BLP left and right by smearing various authors). After MyMoloboaccount's edits the article is a bit more balanced but it is still missing several notable reviews that have been removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz has been trying to remove... -- if you have a grievance against a particular editor, please use an appropriate admin noticeboard or other means of dispute resolution. Railing against said editors on article Talk pages is not what they are here for. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Since THIS is the article from which he has been "trying to remove", THIS is the appropriate place to raise it, particularly since you requested that I do so. You can't ask a question, demand an answer and then complain that your question was answered (specifically - the content removed by Icewhiz should be in part or in whole be restored).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
We reflect, on Wikipedia, mainstream sources. Our goal here is not to reflect right wing Polish media which carries very little weight other than shock value (Polish newspaper runs front page list on ‘how to spot a Jew’, Independent). There is a POV problem in the article in that these primary attestations are being used directly from unreliable right-wing sources. The vitriol in Polish media is of some significance and of relevance in terms of deconstructing myths - however this is best covered by using mainstream source who frame this righ-wing discourse in these sources in an appropriate manner (and where possible, in English per NOENG) - as opposed to using such sources directly.Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
For all your talk about "mainstream sources this, fringe sources that" NOT ONCE have you actually bothered to go to WP:RSN and ask outside editors for their opinions. Wikipedia does not work on the unilateral opinions of a guy named Icewhiz.
And frankly your behavior here is outrageous and thoroughly dishonest. We are discussing a specific person, an academic with a PhD and a published expert in the topic. And what do you do? You link to AN UNRELATED newspaper story about some shitty ass anti-semitic rag that no one in Poland has ever heard of, which does not mention the person we're discussing OR the subject of this article, with the not-so-subtle but completely false insinuation that somehow the subject of discussion is connected to this rag (not at all) or that this is some source which someone is trying to use. NOBODY IS FUCKING TRYING TO USE THIS SOURCE!!!!!! This source HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT!!! Stop the bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I did focus on content. Specifically the removal of content by Icewhiz. But his talk page behavior and dishonest stunts like the one right above, where he's linking to something completely irrelevant and pretending that it's somehow related to a living person is beyond outrageous. You went to my talk page and complained about my "tone". Where is your concern for Icewhiz's behavior? On this talk page alone he:
1. Claimed that Poland is similar to North Korea and Iran in terms of reliability
2. Linked to a story about a (marginal) anti-semitic newspaper and pretended with a straight face that somebody is trying to use this in this article. Which is a straight up lie.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Dispute with Daniel Blatman, Israeli historian and professor of Modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[edit]

I added a short summary on dispute with dispute with Daniel Blatman, Israeli historian and professor of Modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.This is initial edit, as always it can be modified,expanded or reformed based on suggestions. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The ethnic labelling above is off color. As for the content - hardly a dispute - a single letter or call co-signing with a bunch of other authors. Probably more relevant in Blatman's page or the musuem that was the target of criticism - UNDUE here as Grabowski was tangential here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That's how he is described in sources[27], and on Harvard profle[28]. It is my understanding that Israeli denotes citizenship, not ethnicity, and Arabs,Jews and others can be Israelis. In any case I agree that ethnic labelling is unecessary. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Some academicians are exteremely biased. Authors of Dalej jest noc are of different ethnicities, but at least some of them are extermaly biased, who manipulate their sources. So yes, ethnicity isn't important, bias is.Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing policy[edit]

Regarding the use of Polish-language sources for contentious issues, the article should comply with WP:V, the sourcing policy, which states (at WP:NOENG):

English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. ... If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. ... Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people.

Editors can use the template {{Request quotation}}. The editor adding the material should ideally also explain on talk what kind of source it is, in terms of quality and reach. The aim is to make sure we're using high-quality mainstream sources. This is difficult to judge, and sometimes impossible, for editors who don't read Polish. The onus is on the person who adds the text and source to demonstrate that it's appropriate. Also bear in mind that the readership has to be able to judge reliability, not only other editors. SarahSV (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is mostly a localized topic, where most sources will be non-English, and thus we won't find many English ones that would provide complete cover of the topic.I am happy to provide quotes where requested.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Far from so. Grabowski lives in Canada, is covered in worldwide English press, and widely reviewed in academic journals in English. Holocaust studies are not a localized topic. As we aren't lacking high quality English sources, we should per NOENG, avoid non-English sourcing for anything contentious.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
According to Gontarczyk and a number of other historians (at least one of them from Cracow University) Grabowski manipulates numbers and misquotes his sources. English knowledge doesn't make a historian. Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but no, Grabowski publishes a lot of his statements in Polish and about Poland, and debates involved are mostly published in Polish language, including acadamic journals or scholarly institutions like IPN.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
MyMoloboaccount, thanks. Because of the disputes on this page, it's reasonable to ask that everyone adding non-English sources for anything likely to be contentious should supply a translation of the relevant text, either in a footnote or here on talk, and an explanation of what kind of source it is. At the moment, the onus seems to be on other editors to work it out, but the sourcing policy places the onus on the editor who adds the material.
See WP:BURDEN (part of WP:V): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution." Where this is in doubt, the editor adding the source has to show that it's reliable and that it directly supports the text. See WP:ONUS (also part of WP:V): "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." SarahSV (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
(ec) IPN is a government agency, not used anymore much in academia. The response in Poland to Holocaust studies in general and Grabowski's work in particular is a topic covered in depth in academic sources in English. We do not need to insert into this article the latest "shock" NOTNEWS items from Poland if they haven't been covered in English yet - if they have any lasting significance - there will be English sourcing which is far from lacking (and in terms of academic journals - far more extensive).Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"IPN is a government agency, not used anymore much in academia". I am afraid you are incorrect. IPN publications and authors are considered scholarly by Polish Ministry of Education and Higher Sciences and rated as such in its index of scored scholarly journals."We do not need to insert into this article the latest "shock" NOTNEWS items".Nobody is doing this-we are inserting academic journals and statements by well established historians.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin - there's no problem supplying any translations on request. There IS a problem with declaring that all Polish sources should be banned because... "Poland is similar to Iran and North Korea".
IPN is perfectly reliable, all the writers are professional, published, credentialed historians and it has been used extensively on Wikipedia and whenever it came up at WP:RSN the consensus was along those lines. Icewhiz, or yourself, are always welcome to bring it up there again, but you - or actually Icewhiz - do not get to unilaterally declare sources unreliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
And here is the ironic thing as pointed out by Dr. Blatman, [29] just like IPN is government funded, so is the Polish Center for Holocaust Research, which Icewhiz loves citing and which Grabowski is a part of (indeed, if you believe Blatman some of the acrimony between researchers from the two institutes is simply a turf war over funding, hence the hyperbolic attacks). You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either both are unreliable or both are reliable. And going by our criteria, both are reliable.
This should also put to rest any nonsense about "Poland is like North Korea and Iran" in terms of free speech, since right here we have the "nationalist" (sic) Polish government funding an institute which is deeply critical of Polish history (and the government itself). Like, this shouldn't be even an issue, the notion is so absurd to begin with, but the discussion has degenerated to a point where you kind of have to address these notions, as ridiculous as they are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Censorship regarding Holocaust complicity on media in Poland , due to the "Holocaust Law", is real and well covered in mainstream sources. The punishment, with a fine, is similar to Russia - Saying that the USSR and Nazi Germany jointly invaded Poland is a crime in Russia, WaPo oped, 2016. If IPN people publish in reputed mainstream journal (preferrably in English) it is one thing (possibly usable), if they say something in the media or on their own website it is another (probably not).Icewhiz (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Lies. But yes, there is a problem of reviewing texts in Poland. The Center doesn't inform if their texts are reviewed at all and a former IPN worker complains, that his book has been rejected after internal reviews, but he confirms that generally IPN texts have been reviewed by independent rewiewers.Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Complete and utter nonsense. It is very telling that in your attempt to support your claim that "censorship in Poland is real" you have to link to an article.... about censorship in Russia. How stupid do you think we are? I guess comparing freedom of press in Poland to Russia is a little bit better than your earlier cockbrained comparison to Iran and North Korea, but not much.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"In February 2018, parliament passed a law criminalizing claims of Polish complicity in crimes committed during the Holocaust, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to three years. Following an international outcry, the government softened the law, making it a civil offense punishable by fine but not incarceration." ... "The ruling party has sought to discredit academics who challenge its preferred historical narrative, particularly in regard to the events of World War II. The new “Holocaust law,” though it includes a clause exempting academic work, was widely regarded within the academic community as an attempt to discourage research into and discussion of World War II–era Polish crimes against Jews. In March 2018, two PiS senators issued a statement criticizing the Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw after it held events marking the 50th anniversary of antisemitic purges in Poland, accusing the museum of making false claims about antisemitism." per Freedom House 2019 report. Comparisons to Russia (in particular in regards to government led history policies) are fairly widespread and made by writers less "cockbrained" than myself - e.g. Poland’s Historical Revisionism Is Pushing It Into Moscow’s Arms, Foreign Policy, 12 Feb 2019, Mateusz Mazzini.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, first Freedom House is not a be-all-end-all determinant of reliability. But if you do want to go with that then note that according to Freedom House, Poland's score is 84 out of 100 and, for example, Israel's is... 78 out of 1000, lower than Poland's (United States is 86 out of 100, only 2 points higher than Poland's). So if you are going to propose using FH as a criteria for disqualifying a country's sources en masse from reliability, then perhaps you should insist over in Israeli-Palestinian topics, where you are so active, that Israeli sources get disqualified en masse from I-P topics. Obviously I would oppose that there as I oppose that kind of silliness over here.
Annyway, as always I find myself compelled to remind you that the place to make your arguments about reliability is at WP:RSN, so go over there. Of course you won't because you do know how ridiculous your proposals are. So stop wasting our time with these over here, because it gets in the way of productive discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:ONUS on you VM. While Poland is generally still free - as Freedom House notes - there is a very particular problem with reporting on Holocaust history, which is what we're discussing here. Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
No, it is NOT up to me to demonstrate that an entire country's sources should NOT be declared unreliable because... Icewhiz thinks that judging and excluding sources on the basis of their "ethnicity" is acceptable practice on Wikipedia. ONUS only applies to non-ridiculous notions. This proposal of yours is just as farcical as if someone proposed that we shouldn't use Israeli sources on Israeli-Palestinian topics because Freedom House notes some concerns. Israel ranks lower than Poland on their index of freedom. In terms of free media, they both get 3 out of 4 points. Again, please try going to WP:RSN with this crap - you know, and I know, that you'd be laughed out of there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would be cautious with recent IPN publications. It's a government agency, and perhaps should be treated as WP:PRIMARY source. When governments attempt to legislate history, I have concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"It's a government agency..."' - so is the Polish Center for Holocaust Research. Like I said. Both are reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
See below. François Robere (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment:IPN is largely independent and a reliable source. I note that it receives funding from governement just like Grabowski's Centre For Holocaust Research.It is a similar to Yad Vashem or Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Germany. "if they say something in the media or on their own website it is another (probably not)".Again a personal opinion without any sources. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not true. The IPN law is not the same as for similar institutions in other countries (eg. Yad Vashem), as it clearly specifies "protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation" and investigating crimes by "Ukrainian nationalists" - but not nationalists of other ethnicities, eg. Poland - as goals, and provides means by way of court action. Doesn't sound like an agenda-free research institute. François Robere (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
investigating crimes by "Ukrainian nationalists"'There's no such statement in this law, so please cut it with your unsourced accusations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
" as it clearly specifies "protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation" and investigating crimes by "Ukrainian nationalists" - but not nationalists of other ethnicities, eg. Poland - as goals, and provides means by way of court action. Doesn't sound like an agenda-free research institute" And that's why there is no such law in Poland in effect in Poland, plus Poland isn't ethnicity. All crimes are investigated by IPN, be it carried out by Germans,Russians,Poles, Jews when in Polish territory on Polish citizens irregardles of their ethnic background.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's the original, read for yourself. I should note that the Ukrainian part was struck down by court relatively recently, but AFAIK the rest is still in place. François Robere (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You are posting a proposed version accepted by the Senat, which isn't the actual law, and which btw isn't about "Ukrainian nationalists" but about "Ukrainian nationalists cooperating with Third Reich".Again you are confusing the project and design with the actual law.Please in future read the actual material on the subject instead of posting strong views without backing them up, I do remember we had similar issue when we discussed what General Government was.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Also here you seem to be claiming that 200,000 Jews were mass murdered by Poles[30]? Feel free to correct me, as I asked you to clarify if this is what you are stating.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You haven't brought any citations to the discussion, so I can't comment on what you think may be the law.
I've commented on Xx's off-topic comment. I don't think any clarification is needed. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I fully support any request to add quotations, which in case of non-English sources should be added in original, as well as in English. I am pretty sure there are cite template parameters supporting that. Per cited policies, foreign language sources - Polish, German, Hebrew - are acceptable, but quotations are very helpful. Controversial/extraordinary claims that fail to be backed by quotations, particularly if they are offline and hard to verify otherwise, may be removed. With regards to the quality of IPN research, I agree that the institution is becoming more politicized, but there are on indications it is too politicized to be reliable. Until there is consensus in academia that IPN is not reliable, it is just another outlet, with some POV. Per WP:NPOV, all sources have their POV. Grabowski has a POV, so do his supporters and detractors. Ditto for IPN , Yad Vashem, USHMM, etc. No person or institution is perfectly neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Just before I read the above suggestion by SarahSV that information drawn from Polish-language texts should be accompanied by those original Polish-language texts, I was myself about to suggest that the latter be placed in the notes where the sources are cited. This procedure has often been used in the past and has enabled bilingual editors to verify the accuracy of the English-language versions and, as necessary, to improve their accuracy and comprehensibility. It would reduce the loss of useful material that is currently (and not unreasonably) being deleted because it makes no sense to a Polish-language-challenged Anglophone. And perhaps, last but not least, it could help reduce the logorrhea now burdening our talk pages.


Nihil novi (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Behind a paywall...[edit]

This is restricting my access (I appear to have read too many articles this month or something) to the information so it hasn't been checked for accuracy against the content in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have access at the moment. The text reflects the article accurately it seems. Is there anything specific you want checked? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Nah, I just wanted to make sure folks knew that although I fixed typos/grammar/etc in the stuff sourced to it, that I wasn't able to verify it, as I was able to with the earlier source. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Wildstein translations[edit]

Bronisław Wildstein. His son Dawid is also active, so please be careful. Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wildstein za eskalację napięć między Polską i Izraelem obwinia też "siły, które głoszą nonsensy bez żadnych podstaw naukowych". Przywołał przy tym przykład Jana Grabowskiego [31]

"Wildstein also blamed "entities which promote nonsense with no scientific basis" for the increase in tensions between Poland and Israel. He gave as a example Jan Grabowski

(On Grabowski) Trochę nieoficjalnie lansuje on tezę, że to Polacy zamordowali 200 tys. Żydów. Równocześnie w Izraelu przekonuje, że nie wolno badać pomocy Polaków dla Żydów, dopóki nie pozna się ciemnych stron naszej historii [32]

"Somewhat unofficially he promotes the thesis that Poles murdered 200k Jews. At the same time, in Israel, he argues that it should be forbidden to study the help Poles gave to Jews until the "dark pages" of Polish history are known first"

Mam nadzieję, że wspólnie z Żydami przezwyciężymy nienawistników w rodzaju Grabowskiego czy Grossa, którzy deformują historię i manipulują ją

"I hope, that along with the Jews, we can overcome the hate-mongers (better translation than "haters" currently in the article - VM) like Grabowski or Gross who deform and manipulate History"

ale też odejdziemy od tych lukrowanych i opowieści o tym, że ponad milion Polaków pomagało Żydom, bo to oczywiście nieprawda i to jest nonsens. Bo to świadczyłoby, że jesteśmy narodem aniołów. Wielka szkoda, ale nie jesteśmy. Dojdziemy do prawdy. Ta prawda nie jest dla nas zła.

"But (I also hope) we leave behind these sugar coated stories about how more than a million Poles helped Jews, because that too is a falsehood and nonsense. It would mean that we (Poles) are a nation of angels. It's too bad, but we're not. We'll get to the truth. That truth is not bad for us." Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE - no reason to think Wildstein's opinion voiced on Polish radio carries any particular weight. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, first it's "please provide translations" then it's "undue" and then it will be... ? Bronisław Wildstein is most certainly notable and his opinion (I have no idea what radio has to do with it - you keep bringing up "radio" as some kind of disqualifier which is just weird) is very noteworthy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Please provide a clear rationale why this random opinion carries any particular weight. Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not try to falsely discount this person's views by calling it a "random opinion". It's not. Your comment is another borderline BLP violation. And if you want to know why it's notable, then please read the Bronisław Wildstein article which I already linked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
And your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT objection appears to be particularly WP:TENDENTIOUS seeing as how you've tried to stuff this and other articles with truly random opinion pieces and articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(I mean, on another article in this topic you actually tried to use a ... what was it, a "fashion journalist"... wait, no, a celebrity gossip journalist who couldn't even get basic facts about WW2 right, as a source and never even tried to provide a "clear rationale" for that one).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
His background in anti-communist "vetting" in the post-communist era and activism and controvesy in this regard (leading to dismissal from his job at a right-wing newspaper in 2005) while perhaps reminiscent of a certain US committee, are not an indication of any particular expertise regarding WWII history. UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Another WP:BLP smear, insinuating (because you don't have the courage to say it outloud) that Wildstein is a McCarthyite ("certain US committee"). So more ridiculous nonsense. Stop. Attacking. BLPs. And none of this makes him UNDUE. He is a prominent publicist, a widely respected former opposition activist and widely published writer. That would make him DUE. It would certainly make him way more DUE than some celebrity gossip columnist you tried to use as a source. What is it that McCarthy was asked? "Have you no shame?"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Any idea what he refers to by claiming G. advocates not studying help from Poles to Jews? François Robere (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's referring to various editorials Grabowski has written. But you'd have to ask Wildstein. To whom we attribute the text properly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Undue: many notable people have opinions; there's no indication that this one is particularly authoritative or merits inclusion. WP:NOTPUNDIT. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
"member of an official group working for dialogue with Israel" <-- yeah, that merits inclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Undue. The previous paragraph represents the view of around 180 historians, including some of the world's most prominent Holocaust historians. It's the very definition of UNDUE to follow that with a paragraph offering the view of one Polish journalist, especially one that calls two BLPs "haters". SarahSV (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, Sarah - I think it's clear that one side has dug in here and no matter what kind of support is presented, will engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and yell "UNDUE!" just to keep this out of the article. I think it's also clear that Wildstein is a very notable and important source - especially given his membership in the delegation to Israel. I don't think you're one of these people. I think you're a very good and reasonable editor. So can we please try to work out a compromise here? Do you have any constructive suggestions as to how we could address the concerns about this being UNDUE while at the same time acknowledging that this is an important part of the relevant discourse? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: thank you for the kind words. I appreciate that. The problem is that I can't see the sources and don't know how to judge the impact. The sources are:
In the second source, he seems to be saying only that extreme views of Poland during the Holocaust, whether good or bad, are unhelpful. If I were writing this article, I would reduce his input to something like that (not using the word "haters"), and I'd place it elsewhere, or I'd leave it out, depending on how notable I felt Wildstein's views were compared to others. I'd rewrite quite a bit of the article, and I'd give only a few examples of the positive and negative views. SarahSV (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's basically what he's saying though the relevance to this article is that he sees Grabowski as one of the extremes. We can paraphrase the relevant passage and avoid the word "haters" (actually "hate-mongers"). As pointed out Wildstein is a very notable former dissident (one of the key organizers of the first Solidarity movement, and of Workers' Defence Committee in the 1970s. He is - and his statement that is being discussed was made in the context of - a member of the delegation to Israel to foster dialogue on this very question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
He's not just ANY journalist, he's, I don't know, comparable to Charles Krauthammer - i.e. one of the MOST WELL known Polish journalists, in due part to the fact he was also a famous dissident. It's perfectly DUE and in fact, it's kind of required, per WP:BALANCE. And BLP only applies to Wikipedia editors, like Icewhiz, not to notable personas making statements. As long as it's properly attributed there's no issue here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The historians' statement was in response to the Polish League Against Defamation criticism and the 134 scientists. So we have that, followed by the historians, but now followed by more criticism from one Polish journalist. No matter how well-known, he's one person and he's not a Holocaust historian. You'd have to do a lot of research to know whether what Grabowski says is both correct and fair. (Also, the citations aren't written properly. When I hover, all I see are numbers; no indication as to what the source is.) WP:BLP applies to everything on the page; this is contentious, so it should be removed until there's consensus. SarahSV (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I am not objecting to the inclusion of the historians' statement. So I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. As far as Wildstein, yes, he's one person, but that is also irrelevant - a person being one person does not disqualify him from being notable or due. In fact, when it comes to prominent people we use their statements on Wikipedia all the time. So again, I'm not clear on what the argument is. Likewise there is no requirement that we include ONLY Holocaust historians. A prominent public figure and a very well known journalist obviously qualifies for DUE as well.
As far as BLP and consensus goes, if you are genuinely concerned about BLP then perhaps you could mention it to Icewhiz to tone it down with the BLP attacks on this talk page, since they're really getting out of hand. In terms of the article itself... look, anything can be made "contentious" by anyone by simply engaging in obfuscation and obstruction on the talk page + constant reverting. I know that's not what you in particular are doing, but by setting this standard up, you enable other, less good faithed editors to engage in this kind of practice. In fact, precisely because the subject and his research is so extremely controversial and contentious we HAVE TO include negative reviews of his work, per WP:BALANCE, otherwise we mislead the readers (by making it seem like these ideas are non-controversial when that is not the case).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Every single assertion I made about a BLP (suggested as a source here) - was backed up with sources - and discussing sources is what we do on Wikipedia. What is lacking here is respect to our BLP subject here - inserting dubious and extreme sources is a BLP issue. As for Wildstein - it seems he's primarily notable for a scandal: "A journalist, Bronislaw Wildstein, has admitted copying the list from the archives of the institute and has been sacked from his paper, Rzeczpospolita, but he denies posting the list on the internet, saying he gave it only to a few trusted colleagues." .... "Prosecutors are also investigating whether someone at the institute helped Mr Wildstein copy the list, which was available only to researchers and others cleared for access." Guardian. or "The National Remembrance Institute (IPN), which holds the archives where Wildstein secretly photographed the list, has said it received "an avalanche of requests" for access to records and will have to take on more staff to cope with the sudden surge in interest. Wildstein has been sacked from his job at Rzeczpospolita since admitting last week that he had copied the list. SMH (AFP reprint). None of the arguments presented thus far on Wildstein suggest he's due for inclusion. The notability for the 2005 scandal is a rather big WP:REDFLAG. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
"Every single assertion I made about a BLP (suggested as a source here) - was backed up with sources" <-- NONSENSE. Like your insinuation that Wildstein was a McCarthyite? No, you didn't provide any source for that. And then you double down on the BLP violations. No, he's not "primarily notable for a scandal". That's FALSE and another BLP violation which you DO NOT support with sources. He was notable long before the "list". Like, for, co-founding Solidarity, for investigating the death of Stanislaw Pyjas (at the hands of the communist secret police), for organizing Workers' Defence Committee and generally for his work as an investigative journalist.
Please provide a source that Wildstein is PRIMARILY notable "for a scandal" or strike your BLP violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I qualified my assertion with "seems" - per coverage in English sources - quite a bit of coverage of this communist "vetting list" (e.g. Secret Agents and the Memory of Everyday Collaboration in Communist Eastern Europe, page 42) and his sacking from the right-wing Rzeczpospolita newspaper. Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
"I qualified my assertion with "seems"". Lol. See WP:WEASEL. It "seems" you made a (another) BLP violation. If you don't know what he's notable for, then ... don't make false accusations? Not that hard. Now, since it "seems" you acknowledge your error, how about striking your BLP attack above? Also, how about that source supporting your contention that Wildstein is a McCarthyite? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Wildstein's sacking from the right-wing Rzeczpospolita newspaper is widely covered. His involvement in "anti-communist vetting" is also significantly covered - and I provided sources. What is lacking here, so far, is any compelling argument why this random opinion by a right-wing journalist ( is due for inclusion. It seems Wildstein was recently covered in the context of the right-wing WSieci’s plwiki issue with a cover of "rape" of Europe - in which he wrote a piece titled "Does Europe Want To Commit Suicide?".SMH. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't ask for a source about Rzeczpospolita. I didn't ask for a source about lustracja. I asked you to provide a source to support your WP:BLP smear which you made above that Wildstein was a McCarthyite. Your continued refusal to do so, your refusal to strike the offending comment and your apparent doubling-down on the smears and attacks in the comment right above against this person perfectly illustrate why you shouldn't be allowed nowhere near this topic area, or BLP topics in general. Every time a source or an author is provided you happen to disagree with, you vehemently and, um, "ferociously", attack them, turning articles and talk pages into attack pages. You're doing this to Wildstein, you did it to Gontarczyk, you did it to Musial, you did it to Krakowski, the list goes on and on and on and on. The fact you're allowed to get with these constant WP:BLP smears just highlights the dysfunction present on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could research Bronisław Wildstein's role in the 2018 Polish delegation to Israel? Was it an official or semi-official Polish-government-sponsored delegation? If so, that might make his views notable or at least semi-notable.

Also, could someone provide the bibliographic information concealed behind those source-citation "numbers"?


P.S. Poles tend to be less rigorous in their source citations than Anglophone authors. A noted Polish historian expressed surprise on learning that "B. Tuchman", author of the best-selling The Guns of August, cited in a Polish publication, was Barbara Tuchman, a woman.

Nihil novi (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point too and another reason to include him. I'm not sure what distinction between "official" and "semi-official" you have in mind, but yes, he was part of an "official" delegation [33] and it seems Grabowski's name was brought up during the talks [34]. Info from these sources could also be used in this and related articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to draw attention to SarahSV's comment above about the citations needing to be formatted properly. I've done this in the past as examples, so could someone else do that cleanup please? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I removed the text in question as there clearly is no consensus to include this material. François Robere, K.e.coffman, SarahSV, and myself have voice opposition, while Volunteer Marek seems to be the sole supporter of this on the talk page. Please gain consensus prior to reintroducing this. Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
This is another false claim as there are several users here who clearly support inclusion (MyMoloboaccount, NihilNovi). Hell, I'm not even the one who added it. Furthermore, the "undue" claims are specious. First the argument was "provide translation". When that was done the argument switched to "undue". Wildstein is clearly notable and significant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sourcing comment the Wildstein quotes (ignoring SYNTH unrelated to Grabowski) is sourced entirely to the right-wing portal[35] quoting an interview on the internet radio station Wnet and a second piece on the Tok FM radio station (2.5% market share in Poland, 6th listened in Poland) - more or less the definition of undue on source quality alone (as well as doubtful for being a RS for BLPs).Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what the market share of Tok FM has to do with anything. And there is no SYNTH. Stop making things up. Or at the very least please bother explaining what is SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wildstein is notable and influential journalist-his statements should remain. I see no consensus on talk page for their removal.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Current consensus[edit]

  • There's currently no consensus for including this material. I've removed the content; preserving here by providing this link. Just because someone is notable, or a member of a government delegation, does not make the opinion DUE. This looks more like an an attack on the BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The answer to POV concerns is NOT to make the article even more slanted[edit]

I've undone Icewhiz's recent edits. The content and changes were so over the top slanted and WP:TENDENTIOUS that at the very least they need discussing. Putting aside the issue of the delegation to Israel member Wildstein being discussed above, the edits try to cram in more negative information and remove any positive information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust Studies journal vs. BLPPRIMARY use of Dobrego Imienia and[edit]

I was surprised to see this revert. This revert is a BLP vio, as is a WP:BLPPRIMARY source (of a nationalist,[36] or right-wing[37] nature) generally forbidden per BLP policy. Regarding - - this seems like some local internet portal and not a source fit for BLPs, and it doesn't mention Grabowski anyway - so use of it is rather clear WP:SYNTH. There is clearly no consensus for Wildstein. The revert removed academic journal articles in the peer reviewed Holocaust Studies journal published by Taylor & Francis. The authors of the pieces are Dr. Zofia Wóycicka (presently at Zentrum für Historische Forschung Berlin),[1] Jolanta Ambrosewicz-Jacobs (Director of the Center for Holocaust Studies at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland),[2] and Michael Fleming (historian) (presently at Polish University Abroad).[3] Generally, publications by such authors in such a journal would be reliable on Wikipedia and preferable to, Polish League Against Defamation, or a right-wing journalist speaking on radio. Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason for the revert was explained above. You made large scale very controversial and POV changes. You inserted ridiculous, non-encyclopedic language like "ferocious response". You stated claims in Wikipedia voice as if they were facts. You engaged in WP:SYNTH original research violations to construct highly POV text. You removed well sourced material. I also have trouble believing that you were "surprised" that you were reverted since it's obvious you knew that there was no support for these changes and since your edit itself was so full of over-the-top POV that any reasonable editor would expect it to be undone.
As for the primary source, yeah there's a link to it, but that's because the text is discussing the original document. It's properly attributed so there's no issue here, BLP or otherwise. Now, are you going to provide a source for your attack on Bronislaw Wildstein where you claimed he was a McCarthyite? No? Then perhaps you shouldn't mention BLP out loud. It's kind of cringe worthy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
BLPPRIMARY is policy - linking and sourcing content from the website of a nationalist organization is a BLP vio. All 3 academic sources discuss Grabowski (so not SYNTH) - "ferocious" was used in the cited source, and if at all I toned down the POV present in Holocaust Studies. We generally follow the POV and tone of academic sources such as Holocaust Studies . We generally avoid right wing figures speaking on obscure internet radio stations.Icewhiz (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
In that case, if you're going to insist on it, we should simply remove the entire text, as it's kind of UNDUE anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And you're misquoting WP:BLPPRIMARY. What it says is that you can't use primary sources to support claims of fact. You can use primary sources for WP:V to show that so-and-so made some claim, as long as you properly attribute it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


Proposal to streamline the article[edit]

I would like to see, in this article, more discussion of the hard merits of Professor Grabowski's scholarship, in lieu of a competition over who can garner the greater number of signatures on letters of opposition or support; and in lieu of the Professor's more peripheral obiter dicta.

I would therefore propose deleting the article's "Statements in opposition and support" and "Views" sections.

The articles dealing with Professor Grabowski's individual publications might benefit from more specific summaries of their contents, by published authors who have read them.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The support of Holocaust scholars for Grabowski has received significant international coverage. As have his views - which are DUE in his own page. Furthermore - some the 3 journal articles in Holocaust Studies above refer to his view points.Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

hard merits of Professor Grabowski's scholarship The problem here is that most of these discussions center on particular works and, under the pretext that their "undue" have been removed or moved-then-removed to different articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)