WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations (9 May 2021): The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "undue weight given to state-affiliated IPN publications and state employees; the refutations of them are unneeded." -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
BBC is known for its editorial independence; it's publicly financed but it's not part of the government, unlike the IPN. As to the IPN:
...the 2018 law officially changed the mission statement of the Institute of National Remembrance, a state research body created in 1988 to investigate Nazi- and Soviet-era crimes, to include “protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation.” The rebranding immediately led many scholars to dub the Institute “the Ministry of Memory,” the Orwellian accent clear.
Source: "The Political Battle Over Poland’s Holocaust History: A libel verdict against two historians marks a new stage in the Polish government’s campaign to control the narrative of the country’s wartime past.", by Lawrence Douglas in the Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2021: [6].
As far as scholars describing IPN-affiliated historians' reviews as an example of a smear campaign against the book
, why enable the smear campaign further by including it, sourced to said historians directly, on this page?
WP:BLP applies to the article on the book as well. If the controversy over the IPN statements is sufficiently impactful, then it would be covered in third-party sources. They can then be used to discuss the controversy, rather than including the unfiltered opinions as if they were dispassionate contributions to a scholarly debate. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
to a large extentIPN
is compromised;
from a right-wing and nationalist perspective;
IPN is more of an echo chamber of nationalist historians
the proper contextis achieved through the use third-party sources that would discuss such controversy. If other historians do it, then it can definitely be included, without raising BLP concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
it still hosts historians who publish, well, valid research"), but they are clearly biased and we have to take this into account. I don't think bias is negatively impacting reliability in every of these cases, but I would label the historians pretty suspect (yellow in RSP terms). Hell, even quite respected scholars as Norman Davies commit stupid blunders. Given that all the reviews of that particular book but one was favourable, and that one proved to be actually correct in one of its aspects (factual errors), I'm extra careful after that to remove minoritarian viewpoints. True, the IPN's historians might be disinforming - all the more reason to find sources stating this.
Do we actually have a reliable source saying that "reviews published by Poland's Institute of National Remembrance have criticized Dalej jest noc for ...", or is that us editorializing by SYNTH the primary sources themselves (e.g. reviews published by the IPN) to say this?They are in the Polish article + those that got deleted. It's not editorialising, it's a summary of their ideas. If articles published in IPN-affiliated outlets or among the conservative historians simply repeat the same thing, we don't need a source to say that this indeed is a case, other than the reviews themselves + wikilinks to respective historians where their political/historical orientation is stated. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 02:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
"reviews published by Poland's Institute of National Remembrance have criticized Dalej jest noc for ...", or is that us editorializing by SYNTH the primary sources themselves (e.g. reviews published by the IPN) to say this? Besides, if this (e.g. reviews published by the IPN) is the only remaining scholarly criticism of the book (e.g. it was mainly criticized by IPN's publications), which otherwise received positive reviews, it may be telling in light of BLP and the controversy. It is not unusual some sources are generally reliable but there is a period where they are not, or where other considerations apply, which may well be the case of IPN since 2018. Davide King ( talk) 06:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
... polemical statements of government employees, from the organization whose stated mission is to "protect the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation".I'm talking about pl:Tomasz Domański (historyk), pl:Dawid Golik, Piotr Gontarczyk who are IPN employees. Karolina Panz of the Polish Academy of Sciences was not cited in our article, and consequently not removed by me as a source. Instead, she is a subject of an article by Golik because she's one of the contributors to Dalej jest noc. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
So what I'm seeing here are 3 users clearly in favour of the restoration of the removed criticism, and 2 users are against it. The consensus appears to be to restore the text eliminated by K.e.Coffman. I'm going to act based on that. Thank you for participating in this consensus-building process. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 15:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussion moved to user talk page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Piotrus: Are you the same Piotr Konieczny mentioned in Domański's review (p. 715, n. 141)? And don't you have a COI here because of having written this article about Grabowski? Levivich 03:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
|
I removed the content as the BLP concerns have not been addressed, given that the criticism is coming from one org, whose stated mission is to "protect the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation". Additionally, I don't see the consensus for restoration.
Szmenderowiecki mentions the need for context and some scholars who describe IPN-affiliated historians' reviews as an example of a smear campaign
. Arguments by
Piotrus are based in part on the mistaken assumption that a citation to Karolina Panz of Polish Academy of Sciences were also removed. Panz is actually one of the contributors to the book. Etc. This is BLP related material and Wikipedia should not serve as a publishing platform for such a campaign. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
20:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
With its international activity below par, the IPN resonates almost completely in a national framework of memory politics. But as a state political (and politicised) institution, it functions rather as a propaganda outlet and a ‘Ministry of Historical Truth’ operating under the false presumption that there is one objective truth about the past.
Nonetheless, PiS had managed to gain a great deal of influence over the Institute of National Remembrance... Under the leadership of Janusz Kurtyka from 2005 until his death in 2010, the Institute became a lead sponsor of a historiography of rebuttal, obfuscation (with its emphasis on Polish rescuers) and denial, not of the Holocaust per se, but of growing evidence of Polish participation in it in studies published by the Center for Holocaust Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences... Of course, nothing threatened the Polish nationalist grip on the wartime narrative than scholarship on Poles who aided and abetted Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, particularly that of Jan Grabowski in his 2011 Judenjagd. Grabowski and his collaborator Barbara Engelking then took this model to organize a collaborative research project embracing nine counties and published as Dalej jest noc [Night without end] in 2018. Both scholars were soon subjected to a private defamation lawsuit whose claimant appeared to serve as a proxy for the government.
More at Institute of National Remembrance#Criticism. François Robere ( talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@
K.e.coffman - When you initially removed
[7] all negative reviews you claimed undue weight as your rationale:
..my rationale was: "undue weight..[8]
Then you continued and added WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:INDEPENDENT:
WP:NOTADVOCACY comes to mind, and I already linked WP:INDEPENDENT.[9]
Then you removed the content again [10] this time claiming WP:BLP concerns:
I removed the content as the BLP concerns have not been addressed..[11]
What is it K.e.coffman?
PS - I studied through our WP:BLP policy - Negative reviews of a work are not WP:BLP violations - calling them such appear to be an abuse of our BLP policy. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I expanded the "Reactions" section with material from the source already cited, plus a source from pl.wiki: diff. My edit summary was: "expand per source provided + source from pl:Tomasz Domański (historyk)".
Quote from Kończal, Kornelia (2020). "Mnemonic Populism: The Polish Holocaust Law and its Afterlife". European Review: 1–13:
...the Institute of National Remembrance, meanwhile transformed into an agency implementing the state-sponsored politics of memory, commissioned a number of extended critical 'reviews' of Night without an End in Polish and other languages (Lyon-Caen 2019; Domański 2019).
Quote from Ninna Mörner (2020). "Constructions and instrumentalization of the past: a comparative study on memory management in the region". Stockholm. p. 129:
In order to oppose these devastating fundings, the IPN extensively promoted a 72-page critical review of Dalej jest noc, produced in 2019 by a young in-house historian called Tomasz Domański. In September 2020, the IPN launched and promoted Domański’s 110-page report, Korekty ciąg dalszy – a second response to the response of the editors-in-chief and individual authors of Dalej jest noc towards Domański’s first report of 2019.
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Szmenderowiecki - while some of your recent additions to the article are good, there’s also a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR-stretching of what sources actually say. I appreciate the effort but it’s also inappropriate to remove pertinent tags until the objections raised have been adequately addressed. I’ll begin making some changes to your version but I doubt I can immediately address all of it. There’s no deadline here and the tag needs to stay until we get to consensus that everyone is happy with.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the article potentially falls under the ArbCom sourcing restriction - the one Jehochman recently added a notification about. Any kind of controversial or factual claims need to be sourced to extra strong sources. This is particularly true in light of BLP policy especially given the recent attempt to use the article as an attack vehicle against “young historians” who are critical of the authors’ work. Volunteer Marek 22:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
there’s also a lot of WP:SYNTHAs to SYNTH: WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY applies. We don't need to cite other sources to summarise the main points the authors raised. We are indeed a tertiary source, which means by definition we will have to do some sort of summary. Specific examples of SYNTH requested, and ways to address them (either presented on talk or with posted diff). Look up the difference between synthesis and summary and tell me how the general conclusion may not be made based on the sources presented.
and WP:OR-stretching of what sources actually sayThere has been no assertion that a source/sources have been in any way misrepresented before you wrote it, either here on talk or in edit summaries. As this remark alone is too vague, it is not actionable and therefore nothing will be done about it if it stays that way.
I appreciate the effort but it’s also inappropriate to remove pertinent tags until the objections raised have been adequately addressedThe tags applied to the version which had 10K of text, it (had) 40K, so it's not as if these tags must stay until you give your permission to delete them. The expansion IMHO dealt with NPOV well, therefore, the tags were removed. For me to act on any of your proposals, point to exact text and source, say why it's wrong, propose an alternative. I accept no other way of talking here. Because, as my later analysis showed, you've provided no convincing
I’ll begin making some changes to your version but I doubt I can immediately address all of it.The immediate thing you did was deleting a third of the article in a space of 13 minutes, and it is not really possible to make firm conclusions about the quality of the article in that short timespan. If that's the way you have addressed it, well, thank you, but do try to find some less invasive way of doing so. Remember, WP:PRESERVE is policy.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the article potentially falls under the ArbCom sourcing restriction - the one Jehochman recently added a notification about.That's where we agree upon, but it will be imposed by an admin and not you. There is no reason for now to do just that, because the sources that have been previously added are reliable.
This is particularly true in light of BLP policy especially given the recent attempt to use the article as an attack vehicle against “young historians” who are critical of the authors’ work.Quoting from you *
Apparently you think that including scholarly reviews of a person's work which are less than fawning constitutes "BLP violation" but at the same time you have no issue in including text in the article which attacks a young historian (Domanski). This works both ways. Grabowski is not immune from criticism, but neither is Domański. The text added initially was supported by two sources, and the statement of "heavy promotion of Domański's work by IPN" as sourced to two RSs is hardly a BLP violation. (And in fact, most of the criticism is not directed to Domański specifically but to IPN and the govt for their campaign against the book, which details you've removed for whatever reason. Domański is only mentioned in Persak).
Note:
it’s also inappropriate to remove pertinent tags until the objections raised have been adequately addressed, without explaining how they were
pertinentto the new version. Most of the concerns have been OR and SYNTH, but, as I hope I've explained above, they had no merit. There were no NPOV concerns voiced as far as VM's edit summaries went. Therefore, I found that there was no active discussion happening about NPOV at all, at least not the one where the merits were discussed. Moreover, as you might have noticed on my user page,
any statements that cite a policy violation without providing specific examples where the problem exists, according to the editor who reverts content, will be not acted upon as too vague, and any deletions of content based on non-specified allegations of problems within the fragment will get reverted back, with the instruction to provide evidence that the fragment breaks the policy.
when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. This applies to for example JTA. If you want to put that sentence in you need a scholarly source. I will remove it again and you can either find a better source or get consensus to include, but in meantime, you are NOT allowed to restore. I'm happy to give you a pass this time (in the past this is something that people would immediately report to WP:AE) in interest of not propagating WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area but I ask you to please adhere to the ArbCom restriction.
was subject of widespread criticism for basic factual historical errors, you can just as well post links to that effect. Well, I've found one, but with no further corrections, or a retraction, issued, despite pressure from the Polish embassy in Washington (hardly a reliable source, I would say - applying your criteria of sourcing restrictions, none of the organisations noted there pass them), I have to assume that the New Yorker stands by the reporting, and it is in fact not out of order for an outlet to issue a correction, which is what WP:NEWSORGs do. Reading through the AP report you link, I've seen (justified) criticism of the initial byline but it was quickly corrected and the director of Auschwitz was satisfied, except for the irreversible damage done by the initially faulty byline. It would be much worse if the New Yorker did not correct it - I would doubt the usage myself. In any case, we have no choice but to consider it an RS. (If you want to see the scope of correction, there you go). Anyway, this is irrelevant, because the fragment we cite has not been changed. If you want to challenge the source, you don't need me to start an RfC - post one yourself. Good luck. As for JTA, you haven't explained at all what's wrong with the source. The template above doesn't say that WP:NEWSORGs are banned (I haven't seen you challenge the other JTA article, the Rzeczpospolita and the Newsweek PL article, so there's some sort of inconsistency there). That said, since no one actually cared to expand the content section and I don't think anyone will (you've just dissuaded me from doing so), in fact you can forget the JTA source you link. You won't need it anyway.
if there's WP:OR in the article, the way to "FIX IT" is to remove it. If there's WP:SYNTH in the article, the way to FIX IT is to remove it. If there's WP:BLP vios in the article, the way to FIX IT is to remove it. If there's text which is misrepresenting the source, then we either reword, or depending on how badly it misrepresents the source, we remove it. Same goes for stuff which is simply off topic and UNDUE or worse, a WP:COATRACK (like the stuff about the conference [26]).It would have been true if it wasn't a case of WP:TAGBOMBING - excessive, mostly without merits, and with very liberal interpretations (if not to say misunderstandings) of policy, as well as stretched, to say the least, accusations of misinterpretation of underlying policies. They are going to be addressed, again, below. And even then when you say something "needs better representation", that's what you have editorial tools for. Then you say that
Removing problematic text and cutting down wording is precisely what editors (at publishing houses, journals) do. In fact it's the biggest part of the job (mostly because a lot of authors have a tendency to write for themselves rather than for the intended audience). Making the author cut down a manuscript from 13000 words to 8000 words is basically what your job as an editor at a journal is.First, we are not publishing a book, we are editing articles here. Secondly, we aim to write a comprehensive account, without airbrushing or abridging events and behaviours. The journals/book publishers often have word restrictions, we don't. Finally, journals/book publishers need not represent all perspectives - we strive to do just that. The comparison is simply not apt. If that's your excuse to excessive deletions, you'll have to find a better one. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 22:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
"Polish authors vs. the world"but IPN-affiliated authors vs others (including Poles), and I haven't pretended otherwise. This is in fact supported by the four sources that you decided to delete (together with the two paragraph about the conference and the criticism of IPN's activities) - find them here, numbers 8, 17, 20, 44. Pretending these sources don't exist because you've decided to delete the fragment which they reference, together with the references, cannot be described otherwise than disingenious. Other than that, ethnicity isn't probably the best separator but deleting it would create paragraphs that are difficult to navigate, so if you have any better ideas, find them (well, you haven't yet, so now you have an artificial split which makes me wonder of how it is in any way separate from the previous one).
efforts of the (Polish) government, while the original text talked of
government institutions(IPN is a government institution, TVP is not strictly a government institution but is state-run and heavily slanted towards the current govt it in its coverage; the interventions of the embassy of Poland in Paris has not been even mentioned as it really belongs to the main article). Second, the source is [37] and says at the bottom of the sentence
avec victimisation de l'IPN qui conteste le caractère scientifique de l'événement puisqu'elle n'a pas été invité(with the victimisation of IPN that contests the scientific nature of the event as it was not invited). Kichelewski, earlier in the article, describes that the researchers indeed requested to speak, which he didn't object ( Judith Lyon-Caen speaks more of "demanding" (or "requesting") to do that:
Maciej Korkuć a demandé à prendre la parole, estimant que le « point de vue » de l’IPN n’était pas représenté.- Maciej Korkuć requested/demanded to talk, opining that the "point of view" of IPN was not represented). "Demanded" is probably not the best translation of French demander, but given the context, it is not really off the mark, either. The JTA cite refers strictly to the "controversial among the Polish diaspora" part; had I actually finished the whole piece of thought, I'd have placed a full stop, not a semi-colon. So cite 37 in the old version refers to the whole sentence, on both sides of the semi-colon, JTA refers to the parentheses only. Cite 38 could also be cited there.
Wieloletnie prace naukowe prowadzone w Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów PAN sfinalizowano w 2018 roku imponującą dwutomową publikacją (w sumie ponad 1600 stron) pod redakcją naukową Barbary Engelking i Jana Grabowskiego pt. Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski.I know of no dictionary that translates "imponujący" as "extensive". Same here: that they state it in a footnote is actually irrelevant - the fact is, the author considers it to be such, so so long he's not quoted out of context, it's alright to make an en passant mention just like they do in the review. If you need the quote, there you go:
Les résultats ont été publiés en polonais dans un imposant ouvrage en deux volumes : Engelking Barbara, Grabowski Jan (dir.), Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski"For Papier's review, see quote
Ponadto nieocenione na tym polu są badania prowadzone przez Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, bez których – jak się wydaje – nie sposób pisać o lokalnych historiach Zagłady. Mam tu na myśli przede wszystkim dwutomowe wydawnictwo Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski.
if someone files a defamation suit by proxy- what's a "defamation suit by proxy"? Is that a legal term? Or is it... your own WP:OR? And yes, I do plan on expanding that part.
I know of no dictionary that translates "imponujący" as "extensive".... .... .... you know that that sentence is translated into English right in the abstract, right? And it's translated as "extensive". This is how the authors themselves translated it!
Same here- Yes, if it's in footnote that's relevant as it suggests WP:UNDUE and the fact that someone is dredging the depths of the internet to support a particular POV. Same goes for Papier (though there at least it seems it's quoted accurately).
Concurred with the notion of being attacked by an organised campaign by IPN, not with the Holocaust deflection notion.This is simply false. So yes, first thanks for acknowledging that the wording you initially inserted was, ahem, "unfortunate" (someone else may say "false"). But, it is also false that "Libionka concurs with the notion of being attacked by an organised campaign by IPN". He says nothing like this. To his credit, unlike other authors, Libionka actually addresses the merits of the specific criticisms levied by Domanski. One can agree with Libionka here, or one can agree with Domanski, but Libionka is definitely doing what we here on Wikipedia call "discussing content, not editors" (same thing is not true for other responses to Domanski which seek to attack him personally). So, no, he isn't concurring with this either. You are once again falsely misrepresenting the contents of a source. Please stop it. Volunteer Marek 00:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Domański nawet nie stara się ukryć poczucia wyższości wobec przedmiotu swoich analiz, raz po raz popada w ton mentorski. Cały czas konsekwentnie prowadzi czytelnika za rękę i uczy, jak należy naszą książkę czytać. Nie tylko punktuje błędy, lecz przede wszystkim obnaża, ocenia i stygmatyzuje. Od trzech tygodni broszura żyje własnym życiem i osiąga swój cel. Na razie w kraju, choć wkrótce ma zostać przełożona na język angielski, być może też na inne języki kongresowe, mimo że tomy Dalej jest noc dostępne są wyłącznie w języku polskim. Samo to pokazuje, że nie jest to sytuacja zwyczajna i mamy do czynienia z szeroko zakrojoną i sterowaną kampanią propagandową, or, in English:
Domański does not even try to hide his feeling of superiority over the object of his analysis, and systematically adopts a condescending tone. Throughout his review, he guides the reader by the hand, and teaches them how our book should be read. Not only does he tally errors, but primarily tries to expose, pass judgments, and stigmatize. For several weeks, his text has lived a life of its own, and achieves its purpose. For the time being, his text achieves its purpose in Poland, but soon it is to be translated into English and other languages, even though our book is available only in Polish. All this alone shows that we are not dealing with standard practice, but with an extensive and orchestrated propaganda campaign.(underlined fragments indicate the fragment I was referring to). Anything else I can do for you? Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This defamation-by-proxy approach has odd parallels in Russia.In this case, the New Yorker uses it to denote that the plaintiff is not the person against whom allegedly defamatory remarks were made, but rather a relative (and not even the closest one). Again, not my words. Also, I've got two stupid questions to you: you were the second editor to actually edit this article, first time on 13 March 2019, and you've since made three appearances. Why haven't you done it then, and secondly, given that the majority of your edits is deletion or reverts of deletion of additoon of content (as can bee seen here), how is anyone supposed to believe you are going to add something substantial?
Yes, if it's in footnote that's relevant as it suggests WP:UNDUE and the fact that someone is dredging the depths of the internet to support a particular POV.Which is a WP:BALANCE accusation (further confirmed by the template you've put on the top), which necessitates that you present sources that say otherwise. You've provided none. I have, on the other hand, introduced (or re-introduced) them, including critical voices. Remember that UNDUE is about not
fairly represent[ing] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources., and I see no reasons by which the inclusion of these sources is not doing just that. In fact, you are sort of right about putting the BALANCE template - it is giving undue weight to the IPN's researchers. Gontarczyk specialises in Communist Poland history, with only one book about a pogrom that occurred before WWII (1936), but apparently that makes him entitled to regularly speak about the Holocaust. Dawid Golik specialises in the anti-Communist military movements in the first post-war years, which is hardly a qualification to speak about the Holocaust, either. (In all honesty, Janina Hajduk-Nijakowska isn't a specialist of the era, while Vychytil-Baudoux describes makes research into the Polish diaspora; but both, unlike Gontarczyk or Golik, are mentioned in one or two words only).
If there's any other way for you to summarise the general reception with 5 favourable reviews, one somewhat favourable and one rather negative one, let me know.
The response you posted here suggests WP:BALANCE problems. No. As I've explained about as clearly as can be explained, it's a WP:SYNTH problem. You are inserting your own personal opinion, not a claim which can actually be found in sources. (Yes, there's balance problems in the article too, but that is not what my point here was about).
the summary as presented is perfectly appropriate, as can be evidenced in FA-class articles about books and magazines. No. First of all this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. It doesn't matter what other articles do, what matters what policy is. All the same I see no similarity between the FA articles you invoke and the situation here. There's nothing comparable there. Yes, A Handful of Dust, for example, says "The book's initial critical reception was modest", BUT crucially this is actually sourced to a secondary source. That is NOT the case here where there is no source to support your claim. Just your own WP:SYNTH.
I have removed reviews from
Glaukopis and
Zeszyty Historyczne WiN-u, for not meeting
WP:RS. Pursuant to the arbitration remedy governing this page, editors must not reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
10:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
there is no reason to question its credibility) is not sufficient. "These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people", as per WP:RS. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This is simple enough to have an one-word answer - yes/no? TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Does the Historical Commission of the "Freedom and Independence" Association has no involvement with the "Freedom and Independence" Association?
to boost their own history in a rather ahistorical way, how?
as of now, the editorial board is staffed by IPN historians, what's that supposed to mean? The Institute of National Remembrance is an educational and research institution that has employed hundreds of historians and published thousands of publications. Marcelus ( talk) 12:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
safe to assume that they are reliable. I've not seen sufficient evidence; you may wish to make a case at RSN. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
An evidence-free assertion from an editor is not sufficient, it's a peer reviewed scientific journals that is indexed in citation indexes, what do you really need more? The journal is ok, I don't know about the author, but my guess is that he is also ok. And WiN was a democratic, even left-leaning organization, there is no indication that the Historical Commission referring to this tradition was different. Marcelus ( talk) 22:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
As far I didn't find any hard, evidence-based arguments justifying removal of this source. "Zeszyty Historyczne WIN" cannot be compared with "Glaukopis".
It appears that academic scholars are unanimous that the IPN reviews were politically motivated and meritless:
In any case, the leaders and supporters of PiS launched a campaign defaming scholars from the Polish Centre for Holocaust Research – especially Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski – before their book was published and accompanied the debate about it with a combination of discursive and disciplining practices [..] Historians and journalists supporting the government publicly libelled Night without an End as ‘scientific humbug’ (naukowa mistyfikacja) accusing its authors of what they call ‘racism of sources’ (rasizm źródłowy), i.e. the privileging of Jewish over Polish testimonies. Right-wing activists did the same during public events, and the Institute of National Remembrance, meanwhile transformed into an agency implementing the state-sponsored politics of memory, commissioned a number of extended critical ‘reviews’ of Night without an End in Polish and other languages.
— Kończal, K. (2021). Mnemonic Populism: The Polish Holocaust Law and its Afterlife. European Review, 29(4), 457-469.
[H]undreds of millions of dollars have been invested in an academic-bureaucratic infrastructure, the Institute of National Remembrance (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, IPN), whose mission is to uphold the state-sponsored narratives of the past and to combat any scholarship critical of them.
Although the IPN has been controversial since its founding in 1999, it has fluctuated between periods of lesser and greater politicization for most of its history [..] [B]y 2016, foreshadowing the controversy in 2018, the IPN’s duties were expanded by the PiS government to include “popularizing .. the recent history of Poland as an element of patriotic education” and “counteracting the spread at home and abroad of information and publications with false historical content detrimental to or slanderous of the Polish Republic or Polish Nation.” The IPN is correspondingly led by historians committed to the exculpatory myth of the war [..]
Dalej jest noc (trans. Night without End) is a massive two-volume microhistory of the Holocaust in rural Poland published in 2018 and authored by the leading scholars grouped around the Center for Holocaust Research, including Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, Dariusz Libionka, and Alina Skibińska [..] The rebuttal [by Domański of IPN] takes hairsplitting issue with everything from the definition of the word “strategy” to the number of pages in each chapter, all the while inveighing against “paraliterary” writing, “unscientific practices,” and “publicistic deviations.” But its main purpose is to repeat the key element of the myth of the war—that insofar as crimes against Jews are concerned, Poles had no agency whatsoever. The author describes the Polish countryside as being under “total German occupation” and the representatives of the village administration—the headmen, watchmen, firemen, and others—as being utterly captive to German orders. The Blue Police, too, were either helpless pawns or treated Poles as badly as they did Jews. The Jews themselves engaged in crimes ranging from theft to denunciation. German policemen and informers lurked everywhere, enforcing total compliance with Nazi regulations.
Demonstrating the profound and enduring contradiction of postwar justice in Poland—that the process is written off as “political” justice even as the results are used to underpin the myth of the past—the IPN author alternates between casting suspicion on the trials and citing their acquittals as proof of the innocence of the accused. On the one hand, according to the author, they were “communist trials” produced under the so-called “‘justice system’ of a totalitarian regime.” [..] On the other hand, he accepts acquittals issued by the courts without question and takes to task the contributors to Dalej jest noc for not doing the same.
— Kornbluth, Andrew. " Conclusion: The Conspiracy of Memory". The August Trials: The Holocaust and Postwar Justice in Poland, Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press, 2021, pp. 269-282.
[T]he IPN [has] initiated a skillful new strategy of marginalizing critical history writing about Polish-Jewish relations before, during and after the Holocaust. This strategy is characterized by three main elements: The first is to present and promote a central “counter-memory” to counterbalance the “dark history”; the second is to systematically underscore the “feel-good soothing history” of which Poles can be proud of concerning their relations with the Jewish community. The latter has particularly been achieved through the political manipulation of the history and memory of Polish rescuers of Jews, a subject that deserves a comprehensive study and that could be essential in educating civil society. However, at present, the history of rescuers has been almost entirely hijacked by the right-wing conservative political elites [..]
The third element of the IPN’s strategy to eradicate critical history of Polish-Jewish relations is the orchestration of a wide “against campaign” in the mass and social media and in institutes of higher education in both Poland and abroad [..] One of its best recent examples is the official IPN reaction to the collective two volumes edited by Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski, Dalej jest noc: losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski, (trans. Night without End: The Fate of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland) and published in early 2018. The 1700 page study reveals that 60% of the Jewish fugitives were denounced or killed by their Christian neighbors during the last phase of the Holocaust from 1943 to 1945. In order to oppose these devastating findings, the IPN extensively promoted a 72-page critical review of Dalej jest noc, produced in 2019 by a young in-house historian called Tomasz Domański. In September 2020, the IPN launched and promoted Domański’s 110-page report, Korekty ciąg dalszy – a second response to the response of the editors-in-chief and individual authors of Dalej jest noc towards Domański’s first report of 2019. Simultaneously, to counteract the scope of the dark past exposed in Dalej jest noc, the IPN orchestrated a variety of conferences, seminars and exhibitions in Poland and abroad devoted to the history of Polish rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust [..]
The academic community of historians and other scholars and artists have been watching with concern, if not tribulation, various past and present attempts and future plans on the part of the PiS to reshape the humanities and the production of historical knowledge in higher education and the history curriculum at schools, national cultural institutions and various NGOs – agents of civil society.
— Michlic, Joanna B. "History "Wars" and the Battle for Truth and National Memory" in Ninna Mörner, ed., State of the Region Report Constructions and Instrumentalizations of the Past. A Comparative Study on Memory Management in the Region. Stockholm: CBEES/Elanders. January 2021
Polish historians stood on both sides of the dispute, for and against the government's memory law and more general 'history policy'. Those employed by the IPN were obliged to support the government's policy. Liberal historians who had previously worked for the IPN under the more liberal regime and academics in general became the targets of this policy, especially those who had been investigating Polish complicity in crimes against Jews. Even before the memory law, the Polish government had attacked as enemies of the nation prominent Holocaust historians such as Jan Tomasz Gross, Jan Grabowski, Barbara Engelking, and Jacek Leociak, who had conducted research on Poles' complicity in actions against Jews. Right-wing groups also protested against the international support for these historians and the institutions with which they were affiliated, and called for the cancellation of international conferences they wanted to attend because of their 'anti-Polish character'.
The IPN took part in these efforts through official statements calling for the dissemination Of the history policy in universities and educational institutes. The IPN also produced historical material that supported the official view for state- sponsored institutions, like the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk, and attempted to undermine the work Of the self-critical historians, for example through the dissemination of scholarly reviews that criticized their work. [Endnote: For such reviews of Dalej jest noc, see ...]
— Gutman, Yifat, and Elazar Barkan. “ Israel and Poland Confront Holocaust Memory.” Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry Volume 35: Promised Lands: Jews, Poland, and the Land of Israel, edited by Israel Bartal et al., Liverpool University Press, 2023, pp. 410–34.
This criticism [of Dalej jest noc], especially from researchers at the Institute of National Remembrance (Instytut Pamiqci Narodowej, IPN), has been as extensive as is detailed. And indeed some errors can be found in this collaborative work of the Polish Center for Holocaust Research. At the same time, despite the efforts to take care and be thorough, such errors can hardly be avoided in a work totalling 1,700 pages. Even if highly specialised scholars examine every footnote and every single statement, there will still probably be things to complain about in any given research publication on any topic — here only he or she who is without guilt should be allowed to throw the first stone. The main question seems to be what these — in the end rather marginal — corrections fundamentally mean. Research thrives on discussion, and of course, it is as legitimate as it is reasonable to correct mistakes and errors. However, the thrust here is political, because it is more about discrediting some overall statements and conclusions through criticism of details. This is a popular defamatory discourse strategy along the lines of: 'If footnote 1376 is incorrect, everything else must be wrong as well'. This procedure lends itself to being used to avoid an actual discussion of the overall findings and analysis, and usually is not even aimed at one.
— Lehnstaedt, Stephan. "Review of Dalej jest noc" Acta Poloniae Historica. CXXI. June 2020
Tymczasem w ostatnim okresie aktywność Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej, jeśli chodzi o problematykę Zagłady, w znacznej mierze skupiała się – ze szkodą dla badań podstawowych – raczej na polemice z innymi badaczami, prezentującymi odmienny od oϐicjalnie pożądanego obraz postaw Polaków wobec Żydów. [Footnote: Mam na myśli udział niektórych historyków z IPN w nagonce przeciwko autorom pracy Dalej jest noc. Zob. Tomasz Domański ...]
Wikipedia needs to reflect that. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
editors must not reinstate the source [and the content] without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Your actions in the subject of Holocaust-related books are disturbing, because you remove mention of negative reviews of books you consider good and positive reviews of books you consider bad.- Please take such concerns to AE or ArbCom. This t/p is not about my behaviour.
is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
I’m sure what the remedy says but you can ask if you are not sure.is added and subsequently challenged by reversion
...the 2018 law officially changed the mission statement of the Institute of National Remembrance, a state research body created in 1988 to investigate Nazi- and Soviet-era crimes, to include “protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation.” The rebranding immediately led many scholars to dub the Institute “the Ministry of Memory,” the Orwellian accent clear.
Why the tags were removed? It's not clear who is making what claims, that's badly written section. Especially since it replaced much better sourced version, that was removed without any justification ( WP:OWNBEHAVIOR by @ TrangaBellam) Marcelus ( talk) 18:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
as if all IPN-affiliated historians criticized the book (which is not true)- Fixed.
not all the people you quote are historians- Huh? For your aid:
TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Andrew Kornbluth holds a PhD in Eastern European history from the University of California, Berkeley. The book based on his dissertation research, The August Trials: The Holocaust and Postwar Justice in Poland , won the 2020 Ernst Fraenkel Prize from the Wiener Holocaust Library, the 2022 Salo Wittmayer Baron Book Prize from the American Academy for Jewish Research, and the 2022 Reginald Zelnik Book Prize from the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian studies.
— https://www.american.edu/cas/events/calendar/?id=3274817
politically motivated:
[T]he Institute of National Remembrance, meanwhile transformed into an agency implementing the state-sponsored politics of memory, commissioned a number of extended critical ‘reviews’ of Night without an End in Polish and other languages [..]
— Konczal
However, the thrust [of the review] is political, because it is more about discrediting some overall statements and conclusions through criticism of details.
— Lehnstaedt
Although the IPN has been controversial since its founding in 1999, it has fluctuated between periods of lesser and greater politicization for most of its history [..] [B]y 2016, foreshadowing the controversy in 2018, the IPN’s duties were expanded by the PiS government to [..] The IPN is correspondingly led by historians committed to the exculpatory myth of the war [..]
[The review's] main purpose is to repeat the key element of the myth of the war [..]
— Kornbluth
Those employed by the IPN were obliged to support the government's policy [..] The IPN also produced historical material that supported the official view for state-sponsored institutions, like the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk, and attempted to undermine the work of the self-critical historians, for example through the dissemination of scholarly reviews that criticized their work.
— Gutman
unscholarly:
insignificant
The main question seems to be what these — in the end rather marginal — corrections fundamentally mean [..] This is a popular defamatory discourse strategy along the lines of: 'If footnote 1376 is incorrect, everything else must be wrong as well'.
— Lehnstaedt
adopted a "hairsplitting" approach:
The rebuttal [by Domański of IPN] takes hairsplitting issue with everything from the definition of the word “strategy” to the number of pages in each chapter, all the while inveighing against “paraliterary” writing, “unscientific practices,” and “publicistic deviations.”
— Kornbluth
combing through every footnote and statement:
Even if highly specialised scholars examine every footnote and every single statement, there will still probably be things to complain about in any given research publication on any topic [...]
— Lehnstaedt
polemics
Tymczasem w ostatnim okresie aktywność Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej, jeśli chodzi o problematykę Zagłady, w znacznej mierze skupiała się – ze szkodą dla badań podstawowych – raczej na polemice z innymi badaczami, prezentującymi odmienny od oϐicjalnie pożądanego obraz postaw Polaków wobec Żydów.
— Persak
mainstream the right-wing conception of Polish history:
push back against all critical narratives:
[T]he IPN [has] initiated a skillful new strategy of marginalizing critical history writing about Polish-Jewish relations before, during and after the Holocaust [..] The third element of the IPN’s strategy to eradicate critical history of Polish-Jewish relations is the orchestration of a wide “against campaign” in the mass and social media and in institutes of higher education in both Poland and abroad [..] One of its best recent examples is the official IPN reaction to the collective two volumes [...]
— Michlic
The IPN also produced historical material that supported the official view for state-sponsored institutions, like the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk, and attempted to undermine the work of the self-critical historians, for example through the dissemination of scholarly reviews that criticized their work. [Endnote: For such reviews of Dalej jest noc, see ...]
— Gutman
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations (9 May 2021): The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "undue weight given to state-affiliated IPN publications and state employees; the refutations of them are unneeded." -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
BBC is known for its editorial independence; it's publicly financed but it's not part of the government, unlike the IPN. As to the IPN:
...the 2018 law officially changed the mission statement of the Institute of National Remembrance, a state research body created in 1988 to investigate Nazi- and Soviet-era crimes, to include “protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation.” The rebranding immediately led many scholars to dub the Institute “the Ministry of Memory,” the Orwellian accent clear.
Source: "The Political Battle Over Poland’s Holocaust History: A libel verdict against two historians marks a new stage in the Polish government’s campaign to control the narrative of the country’s wartime past.", by Lawrence Douglas in the Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2021: [6].
As far as scholars describing IPN-affiliated historians' reviews as an example of a smear campaign against the book
, why enable the smear campaign further by including it, sourced to said historians directly, on this page?
WP:BLP applies to the article on the book as well. If the controversy over the IPN statements is sufficiently impactful, then it would be covered in third-party sources. They can then be used to discuss the controversy, rather than including the unfiltered opinions as if they were dispassionate contributions to a scholarly debate. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
to a large extentIPN
is compromised;
from a right-wing and nationalist perspective;
IPN is more of an echo chamber of nationalist historians
the proper contextis achieved through the use third-party sources that would discuss such controversy. If other historians do it, then it can definitely be included, without raising BLP concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
it still hosts historians who publish, well, valid research"), but they are clearly biased and we have to take this into account. I don't think bias is negatively impacting reliability in every of these cases, but I would label the historians pretty suspect (yellow in RSP terms). Hell, even quite respected scholars as Norman Davies commit stupid blunders. Given that all the reviews of that particular book but one was favourable, and that one proved to be actually correct in one of its aspects (factual errors), I'm extra careful after that to remove minoritarian viewpoints. True, the IPN's historians might be disinforming - all the more reason to find sources stating this.
Do we actually have a reliable source saying that "reviews published by Poland's Institute of National Remembrance have criticized Dalej jest noc for ...", or is that us editorializing by SYNTH the primary sources themselves (e.g. reviews published by the IPN) to say this?They are in the Polish article + those that got deleted. It's not editorialising, it's a summary of their ideas. If articles published in IPN-affiliated outlets or among the conservative historians simply repeat the same thing, we don't need a source to say that this indeed is a case, other than the reviews themselves + wikilinks to respective historians where their political/historical orientation is stated. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 02:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
"reviews published by Poland's Institute of National Remembrance have criticized Dalej jest noc for ...", or is that us editorializing by SYNTH the primary sources themselves (e.g. reviews published by the IPN) to say this? Besides, if this (e.g. reviews published by the IPN) is the only remaining scholarly criticism of the book (e.g. it was mainly criticized by IPN's publications), which otherwise received positive reviews, it may be telling in light of BLP and the controversy. It is not unusual some sources are generally reliable but there is a period where they are not, or where other considerations apply, which may well be the case of IPN since 2018. Davide King ( talk) 06:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
... polemical statements of government employees, from the organization whose stated mission is to "protect the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation".I'm talking about pl:Tomasz Domański (historyk), pl:Dawid Golik, Piotr Gontarczyk who are IPN employees. Karolina Panz of the Polish Academy of Sciences was not cited in our article, and consequently not removed by me as a source. Instead, she is a subject of an article by Golik because she's one of the contributors to Dalej jest noc. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
So what I'm seeing here are 3 users clearly in favour of the restoration of the removed criticism, and 2 users are against it. The consensus appears to be to restore the text eliminated by K.e.Coffman. I'm going to act based on that. Thank you for participating in this consensus-building process. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 15:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussion moved to user talk page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Piotrus: Are you the same Piotr Konieczny mentioned in Domański's review (p. 715, n. 141)? And don't you have a COI here because of having written this article about Grabowski? Levivich 03:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
|
I removed the content as the BLP concerns have not been addressed, given that the criticism is coming from one org, whose stated mission is to "protect the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation". Additionally, I don't see the consensus for restoration.
Szmenderowiecki mentions the need for context and some scholars who describe IPN-affiliated historians' reviews as an example of a smear campaign
. Arguments by
Piotrus are based in part on the mistaken assumption that a citation to Karolina Panz of Polish Academy of Sciences were also removed. Panz is actually one of the contributors to the book. Etc. This is BLP related material and Wikipedia should not serve as a publishing platform for such a campaign. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
20:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
With its international activity below par, the IPN resonates almost completely in a national framework of memory politics. But as a state political (and politicised) institution, it functions rather as a propaganda outlet and a ‘Ministry of Historical Truth’ operating under the false presumption that there is one objective truth about the past.
Nonetheless, PiS had managed to gain a great deal of influence over the Institute of National Remembrance... Under the leadership of Janusz Kurtyka from 2005 until his death in 2010, the Institute became a lead sponsor of a historiography of rebuttal, obfuscation (with its emphasis on Polish rescuers) and denial, not of the Holocaust per se, but of growing evidence of Polish participation in it in studies published by the Center for Holocaust Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences... Of course, nothing threatened the Polish nationalist grip on the wartime narrative than scholarship on Poles who aided and abetted Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, particularly that of Jan Grabowski in his 2011 Judenjagd. Grabowski and his collaborator Barbara Engelking then took this model to organize a collaborative research project embracing nine counties and published as Dalej jest noc [Night without end] in 2018. Both scholars were soon subjected to a private defamation lawsuit whose claimant appeared to serve as a proxy for the government.
More at Institute of National Remembrance#Criticism. François Robere ( talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@
K.e.coffman - When you initially removed
[7] all negative reviews you claimed undue weight as your rationale:
..my rationale was: "undue weight..[8]
Then you continued and added WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:INDEPENDENT:
WP:NOTADVOCACY comes to mind, and I already linked WP:INDEPENDENT.[9]
Then you removed the content again [10] this time claiming WP:BLP concerns:
I removed the content as the BLP concerns have not been addressed..[11]
What is it K.e.coffman?
PS - I studied through our WP:BLP policy - Negative reviews of a work are not WP:BLP violations - calling them such appear to be an abuse of our BLP policy. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I expanded the "Reactions" section with material from the source already cited, plus a source from pl.wiki: diff. My edit summary was: "expand per source provided + source from pl:Tomasz Domański (historyk)".
Quote from Kończal, Kornelia (2020). "Mnemonic Populism: The Polish Holocaust Law and its Afterlife". European Review: 1–13:
...the Institute of National Remembrance, meanwhile transformed into an agency implementing the state-sponsored politics of memory, commissioned a number of extended critical 'reviews' of Night without an End in Polish and other languages (Lyon-Caen 2019; Domański 2019).
Quote from Ninna Mörner (2020). "Constructions and instrumentalization of the past: a comparative study on memory management in the region". Stockholm. p. 129:
In order to oppose these devastating fundings, the IPN extensively promoted a 72-page critical review of Dalej jest noc, produced in 2019 by a young in-house historian called Tomasz Domański. In September 2020, the IPN launched and promoted Domański’s 110-page report, Korekty ciąg dalszy – a second response to the response of the editors-in-chief and individual authors of Dalej jest noc towards Domański’s first report of 2019.
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Szmenderowiecki - while some of your recent additions to the article are good, there’s also a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR-stretching of what sources actually say. I appreciate the effort but it’s also inappropriate to remove pertinent tags until the objections raised have been adequately addressed. I’ll begin making some changes to your version but I doubt I can immediately address all of it. There’s no deadline here and the tag needs to stay until we get to consensus that everyone is happy with.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the article potentially falls under the ArbCom sourcing restriction - the one Jehochman recently added a notification about. Any kind of controversial or factual claims need to be sourced to extra strong sources. This is particularly true in light of BLP policy especially given the recent attempt to use the article as an attack vehicle against “young historians” who are critical of the authors’ work. Volunteer Marek 22:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
there’s also a lot of WP:SYNTHAs to SYNTH: WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY applies. We don't need to cite other sources to summarise the main points the authors raised. We are indeed a tertiary source, which means by definition we will have to do some sort of summary. Specific examples of SYNTH requested, and ways to address them (either presented on talk or with posted diff). Look up the difference between synthesis and summary and tell me how the general conclusion may not be made based on the sources presented.
and WP:OR-stretching of what sources actually sayThere has been no assertion that a source/sources have been in any way misrepresented before you wrote it, either here on talk or in edit summaries. As this remark alone is too vague, it is not actionable and therefore nothing will be done about it if it stays that way.
I appreciate the effort but it’s also inappropriate to remove pertinent tags until the objections raised have been adequately addressedThe tags applied to the version which had 10K of text, it (had) 40K, so it's not as if these tags must stay until you give your permission to delete them. The expansion IMHO dealt with NPOV well, therefore, the tags were removed. For me to act on any of your proposals, point to exact text and source, say why it's wrong, propose an alternative. I accept no other way of talking here. Because, as my later analysis showed, you've provided no convincing
I’ll begin making some changes to your version but I doubt I can immediately address all of it.The immediate thing you did was deleting a third of the article in a space of 13 minutes, and it is not really possible to make firm conclusions about the quality of the article in that short timespan. If that's the way you have addressed it, well, thank you, but do try to find some less invasive way of doing so. Remember, WP:PRESERVE is policy.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the article potentially falls under the ArbCom sourcing restriction - the one Jehochman recently added a notification about.That's where we agree upon, but it will be imposed by an admin and not you. There is no reason for now to do just that, because the sources that have been previously added are reliable.
This is particularly true in light of BLP policy especially given the recent attempt to use the article as an attack vehicle against “young historians” who are critical of the authors’ work.Quoting from you *
Apparently you think that including scholarly reviews of a person's work which are less than fawning constitutes "BLP violation" but at the same time you have no issue in including text in the article which attacks a young historian (Domanski). This works both ways. Grabowski is not immune from criticism, but neither is Domański. The text added initially was supported by two sources, and the statement of "heavy promotion of Domański's work by IPN" as sourced to two RSs is hardly a BLP violation. (And in fact, most of the criticism is not directed to Domański specifically but to IPN and the govt for their campaign against the book, which details you've removed for whatever reason. Domański is only mentioned in Persak).
Note:
it’s also inappropriate to remove pertinent tags until the objections raised have been adequately addressed, without explaining how they were
pertinentto the new version. Most of the concerns have been OR and SYNTH, but, as I hope I've explained above, they had no merit. There were no NPOV concerns voiced as far as VM's edit summaries went. Therefore, I found that there was no active discussion happening about NPOV at all, at least not the one where the merits were discussed. Moreover, as you might have noticed on my user page,
any statements that cite a policy violation without providing specific examples where the problem exists, according to the editor who reverts content, will be not acted upon as too vague, and any deletions of content based on non-specified allegations of problems within the fragment will get reverted back, with the instruction to provide evidence that the fragment breaks the policy.
when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. This applies to for example JTA. If you want to put that sentence in you need a scholarly source. I will remove it again and you can either find a better source or get consensus to include, but in meantime, you are NOT allowed to restore. I'm happy to give you a pass this time (in the past this is something that people would immediately report to WP:AE) in interest of not propagating WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area but I ask you to please adhere to the ArbCom restriction.
was subject of widespread criticism for basic factual historical errors, you can just as well post links to that effect. Well, I've found one, but with no further corrections, or a retraction, issued, despite pressure from the Polish embassy in Washington (hardly a reliable source, I would say - applying your criteria of sourcing restrictions, none of the organisations noted there pass them), I have to assume that the New Yorker stands by the reporting, and it is in fact not out of order for an outlet to issue a correction, which is what WP:NEWSORGs do. Reading through the AP report you link, I've seen (justified) criticism of the initial byline but it was quickly corrected and the director of Auschwitz was satisfied, except for the irreversible damage done by the initially faulty byline. It would be much worse if the New Yorker did not correct it - I would doubt the usage myself. In any case, we have no choice but to consider it an RS. (If you want to see the scope of correction, there you go). Anyway, this is irrelevant, because the fragment we cite has not been changed. If you want to challenge the source, you don't need me to start an RfC - post one yourself. Good luck. As for JTA, you haven't explained at all what's wrong with the source. The template above doesn't say that WP:NEWSORGs are banned (I haven't seen you challenge the other JTA article, the Rzeczpospolita and the Newsweek PL article, so there's some sort of inconsistency there). That said, since no one actually cared to expand the content section and I don't think anyone will (you've just dissuaded me from doing so), in fact you can forget the JTA source you link. You won't need it anyway.
if there's WP:OR in the article, the way to "FIX IT" is to remove it. If there's WP:SYNTH in the article, the way to FIX IT is to remove it. If there's WP:BLP vios in the article, the way to FIX IT is to remove it. If there's text which is misrepresenting the source, then we either reword, or depending on how badly it misrepresents the source, we remove it. Same goes for stuff which is simply off topic and UNDUE or worse, a WP:COATRACK (like the stuff about the conference [26]).It would have been true if it wasn't a case of WP:TAGBOMBING - excessive, mostly without merits, and with very liberal interpretations (if not to say misunderstandings) of policy, as well as stretched, to say the least, accusations of misinterpretation of underlying policies. They are going to be addressed, again, below. And even then when you say something "needs better representation", that's what you have editorial tools for. Then you say that
Removing problematic text and cutting down wording is precisely what editors (at publishing houses, journals) do. In fact it's the biggest part of the job (mostly because a lot of authors have a tendency to write for themselves rather than for the intended audience). Making the author cut down a manuscript from 13000 words to 8000 words is basically what your job as an editor at a journal is.First, we are not publishing a book, we are editing articles here. Secondly, we aim to write a comprehensive account, without airbrushing or abridging events and behaviours. The journals/book publishers often have word restrictions, we don't. Finally, journals/book publishers need not represent all perspectives - we strive to do just that. The comparison is simply not apt. If that's your excuse to excessive deletions, you'll have to find a better one. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 22:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
"Polish authors vs. the world"but IPN-affiliated authors vs others (including Poles), and I haven't pretended otherwise. This is in fact supported by the four sources that you decided to delete (together with the two paragraph about the conference and the criticism of IPN's activities) - find them here, numbers 8, 17, 20, 44. Pretending these sources don't exist because you've decided to delete the fragment which they reference, together with the references, cannot be described otherwise than disingenious. Other than that, ethnicity isn't probably the best separator but deleting it would create paragraphs that are difficult to navigate, so if you have any better ideas, find them (well, you haven't yet, so now you have an artificial split which makes me wonder of how it is in any way separate from the previous one).
efforts of the (Polish) government, while the original text talked of
government institutions(IPN is a government institution, TVP is not strictly a government institution but is state-run and heavily slanted towards the current govt it in its coverage; the interventions of the embassy of Poland in Paris has not been even mentioned as it really belongs to the main article). Second, the source is [37] and says at the bottom of the sentence
avec victimisation de l'IPN qui conteste le caractère scientifique de l'événement puisqu'elle n'a pas été invité(with the victimisation of IPN that contests the scientific nature of the event as it was not invited). Kichelewski, earlier in the article, describes that the researchers indeed requested to speak, which he didn't object ( Judith Lyon-Caen speaks more of "demanding" (or "requesting") to do that:
Maciej Korkuć a demandé à prendre la parole, estimant que le « point de vue » de l’IPN n’était pas représenté.- Maciej Korkuć requested/demanded to talk, opining that the "point of view" of IPN was not represented). "Demanded" is probably not the best translation of French demander, but given the context, it is not really off the mark, either. The JTA cite refers strictly to the "controversial among the Polish diaspora" part; had I actually finished the whole piece of thought, I'd have placed a full stop, not a semi-colon. So cite 37 in the old version refers to the whole sentence, on both sides of the semi-colon, JTA refers to the parentheses only. Cite 38 could also be cited there.
Wieloletnie prace naukowe prowadzone w Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów PAN sfinalizowano w 2018 roku imponującą dwutomową publikacją (w sumie ponad 1600 stron) pod redakcją naukową Barbary Engelking i Jana Grabowskiego pt. Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski.I know of no dictionary that translates "imponujący" as "extensive". Same here: that they state it in a footnote is actually irrelevant - the fact is, the author considers it to be such, so so long he's not quoted out of context, it's alright to make an en passant mention just like they do in the review. If you need the quote, there you go:
Les résultats ont été publiés en polonais dans un imposant ouvrage en deux volumes : Engelking Barbara, Grabowski Jan (dir.), Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski"For Papier's review, see quote
Ponadto nieocenione na tym polu są badania prowadzone przez Centrum Badań nad Zagładą Żydów, bez których – jak się wydaje – nie sposób pisać o lokalnych historiach Zagłady. Mam tu na myśli przede wszystkim dwutomowe wydawnictwo Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski.
if someone files a defamation suit by proxy- what's a "defamation suit by proxy"? Is that a legal term? Or is it... your own WP:OR? And yes, I do plan on expanding that part.
I know of no dictionary that translates "imponujący" as "extensive".... .... .... you know that that sentence is translated into English right in the abstract, right? And it's translated as "extensive". This is how the authors themselves translated it!
Same here- Yes, if it's in footnote that's relevant as it suggests WP:UNDUE and the fact that someone is dredging the depths of the internet to support a particular POV. Same goes for Papier (though there at least it seems it's quoted accurately).
Concurred with the notion of being attacked by an organised campaign by IPN, not with the Holocaust deflection notion.This is simply false. So yes, first thanks for acknowledging that the wording you initially inserted was, ahem, "unfortunate" (someone else may say "false"). But, it is also false that "Libionka concurs with the notion of being attacked by an organised campaign by IPN". He says nothing like this. To his credit, unlike other authors, Libionka actually addresses the merits of the specific criticisms levied by Domanski. One can agree with Libionka here, or one can agree with Domanski, but Libionka is definitely doing what we here on Wikipedia call "discussing content, not editors" (same thing is not true for other responses to Domanski which seek to attack him personally). So, no, he isn't concurring with this either. You are once again falsely misrepresenting the contents of a source. Please stop it. Volunteer Marek 00:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Domański nawet nie stara się ukryć poczucia wyższości wobec przedmiotu swoich analiz, raz po raz popada w ton mentorski. Cały czas konsekwentnie prowadzi czytelnika za rękę i uczy, jak należy naszą książkę czytać. Nie tylko punktuje błędy, lecz przede wszystkim obnaża, ocenia i stygmatyzuje. Od trzech tygodni broszura żyje własnym życiem i osiąga swój cel. Na razie w kraju, choć wkrótce ma zostać przełożona na język angielski, być może też na inne języki kongresowe, mimo że tomy Dalej jest noc dostępne są wyłącznie w języku polskim. Samo to pokazuje, że nie jest to sytuacja zwyczajna i mamy do czynienia z szeroko zakrojoną i sterowaną kampanią propagandową, or, in English:
Domański does not even try to hide his feeling of superiority over the object of his analysis, and systematically adopts a condescending tone. Throughout his review, he guides the reader by the hand, and teaches them how our book should be read. Not only does he tally errors, but primarily tries to expose, pass judgments, and stigmatize. For several weeks, his text has lived a life of its own, and achieves its purpose. For the time being, his text achieves its purpose in Poland, but soon it is to be translated into English and other languages, even though our book is available only in Polish. All this alone shows that we are not dealing with standard practice, but with an extensive and orchestrated propaganda campaign.(underlined fragments indicate the fragment I was referring to). Anything else I can do for you? Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
This defamation-by-proxy approach has odd parallels in Russia.In this case, the New Yorker uses it to denote that the plaintiff is not the person against whom allegedly defamatory remarks were made, but rather a relative (and not even the closest one). Again, not my words. Also, I've got two stupid questions to you: you were the second editor to actually edit this article, first time on 13 March 2019, and you've since made three appearances. Why haven't you done it then, and secondly, given that the majority of your edits is deletion or reverts of deletion of additoon of content (as can bee seen here), how is anyone supposed to believe you are going to add something substantial?
Yes, if it's in footnote that's relevant as it suggests WP:UNDUE and the fact that someone is dredging the depths of the internet to support a particular POV.Which is a WP:BALANCE accusation (further confirmed by the template you've put on the top), which necessitates that you present sources that say otherwise. You've provided none. I have, on the other hand, introduced (or re-introduced) them, including critical voices. Remember that UNDUE is about not
fairly represent[ing] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources., and I see no reasons by which the inclusion of these sources is not doing just that. In fact, you are sort of right about putting the BALANCE template - it is giving undue weight to the IPN's researchers. Gontarczyk specialises in Communist Poland history, with only one book about a pogrom that occurred before WWII (1936), but apparently that makes him entitled to regularly speak about the Holocaust. Dawid Golik specialises in the anti-Communist military movements in the first post-war years, which is hardly a qualification to speak about the Holocaust, either. (In all honesty, Janina Hajduk-Nijakowska isn't a specialist of the era, while Vychytil-Baudoux describes makes research into the Polish diaspora; but both, unlike Gontarczyk or Golik, are mentioned in one or two words only).
If there's any other way for you to summarise the general reception with 5 favourable reviews, one somewhat favourable and one rather negative one, let me know.
The response you posted here suggests WP:BALANCE problems. No. As I've explained about as clearly as can be explained, it's a WP:SYNTH problem. You are inserting your own personal opinion, not a claim which can actually be found in sources. (Yes, there's balance problems in the article too, but that is not what my point here was about).
the summary as presented is perfectly appropriate, as can be evidenced in FA-class articles about books and magazines. No. First of all this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. It doesn't matter what other articles do, what matters what policy is. All the same I see no similarity between the FA articles you invoke and the situation here. There's nothing comparable there. Yes, A Handful of Dust, for example, says "The book's initial critical reception was modest", BUT crucially this is actually sourced to a secondary source. That is NOT the case here where there is no source to support your claim. Just your own WP:SYNTH.
I have removed reviews from
Glaukopis and
Zeszyty Historyczne WiN-u, for not meeting
WP:RS. Pursuant to the arbitration remedy governing this page, editors must not reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
10:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
there is no reason to question its credibility) is not sufficient. "These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people", as per WP:RS. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This is simple enough to have an one-word answer - yes/no? TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Does the Historical Commission of the "Freedom and Independence" Association has no involvement with the "Freedom and Independence" Association?
to boost their own history in a rather ahistorical way, how?
as of now, the editorial board is staffed by IPN historians, what's that supposed to mean? The Institute of National Remembrance is an educational and research institution that has employed hundreds of historians and published thousands of publications. Marcelus ( talk) 12:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
safe to assume that they are reliable. I've not seen sufficient evidence; you may wish to make a case at RSN. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
An evidence-free assertion from an editor is not sufficient, it's a peer reviewed scientific journals that is indexed in citation indexes, what do you really need more? The journal is ok, I don't know about the author, but my guess is that he is also ok. And WiN was a democratic, even left-leaning organization, there is no indication that the Historical Commission referring to this tradition was different. Marcelus ( talk) 22:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
As far I didn't find any hard, evidence-based arguments justifying removal of this source. "Zeszyty Historyczne WIN" cannot be compared with "Glaukopis".
It appears that academic scholars are unanimous that the IPN reviews were politically motivated and meritless:
In any case, the leaders and supporters of PiS launched a campaign defaming scholars from the Polish Centre for Holocaust Research – especially Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski – before their book was published and accompanied the debate about it with a combination of discursive and disciplining practices [..] Historians and journalists supporting the government publicly libelled Night without an End as ‘scientific humbug’ (naukowa mistyfikacja) accusing its authors of what they call ‘racism of sources’ (rasizm źródłowy), i.e. the privileging of Jewish over Polish testimonies. Right-wing activists did the same during public events, and the Institute of National Remembrance, meanwhile transformed into an agency implementing the state-sponsored politics of memory, commissioned a number of extended critical ‘reviews’ of Night without an End in Polish and other languages.
— Kończal, K. (2021). Mnemonic Populism: The Polish Holocaust Law and its Afterlife. European Review, 29(4), 457-469.
[H]undreds of millions of dollars have been invested in an academic-bureaucratic infrastructure, the Institute of National Remembrance (Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, IPN), whose mission is to uphold the state-sponsored narratives of the past and to combat any scholarship critical of them.
Although the IPN has been controversial since its founding in 1999, it has fluctuated between periods of lesser and greater politicization for most of its history [..] [B]y 2016, foreshadowing the controversy in 2018, the IPN’s duties were expanded by the PiS government to include “popularizing .. the recent history of Poland as an element of patriotic education” and “counteracting the spread at home and abroad of information and publications with false historical content detrimental to or slanderous of the Polish Republic or Polish Nation.” The IPN is correspondingly led by historians committed to the exculpatory myth of the war [..]
Dalej jest noc (trans. Night without End) is a massive two-volume microhistory of the Holocaust in rural Poland published in 2018 and authored by the leading scholars grouped around the Center for Holocaust Research, including Barbara Engelking, Jan Grabowski, Dariusz Libionka, and Alina Skibińska [..] The rebuttal [by Domański of IPN] takes hairsplitting issue with everything from the definition of the word “strategy” to the number of pages in each chapter, all the while inveighing against “paraliterary” writing, “unscientific practices,” and “publicistic deviations.” But its main purpose is to repeat the key element of the myth of the war—that insofar as crimes against Jews are concerned, Poles had no agency whatsoever. The author describes the Polish countryside as being under “total German occupation” and the representatives of the village administration—the headmen, watchmen, firemen, and others—as being utterly captive to German orders. The Blue Police, too, were either helpless pawns or treated Poles as badly as they did Jews. The Jews themselves engaged in crimes ranging from theft to denunciation. German policemen and informers lurked everywhere, enforcing total compliance with Nazi regulations.
Demonstrating the profound and enduring contradiction of postwar justice in Poland—that the process is written off as “political” justice even as the results are used to underpin the myth of the past—the IPN author alternates between casting suspicion on the trials and citing their acquittals as proof of the innocence of the accused. On the one hand, according to the author, they were “communist trials” produced under the so-called “‘justice system’ of a totalitarian regime.” [..] On the other hand, he accepts acquittals issued by the courts without question and takes to task the contributors to Dalej jest noc for not doing the same.
— Kornbluth, Andrew. " Conclusion: The Conspiracy of Memory". The August Trials: The Holocaust and Postwar Justice in Poland, Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press, 2021, pp. 269-282.
[T]he IPN [has] initiated a skillful new strategy of marginalizing critical history writing about Polish-Jewish relations before, during and after the Holocaust. This strategy is characterized by three main elements: The first is to present and promote a central “counter-memory” to counterbalance the “dark history”; the second is to systematically underscore the “feel-good soothing history” of which Poles can be proud of concerning their relations with the Jewish community. The latter has particularly been achieved through the political manipulation of the history and memory of Polish rescuers of Jews, a subject that deserves a comprehensive study and that could be essential in educating civil society. However, at present, the history of rescuers has been almost entirely hijacked by the right-wing conservative political elites [..]
The third element of the IPN’s strategy to eradicate critical history of Polish-Jewish relations is the orchestration of a wide “against campaign” in the mass and social media and in institutes of higher education in both Poland and abroad [..] One of its best recent examples is the official IPN reaction to the collective two volumes edited by Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski, Dalej jest noc: losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski, (trans. Night without End: The Fate of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland) and published in early 2018. The 1700 page study reveals that 60% of the Jewish fugitives were denounced or killed by their Christian neighbors during the last phase of the Holocaust from 1943 to 1945. In order to oppose these devastating findings, the IPN extensively promoted a 72-page critical review of Dalej jest noc, produced in 2019 by a young in-house historian called Tomasz Domański. In September 2020, the IPN launched and promoted Domański’s 110-page report, Korekty ciąg dalszy – a second response to the response of the editors-in-chief and individual authors of Dalej jest noc towards Domański’s first report of 2019. Simultaneously, to counteract the scope of the dark past exposed in Dalej jest noc, the IPN orchestrated a variety of conferences, seminars and exhibitions in Poland and abroad devoted to the history of Polish rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust [..]
The academic community of historians and other scholars and artists have been watching with concern, if not tribulation, various past and present attempts and future plans on the part of the PiS to reshape the humanities and the production of historical knowledge in higher education and the history curriculum at schools, national cultural institutions and various NGOs – agents of civil society.
— Michlic, Joanna B. "History "Wars" and the Battle for Truth and National Memory" in Ninna Mörner, ed., State of the Region Report Constructions and Instrumentalizations of the Past. A Comparative Study on Memory Management in the Region. Stockholm: CBEES/Elanders. January 2021
Polish historians stood on both sides of the dispute, for and against the government's memory law and more general 'history policy'. Those employed by the IPN were obliged to support the government's policy. Liberal historians who had previously worked for the IPN under the more liberal regime and academics in general became the targets of this policy, especially those who had been investigating Polish complicity in crimes against Jews. Even before the memory law, the Polish government had attacked as enemies of the nation prominent Holocaust historians such as Jan Tomasz Gross, Jan Grabowski, Barbara Engelking, and Jacek Leociak, who had conducted research on Poles' complicity in actions against Jews. Right-wing groups also protested against the international support for these historians and the institutions with which they were affiliated, and called for the cancellation of international conferences they wanted to attend because of their 'anti-Polish character'.
The IPN took part in these efforts through official statements calling for the dissemination Of the history policy in universities and educational institutes. The IPN also produced historical material that supported the official view for state- sponsored institutions, like the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk, and attempted to undermine the work Of the self-critical historians, for example through the dissemination of scholarly reviews that criticized their work. [Endnote: For such reviews of Dalej jest noc, see ...]
— Gutman, Yifat, and Elazar Barkan. “ Israel and Poland Confront Holocaust Memory.” Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry Volume 35: Promised Lands: Jews, Poland, and the Land of Israel, edited by Israel Bartal et al., Liverpool University Press, 2023, pp. 410–34.
This criticism [of Dalej jest noc], especially from researchers at the Institute of National Remembrance (Instytut Pamiqci Narodowej, IPN), has been as extensive as is detailed. And indeed some errors can be found in this collaborative work of the Polish Center for Holocaust Research. At the same time, despite the efforts to take care and be thorough, such errors can hardly be avoided in a work totalling 1,700 pages. Even if highly specialised scholars examine every footnote and every single statement, there will still probably be things to complain about in any given research publication on any topic — here only he or she who is without guilt should be allowed to throw the first stone. The main question seems to be what these — in the end rather marginal — corrections fundamentally mean. Research thrives on discussion, and of course, it is as legitimate as it is reasonable to correct mistakes and errors. However, the thrust here is political, because it is more about discrediting some overall statements and conclusions through criticism of details. This is a popular defamatory discourse strategy along the lines of: 'If footnote 1376 is incorrect, everything else must be wrong as well'. This procedure lends itself to being used to avoid an actual discussion of the overall findings and analysis, and usually is not even aimed at one.
— Lehnstaedt, Stephan. "Review of Dalej jest noc" Acta Poloniae Historica. CXXI. June 2020
Tymczasem w ostatnim okresie aktywność Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej, jeśli chodzi o problematykę Zagłady, w znacznej mierze skupiała się – ze szkodą dla badań podstawowych – raczej na polemice z innymi badaczami, prezentującymi odmienny od oϐicjalnie pożądanego obraz postaw Polaków wobec Żydów. [Footnote: Mam na myśli udział niektórych historyków z IPN w nagonce przeciwko autorom pracy Dalej jest noc. Zob. Tomasz Domański ...]
Wikipedia needs to reflect that. TrangaBellam ( talk) 12:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
editors must not reinstate the source [and the content] without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. TrangaBellam ( talk) 13:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Your actions in the subject of Holocaust-related books are disturbing, because you remove mention of negative reviews of books you consider good and positive reviews of books you consider bad.- Please take such concerns to AE or ArbCom. This t/p is not about my behaviour.
is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
I’m sure what the remedy says but you can ask if you are not sure.is added and subsequently challenged by reversion
...the 2018 law officially changed the mission statement of the Institute of National Remembrance, a state research body created in 1988 to investigate Nazi- and Soviet-era crimes, to include “protecting the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation.” The rebranding immediately led many scholars to dub the Institute “the Ministry of Memory,” the Orwellian accent clear.
Why the tags were removed? It's not clear who is making what claims, that's badly written section. Especially since it replaced much better sourced version, that was removed without any justification ( WP:OWNBEHAVIOR by @ TrangaBellam) Marcelus ( talk) 18:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
as if all IPN-affiliated historians criticized the book (which is not true)- Fixed.
not all the people you quote are historians- Huh? For your aid:
TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Andrew Kornbluth holds a PhD in Eastern European history from the University of California, Berkeley. The book based on his dissertation research, The August Trials: The Holocaust and Postwar Justice in Poland , won the 2020 Ernst Fraenkel Prize from the Wiener Holocaust Library, the 2022 Salo Wittmayer Baron Book Prize from the American Academy for Jewish Research, and the 2022 Reginald Zelnik Book Prize from the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian studies.
— https://www.american.edu/cas/events/calendar/?id=3274817
politically motivated:
[T]he Institute of National Remembrance, meanwhile transformed into an agency implementing the state-sponsored politics of memory, commissioned a number of extended critical ‘reviews’ of Night without an End in Polish and other languages [..]
— Konczal
However, the thrust [of the review] is political, because it is more about discrediting some overall statements and conclusions through criticism of details.
— Lehnstaedt
Although the IPN has been controversial since its founding in 1999, it has fluctuated between periods of lesser and greater politicization for most of its history [..] [B]y 2016, foreshadowing the controversy in 2018, the IPN’s duties were expanded by the PiS government to [..] The IPN is correspondingly led by historians committed to the exculpatory myth of the war [..]
[The review's] main purpose is to repeat the key element of the myth of the war [..]
— Kornbluth
Those employed by the IPN were obliged to support the government's policy [..] The IPN also produced historical material that supported the official view for state-sponsored institutions, like the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk, and attempted to undermine the work of the self-critical historians, for example through the dissemination of scholarly reviews that criticized their work.
— Gutman
unscholarly:
insignificant
The main question seems to be what these — in the end rather marginal — corrections fundamentally mean [..] This is a popular defamatory discourse strategy along the lines of: 'If footnote 1376 is incorrect, everything else must be wrong as well'.
— Lehnstaedt
adopted a "hairsplitting" approach:
The rebuttal [by Domański of IPN] takes hairsplitting issue with everything from the definition of the word “strategy” to the number of pages in each chapter, all the while inveighing against “paraliterary” writing, “unscientific practices,” and “publicistic deviations.”
— Kornbluth
combing through every footnote and statement:
Even if highly specialised scholars examine every footnote and every single statement, there will still probably be things to complain about in any given research publication on any topic [...]
— Lehnstaedt
polemics
Tymczasem w ostatnim okresie aktywność Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej, jeśli chodzi o problematykę Zagłady, w znacznej mierze skupiała się – ze szkodą dla badań podstawowych – raczej na polemice z innymi badaczami, prezentującymi odmienny od oϐicjalnie pożądanego obraz postaw Polaków wobec Żydów.
— Persak
mainstream the right-wing conception of Polish history:
push back against all critical narratives:
[T]he IPN [has] initiated a skillful new strategy of marginalizing critical history writing about Polish-Jewish relations before, during and after the Holocaust [..] The third element of the IPN’s strategy to eradicate critical history of Polish-Jewish relations is the orchestration of a wide “against campaign” in the mass and social media and in institutes of higher education in both Poland and abroad [..] One of its best recent examples is the official IPN reaction to the collective two volumes [...]
— Michlic
The IPN also produced historical material that supported the official view for state-sponsored institutions, like the Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk, and attempted to undermine the work of the self-critical historians, for example through the dissemination of scholarly reviews that criticized their work. [Endnote: For such reviews of Dalej jest noc, see ...]
— Gutman