Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lisiunia A. Romanienko

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

I'd appreciate such information for Klaus-Peter Friedrich. In either case, WP:NOTCENSORED, as long as the publication is reliable, we don't require the authors of the cited works to have particular credentials. And Humanity & Society is a reliable peer-reviewed journal, meeting WP:APLRS. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Since you are interested in the "credentials" of KP Friedrich:
  • In 2005, he published an article on Polish colloboration with the Nazi regime in Slavic Review — an immensely reputed journal —, which has been cited about 50 times.
  • Two years later, he authored a chapter on the construction of anti-Jewish sentiments in Poland in a volume on trans-European antisemitism during the Nazi era and before, edited by Anne Hilbrenner and published by Brill. It has been cited about 5 times by other scholars.
  • Other pubs. include 1, 2 and countless book reviews.
So, now, what is the credential of Romanienko in the field? From her CV, it appears to me that she works in a totally different domain concerning the sociology of youth in Poland; her monographs are on body-piercing and degradation rituals! Frankly, the book-review is her sole contribution to any discourse on the Holocaust. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ K.e.coffman and @ Levivich: What say you? TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Based on her CV, obviously not due for inclusion, just like PhD students, polisci profs writing in Kentucky Historical Society, or my cousin who reads a lot of history books... they aren't experts in this field. Levivich ( talk) 21:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TrangaBellam why did you ping Levivich and Coffman only? GizzyCatBella 🍁 21:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Allow some time for others to comment. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 21:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I did not really need to be pinged, since I'm watching this page, as I assume are others who took part in the discussion. But I'll ping @ Nihil novi: just in case. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I will wait for Piotrus, who will elucidate the reliability of Romanienko in the field, now that his gotcha — on the comparative reliability of Klaus-Peter Friedrich — has been answered. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
A sociologist working at Kean University is reliable. Her work was published in a peer review paper about a book published by another sociologist. It's totally DUE - it's a peer reviewed assessment of a work of another scholar. Removing it would be UNDUE censorship. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Maybe I missed it but I don't see her listed on Kean University's website. And when Romanienko wrote her review in 2000, she apparently wasn't a sociologist yet. She wasn't even a PhD student yet. Her PhD years are 2005-2012 per LinkedIn. Levivich ( talk) 02:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
If you found her Linkedin profile, this is where she states she works at Kean. Also her GScholar profile has a verified email from Kean. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Her personal website says she hasn't been an instructor at Kean for years and that she taught business there, not sociology. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I mean you really want to put, alongside a review from Engel, a review from someone who, at the time they wrote the review, had a Masters Degree in Nonprofit Management and Public Policy? You're calling excluding that "censorship"? Levivich ( talk) 02:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah, Levivich. You do not recognize the giant feat of publishing a review in a "peer review paper". It might be a "peer review paper" that is unindexed in any major bibliometric database. But, it is a "peer review paper"! TrangaBellam ( talk) 03:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It actually has a lower impact factor than the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society. Every time I look into one of these, it's more ridiculous than the last. Levivich ( talk) 03:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Editors of a peer reviewed publication considered her review to be worth publishing. What does her background has to do with things? Which policy states that we allow book reviews only by people who have PhD degrees in a relevant field? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:WEIGHT: articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects
WP:PROPORTION: a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic
WP:FALSEBALANCE: Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity
WP:BESTSOURCES: When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements Levivich ( talk) 03:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
re: WEIGHT. What makes her view a minority one?
re: PROPORTION. Obviously, book reviews are relevant to the reception section. WP:BOOKS, quoted several times, does not suggest we should exclude any.
re: FALSEBALANCE: see WEIGHT.
re: BESTSOURCES: a peer reviw work is a good source. Of course, some peer reviewed sources are better than others, which is why we attribute them with author's names, and sometimes descriptions of their positions, past or present. If you think the reader needs to be cautioned that Romanienko did not have her PhD/professorship at the time she wrote the review, that's fine with me. Expand, qualify (per NPOV: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."), but do not remove. A book review by a junior academic is not as undue as a Flat Earther claim.
WP:POVDELETION is pretty clear that "there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time... Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted.". Is this review "Especially contentious"? I doubt it. Also, from POVDELETION: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." I am not sure if her review is biased, but arguably, all reviews are opinions. As such, when properly sourced, attributed, and perhaps qualified, POVDELETION makes it pretty clear that it's better to keep such content in the article rather then remove it. Her review is not a WP:FRINGE theory. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Are book reviews peer-reviewed? Levivich ( talk) 05:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Obviously and such being the case, what is your opinion on the issue at hand? TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TrangaBellam: I don't think the arguments in favour of maintaining this review in the article make much sense at all, "no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten" in particular. It seems that there are editors here right now doing that rewriting process, and being told they cannot. I also find it hard to understand why anyone would fight so hard to try to include a review that seems so inconquential. This Talk page probably has more words written about the author and her review than anywhere at all in academia. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The claim of censorship, in particular, is extraordinary. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus as long as the publication is reliable, we don't require the authors of the cited works to have particular credentials
This doesn't make sense, since credentials and reputation of the author of the cited work is directly related to whether or not it is reliable. Per WP:SOURCEDEF:

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

It is entirely reasonable to ask about these things. —  Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 03:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ User:Shibbolethink: You are right, but please note my wording of "require". And the policy you cite says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both". Note the word 'or'. So if the journal is reliable, it generally makes the author's background less relevant. Not irrelevant, of course. But if the journal is reliable, shouldn't the fact that a review was published in it be acknowledged somehow on the wiki page? If the journal is minor, and/or the author is not very prominent, I concur that their views should not be given weight equal to reviews in more estabilished venues, by more senior scholars. But I am very uneasy with regards to completely removing such sources, unless they are plainly unreliable. Bottom line, we are discussing whether we should include all reliable, academic reviews of a book in an article about a book, or only some. Here, I am an inclusionist, since I prefer to see our articles as comprehensive as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The review is undue, IMO: the author did not have her PhD/academic position at the time of the review's publication; so A sociologist working at Kean University is reliable does not apply. She has no expertise in Holocaust studies, so her opinion would not carry the same weight as that of an expert's. The issue -- same as with the #Citation_to_Judith_Olsak-Glass,_Sarmatian_Review topic above -- appears to be that the indiscriminate collection of reviews create an appearance of wider academic acceptance for the book which, upon closer examination, does not appear to exist. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don’t agree with you K.e.coffman. - GizzyCatBella 🍁06:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sociologist is very much qualified to review a book by another sociologist. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 13:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    She wasn't a sociologist when she wrote the review. Her masters degree is in nonprofit admin and public policy. Someone with a masters in public policy reviewing a sociologist's book about World War II is not going to be due the same weight as one of the world's top historians (or anyone with a history PhD). Levivich ( talk) 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    You know, that does make sense. I am totally fine with giving her less weight than let's say Friedrich. But less weight does not mean zero weight. If Friedrich gets 2-3 sentences, she can get 1 sentence (or we can count words). She is a reliable scholar, she published her review in a reliable academic journal, there is no need to eradicate that information from the article completely. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    You haven't established that she is a reliable scholar or that she published her review in a reliable academic journal, your argument is entirely circular. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Worse, we've established that she was not a scholar at all when she wrote the review, nevermind a reliable scholar. The journal is also not established as a reliable academic journal, since it's (apparently?) not indexed and has no impact factor. All we can say about it is that it's a journal, who knows about it's reliability. Levivich ( talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Are you guys really considering whether a review published in Humanity & Society is good enough for Wikipedia? Why wouldn't it be? Because it is positive? You can add that Romanienko is a sociologist, there is nothing wrong with that, the review is written from a sociologist's point of view after all, but that's it. There is no basis for removing this review. Marcelus ( talk) 22:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
She was not a sociologist when she wrote the review. Everybody on the same page please? Levivich ( talk) 01:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
BA in sociology and publishing sociological papers doesn't make her a sociologist? Marcelus ( talk) 21:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
BA in sociology definitely not -- a BA in X doesn't make someone a professional X. Or a scholar. I have a BA in polisci and philosophy, I am neither a political scientist nor a philosopher. Same for a Master's degree. Generally speaking, you need a PhD -- you need to have defended a dissertation, which is where other people with PhDs in your field critically examine research you did to confirm that you know what you're doing -- until then, you're an amateur.
An exception is if you have been published a lot in reputable peer-reviewed publications, in which case you can be considered an expert in a field without a PhD; the peer review essentially takes the place of a dissertation. So, what sociology papers did Romanienko publish before she wrote this book review in 2000? Levivich ( talk) 21:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
She published quite a lot actually. In 1999 she published: Gender differences in adaptation patterns among scientists in developing nations: exploring the case studies of Ghana, Kenya, and Kerala, link. In 2000 she published Structural impediments to managerial mobility in industrialised nations, link. And Dual labor market theory and the institutionalization of farmers' markets: marginalized American workers adapting to inhospitable conditions, link. Marcelus ( talk) 21:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
At least post things that she wrote before she wrote the review (Feb 1, 2000). Then ask yourself: is what I'm posting have anything to do with the Holocaust or Poland? Then ask yourself: why am I arguing so much to include this person's review? Then: why did I go to ANI and AE? Levivich ( talk) 21:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
1. The date of publication is due to the publication cycle of the journal, she could have written it just as well a few months earlier, it is worth taking into account all the publications in a given period, which prove that she was a keenly published sociologist.
2. It has a lot to do with her review, but you have to read it first to understand. She wrote the reviews from her academic point of view.
3. Because it is a review of a sociologist's work published in a sociological journal. Because the review itself is notable, if only because it's cited in American Sociology and Holocaust Studies: The Alleged Silence and the Creation of the Sociological Delay written by by Adele Valeria Messina (For example: Solid and informative, for critics, says Romanienko, in “focusing the analysis to events that occurred within and around Poland’s borders,” Piotrowski’s work represents a bulwark in Holocaust Studies, above all because he calls Polish behavior and attitudes into question during the conflict years in “identifying the changing face of Poland’s perpetrators, as well as a clarification of her victims.). Becuase the books doesn't have much review.
I don't advocate giving her the same weight as other reviewers, but there is not reason to exclude her. Marcelus ( talk) 21:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Messina, Adele Valeria (2017-02-07). American Sociology and Holocaust Studies: The Alleged Silence and the Creation of the Sociological Delay. Academic Studies Press. pp. 169–182. doi: 10.1515/9781618115485. ISBN  978-1-61811-548-5.
That is 13 pages of recent scholarly review of Poland's Holocaust; that is WP:DUE for inclusion. Messina cites and quotes Romanienko's review (at pages 173 and 180-182), which is the first reason I've seen so far for why Romanienko's opinion of the work is WP:DUE. Messina also cites Olsak-Glass, but much less so (pages 170 and 179). Levivich ( talk) 23:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I guess you are right, Messian herself should be mentioned in the article. Marcelus ( talk) 23:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I will be very careful with Messina (2017); more comments in a new section. TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you elaborate this please? Is Messina somewhat problematic researcher? Marcelus ( talk) 07:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
A book review by someone academically unqualified in the subject is essentially a review of the readability of the book rather than its scholarship. It is undue. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Undue. I've read enough, Romanienko was not an expert at the time of the review, has no expertise in this area, and her review was published in a lower-quality non-indexed journal. Also, as an aside, I'm not actually sure that book reviews at Human&Society are peer-reviewed. They appear to be submitted via email, in a different system that is wholly outside the one that reviewers use to evaluate manuscripts. I would be okay with the review being cited as part of an overall "some reviews praised its writing (or whatever) claim as it certainly still contributes to the overall academic landscape, even if it is of lower quality. But I do not think this review is DUE enough for its own sentence or individual mention. —  Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 03:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It would be extraordinary for a book review to be peer reviewed. I'm not even really sure what that would entail, since peer review is supposed to recommend (or reject) articles for publication based on questions like "are the study's methods clearly explained" and "does it advance scholarship in the field". A book review summarizes a book, gives an opinion, and, if it's a good review, will also explain who would find the book worth reading. I could mark a book review, but peer review doesn't have any meaning here. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Bolianovskyi

1. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

thanks, I've added this [1]. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 12:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TrangaBellam @ Gitz6666 Are we sure that "East European Historical Bulletin" is WP:DUE? It is published by a small provincial Ukrainian university. Nonetheless it is worth considering moving Wróbel's and Bolianovskyi's reviews to a separate section, because now "Career" has turned into a criticism section. I also am not sure that referring to the massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia as "Ukrainian-Polish ethnic conflicts" is the best choice of words. Marcelus ( talk) 16:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I do not think highly of the publication. However, Bolianovskyi is a trained scholar — he was associated with the USHMM and was commissioned by the editors of The Waffen-SS: A European History (OUP) to author an article on a relevant topic. Still, I won't grant him more than a line. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Btw, I have not bothered to check Gitz's edit and whether it represents Bolianovskyi's review accurately. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I hope my edit contains an accurate representation of the source. Re the source itself, I don't know about the "East European Historical Bulletin", but this [2] persuaded me that the author qualifies as established subject-matter expert, so that even if the "East European Historical Bulletin" were an WP:SPS, which is certainly not the case, Bolianovskyi's contribution would still be an RS. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 17:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, it is somewhat problematic that what Bolianovskyi accuses Piotrowski of (selective sampling of sources), he himself committed in his attempt to remove responsibility for the murder of Poles and Jews in Huta Pieniacka from the Ukrainian SS "Galicia". Interestingly, this also involved Polish sources (one of many blamed the Germans for the crime, Bolianovskyi used this others ignored). At best, this is a "the pot calling the kettle black" situation. Marcelus ( talk) 17:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ K.e.coffman do you have any opinion on this? Marcelus ( talk) 07:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
FYI: Bolianovskyi himself is quite controversial, quoting Grzegorz Motyka (From the Volhynian Massacre to Operation Vistula. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict 1943-1947 in Polish, mine translation):

However, the biggest controversy is over the actions of the 4th Regiment commanded by SS sturmbannführer Siegfried Binz, which was tasked with protecting the frontline facilities in Eastern Galicia. At the beginning of 1944, it participated in various repressive actions, for example, probably helping the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) to murder Poles in Podkamień and in the village of Palikrowy. However, the greatest crime of the 4th SS Police Regiment was the pacification of the village of Huta Pieniacka - a Polish outpost for self-defense against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, where a group of Jews were also hiding. [...] In 2009, publications appeared in Ukraine questioning the participation of Ukrainian volunteers in the murder of Poles. A proponent of this thesis is, for example, Andrii Bolianovskyi, who, on the basis of a found document of the Polish underground accusing only Germans of committing this crime, created a theory that the accusation against the SS "Galizien" division was crafted by the KGB. However, it is difficult to take his claim seriously when, as we have seen, there is a lot of material (including from the Polish underground) unequivocally stating the participation of Ukrainian SS soldiers in the pacification. Bolianovskyi's thesis is all the more surprising given that so far Ukrainian historians (for example, Taras Hunchak) have not denied the presence of SS "Galizien" units in Huta Pieniacka, maintaining only that they did not participate in the murder of civilians. [...] However, the version of events given by Hunchak is also highly questionable. If only because there is not even a word in any of the witnesses' accounts of the events that there was any swapping of the pacification group during the action. All witnesses also unanimously claimed that the soldiers pacifying Huta Pieniacka communicated in Ukrainian (and some, as it turns out, they knew personally). In addition, the police units were by design used by the Germans for similar actions, so it would not make any sense to apply any allowance to the 4th Regiment.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelus ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Musial is heavily criticised by Michlic, et al. So? TrangaBellam ( talk) 17:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
What his critic is about exactly? Is Musiał being accused of manipulating historical sources to take responsibility for the crime off the unit he sympathizes with? Marcelus ( talk) 17:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Zlatke/Polonsky

The book’s fundamental flaw is that it fails to draw a balanced picture of their interrelations; rather it defends the cause of one of them, and this results in one-sidedness. The book offers little new material, relying mainly on secondary sources. One of the book’s main defensive weapons is deflection.
— Zlatkes, Gwido, 'Tadeusz Piotrowski Poland’s Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918–1947', in Antony Polonsky (ed.), Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry Volume 15: Focusing on Jewish Religious Life, 1500-1900

Fwiw, the review appears in a volume edited by Antony Polonsky who is widely regarded as the preeminent scholar on Polish Jewish history. Now, does including this violate BLP; what say others? TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not a BLP violation. I'm not sure why you're bolding some of the text however, or why you put these disparate sentences together as if this was a continous passage. Rather, these are sentences strewn through out the article. You should use elipsis (...) to indicate that. The question is whether all of this is due. The "little new material" and "secondary sources" is not very significant. "main defensive weapon is deflection" is weird without context. So I'd say just include the first sentence. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I copied from the abstract which is indeed a continuos passage; maybe, take your concerns to Zlatkes or the publisher? TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
And, I find "it defends the cause of one of them" very significant esp. when read together with Grabowski. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah ok. I read the actual article. And in the actual article these are not together and reference different topics. I don't know what concerns I'm suppose to take to Zlatkes. Volunteer Marek 22:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
As did I; the abstract was submitted by the author to the best of my knowledge. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
If we can cite the paper we should cite the paper, not its abstract. Anyway, I believe I answered your question - including first sentence is fine, the rest is really WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 22:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
OKay, so you agree that The book’s fundamental flaw is that it fails to draw a balanced picture of their interrelations; rather it defends the cause of one of them, and this results in one-sidedness. is due and the rest, not. I kinda concur. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Me too. Levivich ( talk) 05:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It looks like RS, but we need the full version Marcelus ( talk) 22:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I am unable to access the full version as well; if anyone was able to access it - I'd appreciate tips on how they did it (the JSTOR's version of the book does not seem available through Wikipedia's Library, and WL's OUP collection shows as temporarily unavilable for weeks now). Links in case they help others: JSTOR, OUP. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I will appreciate some information on the academic background of Zlatke and their academic expertise to review a monograph on aspects of the history of the Holocaust :) (The review was published in 2002 I believe?) What I see: Current position: Librarian at University of California. This suggests that he got that position in 2006 and before that he was a graduate student (at Brandeis University)? In what field? This 2008 work still calls him a doctoral student at Brandeis which would align with the previous source which suggestst that he got his librarian job in 2006 (and before them presumably was a graduate student). This describes him as a "poet, philologist and historian by education". Mind you, as an inclusionist when it comes to book reviews I would prefer to keep this review - but we should use the same standards for all reviews here (see discussions above concerning Olsak-Glass and Romanienko). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The review was published in a journal, which is specifically devoted to the history of Polish Jews and edited by a pre-eminent scholar in the field. I had already mentioned this in my opening poser. So, do you suggest that Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry is as reputed and reliable as Humanity and Society or The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society for an informed discussion of Piotrowski's work?
  • Nonetheless, to answer your question: Zlatke has an ABD on Jewish Studies from Brandeis. He has since come to be considered as an expert on the print culture in Polish Underground during the Communist regime, having published a monograph from Indiana University Press. While he might not be a historian of the Holocaust, the domain of his work is far more relevant to the topic in hand than either of the two scholars (healthcare consumerism, judgment and decision-making, and behavioral economics / nonprofit admin and public policy), whom you sought to have included. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Zlatkes published works on the underground press in Poland and on Talmudic philosophy, and I don't know if combining these two specialties makes someone a Holocaust specialist. It seems to me that it does not, and his expertise should be judged similarly to that of, for example, Romanienko. (And FYI he did not publish a monograph, but was co-editor of a collection of articles of various authors) Marcelus ( talk) 21:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The review was published in a journal, which is specifically devoted to the history of Polish Jews and edited by a pre-eminent scholar in the field. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Black

However, as a warning of the problems with this dimension, a prominent academic instance of the downplaying of the Jewish experience is provided by Poland’s Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918–1947, by Tadeusz Piotrowski (1998). A professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, and a naturalized American of Polish descent, Piotrowski defines the Holocaust as including the victims of both Germany and the Soviet Union. This, then, enables him to divide his study of the Holocaust in Poland into seven chapters, with “Nazi Terror” preceded by “Soviet Terror,” and chapters on Polish, Belorussian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian collaboration preceded by a chapter on Jewish collaboration with both Soviet and German agencies. The overall impression, to put it mildly, is of a seriously unbalanced account and of a hijacking of the term, holocaust.
— The Holocaust: History and Memory by Jeremy Black. Indiana University Press. 2016. p. 227

Is this due and compliant with BLP? TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

VM and Marcelus, I will appreciate your insights. Thanks! TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It should of course be attributed to Jeremy Black (historian) but yes it does appear due and compliant with BLP. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ofcourse, attribution is a must. I will also appreciate your opinions in the thread just above. TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I would say that Holocaust Studies isn't exactly main field of Jeremy Black, but judging by the list of his books it seems that everything is his main field :) Honestly speaking impressive academic output Marcelus ( talk) 23:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I think it's due, but it still doesn't support G&K claims. Marcelus ( talk) 23:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This review is just a review; not linked to G&K. TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes. Levivich ( talk) 05:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TrangaBellam proposition: Jeremy Black found the work to be a "seriously unbalanced account" that had "hijacked" the terminology of Holocaust to include victims of Soviet regime and portray the Jews as colloborators.
My proposition, that I think is more in line with what Black is actually saying:
Jeremy Black found the work to be a "seriously unbalanced account" that had "hijacked" the term "holocaust" to include victims of Soviet regime and portray the Jews as colloborators and downplayed the Jewish experience.
Black does not link the hijacking of the term "holocaust" with the inclusion of victims of the Soviet regime, nor does he link or evaluate to any degree the coverage of Jewish collaboration in the book; he only mentions that there is such a chapter in the book. Marcelus ( talk) 10:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Read more carefully. Piotrowski defines the Holocaust as including the victims of both Germany and the Soviet Union. This, then, enables him [..] [to have] a chapter on Jewish collaboration with both Soviet and German agencies. The word "then" is important. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ok, now I see that there is in fact link between hijacking the term and including victims of Soviet regime. But I still don't think that "a chapter on Jewish collaboration with both Soviet and German" can be linked with the hijacking of the term. Marcelus ( talk) 10:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I am afraid that White makes the conclusion; whether he is accurate in linking them (or not), is beyond our editorial purview. TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Straw poll on a line from G&K

Jan Grabowski characterized the book as a "collection of quotations taken out of context"; it mounted multiple ahistorical claims.

Who supports inclusion of this line (copyedits are alsways welcome) in the article? TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Marcelus, Levivich, K.e.coffman, My very best wishes, Horse Eye's Back, Volunteer Marek, Gitz6666, Piotrus, Hemiauchenia, Bobfrombrockley, Asilvering, and Shibbolethink: - Pinging ALL participants from the last few days. If I have skipped anyone, please do ping them. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge/redirect from Poland’s Holocaust

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge as WP:NBOOK met and readers are best served by having the content separately discussed. Klbrain ( talk) 12:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm using the template "Merge from" but this is essentially a redirect proposal, to the Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist)#Poland's_Holocaust section. The contents of the book article duplicate what's in the bio article. The length of the section is such that a WP:SPLIT is not necessary. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The main question to answer is whether the book is notable or not (see WP:NBOOK). Length is a secondary concern (which is why most stubs on notable topics are not usually merged to related topics). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I think the opposite, per WP:PAGEDECIDE: just because a topic is notable doesn't mean it must have its own page, and stubs on notable topics are routinely merged to related topics: "Short text" is WP:MERGEREASON #3, and the reason why I support merge. Levivich ( talk) 16:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I commented on the book's notability, which I consider to be marginal, here: #A_Polish_review. More generally, notability is not the main question to answer. Per Wikipedia:Splitting#When to split, the main reasons for a split are "size and content relevance". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
While you are right that the split was not necessary, I disagree that the book doesn't merit a stand-alone article. If you disagree and think that the book fails NBOOK/GNG, I recommend nominating that article for AfD. From NBOOK: A book is presumed notable, and to generally merit an article... [if it meets the following criteria]: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
You mean either AfD or propose a merger right? Those are both appropriate paths to follow in that situation. Also note that passing GNG or one of the SNG isn't a magic bullet so your argument is nonsensical, it can both pass NBOOK and be merged or deleted. Per WP:N: "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back per WP:NOPAGE. TrangaBellam ( talk) 03:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per User:Piotrus whose arguments are rather convincing. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • OP's comment: the arguments about steering the discussion towards an AfD are not convincing, because we are not discussing deleting the contents, but where it should be housed instead. The Merge/redirect discussion is the appropriate venue, governed by WP:SPLIT / WP:MERGEREASON. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose — presuming that the book is notable, and good arguments to that effect have been raised, then the bibliography makes sense. — Biruitorul Talk 11:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, the book meets WP:NBOOK criteria it's covered by fair number of reviews, I also examined Messina chapter about Piotrowski's book and it really looks that it's really notable work of American sociology of the Holocaust Marcelus ( talk) 10:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: The book meets notability criteria easily and I see no advantage in redirecting. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The book is a most notable contribution to the subject matter. Nihil novi ( talk) 19:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist)&oldid=1206238087"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lisiunia A. Romanienko

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

I'd appreciate such information for Klaus-Peter Friedrich. In either case, WP:NOTCENSORED, as long as the publication is reliable, we don't require the authors of the cited works to have particular credentials. And Humanity & Society is a reliable peer-reviewed journal, meeting WP:APLRS. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Since you are interested in the "credentials" of KP Friedrich:
  • In 2005, he published an article on Polish colloboration with the Nazi regime in Slavic Review — an immensely reputed journal —, which has been cited about 50 times.
  • Two years later, he authored a chapter on the construction of anti-Jewish sentiments in Poland in a volume on trans-European antisemitism during the Nazi era and before, edited by Anne Hilbrenner and published by Brill. It has been cited about 5 times by other scholars.
  • Other pubs. include 1, 2 and countless book reviews.
So, now, what is the credential of Romanienko in the field? From her CV, it appears to me that she works in a totally different domain concerning the sociology of youth in Poland; her monographs are on body-piercing and degradation rituals! Frankly, the book-review is her sole contribution to any discourse on the Holocaust. TrangaBellam ( talk) 20:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ K.e.coffman and @ Levivich: What say you? TrangaBellam ( talk) 21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Based on her CV, obviously not due for inclusion, just like PhD students, polisci profs writing in Kentucky Historical Society, or my cousin who reads a lot of history books... they aren't experts in this field. Levivich ( talk) 21:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TrangaBellam why did you ping Levivich and Coffman only? GizzyCatBella 🍁 21:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Allow some time for others to comment. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 21:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I did not really need to be pinged, since I'm watching this page, as I assume are others who took part in the discussion. But I'll ping @ Nihil novi: just in case. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I will wait for Piotrus, who will elucidate the reliability of Romanienko in the field, now that his gotcha — on the comparative reliability of Klaus-Peter Friedrich — has been answered. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
A sociologist working at Kean University is reliable. Her work was published in a peer review paper about a book published by another sociologist. It's totally DUE - it's a peer reviewed assessment of a work of another scholar. Removing it would be UNDUE censorship. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Maybe I missed it but I don't see her listed on Kean University's website. And when Romanienko wrote her review in 2000, she apparently wasn't a sociologist yet. She wasn't even a PhD student yet. Her PhD years are 2005-2012 per LinkedIn. Levivich ( talk) 02:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
If you found her Linkedin profile, this is where she states she works at Kean. Also her GScholar profile has a verified email from Kean. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Her personal website says she hasn't been an instructor at Kean for years and that she taught business there, not sociology. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I mean you really want to put, alongside a review from Engel, a review from someone who, at the time they wrote the review, had a Masters Degree in Nonprofit Management and Public Policy? You're calling excluding that "censorship"? Levivich ( talk) 02:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah, Levivich. You do not recognize the giant feat of publishing a review in a "peer review paper". It might be a "peer review paper" that is unindexed in any major bibliometric database. But, it is a "peer review paper"! TrangaBellam ( talk) 03:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It actually has a lower impact factor than the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society. Every time I look into one of these, it's more ridiculous than the last. Levivich ( talk) 03:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Editors of a peer reviewed publication considered her review to be worth publishing. What does her background has to do with things? Which policy states that we allow book reviews only by people who have PhD degrees in a relevant field? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:WEIGHT: articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects
WP:PROPORTION: a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic
WP:FALSEBALANCE: Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity
WP:BESTSOURCES: When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements Levivich ( talk) 03:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
re: WEIGHT. What makes her view a minority one?
re: PROPORTION. Obviously, book reviews are relevant to the reception section. WP:BOOKS, quoted several times, does not suggest we should exclude any.
re: FALSEBALANCE: see WEIGHT.
re: BESTSOURCES: a peer reviw work is a good source. Of course, some peer reviewed sources are better than others, which is why we attribute them with author's names, and sometimes descriptions of their positions, past or present. If you think the reader needs to be cautioned that Romanienko did not have her PhD/professorship at the time she wrote the review, that's fine with me. Expand, qualify (per NPOV: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."), but do not remove. A book review by a junior academic is not as undue as a Flat Earther claim.
WP:POVDELETION is pretty clear that "there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time... Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted.". Is this review "Especially contentious"? I doubt it. Also, from POVDELETION: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." I am not sure if her review is biased, but arguably, all reviews are opinions. As such, when properly sourced, attributed, and perhaps qualified, POVDELETION makes it pretty clear that it's better to keep such content in the article rather then remove it. Her review is not a WP:FRINGE theory. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Are book reviews peer-reviewed? Levivich ( talk) 05:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Obviously and such being the case, what is your opinion on the issue at hand? TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TrangaBellam: I don't think the arguments in favour of maintaining this review in the article make much sense at all, "no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten" in particular. It seems that there are editors here right now doing that rewriting process, and being told they cannot. I also find it hard to understand why anyone would fight so hard to try to include a review that seems so inconquential. This Talk page probably has more words written about the author and her review than anywhere at all in academia. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The claim of censorship, in particular, is extraordinary. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Piotrus as long as the publication is reliable, we don't require the authors of the cited works to have particular credentials
This doesn't make sense, since credentials and reputation of the author of the cited work is directly related to whether or not it is reliable. Per WP:SOURCEDEF:

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

It is entirely reasonable to ask about these things. —  Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 03:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ User:Shibbolethink: You are right, but please note my wording of "require". And the policy you cite says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both". Note the word 'or'. So if the journal is reliable, it generally makes the author's background less relevant. Not irrelevant, of course. But if the journal is reliable, shouldn't the fact that a review was published in it be acknowledged somehow on the wiki page? If the journal is minor, and/or the author is not very prominent, I concur that their views should not be given weight equal to reviews in more estabilished venues, by more senior scholars. But I am very uneasy with regards to completely removing such sources, unless they are plainly unreliable. Bottom line, we are discussing whether we should include all reliable, academic reviews of a book in an article about a book, or only some. Here, I am an inclusionist, since I prefer to see our articles as comprehensive as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The review is undue, IMO: the author did not have her PhD/academic position at the time of the review's publication; so A sociologist working at Kean University is reliable does not apply. She has no expertise in Holocaust studies, so her opinion would not carry the same weight as that of an expert's. The issue -- same as with the #Citation_to_Judith_Olsak-Glass,_Sarmatian_Review topic above -- appears to be that the indiscriminate collection of reviews create an appearance of wider academic acceptance for the book which, upon closer examination, does not appear to exist. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don’t agree with you K.e.coffman. - GizzyCatBella 🍁06:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sociologist is very much qualified to review a book by another sociologist. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 13:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    She wasn't a sociologist when she wrote the review. Her masters degree is in nonprofit admin and public policy. Someone with a masters in public policy reviewing a sociologist's book about World War II is not going to be due the same weight as one of the world's top historians (or anyone with a history PhD). Levivich ( talk) 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    You know, that does make sense. I am totally fine with giving her less weight than let's say Friedrich. But less weight does not mean zero weight. If Friedrich gets 2-3 sentences, she can get 1 sentence (or we can count words). She is a reliable scholar, she published her review in a reliable academic journal, there is no need to eradicate that information from the article completely. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    You haven't established that she is a reliable scholar or that she published her review in a reliable academic journal, your argument is entirely circular. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Worse, we've established that she was not a scholar at all when she wrote the review, nevermind a reliable scholar. The journal is also not established as a reliable academic journal, since it's (apparently?) not indexed and has no impact factor. All we can say about it is that it's a journal, who knows about it's reliability. Levivich ( talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Are you guys really considering whether a review published in Humanity & Society is good enough for Wikipedia? Why wouldn't it be? Because it is positive? You can add that Romanienko is a sociologist, there is nothing wrong with that, the review is written from a sociologist's point of view after all, but that's it. There is no basis for removing this review. Marcelus ( talk) 22:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
She was not a sociologist when she wrote the review. Everybody on the same page please? Levivich ( talk) 01:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
BA in sociology and publishing sociological papers doesn't make her a sociologist? Marcelus ( talk) 21:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
BA in sociology definitely not -- a BA in X doesn't make someone a professional X. Or a scholar. I have a BA in polisci and philosophy, I am neither a political scientist nor a philosopher. Same for a Master's degree. Generally speaking, you need a PhD -- you need to have defended a dissertation, which is where other people with PhDs in your field critically examine research you did to confirm that you know what you're doing -- until then, you're an amateur.
An exception is if you have been published a lot in reputable peer-reviewed publications, in which case you can be considered an expert in a field without a PhD; the peer review essentially takes the place of a dissertation. So, what sociology papers did Romanienko publish before she wrote this book review in 2000? Levivich ( talk) 21:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
She published quite a lot actually. In 1999 she published: Gender differences in adaptation patterns among scientists in developing nations: exploring the case studies of Ghana, Kenya, and Kerala, link. In 2000 she published Structural impediments to managerial mobility in industrialised nations, link. And Dual labor market theory and the institutionalization of farmers' markets: marginalized American workers adapting to inhospitable conditions, link. Marcelus ( talk) 21:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
At least post things that she wrote before she wrote the review (Feb 1, 2000). Then ask yourself: is what I'm posting have anything to do with the Holocaust or Poland? Then ask yourself: why am I arguing so much to include this person's review? Then: why did I go to ANI and AE? Levivich ( talk) 21:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
1. The date of publication is due to the publication cycle of the journal, she could have written it just as well a few months earlier, it is worth taking into account all the publications in a given period, which prove that she was a keenly published sociologist.
2. It has a lot to do with her review, but you have to read it first to understand. She wrote the reviews from her academic point of view.
3. Because it is a review of a sociologist's work published in a sociological journal. Because the review itself is notable, if only because it's cited in American Sociology and Holocaust Studies: The Alleged Silence and the Creation of the Sociological Delay written by by Adele Valeria Messina (For example: Solid and informative, for critics, says Romanienko, in “focusing the analysis to events that occurred within and around Poland’s borders,” Piotrowski’s work represents a bulwark in Holocaust Studies, above all because he calls Polish behavior and attitudes into question during the conflict years in “identifying the changing face of Poland’s perpetrators, as well as a clarification of her victims.). Becuase the books doesn't have much review.
I don't advocate giving her the same weight as other reviewers, but there is not reason to exclude her. Marcelus ( talk) 21:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Messina, Adele Valeria (2017-02-07). American Sociology and Holocaust Studies: The Alleged Silence and the Creation of the Sociological Delay. Academic Studies Press. pp. 169–182. doi: 10.1515/9781618115485. ISBN  978-1-61811-548-5.
That is 13 pages of recent scholarly review of Poland's Holocaust; that is WP:DUE for inclusion. Messina cites and quotes Romanienko's review (at pages 173 and 180-182), which is the first reason I've seen so far for why Romanienko's opinion of the work is WP:DUE. Messina also cites Olsak-Glass, but much less so (pages 170 and 179). Levivich ( talk) 23:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I guess you are right, Messian herself should be mentioned in the article. Marcelus ( talk) 23:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I will be very careful with Messina (2017); more comments in a new section. TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you elaborate this please? Is Messina somewhat problematic researcher? Marcelus ( talk) 07:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
A book review by someone academically unqualified in the subject is essentially a review of the readability of the book rather than its scholarship. It is undue. JoelleJay ( talk) 01:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Undue. I've read enough, Romanienko was not an expert at the time of the review, has no expertise in this area, and her review was published in a lower-quality non-indexed journal. Also, as an aside, I'm not actually sure that book reviews at Human&Society are peer-reviewed. They appear to be submitted via email, in a different system that is wholly outside the one that reviewers use to evaluate manuscripts. I would be okay with the review being cited as part of an overall "some reviews praised its writing (or whatever) claim as it certainly still contributes to the overall academic landscape, even if it is of lower quality. But I do not think this review is DUE enough for its own sentence or individual mention. —  Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 03:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It would be extraordinary for a book review to be peer reviewed. I'm not even really sure what that would entail, since peer review is supposed to recommend (or reject) articles for publication based on questions like "are the study's methods clearly explained" and "does it advance scholarship in the field". A book review summarizes a book, gives an opinion, and, if it's a good review, will also explain who would find the book worth reading. I could mark a book review, but peer review doesn't have any meaning here. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Bolianovskyi

1. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

thanks, I've added this [1]. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 12:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TrangaBellam @ Gitz6666 Are we sure that "East European Historical Bulletin" is WP:DUE? It is published by a small provincial Ukrainian university. Nonetheless it is worth considering moving Wróbel's and Bolianovskyi's reviews to a separate section, because now "Career" has turned into a criticism section. I also am not sure that referring to the massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia as "Ukrainian-Polish ethnic conflicts" is the best choice of words. Marcelus ( talk) 16:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I do not think highly of the publication. However, Bolianovskyi is a trained scholar — he was associated with the USHMM and was commissioned by the editors of The Waffen-SS: A European History (OUP) to author an article on a relevant topic. Still, I won't grant him more than a line. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Btw, I have not bothered to check Gitz's edit and whether it represents Bolianovskyi's review accurately. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I hope my edit contains an accurate representation of the source. Re the source itself, I don't know about the "East European Historical Bulletin", but this [2] persuaded me that the author qualifies as established subject-matter expert, so that even if the "East European Historical Bulletin" were an WP:SPS, which is certainly not the case, Bolianovskyi's contribution would still be an RS. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 17:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, it is somewhat problematic that what Bolianovskyi accuses Piotrowski of (selective sampling of sources), he himself committed in his attempt to remove responsibility for the murder of Poles and Jews in Huta Pieniacka from the Ukrainian SS "Galicia". Interestingly, this also involved Polish sources (one of many blamed the Germans for the crime, Bolianovskyi used this others ignored). At best, this is a "the pot calling the kettle black" situation. Marcelus ( talk) 17:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ K.e.coffman do you have any opinion on this? Marcelus ( talk) 07:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
FYI: Bolianovskyi himself is quite controversial, quoting Grzegorz Motyka (From the Volhynian Massacre to Operation Vistula. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict 1943-1947 in Polish, mine translation):

However, the biggest controversy is over the actions of the 4th Regiment commanded by SS sturmbannführer Siegfried Binz, which was tasked with protecting the frontline facilities in Eastern Galicia. At the beginning of 1944, it participated in various repressive actions, for example, probably helping the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) to murder Poles in Podkamień and in the village of Palikrowy. However, the greatest crime of the 4th SS Police Regiment was the pacification of the village of Huta Pieniacka - a Polish outpost for self-defense against the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, where a group of Jews were also hiding. [...] In 2009, publications appeared in Ukraine questioning the participation of Ukrainian volunteers in the murder of Poles. A proponent of this thesis is, for example, Andrii Bolianovskyi, who, on the basis of a found document of the Polish underground accusing only Germans of committing this crime, created a theory that the accusation against the SS "Galizien" division was crafted by the KGB. However, it is difficult to take his claim seriously when, as we have seen, there is a lot of material (including from the Polish underground) unequivocally stating the participation of Ukrainian SS soldiers in the pacification. Bolianovskyi's thesis is all the more surprising given that so far Ukrainian historians (for example, Taras Hunchak) have not denied the presence of SS "Galizien" units in Huta Pieniacka, maintaining only that they did not participate in the murder of civilians. [...] However, the version of events given by Hunchak is also highly questionable. If only because there is not even a word in any of the witnesses' accounts of the events that there was any swapping of the pacification group during the action. All witnesses also unanimously claimed that the soldiers pacifying Huta Pieniacka communicated in Ukrainian (and some, as it turns out, they knew personally). In addition, the police units were by design used by the Germans for similar actions, so it would not make any sense to apply any allowance to the 4th Regiment.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelus ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Musial is heavily criticised by Michlic, et al. So? TrangaBellam ( talk) 17:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
What his critic is about exactly? Is Musiał being accused of manipulating historical sources to take responsibility for the crime off the unit he sympathizes with? Marcelus ( talk) 17:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Zlatke/Polonsky

The book’s fundamental flaw is that it fails to draw a balanced picture of their interrelations; rather it defends the cause of one of them, and this results in one-sidedness. The book offers little new material, relying mainly on secondary sources. One of the book’s main defensive weapons is deflection.
— Zlatkes, Gwido, 'Tadeusz Piotrowski Poland’s Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918–1947', in Antony Polonsky (ed.), Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry Volume 15: Focusing on Jewish Religious Life, 1500-1900

Fwiw, the review appears in a volume edited by Antony Polonsky who is widely regarded as the preeminent scholar on Polish Jewish history. Now, does including this violate BLP; what say others? TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not a BLP violation. I'm not sure why you're bolding some of the text however, or why you put these disparate sentences together as if this was a continous passage. Rather, these are sentences strewn through out the article. You should use elipsis (...) to indicate that. The question is whether all of this is due. The "little new material" and "secondary sources" is not very significant. "main defensive weapon is deflection" is weird without context. So I'd say just include the first sentence. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I copied from the abstract which is indeed a continuos passage; maybe, take your concerns to Zlatkes or the publisher? TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
And, I find "it defends the cause of one of them" very significant esp. when read together with Grabowski. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah ok. I read the actual article. And in the actual article these are not together and reference different topics. I don't know what concerns I'm suppose to take to Zlatkes. Volunteer Marek 22:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
As did I; the abstract was submitted by the author to the best of my knowledge. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
If we can cite the paper we should cite the paper, not its abstract. Anyway, I believe I answered your question - including first sentence is fine, the rest is really WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 22:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
OKay, so you agree that The book’s fundamental flaw is that it fails to draw a balanced picture of their interrelations; rather it defends the cause of one of them, and this results in one-sidedness. is due and the rest, not. I kinda concur. TrangaBellam ( talk) 22:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Me too. Levivich ( talk) 05:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It looks like RS, but we need the full version Marcelus ( talk) 22:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I am unable to access the full version as well; if anyone was able to access it - I'd appreciate tips on how they did it (the JSTOR's version of the book does not seem available through Wikipedia's Library, and WL's OUP collection shows as temporarily unavilable for weeks now). Links in case they help others: JSTOR, OUP. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I will appreciate some information on the academic background of Zlatke and their academic expertise to review a monograph on aspects of the history of the Holocaust :) (The review was published in 2002 I believe?) What I see: Current position: Librarian at University of California. This suggests that he got that position in 2006 and before that he was a graduate student (at Brandeis University)? In what field? This 2008 work still calls him a doctoral student at Brandeis which would align with the previous source which suggestst that he got his librarian job in 2006 (and before them presumably was a graduate student). This describes him as a "poet, philologist and historian by education". Mind you, as an inclusionist when it comes to book reviews I would prefer to keep this review - but we should use the same standards for all reviews here (see discussions above concerning Olsak-Glass and Romanienko). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The review was published in a journal, which is specifically devoted to the history of Polish Jews and edited by a pre-eminent scholar in the field. I had already mentioned this in my opening poser. So, do you suggest that Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry is as reputed and reliable as Humanity and Society or The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society for an informed discussion of Piotrowski's work?
  • Nonetheless, to answer your question: Zlatke has an ABD on Jewish Studies from Brandeis. He has since come to be considered as an expert on the print culture in Polish Underground during the Communist regime, having published a monograph from Indiana University Press. While he might not be a historian of the Holocaust, the domain of his work is far more relevant to the topic in hand than either of the two scholars (healthcare consumerism, judgment and decision-making, and behavioral economics / nonprofit admin and public policy), whom you sought to have included. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Zlatkes published works on the underground press in Poland and on Talmudic philosophy, and I don't know if combining these two specialties makes someone a Holocaust specialist. It seems to me that it does not, and his expertise should be judged similarly to that of, for example, Romanienko. (And FYI he did not publish a monograph, but was co-editor of a collection of articles of various authors) Marcelus ( talk) 21:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The review was published in a journal, which is specifically devoted to the history of Polish Jews and edited by a pre-eminent scholar in the field. TrangaBellam ( talk) 05:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Black

However, as a warning of the problems with this dimension, a prominent academic instance of the downplaying of the Jewish experience is provided by Poland’s Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918–1947, by Tadeusz Piotrowski (1998). A professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, and a naturalized American of Polish descent, Piotrowski defines the Holocaust as including the victims of both Germany and the Soviet Union. This, then, enables him to divide his study of the Holocaust in Poland into seven chapters, with “Nazi Terror” preceded by “Soviet Terror,” and chapters on Polish, Belorussian, Lithuanian, and Ukrainian collaboration preceded by a chapter on Jewish collaboration with both Soviet and German agencies. The overall impression, to put it mildly, is of a seriously unbalanced account and of a hijacking of the term, holocaust.
— The Holocaust: History and Memory by Jeremy Black. Indiana University Press. 2016. p. 227

Is this due and compliant with BLP? TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

VM and Marcelus, I will appreciate your insights. Thanks! TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It should of course be attributed to Jeremy Black (historian) but yes it does appear due and compliant with BLP. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ofcourse, attribution is a must. I will also appreciate your opinions in the thread just above. TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I would say that Holocaust Studies isn't exactly main field of Jeremy Black, but judging by the list of his books it seems that everything is his main field :) Honestly speaking impressive academic output Marcelus ( talk) 23:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I think it's due, but it still doesn't support G&K claims. Marcelus ( talk) 23:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This review is just a review; not linked to G&K. TrangaBellam ( talk) 23:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes. Levivich ( talk) 05:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TrangaBellam proposition: Jeremy Black found the work to be a "seriously unbalanced account" that had "hijacked" the terminology of Holocaust to include victims of Soviet regime and portray the Jews as colloborators.
My proposition, that I think is more in line with what Black is actually saying:
Jeremy Black found the work to be a "seriously unbalanced account" that had "hijacked" the term "holocaust" to include victims of Soviet regime and portray the Jews as colloborators and downplayed the Jewish experience.
Black does not link the hijacking of the term "holocaust" with the inclusion of victims of the Soviet regime, nor does he link or evaluate to any degree the coverage of Jewish collaboration in the book; he only mentions that there is such a chapter in the book. Marcelus ( talk) 10:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Read more carefully. Piotrowski defines the Holocaust as including the victims of both Germany and the Soviet Union. This, then, enables him [..] [to have] a chapter on Jewish collaboration with both Soviet and German agencies. The word "then" is important. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Ok, now I see that there is in fact link between hijacking the term and including victims of Soviet regime. But I still don't think that "a chapter on Jewish collaboration with both Soviet and German" can be linked with the hijacking of the term. Marcelus ( talk) 10:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I am afraid that White makes the conclusion; whether he is accurate in linking them (or not), is beyond our editorial purview. TrangaBellam ( talk) 11:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Straw poll on a line from G&K

Jan Grabowski characterized the book as a "collection of quotations taken out of context"; it mounted multiple ahistorical claims.

Who supports inclusion of this line (copyedits are alsways welcome) in the article? TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Marcelus, Levivich, K.e.coffman, My very best wishes, Horse Eye's Back, Volunteer Marek, Gitz6666, Piotrus, Hemiauchenia, Bobfrombrockley, Asilvering, and Shibbolethink: - Pinging ALL participants from the last few days. If I have skipped anyone, please do ping them. TrangaBellam ( talk) 10:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge/redirect from Poland’s Holocaust

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge as WP:NBOOK met and readers are best served by having the content separately discussed. Klbrain ( talk) 12:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm using the template "Merge from" but this is essentially a redirect proposal, to the Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist)#Poland's_Holocaust section. The contents of the book article duplicate what's in the bio article. The length of the section is such that a WP:SPLIT is not necessary. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

The main question to answer is whether the book is notable or not (see WP:NBOOK). Length is a secondary concern (which is why most stubs on notable topics are not usually merged to related topics). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I think the opposite, per WP:PAGEDECIDE: just because a topic is notable doesn't mean it must have its own page, and stubs on notable topics are routinely merged to related topics: "Short text" is WP:MERGEREASON #3, and the reason why I support merge. Levivich ( talk) 16:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I commented on the book's notability, which I consider to be marginal, here: #A_Polish_review. More generally, notability is not the main question to answer. Per Wikipedia:Splitting#When to split, the main reasons for a split are "size and content relevance". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
While you are right that the split was not necessary, I disagree that the book doesn't merit a stand-alone article. If you disagree and think that the book fails NBOOK/GNG, I recommend nominating that article for AfD. From NBOOK: A book is presumed notable, and to generally merit an article... [if it meets the following criteria]: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
You mean either AfD or propose a merger right? Those are both appropriate paths to follow in that situation. Also note that passing GNG or one of the SNG isn't a magic bullet so your argument is nonsensical, it can both pass NBOOK and be merged or deleted. Per WP:N: "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back per WP:NOPAGE. TrangaBellam ( talk) 03:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per User:Piotrus whose arguments are rather convincing. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 11:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • OP's comment: the arguments about steering the discussion towards an AfD are not convincing, because we are not discussing deleting the contents, but where it should be housed instead. The Merge/redirect discussion is the appropriate venue, governed by WP:SPLIT / WP:MERGEREASON. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose — presuming that the book is notable, and good arguments to that effect have been raised, then the bibliography makes sense. — Biruitorul Talk 11:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, the book meets WP:NBOOK criteria it's covered by fair number of reviews, I also examined Messina chapter about Piotrowski's book and it really looks that it's really notable work of American sociology of the Holocaust Marcelus ( talk) 10:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: The book meets notability criteria easily and I see no advantage in redirecting. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The book is a most notable contribution to the subject matter. Nihil novi ( talk) 19:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Tadeusz_Piotrowski_(sociologist)&oldid=1206238087"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE