Talk:Barbara Engelking/Archive 1

Archive 1

psychologist, sociologist

She is psychologist, sociologist,Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

pl:Jacek Chrobaczyński isn't fringe

It's quoted by the Center [1]. Poor Center, with friends like Icewhiz they will loose. Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dzieje Najnowsze is academic

Please don't remove the reference.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

unclear what this is about or why it needs to be included

Maybe you should read something to obtain a clear view?Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

POV

All criticisms by Gontarczyk are being removed, but praises from Chrobaczyński are quoted. Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"Czy bracia Hryć byli polskimi mordercami Żydów? Czyli uwagi na temat naukowej wiarygodności badań prof. Barbary Engelking" - "Were the Hryć brothers Polish killers of Jews? Remarks regarding the scholarly credibility of Prof. Barbara Engelking's research". Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You know what's a BLP vio?

Derisively calling a bone fide historian a "radio historian" just because he gave an interview on the radio. More to the point the very idea that just "speaking on the radio" turns an actual historian into a non-reliable radio historian is so freakin' absurd that it's hard to see how anyone could advance such an argument with a straight face. NPR just interviewed some Pulitzer winning authors. Does that turn them from "authors" into "radio-authors".

Can we stop with this nonsense please? Putting up with it is quite tiresome.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Regular appearences actually, not one. Please show why Gontarczyk's radio interview is DUE, given Gontarczyk's record in these matters and coverage of Gontarczyk - who works in the archive of the much maligned IPN - "After 2015 the IPN converted into an institution promoting revisionism in reference to Polish-Jewish relations. Previously open attitudes to research and teaching about the Holocaust were amended.Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, Jolanta. "The uses and the abuses of education about the Holocaust in Poland after 1989." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-22.. If we were to include opinions of IPN personnel, then we would have to start with an introduction on the present (as opposed to early 2000s) fringe status of the IPN.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Gontarczyk is a professional historian. "Much maligned IPN" is your own POV and bias. Not even gonna take that extremist nonsense form you seriously. As repeatedly pointed out to you, if you want to push your absurd POV with regard to IPN you are welcome to to go to WP:RSN. I've been saying this for months now, and you haven't, presumably because you know your view is nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I provided a reliable source for my assertion on IPN - published in Holocaust Studies, which is not an "extremist" publication. There is no reason to think an IPN employee speaking on Polish radio (itself censored in regards to the Holocaust due to 2018 legislation) is DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

One should also note that the IPN has been condemned by the French education minister for its role in disturbing an academic conference in Paris on the Holocaust.[2] There's little reason to consider comments in Polish popular media by the IPN as DUE in a BLP they oppose. We should wait until IPN discourse is covered by a reputable source which is not subject to censorship on the Polish role in the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Old song

This is a biography. This is not Dalej jest noc. Chrobaczyński should be quoted, rather, in Dalej jest noc. Surprisingly, the summary here is longer than there, why? Similarly, there is a legal case pending against Engelking and Grabowski, not mentioned here; and a series of critical texts, also not mentioned here, and so we get POV. Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The page doesn't inform about Engelking's social activities, e.g. her fight against a monument to the Righteous. Xx236 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What are the "the self-serving myths about Polish-Jewish relations in World War II"?

There are two types of myths about Polish-Jewish relations in World War II:

• Jewish myths that demonize Poles and ignore German terror or Jewish collaboration; and
• Polish myths that ignore crimes committed by Poles.

I assume Kassow condemns the Polish myths but ignores the "self-serving" Jewish ones. Xx236 (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"careful and objective scholarship": neither "careful" (errors) nor "objective". Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Edward Malinowski

Dalej jest noc accuses Edward Malinowski. His family rejects the accusations. I believe that accused people and their families have the right to protest against possibly false accusations. Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

historian - unsourced

• MS psychology
• PhD humanities
• tenure (habilitacja) sociology

Her own page doesn't say historian http://www.holocaustresearch.pl/index.php?show=13&lang=en

Government page http://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=18648&_k=94ntul says sociology, Holocaust studies.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Polish law she is a sociologist

Poland has its law system. Even 1000 sources doesn't influence Polish law.Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have sources that BE isn't a sociologist, please reference them.Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand: Wikipedia articles describe peoples' occupations based on what they do, i.e. their occupations. Why would Polish law be relevant to what Engelking does? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

She works for PAS as a sociologist in Institute of Philosophy and Sociology. Now you belive she isn't a sociologist. I really don't understand you!!!Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't commented on what I believe, I've asked you why Polish law would be relevant to this article, as you appear to claim above. Can you explain your claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Polish law is not relevant here. Working as a sociologist (historian etc.) is not a regulated trade. Zezen (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

She obtained two degrees in sociology and is working in PAS, where anything is regulated by Polish law, including obtaining mineral water during heat. She isn't a freelancer like me here. Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as a sociologist, I'll note that some sociologists carry out historical research, and can be described as both. And in any way, a sociologist should not be seen as less authoritative when speaking on the topic of history then a historian. Pl wiki describes here in the lead as a sociologist and psychologist (polska psycholog i socjolog). [3], a database of the Information Processing Centre notes that her specialty according to the State Committee for Scientific Research is sociology, with a specializing in the Holocaust studies, and she has a title of the professor of social sciences. Her homepage at [4] states: "education: psychology" (as in, she got her masters in psychology, then her doctorate seems to have been in history, based on its title at least, through [5] states her PhD was in sociology). Note that the Polish Center for Holocaust Research she is a director of is a multidisciplinary research institute, not just historical (" The main goal of the Center is to create an interdisciplinary (historical, sociological, psychological, anthropological, literature and art). Lastly, note that that very page calls her a psychologist, while clearly clanging some other scholars listed there historians. Finally, yes, some media call her a historian, because that's what an average person will think of anyone who is writing about the past. I think that the lead of the article should say sociologist and psychologist specializing in Holocaust studies. I don't think that calling her a historian is controversial, but technically, she is, indeed, a sociologist. Lastly, I'll note that here is a field of sociology known as historical sociology, through I am not sure if she would qualify as a scholar in it - her research seems to be, IMHO, more like normal historical research, perhaps with some more sociological insights then not. Shrug. Lastly, when she is referred to in other articles, I'd personally call her a sociologist and not a historian, but again, I don't think it matters much either way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A historian learns Source criticism and she is criticized beacause she isn't critical.

You have omitted gender studies. Three US scientists studied gender academy publishing absurd texts. I don't know the details yet. Some of Polish Holocaust historians publish about sexuality, eg. Zośka alleged homosexuality. Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I would have no objection to "is a Polish sociologist and psychologist specializing in Holocaust studies" or "is a Polish social scientist specializing in Holocaust studies". SarahSV ^(talk) 03:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Her profesion is still banned from the lead, against basic Wikipedia rules.Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

To which specific Wikipedia rule are you referring? Do you object to SV's proposed wording? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

the study alleges that hundreds of thousands of Jews were betrayed by non-Jewish Poles.

Where exactly? How many hundreds of thousands?Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "hundreds of thousands" used in the current article; can you say exactly what you want changed in the article and where? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Neither do I see therein. To wit, the reffed version said "that *many thousands more* Jews were betrayed by non-Jewish Poles than was previously acknowledged", which seems a rational estimate, be it true, false, controversial or otherwise. It thus does not allege X00 000s.Zezen (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You quote the JTA text, which contains the phrase. Is such source reliable?Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quoting anything, and I haven't quoted anything. I've never edited this article. The JTA is generally considered to be reliable. That would be the case even if you were able to find an issue with a specific sentence in a specific article it has published, but you can certainly take it to WP:RSN if you're concerned. I find it very difficult to understand what changes you want to make to the article; can you be more explicit or straightforward? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

One source misinforms. I want the source to be replaced with a serious one.Xx236 (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the material you object to being cited in this article, so it's hard to see what the issue is here. Do you have a better source in mind? Also, can you please review WP:INDENT? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I prefer serious, reliable sources. Does it surprise you?

Please compare that sourced critics is removed. Don't you find the whole editing biased? Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been editing for a few years; very little on Wikipedia surprises me. What specific change would you like to make to the article, based on which reliable sources and which policies? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 edits

Preserving here by providing this link. See #Neutrality please on my Talk page why some of the edits were problematic. On more recent edits, IIRC, the chapter in question was written by a contributor; this material is coatrack for this BLP and belongs in the article on the book. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• "If [praise] of chapters in the book are COATRACK then so is this. Can't have it both ways", in re: restoration of this material: [6]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: did you mean to restore this material, or was it a mistype? --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems as a rather POINTy edit removing an academic review, with long English abstract, covering the book as a whole - all 9 studies.Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not involved in this discussion. Only now, AFTER my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Engelking&oldid=901525596, I have found this discussion above about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Engelking&diff=prev&oldid=897658247. By chance I have introduced a similar (hopefully NPOV) content, albeit less detailed, as the previous bio was too slanted to praising her work, omitting critical voices from fellow historians, be they valid or not. I hope a variant of my version stays put for a while. Zezen (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I re-removed the content in this recent addition: [7]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The removed text had been copied word-for-word from the article on the book. It may be appropriate there (depending on the sources), but here it dominates the reception section. Is there more criticism than praise of this book? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If you don't like the text, please rewrite it. Your ereemovals mean censorship.Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      • WP:UNDUE is policy, not censorship. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

Hi Zezen, I removed the paragraph you added, per WP:BLP, because you didn't name the critics, and it wasn't clear what the source is. It seemed to be a Polish radio station. If you restore it, can you please name the critic (or at least the most prominent if there are several); clarify what the source is, making sure that it's an RS; and provide a translation of what it says in a footnote? See WP:NOENG. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC) (edited 01:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC))

I agree that criticism should at least name individual historians or such who stand behind it. Just attributing criticism to a media outlet is insufficient, though we could discuss here whether a criticism by a particular journalist would be relevant.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Piotr Gontarczyk has published a number of articles criticizing Engelking's texts. Domański criticizes the whole book, Dalej jest noc, including Engelking's part. Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide specific quotations from them, with the sources? Nihil novi (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Were the Hryć brothers Polish murderers of Jews? Remarks on the scholarly reliability of Prof. Barbara Engelking's research", 24 pages. I prefer not to summarize it. https://apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/DN/article/view/DN.2018.4.08/17239 Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Korekta..." by Domański. https://ipn.gov.pl/pl/aktualnosci/65746,Korekta-obrazu-Refleksje-zrodloznawcze-wokol-ksiazki-Dalej-jest-noc-Losy-Zydow-w.html Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Engelking rejects Domański's criticisms. http://www.holocaustresearch.pl/index.php?show=555&strona=563 Xx236 (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Dalej jest noc was supported by Claims Conference. Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I support Xx236 etc. here and vote for restoring Nihil novi's edit or a version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Engelking&curid=57561029&diff=902322356&oldid=902253621

Is a WP:RFC needed?

(Zezen (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)).

It's apparently needed. Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Reviews of Dalej jest noc may be transferred to the "Dalej jest noc" article, but all of them. Keeping accolades and deleting criticisms is biased behavior. Isn't the bias obvious and shameful? Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Are Engelking's books given expert review pre-publication?

In Tomasz Domański's 72-page article, "Korekta obrazu? Refleksje źródłoznawcze wokół książki Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski" ("A Corrected Picture? Reflections on Use of Sources in the Book, Night Continues: The Fate of Jews in Selected Counties of Occupied Poland")," in the Institute of National Remembrance periodical, Polish-Jewish Studies (2019) [8], footnote 213, p. 72, reads: "It is worth asking whether the book [Dalej jest noc] underwent [pre-publication expert] review. Customarily, reviewers' names are placed on the page that gives publication information. In Dalej jest noc, reviewers' names are not given, as is also the case with other major books bearing the Polish Center for Holocaust Research imprint. See Prowincja noc...; Zarys krajobrazu...; B. Engelking, Jest taki piękny...; J. Grabowski, Judenjagd..." [Domański's footnote was translated from the Polish by Nihil novi.] Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Dalej jest noc, edited by Jan Grabowski and Barbara Engelking, accuses Edward Malinowski, wartime sołtys of the Polish village of Malinowo, of having been responsible for the deaths of dozens of Jews who were in hiding from the Germans. His 94-year-old relative Filomena Leszczyńska is suing Grabowski and Engelking in Warsaw court for defaming Malinowski, who—on the contrary—had heroically assisted Jews, at the risk of his own life and the lives of his family.

Excerpt from the lawsuit:

"During her testimony in court, Maria Wiśniewska (Estera Drogicka), stated: 'For a good couple of weeks, I hid in Malinowski's barn and he fed me, even though I was penniless.' From this statement, Barbara Engelking removed the words 'even though I was penniless'. The reasons [why] these 5 words were removed from Maria Wiśniewska’s testimony were unknown to the Plaintiff. These words contradict the [allegation] that E. Malinowski robbed the Jewish girl, and they put E. Malinowski in an extremely positive light. Not only was he not afraid of hiding a Jewish girl (for which he, his family, and the entire village could have suffered the death penalty), but he did this selflessly."

Xx236 (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"has not previously been documented in such detail"

Dalej jest noc is generally based on eyewitness accounts that had previously been collected for August criminal proceedings. Some of those accounts contradicted other accounts. Some accounts had previously been rejected by Polish judges. Some Dalej jest noc authors quote accounts while ignoring contradictions or earlier judicial rejections of incompatible accounts. The crimes had been "documented" by communist police (including the ill-famed Urząd Bezpieczeństwa, or UB) and by Jewish organizations. The authors quote the documents, sometimes in controversial ways. Can their work properly be termed "documentation"? They processed pre-existing documents, sometimes manipulating them. Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NOTAFORUM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not an encyclopedia either... You have removed the criticisms. It is censorship. Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

As I noted above, WP:UNDUE is policy, not censorship. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is the above? Somewhere in the archive under some other name? It's not a quiz show. BTW - I don't like your pattronizing. You don't know the subject to instruct me what is due. Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"Above" was Talk:Barbara Engelking/Archive 1#May 2019 edits, which was on the Talk: page when I made the comment, but is now archived. I'm sorry you feel my comments are patronizing; you may well know much more about the subject than I do. It's possible, however, that I am more familiar with Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Threads older than 1 week may be archived

Does such overarchivisation make the discussion more readable?Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Engelking is apparently disliked by various individuals or groups, and the talk page seems to constantly fill with comments that are, or could be considered, WP:BLP violations. It's therefore best to archive quickly, to avoid these issues. Also, please note it is not "threads older than 1 week", but actually "threads that have no response in over 1 week" that may be archived. No active or on-going discussion will be automatically archived. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

May I ask what is your source of knowledge of the subject? Do you read Polish?

JT Gross and the Center led by BE are not historians, they reeducate Polish people. They aren't interested in facts, they accept contradictory sources.

Professor Bogdan Musiał in his recent book describes BE as a psychologist (it's her MA subject, I would rather call her a sociologist). Musiał quotes also BE's statement, that she has psychological problem with the Holocaust. I respect openess of BE and her humanity, but there is a problem if she is neutral. A number of her media statements suggest she isn't. Musiał claims also that Center's researchers don't read German, so they use almost exlusively Polish language sources. Another question - do they read Yddish?

Dr Domański believes that BE and her team don't review their books by independent researchers. I don't know if the opinion has been rejected by the Center.

WWII survivor sues BE and Grabowski. JT Gross also has refused to correct his errors, so one had to sue him. Is it academic to use force to correct any error?

Domański and Gontarczyk have critiized the 2018 book and they write their books criticizing "Dalej jest noc". Let's wait.

So it's not like or dislike only. A Holocaust historian should read German and Yiddish and to evaluate his/her sources critically. Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I have checked and my answers are available in the archive and the discussion was already broken by the former archiving. So we are in the same place since May. Maybe your Wikipedia policy of ignoring archived threads and archiving after one week (especially during Summer holidays) isn't correct.

This Wikipedia has to accept classical logic. If it doesn't I'm in a wrong place.Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:BLPTALK; the comments about individuals above are one of the reasons this talk page must be archived so frequently. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I quoted a book by Professor Bogdan Musiał and a booklet by Dr. Domański. Is that illegal? Is it illegal to discuss a professor's university studies and language fluency?

The Center led by Barbara Engelking has a number of ethical problems. Unethical actions generate questions about ethics.

This Wikipedia accepts Jan Grabowski's "200,000" hoax, but wants to censor a book by Musiał. So far, Engelking has not sued Musiał.

I have asked you to stop archiving after 7 days. Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Your comments immediately above do not show "quotations". A quotation should provide the author's actual words, given in quotation marks, and full information about the source being quoted, including book or article title, place of publication, publisher, publication date, and pagination of the quotation. Nihil novi (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I've asked you to review WP:BLPTALK, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:INDENT. So far, it appears, neither of us has gotten what we have asked for. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"German-occupied Poland"

The Germans did not occupy Poland. They annexed some areas, expelled or murdered local people, and created the General Government, which wasn't an occupation but rather a German colony. Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see Occupation of Poland (1939–1945). Jayjg ^(talk) 14:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't have any idea, so please don't patronize. Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 edits

Per WP:BRD, I've undone this edit. There have been prior attempts to insert negative information which have been reverted. See for example: Talk:Barbara_Engelking/Archive_1#May_2019_edits. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, "per BRD", "something something WEASEL" are actually NOT informative edit summaries. WHY are you reverting "per BRD"? WHAT exactly is suppose to be "WEASEL"? This looks like blind reverting with some spurious, almost random, policy justification thrown in to justify a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

We should not be using a an organization described as revisionist and condemned for its role in disrupting an academic conference in Paris as a source for BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What are you referring to? What is "a an organization described as revisionist"?

Nihil novi (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"After 2015 the IPN converted into an institution promoting revisionism in reference to Polish-Jewish relations. Previously open attitudes to research and teaching about the Holocaust were amended.Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, Jolanta. "The uses and the abuses of education about the Holocaust in Poland after 1989." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-22. French Education minister Frédérique Vidal expresses her regret for the role of the IPN in "serious disturbances" to an academic conference on the Holocaust in Paris, which included antisemitic remarks. La Pologne minimise les incidents lors d’un colloque sur la Shoah à Paris, Le Monde, 4 March 2019 Not remotely an appropriate source - particularly given the IPN's role in disrupting a conference involving our BLP subject.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You've been asked several times to take up the issue at WP:RSN. The issue has been discussed on several occasions and you haven't managed to convince anyone (who didn't already support you extensively across Wikipedia). IPN *may* be biased (that's debatable, it's not a monolithic institution), but it's certainly reliable. Articles written by historians who specialize in the subject matter are reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on this revisionist institution (repeated multiple times) matters little - I backed up my assertion with sources - one specific to the attack of the IPN on the center.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, that is downright ridiculous and your claim alone is false. The IPN is a legitimate institute made up of credible historians. It is you alone who claims they are “revisionist” without providing an inch of proof whatsoever, rather your own opinions. That is not how Wikipedia operates. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not my "personal opinion", it's WP:RS. Like I said, it's been discussed many times, you've never managed to convince anyone, yet you insist on repeating YOUR personal opinion and edit warring on the basis of it all across this topic area. Your sources do not refer to the reliability of the institution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Of the 5 references critical of Dalej jest noc that you deleted from paragraph 3 of the "barbara Engelking" " Reception" section, only 2 are associated with Poland's Institute of National Remembrance (IPN).

Why are you deleting all 5 references?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I count more than two. The others - including an opinion piece (by a politician / travel supplement writer) in RP, do not seem of a particularly high quality.Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yet, on another article you're happy to use Associated Press [9]. Yet another instance of "do as I say, not as I do". At least here the article was written by a historian not a random journalist. In addition to RP, the other sources that you deem of not "a particular high quality" (according to Icewhiz), are peer reviewed journals.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid derailing discussions with off topic conduct accusations. Furthermore, please strike your baseless accusation above - I did not introduce the Associated Press to Holy Cross Mountains Brigade's talk page - an IP denying the connections between the brigade and the Nazies did. I quoted from the source provided by the IP - noting it disagreeed with them.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's derailing anything. And I didn't say you introduced AP, I said you were happy to use it. So your accusation of "baseless accusation" is baseless. Stop twisting other people's words. Here, let me make a bullet point list for you:

1. Here you object to the use of a newspaper as a source. Elsewhere you defend the use of newspapers/news sources as sources or have no problem using such yourself [10]. And not just mainstream newspapers and sources like RP and AP, but fringe, far right sources and even anti-semitic sources [11] (and don't try to obfuscate with that ABOUTSELF stuff - ABOUTSELF does not give license to fabricate quotations). This double standard can leave editors confused. Is it okay to use newspapers and news sources on these articles? Or is it not okay? Or is it ok for Icewhiz to use newspapers and news sources but no one else? Unless Icewhiz gives them permission? Or it's Francois Robere? If somebody other than Icewhiz or Francois Robere uses a newspaper, is that gonna show up in some drama board report as some kind of horrible transgression against the very nature of Wikipedia itself????? Asking for a bit of consistency in application of Wikipedia policy and, well, your own words, isn't "derailing".

2. Pointing out that the sources you are trying to dismiss as not of "a particular high quality" are actually peer reviewed journal articles - exactly the kind of sources you *claim* you wish to use... unless they don't suit your purpose apparently. You haven't bothered to address this rather started with the accusations and intransigence. THAT is derailing a discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Context matters - WP:NEWSORGs are generally good sources for current events, while for historical events usually better sources are available. We generally attempt to avoid using sources described as being state propaganda - e.g. in this academic book chapter.Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Context matters - WP:NEWSORGs are generally good sources for current events, while for historical events usually better sources are available - it sure does, so why are you doing the opposite of what you propose? The Holy Cross Mountain Brigade during WW2 and March 1968 events are historical events... so we shouldn't use news sources. Yet those are precisely the articles where you've tried to use or promoted the use of newspapers, including fringe and anti-semitic ones. Here on the other hand we have current event (publication of the book) yet you are removing peer reviewed journal articles. Let's state this clearly: you are doing the OPPOSITE of what you claim to be doing on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think all editors must remember two things:

1. This is a WP:BLP, so sources must be very strong, particularly if the material is at all controversial.
2. This article is about Engelking, not her book; there's a whole separate article about the book, which is where most (if not all) of the material about the book (particularly reviews) should go.

In general, it also seemed that all the material added regarding the book was negative, which might a reader give an impression that the material failed WP:NPOV. The article on the book itself seems similar. Were reviews of this book uniformly negative? Did no reliable sources review it positively, or having nothing at all positive to say about it? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Both positive and negative reviews should be added. Criticisms by fellow historians who specialize in the topic area are certainly due and meet the requirements for BLP. On the other side, we can't make this into a WP:PEACOCK article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: If reviews are to be added at all, then both positive and negative should be included, per WP:NPOV. As I pointed out, the material that was added was purely negative, and in the article on the book itself, also appears to be purely negative. But again, as also pointed out, this is an article about Engelking, not the book, so most (if not all) of the material about the book should go in the article about the book. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg, the material that was added was added there for balance. I am fine with either including both positive and negative reviews or, as both you and Piotrus suggest, just omitting reviews of either kind all together and simply presenting short, objective, descriptions of the works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I think I understand. There is simply a short description of the book in the article now; do you think anything should be changed? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

This is a very positive review. Coverage of IPN's attack is available - here in Neue Zürcher Zeitung (the Swiss paper of record). Here [12] - Dr. Judith Lyon-Caen is positive about the study, as is Dr. Izabela Wagner here. In this academic book chapter, Dr. Valentin Behr describes the IPN role in propaganda - e.g. English abstract - "Finally, the difficulties of challenging this biased narrative are discussed, illustrated by the hostile reactions of the IPN's staff to the development of some research on the Holocaust in Poland. - the finally in this sense (also) refers to the last two pages which, in French, describes the direct and recurrent intervention of the Polish state via the IPN - in particular against Dalej Jest Noc, noting the hostility of the IPN and its researchers - saying that the IPN's discourse goes beyond peer to peer discussion and that conditions for peaceful debate no longer exist. The book chapter then mentions the IPN's review being tweeted by the IPN in conjunction with the disruption of an academic conference, by Engelking's center, in Paris. Behr concludes by saying that "Here we touch on the fundamental problem of the IPN, that of its conception, which makes it an institution where the scientific and political registers intermingle. This is particularly problematic when historical policy contributes to the authoritarian turn in Poland, as it has been since 2015.. Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I will also note Engelking received a reader's choice man of the year award from Gazeta Wyborcza (newspaper of record, liberal leaning) in May 2019 - source - showing the reception outside of certain, though vocal, circles is different. Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If the book has a dedicated page, I concur that reviews belong there. At best, we could add a summary here that her book received 'mixed reviews' or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung is involved in a number of issues with the Ambasador of Poland. The NZZ refuses to publish his corrections of obvious errors. The NZZ recently lost a case in press council. [13]. Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Frédérique Vidal has been answered by Jarosław Gowin. Frédérique Vidal has no documents, no recordings. Someone told her something. As for France, it has big problems with its anti-Semitism. Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

To be precise - the NZZ did correct its initial lead+captions, and the Presserat mostly found the complaint unjustified. The Pressrat did state the the initial lead/captions were a violation in that it stated that all 60,000 (or tens of thousands) were neo-Nazis / extremists. The NZZ corrected this (as they couldn't ascertain the neo-Nazi affiliation of all marchers, accepted by the Presserat) to 60,000 people of which thousands were neo-Nazis. In summary - this is a rather minor correction that was present only in a very initial article state on NZZ. Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

To be precise the NZZ has a number of current issues.

Did they corect the printed edition? How? By publishing of an erratum in page 23 a week or month later?Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

To be precise, the complaint to the Presserat was on a trivial inaccuracy on the online edition that was fixed (on NZZ's own accord) a short time after it went online. The Presserat endorsed NZZ's own correction it made in real-time prior to the complaint. From reading the Presserat report I don't see any indication it went to print AFAICT. Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Neue Zürcher Zeitung is a reliable newspaper, and can be cited for anything any reliable newspaper can be cited for. If anyone wants to change that status, the place is at WP:RSN, not here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung misinforms about the history of Poland – which makes it "reliable" for Icewhiz. Some editors collect trash from around the world and bring it here. I'm sorry you have joined the team. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is especially with Paul Flückiger, a German journalist who doesn't even care to learn Jarosław Kaczyński's name – he writes it "Jaroslav Kazcynskis" "https://www.facebook.com/NZZamSonntag/posts/2330697837044306", which is derogatory. Flückiger's themes parallel Icewhiz's – all that the Poles do is wrong, racist, anti-Semitic. Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review my previous post. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please be more constructive. This is an encyclopedia, not an anti-Polish Hatepedia.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please also review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir, are you a neutral editor? Why do you see only my faults and ignore the war waged by Icewhiz? Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've never edited this article. Also, article talk pages are for discussing proposed changes to article content, not anything else; that includes discussing other editors. If you have an issue with another editor's behavior, please raise it at WP:AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"Generally undue"

Scholarly criticisms of the book, it appears, are to be considered "generally undue"! Isn't that original research? Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Threads older than 1 week may be archived

This is a manipulation, especially during summer holidays. "May be" doesn't mean "must be". All the threads on this talk page have arbitrarily been archived, speciously suggesting that the page is uncontroversial. Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV on reception

@K.e.coffman: & @Volunteer Marek: I added the POV section template to the reception section. The critical view added by Volunteer Marek seems due. Piotr Gontarczyk is a notable Polish historian, the article was published in the peer-reviewed journal Dzieje Najnowsze (ISSN 0419-8824) which is published by an institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences. A proposed remedy in the current ArbCom case says we should use sources exactly like this. The reception section does not comply with WP:NPOV if it omits all criticism, when this kind of notable criticism exists. Perhaps the text added by Volunteer Marek could be shorter, which is why I'm not outright reverting to it. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have read the article by Gontarczyk. Jewish eyewitness accused "Rycz brothers". The Hryć brothers lived in another place during the war, the eyewitnesses didn't recognise them, so there is no reason to accuse them. The book by Engelking is about crimes committed eclusively by ethnic Poles, but the Hryć brothers are orthodox Belarus.Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur. This is certainly a relevant source, and published in an academic venue: pl:Dzieje Najnowsze, Rocznik L – 2018, 4 PL ISSN 0419–8824. Restoring per comments here, now at 3:0 that this is something relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)