Wikipedia

Talk:Stanisław Kot/GA1

< Talk:Stanisław Kot
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Vanamonde93 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago97 comments9 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 16:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Checklist edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    No issues
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    All sources seem reliable
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    No issues
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    Licenses check out to the best of my abilities
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    I cannot pass this at this time, sorry. See my comments below for further details. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments edit

  • It isn't obvious to a reader unfamiliar with the geography that Galicia encompasses Ruda (it does, yes?)
  • There's a lot of extremely short sentene sprinkled through the article that make the writing a bit choppy; it would greatly improve readibility if some of these were combined. This isn't covered by the GA criteria, so this is a suggestion only.
  • "He showed extreme dedication in helping Polish refugees" is a little too flowery.
  • "He published scholarly articles in international venues" What does "international venues" mean here?
  • There is also a lot of WP:PROSELINE in the article. Again, this isn't something I can enforce at a GAR, but some adjustments to avoid that would be greatly appreciated.
    • I can only point out to my comment above, the article does read fine for me and I am not sure which sentences to fix to address this. Dates are necessary in a text, and the only idea I'd have would be to further expand the article with additional content not containing them. Such expansion would be merited for a FA, I feel, but I don't think it is needed for a GA status as the article IMHO is already comprehensive enough for that level.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Proseline is an issue of style, not content. You don't have to add content or change the number of dates; what you have to do is to not start sentence with dates. That is jarring when it's done repeatedly. Again, not a requirement, but a strong recommendation. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "mediocre politician stole the spotlight from the masterful scholar" "mediocre" and "masterful" are not terms we should be using in Wikipedia's voice; they need to be changed, or used in quotes.
    • Added quotation marks, it is a rough translation / paraphraze of what Tazbir said. But the source is not loading for me now, so I can't provide a direct quotation and have to rely on memory. I wouldn't use a flowery language like it myself without a good source, though. PS. It finally loaded: "Kot natomiast był bez wątpienia uczonym, i to wielkiej miary, ale po uważnej lekturze

książki T. P. Rutkowskiego nie sposób nazwać niefortunnego ambasadora Polski Ludowej w Rzymie wybitnym politykiem. "--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Most of the paragraph beginning "As a scholar, Kot's main area of expertise" seems to belong in the scholarly career saction.
  • The further reading section is, to my mind, far too long. It's considerably longer than either the bibliography or the list of works. I'd suggest omitting the list of articles contained in the Fitowa book, at the very least.
    • Let me disagree per WP:NOTPAPER. Particularly as there is no good link to a table of contents, certainly not in English. I find this list, while a bit non-standard, very useful for the reader. In the future, I'd expect it would be gone as individual chapters would be used as references for a FA. But for now I think removing it would be deterimental to the reader.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The very first sentence of the article is overly long and complicated. I would suggest breaking it after "historian and politician".
  • I'm a little confused by the "scientific career" bit in the infobox; unless I'm missing something, all his works seems to be historical and education related, not scientific.
  • There's a lot of duplicate links; some of them, particularly those to articles about political movements, are actually helpful; but most of the others should go.
  • The "list of disciples" in the prose is also rather long. I would suggest at the very least omitting those who do not have articles in Polish or English.
  • If he matriculated in 1904, 'but in 1905 he transferred to Kraków's Jagiellonian University,' seems out of place; was he employed by the university he matriculated from?
  • "holding a chair in the History of Culture newly created for him" presumably you mean "in the department of History of Culture"? Or if it's just the chair, then please rephrase to avoid ambiguity; at the moment, the most likely reading is that the HIstory of Culture was created for Kot.
  • Sentence beginning "Kot's political career has been a subject of critical analyses" is very long, and hard to parse.
I agree, and have pared it down for clarity.
As to Kot's change of university, and the History of Culture chair, Piotrus will have to comment on those points. My understanding is that Kot was not then a university employee, and simply moved from one university to another as a student.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

NPOV edit

Vanamonde93, the article isn't neutral. I don't like adding npov tags to articles, but consider this one spiritually tagged. There is information available, which Piotrus is aware of, about the subject's antisemitism, including in a report he wrote during the war. The sources are Holocaust historians, including Michael Fleming and Joshua D. Zimmerman. See here. SarahSV (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

As discussed above, what is not-neutral (WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE) would be discussion of this. Kot was not antisemiic. Several sources have been presented that explicitly state so. Sources which you have repeatedly ignored. I explicitly address it at Talk:Stanisław_Kot#Expansion_finished. And neither Fleming nor Zimmerman call him antisemitic in their own voice. On the other hand, scholars which clearly said he wasn't antisemitic in their own voice incude 1) Bernard Wasserstein (1 December 1988). Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945. Institute of Jewish Affairs. ISBN 978-0-19-282185-0., page 124 ". Kot (who was not regarded as an anti-Semite)". 2) Lech Szczucki in [1]: "Do Kota garnęli si również studenci pochodzący z mniejszości narodowych: profesor był zdecydowanym przeciwnikiem nacjonalizmu i antysemityzmu" [Kot was popular among the students from ethnic minorities: he was a strong opponent of nationalism and antisemitism] and 3) Peter Brock (historian) and pl:Zdzisław Pietrzyk [2] "From his high-school years on, Kot rejected categorically the anti-Semitism that Poland’s integral nationalists were now propagating with increasing vigour." (p.409). That's four scholars which very explicitly say he was not an antisemite. Further, as I have shown in the throughout literature review here (including showcasing the entire table of content of the book dedicated to him, and reading through a dozen or so of biographies of him) no source discusses his 'antisemitism' or 'lack of it', nor the wider topic of his attitudes to the Jews; it is a super niche issue and even discussion of it here (i.e. citing the single source that makes this claim in passing, Biskupski, and refuting it with the three others) would be WP:UNDUE. Anyway, any assertion that he was antisemtic is WP:FRINGE (Biskupski) or OR SYNTH (if it is your own assessment based on reading between lines of Zimmerman and Fleming). The article is neutral, and trying to make Kot into an antisemite would clearly not make it so. PS. The linked section in the other article only proves that you gave up on the discussion, after I refuted your arguments a month ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
If you don't want to add the word "antisemitism", that can be discussed. But you do need to include his wartime report and its content, and to summarize the sources' view of that report. You didn't refute any arguments. I just gave up. SarahSV (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
The linked section above contains an inconclusive discussion on whether this single report should be mentioned. Again, the issue is whether its discussion is WP:UNDUE or not, given that not a single biography of his I have read an cited, nor any chapter/article found, seems to discuss said report. It is clearly not considered significant to his biography as far as a chapter-length or article-length treatment of it goes. If you have found any chapter or article which discusses his life and which mentions this single report, do say so (a good amount of the cited sources are in English, you can read them yourself and see if they discuss the report or his attitude to Jews or such in any shape or form). I will stress here that a number of those sources do discuss his wartime activities, and they do not touch upon this issue at all; Kot is known for his hostility to Sanacja politicians, and for his support for the Soviet refugees, as well as support to the arts and sciences during the war; those are the three issues discussed in sources. They do not find it relevant that once in his career he made a controversial remark. It is effectively trivia, which is why it is ignored in all in-depth discussions of Kot; it is only relevant in the context of the Polish WWII government attitude towards the Jews, as one of many data points and it is in such context, undue here, it is discussed. If you would like to write an article about the notable topic of Polish-Jewish relations during World War II or such, I would likely support a mention of this report somewhere in the section about the Polish gov't in exile and the Jewish issue. There it would be due. Here, it is not, since the report is not given any mention, even in passing, in a single biography of Kot we have found (I keep wondering if inclusion of Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews would be due or not Franklin D. Roosevelt, see also Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Antisemite where your input on a similar question would be appreciated). And giving up on the discussion is, well, losing the argument. Or I might as well stop replying here and claim I won the argument but you just refuse to accept it :P PS. But of course Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning, so I hope we can reach an understanding here. I value your views, but our personal views have to fit within the project's policy. I have explained, above, why the mention of antisemitism, or the report, seems to be UNDUE here (summary: if it is not discussed in any chapter or article biography of his, why should we mention it in light of WP:UNDUE?). I am waiting for your reply to this, in an argument form, not assertion like "you do need to include [this]" (why do I need to do this? You failed to present any argument to support your position, and WP:ILIKEIT, which is sadly I all I am seeing here, is not a very good one, I am afraid). PS. I would also ask you to consider how out of place a mention of this trivial incident would be in the article; I did think about adding it but mentioning this trivial incident - one remark in a single meeting in thousands he had - would just look very out of place (undue). "During WWII, Kot hunted Sanacja politicians, helped refugees, artists and scientists, he also made a controversial remark in a single meeting". C'mon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @SlimVirgin: I'm sympathetic to your concern, but I don't think you can expect me to wade through that whole discussion to find the relevant passages in the sources (of which many are being thrown around, but the specific ones relevant to this article are harder to find. I see this source; are there others? The Zimmerman source, in the portion I can access, stops considerably short of calling Kot an anti-semite. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • (ec) Vanamonde93, what happened here is that, while the biography was on this version, Stanisław Kot was used as a source on Polish-Jewish relations in another article. K.e.coffman expressed concern about that on 27 March, because a source refers to Kot's "aggressive antisemitism". I looked around and found more, including in Joshua D. Zimmerman, The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 111–112. Zimmerman discusses a report Kot wrote for the Polish government-in-exile—"News from the Homeland", 25 November 1941—about Polish-Jewish relations during the occupation. His comments included "Jews usually break down as soon as they can crawl to the occupier, [even] serving as Gestapo informants, etc." And that Jews lack a moral value higher than the material one. Michael Fleming notes ( Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust, Cambridge University Press, 2014, p. 87) that Kot believed two-thirds of Jews would have to leave Poland after the war.
      Poitrus responded to these posts by expanding the Kot article, beginning on 28 March, with lots of superlatives: Kot was the best this and that, but with no mention of the material in Zimmerman and Fleming. On the same day, he nominated it for GA. SarahSV (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • @SlimVirgin and Piotrus: The Fleming source is substantive enough that the criticism contained therein likely warrants mention. I don't see it being sufficient to call Kot an anti-semite, though. Zimmerman's analysis, similarly, might need inclusion, but I can't read the page in question; can you expand on what he says about Kot? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • Vanamonde93, forget the word "antisemitism". The point is a basic NPOV one. Two Holocaust historians who wrote recent books for Cambridge University Press mentioned Kot and the Jews at some length. Therefore we must summarize what they say, whatever that is, because they are higher quality sources that just about any in the article. I will look up Zimmerman. SarahSV (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
          • Some length seem to be about a paragraph or two in each book. Still waiting for you to address the issue that the very minor, bordering on trivial incident they discuss is not addressed in any material that attempts to provide a comprehensive summary of his life. Also, I wonder what would you think about adding a sentence to the article saying that he was opposed to antisemitic and nationalist views, something we can clearly referenced with three reliable and explicit sources; two of which are assessments from in-depth biographies of his life. Would you have any problem with that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Vanamonde93, there's too much in Zimmerman to summarize. Here is some of it (pp. 111–112):

Meanwhile, the London government's Council of Ministers received a report from the Polish ambassador to Soviet Russia, Stanisław Kot. Dated November 25, 1941, Kot's report, "News from the Homeland," took up the theme of Polish-Jewish relations. ... [The] report began with a pessimistic note, stating that in the period of the German-Soviet partition, one would have assumed that the persecution of both Jews and Poles "would have brought these two peoples, heretofore alien to one another, closer together – that the [shared experience] would have, at the very least, brought about a softening of the sharp influence of the Jewish question. The very opposite is nonetheless the case," Kot wrote disappointingly. ...

Another cause of Polish-Jewish antagonism, as Ambassador Kot stated, was ... [that] Poles "hate [the Germans] with a passion" and "hold their heads up high" while working for the future of a sovereign, free state. But, according to Kot, the majority of Jews had not devoted themselves to the Polish cause. Speaking of Polish perceptions, he stated that "in contrast [to Poles], Jews usually break down as soon as they can crawl to the occupier, [even] serving as Gestapo informants, etc." ... Kot maintained ... [the Poles now believe] "that the Jewish element was, is and will – unfortunately – always be foreign ... [because] they lacked a common spiritual basis with a higher moral value than the material one." ... The most disturbing aspect of Ambassador Kot's analysis was his portrayal of general Polish views on the Jews. Tapping into age-old stereotypes of Jews and money, Kot wrote the following:

Polish society is terrified of excessive Jewish influence. It is afraid that the need to import foreign capital into a decimated Poland would give the international financial Israelite magnates excessive power in the country, and that this might, in turn, enchain the country to "an economic Jewish slavery." Unease exists around the growing question in the country of whether or not the London circle, under the philosemitic Anglo-Saxon influence, will successfully resist Jewish influence in Poland, a fervent wish of the Polish nation.

SarahSV (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is also that Kot wanted Polish Jews to be resettled "somewhere between the Baltic and the Black Sea". See Biskupski 2017, p. 157. Biskupski refers to Kot's "aggressive antisemitism". SarahSV (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

And you keep ignoring that Biskupski's view is WP:FRINGE, your analysis of what Zimmerman writes is WP:SYNTH, and the incident he describes is so trivial and undue it is omitted from every single in-depth biography of Kot, hence to mention that one or two scholars criticized Kot's attitude / words in a single meeting/report is simply WP:UNDUE here. . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
That would be a misunderstanding of FRINGE and SYNTH. NPOV applies: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (bold added)". Two historians writing for Cambridge University Press recently (recently is important too) discussed Kot at some length, not just a passing mention. It has to be included.
The reports the British government received from people like Kot during the Holocaust had a direct affect on decisions they made about how and whether to intervene in certain issues, whether to broadcast certain issues, and so on. This is not a trivial thing. And his meeting with Jews about his "resettlement" proposals also have to be added. This has to be done slowly and with care, making sure that a full sweep is made of the sources (not snippet view), then they have to be summarized carefully. SarahSV (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
NPOV applies - see WP:UNDUE. Two historians discussed an incident that has some bearing in the topic of 'Polish gov't in exile attitude towards the Jews'. The incident can be discussed in such context. It is however UNDUE in this article, as for the n-th time, out of a dozen or so in-depth biographies of Kot not a single one mentions this incident. Kot had thousands of meeting in his capacity as WWII politician, and no, discussing one at random here is UNDUE. From UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". What viewpoint would you want to add? Antisemitism can be sourced only to Biskupski, and we have four other scholars who explicitly deny this charge. And the footnote trivial fact that one of Kot's meetings or documents it resulted in had received passing criticism is way too detailed to be included in the article as it stands. Maybe one day we will get a summary subarticle on Stanisław Kot during World War II and at that time we could consider adding this fact there. In the current article it would be out of place and clearly WP:UNDUE. PS. Crucially, your claims that this meeting was important are OR. It is not called such in the sources; and for a bazillion time, if it was important, why isn't it mentioned in a single in-depth biography of his we cite? Please understand that a Wikipedia article, particular at GA lenght, still has size limitations and it is not a place to add trivial incidents. PPS. For example, Roosvelt liked a certain golf story and used it in several speeches, something that should not be mentioned in his biography because it is excessive minute detail for that article, just like the incident you raise here is too minute for the article here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Piotrus, if as you say four scholars have gone out of their way to deny that Kot was an anti-semite, that in and of itself is evidence that the disagreement needs to be covered in the article, and is not a trivial thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • There is no disagreement as much as it is a statement of his character, as for that time and place he was unusually tolerant, including to ethnic minorities. I did not think that this praise is particularly due in the article, but if you think it should me mentioned, I will think about how to add it. But let me stress: there is no disagreement in sources. Not a single chapter or article summarizing his biography claims in any shape or fashion he was an antisemite. Three sources explicitly note he was tolerant of minorities, and use the claim "not an antisemite" not to deny any accusations to the contrary (those don't exist outside FRINGE passing claim in Biskupski) but to contrast his stance with the sadly common antisemitism prelevant in the society of that era. It's the same type of logic as if today we were to say someone was not anti-democrat in a Commmunist party of China, or not-anti-LGBT in a right-leaning Christian party or such; not an answer to non-existent criticism that they represent another POV, but a note that they represent a rare (for a given time or place) more tolerant faction. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay, based on what I've seen so far, direct allegations of anti-semitism do not belong in this article, but the criticisms (or descriptions) in Zimmerman and Soroka need more weight, probably of the order of a few sentences. I'm sorry, Piotrus, but I'm not going to draft those; that would be overstepping my bounds as a reviewer. SlimVirgin might be interested in doing so. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • As far as my knowledge of wiki-guidelines and GA expectations goes, I believe all sides of "the story" should be represented in the article, if only just shortly. I think the criticisms of Kot's stances (e.g. Zimmerman) should be definitely mentioned in the article, as well as other sources describing Kot as moderately tolerant towards minorities, comparing to other men of his times. In my view, having a short paragraph reflecting the above would satisfy the NPOV, kill two birds with one stone, and make both sides content with the outcome. Pinging @SlimVirgin: and @Piotrus:. --Darwinek (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Vanamonde93 and Darwinek, the article violates WP:NPOV. Kot was a politician during the Holocaust. That has been omitted, and fixing it is not a five-minute job because the issue is not straightforward. It's being discussed on talk, where five historians have been listed who've discussed Kot in this context (Biskupski, Zimmerman, Fleming, Michlic, and Polonsky), and there may be others. SarahSV (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • None of those scholars discusses Kot in Holocaust in depth, those are passing remarks of about a paragraph length, all focusing not on his 'activity as a politician during the Holocaust' (he had nothing to do with it, it was German politicians who organized it, not Polish-in-exile). He had a few meetings about the situations of Jews in Poland, he wrote a report or two on that, this issue is briefly mentioned in works about Polish-Jewish history, but is not relevant to his life outside being a footnote issue. Once again you ignore the fact that not a SINGE comprehensive analysis of his life discusses this issue; further, in a table of contents of a book dedicated to his life based on the conference few early 2000s, not a single chapter (presentation) was dedicated the issue you raise. This is a minute topic that is UNDUE here. But once again, you are welcome to try to draft something, and I'll be happy to review it. I honestly tried but I fail to see how I can use Zimmerman or such to draft anything, they just report a trivial incident (trivial in the context of his life that would look very undue if mentioned in the current text). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • I have reviewed the quotations posted by SlimVirgin on the talk page, and they are substantive enough that they deserve weight. I still don't think that narrative needs to be used to frame the entire article (sorry, SV, but there's just not enough material for that; not even sure if you're advocating for that) but there's enough material to justify a short paragraph. Piotrus, I'm sorry, but the responsibility of summarizing these sources in the article is on you, as the editor who is interested in getting this article through the GA process. A proposal from SlimVirgin would be helpful, but she's not the one who nominated this article. She has provided credible evidence that changes are required for the article to meet the GA criteria, and that's sufficient to hold up the process until the changes have been made. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • All right, I accept you are a neutral third party, and if you think this needs something, I'll wrack my brain again what I can think of that is due and neutral given the sources presented. Any suggestions/drafts here would be very appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • How about adding something along the lines of "some historians (Zimmerman, Fleming) describe Kot's stances towards Jews during World War II as problematic, e.g. [insert citations here]. Others (Szczucki, Brock, Pietrzyk) point towards his reconciling positions after the war, [insert citations here]"?--Darwinek (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • @Darwinek: The problem is that nobody describes Kot's stance towards Jews during WWII as problematic. See Talk:Stanisław_Kot#Sources. Zimmerman and Michlic do not offer any assessment of Kot's action, only note that his audience did not react to it positively. Outside Biskupski who out of the blue calls him an "aggressive antisemite" with no justification (and common sense suggests he just made a mistake, because making a single comment in one's entire life on such an issue hardly warrants such an assessment of a person; also note that Biskupski is directly contradicted by Bernard Wasserstein who in the reference to same incident writes that "Kot was not regarded as an anti-semite"[3]), only Flemming offers a judgement, saying that Kot has been criticized for the claim he made in Spring 1940 that most (2/3?) Jews would have to leave Poland after the war. As far as I can tell, no source discusses any other incident (comment, whatever) by him, so to generalize from a single comment to 'his stance' would be problematic. I have added this, since Flemming since most in-depth and also offers a judgement (saying that Kot has been criticized for this incident). But I still remain wary that even this single sentence is UNDUE. All scholars who discuss Kot's life in depth chose to pass over this incident without dedicating a single sentence to it. Why should Wikipedia 'know better'? Regarding the second proposed part of your sentence, as far as I can tell, Szczycki, Brock and Pietrzyk don't talk about his post-war life, but about pre-war, and make claims that this was a life-long attitude, and they are already cited elsewhere for that assertion, so I don't think we need to repeat them. I don't think we need to cite Biskupski vs Wassertein, this would only compound the UNDUE issues present here (we talk about his long-term actions like helping artists, refugees, fighting Sanacja supporters - and then we note he made a controversial remark... I still find it laughable. Most politicians make dozens of controversial remarks, stressing a random one is pure POV). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
          • This is precisely why we do not need a single sentence calling him controversial, but instead need to summarize what the sources actually say, and to allow the reader to come to their own conclusions from it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
            • That's the point, the sources don't say anything about him in this context. So there is next nothing to summarize. Anyway, he is not called controversial, his statement is. Through yes, nobody even calls it such. Only Flemming makes a judgement and says he has been criticized for it. Then you have W and B who disagree on whether he was an antisemite based on this single remark. That's it. How do you want this to be summarized? Anyway, if you want, I can change the wording from "made a controversial statement" to "made a criticized statement" but IMHO it won't read as nice. (Criticized by whom? Dunno, Flemming doesn't actually say...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
            • I think this is blown out of proportion. Kot was a great scholar, diplomat, and patriot. These are just minor incidents with the Jews that he also helped and rescued, despite the Jewish alliance with the communists against Poland. Focusing on FRINGE Jewish criticisms of this great man is UNDUE. --Szymon Frank (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Piotrus You persist in seeing this as me asking you to add criticism, whereas all I'm asking is for you to summarize the material SlimVirgin has presented on the talk page. A single sentence does not suffice, because you cannot do the subject justice with a single sentence. I don't want to proceed with the review until we get this sorted, because if you're digging your heels in here, there's not much point in my dissecting the prose. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Vanamonde93 User:Darwinek suggested adding a sentence as a compromise solution, I have done so. Can you tell me how a lengthier summary would not violate WP:UNDUE, given that those incidents are not mentioned in any biography of his, even in ones that are word-count much longer than our present article? I have reviewed the sources, and I have summarized all I consider is relevant, the remaining incidents are IMHO irrelevant. I am open to others proposing here (or editing the text directly) if they have an idea on what can be added. So far no such specific proposal has been presented here. If someone figures out what and how to summarize, I'll be happy to discuss this further; I tried to wrap my head around what could be added and I fail to see what I could do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • I am not going to present a proposal; that is not my place as a reviewer. I could do so, but then I would have to recuse as a reviewer and return this to the queue. SlimVirgin is free to propose something, and it would be helpful, but she is not the nominator, Piotrus, you are; summarizing the sources is your responsibility. If we're going to stick to one inadequate sentence (which, I might add, is more unfair to Kot than a longer summary would be) then I'm going to have to fail the review, for reasons of both neutrality and stability. And I'm going to set a deadline of a week, which seems generous to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • @Vanamonde93: I understand. How about this: since Sarah so generously quoted from sources she considers relevant here in an easy to read section just below this GA review, could you, in lieu of proposing a specific set of sentences, simply copy and paste here the sentences from the sources you would like to see summarized? As I said, but maybe not clearly, I don't see what else could be summarized that would be DUE and not SYNTH, but if I see what you find relevant and think about it again maybe I can come up with something more to add and expand the article. I don't think that pointing to specific sentences will compromise you as a GA reviewer. And in all honesty, I also don't see a problem if you were to propose a specific sentence or set of to add, I have seen other GA reviewers do it. Worst case we can't reach and agreement and then you fail this, no hard feelings. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
          • The quick response is "all of it". If you've summarized entire biographies for the rest of the article, summarizing a few paragraphs shouldn't be that hard. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
            • The quick response to this is that 'it is done'. Entire biographies have been summarized down to ~2,8k words. A minor issue not mentioned in them but discussed in passing in a few sentences form in a few other sources has been summarized in sentence-long treatment. I am not trying to be difficult, but consider this logic: per your own words, we have summarized other sources here. Some of the articles summarized here are much longer (~8k words or more). But the issue raised by SV is discussed in 1-5 sentences at most in other sources. If we devote 2-5 sentences to it here, it will no longer be a summary of them, right? A rough calculation suggests that if lengthy bios of him are ~8k words and have been summarized to ~25%-30% of that size, summarizing an issue that is discussed in 1-5 sentences in to ~1-2 sentence length is fine. Seriously, I have no idea how to 'summarize' a content that is discussed at most in the form of ~1-5 sentences differently, unless someone's idea of summarizing is 'write about it in a lenghtier form than the sources that mention this issue'. Seriously, what can I squeeze out of those sources that is not already in the article? PS. I am still waiting for you to reply to the issue I raised in the next section, replying to NN. There I quote original text and you can compare how it was summarized in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Piotrus: I'm going to be blunt; I've asked you many many times to summarize the content SlimVirgin has posted on the talk page. Your responses, boiled down, have been "no I won't." The evidence presented to me shows that a summary longer than a sentence is necessary to satisfy WP:DUE. I'm not interested in counting words, because due weight has never been about word count. I am going to wait for a week, and if you're still digging your heels in, I will be failing this article, which would be a pity, because it's pretty close to meeting GA standards. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I am sorry, but I feel you are asking for the impossible. I am open to you or anyone else to propose how to summarize the content; I don't feel I can do it. One user tried to help, User:Darwinek, he suggested a particular form which I adapted into the article, and nobody has objected to it. If you want to build on it, go ahead, I am not stopping anyone from doing so, but so far nobody seems to be able to do it. And I don't see what can be added. I asked you here, several times, to at least point to specific issues you want to see mentioned in the article. If you can't do better than tell me 'look at the sources', well, my reply is 'I looked' and I summarized them. So I consider your request fulfilled. Or prove me wrong and cite here specific sentences that discuss issues, persons, organizations or whatever specific wording you think should be included in the article. I am willing to work with you or anyone else, but you have to be specific in your demands, if you stick to generalities 'summarize the sources' then I can't help you as to the best of my ability I have already done so. Again, please help me help you and be specific about the issues you think are missing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • I am not asking you to look at generic sources. I am asking (again, for the record) that you summarize the approximately 15 paragraphs from the ten sources listed in the sources section on the talk page. I have never asked anything different, and so you're either unable or unwilling to see my argument, both of which are rather concerning. Mind you, I'm not the only one asking for this; SlimVirgin was the one who initially expressed concerns; and El C agreed with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • The 15 paragraphs are almost all about the same topic. Which is already summarized - that " In the spring of 1940 he made a controversial remark suggesting that most Jews would have to leave Poland once the war was over". Please tell me if what's wrong with this sentence, and which details or such, discussed in the other quotes, should be used to expand it. Also, maybe El C, SlimVirgin, or others active here in the past (I'll ping User:Nihil novi, User:Darwinek and User:Chumchum7 who was the first to raise this issue on the talk page) might be able to help us figure out what else to add. I am not preventing anyone from editing the article, I just feel I have summarized everything that seems relevant, and what you are demanding of me seems like asking me to violate WP:UNDUE. But again, I happy to review what others can come up with. But telling me 'add unspecified content that you consider UNDUE' is not fair to me. If you see a problem, WP:SOFIXIT, please. I don't see a problem so I can't help you, not until someone helps me to understand what, specifically, is absent from this article. Telling '15 paragraphs of quote' is not enough, as I have read them and I believe they are already summarized in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
From my reading of the multiple quotations about what Kot told some British Jews in France in 1940 (that two-thirds of Poland's Jews would need to be resettled after the war, perhaps near the Black Sea), it does seem that the essence of the matter has been presented by Piotrus.
Nihil novi (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think the excellent scholarship presented by Sarah establishes an important facet on the part of the subject that needs to be better represented. Whether an issue is fixed or not, does not in my view make that defect (be it a matter of DUE, or by any other definition) magically go away — I disagree with an interpretation of policy that says so. Certainly, key attitudinal tendencies don't go away, historically and historiographically, simply because a matter has yet to be addressed here, editorially. El_C 10:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've been pinged by Piotrus who points out that I raised this issue in the first place, which is a fair enough call for me to take responsibility for my input here [4]. Just a quick note for now. There might be a simple consensus-building solution which is for everyone to take another look at WP:YESBIAS because a lot of time often gets wasted by a classic misunderstanding of our NPOV policy and misconceptions about 'neutrality'. Incorporating allegations is not the same as making allegations. We're advised: Since Wikipedia does not take sides, and because it documents all types of biased points of view, often using biased sources, article content cannot be neutral. Content bias must remain evident and unaffected by editorial revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. We document all aspects of reality, whether we like it or not. Piotrus, am sure you can be a good sport and collegially work on phrasing along the lines of:

Fleming says that Kot was criticized for saying that two-thirds of Jews would have to leave Poland after the war; using this as evidence of anti-Semitism, the British sent their envoy Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig to the American Jewish Congress in order to enlist its support in lobbying Washington to enter the war. According to Israel Gutmann, Kot's documented allegations about Jews' physical inferiority and Jewish conduct in the Soviet occupation of Poland 1939-1941 were examples of justifications for discrimination against Jews in the Anders Army.

You could then add sources with other POVs on his record on Polish-Jewish relations. At the same time I'm sure other editors can understand that these points of view aren't meant to be in Wikipedia's voice, per YESBIAS. Then hopefully we will have reached consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chumchum7: All praise the lord, someone finally offered specific suggestions! This is very welcome. Fleming is already cited, and the incident is mentioned in text. I actually stubbed Maurice L. Perlzweig, and I think his bio can be expanded with this incident, but I don't think that is is relevant to mention here that he cited Kot in that venue (but if anyone wants to add this fact to the article, go ahead). Just consider how bloated an article would be if we cited every time a subject was quoted by someone somewhere. Also relevant is that Perlzweig did not go to US to complain about the Kot, Kot was just one of many examples in his speech. Now, Gutman is not cited and, fair enough, in the spirit of compromise I'll try to figure how to add him here. He does discuss some unflattering (to say the least...) comments Kot made about the Jews, but also mentions that " On November 10, 1941, Kot lodged a complaint with the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs that attempts had been made in Kazakhstan to conscript Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Jews into the Red Army". Later, Gutman writes "Ambassador Kot who, as we have seen, attached political significance to demonstrations of concern for Jews, did show a degree of goodwill towards Jews despite his numerous contradictory statements on the subject, and frequently dealt with questions relating to Polish Jews living in the Soviet Union.". (Interestingly, the issue of a Soviet Army Jewish Legion discussed in the article is not mentioned on wiki at all at present...). So on on hand, Kot was critical, even (in modern way of thinking) racist when it comes to the Jews, on another, he has been supportive of treatment them like Polish citizens and helped them evacuate. How about " According to Israel Gutmann, while in the USSR, Kot "attached political significance to demonstrations of concern for Jews [and] did show a degree of goodwill towards Jews despite his numerous contradictory statements on the subject"." This would attribute the assessment of Kot's, one which I think is most neutral, avoiding our own assessment or cherry picking of the facts (editorializing). How does that sound? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I can't speak for Chumchum7, but it sounds like progress to me. El_C 12:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Chumchum7's suggestion seems like substantial progress (to avoid editorializing, I would omit the "criticized", and just say what Fleming said); the sentence Piotrus formulated would be a welcome addition to that. Piotrus's sentence, by itself, is not a summary of the sources presented, and is inadequate. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Vanamonde thank you. I like your attention to precision and just to clarify, Fleming said Kot was criticized. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Apologies, he does seem to have said that. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Vanamonde93, can I ask, please, that this discussion take place on article talk? There seems to be an attempt if not to omit then to minimize the issues I've raised, and I don't understand the suggestion from Chum. Instead, we need a regular talk-page discussion that editors with the article on their watchlists will see, so that we can ask for help at noticeboards, a discussion that is later archived in the normal way, rather than confined to a GAN page. In addition, the NPOV issues are not the only problems. I found some failed-verification issues, citations written unclearly and inconsistently, page numbers missing, one source cited twice but written differently so that it seems to be two sources, etc. SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@SlimVirgin: I'm happy for you folks to discuss these issues on the talk page, but I think any comments I make as a reviewer need to be on the review page. My role isn't to dig into the sources, after all, but to assess the article and any concerns raised about it against the GA criteria. I will pay attention to talk page discussions, but likely will not participate. Also, will you clarify who you think is minimizing your concerns? As far as I can see the material you've presented warrants coverage in the way I've described above; if you think there needs to be more, I can only judge whether that affects GA status if you are more specific in terms of what you are looking for. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Chumchum7, El C, and Vanamonde93: Gutman is now cited, as discussed above. Please let me know if there is any further specific detail to be added. Again, I would very much appreciate if editors who think something important is missing (or not worded properly) would propose specific changes here (or be bold and edit the article). Thank you for all the constructive remarks so far. PS. I also created an article on the Jewish Legion (WWII), which is extensively discussed by Gutman, and linked it from here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for creating that article, Piotrus. Nice work. I read it with great interest. El_C 03:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have seen the changes you made. As I have said before, a single sentence is insufficient, and drafting the necessary content is outside my remit as a reviewer. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
But I have added not one but three sentences (and if you consider one is a compund one, it's really four). "In the spring of 1940 he made a controversial remark suggesting that most Jews would have to leave Poland once the war was over; this incident aside, the civilian administration under Stanisław Kot has been described as "much more open and helpful to the Jews" than were the Polish military authorities... According to Yisrael Gutman, while in the USSR, Kot "attached political significance to demonstrations of concern for Jews [and] did show a degree of goodwill towards Jews despite his numerous contradictory statements on the subject". Kot also objected to the creation of a separate Jewish Legion." As far as I can tell, I addressed each and every specific suggestion raised on talk. Ping User:Darwinek, User:Chumchum7, User:El_C. Is there something you think is still missing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
You haven't cited Zimmerman, nor Michlic, both of whose passages are relevant. Nor Polonsky, whose assessment is very similar to that of Zimmerman, and so could be used for the same content (or idealy in combination, for the same content). Nor Stola, who could be used to bolster the point about Kot's belief in the need for Jewish immigration. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Responding to a third ping, I'll repeat what I said before: You could then add sources with other POVs on his record on Polish-Jewish relations. Piotrus I suggest you continue the progress in the right direction and for the avoidance of any misunderstanding carry out the following exercise. Formulate the content on this Talk page that has been requested by Vanamonde, including the four citations Vanamonde is asking for. Everyone will see how it looks and it will be taken from there. Cheers, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Very well, I'll add referenes to the article, as well as I will check again if the quoted passages contain any useful information that is missing (I'll note, btw, that nobody suggested that a mention of the Jewish Legion is missing, but I added it on my on volition. I am happy to be proactive, but I just didn't see what else (and new) those sources add, and there is of course the concern of WP:CITEBOMBING. But in the spirit of compromise, a few more citations certainly won't hurt, and our readers can generally benefit from more sources for further reading. PS. @Chumchum7 and Vanamonde93: Done, all sources you requested have been added, plus a few more details. Stola was already cited. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Piotrus: Still better but not quite there. The point of the passages in Zimmerman and Michlic is not that Kot was criticized for perpetuating stereotypes (indeed, I don't see where they say he was criticized for these) but that they provide details of what Kot said/believed. These details are what you need to add (I'd say a couple of sentences more ought to be sufficient). You should not say he was criticized for that (unless he directly was, and I see no evidence of that yet) and you should not present it as a contrast with other assessments (ie the "While he ..., he was also described as..." construction is problematic. The statements should be kept in separate sentences, and the reader allowed to draw their own conclusions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Vanamonde93: I tried fixing the sentence [5]. But I have trouble coming up with 'few more sentences'. All that remains in Zimmerman are direct quotes from report of November 25, 1941, and from Michlic, direct quotes from memoirs of S. Brodetzky. Do you want me quote passages from one or both of those primary sources directly? Which parts? All of it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
The critical part of Zimmerman is the second paragraph of those quoted on the talk (critical in the sense of "not already covered"). I'd suggest summarizing this, and the first two sentences of Brodetzky's quote from Michlic. You're a scholar, for goodness sake. I refuse to believe you are unable to summarize a paragraph in two sentences. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Vanamonde93: Thank you for being specific with the suggestions. I have reviewed the quoted sources and came up with the following additions: [6]. I feel that at this point we have not simply summarized the sources in question; we have reported all the details from them through paraphrasing or direct, clearly makes quotations, and our coverage of the issues raised by them is roughly the same, character or word-count wise. But if you feel further tweaks are needed, please don't hesitate to suggest them, or even edit the article yourself, which IMHO would not compromise you as a reviewer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Piotrus: Again, almost, but not quite. Intentionally or otherwise, you have bent over backwards to make the summary of Zimmerman sound benign. Zimmerman isn't just saying Kot was saying Jews were not integrating; "according to Kot, the majority of Jews had not devoted themselves to the Polish cause" is a rather different point. Please add that, or equivalent. Also, once you've done that, I'm going to have to take another look at the prose, because so many changes have been made to the article after my first review. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Vanamonde93: I have added the text you requested. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

break edit

I was really hoping to wrap this section up, because I'm heartily sick of this dispute, and the text necessary for balance has been added. I could not help but notice, though, that in the course of adding six sentences about his views on Jews in Poland, which started this dispute, Piotrus has also added one short paragraph and two sentences elsewhere about how much Kot went out of his way to assist Jewish people (and I specifically mean that these have been added since my review began. There have been far too many trivial edits for me to bother finding diffs). Now I don't know if this is necessarily a problem, but a) given how much you grumbled about the other additions skewing the article towards one issue, Piotrus, adding this without mentioning it at the review is a sleight of hand which I do not appreciate; and b), I am now obligated to ping SlimVirgin, El C, and Chumchum7 to see if they have further objections. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping Vanamonde. "I'm heartily sick of this dispute." - you're not the only one, and unfortunately there is more to it than this article. It's a lot about (i) perception of others' intentions and (ii) communication. I agree with you that it would have been preferable for Piotrus to have communicated more clearly on this Talk page about further additions (I'll point out I recommended drafting of content on this Talk page first), and so I can understand your frustration. At the same time, it may be that in good faith he assumed you would have seen the changes anyway. The principle of adding two sides of the coin when adding YESBIAS / POV content is fair enough, so long as there isn't false balance. The fact that he may have got there in the end is something. We all could be better communicators. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
If the additions had been one of a few edits, that's a reasonable assumption; when the article has seen upwards of 150 edits since my review began, not so much. I'm glad you think the additions are acceptable. I will wait for the others to comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Vanamonde93, thanks for the ping. The article isn't neutral. I added the POV tag and Piotrus removed it out of process. I didn't restore it because I don't want to edit war over a tag. But it's still there in spirit.
Kot was a politician during the Holocaust representing the country in which most of the Holocaust occurred. I've left quotations on talk discussing some of the issues. There are others; that's just a sampling. Kot himself wrote about some of it. The article should be clearer, more explicit. Also, there's no mention of his December 1941 meeting with Stalin, except for a caption. But Kot and others have written about it.
The problem is that the article was expanded very quickly. Someone suggested elsewhere that Kot ought not to be used as a source on Jews because of his views. Piotrus responded by coming here at 02:20, 28 March, and expanding the page into a very positive article (I would say hagiography); he nominated it for GA at 15:17, 28 March.
That effort left an awkward structure, where the push at each point seemed to be to tell us how wonderful Kot was. It's difficult to work "criticism" into that, but approaching things that way (the good versus the not good for "balance"; the "two sides" approach) is completely the wrong way to look at writing articles. We should simply tell the readers what Kot did as a politician, what he was involved in. It was a very mixed (and interesting) bag. If told correctly, it sorts itself out. Kot's own book about his political years should be looked at too. But trying to do that within this structure would take some work. If I try to do it, I will probably be reverted and it will have been a waste of time. Anyway, this is (I hope) my final comment on this page. SarahSV (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@SlimVirgin: Sorry for pinging you again. I don't think it's incorrect to say that I'm among the more demanding reviewers with respect to neutrality and verifiability; I take those concerns very seriously. However, I cannot rewrite the article myself; nor can I review the entirety of the source material. As far as I can see, the material you presented on the talk page has been covered to a reasonable extent. Some positive material has been added with it, which seems to have been done in an effort to balance positive and negative content, and is therefore a problem, as you point out. But if there's not further concern raised here with reference to source material, and/or no current efforts to change the article, then I cannot reasonably fail it. The stability criterion would apply, if someone were attempting to address this on the talk; the neutrality criterion would apply if more material that needed to be incorporated was pointed out, and/or other material was shown to be undue. But at the moment you seem to be asking me to take your word for it's lack of neutrality; which I'd be happy to do personally, but cannot justify from a policy perspective. Can you see my dilemna? If you're willing to share your more specific concerns, it would be most welcome. Otherwise, all I can do is look through the English sources used in the article, and see if they have been adequately represented, and if they have been, I will pass the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to note that some content was added by others. If you refer to [7], note this was added by User:Nihil novi and first suggested on talk by User:MyMoloboaccount. Since the GA started, I have added some more details I found in the sources, in addition the ones quoted on talk, such as on Kot's influential teachers, on his textbooks, on location of his elementary schools (that was IIRC suggested by Sarah), on the Jewish Legion, and so on. I'll note that I raised the question on whether we should add content that is not discussed in his biographies, but that question was either ignored or the answer was 'yes we should', so I don't understand what seems to be a double standard - adding information that he did or say A is 'good', but adding information that he did or say 'B' is not good. If there are specific sentences or claims people think should be discussed, removed, or still to be added, please be specific and say so. I'll note that this has been done on talk (outside this GA review supage) by several editors, and I attempted to address each such issue. Lastly, I don't think it is necessary to inform the GA reviewer of every small addition (or removal) I (or others) make, except when an issue is raised, and then I try to address it if possible with a diff attached to the discussion here. Re User:Chumchum7's idea to draft on talk first, I think this would introduce a major delay, plus not everyone might check the relevant section and some people would still be editing the main article; overall I think such a solution is only useful when the article is protected due to the edit warring, or where all parties agreed to this - and I'll note that so far no 'other party' has expressed interested in editing this article beyond a minor edit here or there (except Nihil novi, whose copyediting is very appreciated but which generally does not introduce new content or remove existing). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Question edit

The article's "Early life" section says that "At university he was active in the student socialist movement, and clashed with right-wing nationalist National Democracy groups." In general terms, what was the nature of the "clash"? Was it physical, social, polemical? Nihil novi (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • The source in question states: "At university, as at most other periods in his life, Kot continued to be active in politics... He and his friend, Marian Kukiel (later a prominent historian and general in the Polish army; see essay 21 in this volume), tramped the villages distributing socialist leaflets. The youthful emissaries walked so far in their endeavour to bring their message to the people, often during snow and sleet, that they wore holes in their shoes. 11 This message combined Polish patriotism and the insurrectionary spirit with democratic socialism... At the same time, they called for respect for the rights of the Ukrainians in the eastern part of the province. While still at Lwów, the impetuous Kot had – literally – clashed with right-wing ‘integral’ nationalists (endecy) on this issue. ‘After all,’ he wrote later, ‘the Ukrainians were natives on this soil; so I saw it as no harm to the Poles if equal rights were given them at every level of the educational system.’ From his high-school years on, Kot rejected categorically the anti-Semitism that Poland’s integral nationalists were now propagating with increasing vigour. 13 Thus, already the stage was set for Kot’s running battle with the Polish endecja that continued until the end of his active career." As you can see, the source does not go in depth into what types of clashes they were, and none of the other sources I read mentions any clashes during his days as a student activist to allow us to elaborate on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Paragraph 3 of the "Legacy" section says: "Kot the politician could be ham-fisted, at times paranoid, a holder of grudges against Sanation politicians." Is this taken from an English-language source, or is it translated from the Polish? If the latter, could you please quote the Polish source(s), as I would like to verify the wording.
Nihil novi (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Nihil novi: This has three sources. [8] is particularly relevant, ex. "Apel Giedroycia doczekał się poniekąd realizacji w postaci gruntownej rozprawy Tadeusza Pawła Rutkowskiego, kreślącej działalność polityczną Kota, którą Giedroyc oceniał w tymże samym apelu jako bardzo szkodliwą. Dodawał wszakże: „Jakkolwiek profesor Kot odnosił się do mnie zdecydowanie wrogo, to jednak ceniłem go jako wybitnego uczonego i na emigracji przed jego ciężką chorobą starałem się mu pomagać". Tak zwaną dobrą prasą Kot się nigdy nie cieszył. Miano mu za złe zamiłowanie do intryg personalnych i wietrzenie wszędzie spisków politycznych. Zjadliwy jak zawsze Marian Hemar w wierszu Notatnik prof. Kota z 1944 r. obrazy narodowej apokalipsy kazał mu przeplatać zapiskami ultrapodejrzliwego personalnika. Kończył zaś cały ten utwór strofką: „Zalu wielki elegijny, Jakże cię umorzyć? (Odkryć spisek sanacyjny. Jeśli nie ma, stworzyć)". Rutkowski jakby się trochę prześlizguje po tych wszystkich negatywnych opiniach, starając się je zrównoważyć pozytywnymi ocenami, m.in. Antoniego Słonimskiego. Ale i ten przecież (w Alfabecie wspomnień) stwierdzał, iż ostrzegano przed Kotem jako mściwym intrygantem. I przyznaje, że ten nie najzręczniejszy polityk okazywał często nieuzasadnioną podejrzliwość wobec dawnych ludzi sanacji, „trochę za bardzo lubił badać personalia, ale był to uczony dużej miary, człowiek dobry i odważny". " And from [9] "Jako bliski przyjaciel premiera [Sikorrskiego] uchodził za szara eminencj i był powszechnie krytykowany z powodu bezwzględnego tropienia przeciwników politycznych i upatrywania wszędzie antyrządowej działalności ludzi związanych z dawnym obozem Piłsudskiego. W zarzutach tych było sporo prawdy, bo nawet ludzie Kotowi oddani i podkreślający jego zasługi w organizacji rządu emigracyjnego podkreślaj w swych wspomnieniach, że jego oskarżycielski zapał, połączony z pewn łatwowierności w dawaniu posłuchu plotkom, które jego fenomenalna pamię natychmiast rejestrowała, stwarzała liczne zadrażnienia i nie ułatwiała te życia samemu premierowi. " --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Vanamonde93 In case you missed it, I would like you to consider the above quotations, as this is the actual criticism of Kot found in some of the in-depth treatments of his life, including as a politician. Please consider that those sources are not hagiographies, they are published in reliable, peer reviewed outlets, and as you can see (machine translation may help...), they don't hesitate to discuss problems of his political career. But crucially, in close to ~10 of those in-depth treatment of his life I have found and cited, not a single one that I've read even mentions the issues discussed elsewhere here. They are generally critical of his attiutude to his political opponents from the Sanacja/Pilsudskiite regime, and so we report this in our article. If they all omit another issue raised here, does it mean they all made the same mistake, or does it mean that someone is trying to spin a fringe, niche incident that ~10 reliable scholars who wrote independently wrote Kot's biography considered not relevant to even mention into something much larger and thus violate WP:UNDUE? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

A related discussion edit

Some issues related to this GA review are being discussed at User_talk:Vanamonde93#Polish_Holocaust_articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proseline edit

  • The WP:PROSELINE issues with this article are severe. Professional prose isn't a GA requirement, so I'm not going to do anything besides noting this here; but if this were to go to FAC, it would be considered a problem, and even otherwise, it hinders readability. Nihil novi, you've reintroduced some instances of short and choppy prose; why, I cannot fathom. It doesn't hinder this article from becoming a GA, but it makes it very annoying to read. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • For the record, I tried to fix those issues in few sentences, but in all honesty I find the current style adequate, and my personal assessment of PROSELINE issues is that they are rather mild. It does seem to be a subjective issue, through if there is some script than help judge this, I'd appreciate information (and quantiastive assessment of this problem). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Broken citation edit

Brock & Pietrzyk 2006 is broken. buidhe 19:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Thanks, fixed. Another editor introduced the 'sfn/harv' citation style here, and I don't think most others, including myself, are familiar with it, so I guess the relevant code got removed in some copyedit. Still, it's a nice code, and I'll see about learning it more, it is elegant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • You removed the long citation here. I pointed this out to you a few days ago. SarahSV (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • I must have misunderstood you. Please note that when you introduce a new citation style to an article, editors who work on it who are not familiar with it may run into troubles. I suggest asking on talk ion the future before converting some references into a new style. As I said, I like the sfn style you introduced me to, but like everything, it takes some time to get used to it, and it's not easy to teach old dogs new tricks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Closing review edit

  • I'm sorry to have to do this, but I have to close this review as a fail. I had been called away from WP for a couple of days by RL matters; when I returned, I expected to look through the sources cited, verify that with respect to those sources due weight had been observed, and (assuming that to be the case) pass this. However, in the four days since I last looked in on the article, it has undergone these changes. These are not minor wordsmithing, as some of the editing summaries suggest (Nihil novi, calling this edit "copy-editing" is stretching that term to its breaking point); they are very substantial alterations, that affect the POV of the article non-trivially. Moreover, the alterations all seem to have a basis in the source material, and so cannot simply be reverted and dismissed. As such the stability criterion comes into play. This article is not stable enough for its policy-compliance to be assessed, and as such cannot be passed. I wish y'all good luck with future nominations, but would recommend not sending this to GAN while substantive disagreements persist. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanisław_Kot/GA1&oldid=955972013"