Talk:Szymon Datner

I shall expand the article

One of the most noted historians.--Molobo (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Chief Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation is a part of IPN

https://ipn.gov.pl/en/about-the-ipn/2,Institute-of-National-Remembrance-Commission-for-the-Prosecution-of-Crimes-again.html

If you don't know - please verify. The organisation was renamed many times.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Commission

The Commission to Investigate German Crimes in Poland became the Commission to Investigate Nazi Crimes in Poland in 1949, which became "Commission to Investigate Nazi Crimes in Poland IPN" in 1984, which became "Commission to Investigate Nazi Crimes Against the Polish Nation IPN" in 1991, and which in 1999 was turned into a investigative unit within IPN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That OR may or may not be correct. It is not however in the cited source, which also doesn't mention Datner. Nor does an institution established in 1999 seem relevant to our subject who died ten years prior, in 1989 (and IIRC was also retired for a few years before he died). Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not "OR" it's just "knowing what the fuck one is talking about when trying to write an article rather than just making obnoxious POV edits". [1].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

If you cite a source - a source you introduced to the article - the text in the article is supposed to be supported by the source. @Volunteer Marek: this source - encyklopedia.pwn.pl - still does not quite support the content (liqudated and replaced is not "now part of the IPN"), and furthermore is still WP:SYNTH - as it doesn't mention Datner. Even if it did mention Datner - the relevance to his bio article would be rather minute. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention IPN here. The relevant link is to the commission, which article should discuss IPN. And it does, in Polish. For now, I've linked the Polish article, feel free to translate it for context, and it can totally discuss how IPN is now part of its legacy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree the commission's article can definitely discuss its dissolution and the IPN taking over its role - discussion of the IPN itself should probably be brief, but it definitely is DUE there. Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Focus on Datner

This article has been slowly changing into a rehash of Jedwabne and Collaboration in Poland.[2][3][4][5] Let's keep it focused on Datner, okay? François Robere (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Re [6]. A compromise would be to create articles about his individual works (books), which probably are notable, and there it would make sense to say what he found, claimed, etc. A short summary could be present here, based on the lead of such articles or such. This is what we generally do with similar articles (Gross, Grabowski, Lukas, etc.), don't we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

It's not a "compromise", it's simply what we do. Mind that said summaries should be balanced, so we don't repeat the same thing. François Robere (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Zbikowski

I have removed a highly controversial claim from the lead. I checked the source, and it doesn't state exactly what was put, Zbikowski states he is similar. Feel free to rephrase the sentence, but note that Datner is a highly respected Polish-Jewish historian and we can't base his reception on cherry picked sources going against mainstream view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)