Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This edit by Icewhiz really shows that they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and that they insist in editing in a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE manner. The edit removes THE ENTIRE review and criticism by Berendt and Musial, the two actual specialists in the topic area!

I can't think of why anyone would make such an edit except as some form of "revenge" - like in "you won't let me violate BLP with my text attacking Berendt and Musial so I'm not going to let you include them at all".

This is an extremely bad faithed edit, it is clearly disruptive, it is against consensus (no one, not even Icewhiz himself has suggested that these authors don't belong here - because they very clearly do), it is very much WP:BATTLEGROUND and it appears to be an outright attempt to sabotage constructive discussion. Icewhiz, you really need to self-revert that one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Please restore the content and please avoid WP:POINT in the future. Dahn (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The content - which includes serious allegations towards Grabowski's alleged use of Datner, without including Grabowski's response regarding Datner - is a BLP violation. The subject of this article is a BLP. Either we include his response - or we do not include the allegations. 3 editors in the section above, "Response of BLP subject to serious accusations", supported inclusion. VM is citing BLP on Grabowski's response - so I can not see how that can be restored until we have consensus here. omitting Grabowski's response to specific allegations made against him in the article - is a serious BLP issue - this is not a "revenge" edit. I suggest VM suggests a formulation of Grabowski's response that is inclusive of the points Grabowski's makes, and that VM sees as policy complaint.Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We should include both. But as we stand, there is no BLP violation in the comments you removed, or you seem to be the one seeing it. Dahn (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) So... your answer is "no, I am not going to undo my disruptive, tendentious, WP:POINTy revenge edit", is that right? This is really heading towards a topic ban for you because I can't see how else we can resolve this impasse. Before you were at least still discussing this issue but you are now clearly into WP:NOTHERE territory.

There's absolutely no reason to remove the scholarly criticisms from the two specialist historians in the topic area from the article. Hell, even you Icewhiz admitted that they belong in there - so it's hard to think of a meritorious basis for your removal. Which means you either a) are trying to provoke an edit war for the sake of an edit war or b) are making WP:POINT revenge edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Judging by his comment above, his actual intent is to remove the text until we rewrite it here, not to remove it in perpetuity. I find that approach hardly constructive, but, VM, you sorta validated it when you did the same with Grabowski's answer to criticism. I do agree that it is POINTy, but let's not go overboard here. Let's all take the proverbial chill-pill. Dahn (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

He just started spamming my talk page with DS notifications (even though I've already been notified), because I posted one to his - he's clearly engaged in WP:POINT behavior across the board, not just with that one edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Not the proper venue - but you weren't notified in the past year.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

VM -Please cease making personal attacks. Both Musial and Berendt are making serious allegations on Grabowski's professional credentials - e.g. the text I removed had "Grabowski shuns the literature on the subject or is perhaps simply not familiar with it" - which is a rather serious allegation towards a professional historian whose expertise is on the subject matter. I could see how this could be in with Grabowski's response, however without the response we have a BLP violation. Text attributed to Berendt says Grabowski misused Datner's reasearch and that it is "difficult to accept Grabowski's number as scientific truth" - Grabowski response regarding Datner and the state of numeric estimates on the subject is required per BLP policy.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Concretely - I suggest you formulate a suggestion that includes both the allegations and the response in a BLP complaint manner - and that we hammer it out here on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Not that it's an important point, but just to be clear: can you quote the relevant part of the BLP policy that says you can't cite a scholar arguing that another scholar may disregard/not be familiar with all the sources relevant to a topic? Personally, I'm puzzled by how Grabowski's attacks on his critics were in violation of BLP, but this claim, that a scholar can't comment on another scholar's scholarship without BLP issues, seems quite extravagant to me. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

" I'm puzzled by how Grabowski's attacks on his critics were in violation of BLP" - the "has yet to publish a book", "galling", the "should pay attention to someone else" - these were all attacks lacking merit which don't actually address the substance of the dispute and there's no reason why we should give Grabowski a megaphone for them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:WELLKNOWN - If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.. I do not see a problem with including the criticism or the response of the scholars in question - however the BLP's subject response to the allegations attacking his professionalism should be included per the cited portion - note that Musial (per the text we had in our article) says "Grabowski shuns the literature on the subject or is perhaps simply not familiar with it" - that's not "part of the literature" - it is an encompassing claim on all or most of the literature - it's quite a statement on the professionalism of the BLP subject here. I too am somewhat puzzled at the BLP policy cited on Grabowski's response - and what I am citing as policy is inclusion of the BLP's response.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We can say he rejected or dismissed the criticisms. That's enough. There's no reason to quote all his personal attacks on living people. Anyway - the point of issue here is your disruptive behavior and WP:POINT edits. I wasn't aware that you had already been notified of discretionary sanctions in this area, but considering that, that makes your edits even more problematic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: Grabowski responded to the claims, and not with a "cease and desist", but with nasty remarks. This, as Icewhiz seems to acknowledge, means that the claims have received coverage -- in fact, they have received his own coverage. We do need to refer to these replies, it's simply the right, honest thing to do. That said, I see no problem with including at least some of his remarks, since that was his style and his meaning. I don't really see an issue of BLP if we attribute these claims and include exact quotes -- i.e. distance ourselves from it. It's a he said/he said in a context both sides stepped into voluntarily, it's nasty but still urbane, and until one of the sides threatens to litigate, we don't really have to PR the issue for them. That's the state of the controversy, and we report on it. Nobody is more likely to believe that Grabowski is right about what he says, once we report what we says; this type of rhetoric can frankly only convince those he already agrees with. Dahn (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Without a secondary source I don't see how we can "distance ourselves from it". We'll just end up repeating his nasty remarks as if they were true. So a short summary which says he dismissed the criticism is optimal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

But attributed quotes certainly don't mean we cite his claims as if they were true! They mean precisely that we just say "and this is what he said in response", without suggesting that it is true. Dahn (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Who of "Holocaust hiistorians" is a historian? They are sociologists or even philologists. A radical example is Sidi N'Diaye, who has published a book based only on translated texts, he apparently doesn't read Polish nor Yiddish. Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's what the source says - and we're directly quoting who said it (PCHR). As for Dr. Sidi N'Diaye (described as one of "Some 180 international historians of modern European" - following the language in the WP:RS), it seems he was a United States Holocaust Memorial Museum fellow,[1] which seems more indicative than editor opinion. The vast majority of holocaust historians do not speak Polish, and they seem to be published in peer-reviewed journals none the less.Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the description of group of signatories should render in quotes precisely how they describe themselves in that letter, which would be the neutral way to approach this, or even describe them simply as academics. Personally, I think "Holocaust historians" covers people who have written historical books about the Holocaust, whatever their background. Incidentally, I have looked up Sidi N'Diaye, and came across his or Szurek's description of his own book: "Au Rwanda, la participation au meurtre des voisins fut directe et massive. En Pologne, ce phénomène fut plus disséminé si l’on excepte les pogroms des territoires orientaux de la Pologne en 1941, et surtout beaucoup plus atténué en raison de la responsabilité nazie." This is the sort of qualifier that these authors do put in their books, but then the public debate ignores -- because saying "admittedly there were overall very few crimes for which any Poles could be viewed as responsible" (a position that is shared across the board) doesn't score many rhetorical points in the current climate. Dahn (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the Baudienst picture we use is the one showing the future pope? Does any source, in general and in particular here, implicate him in the Jewish executions? Is Krakow even discussed in Grabowski's book? To me, it looks like this builds on Grabowski's accusations against the Baudienst in a specific region (which don't appear to ever cite concrete data about how many members were involved) and extends them to where they just about smear the pope. It's POV editorializing. If we need a picture (do we?), we can use another one, and if we don't have another one, Grabowski's book itself has several images of the Baudienst which are quite probably free to use, and which are probably from the exact region he uses as his sample. Dahn (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I missed this, and no, there's no reason. Just more POV pushing and SYNTH. Who put that in there anyway?

(and of course, the reason for the photo is that service in Baudienst was mandatory and evasion of it was punishable by death - do we mention that in the article? - which is why Wojtyla had to do it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think Grabowski himself mentions it in the book, but then goes into the usual spiel of postmodern historiography and we get all sort of vague implications with no verifiable data about how "many" did this and that, and "some" didn't (I know, I know, this is my personal impression, feel free to disregard it). However, we could and should mention compulsion in the article only if this issue is viewed as relevant in the references. Otherwise, just like the picture, it would be a WP:COAT issue. Dahn (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with the photo - nor with replacing it with a different photo. It is the photo we presently use on the Baudienst article, and it has a proper commons license. The photograph of the Baudienst does illustrate the subject matter where it is mentioned.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you "don't see a problem with the photo" is itself a big problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And let me ask one more time - who added it here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: The subject matter would be illustrated by photos of Baudienst people killing, or at least looting, Jewish families. Grabowski's claim, after all, is that the Baudienst did more than it stated purpose; and we choose to illustrate that with a photo of the Baudienst working on location, doing exactly their stated purpose? If we must have a picture in a section that is about commentary on a book, I would imagine it would have to at least have some connection with the book itself: either from the book, or relating to the events described in the book.

@Volunteer Marek: He said "I do not see a problem with the photo - nor with replacing it with a different photo". Cut him some slack. Dahn (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Btw, the photo is also of a group in 1941, when Grabowski actually acknowledges that there were no crimes to have involved Baudienst members -- these are only attested in 1943 and later. He also makes clear note that the group from which Germans recruited criminals were the yunaki, or youngest sections, which in 1943 probably meant people aged around 14--20, younger than anyone in that picture. So the image shows people who are not accused of any killing or looting, from a different area of occupied Poland, from a different age group, not visibly engaged in anything other than forced labor, and two years ahead of the events Grabowski refers to. They're not even in uniform, so that the image could be construed as one showing what the Baudienst dressed like. It's really hard to see what it illustrates that's actually in the article, and, on top of everything, it is of awful quality. I strongly urge you to remove it, regardless of whether you replace it or not. Replacing with another more to-the-point image would be relatively easy, but I personally can't really see the pressing need for any such illustrations in a biographical entry. Dahn (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  It actually is from a quite close location in SE Poland, some 60kms away. However, as it seems consensus at the moment is against this (2 strong opposed, and I do not have a strong position here (I think it is illustrative of the period, but just gnereally so. Photo quality of rural forced labor is generally not great)) - I went ahead and removed it.Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Those 60 km (more like 100) away mean from a region which is simply not discussed in Grabowski's work, and that's of course just part of the objection. Incidentally, in the link you gave from Grabowski's book, there is a much better photo of the Baudienst; it's also from Krakow, but it is from 1944, and it shows actual youths in actual uniform being apparently congratulated by a Nazi officer (now, to be clear: 1944 is also the year when German policies in Poland had to undergo significant changes, and probably the year when they were most interested in co-opting, rather than subjugating or decimating, as many Poles as they could). If we have to use a photo, consider using that one: it is used by Grabowski himself, it shows the relationship that the Nazis tried to cultivate, it displays people in uniform, and it clearly features the age group actually recruited for murdering people (though not necessarily any of those individuals who who actually killed people). Dahn (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Baudiensta was a slave work organisation for Poles. It din't recruit people to kill Jews in general. Some members were ordered to destroy Jewish houses looking for gold or hiding people. I don't whitewash the youth but they were uneducated villagers "educated" by their Nazi officers. They weren't allowed to protest. If they volunteered to kill, it's unacceptable, but have Baudienst commanders been punished as Holocaust participants? Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC) The members were punished in special camps, one of them in Krakow [2] .Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, and the funny thing neither does Grabowski. One annoying part about the chapter in the book, from what I could tell, is that, here and there, he adds qualifiers suggesting that compulsion was key and that only (some?) male youths were involved in killings. And then he gets back on the same hobbyhorse that ignores all such reserve and pushes the notion that very few Baudienst people were not guilty of this (a wild claim, from thin air, and contradicted by his own earlier assumptions), and conflates those who were sent to do acts of looting, and arguably had no choice, with those who killed, who, even if they had no choice (and they arguably did), were still cold-blooded killers. I personally find fault with that sort of narrative because, I feel, it is remarkably like the kind of literature that pushes hard very wild claims with the flavor of "necessary revisionism", predefines well-established facts as "myths", claims that details were "never before discussed" when in fact they were, and when it comes to proving their central allegations produce remarkably little. Something has happened to academia where this sort of writing passes not just as acceptable, but as "glorious", "illuminating" and whatnot -- a decade or so ago, any review of scholarship needed to include criticism, and authors would go out of their way to list the book's faults; now we get "it's wonderful and illuminating" with no comment on what are glaring, shocking problems in the narrative. Dahn (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And it's not that they don't comment and find what are arguably errors or unsupported claims -- maybe he's got some data that I wasn't able to see. It's that the reviewers who praise him have absolutely nothing to say about anything regarding numerical data or lack thereof -- nothing. Though they should be the first line of defense against any errors seeping into their field of expertise, though this would be the very point of reviewing books, and though, if Grabowski's claims are true, then it would imply that they themselves would have to rewrite some of their work, they seem entirely unconcerned with this aspect. They are more concerned with discussing current affairs and making connections between one and the other, because apparently that's what reviews are good for these days. Dahn (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And in general: the wild claim circulating today is the trope that "Poland never confronted itself with the case of Poles serving the Nazi killing machine etc.", with the implication that Poland is, and Poles living today are, responsible for such acts by various ethnic Poles under a German regime (which, btw, is a remarkably inane assumption, replicating closely the logic that gave us such precious gems as "Jews are responsible for Yagoda"). When I first ran into people replicating such ideas in the 2010s, it struck me that they have never read a page of Czesław Miłosz's books, where he writes specifically about this issue, closely after the fact, or have never ran into the famous and famously controversial book by Jerzy Kosiński. In other words, that their entire familiarity with the topic is through today's political coaching and "orthodoxies" that are fed to them by daily newspapers. Dahn (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Painted Bird was popular in Poland as a source about Polish antisemitism, but it wasn't autobiographic, I don't know what were real sources.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A better example is Wyrok na Franciszka Kłosa published 1947 (small quantity), 1956, filmed by Wajda.Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was real, I'm saying that its very existence dates the controversy, and therefore the confrontation with the past, back at least fifty years ago. You obviously know more on this than me, because you can read Polish and have a much deeper familiarity with the Polish cultural scene, and this allows you to document even earlier instances of the debate; it is precisely that even I, as an outsider who is only familiar with the more famous aspects of the debate, am still able to recall instances of it -- meaning that people taking up this canard, that "Poland isn't confronting herself with etc.", are even less educated on this issue than was expected of them not a long time ago. This also shows something else: the position according to which there were few crimes imputable to Poles is neither ignorant nor nationalistic, as conveniently claimed by Grabowski and this-generation authors, and now believed by the masses; nay, it is an informed opinion based on careful review of known facts. It may be wrong in the absolute (it falls on those stating that it is wrong to prove their claim), but it's certainly not ignorant. Dahn (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

On a more relevant note, the last time I checked, Pope's biography (Pope John Paul II) didn't even mention the fact he was in Baudienst. Some people push one POV, some people push another POV... Sigh. This picture is not relevant here, but I wonder what will happen if someone adds it to the Pope's article? I would tentatively support it (if there's room), and certainly a mention in text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I do see some sources for this - and our article does say In 1939, Nazi German occupation forces closed the university after invading Poland.[16] Able-bodied males were required to work, so from 1940 to 1944 Wojtyła variously worked as a messenger for a restaurant, a manual labourer in a limestone quarry and for the Solvay chemical factory, to avoid deportation to Germany.[17][26]Pope John Paul II - without mentioning any exact term.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's probably because the article on Baudienst did not exist when the other was being written, or the people writing it weren't aware that it exists. This is one more reason to urge people starting new articles to take the trouble of disseminating links to them once they write them. Dahn (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Wojtyła worked in Frysztak camp [3] in 1941.Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz has been receptive and has agreed to attribute the claim about the death threats, and differentiate the alleged death threats (which, if true, are criminal) from boycotts and hissing (which are documented, are rude, but are not criminal). However, the death-threats factoid still appears twice in the text, and on first mention this is again presented as indisputable fact, though there is yet no mention that this is on any authority's file. We have a quasi-lead that opens with "Grabowski received several death threats, leading to increased security in his department at the University of Ottawa", then further down we get "According to multiple media reports, Grabowski has also faced harassment and death threats, leading to increased security patrols in his department at the University of Ottawa." What purpose does this repetition serve, other than to inculcate in the reader the impression that Grabowski is a hunted man, and to discredit civilized criticism of his statements? Dahn (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a section lede. we could move this up to the lede. This was widely reported over several years.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. As whether death threats, boycotts, calls to fire a professor from his job for his research, etc. convey any impression - that is not for us to decide - we follow the sources (which seem to mention this in most coverage of Grabowski). In Salman Rushdie, we have the threats against him right in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking the sources why they say it, I'm asking you why you would repeat it. But I don't have any objection regarding moving it to the section "lead" (though: why do we need a lead on the section?), as long as it has the qualifier that this is according to reports in the newspapers (which are reliable, but not ultimate). Death threats against Rushdie, incidentally, were issued publicly and vocally, in several cases by people who ruled over entire nations, and were verified by the state authorities, not merely alleged by the supposed victim, taken up in newspapers, and prompting at most extra security signed off by campus authorities. Anybody can claim they have received death threats, and these days just about everybody does. As long as at least some of those alleged threats are proven untrue, and most remain unverified, there is no particular reason to treat Grabowski's claims as facts. And even if they are factual, they don't necessarily prove anything more than that there's at least one obsessive nut roaming out there -- so they don't say anything about the general note of reception for his work. If you write many articles that all relate to the actions of a few, it doesn't mean you multiply the actions and the perpetrators (something that, incidentally, also works for Grabowski's claims in the book). Dahn (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS are repeating this as fact, not attributed to Grabowski, and this is SIGCOVed for a history professor (as, ORishly, usually history professors do not attract such public stmts about their research (including the Polish Embassy[11], and threats). Some of this non-academic discourse - e.g. was done quite publicly - AP - AP reprint, 20 June 2017 says: The Polish League Against Defamation says that Jan Grabowski's scholarship "falsifies the history of Poland, proclaiming the thesis that Poles are complicit in the extermination of Jews." The group made its claim in a public statement earlier this month signed by dozens of Polish academics. Since then Grabowski, who is based at the University of Ottawa in Canada, has received several death threats, leading to security patrols in his department.. If at all - at present we are avoiding the connection between public statements and the threats which is present in RS. the Associated Press is not generally a sensationalist outlet.Icewhiz (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not answering my point -- certainly not with anything about how public his discourse was, when the threats are still not public (they were, in Rushdie's case). The point is that it's not clear what evidence they rely on other than his own claims, no matter how many times they report it. There is nothing wrong, and everything right, with attributing it in the manner of "according to reports in" -- those who want to believe that this is a definitive fact, because newspapers report it as such, should be satisfied by the wording, there's nothing in there that makes it less reliable, per their own criteria; the reader however should not be instructed that this is the same kind of fact as one verified by police or established by a court of law. Dahn (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Added attribution there too. I do not think we need attribution when multiple WP:RS report this in their own voice, however attribution when requested in a "hot" topic area is prudent.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I still think twice in the text is excessive, but I defer assessments on this to other contributors. Dahn (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And this again: if you have literary commentary to quote, then quote and attribute it fully. If you want to tell us that you found the episodes impressing and stirring (they surely are, though that says virtually nothing on the issue of their representativeness), wikipedia is not the place. Either way, simply using "describing" will do. Dahn (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed (I think this was following the language in the source - but it is not needed, I agree)..Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I also find another issue with the current phrasing: "The book, describing Judenjagd (German for "Jew hunts") in Poland, focuses on one pre-war rural county in southeastern Poland, Dąbrowa Tarnowska, included by Germans into Kreis Tarnow." If you read the phrase just before, which contains the title, you'll see why this is primarily redundant: the same thing is said twice, it is already clear to any reader that the book is about occupied Poland. You can easily cut the phrase to where you note his Tarnow focus, and make it have a segue with the phrase before it. Something like: "The "Jew-Hunt" component refers to Judenjagd; Grabowski's focus is on one pre-war rural county in southeastern Poland, Dąbrowa Tarnowska, included by Germans into Kreis Tarnow." I don't want to de-emphasize that Grabowski believes this is a representative sample for the whole of occupied Poland, so maybe we could change "focus" to "sample", or add another phrase clarifying this particular argument. Dahn (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Done (I think). I also removed Kreis Tarnow which was not in the cited sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That works too, though I think you might also want to emphasize that he believes his argument can be extended to all of Poland. In any case, your call. Dahn (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure he makes that argument in the book - in fact I think he actually says he does not. My understanding is that the estimate of 200,000 was based on this micro history and additional research - per my reading of the sources - and following his estimate there was quite a bit of criticism - per CBC Grabowski, who is in Israel for a conference on Holocaust history, has faced much criticism from some Polish historians for his years of research, including his controversial conclusion that 200,000 Polish Jews were killed — directly or indirectly — by Poles during the war..[12]. I did add that he chose this county due to availability of archives.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well that then was more reason why a phrasing suggesting that his book is "about Poland" should not have been present in our article. (As a side note, it's becoming even more unclear what precisely is so "illuminating" and magisterial about his book that captivated all those blanket reviewers. I mean, nobody among those evil Polish conservatives ever rejected his microhistorical research as plausible, all sides were in agreement that the microhistorical level contains cases such as he describes. On the other hand, his numbers, which would need to be based on clearly presented statistical evidence, appear to not be based on info actually available in the book, but on vague "years of [other] research".) Dahn (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the estimate of 200,000 is made on page 3 of the Hunt for the Jews book, and in the 2011 ZARYS KRAJOBRAZU: Wieś polska wobec zagłady Żydów 1942-1945 - which he co-edited and has a wider scope (on the entire Polish countryside). It definitely seems to have been the lightning rod here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's there on page 3 (pp. 2--3, more precisely), without a citation and with the soft qualifier "could reach", as well as with the acknowledgment that this refers to the total of Jews killed in the "hunts" (presumably some were killed by people other than Poles, starting with, well, the Germans). This carries no note, but it may be detailed in a by-page note at the end of the book (I can't see that far in gbooks' sample). So based on this it seems that Grabowski publishes in his books more reserved claims than he then publicizes by other means -- that is, if his talk of "very conservative" estimates is properly rendered in our article. Dahn (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that sometime after 2013 (2016? 2017?) he has been more assertive. I think this has been repeated since in other items he has authored and in interviews. He and the center are slated to release an indepth multi authod study soon (in 2018H1) per [13][14] - and some of the more assertive recent interviews seem to be based on that (which should be in final proofs and fixes if they are on schedule). Also, it has been my impression that some of his critics have been amplifying his claims - e.g. in referring to his initial "up to" estimate without the up to, or saying he said the county in Judenjagd was reprsentative and that this estimate was based off of it (something I have seen critics of this estimate say - but I have not been able to find where he wrote/said that).Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there might be legitimate grounds to reject the "up to", and needless to say the "at least" claim as well -- in any case, I believe that that is what his critics are saying, with absolutely none (or none who's relevant as an RS or non-fringe) claiming "there weren't any". From their perspective, the highest estimate is unsupported, and now that it became the lower estimate, it's egregious. The debate got hyped up by external factors, merged into a political controversy, and Grabowski clearly took a stand in the debate. His books were already advancing controversial claims (note how even the Western media labels them controversial -- something you don't cite them for), not just about the numbers overall but that swift transition from "some did" to "some didn't"; also the discussion about whether the country is representative or not still relies on ambiguous statements in the book, including in the very title (does it say "Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Dąbrowa Tarnowska"?). Then it is he who amplified the claims, as now he clearly stands by the views that you argue were not originally his. In any case, the next wave of the controversy after he publishes the new book is likely to sort some things out, and then we'll see how much Snyder etc. still support of Grabowski's conclusions. At least at that point they'll hopefully put a break on the encomiums and either back the new estimates or reject them. Dahn (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think Gross's "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" quote[15] also played into this. It will be interesting to see once it comes out in 2018 how it plays out. Note that part of the dispute is definitional (but both sides are talking past eachother - so this is TP OR) - Grabowski (and the center) says "directly and indirectly" - per this measure if a Pole told a Nazi where a Jew was (and the Jew was killed) - the Pole indirectly killed the Jew.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

To me (evidently also OR, and in the absence of complete info) one of the most carefully obscured aspects of the debate, in both Gross and Grabowski's accounts, is the number of perpetrators: to say many victims (even regardless of whether you exaggerate the number or not, regardless of whether you come up with even looser definitions of killing) is not to prove many perpetrators. Serious scholarship on this topic should advance and document a claim about the number of perpetrators, particularly if they argue that they're unveiling collective responsibility on some relevant level. To say "many Poles did this and that", then to evidence this with vague statements that, for instance, don't even manage to implicate all of the male youths in the Baudienst within a particular county, that's what remarkably shoddy and the most seriously bad precedent for scholarship. As for the creative reinterpretations of what it means to kill: even supposing we accept that drift, it would still require an actual estimate of the denouncers, not to mention an application of the same innovative standard to other populations of bystanders who became implicated in the Holocaust (France would be an interesting benchmark). Dahn (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It was dangerous to be close to a Jew in occupied Poland. Germans arreested or killed "suspects", sometimes whole village. So no, France isn't a benchmark, helping Jews was there a contravention or a small crime.Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Any such study should of course focus not on people who didn't help their fellow men (it would be fundamentally dishonest to imply that those people are criminals), but on people who actively helped the Nazis -- and not under threat of duress, but voluntarily and for personal gain. For instance, Grabowski cites a Polish priest privately expressing horror at the behavior of Baudienst youths, who were given alcohol by the Nazis and then made to murder Jews -- it would be idiotic and mendacious to say "well the priest is a criminal, because he knew about it and did nothing".

And my point was not that France would be a more positive example: I'm pretty sure that it may easily prove a sinister benchmark. One of the reasons for that is that even fringe Polish antisemites, such as legatees of Endecja, were still caught in a position where they were generally more anti-Nazi than they were antisemitic; even those of them that figured they could compromise with Nazism were struck by the minor problem that Nazism did not generally want to cooperate with them, but would rather have wanted them dead as well. This was evidently not the case in France, where even the interwar left produced collaborationists (and how!).

It strikes me as this theorizing about "many Poles are killers because they sent Jews to be killed by the Nazis" is carried out out in an artificial vacuum, with special criteria invented for Poland; the quick answer to that is: "well how many is this 'many', and what is it in other occupied countries?" People advancing this claim should have already anticipated these questions and provided tentative answers, transparently putting up data and explaining their inferences from data; that they didn't do any of that, that all they have is a tirade with no numbers and protean language, is probably indicative that theirs is a political point, not true scholarship. And a basic issue: if you work on the assumption that denouncers were also killers, and that this would increase the number of participants, it simply produces a false positive to apply that standard only to occupied Poland; what would applying the same logic produce for France? or Hungary? Dahn (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

the government of Guernsey was powerless to stop the deportations due to the large number of German soldiers on the island - there was no Polish government in Poland.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Precisely! And the quasi-government, the Underground Government, was representative of Jews and tried to help them -- perhaps not consistently (that can be debated), but in many cases with enormous sacrifice.

I want to emphasize the clear difference between occupied Poland and countries such as Romania, where it is quite clear what the local agency was, how it acted independently of the Nazis, and what its crimes are -- crimes which can surely be attributed to the state, thus framing a discussion about collective behavior (in the sense that the state was representative of the people, and it can't be representative of them only for the positive things). No such framing exists for Poland or Guernsey or (at least half of) France, where any discussion about collective behavior would have to make accurate and consistent claims about mass participation, if it wants to be taken seriously. Dahn (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Samsonowska [16] reviewed the Polish edition of Judenjagd. She listed 90 survivors (Grabowski 38). According to her there were 15 reighteous. [17] Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Her review is certainly reliable, it points out some errors, through she does also state it is 'a valuable and significant work'. Her works seem to be:

• . Dąbrowa Tarnowska - nieco inaczej , [w:] Więź nr 7 (633)/2011 lipiec s.75-86
• Dyskusja "w lesie" (polemika z J. Grabowskim) [w:] Więź nr 9 (633)/2011 wrzesień s.98-99

Sadly, [18] and [http://www.wiez.pl/czasopismo/;s,czasopismo_szczegoly,id,563,art,15552 which seem to be relevant links seem to be 404s and I cannot access them in the Internet Archive, so right now I cannot read her review(s). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the wiez one is here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(it's an excerpt).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

https://wpolityce.pl/historia/387952-nigdy-nie-mowilem-o-200-tysiacach-zydow-zamordowanych-przez-polakow-mowi-jan-grabowski-czyzby Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. pl:wpolityce seems like a partisan source, but it references a more mainstream and reliable Wyborcza. Sadly, I can only guess it refers to [19], because this article is non-free, so very few people will read it. According to wpolityce, Grabowski is now clarifying he never said "Poles killed 200,000' but more weaselly, 'Poles did not kill 200,000 Jews directly but are responsible or co-responsible for death of most of those people'. The article also is very critical of Grabowski's methodology, arguing that some of his 'big claims' that became widely cited are based on problematic data or are outright errors. The article claims that the '200,000' number was disproven recently by Jakub Kumoch ( Poland's ambassador to Switzerland), who notes that this number seems to be taken by Grabowski from Datner (1970), but that work doesn't support that claim. The article also talks that another claim by Grabowski, that 'only 50,000 Jews survived in Poland' is 'a footnote error'. It's overall quite interesting, but again, this is a partisan source, and I wouldn't trust it entirely, and all related news pieces are from the same highly partisan end of the spectrum (ex. pl:Do Rzeczy: [20]). They may be right, but those claims need less partisan verification, since they come from outlets that are IMHO very biased in the pro-Polish, anti-Jewish POV (again, it doesn't mean they are necessary wrong here, but...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wyborcza is a partizan source - anti-PiS. Xx236 (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Partisan is not centrist. Wyborcza is reasonably centrist. (That doesn't mean unbiased or non-neutral). In Wikipedia terms, it is much more reliable than Do Rzeczy czy W Polityce, which I wouldn't cite for controversial topics (since personally I wouldn't trust those sources not to publish falsehoods every now and then). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wyborcza is a radical anti-governmental paper. They don't print any centrist opinions. Wyborcza has changed, are you sure you mean the current paper?Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If I may: I don't think debates about reliability should ever be framed in terms of "centrism", and there's nothing in the policies that would validate that reading. A source that is firmly on the right, or firmly on the left, but has a good reputation for publishing facts, does not host widely discredited theories (at least, you know, not repeatedly: I've seen plenty of sources on the right and the left take up demented theories and running with them for a while, without becoming necessarily disreputable -- Haaretz is a good example of that, on the left, and so is Alasdair Milne's BBC, not to mention Walter Duranty's NYT), is a good source no matter the topic, and especially for relevant opinion; sources that take more fringe positions tend to discredit themselves objectively (there really is little grounds on which a far-left or far-right source could stand that doesn't also mean publishing discredited claims, or being otherwise mendacious; for instance, a far-right source saying "Auschwitz was just a labor camp" is not just being politically controversial and non-"centrist", but simply mendacious).

I have no idea if that could endorse Wpolityce, nor am I particularly interested in defending it -- you may have a point that it is entirely unquotable. However, if that is the case, it is not because of it not being "centrist". I'm hoping to reduce the possibility for future confusion, particularly since it invites the slippery slope where we identify political bias and decide, on the basis of that, that the source can't be quoted. That would be extremely unfair and unilateral. Dahn (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing new there - Grabowski (as noted in one of the discussions above) has been speaking all along of "More than 200,000 Jews were killed, directly or indirectly, by Poles in World War II" per Haaretz in 2017 - which includes Jews that Poles did not kill directly but bore responsibility for (e.g.by handing them over to the Nazis). Some of the Polish sources have been treating this as 200,000 killed - but I haven't seen a directly attributed quote to Grabowski saying that specifically.Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

e.g. Grzegorz Berendt replying in Haaretz - Haaretz a two weeks later puts the following in Grabowski's mouth - In the interview, Prof. Grabowski alleges that Poles may have killed more than 200,000 Jews who escaped from the ghettos and camps. (Berendt on Grabowski) - however Grabowski qualified his statement with directly or indirectly as is clearly seen in the original.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Might we clarify it in the article that, right or wrong as it may be on the numbers, his definition of "killed by Poles" includes people turned in by Poles and killed by the Nazis? (In fact, judging by what he is quoted with in Haaretz, it probably includes mostly such cases, but that's not for us to decide on.) Dahn (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

As a side note: quoting Ringelblum is WP:SYNTH -- it looks like someone decided to verify Grabowski's claim from the original, which is first of all superfluous and second of all introduces an editorial voice ("we on wikipedia factchecked that"). Grabowski's own statement, that he relies on Ringelblum, is enough for what we state and can state. Dahn (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, Ringelblum never said anything about 200,000. At one point he said that Blue Police are partly responsible for maybe as many as "hundreds of thousands" but, as even Grabowski admits, he was speaking figuratively in that sentence. Through out the rest of the book Ringelblum says "tens of thousands" (due to Blue Police).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The way to resolve that (well, the part of it that is not irrelevant, per WP:TRUTH) is simply making the part of the phrase clearly state that Grabowski believes Reingelblum verifies his assessment. It doesn't mean that he's right, doesn't mean that he's wrong (who's to say?), it means that he believes that. Dahn (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski has repeated this Ringelblum assertion several times (with a proper citation to Ringelblum's book where it is verified) - Grabowski writing this is enough for inclusion. I'll note that on the irrelevant TRUTH count - Grabowski includes indirect kills - e.g. handing over a Jew to the Nazis - Ringelblum estimates tens of thousands for direct kills by the Blue Police, while saying " The blood of hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews, caught and driven to the “death vans” will be on their heads" - for their delivery of Jews to the Germans.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I will modify the language on the 200,000 to match Grabowski in Haaertz - a direct quote from his mouth. Regarding Ringelblum - Grabowski is quoting Ringelblum's number in Haaretz (as saying why he thinks he is conservative in 200,000) - originally this was without a citation to Ringelblum (but just to a citation of Grabowski saying Ringelblum said this) - however the following citation needed tag (followed by dubious and failed verification tags afterwards) - led to a direct citation. In our text - we are still saying Grabowski said Ringelblum said this - the citation is there since it was required by other editors.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that's not how it works: other editors were wrong to ask for that; if they doubt that Ringelbaum said that, they should find a source saying "Grabowski is wrong about what Ringelbaum says", not ask you to go verify if Ringelbaum said it or not. It's like asking Grabowski for citations!

I also call SYNTH on the editorial comment about Berendt's qualification, which basically says: "A wikipedia editor has decided to quarrel with Grabowski's claims about Berendt." (Also note how "numerous" was removed as a fluffy qualifier from describing Grabowski's body of scholarship, but it was kept for Berendt's. People on both sides: try and drop your POVs, they're not constructive.) Dahn (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, done, and done (all points you raised above). Note that our language was correct previously in that Grabowski was criticized for saying 200,000 killed by - which is what he was criticized for despite not exactly saying this in that manner - it really is as if they are talking over each other's heads. As for the citation - I agree it was wrong to request it, however - my experience has been that providing the citation is at times easier than battling over the need for a citation (and as a side benefit - I did learn a thing or two along the way).Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I would frankly remove "numerous" wherever it is used. It is inevitably subjective. I mean, it doesn't just say "volume", but "great" volume, which implies a comparison was made by someone. Dahn (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, done (I did leave the Polish anti-defamation league stmt with numerous - I assume this was in the source, and there were numerous Polish righteous).Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, presuming that's in the quote, it stays -- especially since it's not us saying there were numerous Righteous Poles, it's their evaluation. Just like when we quote others saying his book is illuminating. Dahn (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would add an even deeper quote from his statements in Haaretz, where he explains as length what he means by "directly and indirectly". On one hand, because he himself dwells on this definition in the interview, which means that he's given it some weight; on the other, because it is an objectively revolutionary definition: weight of participation in the Holocaust doesn't appear to be measured that way in other contexts. Dahn (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I added "the great majority of Jews in hiding perished as a consequence of betrayal. They were denounced or simply seized, tied up and delivered by locals to the nearest station of the Polish police, or to the German gendarmerie" as a quote. He doesn't explicitly define indirectly - it's not a subject that is dwelled on in the interview. I did just realize that there is yet another expanded and revised version (Hebrew, end of 2016) - which is some 368 pages compares to the English 320 (which is an even greater parity - Hebrew is more compact - this is more like a 100 page difference) - however it is not available online as far as I can see. The Haaretz piece covers the Hebrew book.Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The quote is perfect for summarizing his method in the most neutral way. I'm not sure your guess about the book is necessarily right (he may as well have added more anecdotal evidence, which I'm relatively sure is not in short supply -- after all, much of his book in English appears to be sourced from such evidence). But either way, it doesn't matter for what goes in the article, which is now fine on that point. Dahn (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So, finally, what is the status of the famous "200,000" number? Confirmed? withdrawn? augmented? reduced? Reminds me of some early-1950s discussions of other famous numbers.

And have Haaretz and Maclean's definitely been identified as more reliable peer-reviewed journals than Więź and Gazeta Wyborcza?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Grabowski only ever produced "200,000" by lumping in cases where the criminal agency was Nazi, but Poles (never specifying how many Poles) who were involved in picking up the victims. This is a remarkably shoddy argument, which appears to have been concocted specially for Poland and doesn't in itself justify any of Grabowski's clickbaty rants about "Polish nationalists don't want you to know this"; that said, it appears that little or no criticism of his position has focused on his weaker points, and we need to reflect the nature of reception in our coverage, not to carry out our own polemic with Grabowski.

It's obvious that GW and Więź (and various other Polish newspapers and magazines) are just as reliable as Haaretz etc, and can certainly be cited as sources. However, no speaker of Polish among the editors has identified relevant material for this article in such sources, let alone added content based on them, so it's really an irrelevant point at this moment. Dahn (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, regarding this blanket revert - this was done mostly per suggestions from @Dahn: in the discussion above. Expanding on Grabowski's views is DUE for the BLP subject of this article - for instance clarifying his measure of "killing" is "directly or indirectly" and expanding on what this means per Grabowski - ""the great majority of Jews in hiding perished as a consequence of betrayal. They were denounced or simply seized, tied up and delivered by locals to the nearest station of the Polish police, or to the German gendarmerie"". Per BLP policy we include responses by BLP subjects of articles, and Grabowski's defense Datner's number is clearly sourced. Finally, you returned this repetitive over embellishment of Berendt's record (at the end of the paragraph, following an overly long introduction sentence" - "has authored numerous publications on Polish-Jewish relations during the German occupation and the Holocaust, and serves as head of the Jewish History Unit at the University of Gdańsk" - sourced to Berendt's homepage (so a self-published PRIMARY source) which also contains WP:OR - as the homepage does not say that he "has authored numerous publications..." - besides being unneeded puffery.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Seconded. @Volunteer Marek: please look over the discussion above. The extra quote is something I had asked for, precisely because it shows Grbowski's assumptions, as explained by Grabowski himself, and how they differ from other scholarly assumptions; it doesn't mean he is right, for Christ, it means that is what he believes -- and if we cite this in full, incidentally, anybody can see that it's not the most orthodox way to count Holocaust perpetrators. I have also identified several parts you restored as fluffery and SYNTH. I frankly don't see the point of even carrying out conversations on the talk page, where we calmly reach compromises, if you won't even acknowledge them. Dahn (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Also, what is the point of removing an author's opinions from the article on the author? We're not saying his right, we're saying those are his views; even those who debate them will benefit from knowing what they are. I find his generalization absurd, and his use of such arguments in a political debate quite distasteful, but clearly his bio is the place to feature his opinions (so are other articles, but we're not discussing them here). He's clearly qualified to have one, it's clearly carried by an eminent secondary source, it's clearly on a notable subject -- and neither of that means that he's automatically right, but that he's right to be heard. Dahn (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I don't get -- going beyond what should be in the text, and addressing editors' philosophy, as well as the assumptions framing this debate. To begin with: any claim Grabowski makes, the more it is cited in detail, the more it fails to show what he claims to show/what others fear he claims to show; namely, that many Poles participated in the killing of many Jews. Any side works with the notion that there was a number N of collaborators who were directly or indirectly involved in the killing of Jews. (Didn't the Home Army validate that the assumption when it hunted down and killed some of those figures for that specific crime?) Grabowski claims, or at least hints, that there were many (or else his trope about nationalism and unchecked national responsibility doesn't make sense -- and I mean narrative sense, superficial sense, internally coherent sense).

Do I still have your attention? If so, good, because here's the relevant part: look over Grabowski's quoted claim, the part that refers not to victims, but to perpetrators. His most specific claim is about a vast network of informers and policemen. Right? Well here's the deal: that network need not have been particularly vast -- or rather it is only somewhat vast is seen from its top. It's not like you have a parity of informers and policemen to the victims, even assuming that there were 200,000 victims attributable to them, and even assuming (as Grabowski does) that all those who escaped were returned by the informers, and not simply recovered by the Germans. A scoundrel in every relevant village (let's say 1 in every 500 people?) would be enough for that. The police force is also always relatively small in balance with the overall population, particularly in situations of widespread noncompliance -- and I'm willing to bet Grabowski could've easily mentioned the numbers especially here, but refrained from doing so, or from highlighting them when it didn't suit his point. (The Blue Police apparently had at most 20,000 members, not all of whom were Polish, not all of whom were involved in crimes, not all of whom were even cooperating with Nazis. And hundreds of these Blue Policemen could've easily been all those involved in transporting thousands of Jews. Taking the highest estimate of the police force staff, it's still at most 0.1% of the General Government's population, and 0.2% of the ethnic Polish population!)

You will also note how his innovative standard is not yet applied to other countries. Is this an important point? Yes, yes it is: conflating the number of perpetrators in Poland should be attempted only if the same standard is applied to all other countries. Imagine a scenario where we actually get an estimate of perpetrators based on Grabowski's philosophy for Poland, then conclude that it is (proportionally) bigger than the number of perpetrators in France, but all the while the count for France did not include the same criteria.

So can you contemplate how not citing Grabowski's point in full actually prevents people from seeing its weaknesses? Dahn (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Not in the way it's being presented, with Grabowski's claims about other authors, for example, being presented essentially in wikivoice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Is in inconceivable that, instead of blind reverts, you would tone down the wikivoice? (Though I'm not sure where you see a wikivoice in attributed quotes!) Dahn (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the first change in [the diff is indeed slightly problematic. This first paragraph suppose to be a preface about the book, i.e. telling simply what this book claims. The criticism belongs to next subsection where it is actually described. I do not think anything about criticism or praise of the book should be included in the first paragraph. I think it should not serve as a summary of the section. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we should have summaries for sections, they're absurd as an idea and always provide a convenient way for editors to push their POVs on what is essential for readers to know, making it unlikely that they will ever be content-stable. Having subsections with clear titles, preferably structured around topics from the book (not shades of opinion about the book) is the most neutral way, acceptable to both sides, and, if properly done, basically writes itself. Dahn (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure, we should not have summaries for sections, but only for whole page. But there is something else here. One can strongly disagree with author, but it is only logical and fair to explain first what was exactly the claim. What was the concept or idea? Only then one can tell about the criticism. Telling "he claimed that (and he was criticized!!!)" and then criticize him again in next section is not good. Including some additional factual info from the beginning (e.g. he received death threats for the book) is fine.My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, particularly when it comes to citing his claims fully. I think that if the arrangement is topical, we should feature notable criticism on each topic in that particular section, without redundancies, overemphasis, or downplaying on any one position. It's normal that we should feature criticism of his positions right after we render them, just like it is normal to prioritize giving his positions most exposure in an article about him. It's easy to strike a balance there, as long as both sets of editors begin to accept that the article will be neither a shrine to Grabowski's controversial claims, nor a soapbox for his critics, but simply a normal report on a controversy -- a controversy that, like all controversies, will at some point grow milder and more banal, with both sides probably regretting their less serene moments. Incidentally, the claim about threats is widely reported, but not necessarily a fact. Dahn (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) There were other, POV, changes in that edit. "Several historians" was changed to "some Polish historians". That sentence was moved. Ringelbaum is quoted on the basis of Grabowski but in wiki voice - i.e. we don't say "Grabowski claims that Ringelblum said..." which is necessary since Ringelblum actually said something else. I still think the "hasn't published his first book" is a BLP vio and it allows one subject to gratuitously attack another, without presenting the proper context (not all scholars publish in books). And again it presents Grabowski's misrepresentations of Datner and Ringelblum as fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Except for your claim about BLPs and your OR on what Ringelbaum says (or why it is relevant what you can show he actually says, per WP:TRUTH), I have raised the same objections, as you may remember, and therefore will endorse a text that restores edits lost and adds your tweaks. I also don't object to any revoicing that would make it clear that Grabowski believes Ringelbaum validates his claim, rather than Ringelbaum actually validates his claim; because, regardless of what we believe ourselves, this is what is fact: that he believes, not that he is/isn't validated. Dahn (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Several historians is unsourced OR - find a source saying that exactly or it gets cut out. Some Polish historians is sourced to CBC. We attributed Grabowski's stmts to himself and his response, in the same source, is due given his research is called "hot air" and various claims about Datner. If we include Berendt's and Musial's strong allegations towards Grabowski and his professionalism, then we include the response. Finally, lest we forget the subject of this article is a BLP, a well regarded historian, and our article should reflect that. An editor's opinion on Grabowski's research is irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is childish, guys. "Several historians" is "some Polish historians" without the ethnic qualifier (we've discussed this, Icewhiz, and you've seen the consensus emerging against it) and without the deprecatory hint in "some". The rest we agree on: both sides need to be quoted, nobody gets hurt by that. Dahn (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

several ˈsɛv(ə)r(ə)l/ determiner & pronoun determiner: several; pronoun: several 1. more than two but not many. "the author of several books" Dahn (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That is what the source says, exactly what it says. He was also praised in severals reviews in peer reviewed journals - which presently is not up there in the paragraph. Saying criticized by several historians misrepresents the reviews here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The other secondary coverage of the criticism (as opposed to individual opinions and reviews) I have found is "Though well received in academia, the Polish version of Grabowski’s book triggered a wave of hate among the nationalist right. The author was even “disinvited for security reasons” from debates."[21].Icewhiz (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, we are not dependent on views expressed by the CBC, and in particular not tributary to their wording -- another thing I've explained is that sources may have a different editorial policy than we do. "Some Polish" seems to contradict WP:WEASEL, which may be something CBC doesn't care about; also, you don't seem keen on replicating CBC's definition of the claims advanced in the book as "controversial", so this shows you are willing to see the point here, just grasping at straws for the most advanced relativization/trivialization of criticism that language will afford you. Let's not and say we did.

I won't even answer the suggestion that we need to replicate McLeans trolling of Grabowski's critics. WP:LABEL will do that for me. Dahn (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If we are to make our own summary, not based on an external source, it should reflect the positive support as well as the negative. There are more historians, on record (both in peer reviewed journals, and in that 180 European history letter of support), voicing generally positive support than criticism. Every external assessment of the criticism I have seen has noted where it is coming from. As for the MacLeans blurb - it is not trolling -they simply focused on the non-academic criticism (this is not a label they are applying to Polish academics per my understanding, but rather other elements) - while noting that the academic reception has been positive.Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well then add a mention of praise being mostly positive, but don't try to disqualify the one that was not by testing the limits of wikipedia policies! Though, again, this absurd discussion we're having now spells out why lead sections on sections is a bad idea. (And yes, it was trolling. That entire article is PR for Grabowski, and it preemptively attacks all critics of his positions with ridiculous and obscene qualifiers -- it's amazing what passes for journalism in the 2010s. But I won't press the point, as it's really not important.) Dahn (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"While generally praised, a few historians have...."?Icewhiz (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"While generally praised, several historians have" Dahn (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

3 (or even 4) are a few, not several.Icewhiz (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Must we make everything into an issue? First of all, 3 or 4 fits exactly into the definition of "several", as provided right above: "more than two but not many". Second of all "few" is inherently WP:WEASEL. Third of all, "3 or 4" is a sample, not a census -- nobody seriously believes that we have exhausted all criticism of Grabowski, nor can we confidently state such an absurd claim. Please, you were getting reasonable above, let's see that side of you again. Dahn (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. I added Macleans as a ref for well received (instead of praised). Several is probably overstating it, but I won't dicker too long about it.Icewhiz (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The Macleans source is crap. The author specializes in... celebrity culture and the royal family. The second sentence says "At the end of the war, that number had plummeted to about 30,000". Which is ridiculous. She forgot a zero at the end there. The number of registered survivors at the end of the war, with the Central Committee of Polish Jews, was about 200k, and overall was about 330k. The only worthwhile info in that article is the fact that Grabowski is NOT a Holocaust historian, despite repeated claims to the contrary from Icewhiz, rather he specializes in New France.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I think we're lapsing into where you are introducing your POV against consensus, and expect us to debate against your POV. I agree that the McLeans piece is ridiculous, but that's an editorial observation, and simply can't be the basis for deciding what goes into the article: does McLeans pass RS? regretfully, we have to acknowledge it does, and that's all that matters. Your claim that there are "too many" quotes seems to reflect your dislike of the things expressed in the quotes -- which is not just POV, it's also irrelevant, because your assumption that to quote is to promote, in particular in the article about the person stating the claims, is bunk. As a random example (and meaning no analogy between the quality of the claims): the article to air Sergei Mavrodi's grotesque theories about capital is well, Sergei Mavrodi; anybody who would want to detail them there has grounds to, because we need to honestly inform our readers what they are -- questions about their logical structure and honesty should always be rendered through secondary scholarship, or to reliable comments made by relevant people, themselves also quoted. You're an experienced editor, how come this is a mystery to you? Dahn (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, obviously I disagree. I am not actually introducing anything, but removing Icewhiz's POV. So for example the sentence "While generally well received, several historians have criticized Grabowski ..." has two problems. First, you need something stronger then McLeans to make such a sweeping generalization. At best we could say something like "According to a writer for McLeans who specializes in celebrity gossip, the book was well received". Second, the purposeful juxtaposition of "well received" with "several historians criticized" is meant to discredit a priori the criticisms by historians in the mind of a reader. And I *really* object to the "hasn't published his first book about Holocaust" about Berendt, for the simple reason that most readers are not familiar with scholarly practice and standards to be able to discern that that is in fact an empty and gratuitous attack (I sometimes get the sense that you're giving our average reader way too much credit - we are not writing articles for specialists here). Presented without that context, it's just a sneaky way for Icewhiz to write "hey, don't pay attention to this guy!" Likewise, including Grabowski's claims about Datner and Ringelblum, without including what it was that Berendt actually said about them, or what Ringelblum wrote, presents only one half a conversation. It's basically as if I said "the theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin" and then someone said "Volunteer Marek is dismissive of Darwin and the theory of evolution" and then in a Wikipedia article about it we wrote something like "In his response to Volunteer Marek, so-and-so points out that in fact Darwin was genius who was the first to develop the theory of evolution and instead of dismissing him Volunteer Marek should be more concerned with the position of people in Mississippi on school prayer" (granted the text analogous to that last clause was not restored after I removed it). It is POV pushing. Sneaky, WP:CPUSH POV pushing, but that's what it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if we should cite McLeans for that, and you may have a point, but you simply removed it and the claim from the text, and this is excessive -- a rephrasing and an attributed quote could've done; also, I'm reasonably sure that if we check the journalistic sources, several also endorse the notion that it was mostly well received, and we could easily add three or so citations to that claim.

Rendering what the man said in response to his critics is not just normal, it is imperative. Regardless of whether it has some nasty elements; and again, yes, people are likely to take them for granted only if they already view Grabowski as unquestionably right on everything he says. If you feel that this is just one half of the conversation, add relevant details from the summary of the other half. As for your analogy with Darwin, it very much depends what "it", the topic of the article, is -- if it's about you and your work, then your views get most exposure; if it's about the unspecified them who say (arguably idiotic) things about you, then they get most exposure -- and as long as these are just idiotic remarks, rather than actual insults, they stay (if you identify them as insults, you should at least specify so in a written response, or get your lawyer to write one -- though even them, even if they become the subject of litigation, we might cite what they were, and note that they got the other side sued).

Now this is me following you into your rhetorical jugglery, which I won't do again, as it distracts us from the relevant issue; but you can see, even by these standards, you do not have a point. If the opinion you dislike is objectively idiotic, readers are likely to note that when they see it aired; if this is me giving them too much credit, then it's a case of another hype you dislike taking hold of the world -- they'll believe something you dislike or found unfathomable, which, well, happens (I'm not happy about "anti-Zionism", I'm not happy about Flat Earthers, I'm not happy about Ponzi schemes -- but they happen). The suggestion that wikipedia has a firewall in place to censor the spread of positions you dislike, beyond what is explicitly permitted under wikipedia rules, and going against what is actually required by them, is an absurd and unsavory attempt at censorship. Wikipedia is fundamentally here to report, not to coach -- something both sides in this debate would do well to recall. Dahn (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"I don't know if we should cite McLeans for that, and you may have a point, but you simply removed it and the claim from the text, and this is excessive -- a rephrasing and an attributed quote could've done; also, I'm reasonably sure that if we check the journalistic sources, several also endorse the notion that it was mostly well received, and we could easily add three or so citations to that claim." <-- well, ok, then let's do that, instead of using an article from a celebrity gossip columnist who appears not to even know how many Polish Jews survived the war, by an order of magnitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your last paragraph - I understand where you're coming from, but the thing is, we *do* let Grabowski respond to the criticism. We just don't need to include everything nasty or out of context he said. The "never published a book" is just simply not of encyclopedic value. The stuff on Datner and Ringelblum potentially is, and if it's phrased properly could go in, but the way it's currently written, as I've already pointed out above, it subtly slips from using "Grabowski voice" in the beginning to using "Wikipedia voice" by the end. That is the problem that needs to be fixed before we put that in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I see we are back to edit warring against consensus - repeating edits several editors have objected to. Macleans is a RS - and counts for more than VM's opinion. It is also verifiable that several praising reviews (and a major prize) appeared in leading English peer reviewed publications - as opposed to an historian speaking on a Polish radio station, an historian in an oped, a teacher on the histmag website, and publications in a local Polish journal that is not read by the world community. It is astounding that VM supports severe attacks on Grabowski's research, including labelling his work as "hot air", while redacting his response which included the verifiable book authorship stmt. We have a BLP subject in this article, and per policy we should cover his response, and treat him with respect.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"I see we are back to edit warring against consensus" - yes, you are reinserting material without obtaining consensus first. Look, the world is not going to end if this stays out of the article for the time being while we work out agreement here. And since this is controversial - and the stuff with regard to Berendt a BLP issue - the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion. That's Wikipedia 101. Again, your behavior is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Start an RfC if you must.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I point out in passing that looking over articles we already cite from The Forward and Times of Israel, it appears that both validate the claim that indeed the book was much more "vigorously debated" then out current text seems to suggest? While the assessment of the reception being mostly positive can be kept and attributed, or at least rendered with quotation marks, it can easily be balanced out by another quote -- soemone who disputes the MacLeans assessment can simply add such qualifiers to the other component of the debate. In The Forward, Grabowski himself validates the notion that there was much debate; in Times of Israel, the Yad Vashem committee notes that the book's ability to stir debate was actually something the panel took into consideration as an asset. Dahn (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, lets use The Forward and Times of Israel then. If there's insistence on using MacLeans then the fact that this is written by a non-specialist celebrity columnists needs to be included, per attribution. I think it's simpler to just leave it out, per WP:UNDUE, especially if we have better sources which offer a general assessment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

As said, I'm not married to using MacLeans, particularly not for that claim, but the fact is that it is an RS, and can be used. And yes, udner any circumstances we can also quote ToI and Forward for the spread of the controversy, but I'm not editing the article, at all. Dahn (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Grammar, tho: "Berendt's statements about Datner's research is"? Dahn (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Would you at please stop clinging to this nonsense: "Berendt has authored numerous publications on Polish-Jewish relations during the German occupation and the Holocaust, and serves as head of the Jewish History Unit at the University of Gdańsk.[14][15]" It's already clarified in that paragraph where he works and that he's not some guy off the street, and in fact we already have a link to his university (remember our Manual of Style?). It's also annoying that the references for that are unformatted, even by the loose standard of formatting that goes in this article. Moreover, the term "numerous" was removed from describing Grabowski's works, because it was puffery, yet it is shamelessly used to enhance Berendt's credentials -- we are to understand it's only problematic when it describes Grabowski. But most of all, it is against policies: you are introducing your editorial voice to tell us "Grabowski is wrong". We've covered all of this, why do you insist on paralyzing the review process? Dahn (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, since that part would mostly serve as WP:BALANCE to the "never published a book" stuff, as long as the latter is not included, this becomes less important as well. So I removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's response needs to be included, regardless of whether it has that particular accusation in it or not. The point is that, regardless of the scenario involved, you are not allowed to introduce your editorial comments into the text. You are not a secondary source reporting on the controversy, to introduce language that would make Grabowski's claim about Berendt more relative. It is exceptionally against WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV, and this does not depend on what is in any other part of the article. Dahn (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Volunteer Marek:Consensus does not require unanimity. If you're the only one who disagrees (and currently, that seems to be the case, at least regarding this particular issue), then consensus is against you. Also, if we ignore WP:NPOV issues, your last reverts have introduced some dubious changes. This removes content which comes from a WP:RS - it is not our duty to agree with it (and, already established, whether one likes it or not is irrelevant), simply to report it as it is stated in the source. This statement about Berendt having "authored numerous publications" might be true, but it has no direct relationship to this controversy, or at least makes no sense if the previous statement by Grabowski (that Berendt hasn't written a "book" - a publication is not necessarily a book) is removed. Also, simply saying "Grabowski dismissed Berendt's criticism." without further explanations is not informative and does not improve the article.

Finally, this is not a valid reason to remove the statements by Grabowski. They are not used "without pertinence" (they are actually appropriately contextualized by the text which precedes them); they are not dominating the article; and although the point could technically be paraphrased (and I'm unsure whether this would improve the clarity and the readability of the content), that does not justify entirely removing all of the quote (if you can't improve it, don't make it worse), merely rewriting it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually NOT the only one who disagrees. Look through this talk page. As to the points, MacLeans is being discussed above. I removed the "numerous publications" already. The quote is unnecessary, not encyclopedic and we generally avoid quotes. And it's already paraphrased.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I am neutral on using MacLeans (however much I dislike and deplore that kind of jejeune pseudo-journalism), and have proposed ways forward regardless of whether we do or don't use it. One is to balance it out by noting Grabowski's own acknowledgements that the book was much debated, not just praised. Dahn (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am also for quoting Grabowski's remarks, and apparently this is really a topic on which VM is the only naysayer. Dahn (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

VM - talk page consensus does not mean VM agrees. Several editors on the talk page have objected to your edits. If you want to object to MacLeans - take it to RSN, where past discussion has been favorable. I will also note that most (or even all) sources covering criticism mention the nationality of the criticis who are denying or diminishing the alleged complicity of their nation in the Holocaust. Usually coverage of such criticism coming from academics is coupled, often in the same sentence, with criticism and threats coming from nationalists. Any NPOV treatment of criticism has to include coverage of this work being generally praised in academic circles - which is self evident just by the collection of journal reviews.Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And plenty of sources haven't engaged in such poisoning of the well when providing opinion about the Grabowski controversy, so let's please stop implying that our article should follow them into opinion territory. As for the notion that most academic praise was positive: I agree that this can be mentioned in the article, and certainly with an attributed claim, but that it can also be balanced out by Grabowski and Yad Vashem's admittance that the book sparked legitimate debate, not just praise (and you can also attribute them the claim that this debate was mostly or exclusively in Poland, which would be more accurate as a description, and clearly an opinion rather than a claimed fact, as you were proposing earlier; all of this was already in sources you cited, you just didn't notice it). Dahn (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The debate side of the reception is limited to Poland (outside of Poland, the notion of Polish complicity is not new - dating back to writings from the 40s onwards - and widely accepted as fact(it is not really something that is up for debate - accounts of the Polish led pogroms (e.g. Jedwabne was known prior to Gross - there was a yizkor book [22] and accounts and research elsewhere - what was new was someone saying this in Polish using Polish sources as well) is not new, nor is handing over hiding Jews, or issues in AK vs. Jews). What is new with Gross, Grabowski, and others (including in Poland) - is that they are saying this in Polish and (also) using Polish wartime sources - challenging the view inside Poland - trigeering a debate in Poland) - we could frame it that way too, what wording and sources axactly are you suggesting?Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As you can see from going over his page, the notion of "Polish complicity" is not in any way new in Poland, all Poles are familiar with it -- it's in fact Westerners who are ignorant of Polish familiarity, and gullible about any wild charge brought against Polish conservatism, allowing Grabowski to make this into his selling point and hobbyhorse. Even taking into account that Polish communists (!!) repressed mention of it when they turned openly antisemitic, the discussion had been already carried out in Poland by then, and continued to be carried out in underground or samizdat circles -- though it was understandably not their No 1 priority, not even for Jewish intellectuals in Poland. In that debate, consensus had emerged that the cases were despicable, but few and far between, and that the one recognizable agency of the Polish nation, namely the Underground State, had been generally gallant in its treatment of Jews. Nothing new, no revelation about Jedwabne etc., has ever been able to change an iota of that, because it simply never addressed the point. And whatever you think of it, the current position of PiS officials is not rooted in communism, but in the anticommunist position, which is perfectly capable of condemning communism and antisemitism, together, particularly since this was facilitated for them by the association between communists and antisemites.

And of course the notion of "Polish complicity" needs to define its precise agency: if Grabowski is blaming the Polish people as a corporate entity, congratulations, he just managed to replicate the logic in some of the most unhinged claims antisemites make about "international Jewry" -- "X and Y are both Poles, therefore Y is responsible for what X does"; and even at that, in all his verbiage, he fails to produce a single piece of evidence that would implicate more than an extremely tiny segment of the Polish population -- his claims about the number of victims, right or wrong, never transfer into any specific claim that would update the number of perpetrators to something significant. Therefore, his research does not, in fact, add anything new, other than a trolling of all Poles who disagree with him.

That said, I think you have phrasing for that in the Times of Israel article mentioning the Yad Vashem award, that they considered his ability to spark debate in Poland as a relevant attribute (a terribly risky position, in my humble opinion). You can also quote from Grabowski's own statement in The Forward about how the debate played out in Poland. Either way, you do not need, and should not need, to signal to the world that "only Poles disagree", using our editorial voice; not least of all, because this type of sweeping claim is likely to "rot" the moment some Westerner publishes a critique of Grabowski. Dahn (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead refers to Grabowski as "Polish-Canadian". Is he actually a Canadian citizen? The article doesn't say when/if he became naturalised and quite a few sources refer to him simply as "Polish born". Pincrete (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This might be a case of most sources deeming it "obvious" or not-particularly-relevant. Note that if the sources refer to him as "Polish born", that is different than simply saying "Polish". Also, this explicitly states that he is a "Polish-Canadian dual citizen" 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Several sources refer to him as Canadian or Candian-Polish. He has been there since 1989. I have not seen a source explicitly saying he was naturalized (nor did I look), but I would assume he was a couple of decades ago.Icewhiz (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 198.84.253.202, as you say, the CBC does state explicitly that he is a dual citizen, I don't think that the 'when' is terribly important, but I thought it important to establish with certainty his nationalit(ies). Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)